Joe Manchin

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, Senator Lee's amendment sets up a deficit-neutral reserve fund to change the payment formula for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program. While I share a desire to revisit the PILT formula and to ensure that payments to counties are fair, I have concerns with this amendment. The administration has testified that trying to incorporate a system into the PILT formula that involves appraising every parcel of Federal land and tracking every local tax rate would prove nearly impossible to administer. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Vote on AmendmentNo. 3141

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I have made it crystal clear that I do not support the For the People Act. Over the past few months, I have worked to eliminate the far-reaching aspects of that bill and amend the legislation to make sure our elections are fair, accessible, and secure. In June, I voted to begin debate in the Senate on my amended voting rights legislation, not For the People Act. Tonight, I am again voting to move that process forward because I believe that we need to come together to restore people's faith in the integrity of our elections. But I do make it very clear that I will not support the For the People Act. For example, I firmly believe that we need commonsense voter ID requirements, just like we have in West Virginia, that strengthen the security of our elections without making it harder for Americans to vote. I also firmly believe that we shouldn't politicize the Federal Election Commission, prohibit any guardrails on vote by mail, or prevent local election officials from doing basic maintenance of voter rolls. The compromise bill we voted on in June included all of these important provisions, and I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to allow us to debate this critical issue and come up with a bipartisan solution that protects every American's right to vote.

