Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I say to our colleagues that I stand before you today as a Vietnam veteran--5 years of naval service during the hot war in Southeast Asia, trying to make sure that the force of communism was stopped. I served another 18 years beyond that, right to the end of the Cold War, as a naval flight officer and retired as a Navy captain. I am not a socialist. I am somebody who cares deeply about this planet. I am someone who believes it is possible to have clean air, clean water, better public health, and to foster economic growth. As it turns out, there are a lot of companies in this country that believe the same thing. They believe the same thing. A lot of them build cars, trucks, and vans. They want a 50-State deal on fuel efficiency standards, CAFE standards, and tailpipe standards. They want a 50-State deal so they don't have to build a car for 13 or 14 different States and then a different kind of car or truck for the rest of the country. They don't want to do that. They want certainty and predictability so they can build one model for one car. They want to be able to be successful in competing in the world marketplace in the next 10, 20, or 30 years. We need someone leading the Environmental Protection Agency who believes that it is possible to have cleaner air and, frankly, to foster economic growth in the auto companies. That is what the auto companies want. They are not socialists. They are free-marketers. There is something called HFCs, or hydrofluorocarbons. It is a terrible pollutant for the environment. It is 1,000 times worse than carbon for our global warming challenges. There are a bunch of American businesses that have new technology to replace HFCs. They want to be able not just to develop it, but they want to able to sell it all over the world. The marketplace is $1 trillion, and we are holding it back. Unfortunately, the person whom we are going to be voting on here today to be our EPA Administrator is part of holding us back because he will not agree to a treaty that the administration wants to put forward. It is crazy. Those companies that developed the follow-on products to HFCs-- Honeywell, Chemours, and others--are not socialists. They are business people. They want a piece of the international market, and they want to do good things for the climate at the same time. I just want to say to my colleagues: We can do both. We can have clean air. We can have clean water. We can have strong economic growth. We need somebody running the EPA who actually believes in that too. I am sorry to say here today that right now I don't believe it is Andrew Wheeler, and I say that with no joy. Thank you very much.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 2 minutes, please.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, during the debate on the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency I came to the floor to express concerns on a number of issues, including EPA's regulation of per- and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances--PFAS. PFAS are a class of man-made 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. These chemicals have a long and tragic history-- suffice it to say that their widespread use resulted too many Americans without access to safe drinking water. This very issue is a matter of some controversy as EPA has failed to provide meaningful and swift action on these chemicals under this administration. That is why I am here today to introduce a bipartisan bill to designate PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under the Federal superfund law. The Carper-Capito-Peters-Tillis-Stabenow-Rubio- Merkley-Gardner-Reed-Murkowski-Shaheen-Burr-Bennet-Manchin bill will force EPA to begin the rulemaking process to protecting Americans from overexposure to these harmful chemicals and hold polluters accountable. It is very similar to legislation that has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Debbie Dingell. In his confirmation hearing, Andrew Wheeler said, and I quote: 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 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. One would think those words might mean that there could be some common ground at least on addressing PFAS. After all, who wouldn't agree that we should be acting with urgency to address contamination from these hazardous chemicals? According to one 2017 study, drinking water supplies for 6 million U.S. residents have exceeded the EPA's lifetime health advisory for these chemicals. Another 2018 study performed by the Environmental Working Group reports that up to 110 million Americans could have PFAS-contaminated water. In 2016, the Department of Defense announced that it was assessing the risk of groundwater contamination from firefighting foam at dozens of fire and crash testing sites across the country. It is likely that they are all contaminated. Just last year, the town of Blades in my home State of Delaware alerted its 1,250 residents, as well as businesses and schools that use public water, to stop using public water for drinking an cooking because PFAS chemicals were present at nearly twice the Federal health advisory level. Reportedly, 36 of 67 sampled groundwater wells on Dover Air Force Base showed dangerously high levels of PFOA and PFOS. And it is not just Delaware--contamination is widespread, in red States and blue States, in small water systems and large ones, on military sites and in residential areas, from Maine to Alaska. It is essential that we legislate to require EPA to designate PFOA and PFOS as ``hazardous substances,'' which means that polluters could be held responsible for cleaning it up under the superfund law. In its recently released PFAS Action Plan, EPA has said again that it would issue this proposal in the future but did not indicate how long it will take to complete. Unfortunately, it has no sense of urgency to address these emerging contaminants and to protect American's from harmful levels of contamination. EPA had an opportunity to take action to address PFAS chemicals in a real and comprehensive way; however, time and again, it has failed to move in an expeditious and meaningful way. That is why this bill is so important. Designating these chemicals as hazardous substances will, at a minimum, start the process to getting these contaminated sites cleaned up. This not the silver bullet to the broader contamination problems, but it is a start.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, during the debate on the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency I came to the floor to express concerns on a number of issues, including EPA's regulation of per- and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances--PFAS. PFAS are a class of man-made 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. These chemicals have a long and tragic history-- suffice it to say that their widespread use resulted too many Americans without access to safe drinking water. This very issue is a matter of some controversy as EPA has failed to provide meaningful and swift action on these chemicals under this administration. That is why I am here today to introduce a bipartisan bill to designate PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under the Federal superfund law. The Carper-Capito-Peters-Tillis-Stabenow-Rubio- Merkley-Gardner-Reed-Murkowski-Shaheen-Burr-Bennet-Manchin bill will force EPA to begin the rulemaking process to protecting Americans from overexposure to these harmful chemicals and hold polluters accountable. It is very similar to legislation that has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Debbie Dingell. In his confirmation hearing, Andrew Wheeler said, and I quote: 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 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. One would think those words might mean that there could be some common ground at least on addressing PFAS. After all, who wouldn't agree that we should be acting with urgency to address contamination from these hazardous chemicals? According to one 2017 study, drinking water supplies for 6 million U.S. residents have exceeded the EPA's lifetime health advisory for these chemicals. Another 2018 study performed by the Environmental Working Group reports that up to 110 million Americans could have PFAS-contaminated water. In 2016, the Department of Defense announced that it was assessing the risk of groundwater contamination from firefighting foam at dozens of fire and crash testing sites across the country. It is likely that they are all contaminated. Just last year, the town of Blades in my home State of Delaware alerted its 1,250 residents, as well as businesses and schools that use public water, to stop using public water for drinking an cooking because PFAS chemicals were present at nearly twice the Federal health advisory level. Reportedly, 36 of 67 sampled groundwater wells on Dover Air Force Base showed dangerously high levels of PFOA and PFOS. And it is not just Delaware--contamination is widespread, in red States and blue States, in small water systems and large ones, on military sites and in residential areas, from Maine to Alaska. It is essential that we legislate to require EPA to designate PFOA and PFOS as ``hazardous substances,'' which means that polluters could be held responsible for cleaning it up under the superfund law. In its recently released PFAS Action Plan, EPA has said again that it would issue this proposal in the future but did not indicate how long it will take to complete. Unfortunately, it has no sense of urgency to address these emerging contaminants and to protect American's from harmful levels of contamination. EPA had an opportunity to take action to address PFAS chemicals in a real and comprehensive way; however, time and again, it has failed to move in an expeditious and meaningful way. That is why this bill is so important. Designating these chemicals as hazardous substances will, at a minimum, start the process to getting these contaminated sites cleaned up. This not the silver bullet to the broader contamination problems, but it is a start.

