Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges today, July 14, 2021: Tanner Conley, Karryn MacDonald, Payton McEndree, and Madison Stoddard.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am excited to announce the founding of the Senate Financial Innovation Caucus with my friend and cochair, the Senator from Arizona. I am delighted that you also have joined our caucus. We are grateful for your participation and look forward to working with you.

One of my top priorities and a legacy I hope to leave in this Chamber is to ensure the United States remains a global leader in financial services for future generations.

The U.S. dollar is the world's unquestioned reserve currency. Since the Second World War, this leadership role has given our country enormous advantages, including affordable credit and trade finance. China is not hiding its ambition to knock the U.S. dollar down a peg by offering a competitor payment system that sidesteps the United States.

This year, the Chinese Government launched a pilot program for their digital yuan in multiple cities around China. They expect to completely release the central bank digital currency at the 2022 Winter Olympics.

A video released by China state-controlled media in December of 2020 openly stated that the digital yuan will allow China to ``actively participate in reforming world economic governance'' and is ``one of the building blocks of China's move toward world market status and greater involvement in setting the framework of the global economy.''

China does not share the same values as our country relating to fair competition. This chilling reality is one of the many reasons the United States must advance financial innovation and do so now. China is serious about the future. Chinese President Xi stated in 2018 that financial innovation is ``the new industrial revolution.''

In another part of the world, digital assets are protecting many Venezuelans during their current economic crisis and ensuring corrupt government officials cannot seize or devalue their hard-earned savings. The U.S. Government is also using digital assets to achieve its foreign policy objectives and to provide humanitarian aid to Venezuelan groups faster than traditional channels.

We must work hard today to ensure the next generation of Americans can enjoy the opportunity and prosperity made possible by responsible innovation. Failure to do so could have astronomical impacts on the freedoms and privileges that are essential to the American dream.

I have been encouraged by early signs from the Biden administration that they understand the existential threat of China and the promise of financial innovation. China's moves alone should create a sense of urgency in this Chamber to take action.

But it is not just a threat from China that should motivate us. In addition to

protecting the U.S. position as the world leader in the financial system, proper regulations for financial innovation will have lasting effects in the financial industry in several ways, notably financial inclusion and entrepreneurship because financial innovation encompasses topics as diverse as faster payment and equities settlement, central bank digital currencies, financial inclusion, digital assets, distributed ledger technology, consumer protection, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. This area has remained bipartisan, following in the tradition of many other financial service issues.

The Financial Innovation Caucus is rigorously committed to the tradition of bipartisanship and will create a lasting legacy by doing so. Innovation is core to the American identity, and innovation isn't confined to one party. Our job here is to create a framework that allows innovation to take root. Regulatory certainty fosters entrepreneurial innovation. A lack of regulatory clarity, on the flip side, strangles regulation, restrains entrepreneurship.

In many cases, financial innovators are simply hungry to know the rules of the road and how they fit into existing law. We need a right- sized regulatory framework for financial technology that both enables new market opportunities and emphasizes consumer protection. The innovator too often loses when competing against business giants with lobbying arms. Together, we can craft regulations that foster innovation, not stifle or unnecessarily direct it.

We also need a new consumer protection framework for emerging tech, which promotes access and innovation but ensures appropriate guardrails are in place.

Innovators are the lifeblood of America. Each new idea strengthens our future. Innovators have done hard work in coming up with ideas which will bring underserved populations into the financial system, reduce systemic risk, and strengthen our competitive nature on the global stage.

Yet there is only so much innovators can accomplish due to our maze of financial regulations. American innovators need clear rules of the road so they can responsibly turn innovation into reality. It is our obligation as government officials to create a framework that clearly enables responsible innovation rather than stifling it. We must do a great deal more in the coming years to clarify and modernize our financial laws.

Citibank, Goldman Sachs, Avanti Bank and Trust, State Street, Deutsche Bank, Kraken, and other large financial institutions are now doing much more than dipping their toes into this realm. They are diving into the financial technology and digital asset markets. Financial innovation is here to stay. Younger generations are turning to and prioritizing technology for their investments.

In February, CNBC reported that there may be as many as 100,000 millionaires from the appreciation of digital assets like Bitcoin. These technologies, if harnessed wisely, see no color, no creed, and no sex

But financial innovation is not limited to regulating digital assets. This caucus will also focus on issues like faster payments, including a U.S. central bank digital currency and FedNow, which have real potential to allow all Americans to receive their paychecks instantly.

The lack of real-time payments costs disadvantaged Americans millions in overdraft fees each year and would reduce many Americans' reliance on high-interest loans. It also traps large amounts of capital for companies, which could be deployed more productively. Tackling these issues will help bring millions of unbanked or underbanked Americans into our financial system.

In Wyoming, we live by the doctrine that you have to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. What you earn is a direct result of your hard work. All Americans should have access to their hard-earned money and investments whenever they would like. We can and should use innovation technologies to reduce settlement times in our payment networks and capital markets and to reduce systemic risk and improve transparency.