Mr. MANCHIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to thank all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in this great deliberative body, for showing the United States and the entire world that the United States Senate is not broken. Actually, we are doing fine. We can work together and do much better. We can also come together and do big things, and we did with this investment in American infrastructure. America has not seen this type of infrastructure investment in the last 30 years--talked about it a lot and haven't seen anything. The polls have shown that the American people are overwhelmingly supportive of this infrastructure deal. Americans of both political parties know it is long past time to make this investment. And once the roads are repaired so the children are safe on the buses, they want better internet service so they can connect and compete in the 21st century. It is just unbelievable what we can do. This is about clean water and upgraded sewer systems. You would think in the 21st century this all would be a void anywhere in America, but it is--it really is. This is the largest long-term jobs bill in decades. It will create good-paying, long-term jobs over the next 8 to 10 years. So if you want to basically make sure we don't hit the highs and the lows as far as the job opportunities, job markets, and the economy, this bill does that. It is the largest investment in clean drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in the history of our country--in the history of our country. It is the largest dedicated bridge investment since the construction of the Interstate Highway System. It is the largest investment in energy transition in history, and puts our money where our mouth is on technologies that are critical for the future. And it is the largest Federal investment in passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak. And our bipartisan infrastructure package does not raise taxes on everyday Americans. It does not. A large piece of this bipartisan infrastructure bill came out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which I am privileged and honored to chair. We reported the Energy Infrastructure Act out of our committee with a bipartisan vote after--after--holding a legislative hearing and a robust amendment process. That is called regular order. It is something we have heard about for many years--we just haven't seen it for a long time--and it is working. The Energy Infrastructure Act will create good-paying jobs and demonstrate the energy technologies needed to reduce emissions while maintaining affordable, reliable, and dependable energy and our Nation's position as a global energy leader. I have said all along that the United States of America is now energy independent. We must fight to maintain that position. We should not be held captive by any foreign entity or any foreign country where we are depending on any type of supplies that the American people need--any type of supplies--and energy is one of our greatest, and we can do it cleaner and better than ever. I have always said you cannot eliminate your way to a cleaner environment. You can innovate your way to a cleaner environment, and we have proven that, and we can do an awful lot more too. It also builds off the great work already done in my home State of West Virginia and your State of Virginia, Mr. President, to demonstrate advanced geothermal technology and establish a reliable, U.S.-based, rare-Earth-element supply chain. I have had consideration and I have had some pause on us moving so rapidly into electric vehicles. My reason for my pause has been this: We do not produce the rare-Earth minerals--the rare-Earth minerals that are needed to build these batteries. And we have to be very, very careful that we don't put our transportation system--our transportation mode in America in the hands of foreign supply chains. We could be held very, very captive on those. I remember in the 1970s, when the oil embargo from the oil cartel-- the oil embargo basically shut our businesses down, and then we had rapid inflation coming after that. It was just horrible. Importantly, the legislation also reauthorizes abandoned mine lands and reclamation fees. In southwest Virginia and all of West Virginia, we have a tremendous amount of mines that this country needed to be the superpower of the world. Now it is far beyond time for us to clean that up, and this is something we can do, and this bill does that. It is set to expire, as far as our AML reclamation fees in September. For an additional 13 years, we have extended that, while investing $11.3 billion into reclaiming these abandoned coal mine lands, which an awful lot of beach area and water and things were harmed for a long time and needs to be fixed. It also funds the demonstration of clean energy on the abandoned mine lands and authorizes grants for manufacturers to locate in coal communities. These coal communities around the country bear the scars of the work that powered our Nation to greatness, and this investment will clean up those areas and provide new economic opportunities. The bill also shores up the reliability of our electric grid systems. Our grid has basically been around for a long time, and with all the new technologies coming on and all of the renewable power, that is not always produced in the area where we have the grid system, and it is time for us to expand and make sure our grid system is able to deliver the energy our country needs. The bipartisan Energy Infrastructure Act authorizes $110 billion, much of which is also funded and is a vital component of the whole infrastructure package. So we are not just talking about it. We are putting a lot of money into upgrading the grid system and the reliability of it. This bill will truly do much good across the United States. Let me just give you the historic investment in the needs of our Nation: $110 billion for the roads and the bridges; $65 billion for broadband access; $66 billion for railroads; $25 billion for airports; $55 billion for drinking water and wastewater systems. I don't know what infrastructure is if you don't call that infrastructure. This is as good as it gets. It is something that we all have talked about for many, many years. My State of West Virginia benefits from this bipartisan infrastructure bill. It will help expand broadband access across West Virginia with a minimum allocation of $100 million to help provide broadband coverage across the State, including providing access to at least 258,000 West Virginians who currently lack it because of our terrain. I think the Presiding Officer has been there many, many times, and you understand what we are dealing with. It is really challenging, but if we take just a commonsense approach--and I have always said this: If during Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when he took over after the Great Depression, if he could electrify America--rural electrification--if he could do that in the thirties, surely and goodness, we can basically make sure that every household has fast, high-speed internet service. We can make that happen, and we are going to use the same blueprint that was used many, many years ago, almost 100 years ago. We believe that number is much higher than the 258,000. But, here again, I am urging the FCC to fix their coverage in the maps. The maps are not accurate. They haven't been accurate for years. I will never forget when I had one of the chairmen of the FCC in my State one time, and we were talking, and I said: Why don't you meet me at a certain place in my State? I said: We will have a meeting. I want to talk to you. He was kind. He drove over there with his staff. I said: Why don't you call back to your office and ask if they have any messages for you. I said: The map here shows--your map shows--that you are covered. And I said: You can use any phone you want, any service you might have. And he said: My goodness, I didn't know. I said: Sir, this is exactly what we are dealing with. The maps are not accurate, and West Virginians are getting left behind. There are 543,000, or 31 percent, of the people in West Virginia who will be eligible for the affordability connectivity benefit, which will help low-income families. You can have internet service, but if it is so costly that people can't afford it, then you have a problem. This goes along with the same thing as LIHEAP, which helps people with their utilities who, basically, are working hard and trying to make it but having a hard time. This makes sure that everyone can connect and basically benefit from this opportunity. West Virginia also has some of the worst roads in the Nation. This bipartisan bill will repair and rebuild our roads and bridges. In West Virginia, there are 1,545 bridges--1,545--and over 3,200 miles of highway in poor condition. Since 2011, commute times have increased by 6\1/2\ percent and, on average, each driver pays $726 per year in additional costs due to repairs by driving on roads that have needed repair. That is simply unacceptable, and it truly, truly shows the deferred maintenance that we have let go for far too long. Based on formula alone, West Virginia will receive $3 billion for Federal-Aid Highway programs and $506 million for bridge replacement and repairs. We have the greatest need of bridge replacement. The reason why is that, in the 1930s, the constitution of West Virginia changed during the Great Depression, and basically everything was put on the State. Before that, local counties and communities were all responsible to a certain extent, but when the Depression hit, the Constitution was changed in 1932, at the height of the Depression, and everything was: This is the State's responsibility; we can't pay no more. So the State has a tremendous obligation here, and we want to make sure we help them. West Virginia can also compete for the $12.5 billion Bridge Investment Program for economically significant bridges and nearly $16 billion of national funding in the bill dedicated for major projects that will deliver substantial economic benefits to communities. And we have to address public transportation in the Mountain State. West Virginians, who take public transportation, spend an extra 77 percent of their time commuting--commuting-- and non-White households are five times more likely to commute via public transportation. That is a fact, and we have to address these facts and fix them. And 32 percent of the trains and other transit vehicles in the State are past their useful life. A third are past their useful life. Based on formula funding, West Virginia would expect to receive $196 million over 5 years to improve public transportation, which is desperately, desperately needed. These investments are vital to bringing good-paying jobs to our State of West Virginia and the Presiding Officer's State of Virginia and all of our States in this great country of ours, and spurring economic development like we have never seen before. This is solid economic development, not just sending checks, not people just receiving checks but people receiving an opportunity of the dignity of work and the ability to be able to do what needs to be done in order for them to survive and sustain a quality of life. I