Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to thank our leader for his leadership. None of this would have happened without your leadership. I want to thank your staff. I want to thank the relative respective staffs on our side here and the Senators especially on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I want to especially thank our friend John Neely Kennedy from Louisiana, who has been a great partner, and his staff and other folks on the other side of the aisle. My mother used to say to my sister and me when we were kids, she would say that things happen in threes. I remember she would say things happen in threes, and given what the leader just said, I am thinking about threes and especially with respect to making sure that this planet is going to be around for our children and grandchildren. But if you go back to the bipartisan infrastructure bill signed into law roughly 10 months ago by the President, we did a whole lot there, you will recall, with respect to roads, highways, bridges, water, wastewater, water infrastructure, flood control. But that legislation had the largest--at that point the largest climate title that we had ever put in a bill of any consequence here in the U.S. Senate. That is No. 1. No. 2 would be the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, that was signed into law just last month by the President and championed by any number of folks, including our colleague from West Virginia, Joe Manchin. I want to thank him and the majority leader for their good work. That was No. 2 because the investments, the clean energy investments we make in the Inflation Reduction Act, are just extraordinary--extraordinary. Then, today, to pass the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol-- people might be wondering, who are watching, and say: What in the world is that? And I will just walk you back in time. People might remember that I was a naval flight officer in the Vietnam war, and near the end of the Vietnam war, maybe after I had moved to Delaware, I remember hearing something about speculation about a hole in the ozone and there might be a hole in the ozone. At first, people dismissed it. I dismissed it. But over time, the concerns persisted, and the hole in the ozone grew and grew. Somewhere along about 1985, some updated scientific information, evidence, emerged that said there is a hole in the ozone, and it is big, and it is getting bigger. Our President at the time, as I recall, was not a Democrat; he was a Republican--Ronald Reagan. Under his leadership, we as a nation joined in the Montreal Protocol. It was finalized in 1987, where we actually say that what is happening here is exactly clear, and what that is, is there is a hole in the ozone. It was being created by materials that are in our air-conditioners or refrigerators and our coolers. We call them refrigerants, and when they leaked out of the air-conditioners, refrigerators, and coolers, they actually created the hole in the ozone. So the question is, Do we have to give up our refrigerators, our air- conditioners, our coolers, our freezers? Do we have to give those up in order to take care and address the hole in the ozone? As it turns out, we did not, but what we had to do was replace something called CFCs, chlorofluorocarbons, which were refrigerants at the time and contributed to the hole in the ozone. What we had to do was replace those CFCs with something new. Science and the scientists came up with that something new. What they came up with was not CFC plus 2; they came up with HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons. What I know about chemistry you can fit on a fairly small thumbnail, but HFCs came along, and, guess what, the hole in the ozone started getting smaller. We stayed cool. The air-conditioners worked, freezers worked, refrigerators worked, and the hole in the ozone started getting cooler. What didn't get cooler was our planet because HFCs, as Senator Schumer suggested, are about 1,000 times worse than carbon dioxide with respect to global warming. We finally have realized that, and the question is, Can we do anything about it? If so, can we do it to make sure we stay cool or cold, if you will, and at the same time address climate change? Some people say: You know, we can't do good things for this planet or we can't clean the air, clean the water, address the climate change, and create jobs and economic opportunity. But, as Senator Schumer suggested, that is just not true. This is sort of like having our cake and eating it, too, because we can create jobs. A lot of them we are talking about creating with the phasedown of HFCs and for the next 15 years talking about creating literally tens of thousands of jobs not in some other country but here. We are talking about creating these jobs using technology developed here, and we are talking about the ability to export this technology and sell products using this technology all over the place. I forget exactly what the economic value is from these activities, but it is in the tens of billions of dollars here, with American technology, created by American workers. Who wouldn't be for that? Who wouldn't be for that? Some of our Republican colleagues offered an amendment today. Senator Lee and, I think, Senator Sullivan joined together on an amendment. I think most of us voted for that, and it has been adopted and added to this package. The other thing I would mention is that about a month ago, you may recall, we stayed up all night during a vote-arama, working on the reconciliation legislation that led to the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act. I remember the next day going home. I was just dog-tired. I went home on the train and got off the train, and before I went home, I drove to Wawa, which is a convenience store. We love Wawa. They are all up and down the east coast, especially in Delaware. I stopped at Wawa to get a cup of coffee. I got a small cup of coffee and went to the cash register, the cashier, to pay for it, and the lady at the cash register said: Your money is no good here. I said: No, no. I want to pay. I want to pay for it. She said: No, no. I am mindful of what you have been up all night doing. Your money is no good here. I said: Could I get a larger cup of coffee? She said: No, but your money is no good here. She also went to say--she said: I have a son. I have a daughter. I want to make sure they grow up on a planet that is fit to grow up on and that they can grow old on. I think that is a sentiment that almost any father or mother or grandfather or grandparent would feel and have. I would just say to them today: I know sometimes you look at what is going on here and our inability to work together. We have come together. We have come together on something that is extremely important for us, my generation, but even more important, for those who follow us. Bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions. This is a good bipartisan solution, and for everybody who has been a part of this, I want to thank you. I want to convey our thanks as well to the President and his administration for their help in getting this done. This is a day, as my colleague from Delaware, Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester, would say--she would say: This is a day the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. Amen. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, while he is still here on the floor, I just want to express to Senator Menendez, my thanks, our thanks, to him and others on the Foreign Relations Committee for his leadership and for setting us up for great success--American businesses up for extraordinary success here today. The path is clear. We need to use some common sense and work together, and I think we will benefit from that and so will the men and women who have sent us here to serve them and to represent them. Mr. President, I rise today in support of ratification of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. I have worn many hats throughout my life of public service, including naval flight officer, State Treasurer, Congressman, Governor, and a U.S. Senator. Today, I rise to speak from my heart as a recovering Governor, if you will. During my 8 years as Governor of Delaware, I realized quickly that my job was not to create jobs. That is not why they elected me. Rather, it was to help provide a nurturing environment for job creation--to help create a nurturing environment for job creation. More jobs were created in the 8 years that I was Governor of Delaware, I am told, than any other 8-year period in the history of the State of Delaware. I didn't create one of them, but we did work very hard with the legislature and with the business community and others to create a nurturing environment that made possible extraordinary job creation. The most successful economic development policies were the policies that provided business with long-term certainty and predictability. As it turns out, that is not unique to Delaware or to New Jersey or to Connecticut or any other State represented here. It is something that we still hear from businesses across the country in all 50 States, and I am sure my other colleagues hear that message, too, on a regular basis. That is why I am so passionate about working with our friend and colleague Senator John Neely Kennedy to ratify the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. During the Trump administration, we successfully enacted the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, known as the AIM Act, which phases down HFCs in accordance with the Kigali Amendment. Ratification of the Kigali Amendment, along with implementation of the AIM Act, will provide businesses with certainty and with the predictability that they need for future investments. Ratification will unleash billions of dollars in U.S. economic benefits--billions of dollars in U.S. economic benefits--and create some 150,000 American jobs by 2027. I am going to repeat