Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, it is good to see you here today. The place is a little empty. I am glad the Presiding Officer, our staff, and our pages are all here. I rise today to urge my colleagues to support two critical nominations to the Department of Homeland Security. They are Russ Deyo to be the Under Secretary for Management at the Department of Homeland Security and Sarah Saldana to be the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The committee which I am privileged to lead, along with Dr. Tom Coburn, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is responsible for working with the administration and others to help protect our Nation's security at home and abroad. At the same time, we strive to make sure Federal agencies work better and more efficiently with the resources that are entrusted to them by the American people. During my years of public service, I have learned that the most important ingredient in helping organizations to work is leadership. I do not care whether the organization is a body such as this, a governing body, I do not care whether it is a sports team, a business, college or university, a school, the most important ingredient in the success of that organization is leadership. The Presiding Officer is one who has led the National Guard for the State of Montana for a number of years. He knows just what I mean. I thank him for his service and for his leadership. When it comes to the Department of Homeland Security, the absence of leadership throughout the Department has been a great challenge and a major cause of the low standing in terms of employee morale that Department faces. As we know, the Congress is going to soon wrap up our session for the year--in a couple of days. Senators have the obligation to fill two key leadership posts in the Department of Homeland Security in the days that lie ahead. One is the Under Secretary for Management. Mr. Deyo has been nominated by the President. I believe he is a Republican. The other is the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Sarah Saldana. As we all know, this Department plays a critical role in protecting our Nation from a number of threats, including terrorism, cyber attacks, and natural disasters, just to name a few. Given the Department's significant role in the security of our country, it is critical that Secretary Jeh Johnson have a full leadership team in place. That includes Russ Deyo as his Under Secretary for Management. That is the third highest position in the Department. I wish to take a couple of minutes to explain why Mr. Deyo's nomination is so important. As of this week more than 10 months will have passed since the last Senate-confirmed Under Secretary for Management, Rafael Borras, stepped down from his post. He was an excellent public servant, a great leader. We salute him and wish him well. But he has been gone for almost a year, and since then the Department has not had Senate-confirmed leadership. They need it. Under Secretary Borras was widely respected by members of our committee in the Senate and the House and others for his leadership, management expertise, and most of all, maybe, for his candor. He helped the Department make strides in many areas and led the Department to its first clean financial audit--something the Department was able to achieve again this year for the second year in a row. Why is that important? I have a friend, and if you ask him how he is doing, he says: Compared to what? Well the Department of Homeland Security--it took them almost a decade to get an unqualified audit, a clean financial audit. The Department of Defense has been around a whole lot longer--since the end of World War II. They have yet to get a clean financial audit. They are making some progress finally. But the Department of Homeland Security achieved it 2 years ago and then again this year. I think it is safe to say that the Department needs somebody with the same kind of commitment and leadership Rafael Borras brought. I believe, Secretary Johnson believes, and the President believes Russ Deyo is that person. Mr. Deyo had an impressive career in the private sector, for 27 years helping to lead Johnson & Johnson, one of the top companies not just in America but in the world. There, he was the general counsel, and he was vice president for administration. We are so lucky that someone with his capabilities, his commitment, his smarts, his leadership skills, and his integrity is willing to serve in the Federal Government at this level. He also spent the last 15 years serving on the executive committee at Johnson & Johnson, which is the principal management group responsible for the company's global operations. He was also a partner at a major U.S. law firm. Russ Deyo is no stranger to public service and working with law enforcement organizations. He was assistant U.S. attorney for New Jersey for 8 years. That included a period of time as chief of public corruption unit there. His perspective from the private and public sectors will be an invaluable asset to Secretary Jeh Johnson, particularly as the Secretary implements his Unity of Effort Initiative at the Department, which strives to help the Department operate in a more unified, cohesive manner across all components. If confirmed, Mr. Deyo will have a number of other challenges on his plate. For example, our friends at the Government Accountability Office continue to remind us that the acquisition and budgeting systems at the Department of Homeland Security are not fully mature. In fact, the overall management of the Department remains on the Government Accountability Office's high-risk list of government operations that need urgent attention. Of course, if Mr. Deyo is confirmed, he will inherit the challenges of improving morale across the Department. These are tough challenges, and some have been around since the creation of the Department. But I believe Mr. Deyo has the leadership experience and the skills necessary to tackle these challenges and to really make a difference. I will take a moment here, if I can. Every year there is a nonprofit organization that looks across the Federal Government and asks questions of a lot of employees to really ascertain where morale is high, where some of the favorite places are for people to work in the Federal Government. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a number of years has led the pack there. There are roughly 15 big Departments that are part of that survey, but all told, there are something like 314 Federal agencies that are surveyed to make up this list, and the Department of Homeland Security runs dead last among the big Departments that are surveyed. Out of all of the Federal agencies that are surveyed, and there are 314 in all, ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which Sarah Saldana has been nominated to lead--dead last. Dead last. One of the reasons why, when I talk to people at the Department of Homeland Security, employees, whether they happen to be customs agents, whether they happen to be folks down on the border, Border Patrol, whether they happen to be TSA folks--whatever role they are playing across the country and around the world, among the major factors they point to, explaining the low morale, is lack of leadership, lack of confirmed leadership. We have worked so hard to address that. We have two holes left. One of them will be filled by Mr. Deyo--we need to confirm him--and the other by Sarah Saldana. Here is what former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff--Judge Chertoff-- had to say when he introduced Mr. Deyo at his confirmation hearing before the homeland security committee earlier this year. Here is what the former Secretary said: Russ brings to the position he has been nominated for a broad range of experience with one of the best enterprises in the world. That is Johnson & Johnson. You will find him to be a smart, experienced, and devoted public servant who will actually bring a unique set of skills to this job which are very critical. This is a former Secretary of the Department. He said: I could not give a stronger endorsement to Mr. Deyo for this position. Mr. Deyo has also received strong endorsements from three former Under Secretaries for Management at DHS, people who have had this job, done this job before: Paul Schneider, Elaine Duke, and the immediate past Under Secretary, Rafael Borras, whom I mentioned earlier. Here is what they had to say. Here is what the three of them, in unison, had to say about Russ Deyo: Russ Deyo is an outstanding choice by the President to be Under Secretary for Management. An impressive leader, he brings the requisite skills, experience, and leadership to this important position. He is recognized as a professional, unflappable statesman who can meet head-on the challenges this position faces and get results. I have had the privilege of meeting with him. I don't make snap judgments about people, but he is one impressive human being, one impressive leader. Everything I have learned about Mr. Deyo over the past several months has led me to conclude that he would be not only an exceptional candidate to be a manager at DHS but a terrific Under Secretary if confirmed. I urge all my colleagues to support the nomination of Russ Deyo. I wish to take a few more moments to turn to the nomination of Sarah Saldana to be the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security. We call it ICE, the acronym. As I said earlier, of the 314 Federal agencies that are evaluated top to bottom in terms of employee satisfaction, ICE was dead last, No. 314. It has been almost 1\1/2\ years since they had a Senate-confirmed leader. They need one--not just anyone, they need a terrific leader. We believe Sarah Saldana fills that bill and meets the qualifications and the needs very well. Immigration and Customs Enforcement--ICE, as we call it--is a vital law enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security. As I said earlier, it has been without a Presidentially appointed and confirmed leader for almost 1\1/2\ years--far too long, particularly considering all the issues we face along our borders and the more than 400 laws--think of that--that this agency, ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is required to enforce. Some of my colleagues may not be familiar with what ICE does and why it is so critical for the agency to have Senate-confirmed leadership in place. I wish to take a minute to address that. ICE is one of the Nation's law enforcement agencies, with more than 19,000 employees in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 48 foreign countries. What do all these people do? That is a fair question. In 2013 ICE special agents initiated over 125,000 new investigations, made over 40,000 criminal arrests, seized $1.3 billion in currency and assets and took $1.6 million pounds of narcotics and other dangerous drugs off our streets. That is just part of what they do. On any given day ICE arrests 370 criminal aliens in the interior of our country, has 34,000 people in detention, and moves nearly 500 criminal aliens from our country--on any given day. Managing such a large agency, with one of the most complex missions in the Federal Government, is a tall order. Thankfully, Ms. Saldana has agreed to step up to this challenge. She is a true American success story. She rose from humble beginnings in South Texas as the youngest of seven children to become an accomplished partner at a major law firm. She is now the Nation's top law enforcement officers. Ms. Saldana was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2011 to her current position as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas. She has a distinguished record representing the U.S. Government as the senior law enforcement officer in one of the largest districts in the Nation. It spans some 100 counties. I don't know how many counties the Presiding Officer has in the State of Montana--we have three--but she presides over a law enforcement operation that has 100 counties in the northern part of Texas. In this role, she deals as closely and extensively as anyone else with the threats this country faces every day from transnational criminal networks. This experience will serve her well if confirmed to lead ICE. Don't take my word for it. One of our good friends in the Senate, John Cornyn, the senior Senator from Texas, felt strongly enough about her qualifications that he personally introduced Ms. Saldana at her confirmation hearing before the committee Dr. Coburn and I lead, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Senator Cornyn said about Sarah Saldana: In her role as U.S. Attorney and prosecutor over the past decade, Ms. Saldana has served our State with honor, fighting corrupt public officials, organized crime, sex traffickers, and other dangerous criminals. That sounds like a highly qualified candidate to me. That is not all Senator Cornyn had to say about Ms. Saldana. He went on to say this as well: If respect for the rule of law is our standard, and I think it should be, we would be hard pressed to find a person more qualified to enforce the law than