Floor Statements

Madam President, as ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I rise to oppose the nomination of Dr. Chris Frey due to the consistent lack of responsiveness from the EPA on our critical oversight matters.

The Republican leader, Senator McConnell, just talked about Dr. Frey's research on gas grills and grilling out, but over the past 16 months, my objections are that the Biden EPA has repeatedly slow-walked responses to reasonable oversight requests for Agency briefings and documents related to implementation of policies with huge, huge implications for our economy and our constituents' lives.

We cannot adequately oversee the Agency's programs--including historic levels of drinking water infrastructure funding made possible by the bipartisan IIJA--without this transparency. Until the EPA heeds congressional oversight requests, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing Dr. Frey's nomination.

Mr. President, I call up my motion to instruct conferees, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, this motion to instruct emphasizes that climate change cannot be used as a basis for the President to declare an emergency or a major disaster or any other means to expand executive powers.

In the last 2 weeks, Progressives in Congress have renewed their push for the President to claim powers he doesn't have and make it harder to produce energy domestically and export it abroad. This is bad policy, and it sets a bad precedent to encourage expansive executive authority.

Now, of course, I think we should address climate change, but ceding broad authority over to the Executive is not the way to go. I have worked together with my colleagues on numerous pieces of meaningful climate legislation and continue to do so as the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

When Congress wants to address climate, as we have in the past, it rolls up its sleeves and does so in a thoughtful, bipartisan manner, with clear, detailed direction to the Executive, not by giving the Executive broad authority to do whatever it sees fit.

I encourage a positive vote on my motion to instruct.

Madam President, I would like to thank my fellow Senator, Senator Ernst from Iowa, for leading the delegation trip that we took this past weekend, the bipartisan delegation. It was most informative, impactful, and she did a wonderful job leading that. I was proud of the efforts.

I am here to join my colleagues today to discuss the invasion--the unjust and immoral invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin--in light of the trip that we just took to Germany and to Poland. In a way, I am kind of hesitant to do so, not because there isn't a lot to say or a lot to share but because of the powerful words that some of the Ukrainians whom we met implored us, which was: Enough talking. It is time to act.

I could not agree more. But out of deep respect for them, I would like to take a moment to make sure we all understand why we have to act and why we must act now.

As Americans, you realize this when you talk to--we did, certainly, when we were talking with Germans and other Europeans. We don't have the same perspective sometimes that Europeans have who faced World War II. One of the most powerful comments conveyed when we were meeting with German officials was that their new generation who has heard for decades about the atrocities from their parents and their grandparents--they were told this would never happen again. And yet what we see is that it is happening again.

This is an unjust war, and there seems to be no level of atrocity that Vladimir Putin is unwilling to commit. Putin overestimated his ability, his army, his ability to conquer. ``This must be over in 3 days,'' according to him. He overestimated his own abilities, and he grossly underestimated the will of the Ukrainian people and the will to not just live but to live freely.

On top of this, Putin has also failed to understand the commitment of the free world--of NATO--to stand up for freedom. We certainly saw that over the last several days.

We, in our Nation and in our history, know that freedom is worth fighting for, and it is also worth defending. Generations have done this in our past and will do this in the future. We believe this to our core.

We also believe that the deliberate and evil bombing of hospitals, targeting supply routes, and killing civilians are the actions of war criminals.

But in the face of all of this evil, we see hope. We see hope from the Ukrainian people; we see hope from the Ukrainian leadership; we see hope from the Ukrainian military; and we see hope in our own military forces as a part of NATO, including all nations of NATO as well as the generosity of people around the world, the nongovernmental organizations we saw helping at the refugee center, and, most especially, the Polish people. We saw them stepping in militarily. And on the humanitarian side, we saw an incredible outpouring. We saw this firsthand at the refugee center.

Poland has now taken in over 2 million people into their country, which is more than the entire population of my State. During our trip, as I said, we visited the refugee center where Ukrainians are going first to be processed as they are leaving and having to flee their country. After this, they end up not at another refugee center but most likely in somebody's home or a friend's. That is the level of care and support that they are receiving. And that is the level of care and support that they deserve as a tribute of their willingness to fight and defend their freedom. Many of these women and children--mostly women and children--are leaving their husbands and their homes behind.

Ukraine is united. As we were told, Ukraine will fight to the last man. May it never come to the last man because the free world must help. Make no mistake, the United States of America has chosen a side. We side with freedom. We side with the people of Ukraine.

Just a few weeks ago, Congress passed $14 billion in support for Ukraine and Central European allies amid Putin's unprovoked war. It is critical to get these funds and equipment to them now because time is of the essence.

As an example, Congress took an extra week to pass this package. When you are there on the ground talking to the leadership who are trying to push back on Putin, a week is a lifetime--a week is a lifetime. So we cannot afford to hesitate or to cause inaction.

In our efforts to get them funds--lethal aid--and to oppose sanctions on Russia, we must act now and keep acting.

Madam President, as you know--you were on the trip, as well--we met with diplomats and generals, representatives from many of our executive branch Agencies, NGOs, brave soldiers, including many from our home States. But I will never forget the words of a woman we met named Katarina, whom we met at the refugee processing center. She said, in desperate tones, she didn't want to leave Ukraine. She didn't want to leave her home. She wants to live in freedom and peace, but she has a 6-year-old and 8-year-old who are constantly hearing the sirens of bomb alerts, the sounds of bombing--just the violence. She had no choice. She had to leave to protect her children.

Let's do what we can, as much as we can, and as fast as we can--and that last part is critical--to return freedom to Ukraine and justice to those who do not respect the sovereignty of nations. This is really what we owe every child in Ukraine, in Germany, in Poland, and in the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to talk about gas prices.

The people in West Virginia woke up this morning, and according to AAA, the average gas price in West Virginia is $4.12 per gallon. Some parts of the country are paying--probably the part that is the Presiding Officer's country--more than $5 or even more than $6 per gallon of regular gas. Just up the street here in Washington, DC, at the gas station close to the Senate office buildings, it is $5.19 per gallon. We have surpassed the highest recorded average gas prices ever, and that is quite alarming. Unfortunately, this has been all too predictable given the Biden administration's domestic energy policy actions.

On day one of his Presidency, President Biden managed to immediately kill thousands of union jobs and paralyze America's energy industry with the Executive orders that killed the Keystone XL Pipeline. At peak capacity, this pipeline would have delivered 830,000 barrels of oil per day to American refineries. It is pretty similar to what we are importing from Russia.

The President put a moratorium on all new oil and gas leases on Federal lands, moving America from the energy superpower that we have been back to having an increased reliance on foreign adversaries for fuel feedstocks. These are countries that have much laxer environmental rules than we have or that we will ever have.

The administration has also been openly anti-pipeline and anti-fossil fuel with its rhetoric, through its actions, and embodied by the people it has elevated to unaccountable leadership roles. Two by name are Gina McCarthy and John Kerry. This administration has instituted regulatory uncertainty at a time of record inflation.

The administration wants to make a new definition of WOTUS, which is a rule otherwise known as the waters of the United States, to regulate every pond and ditch--even on private lands all across the country. This will devastate energy production as well as hurt sectors like agriculture and home building at a time when their products are already in high demand and under immense inflationary pressures.

The administration is considering new, tighter methane regulations that will also raise our energy costs, including for home heating and, as we move to the next season, for home cooling and electricity bills.

