[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 184 (Wednesday, October 20, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7115-S7118]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Government Spending

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over the last couple of years, our 
Democratic colleagues have suggested a range of unrealistic and 
downright harmful policies in our shared goal--and I emphasize the 
words ``shared goal''--to reduce carbon emissions. But it is not just a 
question of what you are doing; it is a question of how you are going 
about doing it. The way they are going about doing it is going to raise 
the prices of electricity, gasoline, and all forms of energy on people 
on fixed incomes, people who are seniors living on Social Security, and 
others. They have proposed everything from the socialist agenda that is 
the Green New Deal to more targeted, but no more realistic, zero net 
emission mandates.
  Now, we all know that energy transition occurs at all times. I have 
traveled to India--perhaps the Presiding Officer has--and to other 
countries where people literally cook their food using cow manure 
patties, dried cow manure. I remember Prime Minister Modi coming to 
Houston, TX, during an event that we called ``Howdy, Modi!'' when he 
heralded the use of increased access to cooking gas so that his 
constituents, Indians, wouldn't have to use dried cow dung to cook 
their food--that represents progress--or wouldn't have to use wood 
chips anymore.
  Then the transition was to coal, then to natural gas, nuclear, and 
other forms of energy. So energy transition occurs at all times. The 
only question is how it comes about, whether it is as a result of 
higher taxes and forced government mandates or whether it is which form 
of energy competes favorably for consumers because of its cost and 
availability.
  Well, of all of the dangerous policy proposals, I think the reckless 
tax-and-spending-spree bill takes the cake. This is the so-called 
reconciliation bill that is now pending over in the House, or is being 
negotiated. Nobody has actually seen it yet, but we keep hearing what 
is in it, and we keep hearing that the left is negotiating with the far 
left. This is what happens when our Democratic colleagues don't include 
people in the opposing political party to try to build consensus. It is 
pretty hard, particularly when you only have 50 votes.
  This isn't like FDR's New Deal after the Great Depression, wherein he 
had huge majorities. I think what our Democratic colleagues are finding 
out is that, when they try to go it alone, passing these radical 
policies is really, really hard to do because you have no room for 
error.
  This reminds me of the yellow jackets protests in France, starting 
back in 2018, as to what is happening now with some of these mandates 
and these higher taxes. This was, as you may recall, a social movement 
of French working-class families who felt disenfranchised from the 
urban elite, who ``can focus on the end of the world,'' they said, 
``while we're worrying about the end of the month.'' I think it is 
pretty apt to where we are today. This reckless tax-and-spending spree 
not only compiles the most irresponsible policies into one massive 
bill, as I said, but our Democratic colleagues, along with the White 
House, are trying to pass it in a 50-50 Senate, on a party-line vote.
  Well, talk about bad timing. This comes at a time when Texans and 
other Americans are already being pummeled by rising costs, especially 
at the gas pump. Inflation is rearing its ugly head everywhere in terms 
of energy costs, groceries, commodities, and with things like a washing 
machine or a new refrigerator. Try buying a new house, and you will see 
the cost has just jumped dramatically.
  It is a demonstrable fact that, in the last year, gasoline costs have 
gone up 55 percent. The average price today is about $3.33 a gallon. A 
year ago, it was $2.16 a gallon. For somebody who drives a pickup 
truck--and we have a lot of pickup trucks in Texas--it would have cost 
$56 for a tank of gas a year ago, but, today, it is $87--a $31 
increase.
  Unfortunately, sky-high gasoline prices aren't the only growing drain 
on family budgets. As I mentioned, electricity, groceries, clothing, 
eating out occasionally at a restaurant, and countless other expenses 
are on the rise. Prices are so high that inflation is outpacing wage 
growth, essentially giving workers a pay cut. Let me say that again. If 
you are earning, let's say, $10,000 a year--just to pick a number--and 
inflation rises like it does with gasoline costs, you are effectively 
getting a pay cut because of the rising costs of goods and services.
  But that doesn't seem to deter our Democratic colleagues from moving 
full steam ahead on legislation that would drive these costs even 
higher. After spending nearly $2 billion earlier this year on a party-
line vote, our colleagues are back for round 2, and this time they are 
prepared to take a wrecking ball to one of our crown jewels in this 
country, which is our energy sector. By drowning the energy sector in 
tax hikes or in increased regulations and costs, our Democratic 
colleagues think that they can achieve their green

[[Page S7116]]

