Shelley Capito

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for additional time so the Senator from Montana can join the colloquy. As he reminds me, the Senator has the largest recoverable tonnage of coal in the Nation.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sharon Haggett, a detailee in Senator Alexander's office, have the privileges of the floor for the duration of today's session of the Senate.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate came together in a bipartisan way to pass the National Defense Authorization Act conference report. This important legislation authorizes vital resources for our Nation's troops, our wounded warriors, and their families. This NDAA provides for our national security needs and will meet our commitments to our allies. The defense funding bill also includes programs that will directly benefit the West Virginia National Guard, including our partnership program with Peru and the Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Program to fight the wave of prescription drug abuse that is all over our States and our State in particular. This bill provides funding for STARBASE--I visited STARBASE just recently--an innovative program that provides hands-on learning opportunities for students in science, technology, and mathematics, and helps spur their interest in STEM. They were really excited that day. On Monday when I visited the 167th Air Lift Wing in Martinsburg, I enjoyed the opportunity to personally meet and thank our servicemembers and learn about the challenges they face. These brave men and women deserve our unified support and should not be subject to the gridlock that has been too common in Washington. Unbelievably to me, though, the President has threatened to veto this bipartisan legislation, even though it authorizes the same amount of spending for national defense that he asked for in his budget submission. Just recently the administration authorized tens of billions of dollars for Iran through sanctions relief, including money that will be used admittedly to further destabilize the Middle East. Now the President is threatening to veto funding authorization for our own troops. We face great and growing threats to our national security. ISIS continues to advance. Syria's ongoing civil war is creating a flood of refugees in Europe, Russia is increasing its influence in the Middle East, and Iran will gain strength due to the sanctions relief granted in the nuclear agreement. It would be a mistake for the President to veto this funding for our national defense. As the Washington Post editorialized this weekend, ``American presidents rarely veto national defense authorization bills, since they are, well, vital to national security.'' The editorial continues, ``Refusing to sign this bill would make history, but not in a good way.'' This is not the legacy the President wants to leave behind. He should reconsider his position and follow the lead of the 70 Senators who voted yesterday--including 21 Democrats--to put our national security before politics. The Senate is now considering another bipartisan bill that has important implications to our national security. The Energy and Water appropriations bill funds programs that help us use our energy resources in the most efficient way possible. I serve on the Appropriations Committee. I saw the bipartisan work that occurred between the chair and the ranking member. Continued innovation in our energy resources, whether it is coal, natural gas or oil, is absolutely a strategic asset to our national energy independence. The benefit of innovation in our energy sector is reflected in the vast reserves of shale gas that are now being produced in West Virginia and elsewhere across the country. It was less than a decade ago, when I came to Congress, many of us were worried about a shortage of natural gas. Today, natural gas production is surging. In West Virginia alone, production has increased by over 500 percent in the last decade. It is exciting to watch. An energy economy is a jobs economy. Not only does shale gas help us meet our domestic energy needs, we have an opportunity to expand our LNG exports, creating more jobs at home while helping to meet the energy and security needs of our allies in Europe and Japan. Innovation and investment in clean coal technologies, not across-the- board regulation, should be our focus. The Energy and Water appropriations bill includes $610 million in fossil fuel development. This is a necessary investment in entities such as the National Energy and Technology Lab in Morgantown, so that they can use these dollars to develop the technologies to make coal, oil, and natural gas production cleaner and more efficient. I strongly disagree with EPA regulations that require the use of technology that is not commercially available. That is what we see in these regulations. They increase the cost of energy and they decrease the reliability of electricity grid. The best way to provide that energy and improve our environment is to invest in the technologies that will help us and use those coal reserves in the most efficient way possible. This bill also provides important funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. West Virginia is the only State that is completely within the boundaries of the Appalachian Regional Commission, and the ARC plays an important role in helping West Virginians meet our economic challenges. The funding provided in this bill can help ARC promote rural broadband--something I talk a lot about on the floor of the Senate--and will expand rural health care services and offer opportunity to our State's workers. Investments made in the Army Corps of Engineers through this bill will help provide the infrastructure we need to make sure American products can move to markets across the country and around the world. The Energy and Water appropriations bill impacts every American. It was carefully crafted, robustly debated in committee, and passed the full Appropriations Committee with bipartisan support. Mr. President and my fellow Members of the Senate, the Appropriations Committee did its part. We passed all 12 government funding bills for the first time since 2009. Nine of these bills had bipartisan support. So far Democrats have chosen twice to block debate on the Department of Defense appropriations. Last week, the Democrats blocked debate on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. That obstruction is the reason the government is continuing to operate on a continuing resolution. Let's get the bills on the floor. Let's debate them, make changes, and then vote again. That is what we are supposed to be doing. None of us was sent here to pass short-term continuing resolutions and allow the government to operate on autopilot. Let's do our job. That is what we are sent here for. We are here to advocate for our State and national priorities, and this Energy and Water bill reflects those priorities. The full Senate should have an opportunity to debate this bill, offer amendments to improve it, and pass a bill that will lead to energy security and improve our infrastructure. By contrast, voting to filibuster this and other appropriations bills will make the threat of a government shutdown more likely. Americans deserve a government that makes wise and strategic investments to best meet our needs. Endless continuing resolutions are not the most effective way to meet those needs and can prove wasteful in dollars and time. I ask my colleagues to allow debate on this important legislation to move forward and to support investments in our energy and infrastructure priorities. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, we heard from many Members talking about the situation with the appropriations bill, and I would like to add my voice to the chorus. For too long uncertainty has hampered our Nation's ability to grow our economy and make necessary investments in our workforce, our infrastructure, and our technology. It was imperative that we avoided an unnecessary and reckless government shutdown this week, but that was a short-term patch. Now more than ever we need to take longer term actions to move our economy and our Nation forward. As the Senator from Arkansas mentioned, earlier this year the Appropriations Committee, on which I sit, accomplished something that has not been done since 2009. We passed all 12 appropriations bills through the full committee. We did so in a fiscally responsible way. We did so within the budget caps agreed to by the Congress. Many of us voted for those budget caps. We did so with broad-based bipartisan support; 9 of the 12 bills had broad-based bipartisan support. These bills touch every aspect of government and every facet of our economy. From transportation, medical research, energy investments to justice programs, these funding bills were robustly debated. Knowing all this, why are the Democrats blocking the Senate from considering one of these single appropriations bills? Earlier this week it was the Defense appropriations. Today it is the MILCON-VA. Why? Why are they blocking these same bills that many of them have previously voted for in committee and touted to their constituents? Last week I had the privilege of traveling across West Virginia with VA Secretary McDonald. We heard directly from veterans about their challenges and needs. One of the things we discussed was the Greenbrier County community-based outpatient clinic that had been closed. Secretary McDonald