It is revising the NEPA permitting process by undoing the streamlining that was done during the Trump administration. NEPA touches almost every single infrastructure project in our country. Think about it. We just passed an enormous infrastructure package, but if you add more and more redtape onto these infrastructure projects that we have bipartisanly passed through here, you are going to add more and more costs for producers and more and more costs for everyday Americans. This regulatory uncertainty is increasing energy prices for Americans across the board and is felt most acutely at the gas pump because we can see it so clearly every time we fill up, and we see it posted at the stations.

You also have an Energy Department that is slow-walking the build-out of LNG export terminals, which means we can't export much needed energy to our allies as efficiently as we could be.

Endless regulatory delay and environmental lawsuits, including on permits already issued, delay more than pipelines and kill more than jobs. We have one in West Virginia, the Mountain Valley Pipeline, that is working hard to complete the last 5 percent of the pipeline to move the product. They also crush our economy with inflation and leave us and our allies more susceptible to bad actors like Russia, Venezuela, and Iran.

We are seeing the importance of energy independence play out in realtime with the destruction--the horrifying destruction--in Ukraine. Because of the Biden administration's policies that I just outlined, we are not able to immediately provide an energy backstop to our European allies that are trying to break their Russian oil and gas habit. They are begging for our coal as we speak. It is the perfect storm for a global energy crisis. It almost sounds cliche to say, as it has been said so often, but energy security is our national security. Specifically, fossil fuel security will help keep us secure nationally.

So what is the Biden administration doing?

We have seen reports that the administration is discussing a possible trip soon to Saudi Arabia to convince the Kingdom to produce more oil. Well, he has tried this--and, oh, by the way, they won't even take the President's phone calls.

We know the administration is considering easing sanctions on Venezuela so they will produce more oil.

Once again, President Biden opened the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, even though it didn't work the last time, costs the taxpayer, and depletes our own stockpile that we created from the last oil crisis to be used when the United States faces another crisis. But incentivizing oil and gas production in our own country or letting it move forward? No.

So, according to the administration and its actions, Saudi and Venezuelan and OPEC oil is good, but American oil is bad. OK. Got it. Rather than encourage American oil production, this administration would like to line the pockets of the Saudis, Nicolas Maduro, and, yes, Vladimir Putin.

You cannot hinder American oil and gas production in the name of reducing emissions and then nudge countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela to produce more. Emissions are emissions, no matter where it comes from. Emissions are emissions when it comes to global climate change.

And while I know the climate czar John Kerry is disappointed that war in Ukraine is distracting people from climate change--as we see 2 million people leaving that beautiful country--I don't see our European friends trying

to secure alternative sources for more solar panels. Instead, they are worried about access to oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear. That is because wind and solar aren't able to meet their energy demands.

And, sadly, with the energy decisions the Biden administration has made, American fuel won't be there to meet their needs either. We just don't have the physical infrastructure in place to export. We are producing more than we ever have--even in this regulatory purgatory-- but that just underscores how much more we could be doing if the Biden administration's redtape and policies were not in place.

Right now, the world is begging for American leadership; Ukraine is begging for American leadership; Europe is begging for American leadership, and that includes energy leadership.

Putin is emboldened every day that the Biden administration flails on this issue.

The humanitarian crisis in Ukraine is completely heartbreaking. According to the United Nations, as I stated, more than 2 million people have been forced to leave their homeland. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians still in Ukraine are without food, water, or power. We have seen the haunting images of the bombings of schools, apartments, and hospitals, including, sadly and just horrifyingly, a maternity hospital just yesterday. Civilians are being targeted. Children are being orphaned. It is an absolute atrocity.

We cannot leave Ukrainian patriots and our European allies at the mercy of Moscow. We must address the poor energy policy decisions of the Biden administration in order to unleash full American energy production, support our allies in Europe, and stop funding Putin's war against Ukrainians.

We should be acting quickly. The security of the free world depends on this.

And I thank you for that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to deliver I think one of my more important speeches that I will give as a Member of this body, and that is to defend the longstanding rules of the U.S. Senate.

We are at a critical moment, make no mistake. With the slimmest of majorities, the Democrats haven't been able to pass their wildly unpopular agenda, so they are considering using the nuclear option-- just think of the term ``nuclear option'' to show you how draconian it is--to eliminate the Senate's 60-vote threshold for legislation. They are doing it under the guise of protecting voting rights, but make no mistake--this power grab is not about voting rights. Instead, it is about advancing one party's agenda.

So I would like to take a look back at what Democrats, including President Biden, have said on the issue and why they are changing their tune. We can also debunk the argument that, if given the chance, Republicans would change the rules and eliminate the filibuster as the Democrats wish to do now.

Finally and most important to me, I am going to talk about how this shortsighted move would impact West Virginians, those whom I represent here in the Senate. They are the ones who will ultimately be hurt by this reckless and irresponsible change, and it is my responsibility to do what I can to stop it.

So President Biden is in Atlanta today, taking the bully pulpit to protest a State's law that he does not like as a reason to end the filibuster. He even says this is one of those defining moments. It really is. People are going to be judged as to where they were before and where they are after the vote.

It is interesting that he would say that because I would like to remind President Biden where he was when he was Senator Biden and what he had to say about eliminating the filibuster on this very floor in 2005.

He said:

It is not only a bad idea; it upsets the constitutional

design, and it disservices the country.

Well, Senator Biden, I couldn't agree more. But he is not the only one who has done a complete 180 when it comes to the filibuster.

Majority Leader Schumer once said it would be ``doomsday for democracy''--that sounds pretty bad, ``doomsday for democracy''--if the filibuster were to be eliminated, and he was right. More recently, he has called the filibuster the most important distinction between the House and the Senate. Again, I couldn't agree more.

Then, from my home State of West Virginia, the late Senator Robert Byrd, a longtime Democrat, was unequivocal in his defense of preserving Senate rules.

He wrote in 2010:

The Senate has been the last fortress of minority rights

and freedom of speech in this Republic for more than two

centuries. I pray that Senators will pause and reflect before

ignoring that history and that tradition in favor of the

political priority of the moment.

What would he say today?

Again, this is not about voting rights. It is important to note that we did have a record turnout in 2020. More people voted than ever before. More than 158 million ballots were cast in 2020, which is a 7- percent increase from 2016, and we didn't have this voting rights legislation. In West Virginia, we had thousands more people vote than voted in 2016. As a matter of fact, the total number of ballots that were cast in 2020 was more than in any election in our history with one exception--the 1960 election of President John F. Kennedy.

So don't believe the hyperbole. Don't believe the rhetoric. Don't take the bait. The party-wide flip-flop we are now seeing has nothing to do with voting rights. Instead, it has everything to do with paving the way for an aggressive and progressive agenda that the Democrats wish to enact.

One of the arguments from the other side that I hear all the time is, well, the Republicans would do the same thing and change the rules if given the chance. Guess what. We could have done that. Unfortunately, that argument doesn't carry much weight. Leader McConnell, while sometimes under intense pressure to do this, never wavered, and we protected this institution. We didn't change the rules on the legislative filibuster when we didn't get our way. We could have, but we didn't.

Again, he knows, just as President Biden and Leader Schumer know, that if you can't get what you want, changing the rules is no way to govern. I certainly wouldn't run my household like that. It is no way to govern because it ultimately hurts those who sent us here to represent them.