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, before my colleague from Virginia leaves, I admire him so much. I just want to applaud him and applaud his early work as a missionary in Honduras. During our past recess, Senator Jeff Merkley and I and four of our colleagues from the House were privileged to be a part of a 5-day congressional delegation to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. We were there to find out how the Alliance for Prosperity was being implemented, of which the Senator has been very supportive, as have I, in order to focus on hope, economic opportunity, crime, violence, and corruption. The Alliance for Prosperity is focused on all of those matters. The United States puts up some of the money to address them, but we expect the other countries, including Honduras, to put up even more. It is like being at Home Depot--you can do it, and we can help. For every $1 in El Salvador, they put up $7, and we leverage our money to get the support of foundations, NGOs, private companies, and others to do their share. It is like turning the course of an aircraft carrier, and it is starting to turn. Probably late this week--maybe tomorrow--I suspect Senator Merkley and I will want to have a colloquy on the floor. It would be great if the Senator could join us because he has forgotten more about that part of the world than we will ever know. Thank you. I didn't come to the floor to focus on that, but I am glad I had the chance to since Senator Kaine was here.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise to speak this afternoon about the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to become Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The day after Mr. Wheeler was named EPA Acting Administrator, I wrote him a letter. I reminded Mr. Wheeler of the opportunity he had to try a new course for that Agency after Scott Pruitt's scandal-plagued administration. Yet in the 7 months as Acting Administrator, unfortunately, Mr. Wheeler has so far chosen not to reverse course at EPA in too many important instances. In some cases, he has even accelerated the environmental damage and regulatory zeal that his predecessor began. I knew that Mr. Wheeler and I would not always agree on every issue, but like so many others, I did hope that he would moderate some of Scott Pruitt's most egregious and environmentally destructive policies, specifically on policies where industry and the environmental community are in broad agreement. Sadly, my hopes have not been realized. To be clear, Mr. Wheeler is not the ethically bereft embarrassment that Scott Pruitt was. Mr. Wheeler has also engaged more frequently and substantively than Scott Pruitt did with both Congress and EPA career staff, but time and again, Mr. Wheeler has proven that his environmental policies are almost as destructive and extreme as his predecessor's, despite the explicit promises Mr. Wheeler has made to Members of Congress, both in private and in public meetings. One of those promises was Mr. Wheeler's recent insistence that, when it comes to getting a deal on vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards with California and a coalition of 12 other States, including my State and the Presiding Officer's State, ``no one wants a 50-State deal more than I do.'' That was Mr. Wheeler's promise during his nomination hearing in front of the Environment and Public Works Committee in January. Just weeks later, the headlines told a different story. For months, Mr. Wheeler said repeatedly that he shared my goal of striking a deal-- not just my goal, but the goal of many of us here--with the State of California and a dozen of other States on fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards. Not long after he became Acting Administrator, however, Mr. Wheeler signed off on the Trump administration's proposal that freezes the standards for the better part of a decade, eliminates most of the air conditioning, electric vehicle, and other compliance credits that are supported by chemical companies, automobile and parts manufacturers, and utilities and preempts California's authority to set its own stronger standards. What is more, the Trump administration reportedly plans to penalize rules that call for a 0.5-percent increase. That is a one-half of 1- percent increase in the stringency of those standards--one-tenth the pace called for in the rules that are already on the books. Since that proposal was put forth, the entire automobile industry, many Members of Congress, and many other stakeholders have repeatedly asked the EPA to forge a compromise that avoids years of costly litigation and uncertainty for our automobile industry. So far, that is all for naught. Just last week, unfortunately and inexplicably, EPA announced, with the White House and the Department of Transportation, that they decided to end their so-called negotiations with the State of California and, effectively, with 12 other States. These negotiations were superficial, at best, or duplicitous and designed to fail, at worst. Between you and me, I don't see how these discussions could have ended or failed because they never seriously began in the first place. It is outrageous. That brings me back to Mr. Wheeler's promise. After his emphatic insistence that he wanted to find a 50-State solution for these standards, the decision to end them without ever making a serious effort to ever reach a compromise sends a clear message that, sadly, Mr. Wheeler--at least, in this instance--is unable to keep his word. I say that with no joy, but I say it nonetheless. A second example of Mr. Wheeler's failure to lead in an appropriate way lies in his unreasonable opposition to submitting to the Senate for ratification something called a the ``Kigali Amendment'' to the Montreal Protocol. I mentioned this to one of our colleagues. He said: Talk to me in English. I reminded him that we used to use something called CFCs. It was a refrigerator coolant that was broadly used in this country until we found out it had very serious consequences for our ozone layer. Science, chemical companies, and chemists came up with a replacement to CFCs. We call them HFCs, or hydrofluorocarbons, which are better for the ozone. They are still destructive to the greenhouse gas and destructive to our planet. Well, guess what. Scientists and chemists have, again, come up with a follow-on product to HFCs. It is not scientists and chemists in companies in other countries. They are right here in America. They have invested in a lot of money to come up with this discovery, this invention. They want to sell it. That requires the phaseout over time of HFCs. We need the Kigali Amendment to be submitted to the Senate for ratification in order to open the door for our American companies to compete with a new technology that is good for jobs in America and good for our planet. Our country could gain 150,000 direct and indirect new jobs, and almost $40 billion in annual economic benefits by 2027 because the safer substitutes to HFCs are made in Texas and Louisiana. These are good-paying jobs. These are green manufacturing jobs that could help our efforts to address climate change while bolstering our country's economy. Ratification of this treaty is supported by an extraordinary list of stakeholders, including more than a dozen of our Republican colleagues here in this Chamber. From the American Chemistry Council to the Chamber of Commerce, to FreedomWorks, to the Sierra Club, it seems that just about everyone supports ratification of this amendment, as best I can tell--everyone, that is, except EPA. Under Mr. Wheeler's leadership, EPA also decided it is no longer ``appropriate and necessary'' to protect babies' brains from mercury and air toxic pollution emitted by electric utilities. In the eleventh hour before the government shutdown, Mr. Wheeler signed a proposal that guts the legal foundation of the mercury and air toxics standards, also known as the MATS rule. Using outdated data and deciding that some benefits--like reduction in cancer, birth defects, and asthma attacks--are no longer important for the Agency to count, EPA is now setting a dangerous precedent and putting the mercury and air toxics standards rule in legal jeopardy. In fact, EPA has gone so far as to request public comment on whether the standards should be eliminated altogether. Mr. Wheeler says that this action was necessary and that the proposal strikes a balance. That is just not true. In fact, the utility industry is in full compliance with these standards already, and they have done so at a third of the expected costs. That is why every stakeholder-- from coal-fired utilities that comply with the rules to religious leaders, to environmental organizations, to the Chamber of Commerce-- urged this administration not to take this step. In fact, utility groups and organized labor organizations wrote to EPA saying: The industry already has invested significant capital-- estimated at more than $18 billion--in addition to these operating costs, and states are relying on the operation of these controls for their air quality plans. Therefore, we-- This being the group that wrote to EPA, including utility groups and organized labor groups-- urge EPA to . . . leave the underlying MATS rule in place and effective. Yet Mr. Wheeler has chosen to ignore the chorus of stakeholders who all hoped he would chart a more responsible path--on this front, too-- even though utilities are not asking for this action that he is taking and the EPA is taking, and the courts are not requiring it. Yet, from the stakeholders, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the utility industry over here to all of the NGOs and environmental groups and health groups over here, everybody says to leave this rule alone. It was adopted 7 years ago, and it works. It has worked at half the cost or at one-third of the cost. Leave it alone. I just don't get this. This is just another example of when Mr. Wheeler has taken a recklessly and unnecessary extreme course of action at the EPA. Here is another one. In May of 2018, after meeting with a victim's mother, Scott Pruitt, the former EPA Administrator, announced plans to finalize the Obama administration's ban to prohibit consumer and commercial paint stripping uses for something called methylene chloride--a hazardous chemical that has killed dozens of unsuspecting users in this country alone. Despite explicit assurances provided to my office and others that the EPA would follow through with Mr. Pruitt's promise to protect both consumer and commercial users from methylene chloride, under Mr. Wheeler's leadership, the EPA sent a final rule restricting only the consumer uses of methylene chloride to the White House's Office of Management and Budget. There have been 56 accidental exposure deaths related to methylene chloride since 1980--56--including properly trained workers who have worn protective gear on the job. Yet the EPA, under Mr. Wheeler's leadership, has decided to exempt workers from the methylene chloride ban. A number of people have said to me they think it is unconscionable. I think they are right. With Mr. Wheeler at the helm, the EPA cannot even manage to ban a chemical that is so harmful to human health that stores--and this includes Walmart, Sherwin-Williams, Ace Hardware, Home Depot, and others--have already voluntarily taken it off their shelves. That is not all. Even the EPA's recently announced PFAS Action Plan, which was released with much fanfare 2 weeks ago, did not do much more than renounce the same measures announced by Scott Pruitt almost a year ago. PFAS is sometimes referred to as forever chemicals. The reason, my colleagues, is that they last forever in our environment. It took a public outcry to make Mr. Wheeler reverse the Agency's inexplicable decision not to set an enforceable drinking water standard for PFAS. At his hearing last month, I asked him if he would agree to set a clean drinking water standard in 2 years--not in 2 weeks, not in 2 months but in 2 years--and he could not do that. In short, over the past 7 months as the Acting Administrator, Mr. Wheeler has perpetuated and in at least one instance I have cited here today has worsened the preexisting inadequacies and failures Scott Pruitt left behind. When faced with opportunities to protect human health and the environment in ways that also have the support of the industries that would be regulated, time and again, Mr. Wheeler has failed to act in a way that I believe is responsible and has, instead, listened to some of the most extreme voices around him. As I have said before and will say again, I am not making some futile attempt at changing the hearts and minds about this nominee at the eleventh hour. I am not that kind of Senator and never have been, and I was not that kind of Governor. I am not grandstanding, trying to get any press attention, or the perfect sound bite. I am, however, trying to convince some of my colleagues to seize this window of opportunity we have now to ensure that Acting Administrator Wheeler reverses course and governs responsibly at the EPA. That is what I am trying to do. That is what we are trying to do. As the President's nominee to lead this Agency, under the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, Mr. Wheeler can continue to lead the EPA as Acting Administrator until August 7 of this year. He is there, and he is going to be there. Rushing to judgment on this nomination will close the window of opportunity we have to ensure the Acting Administrator reverses course at the EPA and embraces the commonsense, bipartisan policies I just laid out--policies which make our environment cleaner and safer while they also create jobs and strengthen America's economy. I think we all want that. I think that is why people sent us here to negotiate those kind of win-win agreements. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this nomination so we can achieve those win-win situations that are there for the taking. I thank the Presiding Officer. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Andrew Wheeler as the Administrator of the EPA. Under the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Act, Mr. Wheeler can continue to lead the EPA until August 7 of this year. Rushing to judgment on his nomination will close the window of opportunity the Senate has now to ensure that he reverses course on a handful of important policies that protect our planet while creating American jobs. I am not calling for delay for delay's sake. We have 161 days to ensure that Mr. Wheeler withdraws his proposal to put the mercury and air toxics standards rule in legal jeopardy. We have 161 days to hear him say that he supports Senate ratification of a treaty that phases out harmful HFCs while creating jobs. We have 161 days to ensure that he negotiates with a coalition, including California and 12 other States, on vehicle fuel efficiency standards and greenhouse gas emissions while giving the auto industry the certainty they need. While progress is being made on these important issues, I am asking my colleagues to vote no today on cloture on the motion to proceed to this nomination.