made a commitment, with over 200 veterans that we had in the room from that area, that that clinic would reopen quickly, but without the certainty of the funding that we have in these bills, Secretary McDonald cannot make those assertions across the country. We went to the Huntington VA Hospital, where we met with employees and veterans--committed individuals who want to see our veterans treated the way we want them to be treated, but the advances in medical technologies can't move forward without a certainty of what the funding levels are. These men and women, our brave veterans, deserve our unified support and should not be subjected to the gridlock that has been so common in these past few years. The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill funds construction and care for facilities and services that assist our military veterans. It improves facilities for men and women who are willing to sacrifice for our freedoms. I will say, many of our VA facilities are challenged with approximately 20 percent of women veterans who are coming out. They don't have facilities to adequately treat our women veterans. This bill also includes funding for construction of State extended-care facilities, which helps construct, expand, and remodel nursing home facilities to care for our elderly veterans. We know many of our veterans are aging in larger and larger numbers. Determining our Nation's spending priorities, especially when it comes to our veterans, is one of Congress's most important responsibilities. Our process can work and our government can function. We demonstrated that at the committee level. We need to demonstrate that as well today on the floor of the Senate, but make no mistake about this, this is not just about process; it is also about progress. Funding bills are not just numbers on paper; they are people. They are our veterans. They are our friends and neighbors, our fathers and mothers, our sons and daughters. They represent the priorities of our Nation. There are other things in the appropriations bills that are equally important. We passed out historic investments in NIH and community health centers. We passed out critical infrastructure improvements from expanding broadband access to trying to help with the drug epidemic. You cannot measure the impact of programs like the National Guard Counterdrug Program, which is helping to combat the spread of illegal drugs in our State, or the work of the Appalachian Regional Commission which helps to improve the lives of so many. Endless continuing resolutions are not the most effective ways to meet these needs and can be proved wasteful in both time and dollars. Our bills provide critical funding, but they also provide direction on significant policy matters that are facing this Nation. When we operate from one short-term funding patch to the other, we as Members of Congress are forfeiting our responsibility to hold the executive branch accountable. Advancing appropriations bills through regular order is a vital check on wasteful spending and overreach in our government agencies. We need to work together. We can start that today, and I hope we will later this afternoon. These are broad goals, and the goals are shown in those bills. As the Senate begins consideration of funding for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, we should remember this: Governing is about setting priorities and bringing fiscal responsibility to the Federal Government, while ensuring that we provide for the necessary investments and services. Supporting our veterans is not only necessary, it is about the men and women who put their lives on the line for us so we can enjoy the freedoms we have here today. West Virginia is a very patriotic State, with one of the highest percentages of military veterans. I want to see that they are cared for properly. I am going to make that vote today. I hope my colleagues--the ones who are on the Appropriations Committee who have already voted in favor of this bill--will convince their colleagues on the other side that gridlock and obstructionism is not the way to go in the Senate. It is time to work across the aisle to pass this bill and support our veterans. Doing so will strengthen our Nation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I will be echoing a lot of the same points that he has made. I think that it is a critical time. This is important. It is important for the young people around this country to know what kind of a future they are going to have, and I think he has lined it out very well, and this week, I think, will be critically important in terms of the decisions that we make as a country. In May, the Senate passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act by a vote of 98 to 1. You don't see too many 98-to-1 votes in this Chamber. Sixty-six Senators cosponsored this legislation. The principal reason for this overwhelming bipartisan support was the desire to give Congress, the voice of the people, the opportunity to weigh in on the President's agreement with Iran. We have been working together now for 4 months across the aisle to ensure that the opportunity for Congress to review this agreement comes forward. Yet I am severely disappointed, as my colleague expressed, that 42 of our colleagues have now voted twice to deny the Senate the ability to take a simple up-or-down vote on this very important resolution--a simple vote to say exactly how they feel, to make sure everybody in the country and in your State knows your opinion, and yet 42 of them are blocking that simple vote. Iran's supreme leader said earlier this month that he expects Iran's parliament to vote on whether their country will approve the nuclear agreement. At the very least we should have that up-or-down vote. Certainly this agreement is also worthy of this vote. Our constituents expect us to vote on this matter. Multiple national surveys have shown that the Iran nuclear agreement is opposed by either a plurality or a majority of the American people, and any support this agreement had, as you look at the national polling, is disintegrating. A recent poll in my State shows that opponents of this deal outnumber supporters by a margin of 3 to 1. Yet I am not going to have the opportunity to vote my vote of disapproval of this agreement because of the obstructionism on the other side. In fact, when President Obama said that there was strong support for this deal among lawmakers and citizens, the Washington Post fact-checker awarded him three Pinocchios. We all know what Pinocchio was famous for, and that was the growing of his nose when he wasn't telling the truth. Three Pinocchios--that's a lot of skepticism about the President's statement. There is bipartisan opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement in Congress, but only partisan and tepid support. Our colleagues in the House of Representatives voted last week on a resolution approving this agreement. That resolution received only 162 votes, all from the Democratic Party. There was opposition by 260 House Members, including 25 Democrats. Here in the Senate, more Democrats joined with Republicans to support moving forward on an up-or-down vote on this resolution of disapproval. It is important to recognize the depth of bipartisan opposition to the President's agreement with Iran. Many of the Democrats who have been opposing this deal have tremendous experience in foreign policy matters. In the House of Representatives, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the ranking Democratic member of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa all voted against approving this agreement. In the Senate, the former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the committee's current ranking member are among the Democrats who oppose this agreement. They have joined Republicans on the floor in seeking an up-or-down vote on this agreement. The senior Democratic foreign policy leaders and every Republican in both chambers of Congress oppose this deal, and they have made their reasons clear. The President's agreement fails to make America safer, quite frankly. It is not likely to eliminate Iran's path to a nuclear weapon, and the agreement will hurt the security situation that is rapidly deteriorating in the Middle East, especially in Israel. We have not seen the two side agreements between the IAEA and Iran. We have not seen those. We don't know what is in them. We are supposed to have seen everything, and these side agreements, we think, include important provisions about suspected Iranian nuclear sites. We already know that Iran will have the ability to delay inspectors' access to other sites for more than 3 weeks. We were supposed to get anytime, anywhere inspections. This benchmark falls severely short of that. The combination of the cash from sanctions relief--anywhere from $50 billion to $150 billion, so I will go right in the middle and say $100 billion--the end of the arms embargo in 5 years, the end of the international restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program in 8 years will strengthen Iran's ability to cause trouble in the Middle East and around the world. Think about this. I think about this--the country of Iran with another $100 billion. Under the sanctions that have been imposed, Iran has expressed concern about the health and welfare of their people. Yet even under that sanctions domain they are still fomenting terror around the Middle East. What will they do with $100 