Threats to the world economic system, coupled with the benefits financial innovation can create, is why, today, alongside many of my colleagues from both parties, we are founding the Senate Financial Innovation Caucus. The caucus is a bipartisan group committed to promoting responsible innovation to help the U.S. financial industry truly meet 21st century challenges of a globally interconnected economy and to harvest technology to make markets more inclusive, vibrant, and safe for all Americans. After all, our financial innovation is critical in our pursuit to ensure equal access to financial institutions and opportunities.

It is my hope that the work done by the Financial Innovation Caucus will deliver comprehensive legislation to clarify, regulate, and protect America's edge in the financial industry when it comes to innovation. We live in a digital world. Technology is now engrained in our everyday lives. Our lives should reflect this shift and should not hinder innovation. Only together can we secure the U.S. role in the future of finance. So let's go to work.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when I joined the Senate Banking Committee last February, I pledged to fairly examine every issue that came before us, with an eye for detail and a fresh perspective-- promoting innovation, free markets, and our dual banking system.

I support the policy goals of the true lender rule in promoting access to credit for underserved communities. I also recognize how vital it is to provide legal clarity to financial technology innovators during this time of change. I support all banks' powers, both State and national, to export interest rates across State lines and to make unassigned loans with clear regulatory certainty. Again, this promotes access to credit.

The issues raised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's true lender rule and S.J. Res. 15, however, are not limited to ensuring access to credit or protecting consumers from predatory lending and have much larger implications for our banking system.

State-chartered banks have existed since the founding of our Republic. After the passage of the National Bank Act of 1864, our country fostered a dual banking system, and our country is all the stronger for it. The United States is the leader of the global financial system because we have a banking system that is based on competitive equality, flexibility, and innovation.

Under the Federal laws that protect our dual banking system, State and nationally chartered depository institutions have nearly identical powers to carry out the business of banking across State lines with legal clarity. This is because of State parity and the so-called State wild card laws, the Riegle-Neal Act, and subsequent amendments over the years. The Federal Reserve and the FDIC have broadly supported these policies as well, adopting rules that promote equality for State banks vis-a-vis national banks.

Esther George, President of the Kansas City Fed, noted in a 2012 speech that ``the dual banking system has provided and continues to offer significant benefits to our financial system and economy . . . multiple options for state and federal charters have led to considerable innovation and improvement in banking services.''

So Congress and our Federal bank supervisors, on a roundly bipartisan basis, have always been committed to maintaining parity between State and nationally chartered institutions.

This brings us to today's vote. The problem with the true lender rule before us is that it has the potential to upend parity between State and national banks. In a nutshell, the OCC true lender rule determines which banks or other financial institutions actually make a consumer loan. Many States have different legal standards for determining this. Ultimately, this would allow national banks to make and assign loans more easily than State-chartered banks, giving them a distinct advantage in the lending business.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation did not adopt companions to the OCC true lender rule. It is likely those Agencies do not have the legal authority to adopt a similar rule for State banks. The FDIC confirmed this during public remarks in December 2020. Consequently, we are left with a scenario where national banks and Federal savings associations have a great deal of legal clarity about marketplace lending and State- chartered banks do not.

Why does this matter? There are approximately 3,954 State-chartered banks in our country as of December. There are approximately 1,062 national banks and Federal savings associations that are depository institutions. That means that of the approximately 5,016 commercial banks in our dual banking system, about 79 percent are State banks and 21 percent are national banks and Federal savings institutions. The OCC true lender rule applies to only 21 percent of the banks in our country. Does a rule that applies to only 21 percent of the banks really promote parity between State and nationally chartered institutions? This chart shows plain as day that it does not.

Moreover, State-chartered banks are the primary banks currently engaged in the kind of marketplace lending envisioned by the OCC true lender rule. Many State banks have innovative and thriving partnerships with nonbank lenders today. The OCC true lender rule will cause those partnerships to shift to national banks. Why would a nonbank lender choose to partner with a State bank that lacks the legal clarity of a national bank or savings association and the preemption that follows Federal law? I do not believe they will. There would be a great deal of legal uncertainty for them because of State consumer protection laws. Many of the State bank partnerships we see today in the marketplace lending arena may disappear as the nonbank lenders naturally gravitate towards the greater legal clarity of national banks.

This rule, in effect, would make these innovative partnerships the domain of national banks, rendering State-chartered banks to be more like second-class institutions. That has not been the will of Congress in the past, and I don't believe it is today.

A prominent law firm noted in January of this year that ``for institutions that participate in marketplace lending, most of which are state-chartered banks, the lack of an FDIC rule creates a significant exception to the federal support for the marketplace lending model and appears to largely leave the issue to the states.''

Many wonder why States cannot adopt their own true lender rules on a State-by-State basis or adopt some kind of uniform law. This likely will not work for a number of reasons.