am incredibly proud of our bipartisan group of Senators who have worked together day and night to hammer out a compromise that will address our infrastructure needs without going overboard. And I will remind everyone that not one Senator got everything they wanted, but we all got what we needed. This is how compromise works. This is what this body was made for. This is why the Senate is called the most deliberative body. It is hard, when you want to basically take every opportunity to work with every single Senator here, to make sure you can help them with the problems and needs they have in their own States, and that is what we have done. I have always said: The best politics is good government. Everybody worries about: Oh, I am not sure if that is good for my politics. Let me tell you, if you do something good for all, it is good for you. It will be the best politics you have ever done. If we do something good, we all take credit for it. I have seen people take credit for things they voted against because it was good. It worked well. It didn't bother me at all. I am glad. Maybe they won't fight us as hard the next time. Maybe they might join us. Who knows? I look forward to passing this important legislation with strong bipartisan support. I just think this is a moment for our country. This is extremely important for our country to show that we can still work together and to show that we are united when it comes to the needs. I have always said: There are a few things in this country that basically unite us. One has always been our military. We want to support our military, our law enforcement officers, our firemen, and all the people who run into harm's way when everyone else is running away from harm's way. Those people are special--very special--I have always said. We all seem to rise always for that. But now we have one other. We have infrastructure, which unites us. I have never seen a road in my State, in the Presiding Officer's State, or anywhere in the country that had a bad road or a bad pothole that busted my tire that had a Democrat or Republican name on it. It will get the Republican, as well as it will get me and the Presiding Officer. So that is why this brings us together. We all have these needs. As Governors, we had the same needs. We used to talk across the board-- whether it be education, whether it be highways, whether it be different things that we needed in our State that we all had the same concerns and problems with. We never worried about whether it was a Republican or Democrat being the Governor. The Presiding Officer had the same problems we all had, and we shared successes and the challenges and how to overcome those challenges. This is who we are as Americans. And how we become so divided, I don't know. It worries me, and the reason I say this is that this is probably the most important bill that we have worked on in many, many years because it is the most difficult, challenging times of our lives. Our country has never been more divided than it is today, and we need something to bring us together. I am so thankful that President Biden has taken this piece of legislation as his own and gone around the country on how important this piece of legislation is for not just his administration but for the entire country. He has been able to identify that. Democrats and Republicans--we are going to have 20 Republicans today get on the bill. Everyone was afraid that someone is going to get mad and leave. We kept gaining. And as they see the support back home, it will continue to create more momentum. That is what we need. This is extremely as important as anything we do from this day forward to pass a bipartisan bill--show the people that basically, yes, we are all Americans first, and we are going to take care of the deferred maintenance we let go for far too long because of politics. We have set politics aside to take care of America. So I encourage all of my friends, please, look and see what this bill does for America. Look and see what this bill does for your State. You will be surprised. And I think we have tried to help everybody that we could, and we will continue to work together. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Amanda Hoffman, a legislative fellow on my staff, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of the 117th Congress.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I will explain my reasons. Senator Daines' amendment seeks to alter the funding levels of provisions in the Energy Infrastructure Act as reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Specifically, the amendment cuts funding for hiring veterans and Native youth to do fire prevention projects and directs that funding to postfire rehabilitation projects and to States that carry out projects on Federal land. We are supportive of both postfire projects and States doing work on Federal land. That is why we funded these programs at unprecedented levels in our bill. However, we also support funding for veterans and Native youth. So I do not believe it is appropriate to cut the funding for this program. So I urge my colleagues to please vote no on this amendment.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues. This has been the most enjoyable venture for the last 6 to 8 weeks. So many people have given up on the Senate. They have given up on Congress. They have given up on our ability to be able to do the big things. This is big. This is a big deal. And I don't care who is looking at it any way they can, it has been said that nothing like this has been done in 30 years. It hasn't. We have all talked about it. We all knew it. Senator Warner said that, basically, potholes and bridges don't have names. They don't have Republican and Democrat identification. It will hurt us all, and it has. It is something that every administration for the past four to five administrations knew had to be done, and they didn't because this is hard. It is not easy. They call us a deliberative body. This is true to what deliberation is about: to come to an agreement. And it takes an awful lot of time, a lot of patience, and a lot of effort. We did that. And when you think about it, having Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and the leader of the Republican Party, Mitch McConnell, vote for this piece of legislation, that says a lot about it; that it is needed. The American people are speaking loud and clear. The polls are overwhelming, whether it is Democrat, Republican, Independent--they could care less. They want their infrastructure repaired. Let's rebuild America. We talk about it a lot. And when you think about this, this is the largest long-term jobs program that we have done--that we have ever done--for an awful long time. They talk about, basically, that the economy is soaring now, and they figure it will taper off and maybe even go down. This will prevent that from happening. These are great jobs. In every city, in every part of the county, in every State in America, great jobs are going to be available for people who want good-paying, high-skill jobs with benefits. This is the bill that will do it for them, and this will keep us going from 5 to 10 years, not just 1 year. It is not just a ``one blip'' on the radar screen and we are done. This is for 5 to 10 years, and we can continue to build on it. There are only a few things that bring us together as Americans, that bring us together as Congress, that we all gather around. One is the military. I have never seen a military piece of legislation or NDAA that we all didn't rally around and pass, whether Democrat or Republican. We knew it had to be done for the sake of our country. And infrastructure is the second. I have never seen anything so popular as infrastructure. People say: Oh, Joe, we need it done. And these are people that might be hardcore left or hardcore right. They could care less. They want their infrastructure. They want their roads. They want their children safe on the buses. They want to be able to travel and communicate. They want internet service, if you live in Maine or if you live in rural Alaska or you live in rural West Virginia or New Hampshire or Virginia or Louisiana or Utah and also in Ohio. Wherever you may be, they want it. They want to be able to communicate and compete for the jobs of the 21st century. This is largest investment in clean drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in American history--the largest. It is the largest dedicated bridge investment since the construction of the interstate highway system. It is the largest investment in clean energy transmission and infrastructure in the history of our country. It is the largest Federal investment in passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak. Think about that. Think of what I just said. It is the largest we have ever done. This is something. Now, I have always said that the best politics is good government. We do something good, and we can all take credit for it. I have seen people take credit for things they voted against when it was so good. This is one they can. They can say it is going to be great, go home, you will enjoy it. I can tell you also what the deliberative body that we are and the greatest deliberative body in the world. By deliberation, it brings us together. We know each other. We know each other's families. We care about each other. We don't look at each as Democrat or Republican. These are my friends, my individual friends, who I think basically would have my back at any time of the day and I would have theirs. This is what brings us--this is what people want. They want to see us work. And I want to thank--I will thank--Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. He has been adamant about let's pass this bill. Hurry up. Now, he has pushed us a little bit faster sometimes, but it is deliberation. We got through it. But he wanted the bill to happen. And I think, really--I think deep down--that Mitch McConnell wants the bill. He has voted for it. He wants it too. So when you have both leaders pushing for it on both sides of the aisle, this is something that is going to get across the line, and I really believe very strongly in it. It includes the energy infrastructure act that passed the ENR, with Senator Murkowski, then as the majority, as the chairman of Energy and Natural Resources. We worked on it together--a great piece of legislation. We are talking about energy that is going to be making and keeping America energy independent, but doing it cleaner than at any time in the world, anyplace in the world. We are going to be the leader for the world. You can't eliminate your way to a clean environment, but you can innovate your way. That is what this bill has. It has the commitment to research and development that will define basically the way that we can clean up the climate, which we are all responsible for. So I am very proud to be part of this and proud of all of you, my colleagues, that I have worked with and I think the world of. This is something we should be proud of. This is a give-and-take proposition. Nobody got what they wanted; everybody got what we needed. And that is the most important thing. Thank you, Mr. President. Now, I yield to my good friend from Louisiana.

