Joe Manchin

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit the rules governing the procedure of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for publication in the Congressional Record. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I saw some exciting news this morning, and it said that General Motors announced it is making a $650 million equity investment in Lithium Americas to develop the Thacker Pass Mine in Nevada. Now, this has been talked about for 10, 12, 13 years, but it is time to do something. According to GM, this represents ``the largest-ever investment by an automaker to produce battery raw materials,'' and that is exactly what the Inflation Reduction Act was meant to do. It is a tangible result because of that, and now, we have to make sure we follow through. GM's CEO, Ms. Mary Barra, even said: Direct sourcing critical [electric vehicles] raw materials and components from suppliers in North America and free-trade agreement countries helps make our supply chain more secure, helps us manage cell costs, and creates jobs. This is really what we are dealing with. We are dealing with-- basically, China has a captive market. I had a hard time understanding why our administration was going down a path of transitioning into electric vehicles as quickly as they intended and wanted to do without having our own secure supply chain. China right now has 80 percent of the world's anode production, which is the positive and negative part of the battery that makes the battery work; 80 percent of the world's battery material processing, which is the processing of raw material that makes the batteries that run the vehicles we have; 60 percent of the world's cathode production; and 75 percent of the world's lithium ion battery cells. I am old enough to remember--and maybe the Presiding Officer might be, too--that basically in 1974 I was standing in line waiting to buy gas, if it was my turn to buy gas, to go to work. I don't intend to stand in line to wait for China to send a battery to make my car work. I just won't do it. So this is why we are moving in the direction we are. China has worked long and hard on cornering this market and done a very, very thorough job. We have seen firsthand what Russia has done to the EU--to Europe, our allies--and most importantly, to Germany. They have used their production of energy--inexpensive, cheap energy--and let Europe and mostly Germany put their guard down and become totally dependent. Then Putin weaponized energy against them and put them in a heck of a stranglehold. Then basically decisions were being made about what they could do. Well, the first thing they did was basically eliminate their dispatchable, dependable fuel, whether it be the coal-fired plants, which they had a desire to do, but they actively worked quicker than they had anything to replace it with and became more dependent. They got rid of their nuclear plants because their extreme environmental community wanted none of that; they wanted to go absolutely clean and green. There will be a time probably--hopefully in our lifetime; maybe not, but in our children's lifetime--that all of this might be transitioned into a new carbonless fuel, but right now, we need an ``all of the above'' energy policy. But they became totally dependent on cheap Russian gas, and they realized only after the invasion that they had made a mistake. Well, now they are scrambling to revive the very same coal-fired powerplants they shut down prematurely and bring back the nuclear reactors that they are going to need for a while. People talk about the social cost of greenhouse gases, and I agree, there is a social cost, but we are not even talking about the geopolitical cost of inaction, being energy secure. That is really what this is all about. The Inflation Reduction Act that we worked so hard on and every Democrat voted for in the House and the Senate, as the Presiding Officer knows, has been touted as an environmental bill. That is all you have heard. You have not heard the word from our administration talking about energy security. The United States is the superpower of the world, and to remain that status, you have to have energy independence and be secure in your own energy sources. If you recall, when all this happened and the invasion of Ukraine by Putin and basically the challenge we had and the high rising of oil prices to gasoline prices to everyday workers going back and forth--in my State, there is an awful lot of transit that goes on to secure your jobs. What had happened during that period of time, our administration started saying: Well, maybe we can reduce the sanctions on Iran. I said: You have the most prolific terrorist supporters in the world, and you want to lift sanctions so they can put more product into the market and make more money or have more revenue to wreak more havoc on humankind? I don't think that should be, I don't think that is a good idea, and I sure can't sign up for something such as that. Then we allowed Venezuela, which basically has very little oversights on their environmental emissions--but we released that, and now they are putting product in the market. Now, if we are so concerned about the environment, which we all should be, then shouldn't we basically look at what is going on? Is America just turning a blind eye and saying: Out of sight, out of mind. We are asking other parts of the world to do what we won't do. We asked the Gulf States--Saudi Arabia--to produce more oil, put more oil into the marketplace, because that would stabilize the oil price, bring the price of gasoline down. We never asked our friends in Texas. We never asked our friends in Alaska. We never asked our best trading partner Canada to do more for us. We were seen asking other people--and pretty drastic measures, if you would, by other nations--to do something we didn't want to do for ourselves. I thought that was unattainable, it was just unrealistic, and it did not show the leadership of the superpower of the world. Again, I will repeat this, and I will continue to repeat it: You will not maintain this status of being a superpower unless our allies look to us for help when they need it. We didn't have the energy to even be independent ourselves, let alone be able to help our allies as quickly as they needed it. We are getting up to speed now, we are coming back, and that is exactly what the Inflation Reduction Act was intended to do. If we don't establish a domestic supply with the God-given resources that we have--we produce oil, we produce coal, and we produce natural gas environmentally better than anyplace else in the world. In the IRA, that bill was designed to have two tracks. For 10 years, we would have certainty that we would be energy independent by using everything above, and that means relying on the fossil fuels that we need, and we have, but we are going to do it better and cleaner than we have ever done it before. We put more money in carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization than ever before. We put more technology and fees on methane emission, which we know is harmful to the environment, than ever before. So basically we are leading the world and going to find the new technology we can share that makes the environment better. But if you can replace the dirty production of fossil with the cleaner production from the United States, that is truly helping the environment. It is something that the leaders and the superpower of the world should be doing. We weren't in that position. We are fighting to get back. But I have to watch now, after we passed a piece of legislation we all voted for--we are getting different interpretations from Treasury and other Agencies that have oversight, which is so wrong. That is not their job, to interpret what they want in a piece of legislation; their job is to basically enforce what we wrote in the legislation. And we said that we will be independent, that we will have our own supply of critical minerals. We will have our own supply, basically, and we are not going to have to depend on China for car batteries or anything else we need to run our economy. That is what we should be fighting for, and that is what we should all be considering that we should be doing. The IRA is crystal clear. What the Department of the Treasury did is wrong. The law was very clear. By December 31 of last year, 2022, they were supposed to have the rules and regulations of how they would enforce the bill that we wrote. Well, guess what. They didn't. Now, guess what happened. Let me explain to you how the law worked before. Before we did what we did with the IRA, the electric vehicles, the supplement that we gave, $7,500, from 2008 after the crash of the economy, the banking crash that we had--there was a bill passed in 2008, a recovery bill, that was going to give $7,500 credit to any manufacturer--I mean, any manufacturer--that sold an electric vehicle in the United States of America. Now, once they saturated and sold 200,000 cars, it was over; they got no more credits. So let's look at our big manufacturers in the United States. We have General Motors, OK, we have basically Ford, and we have Toyota. Let me just tell you what has happened. So we are going to set the record straight because I had a discussion with my dear friend and colleague from Michigan, the Senator from Michigan, and we talked about that, and I think there was some misinterpretation or misspeaking about what has really happened. As of last year, Tesla and--no, 2018. So that bill went into effect in 2008, and by 2018, Tesla and General Motors reached their cap of 200,000 cars. They weren't getting anymore $7,500 if they sold a Tesla and if they sold a General Motors electric vehicle. And guess what. It didn't slow down the sales any. Tesla kept right on. They are past the million mark now and still going strong. So people want the product. We didn't have to give them Treasury or give them taxpayers' money to do it. General Motors hit their 200,000. Toyota reached theirs last year. Ford reached theirs September of last year. So all the major manufacturers. If we had not done the inflation reduction bill and put in new guidelines, all the people who would have gotten the $7,500 credit from American taxpayers were all foreign manufacturers sending electric vehicles to America. That is not right. But now what happened is they picked and chose. So the Secretary of the Treasury--and we have had a conversation. We agree to disagree, and I disagree stronger than anyone's ever disagreed on something that they are doing that they shouldn't be doing. They are doing it wrong, and I will continue to fight and hold them accountable. Last week, I introduced a bipartisan bill with Senator Braun that would do one simple thing. It would implement the law as intended by putting the sourcing provision in effect immediately, whether Treasury