Joe Manchin

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 108, Nickolas Guertin, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Navy; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today, I can say, out of frustration, out of anger, out of disappointment that our administration is continuing to break the law that we all passed and that President Biden signed, knowing full well what was in it. I am talking about the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA. The reason I am saying this is because, in putting this bill together, at the time that we did, I made sure that everyone involved had to sign off on it. The President, the majority leader, and the Speaker knew exactly what was in the bill and the purpose of the bill. I still believe that the purpose of this bill was done in the right, proper way. I think it was a transformative bill, if we could just stay within the guidelines of how the bill was written. It is not left to interpretation, but they have interpreted. They are trying to, basically, implement a piece of legislation that they couldn't get passed, and I have said this. The purpose of the bill had three purposes. The first on the Inflation Reduction Act was to reduce our debt. We all talked about that. We have $33.8 trillion in debt today, and if everything that we do does not take that into account and we do not think about our children and grandchildren and future generations, what we are leaving them is untenable. Something has to be done. So that piece of legislation had debt reduction in it--debt reduction. It is also based on securing our energy. When the Ukraine war broke out, we were not energy secure. We couldn't help our allies over in Europe, and basically energy was weaponized by Putin. He used it as a weapon, which was very harmful to our allies. Basically, I said this: If you can't help the people who are willing to fight and die for the cause you believe in and we all believe in--the freedoms and democracy that we cherish--then they are not going to be there when you do need them. The third thing was to bring manufacturing back to America, the building blocks that we need. And transportation is a major building block of how we deliver our goods, how we basically take care of our lives, how we secure our own jobs, and how we are able to pay for our own way through this wonderful world of ours, but it also runs our economy. And I still believe the intent and the ability of the IRA to work as we hoped, the level of investment that we have been seeing from the IRA is transformative. We have never seen this fight. People have been predicting us to fall into a recession, if you will, with high inflation, and we have been able to stave that off because we had this piece of legislation that has given us kind of a shot in the arm that nowhere else in the world has had. But here is the problem we are running into. It really, truly seems from my standpoint--because we in my Energy Committee wrote the bill, unknown to most any American for over 3 months before it was introduced, and it was done because of the war in Ukraine. It was done because we were not secure. Let me talk to you about transportation. They want to move to electric vehicles sooner than what we are prepared to do. The building blocks that you need is to basically have total, absolute self-reliance on your transportation mode. Up until this piece of legislation or the intent of the administration, we were able to take care of basically our planes, trains, automobiles and everything in between. We could do that with American ingenuity, manufactured in America or reliable countries. We never had to rely on foreign supply chains that were unreliable, such as China, such as Russia, such as Iran, such as North Korea. But because of the political desires of trying to transform the transportation mode that we weren't able to basically secure ourselves, this is what is happening. If President Biden were still a Member of this body and if he were Senator Biden, I guarantee you, he would be absolutely incensed at what is happening, in any administration, with a piece of legislation that he worked so hard on, that he basically cosigned or signed off on as something he believed in, watching it be completely shredded. And that is what is happening. Since the administration seems to have forgotten, I am going to remind everyone what we agreed to. This was on a phone call that I had with the President, with the Speaker, and with the majority leader at the time before the bill was signed. I said this is a $687 billion bill--$687 billion in revenue--and $384 billion of that bill would be invested in energy security while also improving our environment--energy security. That means we would be producing more energy and be more self-secured than at any time. And right now I can say that it has worked absolutely the way it was intended to. We are producing more energy in this country today than ever before. We are producing more oil and gas, and we are doing it cleaner than anywhere else in the world. And we are producing LNG to help our foreign allies. So we are doing exactly what we intended to do with this piece of legislation. That was $384 billion. Another $64 billion went toward healthcare. We put a $35 cap on insulin; we are allowing Medicare to negotiate; and we have an extension of lower prices with healthcare. With the balance--you have never heard this--we have paid down $239 billion in debt. Now, everything I just told you, you very seldom ever hear from the administration or really from the President himself, speaking about what this bill, all included, does. You don't hear him speaking about we paid down $237 billion, in the most trying times that we have had, the most deficit that we have ever carried before. We should be proud of that; that for the first time since 1997, we have a piece that was directed--almost one-third of that bill--to pay down debt for our future generations. The IRA did that. You have never heard it mentioned. Also, what the IRA did and what we intended for it to do was basically give us the energy that we need today, making sure we are producing the fossil fuel in the best, cleanest fashion, using all the modern technology. And I have always said this: You cannot eliminate your way to a cleaner environment. I know my environmental friends on the far left are thinking, Please, don't drill anymore--no more oil, no more gas, no more coal. Well, that is not how the world works. It is called global climate, and you can innovate through technology, but you are not just going to tell people to eliminate something. That is what this bill does. We are producing more energy than ever before, and we are doing it cleaner and with more technology. So we are producing the energy that we have to have to be energy-secure today while we are investing in the energy that we would like to have carbon-free in the future. We are doing both. That is what is creating all of this excitement and investment from around the world. Also, the purpose was to bring manufacturing back to the United States, to secure the manufacturing that we need that we allowed to leave 30 years or more ago and to bring it back home. Now they are trying to change that to meet the radical climate change that basically is going to harm the country and still be able to help countries that we know are unreliable. This becomes more and more obvious to me every day. It is frustrating to read the law and know that they are knowingly violating it. That is what they are doing. I would hope that the President of the United States, if he is watching or listening to me--bring your team in and ask them how they can basically neglect the way the bill was written and the numbers that we put in the bill and the definitions we put in the bill of what was going to be not left to interpretation and how it goes to different Agencies, whether it be DOE and back up to Treasury, to basically find ways that they can maneuver and work around this. Transportation is fundamental to our economy. Think about this. I have been sitting here long enough and listening and watching different proposals. At one time, $60, $70, $80 billion was going to be recommended, and we were going to build charging stations around the country. I said: Let me make sure I understand how history works. I said: I remember reading the history books on when the Model T was basically brought onto a mass assembly line, that the average person could own, and they were going to build cars for the American family. I don't remember the Federal Government stepping up and building filling stations. This is a capitalist society we live in. The market meets the demands. It always has and always will. But this administration was concerned that the market wouldn't meet it, so we had to throw Federal dollars at it, which I was totally opposed to. We have cut that down drastically because the market has always met the demands of a capitalist society. That is what we believe in. You either believe in it or you don't. That was done, and I couldn't believe that, and I said: I don't remember us building any filling stations. But, again, I don't remember basically, during the greatest Depression the world has ever seen--the 1930s--that FDR ever sent a check to anybody. My grandparents never received any checks. My grandfather received an opportunity to find a job to take care of the kids--my dad and them--but he never got a check. But we thought we had to. So you can look back on this and find out how better off we are because of some of the changes we have made into the country that we are today. I think that is what we have to do. I remember waiting in gas lines in 1974. I had to wait to buy gas to go to work every other day, depending on your license plate's last number. There were so many different ways you could. Then