Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 11, the Congressional Review Act resolution to disapprove of the Biden administration's clean air standards for heavy-duty trucks. If enacted, this resolution would wipe away EPA's most recent final rule that addresses smog- and soot-forming pollution from our largest trucks and engines. The resolution could also prevent the Agency from ever issuing similar standards in the future. This Congressional Review Act resolution is bad for public health. It is bad for our economy. As many of us know, the transportation sector is one of our Nation's largest sources of nitrogen oxides, also known as NOX emissions. Heavy-duty vehicles--such as our schoolbuses and long-haul trucks--make up a third of mobile source NOX emissions. Nitrogen oxide pollution is one of the main contributors to ozone pollution, or smog, and also contributes to soot pollution. These harmful air pollutants are linked to increased risks of asthma attacks, respiratory disease, and, sadly, in some cases, premature death. In December 2022, I joined clean air advocates, labor leaders, and EPA Administrator Regan as he signed the final rule to reduce this pollution from new heavy-duty vehicles starting with model year 2027. This was the first time in more than 20 years that EPA had updated the heavy-duty vehicle NOX requirements. It should not be confused with EPA's recently proposed greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles. During the event, Administrator Regan told attendees that this rule would result in 48 percent reduction in NOX by 2045--48 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions by 2045. These reductions will improve air quality nationwide, especially in areas overburdened by air pollution and diesel emissions. Reducing vehicle pollution nationwide is especially personal for us in Delaware, where more than 90 percent of our air pollution comes from outside of our State. The Heavy-Duty Vehicle NOX Rule is good for our health and good for our economy. With that, I want to give my colleagues three reasons why they should vote against Senator Fischer's CRA resolution. First, the Heavy-Duty NOX Rule enables States to better meet EPA's health-based ozone air quality standards. Without the rule, States would have to make costly decisions and find more expensive ways to further reduce NOX emissions to meet ozone attainment. That is why many States and local air quality directors, including those in Arizona, Ohio, and Nevada, petitioned EPA in 2016 to take action on NOX emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. In the same vein, I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record a letter opposing S.J. Res. 11 from the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which is an association that represents the State's clean air offices.

Mr. CARPER. Second, these standards are achievable, and they provide predictability for industry, which the blunt tool of the CRA would undercut. Companies such as Cummins and others in the heavy-duty vehicle industry support the Heavy-Duty NOX Rule. The CRA would reinstate a decades-old standard based on outdated air pollution control technology, while potentially blocking EPA from ever--from ever--adopting stronger standards. Finally, if enacted, this CRA would negate the cumulative $200 billion in net benefits that the rule would generate between 2027 and 2045. These are the annual health and economic benefits that, by 2045, include: up to--listen to this--up to 2,900 fewer premature deaths--in 1 year--in 1 year; also, in 1 year, 6,700 fewer hospital admissions and emergency room visits; also, in 1 year, 18,000 fewer cases of childhood asthma; and, finally, in 1 year, 3.1 million fewer cases of asthma. These improvements will be especially beneficial for the 72 million people living near truck freight routes, where many historically disadvantaged and underserved communities are disproportionately exposed to harmful ozone pollution. Let me conclude by saying that the Heavy-Duty NOX Vehicle Rule protects public health and benefits our economy. That is a good combination. These protective and achievable Clean Air Act standards reduce dangerous smog and soot pollution and provides certainty for our Nation's heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers and for our State. Walking away from all the benefits generated by this rule doesn't make sense. That is why I call on my colleagues to join me in opposing S.J. Res. 11. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am honored to be here on the floor with the Presiding Officer today. I rise this afternoon to share my gratitude--and I know I speak for our Presiding Officer and every Member of this body, all 100 of us--for those who helped to ensure the passage of the Fire Grants and Safety Act through the Senate today and the weeks leading up to today. As we all know, a bunch of us as kids, probably, like my sister and me, wanted to grow up and be firefighters. We ended up finding other ways to serve our States and communities, but, in the beginning, we wanted to be firefighters. I might add that our two sons, who are now grown and off into the world, wanted to be firefighters. Those were the role models they emulated and wanted to be more like. I think, maybe, one of the reasons why is that it is widely known that firefighters put their lives on the line for us not just occasionally or, maybe, during holidays or on weekends but every day--every day. So, today, we honor them by passing this legislation and sending it to our colleagues in the House of Representatives. I think the final vote, if I noticed, was, I believe, 95 to 2. It is not every day we pass a bill with 95 votes. That means that just about every Democrat and every Republican in this body voted for it. I know I hear a lot from people not just in Delaware but in other States that I have visited. People will say: Why don't you just work together? Why can't you guys and gals just work together and get something done? I would present this as a great example of what we can accomplish when we do work together. I especially want to thank a couple of people among our colleagues whose hard work