billion? I think it is pretty clear what their intentions will be. International sanctions that have helped bring Iran to the negotiating table will be difficult to snap back into place in the event of violation of the agreement. Nothing snaps anywhere here in Washington, DC, and sanctions can't snap back, so that defies reason. This will lessen our leverage to ensure Iran's compliance. Despite these serious flaws, it appears, based on the two failed cloture votes the Senate has taken thus far, that a partisan minority is prepared to thwart the bipartisan majority and move forward with the agreement. Leader McConnell has filed an amendment that would block sanctions relief until Iran both recognizes Israel's right to exist and releases American political prisoners. While that amendment will not cure the flaws of Iran's agreement, it does represent commonsense policy that should receive overwhelming support. Regardless of their views on the substance of a nuclear Iran, I think most Americans would agree that before we provide tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief to Iran, the Iranian government should have to recognize Israel's right to exist and should release our four American political prisoners. Just last week, as the Senate was debating the Iranian nuclear agreement, the Iranian leader posted on Twitter his view that Israel would not exist in 25 years. That underscores, again, what a serious problem Iran is to our most important ally, and that is Israel. Even proponents of the nuclear agreement have recognized that Iran is likely to use at least some of the funds they received from sanctions relief to strengthen their military and continue to finance terrorism. If this windfall is going to be provided to Iran, then ensuring Iran recognizes Israel's right to exist is the least we would ask. Equally important is securing the release of our four American political prisoners held by Iran. I get this question at home all the time. Why was this not part of the bargaining? Why were we not asking for the release of our Americans before we moved forward? Frankly, I don't think the administration answered that question, and I don't have the answer to that question. Tomorrow we will have the opportunity to express our wishes. We should not provide sanctions relief to Iran without the release of the hostages. The Senate will have the opportunity to decide whether to move forward with the McConnell amendment tomorrow. Those who have prevented a vote on the merits of the nuclear agreement have it in their power to block a vote on the McConnell amendment as well, but let's be clear on what that would mean. If a minority of the Senate blocks a vote on the McConnell amendment, then they will allow the President to provide sanctions relief to Iran without securing Israel's right to exist and without the release of our Americans. I believe the President's agreement with Iran should be rejected by the Senate, and we are going to have another opportunity to vote on cloture to allow the Senate to take a true up-or-down vote on that agreement. But even my colleagues who support the nuclear agreement should vote to protect Israel and bring our Americans home before providing that sanctions relief. I hope our colleagues will reexamine their positions on cloture and allow the Senate to do what we have come here to do, to take the tough votes, to let people know how we feel, to show our commitment and our passion, and to have our voices and their voices heard. With that, I yield the floor.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, before I start my formal remarks, I would like to make a few comments about what has occurred in terms of the cloture vote and in terms of some of the discussion that we have had most recently. I wanted to react, first of all, to something the minority leader said in his remarks. He basically said that we, as Republicans, are trying to rewrite history. He went into a long explanation of why he believed that. It really struck me, with these young folks who are sitting right here in front of us. We are not trying to rewrite history. We are trying to write a future for these young kids that is safer, that is strong, where we as the United States are making agreements that are in their best interests--not just for tomorrow or the next 5 years or 6 years but the next 30, 35, 40 years. I am not interested in rewriting history. But writing history for the future I am interested in. The other reaction I have is that I am very disappointed in what has happened here, that we can't have a straight up-or-down vote. When I was in the West Virginia Legislature, in the house of delegates, believe it or not, our votes were not taken. They were voice votes, except in very rare occasions when we would have a rollcall. We all know the difference between a voice vote and a rollcall vote. A rollcall vote is a part of history. People see exactly what you are intending and how you are going to vote. On a voice vote, you can almost say: Well, I voted yes or I voted no. Nobody can really pin you down on that. I was one of the few Republicans in the house of delegates who voted in favor of making every single vote we had a rollcall vote. I am pleased to say, the legislature didn't change it that year but they finally did change it. As the Senator from Virginia said, everybody knows what everybody is going to do on this vote. I don't understand what the controversy is to move forward over the procedural motions and to then have that vote to have it as a part of history. This is your rollcall vote. This is your voice on this Iran agreement. I hope next week the body changes its mind, we move forward, and we have an affirmative vote on the motion of disapproval. Today I want to talk, obviously, about these issue because I have deep concerns about them. I believe that this debate should revolve around three key questions. Will this agreement eliminate Iran's path to a nuclear weapon? Will it improve the security situation in the Middle East? Will it make America safer for the young, for us, and for the future generations? Unfortunately, after much study I have concluded that the answer is no to all of these questions. I do not believe the President's agreement would make America safer or our allies safer. To the contrary, the agreement will provide Iran with the resources to continue to finance terror throughout the Middle East and around the world. Even if Iran were to comply with this agreement in full, this deal virtually guarantees that Iran will become a nuclear threshold nation with an industrial nuclear program. We know that. It is legitimized in this agreement. Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. Everybody has said that in this body. It is acknowledged nationwide. The windfall of cash that will flow to Iran--the signing bonus and the continuing impact of sanctions relief under this deal--will only increase its ability to prop up the Syrian regime, finance Hezbollah, and threaten America's allies such as Israel. One of the actions you learn when you grow up is that past behavior is a great predictor of future action. Even as its own economy has been hampered by the economic sanctions and the pressure from those sanctions brought Iran to the table, in the name of ``our people are suffering''--whether it is food or whether it is economic conditions-- what have they been doing? They have been financing terror in their region. Terrorism is a priority for them, even as their own people are suffering. National Security Advisor Susan Rice agrees. She says: ``We should expect that some portion of that money would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region up until now.'' That is the National Security Advisor. The President and the Secretary of State have said that the sanctions will snap back into place if Iran violates this agreement. I have been in Washington now for 15 years. I have never seen anything snap anywhere in the Halls of Congress. We know that the current sanctions against Iran cannot be easily snapped back. We know that. It doesn't even pass the sniff test, as we say. It took more than a decade for the United States, working with our allies, to construct the sanctions that brought Iran to the table. This type of effective sanctions regime cannot be brought back over and over. I have listened to a lot of speeches. A lot of my colleagues on both sides, no matter how they voted, what they believe, have said exactly the same thing. On another note, we need to examine the end of the international restrictions on selling ballistic missile technology to Iran and the end of the conventional arms embargo contained in this agreement. The Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Senate Armed Services Committee in July that ``under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.'' The administration chose to reject this advice. It really surprised many of us who did not know that these were even on the table. We didn't even know they were part of a bargaining chip that anybody was going to play. The President's agreement would remove all international limitations on Iran's missile program in 8 years, contradicting early promises from the administration that restrictions would remain in place. Ballistic missiles are not a necessary component of a peaceful nuclear program. Iran's continued efforts to improve this technology should send a clear message to this Chamber of their intentions. In addition, the arms embargo on