First, were a State like Wyoming to adopt its own true lender rule for its own banks, what would require another State to respect the Wyoming true lender rule and set aside its own consumer protection laws that conflict with the Wyoming law? It likely would not, and that State would likely require a Wyoming bank without a branch in that State to abide by its own consumer protection laws in doing business there. This is a basic tenet of States maintaining sovereignty within their own borders, limited only by the U.S. Constitution and Federal law.

Secondly, a uniform law adopted at the State level would likely take 3 to 5 years, and by that time, marketplace lending would firmly be the province of nationally chartered institutions. There would then be no need for the law.

So where does that leave our dual banking system? The OCC true lender rule clarifies a thorny legal question and restricts the application of State consumer protection laws, providing legal clarity in marketplace lending to 21 percent of the banks in this country, while essentially telling the other 79 percent that they should convert to a national charter or risk being left behind. That is the kind of choice Congress has rejected in the past.

Many question the value of using the Congressional Review Act against the true lender rule since it will prevent the OCC from adopting a similar rule in the future. However, again, both the FDIC and the Federal Reserve likely do not have the requisite statutory authority to adopt their own true lender rule anyway. As a result, there is no rule or Agency-based solution that fixes this problem in a satisfactory way.

For the true lender rule to apply equally to all State and national banks, Congress must act. Leaving the OCC true lender rule in place would reduce the likelihood of Congress fixing the issue. Disapproving this rule will ensure that this issue remains top-of-mind for many and can be fixed in a lasting way that ensures a level playing field. This is a classic example of an issue crying out for a uniform national standard enacted by Congress, which applies to all banks.

The United States is the leader of the global financial system for many reasons, but one of those is surely the innovation, competition, and diversity of thought brought about by our dual banking system. This is a privilege, not a right, however, and one must work hard to maintain that for future generations.

I am proud to be a vocal advocate of financial innovation in this Chamber, and I will continue to work hard towards modernizing our financial system in a responsible manner. However, for innovation to be truly lasting, it has to be built on a solid foundation and not pick winners and losers between national banks and State banks.

Only Congress can truly fix this issue. I look forward to working with my colleagues to accomplish this. In the coming days, I will be introducing legislation to do just that. Until this is fixed, the current ``valid when made'' rule will continue to provide legal clarity to Federal and State banks.

I urge my colleagues to thoughtfully consider the potential impact of the OCC true lender rule on State-chartered banks.

In order to preserve our dual banking system and Congress's past actions to ensure parity between State and nationally chartered banks, I do not have any other option but to support S.J. Res. 15

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021. I want to thank Environment and Public Works Ranking Member Capito, full committee Chairman Carper, Chairman Duckworth, and their staffs for their hard work and cooperation on this bill.

While many issues divide this Senate, clean water is not one of them. As ranking member of the Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife Subcommittee under which drinking water and wastewater jurisdiction lies, I am proud to see the work our committee has done to bring this bill to the floor today, and I especially want to thank Senator Duckworth for all of her efforts to serve our communities by shepherding this bill through the Senate.

On May 17th, our committee and subcommittee held a hearing to examine the challenges facing drinking water and wastewater infrastructure throughout the Nation. We heard from witnesses that many obstacles remain in America's water quality. High among those obstacles is the lagging funding related to an aging infrastructure. The primary mechanism for financing water infrastructure is from State and local sources, including the collection of user fees, but funding has not kept pace with the growing need to address an aging system. Only 20 percent of very large utilities and 10 percent of small utilities report that they will be able to provide full-cost service in 5 years. I am proud to be a part of the team that has come together to find a solution to these problems.

While working on this issue, I learned something that might surprise a lot of Americans: The majority of our Nation's drinking water and wastewater utilities are small. Over 90 percent of the country's roughly 50,000 community water systems serve populations fewer than 10,000 people. Roughly 80 percent of America's 17,000 wastewater utilities serve populations fewer than 10,000 people. Rural and small communities like many found in my State of Wyoming have greater difficulty affording public wastewater service due to low population density and lack of economies of scale. Rural communities also have lower median household incomes and often have higher rates of poverty, only compounding the challenge. The mandates and requirements given under the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act can be burdensome on these small and rural communities. This bill reauthorizes a number of programs that will provide technical assistance, funding, research, and expertise for these small communities. The Circuit Rider Program, for example, has long been among our Nation's most successful public- private partnerships. The Wyoming Association of Rural Water Systems and organizations like it across the country are doing yeomen's work in delivering for our rural communities.

The Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act unanimously passed our committee by a vote of 21 to 0. Similar legislation worked on by then-Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper likewise passed without any opposition last Congress.

Mr. President, I have the unique privilege of being the only Senator to sit on all three committees of jurisdiction over transportation and infrastructure. All three committees are hard at work considering the recent infrastructure plan put forward by President Biden. Let me give a brief history of the bipartisan nature of this topic.

