Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. If the gentleman would yield the floor for a moment, I said earlier in my remarks, to paraphrase it again, that it is possible to do good and do well at the same time. It really is. I am just happy that more and more people are doing that. While we are having this conversation, I just want to mention that when we showed up at the recycling event at Glascow High School last Saturday afternoon, they took a bunch of our stuff to recycle--papers, bottles, cans, paint thinners, a dehumidifier, and all kinds of stuff. One thing they wouldn't take was our Styrofoam. We have one place in Delaware--and we are not a big State; 100 miles long and 50 miles wide--we have one place in Delaware that will take Styrofoam. What I would love to do in the months to come and in the new year is for us to start on recycling projects and focus on that because it is not a problem only in Delaware; there are a lot of places where it is hard to recycle Styrofoam. We can try to figure it out. Maybe somebody around the world or somebody in other States has figured this out and they are doing it. We need to learn from them, find out what works, and do more of that. In my State, we have a hard time dealing with it.

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.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I have been privileged to serve, and this my 19th year here in the U.S. Senate. A long time ago, I served as a naval officer in the Vietnam war and as later State treasurer, Congressman, Governor of Delaware, and now I serve as U.S. Senator. I have had the privilege of serving with literally hundreds of people here, in the House, as Governor, and certainly in the Navy and the armed services during the Vietnam war. Among my all-time favorite colleagues of all of those, whether it was in the military service, the State of Delaware, or here in Congress, one of my all-time favorite people to serve with was a woman from North Carolina, from a place called Shelby. My wife is from North Carolina, from a place called Boone. Her family is from North Carolina. She has her father down there. Boone is up in the mountains. She has sisters. She has sisters in Raleigh, and some of her family has actually lived in Shelby, NC. There was a woman born there on May 26, 1953, named Kay Hagan. I don't know that she was born Kay Hagan, but she became Kay Hagan, and maybe that was after getting married. But she was the daughter of a homemaker named Jeanette, and her dad had a tire business. Later, he worked as a real estate broker. Apparently, politics was in her blood. Her dad also served as mayor, later on, of Lakeland, FL. That was where Kay Hagan spent most of her childhood. Lakeland, FL, is near to me because it is the spring training camp for the Detroit Tigers. I have been a Detroit Tigers fan since I was 9 years old. So it has been a while. For the people watching the World Series, three of the best pitchers in baseball used to pitch for my Tigers. They went through training camp in Lakeland and ended up with other teams that took them into the World Series. Kay was not around to watch any of those former Tigers pitch because she passed away just about 3 days ago. Her uncle was a former Governor of Florida, with whom I served. Lawton Chiles was one of the sweetest, best guys I have ever known. He served here in the U.S. Senate for many years--sort of a centrist Democrat. He was beloved in his State and beloved here as well. Both Kay's dad and her brother served in the U.S. Navy. I did 23 years in all, Active Duty and Reserve, in the Navy, and I treasure those days. Apparently, Kay also spent summers on her grandparents' farm. They had a farm not in North Carolina but in a place called Chesterfield in South Carolina. Chesterfield used to be a tobacco brand, It was called Chesterfield. She spent summers on her grandparents' farm in Chesterfield, SC, and there she helped to string tobacco and harvest watermelons. I grew up in Danville, VA, the world's biggest tobacco market. The kids in my classes at school--the really cool kids, apparently--strung tobacco and probably havested watermelons, as well, as Kay did. She graduated from Lakeland High School in 1971 and went on to Florida State University and received her JD from Wake Forest Law School in 1978. Her husband Chip, whom she married, I think, in 1977, was a transactions lawyer. She raised her family in Greensboro, NC. If you go 30 or 40 miles north of Greensboro, you are in Virginia, and that is where I grew up, in Danville, VA. When I first met her, we kind of talked about her background in the Navy and her father, and we talked about Lakeland, FL, and my affinity for the Detroit Tigers, who have trained there for decades. We talked about her raising her family in Greensboro. I spent a lot of my childhood in Danville, just north of Greensboro. I told her a story about going to Greensboro with my dad, as a kid, and we got ourselves a hunting dog from Greensboro, where she raised her family. She leaves behind three kids--Jeanette, who was named after her mother, Tilden, and Carrie. She also is a grandmother of five grandchildren whom she loved and adored. Before she got into politics she worked in the financial industry. She became vice president of what was then North Carolina National Bank and went on to become today part of Bank of America. She worked as a campaign manager for a guy named Jim Hunt. Jim Hunt was Governor for 8 years. In North Carolina, you can be Governor for 8 years, and you have to step down, or you can come back and be elected again. He was elected for another 8 years. She worked for Jim Hunt, a great education Governor, who always surrounded himself with just the best people in the world. I treasured serving as a Governor with him and his friendship, and the fact that she had been his campaign manager endeared her to me. She was first elected to office, I think, when she was elected to the North Carolina General Assembly, not as a State representative but she was elected as a State senator. She served, I think, five terms, representing Guilford County down in North Carolina. She ran for the Senate in 2008 against Elizabeth Dole, another person for whom I had great affection, as I did for her husband, Bob. Both of them actually served here in the Senate, Bob and Elizabeth Dole. Elizabeth is from North Carolina. We were fond of her, and when the two of them ran against each other, it was tough, but stuff like that happens. Kay won, and she came here and served for 6 years until 2015. She left the Senate in 2014. She was defeated by Thom Tillis, who serves here today. She lost by, I think, less than 50,000 votes, so it was a close vote. After her term ended in the Senate, she went on to work as a fellow at the Harvard Institute of Politics and a senior policy consultant at a law firm, Akin Gump. She died October 28 of this year, 3 days ago, of encephalitis caused by a virus she contracted from a tick bite, and it is something that happened in 2016, and it was 3 years later that she finally died, which is very, very sad. She was the second female Senator from North Carolina--first female Democrat to be elected from North Carolina to the Senate, the first female Democrat. She served, while she was here, on a number of committees. I did not have the pleasure of serving with her at the same time. She was on Armed Services. There is a lot of military in North Carolina, especially the Marines there on the East Coast. But she was on the Banking Committee. She joined the committee after I left to be a member of the Finance Committee. She served on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee and Small Business and Entrepreneurship. In 6 years, you vote on a lot of amendments, you vote on a lot of bills, you offer a lot of bills and amendments. She did all of that, and I just wanted to focus on one thing that she supported and worked on. She was a person who believed that we have a moral obligation to the least of these in our society. Matthew 25 speaks to a moral obligation--when people are hungry, what we should do about it, when they are naked or thirsty, what are our obligations, regardless of our faith. Matthew 25 states: When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was naked, did you clothe me? When I was thirsty, did you give me drink? When I was sick or in prison, did you visit me? When I was a stranger in your land, did you walk with me? And she answered all of those questions: Yes, yes, yes. She was somebody that thought we had moral obligations for the least of these, but since we didn't have unlimited amounts of money, we just couldn't waste our money, and we had to spend it effectively. She believed that we should not just give a person a fish and feed them for a day, but teach a person to fish and they would feed themselves for a lifetime. She was a fitness buff. I love to work out, and my wife loves to work out, and she did too. I think that is one of the reasons that she was able to fight this disease and fight it off as long as she did. There is a gym here that used to be little. It is a little bigger that it used to be. The one in the House is much bigger; they have a lot more people. But they have a little swimming pool at the gym here, and I have never used it. For years, it was just men only. In fact, for years there was not even an opportunity for women in the Senate to actually have a fitness center to work out. She changed that. She led the fight to change that. I think when she lost her race in 2014 and the women in the Senate threw her a goodbye party, they did it at the pool and in the fitness center down in the basement of the Russell building. In the 1970s, she was an intern in the Capitol--and we have some pages here. I don't think she was ever a page, but later she was an intern. She became an elevator operator. I am not sure if Harry Reid, who was our majority leader and minority leader here, he was an elevator operator, but there was sort of a pecking order, starting with pages at a very young age and interns later on, and then they become an elevator operator and have some other jobs here and then go off to do amazing things with their life. And she certainly did that. She was operating an elevator here in the Senate that carried Senators, including her uncle Lawton Chiles, who I mentioned earlier. Joe Biden visited Kay Hagan in North Carolina the day before her death--that would have been 4 days ago--and what Joe said of Kay is that she was a crucial partner in passing the Affordable Care Act and the stimulus package which got us off of our back when we were going through the worst recession since the Great Depression. Joe said that ``She was a crucial partner'' in passing the Affordable Care Act, which passed by one vote, and she was that one vote. I think she was probably prouder of that vote than anything that she did when she served here. I want to segue from Kay, but before I do, she was always interested in figuring out the right things to do, not what was easy or expedient. She was always asking what is the right thing to do. I remember her being here and other Senators--Democrats and Republicans--and we were trying to figure out what to do on a particular issue. She would always say: What is the right thing to do? She was one of those people who had deep faith, and she believed not only do we have a moral obligation to the least of these, but she thought that we ought to treat other people the way we wanted to be treated, and that is the Golden Rule. As it turns out, about a week ago, I was invited to worship in a Hindu worship service in Delaware with a congregation of a thousand people, and I was reminded there that the Golden Rule--to treat other people the way we want to be treated--is part of every major religion, the Golden Rule. I do not care if you are Catholic, I do not care if you are a Jew, I do not care if you are a Muslim, Hindu, some form of the Golden Rule is right there. She was a big proponent of the Golden Rule, and that was the work of her life. She was also one of those people who focused on excellence in everything she did. She was committed to doing things well and wanted to be surrounded by staff that did things well. When thing would go well for her and she would do a good job, she would always give credit to her team. When her team would fall short, she was not one of those people who blamed the team; she blamed herself. Another thing I would say is she just didn't give up. She was tenacious--not very tall, not tall in stature, but, boy, was she tenacious. She showed this especially by the way she fought for her life to the very end 3 days ago. I want to talk just a little about her vote on the Affordable Care Act and why she thought it was the right thing to do. Matthew 25 does not say anything about: I was lame and you gave me healthcare or access to healthcare. My own source of healthcare was the hospital, what did you do about it? That doesn't say that in the New Testament. But I think the implication is clear. We have an obligation--I think a moral obligation to try to make sure everybody has access to healthcare and, hopefully, to affordable healthcare. That is what we tried to do with the Affordable Care Act, and that is why she supported it. Sometimes people think the Affordable Care Act is just the exchanges, just the marketplaces. Every State has an exchange or marketplace that is there. It is sort of like a purchasing pool for healthcare that people can become a part of. If they don't work for an employer who provides healthcare, that is issued by the employer, and they are not old enough for Medicare or their income level is too high to allow them to participate in Medicaid and, in those cases, they have to find some way to get access to healthcare. Back in 1993, the Republican Senator from Rhode Island, John Chafee-- who is also a Navy guy, later Secretary of the Navy--he introduced legislation here in the Senate in 1993 as a Republican response to something Hillary Clinton was doing during her husband's administration that was working to find ways to make sure that everybody had access to healthcare in this country. We worked on something called HillaryCare, and the Republicans ridiculed her efforts and those around her. She said basically in response: What is your idea? What is your idea? The response was by Senator Chafee, joined by 22 or 23 Republican Senators, and part of what they came up with is that every State should have an exchange and every State should have the ability to set up the purchasing pool in their State. People who didn't have coverage could get their coverage in the exchanges. Neither one was turned into law, but about 10, 12 years later, the new Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, took the idea of the exchanges and introduced the Mitt Romney Care so that the people in his State would have the opportunity to sign up for the coverage in their exchange. We wrote the Affordable Care Act, we did it, and we took good ideas from all over the country and all over the world to provide healthcare to people that was affordable. One of the ideas that we stole to put in the Affordable Care Act was Governor Romney's idea of the exchanges. And you know what? It was a good idea. It was a good idea. The first few years of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, they did a pretty good job of extending coverage. They did not do such a good job initially on affordability, and they kept trying, and they finally figured it out-- competition in the marketplace, in the exchange, and more insurance companies providing, participating, and this worked well. We found in the first 2 years that the Affordable Care Act was standing up the exchanges 7, 8, or 9 years ago that it was a challenge. It was difficult. What has happened now is the insurers are starting to figure it out. They priced too high. The States have come up with ways to buy down the risks for the insurers and to make a number of States' health insurance in the exchanges more affordable, so that more people can actually afford that help. I would just close this here. The majority leader is standing here waiting to speak, so I will just close if I can by saying after a number of years seeing the cost of healthcare coverages in exchanges across the country go up, up, up--sometimes by double-digit rates--the insurance companies were trying to figure out how to price health insurance for people who have not had health insurance for years. It took them several years to figure it out, but they finally, for the most part, have. The cost of healthcare in exchanges doesn't go up by double-digit rates anymore. In fact, we have 20 or more States now where the cost of healthcare coverage in the exchange is only going up a couple of percentage points, maybe less. In a half-dozen States, the cost of healthcare in the exchanges is actually going down. In the State of Delaware, when the exchanges open up tomorrow, the people will sign up for the healthcare exchange in Delaware, the price will not be going up next year. It will be going down by 19 percent. There are six other States where the consumer experience is similar, and that is encouraging. A lot more insurance companies are offering coverage in the States, 23 last year and 45 this year--and that is going to introduce competition and, we hope, a cycle that will allow more people to get better coverage for a lower price. So, Kay Hagan, we miss you, and we considered it a privilege to have served with you here. Something good has come out of something very difficult. The passage of the Affordable Care Act was hard. It has been hard finding a way forward since then, but I think better days lie ahead, and market forces are starting to work, and that is a good thing. And with that, I will yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am here on a sad note and then on a happier note as well. I am going to try to tie the two together.