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 to print the following letter in the Congressional Record.

Mr. MANCHIN

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

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, today the Senate will be voting to invoke cloture on the nomination of Tommy Beaudreau. And I have to explain the difference between ``Bohdroh'' and ``Beaudreau.'' ``Bohdroh'' is when you are up north in Alaska being raised, and that is how it is said and pronounced. It is spelled B-O-H-D-R-O-H. Now, if you are down in the South, especially in Louisiana, it would be all Beaudreau, which is B-E-A-U-X. So there is a difference here, and Tommy wanted to make sure that I explained that to you. Mr. Beaudreau has been nominated to serve as the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior. I believe that he will be an outstanding Deputy Secretary. He is experienced. He knows the Department of the Interior, and he is familiar with the wide range of issues that come before it. He has previously served as the first Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, as the Acting Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, and as Chief of Staff of the Department. His performance at his nomination hearing demonstrated that he has both a very firm grasp of the issues and the ability to listen, learn, and work with all sides and to find commonsense solutions to difficult problems. He has the knowledge, the experience, the temperament, and the skills needed to serve in this important position. Mr. Beaudreau fully understands the role of the Department of the Interior in striking the balance in its dual mission of preserving and protecting our national parks and public lands and providing a large part of the energy and mineral resources that we need to power the Nation. And I believe Senators on both sides of the aisle will find that he is someone that they can work with. Mr. Beaudreau is supremely well qualified for the job. He was reported out of the Senate Energy Committee with a very, very strong bipartisan vote. I heartily support his nomination, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MANCHIN

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

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment by Senator Lee. His amendment would amend the Antiquities Act to prohibit the President from reserving water when designating a national monument. The amendment states that any water rights associated with a national monument may only be acquired under State law. The Lee amendment overturns decades of Supreme Court precedent that when a President designates a national monument under the Antiquities Act, the designation reserves the right to use enough water to fulfill the purpose of the monument. But the water infrastructure bill is not the appropriate place for this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. MANCHIN