actually enabled us to work together and to pull together and to craft this bipartisan compromise. Let me just start with our fellow Members of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus and the colleagues on this bill. They include Senator Gary Peters, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Susan Collins, and, the last time I checked, yours truly as well. I also want to thank the entire Congressional Fire Services Caucus for their bipartisan work on this issue, including the chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, Senator Jon Tester of Montana. There were also many organizations that helped us better understand the needs of our firefighters, and I want to thank them too. Let me just mention them briefly, if I may: the Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Association of Firefighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, and the National Fire Protection Association. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that we could never have done this without their hard work and their encouragement even today. I just want to say that most of us in this body will go to bed tonight--turn off the lights and go to sleep--and not have to worry about being awakened in the middle of the night to go out and save somebody's life. We are not going to have to be disrupted in our own families or in our own personal lives to go out and lend a hand if there has been an auto accident or a truck accident and put our lives at risk. We are not going to be drawn into a situation with a house on fire. We had, not too long ago, in Delaware, a situation wherein firefighters literally rushed into a house that was on fire with the feeling that there were people literally in the basement of the house. The floor of the house collapsed, and we lost the lives of several firefighters. But none of us have to worry about that--making that kind of sacrifice and undertaking those kinds of risks. None of us will have to worry about being the young woman who was a volunteer firefighter. She worked in the healthcare field, as I recall, and was a volunteer firefighter. She worked late at night and was literally driving home on I-95 in Wilmington. It was when we were doing a reconstruction of I-95 right through the middle of our city. There was an accident at about 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and the volunteer firefighter, the woman, pulled off. She stopped to provide help to those who were impacted. The volunteer firefighter was killed. She was struck by a passing vehicle and lost her life. None of us have to worry about any of that happening and having to put ourselves or members of our families in that kind of jeopardy. The reason is that there are literally tens of thousands of people from all corners of this country--all different sizes and colors, men, women, young, and old--who understand that we all have an obligation to serve and look out for other people even when it puts us in danger and at risk with our own lives. So, in passing this legislation--and it goes to the House of Representatives now; it is not a done deal--our hope is that the House of Representatives will see fit to embrace it and pass it and send it on to the President. I presume that most Presidents--and I have had the privilege to have known quite a few of them--have great affection for the firefighters in their own States, where they come from. Nobody has greater affection in Delaware than does our President. He and I and Chris Coons, as well as Mike Castle and Pete du Pont, who came before us, share that affection and that high, high regard. I heard our President, when he was a mere Senator, say that there are actually three political parties in Delaware. One of those is Democrat; one is Republican; and the other is of the folks who are the firefighters and their families. They stand out in the crowd. I will just close with this. I have asked people why they are willing to put their lives in danger to help save our lives and the lives of others who are in jeopardy. I have heard from hundreds of men and women who have said that the reason they do it is that it gives them joy. It gives them joy to know that they are making a difference with their lives and that they are serving other people. One or two, every now and then, will actually invoke the Golden Rule: to treat other people the way you want to be treated. How would I want to be treated if my house were on fire? How would I want to be treated if my son or my daughter were in a traffic accident? If there were a forest fire surrounding our community, how would I want to be treated? Well, that is the way I would like to be; so why don't I treat other people the same way. With that, this has been a good week, and we are ending here on a very high note. I want to thank the Presiding Officer for all of his good work. It has been a pleasure working with him this week and every week. To the neighbor right across the Delaware River, I am looking forward to many, many happy trails in the days to come. We have these young pages who are sitting down here at the foot of the Presiding Officer and the floor staff. I don't know if any of them, when they were little kids, had the desire to be a firefighter. My guess is--actually, some of them are nodding their heads that, yes, they did. Hopefully, we will never outgrow the spirit that compels and encourages people to stand up and play the role of a firefighter whether it is in the middle of the night with a fire or an accident or whatever it might be. Hopefully, their example and that spirit will be contagious and infect all of us in a very, very good way. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned to convene for a pro forma session, with no business being conducted, at 10 a.m. on Friday, April 21; that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, April 25; that on Tuesday, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Jacobs nomination; further, that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 25.