that. Ratification will unleash billions of dollars in U.S. economic benefits and create some 150,000 American jobs by 2027. These jobs are jobs in my State. These are jobs in every other State throughout our country. Why would we ever pass up this opportunity? Let me be clear to my colleagues. I am not the one telling industry that ratification of the Kigali Amendment is good for business and economic growth. No, I am not telling them that. Industry leaders are telling us that Kigali is good for their businesses. Everyone from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the American Chemistry Council, to the Air- Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, to the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy support ratification for Kigali. In fact, it is hard to find anyone in the business community who is opposed to ratification. I would like to share with my colleagues today one statement that I think is particularly noteworthy from the National Association of Manufacturers. Here is what they have to say on this score: Kigali ratification will protect American workers, grow the economy, and improve our trade balance all while encouraging further innovation to strengthen America's technology leadership. If we work together--if we rise above politics and partisanship and focus on solving problems--we can make our vision of a brighter tomorrow into reality. But for my colleagues who are still hesitant to support the Kigali ratification and worried that ratification may hurt, not help, global competitiveness, here are a few points I would like for you to think about before tomorrow's vote. First, I have heard concerns that ratification might benefit China and hurt the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth. While the United States contributes roughly $40 million annually to the Montreal Protocol's financial assistance programs, which facilitate the transition to next-generation technologies, it is not true that this assistance goes solely to China. In fact, China only receives a very small fraction of these funds. According to the U.S. heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration industry, financial assistance to China under the Montreal Protocol supports less than 2 percent of China's $37 billion refrigerant market--less than 2 percent of China's $37 billion refrigerant market. Moreover, China's share of these funds is decreasing, not increasing. In fact, funding to China under the Montreal Protocol has decreased--has decreased--by nearly 70 percent in recent years. Mr. President, the truth is, the small amount we pay every year under the Montreal Protocol is worth the investment and then some. Through Kigali ratification, American businesses are set to gain nearly $40 billion-- $40 billion--in economic benefits by 2027, according to a 2018 study by the University of Maryland. Ratifying Kigali will guarantee that American businesses continue to have access to international markets for refrigerants long into the future. However, without ratification, American companies could lose full access to international markets for refrigerants after 2033, closing the door to billions in future economic opportunities for U.S. companies. Why would we want to allow that to happen? Ratification also protects U.S. business investments. While China has doubled down on HFCs and the production of HFCs, a dumping of HFCs--and to this day illegally dumping HFCs into this country--the United States leads the world, I am proud to say--it leads the world in HFC alternatives. Ratification would protect against the illegal HFC dumping and smuggling. These are protections that U.S. businesses have sought. I have also heard fears that ratifying the Kigali Amendment will somehow raise consumer costs. That is just not true. We are already transitioning away from HFCs similar to the way we transitioned away from ozone-depleting substances through the 1987 Montreal Protocol under President Reagan's leadership. With the transition away from HFCs, we expect consumer costs to fall. Now, why is that? New refrigerants and related products run more efficiently. According to the EPA, use of HFC alternatives will save consumers and businesses billions of dollars in costs. Again, ratification means lower costs for consumers and for businesses while enhancing U.S. competition. In closing, I hope our colleagues will join Senator Kennedy and me in supporting the ratification of the Kigali Amendment. This is a treaty that fosters job creation--a lot of jobs. This is a treaty that promotes economic growth. This is a treaty that strengthens American leadership. This is a treaty of ``Made in America,'' not ``Made in China.'' With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his patience today. Thank you so much.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period of morning business for debate only until 4:15 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and that Senator Schumer be recognized at 4:15 p.m.

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER. Almost everything that is good that he has just talked about came out of the Finance Committee, terrific staff work, terrific leadership. Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to speak in support of the historic legislation we are considering today, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. A little over a week ago, when I heard the news that there was an agreement reached to move forward on this legislation, I could not help but feel an overwhelming sense of relief and of joy, and I am not alone in feeling that way. I felt relief in knowing that, after months of negotiations and years of hard work from volunteers, from activists, from policy experts, from leaders at all levels of government and industry, and from so many others, we had finally broken the logjam on major climate and clean energy legislation. I felt joy in knowing that we were one step closer to delivering a major victory for the American people, one that will help reduce inflation and create good-paying jobs at the same time. My belief is that this legislation is an answer to our prayers for a brighter future for our Nation and for our planet. I might say to all of these young people who are sitting up here--we have a bunch of our pages who are here from all over the country; they are, for the most part, rising juniors and seniors--that they remind me a lot of our grandchildren, frankly, in my family and, for folks, of a lot of their children. This is for you. This is for your generation. This is for our kids, our grandchildren, our nieces, our nephews. This is for you. After enduring a deadly global pandemic for the last 2 years and the resulting political and economic turbulence flowing from it, the truth is that far too many Americans are struggling. They are hurting from the high cost of healthcare; they are hurting from rising living expenses and energy bills; and they are hurting from extreme weather that is costing us in terms of dollars and of lives. I know this because that is what I hear when I travel home to Delaware almost every night. I don't live here; I live in Delaware. I go back and forth on a train--a lot like a guy named Biden used to do when he was a mere Senator, along with Senator Chris Coons and Lisa Blunt Rochester, a Congresswoman. Whether it is a senior on a fixed income who is struggling with the cost of lifesaving prescription drugs or a young person who is living in a community that is prone to flooding from rising sea levels, many Delawareans of all ages are anxious about their futures, and they are pleading with us to do something about it. Scientists are also pleading with us for action, too, before it is too late. For years, they have warned us that time is running out, that we must shift away from fossil fuels to avoid a future of unrelenting extreme weather. Now scientists are telling us it is code red for humanity and for our planet. We are already experiencing a climate crisis, and Americans from communities large and small are feeling its impact, most notably in the form of extreme heat, wildfires, and floods. As I speak here today, nearly 100 million Americans from Texas to Maine are under heat advisories--100 million. There are also more than 50 wildfires raging across the West, burning tens of thousands of acres in States like California and Montana and Idaho and Alaska. Just last week, catastrophic flash floods in Eastern Kentucky, not far from where my mom spent the last years of her life, have tragically claimed some 37 lives. We know that these deadly, extreme weather events will only get worse in the years ahead without coordinated action--without coordinated action--and we know that the most vulnerable among us, including many communities of color, will suffer the most if we fail to act. The best science available tells us that to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, we must achieve something that is referred to as ``net zero carbon emissions'' no later than the year 2050. Achieving this ambitious goal will not be easy, but it is achievable. As some of my colleagues will tell you, I am by nature an optimist. I always have been. Out of great adversity comes great opportunity. Those are the words of Albert Einstein. In adversity lies opportunity. There is huge adversity here but also great opportunity. I am proud to say that we are on the precipice of passing legislation that will channel American ingenuity to address this crisis, lower costs for families, and fight inflation. How will they do all of that? The Inflation Reduction Act includes nearly $370 billion in funding for climate and clean energy provisions. In other words, it will be the most ambitious climate legislation to ever emerge from this body. It does so by not raising taxes on people whose incomes are under $400,000, on families whose incomes are under $400,000, and it does so in a way that is not inflationary and that is fully paid for and offset. What will the