we started trying to find different ways that we could maybe buy in bulk and be able to use that during times when we couldn't buy gas. I do not intend to stand in line and wait for a battery or a battery component for me to drive my vehicle if I am forced to by an EV car. And that is what we are doing. We are almost bribing American citizens to buy EVs. The car companies in America, the big three, were so committed that they had to have $7,500 in credit. Now, here is General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler that have to have this money coming from the Federal Treasury for them to be able to make their market plan. That is their business plan. I mean, that makes no sense to me at all because I have watched the automobile industry over the years. I love automobiles, and I love what they do and how they market them. Basically, when they have an oversupply, they use incentives for you and me to want to go buy them. They give you discounts. They give you low interest rates or no rates in interest. They do everything they can. But, here, they needed to have the Federal Government entice you to buy a vehicle that maybe you don't want, that maybe you are not ready for. And I said: Well, fine. If that is the direction we have to go, then don't you think we should get something for it? So that is when I made sure that $3,750--$3,750--would be basically granted as part of the discount if--if--you basically sourced the critical minerals from North America or free-trade agreement countries or allies of ours, not from foreign supply chains that we believe are basically unreliable. It makes no sense for us to be fighting over whether to get China out of our supply chains. The bottom line is to have them controlling our building blocks, how we build our batteries, where they come from, the anodes and cathodes and all the critical minerals in the processing. Let me just show you. Basically, when we wrote the bill, we put strict, tough, but achievable standards in the IRA to ensure that China and other nations that don't share our values don't benefit off the backs of American taxpayers. I do not believe the United States of America and the citizens of our great country and the hard-earned tax dollars they are paying to our Treasury should be used to benefit another nation that could use them against us. We were very, very clear on that. If you look at the chart right here, you can just see what they have done. Everything on the left here shows, by 2023, 40 percent of the minerals must be extracted or processed in the United States or in free-trade agreement countries or recycled in North America. This is written in the bill, this 40 percent. Guess what. They cut that in half, to 20 percent, arbitrarily by basically saying that these are temporary rules; they are not permanent rules. This is what we are dealing with. This was in the bill all the way down so that we would not have to rely on sourcing requirements from countries that we couldn't rely on if they wanted to hold us hostage. It goes clear down, all the way through. In 2024, 50 percent had to. They cut every one of them in half--every one of them arbitrarily in half. I would like for the President of the United States to see this, and I would be happy to make this presentation to him. I want his administration to look at this and for the Treasury Department--from Janet Yellen--to try to explain to the President and explain to the American people why you could arbitrarily cut in half the intentions of the bill and what you think that you can do, because we cannot meet the demands in America. With all of this investment coming back to our country, they can't do it quick enough because of their political agenda to get more EV cars out the door. That is it. That is the only reason. It is not for securing, basically, this manufacturing back to America quicker. It is not to get off the reliance that we have on unreliable foreign supply chains. It is basically to meet a political agenda. The other $3,750 was supposed to be directed for production, for producing the anodes and cathodes. This is what we are dealing with continuously here. These are the minerals that were extracted or processed in U.S. free- trade agreement countries or recycled in North America, according to Treasury's proposed rules. That is what they want to do. This is what the IRA says. It is in the law. This is the bill that the Presiding Officer and I and a lot of people voted for, and we have explained to them: Follow the law. If you don't follow the law, then you are breaking the law. I guarantee you that then-Senator Biden and now-President Biden would be totally outraged--totally outraged--at this. They are also distorting the law to make it easier to qualify for tax credits by pretending that battery component manufacturing is the same as critical minerals processing. What I mean by that is, you extract the critical minerals wherever they may be and in whatever part of our country. That means that we have to do our permitting reforms so that we can start extracting in the United States the large deposits that we have that we haven't been able to get to and those in other countries, such as Canada, North America, and Australia, which are free-trade agreement countries--start processing them, taking them out, and getting them ready to go to manufacturing. They are now defining ``manufacturing'' as part of the processing process. That was never ever part of the law, and they know that. The fake free-trade agreements, including with Indonesia, which is totally controlled by China, make them say: We can go to Indonesia and do business with them and use their critical minerals for processing and manufacturing and say it meets the qualifications. It does not. That is not a free-trade agreement country. It is absolutely controlled by China. Then we have other battery companies, such as CATL, where basically Ford is going to pay 12 percent for 10 years, a 12-percent royalty for the technology, without having the ability to create their own technology or it will basically reverse the technology that was stolen from America. It makes no sense to me at all. And they want the U.S. Treasury tax dollars--the taxpayers of America to be giving a 12-percent royalty to China. It makes no sense, none at all. They did it again last week with the proposed rules on foreign entities of concern, delaying deadlines we wrote right into the IRA that were intended to remove China completely from our battery supply chains. To quote from the IRA, the consumer EV tax credit does not apply to ``any vehicle placed in service after December 31, 2024.'' So I want you to look at this chart here. This is in the bill. This is how it was written from the IRA: The consumer EV tax credit does not apply to ``any vehicle placed in service after December 31, 2024, with respect to which any of the applicable critical minerals contained in the battery of such vehicle were extracted, processed, or recycled by a foreign entity of concern.'' Basically, in the bipartisan inflation bill that we passed, we identified--and it was written into law--those countries of concern, foreign countries of concern. We wrote that into the law--China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Then, if you see here, this is what was written into law as the deadline in the Inflation Reduction Act--no extraction or processing of critical minerals by Chinese entities or other foreign entities of concern after December 31, 2024. Look now at what the deadline is in the proposed Treasury rules. These are proposed Treasury rules. They want to change that to 2026 or later--2026 or later. And this is written into the law. This is the code: no battery manufacturing by Chinese entities or other foreign entities of concern--December 31, 2023. We are coming up on that deadline. Look at what they did over here: 2026 or later. That is for the anodes or cathodes, which are the positive-negatives of batteries. That is what they want to do to meet their political agenda, not to meet, basically, the enticing manufacturing know-how that we have in America to get us up and running. These investments are coming because of that. But when you strike this out and basically lengthen it to these timetables or later, this could go clear through the cycle of the bill, 2032. So do you think that then-Senator Biden would not have been incensed to see what was done in clear view, plain view, by what any administration was doing to his bill or a bill that he supported or a bill that he voted for and what is happening to it now? I don't think so. The credit is also not applied to any vehicle placed in service, as I said, after December 2023 with respect to which any of the components contained in the battery of such vehicle are manufactured or assembled by a foreign entity of concern. China, along with Russia, Iran, and North Korea, is listed in the law as a foreign entity of concern. It is listed. They are spelled out. It wasn't like you had to say: Well, we are not sure what the interpretation of that means. What is a ``foreign entity of concern''? We spelled it out. It is because they are willing to weaponize their control of supply chains against the United States and our allies. Russia has already done that with Ukraine and all of our allies in Europe. China, I am sure, is doing the same thing with critical minerals that they know we have to have for the building blocks that we use every day--computers, chips--for everything we need. But now the IRS is proposing temporary exemptions from the end of 2026 to allow batteries containing Chinese minerals to qualify for years longer than the law allows, as the charts show. It completely violates the law. I see it, and I am sure many of my colleagues do too. Yet this administration is moving forward. I hope the President sees it. I