Ms. Saldana. That is high praise indeed and I couldn't agree more. Some are arguing we should not confirm Ms. Saldana because of the President's recent Executive action on immigration. This decision will provide, though, relief from deportation for as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants living in the shadows today, law-abiding people who are productive members of our communities. Still, some argue the President's actions should preclude the Senate from confirming even a highly qualified candidate such as Sarah Saldana to this critical position. I think that is absurd. We have before the Senate a highly qualified candidate, a person who--according to her neighbor and the senior Senator from Texas--is fiercely independent, has served with honor in her current role, and respects the rule of law. It does not punish the President to leave this position unfilled, it punishes the citizens of our country. It makes it harder for ICE to accomplish its mission, and it hurts the men and women at ICE who deserve a leader to ensure that this agency runs as efficiently as possible. I believe the President acted within the bounds of the law in announcing his executive action. But whether you agree with me, opposing Ms. Saldana's nomination will do nothing to change what the President has done, nothing. I hope Ms. Saldana, the first Hispanic person and second woman to be nominated to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, does not fall victim to politics as usual in the Senate. She is by all accounts exactly what this critical agency needs: a proven leader and a respected member of the law enforcement community. What do they say about integrity? If you have it, nothing else matters. Integrity, if you don't have it, nothing else matters. She has it. She will have a tough job ahead of her if she is confirmed this week, but I believe she is more than up to the task. I urge so strongly for our colleagues to join me, to join Senator Cornyn, and others to support her. We will never regret it. With that, I am looking around the Senate Chamber. I know we are going to have a lot of folks voting, but I don't see anybody to speak. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed en bloc and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CARPER. As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of the following items, which are postal naming-bills, and the Senate proceed to their consideration en bloc: H.R. 3027, H.R. 4416, H.R. 4651, H.R. 5331, and H.R. 5562.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. As the chairman is aware, our staffs worked diligently with property owners and other stakeholders in the drafting of the language authorizing the First State National Historical Park within H.R. 3979. The authorization includes language that redesignates the sites currently within the boundary of the First State National Monument and authorizes four additional sites--the Old Swedes Church, Fort Christina, the John Dickinson Plantation, and the Ryves Holt House--to be included within the boundary of the new First State National Historical Park. The language authorizes the National Park Service to acquire the listed additional sites only under very specific parameters, including by purchase from a willing seller; by exchange, which can only be achieved if the property owner consents; or by donation. No lands or interests in land can be acquired by condemnation, so no landowner can be forced to sell their property for inclusion in the park. To further clarify our intent, the legislation references a map outlining the boundaries for each of the eligible sites. I would like to ask the Chair of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources whether she agrees with my intent and understanding of the language authorizing the First State National Historical Park within H.R. 3979 in that no additional property can be included in the boundaries of the park until the U.S. government has acquired the property, and furthermore, that no property can be acquired--either in fee title or an interest in land, such as an easement--unless acquired from a landowner who willingly desires to sell or donate. I would also like to ask the chairman if it is her understanding that none of these properties could be acquired for inclusion within the boundaries of the park by the exercise of Federal power of eminent domain?

Mr. CARPER. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her comments and her leadership on this issue. I also would like to thank the committee staff, especially David Brooks, for all the hard work they have done over the years to make a national park a reality in Delaware.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Landrieu, concerning the authorization of the First State National Historical Park that was included within H.R. 3979, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, Senator Coons.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, along with my colleague Senator Coons, I rise today in support of Division M of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act. I would also like to clarify the intent of this bipartisan and technical bill, which was necessary to clearly explain how the Affordable Care Act, ACA, should apply to U.S.-issued expatriate health insurance plans and to ensure that U.S. health insurers who provide expatriate health insurance plans encounter the same legal requirements and expectations as foreign expatriate health insurers. Expatriate health insurance plans are high-quality and comprehensive health insurance plans intended for a globally mobile, highly skilled and sought-after workforce. Expatriate workers can be found in diverse industries and sectors, including corporations such as airlines and oil and gas exploration companies, nonprofit organizations, foreign aid groups, and contractors in conflict zones supporting or protecting U.S. troops and citizens. Expatriate workers often travel between multiple countries several times within 1 year or live in foreign countries for prolonged periods of time. These expatriate workers and their families typically require and depend on comprehensive health care services and other supporting services in multiple countries in the course of one year. U.S.-issued expatriate plans cover fewer than 500,000 individuals, which primarily include Americans working overseas. My understanding and intent is that the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act should make only limited and technical modifications to the ACA that apply to U.S. health insurers providing health insurance coverage to ``qualified expatriates'' as defined by this legislation. These modifications are necessary to ensure that U.S. insurance companies offering expatriate health plans can remain competitive in the global marketplace for these plans, alongside foreign insurers who are not subject to the same ACA requirements. This legislation should not affect current labor or immigration laws or regulations. I have worked hand-in-hand with Senators Coons, Toomey, Rubio, Harkin, Wyden, Alexander, Hatch, and a bipartisan group of our House colleagues to ensure that the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act is narrowly written to respect, and leave undisturbed, our existing immigration laws and regulations.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. The Senator from Oregon has thanked Tom for his service in the Senate. I wish to thank him for his service before he was in the Senate when he and I were kids--well, not exactly--but when we served in the United States services. We spent some time in airplanes--not in the same airplane, but roughly at the same time. A lot of times people come up to me and thank me for my service in the Navy--and I am sure they do that with you--and I tell them that I loved it. I loved the men and women I served with, I loved the missions, and it was an honor to do that. I wanted to start off by thanking you for that, and to say that is one of the bonds which has drawn us together as friends right from the start. The Senator from Oregon mentioned your strong effort to raise the minimum wage, which ultimately was not successful. I want to mention a couple of issues I have had the privilege of working on with you that I think have been very successful. There is a battle that needs to continue to be fought, and I plan to continue to do that, and my hope is that you and others will do it too. As veterans, I know how important the GI bill was for me and for you as well. I think we got about $250 a month on the GI bill, and I was happy to have every dime of it. I moved from California to the University of Delaware when I got out of the Navy, got an MBA, and I still flew for the Navy and the Reserves, and it was a huge help for me. The folks who get the GI bill today come back from Afghanistan and Iraq or wherever, and if they have served for 3 years they get the GI bill, as you know, and that means they get full tuition. If they go to the University of Iowa, Delaware State, Iowa State, they get free tuition. They get free books, fees, tutoring. In my State they get a $1,500-a-month housing allowance. That is the GI bill today. There are a bunch of colleges around the country that--just as they did when my dad came back from World War II or when my Uncle Ed came back from the Korean war, others have come back from Vietnam and so forth--there are scam artists involved with postsecondary training schools, sometimes colleges, and they see the GI with that benefit, and they see it as if it were a dollar sign on their back, and they want to go after the dollar sign and separate the value from the benefit. The Senator from Iowa has worked on this so hard, trying to make sure--there are plenty of for-profit postsecondary schools and such that do a good job, and there are some that don't. Nobody has been as active in trying to make sure that we clean this up as you have been, my friend, and my friend from Illinois, Dick Durbin, and I am pleased to be the wingman on this. I promise that Senator Durbin and I aren't going away. The folks who do this job right, the for-profits that are doing a good job by veterans and taxpayers, we salute them; and those who do not, we are going after them. So I thank you and your staff for standing up for veterans consistently. The other thing I wanted to mention is that many people are having lunch right now across the eastern part of our country, maybe getting ready, over in Iowa, to have some lunch. If people go into a chain restaurant where there are 15 or more restaurants in that chain across the country--I think it is 15 or 20--they look at the menu to order, and right there they see the calories. If they want more information about the fats, trans fats, the amount of sodium in the food--all kinds of information--they get it. We are a nation where obesity is a huge problem, a huge cost driver in health care. I thank the Senator for leading the charge on menu labeling, which is the reality in our country, and you should feel good about that. I feel very good about that. It has been a blessing knowing you and serving with you, Tom. There is an old saying: Flattery won't hurt you if you don't inhale. You are having a lot of flattery thrown at you here today, so don't breathe too deeply and you should be OK. We thank and salute you and your wife Ruth and your family. In the Navy, when people have done a really good job, we say words like ``bravo zulu,'' and I say bravo zulu to you. When people are ready to weigh anchor and sail off into the sunrise, we say things like ``fair winds and following seas,'' and I say that to you as well. God bless you.