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

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three interns from our Senate office here--Carter Thompson, Gil Connolly, and Tamar Epps--be granted floor privileges for today.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to take the next 15 or 20 minutes today to talk about the ongoing situation in Syria and the region surrounding that country. It is a part of the world that some folks might not be all that familiar with, so let's take a look at the area that I will be discussing today: Syria, the Mediterranean, with Greece up here. Just north of Syria, we have Turkey. To the southeast of Syria, we have Iraq. Further to the east of Iraq, we have Iran. To the south- southwest of Syria, we have Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan. South of Jordan is Saudi Arabia. Over here we have Egypt, the Red Sea, and Georgia--not the State, the country. That gives us just a little bit of the lay of the land. The focus of my remarks today will be on Syria. Three years and 4 months ago this week, I stood here on the Senate floor in front of a map of Syria and spoke of the progress that was about to be made in that country in the battle to degrade and destroy ISIS. We are going to look at another map. It is pretty much the same area, blown up--Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. The area here in what I call a peach color is where ISIS was running the show or had undue influence. At this particular point in time, ISIS had been making undeniable progress in building what they called their caliphate, their country, their capital. Again, this is the area they covered at the height of their influence. ISIS at that time had recruited more manpower than any terrorist group in the world and was also the richest terrorist group in the world. They would literally go into an area of the town or country and loot the banks, empty the vaults, take the cash, take the money, and run. Through their dominant social media presence, ISIS was attracting some 2,000 foreign fighters per month. That included 10 Americans per month, which would mean over 100 Americans per year on an annual basis. ISIS controlled most of northern Syria, including Raqqa, which it claimed as its capital, and the strategic city of Manbij, which is close by. ISIS was able to project an image of strength to the world, reeling in potential recruits by touting their victories in the region. You know how everybody wants to be the winner in football, and you see a lot of people wearing Boston Patriots clothing. We will probably see a lot more Nats fans in the months to come and Houston Astros fans as well. But ISIS was projecting an image of strength to the world, and they were reeling in potential recruits by touting their victories in the region and their growing territory. Three years and four months ago, when I stood here on the Senate floor, progress was actually being made in reversing ISIS's growth. U.S. and Kurdish forces had recaptured Manbij, sending ISIS recruitment tumbling, from about 2,000 fighters a month down to 200. I will say that again. They were recruiting 2,000 a month, and they were down to about 200. We had found where they kept a lot of their money, not all of it, but we destroyed about one-third of it. ISIS had previously held the strategically important Sunni Triangle in nearby Iraq. But when I spoke on the floor, right here, 3 years ago, in 2016, Iraqi forces recaptured the cities of Tikrit, Fallujah, and Ramadi, and we were poised to make additional gains in the months that followed in the battle against ISIS. Just over a year later, in 2017, Raqqa was recaptured from ISIS control. Around that time, and in the months that followed, ISIS's sphere of influence undoubtedly diminished by about two-thirds. I referred to that map already, but we will look at it again. This is where they were about 3 years and 4 months ago. That is basically where they were. In short order, from there, they lost about two-thirds of the land they were controlling and are down to this point right here. When I speak of the progress we made, I am not just referring to U.S. forces or the United States alone or one or two of our allies. I am speaking of a coalition--get this--of over 60 nations that would come together to fight the rise of ISIS and prevent it from establishing the caliphate that I referred to earlier. Each member of the coalition found that it was in their own naked self-interest to join this fight as part of a bigger coalition. Among the forces that contributed the most, though, were--believe it or not-- the Syrian Kurds. If you asked most people, who are the Kurds, where are they from, tell us something about the Kurds, they would have no idea. It turns out, the Kurds are one of the largest ethnic groups in the world without a nation of their own to call their own home. There are 30 million of them. They are largely divided across four countries: Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. For decades, the Kurds have sought self-determination and basic rights, something we all want for ourselves and our families. But too often, instead, they have been victimized, attacked, and slaughtered, including by President Erdogan of Turkey. Over the last several years, though, Kurdish soldiers trained and fought against ISIS alongside of our soldiers as part of the Syrian Democratic Forces. They call themselves the SDF, or the Syrian Democratic Forces. The Kurdish soldiers put their lives at risk to stop ISIS from successfully establishing a caliphate from which to wreak even more havoc around the globe and even here in the United States. In fact, the Kurdish SDF fighters were the ones carrying out most of the ground operations, while U.S. troops provided support. Their willingness--the willingness of the Kurdish fighters--to risk their lives and shed their blood likely meant that countless American lives were spared. I am going to say that again. The willingness of Kurdish fighters to risk their lives and shed their blood likely meant that countless American lives were spared. Some 11,000 Kurdish fighters have been killed in combat while fighting ISIS. Compare that to the four American lives we have lost during the same campaign. Think about that. Eleven thousand Kurdish fighters laid down their lives. Four Americans lost their lives. That is too many, but what an imbalance. We have heard it said oftentimes: They laid down their lives to spare ours. And that is exactly what happened. Earlier this month, President Trump abruptly announced that he would be pulling the remaining coalition forces from Syria, effective immediately. He did not do so after thoughtful consideration of the risks involved to U.S. interests. He did not consult with our allies. As far as I know, he did not consult with our military leadership-- certainly not some of the ones retired now who are speaking up, raising their voices. Rather, he did so after a weekend phone call with Turkish President Erdogan. In the process, he left our Kurdish allies hanging out to dry. As someone who has actually served this Nation in uniform at a time of war, I have served with coalitions before. Two of the most important factors in building a successful coalition are communication and trust. Our abrupt abandonment of Kurdish forces and their people will not serve to encourage other countries around the world to risk the lives of their soldiers and join a coalition led by us, the Americans. In fact, what we have done in abandoning the Kurds is going to discourage other nations from deciding to join a coalition with us in the future-- certainly in the near future and maybe longer than that. The decision to abandon our Kurdish allies isn't just morally wrong-- and it is. It is not just harmful to our credibility with allies around the globe--and it is harmful. It is a gift to several of our greatest adversaries. Here is what President Trump's abrupt decision to pull U.S. ground forces from Syria has achieved. He has created almost overnight a power vacuum in which ISIS can regroup and wreak havoc again. According to recent news reports, ISIS fighters are cheering President Trump's decision on social media channels viewed around the world. Just this week, our Secretary of Defense confirmed that over 100 ISIS prisoners have escaped, adding that the United States does not know where they are today. And what does our President say in response to all of this? He tells us that captured ISIS prisoners are secured. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be true. And, when presented with the possibility that ISIS prisoners might be released as a result of his hasty withdrawal, what did our President say? This is what he said: ``Well, they're going to be escaping to Europe.'' Think about that. ``Well, they're going to be escaping to Europe.'' Who do we know in Europe? Do we have friends? Yes, we do--NATO, which we have been a part of for half a century. They are our friends. They are our allies. Somehow, the idea that that is where the escaped ISIS folks are going to head is OK. Well, it is not OK. Those words, in my view, are disgraceful. As chairman and ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for a number of years, I worked with my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--and others to find ways to effectively combat ISIS. Of course, it was critical to degrade and destroy ISIS extremists overseas on the battlefield, but, unfortunately, in today's day and age, ISIS's message of hate doesn't need a visa and doesn't need a plane ticket to reach our shores. It has been just as important to find ways to counter ISIS's abhorrent and twisted messages in order to prevent the radicalization of American citizens right here at home, in the United States of America. We worked tirelessly during the Obama administration to reach out to communities across our country and worked with local officials, with faith leaders, and with family members to combat terrorist groups' efforts to radicalize and recruit our own citizens--our own citizens who might be vulnerable to their hateful ideology. ISIS fighters never have to step foot on American soil to spread their hate and inspire unspeakable violence. For our President to brush off the escape of 100 or more of these prisoners and say it is not our problem because they will go to Europe I think is callous. I think it is thoughtless. It is foolish, and it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the ever-evolving terrorist threats we face in this world today. President Trump's decision to pull out of Syria without a plan to protect our gains hasn't just energized ISIS fighters there. It has also given Russian President Vladimir Putin a long-desired foothold in the Middle East. Just yesterday, President Putin and Erdogan announced that their forces will jointly establish and patrol a 20-mile-wide safe zone along the Syrian-Turkish border. I don't know if we can look at this. Here is Syria. Turkey is up here. Close to the Euphrates, there is an area there, about a 20-mile safe zone, that will be patrolled not by the Syrian Kurds but by the folks from Russia and the soldiers from Turkey. If the Kurds want help fighting Erdogan's ethnic cleansing and chemical attacks, instead of turning to the United States, they now have only another dictator to turn to, and that is Vladimir Putin. And because we left the region without a plan for exit, Mr. Putin has secured an important public relations win of his own. At least one base where American forces used to work side by side with Kurdish forces in Syria to gather and share critical intelligence regarding ISIS's movements--now it not in our hands, not in the hands of the Syrian Kurds, but it is in Russian hands. You know what they are doing with that change of hands? They are tweeting their videos to prove it and laughing all the way to--I don't know--where ever they go. If empowering Russia, Erdogan, and ISIS wasn't enough, President Trump's decision to leave the region also creates a golden opportunity for Iranian hardliners to achieve a long-desired goal of their own-- that is, to establish a land bridge across the Middle East in order to further antagonize our allies the Israelis. President Trump has repeatedly promised to fulfill his campaign promise to end what he calls America's endless wars. We should not be fooled. Not one war has ended during his Presidency. In fact, more troops have actually been deployed to the Middle East than have come home. Today, roughly 200,000 U.S. troops are deployed all around the globe. Some of those troops are in war zones, in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and a small number remain in Syria. Even more troops remain overseas from legacy missions, in places like Japan, Germany, the Philippines, and Australia. For instance, right now more than 28,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea. Just 2 weeks ago, President Trump announced that he would be sending an additional 3,000 troops to Saudi Arabia. Prior to President Trump's reckless withdrawal from Syria, there were roughly 1,000 American troops stationed in the northeastern corner of that country. Compared to America's military presence elsewhere, that is a small fraction. Think about that. Some 200,000 American troops are spread around the world. Roughly 1,000 of them, which is less than one- half of 1 percent, were serving in this part of the world, in Syria. In spite of their strategic presence, President Trump chose to abruptly pull a small number of troops out of Syria. As it turns out, with the death of John McCain, I am the last Vietnam veteran serving in the U.S. Senate. I know well what it is like to come home from a long deployment. When I was with my squadron, we deployed overseas 6 months three times to Southeast Asia. I agree that we cannot afford to entangle our men and women in uniform in endless conflicts around the globe. It is not fair to them, and it is not fair to their families. But what Donald Trump has achieved is not a carefully negotiated cease-fire to shore up the gains we have made against ISIS and to fulfill our commitments to the allies who helped us along the way. Oh, no, make no mistake, this is a retreat. The last thing I will say is this: I am not alone. In fact, I am far from alone in criticizing this administration's decision with respect to the withdrawal of a small number of troops from Syria. In the past week, I have been joined by some unlikely colleagues to warn about the dangers of Mr. Trump's Syria policy. We have also heard from top national security officials, past and present--in uniform and out of uniform--who have extensive experience when it comes to American foreign policy and military policy. Just last week, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee described the Trump administration's decision to pull American troops out of Syria as--in his words--``out of line'' and also as ``dangerous.'' That Senator also warned that--these are his words--``ISIS is the biggest beneficiary.'' That is what he said. ``ISIS is the biggest beneficiary.'' Of what? Of the administration's abrupt decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria and leave our Kurdish allies open to predictable invasion and, unfortunately, likely slaughter by the Turks. You might be surprised to learn those remarks were made by a Republican colleague from South Carolina, someone who was also in uniform in his life, Lindsey Graham. Another one of our colleagues stood right here on the Senate floor this last week and said that President Trump's decision to abandon our Kurdish allies ``strikes at American honor.'' He goes on to say: ``What we have done to the Kurds will stand as a bloodstain''--as a bloodstain--``in American history.'' He went on to say that the ceasefire deal described last week by Vice President Pence as a victory--and these are words of our colleague--``does not change the fact that America abandoned an ally, adding insult to dishonor.'' That Senator went on to say: The administration speaks cavalierly, even flippantly, even as our ally has suffered death from casualty. Their homes have been burned and their families have been torn apart. Again, those are the words of not a Democratic colleague but a Republican colleague--our friend from Utah, Senator Mitt Romney. Just this past weekend, we were warned by a highly decorated, retired U.S. Marine Corps general, one who served in the Persian Gulf war, one who served in the war in Afghanistan, and one who served in the Iraq war. In his warning, he said that the administration's abrupt withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Syrian-Turkish border will lead to ``disarray''--disarray in Syria--and that ``ISIS will resurge.'' Those are not my words, not a Democrat's words, but the words of President Trump's former Defense Secretary, Gen. Jim Mattis, affectionately known