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, happy Earth Week. I rise today, along with a couple of my colleagues--one from West Virginia and another from Arkansas--to speak on the Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act of 2023 and on the Recycling and Composting Accountability Act, which is bipartisan legislation that would improve our Nation's recycling and composting systems. As a number of our colleagues know, my wife and I are both avid recyclers and composters and have been for some time. I have long believed in environmental stewardship. That is the way my parents raised my sister and me, and I suspect it is the way a lot of parents of Members of this body raised their sons and daughters. They raised us to leave behind a cleaner, healthier planet for future generations, and that is a belief I know is shared not just by elected officials here in Washington but by many people across this country. I am also a strong believer that bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions. Whenever possible, we ought to work to find common ground and put forward bipartisan solutions that can stand the test of time. To that end, I am pleased to have found great partners--not just good partners but great partners--in developing these bipartisan recycling bills: Senator Capito, our ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, with whom I am privileged to serve and to chair, along with Senator John Boozman, cochair of the Senate's Recycling Caucus, our colleague from Arkansas. All three of us recognize that we have to do our part to continue to improve our Nation's recycling and composting efforts. In doing so, it not only benefits our environment but also creates economic opportunity and jobs--a lot of jobs. The legislation we are here to discuss today would address several of the challenges that America's recycling efforts currently face and what we might do about them. One of these challenges is the availability of good data. In November of 2021, with input from many stakeholders, the Environmental Protection Agency released its first-ever national recycling strategy. When that strategy was released, I was delighted to learn that many of the comments I had submitted to the EPA on behalf of our committee had been incorporated into the final version. It was a happy day when we learned that. This document offered a transformative vision for strengthening our Nation's waste management efforts. It also highlighted the need for greater standardization around data collection. To address this challenge around data collection, Senator Boozman and I, along with our staffs, developed the Recycling and Composting Accountability Act. Our bill would improve the EPA's ability to gather data on our Nation's recycling systems and explore opportunities for implementing a national composting strategy. The EPA has also set a goal of increasing the U.S. recycling rate to 50 percent by 2030. With a current recycling rate of only 32 percent, it is clear we have a long way to go. That is why we must also focus on increasing access to recycling opportunities throughout our Nation--not just in urban areas or suburban areas but in rural areas as well. Many Americans in disadvantaged communities want to recycle and compost, too, but they are unable to do so because they, in many cases, live in communities that lack curbside pickup, that lack bottle return, and that lack other necessary recycling infrastructure. Senator Capito's Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act of 2023 would address this challenge by creating a pilot program with EPA to help expand recycling services in underserved areas. The Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act that she has written would bring many communities, including those in rural areas, into the recycling world while also better protecting our environment. I commend Senator Capito for her work and her leadership in developing this legislation. I also want to continue working with her to ensure that her bill helps to jump-start recycling in communities with the greatest need, especially in disadvantaged and historically underserved communities. Both of the bills that I have referred to from members of our committee are a result of a true collaboration, and they reflect a substantial amount of bipartisan effort dedicated to exploring and addressing our Nation's recycling and composting challenges. The adoption of these bills this week is fitting and timely, as Saturday marks the 53rd anniversary of the very first Earth Day. This day is personal to me. Some 53 years ago this Saturday, I stood side by side with tens of thousands of people in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. I was a naval flight officer. I had completed my training and was about to deploy out of Moffett Field, CA, to head for Southeast Asia, but I had an opportunity to join tens of thousands of people in Golden Gate Park that day to celebrate our country's first-ever Earth Day. That same year, Democrats and Republicans worked together with then- President Richard Nixon to create a Federal Agency dedicated to protecting our environment. The name of that Agency? The Environmental Protection Agency. Decades later, I can still vividly remember--I can; I can close my eyes and remember it now--that first Earth Day and the urgency we felt to save our planet. Today, a younger generation also shares that sense of urgency. While I believe we ought to live every day like it is Earth Day, on April 22 of each year, I especially welcome the opportunity to reflect and give thanks for all of the incredible natural resources and natural beauty that God has given us on this planet of ours. Earth Day is also a time for all of us to reflect on our actions individually and as a whole, to think about what more we can do and should be doing to protect our planet and its inhabitants. Like many people, I try to live my life by the golden rule of always treating people the way I want to be treated. I also believe that principle extends to the way we treat and care for our planet and those with whom we share it. A couple of years ago--and some of my colleagues may remember--we had a visitor on the other side of the Capitol, in the House Chamber. He was a fellow from France named Macron, the Prime Minister of France. He came to address a joint session of