In my home State of West Virginia, do you know what they want? They want us to work together like they saw us do on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. I hear this all the time. Bipartisanship is critical to making good and better policy, and if the Senate rules are changed, it would be a relic of the past. We just passed and signed into law the infrastructure bill that I worked to negotiate. We also passed the CARES Act. We passed opioid. We passed the Great American Outdoors Act--bipartisan.

We can do this, but if we change the rules to where only 50 votes are needed to pass legislation, there will be zero incentive or motivation for the two sides to work together. Just as bad, legislative accomplishments could be done or undone or redone and done over and over with just one flip of a Senate seat. Policies harmful to my State could be enacted: the Green New Deal, court packing, the federalizing of our elections. By the way, 54 of my 55 county clerks oppose that legislation. There would be packing the Senate with new States, defunding the police, attacking

the Second Amendment for law-abiding Americans, and more.

We don't even have to imagine what the Democrats would do or would want to do; we can just look at New York and what they just did. They are going to allow 800,000 noncitizens to vote. To put that in context, in my State of West Virginia, we only had 794,000 voters who voted for President in 2020.

Ramming radical policies through Congress without even attempting to gain consensus is not what our Founders envisioned, and it is not how Americans want us to operate.

Rest assured, those willing to change the rules to benefit themselves will do it again and again and again. Today, supposedly, it is voting rights. Tomorrow, it could be gun control. The next day, it could be open borders. I can only imagine.

I am asking my fellow Senators on the other side of the aisle: Don't do this. You will come to regret it, I think, if you do.

But I think that we need to preserve the rights of the minority.

We need to preserve the chance for bipartisanship. We need to preserve the traditions of the Senate. If you destroy this tradition, unfortunately, the country will suffer the consequences.

Thank you.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about the appropriations process for the fiscal year 2022, in particular, the Homeland Security bill, where I serve as ranking member of that subcommittee.

Unfortunately, as I stand here today, as all of us know, in December, there is still no clear path for the fiscal year 2022 bills. And you know, that is a real shame, and I am going to talk about that.

Every year, it is a challenge to come up with a bipartisan bill. It is difficult to fund the government. But every year, we manage to do it. The main reason being that we have agreed on certain rules--rules that transcend unique political situations, where both sides know that you are required in order to reach an agreement. We realize we have to give on each side.

These rules are what Vice Chairman Shelby has been insisting we agree on now so we can proceed with meaningful negotiations. So I support Vice Chairman Shelby, and I encourage my Democrat colleagues to come to the table, akin to the Shelby-Leahy agreements of the past. This isn't a partisan demand, but, rather, an appeal that we all recognize at the outset what is so obviously necessary for us to achieve an outcome at the end of the day.

As the ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I come today to address that bill. I have been pleased over the past year to work with our new chairman, Chairman Murphy, on our subcommittee. We have had several meetings. And, thankfully, there are vast areas of agreement between us on a majority of issues. I look forward to continuing to work with him to advance agreement for the FY22 Homeland Security bill.

A full-year continuing resolution would be a massive challenge for the Department of Homeland Security. We know we have a continuing resolution going until February.

Like all Agencies--and I argue probably more than most Agencies--DHS exists in a dynamic, ever-evolving threat environment, and its priorities and commensurate funding levels must be updated through the Appropriations Committee.

Further, the DHS is personnel heavy, and we need to ensure that funding keeps up with the salaries and the benefits of the public servants in this Department who are striving every day to keep our Nation safe.

We also need to invest in our Coast Guard and our Coast Guard readiness, which is a part of this bill, and ensure that its important procurement efforts remain on schedule. I think we have great agreement on all of that.

So in the midst of the holiday season, we all know the critical work of the men and women of the TSA. And more recently, we, as a nation, are relying more and more on the constant diligence of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency--CISA--otherwise known as someone trying to keep us safe in cyber space.

These Agencies and all those within the Department stand ready to protect the homeland. But we in Congress seem ill-prepared when it comes time to supporting and furthering their efforts.

So that being said--and I know Chairman Murphy and I agree on this--I loathe the fact that a CR would enable and pretty much encourage the Department to reprogram money at their own will, aside from the intention of Congress.

So let's secure a framework because, don't forget, we are talking here in the midst of a continuing crisis on our southern border. Democrats have cited the supposed reduction in border encounters as evidence that President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris's immigration policies are working.

It is true that encounters have gone down. They have gone down from record highs in July to record highs in October. That is right, this October's numbers, which are the last numbers that we have, were the highest recorded numbers of any October in history. And that is astonishing.

You can see from the chart how the blue is the average from 2013 to 2020 of encounters. And you can see from January on how exponentially higher all of these encounters have been. We have real problems, particularly at the border, that need to be addressed.

So while a long-term CR would be bad, as I have already discussed, a full-year FY22 bill that does not address these real problems at our border is not reasonable either. But that is what the majority's Homeland bill does.

Literally, the first sentence of the summary says: ``The fiscal year 2022 Homeland Security bill provides discretionary funding of $71.7 billion, which is $65 million less than [what] the President's . . . [asked in his budget] and $136 million less than the . . . 2021 enacted level'' that we are living under right now.

That is right, the DHS bill, introduced by the majority that we are now told is better for the Department than a CR, actually reduces funding from last year's levels.

For example, for Customs and Border Protection--they are on the front line--the bill provides $14.5 billion, $80 million below the President's budget request, and $501 million below fiscal year 2021 enacted.

So the DHS Agency directly responsible for border security, with these numbers right here--the one that is overwhelmed by these numbers--would receive less funding than requested by President Biden and, yes, less funding that is being provided right now under this continuing resolution.

The same is true for Immigration and Customs, known as ICE, the Agency responsible for removing migrants who received due process and are ordered removed.

Again, I quote, for ICE, ``the bill provides $7.9 billion, $58 million below the President's budget request, and $40 million below'' the enacted level that we are operating under now in 2021.

Once again, another account vital to enforcing our immigration laws cut from what we are operating under the CR.

So what is in the majority's bill that is being sold as border security?

This is what they have chosen to highlight: $175 million for medical services for migrants who arrive at the border--by the way, the Department of Health and Human Services has an enormous amount of money in their budget--$130 million for three new permanent processing facilities, and $25

million for increased transportation costs.

All of these investments mistake border security with border crisis management. These numbers are not going to go down if this is where we put our dollars. Some of these may be necessary expenses--a reality of opening under what is ostensibly open border policies. But they will do nothing to stop illegal border crossings and maybe even facilitate the administration's catch-and-release programs.

And what else would the majority bill do?

It would rescind $1.9 billion in border wall system funding that we have had in the previous years.

Is taking away money for a border wall system that our Border Patrol has been asking for decades and decades--is that border security?

You know, this isn't just Trump's border wall. We also built miles and miles of extremely useful and effective border wall under President Obama--and it was wall that you could barely distinguish sometimes with the naked eye from recent border wall.

Is rescinding that money good for border security?

I say no.

Is rescinding that money better for border security than a continuing resolution, which I must point out would actually provide an additional $1.375 for more border wall system?

I will say it again, and you can see it on the chart: illegal border crossings remain at a record high. We need to squash this delusion that things are getting better. The American public is well aware that they aren't. Therefore, we need to provide the proper resources to the Agencies in charge to fix the problem, not perpetuate the crisis.

So let me reiterate what I said at the start. Nobody wants a full- year CR. We need to come together as Democrats and Republicans, in the spirit of true compromise, to avoid that outcome. We can only do that if we understand each other's true interests.