as ``Mad Dog.'' Colleagues, I am not describing a misguided foreign policy here today. I am describing an abandonment of the values that we as Americans have embraced since the founding of our democracy. I am going to say that again. I am not describing a misguided foreign policy--oh, no. I am describing something much bigger than that--an abandonment of the values that we as Americans have embraced since the founding of our democracy. A bipartisan group of Senators, including myself, have introduced a package of sanctions that ought to be passed and imposed on Turkey. These sanctions are stronger than the ones President Trump imposed on Turkey this week, which he has already, apparently, lifted. He lifted those sanctions as part of the retreat negotiated by his administration, and he lifted those sanctions in the face of evidence that Turkish forces continue to attack Kurds outside of the agreed-upon safe zone and continue to commit possible war crimes. But even strong sanctions such as those contained in our bill, if passed, would not solve the urgent crisis President Trump has created by abandoning our Kurdish allies. Here is what the President said in the last week or two: ``I alone can fix it.'' Well, Mr. President, for once, that might be true. You alone can fix it. After a single phone call with an authoritarian leader, you created this mess, and maybe you alone can reverse that decision. I urge you to do so. In fact, I think we urge you to do so. Don't turn your back on the Kurds. Don't give up on the gains against ISIS that our service men and women, along with our allies, fought for so bravely. That would be leadership. That would protect our national security. And that is what the American people and our allies look to the President of the United States to do. Tom Friedman, a noted author and columnist for the New York Times and someone who has been here in the Capitol a number of times, has something he calls the Trump Doctrine. He said the Trump Doctrine is-- it goes something like this: Barack built it. I, Trump, broke it. You fix it. I want to turn the Trump Doctrine on its head and say: No, no, no, Mr. President. You broke it. It can be fixed, and you need to do the fixing. With that, 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. Madam President, I rise in support of the Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval of the Trump administration's so- called affordable clean energy rule, which really should be called President Trump's dirty power plan or unclean energy rule. To be clear, I believe that the Environmental Protection Agency has an urgent moral responsibility and economic imperative to reduce the global warming pollution from powerplants, which are by far the largest stationary source of carbon pollution on our planet. I also believe that those of us in Congress must act now to protect the American people from the dangers posed by poor environmental quality and the worsening impact of climate change. That is why we are holding this vote tomorrow--to send a clear message to this administration and to take a strong stand for the American people. Truth be told, I am not typically a staunch supporter of the Congressional Review Act. It is a blunt procedural tool, and I prefer to embrace a better way to express our disapproval of the administration's failure to address one of our Nation's major sources of carbon pollution. For Senate Democrats, this vote is about holding supporters of this shortsighted, irresponsible policy accountable for surrendering America's global leadership and for jeopardizing the health of our planet and the promise of our children's future. Nearly 4 years ago, the Clean Power Plan set the first Federal targets to reduce carbon emissions from our Nation's powerplants. The Clean Power Plan set meaningful but achievable carbon limits for fossil fuel powerplants and gave flexibility and time for States to meet those standards. It was not a one-size-fits-all deal. It provided quite a bit of time and flexibility for States to try to figure out how they would go about meeting those standards in their own way. This administration's alternative to the Clean Power Plan--President Trump's unclean power plan--allows States to decide whether to regulate harmful emissions. At the same time, this rule will, at best, have essentially no impact on powerplant carbon emissions--no impact. Let me say that again. At best, this rule will have essentially no impact on powerplant carbon emissions. At worst, it will increase emissions by extending these plants' lifespans and allow them to burn more coal each year. Today our Nation's utilities are already on track to meet and surpass the emission reduction goals set by the Clean Power Plan way ahead of schedule. All the while, the vast majority of Americans are now enjoying lower utility bills, not higher utility bills, and more than 3 million Americans went to work today in the clean energy sector, which includes jobs in renewable energy generation and energy efficiency. Yes, you heard that right. There are more than 3 million jobs in the clean energy sector today. The President's dirty power plan does not build on this progress. It does not promote affordable or clean energy. What it actually does is attempt to scam or fool the American people into believing that the EPA is doing something to stem the tide of climate change while taking us backward--backward, not forward. By repealing and replacing the Clean Power Plan, the Trump administration is ensuring that our country forgoes a vast number of economic opportunities of the clean energy future. Instead of building on the Obama-Biden administration's forward-looking environmental standards, the Trump administration, with its dirty power plan, is refusing to see or accept that the global economy's transition to clean energy sources is already underway. Instead of mustering the political courage to lead on the issue of climate change, yet again, the Trump administration is walking away from the bold action we need to address this climate crisis. This failure of leadership will make it all the more likely that the worsening storms and flooding, record-setting rainfall, and volatile temperatures we are already seeing all over the world will continue to be our reality. So where do our Republican colleagues stand? Tomorrow we will find out. Sadly, for too many of them, President Trump's dirty power plan is a sufficient plan to address carbon pollution. In truth, it is not. It is a failure of vision and a retreat from global leadership, and it is time for Congress--Democrats, Republicans, and maybe an Independent or two--to hold this administration accountable. That is why Senate Democrats are calling for a vote on this issue. Our government needs to provide the right market signals today if we are going to create a clean energy tomorrow, and we need to take a stand for a stronger economy. We need to lead the world to act on climate change, and we need to take a stand for clean air and environmental quality. We can do that tomorrow by standing together against President Trump's dirty power plan, and I hope a number of colleagues will join us by doing just that. It is a false statement to say we can't have cleaner air, less threat to our planet, and create jobs. We can do both, and we need to. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss America's Transportation Infrastructure Act, legislation that I introduced today with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, John Barrasso, along with our subcommittee chair on Transportation and Infrastructure, Shelley Moore Capito, and our ranking member from Maryland, Ben Cardin. Our legislation reauthorizes our Nation's surface transportation laws and makes a historic $287 billion investment in our Nation's roads, highways, and bridges. Our Nation's first highway bill was enacted just a few years after the world's first concrete highway was paved outside of Detroit, MI. Henry Ford had just introduced the Model T, and the first stop-go traffic light would soon be installed at the intersection of East 105th Street and Euclid Avenue in Cleveland, OH. A century ago, the idea of speedy and safe transcontinental travel was beyond our imagination and even further from being realized. We have come a long way since then. Today, more than 4 million miles of roadway and 600,000 bridges help link our country together. Some 220,000 of those miles combine to make up our national highway system. Our transportation infrastructure is essential to America's economy, to our society, and to our way of life. It connects us to commerce; it connects us to service; and, more importantly, it connects us to one another. The sad truth, however, is that, as we all know too well, many of these roads, highways, and bridges are in poor condition today. They have been in use far beyond, for many of them, the intended duration of their original design. A great many roadways and bridges simply need repaving, while some need repairs, and others need to be completely redesigned. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, approximately 20 percent of our Federal-aid roadways are in poor condition, as are 47,000 bridges. That is in large part because, for far too long, our Nation's highway trust fund has been operating on the brink of insolvency. The highway account is running at an $11 billion deficit, and that deficit is growing. Meanwhile, despite spending more from the fund than we collect, we still aren't spending enough to make a dent in the $800 billion backlog of investments needed to significantly improve conditions on many of the roads, highways, and bridges that millions of Americans--all of us--use and depend on every day. All of this has contributed to an unacceptable level of uncertainty for States, for cities, for businesses, and for families. It has prevented us, as a nation, from addressing serious challenges across our transportation infrastructure that go well beyond simply filling potholes. For too long, we have failed to make meaningful progress in America toward improving safety, easing traffic congestion, reducing harmful emissions, and enhancing resilience. We can do better than this. The legislation that is before us today, if enacted, will help put our country back on the right track. I am excited about it, and I am grateful to everyone who has contributed in ways both large and small to the drafting of the legislation that Senator Barrasso and I have introduced today. While this bill will leverage badly needed investments in rebuilding our roads, highways, and bridges, it will do a lot more than that. It will help expedite the movement of people and goods throughout our country. It will support the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs here too. It will help alleviate some of the congestion we face in urban and suburban parts of all 50 States--areas across the country--on an almost daily basis. America's Transportation Infrastructure Act will help make real the vision of a safer, more connected, efficient, and climate-friendly transportation system, one that will endure the test of time and keep up with the evolving demands of the world's biggest economy. Our bill is a good start. Now we need to build on it and make it better. With respect to safety, too many pedestrians and bicyclists put their lives at risk every day when they use our roadways. In 2017, there were more than 37,000--37,000--fatalities on our Nation's roadways, including approximately 7,000 nonmotorized users. Think about that: 37,000 fatalities. That is more than all of the people who live in Dover, DE, or in Laramie, WY. After trending down for many years, in the last decade pedestrian deaths have increased sharply and are now at a 25-year high. In Tribal communities, that fatality rate is even higher. That is just unacceptable. Our legislation addresses this carnage by investing $2.5 billion in Federal funds per year in safety improvements and by compelling States and cities with very high rates of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities to do their share as well. Our legislation also expands funding for bike paths, sidewalks, and other transportation alternatives to $1.2 billion per year. It empowers States and cities to design, implement, and manage those projects so they are better designed to fit the needs of those States and cities. Too many Americans simply don't have safe places to walk or bike. In some cases, we build roads in ways that make it impossible for people to walk or bicycle where they need to go, be it a grocery store, a daycare center, a health facility--you name it. America's transportation infrastructure should connect us, not divide us. Let me say that again. America's transportation infrastructure should connect us, not divide us. It should foster greater economic opportunity, not disparity. Our legislation seeks to improve connectivity and accessibility by establishing a pilot program for States and cities to measure access to destinations like hospitals, schools, and grocery stores. Our bill also funds a program to help remove barriers, such as chronically underused highways--when appropriate--that create obstacles to access and mobility. But an even more pressing need to address throughout America is the roads, highways, and bridges that are actually overcapacity today, where cars and trucks and their passengers sit for hours in traffic. Last year, every American driver lost, on average, 97 hours due to traffic congestion. That is 97 hours for the average driver per year. That is 4 days. It is not just a nuisance for drivers; last year, it cost our country $87 billion in lost productivity--$87 billion. Let's not forget that all that time we waste sitting in our cars and trucks also degrades the quality of the air we breathe, increases the cost of our healthcare, and raises the cost of the goods we buy. Our legislation addresses this predicament by authorizing additional funding for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program, which has been used to build carpool lanes and support a number of other alternatives to reduce congestion. In addition, our legislation recognizes that in many places, it is just not possible to build additional lanes, so we need to address congestion by managing travel demand through innovative technology, transit, and tolling. That is why we have also created a new program for our largest cities to provide new tools--new tools--to help address congestion challenges. That brings us to the evermore apparent reality of climate change and its ever-worsening impact on, among other things, our infrastructure. The cars, trucks, and vans that we drive have become our Nation's largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, accelerating and exacerbating the effects of climate change and bringing with it increasingly extreme weather that we are witnessing throughout the world on an almost daily basis. For example, in Europe last week, temperatures exceeded 110 degrees Fahrenheit. And we have examples here too. We have just come off of the hottest 4 years in the history of this country since we have been measuring it, and this year looks like it is going to be the hottest yet. We have to do more than fight, and with this legislation, we will. I am proud to announce that America's Transportation Infrastructure Act includes the first-ever climate title in a transportation bill in the history of Congress. Our legislation calls for investing $10 billion over the next 5 years directly in programs and policies that will combat climate change by reducing emissions and improving the resiliency of our transportation networks and infrastructure. One such program is a $1 billion investment in charging and fueling stations for electric and alternative fuel vehicles traveling in heavily traveled corridors across America. While Henry Ford's Model T and its internal combustion engine are an important part of our country's transportation system, zero-emission electric vehicles represent our future. Unfortunately, in most parts of America today, drivers lack reasonable access to charging or fueling stations for electric or hydrogen-fueled vehicles. Our legislation helps to address that concern by creating competitive grants for States and localities to build hydrogen, natural gas, and electric vehicle charging and fueling infrastructure along many of America's most heavily traveled highway corridors. Meanwhile, increasingly frequent and extreme weather events continue to erode our transportation networks, and sea level rise threatens the structural integrity and longevity of our surface transportation infrastructure. We see that happening now in my home State of Delaware, along major portions of the East Coast, and in the flooding that has occurred in the heartland of our country. It has been reported in the news that in some places in America, the temperature has