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise this evening to speak on a subject that, with the groundswell of activism, has once again captured national attention--and rightfully so. Many years ago, I was a young naval flight officer stationed at a mock field naval air station in the Bay area out in California, preparing for the first of what would be three tours of duty in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war. I joined there with tens of thousands of people one day to celebrate our country's first-ever Earth Day. I will never forget it. This was back when polluters dumped waste into our waterways with impunity. Garbage littered our shores, and too many rivers oozed instead of flowed. One of them was in Cleveland, OH. The Cuyahoga River, north of where I went to school at Ohio State, actually caught on fire. Factories spewed toxic fumes, and acid rain fell from the sky. The urgency was clear then, and it is even clearer today. That very first Earth Day was a transformative experience for me, and it will serve as an inspiration for me for the rest of my life. As I look at what is happening across our country today, I see the movement for bold and transformative action to save our planet. I see the faces of those who were there with me that day in Golden Gate State Park. I have had a lot of different jobs since then, but it is not lost on me that I stand here today on the brink of yet another watershed moment as the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works--the committee that oversees our Nation's environmental laws--to talk about climate change. In the days and weeks ahead, Senator McConnell intends to engage in a ploy to try and undermine the Green New Deal by calling a vote for a resolution he does not even support. I believe he hopes that, in turn, there may be some disruption and damage inflicted on the Democratic Party and the climate change movement. To the American people, hear this; it is a simple message: We cannot--we will not--allow cynicism to win, not now and not with so much at stake. When it comes to climate action, there could not be a starker difference in this Chamber between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in this debate. We, as Democrats, may not agree on exactly how we should address climate change, but we all agree it is happening. We agree that human activity is the main cause, and we agree that we must act now. Democrats know that climate science isn't part of some grand hoax. It is not an alarmist prediction. It doesn't come from some left-leaning organization. It doesn't come from talk radio. It comes directly from our Nation's leading scientists and leading scientists from all around the world. Just 3 months ago, 13 Federal Agencies released a comprehensive climate report that described the dire economic and health consequences we face if we fail to take meaningful action to address climate change now. I may be mistaken, but I believe those 13 Federal Agencies were acting under law signed by a Republican President. I believe it was George Herbert Walker Bush. This report is the Fourth National Climate Assessment. It was developed over a 3-year period by more than 300 Federal experts and non-Federal experts who volunteered their time--who volunteered their time. Here is a brief summary of their report: The science behind climate change is settled. Let me say that again. The science behind climate change is settled. From our warming oceans to our atmosphere, climate change is happening, and human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, is greatly contributing to this crisis. Our Nation's scientists have found a direct link between climate change and the extreme weather we experienced in 2017, which altogether cost the American economy more than $300 billion--that is $300 billion in economic damages, more than any year before. Scientists are no longer asking if climate change is happening but rather how bad is it going to be. How bad is it going to be? Numbers and the facts don't lie. It will only get worse if we do nothing. If we don't act on climate change by 2050, wildfire seasons could burn up to six times--six times--more forest area every year. If we don't act on climate change, we will see more extreme flooding that devastates small communities like Ellicott City, MD, not far from here, which has been hit by not one 1,000-year flood in the past year but two. These are floods that are supposed to occur maybe once every 1,000 years. They had two of them in the last 2 years. If we don't act on climate change, rising temperatures, combined with increasingly frequent and severe rain, mean farmers are likely to experience a reduction in corn and soybean yields by up to 25 percent. If we don't act on climate change, we will see more deadly category 5 hurricanes and storm surges like the ones we saw with Hurricanes Irma and Maria just 2 years ago. If we do not act on climate change, we will see economic pain across every major sector of our economy in this country. The 2018 National Climate Assessment concludes that at the end of this century, climate change could slash our gross domestic product by 10 percent. How much is that compared to what? Well, compared to the losses we sustained in the great recession just a decade ago, 10 percent is more than double those losses--more than double. It doesn't matter if you are from a coastal State or from a landlocked State. I have lived in both. It doesn't matter if you care about public health or the environment or if you care about our economy or national security. The fact is, every person living in this country will eventually see or experience the effects of climate change if they haven't already done so today. We have two options. We confront this challenge head on--reduce carbon emissions, enhance resiliency, and support millions of new clean energy jobs--or we could choose to ignore the problem and pass the buck. To whom? To our children, to their children, and to their children. Senator McConnell, President Trump, and Andrew Wheeler at EPA want to pass the buck. They prefer to walk away from the growing threat we face. Instead of pursuing any ideas to address climate change and protect Americans from its effect, sadly, the Trump administration has promoted policies that increase our dependency on dirty energy. President Trump has even said he doesn't believe in climate change. He doubts the credibility of his own scientists at NASA and at NOAA, as well as 97 percent of the global scientific community. Continuing to misinform the American people and delay real climate action puts American lives and our economy at risk. It doesn't have to be this way. As Democrats, we choose to confront climate change. We choose to do so now. We know our communities are feeling the pain now from the climate crisis because we see the effects of climate change every day across this country. We may not yet agree on exactly how we must address climate change, but we all agree on three things. Here they are. One, we agree climate change is real; two, human activity during the last 100 years is a dominant cause of the climate crisis we face today; and three, the United States, and especially the Congress, that is us, the House and the Senate, and the administration should take immediate action to address the challenge of climate change. That is why I will be introducing a resolution that says just that. Democrats know we can have a healthy climate and a strong economy. They are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who says otherwise is preaching a false choice. Democrats know this because of the work we started with President Obama in the White House, where we accomplished real actions to put this Nation on a path of net zero emissions. Our Republicans friends across the aisle should know this because of the work done by the former President, the late George Herbert Walker Bush, years earlier that I just alluded to a minute ago. During the Obama administration, starting with the Recovery Act, the Federal Government provided economic incentives, environmental targets, and supported market developments to encourage investments in the clean energy of the future. Thanks to the investments during the previous administration, consumers are paying less for energy, and more than 3 million people in this country went to work today in the clean energy sector--3 million and growing. Democrats know we must build on this progress, and that is why we continue to support policies that reduce our Nation's carbon footprint, help create a fair economy, and support those most vulnerable to climate effects, but in the U.S. Senate, as in most places, it takes two to tango, and for over two decades Democrats have put forth different policies that use market forces, make big investments in technology, or set strict standards. We have done them all, and we don't seem to get very far with our friends on the other side of this aisle. I know because I have cosponsored many of these efforts. Let me just say this. We are not going to give up. We are going to keep on trying. We will not back down. We are going to stand our ground. Let me leave our colleagues with this message today. This should not be an issue. Climate action should not be an issue that divides us as a body. It shouldn't divide us as a country or as a world. It should unify us. I thank Senator McConnell in advance for allowing the Senate to devote a fulsome period of time to this important discussion. How we choose to act today will not decide our fates. How we choose to act today will decide the fates of generations of Americans--not just our fates but generations of Americans that will be on this Earth long after the rest of us are gone. So let's get to work. Time is wasting. Let's get to work. I yield the floor to the Senator from Massachusetts, who has done great work on this for as long as I have been alive--almost as long as I have been alive, my friend and my colleague who has been a giant on these issues for a long time and continues to be. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kaitlyn Prichard and Zach Pilchen, a legislative fellow and a detailee in my office, have privileges of the floor for the duration of the 116th Congress.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I want to talk a little bit about John Dingell this evening, but before I do that, I just want to comment on the fact that we passed spending bills to fund our government for the balance of this fiscal year. That is a good thing--a good, good thing. I wish we had done it last year. In fact, we did--months ago. Democrats and Republicans joined together here almost unanimously to pass a spending plan for the balance of the fiscal year--all 13 appropriations bills, and they looked a whole lot like what we passed here today. Yet we went through a shutdown which created a lot of havoc and turmoil, not just for Federal employees but for the people whom they serve and we serve. I have apologized for that, and I know other colleagues have as well. Hopefully, in the months ahead, we can make it up to the people who were inconvenienced. In many cases they were not just disadvantaged but treated very badly. The President apparently is going to sign the spending bills we passed with broad bipartisan support, and I understand he is going to declare a state of emergency to be able to do additional things down at the border with Mexico. Tomorrow morning at 6 a.m., I will lead a bipartisan delegation, with House and Senate Members, and we will not be going to the border. I have been there any number of times as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. We are not going to go to the border this time. The President was down there a couple of weeks ago, and standing at the border he said: There is a human catastrophe or tragedy going on at the border. I thought to myself: Well, what is going on at the border is very unfortunate, but the real human tragedy is what is going on in three countries: Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The illegal immigration, to my surprise a couple of years ago, is not just coming from Mexico. In fact, today there are more Mexicans going back into Mexico from the United States than there are going the other way. I was surprised to learn that, but that is the case today. Illegal immigration in our country is down about 80 percent from the year 2000, and the folks coming across the border illegally are coming from three countries--Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Each year in the last decade or so, they have vied for the title ``Murder Capital of the World.'' Their lives are made miserable because of our addiction to drugs. So having been complicit in their misery, the thought occurred to a number of us, including the last administration's President and Vice President and some of us in the House and the Senate, that maybe we should see why all of those people are coming out of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador and trying to come into the United States. I will tell a true story. Some of them come to Delaware. We have three counties in my State. The southernmost county, Sussex County, is a big county that raises a lot of corn, soybeans, and raise a lot of chickens. We process a lot of chickens. Over the years, a lot of folks come up from Guatemala to work in the agriculture and poultry industry. About 2 or 3 years ago, we had an increase--a blip in migration-- especially from Guatemala. I was in Sussex County, in Georgetown, the county seat, right in the middle of all of this poultry business. There are three chickens for every person in Delaware, to give you some idea of the extent of it. I met with the folks at La Esperanza. That is Spanish for hope. It is a non-profit. Their job is to try to help people who do make it across the border into our country and who have families, and they try to do some reconnection with their families. But, anyway, I heard this story. There was a young man in Guatemala, a teenager, who was recruited by a gang there. He said he had to talk to his parents. He went to talk to his parents, and they said: We don't want you to join any gangs. He went back, and the gang found him and