hope he asks for an accounting from his people who are interpreting and implementing it from the Treasury Department and DOE and from his own people on his environmental council within his office. The IRA clearly set deadlines in 2023 and 2024, not at the end of 2026. Can anyone at the IRS read? Is it that difficult to understand that the IRA clearly set deadlines of 2023 and 2024, not at the end of 2026 or later? So it is another 3 years of American taxpayers truly getting screwed over by the administration. It is another 3 years of China and other foreign nations reaching deeper into and controlling more of our electric vehicle battery supply chains. This will put America another 3 years behind. This loophole means that automakers will not be required to know whether Chinese critical minerals are actually in a given battery until 2027. They won't even report it. They won't even know where it is coming from. It puts all of our investments that we have coming to the country at a critical disadvantage. If they can undercut and basically flood the market with lower prices, it makes it very difficult for our own manufacturers in the United States of America to be able to find the footing and the support they are going to need to make sure the batteries and components are made right here in America and to make sure the critical minerals are coming from countries that have supply chains we can rely on. I ask you: What is the point of the IRA with loopholes like this? What is the point of passing a law that the lawmakers can just throw their hands up and say: Well, here is a $7,500 tax credit that taxpayers are paying for. This is where your tax dollars are going, and we don't even know where the batteries came from--whether it is China, Indonesia, or anywhere else. Worse yet, the IRS, under this administration, seems to have adopted a new legal strategy to avoid any accountability from the courts or Congress. I want you to hear this. They have, basically, a new legal strategy to avoid accountability by issuing what they call proposed rules. A proposed rule means that you are working diligently to get the permanent rules in place. If you can't get them in place, then nothing should go out. There shouldn't be any credits. There shouldn't be any of these incentives until you actually get your act together. Not only do they not get them together, but they said they can't even come close to getting them together before 2026, when the law says 2023 and 2024 in different categories. And they say it might even be later than that. That is what they are using. That is the gimmick. That is the legal strategy to, basically, usurp the law. Then the IRS can break the law, implement it in a way in which it was passed, and possibly avoid any judicial review. They are trying to push into the market, quicker than what we can basically produce and rely on ourselves, EVs. That is the bottom line. Car companies have changed and done that to put themselves in a position where, without the credits and without the incentives from the American taxpayers, who are giving them money for the cars, they think it is going to be actually destroying their business plan. This is wrong. This is not America. This is not capitalism as we know it. This is not the market-driven performance that we have seen over our lifetimes. It is absolutely ridiculous and not the way the government and this country should operate. I intend to hold the IRS accountable. I will support anyone who attempts a legal challenge to these proposed rules. If you have been damaged by what they are doing, and it is basically putting you in jeopardy of not having your market shares, not being able to get your product to market quick enough, and basically China is overrunning you with lower prices because they are keeping you out of the market, then you should sue the Federal Government--the Treasury--and I will do an amicus brief behind it because they are breaking the law. Although we can't normally do a Congressional Review Act resolution for proposed rules--they know that. That is their strategy: We will just do proposed rules. That gives us all of the flexibility that we need. This situation is unique. Credits are being awarded as if proposed rules were final. That is what they are doing. That has never been how we have operated. Then-Senator Biden knew exactly, and he knows it now, and I am hoping he gets involved and stops this ridiculousness by some of his administration and some of the heads of his Agencies. The Congressional Review Act should apply here. Xi Jinping has already shown that he will use critical minerals as leverage to put Americans and the free world at risk with new restrictions on exports of several critical minerals. I would expect that from Xi Jinping and China. What I never could have expected was our own government to give up so easily and continue to let foreign nations control our Nation's transportation. The administration is breaking our promise to the American people that this bill will reduce our debt. These proposed rules are breaking the law and blowing past the CBO cost estimate. The biggest mistake that we made--the biggest mistake that I made--was not putting a cap on the money. If you want to know how we have accumulated $33.8 trillion of debt so quickly, it is that, when we pass a piece of legislation and there is a 10-year period on that, the CBO scores it. We have to find pay-fors. We want to show that we are prudent, that we are paying for things. How can you accumulate this? I came here in 2010. The debt was at $13 trillion. We are now at $34 trillion. How can you accumulate that much debt that quick if you are paying for things? Let's just quit kidding ourselves. The bottom line is this. They put a piece of legislation. The CBO scores it. It becomes very popular. So we have 10 years of spending authority. We run out of money in 3 or 4 years. Guess what happens. Rather than coming back to the legislature--because it was such a successful program--and expanding upon that and making sure that we have new appropriations and new ways to pay for the additional services that people want, what happens then? We debt-finance it. It is basically added to the debt for the next 6 years, if you run out of money in 4. That is what is happening, and no one seems to really care about that. I need my Republican colleagues, I need my Democratic colleagues and everyone to be serious. The debt we have now, we have accumulated it. If we do two things, do this: Stop. Stop this craziness of allowing pieces of legislation to have a CBO score. Make it stop when the money runs out. If the money runs out in 4 years, then the spending authority should run out in 4 years. Even though we intended for it to last 10, it didn't. Don't wait until the next party or the next political movement changes it. Do it ourselves so we never get ourselves in this deficit spending and keep accumulating more debt. The second thing, proposed rules--don't let temporary rules basically rule the day. Don't let any credit score out the door, don't let any incentives take effect until you have permanent rules in place. Then the Treasury would do its job on time. We are not holding anybody accountable whatsoever, and that is what we need to do. Let me be clear. There is no question that the IRA is bringing more investment to this country than ever before, and it will work the way it was intended to work. Electric vehicle and battery makers announced $52 billion in investments in North American supply chains before the IRS started loosening rules. It was working. It didn't need all this. They are placating--just a few players here--the large carmakers that basically want this advantage. They want it to be quicker because they put so much investment into electric vehicles, and we can't supply them. They got way ahead of their skis, and they want the taxpayers of America to pull them out. That is it in a nutshell. Numbers like this show that breaking the law doesn't get us more investment. It just makes the cost go up for American taxpayers, and it also keeps jobs in China, not bring them back to America. This administration knows the deal they made, and the intent of the IRA was to secure our energy, reduce our debt, and rebuild our critical supply chain. They are attacking all three of those principles. You have never heard about the good that the bill did and the reason and the purpose of the bill: reduce our debt--reduce our debt; secure energy--we are doing that; and, basically, rebuild our critical supply chains so that they are reliable and not dependent on foreign supply chains that, basically, are unreliable. I am going to do everything in my power to hold them accountable, protect the American taxpayers, and secure energy supply chains. This is something we all should be concerned about. I say that because of this: If we work hard, and we pass a piece of legislation, and we have an understanding that we all have agreed to on what a bill does, then every Agency should adhere to the intent of the legislation. They should not be able to look for loopholes and find loopholes and even write them in when there are no loopholes. But they are doing that, not just the Democrat administration or Republicans. They have all done this. You can't accumulate $33 trillion of debt or an additional $20 trillion of debt in 12 years, 13 years. You can't do that unless something is critically wrong. We have been able to show it. We have seen this, and it has to stop. So I am asking the President: Please, get involved, Mr. President. Hold your Agencies to the letter of the law the way you would if you were still a Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN

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

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions: S. Res. 430, S. Res. 431, and S. Res. 432.