Allow me to cite another telling line from the majority's Homeland Security summary that I have mentioned before. Listed in their key points and highlights for Homeland Security, the very first one that they list, is: ``Addressing impacts of Climate Change and Improving Climate Resilience.''

They don't mention No. 1 border security. They don't mention No. 1 cyber security. They don't mention No. 1 disaster relief and recovery, which is in Homeland Security. They don't mention the Coast Guard. They don't even mention the scourge we see on all of our States of drug overdoses. And this Homeland Security is charged with drug interdiction.

To me, that says a lot. It says a lot, and it is not going to get us to the negotiation table.

As I have said to the administration, as I say to my Democrat colleagues, as Chairman Murphy and I have talked about, I think we are both ready and willing to work towards a solution. Americans deserve our efforts to reach a bipartisan consensus, but that will only happen by following precedent and a willingness to compromise.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to honor a good friend of mine for the work she has done for women in recovery. Marie Beaver is retiring after 18 years as the executive director of Rea of Hope, a very successful recovery program and facility in my hometown of Charleston, WV, which she built from the ground up.

Although Marie is not a native of West Virginia, she found her way to our State as a result of her marriage to her husband, Carl Beaver. Shortly after her arrival, Marie was hired and started working to create Rea of Hope just before the full scope of the addiction epidemic was recognized.

Working with little money and a lot of help from volunteers, including the organization's board of directors, and donated labor from a work release program, Marie transformed a deteriorating home on the East End of Charleston into our State's first recovery home for women.

Marie's personal experience as a recovering addict shaped the foundation of Rea of Hope as an abstinence only, no tolerance recovery home. Residents are expected to find and hold a job, pay rent, attend 12-step meetings, and take responsibility for the mistakes of their past and pay their debts. Personal responsibility is a tenet of the program and Rea of Hope has a long list of successful graduates who have completed their high school and college degrees, are employed in both the public sector and privately owned businesses, are becoming first-time homebuyers, and, most importantly, are being reunited with their children, providing safe, loving homes.

The home's success is how I met Marie. The White House Drug Czar under President George W. Bush, John P. Walters, visited Rea of Hope with me early in my congressional career. Marie was a gracious hostess, and the Drug Czar was very impressed with what he saw and experienced. A rose bush was brought from the White House on that visit, which was planted, and I believe is still in Rea of Hope's front yard.

As a next step, Marie realized that there were no affordable, safe apartments to rent for graduates of the program in the Charleston area. She began arranging financing and buying apartment properties and renting them to the graduates. As a result, graduates are able to learn about renting and the associated costs, but do not have to worry about unruly neighbors or drugs or alcohol being on the premises. The apartments have created a sober community where women take care of one another and their children, as built-in baby sitters when mothers have to work or attend a 12-step meeting. This successful model of recovery has helped 250 women from 44 West Virginia counties learn to live sober, responsible lives. The annual fundraiser named, ``Miracle on Lee Street'' reflecting Rea of Hope's address is a very fitting name. If success is measured by the difference you make, Rea of Hope's success is immeasurable.

Marie and her husband Carl have decided to retire and return to her home State of South Carolina to be near family, the ocean, and her beloved Clemson Tigers. Marie made West Virginia her home over the nearly 20 years she lived here, cultivating friendships, whether professionally or personally throughout the State. She put such a positive face on recovery and exemplified that long-term recovery is possible and so rewarding.

Thank you, Marie, for the terrific work you have done and the example you and Rea of Hope have set as a model for recovery. Marie has established a high standard, and I am sure Rea of Hope will maintain the quality of service that she performed.

I wish Marie the best, and like all who know her, I will miss her. I am proud to call Marie friend and fellow West Virginian.

Mr. President, I want to address the Senate on an issue that is very close to my heart.

Now that we are well into the month of November and our Nation's observance of the National Family Caregivers Month, I would like to recognize the family caregivers across this Nation and the difficult and vitally important work that they do.

I have a brother and a sister. Both of our parents passed away in the middle--well, 2014 and 2015, but they both suffered from Alzheimer's at the same time. It was very, very difficult on all of us to figure out the best way to ease their pain and to satisfy--it was a very difficult time--how we, as a family, were going to be providing for their care.

This experience motivated me to join my colleague Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado as a cosponsor of the bipartisan Assisting Caregivers Today--or ACT--Caucus.

The ACT Caucus seeks to bring much-needed attention to all of the caregivers and the issues that their caregivers face from all backgrounds. It seeks to find bipartisan ways to lessen the emotional and financial toll for those individuals who are caring for family members. And this help is needed by so, so many.

Eighty-three percent of the help provided to older adults in the United States comes from family members, friends, or even unpaid caregivers. Nearly half of all caregivers who provide help to older adults do so--like we do--for someone living with Alzheimer's or with another type of dementia.

In my home State of West Virginia, we have about 85,000 family caregivers who are living with someone who has Alzheimer's and caring for them. As we know, those of us who have been down this road, there are no easy solutions here. Not only is it emotionally taxing on a family--there is no simple path--it also can be very, very expensive.

My West Virginia Alzheimer's advocates always share with me their incredible stories--they actually let me come to one of their support groups, which I needed at the time--and also the challenges that they have as caregivers. One of these challenges is navigating the current complex medical system needed to care for someone living with Alzheimer's or, more often than not, other chronic medical conditions.

This is one of the reasons I joined with my colleague Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan--we have done a couple of things together--in introducing the Comprehensive Care for Alzheimer's Act.

This bill would address the challenge by asking the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for some innovation to be able to test dementia care management models. It enables individuals to more seamlessly and successfully navigate healthcare and social support systems and to obtain more timely access to care.

The model is designed to reach as many Medicare beneficiaries as possible, especially individuals from rural and medically underserved areas. It provides comprehensive care services, including caregiver education and support; ensures patients have access to providers with dementia care experience; and also to reimburse providers through payment based on performance.

This is something that could have helped my brother, sister, and I as we were navigating this difficult path, by helping us to coordinate the care that our parents not just received but what they deserved. It also could have helped them by ensuring that they were receiving the best care at all times.

We must recognize the importance that our family caregivers play not

only during National Family Caregivers Month, but every day, and embrace those commonsense solutions like this one.

So in honor of my parents, I would like to say that many of us across the country who are dealing with this have so much heartache and so much difficulty and so much difficult decisions that I am always trying to seek the best way to try to help those families who are going down that path.

Thank you.

Madam President, today, I join my colleagues to talk about highlighting some of the things that we see in the dubious environment and energy provisions included in the Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending proposal and what that will mean to the American public.

This week, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a nonpartisan governmental group, forecasted that the cost of Americans' natural gas bills will go up 30 percent this winter. We are getting ready to get into the cold winter season. That means American households will spend an average of $746 on gas heating in the months from October through March--30 percent more than last year.

Now, maybe to some people, $746 doesn't sound like much, but if you are on a fixed income and you have to pay that every month, that means having to make difficult decisions.

Also, with natural gas, which is the primary heating fuel for 48 percent of American homes, which is nearly half the country, this has huge implications for our families.

As I said, just think of retirees in West Virginia, who are on fixed incomes. That 30-percent increase is huge and unmanageable. People already struggle to pay their energy bills in normal times, but with this increase, difficult decisions will have to be made in many households.

Think of a family of four just trying to get through--trying to get through the school year--and they have just enough to buy the necessities for their children, and now their heating bill is 30- percent higher. That is a big hit to that family.