approached him a couple of days later and said: Well, what do you think? Do you want to join our gang? He said: I talked to my parents, and they don't think it is the right thing for me to do now. They said: Well, think about it some more. A week or so later, they found him again and said: Well, what do you think? Are you ready to join our gang? He said: No, I don't think I am going to do that now. They said: If you don't join our gang, somebody in your family is going to die. Somebody in your family is going to die. He went home, and he told his parents. They talked it over, and he joined the gang. One of the things they do in these gangs--they have to go through an initiation. Part of his initiation was a requirement that he rape his 13-year-old sister. The son was like 15 years old, and one of the rites of passage is he had to rape his 13-year-old sister. He went home and told his parents what was expected of him. Within a week or two, the sister and the brother were on their way out of their country to try to be reunited with other relatives in the United States, and they ended up in Delaware. That is a human tragedy. I think if they had stayed there, it would have been probably an even greater human tragedy. I am a big believer in root causes. Don't just address the symptoms of the problem. The symptom of the problem is people trying to get into our country and cross our borders illegally. That is a problem. That is a challenge. We need secure borders, but the root cause is what is going on in the countries that they are fleeing from--lack of rule of law, impunity, police who don't police, prosecutors who don't prosecute, judges who don't really administer the law, prisons that don't--correctional institutions that don't really correct behavior. Instead of turning out better people, they turn out better criminals. That has been a problem, and it has been a problem for some time. Whenever we face a situation like this where an issue is really hard to deal with, what I like to say is, let's find out what works. I am an old Governor. I used to be chairman of the National Governors Association. My last year as Governor, I chaired something in the NGA. In addition to being the Governor of Delaware, I chaired something called the Center for Best Practices. The idea was, how do we share solutions among Governors and among States for all the problems we face--some of the problems we face? In trying to figure out how we help Guatemala and El Salvador sort of become less violent places, places with hope and opportunity--how can we help in that? So we looked around the world. We don't have to look too far, but if we look south of Central America, we find Colombia. Colombia is a place where about 20 years ago, there were leftist guerillas trying to bring down the government, and there were drug lords trying to bring down the government. One day 20 years or so ago, a bunch of thugs rounded up the supreme court of the country--rounded them up, took them into a room, shot them all to death, killed them all. Colombia was teetering, and it was not clear whether it was going to really make it as a nation. Some very brave people stood up and some of the leaders of Columbia stood up and said: We are not going to let these guys--whether it is the FARC, the leftist guerillas, or the drug lords--take over our country and take it down. We are going to fight back. The United States, led by then-President Bill Clinton and by a guy who was serving as the chairman, I think, of the Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden, sort of made common calls with the President of Colombia, who was a very brave person, and said to the Colombians: You can do this. Stabilize your country. Make it a more livable, decent place to live. We can help because we are complicit in their misery, too, given our addiction to drugs. Well, guess what. They started something called Plan Colombia, and for 20 years it has worked slowly. Slowly. An example of what we did is we provided Apache helicopters. Why did we do that? So that the Colombian police and the Colombian military would have the mobility they need to go across the country and go after the bad guys and take them on. That was just one of the many things that was happening in Plan Colombia. But again, it is like Home Depot. You have Home Depot, Madam President, in your State, and we have them in mine. What is their saying? ``You can do it, and we can help.'' So we said: Colombia, you can do it, and we can help. We are complicit in your misery, and we can help. And we have. About a year or so ago, the President of Colombia won a Nobel Peace Prize. The leftist guerillas are--it is not perfect, but they are part of the government. Are drugs still a problem there? Yes, they are, but not like before. It is a country with a relatively bright future and one that we can be proud to call our friend and ally. When we looked for a way to help in Central America--the Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador--we went to Colombia, and we said: Maybe it is possible to have a Central American version of Plan Colombia. And now we have that. What we have done over the last 3, maybe 4 years, we funded those three countries in efforts to address some of the deficiencies that I just described--police who don't police, prosecutors who don't prosecute, judges who don't administer justice, and correctional institutions that don't really correct behavior. We have been doing this now for about 3 years, and our congressional delegation is going to go down there tomorrow and do a little bit of oversight and find out what is working in those three countries and what is not, whether they are meeting their responsibilities, and whether we are meeting our responsibilities. You know, we can build a wall from sea to shining sea and from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. It can be 30 feet tall. But unless somehow the root causes of that migration--and it ain't coming from Mexico--some but not much. Again, more Mexicans are going back into Mexico than are coming the other way. We really want to help the people of the Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador address those root causes. You know, they are going to keep coming up here, and if we lived there, we would want to come too. You know, for what it is worth, we have had about 80 Presidential declarations of emergencies, I guess, in maybe the last century, and they were for Pearl Harbor, Katrina, 9/11, other disasters, some of them natural disasters, others. Since 2000, there has been an 80 percent reduction in illegal migration at the borders. Most of it is coming from these three countries, not Mexico. So we will see what happens with the declaration of emergency that the President is going to declare. I think you have to be careful. To my Republican friends, I say this lovingly to you on Valentine's Day: The idea of a President invoking his powers, using his powers in this way, I am frankly not convinced that--while there certainly are challenges at the border, I have explained where I think the real challenges are, the real causes. Someday, we will have a Democratic President, and he or she will be considering a range of options of what to do, and somebody is going to suggest: Well, in the earlier administration, the Trump administration, they declared it. So they will say: Well, I will just declare a national emergency and do what I want to do. That is a slippery slope, and I think that is one we need to be very careful about going on.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. The last thing I would like to do, if I could, is I want to talk a little bit about John Dingell. I don't know if our Presiding Officer ever had a chance to meet him or know him. She says no--nods no. I had the pleasure of knowing him I guess since 1982, 1983, when I was elected to the House. I was a Representative, and he was already there. I was the new guy, and I had been a treasurer of Delaware and a naval flight officer before that, and I finally retired from the Navy as a captain a few years ago. He was so nice to me. He was a big guy, a giant of a man and kind of gruff. He was kind of gruff, and I can't imagine how the pages would have reacted to him if he yelled at them or frowned at them or growled at them. But for reasons that aren't all clear, he was really kind to me. I think in his heart that is what he was. I like to work out. I like to run. I like to work out in gyms. They have a gym over at the House in the basement of the Rayburn Building. It is a pretty nice gym. We have one here. It is small by comparison. It is modest. I usually go home at night, but occasionally I would spend the night in DC when I was in the House, and the next morning I would go to the gym, and I would either go run out on the Mall, or I would lift weights or ride the bike or something in the gym. When I finished up, before I took a shower and got dressed, I would go in the steam room--the gym had a steam room in it--and a lot of times, John Dingell was in there. I remember sitting there with him repeatedly over the years--not hundreds of times but many times. Sometimes there were several people there. We talked. Sometimes it was just the two of us. He gave me really good advice. He was like a mentor. The day I was sworn in as a Congressman from Delaware, I was the dean of our delegation because we only had one, so I didn't really have like a big brother or a big sister in my delegation to look up to in the House. There was nobody else but me. I was brand new. John Dingell was nice, along with a bunch of other folks too. They kind of stepped up and gave me some of the guidance that I needed. He was an interesting fellow because he chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee the whole time I was in the House and a long time after that, and he always looked out for his bread and butter. In Michigan, that is automobiles. This was a big deal. It was then, and it still is. So he always wanted to make sure that they had the predictability that they wanted and needed and that they could be successful. If I were the Senator or Representative from Michigan, I would want that too. But he also was really good on clean air issues, clean water issues, natural resource issues, open space issues, and agricultural issues. I remember once on one of those mornings, we were talking about whether it is possible to be a good steward of the environment, mindful of air, water, open space, public health--is it possible to do all those things and also look out for job creation and job preservation, whether it is in Michigan or some other place? My staff has heard me say this, I am tempted to say, a million times. Folks on the Environment and Public Works Committee, where I am a senior Democrat now, have heard me say this more often than they want to. I have always said it is possible to have clean air, clean water, better public health, do good things for our planet, and create jobs. They go hand-in-glove. One of the first people who reminded me of that a long time ago was John Dingell. He supported the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. He supported the Clean Air Amendments in 1990, on which he was nice enough to let me offer a provision that was incorporated into the law. He did a lot to help preserve the auto industry not just in his State but in this country. He was an amazing guy. Either the day he passed away or before he passed away, with his wife Debbie by his side--she is now a Congresswoman in his old seat--he shared with her some thoughts that he wanted to leave as part of his legacy at 92, and those words--I am not going to read them here today. I think they probably have already been read on the floor or introduced into the Record. I ask unanimous consent that those words be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARPER. I will close with this. I went to the funeral. I couldn't stay the whole time. It was here in DC. I missed Steny Hoyer, the Democratic majority leader, and his comments. I was told he was terrific, as were others, as well. But I did get to hear just about everything Bill Clinton said. I was inspired and amused by that. He was funny. He really caught the character of John and his foibles, his strengths, and brilliance. Before I went to the funeral, I went to a breakfast. A friend at the breakfast was kind enough to share his words with the rest of us. He actually worked for John Dingell at one time. In an off-the-cuff riff about John Dingell, he shared some of the things he worked on. Later on, I said: Would you share that with me? He was kind enough to do that. I wish I could say these are my words, but that would be plagiarism. I give him the credit, at least in a left-handed sort of way. This is what my friend gave to me. I just want to close with these words from my friend about John Dingell: This morning as I was reading the obituaries detailing Congressman Dingell's life and accomplishments, I started thinking of all the aspects of daily life that he had a direct and meaningful impact on for almost 60 years. He went on to say what some of them were. The air we breathe, the water we drink. The health of rivers and lakes. The wildlife that exists and depends upon those spaces. The food we eat. The pills we take. The products we use. The electricity that powers our economy. The efficiency of almost every product that uses electricity. The phones we use. The health insurance we count on in a medical crisis. The regulation and cleanup of hazardous waste. The cars we drive, of course! And a host of other things. On this Valentine's Day--when we give thanks for our loved ones, our families, and those who are special in our lives--I also give thanks for John and the many blessings that he has left us and this country. With that, I will say I appreciate the opportunity to share these words. God bless. Thank you.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I just want to start off with this. This is Valentine's Day, and there are different days of the year that are more special to us than others--other than Thanksgiving and Christmas. I even like Halloween. But I think Valentine's Day is very special. For our loved ones, our spouses or significant others, and our children, we love them, and I hope they know that. But to the people who work here day in and day out, the folks who are here when it is a weekend, when other folks are maybe heading out for the holidays to visit their families across the country, we don't say thanks enough. So to all of them, from my heart and from my staff, and, I think, from all of us--Democrats and Republicans in the Senate--we want to say thank you and happy Valentine's Day.