Mr. MANCHIN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. MANCHIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I have 10 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, October 26; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 198, H.R. 4366, as provided under the order of October 24; further, that if Senator Paul makes a motion to discharge S.J. Res. 44 from the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senate vote on the motion at 11:30 a.m.; further, that if the motion to discharge is not agreed to, the Senate vote on the Braun amendment No. 1182 to H.R. 4366; finally, that upon disposition of the Braun amendment, the Senate move to consideration of S.J. Res. 42; that there be up to 30 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; and that following the use or yielding back of time, the joint resolution be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the joint resolution.

Mr. MANCHIN

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

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, on October 17, 2023, in a speech offered by Mr. Cotton on the Senate floor, Mr. Cotton erroneously indicated that I was not a cosponsor to S. 3041, a bill to reinstate certain sanctions imposed with respect to Iran. Prior to Mr. Cotton's speech on October 17, 2023, I requested to be added as a cosponsor to S. 3041 and was added on that same day. Please let the Congressional Record reflect this.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Schumer for working with us to come to this conclusion and bring all of us together. I appreciate it very much. I appreciate Senator McConnell for being a part of this and joining this bipartisan effort and, of course, my dear friend Senator Mitt Romney, who has been a part of all of these efforts that we have worked on together and in putting together this small token of our appreciation for what we have been able to do. I want to thank Senator Fetterman also. Senator Fetterman and I have had many conversations, and he has worked with me to find a solution. I appreciate that very much. It has truly been a team effort. You know, for 234 years, every Senator who has had the honor of serving in this distinguished body has assumed that there were some basic written rules of decorum and conduct and civility, one of which was a dress code. The presumed dress code was pretty simple. The male Senators were required to wear a coat, tie, and slacks or other long pants while on the floor of the Senate to show the respect that we had for our constituents back home. Just after a week ago, we learned that there were not, in fact, any written rules about the Senators as to what they could and could not wear on the floor. So Senator Romney and I got together, and we thought maybe it is time that we finally codified something that has been precedent, a rule, for 234 years. We drafted this simple, two-page resolution that will put all of that to bed once and for all by just codifying a longstanding practice into a Senate rule which makes it very clear for the Sergeant at Arms to be able to enforce. I want to thank Senator Romney for working, as always, in a bipartisan way on so many endeavors. This is just as important, maybe, as any of them we have ever done. With that, I turn it over and yield to my good friend Senator Romney.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. MANCHIN. First of all, I want to take time for recognizing a gentleman who has given 10 years of service being our nuclear expert on the Senate Energy Committee, Rory Stanley. He is leaving us, but he is not going far. He is going to the Department of Energy's Department of Nuclear Energy. Rory, thank you for the service you have given us. We appreciate it very much.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendment sponsored by my friends and colleagues, Senators Cruz, Fetterman, Ernst, and myself. Let me just say about this--this is something that we own. The people of America own the SPR. It is ours. We don't own the oil from the private sector, unless we want to nationalize everything. I don't think we do. With that being said, I appreciate my good friend and colleague from Connecticut, and I am happy to work on all of the things that we are talking about here. What we have in front of us right now is the ability to finally say that the strategic oil reserves that the people of the United States own will not be compromised, especially by people who don't have our same values and would use it against us. We have seen the horrible effects of the Ukraine war when Putin basically weaponized energy. He weaponized oil. We can't allow that to happen. Here is the other thing about it: Following Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the United States ramped up production and exports to help meet global demand that had been devastating to the world. China, on the other hand, stockpiled oil and held back refinery production. While China was stockpiling, one of its state-owned companies purchased over 1.4 million barrels from the United States of America, the people of our great country, from our own stock reserves. That is what we are trying to stop. I am happy to work on all the other things. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have something in front of us right now that can stop this outrageous, basically raiding of our own stock supplies. So I really, really urge the adoption of this amendment. I will tell you this: This amendment has tremendous and bipartisan support in Congress. We have over 20 bipartisan Senators who support us. In the House, it passed unanimously--unanimously--Democrats and Republicans. So please don't mess up our bipartisan record right now. Please vote to support this amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 926

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the MVP. They call it the Mountain Valley Pipeline; I call it the most valuable pipeline we have to offer energy to the people of America. It has been under tow for a long time. I brought some illustrations of what we are going through because my good friend from Virginia, the Senator from Virginia who just spoke--and we respectfully disagree on this--this is something we have worked on for an awful long time. First, I want to make sure everybody understands that you cannot get permission to move forward on a pipeline, transmission line, anything you want in this country, unless there is a market for it. You have to show that there is a person or a group or a market that this product-- whether it is electricity on transmission lines or gas in the pipelines or oil or whatever, there has to be a market. You can't go from here to there and try to build a market. So there has to be a need. There has to be a need. If there is going to be a need in the market, then it starts proceeding, and then it goes through the process. This was started over 8 years ago, going through that process. I don't think there is another permit that has ever been more scrutinized--or a request for a permit--than this Mountain Valley Pipeline. It is the Mountain Valley Pipeline. We will call it the MVP. FERC has approved the MVP three times--not one time, three times--basically, over 8 years of review. It started with the Obama administration, went through the Trump administration, and now into the Biden administration. And we are as desperate for the fuel today as we are. Let's look at the people and basically where the need is. This pipeline is 42 inches. It takes the most oil shale. First of all, it goes into an area that basically is deprived of natural resources themselves. Let me tell you some of the areas we are going to be able to serve in a direct and indirect way. Our military bases in North Carolina and South Carolina are in desperate need. There was another pipeline coming out of the same shale of gas called the Atlantic Coast Pipeline that went on for years. It went on for years and was finally scrubbed because the price got so exorbitant that there was no way to continue, and they could not get through the litigation that went on for years. After about $6 or $7 billion, Dominion Energy basically pulled the plug on it. They couldn't do it. So when they tell you that everything is fine and they did all this, wherever there were problems, they are sent back. If someone doesn't like this or that, they send it back. They went through it three times. Now, when FERC goes through it, it is a pretty arduous process. They look into everything. And if the courts basically say look at this, then they do that, and they correct that and send it back, and they find something else. Wouldn't you think that they would see it all the first time if they saw any problems whatsoever that needed corrected? So, as I said, it has been thoroughly vetted for 8 years by the Obama and Trump and Biden administrations, and eight NEPA reviews. Anyone who has gone through any NEPA review knows how difficult that can be. Eight times NEPA has reviewed this. There are six environmental impact studies. The environmental impact studies can go from 1 to 3 years. Six times, it went back to them. So when anyone thinks this has not been scrutinized and has not basically gone through every Agency that it was required to go through and had every review done that possibly could be done, they would be mistaken, if you see just the outline of things. Three rounds of permitting were approved by FERC. They approved all of them. It still wasn't good enough. It still wasn't good enough. It went through the courts and back it came. It went through the courts and back it