chooses to issue guidance or not. I cannot pressure them to do their job on time, but I can do this: We can do our job. We wrote a piece of legislation, and we can make sure it takes effect when it was supposed to when they haven't done their job. They failed to do it. What we are going to say is, fine, and you implement it exactly the way you wrote the law. What they are trying to do is this. They said: We don't have rules and regulations, but from January 1--and still going on--they are going to continue to give $7,500 to everybody again. So they are opening it back up to General Motors. They are opening it back up to Tesla. They are opening it up to Toyota, to Ford. To everybody, it is opened up to start getting $7,500 again. Now, what they did, they chose out of our bill--the Inflation Reduction Act--they said: Yes, but if you make more than $150,000, you are not qualified. That is exactly what is in our bill. But they said they don't have rules and regulations, but they took that part of it. They said: Well, if you buy a sedan that costs more than $55,000, you don't qualify for the 7,500. If you buy a pickup truck that is more than 85,000, you don't qualify. That is all in our bill. If you can't write your rules and regulations, but you can pick and choose what you like in the bill, that means you don't want to enforce the bill the way it was written. That is what we should not tolerate. That is not what anybody in this body should ever tolerate, to let the Agencies do exactly what they think they want to do to appease whomever they are trying to appease versus what we passed and the intent of what we passed. That is what I am upset about, and that is why we are going to continue to fight. And as it stands right now, they are cherry-picking, and they have completely cherry-picked, and other Agencies will do the same. This selective implementation is going to create a disadvantage for some automakers while giving more flexibility to others by allowing this to happen. It is beyond being not right. So let me tell you what we are going to do to make sure that the American people understand. If you believe that we were wrong in passing that piece of legislation, then speak up. If you believe that we were wrong in saying that we should not be dependent on China, but you want to continue to have China dominating the market, you want them to have total control in a market that we are moving--it is the first time in the history of the United States that we have ever had to rely on a foreign supply chain for our transportation mode, whether it is trains, whether it is planes, whether it is automobiles, any form of transportation. We have been able to not have to depend on another foreign supply chain because we were able to do it in the United States. We have allowed a lot a manufacturing to leave. We are bringing it back now. So what we said basically in the bill was: You get $3,750 credit toward an electric vehicle you bought from an American manufacturer, when the vehicle was manufactured in North America. That is the culmination between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, which is what NAFTA, which is what the USMCA, the new bill, that is what we do, has been moving those vehicles back and forth. If it is manufactured here, you get 3,750. You get the first 3,750 if the selection of all the rare earth materials are selected from either North America or from countries that we have a free-trade agreement. And the reason that is done, we want to make sure that we have a secure channel for these rare earth minerals it takes to process and manufacture the battery. So the processing, as far as the selection of the rare earth minerals, they have to come from either North America or our free-trade agreement countries. That gives us a solid supply. We are not dependent on China or Russia or any other nation that does not have our best interests and is not a democracy, does not have the same beliefs that we have for human rights and everything else that we do. We have that first, and then basically, it has to be manufactured in North America. Then you get the other 3,750. So we use the $7,500 as the carrot to reimplement ourselves into the manufacturing and self-reliance of our transportation mode. That is simply it. I would hope everybody watching, listening, or anything else, as far as trying to get the knowledge of what we have done and what we have tried to do and what we are intending to make sure happens--which is to hold this administration, hold basically the Treasury Department and every other Agency that thinks that they can free will and just make up what they want and do what they want and pick regulations that they think that they would rather implement rather than implementing the law. That is where we are. That is what I want is to set the record straight. First of all, all the automakers in America who hit the 200,000 cap, this was a new lease on life for them--the IRA, selecting it, and I would quote, and I am going to read again from Mary Barra, who is the CEO of General Motors: [The] [d]irect sourcing [of] critical EV raw materials and components from suppliers in North America and free-trade- agreement countries helps make our supply chain more secure, helps us manage cell costs, and creates jobs. Now, that is one of our largest manufacturers of automobiles in the United States of America. If she thinks it is good for her company, if she thinks it is good for the American citizens and the car buyers in America, then it should be good enough that the bill should be implemented the way it was intended to. What we are going to do is reestablish ourselves: major manufacturing; not being reliant; superpower of the world--maintain that; have the energy sources; use our fossil, clean as anywhere in the world, for the next 10 years, as we are investing $369 billion for the new technology of carbonless or carbon-free energy. Then that is leadership. That is what the world needs. That is what the world expects from the United States, and if we are going to maintain this world power, be the superpower of the world, we must maintain that leadership. And it is tough at times, but we can do it. We have always done it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MANCHIN

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

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent to discharge and pass the American Vehicle Security Act, a bill I introduced with Senator Braun yesterday. Let me explain what we are trying to do and what we have done by passing the IRA. China has cornered the EV supply chain market: 80 percent of the world's battery materials processing comes from China; 60 percent of the world's cathode production comes from China; 80 percent of the world's anode production comes from China; and 75 percent of the world's lithium ion battery's cell production comes from China. Now, for the first time in the history of this great country of ours, in the transportation mode that gave inspiration to the whole world-- whether it be cars, trains, and planes--did not depend on foreign supply chains for their motivation. It did not, in any way at all, depend on it. Now we are moving rapidly into the EV markets--and I think recklessly--as we were going into that before we were able to supply and be held captive by China, literally. So anything the IRA bill did was saying this: If you are going to get the $7,500 credit--which I had a hard time understanding why the automotive industry needed it so desperately, because people were willing to wait a year to get the product. And we had supply chains with chips, and we fixed that; we had supply chains still with this--and they are telling me: Well, we can't do that. We just can't get there. And I said: You know what? They told us that we couldn't get there on the vaccine for COVID; it would take 5 years. We got there in 9 months. You can do it if you intend to do it, and if you want to do it, you will do it. So what we did, we said: Fine, $3,750 credit you will be able to earn for the discount on that vehicle if the critical minerals are sourced from North America or our free trading agreement countries so we don't have the risk of being held hostage. These are countries that we deal with and we have relationships, and it is a free trade back and forth. China, we don't; Russia, we don't. We see what happens to the world when that happens. So this was the purpose of it. And the other 3,750 is if you manufacture the battery in North America because of our NAFTA agreement in the USMC that we have had for an awful long time. It doesn't disrupt the flow back and forth. That way, we are guaranteed that we are going to have a manufacturing base and continue the long heritage and the long, basically, support that we have that we can have control of our own destiny in our transportation mode. That is all. That is all this bill was doing. The bill has been characterized so many different ways, but it is truly an energy security manufacturing bill. And I can assure you, just coming back and talking to the Europeans, they are extremely challenged and upset that, basically, America--the United States--with one leap, jumped over everybody into first place and is so far ahead of doing something and bringing manufacturing back, being self-sufficient, and self-dependent. That is what this does. And we fixed that. We fixed all of that. And then the Treasury, failing to issue guidance, it puts more requirements. And what they are doing is, they issued guidance by law. The bill said, by December 31. They are in violation. So they don't have the guidance ready, and they had plenty of time to do it. But they are now continuing to let the $7,500 credit go without any concerns at all about the critical mineral requirements. It is just not what the legislation is about. It is not what we all voted for. Every Democrat voted for this. And now, all of a sudden, we are saying we are not going to pay attention to the rules. Regulations don't mean anything. Just go ahead and let them do what they want to do. Well, I am sorry, that is not the way it is. And that is not the way it should be. So being the birthplace of Henry Ford, who put mass production back in and put the automobile in everyone's affordability range and, basically, transitioned who we are as a country and how we move around--we are an automotive powerhouse. We have always been an automotive powerhouse. And the sooner that we are able to source our own supplies that we need for our mode of transportation, we will maintain that power. That is what the IRA has done. That is the intent of the IRA. I have asked the IRS to follow the law, follow the rule, follow the legislative intent, and, basically, the bill that we passed. And they are defying that. And this bill would correct that. That is all we are asking. With that, I yield to my friend from Indiana.