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I have no prepared remarks. I am trying to speak right from my heart, and my heart is full. I want to start off by thanking Tom for the very kind comments he made about serving with me. We met 10 years ago. He was that bomb thrower--still is a little bit--that Saxby talked about when they were elected 20 years ago. I was one of the people who came up, along with Lamar Alexander, George Voinovich, and Mark Pryor, for an orientation for new Senators so that when they got here we could actually spend some time and teach the new guys and gals the ropes. I remember the first day we convened and put them all in a big circle in Ted Stevens' office, a beautiful office here in the Capitol, and out of those 3 days Tom and Carolyn and Michelle and Barack began to bond and became friends. I didn't know how close friends they were until about 4 or 5 years ago. Barack Obama had given the State of the Union address. I was sitting on the Republican side. There was a time when we actually went back and forth to try to mix things up. The President finished his speech, and there is no rope line at those speeches. The President came along to shake hands with people. I was sitting next to Tom, and we walked down so we could say hi to the President. I will never forget what the President said to him. In just the quiet between the two of them--they embraced, and the President said to him: Are you still praying for me? And very quietly, Tom Coburn said: Every night. Just like that--they didn't agree on everything, but they were friends. They are friends, and they will always be friends. I hope Tom and I will be as well. I remember sitting up there where Cory Booker, our new Senator from New Jersey, is sitting now, listening to Mike Enzi talking about how he worked so well with Ted Kennedy--Ted Kennedy, one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate, and Mike Enzi, one of the most conservative-- and how they got extraordinary amounts of stuff done. I just want to say that the legislation coming out of our committee-- and Senator Collins has led that committee before--is moving through this body and the House--it is really pretty amazing--to strengthen our cyber defenses, to take the chemical facility antiterrorism law that Susan Collins authored and to make it better and make it real, to better protect our Nation's information from attacks from all over the world, to try to make our Postal Service not just relevant and not just hanging on but actually vibrant and real. But that day, Mike Enzi talked about the 80/20 rule with Ted Kennedy. He said: Ted Kennedy and I agree on about 80 percent of the stuff, and we disagree on 20 percent. He and I decided to focus on the 80 percent we agreed on and set aside the 20 percent we didn't agree on to another day. I call that the ``Enzi Rule,'' and that has helped guide me here in the Senate, and it certainly has helped to guide me in the work I have been privileged to do with Dr. Coburn. When I became chairman of the committee about 2 years ago and Dr. Coburn was going to be the ranking member of the committee, somebody asked me what it was going to be like. How are you going to work with this guy? I said: It is going to be a little like a marriage. You have to work at it every day. Everybody has to give and meet somewhere in the middle. I love to ask people who have been married a long time what the secret is for being married a long time. Some of you have maybe heard me talk about this. I get some really hilarious answers but also some really terrific and insightful answers. I think the best one I have ever gotten when I asked what is the secret for being married 40, 50, 60, 70 years is the two c's. It is not Coburn and Carper. It is the two c's: communicate and compromise. That is not only the secret for a vibrant, long marriage for two people; it is a secret for a vibrant democracy. I believe the reason why Tom and I have had this partnership that I think has been productive is, one, we surround ourselves with people-- certainly for me--smarter than us. The second thing is we believe in communicating, we believe in compromising, and we believe in collaborating. I think the American people are the beneficiaries of that. We have a reception later today for Tom, and I hope he comes. We will have the opportunity to say some more things, as well. He is not the kind of person who likes to be praised, so this is probably punishment. There is a verse in the Scriptures talking about heaping with praise, pouring praise all over. This is probably a little like that. But I want to close with this. His words on the Bowles-Simpson Commission are for the ages, and I hope we will never walk away from the lessons he showed us with his courage in supporting that work and helping to craft that work. There are words in the Scriptures, in Matthew 25, that talk about the least of these in our society. When I was sick, when I was hungry, when I was thirsty, when I was naked, when I was in prison--those are the questions. The answer: If you have done it to the least of these, you have done it also to Me. Senator Coburn believes we have a moral responsibility, a moral obligation to the least of these in our society. He also believes we have a fiscal obligation, a fiscal imperative to meet that moral obligation in a fiscally responsible way. And I think those two ideas guide him in his work, and, frankly, it is an inspiration to me. Last word. Leaders should be humble, not haughty. Leaders should lead by our example, not ``do as I say'' but ``do as I do.'' Leaders should have the heart of a servant. Leaders should have the courage to stay out of step when everyone else is marching to the wrong tune. Leaders ought to be committed to doing what is right, not what is easy. Leaders should treat other people the way they want to be treated. Tom has offended just about everybody in this body, but he always comes back and apologizes, and he has already done it here today. Leaders should focus on excellence in everything they do. If it isn't perfect, make it better. It is in the preamble of the Constitution--``in order to form a more perfect Union.'' That defines him. Finally, if you think you are right and you know you are right, never give up. That is what a leader should be about. For the years he served here and for a long time before that and for a long time to come, he has been that leader, and I feel lucky to say he is my friend. God bless you.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I object, just for a moment.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, our colleagues know the Presiding Officer is a recovering Governor, I am a recovering Governor, Mike Johanns is a recovering Governor. So we are sort of a support group for one another, men and women who used to be somebody special. I am kidding because I think we still are. The Senator was talking about Michael, and I had the privilege of knowing him and his wife for a number of years. We were Governors together, and my wife Martha and his wife Stephanie were First Ladies together and define what the standards should be for First Lady or First Man, if you will, if you have a female Governor. I will never forget when I first met him. I was talking about Stephanie and how we know each other and so forth, and he told me this great story about--I think they were county commissioners together. It was Lancaster County. I might be mistaken, I think he used to be in those days maybe a Democrat, and a long time ago I was a young Republican for Barry Goldwater, when I was a 17-year-old Republican freshman student at Ohio State, and later found out Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater ``Golden Girl'' at the Republican convention in 1964. In any event, I just want to say one of the reasons he is so thoughtful, and I hope maybe the reason I am fairly thoughtful, is because we have the ability to work across the aisle and to see and appreciate the views of other people. The story about how he and Stephanie, when they were on county council together, they met, started liking each other, started dating, fell in love and later got married--they even had lunch together every day they were on county council, and every day he was Governor they continued to have lunch together and here, too, for many days. That is a love, the kind you just don't see. You just don't see that very much. I just want to say: You are such an inspiration to the rest of us, you and your wife, the way you cherish each other and hold together and support each other and stand by each other. It is just a real source of inspiration. There is an old saying: It doesn't matter who gets credit for something when you get a lot more done. You define that, a guy who doesn't need headlines, a lot of attention. I hope the rest of us are that way, but you define that for us. We love working with you. We are going to miss you. We wish you the best and wish you Godspeed. As we say in the Navy, fair winds. God bless you.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I would like to say to my colleague, Ted Kennedy said to me when I first got here a number of years ago, talking about compromise and that sort of thing--he always said: I am willing to compromise on policy, not on principle. I think if we look at what we have accomplished in the last 2 years, that is exactly what we have done. I thank my colleague for being a great leader--not just of his caucus but of our body and for being my friend. With that, I would say on the legislation that is before us, as he suggested, the Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act does build on previous legislation reported out of our committee. Some of those bills, the DATA Act, the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act, and some others have been signed into law with bipartisan support, including by the current President. The Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act is a good government bill that will provide better and more detailed information to Congress and the American people about Federal spending. Congress has passed several bills in the last few years to improve transparency on government spending and to get this information online. Unfortunately, the information has not always been provided at the level of detail taxpayers and a number of my colleagues and I would prefer. This bill builds on the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act passed in 2010 and that I coauthored with Senators Warner and Akaka. That bill required OMB to work with agencies to create a list of all Federal programs that can be accessed on a single Web site. Unfortunately, there has been no consistency whatsoever across the government in how agencies define the term ``program.'' GAO has agreed that the current program list isn't giving us the kind of transparency we want because agencies took different approaches in defining their programs. The Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act addresses this problem by defining the term ``program.'' GAO has also noted that the current program inventory does not allow Congress and the GAO to compare similar programs, which is an obstacle to measuring government performance. Additionally, budget and cost information is not available for all programs. This bill will ensure that agencies provide a full list of their programs along with important information about each program. For grants and other types of direct assistance, it will provide information on how many people a program serves and how many people it takes to run it. A complete inventory of Federal programs, along with budget and financial information at the program level, will allow Congress to compare similar programs and identify overlap and duplication. The bill has strong bipartisan support in our committee and was reported out without dissent. Seeing it to final passage would be a good win for this Congress. I am pleased to yield back to our colleague from Oklahoma for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I came to the floor without any prepared remarks, but I want to say a few words, if I could, about our colleague Mark Pryor. I have affectionately called him ``Hey, man,'' because in Arkansas, when you see one of your friends, you don't just say ``hi, Tom'' or ``hi, Mark,'' you say ``hey, man.'' For the last 12 years, we have been saying a lot of ``hey, man's,'' and hopefully we will do so for a long time to come. Ten or twelve days ago I was down in Honduras--murder capital of the world--and trying to figure out how to help save a nation that may be a failing nation. They have a lot of gangs down there--gangs involved in extorting money from businesses, a lot of them kidnapping people, trafficking people. Gangs have a bad connotation in Honduras, as they should--here in Washington, DC, and in the Senate, not so much. Senator Collins and Senator Durbin have talked about some of the ``gangs'' this Senator from Arkansas has been involved in, which I think most of us would say are doing the Lord's work, doing good work. Mark is a man of deep faith, as we know, and he has been a great role model for the rest of us. Mark has reminded me before--and maybe some others as well--that in the Old Testament, in Proverbs, we are reminded we should always pray for wisdom--always pray for wisdom. That is something I pray for every night--not just for my colleagues, of course, but certainly for me. All I can say is the good Lord has answered his prayer. One of the reasons he has ended up as a member of these gangs for good is because he has so much wisdom. He is a good listener. He is just a very, very wise human being. It has been a joy serving with him. He got here in 2003. He raised his right hand here and took the oath of office in 2003. He came through orientation for new Senators, and I talked to him about it later, and I said: How was orientation, Mark? He said: Well, it lasted about that long. It was over. If you are a Democrat, we are going to put you over here, and if you are a Republican, we will put you over here, and it was just like, have at it. He and I talked about it, and we said: That doesn't make much sense. As an attorney general and a member of the Attorneys General Association, and myself as a former Governor and a member of the National Governors Association, we had a robust orientation program for new attorneys general and for new Governors. The Presiding Officer is a former Governor of Maine, and he recalls that well. I think one of the reasons why the Governors are less partisan and more likely to work across the aisle to get things done together--and the same