came. The Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife, they all went through it. Everybody had a good look at this thing. Now we have a situation where if you looked at Winter Storm Elliott in December of 2022, the Carolinas have the highest natural gas prices in the country--$50 to $60 per million Btu--$50 to $60 dollars. Normally, in the Appalachian Basin, that is anywhere from $2.50 to $6 dollars to where it stays. But because they did not have the product and the demand was so high, the people are getting gouged. You tell me of an average family or a hard-working family who can afford $50 or $60 per million Btu. It is 10 times the normal rate. So is there a need? Absolutely, there is a need. Is there basically a need for pricing that is stabilized and helps people get through tough times and helps them take care of their family and home and also the job they work in? Absolutely. So you have that. Duke Energy says the MVP will save 4.5 million customers $3 billion over 25 years. Duke Energy is a very large power company within North Carolina, and they are saying that we don't have that product. We need this product. They were counting on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to get that product. That didn't happen. Now we are counting on MVP. But guess who gets gouged? Everybody talks about big business and companies and this and that. But 4.5 million customers--that is who is going to pay the price. When you talk about price, let's talk about this. This line, when they started on this pipeline, there was an approximate cost of $3.5 billion to build it. We are over $6.6 billion now. Who do you think is going to pay that price? It is going to be paid by the customers who need the product. They are paying $50 to $60 per million Btu, and they should be paying $4 to $6, in that range there, and I guarantee you the savings would be tremendously supportive to their families. So as we have talked, we had a lot going on here, a lot of different conversations. There is a new Summit View Business Park in Franklin County in southwest Virginia. It is struggling to attract businesses to that park that would create opportunities and jobs for the hard-working people in southwest Virginia, just like all of West Virginia. They cannot attract or furnish the energy at the plant that the park needs to attract the different industries that would like to come. So for economic development, just having a job, taking care of your family, and living in beautiful southwest Virginia, they don't have that opportunity now. In North Carolina, Cumberland County and Fayette have lost out on $1 billion of investment because the businesses cannot afford the high price of gas. And we have an abundance of it in West Virginia and Pennsylvania and coming out of the eastern part of Ohio. We are willing to share it and put it in the market and keep the prices where they should be--affordable. So the review process which has been incredibly thorough and rigorous with eight NEPA reviews, six environmental impact statements, two environmental assessments, three rounds of review by the same Federal Agencies--FERC, Fish and Wildlife, Forest Service, and BLM--and that is a mighty lift in itself. It has been before the court numerous times-- nine times, to be exact--nine times before the courts. When does it stop? When does it stop? The cost has ballooned, as I said, and doubled in price, and here we are. Now, you would think that we are just trying to get this line started. It is going to be 303 miles. But guess what: 283 miles are already built. It is already laid in the ground. Now, they said there have been violations because there is sedimentation going on, and they didn't go back and reseed. They weren't allowed to because of the court actions that prohibited them from getting back on the property. It is a catch-22. They could not reclaim what they wanted to reclaim because they were taken to court and stopped, and then they were brought to task again for not reclaiming it. If we pass this piece of legislation, within 6 months this line will be in production. We only have 20 miles to go. That would put 2,500 people to work--2,500 people to work. About $40 to $50 million annually will be coming to the States of West Virginia and some to Virginia, as it passes through. There is about $200 to $250 million that will go to individuals who own their gas rights that are being sold and put into the line. That is every year. That is tremendous support for the poorest parts of our country. In the poorest parts of our country, the people are finally able to sell what they own, their resources, and to help stabilize the prices or help all people in the States that are affected. There is $1.2 billion in additional investment to complete the project. We have tried everything humanly possible. We really have. I just couldn't believe that we couldn't get this to work after what happened to the previous lines they were trying to build to bring product to the marketplace. So there is all different people who are upset. I understand that. My good friend from Virginia, my Senate friend--we were co-Governors together and our families are very close. This doesn't affect our relationship, our friendship, and it doesn't affect, basically, us fighting for many of the same causes. But it brings a healthy discussion: Are we going to move forward in this country? Are we going to have permit reform? Are we going to be able to build the necessary transmission that it takes? I am talking about powerlines. They are the same. If anything, it takes longer for a powerline, for pipelines. Everything is being stopped now. It is not that they are protesting the pipe itself. They are protesting basically the product in the pipe, the gas. Now, there is a transition going on in energy throughout the country--a transition throughout the world, to a certain extent--but we still cannot run our country without the gas, without the oil, without the coal that we need for dispatch. That means 24/7. Just gas and coal itself is over 60 percent of the energy we use. In this system here, right where we are in this beautiful Capitol, this is a PJM system, which they call it, and it is basically what this is all about. It is basically ``all of the above.'' It is wind, solar. It is coal. It is gas. It is everything that gives the reliability that, when you turn that switch on, you are going to have lights. When you turn the heat on, you are going to be warm. When you turn this air conditioner on, you are going to have comfort. When you cook your food, you are going to be able to do it. That is what we are able to do in America. And as that transitions, there will be a transition into new technology that will replace an awful lot of what we are talking about. But we are a long way away from that, and to deprive people who need this for their livelihood, to deprive them and make them pay 10 times more for a product that is abundant--it would be different if the Good Lord didn't give us the resources. But it is a shame and a sin that we don't use the resources we have to help all humankind. That is what we are talking about. And if you look at the process we have just gone through and where we are right now and what we embark on this evening, we will probably be here most of the night, I would say, going through the amendments. Everybody has to have their say. I agree. But we have come to the reality and we have been here long enough understanding that this piece of legislation that we have before us has to pass. The Mountain Valley Pipeline is in that piece of legislation. It still has some review processes. We are not asking for that. We are asking, basically, that the things that have been done multiple times proceed on--that it proceeds on. That is all we are asking for. But with that, when you think about 3 or 4 months ago, we started talking seriously about the debt ceiling. We have got to address the debt ceiling. That is our responsibility to address it and make sure the full faith and credit of this country and the value of us having the reserve currency of the world is stable--that it is stable. If we pass an amendment or any amendment--this amendment my dear friend is going to introduce or any amendment--we will default. It is as simple as that. We will default. Now, it would be different if this had not gone through 8 years of scrutiny, in court nine times, been looked at any way and every way, shape, and form. That would be a different thing--if no one has ever seen anything, if we are trying to slide something through. That is not the case here. No one can accuse that of happening. So we are in the process right now of trying to move forward in this country to get the energy that we need, that we have. It is unbelievable to me when the people were thinking sometime: Well, maybe we will have Iran produce more oil. Maybe we will have Venezuela produce more. We have it in our backyard, and we can't produce it ourselves? We want someone else to do the work that we won't do for ourselves? That is ridiculous. You can't lead that way. You can't have the rest of the world looking at you as the superpower of the world that won't do for yourself because you don't like something. We found ways through innovation, not elimination, to do it better. And we can help the rest of the world, and we can help the global climate because of this if we work together. But I can assure you that what we have today before us is a product that is going to help an awful lot of people--4.5 million just in one State that depends on this product to give them some relief and are paying the highest prices. They are