Mr. MANCHIN. General Motors hit it. Ford hit it.

Mr. MANCHIN. I thought they hit it.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, maybe I can help a little bit with clearing it up. Everyone thinks that all of a sudden, that at the end of the year, the first of the year, that the automobile industry in the United States, in order to get any credit at all, had to have 100 percent of the sourcing done from North America or free trade country agreements, such as Australia, Chile--different people that have a tremendous amount of resources--but those are going to China now for processing. The first year is 40 percent. All we are saying is we ought to at least be able to source 40 percent the first year from the favored trading countries we have and ourselves to get us into this. And then it goes up 10 percent every year. Most reasonable, most reasonable. Why the IRS did not do that their job, I can't tell you, unless their intent was never to try to comply with what we passed. They have known all along what this bill was, unless they just basically drug their feet intentionally and not only this--let me just tell you the other thing I couldn't really believe. They would pick and choose. They didn't basically just say: Well, I am sorry. We don't have rules and regulations. So it can't go into effect. Or we are going to leave it like it was at $7,500. No, no, no, they chose. They like what we did with putting a cap on what your salary could be in order to get to $7,500. They used that. That wasn't there before. They used that part of it. They like the cap of where we said what price of a vehicle would qualify: for a sedan, $55,000 and under; for a truck, $85,000. They would pick and choose--cherry-pick. But they said: We are just going to continue to give the $7,500 if they apply to different categories--nothing about sourcing material, nothing about us jump- starting to be basically self-sufficient in the manufacturing of batteries in the United States of America, but also sourcing, so we would never run short and be held hostage by China or someone else. I am old enough and you are old enough and most of us in this room are old enough to remember 1974, when we stood in line to get gas to go work. I am not going to stand in line to wait for a battery to come from China for me to go to work. That is what this is all about.

Mr. MANCHIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 63, a bill to adjust the effective date of application of certain amendments made with respect to the credit for new clean vehicles; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, and the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MANCHIN. Would the Senator yield for a minute?

Mr. MANCHIN. The only thing I would say to that is this: The subsidies we were giving for EVs had expired under the old piece of legislation for American manufacturers. They all hit their 200,000 cap, right?

Mr. MANCHIN. I am understanding that they did. OK, we will work on that. It was very close that they did. That was over for them. They have no more. It was over. It was over. They were done. If we didn't do anything, they were done. The only people who had access to our market, if we had not done this bill, was all European manufacturers. All the manufacturers in the United States already hit their caps. So I am saying it was over. We gave them new life into this. All we are saying is, Can't we at least get manufacturing in the United States where we are not depending on foreign supply chains, especially China? That is the difference. I mean, they knew the bill. They didn't like the bill. They built their whole model around--you would think that car manufacturing in America is going to go broke if they don't get the $7,500 credit from the U.S. Treasury. And there are people waiting a year. I said: Let me tell you something. If you are waiting a year to get a product because you like it and it is good and you make it better than any place in the world, I don't think that is what you are making the decision on, because they have already lost it. China could have flooded the market. We stopped all of that from happening. We just have a difference. We just have a difference.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to the following members of my staff: David Rosner, our detailee from FERC; and Sarah Stevenson, our American Association for the Advancement of Science, as of today until the end of Congress.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to David Rosner--he is a FERC detailee with my staff on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources--effective immediately through the end of Congress.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. I yield back.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I am here today to speak about a very important piece of legislation we have coming before us, and we have an amendment to that legislation. The legislation, of course, is the National Defense Authorization Act. This piece of legislation is something that we do annually in order to basically protect our country and be able to defend ourselves and be able to maintain the superpower status that we are. Part of that is what they call energy security, energy independence. You cannot be a superpower in the world if you do not have energy independence, and you can't be secure if you don't have energy independence. Now, what has happened to us since this horrible war that Putin has bestowed upon the citizens of Ukraine is that he has weaponized energy. We have seen it coming. He has basically doubled down, so he has put Europe in a tremendous bind. On top of that, we have seen the necessity that we have and the reality of the world we live in. We use fossil fuels, but can we use them cleaner and better? Absolutely. We do it better than anyplace in the world, and we can use it and do more to it. We have a piece of legislation--a couple of them. We have the bipartisan infrastructure bill that we worked on across the aisle, and now we have the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA. Those two pieces of legislation are unbelievably unprecedented in our country. What the IRA does is this, simply: It guarantees energy security. For 10 years, we are going to be able to basically produce fossil energy in the United States of America--more of it, better and cleaner, than at any time in the world--while we are also going to invest record amounts of money into new, clean technology for the future. You can't eliminate one. People say: Well, my definition on energy and on climate is elimination. I want to eliminate--no coal, no oil, no gas. Well, you are not living in the real world, and you have just seen that happen. Our Nation, when we got pinched a little bit by these high prices that people are paying at the pump, we started thinking about removing sanctions from Iran--the most prolific terrorist supporters in the world--and giving them money to continue to do what they do, which is to wreak havoc on the world. We are also talking about lifting the sanctions on Venezuela, which basically has very little oversight as far as environmental controls, because we needed it. We wanted someone else to do what we wouldn't do, and that is just wrong. It is not who we are as a country. We can do it. We can lead the world. We are the superpower, and that means we have to produce everything that we have, an all-in energy policy, better than anyplace else in the world. Now, in order to do that, we passed a piece of legislation that puts us on two paths. You can walk and chew gum. You have to have fossil. Now, if you are doing fossil, which is cleaner--that means carbon capture and sequestration--we put billions of dollars in there for that. On top of that, we put billions of dollars for methane, plugging old wells, abandoned mine lands--we are cleaning up everything. Tremendous. If you are using the fossil that we use in the United States--cleaner and helping our allies around the world--we have been able to help the climate more than it can ever be helped by anything else. As we develop the new technologies of the world--hydrogen--we can make that all day long. We are on the verge of doing something unbelievable, but let me tell you, most of it will be for naught because without permitting reform-- the United States of America is more litigious than any nation on Earth that has been developed, anyone. It takes longer to do anything here. We have people talking about how they have been trying to get permits for 16 years. Canada, average of 3 years; our friends in Australia, Down Under, 2 to 3 years; us, 5, 7, 10, and more. This is a 10-year path we have. We have appropriated money in this piece of legislation for a 10-year path. A lot of the programs we want to do, whether it is building pipelines, whether it is building new transmission lines to carry the energy that we need, whether it is developing new, cleaner technologies, whether it is carrying pipelines that are carrying hydrogen and CO2, we have all of this that we need, and it is not going to happen, and I just can't believe it. Here is the thing I can't believe: All of my Republican friends--and I have worked with them, and I know they are upset when politics plays into this, but they are upset about the IRA. We did it through reconciliation. Well, it is the only vehicle we had--the only vehicle we had--to do something that was monumental. And we did that by working with my colleagues on the other side for the last 5 years. My colleagues on the other side, my Republican friends, have always said: Joe, we have to have more energy. Well, guess what, the IRA is going to put more energy in. The Inflation Reduction Act is going to produce more oil, more gas, cleaner than anywhere in the world, and we are going to have more energy. Why did you call it inflation reduction? Because if you have more product, you can reduce the price. It is pretty simple--supply and demand. So we are on that. They said: Well, we have to pay down debt. Well, guess what the IRA did. It paid down over $250 billion of debt--the first time in history. For 30 years, we haven't paid down on debt. We did. So we have done so many things, but that seems to be a pretty good thing that is kind of stuck in their craw, and I am ashamed of that. I am afraid of that. And I am basically afraid for our country, that we are going down a path where it is all about the politics and all about the policy. The policy is, the permitting bill that we have in front of us has been worked. We have worked it, and we have been sitting down and talking for 2 or 3 months. We have talked with our Senators on this side, we have talked with our Senators on the Republican side, and we looked at different things. We are not