impact be of this transformational climate legislation? Well, according to an analysis from Energy Innovation--some the smartest people here in this country who work on issues like this-- according to their analysis, passing this legislation will reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by a little bit over 40 percent by 2030. And as President Biden might say, that is a very big deal. He might say it differently but something along those lines. This legislation will, along with action from executive Agencies and State and local actors, will put us within reach of meeting our national target of cutting emissions in half by the end of this decade. In addition to slashing emissions from across our economy, this legislation will also unleash the potential of the American clean energy industry and create good-paying jobs throughout our country. In fact, it will create a ton of jobs. The analysis from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst projects that the Inflation Reduction Act--this legislation that we are debating--will help create 9 million jobs over the next decade--9 million over the next decade. And the benefits to this historic package aren't just limited to emission reductions and to job creation. As its name suggests, this legislation will fight inflation and lower costs for many Americans. Again, ask: How? For starters, the Inflation Reduction Act will help homeowners save up to $220 a year on electricity costs, according to an analysis by the Resources for the Future. This legislation also includes huge healthcare savings for families across our country. For example, on average, median-income families in Delaware with exchange-based care will save upward of $1,000 annually. That is $1,000 back in their pockets. This bill will also ensure that our seniors don't face financial ruin paying for lifesaving prescription drugs. It does so, in part, by capping patients' out-of-pocket costs in the Medicare Part D Program at $2,000 per year. And the Inflation Reduction Act will help strengthen our tax system to better ensure that everyone pays their fair share and also to ensure that we have got decent constituent services for our constituents in our States. I don't care whether it is Minnesota, I don't care whether it is Delaware, or some other place, the IRS just hasn't had the resources, the people, the technology, to actually provide good constituent services. We are still waiting for people to get their returns from last year and their refunds from last year. That is just totally unacceptable. And over the last probably 30, 40 years, we have reduced by roughly a quarter the amount of resources that are available to actually serve people through the IRS. At the end of the day, the programs in this bill will help create jobs, lower costs for many American families, and fight inflation, all while addressing the imminent threat of climate change and doing so in a way that leaves no community behind. It is proof that we can do well and do good at the same time. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am especially proud that our $41 billion title within the purview of our committee prioritizes climate action in low-income and disadvantaged communities. This is part of ensuring that all communities, especially those most susceptible to the negative impacts of climate change, benefit from our funding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce air pollution where they live--where they live. As part of that commitment, we provide $27 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency to create a greenhouse gas reduction fund, known as the Green Bank. It will help leverage private investments in projects that combat climate change, with over 40 percent of these investments going to underserved communities. The climate impact of this program will be huge, removing the equivalent of some 15 million gasoline-powered vehicles from our roads over the next decade. We also provide $3 billion in competitive grants to States, Tribes, and municipalities--and to community-based nonprofit organizations--for financial and technical assistance to address clean air and to eliminate pollution in environmental justice communities. Our EPW title also provides some $3 billion to help reduce carbon emissions flowing from our Nation's ports. Doing so not only cleans up the air in nearby communities but also reduces our reliance on foreign fuels. And we provide $1 billion to replace dirty medium and heavy-duty vehicles with zero-emitting vehicles on our roads, reducing fuel consumption while allowing businesses that run those trucks to save significantly on their energy costs. While I wish I could discuss this afternoon every program in our title of the Environment and Public Works Committee, let me just close by sharing a few words on one program I am particularly proud of, our first-ever Methane Emission Reduction Program to rein in excess methane pollution from the oil and gas industry. Why did we create a program to reduce methane emissions? Why was this so important? Well, let me tell you this: Methane is more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. I will say that again. Methane is more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse. There was a guy who used to be a bank robber named Willie Sutton back in the Great Depression. My friend from Iowa probably remembers Willie Sutton, not personally. But Willie Sutton robbed a lot of banks back in those days. He finally got caught and was brought to trial. And standing before the judge, the judge said: Mr. Sutton, why do you rob banks? Willie Sutton responded famously: That is where the money is, judge; that is where the money is. Well, there are huge emissions--huge emissions--that flow from methane. They ought to be captured; they can be captured, and the programs that we offer here, the funding we offer here, will help that to happen. We designed this commonsense program to provide $1\1/2\ billion to help businesses invest in existing technology to reduce potent methane emissions. It then ramps up a fee over time for emitters that fail to take advantage of this assistance. All told, we expect this program to raise about $6\1/2\ billion--that is billion with a ``b''--to offset the costs of other climate and environmental justice investments in the title of our committee's bill. Years from now--years from now--folks are going to gather here in this Chamber, and they will look back at what we had before us, what we were confronted with, and whether or not we made a difference. I hope they will judge us favorably. Let me just say, in closing, 2 weeks ago, they reported in London, England, a temperature of 105 degrees. For those of us who have been to England, you may know this: They don't even have air-conditioning in most places in England. The temperature there, 105 degrees. In the same week that the temperature was 105 degrees, folks were trying to run the bicycle event, the French bicycle event that is so famous, and they could not run parts of it because the pavement was melting. They had to put tens of thousands of gallons of water on the roads just so they could run the French bicycle race. I will close with this: In Louisiana, they have problems, they have challenges from sea level rise. How serious are they? Well, every 100 minutes in Louisiana, they lose a piece of land to the ocean from sea level rise. Every 100 minutes they lose a piece of land the size of a football field. And today, this week, we are seeing incredible heat, incredible drought. From the west coast to the east coast, people are suffering, suffering, in some cases, injury and death. We have got to do something about it, and we are going to do that with this legislation and also make sure that a lot of folks who need jobs in the years to come will have a good-paying job. That is not a bad day's work. With that, I am pleased to take this piece of paper and read it to my colleagues, including the Senator from Iowa, who is waiting patiently for me to stop talking.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the chair of the Finance Committee, Mr. Wyden, concerning section 13204, clean hydrogen, which establishes for the first time tax incentives for the production of clean hydrogen, and section 13701, Clean Electricity Production Credit, which establishes for the first time technology neutral tax credits for clean electricity production. I would like to commend my friend from Oregon, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, for his leadership in crafting title I of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which includes new tax incentives that will promote clean energy, fight climate change, and help create good- paying, American jobs. I want to especially say thank you for including in the clean energy package, section 13204 of title I of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which is similar to my legislation, S.1807, the Clean H2 Production Act. Section 13024 of title I of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provides a production and investment tax credit for the production of clean hydrogen. In Section 13204, the term ``lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions'' for a qualified hydrogen facility is determined by the aggregate quantity of greenhouse gas emissions through the point of production, as determined under the most recent Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies--GREET--model. It is also my understanding of the intent of section 13204, is that in determining ``lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions'' for this section, the Secretary shall recognize and incorporate indirect book accounting factors, also known as a book and claim system, that reduce effective greenhouse gas emissions, which includes, but is not limited to, renewable energy credits, renewable thermal credits, renewable identification numbers, or biogas credits. Is that the chairman's understanding as well?