In 2019, the EPW Committee under my fellow Senator from Wyoming John Barrasso, passed a 5-year highway funding bill unanimously out of committee. In 2018, President Trump signed the bipartisan America's Water Infrastructure Act into law. In 2016, President Obama signed the bipartisan Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act into law. In 2015 we had two bipartisan transportation bills pass into law, and in 2014 we had another bipartisan water resources bill become law.

President Biden mentioned last night that infrastructure is historically a bipartisan issue. He applauded my Republican colleagues for putting forward a good infrastructure plan of our own just last week. Our Republican bill is based on ideas that have garnered bipartisan support in the past, which makes it a perfect foundation upon which to build an infrastructure plan that could pass into law. I urge President Biden and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to remember this as we move to an infrastructure bill.

I am proud of the work that my colleagues and I did on today's Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act. I would like to thank my colleagues on the EPW Committee for their work, and I urge all Senators to support it

Madam President, I rise to echo and augment the remarks of the gentleman from Missouri and to call on President Biden and the Democrats in Congress to work with the Republicans on a bipartisan infrastructure bill. As the only Senator in the unique position of sitting on all three committees with jurisdiction over transportation, I have a particular interest in making sure we are adequately funding our roads and bridges.

I have had many conversations with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle since I have joined the Senate, and everyone agrees that we have real infrastructure and transportation needs that must be addressed. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave our roads a D- minus rating, noting our $786 billion backlog on roads' and bridges' capital needs. They gave our bridges a C-minus rating and a repair tag of $125 billion.

We also need to take another look at how we fund our highway system. Right now, we have a highway trust fund that we can't actually trust. Since 2008, we have been relying on general fund transfers to pay for our roads and bridges instead of fixing our user fee model to keep the trust fund solvent. User fees give users the benefit of seeing where their money is going, and they allow those people deriving the most benefit from the system to give the most in support. This is a very fair, American way of doing things, and the certainty we get from a functioning user fee model is important for rural States, like my home State of Wyoming.

While much divides Congress these days, infrastructure, as that term is understood by most Americans, is a bipartisan issue. As such, one would assume that President Biden would want to find some common ground in order to build relationships in Congress and address the needs of every citizen. So it is perplexing that President Biden, who campaigned on bringing our Nation together, is now pushing a blatantly partisan infrastructure bill.

Let me show you why partisanship is unnecessary in the infrastructure space. I recently helped my Democratic colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee pass a bipartisan water and wastewater infrastructure bill out of committee with unanimous support. This is clear evidence that Democrats and Republicans can come together on infrastructure issues and find common ground. In 2019, the EPW Committee, under the leadership of my fellow Senator from Wyoming, John Barrasso, unanimously passed a bipartisan 5-year highway funding bill. This would be a great place to start for any infrastructure bill in Congress.

But this barely scratches the surface of bipartisan infrastructure legislation. Honestly, I am hard-pressed to remember a time when infrastructure was not bipartisan. The American Water Infrastructure Act of 2018? Bipartisan. The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016? Bipartisan. The Highway Transportation Funding Act of 2015? Bipartisan. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015? Bipartisan. The Water Resources Development Act of 2014? Bipartisan. This isn't even a full decade of congressional action, and all of these things happened in partisan environments, when Americans were divided on a host of issues. But despite our divisions, we have always come together to address American infrastructure. In 2021, this should be no different.

If President Biden wants to truly unite the Nation, he can start by working with Republicans on the most basic bipartisan issues, and he might be surprised which Members of Congress are there to join him.

I will use myself as an example. I have opposed many of President Biden's actions to date, but I support his decision to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, and I am doing so publicly. I have also supported several of President Biden's nominees, including Secretary Buttigieg.

I can promise President Biden that if he comes in good faith to work with Republicans and Democrats on a bipartisan infrastructure bill, I will be there to work with him every step of the way. I know my colleagues feel the same. All we are asking is for the ``unity'' President to come to the table.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to honor the true heroism of Officer Jacob Carlson of the Casper, WY, police department. On May 6, 2018, Officer Carlson risked his life to save his fellow officer and the lives of several young children when a routine traffic stop turned deadly. Every day, police officers must remain vigilant because, as we have seen, even routine enforcement actions can go sideways at a moment's notice. That happened to Officer Carlson, and his actions speak to his character. He put his life on the line to protect his fellow officer and his community. His courage is inspiring, and I am proud to call him a son of Wyoming. For this action, Officer Carlson has been awarded the Congressional Badge of Bravery, and it is a badge he earned.

His years of service and dedication to the Casper Police Department were cut short by what happened, but Officer Carlson's career of service as a police officer and former service in the U.S. Army is a legacy for which he can be proud.

Officer Carlson is a remarkable example of the highest caliber of law enforcement professionals. He is the hero we describe when we teach our children and grandchildren about the police officers who protect our communities.