basically eliminating any of the review process. We are basically expediting how we do it, and that is all we are asking for. We are asking the courts to expedite when they take this under consideration because of the environment. The environment is near and dear to all of us, and we all have a responsibility. What we haven't taken into consideration is, if we don't do this, we will not be able to maintain independence, energy independence, which means energy security, which means national security. That is what we are not taking into consideration. Who are we going to ask to do what we won't do for ourselves? Who is going to come to our rescue? We didn't see the Saudis coming. We didn't say--that didn't work too well. Nothing else is coming on board. So I had a thing in this bill, and they said: Oh, it is a dirty deal with Joe, the Mountain Valley Pipeline. Oh yeah. So 283 miles are completed of that pipeline, out of 303. Ninety-three percent is completed. We have a pipeline there that comes out of West Virginia that is a gathering with Southwestern Pennsylvania. It is also Southeast Ohio, the Marcellus Shale. It will put 2 billion cubic feet of gas per day into the market. You need more product in the market. It will backfill in the South and the Southwest. It will also help at Coves Point. You have LNG for all of our allies who are in desperate need of it. So much is being done, and it has been so politicized. So if you want to know why people are upset, you want to know why they are mad, watch this place operate for a while. I had a person one time said: Joe, I just can't believe what I see on television. I said: Oh, you are upset, and you are mad, and you can't believe what you see on television when you are sitting in your nice, comfortable home? Try it from my seat. Try it from this seat, when you have got to play politics day in and day out to do what is right for our country. If we don't have energy, we are not the country--my little State has given its all. We have produced the coal for the last hundred years that built the ships, built the guns, and built basically everything that we have had, the guns and ships and built America. We are probably one of the most patriotic States in the Nation. We have more people, lost more blood, given more life for the cause of freedom than most any State. We are willing to do whatever it takes. We do the heavy lifting and don't complain--never have. But yet we try to do something now to produce more energy because the country needs it--oh, you can't put a dirty pipeline in. It is not; it is gas. It is transitional fuel. We need it. You are going to have it for quite a while, so why don't you use it from where you have it? The best supply in the world is right here next door. Yet the politics is being played. They are afraid that maybe--I am up in cycle in 2024, that this might give me a leverage to get reelected. I have been on the ballot for 40 years. I don't know what is going to happen. I don't know what tomorrow is going to bring. I know what we have before us today. You have an unbelievable opportunity that is not going to happen in our lifetime again. If we don't pass permitting reform right now--my Republican friends are saying: Oh, don't worry, when we have control of the House, we will be able to have a better deal. My friends, let me say this: You had from 2016 to 2020. You had a President who was a Republican. The House was Republican. The Senate was Republican. You only had one vote for permitting reform, and that was mine as a Democrat--nobody else. Now we are going to have a supermajority of Democrats who are willing to move forward and maybe not be all comfortable about it, but it is the right thing to do, and now, because of politics, my friends aren't going to step to the plate? That is what they don't like. That is what people don't like. That is the politics that basically is destroying our country. You can't have it. So I come before you to ask for your support on a piece of legislation. There is so much good that we can do. We can fix the mistakes that we have made. But you can't do it if you don't have the energy to provide the citizens of your country to have the opportunities to defend themselves and be able to help our allies around the world. We will not maintain superpower status, I can assure you, if that can't be done. This piece of legislation, without the permitting--we have been able to do so much in the bipartisan infrastructure bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, and now having this--to be able to put it into operation is something that is desperately needed. So, with that, I can only say that I pray to the Good Lord that we can put our politics aside and look at what is needed and go back home and tell the people this was absolutely--it is a win for everybody. It truly is a win for everybody. This is something that I don't know how we can explain it if we vote against it. I don't know how we wouldn't vote for it. It is something we have all wanted. Let me make one more point. All 50 of my Republican colleagues have signed on to a piece of legislation which is permitting--with my colleague from West Virginia--which is permitting reform, all 50. They know it needs to be done. Now, if you are going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, you are going to say: Well, it is just not good enough. Is it 50 percent, is it 70 percent better than what we have ever had? Is it moving in the right direction? Does it build a foundation? Does it give you something to work off of? I believe it does because you have had tremendous amount of input. That is all I am asking for. I am asking for a fair evaluation of a piece of legislation that will not pass through these Halls again. So with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I need to respond to that. I wasn't intending to do so, but I want to clarify that, and I would hope my good friend would listen to my clarification because it is in the bill. And either someone maybe had not informed you, sir, but, basically, that can't be done, what you said. I can't charge you in Kansas if the line passes through Kansas and you don't benefit from it. If there is no improved reliability, if it didn't reduce congestion, if it didn't reduce or lower power losses, if it wasn't greater carrying capacity, if it didn't reduce operating reserve--all of these that you have to have benefit to have any cost. We made that in the bill. We were very, very correct. You know who brought that to me? Senator Cramer, our good friend from North Dakota, my Republican friend from North Dakota. He said: Joe, you can't do that. Now, the other thing is, you were saying that, basically, the States lose all their rights. Again, Senator Cramer said: Joe, you have got to at least have 1 year. I said: It makes sense to me. Now, let me tell you what happens. If there is new energy coming into the market, wherever it is coming from, new transmission lines coming in, if that line is going to come into a State and the State thinks it is invading its territory--because most of all of the utilities have monopolies on their grid system, correct? They all have monopolies. They don't want anyone infringing on that. Well, guess what? They all have great relationships with the public service commissions. If the public service commission is saying: OK. Who wants to come in here?--and they are coming--and they say: Let's sit down and talk. Now, if the person who is already there--let's say you have your own power company and you have the utility lines or the grid system, and you say: I am not going to expand. I am not bringing any more power because I am not going to develop over here. It is not profitable for me. Then they have got to make a decision, your PSC. Now, if you all can't agree in 1 year and it is something of national interest, then it can move. But think what would happen if Dwight Eisenhower, building the interstate highway system--from, I think, your part of the world--the great general, the great President, OK. This would have never happened. He would have never built the interstate system. How about the interstate pipeline system? We would have never had the energy we have today. All we are asking for is the opportunity to bring energy to the market where it is needed. That is all. And then when you said: Well, it is going to be a litigious nightmare--that is what we tried to work through, and we did that. You know why? We basically put deadlines. We set firm deadlines for permitting decisions: 2 years for environmental impact statements, 1 year for environmental assessments. That is a tremendous improvement from where we have been. Then we basically put enforcement. We have stronger enforcement than any other permitting reform law passed ever in the United States of America. It lets project developers seek a court order. So if you are trying to get something and you are being held up, then you have, basically, the expedited right to go to the court and to have expedition. You don't have that now. To me--I have heard people say: Just that right there allows me to make a decision whether I stay with the program or get out of it, if I am going to do a project or not, without losing my rear end and going bankrupt. We have answered every question that we possibly could. It is the most advanced, bipartisan bill we could ever get and still have the support we need. All we need is your support, sir. I call for the vote, Mr. President.