Mr. CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Additionally, I would like to clarify that the intent of section 13701 allows the Secretary to consider indirect book and claim factors that reduce effective greenhouse gas emissions to help determine whether the greenhouse gas rate of a qualified fuel cell property, which does not include facilities that produce electricity through combustion or gasification, is ``not greater than zero.'' Is that the chairman's understanding?

Mr. CARPER. I thank the Senator from Oregon for his comments on these issues and his leadership.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, the amendment by our colleague Senator Capito would strike $45 million in the bill that would fund the EPA to use its existing narrow Clean Air Act authorities to address greenhouse gas emissions. Our colleague sought to argue that this provision did not comply with the Byrd rule, but the Parliamentarian ruled that it does. We are now presented with an amendment to strike the provision altogether. The EPA has lots of authorities and tools already at its disposal to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by no later than midcentury. The quickest way we can jump-start government-wide climate action is to help empower Agencies to use the tools that they already have. The $45 million in the bill before us would help the EPA to do just that. I spoke earlier today about the urgent need for climate action. We are witnessing record heat, more extreme weather, and devastating floods on an almost daily basis. We should fund the EPA to use all of the authorities at its disposal to tackle the climate crisis. The urgency of this problem demands no less. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 5382

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to this amendment, which would make sweeping changes to bedrock environmental laws. This amendment would modify the regulatory authorities of the Environmental Protection Agency and multiple other Agencies. It would undermine protection of our water quality, weaken air quality protections, harm wildlife, and would have significant impacts on vulnerable communities. At a time when we need to be moving toward stable clean energy sources, it would focus instead on fracking and would prohibit us from considering the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions in Federal decisions. And thus, I urge my colleagues to vote no. Point of Order Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, normally at this time of the week, Senator Capito and I are gathering for a face-to-face meeting or maybe having a meeting by phone as she heads back to West Virginia. Today, it looked like we were not going to have a chance to meet, but here we are. Ironically, most of those conversations we have--we are in sync. It is pretty amazing. Most folks around the country probably think we never agree on anything here, but we do. And we actually turned out to be pretty good friends--a couple of West Virginia kids who grew up and made out all right. It is always a pleasure to be with her and to serve with her, like with the bipartisan infrastructure legislation. Last week, we were here to pass not one, not two, but three bipartisan pieces of legislation. A couple of them were pretty big. There were two big recycling bills and then another one dealing with the Water Resources Development Act with the Army Corps of Engineers. I think we had only one negative vote on the reauthorization--one. The vote on the recycling legislation--one of which was your bill and one of which was mine, and we were cosponsors--we had no opposition on those bills. So I would say to folks who are watching today who say: Oh, there they go again, well, you should have tuned in last week because we were on the same page. Having said that, let me say that I rise today to speak on the joint resolution of disapproval to nullify President Biden's National Environmental Policy Act regulations, oftentimes referred to as NEPA. Last year, as we drafted legislation that became the bipartisan infrastructure law for our country, Senator Capito and I, along with our colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which my colleague from Alaska is a valued member--the Senator is here. He has offered this resolution today, and he will be back here in a minute, I am sure. But as we drafted legislation that became the bipartisan infrastructure law, Senator Capito and I, along with our colleagues on the EPW Committee, considered ways to get infrastructure projects done more efficiently while maintaining environmental protections. I will say that again. We considered a number of ways to get infrastructure projects done more efficiently while maintaining environmental protections. We included several changes that were reflective of those shared goals. In fact, we included quite a few of those changes. I will give an example of one of those. The bipartisan infrastructure law codified something that is called One Federal Decision, the One Federal Decision permitting structure. It set a goal for completing environmental reviews of transportation projects within 2 years--within 2 years. It also permanently authorized the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council and more. But, as we considered changes to the way we deliver infrastructure projects, we always tried to make sure that we were not undermining important environmental safeguards. That sentiment reflects really the essence of the law that we call NEPA. Over 50 years ago, President Richard Nixon--a Republican, as you will recall--signed this bedrock environmental policy into law with overwhelming bipartisan support. In the time since then, NEPA has helped to ensure that Federal actions protect our quality of life and avoid costly environmental impacts. NEPA is not just a means of protecting resources and conserving a pristine environment; NEPA also helps to improve Federal decisions. How is that? Well, by requiring Agencies to take a hard look at the impacts of their actions before they make decisions--before they make decisions. For example, through the NEPA process, just a few years ago, officials in Colorado--this is a good example--officials in Colorado heard robust public feedback when planning improvements on State Highway 9 that led them to take steps to minimize disturbances to communities and to the environment. The final project was ultimately delivered with lower emissions, less harm to wildlife, and safer spaces for cyclists. Importantly, these benefits did not come at the cost of efficiency. The project was done on time and under budget. And this is only one of any number of examples that I can cite today. Making smart decisions has never been more important. After all, the science is clear: We must rapidly drive down greenhouse gas emissions if we hope to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Unfortunately, the Trump administration made changes to the NEPA rules. These changes prevented Agencies from considering how their actions impact climate change and from taking commonsense steps to minimize environmental harm. The regulatory rollbacks also undermined public involvement in the Federal decisionmaking process. This rollback harmed communities of color, including Tribal and Native Alaskan communities, that rely on NEPA to defend their voices. Fortunately, the Biden administration has taken steps to fix the error of these regulatory revisions. Under President Biden's instruction, the Council on Environmental Quality finalized a rule in April to make narrow, targeted changes to NEPA regulations. One of the most important changes was restoring the requirement for Agencies to consider the cumulative and indirect impacts of their actions. Considering such impacts can help ensure that we avoid actions that worsen climate change and negatively impact communities. President Biden's NEPA rule would ensure that Agencies conduct environmental review processes in a commonsense, holistic manner, one that neither sacrifices efficiency for environmental protection nor the other way around. This action comes at a critical time for our Nation. The bipartisan infrastructure law will fund more than $1 trillion of investments in projects that will last not for years but for decades and maybe even longer. I believe the decision here is clear. The projects under review today will either help address the climate crisis and protect communities or they will exacerbate emissions and make us more vulnerable. With thoughtful environmental analysis, we can build new facilities that are less emissions-intensive. We can build highways and bridges to withstand the kind of extreme weather that we are experiencing all over this country--in fact, all over the