Congress that day, and he did a great job. He was very well received, I think, by everybody. On that day, he spoke of the importance of protecting our environment from the threats of climate change, hazardous waste, and toxic pollution. At the end of his speech, he said something I will never forget. He was talking about our planet, and these were his words: There is no planet B. There is no planet B. This is the only one we are going to have. I sat there that day, thinking, boy, he has gotten it right; there is no planet B. That means we only have one chance to get it right when it comes to protecting and caring for this planet of ours. As I said earlier, I am committed to leaving behind a cleaner, healthier planet for future generations. I welcome all of our colleagues to join Senator Capito and myself in that effort. Fortunately, we have made remarkable progress over the past five decades following that very first Earth Day. From enacting comprehensive laws to protect our environment and support good-paying, clean energy jobs to ratifying the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and phasing down the use of superpolluting chemicals like HFCs, which are 1,000 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, there is much to be proud of. Still, our work is not finished. We have a long way to go. I think it was Robert Frost who said we have miles to go before we sleep--miles to go before we sleep. So, today, we celebrate the opportunity to build on this progress and leave behind a livable planet with our bipartisan recycling legislation. We also acknowledge that there is more to be done. In the spirit of Earth Day, I am prepared to roll up my sleeves and keep marching forward in my effort to do the right thing by our planet and the people who call it home just as I did some 53 years ago this Saturday. I invite Americans from all walks of life to join the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Capito; Senator Boozman from Arkansas; and myself in this effort. It is the right thing to do, and it will make you feel good all over. I promise. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight the importance of supporting the brave men and women who protect us every day in all 50 States. As I laid out on this floor last month, the fires that we face are getting worse, not better. Every day, there are more fires ravaging our communities and more folks relying on firefighters for protection. Just last week, almost 4,000 acres in our neighboring State of New Jersey were scorched by the Jimmy's Waterhole fire, forcing evacuations from something like 170 buildings and homes. In Pennsylvania, over 2,500 acres were burned and over 150 homes threatened, forcing the Pennsylvania Turnpike to temporarily close. Let me just make this as clear and as strong as I can. We have to support our firefighters. We have to support our firefighters so that when they bravely run toward danger to help others, they are well prepared; they are properly trained and equipped. That is one of the reasons why I continue to colead the Fire Grants and Safety Act with my colleagues on the Congressional Fire Service Caucus. Firefighters put their lives on the line for us every day-- every day--and it is our duty to provide them with the necessary support that they need. I am proud to join alongside Senators Gary Peters, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski in fighting for this crucial legislation to better ensure that our firefighters are armed with the tools that they need to get the job done on behalf of other people. Today, I want to talk for a few minutes, if I could, about the Fire Grants and Safety Act and how it will actually have an impact on communities not just on the east coast, not just on the west coast, the middle of our country, but all over the United States of America. At a high level, this bill reauthorizes three critical Federal programs that support the local fire departments. Let me break it down just a little bit, if I could. First, this legislation will reauthorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response-- also known as the SAFER Grant Program. The SAFER Grant Program provides funding for career, for volunteer, and some combination of local fire departments to increase the number of men and women on duty at any point in time. The job of a firefighter can be incredibly demanding, and baseline industry standards include protocols like 24-hour staffing to make sure our communities have adequate protection of all hours of day and night. The SAFER Grant Program also provides funding to recruit staff so that we can ensure staffing needs can actually be met. For example, SAFER grants could help ensure that more personnel are properly trained and available on the ground to assist in major fires in the areas that need it the most. In States like Delaware, where the majority of our firefighters are volunteers, it is particularly important that staffing needs are met and resources are provided so that all first responders are ready to take on each day that lies ahead of them. The Fire Grants and Safety Act also reauthorizes the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program helps local fire departments and EMS organizations to fulfill equipment and training needs, like firetrucks and protective gear, all of which lead to a more effective emergency response. But firefighters do a whole lot more than just put out fires--I think the Presiding Officer and other of our colleagues know. Annually, there are over 36 million emergency calls that fire services across the country respond to. Let me say that again. There are over 36 million emergency calls that fire services respond to across the country. That is not going down. That is going up. I think it increased about 20 percent over the last dozen or so years. Just a few weeks ago, in my own State, a strong, dangerous tornado struck Southern Delaware in the area of Sussex County, our southernmost county, near a community called Greenwood and another community called Bridgeville. It was our firefighters who showed up to lead people to safety. We lost a grandfather when the tornado struck Bridgeville, as I recall. I think he