Joe Manchin

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following interns in my office: Paul Baier and Harper Katz during the pendency of the month of July.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Cardin and basically of the concerns we have of the War Powers Act and in diminishing the act to the point that we can't really react to the needs that we have around the world in trying to defend ourselves and help our allies. I agree also with Senator Cruz that this pier has not worked, that it has not done what it was intended to do. There have been difficult conditions, and a lot of money has been spent. To go any further is needless. I intend to enter into a resolution--to have a resolution for today-- that basically will do exactly what Senator Cruz has said in his, except we will do it as a sense of the Senate versus invoking the War Powers Act. I will ask for consent and hopefully receive the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. That will be later. We will do it today before we leave.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of a world-class athlete, NBA executive, proud West Virginian, and my very, very dear friend, Jerry West. Often referred to as one of the greatest American basketball players of all time, his career led him to success, joining the greats in stadiums across America, far from his hometown in the Mountain State of West Virginia. Born in Chelyan in 1938, Jerry spent the beginning of his life in a small town in southern West Virginia. He faced many health and family challenges as a young boy, but he spent a lot of time shooting hoops in his backyard. At East Bank High School, he began educating himself on the ins and outs of the sport he loved. Jerry quickly began to excel in the game as the star of his beloved high school team. His jump shot was always his trademark, and it allowed him to stand out even as a young player. Jerry attended West Virginia University, where his already well- developed skills and unyielding consistency were notable characteristics of his playing ability. He consistently averaged double digits in points, rebounds, and assists in almost every major game. One personal story I can tell you: As a 10-year-old boy in 1957, my mother took me--she loved basketball and loved to go to Mountaineer games. She took me to the games as a small boy. She said: Now you watch that little No. 44, that little skinny guy over there. He really can move the ball well. He has very good delivery. I think he might be something. That was my mother. I remember that to this day. In the 1960 Summer Olympics, he won a gold medal as cocaptain of the U.S. men's basketball team. Following his second overall selection in the NBA draft of the same year by the Minneapolis Lakers, Jerry continued to be a powerhouse on the court as the team moved to Los Angeles. Mr. Clutch, as he was known, sank a staggering number of winning baskets from both the field and free throw line. With his signature jump shot extending 16 inches above the rim, his defense, as well as offense, was solid, but often it was his work ethic that was the envy of his teammates. One of the reasons Jerry was so successful was he was never one to back down from a challenge. Like all of us, he experienced setbacks in life which weren't always met with victory. Those are the types of situations where a person's true character will show through. He always believed that hard work, dedication, and perseverance will get you where you need to be, win or lose. With Jerry's leadership on the court, the Lakers continued to rise through the ranks in the subsequent seasons. He racked up a staggering number of notable accomplishments. During his 14 years with the Los Angeles Lakers, he was voted 12 times to the All-NBA first and second teams, elected to the NBA All- Star team 14 times, and continues to hold the NBA record for highest average points in a playoff series. At the time of his retirement as a player in 1974, he had scored more points than any other Los Angeles Laker in franchise history. Jerry capped his momentous career with two enshrinements in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame as a player. He is scheduled to be added a third time this fall as a contributor for his work as an executive and consultant. His innate talent shined through both on and off the court. He continued with the Lakers, coaching for a short time, leading them to three playoffs and a conference final. Shortly after his longstanding presence with the Lakers, he continued as an executive with them. Many looked to him for direction on how the game of basketball should evolve. The franchise continued to bypass others, which quite literally defined the sport throughout the seventies, eighties, and nineties. He set the team up to sign and retain some of the most celebrated names in basketball history, helping him to earn his notoriety with the NBA community that still continues to this day. With the skill to take whatever team he was with to new heights, Jerry worked with the Grizzlies, the Warriors, and the Clippers to improve their stagnant franchises. The teams would not be what they are today without his guidance. When you think of basketball, you think of Jerry West. One of the sport's most notable icons, it is only fitting that his legacy has been forever commemorated in the NBA logo. From his skills on the court to his unrivaled knowledge of the game from all perspectives, he continues to have a lasting impact on the sports world. His thoughts were models for how to manage success, failure, and change--those all happen in life--how to take the lessons you have learned, adapt them, and go on to improve the world around you, which is what Jerry did every day. I am honored to have been present at the Oval Office of the White House when Jerry was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2019. I can only begin to imagine how many leaders Jerry forged throughout his time and how many of his former teammates and colleagues still look up to him to this day. In that spirit, I am forever grateful to Jerry for his commitment to the sports community as well as our shared passion for representing the people of the State we both love so much, West Virginia. With God-given talent and unmatched character, Jerry's life has benefited the people of our home State in a profound way. The legacy he leaves behind is undoubtedly an integral part of our heritage. He was a very dear friend to me and a proud ambassador of the Mountain State. From the coalfields of West Virginia to basketball's biggest stages, Jerry always demonstrated his mastery of the sport with grace and humility. It is my hope that his family and friends can find peace, strength, and comfort in one another during the loss of this wonderful person. Gayle and I offer our deepest condolences to his wife Karen; his sons, David, Michael, Mark, Ryan, and Jonnie; and all of his family and friends and all of the loved ones who loved him so dearly. We will forever keep Jerry and his remarkable legacy in our thoughts and prayers for the rest of our lives. God bless you, Jerry. I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask that the scheduled vote commence immediately.