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak regarding the nomination of William Barr to serve as the next Attorney General of our country. First, I want to take a few minutes to reflect on the circumstances surrounding this vacancy. I believe that every Member of this Chamber should use this occasion to decide, ultimately, whether we believe Mr. Barr will be the Attorney General for all Americans or whether Mr. Barr will be the Attorney General, really, for one American. When President-elect Trump selected then-Senator Jeff Sessions, our colleague from Alabama, to serve as Attorney General for this country, it brought me no joy to vote against our long-time colleague and friend. The truth was, though, that our views too often diverged on too many important issues that included immigration, healthcare, civil rights, voting rights, LGBT rights, environmental protection, and more. After considerable prayer and reflection, I reached the conclusion that Senator Sessions would not be an Attorney General for all Americans. Unfortunately, during his tenure at the Department of Justice, he went on to preside over a number of divisive policies and decisions, including the Muslim ban, overturning protections for Dreamers and asylum seekers, enacting a cruel policy of family separation at our southern border, and failing to defend the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act in court. I have not been shy about expressing my disagreement with these decisions, and others, made by the Department of Justice during the current administration. However, one area where I strongly agreed with Attorney General Sessions was his decision to recuse himself from the special counsel's investigation into Russian interference in our 2016 elections. One of my core values is to figure out what is the right thing to do and to try to do it--not what is politically expedient, not what is easy but what is the right thing to do. After it became clear that then-Senator Sessions provided testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee that called into question his impartiality on matters relating to Russia and the 2016 election, Attorney General Sessions recused himself from all matters related to the 2016 Presidential election. That was the right thing to do. It certainly wasn't what our President wanted him to do. The President has said as much repeatedly. I should say that, maybe, he has tweeted as much repeatedly. The President repeatedly admonished Attorney General Sessions for doing what I think many of us believe was the right thing to do. Here is what the President tweeted on June 5, 2018: The Russian Witch Hunt Hoax continues, all because Jeff Sessions didn't tell me he was going to recuse himself . . . I would have quickly picked someone else. So much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined . . . and Sessions knew better than most that there was No Collusion! Let me be clear, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is not a witch hunt. It is, in fact, the unanimous opinion of the U.S. intelligence Agencies and law enforcement community that Russia attacked our democracy and interfered in our 2016 elections. As a result of the special counsel's ongoing investigation, 34 individuals and 3 companies have been indicted or pled guilty to a range of crimes. This includes the Trump campaign manager, the Trump deputy campaign manager, Mr. Trump's National Security Advisor, and, most recently, President Trump's longtime political advisor. Special Counsel Mueller is a lifelong Republican who served with distinction in the Vietnam war. I think I am the last Member of this body who served in the Vietnam war, but he served there with real distinction. He served with distinction as our FBI Director following the September 11 attacks. He is not conducting a partisan witch hunt. He and the team he leads are striving to find out the truth and, in doing so, help us prevent future attacks on our democracy. I believe we should be doing everything in our power to allow Special Counsel Mueller and his team to conduct and complete this investigation free from political interference and partisan games. During the years I was privileged to serve as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Bob Mueller was the head of the FBI. I had a chance to work with him and to get to know him. My wife and I know his wife. He is among the finest people I have ever known in the military, outside of the military, in government service, and outside of government service. Unfortunately, President Trump does not view political independence as a prerequisite for the job of Attorney General. Instead, he tends to view political independence as a disloyal act, an offense for which one should be fired. Just ask former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates. Just ask former FBI Director Comey, whom I also came to know well during the time I served on the Homeland Security Committee, including as its chairman. Just ask former Attorney General Sessions. Recall with me, if you will, after the November election, President Trump fired Attorney General Sessions and named the Attorney General's Chief of Staff, Matt Whitaker, as Acting Attorney General. This was a curious decision, as well as a legally questionable decision. Why would the President go outside the line of succession at the Department of Justice? I fear it is because of Mr. Whitaker's public comments regarding the Mueller investigation. Mr. Whitaker previously likened the special counsel's investigation to a ``fishing expedition,'' and a ``witch hunt'' and implied that following the truth ``could be damaging to the President of the United States and his family--and by extension, to our country.'' Really? Could he have been serious in saying that getting to the bottom of all this could be damaging to the President of the United States and his family and, by extension, to our country? Another President, a long time ago, Thomas Jefferson, used to say these words: If the people know the truth, they won't make a mistake. Those are hardly the views of our current President. It saddens me to say that. Despite publicly expressing these views that clearly call into question his impartiality, Mr. Whitaker did not recuse himself from the Mueller investigation when he assumed of the role of Acting Attorney General, even though he received a recommendation to recuse himself from ethics officials at the Department of Justice. Mr. Whitaker's staggering unfitness for the job is a big part of the reason why my initial reaction was positive when President Trump nominated William Barr to be our Attorney General. After all, Mr. Barr previously served as Deputy Attorney General and Attorney General during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, someone I revered. I think many of us revered him. By all accounts, Mr. Barr is a well-qualified nominee, someone who has been a fine public servant throughout many years of public service. I strongly believe that we need Senate-confirmed leadership at the Department of Justice. I want to make it clear that during normal times, I might be inclined to support Mr. Barr's nomination. In fact, I probably would. But these are not normal times. These are extraordinary times. In addition to firing the Attorney General and the FBI Director for their views on the Russia inquiry, President Trump has reportedly asked those around him why he didn't have an Attorney General who is looking out for his personal interests. According to reports, the President has said, ``Where's my Roy Cohn?'' during moments of crisis. For those who may not know Roy Cohn, he was President Trump's personal lawyer and fixer, who pushed legal tactics to the limits and also served with Senator Joe McCarthy during a very dark period in our Nation's history and a very dark period in this Senate's history. This is how President Trump views the role of Attorney General--not as a lawyer to defend the rights of all Americans but as a fixer who will look out for him. Moreover, in his State of the Union address last week, President Trump highlighted what he sees as ``ridiculous, partisan investigations.'' He went on to say: ``If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigations.'' It is against this extraordinary backdrop that we must ask ourselves: What are Mr. Barr's views on Presidential power, and what are his views on the investigation led by Robert Mueller? As it turns out, we don't have to guess what the answer is to that question. In an unsolicited 19-page memo that Mr. Barr sent to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and President Trump's personal lawyers, Mr. Barr shares his views, and they are clearly hostile to the special counsel's investigation. In a memo entitled ``Mueller's Obstruction Theory,'' Mr. Barr raises doubt about the special counsel's ability to follow the truth while going on to defend President Trump's actions and even suggesting that the President has the power to limit the scope of this inquiry. In that same memo, Mr. Barr states that the special counsel's investigation into obstruction of justice may do ``lasting damage to the presidency.'' I believe that reasonable people can disagree, as I frequently did with my friend, former Senator, and then-Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. It is clear to me, however, that despite whatever your views may be toward the special counsel's investigation, the views expressed in his memo not only warrant Mr. Barr's recusal from the special counsel's investigation, but they cry out for it. Attorney General Sessions did the right thing when confronted with a similar decision. However, despite expressing these biased views from President Trump's own personal lawyers, Mr. Barr says he will not recuse himself from the special counsel's investigation if he is confirmed. To make matters worse, Mr. Barr refuses to commit to making the special counsel's final report public. Earlier, I asked for us to consider whether Mr. Barr will be the Attorney General for all Americans or whether Mr. Barr will be the Attorney General for one American. That one American happens to go by another name, Individual 1, which is the legal moniker given to President Trump in the Southern District of New York for directing his personal attorney to violate Federal campaign finance law. Like Mr. Whitaker's public comments prior to his elevation to Acting Attorney General, I fear that Mr. Barr's memo may have been an audition for the job and that his selection may not have been a coincidence. During his Senate hearing in 1989, Mr. Barr plainly stated that the Attorney General ``is the President's lawyer.'' Colleagues, these are extraordinary times for our Nation. We must make it clear to the American people that the Attorney General is not the President's lawyer. We need independence at the Department of Justice now more than ever. While I hope I am wrong--very wrong--it is my belief that Trump used this appointment as an opportunity to protect himself rather than to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. Ultimately, for all of these reasons I have laid out, I have concluded that despite his earlier service to our Nation--distinguished service in many instances--Mr. Barr does not, in this instance, meet the standard that is necessary to be the Attorney General for our country now. Sadly, on that note, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I thank my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Wyoming, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act is an important free-market conservation tool that does not regulate how people develop their land, but transfers the full cost of developing in risky, environmentally sensitive areas from taxpayers to the individual choosing to develop. The Coastal Barrier Resources System also provides much-needed habitat for our Nation's treasured wildlife, including federally threatened Red Knot birds in Delaware. Public Law 115-358 added approximately 18,000 acres along the Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida coasts to the Coastal Barrier Resources System, protecting these barrier islands, beaches, wetlands, and aquatic habitat from federally funded development. During Senate consideration of S. 47, the Senate adopted an amendment by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio, which adds two additional replacement maps for Cape San Blas, FL, as an amendment to Public Law 115-358. During the enactment of Public Law 115-358, the Senator from Wyoming and I sought to make clear that the law is not intended to prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from using various digital tools, digital data, and digital maps to help implement the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. I would ask if my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Alaska, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, could confirm my understanding that the amendment made by Senator Rubio does not change the use of digital maps by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the ongoing implementation of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.