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

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join Senator Portman and myself--and Senator Portman will come in later and express his desire for this also--in taking action to permanently schedule fentanyl and deadly fentanyl analogs. Fentanyl is 100 times more potent than morphine, 50 times more potent than heroin, and according to the DEA, 2 milligrams--just 2 milligrams--of fentanyl can cause a lethal overdose. In February 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration issued a temporary scheduling order to schedule fentanyl-related substances, which has allowed Federal law enforcement authorities to bring criminal actions against individuals who manufacture, distribute, or handle fentanyl-related substances. A year ago, this body extended the scheduling order through May 6, 2021, via unanimous consent. The House extended it by a vote of 320 to 88. This should not be controversial at all. In 2019, 36,359 people died because of fentanyl. That is 51 percent of all overdose deaths that year--51 percent. Over half of the people who were killed by overdose were by fentanyl. We know 2020 was a record year in drug overdoses, mainly driven by fentanyl-related substances and the COVID-19 pandemic. We can safely assume that there were at least 44,000 deaths last year--think about that--44,000 deaths related to fentanyl last year. In total, that is over 80,000 people who have died because of fentanyl in just the last 2 years. It is heartbreaking to lose so many Americans to preventable overdoses. The time to permanently schedule this deadly substance is now. That is why Senator Portman and I reintroduced the bipartisan FIGHT Fentanyl Act to permanently schedule fentanyl and fentanyl analogs. I am saying permanently schedule fentanyl and fentanyl analogs. The FIGHT Fentanyl Act is a proactive overdose prevention bill. It stops the creation of these drugs and removes incentives for people to bring these deadly chemicals into our country, reducing the harm to our fellow Americans. We know that fentanyl is deadly. It is killing Americans at record rates. West Virginia, my home State, has the highest overdose rates per capita in the Nation, and every West Virginian is familiar with the horrible impacts of the drug epidemic on our family, friends, neighbors, and our entire economy. I recognize there are concerns about mandatory minimums that do more harm than good. But permanently scheduling fentanyl and fentanyl analogs is not about locking people up; it is about keeping our fellow Americans alive. Don't take my word for it. We asked the GAO to study it--the General Accounting Office to study it. In the last 3 years since the rescheduling was put in place, the GAO found only eight prosecutions occurred related to fentanyl analogs, four of which were associated with drug cartels. If that is not enough, our bill also explicitly prohibits new mandatory minimums associated with fentanyl analogs. Here are the facts: 80,000 deaths compared to 8 prosecutions--80,000 deaths compared to 8 prosecutions. Here is another fact: We simply don't have the support in Congress today to pass the FIGHT Fentanyl Act right now. It is hard to believe. We must pass another short-term extension this week to ensure the essential temporary protection does not lapse. I hope my colleagues will at least support that effort. I also urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to join Senator Portman and me in this effort to permanently reschedule this deadly, deadly drug. We cannot afford to keep kicking the can down the road as we have for far too long. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor longtime Kanawha County Circuit Judge Tod Kaufman upon his retirement after more than 32 remarkable years of service to the 13th Judicial Circuit. I have often said there is no greater accomplishment than to find yourself in a position to give back to the community you love. As a Charleston native, Judge Kaufman has served the people of Kanawha County with professionalism, fairmindedness, and great respect from the day he took office in 1988. Following his undergraduate education, he worked as a paralegal in the Washington, DC, law firm of Covington & Burling and received a law degree from West Virginia University College of Law in 1980. He served a clerkship on the U.S. Tax Court during law school before joining his late father's Charleston law firm of Kaufman & Ratliff in 1980. Prior to his appointment as judge, he served as my colleague in the State legislature and was appointed to the State senate in 1982 by then- Governor Jay Rockefeller and was elected in 1984. Judge Kaufman's lectured internationally at prestigious law schools and conferences and is a former member of the Mass Litigation Panel of the West Virginia Supreme Court and past president and executive officer of the West Virginia Judicial Association. Shortly after graduating law school, Judge Kaufman tragically lost his parents, former Senator and World War II veteran Paul Kaufman and Rose, and brother, Steven, in a car accident. I know their unfailing love and influence had a tremendous impact on the person he was to become. Both of his parents were extremely active in their community and passionate about many social issues. I will always be personally grateful to them that they passed their work ethic and compassion on to Judge Kaufman, because he has done so much good in our home State due to their influence. In 2011, the 35th Street Bridge over the Kanawha River between the East End and Kanawha City was renamed in their honor, and I am certain they would be so very proud of Judge Kaufman's legacy and personal values. Throughout the years, Judge Kaufman has witnessed the drastic changes in the judicial landscape. Technology in the courts has played a crucial role, especially with current events as they are, but Judge Kaufman has always promoted the value of interpersonal communication and protecting the humanism in our court processes. He has been fiercely protective of the interests of the people in front of him in the courtroom, acknowledging the heavy responsibility of representing the justice system. He and I served in the State senate together, and in the many years I have called him a friend, Judge Kaufman has never taken his position lightly and has always seen himself primarily as a servant of the people of Kanawha County and of West Virginia. His view of the law is something I will always admire, and I know it has also inspired countless young judges and lawyers. I will always be grateful to Judge Kaufman for his years of friendship and our shared passion for serving the people of West Virginia. While he is retiring and everyone is sure to miss his strong leadership, Judge Kaufman's unwavering dedication will leave a lasting legacy with the countless lives he has touched. Again, I congratulate him for his remarkable years of service, and I am honored to wish good health and much happiness to Judge Kaufman, his wife Barrie, and their daughters, Paula, Caroline, and Sophia, in the days and years ahead.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I have a statement to make. Last week, my friend from Indiana and I were last down here discussing this issue. There seemed to be a lot of confusion about the Treasury--or how the Treasury would interpret the net tax revenue provision. There seemed to be a fear that this language would prevent States from cutting any taxes whatsoever. And the good news is that we received some guidance earlier this week from Secretary Yellen that should put those concerns to bed once and for all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from Secretary Yellen