planet--and we can save money while we do it with infrastructure that is built to last. Blocking these regulations from taking effect is the policy equivalent of burying our heads in the sand, unfortunately, with the rate at which the sea level is rising around us--and it is. During the course of debate on this one proposal today, we are going to see in the State of Louisiana terrible sea-level rises going on. Every 100 minutes, they lose a piece of land in Louisiana that is the size of a football field. During the course of this debate alone, they are going to lose several more football fields in Louisiana and a lot more in the days to come. Refusing to consider the impacts of climate change will not stop the climate from changing. It will not save lives from being lost from wildfires, from floods, and heat waves. It will not stop asphalt from melting under extreme heat, which is what was happening a couple of weeks ago in England. Then, over at the Tour de France, we had to spill thousands--tens of thousands--of gallons of water on the course they were running the bicycle races on. This was for the Tour de France-- literally tens of thousands of gallons on the course in order to keep the roads from melting. Can you believe that? By refusing to consider the impacts of climate change now, we will only help to ensure that its worst impacts come to pass. It will continue to cost us. It will cost us not just in dollars but also in lives. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote on this well-intentioned but, I think, misguided resolution. Before I yield the floor, let me just say what a privilege it is to work with my colleague from Alaska. He and I actually agree on more than you might imagine. We both wore the uniform of our country for many years, those of the Marine Corps and Navy. The Navy salutes the Marine Corps today. I like to say: different uniforms, same team. While I can't be with him on this one, we will find other things that we can agree on today. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, before you do that, I would ask to be recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for not objecting. Let's just stop for a moment before we vote. The National Environmental Policy Act was not signed into law by FDR, not signed into law by Lyndon Johnson or John Kennedy, not signed into law by Barack Obama. It was signed into law by Richard Nixon, with bipartisan support--strong bipartisan support--some 50 years ago. The reason for the law was that they wanted--President Nixon and those who served in the Congress at the time--to make sure that, as we are proposing to build, we will say, large infrastructure projects around the country with Federal support, they wanted to make sure that the voices of the people whose lives would be affected by that would actually be heard. That was the idea behind doing this. I have been in the Senate about 21, 22 years and served on the Environment and Public Works Committee with Senator Simpson and others, and am privileged to chair the committee now. And about every year or 2, we pass major infrastructure legislation, and, a year ago, the largest infrastructure bill in the history of the country--roads, highways, bridges, water, drinking water, wastewater, you name it. Just last week, we passed, with one dissenting vote, the Water Resources Development Act legislation to reauthorize the Army Corps of Engineers to do projects all over America. I live in Wilmington, DE. I-95 goes right through Wilmington, DE. It cuts my city in half. I-95 is being rebuilt for about a 5-mile space, from Route 202, which goes up into PA, on down to Route 141--5 miles, right through the middle of our major city. It is going to be done in, I think, less than 2 years. Imagine that: 4 lanes, 6 lanes, all the exits, done in 2 years. They are talking about not being able to get a big project done. We are doing big projects in a little State all the time. The last thing I would say is that our colleagues Joe Manchin and Lisa Murkowski cohosted bipartisan meetings a month or 2 ago--6 or 7 or 8 of them--in the afternoon to talk about a path forward on reconciliation and infrastructure legislation, but also to talk about permitting and permitting reform. Every time we do a major infrastructure bill, we do permitting reform, and we do streamlining. We have done it. We did it last year, and we are going to do it again with the WRDA legislation too. Later, sometime this fall, in September, October, we will do permitting reform debate and legislation again. We can't do it in the context of reconciliation because the Parliamentarian won't let us do that. It has to be as stand-alone legislation. We will have the opportunity to do that. People can offer their ideas. We will debate them. We will vote them up, and we will vote them down. I just wanted to add that for the record. With that, I guess we ought to ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, to the speaker who has just finished speaking, before he leaves the floor, he and I share the same initials, TC, and in this case, we share the same views on an important issue. It is great to have the TCs--the Tango Charlies--speaking from the same hymn book. On a lighter note, some of the conversation here today is pretty serious. This is a serious matter, but I want to make it, maybe, a little bit lighter. I am reminded today of the words of Harry Truman, our former President, who used to say that the only thing new in the world is the history we forgot or never learned. The only thing new in the world is the history we forgot or never learned. I want to take, if you will--as Presiding Officer knows, every Tuesday, we have our caucus lunch, and the Republicans have theirs. Unfortunately, we don't dine together enough. But, at our caucus lunch, we have a history moment or a history minute--maybe a minute or 2. It is always one of the highlights, frankly, of the time we spend together. And I want to just look back a little bit in time as we take up, today, an issue that is right before us. As it turns out, the first Swedes and Finns came to America about 384 years ago. They themselves were from a place called Kalmar, Sweden. At the time, as we have heard from others who have spoken, Sweden and Finland were the same country. There was no Finland. All the Finns lived in Sweden, and they continued to live in Sweden for a good long time. I think the Swedish lived--1809. In 1809, the Swedish rule over Finland officially came to an end, and Finland separated from Sweden. But when the two ships, the Kalmar Nyckel and the Fogel Grip, set sail from what was then Sweden, across the Atlantic Ocean toward the Western Hemisphere, they got close to land and ended up sailing north into what later would become the Delaware Bay. They sailed further north into what would become the more narrow channel of the Delaware River. They continued to sail. They didn't go as far up as what is now Philadelphia, but they came across an uncharted river that went to the west. It was kind of a left turn off the Delaware River to the west. They sailed for about a mile, maybe a mile and a half. They decided that they would put down their anchors, and there was a bunch of rocks--big rocks--along the side of that river. They put down their anchors and declared that spot to be the colony of New Sweden. It is what is now Wilmington, DE--the colony of New Sweden. They raised their flag and said: This is where we are going to make our stand. That was, I think, maybe the first European colony, at least in my State, that was created. Later, it was taken over, I think, by the Dutch and then by, maybe, the British. But, initially, it was the Swedes and the Finns who colonized that spot. Delaware has one of the newest national parks in America, and it is a different kind of national park. It tells the story of Delawareans who were involved in the earlier history of the settlement of our country in leading up to the ratification of the Constitution on December 7, 1787, which took place in Dover, DE, our State capital, and Delaware became the First State. For 1 whole week, we were the entire United States of America. Then we opened it up and let in Maryland and Pennsylvania and 47 or so more, including Wisconsin. I think, for the most part, it has turned out pretty well. We have had some bumps in the road as the Presiding Officer knows. The colony of New Sweden was in place for probably about 20 or 25 years. Then the Dutch took over, and then the British sort of took over the region in 1664. When the Dutch created the colony of New Sweden in what is now Wilmington, DE, they also built a church. They built what is now known as Old Swedes Church. We have got a lot of churches in this country and a lot of different faiths. The Old