been so hot that the asphalt roads and highways are bubbling up from the heat. Try driving through that. Our legislation seeks to help address these threats by investing nearly $5 billion over 5 years in a new formula program available to all States and a competitive resiliency grant program. Both the formula program and the new PROTECT Grants Program would support projects across America that reinforce, upgrade, or realign existing transportation infrastructure to better withstand extreme weather events and the effects of climate change, like the record-setting temperatures I have spoken of. Let me briefly mention one other thing. Through the use of natural infrastructure, like the marshes and wetlands that protect roads from storm surges during tropical cyclones and Nor'easters, our bill also helps harness the power of Mother Nature to improve the resilience of transportation projects. That gives you at least a glimpse of some of the exciting aspects of the legislation our committee chairman, John Barrasso, and I are introducing today, again with the help of a lot of people on our committee, throughout the Senate--Democrats and Republicans--and from all parts of this country. We introduced our legislation with their help and help from every corner of the country, and it comes from State and local governments as well. In the coming months, I look forward to sharing more stories about how the America's Transportation Infrastructure Act can tackle complicated issues, improve our daily lives, and help us build the roads, highways, and bridges of the future. As bright as the chairman and I are on our committee--and our very able staff members like to think we are--I am confident that our bill can be improved as it moves through the legislative process in the months ahead. As I oftentimes say, if it isn't perfect, let's make it better. As good as what we have done is--and we are proud of our handiwork--we know it can be better, and we look forward to making it better. That begins tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. with a markup in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Before I close, I would be remiss if I failed to remind everyone that with respect to surface infrastructure, the 800-pound gorilla in the room is almost always, how are we going to pay for the improvements and the programs we all know we need? The fact is, as I have said, the highway trust fund is going broke, and, if we are honest with one another, our way of paying for it is broken too. So what should we do about it? It is important to note that our legislation will continue to fund the State-level vehicle-miles-traveled pilot programs established in the 2015 bill. I am especially pleased, however, that our legislation also includes a national vehicle-miles-traveled pilot program--the first of its kind. I believe that user fee-based approaches are generally the best way to fund our Nation's surface transportation system and that vehicle-miles-traveled systems, which seek to ensure that all road users pay their fair share, are the future. In the meantime, there needs to be a bridge to that future, and that bridge will not rely on a silver bullet but on what I refer to as a lot of silver BBs, some of which are bigger than others. With that, let me conclude by reiterating that Chairman Barrasso and I look forward to working closely with our colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee--a committee on which I am privileged to serve--to ensure that this bill is responsibly paid for. I have already begun to meet with several of our colleagues on the relevant committees of jurisdiction, and I am anxious to work with them and all of our colleagues as we face not just the dawning challenges that lie ahead but the opportunities as well. Winston Churchill once said, ``You can always count on America to do the right thing in the end, after trying everything else.'' If we pull together and work together in the House and Senate, as I believe we tend to do in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, then we can reach that end a good deal sooner than Mr. Churchill and a lot of the skeptics might otherwise expect. So why don't we show those skeptics what we can do? A great many Americans are counting on us to do just that, and we can't let them down. Again, I thank my staff, the staff of our Chairman Barrasso, and the staff of Senators Capito, Ben Cardin, and others on our committee for their excellent work and for negotiating in good faith throughout this year. Their spirit and dogged commitment are a big part of what brought us to where we are today. But we all know that the introduction of a solid bipartisan bill, even when it is followed the next day by a successful markup, we hope, in committee--we must acknowledge that it is just the beginning, but it is a good start, one that we and our colleagues can and I hope will build on, enabling us and America to seize the day. I don't know a lot of Latin, but I think Latin for ``seize the day'' is ``carpe diem,'' or as we say in Delaware, ``Carper diem.'' Thank you.

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss America's Transportation Infrastructure Act, legislation that I introduced today with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, John Barrasso, along with our subcommittee chair on Transportation and Infrastructure, Shelley Moore Capito, and our ranking member from Maryland, Ben Cardin. Our legislation reauthorizes our Nation's surface transportation laws and makes a historic $287 billion investment in our Nation's roads, highways, and bridges. Our Nation's first highway bill was enacted just a few years after the world's first concrete highway was paved outside of Detroit, MI. Henry Ford had just introduced the Model T, and the first stop-go traffic light would soon be installed at the intersection of East 105th Street and Euclid Avenue in Cleveland, OH. A century ago, the idea of speedy and safe transcontinental travel was beyond our imagination and even further from being realized. We have come a long way since then. Today, more than 4 million miles of roadway and 600,000 bridges help link our country together. Some 220,000 of those miles combine to make up our national highway system. Our transportation infrastructure is essential to America's economy, to our society, and to our way of life. It connects us to commerce; it connects us to service; and, more importantly, it connects us to one another. The sad truth, however, is that, as we all know too well, many of these roads, highways, and bridges are in poor condition today. They have been in use far beyond, for many of them, the intended duration of their original design. A great many roadways and bridges simply need repaving, while some need repairs, and others need to be completely redesigned. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, approximately 20 percent of our Federal-aid roadways are in poor condition, as are 47,000 bridges. That is in large part because, for far too long, our Nation's highway trust fund has been operating on the brink of insolvency. The highway account is running at an $11 billion deficit, and that deficit is growing. Meanwhile, despite spending more from the fund than we collect, we still aren't spending enough to make a dent in the $800 billion backlog of investments needed to significantly improve conditions on many of the roads, highways, and bridges that millions of Americans--all of us--use and depend on every day. All of this has contributed to an unacceptable level of uncertainty for States, for cities, for businesses, and for families. It has prevented us, as a nation, from addressing serious challenges across our transportation infrastructure that go well beyond simply filling potholes. For too long, we have failed to make meaningful progress in America toward improving safety, easing traffic congestion, reducing harmful emissions, and enhancing resilience. We can do better than this. The legislation that is before us today, if enacted, will help put our country back on the right track. I am excited about it, and I am grateful to everyone who has contributed in ways both large and small to the drafting of the legislation that Senator Barrasso and I have introduced today. While this bill will leverage badly needed investments in rebuilding our roads, highways, and bridges, it will do a lot more than that. It will help expedite the movement of people and goods throughout our country. It will support the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs here too. It will help alleviate some of the congestion we face in urban and suburban parts of all 50 States--areas across the country--on an almost daily basis. America's Transportation Infrastructure Act will help make real the vision of a safer, more connected, efficient, and climate-friendly transportation system, one that will endure the test of time and keep up with the evolving demands of the world's biggest economy. Our bill is a good start. Now we need to build on it and make it better. With respect to safety, too many pedestrians and bicyclists put their lives at risk every day when they use our roadways. In 2017, there were more than 37,000--37,000--fatalities on our Nation's roadways, including approximately 7,000 nonmotorized users. Think about that: 37,000 fatalities. That is more than all of the people who live in Dover, DE, or in Laramie, WY. After trending down for many years, in the last decade pedestrian deaths have increased sharply and are now at a 25-year high. In Tribal communities, that fatality rate is even higher. That is just unacceptable. Our legislation addresses this carnage by investing $2.5 billion in Federal funds per year in safety improvements and by compelling States and cities with very high rates of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities to do their share as well. Our legislation also expands funding for bike paths, sidewalks, and other transportation alternatives to $1.2 billion per year. It empowers States and cities to design, implement, and manage those projects so they are better designed to fit the needs of those States and cities. Too many Americans simply don't have safe places to walk or bike. In some cases, we build roads in ways that make it impossible for people to walk or bicycle where they need to go, be it a grocery store, a daycare center, a health facility--you name it. America's transportation infrastructure should connect us, not divide us. Let me say that again. America's transportation infrastructure should connect us, not divide us. It should foster greater economic opportunity, not disparity. Our legislation seeks to improve connectivity and accessibility by establishing a pilot program for States and cities to measure access to destinations like hospitals, schools, and grocery stores. Our bill also funds a program to help remove barriers, such as chronically underused highways--when appropriate--that create obstacles to access and mobility. But an even more pressing need to address throughout America is the roads, highways, and bridges that are actually overcapacity today, where cars and trucks and their passengers sit for hours in traffic. Last year, every American driver lost, on average, 97 hours due to traffic congestion. That is 97 hours for the average driver per year. That is 4 days. It is not just a nuisance for drivers; last year, it cost our country $87 billion in lost productivity--$87 billion. Let's not forget that all that time we waste sitting in our cars and trucks also degrades the quality of the air we breathe, increases the cost of our healthcare, and raises the cost of the goods we buy. Our legislation addresses this predicament by authorizing additional funding for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program, which has been used to build carpool lanes and support a number of other alternatives to reduce congestion. In addition, our legislation recognizes that in many places, it is just not possible to build additional lanes, so we need to address congestion by managing travel demand through innovative technology, transit, and tolling. That is why we have also created a new program for our largest cities to provide new tools--new tools--to help address congestion challenges. That brings us to the evermore apparent reality of climate change and its ever-worsening impact on, among other things, our infrastructure. The cars, trucks, and vans that we drive have become our Nation's largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, accelerating and exacerbating the effects of climate change and bringing with it increasingly extreme weather that we are witnessing throughout the world on an almost daily basis. For example, in Europe last week, temperatures exceeded 110 degrees Fahrenheit. And we have examples here too. We have just come off of the hottest 4 years in the history of this country since we have been measuring it, and this year looks like it is going to be the hottest yet. We have to do more than fight, and with this legislation, we will. I am proud to announce that America's Transportation Infrastructure Act includes the first-ever climate title in a transportation bill in the history of Congress. Our legislation calls for investing $10 billion over the next 5 years directly in programs and policies that will combat climate change by reducing emissions and improving the resiliency of our transportation networks and infrastructure. One such program is a $1 billion investment in charging and fueling stations for electric and alternative fuel vehicles traveling in heavily traveled corridors across America. While Henry Ford's Model T and its internal combustion engine are an important part of our country's transportation system, zero-emission electric vehicles represent our future. Unfortunately, in most parts of America today, drivers lack reasonable access to charging or fueling stations for electric or hydrogen-fueled vehicles. Our legislation helps to address that concern by creating competitive grants for States and localities to build hydrogen, natural gas, and electric vehicle charging and fueling infrastructure along many of America's most heavily traveled highway corridors. Meanwhile, increasingly frequent and extreme weather events continue to erode our transportation networks, and sea level rise threatens the structural integrity and longevity of our surface transportation infrastructure. We see that happening now in my home State of Delaware, along major portions of the East Coast, and in the flooding that has occurred in the heartland of our country. It has been reported in the news that in some places in America, the temperature has been so hot that the asphalt roads and highways are bubbling up from the heat. Try driving through that. Our legislation seeks to help address these threats by investing nearly $5 billion over 5 years in a new formula program available to all States and a competitive resiliency grant program. Both the formula program and the new PROTECT Grants Program would support projects across America that reinforce, upgrade, or realign existing transportation infrastructure to better withstand extreme weather events and the effects of climate change, like the record-setting temperatures I have spoken of. Let me briefly mention one other thing. Through the use of natural infrastructure, like the marshes and wetlands that protect roads from storm surges during tropical cyclones and Nor'easters, our bill also helps harness the power of Mother Nature to improve the resilience of transportation projects. That gives you at least a glimpse of some of the exciting aspects of the legislation our committee chairman, John Barrasso, and I are introducing today, again with the help of a lot of people on our committee, throughout the Senate--Democrats and Republicans--and from all parts of this country. We introduced our legislation with their help and help from every corner of the country, and it comes from State and local governments as well. In the coming months, I look forward to sharing more stories about how the America's Transportation Infrastructure Act can tackle complicated issues, improve our daily lives, and help us build the roads, highways, and bridges of the future. As bright as the chairman and I are on our committee--and our very able staff members like to think we are--I am confident that our bill can be improved as it moves through the legislative process in the months ahead. As I oftentimes say, if it isn't perfect, let's make it better. As good as what we have done is--and we are proud of our handiwork--we know it can be better, and we look forward to making it better. That begins tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. with a markup in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Before I close, I would be remiss if I failed to remind everyone that with respect to surface infrastructure, the 