Mr. CARPER. I thank the Senators for their clarification. Thank you.

Mr. CARPER. I thank my colleague. Finally, I ask if the Senator from West Virginia's understanding is the same as that of the Senator from Alaska's with respect to the effect of the Rubio amendment.

Mr. CARPER. I thank my colleague for her confirmation of my understanding. The Rubio amendment also includes language which states that section 7003 of S. 47 has no force or effect. I ask the Senator from Alaska, is it her understanding that the provisions of the Rubio amendment, as adopted by the Senate, do not change the provisions or implementation of Public Law 115-358 other than to enact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's recommended changes to Cape San Blas maps?

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am delighted to follow on the floor the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who is now hastening for the exit before I can say nice things about him. I want to say he represents Wyoming. We have a place called Wyoming in Delaware just south of Dover--Camden Wyoming--and I go there every week, just as he goes home to Wyoming every week. His colleague from Wyoming is Mike Enzi, whom our new Presiding Officer, a former Governor, is well familiar with. Mike Enzi had something called the 80-20 rule, and the 80-20 rule goes something like this. I used to ask him: How do you get so much done with Ted Kennedy on the HELP Committee, that you now serve on, Mr. President, and he said: Ted and I agree on 80 percent of the stuff. We disagree on 20 percent of the stuff. He said: Ted and I focus on the 80 percent where we agree and we set aside the other 20 percent to another day. So I want to just talk about the 80 percent Chairman Barrasso and I agree on and then maybe the 20 percent we can agree to disagree until another day. I appreciate your staying here, but you don't have to. I know you have better things to do than to listen to me. Something that is being lost in this conversation is, at least to this point in time, there is a reason we have a policy that encourages people to buy electric-powered vehicles. There is a reason we have a tax policy and other policies to encourage people to buy fuel-celled powered vehicles that are fueled by hydrogen. The reason why is because we have way too much carbon dioxide in the air, and it is creating great challenges for these young pages who are sitting down here at your feet, Mr. President. They have a planet to worry about. I will be around for maybe 30 years or more, but I will not be here in the Senate, I assure you, for 30 years or more. They are going to be around here for, gosh, 70, 80, 90 years or more, and they have to worry about this planet, and we have to worry about this planet for them and for our own kids and, eventually, hopefully, for my wife and me, our grandchildren. We want to make sure they have a planet to live on and to grow up on, and we have way too much carbon, and if we are not careful, it is going to continue to get worse rather than better. Here recently, just in the last several months, we have had 13 Federal Agencies that have come together to say the situation is even more dire with respect to the threat of climate change, global warming, severe weather than we thought. A month or so before that, an arm, if you will, of the United Nations had a similar kind of report, and the forecast was equally daunting and really frightening. So the reason we are trying to encourage people to buy electric- powered vehicles and to buy hydrogen-powered vehicles is to reduce carbon in the air. Why do we care about cars, trucks, vans, and their emissions? The largest source of carbon emissions in this country today is not coal- fired utility plants. It is not cement plants. It is not our buildings. It is our vehicles, our mobile sources, and so that is why we focus on these issues. The question of whether we need tax incentives forever, permanently, for electric vehicles, I think you can argue we probably don't. The battery technology in this country and this world is getting better and better. I just want to say to the Presiding Officer who was from Massachusetts and was the Governor there for a number of years, there is a company there--and I think they are still in the Cambridge area-- A123 battery, and they are one of the earlier pioneers in battery technology for vehicles and others. My son actually was offered an internship there when he was at MIT one summer. So we have been interested in this industry for quite some time. I go to the Detroit Auto Show just about every year. People ask: Why do you go to the Detroit Auto Show? Up until about 6, 7, 8 years ago, Delaware built more cars, trucks, and vans per capita than any State in the Nation. Think about that. More cars, trucks, and vans per capita than any State in the Nation. We had a Chrysler plant at one time--4,000 employees in Newark, DE, near the University of Delaware. We had a GM plant--4,000 employees at one time,--very close to Wilmington, DE. We lost them both, like that, at the bottom of the great recession when Chrysler and GM went into bankruptcy, which was a huge blow to the economy of a small State, as you can imagine. The reason I used to go to the auto show all the time in Detroit was so I would know whoever was running GM, I would know who was running Chrysler, so that if they ever thought about closing our plants, we would have somebody to call and to go see and say: You don't want to do that. We lost them both at the bottom of the great recession. The reason I tell that story is to explain why I have an interest in the Detroit Auto Show. Eleven years ago at the Detroit Auto Show, at the beginning of the auto show on Monday--it is about a 5-day event-- they have what they call the reveals, and they show all the new cars and the concept cars and everything, all the new technology. Eleven years ago, the car of the year was a Chevrolet Volt, V-o-l-t. The Chevrolet Volt is a classic hybrid. You get about 38 miles per gallon on a charge, and then it ran on gasoline for the rest of maybe 300 miles. That was the car of the year, and they sold a number of them but not huge numbers--not huge numbers. Ten years later, about a year ago, the car of the year was the Chevrolet Bolt, B-o-l-t. The Chevrolet Bolt is a classic electric vehicle, and it gets about 140 miles--or it did at the time when it was debuted--about 140 miles on a charge, and now more than that, I think. When I was at the Detroit Auto Show last month, we saw electric- powered vehicles from American car companies, Korean car companies, Chinese companies that get up to 250 miles per charge--250 miles per charge. That is encouraging. What it is going to do is encourage a lot of people who hadn't even thought about buying them to do that. One of the reasons folks are still reluctant to buy them is because when you drive around the country and you have your electric vehicle or a hydrogen-powered vehicle for a fuel cell, when you are driving around, you need a place to refuel and to recharge, and you can't take the time--well, I have 6 hours to recharge my battery. People don't want to do that. They might be willing to spend 30 minutes to do that and grab something to eat, but they want to be able to recharge their batteries conveniently. They may want to refuel with hydrogen conveniently, but we don't have nearly enough places around the country. We are trying to create new corridors, densely populated corridors, places to recharge batteries and to refuel hydrogen tanks, but we have a lot of work left to do. So you put that in sort of the mix. I think not just as Americans but as inhabitants of this planet we want to reduce carbon emissions from the largest source of carbon emissions on our planet--mobile sources. Among the incentives for that right now--I am looking for a new car. In my minivan, my Chrysler Town & Country, which I bought the year I stepped down as Governor, I just went over 498,000 miles this week. I promised my wife that I would buy a new vehicle when this one went over one-half million miles. I want it to be an electric vehicle, and I want it to have a great distance between charges. I want to make sure we have a lot of charging stations around, not just in Delaware but all over the country, so I can refuel that baby when I save enough money to buy it. We have this tax credit in place for the first people who buy these cars, and then, basically, we need to make sure we have an investment tax credit around for a good while, and maybe phase it out over time, in order to encourage people and businesses and so forth--like Wawa, for example, and other gasoline stations--so they will be putting in their own money to put in those hydrogen fueling stations and the electric charging stations. Why is this important? Here is why it is important. We used to measure our rainfall in the country by the inch; we now measure it by the foot. I was speaking with a farmer earlier today, and he told me that last year in Delaware we had twice as much rain as we normally have. They planted their crops in the spring. We raise a lot of soybeans and corn in Delaware. They planted a good crop in spring, and it was washed out. They came back after it dried out and planted a second crop again, and a couple weeks later, it got washed out from the rain, and again the third time. Finally, they just kind of gave up. They gave up, and that is not a good thing. We had wildfires out in the great Northwest--Northern California, Oregon, Washington, Montana--this last year that were bigger than my State of Delaware. Right here in Ellicott City, in Maryland, where they have--have you heard of the term ``100-year flood''? A 100-year flood is something that occurs about every 100 years. A 500-year flood is something you would expect to occur every 500 years. In Ellicott City, MD, in the last year or so, they had two 1,000-year floods. Think about that. These are floods that are supposed to occur every 1,000 years. They had two of them in 18 months. That is not good. It is not just Ellicott City; it happens in other places as well. We have had more category 5 hurricanes than we have ever seen. I think the last 4 years have been the hottest 4 years on our planet. We know that climate change is happening, and this is real. We see the vestiges every day, and we need to do something about it and continue to do more about it going forward. The good thing about it is, we can do more about it and create economic opportunity. We can reduce bad emissions from cars, trucks, and vans and create economic opportunities. The auto industry in this country has basically let it be known that they would like to see the regulation put in place by the Obama administration about 3 years or so ago on fuel efficiency standards for cars, trucks, and vans. The auto industry says: You know, we would like to have some flexibility on those standards so that the monitor requirement gets more stringent going forward under the Obama regulation. Other companies have said they would like to have greater flexibility in the near term, maybe 2021 to 2025, and the Obama regulation was silent after the year 2025. They said: We would be willing to handle greater, more rigorous standards going forward after 2025, but give us flexibility in the near term. I think that is not a bad idea. They say that if we will do that, they can avoid a lawsuit with California and 12 other States that want to make sure California and other States have the ability to set their own fuel efficiency mileage requirements. The auto industry doesn't want to be involved in litigation with California or anybody else in the next 5 years. They ought to have certainty about the fuel efficiency standards their cars, trucks, and vans are going to have to meet in the years to come. The reason is that they need to make huge investments, and they need a long lead time for these investments. They are competing in an international marketplace against the rest of the world. The rest of the world is going to be willing to produce very efficient electric-powered and hydrogen-fueled cars, and they want to be able to compete with them. So here is a situation where we can do good things for our planet-- clean our air with respect to climate change--and we can do good things for the auto companies. (Mr. SCOTT of Florida assumed the Chair.) I see our new Presiding Officer, who just slipped into his seat. He used to be a Governor, and he used to do a lot