Mr. MANCHIN

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

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I spoke at some length about the important work of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission yesterday. I spoke also about the statutory requirement that the Commission members be able ``to assess fairly the needs and concerns of all interest affected by Federal energy policy.'' I believe that is why an earlier Congress, when it created the Department of Energy in 1977 and concentrated most energy functions in the hands of the Secretary of Energy, insisted on maintaining a separate, independent, five-member collegial body for electric and natural gas regulation. When it comes to fairly assessing all interests, five heads are better than one. Bringing together five different people with five different life experiences and perspectives helps ensure that all affected interests will be heard and fairly considered and assessed. David Rosner, Lindsay See, and Judy Chang are very different people from very different backgrounds. What matters most is their willingness to work with one another, to consider and assess fairly different interests and points of view, and to put partisan passions aside in favor of the public interest. After meeting all three and listening to them testify and watching them respond to Senators' questions, I am convinced that all three are willing and able to work with each other and with Chairman Phillips and Commissioner Christie on the Commission to ensure energy reliability and affordability for American consumers. Lindsay See is currently the solicitor general of West Virginia, a post she has held for the past 6 years. In that role, she represents my State's legal interests in both State and Federal courts, including before the U.S. Supreme Court. As Lindsay explained in her testimony before our committee, ``energy- adjacent matters are front-and-center'' for West Virginia's solicitor general, and she has worked on ``dozens of cases and rulemakings'' which demonstrated ``that grid reliability, regulatory certainty, and affordable energy are essentials.'' Prior to her appointment as solicitor general, she served as a special assistant in the West Virginia Attorney General's Office for 2 years. Before that, she practiced appellate and administrative law for 5 years at a law firm here in Washington, DC. After graduating from Harvard Law School, she clerked for Judge Thomas Griffith on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She is plainly a very capable and experienced lawyer and well qualified to serve on the Commission. Judy Chang is an energy economics and policy expert with more than 20 years of experience working with energy companies, trade associations, and governments on regulatory and financial issues as they relate to investment decisions in energy generation, transmission, and storage. She served as the under secretary of Energy and Climate Solutions, under Governor Charles Baker from Massachusetts, where she helped develop Massachusetts' Clean Energy and Climate Plan. I can think of no better preparation for serving on a bipartisan commission than working for a Republican administration in a very, very blue State. Judy also has been an adjunct lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and a senior fellow at the Kennedy School's center for business and government. She holds a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering and computer science from the University of California at Davis and a master of public policy from the Harvard Kennedy School. Energy reliability and affordability is perhaps more personal to Judy than most of us. In her testimony before our committee, Judy explained that when she was growing up in Taiwan, power outages were a daily event. She said that ``from a young age, my parents instilled in me the principle that no resource should ever be wasted, working hard to save every penny . . . `' We will all be served well by having that perspective on the Commission. We have three extremely qualified, capable, honorable people who are willing to serve our great country. That makes up a five-member FERC. I can tell you, as they have said and as I have said, five heads--good heads--are better than one. So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting both Lindsay See's and Judy Chang's nominations today.

Mr. MANCHIN

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

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the See cloture motion be waived.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. He meant to say two recovering former Governors, right?

Mr. MANCHIN. Barely.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my dear friend Senator Carper, who heads up EPW and does a tremendous job with his staff. We have had a great working relationship here. We all know that having a fully staffed FERC is going to make a lot of difference in what we do in this country, so we begin work this evening on the first of three nominations for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. David Rosner is one, Lindsay See, and Judy Chang are the three that Senator Carper mentioned. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported all three of these nominations with extremely strong bipartisan support. During their confirmation hearing, each of the nominees demonstrated deep experience on energy and legal matters, a commitment to follow the law and work within the authorities Congress has provided to FERC, and a recognition that all of our Nation's energy sources play an important role, providing affordable, reliable energy to families and businesses across our country. Like most of our independent regulatory Commissions, by law, FERC must be bipartisan. But in protecting the public interest, Commission members must conduct themselves as nonpartisan guardians, no matter what their party affiliation might be, of the public interest. That is exactly what we need from FERC Commissioners as they undertake the critical work of the Commission, and that is what I expect from these three nominees before the Senate as they come up for votes this week. Simply put, FERC's job is to ensure the ``orderly development of plentiful supplies of electricity and natural gas at reasonable prices.'' It must ensure adequate and reliable service while protecting customers from excessive prices. It enables us to keep the lights on and to heat and cool our homes and power our businesses and industries. When Congress established FERC, it stipulated that members of the Commission must be able ``to assess fairly the needs and concerns of all interests affected by Federal energy policy.'' As the Supreme Court has said, the Commission serves as the guardian of the public interest in these matters. As David Rosner said during his confirmation hearing, ``None of our country's economic or policy priorities can be achieved if energy reliability is not preserved. Consumers demand it, they deserve it, and it is FERC's most sacred duty to ensure it.'' I take special pride in speaking on the first of these nominations this evening. David Rosner has been on my detail--as far as our detail--from FERC to the majority staff of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for the past 2 years, so I know David. I have seen firsthand his expert knowledge on energy issues, his fairness, his nonpartisan approach to every concern and every problem we have had, and his ability to work on both sides of the aisle, and he has done that tremendously. David Rosner has what it takes for this job. He has extensive experience with energy issues. He has been employed by FERC as an energy industry analyst for over 7 years, including his detail to our committee. He previously worked at the Department of Energy as an economist and as a senior policy adviser and at the Bipartisan Policy Center. It doesn't get any better than that. I can personally attest to his extensive knowledge of FERC matters based on his work for the Energy Committee. I have seen his willingness and ability to work with others across the aisle on behalf of all Americans. Our committee members have come to rely on David's expertise, so we are proud that David has the opportunity to serve his country in an even more important role. Although he will be missed by many of us here in the Senate, I have every confidence that he will make a great FERC Commissioner, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination this evening. 