800-pound gorilla in the room is almost always, how are we going to pay for the improvements and the programs we all know we need? The fact is, as I have said, the highway trust fund is going broke, and, if we are honest with one another, our way of paying for it is broken too. So what should we do about it? It is important to note that our legislation will continue to fund the State-level vehicle-miles-traveled pilot programs established in the 2015 bill. I am especially pleased, however, that our legislation also includes a national vehicle-miles-traveled pilot program--the first of its kind. I believe that user fee-based approaches are generally the best way to fund our Nation's surface transportation system and that vehicle-miles-traveled systems, which seek to ensure that all road users pay their fair share, are the future. In the meantime, there needs to be a bridge to that future, and that bridge will not rely on a silver bullet but on what I refer to as a lot of silver BBs, some of which are bigger than others. With that, let me conclude by reiterating that Chairman Barrasso and I look forward to working closely with our colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee--a committee on which I am privileged to serve--to ensure that this bill is responsibly paid for. I have already begun to meet with several of our colleagues on the relevant committees of jurisdiction, and I am anxious to work with them and all of our colleagues as we face not just the dawning challenges that lie ahead but the opportunities as well. Winston Churchill once said, ``You can always count on America to do the right thing in the end, after trying everything else.'' If we pull together and work together in the House and Senate, as I believe we tend to do in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, then we can reach that end a good deal sooner than Mr. Churchill and a lot of the skeptics might otherwise expect. So why don't we show those skeptics what we can do? A great many Americans are counting on us to do just that, and we can't let them down. Again, I thank my staff, the staff of our Chairman Barrasso, and the staff of Senators Capito, Ben Cardin, and others on our committee for their excellent work and for negotiating in good faith throughout this year. Their spirit and dogged commitment are a big part of what brought us to where we are today. But we all know that the introduction of a solid bipartisan bill, even when it is followed the next day by a successful markup, we hope, in committee--we must acknowledge that it is just the beginning, but it is a good start, one that we and our colleagues can and I hope will build on, enabling us and America to seize the day. I don't know a lot of Latin, but I think Latin for ``seize the day'' is ``carpe diem,'' or as we say in Delaware, ``Carper diem.'' Thank you.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition today to the nomination of Peter Wright to serve as the Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management. I take little joy in opposing the nomination but do so for three reasons. Before I say those three reasons--I stood on this floor right up until the end of the last Congress, trying to get Peter Wright confirmed with a unanimous consent approach, and we failed at the very end. The irony of it is, having stood here and tried to get him confirmed at the end of the last Congress and today being in a position in which I am asking for us to postpone, at least for today, his nomination-- there is an irony there, and I don't have the time to go into all of the reasons, but I will mention a few of them. In the last Congress, I worked with the EPA to negotiate a set of significant policy concessions that I believe would have allowed the Senate minority to agree to a more expeditious confirmation process for Mr. Wright. I worked diligently until the closing of the last Congress--right until the bitter end, if you will--to achieve that objective, as I have done in good faith for other EPA nominees. In fact, the very last nominee confirmed in the last Congress was an EPA nominee to head the Agency's Tribal Office, Chad McIntosh. My staff and I and others were very much involved in getting him confirmed. In this Congress, EPA has refused to reengage with my office, with our committee staff, or with me on this nomination. The Agency no longer agrees to the policy concessions that I previously secured and to which they had previously committed in the last Congress. While this has been a real disappointment for me, unfortunately, it is hardly a surprise, given the increasingly extreme policy and tone of this EPA. Second, EPA, under Mr. Wright's leadership for the past year, has failed to advance an area of policy that is critical to me and to many other Senators, and that is the regulation of PFAS chemicals known as permanent chemicals. Per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, known as PFAS, are a class of manmade chemicals that includes something called PFOA, PFOS, GenX, and many other chemicals. Developed in the 1940s, PFAS can be found across industries in many products, including food packaging, nonstick pans, clothing, furniture, and firefighting foam used by the military. Just this week, Donald Trump said: ``We have the cleanest water we have ever had.'' The President has often made this statement while asserting his commitment to ensure that our drinking water is safe. In his confirmation hearing, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said: It is these Americans that President Trump and his Administration are focused on, Americans without access to safe drinking water or Americans living on or near hazardous sites, often unaware of the health risks that they and their families face. Many of these sites have languished for years, even decades. How can these Americans prosper if they cannot live, learn, or work in healthy environments? The answer is simple. They cannot. President Trump understands this and that is why he is focused on putting Americans first. That is from Andrew Wheeler, now our EPA Administrator. Yet under Peter Wright's leadership for the past year, EPA's Office of Land and Management has failed to heed these words. Peter Wright serves on a temporary basis without confirmation. I think we have a poster here that is relevant. A study released today by the Environmental Working Group identified 712 locations in 49 States that are contaminated with PFAS--712 locations in 49 States that are contaminated with PFAS--from coast to coast, from our Canadian border to the Gulf Stream waters. Just last year, the town of Blades in the southern part of Delaware alerted its 1,250 residents to stop using public water for drinking and cooking because of PFAS contamination at nearly twice the Federal health advisory level. Just an hour from Blades, up north on Route 13, officials at the Dover Air Force Base found that 36 of the 37 sampled ground water wells showed dangerously high levels of PFOS and PFOA, related to, we believe, the use of chemicals in firefighting foam at the base. It is not just Delaware. PFAS contamination is widespread, in red States, in blue States, in small water systems and large ones, on military sites and in residential areas, from Maine to Alaska. While industrial manufacturers and users of these chemicals are responsible for much of the contamination, it turns out that a principal user of PFAS was our military. I speak as a retired Navy Captain speaking here to a Presiding Officer who is a marine, and for us it is personal and part of our history in the military. But it turns out that a principal user of PFAS was the military, which used it as a firefighting foam, as I said earlier. In 1973, I was a young naval flight officer stationed at Moffett Field naval air station in California, and on a sunny April day, as I was driving into work from my home in Palo Alto, I saw a big, black plume of smoke rising above my base after, as it turned out, a massive NASA Convair jet descended on runway. We had parallel runways, and air traffic control had directed two aircraft to land on the same runway at the same time. As a result, the large NASA Convair jet descended on a runway where a P-3 aircraft--my sister squadron's aircraft--had already landed and was taxiing, and the larger aircraft literally landed on top of the smaller aircraft. It took over an hour for firefighters to control the blaze. Sixteen people died, and only one crewman on the P-3 survived. These were my brothers and sisters. These were my sister squadron mates. I understand that PFAS-containing foam has supported our military readiness and saved lives better than most, but the cruel irony is that when PFAS winds up in a glass on the kitchen table, these same chemicals endanger lives. The Environmental Working Group--that is the name of a group--has identified 117 military sites, including 77 airfields, with PFAS contamination because of the use of PFAS-containing foam to both train for and fight fires involving highly flammable jet fuels. Yet in many States, cleanup of these sites has been stalled, and the military has shockingly been part of the problem. In May of last year, 2018, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt held a PFAS National Leadership Summit and proudly announced four ``concrete steps'' that EPA would take to address PFAS contamination. The second of these four steps was that EPA would propose designating PFOA and PFOS--two of the most dangerous, troubling elements in this class of chemicals--as hazardous substances under the Superfund law. That was more than a year ago. Making that designation would compel the Defense Department to stop fighting cleanups in States all across the country. Indeed, in some cases, the Defense Department has justified its refusal to clean up PFAS contamination on grounds that the Superfund designation has not yet been made. Designating these substances as hazardous would also unleash EPA resources to address cleanups of orphan sites where there is no identified liable polluter. Despite Scott Pruitt's commitment to move forward with the designation of PFAS as a hazardous substance under the Superfund law, under Peter Wright's watch, EPA hasn't even proposed--has not even proposed--to do that, let alone finalize the action. At this rate, it will be at least another year, maybe longer, before this vital step will be taken. Americans deserve better than this, and they deserve greater urgency on this issue. Last month, the U.S. Senate, right here, passed its National Defense Authorization Act, which included several important bipartisan provisions to address PFAS contamination. Notably, I could not even secure an agreement to allow a vote on my amendment that would designate PFAS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law. I did not get a vote on my amendment, despite the fact that 35 Democratic and Republican cosponsors on bipartisan legislation clearly signaled their support for this policy. Meanwhile, EPA continues to drag its heels, acting with far more urgency to repeal environmental regulations than to clean up the water our government's own activities have inadvertently contaminated. Mr. Wright will have the ability to make this hazardous substances designation for PFAS if he is confirmed. Let me say that again. Mr. Wright will have the ability to make this hazardous substance designation for PFAS if he is confirmed. He should hear strongly from this Senate our collective desire that he urgently do so. It was my hope that, despite the many disagreements my colleagues and I have had with the Trump EPA on their views on climate change and some environmental rollbacks, there could at least be some commonsense agreement on the need to clean up widespread PFAS contamination. That has not been the case, at least thus far. Third, and finally, a late-breaking matter came to the committee's attention this week regarding an ethics investigation into Mr. Wright's financial disclosures. Chairman Barrasso and I received news from the White House Office of Government Ethics, known as OGE, that Mr. Wright, despite numerous written assurances to the contrary, held stock in DowDuPont at the time he filed his nominee financial disclosure report and continued to do so until this March 12, a couple of months ago. Although EPA believes that Mr. Wright has complied with all applicable ethics laws during that period of time, OGE, the Office of Government Ethics, asserts that it currently lacks the information necessary to make such a determination or to send a completed amendment to his ethics agreement and financial disclosure report to our committee. OGE, Office of Government Ethics, felt compelled to share this information with the EPW Committee because of its direct relevance to the Senate's consideration of Mr. Wright's nomination today. In light of the ongoing OGE investigation, I would implore my colleagues to delay the Senate's consideration of Mr. Wright's nomination for the time being. I don't suggest delaying consideration of this nominee lightly. Again, I was one of the key people standing in this Chamber back at the end of December trying to get this man confirmed. In fact, any delay in the Senate's confirmation and the Senate's consideration of Mr. Wright's nomination would not prevent him from continuing to serve in his current capacity, as he has done since he first arrived at EPA in an acting capacity on July 9, 2018. I strongly believe we must afford OGE--Office of Government Ethics-- and EPA the opportunity to complete their investigations into this matter and fully share all relevant information, for both the sake of Mr. Wright and for the Agency. If the facts are as described by EPA, then a completed investigation would be to Mr. Wright's benefit. Let me say that again. If the facts are as described by EPA, then a completed investigation would be to Mr. Wright's benefit. Let me close by saying, if, however, OGE and EPA reach a different conclusion, such information would be directly relevant to every Senator's deliberation when voting whether to confirm Peter Wright to the position of Assistant Administrator in the Office of Land and Emergency Management at EPA. From conversations I had with EPA yesterday, it is my understanding that EPA is working to get the relevant information to OGE to provide to the Senate. Proceeding with the consideration of this nomination while resolution of this ethics matter between EPA and OGE is pending I think deprives the Senate of important and relevant information. I have urged delaying this vote today. I would do so again. In the absence of that delay, along with the other reasons I mentioned, I will vote no on the motion to proceed to the nomination of Peter Wright. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two congressional fellows in Senator Udall's office, Caitlin Keating- Bitonti and Lindsay Coughtry, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 116th Congress.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee staff have privileges of the floor through July 31, 2019. Their names are Emma Runge, Kelsey Lessard, and Peter St. Amand.