conventional arms will be lifted in 5 years. Indeed, Iran's President said last month: ``We will buy, sell and develop any weapons we need and we will not ask permission or abide by any resolution for that.'' The end of the arms embargo and ballistic missile restrictions will strengthen Iran's ability to threaten Americans, our allied forces, and our citizens. The President's agreement does not contain the necessary enforcement measures to protect future generations from a nuclear Iran. Any agreement worthy of congressional approval should include rigorous, immediate inspections of suspected nuclear sites. Senior administration officials publicly called for ``anywhere, anyplace''--I heard it repeatedly--inspections. Yet the President's agreement fails to live up to that. Indeed, Iran can block access to suspected nuclear facilities for 24 days or even longer. We have not even seen these side deals. This is part of the discussion. The bill that we passed that said that we were going to have the right to debate this says explicitly in the language that the side agreements were to be turned over to Congress for our inspection before we made this vote. Finally, those who support ratifying the Iran agreement frequently argue that the only alternative is war. I disagree. I reject that notion. Under that false misguided premise, the American people are being told we should simply accept any deal, regardless of how flawed it may be. When asked if our only option was the agreement or war, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that ``we have a range of options.'' The President's agreement does not live up to the administration's prior statements on important items such as inspections, elimination of advanced centrifuges, and ballistic missiles. A better agreement with Iran could be forged from the positions taken by senior administration officials during the negotiation. A better deal was possible. The American people should accept nothing less. Some argue that we should approve this deal, despite its faults, and then use the threat of separate legislation or tough talk to keep Iran in check. To me that is just seeking cover. Those of us who are going to vote in agreement with this Iran deal are then going to turn around in a week, 10 days or 2 days and say: Let's get tough on Iran on this. Let's make sure we protect Israel. Let's give more military aid to Israel. All of the rhetoric you are already hearing we can do now. We can do that now by disagreeing with the Iran agreement that the President has put forward. The better course for us is to reject this agreement and reopen negotiations. I believe that stronger sanctions could also force Iran to accept a better agreement that will improve the security of the Middle East and the world. The danger to the United States, Israel, and other American allies posed by Iran is real. As the current refugee crisis and prior acts of terror clearly demonstrate, instability and violence in the Middle East reverberates into other parts of the world. I do not believe that the President's agreement reduces that threat of violence or adds to the stability of the region. Instead, the agreement will strengthen Iran's position--you can already tell by their swaggering bravado of rhetoric that we hear--and leave the United States with fewer ways to combat nuclear proliferation. For those reasons, I will vote to reject the President's nuclear agreement with Iran. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, yesterday President Obama and his Environmental Protection Agency announced their final clean power grab, continuing the economic assault on energy-producing States like West Virginia. Yesterday, Alpha Natural Resources, one of the Nation's largest coal producers, filed for bankruptcy. As of the end of 2014, Alpha had 4,870 employees at 33 active mines and 13 prep plants in West Virginia. Alpha follows Patriot Coal, Jim Walter Resources, and James River mining--all of which have filed bankruptcy since 2014. According to the Mine Safety and Health Administration, coal mining employment has dropped from 143,437 in 2011 to 98,310 in the first quarter of this year. That represents a 31-percent drop over the last 4 years. Earlier this year when Murray Energy announced hundreds of layoffs in northern West Virginia, the Wheeling Intelligencer newspaper reported that the impact would mean almost $62 million in annual income lost wages for Ohio Valley residents. Other communities have also been hard hit. Nicholas County--a small county in my State--was forced to lay off sheriff's deputies because they could no longer pay their county commitments because of a decline in coal severance revenues. Now, 17 coal units in West Virginia have retired due, at least in part, to EPA policies. The electricity produced by these units is enough to power 2.7 million homes. Put another way, the units that have already closed in West Virginia would generate enough electricity to power the entire State of Hawaii. These are not the same old talking points, as the administrator of the EPA and the President said. These are not stale. This is not motivated by special interests. These are real Americans, real jobs, real families, and real communities that have been negatively impacted by this administration's overreaching regulations. These are people like Tammy Rowan of Coalton, WV, who wrote me a letter: My whole family has concerns with the regulations that seem to be out of control. EPA, government officials, and the president are putting families out of work. Or Patrick Sparks in Warriormine, WV, who said: I know the EPA has been trying to force strict regulations on coal. It's hurting a lot of people, not just here in West Virginia, but a lot of businesses are suffering from it. And Theresa Simmons of Tridelphia, WV, whose family has worked in coal mines for generations, wrote: My husband was able to provide for our family with just his income. We were able to donate money to local charities and help needy families around the holidays. Now that is going to be my family, looking for donations. Put simply, yesterday's announcement will make an already bleak situation in our State much worse. Working families across the Nation woke up to the sad news that their jobs just don't count. Much has been said about the open process that led to this final rule. In fact, West Virginia, which is one of the States most deeply affected by this regulation, was not even visited by the EPA after I and others extended many invitations. Instead, they went to cities like Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco. Talk about special interests. Talk about being bold. The administration's final clean power grab will force States away from affordable, reliable energy toward expensive, intermittent power sources, many of which are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. It proposes benchmarks that are more stringent and less attainable. In West Virginia, our emissions rate under the proposed rule was to drop 20 percent. On Monday, the final rule requires our rate to drop by 37 percent--a drop that is almost twice as severe. There is no way for West Virginia to comply with this rule without significant cuts to our coal production, coal jobs, and coal use. According to the EPA's own calculations, the final rule is worse for coal than the proposed rule. Coal's share of electric generation will go to 27 percent by 2030 under this rule--as compared to 39 percent, which we currently have or did have in 2014. If this misguided final rule is ever implemented, pain will be felt by all Americans with fewer job opportunities, higher power bills, and less reliable electricity. Studies of the proposed rule projected that the Clean Power Plan will increase electricity prices in a State like mine 12 to 16 percent. What does this mean for American jobs? A recent study by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association found that a 10 percent increase in electricity prices can mean as much as 1.2 million jobs lost. Roughly one-half million of these job losses will be in rural communities like those in West Virginia. Put simply, affordable energy matters. It especially matters to those who the administration incorrectly says will benefit the most from this rule, which is the low and moderate income. More than half of West Virginia's households take home an average of less than $1,900 per month and already spend 17 percent of their income on energy. These families are especially vulnerable to the administration's clean power grab. While States are given additional time to comply under the final rule, it does not change the fact that the EPA is picking winners and losers in the energy economy. The losers will be the American families who rely on affordable and reliable energy. We can and we should innovate for the future but not with a sledgehammer bearing down on us. Thankfully there are several legislative options that Congress can pursue to challenge this rule. Tomorrow the EPW Committee will be taking up my legislation--the ARENA Act. Let me explain that briefly. This bipartisan legislation would empower States to protect families and businesses from electric rate increases, reduced electric reliability, and other harmful effects. It will force the EPA to reconsider this misguided rulemaking. The ARENA Act holds the EPA accountable by requiring the agency to issue State-specific model plans demonstrating how each State will meet the required reductions. It gives States the ability to opt out if the plan hinders economic growth. For existing powerplants, the ARENA Act delays implementation of the Clean Power Plan until the courts determine the legality of the rule. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA had unlawfully failed to consider costs when formulating its MATS regulation. Because the rule went forward while it was still being litigated, millions of dollars were spent to comply with a rule that was ultimately deemed illegal. States should not be forced to proceed until the legality of the rule has been determined. I hope that many States will follow Leader McConnell's suggestion and delay implementation of this rule until the legal process is completed. Mr. President of the United States, your clean power grab will devastate already hurting communities in my State. It will cause economic pain for working families across the country. It will forever harm our energy landscape. The proposed rule was bad. The final rule announced yesterday is even worse, doubling down on the destruction of our economy. There is no question that we must take steps to protect our environment, but it simply cannot be at the expense of our families. We can do better. Let Congress, the elected representatives, make these decisions. That is the way it should be. I ask my colleagues to join me by supporting the ARENA Act and sending these overreaching EPA regulations back to the drawing board.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the outstanding career of COL Leon Parrott, District Commander of the Huntington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since the beginning of his tenure, Colonel Parrott has dutifully served our great State and was honored earlier this month during a Change of Command ceremony in Huntington. As District Commander, his jurisdiction encompassed an area of approximately 45,000 square miles in 5 States--West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina. The District's staff of more than 800 employees supports their mission of operating and maintaining 35 multi-purpose reservoirs and 9 dams in addition to providing flood damage reduction, commercial navigation, recreation, and water supply protection. Colonel Parrott and his staff oversaw significant planning, design and construction efforts that imitated the replacement of outdated navigation structures, dam safety measures and other significant water resource challenges including emergency management. Throughout his career, Colonel Parrott has held a variety of command and staff assignments including: platoon leader, company executive officer and construction officer with the 94th Engineer Battalion, 18th Engineer Brigade and 249th Engineer Battalion; battalion maintenance officer and company commander with the 37th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade; assistant construction and operations officer with the 416th Engineering Command; environmental project officer and district executive officer, Europe District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; battalion operations and executive officer with the 1st Battalion, 395th Engineer Regiment; group engineer with the 5th Special Forces Group, deputy and then chief of the Emergency Operations Center for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Commander of the 326th Engineer Battalion; deputy engineer for installations, Environment and Civil/ Military Operations, U.S. European Command; chief of engineering at the Defense Intelligence Agency; and, most recently, as corps engineer of the XVIII Airborne Corps. Colonel Parrott is an outstanding soldier, friend, husband, father and student. A 1988 graduate of the Citadel, he holds a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering as well as master's degree from the University of Phoenix and the U.S. Army War College. In addition, Colonel Parrott has received numerous awards for his heroism and military duty. I have had the honor to work with him as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives and now in the U.S. Senate. During that time, I have come to admire his dedication and selfless commitment to the mission of the Huntington Corps and its employees. I would like to wish Colonel Parrott and his wife Judy well in his next command at the North Atlantic Division of USACE in Brooklyn, NY, where he will serve as deputy division commander. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Colonel Parrott for his service.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concerns with the nuclear agreement negotiated between the United States and other world powers and Iran. In May, Congress acted in a bipartisan way to enact the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. The Senate passed the legislation 98 to 1, and the House passed it 400 to 25. The bill was signed into law by President Obama. This critically important legislation provides Congress, as the representatives of the American people, the ability to examine and vote on an agreement that will have tremendous impact on the future security of the Middle East and the world. When the Senate passed the legislation in May, I said the bill would allow Congress to hold the administration accountable for negotiating an enforceable and verifiable agreement that would stop Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon. Negotiators have completed their work. Review of the agreement is underway. Committees are holding important hearings. We had one this morning. After the August recess, Congress will have the opportunity to vote on a resolution that approves or disapproves of the deal reached with Iran. I believe the agreement is flawed in several ways. First, the agreement fails to provide for an inspections regime that is strong enough to prevent Iran from fulfilling its nuclear ambitions. Any agreement with Iran should include rigorous and immediate inspections of suspected nuclear sites. There has been much talk and hope of an anywhere, anytime inspection regime, but anywhere, anytime inspections are not what this agreement provides. Instead, under this agreement, it could take 24 days, and potentially longer under the Joint Commission process, before inspectors have access to a suspected nuclear site. It is obvious Iran could hide elements of a nuclear program, such as the construction of centrifuges, before inspectors could ever gain access to a suspected nuclear site. Iran has already failed to meet the transparency requirements of the interim Joint Plan of Action. The International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, consistently warned of Iran's failure to meet those standards of full transparency and in its June 2015 report stated that ``the Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear- related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.'' Given Iran's lack of transparency, I believe the content of this agreement does not contain strong enough mechanisms to prevent Iran's clandestine development of a nuclear weapon. Second, I find it more troubling that Congress--or even the administration--has not been given access to the understanding between Iran and the IAEA regarding how Iran's compliance with the agreement will be implemented. This has been the subject of great discussion. Third, I am concerned the agreement will provide Iran with financial resources that they could use to continue to fund terrorist groups that put Americans and our allies at risk. We know they were doing it in the past. We know of their desire to do it in the future. It is troubling that when the sanctions against Iran are lifted, the nation will immediately receive approximately $150 billion in assets. As a designated state sponsor of terrorism for over 30 years, Iran has funded proxy wars across the region. These wars range from Shia militias in Iraq to Houthis insurgents in Yemen. Iran further threatens our allies through funding Hezbollah and Hamas and propping up the regime of Bashar al-Assad, who continues to slaughter his own people. While no one knows for sure how Iran will spend the signing bonus it receives from sanctions relief, the regime's prior behavior provides the best evidence of how it will act in the future. I hear the argument that the internal infrastructure of the country has fallen into disrepair because of the sanctions and because of the lack of the economic activities. Yet we have to look at Iran as still funding terrorist activity while allowing their own country's infrastructure to become failed and compromised. What makes us think that with the new flush, $150 billion signing bonus, Iran is going to change their priorities all of a sudden? I personally have trouble with that. Finally, I am worried the decision to lift the embargo on conventional arms and ballistic missiles sold to Iran will allow Iran to present a greater threat to its neighbors. In addition, it could precipitate a military buildup in the region, which will in turn increase volatility in an already volatile region. Despite these questions and concerns, the administration has argued that our only options are to accept the deal or to go forward with Iran. To accept this binary choice is to say the American people should accept this deal, regardless of how one-sided it may be, in order to avoid a military conflict with Iran. As a newspaper in my State, the Charleston Gazette-Mail, editorialized yesterday, this argument ``paint[s] a simplistic picture that allows [its proponents] to gloss over