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about my dear friend Pat Toomey. My dear friend from Maine mentioned what we worked on. We worked on many pieces of legislation together, and Pat was always a stalwart. As far as when it came to financial matters, I think Pat was the go- to person, whether you were a Democrat or Republican, to get his opinion on finances. Basically, whether it be taxes or tax credits or extenders, whatever it may be, Pat would give you an answer, and Pat was accurate. But I saw a different side of Pat on December 14, 2012, when 26 people were killed in Sandy Hook. Twenty of them were children, 6 and 7 years old. And I saw the heart and soul of Pat Toomey. I knew I had to do something. I couldn't live with it. I come from what we call a very gun-friendly atmosphere, environment in my State of West Virginia. Pat, being my next door neighbor in Pennsylvania, had the same, and we knew that it was difficult. So I decided that I wanted to introduce a bill, but I needed a partner. I needed a true partner who believed. Pat stepped forward, and we had the Manchin-Toomey background check. It was the beginning. And what drove us was the compassion, Pat's compassion and his heart and soul. This massacre that happened to these children should never have happened. School should be the safest place a child goes and a parent can at least breathe easily. And seeing what they went through--and I think we bonded with all of the parents. We still to this day talk to them, and our hearts and prayers are with them. Pat was with me side by side to fight the good fight. We came up a few votes short. Looking back on that, that would have been a tremendous beginning many years ago. It could have prevented an awful lot of the senseless, horrific tragedies that have happened, with families losing their children. With that, my dear friend, I want to say thank you. That was a bill that--I think we did everything in that bill for the right reason. We didn't want to take anyone's guns away from them. We wanted to make sure people could still enjoy the hunting that we grew up with, the sports shooting that we enjoyed--all of the recreational things you do with guns when you come from a gun culture. Pat and I called it gun sense. You just have to have some gun sense. And it is the truth, but we had to educate people. On the other hand, we were saying we wanted to make sure that--we grew up in an atmosphere where we were taught as young children: You know, you don't sell your gun to a stranger. You don't even loan your gun to a family member who is irresponsible. That is your prized possession. You are responsible. That is a lethal weapon. You are responsible. That is how we were raised. We both understood that. But if we were understanding that, then basically we thought, We all had to have permits when we went and bought a gun. We all bought guns and went through background checks, and everybody should. So if I didn't want to sell my gun to a stranger, why should a gun show with loopholes do it? Why should you be able to mail a gun across State lines and do it? Why should that happen? That is what we were trying to do, is close the loopholes. Make this common gun sense. Pat, you stood tall. You really did, buddy. And I know it was a tough, tough period of time. But we did the right thing, and we are seeing some changes now. We need more changes. But it is gun sense and common sense but also protecting people's rights. We can do both in America. We are going to miss you, buddy. We really are going to miss you. You have been something special here. I met both of your children. I went up and spoke to their school at Harvard, and I just enjoyed it very much. And when they introduced themselves, I could tell right away that they were their mother's children and they had the spirit of their dad. I can tell you that too. But, anyway, it has been a pleasure calling you my friend, and you always will be my friend. God bless and Godspeed, my friend.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about how the current process that we are in right now with the energy challenges we have, not just in our country but around the world, and how the committee process, the committee process that we are working on, can help relieve the challenges that the American public have right now with high prices at the gas pump, high prices they are receiving in their homes for heating and all the necessities they have. What is at risk right now--and I want people to understand. What is at risk is the energy independence and energy security of the United States of America. If we are going to remain the superpower of the world, if we are one country that has it all, you better have energy independence. If you can't produce your own energy and you are going to ask other people around the world to do what you won't do for yourself but you have the ability to do it and the resources to do it, God help us all. That is what we are dealing with. So I am going to talk about how Congress can provide some relief here. The 2022 Energy Independence and Security Act we have been working on is going to be paramount to maintaining what we have. That means that we have to focus on not blaming each other. This has become a personal thing back and forth, back and forth. Some people on the extreme left--liberals--don't like it because they want many changes. We have some people in the conference over here, my Republican friends, who have always been for it, but now the leadership has made it personal to be against it. But let me tell you who suffers--it is all the people. All the American citizens are going to suffer if we don't do something. We are all citizens of this great country, and we are all so grateful for having the opportunities we have by living here. But we have an abundant amount of energy--an abundant amount of energy that we can produce cleaner than anywhere else in the world. I have always said let's do decarbonization. We all should be committed to decarbonize to help the atmosphere and to help the climate. That is our responsibility as human beings and especially in a developed nation in the developing world. Decarbonizing means two things, however you intend to interpret it. Some people want to decarbonize by basically eliminating anything that has fossil. Well, guess what. Our friends in Europe tried that. Our European friends tried that. Look where they are. Then there are those of us who want to basically say: We can decarbonize by producing more fossil, which is cleaner in the United States of America, and basically dispersing the dirty fossils produced around the world. That is all we are saying. When you have oil and gas coming from Venezuela, which is produced with no oversight whatsoever--dirtier than any place in the world--we were going to go to them and remove sanctions to help us? That makes no sense. We were going to ask Iran, which is the most prolific terrorist supporter in the world, which made no sense whatsoever. When we are asking Saudi Arabia to please produce more oil to help us--no support-- it makes no sense at all. So this is what we are talking about. I have this item here that kind of spells out what we are confirming. Here is the common permitting timelines for energy and minerals projects. The timeline for the United States is a minimum of 5 to 10 years--a minimum of 5 to 10 years; Canada, 1 to 3 years; Australia, 1 to 3 years, and they haven't deleted any of their oversight for review. They haven't deleted any of that. Now let me tell you the extremes that are going on in the world today. The European Union, which has had a pretty stringent oversight on environment, they are considering emergency bypassing all environmental reviews because it is critical to them. Energy has been weaponized by Putin. Energy has been weaponized, and we in America can offset that. We can. No matter what you want to build, whether it is transmission, pipelines, hydropower dams, more often than not, it takes too long. It drives up cost. You can double your cost within a 5- to 6-, 7-year period, double from what the original cost may be in projected cost. Today's energy and mineral projects, as I have said before, take too long. Then you come over here, look basically at what the U.S. citizens-- all 330 million people--are subjected to. Natural gas, up 200 percent. The cost of natural gas, 200 percent. The cost of natural gas in Europe, 1,100-percent increase--1,100 percent. Predicted by next year, some utility--homes will be paying $7,000 a month. They are going to be subsidized by the government; they can't do that forever. Can you imagine those types of outrageous costs? Gasoline. Gasoline is up 67 percent, under both this administration and previous administration--67 percent. Electricity is up 15 percent and climbing and climbing. When you have countries, such as Australia and Canada, that are doing it and doing it in a clean fashion but also doing it in an accelerated fashion, that is something we should be looking at. We have talked about permitting for years and years and years. If you are on the renewable side and you want all renewable, no fossil whatsoever, you can't get a transmission line done. If you are going to build a wind farm or a solar farm in the middle of the desert where there are no people and you have got a build to take the electrons, take that electricity back into the marketplace, you have got to cross a multitude of State lines. You have got to have permitting reform to get it done. You are not going to be able to deliver the energy that people need. Look at our friends, whether it be in California or look at what has happened in Texas--all this. It is very, very fragile what is going on. But then the good news is, next week, we are going to have an opportunity to help accelerate these energy projects clear across the country and the needs that we all have, if we don't let politics get in the way. If we basically look at what the United States of America needs, what the people in this country need, and what they want to make sure that we have the energy independence to do it ourselves and not rely on foreign supply chains, that is what it is about. I have always said, if I can go home and explain it, if I can talk to all of you and explain it, I can vote for it; I can explain what we are doing. I truly can--whether it be from the IRA, a bill that basically gives us a pathway to walk and chew gum, provide the energy we need for today but also invest in the energy we need in the future. We are doing both, but you can't do them unless you have permitting reform. Now, everyone thinks this is a side deal. There is no side deal. We talked about all of this at one time. We put this project together under one auspice of energy independence and the security this Nation needs and the relief the citizens need from high inflation--that is what--and also the support that we need for our allies in Europe that are having a difficult time. So let me lay out the facts and explain why voting for energy permitting reform is something that should make sense to each and every one of my colleagues on both my Republican side and Democrat side. Put plainly, with the state of energy prices, our constituents across the country, they can't afford for the politics to stand in the way of a long overdue, bipartisan action on energy permitting reform. Domestically, American families and businesses are feeling the pain. This is Putin's energy war. I won't acknowledge this as a Russian war. This is one demagogue who basically has brought the havoc and the unrest that we have in the world--one man, Putin--and he has basically weaponized energy like we have never seen and never thought would be done, and this must be answered. We have the infrastructure, and we have the resources. I have said that before. American natural gas prices average around $9 per million of Btu--$9 per million. I mean, most of this energy comes from my State of West Virginia--a lot of the gas does--because we have the Marcellus and Utica shale, which