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, this Saturday is June 22. It is not just any June 22. It marks 75 years to the day that Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed into law one of the most significant pieces of legislation in our Nation's history. It was called, and is called, the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. We know it today as the GI bill. Since 1944, the GI bill has helped literally millions of not just servicemen but a lot of servicewomen. When you look at our Armed Forces today, there are a lot of servicewomen who serve in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and in the Coast Guard. I remember being a midshipman at the Ohio State Navy ROTC in the 1960s, and we had no women in our unit. There were no women in any ROTC unit in colleges across the country, as far as I know. There were no women who were nominated to attend armed service academies--the Naval Academy, Air Force Academy, Merchant Marine Academy. None of them had women. I got to my squadron on the west coast during the Vietnam war, and we had about 300 men in my squadron. About 10 percent were officers. The others were enlisted men. We had no women in my squadron. All that has changed. When you go to any college that has a ROTC unit today, they are allowing women in. In the academies, you find women. In my old squadron, we find women. They are not just E-1s, E-2s, and E-3s; they are O-4s, O-5s, O-6s, and they are doing a great job. The GI bill is for them too. Since 1944, the GI bill has helped millions of World War II veterans purchase a home, pay for a higher education or obtain job training and, in turn, transformed our Nation's economy. Our Presiding Officer, who has served our country in uniform, knows of what I speak. I was just off of Active Duty at the end of the Vietnam war and in Delaware when I finished up my MBA, which is financed in part by the GI bill. I had scraped enough money together to buy a house. I think it cost about $35,000. I didn't have $35,000, but with the help of the GI bill, I was able to get a mortgage and buy my first home, all those years ago. In the years since World War II, the GI bill has continued to change the lives of millions of veterans by spurring economic opportunity and helping to create the middle class as we know it today. That is why earlier this week I was proud to reintroduce a bipartisan resolution in the Senate, alongside my colleagues Senators Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Jon Tester of Montana. They are the chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which designates this week as National GI Bill Commemoration Week, celebrating the historical significance of the GI bill and renewing our commitment to improving the lives of our Nation's veterans for years to come. I want to share with you a couple of reasons why the GI bill is oftentimes referred to as the ``greatest legislation'' and share with you how it changed my life and really the life of my family. After World War II, millions of returning veterans flooded our Nation's colleges, our universities, and our vocational schools. It was the GI bill that made financial support, education, and homegrown programs available to those 16 million veterans returning home and helped to usher in an era of unprecedented economic expansion. According to the 1988 report from the Joint Economic Committee, it was estimated that for every $1 the United States invested in our GIs through the GI bill, about $7 were returned in economic growth for our country. I am going to say that again. According to the Joint Economic Committee in 1988, it was estimated, for every $1 the United States invested in the GI bill, about $7 were returned to our economy. It is a pretty good return. Those are big returns. I wish I could say for every dollar we invested in Federal Government spending that we got seven bucks back, in terms of economic growth. We don't. So this is something to know. Thanks to the original GI bill, 450,000 engineers, 240,000 accountants, 238,000 teachers, 91,000 scientists, 67,000 doctors, 112,000 dentists, and thousands of other professionals entered our country's workforce, and many folks entered the workforce with skills in building trades, in assembly operations. You name it. The GI bill truly democratized our higher education system. It established greater citizenship and civic participation and empowered the ``greatest generation''--my parents' generation--to lead our country following World War II. At the end of World War II, my dad was the chief petty officer in the Navy and served until the end of World War II and a little bit after that and served many years after that as a chief petty officer in the naval reserve for, I think, 30 years in all. He came back. Before he went to work, he took advantage of the GI bill, and he had a real knack for fixing things and building things. He was very skilled in that regard. He had a high school education. He and my mom graduated from Shady Springs High School in Beaver, WV. They were married during World War II. My sister was born in 1945, and I was born in 1947. My dad used the GI bill, he once told me, to learn how to fix wrecked cars, how to be an auto body repairman. He ended up working at an Oldsmobile dealership in Beckley, WV, Burleson Oldsmobile, using the skills he gained from the GI bill. He worked there for a year or two. One day, a claims adjuster came in from the Nationwide Insurance company. Nationwide insured a car that was being repaired by my dad. The claims adjuster talked to my dad about the car and how it was coming. Somewhere in that conversation, the fellow from Nationwide Insurance said: You know, you could do what I do. My dad said: You mean be a claims adjuster for Nationwide Insurance? The guy said: Yes, you could do this. You have a lot on the ball. Two years later, my father was a claims adjuster for Nationwide Insurance. He continued to repair wrecked cars as a hobby. We had any number of cars in our family that looked as good as new. He would take them on weekends and went to a garage and fixed them, painted them, and they were as good as new. Out of that humble beginning as a claims adjuster for Nationwide Insurance--he was very proud of the work he did, but he ended up 20, 25 years later as one of the top instructors for Nationwide in their home office in Columbus, OH, teaching all the claims adjusters from across the country for Nationwide how to do the job adjusting claims, working on claims. Here is a picture of my dad, Wallace Richard Carper. He went by Richard, his middle name, my middle name. He instructed a bunch of folks in the home office in the training school in Columbus, OH. Here he is with some of his compadres, some of the fellow teachers whom he worked with. It started with the GI bill. I know people who used the GI bill to get an undergraduate degree or 2-year degree, associate's degree, a master's degree, a Ph.D. Not everybody used the GI bill for that. My father used it in a way that actually ended up enabling him to not only get a good blue-collar job but also actually to end up doing this kind of work as well. I am proud of him and thankful to the GI bill for helping him get started and serve as a role model for my sister and me. My own career, I served 5 years on Active Duty as a midshipman, before that at Ohio State, and served 5 years in the Vietnam war, three tours in Southeast Asia. I wanted to stay in the Navy. I wanted to go to graduate school after my career. The Navy wasn't ready to send me to Monterey. I wanted to go to Monterey to graduate school. The Navy wasn't ready to send me to a postgraduate school. They said to come back and talk to them in a couple of years. I wanted to go to graduate school. I entered my regular commission, took a Reserve commission, and moved from California to Delaware--the University of Delaware--and enrolled on the GI bill to go to graduate school. The next weekend, after I showed up in Delaware, I drove up the road to Willow Grove Naval Air Station in Pennsylvania, north of Philadelphia, and they were just getting the Navy P-3 aircraft. I had been a P-3 aircraft mission commander during the Vietnam war. I said: Are you looking for people who might help train these sailors at Willow Grove on how to use these P-3 airplanes? He said: We need somebody. We need some help, and we are were happy to sign you up. I flew with them for another 18 years and retired as a Navy captain. Before I did those 18 years, I went to graduate school at the University of Delaware and earned an MBA, and that helped me go to work for the State of Delaware in economic development, right out of graduate school, and later had a chance to run for the State treasurer. Nobody wanted to run. In knowing I had an MBA from the University of Delaware, some people thought maybe I could be a pretty good State treasurer. We ended up starting with the worst credit rating in the country back in 1977, and 6 years later, we had doubled the credit rating. Pete du Pont was our Governor, and he was a great Governor. I hope I helped a little bit along the way. That GI bill helped me in earning my MBA and, later, to have had a chance to have served in the House, then as Governor, and now here in the Senate. So I am deeply grateful to the people of this country for investing in me. I tried to work hard to repay that investment they made in me all those years ago. Today's veterans can take advantage of the post-9/11 GI bill. It is an incredible benefit that pays the full cost of tuition at public colleges and universities, offers a generous housing allowance, and pays for books. It can even be transferred to veterans' spouses or children. In 2017, I was proud when Congress enacted the Forever GI bill-- legislation that expanded the GI bill and strengthened the protection for our veterans, for Purple Heart recipients, for National Guard reservists, and for surviving spouses and children. About 2 or 3 weeks ago, we had a send-off ceremony in the Delaware National Guard facility in Smyrna, DE, which is just north of Dover. There were 20 or so National Guard men and women. They were about to ship off for Iraq and other surrounding countries in that part of the world. In my remarks to send them off and wish them well, I mentioned, when they come home, they will be eligible for the GI bill if they have a total of 36 months of service, which will enable them to go to college for free--to the University of Delaware, to Delaware State University, or to the Delaware Technical Community College. There will be no tuition, and books will be paid for. If they need tutoring, it will be paid for, and they will receive a $2,000-a-month housing allowance. When we came back from Southeast Asia at the end of the Vietnam war, in the GI bill, we received a $250-a-month allowance for everything. That was it. It was all there. The GI bill that our veterans inherit today, receive today, is just incredibly generous and is, actually, very helpful in terms of recruiting people to serve in an all-volunteer military. One of the aspects of the bill that I mentioned a minute ago was, if a GI doesn't use his or her GI bill, his or her spouse can use it. If his or her spouse doesn't use it, his or her dependent children can use it. Sometimes that happens, and I want to share one sad but, in the end, hopeful story about one servicemember's GI benefits. His name was Christopher Slutman. He grew up not too far from Delaware, but he ended up serving in New York City as a fireman and had been one for 15 years. In the words of Winston Churchill, he was twice a citizen because, in addition to doing that, he served in the Reserves for a number of years--not in the Navy but in the Marines. His unit was activated. He was activated, and he ended up in Afghanistan on Active Duty. He took leave from his day job as a firefighter in New York City to put on a different uniform and ship out with his colleagues to go to Afghanistan. He was serving there on Active Duty--a marine reservist activated--when, one day while on patrol within the Humvee, they ran across a bomb that exploded and killed him, Christopher Slutman, and killed two other marines who were in the vehicle. Along with Chris Coons, my colleague here in the Senate; Lisa Blunt Rochester, our only Representative at large of the U.S. House of Representatives; our Governor, John Carney; the Secretary of Defense; the head of the Marine Corps; and a lot of other people, several days later, I stood on the flight line at Dover Air Force Base with the families of those three marines who died. One of the people among the three families was Christopher Slutman's now widow. Shannon Metcalf Slutman was there, who has earned three degrees herself--her undergraduate from the University of Delaware, a master's degree, and a doctorate degree--and her three daughters were not. I think it was late at night. They were probably at home and probably in bed. When Christopher Slutman died, he left behind a widow, and he left behind three little girls, ages 4, 8, and 10. His wife doesn't need to go to school any further. She is educated well beyond my dreams. Do you know what, though? They have three daughters, and we are going to make sure, when they are old enough to go to college, they will be able to inherit and use the GI bill's benefits that their father and their mother will never use. A lot of times, we think about what the GI bill does to help servicemembers like me and like my dad, but it also helps a lot of families in ways we, maybe, never imagined. So I think we celebrate 75 years of the gift that this legislation provides to those survivors, like to the three Slutman girls, as they prepare to face the world without their father. In closing, I am proud to join families across our country today in celebration of the importance of the GI bill over the last three- quarters of a century. It has enabled hundreds of thousands of veterans, including, as I said earlier, my dad and me, to pursue our dreams and to, hopefully, contribute in some way to our Nation and to our economy. This week, we reaffirm our commitment to making sure that all veterans today have similar experiences--maybe even better experiences--than we had and that they get the most out of their hard- earned GI bill benefits. I ask all of my colleagues to join us today, here in this Chamber and across the country, in wishing the GI bill a happy 75th birthday. Here is to another 75 years of improving the lives of our Nation's veterans. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. While the Senator from Oregon is here, I just want to say he mentioned we have a very fine planet, and God knows we do, but it is also the only planet we have, and I think for certainly everybody who serves in this body--and maybe some of these young pages will have the opportunity someday to live on another planet but probably not. The President of France was just down the hall 2 years ago. I am sure Senator Merkley remembers it. President Macron addressed us on a variety of subjects, but one of those was the future of our plant. He said these words. I will never forget them. He said: We only get one planet, planet Earth. There is no planet B. This is it. He reminded us of our obligation, really a moral obligation, to take care of this gift from God that he has entrusted into our care. It is in that spirit that I am pleased to rise today with Senator Merkley and other colleagues to speak out against the so-called Affordable Clean Energy rule that repeals and replaces the Clean Power Plan from the previous administration. As I said when this rule was proposed in, I think, August of last year--and our colleague, given where he is from in America, maybe they say this in his State too--but we have a saying here that you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. I said at the time when this rule was introduced that the only thing that has changed from the proposal to the final rule is maybe a little more lipstick. The Trump EPA rule promotes neither affordable energy nor clean energy. What it actually does is it attempts to scam the American people into believing that the EPA is doing something to stem the tide of climate change. I think this poster probably speaks well to that thought, but this proposal, I think, is a failure of vision, and I think it is an abdication of leadership in our fight against climate change. We need to fight this problem head-on. The fact that our climate is warming, the fact that we have this extreme weather, whether it happens to be in the Midwest with floods, the Northwest with wildfires the size of my State, whether it happens to be in the number of category 5 hurricanes that we are seeing, extreme weather--literally within an hour or so of here, Ellicott City, where they have had two 1,000-year floods in 18 months. My wife and I were out in Palo Alto, CA, last weekend for the graduation of our oldest son from business school, and the week before we arrived there, he told us that the temperature in the Bay Area, where I used to be stationed in the Navy during the Vietnam war, he said that the temperature reached 104 degrees. I don't ever remember it ever reaching 94 degrees in the years I was stationed in Moffett Field Naval Air Station. Something is going on here, and it is serious. I think we have a pretty good idea what is causing this, and we need to fight this challenge head-on. The good news is this doesn't have to be something to divide us as a nation. It doesn't have to be something that divides us as Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't have to be something that divides us with respect to the rest of the world. This is something that should unite us. There is an old saying that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Well, the enemy of a world that has all this crazy weather, extreme weather-- and maybe in a lot of places in the internal part of our country you don't see what we see. What we see is that my State is sinking. Delaware is the lowest lying State in America. We are sinking, and the seas around us are rising. That is not a very good combination. Folks who don't happen to live on our coast--I was born in West Virginia, grew up in other parts of the country, but for us it is real. It is not just something that is esoteric. We see it every day. The science behind climate change is, I believe, settled. Climate change is real. It is happening. It is a growing threat to our country, and it is getting worse every year. Climate change is leading to rising global temperatures, rising sea levels, more frequent and severe weather events such as hurricanes, rainfall measured by the foot, not by the inch, and