was in his seventies. He left behind a family. Ensuring that funding is provided for EMS alongside fire services is critical to the emergency response. Finally, the Fire Grants and Safety Act will reauthorize the U.S. Fire Administration to provide leadership, to provide coordination, and to provide training for first responders and healthcare leaders. Responding to emergencies is no small undertaking. It is a huge undertaking. In addition to our firefighters, healthcare leaders help to guide the disaster response by making sure that people are taken care of, both during and after emergency response. The U.S. Fire Administration also plays a critical role in that coordinated effort, ensuring that our first responders are ready to handle hazards, from saving lives to preventing loss of homes and personal belongings. Beyond the initial response, the Administration collects fire data, conducts important research and prevention methods, and hosts public safety information and fire service training. This proactive approach assists local fire departments in handling future emergencies and creates a more comprehensive approach to fire safety. The lifesaving work made possible by these three Federal programs must continue, and we have the opportunity here in the Senate to make that happen. Last month, we came together--Democrats and Republicans-- to vote to take up the Fire Grants and Safety Act. That vote passed by a whopping 96 to 0. As the Presiding Officer knows, that doesn't happen here every day, and it is a testament to the power of bipartisanship. It is also a testament to the critical role that firefighters play in communities across America. Today, we will improve our emergency response, and we will make sure that our firefighters have, if not everything they need, more of what they need. I am pleased that our President has announced his support for this legislation. I want to strongly encourage our colleagues and friends over in the House of Representatives to do their part once we have taken care of business here and send the Fire Grants and Safety Act to the President's desk. Mr. President, I want to go back a little in time. I remember a time when my sister and I were young and playing with other kids in our neighborhood. Maybe our cousins were with us. We had a firetruck. In fact, we had a couple of little firetrucks. We would take turns being a firefighter. Some days we would put out fires, and other days we would respond to imaginary weather events that endangered our community where we lived. Later on, decades later, my sister would have her kids--a son and daughter--and my wife and I had a couple of boys, and one of their favorite toys was firetrucks. On more than a few occasions, they and their friends would come over to our house to play, and we would bring out the firetrucks. They didn't have anything else to do but fight fires. For them, it was just fun. They loved doing it--doing it with their neighbors and friends-- and loved doing it with their cousins who might be visiting with us. That was fun for them. In the real world, being a firefighter can be enormously satisfying. I don't know that I would say it is fun. It is dangerous, and there is a chance that someone will get hurt trying to help out other people, and the risks can be, as we know, great. I just want to make sure that those young kids who grow up to be firefighters--like the ones whom we honored this past month in the Bridgeville Fire Company in Southern Delaware--I just want to make sure they know that we value them. We value their service. We value their willingness to risk their own lives on behalf of other people, including people they may not even know. In the legislation that is before us, we have the opportunity to make that clear to firefighters around the country--States large and small, east and west, blue and red--how much we value them and the service they provide to so many of us. That is what I have today. I don't see anybody else yearning to address our colleagues. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I don't rise every day to oppose amendments offered by Senator Lee. I am afraid I am going to have to oppose this one for a couple of reasons. One, as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and as a recovering Governor who has helped run a State and was actually the chair of the National Governors Association for a while, I believe this amendment undercuts the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Government's important role in managing our Federal lands. While I appreciate the need for Federal Agencies and States to work together to minimize wildfire risks on our public lands, this amendment, I am sorry to say, misses the mark. Specifically, this amendment would require--and I underline the word ``require''--this amendment would require the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to allow States to take over Federal responsibilities for environmental reviews of many activities on public lands. This would be a significant change in the management of our public lands, which belong, as we know, to all Americans. Although Senator Lee's proposal is modeled on a program at the Department of Transportation that allows States to assume some responsibilities for highway projects, this amendment is far broader in scope and impact and lacks the numerous safeguards that are in place for the highway program. For instance, this amendment establishes mandatory--I emphasize ``mandatory''--not discretionary assignment of responsibilities to States. It has no requirement, as best I can tell, for public notice and comment and does not require the Federal Agency to verify that the State has the resources and the personnel available to carry out Federal responsibilities. It also includes, as best I can tell, no auditing or monitoring requirements. I am working with my colleagues, I believe on both sides of the aisle, on opportunities to improve environmental review procedures. But I must say, this is not the right vehicle or way to proceed on this provision, and I am reluctantly going to have to urge our colleagues to vote no on this particular amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER. I