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. President, I ask that the next vote, the vote scheduled for this evening, start immediately.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise today because I truly want to depoliticize this. I want to give you the facts because I was the one who negotiated the bill with the President. I negotiated the bill with the Speaker of the House. I negotiated this bill with the majority leader. So let me give you the facts and depoliticize it, take the Republican-Democrat equation out of this. This rule should have never happened. It wasn't our intent, and it wasn't what we agreed upon. We shouldn't even be voting down or up on this rule today because it should have never been here. I will tell you the reason why. The IRA was designed truly--and we all agreed--on energy security and manufacturing in America. That was it: energy security and manufacturing. We are producing more energy today than ever in the history of the world. We produce more energy today than anybody else in the world, and they are having a hard time grabbing that. But that was the way we designed the bill, to be an all-in. We are going to do fossil cleaner and better than anywhere in the world and more of it, and we are going to do investments in clean technology energy for the future. And we have done that. When we put this bill out, the administration knew exactly the timetables. I am giving you the timetables here, and I can show you how they have accelerated everything because it did not meet their timetable. The deadlines are 2024, 2023. They are going with the temporary rules, 2026 and 2027. The reason they are going to temporary rules is you can't sue on temporary rules. You can sue on permanent rules if you have been damaged--absolutely negating everything that we had an agreement on. So I said this: We tried to basically persuade or bribe the American public to buy an EV. They are a great vehicle. I don't contest that. Only 1.1 percent of West Virginians want them. We are a market-driven society. We are capitalists. You can't force with government regulations to do things that we have always been trained not to do. Buy what you want. Buy how you want. That is what they are trying to do. What happened on top of that, then they changed how we basically--the regulations we all agreed on--the President, the Speaker, and the majority leader. We said the first year in 2023, at least 40 percent-- 40 percent--of extracted minerals that we need for critical minerals to build these batteries had to come from the United States or our allies, our trading partners. Our whole goal was basically to eliminate being dependent upon China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. This is the first time--and the lady spoke from Michigan. I love Michigan. I love the vehicles that Michigan has produced. I can't tell you that every Michigander is enthralled with what they are trying to do because they are saying by 2032, basically, 70 percent of the vehicles have to be electric. You can't do it. There are two reasons why you can't do it: First of all, we don't have the infrastructure to do it. Next of all, we don't have the minerals to make the batteries. So the only way they can get around that is to change. You tell me in the bill where it says you can go from 40 percent to 20 percent the first year. You tell me, when the bill was written, where it says by 2031, you can go from 80 percent that you should be doing here in America to 40 percent. You are not going to be beholden to China. We have never been beholden to another country or a foreign supply chain, especially an unreliable foreign supply chain, for our modes of transportation. I remember in 1974, we were dependent on oil. We weren't producing the oil we should have been producing. We were depending on Saudi Arabia, and OPEC basically put an embargo on us. I waited in line to buy gasoline to go to work. I remember that day very well. It was a horrible time. I sure as heck don't want to have to wait on a battery to come from China to drive my vehicle to work. That is all we are talking about. So this rule should never be here. When you go through the things, the compromise that we made, only EVs that were made in North America and with the batteries that were made and the minerals sourced there, would they get the full $7,500 credit. That was the whole purpose of bringing manufacturing here. There was not a quibble. They weren't saying: Oh, I am not sure we can do that. Everybody agreed--again, the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House, and the majority leader here in the Senate, totally agreeable. It was wonderful. Now, you tell me if it was so wonderful, why they have to cut everything in half and basically usurp the intentions of the bill that we passed? That is the reason that I am standing up today to support getting rid of the rule because the rule shouldn't even be here. It wasn't something that we agreed on. It wasn't something that we talked about. Then, on top of that, they want to make sure that you can't sue with the timelines because they have temporary rules. They want to put the temporary rules out because you can't sue. So we are in a catch-22 here, gang. Forget about being a Democrat or a Republican, be an American. Do the right thing. Let the market do what it does best. The market will decide. The market will--basically, if you have a better mouse trap, I will buy it. But we shouldn't be buying it when we have to be totally reliant on a foreign country of concern. Again, if what we saw that Putin did in weaponizing energy for our allies overseas, I tell you that Xi Jinping from China will do the same thing with the critical minerals that we are depending on. And if our transportation mode for our economy, our work, our getting our goods to market is dependent upon him giving us what we need, it ain't going to happen, gang. Why are we going down this path? So to the Senator from Idaho Senator Crapo, my dear friend, thank you for working with us together on this thing to try to bring common sense to it. It is exactly what we talked about. These charts are telling you exactly what happened. I am telling you exactly how it happened. And if the President were standing here and if the Speaker of the House were standing here and if the majority leader were standing here, they all would have to agree because they were with me when we made the deal. That was the deal; that, I can tell you. Those are the facts, and there is nothing else that we can talk about. Why we are even having to vote down a rule that should never be before us makes no sense to me at all. So, yes, just do what we said we would do: Bring manufacturing back to America. Bring, basically, the reliable things that we do and do best here and make sure that we have the energy and we can produce it. At the rate they are going now, if you electrify what they want to, we would not have the energy or the grid or the capacity to handle everything. And then you are going to have people, basically, having rolling brownouts or blackouts or paying exorbitantly high prices for energy that is absolutely driven by the mistakes that are being made today. I urge everybody in this body--Democrat and Republican alike--to vote yes on the overturning of this rule that is not part of America, not part of what we do. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask that all time be yielded back.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I did not intend to speak on Secretary Mayorkas, but I want to say a few words before I get to the content of my speech. What I would say is that I respectfully disagree with my colleagues and my friends on the Republican side of the aisle and with the politics that are being played. I was the Governor of the State of West Virginia, and I made an awful lot of appointments under what we call will and pleasure. I asked the State senate to confirm people I thought would work and do a great job for the people of West Virginia. It was my responsibility. If it went wrong or they did not basically fulfill their duties, that was my responsibility. If they had criminal charges brought against them, whether they were civil or criminal, then the courts would take it. They have a right to remove, and I would have been respectfully obligated to remove. And, if not, they had a right to impeach. We are not there. Everyone seems to be upset that Secretary Mayorkas, whom I know to be a good man, is being ostracized for doing the job he has done, that he has been basically directed to do by his boss, the President of the United States. If you are unhappy, go to the polls. It is the boss, OK? That is where it is. I think it has been a disaster. The first 2 or 3 years, right now, have been a disaster. I have asked--I have begged--the President to change: Secure our border. It has to be secured. It is the most dangerous thing we face. And when I have said that, I have said: Declare a national emergency. Well, the mistakes the President has made, basically, were tried to be corrected when he supported the piece of legislation we had before us, about 2 or 3 weeks ago, that was negotiated. The lead negotiator, I think, is one of the most honorable people we have in the Senate, Republican and our friend James Lankford from Oklahoma--Senator Lankford. I think it was a tremendous piece of legislation that would have given us more security at the border, and it would have stopped all the illegal flow. But it was still politicized, and it didn't happen, and I think Ali Mayorkas is being blamed for that too. I am sorry. It was not him. And for us to go through a trial with what precious time we have left and all the challenges we have--let's just vote on securing the border. Once and for all, secure the border. Let's vote on taking care of our responsibilities around the world and at home--securing our border and helping our allies defend their own. That is what we should be doing. Everything is politicized to the point now that we can't get beyond whose fault it is rather than say: Hey, we are Americans. If I am a Democrat and you are a Republican and vice versa, you are not my enemy. You are my colleague whom I might have differences with, but we can work it out. No one wants to find that sensible middle anymore. It is a bad word--``compromise.'' You never hear it anymore. But to blame Secretary Mayorkas for your thinking he didn't do the job or what he said was in violation of the Constitution is ridiculous. It is basically something that I can't wait to vote against and get out as soon as it comes here. Why did they wait until next week? We could have voted on it today or tomorrow. Why? Did they want to let it fester a little bit? It doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. With that being said, I would hope that we would come to our senses and get to the real problems we have in America, and let's try to help the people who are living through some very high pricing. As far as food, the basic necessities of life are very difficult for an awful lot of people in my State of West Virginia, and I am going to do all I can to help them. But, with that, this is not the way to get our job done-- to waste more time on something that is so senseless and reckless.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise today, and I agree with my friend and my colleague from Indiana Senator Braun, my friend and my colleague from Louisiana Senator Cassidy, and my friend and my colleague from Kansas Senator Marshall. I rise today in support of the joint resolution of congressional disapproval to overturn the National Labor Relations Board's new joint employer rule. This rule is just another example of Executive overreach and the partisan politics that we deal with all too often. Small businesses are the heart of our economy, from the States like myself in West Virginia--small, rural States. This is the backbone of our business society. And especially, we have 98 percent of our businesses are small in West Virginia. I don't have one city in my State with a population greater than 50,000. So I am 1.7 million of small towns and cities. This is who we are. The COVID-19 pandemic was hard on small businesses and franchises, with an estimated 32,700 franchise businesses closing during the first 6 months of the pandemic. The last thing they need is greater uncertainty caused by this rule. And the joint employer rule has caused confusion for franchise owners for years--telling them they could be held liable for actions taken by businesses with their brand, potentially subjecting them to corporate control. Franchising is a pathway to entrepreneurship for Americans across the country, and it helps build generational growth. By providing access to capital, training, managerial assistance, and a system of support, which is so needed in small rural areas, the franchise model helps many Americans overcome the numerous barriers to owning their own business-- for the first time, the dream coming true of having your own business and controlling your destiny. One out of every three franchise owners say they wouldn't own a small business without the franchise business model that they buy into. The unique model is used by over 5,000 independent businesses in my State of West Virginia, providing over 45,000 jobs. This new rule has further confused the issue and put the franchise model at risk. Under this rule, businesses are liable for entities they do not control. I repeat: Under this rule, businesses will be liable for entities that they do not control. And it makes no sense. Let me give you an example. If under this brand there are uniform standards for their products or they would require hair nets to be worn, they would then be found as a joint employer. It is as simple as that, if that is part of the model that you buy into, part of the franchise you bought has certain requirements to deliver products safely and healthfully. This is despite the fact that they have no responsibility--no responsibility--or role in hiring, firing, or wage decisions for the employees in any way, shape, or