drought-fueled wildfires, as I said earlier, the size of my State. The more I hear about these extreme weather events, the more I am reminded of the story in the Old Testament. I think it is in the book of Exodus, where you may recall that Moses gets a call from on high to lead the people of Israel out of Egypt where they are in bondage. He tells God: God, I am not a very good public speaker, and I don't think you have the right guy to do this. The Lord said to him: You have a brother, Aaron, who is a real good speaker, a real good talker. Why don't the two of you sort of lead this effort together? So, urged by the Almighty, the two brothers visited the pharaoh who was running the show in Egypt. They called on him and said: We are here to ask you to let our people go. Set us free. Pharaoh was stubborn. He rejected their plea, and there were consequences to that rejection. I think there were about 10 different plagues that were brought to bear on Egypt in an effort to try to convince the pharaoh to let the people go, like the hordes of locusts that covered the land. Moses and Aaron would go back to see the pharaoh and would say: We want you to let our people go. The pharaoh would say, basically: Get out of here. Then, after that, snakes would come out and appear everywhere, all over the land. They would go back and see the pharaoh, and he would say: Get out of here. Lizards came out of the rivers and covered the land, and they went back to see the pharaoh, and he said: Get out of here. Finally, the river was turned to blood, and they went back to see him, and he said: Get out of here. Finally, after the 10th plague, he changed his tune. The 10th plague, as you may recall, if you remember the Old Testament--the 10th plague was the firstborn sons of every Egyptian family died. That time when Moses and Aaron showed up to see the pharaoh, he said: Why don't you leave. Take all your people and your stuff and just leave, and they left--and they left. Our President's dismissal of the extreme weather that is associated with the unrelenting worsening reality of climate change reminds me of the pharaoh's dismissal of the plagues unleashed on the people of Israel 2,000 years ago. The pharaoh was dismissive. This President is dismissive. We have seen this movie before. In this movie version of it, our President is playing the role of pharaoh, and we need to make sure we don't succumb to that. The Obama-Biden administration finalized the Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon pollution and try to stem the tide of climate change. The Clean Power Plan established the very first Federal targets to reduce carbon emissions from our Nation's electric powerplants, which at the time were the largest source of carbon pollution in our country not that long ago. The rule was not developed on a whim. The Clean Power Plan was finalized after a lengthy rulemaking process, which was 2 years or longer in the making. They considered over 3.5 million public comments, and I am told they responded to every one of them. The Clean Power Plan set real carbon reduction targets for each State but gave flexibility and time for States to meet these individualized standards. EPA estimated the Clean Power Plan would have achieved over $54 billion--that is billion with a ``b''--in health and climate benefits if fully implemented. The Clean Power Plan provided long-term certainty for U.S. businesses, helping American companies make smart investments at home and compete in the global energy market around the world. When finalized, critics of the Clean Power Plan--and there were plenty of them--argued the plan's carbon targets were too ambitious. That is only about 4 or 5 years ago. Critics swore that every American consumer who relies on electricity to keep the lights on would soon be in dire straits. Administrator Wheeler echoed these false claims just yesterday. Today, we know just how wrong the Clean Power Plan critics were. Even though the Clean Power Plan was never fully implemented, States and utilities went ahead and started making investments in order to meet the plan's carbon standards. They began acting in a way that said: We believe this is the way we are actually going to go as a country, and we need to get onboard. As with other clean air regulations, America's utilities have been able to find ways to meet the carbon reduction targets faster and much cheaper than originally estimated. When George Herbert Walker Bush was President, he pushed for a cap-and-trade approach to reducing acid rain in the northeastern part of our country. It was killing all of our forests, and he came up with a plan to reduce acid rain cap and trade. People said: It is going to cost too much; it is going to take too long. At the end of the day, it cost less than half of what it was supposed to cost, and I think it was accomplished in about one-third of the time. Today, our Nation's utilities are already on track to meet and surpass the goals set by the Clean Power Plan way ahead of schedule-- not on schedule but way ahead of schedule--because even though the Clean Power Plan was held up in court, it sent clear signals to the utility industry of this country. All the while, the vast majority of Americans are now enjoying lower utilities--let me say that again. They are enjoying lower utility bills, not higher, and more than 3 million Americans are now going to work in the clean energy sector every day, which includes jobs in renewable energy generation and energy efficiency. Despite the revolutionary changes in our energy sector, leading climate scientists are now telling us that we need to do even more to protect American lives and our economy from the threats of climate change. In the past year alone, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued an alarming report that concluded that if the global community does not enact ``rapid and far-reaching'' carbon reduction policies in the next decade, we could face irreversible damage to our planet as soon as 2040. Just 6 months ago, 13 Federal agencies under the Trump administration concluded unanimously that if this country does not take more drastic actions to address climate change, every major sector of our economy could be negatively affected by climate change by the turn of the century--every one. Some sectors are expected to see hundreds of billions of dollars of loss every year. My recollection is, in the last year alone, we have suffered damages from extreme weather in our country that add up to hundreds of billions of dollars in 1 year alone. What a science-based agency like EPA should be doing is building off of Obama's forward-looking carbon reduction vision and strengthening the Clean Power Plan standards, not weakening them. But even though utilities are on track to meet carbon reduction targets and scientists are warning us to keep our foot on the gas pedal, the Trump administration, sadly, is hitting the brakes. What this EPA has done fails to heed the warnings of climate scientists by weakening the Obama-Biden carbon standards put into place almost 4 years ago. The Clean Power Plan set clear targets for States to achieve a 32-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by 2030. Let me say that again. The Clean Power Plan set clear targets for States to achieve an almost one-third reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by 2030. In comparison, the Trump proposal fails to set any real carbon emission standards for the power sector. It fails to set any real carbon emission standards for the power sector. This new proposed rule provides States with a menu of options for making coal-fired powerplants operate more efficiently, allowing States to decide whether to make coal plants implement those options. This means States could do nothing to clean up their powerplant emissions-- nothing. Add it up, and the dirty power scam fails to drive down powerplant carbon emissions. According to EPA's own analysis, this rule is, at best, going to keep powerplant carbon emissions at status quo levels. At worst, there are credible reports that show the scam may well result in an increase in carbon emissions. Like all climate change policies by President Trump, the dirty power scam also fails to advance the American clean energy economy. Instead, this rule tries to take our country back to a decade ago, when this country relied much more heavily on dirty coal generation. EPA Administrator Wheeler even touted the dirty power scam as a way to support more coal energy production in the United States. But ask any utility CEO or investor. America's future is not in dirty coal; it is in clean energy. As a native of West Virginia whose family members once worked in coal mines, let me say this. There are 50,000 people who work in coal mines in this country today, and those jobs are going down. Today, there are 3 million people who work in sustainable energy and clean energy and conservation businesses, and for each of those 50,000 miners, we have an obligation to them and their families. If they lose their employment opportunities because we are moving to cleaner, carbon-free air, we have an obligation to help them in terms of transitioning and training for other jobs that are available. We have 3 million jobs today in this country that nobody showed up to do because they don't have the skills, the education, or the desire to do those jobs. Coal miners could do a number of jobs. People who work in coal mines could build windmills. They could build solar fields. They can do all kinds of stuff. They can build clean corridors for our transportation, fueling electric-powered vehicles across the highways across America. They could build hydrogen fueling stations. They can do all kinds of stuff. Today, our utilities are making investments that will last 40 to 60 years, if not longer. We should be providing the right market signals today for a clean energy economy tomorrow. The dirty power scam doesn't do that. What it does is create business uncertainty for our Nation's utilities and States grappling with the effects of climate change. To recap, if I could, the dirty power scam does three things, regrettably: It fails to heed the warnings of climate scientists; it fails to drive down powerplant carbon emissions; and it fails to advance a clean energy economy. Referring again to the failure of vision and leadership, that is why the dirty power scam is a failure of vision and an abdication of leadership in our fight against climate change. Repealing the Clean Power Plan and replacing it with a rule as ill-conceived as the dirty power scam will have serious consequences for the health of the public, our economy, and our planet. It is also a clear retreat from the EPA's responsibility to tackle the greatest environmental crises we face on our planet today, and those are climate change and the extreme weather that flows from it. The people of this country deserve a strong economy. They deserve more job creation. They deserve cleaner air. They deserve better environmental quality. The American people and our neighbors around the world deserve a healthy planet that we can call home. The American people deserve better than the dirty power scam, plain and simple. My colleagues and I are going to do everything in our power to make sure that the people of this country ultimately get the climate protection they deserve. The last thing I would say before yielding back to Senator Merkley is that the issue of climate change is not something that should divide us. Ultimately, this is something that should unite us, not just within this body, not just within this country, but around the world. That is my hope and prayer because, at the end of the day, we can clean our air, we can clean our water, we can combat climate change, and we can create a lot of jobs--a lot more than the 3 million jobs we have already seen created. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I am once again introducing legislation to allow the District of Columbia to receive funding and other benefits under the Coastal Zone Management Act. I am pleased to offer this companion legislation to a bill, H.R. 2185, introduced by the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton. Few of us realize that 70 percent of the District is located within the coastal plain. Similar to my State of Delaware, sea level rise, upstream sources of water, degraded infrastructure, and coastal subsidence mean that the District could experience serious future cleanup and repair costs due to flooding--including damage to federal property, which makes up almost 30 percent of the District. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that since 1950, nuisance flooding has increased by more than 300% in the District. And, since 2006, DC has experienced two 100-year flooding events, and District officials estimate that a future 100-year flood event could cause over $1.2 billion in damages. Needless to say, these events will become more and more common due to climate change-- including rising sea levels--and coastal subsidence. The District of Columbia would use funding from the Coastal Zone Management Program for flood risk planning and environmental restoration to prevent and mitigate future flood damage. At the same time, this work would help to restore and conserve the District's coastal resources such as habitat, fisheries, and endangered species. If included in the Coastal Zone Management Program, the District of Columbia would be eligible for $1 million or more of federal funding annually to assist in coastal flood-control projects, to combat non- point source water pollution, and to develop special area management plans in areas experiencing environmental justice and/or flooding issues. The National Coastal Zone Management Program, housed in NOAA, was established through the passage of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. At the time, Congress recognized the need to manage the effects of increased growth in the nation's coastal zone, which includes jurisdictions bordering the oceans and the Great Lakes. There are currently 34 jurisdictional coastal zone management programs, including both States and territories. In order for the District of Columbia to participate in the program, Congress must pass this amendment to the Coastal Zone Management Act that would include the District under the definition of a ``coastal state.''

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I am once again introducing legislation to allow the District of Columbia to receive funding and other benefits under the Coastal Zone Management Act. I am pleased to offer this companion legislation to a bill, H.R. 2185, introduced by the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton. Few of us realize that 70 percent of the District is located within the coastal plain. Similar to my State of Delaware, sea level rise, upstream sources of water, degraded infrastructure, and coastal subsidence mean that the District could experience serious future cleanup and repair costs due to flooding--including damage to federal property, which makes up almost 30 percent of the District. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that since 1950, nuisance flooding has increased by more than 300% in the District. And, since 2006, DC has experienced two 100-year flooding events, and District officials estimate that a future 100-year flood event could cause over $1.2 billion in damages. Needless to say, these events will become more and more common due to climate change-- including rising sea levels--and coastal subsidence. The District of Columbia would use funding from the Coastal Zone Management Program for flood risk planning and environmental restoration to prevent and mitigate future flood damage. At the same time, this work would help to restore and conserve the District's coastal resources such as habitat, fisheries, and endangered species. If included in the Coastal Zone Management Program, the District of Columbia would be eligible for $1 million or more of federal funding annually to assist in coastal flood-control projects, to combat non- point source water pollution, and to develop special area management plans in areas experiencing environmental justice and/or flooding issues. The National Coastal Zone Management Program, housed in NOAA, was established through the passage of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. At the time, Congress recognized the need to manage the effects of increased growth in the nation's coastal zone, which includes jurisdictions bordering the oceans and the Great Lakes. There are currently 34 jurisdictional coastal zone management programs, including both States and territories. In order for the District of Columbia to participate in the program, Congress must pass this amendment to the Coastal Zone Management Act that would include the District under the definition of a ``coastal state.''