the very real problems with this deal.'' The Gazette-Mail continues: The deal's many critics have consistently made the case that there are other possible paths. The problem is that this administration doesn't want to take them. Even the President's top general agrees that this is a false proposition. Just this morning, when asked if the choice was binary-- accept the Iran agreement or go to war--GEN Martin Dempsey, Chair of the Joint Chiefs, said that ``we have a range of options and I always present them.'' All of us would prefer a diplomatic solution in Iran, but a good agreement with Iran is one that will truly cut off Iran's path to a nuclear weapon and improve the security situation in the Middle East. The sanctions passed by this Congress, together with the sanctions that were built in concert with our foreign allies over the course of a decade, were what brought Iran to the negotiating tables in the first place. These sanctions should be kept in place and strengthened until Iran is forced to accept a deal that actually makes the region safer. I believe a better deal is possible than the leverage provided by sanctions, and I am not alone. A CNN poll released yesterday found that 52 percent of the American people want Congress to reject this deal, while only 44 percent believe the agreement should be approved. A majority of Americans didn't say they oppose this agreement because they want war with Iran. Absolutely not. Instead, the poll reveals that a majority of Americans want a better deal, one that cuts off Iran's path to a nuclear weapon and makes the Middle East more secure. There are legitimate arguments on both sides of the debate about the Iran deal. I accept that the President and his administration truly believe the deal they have negotiated is in America's best interest, but the claim that those who have a different view want war with Iran is an inappropriate attempt to short-circuit the legislative debate about this agreement. Congress must stand up against a threat to national security and ensure that a monumental agreement contains the necessary verification and enforcement measures to protect future generations from a nuclear Iran. I stand with all of our allies in the region that have put their trust in America to negotiate a deal that will protect them indefinitely from the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons. The posterity of our Nation and our allies depends on the critical policy decisions made by this Congress and this administration. Now is the time to carefully consider the nature of Iran's threat toward Israel and America, the history of Iranian-funded terrorism, and the consequences of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. America does not have to accept a bad deal. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the DRIVE Act. I commend Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Boxer for their bipartisan work on this bill that passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee with a unanimous vote. A long-term highway solution such as the DRIVE Act will provide our States with the certainty they need to advance major road and bridge projects. Passing a 6-year bill would be a great achievement for this Congress, especially in the context of our recent history, and I am hopeful we will seize this opportunity. Several years ago, as a member of the House Transportation Committee, I strongly supported the last long-term highway bill that helped support major roads in West Virginia and around the country. The 2005 highway bill was extended 10 separate times--10 times-- between 2009 and 2012. During that period, States were only assured Federal funding for a period of weeks or months, making lasting improvements to our highway infrastructure difficult, and it shows. As we saw between 2009 and 2012, several short-term extensions resulted in fewer and more costly fixes. In 2012, we passed MAP-21 to reauthorize the highway program for 2 years. I served as a conferee on that legislation. MAP-21 was a strong bipartisan achievement that included a number of important reforms to streamline project delivery and help States complete their projects more efficiently and economically, but ultimately MAP-21 was a 2-year bill. Since MAP-21, we have had more of the same: short-term extension after short-term extension. The recent history shows how significant this opportunity we have is. We have before us a bipartisan, fiscally responsible bill that will provide the certainty our States need to improve the Nation's highway system for several years. I am encouraged by the bipartisan vote we saw last night to move to debate, and I hope my colleagues will continue to work together to drive that DRIVE Act into law. West Virginians rely heavily, as do most people around the country, on roads, bridges, and highways to fuel our economy, to access hard-to- reach places in our State, to get to and from work, and to transport goods and services. West Virginians understand the need for a long-term highway bill. Nearly one-third of our State's major roads are currently in poor condition. The Federal Highway Administration has listed 960 West Virginia bridges as structurally deficient. We have quite a few bridges in our State because of our beautiful mountains. The DRIVE Act will increase funding for maintaining and repairing these bridges. The bill prioritizes maintenance of our major roads, helping to address the current state of disrepair on highways across this country. This is a statistic of which, quite frankly, I was jarred by the number. Each West Virginia motorist pays an average of $575 a year in extra maintenance costs due to the poor road conditions. The DRIVE Act will help our States address maintenance and repair, meaning safer and less costly trips for our drivers, but the biggest thing is the certainty that comes from a long-term highway bill. It is important for not only the maintenance aspect, but it is most important to advance new projects. Large highway projects are expensive multiyear endeavors. States can't plan for the future based on funding commitments for a week or a month. Whether the issue is relieving congestion and improving access to rural communities to fuel economic development or moving freight across the country, the DRIVE Act will help the most important projects move forward. In West Virginia, U.S. Route 35 in Putnam and Mason Counties is one of our most critical projects. It is an important freight link for the goods moving from the Southeast to the Midwest, but it has been two lanes for a very long time. It was one of the most dangerous roads that interstate truck traffic shared. Thanks in part to the 2005 bill I talked about, the majority of Route 35 is now a four-lane highway, and our State efforts to complete the remaining 14 miles are well underway, but the DRIVE Act will aid efforts to get that project across the finish line. It will also help us build Corridor H for residents in Central and Eastern West Virginia, an important part of the Appalachian Development Highway System. When this road is completed, it will link counties in Central West Virginia with the Interstate 81 corridor, improving safety and providing economic development opportunities for our communities. Whether it is Route 35, Corridor H, the King Coal Highway, Coal Fields Expressway or other high-priority projects across our State, States need that certainty that is going to come from a dedicated Federal investment to move forward. That is what a long-term highway bill does while creating jobs for our construction workers. According to the Contractors Association of West Virginia, construction and employment in my State fell by 11.3 percent between November of 2013 and November of 2014. That is 1 year. Passing a highway bill that supports investment in our roads and bridges will put these men and women back to work. Reauthorizing our highway program for 6 years would be reason enough, in my opinion, to strongly support the DRIVE Act. I want to highlight another part of this bill that is important to my State. It reauthorizes the Appalachian Regional Commission through 2021. West Virginia is the only State whose boundaries fall entirely within the commission's boundaries. Earlier this year, the commission marked its 50th anniversary of leading efforts to fight poverty and improve the quality of life in the Appalachian region. Over that period, poverty in the Appalachian region has been cut in half, and the percentage of residents over 25 with college degrees has nearly tripled, but there is much more work to be done. The DRIVE Act authorizes a broadband deployment initiative through the ARC to help increase access to high-speed internet--a problem in rural America--in support of distance learning, telemedicine, and business development. Reauthorizing the ARC and bringing broadband to small, economically distressed communities will help bring jobs to West Virginia. The ARC provides important support for health care, education, and infrastructure programs, and I am pleased the DRIVE Act will allow the commission to continue its efforts for the next 6 years. Now is the time to move our transportation system forward and meet the needs of our growing population, ensure safety for travelers, and promote growth in areas that struggle economically. The Senate has the opportunity to make a real and positive difference for all Americans by passing the DRIVE Act. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation.