are probably the richest deposits of natural gas that we have ever seen in this country, let alone the world. But with that, those prices were in the $2.50 to $3 range. It balances out pretty well to $5, but at $9 it does not. Look at what the Europeans are paying. The Europeans are paying an astronomical $60 and $70 equivalent to the same MCF--$60 to $70 versus our $9, which we think is outrageous. This is the crunch that we are in. Even with the cost savings that we have achieved by energy efficiency, electricity and home energy costs are up, and Americans are concerned about reliability after watching things that are taking a heck of a hit right now. The changing energy mix has not yielded affordability for American families evenly, in part, because we haven't been able to knit together the widespread resources with transmission and the delivery of this energy. That is the hardest thing we have. You can only do that by building more infrastructure. You can't do it by hoping one skips over another to get you what you need. You have got to have infrastructure for this transmission to pipelines to get you the energy you need. The consumer price index tells the story. Consumers paid 16 percent more for their electricity service and 33 percent more for their gas services, and it is only going to get worse, not better. Absolutely. I am grateful that we have made progress addressing the price at the pump. As we said, a gallon of gasoline remains 67 percent higher than it did 5 years ago. These are the type of pocketbook issues--they truly are--that are impacting day-to-day decisions Americans make. People are making decisions on how they are going to get from one day to the next, one month to the next, and what will happen next year. They are making those decisions. They are making them when the gas prices are still too high, when the energy prices are absolutely too high, and the unrest from supply chains is making it almost impossible to do the things or have the things you need or that you want. I have heard my colleagues on both sides of the aisle propose a variety of solutions to address the rising costs of energy for American consumers, whether it be through more oil or gas, a switch to electric vehicles. Let me ask you, Mr. President, where do they think the electricity comes from if they buy an electric vehicle? It has got to be produced. It has got to be produced. You have got California, I am understanding they are saying they want all-electric vehicles by a certain date; yet they are telling people you can't charge your car at certain times of the day. Something doesn't make sense. We have to be realistic, be practical about this, pragmatic. All those things are going to take Federal permits for us to make sure they have the energy they need. We are going to have to face this sooner or later. It is only possible if you can build it. If you can build it, then you can make sure that we have the changes that consumers are going to demand in America. If we can make those, then, fine; we can supply it. If we can't, I guarantee the chaos will be unbelievable for all of us who represent these great people. Our producers are handcuffed by an arduous permitting process that doesn't allow us to meet the supply problems that we are facing, and it is not getting any better. Let me kind of throw the political process that we have out. My Republican friends have always been very supportive, always; and I have a lot of my Democrat friends who understand that we need permitting reform. But we have never gotten it done, whether we have had all Democrats in charge, whether it be the President being a Democrat, the House and Senate being Democrat controlled, or whether it was 4 years ago when you had the Republicans who basically had a Republican President and Senate and the House and they couldn't get it done. You can only get it done if we work together. We can only get this done if our Republican colleagues and our Democrat colleagues work together. It won't happen. And if we don't do it now, in my lifetime and a lot of my colleagues' lifetimes, it is not going to happen in our lifetime. It is not. If we continue to strap the American people with the highest cost of delivery of the products they need because of our infrastructure and the cost of infrastructure, we end up doubling and tripling the price because of the owner's position we put them in to go through a process of permitting, and they know that going in, up front, that cost is passed on. They don't absorb that cost. So if a pipeline costs $3 billion--which you anticipate to build a pipeline, to deliver the energy you have, whether it be hydrogen or whether it be natural gas, and that ends up costing you $6 billion or $7 billion--you and I pay that price. Every one of our constituents in our States pays that price. We are suffering from self-inflicted shortages. We are anticipating shortages right now. The next 5 years, basically, our gas supplies, our gas deposits are down--natural gas. Natural gas is down. And we can change that. We can change that because the energy we have under our feet right now, if we can just get it to the market, it will not only fulfill the surpluses that we have, it will basically be able to help our allies across the globe here that need it most. The worst scenario is if the Ukraine war and the pressure that that war is putting on energy that goes into Europe--and the Europeans are facing some absolutely astronomical hardships--and those hardships reflect to where they are putting pressure on Ukraine to make a deal with Putin, God help the world. God help us all if Putin walks away and can say he had a victory. He has a propaganda machine that he can say anything he wants, no matter the devastating losses that he has taken with his troops and the economic challenges he has in his country, but the unbelievable carnage and pain he has put on Ukraine; and they are going to be forced because of energy to make a decision. We can help that and prevent that from every happening. That is what we should be doing. That is basically the challenge that we have. So you either rise to the challenge or you don't. You either put your politics aside, forget about your personal vendettas and your personal arguments, whatever--look at the contents of the bill. Look at what we are going to have in front of us that you can vote on; that you can make a difference. I have often said, if you can go home and explain it, you can vote for it; and I truly believe this piece of legislation will do that. We are putting people to make hard choices; they shouldn't be put in that position. I tell Americans every day I speak to them, I say: Don't let Washington make you believe you are divided. You are not divided; we are divided here. We are forcing the constituents of our States to pick a side. What side are you on? There is only one side; that is the American side. There is not another side. We have Republican friends and Democratic friends; we might have different ideas. But when the country is challenged, we have one problem to solve, and that is what we are working on right now. You can come with different ideas, and we can go through the whole process, but we should come together. You shouldn't say: Well, my side is right, and we are against that; my side is right because we are for it. Well, we both have to be. If this doesn't pass, nothing moves on permitting unless we work together. If all the Democrats vote for it, it is not enough. If all the Republicans voted for it, it is not enough. The Senate is unique; it takes 60. So it is going to take 10 or more from one side or the other, and right now I would say our Republican friends and colleagues are going to have to look deeply at something that they have always wanted and have a chance in their hands to grab but let politics come between us. I hope not; I don't think so. I am still betting on the right thing will be done at the right time. I understand that the political process we are in is highly charged. I am hoping that the American public basically says: Enough is enough. Come on. It is for the country. It is not for you. It is not to make your party stronger or to make the other one look bad. It is not to give one an advantage over the other. This process is to fix the problems to keep this country the strongest country on Earth, keep us basically the superpower of the world, and we only have one way to do it. We are doing everything we can for ourselves. I guarantee, when you are able to do that, you are able to draw your allies closer to you. The people want to be associated with the winner; they want to be associated with an economy that you can't stop and with a quality of life that is next to none. That is what they want to be associated with. And the American dream can be alive. It can only be alive if we do everything to keep it vibrant. So that is what we are working on. Less than a year ago, we acted--Congress did--in a bipartisan way to accelerate public works permitting in the infrastructure bill. Now, we did it for infrastructure. We finally came together and said, for the last 30 years, we have known that our roads and bridges and our pipelines and our internet service, everything needed to be improved, and we voted in a bipartisan way. And do you know what we did? We changed how we did the permitting to get those things to fruition, to build a road or a bridge. But yet we can't do it for energy. It doesn't make any sense to me at all why we can't do it for energy, but we were able to do it for infrastructure. In the coming days, we are going to have that opportunity to take the action to move the needle on getting types of energy and critical minerals--try getting a permit for a mine in critical minerals. You know we just passed a bill, the IRA bill, that basically says, on the car manufacturing, car manufacturing, we want to get people transitioned; electric vehicles should be desirable. You either like the product or you don't, but you will make those decisions. The only thing about it, the only way you are going to get a credit is if the manufacturers are sourcing the critical minerals from either North America or favored nations, such as Australia and our European friends, not those--and right now, all of it is coming from China. China has a lock on this. So it is time we decide to get off our butts and start doing what we should be doing for ourselves so we don't have to be crippled by a supply chain. You know, I have told everybody, I said the first time in the history of the United States of America--think about this great country, Henry Ford, the mass production line--we have been able to produce in the United States of America, without any foreign supply chains that were needed, the