already at the highest prices in the country except for the Northeast. So I would say there is so much at risk right now. If we move forward and we pass this amendment that would go on this bill, that would have to go back to the House with us not defaulting. We cannot take that risk. I would ask my colleagues--all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--instead of what we are doing, consider basically the value that this product brings. Consider also the reviews this product has gone through, and I think you will find it more than adequate and more than comforting that, basically, we have a product that is going to do an awful lot of good for America, an awful lot of good for humankind in the States. And, also, this will backfill and also help us toward where we are sending LNG to our allies around the world. There are so many benefits from 2 billion cubic feet a day--2 billion. Two billion cubic feet a day will go through this line, helping America to be energy independent. So I encourage all of my colleagues to vote respectfully against the amendment that will be offered to strip this out of the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I also rise in opposition. For eight years--eight years--and three administrations this project has been under review. Eight times NEPA--eight times of NEPA reviews. Three times through every Agency. This has been reviewed more than anything in the United States of America. The people in this eastern, southeastern part of the country, especially in the Carolinas, are paying sometimes 10 times more for gas because of the shortages during severe weather. This is critical for the people of this country. If you believe in energy security, if you believe in energy independence, and you believe that we should be the superpower of the world, this helps us do that. It puts more product in the market than anything that we have available. This will be up and running in 6 months--6 months. Already, 293 miles are already built. We only have 20 more miles to go to finish it. It is time to finish this project. Please vote no on this, an amendment by my friend, who I respectfully disagree with. Vote on Amendment No. 101

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my friend from Oklahoma, Senator James Lankford, for continuing the Senate's long tradition of delivering President George Washington's Farewell Address earlier this week. It is an annual reminder of what is great about America, but it is eerie how his warnings ring true today, even though it was delivered some 227 years ago. President Washington warned of the dangers of putting the will of the political party ahead of the will of the Nation. He also warned against the accumulation of debt and encouraged us to cherish public credit as a very important source of strength and security. My personal relationship with this and understanding is from my grandfather, affectionately known as ``Papa,'' ``Papa Joe,'' who would always say: Joe, if you have unmanaged debt, you will make cowardly decisions of how you live your life. Yet here we are today, watching party politics and out-of-control spending threaten the very foundation of our great Nation. This is exactly what George Washington was talking about, and he was so right 227 years ago as to what is so wrong with Washington today and what the American people are really sick and tired of having go on. The American people have had enough of the accounting gimmicks and budgetary games that we play in Congress, and it has got to stop. I would venture to say that there are very few accountants--professionals in this field and accounting professionals, who have expertise--who could make any sense out of our scoring and how we expense--the scoring and expensing--what we think it will cost and what it actually does, and how they transfer those back and forth. It is almost unbelievable. The American people deserve the truth, and every Republican and every Democrat has the responsibility to tell them the truth. So let's start with the facts. Fact No. 1, in 2013, Federal spending was less than $3.5 trillion. Today, it is more than $6.2 trillion. In 10 short years--less than 10-- that is an 80-percent increase. We have increased our expenses voluntarily by $2.8 trillion in a very short time. It is hard to believe. It truly is. Fact No. 2, last year's total revenues were $4.9 trillion--4.9--which left us with a deficit of $1.4 trillion. No matter what anyone says, this is from the CBO. These are our scoring people. Fact No. 3, we have been spending more than we bring in. Think about this. All of us, think about it. We have been spending more than we bring in in our government every year for the past 21 years--every year--and the debt that has resulted is absolutely crippling. Think about 21 years. How many people could do that? How many citizens? How many of your constituents or my constituents? In West Virginia, New Mexico, Texas, or wherever they may live, how many could basically run a deficit that long and still have a home, have a family, or be functioning in any way, shape, or form? Most of us couldn't even make it 21 days, OK? You have got to balance things out and make adjustments. I have never seen anything like it. Basically, I guess, if you have a printing press, you don't have to worry. Fact No. 4, the years of fiscal irresponsibility have brought us to the crisis that we face today. Our debt, as we stand here and speak to you today, is $31.46 trillion--that is our public debt--which equals over $94,000 per every man, woman, and child in West Virginia and in the United States and in New Mexico and in Texas and everywhere else-- $94,000 per person in our great country. This year, we are going to spend more than $600 billion--$600 billion--just on debt, just on basically servicing the debt of the Nation. That is like getting a credit card and your owing $5,000 on your credit card, but you have to pay $340 just in interest that month. All you can do is pay the interest. You can't even touch the principal because you can barely pay the interest. Think about this. Just the interest on our debt is more than $5,000 per household in America--$5,000 if everyone fulfilled his obligation, I guess. How can anyone, really, with a straight face deny that we have a problem--how can any of us no matter what part of the political spectrum we come from? It doesn't have to be this way, and the American people deserve better than this. Our problem really isn't a Republican problem or a Democratic problem. It is an American problem. It truly is for every American. We have a problem, and only as we start putting our country first and acting as Americans can we fix it. There can't be this total political division: It is not my fault; it is your fault or it is their fault and vice versa--depending on where you are standing, I guess, in the body here and what political identity you have to you. President Trump had it, and the people want to say: Whose fault is it? It is all of our fault. Under President Trump, we added an estimated $7.5 trillion to projected debt levels from legislation and Executive orders, including $4 trillion that was not directly because of COVID-- $7.5 trillion in those 4 years. Under President Biden, we have added more than $5 trillion to the projected debt levels from legislation and Executive orders, including more than $2.5 trillion not related to COVID. So everyone is to blame. We are all at fault. My Democratic friends don't want to say a word about our out-of- control spending and our outright refusing to even talk to Republicans about reasonable and responsible reforms. All we hear about is that we have to have a clean debt ceiling. We are going to pay our debts. We have to pay our sins of the past, but can't we at least sit down and discuss--just discuss: How did we get here so fast, faster than at any time in history? In a 10-year period, how did we accumulate this much debt? Can't we even talk about that and see if there is a pathway forward? My Republican friends refuse to offer any specifics, and some have recklessly threatened default, which is absolutely not on the table and cannot be on the table. It will not happen, I can assure you. We will never solve the problem by having each party running in the opposite direction. We will only be able to change course by coming together, embracing common sense, and finding common ground. Just think of our own lives when we go home and leave these bodies, Congress--when 535 of us go back to our home places and sit down at our kitchen tables, look at our families, and look at where we are financially. Just think about it. It doesn't really have to be this way. They really expect better, and they should be getting better-- every person in America. So, really, what should we do? First and foremost, the President and Congress need to do our jobs right now--no exceptions, no excuses. Now, let me tell you that what I am going to be telling you now is something we have not practiced since I have been here for 12 years. We need to pass a budget on time. Pass a budget on time. That is by September 30. The President will already be over a month behind schedule when he submits his budget next week. It was due on February 6. Now, the dates I am going to give you come out of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. We have a piece of legislation that tells us the guidelines and the timetables that we should use to run this great country of ours. By April 1, the Senate Budget Committee needs to report its budget resolution. By April 15, the House and Senate need to reconcile the differences they may