with the attorneys general--is because of that orientation that occurs a couple weeks after the election. We didn't have anything like that in the Senate. So Senator Pryor, along with former Governor and Senator Voinovich, former Governor Alexander and myself decided to see if we could get some kind of orientation program here for Senators. Now when people show up a couple weeks after getting elected new Senators, they no longer get put over in one corner as Democrats and one corner as Republicans and are told to go at it. They spend some time together-- maybe the most concentrated time they will have together during the time they are here--with folks of the other party. Those of us who are Senators and spouses and chaplains and so forth go in and provide information and tell them to learn from our mistakes--those of us who have made plenty of them--and you won't make those same mistakes. One of the things Senator Pryor is especially good at doing is trying to connect each new Senator with a mentor--a Democratic Member and a Republican Member--and he was dogged in that. Not that everybody needs a mentor, but we all need friends. We need friends on both sides of the aisle, and you will keep those friendships for a long, long time. I was a naval officer for 23 years. When I was a 17-year-old graduate from high school, I went off to Ohio State to eventually become a Navy midshipman. I did that for 4 years, 5 years as a naval flight officer in a hot war in Southeast Asia, and 18 in the Cold War until I retired in 1991. I started learning about leadership when I was pretty young-- something I learned before I became a midshipman. But among the things I learned about leadership is that a leader should be humble, not haughty. A leader should say do as I do, not do as I say. Leaders should have the heart of a servant, and we should come here with the idea of serving. The Scriptures we read say: He who would be a leader must be a servant to all; he who would be first should be a slave to all. A leader should have the courage to stay out of step when everybody else is marching to the wrong tune. A leader shouldn't ask what is the easy thing to do, the speedy thing to do; they should ask what is the right thing to do. And a leader, as has already been said, a leader should ask the question asked of a rabbi some 2,000 years ago. A rabbi was asked: What is the most important commandment of all? He mentioned what one was, and then he said the second one is love our neighbors as ourselves. I think that is the most important one of all. Leaders are like that. Leaders are like that. I just wish to say that I think my friend, ``Hey, man,'' also known as Senator Mark Pryor, personifies that kind of leader. God knows we need more of them. He has demonstrated by his own character and behavior what he believes. I am tempted to say we are going to miss him, but we are still going to see a lot of him. In the Navy, when somebody has done a great job, we say two words: Bravo Zulu--Bravo Zulu. So I say that to my friend. We also have this admonition. The Navy has the tradition of hailing farewell on a ship or submarine or aircraft carrier, whatever squadron you are on. When people come in, we have an event called a hail and farewell party. When it is over, for those who are leaving, we say: Farewell and a following sea. So I would say this: Farewell and a following sea, and we will see much more of you in the future.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I did not come to the floor to praise Senator Landrieu, but while I am at it, I would like to say a few words. I have the privilege of chairing the committee on governmental affairs. Senator Landrieu chairs the appropriations subcommittee that deals with Homeland Security. She is also a member of the authorizing committee. So she works both vineyards. She is as tenacious and tireless in her defense of our country against cyber attacks, against terrorist attacks, against all kinds of ills that would otherwise be visited on our country. She still finds time as chairman of the energy committee to focus not only on issues that are important to her State-- and this is one of them--but also issues that are incredibly important to our country. I said to my wife the other night--we were talking about Senator Landrieu and her tenacity. That word has been used tonight a couple times about her, as an unrelenting advocate for her State and the causes she believes in. Others have mentioned that she is a tireless advocate not only for Louisiana but for the causes that she sees that are just. There is no quit in this one, as I said to my wife this week. She said, ``How is Mary?'' I would never want to run against this woman, and fortunately I would never have to. And for those who have to, good luck and God bless. But I am proud to be here with Mary, and with Senator Heidi Heitkamp as well. The reason I come here tonight is to discuss a number of nominations that have been considered and approved by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that both Senator Landrieu and Senator Heitkamp and I serve on. Senator Coburn, our colleague from Oklahoma, is the ranking Republican on that committee, and we have worked tirelessly ourselves for the better part of the last 2 years to try to make sure there is a full complement of leadership in the Department of Homeland Security to provide the leadership for one of the most important agencies in our government. I have spoken with people on this floor and wherever else I could find a venue about the large and very troubling backlog of nominations in this Senate. I call it executive branch Swiss cheese. Executive branch Swiss cheese. There are a couple of ways you can cripple an administration. No. 1, you can refuse to provide appropriations and funding. Another way to cripple an administration is to not approve the nominations of people who fill key leadership positions. The most important ingredient I found in any organization--I don't care if it is a legislative body such as this, a State such as Minnesota or Delaware or Louisiana or North Dakota--I don't care if it is a college or a business, a church. The most critical factor in all of those is leadership. When we deny a President or a Governor or a mayor, for that matter, the ability to put his or her leadership team together--even when they are nominating well-qualified, competent people, people of integrity-- we do not do just a disservice to that person who has been nominated and has gone through the process, but to the State or the county or the country in which they have been nominated to serve. I think it is every Senator's constitutional role to provide advice and consent on the President's nominations in a thorough and timely manner as part of the Senate confirmation process. I have exercised that constitutional role and our right and our obligation. I think we do our country no service and do ourselves no honor when we leave critical agencies--and Homeland Security is certainly one of those-- without proper leadership and leave honorable men and women who are willing to serve in the government twisting in the wind. I am a big believer in the Golden Rule, as our Presiding Officer knows: treat other people the way we want to be treated. How would we like it if we were nominated, and we have a job--maybe it is an important job, maybe it is a job that pays a lot more than what they have been nominated to do in service to our country. All too often people are asked to put their lives and their family on hold. They don't know if they are going to be uprooted from wherever they are in the country to come here and live or for their spouse or father or mother to work. It is not fair. In some cases, it is just to put people before committees and berate them publicly for sins of omission or commission that may be fabricated. No wonder it is hard to get good people to serve. In this case, I have several people that I will talk about tonight. These people deserve not just our consideration but our strong support. During my 2 years as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I have made it one of my top priorities to work closely with our ranking Republican, Dr. Tom Coburn, who is a physician and also a Senator, and to vet the President's nominees that we have jurisdiction over and move them in a timely manner when they meet muster, scrub them good, make sure we have drilled down on what they believe in, their credentials and competency for serving, and when they do pass muster, try to move them along and bring them through our committee--almost every time--with a bipartisan vote and then bring the nomination to the floor. Tom Coburn and I try to do that religiously with respect to our nominees. We try to do the same kind of bipartisan approach with our legislation. We have had a lot of success and we are grateful to our colleagues for supporting what we have done in our committee. We are grateful to Majority Leader Reid and Senator McConnell and their staffs. They have been valuable partners in this effort. Gary Myrick, who works on the floor for the Democratic side, and Laura Dove, who works on the Republican side for Senator McConnell, have been terrific to work with, and we thank them for their stewardship. Just yesterday our committee reported out three more outstanding nominees, one of them, Sarah Saldana, to be head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security. It is a big job, it is an important job, and it is a tough job. Russell Deyo has been nominated to be the top management official at the Department of Homeland Security. Mickey Barnett has been nominated by the President to serve another term on the Postal Services Board of Governors. I believe Ms. Saldana and Mr. Deyo will almost certainly be confirmed in short order. I urge my colleagues to review their qualifications and work with Dr. Coburn and me to fill these two vacancies at the Department of Homeland Security in the coming days. I wish to spend a few minutes of my time tonight discussing the nomination of Mickey Barnett, who is already serving on the Postal Board of Governors. He is a Republican and nominated again by the President. I will then talk about a couple of lower profile nominees that I think we urgently need to confirm as quickly as we can-- certainly this year during this lameduck session. Mickey Barnett is among a group of five partisan nominees to the Postal Board of Governors. His nomination was submitted by a Democratic President. Two of the nominees are Republicans, and Mickey is one of those, and three of them are Democrats. If we don't confirm Mr. Barnett and his colleagues by December 8--a little more than 4 weeks from now--Mr. Barnett, who is currently the Board's chair, will be forced to leave the Board. If that happens, the Postal Board of Governors will no longer have enough members to achieve a quorum and will not be able to conduct business. At a time when the Postal Service is struggling to address a number of financial challenges and adapt to the digital age and the Internet world we live in, being unable to conduct business would not be good for the Postal Service. In fact, it would be very bad. We need to avoid that from happening. I think if it does happen, we will be inviting a disaster. Today, because of our inability in Congress to come to a consensus on postal reform legislation--and they are actually creeping closer--the good work by Dr. Coburn and a number of other people to actually develop a bipartisan consensus around the legislation that was reported out of our committee--I believe in a 9-to-1 vote earlier this year--the Postal Service will continue to twist in the wind, able to only do so much to address the financial challenges they face and to transfer themselves in a digital age. They need to figure out how to make themselves relevant--a 200-some-year-old establishment--in delivering that work that goes to every business and every residence in this country, for the most part, 6 days a week. How do we enable the Postal Service to make money? They are figuring it out, and we can help them with our legislation. Meanwhile, the customers of the Postal Service are left with uncertainty about what the future holds for the Postal Service. Are they going to be around? Are they going to be able to do the job? Are they ever going to modernize their fleet? Are they ever going to modernize their processing centers and the post offices themselves? We can answer that question and enable them to be financially viable once again. We would make that uncertainty that surrounds the Postal Service even worse if December 8 comes and goes and our five Postal Board nominees are still waiting for us to act. The same goes for our nominees to fill vacancies, not on the Postal Board of Governors, but on something called the Postal Regulatory Commission. It is a five-member commission. It is the regulator, if you will, for the Postal Service. The two people who have been nominated by this President are Nanci Langley and Tony Hammond. They have been waiting since the spring of 2013 to be confirmed. As a result, the commission has been working with only three commissioners out