Officers such as Officer Carlson who protect our great State reinforce my belief that Wyoming truly is the best State in the Nation. When Americans want to see an example of how police officers should comport themselves, they can look upon Wyoming as the shining example. Officer Carlson's actions on May 6, 2018, exemplify why.

The State of Wyoming is blessed to have not only one brave officer deserving of this honor. The second officer is one of the people Officer Carlson protected in the face of adversity, Officer Randi Garrett, whose courage and heroism was also on display that day, is equally deserving and will be honored with a Congressional Badge of Bravery.

My sincere thanks to Officer Carlson for making Casper and the State of Wyoming one of the greatest, safest places to live.

Madam President, I rise to honor Officer Randi Garrett, whose experience and skill and whose strong character helped save lives on May 6, 2018.

Not only did Officer Garrett act with poise under intense pressure when a routine traffic stop turned violent, but while in immediate and real danger, she kept her focus on her mission, and helped to save the lives of two innocent children and the life of a fellow officer because of it. I shudder at the thought of what might have happened had Officer Garrett not acted with speed and purpose. Officer Garrett has been awarded the Congressional Badge of Bravery for her actions, and I am so proud of her for it.

Officer Garrett is a shining example of what steadfast commitment, leadership and decisionmaking under pressure looks like. It is because of officers like Randi that the people of Casper can feel safe and secure in their community.

As we approach the third anniversary of Officer Randi Garrett's heroism, I know that her acts that day won't be forgotten by the Casper community and by those whose lives she helped to save. For without them, it is unknown the tragedies that may have occurred. Instead, she serves as an example today to every young woman and girl interested in serving their community as an officer. I can think of no better example for young women across the State of Wyoming to aspire to.

Now, as she receives the Congressional Badge of Bravery, I hope it serves as a reminder of a day when her courage was called upon and she answered. This prestigious award is also being given to her counterpart who was there with her that day, Officer Jacob Carlson. Just as they faced danger together, this badge acts as yet another bond that the two of them will continue to share.

My sincere thanks to Officer Garrett for her continued service and dedication to the city of Casper and our great State.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Daines for his leadership on this issue.

The only thing the previous speaker and I have in common is agreeing that it is high time that we had a Native American woman to lead the Department of the Interior.

On behalf of the people of Wyoming, I am opposing President Biden's nomination of Congresswoman Haaland to serve as Secretary of the Interior.

As Secretary, she will continue the job-killing, anti-energy attack on Wyoming's livelihood that President Biden started during his first week in office.

Let's recap just how bad President Biden's Executive actions are for my State.

A University of Wyoming analysis found that Wyoming stands to lose nearly $13 billion in tax revenue if we don't lift the Biden ban on new oil and gas leasing and drilling on Federal lands. To put this in context, $13 billion in tax revenue would educate 60,000 Wyoming students from kindergarten through high school graduation. It would fund the University of Wyoming for the next 59 years. It would fund our public safety and corrections budget for the next 68 years. And it would fund the Wyoming Department of Health for the next 26 years. These are real numbers, and the Biden ban is having real consequences.

In Wyoming, we put the tax revenue from Federal land leases to use educating our kids, caring for the sick, and funding public infrastructure.

Maybe this sounds like my complaint is just with President Biden. That is

how Congresswoman Haaland would have you see it. Congresswoman Haaland says that she will simply be following the administration's orders and implementing its agenda at the Interior Department. This isn't exactly encouraging for a number of reasons.

The White House's very first action in implementing their climate change agenda is on track to cost my home State a whopping $13 billion in revenue. I shudder to think what their next action will cost us, especially with Department heads committed to blindly enacting the Biden agenda without consideration for the extraordinary impacts it will continue to have on energy States like Wyoming.

Second, Secretaries have an incredible amount of power to make decisions on how an administration's agenda gets implemented. Based on her own public statements and actions, Congresswoman Haaland is more radical in her positions than President Biden.

None of these facts are particularly encouraging to folks in Wyoming and the West who will be devastated by the policies that Congresswoman Haaland plans to champion. What we need is a Secretary who understands the issues that westerners face. We need someone who knows the ways that States like Wyoming are contributing to America's energy independence and doing so in increasingly environmentally friendly ways. Banning permitting on Federal lands in Wyoming means banning access to 68 percent of Wyoming's minerals. For our State and our country to remain energy independent, we need someone at the Department of the Interior who recognizes that if we shut down producers at home, we are only increasing the power of polluters like Russia and China abroad.

Conservatives are regularly attacked as anti-science and anti- environment. This couldn't be further from the truth. I can tell you there are no greater stewards of our land than the people who actually work it, be it farmers, ranchers, or energy producers. We care more about the land and natural resources than just about anyone. It is our livelihood.

But it is more than that. It is our way of life. We know that responsible care for the land means that we have to have a healthy give-and-take with the land.

In Wyoming, we support both energy protection and conservation, fossil fuels and clean energy technologies. Wyoming leads the Nation as the biggest net energy supplier at the same time that we are driving the future of carbon capture and utilization technology.