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I will enter this letter into the Record, but I would like to read the key sentences. And to the Senator from Indiana, if I could read this letter to you and to make sure that--I don't know how--I have spoken to my attorney general, who was one of the original cosigners, and I said: Mr. Attorney General, I want to explain this in English because it is very easy to understand. It says this: Nothing in the Act prevents States from enacting a broad variety of tax cuts. Do whatever you want. That is, the Act does not ``deny States the ability to cut taxes in any manner whatsoever.'' This comes from the Secretary of Treasury. It simply provides that funding received under the Act may not be used to offset a reduction. . . . That you choose, unless it is COVID related. It makes all the sense in the world. It has to be COVID related. If States lower certain taxes but do not use funds under the Act to offset those cuts--for example, by replacing the lost revenue through other means--the limitation in the Act is not implicated. They can do whatever they want to. And if they can show other revenue to offset it, that is great. They just cannot use the Treasury's money that the people have invested in their States for that purpose. It also says this: It is . . . important to note that the States choosing to use the Federal funds to offset a reduction in net tax revenue do not thereby forfeit their entire allocation of funds appropriated under this statute. They have alluded to that, which is not accurate. The limitation affects States' ability to retain only those Federal funds used to offset a reduction in . . . tax revenue resulting from certain changes in [the] state law. That is it. That is not--and these are all supposed to be educated attorneys that are writing letters wanting explanations. This is as common sense as it gets. It is a bipartisan guardrail to simply make sure the emergency funds make it to the people who need it most, and the States can do whatever they think they should do and could do. As a former Governor, I would have been offended if I thought it was hampered. I am not. I have got to make good decisions here. I have other revenue coming in. I want to cut this tax. That is fine. I just can't cut a tax to be popular and then say: OK. Mr. Senators here, please send us money so we can be popular back home but use your money to make us look good. That is about it in a nutshell. So it is for those reasons, and many, many more, I object.