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

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I rise to express my strong support for the Every Child Achieves Act that is pending before the Senate. I want to commend Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray for working in such a great bipartisan fashion that brought this bill to the floor that will improve the quality of education for children across our country. The Every Child Achieves Act puts States and local officials back in control of our local schools. As we heard from the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, his hard work on this bill also stops the Department of Education from conditioning Federal funding on the adoption of national standards like Common Core. Importantly, this bill also makes sure parents and taxpayers continue to have access to important information about how the schools in their communities are performing. The Every Child Achieves Act deserves the Senate's support this week. Last week, the Senate unanimously adopted an amendment that will allow community school programs the flexibility to use Federal funds to pay for a site resource coordinator at their school or local education agency. This is important to the State of West Virginia. We have community schools. Community school programs provide important health, nutrition, and other key services for many of our West Virginia students who are, unfortunately, living in poverty. The amendment passed last week will allow those programs to better coordinate with community partners to provide resources and support for our children in need. I was happy to work with Senator Brown and my fellow Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Manchin, to see that that amendment passed. I also want to talk briefly about a bipartisan amendment I introduced with Senator Durbin--he spoke about it a few minutes ago on the floor-- that takes important steps to create transparency for students and families. It does so by allowing students and parents to know the quality and progress of their schools as it relates to college readiness. This amendment will require States and local educational agencies to include postsecondary enrollment data on the existing report card measures that are included in the Every Child Achieves Act. It also encourages the inclusion of data on postsecondary remediation. It is supported by dozens of organizations, including the College Summit, the Business Roundtable, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, because this amendment seeks to improve the education outcomes of our students. Parents and students alike deserve to know they are being adequately prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. Including these simple, easy-to-understand measures on State and local report cards will provide them with the information they need to make informed choices about their future education. Additionally, the data will help States and school districts target limited resources to the schools that need it most. This amendment was carefully crafted to avoid putting onerous and additional burdens on our schools and States. Nearly all States already have made the investments necessary to collect, link, and report this data. In fact, the majority of States are already reporting it. Currently, 40 States produce high school feedback reports that include postsecondary enrollment data. More than 30 States already include some measure of postsecondary success, such as remediation rates. Adding postsecondary enrollment and remediation rates to existing report card measures included in Every Child Achieves Act would make sure students, parents, educators, and policymakers have access to critical information about how well our high schools are preparing students to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. The end result will be successfully restoring decisionmaking to those who know best--the students and their parents. I urge everyone to support this amendment and also to support the bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I come here before you today, joined by my colleague Senator Baldwin from Wisconsin--but also by colleagues from both sides of the aisle, as she mentioned--in support of legislation to provide safer and more effective pain management to our Nation's veterans. Too many of our veterans have returned from overseas duties only to fight another battle here at home. The Jason Simcakoski Memorial Opioid Safety Act takes the necessary steps to address challenges faced by our veterans. Again, I thank the Simcakoskis for their bravery and courage, as painful as it is for the family, in hopes that it will help--and it will help--the next generation of veterans who are being treated at the VA. This bill reforms the overreliance on painkillers by the VA while still ensuring that veterans receive appropriate medication. This legislation not only updates and strengthens the guidelines for opioid prescriptions, but it requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to expand the scope of research, education, delivery, and integration of alternative pain management. Chronic pain should not be something our veterans are forced to live with, and the VA must be on the cutting edge of developing effective pain management. This bill will elevate the role of patient advocates--as I am sure Jason's wife was a great patient advocate--require community meetings hosted by the VA, and establish a joint DOD-VA working group to improve coordination and communication at all levels of government. In an era where medical research and technological advancements have led to at least a 90-percent survival rate for our wounded soldiers, we must continue to focus on the battles our veterans face when they return home, including treatment of those wounds that are not evidently visible. One marine in my hometown, Andrew White, returned home to West Virginia after serving in Iraq. Andrew displayed signs of PTSD, including insomnia, nightmares, constant restlessness, and pain related to an injury. In addition to antidepressant and antianxiety pills, doctors placed Andrew on a strong antipsychotic drug and, over time, increased his dosage from 25 milligrams to 1600 milligrams--more than twice the dosage recommended to treat schizophrenia. Andrew White died in his sleep at the age of 23. Andrew is a reminder of the physical and mental side effects of the war. We must work together to provide the resources and care necessary to assist our veterans in their transition into civilian life. Expansion of the Opioid Safety Initiative and further development of the opioid therapy risk support tool will do just that. These measures will enable the VA to use the patient record database to detect those at higher risk of opioid abuse and submit information to the State prescription drug monitoring programs. We really need all hands on deck. This real-time tracking of information will enable medical professionals to better diagnose and treat patients. This legislation calls for more accountability within the VA through internal audits, reports to Congress, and increased information sharing. We cannot allow bureaucracy to get in the way of delivering quality care to veterans, and we must prioritize the efficient delivery of care. In my home State of West Virginia, the tragic effects of opioid abuse have left families devastated. I have met with other families who lost their loved ones who suffered from PTSD and traumatic brain injury, and I believe more can be done to find solutions. It is incumbent upon us in a bipartisan way, as my colleague has said, to do right by our veterans. I wish to thank Senator Baldwin. I have been at committee meeting after committee meeting with her where she has pounded the drum on the importance of this issue and how devastating it is to families across this country. I thank Senator Baldwin. Our best is not just the least we can do. It is our duty to those who have served, of whom we have asked so much, to do more than our best, and this bill does that. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise to speak about our Nation's energy economy. ``Alpha Natural to Lay Off 439 at West Virginia Coal Mine''; ``Murray Energy expects more than 1,800 coal mine layoffs''; ``Job Cuts Are Devastating Blow for Ohio Valley Coal Miners''; ``Coal analyst says industry facing toughest time''; ``Power Bills To Get Higher''--these are just some of the headlines that have been in the recent news in my area. These headlines are a stark reminder of the impact misguided Federal policies will have on the lives of real people. West Virginia and other energy-producing States have suffered devastating blows. Hard-working Americans are losing their jobs as their energy bills keep climbing. I come to the floor to encourage my colleagues to stand up for our Nation's energy future. Last month, I introduced the Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act--the ARENA Act--with Leader McConnell, Chairman Inhofe, my fellow West Virginian Joe Manchin, and nearly 30 of my colleagues. This bipartisan legislation would empower States to protect families and businesses from electricity rate increases, reduced electrical reliability, and other harmful effects of the Clean Power Plan. The ARENA Act would require that any greenhouse gas standards set by the EPA for new coal-fired powerplants are achievable by commercial powerplants, including highly efficient plants that utilize the most modern, state-of-the-art emissions control technologies. Back in February, I asked EPA Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe to explain why, despite multiple invitations from Federal and State legislators, the EPA did not hold a public hearing on its proposed Clean Power Plan in West Virginia, given the large role coal plays in our economy and our electricity generation. And do you know what she said? She told me public hearings were held in places where people were ``comfortable.'' Well, that response is unacceptable to me and to the people of my State. That response, which represents EPA's disregard for the real-world impacts of its policies, helped shaped this legislation. The EPA's proposed greenhouse gas regulations will negatively impact both energy affordability and energy reliability. Coal provided 96 percent of West Virginia's electricity last year and West Virginia was among the lowest electricity prices in the Nation. Last year, the average price was 27 percent below the national average, but these low prices are not likely to survive this administration's policies. Studies have projected that the Clean Power Plan will raise electricity prices in West Virginia between 12 and 16 percent. Just last month, 450,000 West Virginia families learned of a 16-percent increase in the cost of electricity. While there were multiple factors that contributed to this rate increase, compliance with previous EPA regulations played a significant role. If we allow EPA's plan to move forward, last week's rate increase will only be the tip of the iceberg. Affordable energy matters. Mr. President, 430,000 low- and middle- income families in West Virginia, which is nearly 60 percent of our State's households, take home an average of less than $1,900 a month and spend 17 percent of their aftertax income on energy. These families are especially vulnerable to the price increases that will result from the Clean Power Plan. Other West Virginia families will bear the brunt of the EPA's policy more directly. In the past few weeks, 1,800 West Virginia coal miners received layoff notices. The notices came at Alpha Natural Resources and Murray Energy--the two largest coal companies in our State. Patriot Coal also filed for bankruptcy for a second time. Three coal-fired powerplants closed, also costing more jobs in the State of West Virginia. When mines and coal-fired powerplants close, the ripple effect is felt throughout our entire economy. The Wheeling Intelligencer reported that the Murray Energy layoffs alone would mean almost $62 million in annual lost wages for Ohio Valley residents. Other parts of our State have been hit just as hard. In Nicholas County, the local government was forced to lay off employees, including a number of sheriff's deputies, because of a drop in the coal severance tax. Last month, the Energy Information Agency released its analysis of the proposed rule. The administration's own energy statistician found that the Clean Power Plan would shut down more than double the coal- fired powerplant capacity we have by the end of this decade.