Swedes Church is believed to be, maybe, the longest continuously serving church in America. How is that for history? It is part of our national park that we created. We had somebody working on it for years, and we created it a decade or two ago. Old Swedes Church is still there; it is still doing the Lord's work. This is a beautiful, beautiful picture. This is the Kalmar Nyckel at full sail. This is one of two ships that brought the Swedes and Finns to America--all 384 years ago. This is the Swedish flag over here, and this is the Delaware flag over here. The Kalmar Nyckel literally has a permanent place to be maintained and anchored along the Christina River. I went to the Biden Station this morning to catch the train to come down here, as I do most mornings. If I had just not gotten on the train and had headed down the river for about a mile, I would have come to this ship right on the Christina River. It has set sail many places around the world. It is really the ship that represents our State, which used to be the colony of New Sweden. We all get to meet people from different places around the world, and I have been privileged to meet a lot of Swedish Americans. It turns out that there are more Swedish Americans than there are Swedes in Sweden. Let me say that again. There are now more Swedish Americans than there are Swedes in Sweden. There are a bunch of them, and they contribute to our country and certainly to our State in many, many different ways. I work a lot on economic development and always have as Governor and even now, and some of the finest businesspeople I have ever met are Swedes, of Swedish extraction. I have a funny story, if I could. Every 25 years, the King and Queen of Sweden come to revisit the colony of New Sweden, and we have a big celebration for a couple days right along the banks of this river, the Christina River. By the way, all those years ago, when the first Swedes and Finns came ashore, they named the Christina River after their child Queen, who at the time was--you won't believe it--12 years old, 12 years old. Imagine peaking at the age of 12 and becoming a Queen or a King. Of course, the Christina, that river, is named after her. I like to point out to women who are named Christina--I tell them that their heritage, their name, actually goes back to all of those years when the first Swedes and Finns came here and helped to settle our country. Anyway, once every 25 years, the King and Queen of Sweden come to visit us. In 2013, King Carl XVI and Queen Silvia of Sweden came to Delaware for several days. We had a huge celebration on the banks of the Christina River, and I had the privilege of sitting next to the Queen during dinner. It was a big banquet with hundreds of people in black tie. It was a beautiful evening with great music and wonderful speeches. And she and I just had a delightful time talking over dinner. We talked about the arts. I like films, and I believe the Presiding Officer is a big film buff. One of my early favorite directors is Ingmar Bergman, a Swede, who made great films for many, many years. We talked about his films and the films that actually touched our lives and helped shape our lives. We talked about music. We talked about music. I said to the Queen of Sweden: Your Highness, I don't know where I got this, but for some reason, I make the connection between you and the singing group ABBA. Now, Ingmar Bergman is one of the greatest film directors of all time. ABBA, a Swedish singing group, is, I think, maybe the top-selling singing group in the history of the world. They actually still record from time to time. But, anyway, I said to Queen Silvia: Is there any connection between ABBA and you and your husband? Is there? She said: Well, there is. I said: Well, what is it? And she said: The night before we were married in Sweden, there was a huge celebration and a concert, an outdoor concert, with tens of thousands of people. She said: The headline group for the concert was ABBA. I said: No kidding? Did they sing? And she said: That was the night they debuted the song ``Dancing Queen.'' It is, maybe, one of the best pop songs I have ever heard. I won't say that we sat there and hummed a few bars, but maybe we did. We have a lot in common with the Swedes and the Finns. We share a lot of likes and, really, very much appreciation, if you will, of the arts and of film, including music. We are a country that prides itself on our free enterprise system, but we know how to do it with a heart. So do the Swedes. Look up the term ``no-brainer.'' You won't find it in the dictionary, but if you look up the term ``no-brainer,'' it would say: this vote today and the issue that is before us. Why in God's name wouldn't we want the Swedes and Finns to join us together? Lisa Blunt Rochester is our Congresswoman. We have only one. She is our Congresswoman. In Delaware, she has a saying that she talks about: Sticks tied together can't be broken. Sticks tied together can't be broken. With one stick--phew--you are going to break it; but if you pile a bunch of them together, you can't break them. The same is true here. The same is true here. The admission of Finland and the admission of Sweden into NATO makes that band of sticks even stronger and that much harder to break. I am just delighted that we have an issue where there has been a fair amount of dissension in these Halls, and I am delighted that we have something, I think, we can all pretty much--almost all--agree on. It is a good thing, and it will be good for our country. It is going to be good for Sweden, and it is going to be good for Finland. I think it is going to be good for our planet. Those of us who are privileged to live in what used to be the colony of New Sweden couldn't be happier, and we are delighted to celebrate. To anybody who is listening who says: Well, you know, I have never been to a national park in Delaware, well, we want you to know that we have one and that it is a great one that runs from one end of the State to the other. If you start up north, get off the train and walk about a mile, you will be at what used to be the home place, the starting place, of the colony of New Sweden. With that, I think I have done enough damage here today. I yield to the fellow from Alaska. I don't know if he has spent a lot of time on ships or boats. I spent a few years as a Navy guy, but the marines spend a lot of time at sea. They take rides in our boats. We are on the same team. I usually say we wear different uniforms, but we are on the same team. And, on this, we are on the same page, and it is great to be here. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, the Republican leader knows I am a huge fan of his. Every Thursday, we gather, along with Senator Gillibrand, we gather in a Bible study, bipartisan Bible study. Most people think we would never pray together, read the scripture together, much less agree on anything, but we do that every week. We agree on a lot of things. In this one area, I am afraid we don't see eye to eye, as he knows. As a leader prepared to lead the floor, I just want to remind us all of this: Two weeks ago, the United Kingdom broke its record for the highest recorded temperature multiple times, reaching a high of 105 degrees Fahrenheit. How high is that? They don't have air conditioning in most places of England. They don't have air conditioning--105 degrees. Airport runways that week were melting in the United Kingdom. Railways in the United Kingdom were buckling from the heat, with riders warned to stay home. Over 1,100 people that week died in Spain and Portugal from heat- related causes. Wildfires in France forced about 30,000 people to evacuate. Organizers planned to pour--listen to this--tens of thousands of gallons of water on the course of the Tour De France big bicycle race in order to keep the road from melting. And more than 40 million people in the United States are under extreme heat warnings across, in our country, the Great Plains and California. Something like 60 million Americans will likely see temperatures at or above 100 degrees. Last week, they actually did, as I understand it. Nearly 60 percent of California has been dealing with excessive drought while 20 percent--20 percent--of Texas experiences exceptional drought, the most extreme level on the drought scale. Firefighters continue to battle huge wildfires across the United States--12 States, no less-- wildfires as big as my State of Delaware. The reason why we have put together legislation that actually addresses these tale of horribles is because it is getting worse. The scientists and people who we look to for advice on stuff like this say it is not going to get better any time soon; it is going to get worse. In Louisiana, you know what they lose from sea