of customer calls in Florida. I have done a lot of customer calls in Delaware, asking my businesses three questions: How are you doing? How are we doing? What can we do to help? When I ask the auto manufacturers what we can do to help, they say: Don't get rid of the electric vehicle credit. The idea of phasing it out over time might be OK--not overnight but over time The other thing is to make sure we put in place investment tax credits for fueling stations for hydrogen and charging stations for electricity. The current administration does not take the threat of climate change and severe weather as seriously as the rest of us. In my State we see it every day. Delaware--which, you know, may be 70, 80 miles to our east--is the second smallest State. I like to say it is the 49th largest State in America. But we are sinking, and the seas around us are rising. If you go down the east coast as far as Florida, you will find that in Florida, especially southern Florida, they have similar kinds of problems and concerns. This is real. What should we do about it? Well, the current administration should not lead a fight, in my judgment, to get rid of the current regulations that I described earlier and put in its place a regulation that basically says there will be little to no increase in fuel efficiency standards as we go forward. I just don't think that is smart, and, in the auto industry, that is not what they are asking for. They are asking for near-term flexibility, longer term certainty, and more rigorous standards. They think that would be good for their bottom line, and they could sell more vehicles. We had a committee hearing yesterday--actually a markup and business meeting in the Environment and Public Works Committee for the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be the Administrator of the EPA. We haven't had a Senate-confirmed Administrator for just over--about 1 year, maybe a little more than 1 year. Scott Pruitt was the first EPA Administrator for this administration--not a friend to the environment and someone who turned out, I think, to be ethically corrupt. He is gone, and Andrew Wheeler is the Acting Administrator; he was the assistant administrator. He has been nominated by the President to be the Administrator for the EPA. I didn't realize this a couple months ago, but when somebody is in a position like this, when they are the assistant administrator--in this case the EPA--and the person who leaves as the Administrator leaves a vacancy, the President can appoint the assistant administrator as the Acting Administrator. It is kind of like a promotion but in an acting form. That is good for 210 days. Sometimes you may have a situation in which someone is not the assistant administrator of the EPA or an Agency but is just plucked out of the air by the President and plopped in as the Acting Administrator. That person doesn't have 210 days--a period in which they can stay there and do the job as Acting Administrator. Andrew Wheeler does. For all intents and purposes he will be the Administrator in an acting capacity for 210 days. So we are saying to the administration, to our colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, there is no real need to rush through the nomination until we resolve our differences in a couple of areas, and one of those areas deals with emissions from mobile sources, the greatest source of carbon in our air. Another issue we have a lot of interest in--the automobile industry does; so does the utility industry; so does the Chamber of Commerce--is a regulation from the last administration that was actually promulgated in 2012. It is called MATS, mercury and air toxics standards. The mercury and toxics standards regulation, basically put in place in 2012, says to the utility industry: You have to reduce your emissions of mercury by 2050. Why do we care about mercury emissions? Because if you are a pregnant woman and you ingest fish with large amounts of mercury, you may do serious damage to your unborn child. It can also do serious damage to the life of the woman, but the real concern is brain damage for unborn children because of high levels of ingestion of mercury by pregnant women of childbearing age. We are not talking about something that affects 100 or 1,000 women a year. We are not talking about tens of thousands but literally hundreds of thousands of people who are at risk. So we have in place a MATS mercury and air toxics rule. It was adopted in 2012. The utility companies initially said: Well, we don't like that. We don't want to do that. Guess what. They did--and at one-third of the cost they expected. It was implemented more quickly than they expected, and the health benefits are greater than they expected. Now the utility industry, including the rural electric co-ops, including their trade association for utilities, chamber of commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, a whole host of environmental groups and clean air groups--everybody said: Well, we know this MATS rule, the mercury and air toxics rule we are familiar with, and we are complying with it. It is OK. Leave it alone. The current administration wants to take some steps that would really undermine the ability to uphold that 2012 regulation in a court of law. They are saying they are not doing that, but actually that is the effect of what they are trying to do. In order to move expeditiously on the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be the Administrator of EPA, we want to make clear that the mercury and air toxics standards rule does not go away. We are going to comply with what the industry has asked us to do. The third front I will mention is HFCs--we are really good with acronyms--hydrofluorocarbons. We have refrigerants, and we all have air conditioning in our cars and homes--most of us. We used to use perfluorocarbons in the cooling systems, in our refrigerator systems. They have created real problems for the environment and the atmosphere. The follow-on product was called HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons. We found this was better for the atmosphere, better for the environment--but not great--and American companies, American technologies have come up with another product to replace HFC. That form of technology is American- owned, and American technology creates American jobs. We need to adopt and pass a treaty in this country called the Kigali treaty, which makes it clear that the current HFCs, which are coolants for refrigerants, are still a problem, but they can be phased out, and this new technology by American companies can be phased in to take its place. This involves job creation in this country. We are not talking about a couple of hundred jobs; we are talking about thousands of jobs--good-paying jobs in this country, bringing economic value to American companies--not measured in millions of dollars but billions of dollars every year. It is there for us. This is a situation in which American technology can do good things for our environment, for our atmosphere, for our air, and at the same time create jobs, American jobs using American technology. I might mention one more, something called--and I just want to say that the EPA is standing in the way of the administration's submitting for our approval in the Senate this treaty called the Kigali treaty. Apparently, the State Department wants to submit the treaty for our consideration. The Commerce Department wants to submit the treaty for our administration, and the EPA is standing in the way. I don't really understand why, but before we move expeditiously on the nomination of Mr. Wheeler, the administration should say: OK, we are not messing with the treaty. Most of the administration thinks they ought to submit it, and, frankly, so do the rest of us. It is one of those deals, again, that is good for environment, good for public health, creates jobs--win-win. The last one I want to mention is PFOA. I wish I can tell you what it stands for, but it is a long name. One of the things we found out is that in places where we have military bases--where we have firefighting equipment for planes, air crashes and so forth, and we use that type of firefighting equipment--sometimes the water runs off the tarmac, off the runways and the parking areas, and it gets into groundwater and creates problems with our drinking water. These are substances that are known carcinogens, and we have seen in places around the country-- including places like West Virginia, where I was born, and North Carolina, where my wife is from--this is a real problem. We are not saying--nobody is saying, at least to my knowledge--that it ought to be completely banned. This family of elements, the PFAS and PFOA--we are not asking for a ban; we just want a clean water drinking standard established by the EPA. That is what we want in 2 years--not today, not tomorrow, but in 2 years, creating clean water so that people can be protected. Those are four things we are asking for the administration to take action on and to make clear. To the extent it does, we are then prepared to move forward on the nomination, right here, for Andrew Wheeler. My guess is, he will get confirmed, but I think it is important for us to address those particular issues. At the end of the day, we will improve the quality of life for the people in our country. At the same time, we will create jobs. That is a great combination. It is a real win-win. We can seize the day and win on behalf of our young people and our not so young people. At the same time, we can create a lot of jobs and enhance economic activity. We ought to do that. If we do, the EPA will end up with an Administrator-- one who will be a lot better than the last one. Let's do that. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield to my friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I thank the Senator for his comments. As Senator Cornyn lives down at the border and as his State is on the border, he is well familiar with that part of the world. As it turns out, as the former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I have had a chance to visit the borders in the Senator's State and in other States along the Mexican border. Not that long ago, there were a whole lot of Mexicans coming into the United States, as he knows, and not so many Mexicans going back to Mexico. In the year 2000, when illegal immigration peaked, huge numbers of Mexicans came in--not so much today. As the Senator knows, they are coming from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. I am a huge advocate of border security. I think fencing makes sense in a lot of places. We have hundreds of miles of fencing, and in a lot of places, fences alongside roads make sense. We have very sophisticated surveillance equipment that can look from different platforms. We have drones, fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, stationary towers, and mobile towers that can look down 20, 25 miles into Mexico and pick up people who are coming up from the south. Motion detectors make sense, and tunnel detectors make sense. There is a lot of stuff that makes sense. I am all for investing there. I think Democrats and Republicans can find common ground, and I think we have. The appropriations bills that we have passed will actually fund that kind of stuff. They are not just Democratic ideas, and they are not just Republican ideas. They are good ideas, and a lot of them come from our Border Patrol personnel, as the Senator knows. We can do all of this and more on the southern border with Mexico, but if people in Honduras, in Guatemala, and in El Salvador continue to live lives of misery because we are complicit in our addiction to drugs, they are going to still want to come up here. So we need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time and also provide, through Alliance for Prosperity, which is, really, a modern-day planned Colombia, a little bit of hope and opportunity so they will feel less compelled to come to this country to have a better life. Thank you.