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

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise to honor the life of a noble veteran, a beloved husband, father, grandfather, friend, brother, uncle, and someone I had been fortunate enough to call my dear brother- in-law, Robert Gutz Thompson. What I always admired about Bob was his unparalleled work ethic and determination to learn and serve and to inspire those around him. Bob was a graduate of the University of Wyoming, Class of 1961. He then joined the military and entered flight training in 1963, and he was designated as a naval aviator in 1964. From the day he was motivated to join the military to his military retirement in 1983, he showcased steadfast dedication and a commitment to excellence that can only be matched by his loving devotion as part of our family. Bob proudly served our Nation for more than 20 years and leaves behind a distinguished legacy of military history, including service aboard the USS Intrepid, the USS Randolph, the USS Lexington, and the USS Forrestal. He flew thousands of flight hours throughout his distinguished career. He trained other pilots. He commanded naval units, and he was deployed multiple times, including to the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, and the Arctic Circle. He earned the Navy Achievement Medal for his performance as Landing Signal Officer during a winter deployment to the North Atlantic. In 1967, he joined the VS-30 squadron and reported to Key West, FL, as an instructor pilot. In 1970, he was awarded the Navy Commendation Medal for recovering aircraft within the Arctic Circle. In 1972, Bob was selected for and attended the Naval War College in Rhode Island and then was assigned to the Naval Air Station Cecil Field, in Florida, to lead the squadron's relocation operations. In 1976, he served aboard the USS Forrestal as operations officer. In 1979, Bob assumed command of the VS-30 squadron, where he deployed with his beloved Diamondcutters to the Mediterranean. Later that year, Bob received orders to the Pentagon to work on what is now known as GPS. His assignments were tough--squadron executive officer, squadron commander, instructor pilot, and so many more--but he was always tougher than they were. It is unbelievable the leader he was to all of those who served and served with pride. Put simply, Bob was one of the most generous, kind, hard-working, and inspirational people I ever knew. My whole family and I adored Bob ever since he joined the family, and Bob's passing has left a deep impact on all of us. This is also an important time to celebrate Bob's life and the profound feelings of joy and pride that he brought to all of us. While Bob wasn't born in West Virginia, he certainly was a Mountaineer, through and through, in his heart and soul and was a dedicated fan of his beloved WVU sports teams, especially football and basketball. When visitors come to our little State, I jump at the chance to tell them we are home to the most hard-working and patriotic people in the Nation. We have fought in more wars; we have shed more blood; and lost more lives for the cause of freedom than most any other State. We have always done the heavy lifting, and no one has ever complained. We have mined the coal, forged the steel that built the guns and ships and factories that have protected and continue to protect our country to this day. I am so deeply proud of what West Virginians like my brother-in-law Bob Thompson have accomplished and what they will continue to accomplish to protect the freedoms that we all take for granted and hold so dear. We have every reason to be proud and to stand tall knowing that West Virginia is the reason Americans sleep peacefully at night. It is because of all of our veterans, past and present, that we can proudly proclaim ``Mountaineers Are Always Free,'' and we are all so very, very proud of our Bob for being a vital part of our legacy. What is most important is that he lived a full life, surrounded by his loved ones. I extend all of our condolences to my dear sister Janet, Bob's beloved wife of 56 years; his daughter Mary Jo; his son Peter; granddaughter Isabella; his siblings, Mary, Greg, Kathy, and Clark; his 24 Thompson nieces and nephews; his brothers-in- law John and Rock; sister-in-law Paula; and his 45 Manchin nieces and nephews. Again, we extend our most sincere condolences for our shared loss of this remarkable--absolutely remarkable person. The unwavering love that Bob had for his family, his friends, and our Nation will live on forever in the hearts of all who had the privilege of knowing Robert Gutz Thompson. God rest, Bob.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. MANCHIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, my good friend the Senator from Indiana--I am hoping this is a misunderstanding, and I hope I can explain it because I was very much involved in this process. First of all, as a former Governor, I know about the budget process. I know about balanced budgets. I used to meet every Tuesday afternoon. As Governor, I would have my finance people come to my office, and we would sit down and look at the revenue estimates. We had to make adjustments because we had a balanced budget amendment. Isn't that a novelty, a balanced budget amendment? We had to live within our confines. That is something that no one who has ever been in State government or ever run a business understands. I understand that. But it is something that we did very religiously. The language in this bill, Senator from Indiana, the only thing this bill does--or that language you were concerned about, the only thing it did--you can cut all you want to. You can manage all your money the way you want. You just can't take Federal money and use it if you cut your revenue intentionally. That is all. What we try to do is target where the money has gone. So the Treasury, you have to go--as a State, you go to the Treasury, and you show the need that you have. You show the cost--what COVID has cost your revenue and you are able to have money to replace that because COVID caused you that problem. You have also the ability to use this, in your State, for three things: water, sewer, and internet service. So you have infrastructure that can be done. Also, what we did in this bill is we have it going out to 2024, so you are not going to overheat, if you will--overheat or overcharge the economy. They can spread that out. The State and local moneys go in two tranches: Half this year, half next year is what you can access. The money to every one of your communities--for the first time, 40 percent of that total money goes directly, so your large cities will get money directly from the Treasury. They have to show how they are using it for their backfill, not, basically, having anything to do with what their tax revenue is. They just can't use this money to backfill tax cuts if they want to do that. That is pretty simple because there is not a need for it. If you can reduce your taxes, then you don't need Federal dollars to backfill to show that you are in good shape. But if you need it for anything else, you can use it for that. You can use it for all these things. I can tell you--I would assure you that every incorporated city in Indiana, every county in Indiana has to be thrilled. They have to be thrilled for the first time to have control of their destiny. That was our intention. In the first CARES package, that never happened. The first CARES package went directly to the Governors, and if the Governors were very prudent in how they did it--set up a committee, worked through the legislature--some did, some didn't, and there is a lot of money that never got into the basic fibers of your State or my State. Now that is not going to be the problem. Also, they have the ability, if they have a water project they have been trying to do forever and never had the resources to do it, they can use their money for that. If they have a sewer project--I have