form. Does that make any sense? It just doesn't. Franchisees, for years, have enjoyed the independence of running their own businesses and making their own decisions about their employees, working with their employees in joint relationships. If a franchisor is now held responsible for these decisions, the franchise model will essentially no longer exist. The guidelines won't be there because they are totally liable and responsible. The bottom line is, this rule will shut the door on thousands of Americans who want to start--or maybe already have--a business and fulfill the American dream. That is why I introduced the Congressional Review Act with the Senators whom I just mentioned and our colleagues to make clear this rule does not work. Businesses should not be liable for entities they do not control. The National Labor Relations Board moved forward on this rule without bipartisan support, and I can assure you they did not have my partisan support. A member of the Board even found that this rule would be ``even more catastrophic'' than previous attempts to change the standard and potentially ``harmful to our economy.'' We know previous attempts to change the joint employer standard resulted in a 93-percent--I repeat again, 93-percent--increase in litigation, a loss of over 376,000 job opportunities, and were eventually struck down by the courts. This doesn't work. The courts have already ruled it doesn't work. And it will happen again, but here we go. Here we go. We should be focused on bolstering our economic growth and protecting Main Street businesses, not obstructing them. I am standing here today for the thousands of small businesses not only in my State but across the country. There are hard-working employees in the surrounding communities who are going to be harmed by this rule. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, my friends on both sides, Democrat and Republican, basically to vote yes on this resolution and allow us to continue to work towards a bipartisan, commonsense solution instead of a more partisan, political position. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of amendment No. 1725, which will be called up later. My amendment is with Senator Crapo of Idaho, my dear friend. I want to speak a little bit about the EVs-- electric vehicles--and the tailpipe emissions rule that has been handed down. The administration's electric vehicle policy has been held completely captive by the activist environmental groups and the radical advisers in the White House. I can't put it any other way than that. First, they tried to bribe Americans to buy EVs by giving them $7,500, and now they are trying to mandate that we all must buy them after 2032--because they won't be produced anymore. So they have changed the rules. They basically tried to bribe them and still couldn't move them as quickly as they wanted to. Then, on top of that, they are saying that now we are going to pass a law to where you can't have an option of buying another type of vehicle for transportation. That is just not the American way. It is not the way we were raised. It is not the way this country grew. Transportation is the foundation of our economy. If you think about it, never in the history of our country have we had to depend on other foreign supply chains--and especially unreliable foreign supply chains--for our transportation: our cars, our trains, our planes, and everything in between. We have been able to do it right here, and now we have thrown everything onto the backs of foreign supply chains because we don't have the critical minerals. We don't basically manufacture, and we don't produce them. We don't do anything with them, and we are trying to get up to speed. The Inflation Reduction Act was and always will be an American energy security and a manufacturing bill. When I negotiated and started negotiating after the BBB was killed and then the war started in Ukraine, there was one moving factor that urged me to do that internally more than anything else. We couldn't help our allies--those who fought and died with us who needed our help now--and Putin weaponized energy. He weaponized his gas and his oil reserves that went into Europe, and here we were not able to help them at all. I said we had better do something. That is when we started negotiating and working on some way that we could be energy independent. I will tell the Presiding Officer that, for the first time in 40 years, the United States of America is producing more energy today than ever in the history of this country. We are producing more energy than any other country in the world, and we should be proud of that, but my friends in the White House won't speak about it. All they want to tell you about is the environmental bill. It is the greatest environmental bill. We are producing more energy from wind and solar than ever before. We are doing everything, and they can't accept an all-energy policy, and it is unbelievable. We are replacing some of the dirtiest fuels in the world because of what we are producing--cleaner than anywhere else in the world. Venezuela--we let them back into the market. They wanted more oil in the market. OK. They let Venezuela back in. They produce oil with 80 percent more pollutants--more emissions-- than what we ever have. So, anyway, the Inflation Reduction Act, like I have said before, was an American energy security and domestic energy bill. That is it. Can we have energy security, and can we basically have manufacturing coming back that should have never left, but we allowed it to leave? Let's bring it back so that we don't have to rely on unreliable foreign partners, if you will, foreign entities. The White House wanted money for EVs. I wanted domestic manufacturing and a secure supply chain. We were at a standstill, and we couldn't move any further. So we had to compromise, and the compromise was pretty simple. The administration would only get money to incentivize people to buy an EV if we were making and sourcing these ingredients that we needed--the critical minerals--from America or a reliable supply chain, and that supply chain was countries that we already had free-trade agreements with. Let me make sure you understand. Our main objective for this bill, the IRA, was this: We will not be doing business with foreign countries of concern, and those foreign countries were four, mainly: China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. There is no way we should be depending on anything coming from them--that don't have our values--because they will use it as a wedge. But the administration has completely liberalized and, in fact, broken the law that we agreed to and actually passed, and we have been having this continuous back-and-forth. I cannot believe, dealing in good faith, that we ended up with what we ended up with. We put strict 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 the American taxpayers and that we don't willingly give Xi Jinping, the President of China, a geopolitical weapon to use against us. I can guarantee, when he watched Putin weaponize energy, he surely was going to basically use the weaponization of all the critical minerals that we are using and all the things that we depend on from China--that he would have done the same thing with. I remember waiting in long gas lines in 1974 to buy gasoline to go to work. I can remember those days vividly. I couldn't believe that the United States of America had gotten itself into that mess, but we did, but we got ourselves out of it too. Do you think China is not going