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Wood Heater Emissions Reduction Act, or WHERA, which I am introducing today with my good friend (Ms. Murkowski), the senior Senator from Alaska. In 2005, my dear friend, former Senator Voinovich, came to me with a great idea--the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, or DERA. DERA didn't roll back emissions standards for diesel engines, but instead created an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant program to incentivize the use of newer diesel technology. Together, and joined by many of my colleagues that are still serving in the Senate today, we established one of the most successful clean air programs on the books. This program is one that is loved by retailers, manufactures, States and health groups alike. As many of my colleagues know, I'm someone that is always trying to find out what works and do more of it. When my staff explained to me the public health challenges that residential wood heaters present to communities, especially rural communities across this country; I knew the challenges were very similar to the ones we faced with diesel engines in 2005. I knew if DERA could be a successful program to retrofit or replace old diesel engines, we could use the program as a framework to replace residential wood heaters. Like the eleven million old diesel engines that were on the road a decade ago, there are over eleven million homes that use wood as a primary or secondary heat source, and a majority of those homes are located in rural areas. These residential wood heaters, such as woodstoves, pellet stoves and wood furnaces, often have a long life-span, some lasting more than fifty years. Due to this long lifespan, industry estimates that six million residential wood heaters in operation today do not meet 1988 EPA Clean Air Act emission standards, much less the current emissions standards implemented in 2015. Collectively, older residential wood heaters are a major source of air pollution in the United States, especially in rural areas. According to EPA, older, inefficient residential wood heaters can produce a deadly mix of particulate matter (or PM), carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (which contribute to ozone), black carbon (which contributes to climate change) and air toxics (such as benzene and formaldehyde). This pollution builds up inside and outside the home and contaminates the air we breathe. This pollution can trigger asthma attacks and cause lung damage, cancer, and other significant health problems, including death. As other industries clean up their air emissions, older, inefficient residential wood heaters stand out among the largest sources of PM pollution. EPA data indicate that nation-wide, inefficient residential wood heaters emit five times more PM pollution than the U.S. petroleum refineries, cement manufacturers, and pulp and paper plants combined. In Delaware alone, older wood heaters are the second largest source of PM pollution in the state, contributing more than highway vehicles, electric utilities and the petroleum industries combined. In Alaska, inefficient woodstoves and wood heaters play a significant role in the classification of Fairbanks as a nonattainment area for fine particulate air pollution. Fortunately, technology made and sold in the U.S. can dramatically reduce the pollution that is emitted from residential wood heaters and the amount of wood needed to heat a home. Wood heaters being made today that meet EPA's strictest emission standards emit at least 70% less PM and save consumers twenty to forty percent in heating costs from gained efficiencies. If we could encourage all homeowners to use the latest residential wood heater technology, it could have a massive beneficial effect on public health. EPA has determined that replacing just one old, inefficient wood heater is equivalent to taking five dirty diesel engines off the road and the monetized public health benefits from replacing the Nation's old, inefficient residential wood heaters would be up to $126 billion per year. Baser on all that we know, it is clear that replacing older stoves for newer, cleaner burning stoves will result in cleaner air, lower healthcare bills and lower costs for consumers. Unfortunately, as with old diesel engine owners, most homeowners are not aware of the health problems associated with their old wood heaters or cannot afford to buy a new wood heater on their own. This means that newer, cleaner heaters are not getting into homes fast enough. The Carper-Murkowski Wood Heater Emissions Reduction Act attempts to solve this problem. WHERA authorizes a five-year grant program at EPA to incentivize the removal and replacement of old, inefficient residential wood heaters for more efficient, clean-burning heaters. Specifically, WHERA funding targets incentives to: (1) scrap or recycle old wood heaters; and (2) replace them with new, efficient, clean burning and properly installed heaters that at least meet EPA's most stringent wood heater emission standards. Using the successful Diesel Emissions Reduction Act as a model, WHERA allows States, Indian tribes, territories, and local air quality agencies to compete for Federal dollars to fund wood heater change-out programs that work for their communities. WHERA also supports retailers and manufacturers with the transition to cleaner, more efficient residential wood heaters. WHERA incentivizes homeowners to buy the best available residential wood heater products-- when they might not otherwise do so--giving financial incentives for retailers and manufacturers to sell and make the best products. Overall, the residential wood heater industry has been supportive of such wood heater change-out programs at the State and local level. Because rural areas and tribal areas have a disproportionate need, WHERA also requires that Indian tribal and rural communities are fairly represented in funding allocations and that Indian tribal governments receive at least 4% of total funding under the program. My friend from Alaska and I feel that we've put together a program that will be as, or more, successful than the DERA program. Replacing outdated wood heaters with new clean-burning heaters that meet EPA emission standards will reduce toxic air pollution and particulate matter, protect public health, and support American jobs. This legislation is a true win-win-win, and one that I commend to my colleagues for their serious consideration.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Wood Heater Emissions Reduction Act, or WHERA, which I am introducing today with my good friend (Ms. Murkowski), the senior Senator from Alaska. In 2005, my dear friend, former Senator Voinovich, came to me with a great idea--the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, or DERA. DERA didn't roll back emissions standards for diesel engines, but instead created an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant program to incentivize the use of newer diesel technology. Together, and joined by many of my colleagues that are still serving in the Senate today, we established one of the most successful clean air programs on the books. This program is one that is loved by retailers, manufactures, States and health groups alike. As many of my colleagues know, I'm someone that is always trying to find out what works and do more of it. When my staff explained to me the public health challenges that residential wood heaters present to communities, especially rural communities across this country; I knew the challenges were very similar to the ones we faced with diesel engines in 2005. I knew if DERA could be a successful program to retrofit or replace old diesel engines, we could use the program as a framework to replace residential wood heaters. Like the eleven million old diesel engines that were on the road a decade ago, there are over eleven million homes that use wood as a primary or secondary heat source, and a majority of those homes are located in rural areas. These residential wood heaters, such as woodstoves, pellet stoves and wood furnaces, often have a long life-span, some lasting more than fifty years. Due to this long lifespan, industry estimates that six million residential wood heaters in operation today do not meet 1988 EPA Clean Air Act emission standards, much less the current emissions standards implemented in 2015. Collectively, older residential wood heaters are a major source of air pollution in the United States, especially in rural areas. According to EPA, older, inefficient residential wood heaters can produce a deadly mix of particulate matter (or PM), carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (which contribute to ozone), black carbon (which contributes to climate change) and air toxics (such as benzene and formaldehyde). This pollution builds up inside and outside the home and contaminates the air we breathe. This pollution can trigger asthma attacks and cause lung damage, cancer, and other significant health problems, including death. As other industries clean up their air emissions, older, inefficient residential wood heaters stand out among the largest sources of PM pollution. EPA data indicate that nation-wide, inefficient residential wood heaters emit five times more PM pollution than the U.S. petroleum refineries, cement manufacturers, and pulp and paper plants combined. In Delaware alone, older wood heaters are the second largest source of PM pollution in the state, contributing more than highway vehicles, electric utilities and the petroleum industries combined. In Alaska, inefficient woodstoves and wood heaters play a significant role in the classification of Fairbanks as a nonattainment area for fine particulate air pollution. Fortunately, technology made and sold in the U.S. can dramatically reduce the pollution that is emitted from residential wood heaters and the amount of wood needed to heat a home. Wood heaters being made today that meet EPA's strictest emission standards emit at least 70% less PM and save consumers twenty to forty percent in heating costs from gained efficiencies. If we could encourage all homeowners to use the latest residential wood heater technology, it could have a massive beneficial effect on public health. EPA has determined that replacing just one old, inefficient wood heater is equivalent to taking five dirty diesel engines off the road and the monetized public health benefits from replacing the Nation's old, inefficient residential wood heaters would be up to $126 billion per year. Baser on all that we know, it is clear that replacing older stoves for newer, cleaner burning stoves will result in cleaner air, lower healthcare bills and lower costs for consumers. Unfortunately, as with old diesel engine owners, most homeowners are not aware of the health problems associated with their old wood heaters or cannot afford to buy a new wood heater on their own. This means that newer, cleaner heaters are not getting into homes fast enough. The Carper-Murkowski Wood Heater Emissions Reduction Act attempts to solve this problem. WHERA authorizes a five-year grant program at EPA to incentivize the removal and replacement of old, inefficient residential wood heaters for more efficient, clean-burning heaters. Specifically, WHERA funding targets incentives to: (1) scrap or recycle old wood heaters; and (2) replace them with new, efficient, clean burning and properly installed heaters that at least meet EPA's most stringent wood heater emission standards. Using the successful Diesel Emissions Reduction Act as a model, WHERA allows States, Indian tribes, territories, and local air quality agencies to compete for Federal dollars to fund wood heater change-out programs that work for their communities. WHERA also supports retailers and manufacturers with the transition to cleaner, more efficient residential wood heaters. WHERA incentivizes homeowners to buy the best available residential wood heater products-- when they might not otherwise do so--giving financial incentives for retailers and manufacturers to sell and make the best products. Overall, the residential wood heater industry has been supportive of such wood heater change-out programs at the State and local level. Because rural areas and tribal areas have a disproportionate need, WHERA also requires that Indian tribal and rural communities are fairly represented in funding allocations and that Indian tribal governments receive at least 4% of total funding under the program. My friend from Alaska and I feel that we've put together a program that will be as, or more, successful than the DERA program. Replacing outdated wood heaters with new clean-burning heaters that meet EPA emission standards will reduce toxic air pollution and particulate matter, protect public health, and support American jobs. This legislation is a true win-win-win, and one that I commend to my colleagues for their serious consideration.