level rise every 100 minutes? They lose a piece of land the size of a football field. I will say that again. In Louisiana, they lose a piece of land to the sea the size of a football field--not every 100 days, not every 100 weeks-- every 100 minutes. Something is happening here, and I think what it is, is exactly clear. There is way too much carbon in the air. The question is, What are we going to do about it? And there is something that we can do about it that not only addresses the climate crisis so these young pages sitting down here will not only have a planet to live on, but some day, they will have kids and grandchildren, and there will be a planet for them as well. That is why we have to do something. Here is the good thing about the PACT Act that we will be voting on later this week. It is paid for. Larry Summers--the former Secretary of Treasury, former president of Harvard, renowned economist--basically says this package is not only balanced in terms of its budgetary effect, but in terms of its effect on inflation, it is actually counterinflationary. The idea that somehow the IRS would get more money to do their job, let me say this: I have been on the Finance Committee for a number of years here in the Senate. Every couple of years, we have the Commissioner of the IRS come before us. I don't care if it is a Democrat or Republican administration. They beg us to provide resources for the IRS so they can do their jobs. The people that actually get audited the most are actually poor people. Folks that get audited the least are wealthy people, maybe the big corporations. The IRS needs resources. They need human beings; they need folks with the right skills; they need the kind of technology-- they want to do their jobs. If they do that, they can collect hundreds of billions of dollars, not by raising taxes but by making sure people are paying their fair share of taxes. That is what we are really trying to do with this legislation. It is paid for. It actually works against inflation. It helps people, particularly people who happen to be older and actually need access to pharmaceuticals. The legislation we have actually says if you happen to be a senior citizen and you are on Medicare Part D for the drug program, there is no way you are going to pay over $2,000 in a year--no way. Today, you pay a lot more than that. We put a cap on that. But by the same token, as a Senator from a State where we actually have a big interest in biopharmaceuticals--our whole area, including Philadelphia, New Jersey, and so forth--we don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. We want to make sure they are still successful. We don't want to stifle innovation in the biopharmaceutical world. This legislation does not do that. It does not do that. It does say with the jobs for which there is no competition, there has to be some cap on the ability to raise the price of those drugs. I think it is common sense. I think it is common sense. Some of us have heard the term ``unforced error.'' My detractors have sometimes said: I am guilty of making an unforced error. If truth were known, we all make unforced errors. Our Republican friends made an unforced error here. What they have done is they chose--because of their anger or unhappiness with the agreement with Senator Manchin and Senator Schumer to move forward and address climate change in a way that is paid for and actually adds to economic job creation--they were unhappy and, unfortunately, they, apparently, took their anger out on the ability for us to move to legislation that actually helps the veterans deal with injuries they suffered in their lives from being exposed to toxic substances from these burn pits around the world. I know a little bit about the military. I am the last Vietnam veteran serving in the U.S. Senate. We had a bite out of this apple in Southeast Asia in the Vietnam war. It was called Agent Orange. It was called Agent Orange, and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were exposed to Agent Orange. But a lot of folks in American service, men and some women, as well, were exposed. They had all kinds of maladies. And later on, they had questions that we are thinking about: Are we going to make sure you are eligible for care from the VA and don't have to pay for all of it out of their pocket? We have done that and, I think, in a very appropriate way. We did it decades ago. I am privileged to be a supporter of that, as were many of our colleagues, Democratic and Republican. We have a different kind of situation, but it is a similar situation in that we have a bunch of veterans who served in places like Afghanistan and other places where they breathed air that was toxic. It is not their fault. And later on, they became sick. The question is, What do we do about it? The veteran service organizations have been very angry at our Republican colleagues. I am glad our Republican friends have come back and said: We realize we voted to derail the PACT Act to help veterans from these burn pit injuries. We realize we maybe shouldn't have done that. We all make mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. I am the only Democrat I know in this body who ever quotes Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon used to say that the only people who don't make mistakes are people who don't do anything. Think about that. That is pretty good, huh? The only people who don't make mistakes are people who don't do anything. They made an unforced error. They voted in a way that was not consistent with their interests and not consistent with the interests of veterans, of which I am one. They have an opportunity here--I will say this in a spiritual tone here--they have an opportunity to atone for their sins, and my hope is they are going to do that. I hope at the same time as we do that, we will keep in mind this list of horribles that just went down--going on in the face of the Earth just a week or 2 ago. We have to do something about it. It is real. We have to do something about it. Time is not on our side. Time is not on the side of these young people here who are like 16, 17 years old. I have one last point here. I am going to go back to what some people say--I am privileged to chair the Committee on Environment and Public Works. We have jurisdiction over clean air, clean water, climate change, roads, highways, bridges, water, sanitation--a bunch of stuff, good stuff. As a result of that, we have the opportunity to write legislation that hopefully addresses a real cause, a real problem. One of the problems we found in climate change is the biggest source of carbon dioxide, the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions comes from the cars, trucks, and vans that we drive, the vehicles that we drive. That is the biggest source. There used to be--as Senator Gillibrand knows--a bank robber, Willie Sutton. He used to rob a lot of banks. He finally got caught. He was dragged into court, and at trial, the judge said: Mr. Sutton, why do you rob banks? Your Honor, I rob banks because that is where the money is. One of the reasons why we want to encourage people in this country to buy vehicles that don't spew out a lot of greenhouse gases is because that is the biggest part of where our emissions are. Thirty percent of greenhouse gases in this country come from cars, trucks, and vans. We want to encourage people, as they are ready to buy a new vehicle, to consider an electric vehicle. One of the things that I really like about the bill that we are going to be debating later this week is, we actually encourage people to buy not just the new, expensive vehicles, but to buy used electric vehicles. So the middle- and lower-income people who may not be able to afford a new electric vehicle, they can buy one. If they want to be good to the planet, kind to the planet, they can buy a used one. We provide a modest tax cut for them. The tax cuts, I might add, in the bill that we will take up later this week are a lot more modest than they were originally. I think that is a good thing. Again, we all make unforced errors. I know I have, and I believe--I say this lovingly--our Republican colleagues made a big one, and I think they regret it. They have the opportunity to do something about it and to do the right thing. Let's do that. Let's do the right thing by veterans, and let's move on. And then later this week, we will take up another challenge, and that is, how do we save this planet and make sure that my kids, my grandchildren, our grandchildren, have the opportunity to have a planet that is worth growing up on? I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise today to extend my congratulations and best wishes to Kim Brinkman on the occasion of her retirement from the Senate disbursing