Americans who rely on propane will face an even greater price increase, and that is a lot of Americans. The EIA said it is expecting a 54-percent increase this winter.

So with Americans facing eye-popping increases in home heating, Congress should be considering legislation that lowers those costs by producing more energy here at home; but, instead, the House Energy and Commerce Committee reported legislation to impose a methane tax, which would really be called a natural gas tax.

This regressive provision would make already high heating costs even worse this winter and beyond, and low- and middle-income families would suffer because we know those costs always get passed on. The natural gas tax would put jobs in the energy sector in my home State at risk. This week, we saw reports that this tax may drop out of the reconciliation package. Good news for me, and it would be good news for States like ours.

But even without a natural gas tax or the devastating Clean Electricity Payment Program, which also is rumored to be on the chopping block, the remaining provisions in the Democrats' legislation wastes taxpayers' dollars and includes broad, new regulatory policies that would change this country.

For example, there is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. It is a $27.5 billion slush fund for Democratic States and progressive organizations to finance whatever so-called green projects they may want.

Apparently, our colleagues are concerned that the over $200 billion we have in renewable energy tax credits is not enough to encourage the private sector to finance projects. Therefore, billions of tax dollars are required to provide even more public financing for their wish list.

Two other provisions tucked into the House bill that have not received much attention could have major policy implications.

First, the House bill includes a $50 million fund to create a new greenhouse gas emissions regulation at the EPA, like President Obama's Clean Power Plan.

My question would be, if the EPA is funded, why they would need another $50 million to create a program.

But this provision directs the EPA to develop overly burdensome regulations. At the request of 26 States, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed President Obama's Clean Power Plan because the EPA lacked the statutory authority.

Yet this $50 million provision, tucked into the $3.5 trillion behemoth bill, isn't only about giving more money to the EPA; it is designed to give the administration the ability to say that future climate rules were specifically authorized by the Congress. These rules could regulate energy production, manufacturing, agriculture--really, any sector in the U.S. economy--and place countless jobs at risk.

Another separate $50 million provision directs the Federal Highway Administration to come up with a greenhouse gas emissions performance measure.

What is that?

States would then be required to set emissions reduction targets based on that performance measure. The Federal Highway Administration is also directed to impose consequences on States that fail to meet these targets.

How much of a reduction in emissions do States have to achieve to hit their targets? What actions will States have to take or not take in order to meet their targets? More importantly, what consequences will the Federal Highway Administration impose on our States that fail to meet their targets? Will they lose their Federal highway dollars? Will States have more restrictions on building new roads? Will there be new requirements to direct highway funding to other activities that reduce emissions?

All of those questions are left unanswered.

This $50 million open-ended provision, reported by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, could jeopardize the ability of States to build new roads and bridges.

These are just a few of the erratic environmental provisions in this reckless tax-and-spending spree. Their provisions have not had the careful consideration that they need to have, and they have not had the vetting that, I think, programs such as these would need.

The package is much broader than that. It is really a lot of wasteful spending. It is regulatory overreach that will make energy and goods more expensive. We have talked on and on about the rising costs of goods and, particularly, gasoline. It is a progressive wish list rolled into a $3.5 trillion bill that inserts the government into nearly every phase of American life from cradle to grave. The reconciliation bill should not pass.

I will continue to come to the floor, along with my colleagues, to shine a light on the harmful provisions and help inform the American people about what really is in this package.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to take a step back really and evaluate the real-life impacts of President Biden's policies. As every incoming administration does, promises were made to the American people. That is not surprising. But one of President Biden's first promises was to unite the American people. But as we have seen too often here, he has chosen a path that follows the lead of the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate, which is really a solitary path instead of a path of unity.

So it is fair to ask: Has that agenda resulted in a better life for working families? Has it made us more prosperous, more secure? Has it made us safer?

Well, let's take a look. We can start with what is top of mind for all of our folks across the country, and that is the rising price of everyday goods and services. Every day, men and women go to work, take the kids to school, expecting the predictability that filling up their car will cost a certain amount or that trip to the grocery store will be in the same range. And what do they find? Well, thanks to inflation, fueled in part by excessive government spending to the tune of trillions of dollars--and I am afraid we haven't seen the end of it-- Americans are paying higher prices for many of the things they just can't do without. Over the past year, consumer prices have risen 5.4 percent, the largest 1-year jump in 13 years.

So if you are saving up to buy a new or used car or truck, keep saving because it costs more under President Biden. Headed out to the grocery store? Prepare to see larger numbers at the bottom of your receipt, thanks to President Biden. Making monthly rent payments? If it seems higher than last year, that is because it is. The national median rent went up 17 percent since President Biden took office. Well, those numbers don't lie. People see them every day and they are in their bank accounts and in their checkbooks and in the strain of trying to make those things work. These are the real-life consequences of misguided economic policies from the left. Unfortunately, for working-class Americans, it means the only thing we have built back better is the return to soaring inflation and economic misery that many of us remember from the Jimmy Carter years.

Those years also remind us of another problem facing every family, as I mentioned before. That is the rising cost of gas. Digits on the gas pump--they tick up faster and faster every time you fill up, and it isn't because our tanks have gotten bigger, that is for sure. In West Virginia, the average cost of gas compared to this time last year is more than $1 per gallon. So not only are those trips to the grocery store more expensive, it costs more to get to the grocery store. The White House has insisted that they are working on it, and on behalf of everyone in my State who drives to work, drops their kids off at school, and hops in the car to visit their families, I sure hope they are.

At the same time, it is important to note that on President Biden's first

day of office, he told us all we needed to know about his energy policy and that would be: America last. One of his first acts as President was to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline, costing thousands of American jobs--union jobs--claiming that it had to be done to combat climate change. Compare that to just a few months later, when President Biden lifted sanctions--yes, he lifted the sanctions--on a Russian gas pipeline, allowing the Nord Stream II project to continue, further empowering Vladimir Putin and threatening the national security of America and our allies in Europe.

These are just a few of the backward moves by this White House that have left us really scratching our heads. And it has only been compounded by Executive action and regulations aimed at stifling the production of energy here in this country. We remember the effects--I certainly do in West Virginia--the effects of this playbook as it originally was created during the Obama years. So it is just a shame that this administration doesn't remember that.

Again, all of this is hitting the consumer--American consumer--hard right as we are approaching our winter months. It is expected that households will see their home heating bills rise 54 percent compared to last winter. And for homes that use natural gas for heat, which I do in my home and I would highly recommend it, they will pay about 30 percent more than they did last year. Families are having to cut back basic necessities just to heat their homes and make ends meet.

Another pledge President Biden made was to build a fair and humane immigration system. He gutted many of the deterrent policies that effectively kept illegal immigration numbers down, such as eliminating the effective ``Remain in Mexico'' policy; stopping construction of the border wall; and signaling to the whole hemisphere that if you make it to the U.S.-Mexican border, you will be allowed in.

This was reported today, and this has resulted in the highest numbers for a fiscal year that have ever been recorded of border arrests--1.7 million border arrests--the most ever on record. And again, these policies were all done in the name of creating a moral and humane system.

Well, let me tell you, the Senator from Missouri and I took a visit to the border just over the last year, and there was nothing humane about the conditions we saw with overcrowded migrant children facilities in Texas. There was nothing humane about the Haitian immigrants living under a bridge in Del Rio. There is nothing humane about women giving birth, and I believe at last count it was 11 children were born in those conditions. This all happened because they made that dangerous journey to the border believing that if they made it, they would be welcomed in. Well, guess what. They were right because about 12,000 of the Haitian refugees that were under that bridge are in this country right now.