have in their budgets. Then, by September 30, we must approve all spending bills. I am just simply saying we shouldn't go home until we get it done. We really shouldn't. If we don't pass a budget, we, the leaders--from the President all the way down--shouldn't get paid, period. Think about this. The American workers don't get paid if they don't get their jobs done. They don't get paid if they don't work, and neither should any of us. I don't know how ever to make us follow the guidelines. We have a piece of legislation we haven't followed since 1985. The only thing I know is that maybe the money would stop us from not doing our jobs and make us start doing our jobs. That is why, earlier this year, I was proud to reintroduce the No Budget, No Pay Act, with my friend from Indiana, Mike Braun, to hold Members of Congress accountable. We should do our jobs or not get paid. I introduced this commonsense bill with Tom Coburn, my dear friend--God rest his soul-- from Oklahoma. We started this in 2011, when I got here. Tom said: I think it is something you will like, Joe. So I jumped on it with Tom and have been on it ever since. The continuing weaponization of the debt and deficit and the political games that we all play need to stop. They need to stop. While this may seem like common sense to most Americans, it would be a huge accomplishment for Congress if we would just operate in a timely fashion. The savings would be great, and no one would have to bear any cuts just to get it done on time. Talk to the military or talk to anybody about how devastating CRs are--continuing resolutions--and omnibus bills at the end and all of the things that happen. It has been 20 years since we passed a budget on time. We haven't had a real budget at all, even a late one, since 2016--not even a late one since 2016. We haven't had a real budget in 20 years. I don't know how everybody else does it, but I can tell you, if you are out of sync that bad, you had better sit down and work something out. Last year, neither the House nor the Senate Budget Committee even bothered to pass a budget out of committee. Neither even bothered to do one. It is unbelievable. If you are listening at home and this sounds absolutely pathetic and crazy, that is because it is. No one is holding our feet to the fire. We aren't holding our own feet to the fire. It is unacceptable that we run the single largest economic entity in the universe without having a budget in place. Let me tell you: Any household and any business that does not recognize what their income and outgo is will not be in business long. You are not going to be profitable. You will probably be bankrupt as an individual. With 21 years of running deficits as an individual, you can't do it, and as a business, you can't do it. Nobody in this type of an economy and this type of structure of a government can operate and survive. As a Governor, I used to hold weekly--and Governors are responsible because, I think, there are 46 or 48 States that have a balanced budget amendment. That means we, as the chief executive officers in our States, are responsible for balancing the budgets. We would sit down every week like clockwork. My financial people would come to my office every Tuesday afternoon. It was baked in every Tuesday. We would sit down and go over any adjustments that might need to be made, and we would make them. When the financial crisis hit in 2008 and 2009, we were doing it sometimes twice a day to stay ahead of the curve--by not falling into the trap of having a deficit. We had to make tough cuts. We lived with it, and West Virginians came through it, and we were better off financially than we ever were before because we stayed ahead of the curve. Now as a U.S. Senator, I am embarrassed to say that not only are we not living within our means, we don't even want to discuss it and talk about it, what the problems may be. We need to stop digging our heels in and work out our differences. When it comes to dealing with and controlling our spending and lifting the debt ceiling, at least we can talk about it. At least we can agree that we have a problem. At least we can basically maybe come together and find out how did we get to where we got to so quickly. We need to put all of our ideas on the table, just like we did last year with a number of important, bipartisan bills, so that we can pass and we can agree on bipartisan legislation and create long-lasting fiscal accountability. Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Mitch McConnell, Congressperson Kevin McCarthy, and Congressperson Hakeem Jeffries--they need to propose a budget, allow for debate and discussion, and put it up for a vote. This needs to happen. The debt ceiling clock is ticking. We can't afford to wait any longer. We need to serve as true fiduciaries for our country. That is what we are here to do. The projections are that in a few short years, the national debt, as a share of the economy, will be the highest it has ever been in the history of this country. The debt will exceed--will exceed--the prior record of 106 percent of GDP, which we set after World War II. Think about when we had the highest debt ever until now--the highest debt--and what happened to cause that debt. The United States of America entered war on all fronts. We saved the world from fascism. We basically helped rebuild Europe. We have something to show for that. What do we have to show for it now? What do we truly have to show for the debt we have incurred right now? Most everyone uses 2050 as a benchmark. I hear 2050 in so many scenarios for accomplishments in different arenas. Pick whatever you have heard about 2050 that you may fit in, but 2050 has been the high- water mark. But I want to tell you what happens. If we continue down the path that we are on, we will have accumulated by 2050 nearly $130 trillion of public debt. We are at 31.46 right now--$130 trillion. Just to service the interest on the debt--just to service the interest on the debt--will be $5 trillion a year. This is by CBO; this is not me or anybody else coming up and trying to scare the bejesus out of you. This is what these young Americans are going to be facing with their children and grandchildren by 2050. Not only that someone can tell me that this could even be plausible, but think about everyone here. Think about everyone in this great body. Think about your family. Think about your constituents. Our national debt weakens our economy, it weakens our national security, it weakens the trust Americans have in their government, and it weakens our role in the world. It weakens our role in the world. I tell you, my grandfather, again, Papa said: Unmanaged debt--which we have a runaway train right now--unmanaged debt will make cowardly decisions. You will make cowardly decisions. Fortunately, we still have time this year to prevent the catastrophic financial forecast. I am asking all of you to join me in calling for, first, an honest budget without accounting gimmicks and tricks; second, a short-term deal to bring down our out-of-control spending right now, this year; and a plan to deal with our longer term fiscal challenges. The commonsense approach offers the accountability Americans want, the responsibility approach that we need, and the results we deserve. My constituents have begun to ask me: How serious a crisis could we face if we continue to ignore our Nation's debt? I think I have laid out the seriousness of our financial situation if we continue down the path we are on. From President Washington, our Founding Father, 227 years ago to a more modern-day warning from our then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2011, ADM Mike Mullen, at my first Armed Services meeting--he was testifying before the Senate Armed Services. He was asked the question: What is the greatest threat our Nation faces? We thought it was going to be China, Russia, whatever it may be. Without skipping a beat, without missing a word, he said that the debt of our Nation is the greatest, greatest threat we face--the debt of our Nation. Just like the warning of our Founding Father in his Farewell Address, those words are even truer today than they were then. If you love your children, if you love this country, you will stop the madness and start acting reasonably and responsibly to get our government's financial house in order. It is long past due. The partisan politics can wait. There is always time to have arguments and disagreements, but the looming debt crisis cannot--it cannot--basically have the disruption that we have and the discourse and the political toxic atmosphere that we have here. We have got to come together for the sake of our great country. As I close, I want to say may God bless--which He has blessed--this great country and by all means help the United States of America to be even better than what we are today. I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank my good friend, the assistant minority leader from South Dakota, for a very, very good review of exactly where we are. I agree wholeheartedly except for a little bit of the IRA. We might have a little difference of opinion there because I really think it is an energy security bill, and we are all going to work with and together to make sure an ``all of the above'' energy approach is what we are going to take. With that, I want to thank him. I think it was very good. As one Democrat, I agree wholeheartedly, and I would like to work with him on that. I ask unanimous consent that I, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Bennet be permitted to complete our remarks prior to the scheduled votes.