don't think I have got this wrong. I may be mistaken, but I don't think so. I would just say, again, Senator Lee's proposal appears to be modeling on a program at the Department of Transportation that allows States--and I underline ``allows States''--to assume some responsibilities, not all but some responsibilities, for highway projects. Having said that, this amendment is far broader in scope and impact and lacks the numerous safeguards that are in place for the highway program. For example, this amendment establishes mandatory--mandatory, not discretionary--assignment of responsibilities to States. In doing that, it has no requirement for public notice. It does not require the Federal Agency to verify that the State has either the resources or the personnel available to carry out Federal responsibilities. Moreover, as best I can tell, this mandate includes no auditing or monitoring requirements. That should give all of us pause. That should give all of us pause and cause for concern. Having said that, I am working with our colleagues on opportunities to improve environmental review procedures, but I just don't believe this is the right vehicle for the way to proceed on this particular provision. I look forward to discussing it further with our colleague from Utah in the days ahead, but for now I am going to urge our colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. CARPER. Yes, Mr. President.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am looking at the language of the amendment. On page 4, subparagraph (D), which is entitled ``Verification of Resources,'' reads--I will read part of this. It says: As a condition on entering into an agreement under paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned may require a State or [may require] an Indian Tribe to verify that the State or an Indian Tribe has the financial and personnel resources necessary to carry out the responsibilities described in that paragraph. It doesn't say ``should.'' It doesn't say ``must.'' It says ``may require a State or . . . Indian tribe to verify that the State or Indian Tribe has the financial and personnel resources necessary to carry out the responsibilities described in that paragraph.'' I, again, have significant concerns here. I appreciate the intent of the author of the amendment, but I will just reiterate again the concerns that the more I look at this, the more concerned I am. I would rather be less concerned but more concerned I have become. With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. CARPER. I am not prepared to know whether or not there are other safeguards--I appreciate the good intent that the Senator from Utah is showing. But standing here on the fly, I am just reluctant to say that if you change this one place and this one word in this proposal, then I am OK with all of it. I will need a little bit of time to work on it and decide. It is hard to do it on the fly.

Mr. CARPER. This is the last thing I would say with respect to this amendment. If this amendment is not adopted, I would say to the Senator from Utah, I welcome the opportunity for my staff and your staff to sit down and talk through it and to better understand our concerns and better understand where you are coming from.

Mr. CARPER. Yes. We will keep on it.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I have 11 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, before I begin my floor remarks, let me just ask unanimous consent that several individuals who serve in my personal office and on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works majority staff be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of this Congress. Their names are Daniel Kim, Victoria Carle, Linnea Saby, Nicole Comisky, and Matthew Marzano.

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am standing next to a woman from New Jersey who is our communications director and who handles Delaware and somehow manages to handle New Jersey and raise a family at the same time. She is amazing. We are delighted that we could have the two of you on the floor at the same time. It is a wonderful coincidence. Fire Grants and Safety Act Mr. President, I rise today to highlight something that I believe unites all of us; that is, support for our local firefighters across the country. I don't care if you are in New Jersey or Delaware or Oregon or New Mexico. There is a great affection and appreciation for our firefighters. Our firefighters throughout America are everyday people who every day do extraordinary things with their lives. They put their lives on the line to protect us. They have to lay down their lives to save ours and the lives of our families. For that, we owe it to them to make sure that they are fully equipped with the lifesaving protection, with the equipment, the education and training they need to get their job done. That is why I am very proud to colead the Fire Grants and Safety Act with my colleagues on the Congressional Fire Services Caucus. And one of them would be our chairman--that would be Gary Peters of Michigan; Susan Collins of Maine, a longtime supporter of firefighters and a leader in the Congressional Fire Services Caucus; and Lisa Murkowski, also a leader in the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, from Alaska. And I was pleased that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, on which I am privileged to serve and used to be chair, passed this important bill out of committee just earlier this month. The Fire Grants and Safety Act reauthorizes critical Federal programs that support local fire departments; namely, among those, FEMA's Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, also known as the SAFER Grant Program, and the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. These programs are not just incidental. They are vital. They are critical. They are essential to local firefighting departments to help recruit staff, to purchase lifesaving equipment like firetrucks and protective gear, provide fire training and education to current firefighters and also to new firefighters and improve medical services to our communities. In Delaware, our fire departments rely on these