I will take it a step further. There is nothing humane about fueling the disease of addiction millions of Americans battle as deadly drugs flow across our porous border and make their way into our communities. Not addressing an overdose crisis that took 93,000 sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers last year is not humane. You would say: How is this happening? The Border Patrol has got to focus on the human element while more and more drugs can pass through.

As someone representing a State hit hardest by the drug epidemic, I am pleading with President Biden and Vice President Harris or whoever is in charge of resolving the self-created border crisis to please do something different--or at least do something.

So this is what the first year of Biden's America looks like: failed policies, broken promises. Americans were promised prosperity, and we have gotten a sampling of socialism. We were promised a secure nation; instead, our borders are open and a humanitarian crisis rages on our southern border. We were promised a repaired reputation on the world stage, and instead we have led from behind and abandoned our own people abroad in Afghanistan. We were promised unity, and instead we heard divisive rhetoric that demonizes half of our country.

The better version of America President Biden was selling, as some of us had feared, was just too good to be true.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, it is an honor to talk about a good friend of ours, Woody Williams, here with my fellow Senator from the West Virginia, to talk about our fellow West Virginian, Hershel ``Woody'' Williams.

He is just an incredible, incredible, individual. He turned 98 just, I think, last week. So he was born in 1923, which was the same year my father was born. Woody and I have talked about this because when I see him, I see my dad and that generation. My dad is no longer with us. You know, they did incredible things at such a young age.

One day, I was honored to sit next to Woody on an airplane flying home. He travels all over. It is amazing where he goes and what he does. He told me his whole story of joining the Marines and signing up for the Marines and why he wanted to do it. He was a country boy, just born--they didn't really actually know when he was born. He didn't have a full birth certificate. And he is a little guy. He wasn't quite big enough to maybe get--be able to join, and he worried about that. He was 17, but nobody really knew how old he was.

I asked him: Well, what was your attraction of being in the Marines?

He said one day he was in town and he saw this guy walk by, and he was fully dressed in a Marine uniform.

And he said: I want to be that guy. I want to wear that uniform.

And he persevered, as he has in every aspect of his life.

There are so many, as Senator Manchin said, so many brave from that ``greatest generation'' that served in World War II. And he is the final World War II veteran Medal of Honor recipient of that award.

We are so proud of him in West Virginia because, you know, it didn't stop there for him. He spent a lifetime advocating for veterans, for veterans' health, for fallen soldiers' families, in a whole variety of roles, and he never stopped.

As Senator Manchin said, he fought valiantly in the Battle of Iwo Jima, storming those pill boxes, all four of them, under relentless fire. He survived the entire 5-week campaign in Iwo Jima. As we know, that was one of the most staunchly defended Japanese strong points at that time, and his actions played a critical role in the eventual capture of that island.

He has inspired future generations to want to serve our Nation. He is a hero for what he has done at home. He has committed himself for 75 years to veterans and their families, and he created the Hershel Woody Williams Foundation.

Through his foundation, Woody advocates for and recognizes the sacrifices of our Gold Star families who have lost loved ones in the military.

Because of his tremendous efforts, Woody and his foundation are responsible for 60 Gold Star family memorial monuments. Senator Manchin and I have been to the grand opening. They just had a new one in Charleston, on the grounds of the Charleston capitol. It is beautiful to see, and the other 70 additional monuments that are going to be built in the future.

We need reminders, I think. We need reminders of the sacrifices that people make. And we need reminders of what it takes to defend our liberties, our freedoms, our families. So we are really, really pleased to be here.

The West Virginia Legislature included Woody in the West Virginia Hall of Fame and named him a Distinguished West Virginian in 1980, and again in 2013, and they would probably do it again next year. He is just so exceptional.

His unending energy and passion have also inspired many generations. He has spoken to numerous schools, universities, community events, and veterans' receptions, promoting patriotism and the ideals of service above self.

I have been privileged to attend--and I know Senator Manchin has too--several speeches given by Woody Williams, keeping in mind the last one I heard, he was 97 years old. Oh, my gosh, so inspiring. It makes you just want to feel pride for our country but also for our people, that our country boy from West Virginia could keep inspiring the next generations.

He has been here to the Halls of the U.S. Capitol. Or you might have even seen him at the coin flip--how did he get there?--at the Super Bowl in 2018. So he has gone on to really, I think, be a remarkable human being. If you haven't met him or haven't seen him, make sure you get a chance if you hear he is coming your way.

Abraham Lincoln famously said: ``Any nation that does not honor its heroes will not long endure.''

Today, I am proud to honor my friend, with Senator Manchin and many other West Virginians and others around the country, and to share his stories of courage, compassion, and the service not only in the past but the service that he has today. I am glad to join a bipartisan group of our colleagues in honoring him and honoring him in the future.

Thank you.

I yield back.

Happy birthday, Woody.

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

Mr. President, this summer, the Senate passed historic bipartisan legislation that would make meaningful investments in our physical infrastructure. We did the hard work. We did the hard work to produce legislation that meets current and future needs by investing in our roads,

our bridges, clean water, broadband, transit systems, rail, and our electric grid.

Chairman Carper and I led a surface transportation reauthorization bill and a water infrastructure bill in our EPW Committee, both of which were unanimously reported out by our committee and really served as the backbone of this infrastructure package. The Commerce Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee both also contributed bipartisan bills to this major effort. A bipartisan group of our colleagues, led by Senator Portman and Senator Sinema, negotiated with the Biden administration to complete the package. That effort resulted in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which earned the vote of 69 Senators nearly 2 months ago. President Biden himself expressed his support for the legislation in a widely covered speech from the White House.

By now, that bill should be law and Federal funding should be on the way to State Departments of Transportation, local water boards, and our economic development officials. All Speaker Pelosi had to do was put the Senate legislation on the floor in August and watch its passage with a strong bipartisan vote. However, House Democrats broke promises to their own Members and refused to ask for a vote on the bill, and that was in September. Our bipartisan work in the Senate advanced the infrastructure football to the 1-yard line. We were there, but somehow House Democrats were still unable to reach the goal line.

Last Friday, our Federal Surface Transportation Program lapsed-- lapsed--for the first time in over a decade. After months of talking about rebuilding American infrastructure, House Democrats shut down the Federal Highway Administration, pressing pause on some of the most important infrastructure programs in this country. It was a short lapse, but it was a lapse. A lapse in these programs would be unacceptable in any circumstance, but House Democrats decided to let the programs expire rather than vote on bipartisan legislation that sat on their desks for more than 7 weeks during their August recess.

In delaying this vote, those leaders didn't just break their commitment to the American people, but, again, they broke a commitment to their own Members when they said--they were originally promised the infrastructure bill would receive a vote by September 27. Instead, the House and Senate had to reauthorize, quickly, our existing Surface Transportation Program, but guess what--for a month--October 31. What does that do? Not much. It does continue, but it does create confusion, and that stop-and-start is difficult. I appreciate my colleagues' work to reopen these programs, but it is not enough.

Over on the House side, they are holding core infrastructure legislation hostage in an effort to force Members of their own party to come on board in separate legislation that would, in my opinion, waste $3.5 trillion on social programs unrelated to infrastructure. The $3.5 trillion package is what my colleague and our colleague, Senator Manchin, correctly described as ``fiscal insanity.'' House Democrats are telling the American people that if they want roads and bridges, they have to accept trillions of dollars in unrelated spending and unrelated tax policies.