of five. We need to do something about that as well, and waiting for another year--waiting for another month is foolhardy. These people deserve a vote. We ought to vote them up or down. They have been unanimously approved and confirmed by our committee, and I think they need a vote. When they get a vote, I am sure they will be confirmed. Also pending before the Senate are two nominations to the District of Columbia Superior Court, Judge William Nooter and Judge Steven Wellner. They are both well-qualified nominees who, like the Homeland Security and Postal nominees I have discussed, won bipartisan support in the committee and are needed to fill vacancies on the District of Columbia's very busy trial court. Judge Nooter and Judge Wellner were reported out of our committee with unanimous bipartisan support months ago. In Judge Nooter's case, it was more than a year ago. As I have discussed, these men are not alone in waiting so long for confirmation, but the problem is particularly unfair when it comes to the District of Columbia's court system. Earlier this fall during the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Hearing on DC statehood, the current vacancies on the DC Superior Court were included as just one of many injustices the District faces simply because it serves our Nation's capital. The District of Columbia already suffers from not having control over its laws or even its own local dollars. The citizens of this city should not have to face a compromised legal system as well. While we in Congress may not be able to fix everything, I do think this is one of the few issues we can and must address now. The DC Circuit Court is a local court. It hears primarily local matters. Most nominees are entirely uncontroversial and used to go through the Senate without a recorded floor vote. But because these local judges go through Senate confirmation, they have been caught up in a broader political stalemate of the Senate floor. I hope that is going to come to an end. Meanwhile, no other local or State jurisdiction must have its non- Federal judges approved by the Congress. If we are talking about Federal District judges or Circuit Court of Appeal judges or Supreme Court Justices, of course they should come through and be debated and approved here. These are local judges, and it is only by a quirk in the law that they have to come here for a confirmation at all. They are local judges in the District of Columbia. How would we like it if we had been nominated and held up for over a year--particularly in courts where there are huge backlogs. We are talking about caseloads of tens of thousands of people, and they don't have a full complement of judges because of us. How fair is that? Well, it is not. No other local or State jurisdiction must have its non-Federal judges approved by Congress, and no other State or locality is without a vote in the Senate to help push for action on nominations of concern to that community. The DC Superior Court is operated by the Federal Government and its judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 15-year terms. It is important to note that although this court is operated by the Federal Government, it is separate from the Federal Government. Instead, the Superior Court is the local trial court for the District of Columbia. It handles matters such as local crime and domestic and civil disputes. Nevertheless, because this court is operated by the Federal Government, the President nominates candidates for judicial vacancies from a slate prepared by a nonpartisan nomination commission and the Senate must confirm the nominees. Currently, there are four vacancies on the Superior Court. Due to planned retirement and medical leave, this number will rise by the end of the year, and it is going to get worse. These vacancies hinder the Superior Court's ability to administer justice for DC residents. The Superior Court judges already carry, as I said earlier, enormous caseloads. The existing vacancies--the majority of which are in the family court division--threaten to undermine the judge's ability to give proper attention to each case, including those cases in family courts that affect the welfare of families, and particularly the welfare of children. Recently the chief judge of the Superior Court and the Bar Association in the District of Columbia sent to both Senate leaders and Dr. Coburn and myself a letter raising these concerns and ultimately seeking a Senate vote on Judges Nooter and Wellner. They are preaching to the choir. Judge Nooter is currently the presiding magistrate judge on the Superior Court and has served as a magistrate judge for the past 14 years. As presiding magistrate judge, he manages 23 fellow magistrate judges and serves on the leadership team of the chief judge of the Superior Court. Meanwhile, Judge Wellner currently serves as an administrative law judge for the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings. Since 2011, he has led the unemployment insurance division, and by all accounts skillfully coordinates a team of 10 administrative law judges and support staff to adjudicate over 3,000 unemployment insurance cases per year. Given the caliber of these nominees, the lack of controversy over their nomination, and the unanimous bipartisan support they have received from the committee of jurisdiction, I urge--and I am sure I urge with the full support of Dr. Coburn, our ranking Republican member of the committee--this body to move their confirmations forward as soon as possible. Justice delayed is still justice denied. It has been that way for centuries and these delays are insufferable. I will close by saying that what we are doing is not just bad judgment, it is not just bad form, I think it is shameful, and we need to fix it. With that, I am finished, and I am looking around to see if there is anybody else seeking recognition. I don't see anyone, so with that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, as we finished the last series of votes we were talking about the range of difficult issues we face in this Congress and also in our country--a series of issues including what to do about ISIS and how to confront this latest threat, whether or not to provide aid to the moderate rebels in Syria and what form should that aid take, continued concerns that flow from Ukraine, and the areas there along the border with Russia, cyber attacks, data breaches, Ebola outbreaks, folks trying to get into our country from all different directions, especially from Central America. These are hard issues to deal with. Try though we may, it is hard to fix them. As my colleague who serves with us on homeland security knows, it is a busy neighborhood where we have jurisdiction. It is not that the problems are intractable. They are just hard issues, and some of them may take years to fully resolve. But I might say as well, the economic recovery has continued now for 5 years and it has been stop and go. Every now and then we have some great encouraging news, and sometimes it is less so. But today we have encouraging news. I wish to talk a little bit about this as we talk about the economy and lead into a discussion of where the postal system of our country actually has played a role in strengthening our economic recovery. Every Thursday, as my colleague knows, the Department of Labor puts out information. Among the things they promulgate on Thursdays is how many people filed for unemployment insurance in the last week. They do this every Thursday, except maybe on Thanksgiving or maybe on a Christmas. On the Thursday of the week that Barack Obama and Joe Biden were sworn in as President and Vice President, they put out a number that said 628,000 people filed for unemployment insurance. Any time that number is above 400,000 people, we are losing jobs in this country, and any time it is under 400,000 people, we are adding jobs in this country. It was 628,000 that week 5\1/2\ years ago. Slowly but surely, that number has dropped and has continued to drop. It bounces up and down a little bit. Since it may go up and down from week to week, we do a 4-week running average and that kind of balances out the blips. Well, the number has dropped from 628,000 people 5\1/2\ ago to 400,000 people and to 300,000 people. We got the new report today from the Department of Labor, and 280,000 people filed last week for unemployment insurance. Why should we feel so good about that? Because that number is the lowest we have been below 400,000 since the year the recession actually began--certainly in the last 5\1/2\ years. That would suggest as kind of a forerunner what will come in for the job numbers for the month of September, which we will get at the beginning of October. I am encouraged by that. There are a number of things we can do and ought to do to continue to strengthen the economic recovery. I won't go into all those, but one I want to mention deals with the U.S. Postal Service. Not everybody says the Postal Service has much to do with the economy, but it does. There are about 7 million or 8 million jobs in the United States that depend to one extent or the other on having an efficient, vibrant Postal Service. For a number of years, the Postal Service has been struggling in some cases to survive. The Postal Service has cut, cut, cut in order to try to right-size their enterprise. In the last 10 or so years they have reduced their headcount from almost 900,000 to about 500,000--so almost in half. They have reduced the number of processing centers across the country from about 600 or 700 mail processing centers to actually less than half that, a little over 300. We have close to 35,000 to 40,000 post offices across the country, and over 10,000 of those today--they haven't really closed post offices, but what they did is a bunch of offices that didn't do much business, those post offices are still open in many cases, but they are open 2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours a day rather than 8 hours a day with a fully paid postmaster. So they have found a way to not close a lot of post offices but to reduce their costs there, and they are still struggling. Every 3 months they put out their financial reports, and the financial reports indicate they are either losing money or may be close to breaking even. As the Presiding Officer knows, this is an issue I think about a whole lot. He does, too. The Senator from Alaska cares a lot about the needs of the Postal Service. The need for a strong and vibrant Postal Service in Alaska is probably greater than in any State in the country. He has done a great job, along with his colleague from Alaska, to try to make sure that we are mindful in the Senate of the importance of the Postal Service to Alaska. I have a glass of water here which one of our pages was good enough to bring to me. Look at this glass of water. It is not really clear. Is this glass half full or half empty? Most people thinking about the Postal Service in the last several years would say this glass of water is half empty. As time goes by, I am starting to think maybe that is the wrong approach, that is the wrong opinion. I think this glass of water might actually be half full. The more I learn about the Postal Service's operations and the opportunities they face, I am even more convinced the opportunity here is a glass-half-full situation. We have had over the years probably a dozen or more hearings in the Senate on the Postal Service. The real challenge is: How do we take a 200-plus-year-old legacy organization, legacy distribution network that takes the Postal Service to every mailbox in the country 5 or 6 days a week? How do we take that legacy distribution network and enable the Postal Service, empower the Postal Service to make money and be profitable in the 21st century? As we know, we don't communicate like we used to in this country. We have the Internet, we have Skype, we have Twitter, we have cell phones. There are a lot of different ways to communicate that we didn't have even 12 or 15 years ago. Folks used to send birthday cards, Christmas cards, that sort of thing. Now they send email cards, if they send anything at all. People used to write letters and notes. My parents during World War II wrote to each other almost every day. Folks in Afghanistan have email, they have Skype, and they have cell phones. They still send some mail, but it is not like it used to be. A lot of businesses that used the mail to do billings for people to send in remittances don't do that anymore. First-class mail in this country is where the Postal Service has made their money for many years. That is where the most profitable source of income is--first-class mail. Since the great recession started in 2007, we have seen first-class mail drop by almost half, and that has caused huge problems for the Postal Service going forward. While the Internet and the digital age has taken away a lot of the Postal Service's business, as it has turned out, it has also given them some pretty good opportunities. As we know, not everybody goes to a department store these days to buy things, to a hardware store or to a bookstore. Not every day, but a lot of times