Representative Haaland and the Biden administration claim their ban on leases supports the environment, but this ban actually hurts environmental conservation efforts. Energy development on public lands helps to fund conservation, including the Land and Water Conservation Fund to the tune of billions of dollars.

Additionally, since 2000, the United States has had the largest absolute decline in emissions of any country. We did this while at the same time rising to become the world's top energy producer. The truth of the matter is, you can be both environmentally friendly and energy friendly. In Wyoming, we are doing both. Under the Biden and Haaland administration, we will do neither.

I want to add one more thing. I recognize the longstanding connection of Native Americans to the land. Representative Haaland has that connection, and I honor her heritage and appreciate how significant the nomination of a Native American to lead the Department of the Interior is to the Tribes and to indigenous people. But there is no connection between her heritage and her support of the Green New Deal and attacking oil and natural gas production as a means to address climate change. If our goal is to reduce emissions, then our focus should be on clean air, not attacking energy production.

We can achieve our environmental goals through things like carbon capture while remaining energy independent.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose Representative Haaland's nomination to serve as Secretary of the Interior.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I am pleased to recognize Senator Henry ``Hank'' Coe, who has retired from the Wyoming State Senate after 31 years of dedicated service and over 40 years of public service to Wyoming.

A Cody, WY native, Senator Coe has shown his dedication and love for the State of Wyoming and willingness to serve its citizens. Hank was first elected to the Wyoming Senate in 1989 and served with distinction for over three decades. During his tenure in the Wyoming Senate, Senator Coe served as vice president of the senate from 1997 to 1998; senate majority floor leader from 1999 to 2000; and as president of the senate from 2001 to 2002.

Senator Coe was chairman of the Travel, Recreation and Wildlife Committee from 1992 to 1998, where he worked to grow the tourism industry into one of Wyoming's largest industries. He also served on the Education Committee from 2003 to 2019, working to ensure that Wyoming's children had the tools they need to succeed. These are just a few of the many roles to which Senator Coe brought his passion and expertise, and represent a cornerstone of Wyoming public policy. Prior to joining the Wyoming Senate, Senator Coe served 8 years as a Park County commissioner, and in honor of his service, the commissioners have declared April 29 ``Hank Coe Day'' in Park County, WY.

Senator Coe's service to our great State goes beyond his work as an elected official. He was a respected member of his community. He was a member of the Volunteer Fire Department, a trustee for the Buffalo Bill Center of the West, a member of the Wyoming Business Alliance, an advisor for the Regional Airport board, and much more.

I had the honor of serving with Senator Coe during my time in the Wyoming Legislature. Our desks were right across the aisle from one another on the Senate floor, and we enjoyed playing subtle pranks on each other. I will also cherish many evenings at the home of his extraordinary mother, Peg Coe, retiring to the den of her sprawling home for drinks and unforgettable conversation. The Coes are a one of a kind but quintessential Wyoming family of the highest order.

Senator Coe passed away today, but I have no doubt he will be an example for generations to come of a dedicated public servant, a model of humility, and a true beacon for the values Wyoming holds dear.

Thank you, Senator Coe for your years of tireless service to Wyoming and for your friendship. I send your family my condolences. God bless.

Mr. President, it is the privilege of a lifetime to represent the people of Wyoming in this great deliberative body. I genuinely look forward to joining each of you to make a difference for the American people and to uphold my solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Let me be clear. An attack on our Capitol is an attack on our Constitution and democracy itself. I strongly condemn the violence that occurred today, which did more to thwart the democratic process than to protect it. Today, many Members of the Senate were trying to peacefully use our democratic process to ensure each and every American's vote counts. In the best tradition of the U.S. Senate, we will fulfill our constitutional duty and complete the electoral count tonight.

In 1833, Senator Daniel Webster said that ``duty binds . . . the conscience of the individual member'' in counting the votes for President and Vice President. Each of us has a solemn duty to ensure that the slate of Presidential electors we certify is beyond reproach, respecting the people's voice and upholding the Constitution.

Congress will not overturn the people's voice. A president will be inaugurated on January 20. Congress cannot and shall not dictate the results of a Presidential election to our States. That would be the death of our Republic.

In the coming months, Congress must take a fresh look at troubling concerns from the election that simply don't add up. After the 2000 Presidential election, millions of voters in Florida felt disenfranchised, and now 74 million Americans deserve the assurance and the dignity that their votes

count the same as every other American. We owe our first duty to the American people, following procedures--like the Electoral Count Act-- used for nearly 150 years.

It is my fervent hope that our State legislatures will consider meaningful election reform to ensure that our election laws are applied uniformly, to ensure the technology we use is accurate and secure, and, most importantly, to ensure that all Americans treasure our precious right to vote and feel their voices are heard. States are at the very center of elections in our country and will remain so.