combustible engine, all the drive trains, and everything else it took for transportation mode. We were able to do that, whether it be for trains, planes, or automobiles. Guess what. Now they have come out and said we are going to VEDS, electric vehicles. For the first time in the history of the United States, we cannot produce what is needed for that to be a transportation mode. I refuse to give up and say we can't do it. That is why, in the bill that we pass, you are going to have to source the critical minerals that are needed for the batteries that are going to be supplying the power for these vehicles, and they are going to have to be produced in North America. We shouldn't be waiting on the foreign supply chains to say: Oh, I am sorry. We don't agree with your geopolitical stance on so many things, so we are not going to agree to give you what you need. We process the anodes and cathodes that make these batteries, but that is all China. It is not us. And we are not going to get caught in that. So that is what we are trying to correct. In the coming days, we are going to have this opportunity, and I say that again--truly an opportunity. We can keep the costs down. We can make it affordable. We can relieve the pain at the pump. We can relieve the pain when you see your energy bills being mailed to you every month. We can fight all of this. We can unlock the energy and climate benefits of the Energy Act of 2020. The bipartisan infrastructure law and the inflation reduction--we can do all of that, but you can't do it in a timely fashion to meet the challenges the world has today unless you change permitting, which is something we have all wanted. It streamlines the electric transmission lines. I don't know what to tell you. As of right now, there are approximately 20 interstate transmission projects in various stages of planning--20. Those take, right now, an average of 10 years. On top of that, a quarter of those-- 25 percent of those--go into litigious extensions, which is even longer--15, 17 years, some of them. There is nobody in the developed world looking at us, saying we are effective and efficient and what we are doing is delivering the most effective and efficient pricing that we can and the most reliable energy that is needed. In this permitting bill, we do not bypass any of the oversights from environmental review. Whatever we have in place is still there. We are just going to put in guidelines and timetables: You either do it in a sufficient amount of time or we move on. So that is what we are doing. And we are simultaneously going to two or three Agencies at the same time. All we did is look at what was successful around the world--that is all we did--and we made it applicable to what we are trying to do here so that we can compete on an even playing field, and we are going to continue to do that. This bill isn't just my idea. Everyone says it is a personal thing; it is my idea. This bill is not my idea. This bill is a combination of everybody in this body. Also, the challenges we have right now--the war in Europe has accelerated everything. The inflation has accelerated the need to do something quickly. If we don't get off our proverbial hind ends and start acting like Americans and not Republicans or Democrats fighting for our respective sides--you know, I see it. We have spectators here watching what we are doing. We have people watching what we are doing. They have to be sick and tired that all we do is call each other names. Every Republican over there, I consider them a friend, every one of the 50, and every one of my 49 colleagues I consider a friend. I don't have all the answers, and they are not always wrong. Somewhere in between, we can find an answer to the problems. That is what we are asking for, and I am going to continue to do that. I am not giving up, and I won't give up. We have an opportunity. Let's take advantage of it. If we don't, then you have to go home and explain why not. I don't have to worry about that because I know why I am for this, and I know why I think it will help every person in my State of West Virginia and every one of my fellow Americans in this country. I really do. I hope we rise to this occasion. We are going to find out next week. We don't have much time to wait now. We will find out where we stand. If there are people willing to vote to shut down this government because of political reasons--they don't like permitting when it is something they fought for all their life, political life--they have to answer to that. With that being said, I appreciate very much the opportunity to be able to speak on this subject because I think it is so important. It is coming down to the point to where--we have great legislation. We have done a lot of bipartisan things, worked on good stuff these past 2 years, unbelievable. Now you want to make sure that you take advantage of that and bring it to the market quicker. You want to make sure you get the prices down; you fight inflation; you show the rest of the world that you can depend on the United States of America. That is what it is about today. I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter in the Record. The material follows: U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, July 21, 2022. To the Secretary of the Senate: The nomination of Laura Daniel-Davis, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior (Land and Minerals Management), vice Joseph Balash, resigned, PN 1553, having been referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Committee, with a quorum present, has voted on the nomination as follows--on the question of reporting the nomination favorably with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed, 10 ayes to 10 noes. In accordance with section 3, paragraph (1)(A) of S. Res. 27 of the 117th Congress, I hereby give notice that the Committee has not reported the nomination because of a tie vote and ask that this notice be printed in the Record pursuant to the resolution. Joe Machin III, Chairman.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter in the Record.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter in the Record.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter in the Record.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the months of bipartisan hard work that have gone into two bills that we are filing today: the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act--I repeat--the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act--and the Enhanced Election Security and Protection Act. I would like to commend my dear friend Senator Susan Collins for her leadership throughout this process. She has been shepherding this through and working diligently, as only she can do, and she does it so well. We started these discussions back in January, when partisanship around here was at a fever pitch, a toxic environment that was absolutely not conducive to things that needed to be done. But for those who may not remember, we were in the middle of a heated debate over voting rights with both sides--Democrats and Republicans--equally dug in on their positions, and it was kind of hard to move people off of that. The insurrection January 6 and the situation that has been going on since 1887 and should have been corrected and had not been--but no one ever felt that we would have what we had. So now, we needed to take care of it. And everyone stepped to the plate. By January 19, my Democratic colleagues were so frustrated that they forced a vote on repealing the filibuster to allow that bill to pass with a simple majority, along party lines. It appeared to many, both inside and outside of Washington, DC, that the Senate was fundamentally broken. But Senator Collins and I have worked together for a long time, and we never gave up. We were not convinced it was broken, and you just have to work a little bit harder. They call us the most deliberative body. Well, to deliberate means to talk, to converse; and when that fails, then, basically, the deliberative body is no longer the deliberative body. And we were not going to let that happen to us. We asked our colleagues and friends to come together to start trying to see if we could work together and find a pathway and find common ground. Well--guess what--they did. So I am here to thank those who sat down: Senator Portman, Rob Portman; we had Senator Murphy; we had Senator Romney, Senator Shaheen, Senator Murkowski, Senator Warren, Senator Tillis, Senator Sinema, Senator Capito, Senator Cardin, Senator Young, Senator Coons, Senator Sasse, and Senator Graham. Now, that was truly a team effort when you think about it. And this has gone on for quite some time. What we learned through those discussions was that there was bipartisan support for some important, commonsense reforms that would help restore Americans' faith in our democracy and how we basically apply our democracy, how do we select our representative form of government. Specifically, most of our group felt that we could and that we should: Reform the Electoral Count Act to remove the ambiguity that we saw weaponized after the last election. We were all in agreement. Enhance the protections for local election officials who were facing unprecedented threats and intimidations. These are people who volunteer, most basically. And it is basically a family handing down generation after generation, people who always believe that their civic duty is to be able to perform during election times. We wanted to establish best practices for the U.S. Postal Service to improve the handling of mail-in ballots. Mail-in ballots have been so convenient to older people, shut-ins. And in the situation where we had this pandemic, my goodness, it was the only way that people could vote. So reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission to help States improve the administration and the security of Federal elections. The most important thing that we can do is that when that vote is cast and that vote is counted accurately, it has to be counted and reported accurately. And that is what we have to do and make sure that there is not even a shred of a thought where a person might think that count is not valid--it is not a valid count. And we have done everything we possibly can to make sure that we have cleared that up. This is not everything that people on both sides of that wanted. Some on our bipartisan committee wanted a lot more, and some didn't want to basically interfere with the States' rights. So we were caught in betwixt and between. We worked back and forth on different things we could. We tried to put the guardrails on that gave guidance, and we think that we came up with a piece of legislation. And when you have every Member I just mentioned all sign on, with