If this reckless tax-and-spending spree were popular with the American people, they wouldn't have to bind it to the infrastructure legislation and block that legislation in an effort to convince the Members of their own party to support it, but they understand there is a real concern back home to spending $3.5 trillion. I heard this over and over when I was just home over the weekend--over and over--from my constituents in West Virginia.

We all know inflation is real, and it is impacting day-to-day families--families who are trying to figure out how to pay for the cost of gasoline, that gallon of milk, those new school clothes, books, pencils, the cost of heating and cooling their homes. It is hurting our American families. And yet, even with these red flags, the Biden administration and my Democrat colleagues want to spend an additional 3.5 trillion--with a ``t''--dollars. And if that is not enough, they want to impose the largest tax hike in decades.

These efforts will hit American families with higher prices and greater tax burdens at a time when they can least afford it. I am not sure there is a time we could ever afford it. So this makes zero sense.

Now, I know President Biden has promised not to raise taxes on families making less than $400,000 a year. He has repeated this many, many times in his public speeches. But what he is not telling you is that the cost of everyday living is going up significantly because of these--and will go up more because of these progressive policies, which are a hidden tax on the American people. Your utility bills, your grocery bills, all the costs of everyday goods and services are going to go up.

And have you heard this just really outrageous idea that they want your bank or credit union to tell the IRS every deposit or withdrawal of $600 or more? And if you have $600 in your bank account, they want your bank or credit union to report that to the IRS. Does that sound like it is designed to target billionaires or middle-class Americans?

The taxes, fees, and penalties this partisan, reckless tax-and- spending package includes ultimately still falls to you, regardless of how much you make. As ranking member of the EPW Committee, I am especially concerned about several environmental provisions in the $3.5 trillion spending plan.

Let's be clear. All of us, Republicans and Democrats, we do want a cleaner energy future, and we are moving toward that. The proof of that is our work together on technologies like carbon capture and utilization. But this rushed reconciliation package doesn't allow time for any sort of transition. Wind and solar energy still has serious gaps. They are growing, yes, but they still have serious gaps in reliability and stability. When the wind stops blowing and the Sun isn't shining, our country still relies heavily on coal, natural gas, and nuclear. But instead of recognizing this reality and investing in technologies to accelerate carbon capture, which would lead to less emissions, this package punishes companies that are already cutting their emissions. It is reckless spending. It is punitive taxation, and, ultimately, the American family will pay the price.

Take, for example, the proposed methane tax--well, methane fee, it is called, but it is actually a natural gas tax. This regressive tax on natural gas would increase energy costs on American families and small businesses, disproportionately affecting middle- and low-income households at a time when natural gas prices are going up due to inflation and increased demand and reduced supply here and abroad due to some factors--and, right now, the pandemic.

According to the EPA, natural gas systems in the United States reduced their overall methane emissions by nearly 16 percent between 1990 and 2019, without these onerous regulations and taxes. It is widely recognized that the shale gas boom led to significant greenhouse gas emission reductions across our power sector. In fact, as our natural gas production has risen and has gone up, the country's overall greenhouse gas emissions have gone down significantly.

According to API, the methane fee, or tax, would cost approximately $9.1 billion and as many as 90,000 jobs in a lot of the regions in the country, one of which is my own in West Virginia. Don't be fooled. Like any other part of this package, the methane fee is rushed government overreach when the market is already reducing emissions.

More than 150 groups have written to Congress to oppose this natural gas tax. This is not about reducing emissions or even raising revenues for Washington; it is about targeting an industry, oil and gas, and the related good-paying jobs, like those in West Virginia, for elimination for wholly political purposes. The idea that our country will be able to transition to a cleaner future and keep up with our energy demands without natural gas is just not based in reality.

So speaking of based in reality, let's talk about the proposed Clean Electricity Performance Program. This is a program in the $3.5 trillion bill to eliminate coal and natural gas from our electricity mix by requiring an 80-percent reduction in carbon emissions from utilities by 2030. This goal is very unrealistic as fossil fuels now provide

60 percent of our Nation's electricity today, 2021.

The United Mine Workers of America wrote that this plan would ``eliminate virtually all of West Virginia's coal generation fleet of eight baseload power plants well before the end of this decade. . . . All related coal mining and utility jobs would be lost, with severe [adverse] impacts on families, communities, and the local and state tax revenues associated with mining, electric generation, and electric power [generation].''

This program is an explicit attempt to put energy producers out of work. It would use taxpayer dollars to get rid of coal and natural gas jobs in States like mine, using a convoluted system to try to mask the hit to our electricity taxpayers. And for all the promises we heard of lined-up green energy jobs for these workers to replace these jobs, I am certainly not seeing many of those in my State, certainly not the tens of thousands of jobs that would be needed to make up for the lost jobs. And I am definitely not seeing any of those green jobs pay--the pay on those green jobs even close to what a miner would make or somebody in the natural gas business.

But the Clean Electricity Performance Program will impact more than just my home State, of course. If California is any indication, the clean electricity payment plan will lead to less reliability, rolling blackouts all across the country, and higher energy prices. We don't need to wait and see how a plan like this will impact a powerhouse country like ours.

Germany is already trying this. According to Forbes Magazine, our German friends are spending as much as $4 trillion to install as much wind and solar capacity as possible--laudable goal--and to drastically curtail and hopefully eliminate the need for coal, natural gas, and nuclear. This has left Germany with the highest electricity prices in the world--harming their households and their world-famous manufacturing sector. When they have found themselves short of supply, they have to import coal-fired electricity from Poland.

We, here, in this country, would have no kind of international fallback. So while we try to mimic a path similar to Germany and shut down American coal mines, meanwhile China is building new coal plants that will wash out any of our supposed carbon reductions. American energy prices will skyrocket, and the Clean Energy Payment Plan will make a negligible impact on global emissions.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund is another absurd provision in this reconciliation package. This is basically a $27.5 billion slush fund for Democrat States to use whatever they would use for their so-called green projects. This will increase our reliance on critical minerals and energy supplies that we get from China and other international competitors trying to put forward energy-free technologies and particularly looking at the production of lithium batteries and solar energy that is primarily produced in China.

Another egregious provision tucked away in this reconciliation package is a $50 million expenditure to EPA to write new clean air regs. That is right, $50 million. They would give $50 million to write a new version of President Obama's Clean Power Plan and other devastating climate regulations. With the money, EPA will hire extra lawyers and bureaucrats to write additional regulations under section 111 and other provisions of the Clean Air Act in ways that they have never done before, all, in my view, which would put my hard-working West Virginians out of a job.

These are just a few of the environmental provisions in this reckless tax-and-spending spree. But the package is much broader than that. It is a wish list rolled into a $3.5 trillion bill that inserts the government into nearly every aspect of American life. The American people understand that passing this bill will harm our country by fueling inflation, and it will harm our country for generations to come as we add to our debt.

It is no wonder that the Democrats are having so much trouble passing this. By shuttering our Federal Surface Transportation Programs last Friday, House Democrats made it abundantly clear that despite their rhetoric, physical infrastructure is not a priority. Instead, they have said that roads, bridges, broadband, water infrastructure--all infrastructure items that Americans in both parties support are only worth funding if they are accompanied by another $3.5 trillion in spending.