we will buy things over the Internet. Those items, whether gifts or things we might want for ourselves, they have somehow to get from the manufacturer's or retailer's distribution center to the customer. Somebody has to deliver it. As it turns out, that somebody could be FedEx, it could be UPS or in many cases it could be the Postal Service. So I wish to take a few minutes and speak this evening about how I really do think the Postal Service could be a glass-half-full situation. Part of our responsibility here in the Senate is to make sure they are able to seize this opportunity and not let it pass by. The Postal Service has been calling for us to do a number of things to help them--not to give them money but to do a number of things to help them. I will mention a few of them. The Postal Service has overpaid by $2.5 billion what they owe into the Federal Employee Retirement System. Given the formula used, which is not taking into account that postal employees are older and die sooner than other Federal employees, the Postal Service is going to continue to overpay monies. So they are owed a $2.5 billion refund, and if we don't do something, they are going to continue to overpay. We should first get them the $2.5 billion refund. The second thing we should do is change the formula so it reflects the demographics of the Postal Service versus the rest of the Federal workforce. Among the other things we ought to do is to integrate, if you will, Medicare--better integrate Medicare with the cost of health care for postal employees. My wife turned 65 early this summer. When she did, the company where she worked for 27 years, DuPont, mailed her something and said: We still love you. You are retired, you are 65, and we want you to sign up for Medicare Part A, Medicare Part B, and Medicare Part D. We will in turn provide wrap-around or fill-the-gap health care coverage for you. They do that for all the retirees when they reach 65. And it is not just DuPont. It is thousands of companies all over the country. When their retirees reach the age of 65, for the most part they say to the retirees: You are eligible for Medicare Part A, Part B, Part D. We want you to sign up, and we will provide wrap-around coverage for you. FedEx, I believe, does that. UPS, I believe, does that. The Postal Service--which competes in the same business as both FedEx, UPS, and some of these other companies--doesn't do that. As it turns out, the Postal Service pays more money into Medicare than any employer in the country. They do not get the full value for the dollars they have invested. One of the things the Postal Service has asked us to do as simply a matter of equity is to allow them to do what so many other companies do, including some of the companies they compete directly with--FedEx and UPS. We ought to do that. That is one of the things they are asking us to do. Another thing, under the current law, from time to time, if there is something that happens in the economy or there is a disaster and the Postal Service needs to raise rates on kind of an emergency basis, called an exigent basis, they can apply to the Postal Regulatory Commission and ask to do that. The Postal Regulatory Commission can say yes or they can say no. Last year, the Postal Service went to the Postal Regulatory Commission and said: We suffered terribly because of the loss of first- class mail that flowed from the worst recession since the Great Depression. We would like to have something above and beyond a CPI increase, a cost of living increase, for our rates. What did the Postal Regulatory Commission do? They agreed to raise the rates and let the post office raise the rates. So what did the Postal Regulatory Commission do? They agreed to let the Postal Service raise the rates, which works out to a 4.3-percent increase. It is not permanent, but it is for a period of maybe a year. The Postal Service is asking us to make that 4.3-percent increase their new permanent revenue baseline. What does that mean for mailers if we make it permanent? For folks who are nonprofit--we always get mail from nonprofit organizations. That is part of the way they provide services to all kinds of folks. But the cost of a nonprofit letter under this action--the 4.3-percent increase--has gone up from 10 cents a letter to 11 cents. It has gone up by one penny. I believe the cost of mailing a magazine has also gone up by one or two pennies, from approximately 25 to 27 cents. The cost of mailing a catalog has gone up by one or two cents, from approximately 45 cents to 47 cents, and that is with the 4.3-percent increase. The Postal Service has said to the Congress: Allow that temporary 4.3-percent increase to remain and to become part of our revenue baseline. I think we should do that. I know a number of my colleagues do as well. That is one of the things they are asking us to do. Among the other things they are asking us to do is they want to actually deliver items they haven't been able to deliver before, including wine, beer, and spirits. FedEx and UPS can do that, and postal services in many other countries can do that. Our Postal Service cannot do that. It is not to balance their budget for them, but it would make a big difference. I believe it could be worth a couple million dollars a year in profitability. That is something they would like to be able to do. FedEx is not interested in being Google or Apple or any company like that--part of the digital economy--but there are a couple things they can do and would like to do that would work into the digital economy. They are not big deals, but they make sense with respect to the Postal Service and their capabilities and would actually enable them over time to make some revenues as well. The Postal Service delivers ballots, initially in Oregon, later in Washington State, and this year in Colorado. People can file their vote--get absentee ballots and vote by mail in Oregon. They do it in Washington State. This year they are starting to do it in Colorado. What we have learned from experience is that folks who vote by mail vote more often, more frequently, and what we hear from States that do this is that it is actually a cost-effective way to run elections. The Postal Service would like to do more of that, and we should encourage that as well. Another area where the Postal Service might have some opportunities is they would like to collocate more operations with State and local governments in small communities where they have space at the post office and get State and local folks to locate some activities there. One great idea they had in some of the bigger, more densely populated places around the country is that the Postal Service has opened up large facilities--not like a regular post office--where people can go get passports. There is a facility on the outskirts of L.A. where over the course of the day hundreds--maybe even 1,000 people or more--can come and get their passports. It is a service that is provided. The Postal Service makes some revenue from doing that. If we ever pass comprehensive immigration reform and we have 10 million or so people in this country who are here undocumented--and immigration reform doesn't give them the right to citizenship, it doesn't make them a citizen, but I think if the Senate passed an immigration reform bill, it would offer an opportunity for people to have some kind of legal status. How are they going to get that? Where are they going to get that? If we passed immigration reform, there would be an opportunity for the Postal Service, which is in every community in our Nation and which already does a passport business for a lot of people, to help meet that need, and my hope is they will have that opportunity. Those are some things they are asking us to do. In short, what they are asking us to do is to give them the ability to generate revenues and to be able to meet their capital needs. The Postal Service needs to be capitalized. They need new vehicles. They have 190,000 vehicles. We have this chart. This is 2014, and down here is about 10 years down the road. What we are looking for is to provide money over this 10-year period of time. The Postal Service is saying they need about $30 billion to recapitalize the Postal Service to make them competitive. One of the ways to make them competitive is with respect to vehicles. They have 190,000 vehicles. The average age is 22 years. I have a 13-year-old Chrysler Town and Country minivan. Yesterday I drove it down here from Wilmington, DE. I usually take the train. The train was down 2 days ago. I drove home last night, and it just went over 377,000 miles. Most Postal Service vehicles are not 13 years old like my minivan; they are almost twice as old and easily have twice as much mileage as my minivan. My wife thinks I ought to trade in my minivan, and some day I will. We should give the Postal Service the wherewithal to trade up--not just to get new, more energy-efficient vehicles that may have twice the fuel economy and reduce emissions but also vehicles that are sized for the products the Postal Service is delivering. In this digital economy, it is an opportunity for the Postal Service to deliver a lot more packages and parcels of all kinds. They are delivering groceries in a number of places around the country, and they need vehicles that are sized differently and that are more ergonomically appropriate for the folks who are driving the vehicles. There is new technology. Anybody buying a new car lately knows the technologies that are in vehicles. It is amazing what we can do. I wouldn't know that, given the age of my vehicle, but my friends tell me about the amazing things they can do with theirs. When you have a vehicle that is 22 years old, there are not many gee-whiz technology items on those vehicles, but there could be. As an example, let's say my desk here defines a rural area for delivery for a letter carrier someplace around the country. It could be Alaska; it could be Delaware. As the rural letter carrier covers this area, the technology is available so that the residents somewhere along there could pick up a package here or leave a package at the general store. They could communicate with their customers in any number of ways and provide better customer service. Additionally, when you walk into a post office these days, for the most part they look similar today to what they did 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago almost without exception. There are so many things we can do in terms of technology to provide better services at post offices that we are not doing. We can provide better, more efficient services and friendlier services as well. We have 25 mail-processing centers in the country. I visited one of them with Senator Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota about 3 or 4 months ago. We visited this small mail-processing center in her beautiful State. We went into the back operating area of the mail- processing center, and there was a fellow there who was about 50 years old. He was lugging around these big boxes that somebody was mailing. He was carrying them around and trying to get them over to a barcode reader, and he was putting them in a huge pouch so they could be mailed. There is equipment that could readily process big boxes like that, smaller packages, and parcels. We don't have equipment like that in most of our mail-processing centers. If we did, we could offer better, faster, timelier, more cost-effective service. So if we were to capitalize the Postal Service, among the things the Postal Service could do if they had $30 billion over the next 10 years is replace their fleet of 190,000 vehicles with more energy-efficient vehicles that are appropriately sized for the kinds of packages they deliver. The approximately 300 mail-processing centers could be retooled with mail-processing equipment that actually reflects what the mail service delivers in the 21st century. The post offices themselves could have the kinds of upgrades and technology investments that would enable better service as well. That is what the Postal Service could do if they had the money. Sometimes when people think of the Postal Service they think the Postal Service is not really innovative; they don't come up with a bunch of ideas. It turns out that they are even more innovative than I and a lot of other people thought they were. I want to mention a couple of things they have begun doing that I think are noteworthy. They ought to be able to do more. If they could, they actually could make money and have the money to make capital investments and not be a burden to taxpayers of this country. This morning in San Francisco, CA, at around 3 a.m., in 32 ZIP Codes, the U.S. Postal Service delivered groceries to people. They delivered them to homes, in some cases to businesses, to apartments, to high- rises. They delivered groceries. They also delivered the mail later in the day, but from 3 a.m. to 7 a.m. the Postal Service in 32 ZIP Codes delivered groceries. They have been doing it for over a month, and I understand they are doing it for Amazon. I understand Amazon is pleased and the Postal Service is pleased with it. Amazon customers