office. For 34 years, Kim has served this Chamber, its Members, and its staff with decency and grace. We are lucky and grateful that Kim--some three decades ago as a recent graduate from the University of Iowa--ventured to the library in Ames, IA, and answered an ad placed in a newspaper to travel to our Nation's Capital and begin work in the U.S. Senate. Kim represents all that is great about public service--not just in aspiration to serve our Nation, but in aspiration to change it, too. When she first started at the disbursing office in October of 1987, there were just two female Senators. Today, there are 24, in addition to our first female Vice President. In the disbursing office itself, Kim was one of only 10 women on staff when she began her decades of service; she is now one of 45 women out of the office's 58 staff. The journey to Washington, DC, was a long one for Kim--geographically speaking. She comes from the town of Nevada, IA--the State where her parents Harold and Jan Brinkman still reside. She has been sure to make the trek and visit home, bringing along her daughter, Maya Caceres, a recent graduate of the University of Kentucky. An active member of her church and a frequent volunteer, she has managed to lay deep roots here in our Nation's Capital. Kim has been a kind, giving presence in the Senate for the past three decades. A compendium of Capitol knowledge, we will surely miss her sage advice and dutiful support. While her departure is a profound loss for this institution, Kim deserves a restful and fulfilling retirement following her years of extraordinary service.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CARPER. So with that, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 358, S. 3743.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise, along with Senator Capito, today to say a few words on behalf of S. 3742, Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act of 2022, and S. 3743, the Recycling Composting Accountability Act. Senator Capito and I have the pleasure of leading the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. With the legislation that we are about to discuss here, along with Senator Boozman--Senator Boozman is on his way. We are all a part of the Recycling Caucus in the U.S. Senate. We work with our staffs and others outside of this body in order to make possible this legislation, to debate it, to report it. And if I am not mistaken, Senator Capito reported it unanimously out of our committee, as we do with so much legislation. These bills were introduced by Senator Capito and myself and Senator Boozman. As an avid recycler and composter, for a long time I have long believed in environmental stewardship. After all, we have a moral duty to leave behind a cleaner, healthier planet for our children. Senator Capito and I are both born in West Virginia. My sister and I grew up along Beaver Creek, right outside of Beckley. My dad used to take me and my grandfather fishing and hunting, even at a young age, along the New River and other parts of Raleigh County. One of the things that my dad and my grandfather always made clear to me was that if we are out in a boat and there was trash or something in the water or there was something that could be recycled, to pull it out of the water and to put it in something we were carrying and take it home. The idea was to try to leave our State--West Virginia then--better, better than we found it. So from a very early age in West Virginia, I really had those values instilled in me. And they still are. We instilled them in our sons too. But we have a moral obligation to leave behind a cleaner, healthier planet for our children. There are many ways to meet that moral obligation. One of those is to make sure that the products that can be recycled, we recycle them. We don't have to landfill them. We can actually address the climate change in a very positive way but especially with respect to aluminum cans and things like that that we recycle. I wish I could stand here today to say our recycling rate in Delaware is 100 percent, West Virginia is 100 percent, or the country is 100 percent; it is not. The recycling rate in our country is something like 35 percent. It is like getting a grade in school. If you get a 35 on a paper or test, that is a failing grade. With respect to recycling, unfortunately, we are racking up failing grades year after year after year, and we ought to do something about it. As it turns out, we can. Part of that doing something about it is the legislation before us today. We have to do more when it comes to improving our Nation's recycling and our composting efforts. These bills would take action to address several of the challenges facing America's recycling efforts. One of the challenges that we face is the availability of good data. That might sound strange, but it is true. This past November, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency, though, released its first-ever National Recycling Strategy. Now, that is kind of late to the game, but it is better to be late to the game than not to be there at all. It turns out it is a good document. It is a document that reflects input that we provided, our staffs provided, others on our committee, and across the country provided. And to the EPA's credit, they accepted that input, and they actually did something with it. So it is reflected in the National Recycling Strategy that was promulgated. The document offers a transformative vision for shrinking our Nation's waste management efforts, and it also highlights the need for greater standardization around data collection. To address this, Senator Boozman and I developed the Recycling and Composting Accountability Act. Senator Boozman, myself, Senator Capito, and others are part of the Recycling Caucus here in the Senate, a bipartisan group that focuses on how do we promote and encourage recycling, not just on Capitol Hill, not just in the District of Columbia, not just on the east coast, not just in West Virginia but across the country from coast to coast. Our legislation, the Recycling and Composting Accountability Act, would improve EPA's ability to gather data on our Nation's recycling systems and explore opportunities for implementing a national composting strategy. Another area where we can improve is by increasing access to recycling. Many Americans in disadvantaged communities want to recycle, they want to compost, but they are unable to do so. That is because they live in neighborhoods that lack curbside pickup, bottle return, and other necessary recycling infrastructure. Senator Capito's Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act would help address this by creating a pilot program at EPA to improve recycling services in underserved areas. This legislation would bring many communities into the recycling world, including those in urban and suburban areas, while also protecting our environment. I commend Senator Capito for her work and her leadership on this bill. I want to commend her staff and my staff, led by Mary Frances Repko, who is our staff director, and Adam on the other side of the aisle. Members don't do this by themselves, as we know, and we are really blessed with terrific staff who help us put these provisions together. I commend Senator Capito heartily for her work and her leadership on this legislation, her support of the legislation Senator Boozman and I have offered. I want to work with her to make sure that this bill helps jump-start recycling in communities with the greatest need, especially those who have been historically left behind, and there are too many of those. Both of these bills that we will have an opportunity to consider here today are the result of a true collaboration and reflect a substantial amount of bipartisan efforts dedicated to explore our Nation's recycling and composting challenges. I know a lot of people, if you watch the news, whether it is the television or on the radio, newspapers, you read online, they think all we do here is fight with one another; that we never find anything like common ground on important issues like the one we are talking about right now. The committee that Senator Capito and I are privileged to lead actually reports out important legislation, including bipartisan infrastructure legislation, all kinds of issues that enjoy bipartisan support, unanimous bipartisan support.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Boozman, who is a charter member of the Senate Recycling Caucus, be recognized to speak on behalf of these measures, which he has played a key role on.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, with that, I would please yield to the chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the Water Resources Development Act, Ben Cardin.