Many ask why Congress should be involved in election matters that have been considered by the courts. Some argue that Congress' role in certifying our Presidential elections is merely ministerial. Under our constitutional separation of powers, it is too often forgotten that Congress has the right and duty to interpret the Constitution, especially on matters which by the Constitution have been delegated to Congress, like the electoral count. Congress interpreted the Twelfth Amendment in passing the Electoral Count Act in 1887 and continues to breathe new life into these provisions by its actions today. Our Founders understood Congress would play a key role in debating constitutional issues as a co-equal branch of government. Thomas Jefferson commented in an 1819 letter that ``each of the three departments [of government] has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the Constitution.''

I remain deeply concerned that the electoral votes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania were not ``regularly given'' under Pennsylvania law, as required by the Electoral Count Act. Serious concerns have been raised about the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's vote-by-mail statute. Also, Pennsylvania election law may have been applied unevenly by State officials, including signature verification and voter identification requirements.

In 2005, Senator Barbara Boxer and the late Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones objected to the slate of electors from Ohio. They rightfully drew attention to the fact that many African-Americans and other communities suffered disproportionate wait times at the polls, broken voting machines, and high ballot rejection rates. Raising this objection led to some of these issues being remedied and more Americans having the precious opportunity to vote. That is a legacy our Senate and every American should value today.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I am having kind of a deja vu moment and a holy cow moment both at the same time. It is deja vu because we already passed a Homeland Security funding bill. So that bill has shifted to the Senate. Somebody apparently didn't get that memo. I am having this holy cow moment because I can't believe I am standing up here in support of the Senate-passed Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act.

Mr. Speaker, the broad support for building the Keystone XL pipeline is truly remarkable. This bill is bipartisan. It is bicameral. In fact, it commanded a supermajority in the Senate. A majority of the American people want to see the pipeline constructed. The pipeline has been studied and studied and studied again, in fact, way up to the State Department, which approved the pipeline more than a year ago.

This kind of support for a piece of legislation is a rarity in Washington. It doesn't get any better than this. And that is because the pipeline has unquestionable merit. It directly creates jobs. It is a shot in the arm for our energy economy. It will make America more energy secure, an aspiration of Presidents and Congresses for decades. And it is now within our grasp if we choose to seize it. Why our President would choose to veto this bill is beyond rational explanation. Its economic benefits could not be more evident.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope the President reconsiders his threat to veto this so American workers can finally start to construct and reap the benefits for the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee for working with us on this working draft.

I also support the Endangered Species Act, and I rise in enthusiastic support of the Endangered Species Act and enthusiastic support of this bill because this bill embodies much of the ethos that the American people have embodied during the years the Endangered Species Act has been in effect.

This act was passed in 1974 with goals that were admirable and goals that the people of this country have embedded in their DNA to achieve. To conserve species, to have habitat for species so we can have rich, diverse populations of flora and fauna.

This bill will help those goals because we will know what science is being used to base these decisions upon. Right now, science that is undisclosed is being used. Right now, we have tribal governments, county governments, and State governments, through these incredibly impressive wildlife agencies, who have had this ethos embedded in them since they were little kids, trying to administer these laws, trying to save these species.

We want their knowledge shared with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We want to know what science is being used to make these decisions so it can be vetted by third parties, so people who have specialized scientific knowledge about a habitat area or a subspecies can share that knowledge with agencies so that we are not making decisions with litigants behind closed doors with no public input by the people whose dream is to have an Endangered Species Act that works, that works for the people on the land, the people who love these species, who love the habitat, who care for it every day, the people who want the Endangered Species Act administered in a way that is transparent and fair and will recover species.

I am of the opinion that an act that has less than a 2 percent recovery rate or a delisting rate is not a success. I think we can have better models to succeed to delist species or, better yet, not list species in the first place.

These small steps that are embedded in this bill--transparency of science, involving tribal, State, and local governments and their base of knowledge about what they see on the ground, is critical to having an Endangered Species Act that works, that takes advantage of the American people who care about conserving habitat and saving species.

Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense, rational approach to recovery that has the kind of transparency that we were promised by this administration. Let's help them achieve it.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina for gathering us to talk about American energy.

I want to talk about it from a couple of perspectives. My State of Wyoming had the first national park in the Nation, Yellowstone National Park; the first national forest, the Shoshone National Forest; the first national monument, the Devils Tower. We have an abundance of beautiful scenery and natural resources. We have the smallest population in the Nation. Our State is pristine.

What you may not have known is that Texas' production of energy is here. Wyoming's is here, and the next State catching up on us is far behind those two States. We know how to produce energy responsibly.

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight because I want to talk about the people that are affected by the price of energy. I want to talk about a woman I met at a gas pump.

She pulled up in a very old car. She had a little baby in her back seat that she was taking to the sitter's before she went to her job, earning minimum wage, at a convenience store. Her husband, a young man, was also working at a very lower middle-income job. They were trying to make ends meet.