to be using that to their advantage to bring us to our knees? Well, I am not going to be waiting in line for a battery to come from China, sir. Sorry. But last year, the administration proposed cutting in half the IRA's requirements. This is how desperate they are to, basically, disregard the bill that we all agreed on in good faith and signed with the purpose of bringing manufacturing back. But with their ambition to get more EVs out the door quicker than ever before, they cut everything in half. This is exactly what is written in the bill. This is it. The language is plain. By 2023, you should have 40 percent of the minerals that must be extracted or processed in the United States or free trade agreement countries or recycled in North America--40 percent. Every year it went up so we would be more and more dependent on America, building up and building, basically, our ability to manufacture. This is exactly what they did. Do you think it is a coincidence they cut everything in half from 40 percent? Now, this is what they admitted. This is what they are working with. This is their--they call them their new rules they have coming out, according to the Treasurer's proposed rules. I will get into why they call them proposed rules too. This is what we intended to be self-sufficient. This is exactly what they intended to meet their political agenda to get these out the door quicker, cut everything in half. The IRA set deadlines. Like I said before, the deadlines were 2023, 2024, to completely remove the countries from the critical minerals and battery manufacturing. We wrote language in the bill. If you read the IRA bill, it is written in there that we cannot do business with China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea. That was the whole purpose. If you are going to go down this path, let's make sure we get something back for the American taxpayers but also for American manufacturing. But now the IRS is proposing ``temporary'' exemptions through at least the end of 2026. When have you heard of temporary rules that would go through--they are supposed to be, basically, done by December 31, 2024. They put in their rules 2026 or later--or later. That is another 3 years of China and other foreign nations reaching deeper into and controlling more of our electric vehicle battery supply chains. The longer we allow this to happen, the longer we allow this to happen by, basically, pushing our American energy and technologies quicker, then basically all we are doing is supporting China and the grip they have on us. Worse yet, the IRS under this administration seems to have adopted a new legal strategy to avoid any accountability from the courts or Congress. Now, this is the real innovative, creative way they are thinking. By you issuing ``proposed rules'' like this and never finalizing them, the IRS can break the law--legally break the law--implement it in any way they wish it was passed. I have said this from day one: You are implementing a piece of legislation you never passed. I tell the White House that every day: You didn't pass this. The law we passed tells you exactly what to do. You are trying to implement something that you would like to do, but you never did. And they do it with proposed rules because they think that basically protects them from any litigation. That is a breach of everything that we agreed, a breach of everything that we agreed to in good faith and not the way the government in this great country of ours should ever, ever operate. Let me be clear, there is no question that the IRA will be one of the most transformative bills in the way it was written. It is an all-of- the-above. It was an all-purpose bill. It was a balance between the energy that we need today, the fossil fuels, that we are going to do them cleaner, and the technology of the energy we want in the future. That is exactly what the bill was supposed to do. It was supposed to bring back manufacturing that we let go, basically, with the NAFTA agreement-- North American Free Trade Agreement--way back when, in the 1980s and 1990s, and then now with what we are dealing with, with bringing China and the WTO in the late 1990s, early 2000s. We have allowed things to leave our country. We should have never allowed the manufacturing base to ever leave. Let's be clear, there is no question that the IRA will go down as one of the most transformational bills that we have ever passed. It is bringing opportunity. It surely is. It is bringing opportunity in areas that got left behind. Electric vehicle and battery makers announced $52 billion in investments in North American supply chains before the IRS even started loosening the rules. They want to come back to America. They want to build. But as long as you basically allow the foreign entities of concern--the Chinas of the world--to continue to flood the market with cheaper prices, our people will never be able to have a foothold as far as manufacturing in the United States. That is the problem. We knew it would take a couple of years for us to get up to speed, but we will never get up to speed as long as they can still buy cheaper products somewhere else. Numbers like this show that breaking the law doesn't get us more investment; it just makes the costs go up for every American taxpayer and sends our tax dollars overseas. We are trying to bring that manufacturing back and keep those dollars here, not in China or Russia. But even bribing Americans with a liberalized, unlawful $7,500 wasn't good enough for the administration because it doesn't meet their political timetable to eliminate gas-powered vehicles. If they had a good enough product--a product in America--the market usually will react. The market will reject or accept. They won't do it on your timetable. But when you have the government behind you, pushing you in a way to force the options you may have, that is not how we built the country that we have. It is not how we built this capitalist mentality or this entrepreneurship. It is just not who we are. The EPA piled on by proposing these new tailpipe rules that force automakers to limit consumer choice and force Americans to buy EVs full of Chinese parts. That is exactly what is happening now. The EPA wants more than two-thirds of the new cars to be electric by 2032, when there is only 8 percent of them that are electric today. They can't meet that goal unless it is buying overseas, which is what we tried to stop. Their intention is to continue to flood the market any way they possibly can for their own political agenda by their extreme environmental climates at the destruction, basically, of our own jobs, our own economy. The only way it would be possible to get anywhere close, like I said before, is to do business with other foreign countries, because China has a lock on most of all the markets--anodes, cathodes, 80 percent of that; basically, rare-earth minerals, about 60 to 80 percent of that. They have been doing this for quite a while. We want to get back up to speed, but we can't do it by continuing to support them. Xi Jinping is already showing that he will use critical minerals as leverage to put Americans and the free world at risk by directing the Chinese Government to implement new restrictions on exports of several critical minerals. Now he really starts putting the choke on us. He sees that we have legislation that is going to force us to buy a product that he has control over. Can you imagine us getting ourselves into a jam where we are going to be dependent upon China for their critical minerals and