the diversity of these memberships--we have almost 20; 20 Senators have been involved, coming equally between Democrats and Republicans, and able to come to an agreement--this is a bill that we should put forward. I was proud to be an original sponsor of both the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and I still believe that we can and we must continue working to protect every American's sacred right to vote. But we also have an obligation to the American people to do the most good that we can right now--right now. The confusing and antiquated language that we have on the books today from the 1887 Electoral Count Act is a real and present danger to our democracy. We can fix that, and that is exactly what we intend to do. The increased threats and attacks we are seeing across the country on poll workers and election volunteers--we can fix that, too. But even more important than the policy provisions contained in these two bills is the fact that we have Democrats and Republicans standing arm in arm proposing commonsense election reforms that can begin to restore Americans' faith in our democracy. That is our solemn commitment and promise. When Benjamin Franklin was asked whether the Constitutional Convention had given us a republic or a monarchy, he famously replied ``A republic, young man, if you can keep it.'' He qualified his answer because he understood a democracy is fragile and can be lost if we are not careful. And while today's introduction is an important step in this process, we do have much work yet to do. I look forward to continuing our bipartisan effort to get this bill to the President's desk as quickly as possible and signed into law. And our journey begins. And with that, I would like to yield to my dear friend from the great State of Maine, Senator Susan Collins.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, while my dear friend is here, I want to tell her, you know, 6 months ago--we have worked on this for 6 months. It started in January, and it was 14 Senators who came at that time. We just started talking, and 14 Senators--with all of your support, Mr. President, also--we had support from everybody saying something had to be done. But as delicate as this was, knowing that some might think we are picking on one side or the other or supporting or defending one side or the other, there was only one thing we were concerned about: How do we defend this country and the Constitution and this wonderful Capitol that we have so this could never happen again? January 6 is a black mark on the history of the United States of America. And if you want to erase it, you better do what we did for 6 months, bringing people together to find a pathway forward so that type of opportunity--for some looking for an opportunity--to degrade our government and our country and our form of governing ourselves could never, ever encourage them thinking they could do something here at this Capitol and disrupt us. When that day happened, the thing I was most proud of, we were all down in a secured room--and Senator Collins remembers--and it went on; we didn't know what the extent of this was going on. We knew one thing: They didn't come for a friendly visit. But we were down there talking; and, all of a sudden, someone said: Well, let's just conduct our business down here. Remember that? And to a T, everybody in that room says, No, no, no. They are not going to run us out of our body here. And we all came back here later that night and finished our business. What we did--and Senator Collins has led this admirably--is make sure that we are finishing our business. We are just starting it now to protect this democracy. This form of democracy that we have is a representative form and the Republic that we are responsible for. And I am just so proud to be part of it. And she is my dear friend. We worked many, many years together, and we will continue to. But I just want to thank the Senator for the hard work--our staffs worked together. I am very proud of all our staffs that they worked together for the betterment of our country. So when people think that bipartisanship is not capable of happening in Washington, I want to say: Watch, we have proved them wrong. We have done so many things together, and we will continue to. Again, I say thank you to all those who participated for just hanging in there. It took us 6 months to get here, but we have just begun.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the months of bipartisan hard work that have gone into two bills that we are filing today: the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act--I repeat--the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act--and the Enhanced Election Security and Protection Act. I would like to commend my dear friend Senator Susan Collins for her leadership throughout this process. She has been shepherding this through and working diligently, as only she can do, and she does it so well. We started these discussions back in January, when partisanship around here was at a fever pitch, a toxic environment that was absolutely not conducive to things that needed to be done. But for those who may not remember, we were in the middle of a heated debate over voting rights with both sides--Democrats and Republicans--equally dug in on their positions, and it was kind of hard to move people off of that. The insurrection January 6 and the situation that has been going on since 1887 and should have been corrected and had not been--but no one ever felt that we would have what we had. So now, we needed to take care of it. And everyone stepped to the plate. By January 19, my Democratic colleagues were so frustrated that they forced a vote on repealing the filibuster to allow that bill to pass with a simple majority, along party lines. It appeared to many, both inside and outside of Washington, DC, that the Senate was fundamentally broken. But Senator Collins and I have worked together for a long time, and we never gave up. We were not convinced it was broken, and you just have to work a little bit harder. They call us the most deliberative body. Well, to deliberate means to talk, to converse; and when that fails, then, basically, the deliberative body is no longer the deliberative body. And we were not going to let that happen to us. We asked our colleagues and friends to come together to start trying to see if we could work together and find a pathway and find common ground. Well--guess what--they did. So I am here to thank those who sat down: Senator Portman, Rob Portman; we had Senator Murphy; we had Senator Romney, Senator Shaheen, Senator Murkowski, Senator Warren, Senator Tillis, Senator Sinema, Senator Capito, Senator Cardin, Senator Young, Senator Coons, Senator Sasse, and Senator Graham. Now, that was truly a team effort when you think about it. And this has gone on for quite some time. What we learned through those discussions was that there was bipartisan support for some important, commonsense reforms that would help restore Americans' faith in our democracy and how we basically apply our democracy, how do we select our representative form of government. Specifically, most of our group felt that we could and that we should: Reform the Electoral Count Act to remove the ambiguity that we saw weaponized after the last election. We were all in agreement. Enhance the protections for local election officials who were facing unprecedented threats and intimidations. These are people who volunteer, most basically. And it is basically a family handing down generation after generation, people who always believe that their civic duty is to be able to perform during election times. We wanted to establish best practices for the U.S. Postal Service to improve the handling of mail-in ballots. Mail-in ballots have been so convenient to older people, shut-ins. And in the situation where we had this pandemic, my goodness, it was the only way that people could vote. So reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission to help States improve the administration and the security of Federal elections. The most important thing that we can do is that when that vote is cast and that vote is counted accurately, it has to be counted and reported accurately. And that is what we have to do and make sure that there is not even a shred of a thought where a person might think that count is not valid--it is not a valid count. And we have done everything we possibly can to make sure that we have cleared that up. This is not everything that people on both sides of that wanted. Some on our bipartisan committee wanted a lot more, and some didn't want to basically interfere with the States' rights. So we were caught in betwixt and between. We worked back and forth on different things we could. We tried to put the guardrails on that gave guidance, and we think that we came up with a piece of legislation. And when you have every Member I just mentioned all sign on, with the diversity of these memberships--we have almost 20; 20 Senators have been involved, coming equally between Democrats and Republicans, and able to come to an agreement--this is a bill that we should put forward. I was proud to be an original sponsor of both the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and I still believe that we can and we must continue working to protect every American's sacred right to vote. But we also have an obligation to the American people to do the most good that we can right now--right now. The confusing and antiquated language that we have on the books today from the 1887 Electoral Count Act is a real and present danger to our democracy. We can fix that, and that is exactly what we intend to do. The increased threats and attacks we are seeing across the country on poll workers and election volunteers--we can fix that, too. But even more important than the policy provisions contained in these two bills is the fact that we have Democrats and Republicans standing arm in arm proposing commonsense election reforms that can begin to restore Americans' faith in our democracy. That is our solemn commitment and promise. When Benjamin Franklin was asked whether the Constitutional Convention had given us a republic or a monarchy, he famously replied ``A republic, young man, if you can keep it.'' He qualified his answer because he understood a democracy is fragile and can be lost if we are not careful. And while today's introduction is an important step in this process, we do have much work yet to do. I look forward to continuing our bipartisan effort to get this bill to the President's desk as quickly as possible and signed into law. And our journey begins. And with that, I would like to yield to my dear friend from the great State of Maine, Senator Susan Collins.