like it, and the Postal Service can do this and make money. They are not doing anything else with the trucks from 3 a.m. to 7 a.m., and it just works. It just works. The Postal Service is doing this for Amazon, but they are reaching out to 100 grocery chains across the country and saying: This is what we do for Amazon in San Francisco. How would you like us to do this for you? My guess is this will turn into a good piece of business, but they need the vehicles to enable them to do this, and they need money for capital investment. Some people think the only thing the Postal Service has done creatively in years is flat-rate boxes. You know, if it fits, it ships. It is a great product. It is still growing. It has grown by around 4 or 5 percent a year. But there are a bunch of other things they can do and want to do. They need money for capital investment. About a year ago they started delivering for Amazon--not everywhere but in a couple hundred ZIP Codes--on Sundays. It worked pretty well. And this past Sunday they delivered packages and parcels through Amazon--not to 200 ZIP Codes but I think to over 5,000 across the country. It enables them to do next-day delivery that includes Sunday. It is a nice piece of business and it is growing, but in order to continue to grow it, the Postal Service needs vehicles that are right- sized for that sort of business and a lot of them--potentially a lot of them. Another thing the Postal Service is doing--and this is a product which I have used and a product which I think is going to have growing utilization across the country. It is called Priority Mail Express. I went to a post office in Delaware not long ago. I wanted to send my sister a Mother's Day gift. I said: I want this to get there in 2 days. They asked: Do you want it insured? I said: Not really. They said: Well, if you send it by Priority Mail Express, we can guarantee delivery in 2 days, we can guarantee delivery in 1 day, or we can guarantee delivery in 3 days. We can track it for you for free. And I think they said the first $100 of insurance is free. I said: This is great. I will take 2 days. The insurance is fine. As it turns out, I am not the only person who is using Priority Mail Express. It is available not just 2 or 3 days a week, it is available for delivery 7 days a week. If somebody has something they want to mail this Saturday and have it delivered on Sunday, they can do so with Priority Mail Express. They can do it and get next-day delivery. They can do it and get free tracking. They can do it and get insurance up to $50 or $100 on whatever is being mailed. That is going to be a great product. I think it is going to make flat-rate boxes--well, not look like a second-class citizen, but it is going to make flat-rate boxes look modest by comparison. These are the sorts of things our folks at the Postal Service would like to do--to deliver not only mail but to deliver groceries, to be able to deliver tomorrow, deliver on Sunday. And it is ironic that in a day and age that we worry about postal service going from 6 days a week to 5, that right now they are a 7-day-a-week operation. I think there is reason to believe they will grow even more. There are some who say that rather than passing the sort of legislation the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee reported out on a bipartisan vote earlier this year, there is some alternative legislation. We should simply say to the Postal Service: You cannot close any more mail-processing centers for another year. As it turns out, that is not going to give the Postal Service the money to do this, or, frankly, the money to invest in any other number of new products that have the great potential of generating revenues and enabling them not just to be open or remain alive but to actually become vibrant and to be part of our growing economy in this country. I wish to close by saying that I am more hopeful about the Postal Service than I have been in all the years I have worked on this as an issue. As I talked to my colleagues, I am encouraged to hear from Democrats and Republicans that they want to be part of the solution, and they realize the idea of just leaving the Postal Service twisting in the wind for another year is not a good thing. If the Postal Service has a choice to say don't close these 60 or 70 or 80 mail processing centers, that is not what they need. They need to not necessarily unleash them--better ensure that they have the resources they need to not just right-size the organization but to modernize and recapitalize the organization and enable them to do things in the 21st century that will actually build off their age-old delivery network and find new ways to make money doing so. As we close here today--a lot of people are scattering to head back to their home States in anticipation of elections and that sort of thing, and to do other things--I wanted to mention on a more hopeful note, and I say to the members of our committee, and especially to the Presiding Officer, thanks for trying to make sure the Postal Service continues to be a linchpin within our economy, whether it happens to be Alaska, Delaware, or even South Dakota. Senator Thune is waiting for me to stop talking. They have the opportunity to be a big, important part of our economy going forward, and my hope and prayer is that is exactly what we will enable them to do. With that, I will yield the floor. I don't know if the Senator from South Dakota would like to take the floor, but if he wants to, it is his.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I wish to express my bitter disappointment in the Senate for refusing to move forward with the President's request for emergency funding to deal with the humanitarian crisis we are facing on our southern border with Texas. Ordinary working people do not close up shop with urgent work still undone, and neither should we. There is plenty of blame to go around; as I speak, there is a strong chance the House will leave town without taking action on this crisis either. The administration has asked for money, but has yet to speak clearly on what changes it needs in the law governing how we handle child migrants at the border. As we all know, over the past several months, our Nation has experienced an unprecedented surge in migration from three countries: El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. People from these countries are fleeing desperate, violent conditions and a large number of them are families, and unaccompanied children--some as young as 4 years old. The President and Department of Homeland Secretary, DHS, Johnson responded with an all-hands-on-deck effort. The Federal Emergency Management Administration, FEMA, is coordinating the response to the problem. The Department of Defense is providing emergency beds for unaccompanied minors. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has greatly expanded its ability to detain and remove families. We have surged Border Patrol agents, immigration judges, and other personnel to the border to help process people. These measures have been working. For example, the amount of time people are detained before they are removed has decreased from over a month to as little as 4 days in recent weeks. Migrant children who were languishing in crowded border patrol stations are being screened and relocated more quickly. But these emergency measures are expensive, and none of the Federal agencies involved have the money they need to sustain the aggressive steps they are taking to deal with this situation. In fact, many agencies have indicated that they will run out of money in a matter of weeks without action--some even in a few days. So last week, Senator Mikulski introduced a bill that would provide $2.7 billion in order to address the situation and ensure that the agencies charged with securing our borders do not run out of money this summer. More importantly, it would also address some of the underlying root causes of the problem we face. But here we are, the day before Congress leaves town, and what have we done to address this crisis? The answer is nothing. The consequences of our inaction will be severe. Let me give you some examples of what will happen if Congress continues to do nothing. Families apprehended at the border will be released. Why? Because Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not have the money to add the 3,000 detention beds it needs to house families until they can be returned to their countries; Undocumented migrants scheduled to be deported will stay here. Why? Because ICE won't have the money for transportation. People currently being detained will have to be released. Why? Because ICE will have to reduce its detention population. Undocumented immigrants waiting for their immigration court cases to be heard will have to wait longer. Why? Because we are not adding the 40 immigration court judges that the administration requested. We also will not be able to hire the 82 immigration prosecutors and 100 repatriation personnel that DHS was planning to hire in August. Why? Because we will not be able to afford them. Health and Human Services will have to cut back on the number of children it can house. This means that children will have to stay at Border Patrol stations longer and agents will be forced to care for children instead of patrolling the border. Why? Because Health and Human Services will not have the money it needs. I am frankly stunned that we here in Congress do not have a sense of urgency to pass this bill and make sure that this does not happen. I guess my colleagues believe that we can just move money around in order to patch the holes in these agencies' budgets. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Because of Congress' inaction, the administration will be forced to ask for an emergency reprogramming to get the agencies through August. But this reprogramming will also have severe consequences--consequences that I do not think many of our colleagues seem to understand. Our border security will be reduced. Why? Because CBP will have to cut back on aerial support for Border Patrol agents on the border. When I was in Texas and Arizona last year, I heard frontline agents say again and again that aerial support was the single most important force multiplier that they had available to help them secure the border. People and commerce trying to get into this country will be forced to longer delays and intrusive screenings at our ports of entry. Why? Because CBP will have to take money that was going to be used to fund sophisticated scanning equipment to pay for caring for unaccompanied children at the border. The Coast Guard will have to stop doing maintenance on many of our Coast Guard vessels. Why? Because the Coast Guard's funds will be shifted. FEMA will have less money for disaster response just as folks in coastal states, like Delaware, are gearing up for the height of hurricane season. Why? Because DHS will have to raid its Disaster Relief Fund in order to make ends meet. This is no way to respond to a crisis--a crisis--that we have been talking and talking and talking about here in the Senate for months! Finally--and in my mind, most incredibly--we will leave here without doing anything to address the underlying factors that explain why this surge is happening in the first place. The President and Senator Mikulski included $300 million in the supplemental package to address what I believe to be the root causes of this surge: the lack of economic opportunities, jobs, and hope in Central America, combined with increasing violence and insecurity in the region. Make no mistake about it, these funds are an emergency. I am not suggesting that any of this will be a quick or easy fix. It will require a sustained investment--and focus--on the region by the U.S. and also by a number of others. But if we turn our backs on these countries now, I am convinced that we will be back here again 10 years from now dealing with another expensive humanitarian crisis on our border. But today, we are left empty-handed, and all by our own doing. Again, we have been seeing this humanitarian crisis play out for months now. We have heard the heartbreaking stories of the Central American children and families arriving at our borders. I believe that we have a moral imperative here to address this crisis with a humane response and one that honors our obligations under U.S. and international law--and is consistent with the admonition that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves while taking care of the least of these in society. We have not even come close to meeting the moral imperative and I am deeply disappointed. Over the next few weeks and into September, I urge my colleagues in both Chambers to think about ``the least of these'' that we have left behind today and to work harder to come together and find a compromise to this challenge. I also urge the administration to speak more clearly about what it needs, and to work with us to find a path to get it done.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I would ask, would the Senator one more time make the unanimous consent request for Todd Robinson.