I hope that our House colleagues will change their approach. The bipartisan infrastructure bill represents good policy, and it should be allowed to pass on its own merit. It will benefit every State in this country. It will provide the certainty of 5 years of funding for our Surface Transportation Programs and avoid future lapses like we saw last Friday. These programs cannot bounce from one short-term extension to the next. We have done that before. It is very, very difficult to conduct business, and they should not play second fiddle to a package of partisan policies.

We came together in this body to pass a bipartisan infrastructure bill that the American people can be proud of, and that bill should become law soon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes, followed by Senators Carper and Schumer for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, well, it is great to be on the floor today. I think we have much to celebrate. We have a lot of tired people, I think, who have devoted a lot of time and energy to this effort. And so, after a long week of amendments, it is time to get this done.

Isn't it, Senator Carper, my chairman on EPW?

We have talked all week about how the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act delivers for the American people, and I am proud that the foundation of this bill--the foundations of this bill--is, as the Senator from Ohio just mentioned, based off of the two very bipartisan, unanimously bipartisan, EPW infrastructure bills that we passed in the spring.

This historic investment reflects our commitment to keeping America safe, improving our global competitiveness, and growing our economy. So I am going to go through a few of the highlights because I think they are important for the American people to know exactly what this bill does.

It provides $303.5 billion over 5 years for Federal highway programs--a 35-percent increase from the last bill.

There is a new $2 billion rural surface transportation grant that will dedicate resources to the Appalachian Development Highway System that runs through many of our States and other critical projects across rural America.

Combined, the overall package includes $40 billion in dedicated resources for bridges--the single largest investment in bridge infrastructure construction of the Interstate System.

I am from a small State. I got a lot of bridges. I got a lot of bridges, and, unfortunately, a lot of them are not in the best condition. This would be a monumental improvement in what I see every day in my State.

The bill authorizes $35 billion for water projects across the country, with a focus on upgrading aging infrastructure. This is a bill that we passed out of our EPW Committee.

It invests in innovative technologies and provides assistance to rural and low-income communities to help them keep their water safe and clean.

This package represents the largest investment in clean drinking water in

our Nation's history. That is something that I think we all can be proud of.

There is funding for broadband--essential to this 21st-century economy--education, tourism, healthcare, and all of the things we have realized that broadband brings us and how important it is for each family and each business to have it; ports, airports, locks and dams. Funding for the Corps of Engineers will improve our water resources infrastructure, facilitating the movement of goods and mitigating flood risks.

Reauthorization of the AML Program will provide billions of dollars to clean up abandoned mine sites. It is important in our State. Pennsylvania has got a lot of them too

We are fighting against climate change, and we are cleaning up our environment.

This legislation doesn't just invest in our infrastructure, but it will allow projects to move more quickly. Far too often, infrastructure projects are delayed because of the expensive and arduous environmental review and permitting process.

An environmental impact statement under the NEPA Act for highway projects takes an average of 7 years. Think about how long that is and how much more money that costs.

The highway bill unanimously approved by our EPW Committee includes numerous project delivery provisions to provide a more efficient, predictable process.

Notably, it codifies ``One Federal Decision.'' One Federal Decision for highway projects would establish a 2-year goal for completing environmental reviews. This isn't skirting the environmental process. This isn't running roughshod over it. This is putting a time clock on it. Let's move it.

It requires predictable schedules coordinated by Agencies and requires a single environmental document with concurrent reviews, providing accountability and transparency.

The EPW bill that we passed makes other commonsense reforms, like allowing States to be reimbursed for early utility relocation necessary for a project while the process is ongoing.

Additional provisions in the broader legislation will extend the FAST-41 permitting reforms, with which Senator Portman is very, very instrumental, to help us build other types of infrastructure more efficiently.

The reforms and investments this bill makes aren't just for now but for the next generation.

We have had a very lengthy and robust debate on the Senate floor. I would like to thank Senators Portman and Sinema; Senator Collins, who is on the floor; Senator Portman, Senator Sinema, all of the group of 20. If I start naming them, I am going to leave somebody out. But, particularly, Senators Portman and Sinema picked up the ball where I left it. You know, I would like to think I got it to the 5-yard line. Maybe not so quite, but I got the ball rolling, and I got it moving in the right direction, and then they did the tough sledding ahead, and I thank them for that.

I would also like to thank my counterpart, Chairman Carper. He has been great in managing this bill on the floor but also to keep the guardrails on that we established to make sure that the group--the bipartisan group--was following along with what the committee had unanimously passed and how we felt would be the most effective way to invest in our infrastructures for the future.

I would like to thank my entire EPW Committee team, starting with my staff director, Adam, who has been with me for many, many years. What you don't know, and what I know, is that Adam was back in the back with Mary Frances, and they were the traffic cops through the whole amendment process, working with the committees, the different five committees; Republican, Democrat; leadership, leadership; all of the different individual Members.

So I am going to give Adam 1 day off, and then I think he will be right back at it. But he is really irreplaceable to our committee but also to this whole process.

And also in the Chamber with us today, Lauren Baker and Murphie Barrett have many, many hours of just incredible depth of knowledge in this area. We couldn't have done it without you.

I am going to name the rest of my staff who is not here with us: Libby Callaway, Georgianna Clemmons, who I announced has still not had her baby--I announced it last I time mentioned her; she is still waiting--Marli Collier, Travis Cone, Sarah Delavan, Will Dixon, Elizabeth Horner, Max Hyman, Tyler Jenkins, Jess Kramer, Jake Kennedy, Matt Lupes, Kayla McMurry, Taylor Meredith, Jacob Mitchell, Kelley Moore, Katherine Smith, Travis Voyles, and Andy Zock for their tireless efforts that have helped advance our committee's infrastructure legislation.

On my personal team, I would like to thank my chief of staff, Joe Brubaker and J.T. Jezierski for their leadership.

I really want to thank Senator Carper's EPW staff, especially Mary Frances Repko, who is on the floor with the Senator today, but also Rebecca Higgins, John Kane, Greg Dotson, Laura Gilliam, Heather Dan, Mackie McIntosh, Annie D'Amato, Kenneth Martin, and Tyler Hoffman- Reardon for their dedication to this process as well.

I will say, under Mary Frances's leadership and Adam's leadership on my committee, I think they have demonstrated to many committees, and certainly to us as the chairman and ranking member, that you can have conversations, communications, and you can work things out. You can work things out if you just stick with it.

So thank you, both, very, very much.

It is time to bring this bill home and do the work that the American people expect us to do, which is to find bipartisan, consensus-driven solutions to our Nation's pressing challenges. And this is a pressing challenge.

Again, I urge a vote of yes on this historic bipartisan bill that will improve our core infrastructure.

If we pass this important legislation, I hope that the House will move swiftly--and as a former Member of the House, as we all are, the House can move swiftly when they need to--and get this bill to the President's desk quickly.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3284 and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, I am a strong supporter of carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration, otherwise known as CCUS.

This technology allows us to turn carbon dioxide into a valuable product. Some anti-fossil fuel, ``keep it in the ground'' advocates only support CCUS when it has nothing to do with fossil fuels, and I believe that is a misguided approach.

If we are serious about supporting and increasing the number of CCUS projects, which I am and many of us are, we need to support projects of all types of facilities, including on our coal- and gas-fired powerplants. We also need to support the use of carbon dioxide to produce oil through a process called enhanced oil recovery.

I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on amendment No. 3284 and recognize that smart CCUS policies and fossil fuel use can go hand in hand.

I yield the floor.