said this: How do we pick water, sewer, and internet? They are not the sexy things that, basically, Governors and politicians go out and cut ribbons for--a sewer line or a water line that is buried 50 feet down. That is not a sexy thing. We knew the infrastructure was falling apart city by city and the ages of water lines are over 80 years in most of our cities. So we tried to do something. They have until 2024, so they don't have to throw it out. It is not shovel-ready. It is a project you have been wanting to do but never could afford. I assure you, we do not want to impede good fiscal management to make adjustments to do whatever they want to their tax codes. This does not prohibit that. It just prohibits using and going to the Federal Treasury and saying: I have a loss of revenue because I cut $100 billion or I cut $100 million or a billion dollars out of my State budget when I reduced taxes, and now I can't pay my bills. Also, you can't use this money from the Federal Government for your pensions. That is a responsibility that we have. We call it OPEB, other postponed employment benefits. OPEB is other postponed employment benefits--pensions, healthcare, all the things that when a person retires from their State, these are things that the State has a contract and an obligation for them in their retirement. It is the responsibility of the States to manage that, and that, basically, keeps the State in a good financial position. It keeps your credit rating up or your credit rating low if you have managed yourself through it. This is only to help you with expenses and extraordinary expenses that you incurred during COVID. That is all, sir. I don't want the State of Indiana or any State to think that they can't do whatever they want to with their taxes. They just can't use the Federal Treasury to backfill something done deliberately, basically, or self-inflicted--a loss of revenue. That is about it in a nutshell. COVID-19 is the greatest challenge we have ever had. I know you mentioned a few things. I will tell you this because my dear friend from Maine is sitting here. We met quite a bit on the bill in a bipartisan way, even though a lot of it did not get in. The bill was bigger than what my friends--all of you, my friends on the Republican side--could basically vote for. I understand that. But please understand there are an awful lot of things we talked about that I did everything in my power to make sure the tranches-- spreading them out, not going it all at one time. There is the RESTAURANTS Act. Senator Wicker and Senator Sinema were on the RESTAURANTS Act. There was, basically, the homeless children's bill that Senator Murkowski and myself put in there. There was bipartisanship in that. There should have been a lot more; I agree. We both know the process sometimes doesn't work the way we want it to. But you make every effort you can to make it work. I did that. Whenever I talked, I said that this had bipartisan input. It didn't come out as a bipartisan vote, but there was bipartisan input into this piece of legislation, the best we possibly could. I think it is a piece of legislation that we--if you have education, there is not a school in America today that should not be able to have a program where they can make their school the safest environment that a child should be in. Every parent should be safe in thinking their children are in a safe place because of heating, ventilation--things that we have in this bill that allow education to have the resources it needs and, also, your higher education too. The money that is going out--you have money going to the stimulus payments, going to all of your citizens at $75,000. We put a hard cap. We tried it to put a hard cap at $75,000 and $150,000. We found out the first CARES package--I don't think that anyone on the Republican side or the Democrat side thought someone making $200,000, $300,000 would be getting money. They didn't need a check, but we found out it happened. We didn't intend for that to happen. That is the way the code read, and that is the way it kind of slipped into that. We stopped that from happening here. So we tried to do everything--and that, again, came from our bipartisan group. If it wasn't for the bipartisan group talking and saying ``This is something we can't do,'' I would have had things I might have missed. I wouldn't have known some things that were of concern to all of us and some of the atrocities that happened that we didn't want to repeat. We did all the things we could to stop that. I am very reluctant to object to any of my Senators, my fellow Senators, but on this one, sir--if I can work with you on this--I am objecting because I want to have a productive sit-down with you and we can work on something together. Please tell your Governor that he can cut away if he wants to. He just can't go back to the Federal Government and say: OK, I made a mistake. Now I need your money. That is about it in a nutshell. If Indiana can cut and it helps you and grows your economy, God bless you. If you have COVID expenses, we are going to help you. If you have projects--my goodness, just infrastructure projects--then there is no impediment there if you have internet services you need, if you have water services, and you have sewer services. In West Virginia, what we are trying to do right now is put a team together that can basically work from this. The State has money for those three tranches of infrastructure. The counties have it, and the municipalities have it. The unincorporated towns that aren't able to get money directly are going to count on the county and the State. There is so much good to be done to make it work for you to make sure they understand. They are elated to now have a project they never could finish, like upgrade your services, finish your water line, have internet service you have never had before. These are all unbelievable opportunities that we have never had. The bipartisan SMART Act that was filed in May 2020 included both of these guardrails, plus another one required maintenance of effort. We have that in there. Maintenance of effort--we put that back then. The Bipartisan State and Local Support of Small Business Protections Act that was released last December had exactly the same language. This is not new language, sir. This is the same language that has been there. They have never been able to backfill for, basically, discretionary cuts that they made themselves. It doesn't prohibit them, the same as it doesn't prohibit anybody in their State for having--and being a former Governor, I am very partial to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, States rights. You have those rights. Now you have the assistance also with those rights. I am hoping to improve everyone's situation. I know it does in West Virginia. I hope it does in Maine. I hope it does in Indiana, and I think it will. It is all about making these emergency funds get to the right people. We are trying to target it. It is something we have to keep an eye on. I can tell if we do it and do it right and we are good stewards, this will get us through this COVID challenge that we have because we really don't know. I am hoping we come out of this guns ablazing in July--we come out of this, and the economy takes off like a rocket. Sometimes when they take off, they tend to level off too. We want to make sure we are still out there for 2022, 2023, out to 2024. And if they do it and do it right, they can. They can finish their projects and be able to have the moneys as needed for emergencies if it has a dip. With that, we thought we had worked something, but the language is nothing new. It is not a surprise. It was not anything that was put in; it has been in there. Basically, it is language that spells out pretty directly how you can use your money and what money you can't acquire. That is the only thing we did. I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN. Yes, there is objection.

Mr. MANCHIN. Will the Senator yield?