Mrs. CAPITO. I thank the Chair. I urge support for the ARENA Act, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I wish to welcome some of West Virginia's most outstanding citizens to Washington. This week, as part of the fifth annual Always Free Honor Flight Program, we will recognize veterans from my home State for their dedicated commitment to our country. In light of West Virginia's proud tradition of military service, it gives me great pleasure to honor these brave men and women who answered the call of duty during America's hour of need. Since its inception, the Always Free Honor Flight Program has taken up the important task of thanking those to which we owe our deepest gratitude. As the daughter of a World War II veteran, this is something very near and dear to my heart. This year, we are joined by 29 Vietnam, Korea and World War II veterans from all across southern West Virginia. These brave patriots sacrificed the comforts of home to defend the cause of freedom in a foreign land. The perseverance of our soldiers during these conflicts cannot be overstated. These individuals embody the extraordinary sacrifice exhibited by our service men and women throughout the greatest conflicts of the 20th century. One veteran on this year's trip, SGT John M. Watson, Jr., who served with the renowned Tuskegee Airmen, will be honored with the Congressional Gold Medal for his service during World War II. In addition to Sergeant Watson, West Virginia veterans participating in this year's Always Free Honor Flight Program include Joseph F. Graham, Bluefield, WWII; Staff Sergeant Robert Graham, Hinton, WWII and Korean war; First Sergeant Melvin L. Grubb, Bluefield, WWII and Korean war; Staff Sergeant Robert G. Kushner, Charleston, Korean war; Airman First Class Herbert R. Dickerson, Beckley, Korean war; Corporal Billy G. Cooper, Milton, Korean war; Corporal James W. Bennett, Charleston, Korean war; Richard L. Graham, Beckley Korean war; Petty Officer Second Class William B. Sowers, Princeton, Korean war; Petty Officer Third Class Charles E. Turley, Scott Depot, Korean war; Colonel Jack E. Fincham, Brenton, Vietnam war; Sergeant Philip Templeton, Milton, Vietnam war; Petty Officer Second Class John W. Fleming, Princeton, Vietnam war; Master Sergeant Edward F. Simmons, Bluefield, Vietnam war; Airman Second Class Nancy J. Simmons, Bluefield, Vietnam war; Sergeant Fred R. Smith, Hurricane, Vietnam war; Sergeant Marshall G. Mann, Princeton, Vietnam war; Sergeant James R. Bond, Midway, Vietnam war; Senior Airman Allan D. Harbour, Princeton, Vietnam war; Sergeant First Class Andrew J. Thompson, Bluefield, Vietnam war; Captain Charles H. Mann, Athens, Vietnam war; Seaman Thomas E. Caruso, Lashmeet, Vietnam war; Sergeant Gordon L. Caldwell, Jr., Bluefield, Vietnam war; Lance Corporal Ricky D. Williams, Beckley, Vietnam war; Senior Airman Mary Byrd, Nitro, Vietnam war; Corporal Johnny L. Sanson, Cyclone, Vietnam war; Sergeant Dennis C. Hurley, Cyclone, Vietnam war; Corporal William Cox, Bluefield, Vietnam war; and Corporal William L. Harry, Butler, TN, Korean war. Veterans participating in the Honor Flight as ``guardians'' include Command Sergeant Major Kevin L. Harry from Milton; Sergeant First Class Mark A. Harry from St. Albans, and Specialist Selena K. Barker of Milton. These men and women are voluntarily dedicating their time to helping ensure that our veterans receive the thank-you they deserve. A great debt of gratitude is also owed to Dreama Denver, president of the Denver Foundation and Little Buddy Radio. These nonprofit organizations, which were founded by Dreama and her husband, Bob Denver, established the Always Free Honor Flight Network in West Virginia. I am so proud of the service and sense of duty that defines the American people. As the beneficiaries of that service, one of the most sacred tasks we hold is properly honoring the dedication of our veterans. In bringing them together with the symbols of their sacrifice, we can express our unyielding gratitude while demonstrating our lasting commitment to preserving their memory. One of the greatest honors of serving in the United States Senate is representing citizens who have given so much to their country. I take seriously the duty of ensuring that their sacrifice is honored with the same steadfast conviction with which they defended the rights and freedoms of every American. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming and thanking these exceptional West Virginia veterans.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the life and achievements of Beth Thomasson following her passing last month. Beth was a dear friend and a tireless advocate of housing and homeownership in her position as executive officer at the Home Builders Association of West Virginia. Beth's commitment to her work, her community, and her family embodied the values that we as West Virginian's hold dear. A graduate of Texas A&M, Beth was a ``Kelly Girl'' when she started at the Home Builders Association in 1978. In just ten years, Beth became executive officer and during this time the organization experienced a period of exceptional growth. A prodigious advocate for her cause, Beth also advanced initiatives of the Home Builder's Association at the statehouse on issues relating to business development, homeownership, and consumer education. Her strong work ethic was recognized numerous times when she received the HBA Eastern Panhandle's Appreciation Award, the HBAWV Meritorious Service Award, and the HBAWV Presidential Award. In addition to her role at the Homebuilders Association, Beth also served in various capacities at the West Virginia Business & Industry Council, the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, the West Virginia Housing Policy Framework, and the West Virginia Housing Trust. Above all, Beth was a devoted wife and mother of 4 daughters, as well as a grandmother of 10. Beth was relentless in her dedication to serving her community and her State. Those who were lucky enough to have called her their friend can attest to this fact. Her ethos is best described in her favorite saying: You can be a part of the problem or a part of the solution. By doing nothing, you are choosing to be a part of the problem. I am proud to honor my friend Beth, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in celebrating her memory.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up amendments Nos. 415 and 416 en bloc.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I wish to briefly address these two amendments. The first amendment simply says that the United States should not sign an international environmental agreement that would do serious harm to our own economy. That commonsense principle passed the Senate by a vote of 95 to 0 in 1997. Last year, the administration announced the climate agreement with China. That agreement requires significant short-term carbon emission reductions here in the United States, but China is allowed to continue increasing its carbon emissions until 2030. That disparity could place the United States at a significant economic disadvantage. In November, global talks began in Paris on a broader international agreement. My amendment simply states what every Senator who voted in 1997 said: No agreement should cause serious harm to the American economy. My second amendment protects the reliability of our electricity grid. North American Electric Reliability Corporation released a report that found that the targets set forward in the President's Clean Power Plan will be difficult if not impossible to achieve without degrading the reliability of the grid. We all want to have our lights turn on and our heat and air- conditioning work. This is in peril. My amendment simply makes sure families and businesses have the reliable electricity they expect by blocking the EPA from finalizing, proposing, or issuing any regulation that would reduce the reliability of the electricity grid. I ask my colleagues to support these amendments. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 301, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 25; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 11, with 18 hours of debate time remaining, and that the time until 10:30 a.m. be equally divided and controlled by the two managers or their designees; further, that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair at 10:30 a.m. to allow for the joint meeting of Congress; lastly, that all time during the recess count against the remaining debate time on the budget resolution.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 110, submitted earlier today.