Mr. MANCHIN

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

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to warn against our administration's unrelenting campaign to weaken our energy security, our national security, and our economic security to advance, truly, their environmental and social agenda. The ESG rule that we are going to vote on later today is just another example of how our administration prioritizes a liberal policy agenda over protecting and growing--protecting and growing the retirement accounts of 150 million Americans that will be in jeopardy. Our country is already facing economic uncertainty, record inflation, and increasing energy costs that keep Americans up at night and put a squeeze on their pocketbooks. And we all see it, no matter where you are. Whether it is Georgia or West Virginia, we are feeling the same pain. The Inflation Reduction Act was written with the primary goal in mind--which has not been at all promoted from our administration. The Inflation Reduction Act was intended to be--and it still is--energy security for our Nation. If we as a nation are not energy secure, if we have to depend on foreign supply chains, if we are not able to help our allies in need, we will not remain the superpower of the world, and that is what I was concerned about as we worked on the Inflation Reduction Act. We were going to use all the fossil fuels that we have in America to maintain for the next 10 years energy independence, energy security, and be able to have the supply chain to help our allies, which the EU-- if you want to see the devastating effect of what a war on energy can be, look no further than Ukraine, look no further than the EU, where this happened over there. So we have talked about this, and we wrote a piece of legislation where we could walk and chew gum at the same time. We could basically invest and produce more oil, produce more natural gas, basically build pipelines that carry the products much safer than rails and roads, which we are seeing so much of the devastation happening by rails right now, which should be alarming to all of us--but basically to do it and do it in a much safer way. But when people deny--and any denier of any kind, denying the reality of what is needed today, is dangerous. That is what is happening right now. We have a significant investment in States like mine already that allows us to produce more energy here at home, and that means onshoring our energy supply chains, creating good-paying jobs, helping our economy, and hopefully start working ourselves out of the debt that we have accumulated. The administration should be our partners in this effort. I have always said this. Government should be your partner, not your provider but your partner. It shouldn't make all your decisions, but it should have guardrails on to make good, sound decisions. But when they try to basically infiltrate, such as with the ESG, the environmental-social guidance that this bill intends to do, if you don't weigh that with the geopolitical risks that are being taken around the world today that we are involved in, being the superpower of the world and the defender of freedom and democracy anywhere and everywhere in the world--if we don't acknowledge that and allow just one evaluation, I will guarantee it would make for very unsound decisions that will be very harmful. And again I say, look no further than the EU. The UK has basically thrown all their environmental concerns out the window just to survive. They will burn anything they can get their hands on to keep from freezing, trying to keep their economy going. That is the geopolitical risk when things are topsy-turvy or unraveled, and that is what we are facing. Instead of the administration basically continuing to take care of every opportunity we have to be energy secure, they are twisting the legislative text and cherry-picking the pieces that they want to advance. And I have been very, very critical because I have been watching very carefully what is going on. When you talk about electric vehicles, well, the reason that the Inflation Reduction Act said: Well, if we are going to give $7,500 to advance people buying electric vehicles, then we should get something as a country out of it--that means being totally, totally self- sufficient. We should not have to depend on Russia for 80 percent of the supply of the batteries that run electric vehicles when we never, in the history of the United States of America, relied on any foreign entity or supply chains for us to basically take care of our transportation needs, whether it be automobiles, whether it be trains, planes, whatever. Now, all of a sudden, we want to switch to electric vehicles, knowing that we don't supply the main ingredients of running an electric vehicle, which is the battery. It makes no sense at all. So what we said is, basically, you will get a credit of $3,750 if you secure the critical minerals it takes to produce that battery in North America or countries that have a free-trade agreement with America so we have a dependable, reliable supply chain that wouldn't be choked off by a country such as China, Russia, and whether it be Iran, North Korea, those that don't have any--any--relationship to our values whatsoever and do not wish us well, as I would say. But with that, the other 3,750--that could equal $7,500 for a battery--would be that if the battery is basically manufactured in North America. Now, what is wrong with bringing these types of jobs in manufacturing? If it is going to be our transportation mode, don't you think we ought to have a dependable supply chain? That is all. But, no, the Treasury Department has made a decision without even putting the rules and regulations out yet. They just made it on the whims and wishes of what they want to do, after we passed the piece of legislation we voted for. They basically said: OK. Now, we are going to basically allow people to continue to get the $7,500. Well, how can you do that when you have rules and regulations? But they cherry-picked it. They said: OK. We are going to basically say that if your income is less than 150--150,000 or less--or 300 total, then you can qualify for $7,500 if the car itself is within $55,000 or less for a car and if a truck is less than 80,000. Let me even give you how much more egregious this is, even more than that. They have picked, basically, certain luxury vehicles called SUVs that are not trucks, but they want to classify them as trucks so they can qualify for $7,500 up to 80,000. That is the kind of crap that we are putting up with right now that was not intended. It was never intended in that bill. It was not written in that bill, but that is how it is being interpreted. So this is the thing that gets me upset because I know exactly what was in the bill because we had an awful lot of input in that bill to do the right thing for our country. It was energy security, supply chains here in America that we could count on. And it is just crazy. It is against the law, everything that we chose to do and everything we voted for. The climate goal--I am as concerned as anybody about the climate. Every American, everybody who loves the opportunities in life we have and the quality of life should be concerned but also be a realist. We are not going to be able to be fossil-free for quite some time, but we can sure use our fossil industry in a much cleaner way, and we have done that with the IRA. We are able to basically have carbon capture sequestration that will take us to another whole venue that we have never seen before. We have methane capturing, which has been harmful from the emission of natural gas. We are capturing all of that now. We are doing everything, but that is not good enough for some people on the far left. Oh, they want to go even further. Just shut it down. Stop it. And I have said you cannot eliminate your way to a cleaner environment; you can innovate your way to it. And that is where America is going. With the IRA, we are bringing more investments from around the world than ever before. It is a transformational deal if the administration will just do the rules and regulations and administer the intent of the bill--energy security. That is the only purpose that we have, and we can do that and be able to mature the new technology that makes us even much better with our plan. But you can't eliminate something before you have something that will replace it that the American people depend on every day. And if they are worried about what is happening, I can assure you, I am worried too. China is using more and doubling down on fossil, and India is using more and doubling down on fossil. So if you think they are going to take our lead because we put strangleholds on our economy and our people and make it difficult for us to survive in these very challenging times, I am sorry, that is not happening. This is not what I see the rest of the world doing right now. We can lead them with the innovation technology we are creating right here in America, but leadership takes leadership. We have to be a leader to have leadership. In America, we have the opportunity, and the Inflation Reduction Act gives us a chance to continue to be a leader and the hope of the world. I yield the floor.