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, years before President Trump moved to the White House, even before President Obama and his family lived there, our Nation was at odds with an isolated country ruled by a repressive leader. It wasn't long before it became clear to the United Nations and to our country's own intelligence community that the country I am speaking of was enriching uranium for the purpose of obtaining a nuclear weapon, threatening to destabilize a region of great strategic importance. As the world was winding down from a cold war, tensions between the United States and this country were heating up. An administration that some would call naive recently attempted to deescalate tensions, taking an unprecedented step to hold out an olive branch to an unpredictable regime in hopes of reaching a momentous agreement to stop them from continuing to enrich uranium. Surprisingly, that President trusted and was willing to give unprecedented concessions, all without any reliable mechanism to verify whether the nuclear enrichment had indeed ended. My Republican colleagues would be surprised to hear me say this today, especially today, a week after the anniversary of the U.S. decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal. They are right to be surprised because I am not talking about Iran; I am talking about North Korea. I am not talking about President Barack Obama; I am talking about Donald Trump. Donald Trump was willing to sit down with a criminal dictator and give away unprecedented concessions in the hopes that North Korea would abandon its nuclear program. On the other hand, he turned his back on Iran, a large country with a growing moderate population--roughly 75 million people, the majority of which, the last I checked, are under the age of 25--and a moderate President. Let me be really clear. There are some bad actors in Iran, and some of them are in powerful positions. But, unfortunately, the actions of this administration, unlike the actions of the last administration, the Obama administration--here is what they sought to do. They sought to diminish the extremists, the hardliners, and their sway over what happens in Iran and at the same time bolster a new generation of Iranians who are growing up, who are more moderate in nature and, frankly, who would like to have a better relationship with our country. Sadly, President Trump turned his back on Iran and looked forward to taking a different course--a different course for sure. Unlike North Korea, Iran committed 2 years ago to unprecedented, invasive inspections under a deal called JCPOA. On July 14, 2015, after years of careful preparation, the Obama administration began implementing the JCPOA with Iran and five negotiating partners--Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China--in an effort to end Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons for years and, possibly, if we are lucky, forever. The deal was not based on trust; it was based on mistrust-- mistrust. There is a Ronald Reagan line that says: ``Trust, but verify.'' That is not the underlying principle with the Iran deal, the JCPOA. It is mistrust, but verify. That is the theme that underlies the JCPOA. Under that agreement, Iran was required to end uranium enrichment for nuclear purposes and would be subject to invasive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA. To the surprise of many, they had apparently held up their end of the bargain until now. We pulled out of the JCPOA a year ago. Our other negotiating partners stayed in, and the IAEA recently certified for the 14th time in a row-- I think in February of this year--that Iran has complied with the terms of the agreement, the letter and spirit of the agreement that we pulled out of a year ago. We are the only one who has pulled out of it to date. The IAEA itself says that the inspection regime laid out by this agreement, the JCPOA, is the world's toughest--the world's toughest. Here is the bottom line. Because of the JCPOA, Iran is much further away from developing a nuclear weapon today than it was before the deal was signed several years ago. However, as I said earlier, we have not held up our end of the bargain. One year ago, President Trump announced that this country would unilaterally leave the JCPOA, even though the IAEA certified for the 14th time in a row, this year, that Iran has complied with the terms of the agreement. But we pulled out, leaving our allies, who committed to the deal in good faith, in the lurch. This decision we made, I think regrettably a year ago, had consequences. Instead of celebrating continued stability provided by the Iran nuclear deal last week, Iran's President, President Rouhani, announced that Iran will begin to end its compliance with some portions of the JCPOA, including by stockpiling enriched uranium and heavy water. As I said at that time, President Trump's decision increased the odds of armed conflict with Iran while doing nothing to constrain their other malicious activities in the region. Again, make no mistake. Not everybody in Iran wants to be our friend. Mostly young people want to be our friends, and a lot of folks who have been elected to office over there would like to have a friendly, better relationship with this country. But there are some who do not, and I fully acknowledge that. Today, thanks to President Trump's appointment of John Bolton to be our National Security Advisor--the President's National Security Advisor--we are seeing that prediction come truer than I could have imagined. Last month, the Trump administration designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization, further antagonizing Iran. Members of the Trump administration are reportedly mulling over a plan to refuse to issue sanctions waivers to our European allies who intend to purchase oil from Iran, and the administration has reportedly drawn up plans to send 120,000 of our troops to the Middle East in response to alleged increased threats from Iran. But our allies in the region and around the world, including the French, the Brits, and the Germans, say that they have seen no such threat. All of this is happening in the absence of a Senate-confirmed Secretary of Defense. Earlier this week, I was out for a run a couple of miles from here. If you run from the Capitol down to the Lincoln Memorial and then turn around and sort of head back this way, you run by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Whenever I run alongside the memorial, I take my left hand, and with my fingers, I touch the names of 55,000 men and women who died in that war. I served with them. I am the last Vietnam veteran serving in the Senate. They died, and many of us risked our lives over a war that was based--really, premised--on an untruth; some would say a lie. In August 1964, then-President Lyndon Johnson announced that the North Vietnamese had engaged the U.S. Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin, and he asked Congress to pass a resolution supporting retaliatory attacks. The following day, he added these words to his request: ``The United States intends no rashness and seeks no wider war.'' Those were his words in August 1964. His administration went on to justify a bloody, almost decades-long war after that on the basis of that document--55,000 of my colleagues, my shipmates, my fellow marines, our soldiers, our airmen--55,000-- dead. We had a similar situation in Iraq. It did not involve the Gulf of Tonkin. It did not involve ships. It really didn't involve the Vietnamese. But there were allegations and assertions that the Iraqis were developing weapons of mass destruction. The President, the Vice President--in that case, Bush and Cheney--the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State all asserted that the Iraqis were developing weapons of mass destruction and called on this Congress to give the President the power to respond appropriately. There are 55,000 names on the Vietnam memorial wall. There is no wall for the 4,100 men and women who died in Iraq after Congress provided President Bush the authority to respond to the alleged, perceived threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. While there is no wall on which to write those 4,100 names, those names are written in graveyards in every State in this country--4,100 men, women, some young and some old, who laid down their lives on what was really based on a lie--weapons of mass destruction. I want to say that lie was chiefly perpetrated, if I am not mistaken, by a fellow named John Bolton and that administration. Fast forward to today. We have seen this movie before. Thanks to John Bolton's rash actions in the Mideast, I can see it happening again. I don't want to see it happen again. I have been to too many funerals of people, servicemembers from Delaware, who died in Iraq. I don't want to go to any more. I don't want to have to visit any more spouses, children, parents, brothers, and sisters, as we have done in recent years with families who have been crushed by sorrow flowing from our engagement in Iraq. John Bolton has agitated for war with Iran for over a decade. He even wrote an op-ed about it. The op-ed was entitled: ``To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran.'' Under Mr. Bolton's leadership, the Trump administration's Iran policy is becoming ever more dangerous and ever more isolated from our traditional allies. This strategy could very well plunge us into another foreign war, if not corrected. This needless escalation is no way to conduct our foreign policy or to safeguard our national security. What is more, the administration's actions with respect to Iran haven't just increased the odds of an armed conflict. They have also damaged the credibility of our country around the world. If the United States cannot be trusted to uphold our commitments to those with whom we negotiate, there is little reason to believe that other countries, let alone nuclear-armed ones like North Korea, would be willing to negotiate with us in good faith. Now, there is another option here. Yesterday former U.S. Ambassador Wendy Sherman published an op-ed in the New York Times in which she wrote the following: But war is not inevitable. President Trump campaigned on bringing troops home, not sending tens of thousands more to the Middle East. Such a deployment, although inadequate for a full-scale war, is more than foolish. War in the Middle East, as we should have learned by now, is neither swift to end nor sure to achieve its purpose. Reformists in Iran have expressed an interest in diplomatic solutions with the United States and our allies, including a possible prisoner exchange. The foreign minister of Iran, whom I first met a dozen years or so ago at the Iranian Ambassador's residence in New York City--not the Ambassador to the United States but the Ambassador to the United Nations, a fellow name Javad Zarif. It turned out that when I met him, I was impressed with how well-spoken he was. It turns out he had gone to undergraduate school at San Francisco State, I believe, in California. He is a really smart guy. He is not only well spoken but knew a lot about America and spoke English as well as any of us in the room. He went to graduate school in Denver, CO, and he ended up here as the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations. Later, when Ahmadinejab left office--Ahmadinejab was a bad guy, a really bad guy, and was President of Iran before Ruhani--Ahmadinejab sent Zarif back home, got him out of the United States, got him back to Iran, and he sort of disappeared until the new elections. Ruhani emerged as the more moderate--kind of a Gorbachev-type guy, really-- leader in Iran and said: Zarif, I would like you to be my foreign minister. That is like being their Secretary of State, a position that he still holds. Not long ago, about a couple of weeks ago, in that role, he suggested that we do a prisoner swap. We hold a number of people of Iranian descent who are in this country. They hold about a half dozen or so of our folks, I think mostly with dual citizenship, in their country. Foreign Minister Zarif said: Why don't we just do a straight-out prisoner swap? That would actually be a good start to maybe tamping down the rhetoric and to see if we can't find common ground with Iran again. During the 8 years of previous administrations, our foreign policy was designed to strengthen the standing of the moderates in Iran and to undermine the power of the hard-liners in that country. Actually, it worked--not perfectly, but it worked. The elections that they conducted a couple of years ago--6 years ago--reflect that. Sadly, this administration--I can't believe they did it intentionally, but their policy in the last just 2 years or a little over 2 years--what they have done is to undermine the effectiveness and the standing of the moderates in Iran, and they have rallied support of Iran around the extremists and around the hard-liners. It is just the opposite of what was done in the last administration. We have to be smarter than that. We have to be smarter than this. When I think about the contrast between the Trump administration's actions in North Korea and Iran, I can't help but wonder why there is such a stark contrast? I would not trust the leader of North Korea any further than I could throw him, and for this President to embrace this guy and to trust him in ways that befuddle me--and, I think, a lot of other folks, including folks in his party--is beyond me. But why has this administration been so determined to abrogate a carefully crafted deal that keeps Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon? Why will President Trump not work to ensure the freedom of Americans held in Iran? Well, part of the answer is provided by Thomas Friedman, a highly regarded famous journalist whose column appears from time to time in national newspapers. Tom Friedman wrote, a year or so ago, something called the ``Trump Doctrine.'' I think it provides an answer to the question: Why has President Trump been so determined to get us out of the JCPOA and to embrace a leader like the one we have over in North Korea? The ``Trump Doctrine'' from Tom Friedman goes something like this. He said: ``Obama built it, I broke it''--``I,'' being Trump--``you''-- including us here in this body--``fix it.'' That is it. ``Obama built it, I''--Donald Trump--``broke it--you''--the rest of us--``fix it.'' I think my colleagues would agree that it would be a travesty if the President's determination to destroy President Obama's achievement--an achievement shared by others in this country and by our allies and friends in, among other places, Britain, France, and Germany--but our President's determination to destroy Barack Obama's achievement, the achievements of his administration--in this case, the Iran nuclear deal--led us into another endless war in the Middle East. I urge President Trump, as he has done in the case of North Korea, to engage in diplomacy and ratchet down tensions with Iran, rather than engaging in needless provocation. Mr. President, you meet with the President more than I do, but some of the times I have been with him in the last 2 years, whenever he mentions George W. Bush, in the same breath he talks about how he got us into a war that cost us thousands of lives and has cost literally tens of billions of dollars--the Iraq war. So that would suggest to me that the idea of drawing more troops and a whole lot more money into a war with Iran has to be something you do with care. So on this 1-year anniversary of the Trump administration's pulling out of the Iran deal--I think, foolishly doing so--I would urge the President and his advisers to think carefully about what outcomes we really seek as a country. We should be prioritizing diplomacy at this time, not escalating tensions and risking war with American lives with no coherent strategy. It is my hope that cooler heads will prevail. It is also in America's best interest that they do. John Kennedy said a lot of things that are memorable, and one of my favorites is this: ``Never negotiate out of fear, but never be afraid to negotiate.'' ``Never negotiate out of fear, but never be afraid to negotiate.'' I think we would be wise to remember those words with respect to Iran. The last thing I would say to the Presiding Officer, who is former military, is this. When I finish speaking, you are going to be succeeded by a Marine colonel who serves here from Alaska. We know people we serve with people who have given their lives up in combat in wars far away around the world. We are very proud in Delaware. The Dover Air Force Base may be the best airlift base in the world. There are 5,000 or 6,000 people who work there, mostly uniformed, and big planes, C-5s and C-17s. Maybe it is the best airlift base in the world. Dover Air Force Base is also home to a mortuary. A month ago, the bodies of three marines, one of whom is from Delaware, were brought back to this country. In this case, their vehicle in Afghanistan was blown up by a roadside bomb, and we lost three of them just like that. They are not the first, and, sadly, they will not be the last members of our Armed Services to come home. For one of the marines, Christopher Slutman, his body came home to his wife Shannon and to their three daughters, ages 4, 8, and 10. I have seen this movie before. I have seen it at Dover Air Force Base with countless bodies that have come back from overseas. I think about those kids every day, and I am sure my colleagues think about the men and the women from their States who have served, in some cases, with great courage and valor. But the idea that 55,000 of those colleagues of mine who served in Vietnam in a war that was premised on a lie and 4,100 are buried in graveyards all over this country--we have to be smarter than that. We owe it to not just the families of those men and women who have died but to the ones who serve today and their families. ``Never negotiate out of fear, but never be afraid to negotiate.'' I yield the floor.