programs to protect our community. In fact, in 2021, and, I think, in 2022, the SAFER Program and the so-called AFG Program provided almost $3 million in funding to Delaware fire departments. That may not sound like a lot of money in New Jersey or California or some other places; $3 million is real money in a State the size of Delaware, and it is put to very good use every year. We know these threats from fire are in our homes, but those threats are in our businesses, and there are wildfires. We know they are not going away. We know they are not going away. In Alaska last year, 3 million acres burned in a wildfire--a wildfire. Three million acres burned in one wildfire. That is nearly half of the acreage burned in the entire United States of America. Just think about that--one wildfire in Alaska. Just 3 weeks ago, I am told high winds spread a fire in my home State of Delaware that engulfed about a half dozen homes and left some 16 people homeless and caused over $1 million in damage. We have to make sure that our firefighters have what they need when they wake up each morning to bravely respond to the calls that come their way. Without action, authorization of both the SAFER and AFG Programs would expire later this year. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, support for our local firefighters is an issue that brings us together. There are a lot of issues that divide us, as the Presiding Officer knows. There are some issues that unite us, and this is one of those issues. The Senate voted yesterday to begin consideration of the Fire Grants and Safety Act. That vote passed by 96 to 0. That doesn't happen every day, as the Presiding Officer knows. Let me repeat that: 96 to 0. And we were happy to see that kind of unanimity, and I think it bodes well for when we return after the recess in the next week or two to take up this legislation. I look forward to the Senate coming back in 2 weeks. I look forward to finishing the job that we have begun. And we look forward to passing, again, this important legislation. I strongly encourage our friends over in the House of Representatives to do their part and to send the Fire Grants and Safety Act to the President's desk. We owe that to our first responders. Mr. President, with that, I thank you for a chance to speak on the floor today. And I wish you and your family a safe recess and see you in 2 weeks. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I believe I have 15 minutes to speak.

Mr. CARPER. I would ask that I be granted 15 minutes to speak.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 27, a Congressional Review Act resolution to disapprove the Biden administration's rule defining the ``waters of the United States,'' or WOTUS, as it is popularly known. To many Americans, the definition of the ``waters of the United States'' may not seem like a controversial matter. To understand why it is, though, we need to first ask ourselves, how did we get here to this point? Well, a little more than 50 years ago, Congress came together to pass the Clean Water Act. In doing so, Congress affirmed our Nation's commitment to protecting and restoring waterways from industrial pollution. Until that point, our Nation's waters--which were and continue to be critical to our health, to our environment, and our economy--were subject to indiscriminate pollution and destruction. Polluters could dump their waste into upstream waters without consequence. In fact, some of you may recall that the Cuyahoga River in Northern Ohio was so polluted that it caught fire in 1969, not far from where I went to college as a Navy ROTC midshipman during the Vietnam war. The memory of that fire remains with me still today. When Congress passed the Clean Water Act, there was no confusion--no confusion or uncertainty--about what it was seeking to protect. At the time, there was broad bipartisan concern over the health of our Nation's waters. There was also consensus that we needed to fix a very real and a very costly problem. America's waters needed once again to be drinkable; they needed to be swimmable; and they needed to be fishable. During the Senate debate on the Clean Water Act all those years ago, Democrats and Republicans alike spoke in support of the legislation. Senator Ed Muskie, a Democrat from Maine and the bill's lead sponsor said: [T]he rivers of this country serve as little more than sewers to the seas. Wastes from cities and towns, from farms and forests, from mining and manufacturing, foul the streams, poison the estuaries, threaten the life of the ocean depths. The danger to health, the environmental damage, the economic loss can be anywhere. That is his quote from all those years ago. Senator Howard Baker, if you recall, a Republican from Tennessee who was also a Republican leader in this body for a number of years had these words to say: [T]he economy of this Nation can absorb the costs of cleaning up pollution without inflation or without a loss in economic productivity. He went on to say these words: If we cannot swim in our lakes and rivers, if we cannot breathe the air God has given us, what other comforts can life offer us? Senator Baker's words were true then, and they ring true still today. Thanks to the Clean Water Act, our Nation's waters are remarkably cleaner than they were five decades ago. The same Cuyahoga River that caught fire all those years ago is now cleaned up and home to more than 60 species of fish. The simple fact is the Clean Water Act remains our best tool to safeguard our nation's waters from persistent pollution, protecting our health, protecting our environment. We cannot afford to turn back the clock on these protections for our Nation's waters and those who depend on them. In a nutshell, that is why I support President Biden's commonsense rule defining which of our Nation's waters need to be protected under the law. It is also why I oppose--what I believe to be--a misguided Congressional Review Act resolution to invalidate it. After multiple administrations' failed attempts to create a lasting WOTUS definition, the 2023 Biden rule represents--what I believe--is a fair balance. The rule protects our Nation's waters and wetlands and provides