She only put $5 worth of gas in her car. I asked her why. She said: well, I can only afford enough gas to get me to work after I drop my child off, and while I am at work, I will get enough money to put a little more gas and pick my child up.

That is how a lot of Americans are living. That is how a lot of our seniors are living. They are living on an amount of money that squeezes them every time the price of gasoline goes up, the price of electricity goes up, the price of heat goes up, the price of air conditioning goes up.

That is the price of energy to the American consumer. Those are the people we need to be looking out for. Those are the people who need abundant, affordable, reliable electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, and other resources like natural gas, so they can be warm and protected from the cold, so they can be cool and protected from the heat, so they can get to work and the grocery store and to their doctors.

This is the American story, and it is American jobs that pay American taxes that can help those people make ends meet, that can help fund our social safety net.

We need Americans to work. We need American energy to put Americans to work. If it wasn't for the energy economy, there would be no economic recovery at all in this country. I know that it is a rather anemic recovery. It would be zero recovery without the energy industry.

The importance cannot be overstated of energy in our economy. The importance of energy in our daily lives cannot be overstated.

I want to thank the gentleman who recognizes that we can have a clean environment and we can have affordable, abundant energy, so our quality of life in America is proudly second to none.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Conservation Easement Incentive Act as well. Conservation easements are a cost-effective way of protecting valuable open space and farm and ranch land in the West, including in my home State of Wyoming.

Mr. Speaker, easement conservation is an alternative to government landownership and allows our local land stewards to continue the best management practices on private land.

The expiration of enhanced tax incentives for landowners discourages modest-income and working ranchers and farmers from participating in a program to permanently protect their land resources and their way of life. While these enhanced tax deductions have been extended multiple times, their on-again, off-again eligibility makes business and tax planning difficult for donors, especially since they are often delayed by the Federal Government's timeline.

Mr. Speaker, conservation easements leverage ranchers' and farmers' love of their land and allows them to maintain operations that are beneficial not only for agriculture, but for habitat, recreation, and our landscapes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the Ways and Means Committee chairman, for this time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to call up amendment No. 16.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reinforce the Department of Energy's already existing legal obligations when it sells or transfers excess uranium from the Federal inventory.

One of these legal obligations is called the ``Secretarial Determination'' that the uranium transfers will not have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium industry. The other obligation is to comply with the public notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Department's actions regarding uranium have come under justified scrutiny, so I will take both of them in turn.

First, my amendment reinforces the required Secretarial Determination that uranium transfers do not adversely impact the domestic uranium industries.

Congress decided to require a Secretarial Determination because, if the government dumps too much uranium onto the market, it can artificially distort the market and hurt domestic uranium industries. These include uranium mining, uranium conversion, and uranium enrichment industries, all crucial to developing a more robust domestic uranium supply chain to feed our nuclear power plants.

Right now, 90 percent of the uranium used to provide electricity in this country is imported, but it doesn't have to be that way. Here in the United States, including my home State of Wyoming, we have abundant uranium resources. With uranium from American soil and through American jobs, we can correct this imbalance; but the task is made difficult, if not impossible, with the Department of Energy's cavalier uranium transfers.

The Secretarial Determination process has, unfortunately, become a sham. Instead of protecting domestic uranium industries, it has become a tool to destroy them. Prior to the May 15, 2014, Secretarial Determination, the Department commissioned a market analysis that concluded the uranium transfers would reduce employment in the domestic uranium industries by 4 percent and reduce the spot price for mined uranium by 8 percent. That is what their own market analysis provided. Yet the Department is ignoring the results of its own study and is proceeding anyway, based on other information and analysis it decided not to share with the public.

My amendment uses the power of the purse to reinforce existing statutory law, lest the Department flaunt the law, rendering it meaningless.

Second, my amendment reinforces the Department's obligation to comply with the public notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department of Energy has used its excess uranium as a slush fund, selling or bartering uranium to subsidize failed companies like the U.S. Enrichment Corporation or to fund other programs without having to come to Congress for the money. This program has operated in the shadows, making a mockery of our budget process.

I want to quote a recent GAO report on the Department's uranium transfers. It says:

We believe transparency is a fundamental tenet of good

government and that our recommendations support actions

needed to enhance DOE's transparency.

The GAO identified uranium transfers at below market value to prop up USEC, shortchanging the taxpayer and further distorting uranium markets. The report documented shortcomings in the Department's market analysis of how the transfers would impact uranium markets and the failure of the Department to adequately consult with the domestic industries. Unfortunately, on GAO's Web site, all of their recommendations to the Department to increase the transparency of its uranium transfers remained unfulfilled.

My amendment simply reinforces the existing obligation of the Department to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. Like any other agency, they have a legal obligation to engage in reasoned decisionmaking, not shadowed and arbitrary uranium transactions.

My amendment barely touches the legislative reforms needed to fix this broken program, but I want to thank Chairman Simpson for helping me at least identify a way to address this issue that might be suitable to the appropriations process.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.