Mr. CARPER. I would say to my colleagues, as chairman of the homeland security committee, I have been down to a number of Central American countries--Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador. If there is anybody that needs a U.S. ambassador down there, it is Guatemala. We see all these young people, not so young people, coming to this country, trying to get in this country. The reason they are coming up here is there is no hope--no economic hope, crime, lack of opportunity--and we have no ambassador there. We haven't had an ambassador there for months. I would just make a plea for the chairman to make a unanimous consent if only for the Ambassador to Guatemala. And I would just plead with my colleague, my friend from Wyoming, not to object.

Mr. CARPER. Would the chairman tell us again the name of the ambassador nominated by the President to be Ambassador to Guatemala?

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

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I would like to say to the Senator from Utah, who is a dear friend and the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, that something magical happened here about 48 hours ago right here in this Chamber. What happened is we saw the Senate evolve in a very good way. We saw Senators bringing amendments to the floor, Democratic and Republican. We saw them having a chance to offer amendments, debate the amendments, and get votes on the amendments. And it was on an important issue. The issue was how we were going to provide and fund the transportation system for our country, which includes roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, transit systems, and more. At the end of the day, 79 Senators, Democratic and Republican, a majority of Republicans and Democrats, voted to say we would like to make sure we don't run out of money in the Federal transportation trust fund this year. We are going to replenish that trust fund but not for a year or a year and a half but for a relatively short period of time-- until the end of the year, really until the end of December. Why would we stop there? It is because we believe that if we keep on going--for example, one of the proposals coming over from the House was to fund the transportation program until maybe next May or next June. Our fear and the fear of 79 Senators who voted--I think with their conscience-- our fear was that we will get to next May 31 and say: Well, we can't make these votes. It is too tough to pass a 6-year transportation program for our country. Let's just cobble together enough revenues from disparate sources that have nothing to do with transportation, do what my friend Senator Bob Corker calls generational theft and steal 10 years' of revenues and use it to fix highways and bridge problems for 3 or 4 or 5 months. That is what we have been doing for the last 5 years. We have done it 11 times. What we have done is we said to Governors and State departments of transportation and others who are trying to build highways, roads, and transportation highway systems: We are going to give you a little bit of money, and you can count on it for a couple of months. If it runs out, we will try to do it some more. Stop and go. It is hugely inefficient. It is hugely inefficient. I speak as on old Governor--not that old--as a recovering Governor, a former Governor, and have some idea of all the work put into these projects. Take, for example, when you plan your highway, bridge, or transit system. You have to plan the project, you have to fund the project, you have to contract the project, and you have to get permits for the project. It takes years. And providing that we have the revenues--or won't we--will the Federal Government be there as a partner? The kind of system we have is wasteful--or at least the kind of system we have shown in recent years. A bunch of us say: Why don't we Senators--Democratic and Republican-- do our job and fund a 6-year transportation program for our country? For the most part, I think for myself and for many, why don't we stop using sources of revenue that have absolutely nothing to do with transportation? Why don't we just stop taking money from the general fund, which borrows money from China and all kinds of other places around the world? Why don't we fund it ourselves? For projects that are worth having, we ought to pay for them. Last Tuesday night, 2 nights ago, this Senate worked, and it was a joy to behold. At the end of the day we passed and sent over to the House of Representatives legislation that said we are going to not let the transportation trust fund run out of money this year. We are not going to kick the can down the road. We will keep this on a short leash and make sure that when we come back after the election, we will be likely to actually fund a 6-year transportation program. It is a smart approach and a principled approach. I want to say a big thank-you to a couple of people. I want to say to Senator Bob Corker, the Republican from Tennessee, and Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat from California, who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee on which I serve as the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, I thank you for your leadership. Thank you for standing up for doing the right thing. Andrew Jackson used to say, ``One man with courage makes a majority.'' Mr. Jackson, I would like to say said one woman with courage makes a majority. But in this case we had a courageous Republican from Tennessee and a courageous Democrat from California, and they let me draft it. The three of us put together this proposal. We worked with Senator Ron Wyden, who chairs the Finance Committee. We appreciate very much his support for our proposal as well. At the end of the day, 79 Senators said it was the right thing to do. It went over to the House. The House, to my disappointment--not to my surprise but to my disappointment--said: No, we are going to strip off what the Senate has done in a bipartisan way, and we are just going to go back to what we sent to you some time ago--which, I must say, is not likely to get a 6-year transportation program funded anytime soon--not this year and probably not anytime soon. They said that to us. But there is good news. There is good news. Seventy-nine Senators-- again, over half of the Republicans and almost all the Democrats--said: We want to do our job and we want to do it this year. We want to fully fund the transportation plan for the next 6 years. That is what the people want us to do. That is what State and local governments want us to do, what mayors and Governors want us to do. People who work and build roads, highways, bridges, transit systems-- that is what they want us to do. Contractors, the business community, labor unions--that is what they want us to do. Do our job. And we are prepared to do it. The good news out of all of this is 79 of us are prepared to do that, and I suspect some others who may have voted the other way Tuesday night are prepared as well. I thank Bob Corker and Barbara Boxer and Ron Wyden and others who are part of this vote of 79 for the leadership they provided. I want to say to my friend Senator Orrin Hatch, whom I love and love working with and with whom I am pleased to serve on the Finance Committee--I have admired him forever--that when we come back into session after the election, the lameduck session, my hope and prayer is that we will all be able to work together and get this job done. I know Senator Hatch, and I think he is the kind of person who will help get it done. Let me close with this thought, if I could, and then I will yield to the Senator from Utah. To my pleasure, one of the things that happened during the last several weeks and months was the establishment of a broad-based coalition of business, labor, State and local governments, all kinds of organizations and people who came together and said: Do the right thing. They told us to do the right thing. They have been terrific supporters and have encouraged our colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to join with Senators Corker, Boxer, Wyden, and me to do what we did Tuesday night. That coalition is not going away. They worked the House of Representatives very hard in the last 2 days,--the last 48 hours--and they are not going away. When we come back here after the election, they will come back strong, and we will too. We are not going to go away on this issue. One of the most important things we do as Senators and Representatives is to provide a transportation system that is worthy of this country. It helps with the movement of people and goods that we need to be a strong and efficient economy and nation. I will close with the words of Mark Twain. I used them the other night, and Senator Hatch has heard these words before. The words of Mark Twain all those years ago: When in doubt, do what is right. You will confound your enemies and astound your friends. Seventy-nine of us the other night did what we thought was right and what I am sure was right, and we are going to come back in a couple of months and we will have a chance to have our colleagues join us and really, as a whole body--hopefully with the House of Representatives and the President too--do our job, make sure we have the roads, highways, bridges, and transportation systems we need in this country. Again, my thanks to the Senator from Utah for letting me ramble on a bit, and I want to express once again my admiration for him. I look forward to working with him not just on this issue but on many others in the years to come. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that once I finish speaking--I will talk for less than 10 minutes, and I ask that the senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, be recognized next.