the battery components that we need to run the vehicles that we decide to change our transportation mode to before we are ready to do it ourselves? I would expect that from Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party, but I can't believe that we would be dumb enough to play into their hands. It is unbelievable. There is nobody who you can talk to in the industry who doesn't understand exactly what I am saying. I never could have expected our own government to give up so easily and continue to let foreign--foreign--nations control our Nation's transportation. You know, I even said this to--they told me about all the charging stations that we have to spend billions and billions of dollars on, the Federal Government, the Federal taxpayers. I do not remember when Henry Ford, basically, was able to have the production of the Model T and bring it into mass production where the average person could buy it, that we said: Oh, oh, we have to go out and start building filling stations. I don't think the Federal Government built filling stations to meet the demands of the market. The market did it, and the market will do it again. They say: Oh, no, we can't do that. We can't take a chance on the market, so let's go ahead and just commit billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to do what the market has always done for America. I will do everything in my power to hold this administration accountable to the deal we made--and intended to deal; everybody knew about it--to protect America's taxpayers and to secure our energy supply chains. If we are going to do it, let's do it and benefit from it. Let's build America back. Let's do what we do best. Let's innovate and create. Let's believe in the market and allow the market, basically, to force us to work as it has always worked for America. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that is coming up because I can tell you one thing: We have got to send a signal that this country is able to take care of itself; we are able to compete for ourself; and we should not depend on unreliable foreign supply chains for the most critical building blocks of our country. Transportation basically keeps the lights on. It keeps food on your table. It does everything necessary for us to live a quality of life in this country. To allow and give it up because we are not in control of our transportation mode is absolutely criminal. With that, I would say I hope all of my colleagues will look at this amendment very seriously and see how important it is for us to maintain this tremendous independence this country has always had. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of National Inland Waterways Workers Safety Awareness Day and to honor the life of Gabe White, a young West Virginian who lost his life far too soon. Gabe was a deckhand, a Boy Scout, a graduate of Gilmer County High School, and, most importantly, he was a son, a brother, a nephew, a cousin, and a friend. I want to thank Gabe's family for being with us here today and allowing me to share Gabe's story with the rest of the country, which underscores just how incredibly important barge safety is and must be. Gabe was a Wheeling, WV, resident who loved music, art, video games, and sports. He was always curious and interested in learning more about the world and those around him. He appreciated history and was always starting interesting discussions with his friends and family. He engaged. Gabe also loved the outdoors. As a Scout, he fell in love with hiking and camping, even during the winter. Gabe and his troops hiked and camped much of the Greenbrier River Trail. He had the honor of being an Order of the Eagle recipient, in addition to his rank as Life Scout. Gabe was always a leader while he was a Scout, which he typically tried to avoid because he always focused on being a team player, working with others. Everyone around Gabe knew him as someone who was always ready to jump in and step up to the plate to lend a helping hand when needed. During his senior year of high school, Gabe decided to join the high school baseball team after only ever playing 1 year of Little League. Later, Gabe's friends and teammates and family finally found out that Gabe only joined the team because he was worried they wouldn't have enough players to form a team and play that last season. Gabe knew it was his friends' last chance to play baseball, as they were graduating that year. So he was adamant in helping out. Gabe showed up with a positive attitude to every practice and game and was always prepared to do whatever his coach and teammates needed him to do. Again, Gabe was always there to show up and step up to the plate when he knew his teammates and friends needed him most. Gabe was a true West Virginia Mountaineer through and through. Gabe often talked about his desire to become a father and was looking forward to becoming an uncle when his brothers had children. After he graduated high school, Gabe got a job working as a deckhand. He was proud of his job and having this new opportunity. He was excited to learn all the new things about working on a barge on the river with his team of deckhands. However, on the morning of March 22, 2023, Gabe arrived at work as usual when an accident occurred that tragically resulted in his death at just the age of 20. Following an investigation, it was determined that not only was no safety equipment issued, but Gabe was out of line of sight of the crane operator, and no spotter was present. Gabe's death never, never should have happened. It was preventable, and we must acknowledge this. This is why I am proud to introduce the National Inland Waterways Workers Safety Day resolution with my colleague from West Virginia, Shelley Moore Capito. Our resolution designates March 22, 2024, as National Inland Waterways Workers Safety Day in recognition of the 1- year anniversary of Gabe's passing. Workers in the national inland waterways play a crucial role navigating ships, barges, and tugboats that deliver the goods that we need and use. They work hard, loading and unloading barges and transport vessels, and cleaning and caring for vessels and shipyards to move the goods for America. Our resolution recognizes the need to continue to improve the safe transportation of domestic cargo and, above all else, to reduce transportation vessel- and shipyard-related incidents, fatalities, and injuries so another family like Gabe's does not have to endure such a tragic loss. And I have said, Gabe's life was not in vain. He will save many others. The safety of deckhands, engineers, masters, mates, and shoreside workers are of the utmost importance. It is critical to equip them with the necessary knowledge and resources to perform their duties safely and effectively and return home every evening safe. I want to applaud the efforts of the Coast Guard, American Waterways Operators, Maritime Trades Department, and other groups that are working to reduce the incidents of workplace injuries and fatalities in and around towing vessels. I encourage industry and worker groups to observe March 22 to not only honor Gabe's life but to also observe the day with appropriate programs and activities that increase safety awareness in and around towing- vessel employment. I want to again thank Gabe's family, all of you who came to visit with us today and to honor Gabe in such a meaningful way and to ensure accidents like this never happen again. May God bless Gabe and his family and keep all the workers on the waterways safe from any injuries.