flexibility for those who need it. And that last ``and'' is important--and provides flexibility for those who need it. And, particularly, the Biden rule thoughtfully responds to many concerns that the agricultural community in my State and in other States have voiced over the years. In fact, the Biden rule makes agricultural exemptions clearer and more consistent with other existing regulations. For example, the rule includes express exemptions for farming on land designated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as prior converted cropland, an exemption long-sought by the agriculture community in my State and, I suspect, in most of the other 49 States. According to the American Farm Bureau, there are approximately 53 million acres of prior converted cropland in the United States--that is 53 million acres of farmland that the Biden rule makes clear should not be regulated--should not be regulated--53 million--million with an ``M.'' If the CRA resolution of disapproval were to become law, it would overturn this important clarification for agricultural activities under the Biden rule, including the one I just mentioned. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers would also be prohibited from developing substantially similar regulations in the future. All of this would lead to confusion and uncertainty from our farmers and ranchers. We don't need more uncertainty; we need less. Many of our colleagues who oppose the Biden rule say they prefer the Trump administration's so-called Navigable Waters Protection Rule. I would like to remind them that the Trump rule actually earned its name, I think, for good reason--Trump's dirty water rule was vacated not just by one court but by multiple courts. I think at least two Federal courts vacated that rule. These court rulings found that the Trump rule failed to fulfill the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Overturning the Biden rule will not bring the Trump rule back. I will say that again. Overturning the Biden rule will not bring the Trump rule back. The courts have already spoken--not once, but twice-- with respect to the Trump rule. Instead, all that this CRA would accomplish is to create a new phase of litigation and even more uncertainty, neither of which we need. We have also heard some of our colleagues argue that protecting streams and wetlands under the Clean Water Act is an overreach. The science, however, is abundantly clear. The health of our waterways is inextricably linked to our streams and to our wetlands. As we all know, wetlands are valuable for our economy, our environment, and our planet. So how is that, you might ask? How is that? Well, wetlands protect our communities from dangerous and costly flooding. One acre of wetlands can store up to 1.5 million gallons of floodwater. In total, that means that wetlands in the United States provide $2.9 trillion in value just by reducing and delaying floods. That is more than the GDP of every State and territory in 2022, except maybe for California. It is also worth noting that nonflood plain wetlands buffer floodwaters by capturing runoff during storms. So when I hear the criticisms that the Biden WOTUS rule is bad for our economy, put plainly, I could not disagree more. Some may say that our Nation cannot afford the level of protection for our waterways and wetlands provided by the Biden rule. As it turns out, the converse is true: We cannot afford not to protect it. The reality is that because of the interconnectedness of our waterways, streams, wetlands, oceans, and estuaries, how private property owners manage their land has the potential to affect us all. If your upstream neighbor pollutes the water or drains a wetland, that can impact your property too. Similarly, what one State does can impact neighboring States as well as States even further downstream. May I add one other thing? The Clean Water Act reminds us of the moral obligation all of us have to follow the Golden Rule: to treat others the way we want to be treated. The Biden rule requires us to be good neighbors and stewards of our planet, while also providing flexibility for those who need it. I, for one, am grateful for that. As the late Senator Baker put it more than 50 years ago, right here on this very floor, he said. [I] have found that the kind of natural environment we bequeath to our children and grandchildren is of paramount importance. Those words were true then, and they are even more true today. So let me say this again: The planet that we bequeath to our children and the planet that we bequeath to our grandchildren is of paramount importance to them, and it is also to us as their parents and their grandparents. With that thought in mind, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.J. Res. 27. Madam President, I was coming down on the train today and thought about a visit I paid to a farm probably about a half dozen years ago. It was a beautiful day like today, and we had farmers--scores of farmers who were there. It was organized, I believe, by the Delaware Farm Bureau. We had people from the administration, the Senate Democratic administration, who had come. And they had come to listen, to hear from the farmers that were gathered, their concerns with an earlier version of this rule, the waters of the United States rule. And the farmers, among other things, said: We want some certainty. We want some predictability, and we want you to listen to us. We want you to listen to our thoughts, and we want you to make sure that the next time you write something like this, you take our thoughts into consideration. I don't have time in the short time that has been allotted to me to go chapter and verse about the words that were spoken by farmers in my State on that day, but the words that have been spoken by farmers all over this country in the weeks and months since then have been taken into effect, and simply saying that they have been ignored is just not true. It is just not true. Changes have been made, and they are reflected in the document that we are going to be voting on here in a bit--reflected in the good work that has been done by this administration. How much time do I have left, Madam President?