Mr. MANCHIN

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

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, just briefly, I want to correct one thing that was said. Because of the 117th Congress, when we all worked together, today we are producing more energy than ever in the history of the United States. We are producing 4.6 billion barrels of oil this year, 37 trillion cubic feet of gas, 13.5 billion cubic feet a day of LNG. In 2016, we didn't do anything. So what we have done with all of the bills--the bipartisan infrastructure bill; the IRA bill, or the Inflation Reduction Act--is forced this administration to start taking seriously U.S. energy independence and security. They cannot just move them in one direction. It is a balanced approach, and it is working. This is the part, now, that we need to shut down. We should not be relying on foreign supply chains, unreliable foreign countries of concern. You have China, you have Russia, you have North Korea, and you have Iran--four of the most notorious. To depend on anything that comes from those four countries that we need for our building blocks is a sin. That is the only thing I am saying on the hold you have here. There are going to be other things that we can work together on to make sure that we all--I think you have them on this. I don't know if that is a No. 1 priority. They just didn't have any objection because they knew it was something that should be done. We are all for it. You are using it because you need something else, and we are committing to help you on something else. This is desperately needed for our country. It really is. We have to center the market because, if not, they won't get invested. They just won't move. If they think Russians can dump enriched uranium, HALEU, on us, they will continue to do it, and it basically stymies the market for anyone that is investing the amount of money that needs to be invested to get our enrichment program up and running. That is really what the concerns are. And we already have an NDAA. We would like for it--as far as the money, we are prepared to make sure that we have the necessary resources. But we can't do it unless we ban that because, if we don't ban it, people will, in this marketplace, buy wherever they can, the cheapest they possibly can. And, I guarantee, Russia needs the money for their war machine, and they will keep dumping and dumping on us. So I would hope you would reconsider, sir. That is all I can ask. But I am committed to helping you. But this is the wrong one, I believe, to use. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I also rise to join my friend from Wyoming Senator Barrasso and my friend from Ohio. And I know that my friend from Texas has some concerns, but it is something different. The only thing I would say about this is, as troubled as our House colleagues are--435--they passed this unanimously, unanimous consent. They can't agree on anything. They passed this because of the need for what we are trying to do here. What we are trying to do is build initiatives I worked to include in the Energy Act of 1020. What we are doing is operating nuclear powerplants that are dependent on Russian enrichment. We are operating our nuclear fleet based on Russian enrichment and conversion capacity, which represents half of the global capacity. We let them capture the market. Russia is currently the world's only--I will repeat. They are the only commercial source of high-assay low-enriched uranium--or, as we refer to it, HALEU--which is the fuel needed for advanced reactors, such as the SMRs and the micros that were coming in, the new technology. It is shameful and dangerous to our country, which led the world in developing nuclear energy--we led the world--and once was capable of producing all the fuel that we could ever need, and it has become reliant on one of the most notorious adversaries we have ever had, Russia. Uranium production in the United States peaked in 1980. And since 1992, the majority of uranium purchased by the U.S. nuclear powerplant operators was imported mostly from Russia. Russia has used its state-owned nuclear monopoly to help fund Putin's unlawful war against Ukraine that has completely upended energy supply chains and harmed European and American energy security. For years--for years now--Russia has unfairly flooded the market. We have seen that happen so many times with China in different products and Russia also with cheap uranium to undercut U.S. and other Western producers. Being the capitalist country that we are, we just basically allowed our entrepreneurial businesspersons to go buy wherever they needed. We cannot continue to reward Putin for bad behavior. The United States cut off imports of Russian oil and gas and coal in March of 2022. We cut off all of our needed, basically, supplies that we were using and supplementing with imports of Russian oil, gas, and coal. And it is long past time to finally cut Russian uranium out of the U.S. market as well. Senator Barrasso, myself, Senator Risch, all the Senators who come from the areas that are involved in this but have been producing it-- Senator Brown from Ohio, basically, has a plant that I have visited that has produced all of the uranium that we ever needed during the war efforts and has been forced out of the market. They are coming back, but they are going to need our help to get back into the market also. We have supported a two-part strategy to fix this, pairing an increase in domestic production with a ban on Russian fuel. To accomplish the first part, we included our Nuclear Fuel Security Act in the Defense bill that we passed last night. That law will create the programs that we need to reshore our domestic nuclear supply chains and establish a new revolving fund at the Department of Energy to be used for uranium procurement. I am proud that lawmakers in both Chambers recognized that this issue is so important to our security, and it has been included in the NDAA. And when we get back in January, Senator Barrasso and I are going to work together to ensure that the new DOE program is appropriately funded and paid for. So today, again, I am asking my dear friend: We have got to take the second step--banning Russian uranium imports--to provide a clear signal to our domestic market so they will basically get back into the game and start increasing the fuel they walked away from because of unfair trade practices. This uranium ban has had strong bipartisan support, as you know, in the House and over here. Then, today, we have the opportunity to send this commonsense legislation to the President's desk and move closer to realizing our energy independence from Russia by passing this ban. I, again, ask all of you to consider this. I ask my good friend from Texas, Senator Cruz, if he would consider maybe other ways that we might be able to help. I am committing to you that I will help you, and I think I know what your concerns are. I am certain it doesn't have anything to do with this, but I know what it can be, and I know where I can help you. I am offering that assistance.

Mr. MANCHIN. I yield back to Senator Barrasso.

Mr. MANCHIN. Absolutely.