energy dreams with no consequences, but, of course, that is just a 
dangerous fantasy.
  It sort of reminds me of what I saw reported today by NPR. NPR 
reports: ``Despite climate change promises, governments plan to ramp up 
fossil fuel production.'' Indeed, the President and members of this 
body are going to be heading to a climate conference in Glasgow, 
Scotland, starting on October 31. As you know, usually what happens at 
those conferences, just like at the Paris climate conference in 2015, 
is that governments make extravagant promises to reduce emissions and 
to eliminate fossil fuels, including coal and oil and gas, in favor of 
clean energy.
  Now, I am not deprecating clean energy. In Texas, we believe in an 
``all of the above'' energy policy. We produce more electricity from 
wind turbines than any other State in the Nation. So I am certainly not 
bad-mouthing clean energy, but it has to play a role and not dominate 
to the exclusion of other forms of energy.
  But, as the NPR article points out, ``despite lofty commitments 
[made] by governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they are 
still planning,'' according to this U.N. report that was just issued, 
``to extract huge amounts of energy from fossil fuels in the coming 
years.''
  This report was published on Wednesday, today, and it details how the 
world's largest fossil fuel producers plan to carry on using coal, gas, 
and oil despite promises made in Paris in 2015. So it really makes you 
wonder what is going on when these political leaders go to places like 
Glasgow or Paris, make extravagant promises, and then come back home 
and break those promises.
  Well, I think I know what is happening here because, just like in 
France in 2018, when the government tried to impose a new fuel tax on 
consumers, the yellow jackets protested. They said: You are worried 
about the end of the world. We are worried about how we will pay our 
bills through the end of the month.
  I think a similar phenomenon is occurring now because none of these 
green energy fantasies come cheap. That is another reason energy costs 
are going higher. Whether you are talking about energy or agriculture 
or any other sector of the economy, higher taxes, which are what our 
colleagues are attempting to assess against the energy sector, always 
mean higher prices for consumers.
  Companies don't absorb those costs. They pass them right along to 
consumers in the form of increased costs. In fact, many businesses 
can't absorb increased taxes and keep their prices stable because they 
simply can't operate in the black, and they will go bankrupt. So 
businesses just don't take the hits that keep on coming. They will 
raise prices; they will lay off employees or will implement any 
combination of cost-cutting measures, and that is exactly what this 
pie-in-the-sky, green energy fantasy bill contained in the 
reconciliation legislation would spur.
  This year, as I have pointed out, has already given us the highest 
gas prices since 2014. Now, I just did this year over year, but they 
are the highest prices we have seen since 2014, and I have no doubt 
that President Biden's tax hikes will send those prices at the pump 
even higher just at a time when we are beginning to sound the alarm 
bells over inflation, including by Democratic-leaning economists like 
Larry Summers, who sounded the alarm over inflation.
  I am old enough to remember when inflation was ranked at about 20 
percent, and interest rates were up almost at 20 percent. People had to 
pay huge amounts of money or borrow huge amounts of money and pay 
exorbitant interest rates because of inflation.
  We are in danger of getting back to those bad old days. The proposal 
our Democratic colleagues are trying to ram through Congress would 
increase taxes--already paid by energy companies--on income earned not 
in the United States but globally. It also adds a new tax, the 
Superfund excise tax, which was eliminated 25 years ago. They want to 
add that back on top. The Democrats want to resurrect this tax and 
force energy companies to pay more on every barrel of crude oil that is 
used in the United States.
  Once again, the burden won't be, ultimately, on the energy and 
chemical companies. It will fall on consumers, who are already 
struggling post-COVID to get back on the job and pay the bills and 
provide for their families--only to be met with a kick in the teeth 
known as Bidenflation.
  The middle class won't just be footing the bill for tax hikes on 
companies. This is, really, sort of an elitist irony. The Biden 
reconciliation bill would force middle-class families to subsidize the 
purchase of electric vehicles for wealthy Americans. Not only are we 
going to raise prices on you through tax increases, but we are going to 
take money out of your pocket and give it to rich people who can afford 
to buy these expensive electric vehicles. This bill provides a tax 
credit for electric vehicle purchases even if the vehicle is made 
completely or substantially in China. Won't they love that.
  On top of that, you get a bigger tax credit for electric cars built 
in union shops--some of the greatest political friends of the 
Democratic Party. Our colleagues haven't provided a very good 
explanation for this, but I, for one, find it hard to believe that 
union-built electric vehicles are any greener or cleaner or emit less 
than nonunion-built vehicles. This is just a big wet kiss for a 
political constituency.
  As a reminder, unlike gas-powered vehicle drivers, EV drivers don't 
pay any money into the highway trust fund. Now, if you buy a gallon of 
gasoline, I think it is 18 cents on the gallon that goes into the 
highway trust fund that is used to build and maintain our bridges and 
roadways.
  Because of more use of electric vehicles that don't pay any money 
into the highway trust fund, that trust fund is going broke.
  So the tax breaks for the rich just keep on coming. They take money 
from middle-class families, give it to rich folks so they can buy fancy 
electric vehicles, courtesy of the American taxpayer.
  I also have concerns about how the proposal that is being considered 
by the White House and our Democratic colleagues--how it would impact 
our energy security.
  Over the last several decades, we have made incredible strides. 
Thanks to great investment, innovation, and expertise in the energy 
sector, we have made great strides to reduce our dependency on other 
countries to keep the lights on in the United States.
  After all, we don't want a repeat of the 1970s energy crisis.
  Now, I know a lot of these young folks who are here serving as pages 
may not have been around in the 1970s, but they can look it up online.
  Here is what happened: When the U.S. supported Israel in the Yom 
Kippur war in 1973, the Arab members of OPEC--the Organization of 
Petroleum Exporting Countries--they weren't happy.
  What did they do?
  They banned the sale of crude oil to the United States--cut us off--
and it sent shock waves throughout our country. As you might imagine, 
such was our dependency on imported oil from the Middle East. Despite 
some strong domestic oil production, we were still relying at that time 
heavily on imports, and once the supply was cut off, prices quadrupled.
  Many gas stations simply couldn't serve the demand, and when they 
could, they basically made you get an appointment to come fill up your 
gas tank.
  Some States banned neon signs to cut down on energy use, and a number 
of towns asked their citizens not to put up Christmas lights because of 
the drain on the grid.
  It was a slap across the face, a hard dose of reality that brought 
America's energy dependence to light and underscored the need to 
increase our domestic production and resources and wean ourselves off 
of this dependency--this dangerous dependency on imports.
  And that is what we did. Thanks to incredible investment and 
innovation in the energy sector and something that has come to be known 
as the shale revolution--named for a way to basically get oil and gas 
out of a rock--the tide of the energy landscape geopolitically turned 
in our favor.
  These efforts were so successful that in 2015, the U.S. lifted the 
crude oil export ban that was put in place in the seventies. Back when 
we were dependent on imports, we said: You can't export it because we 
need not only what

[[Page S7117]]

we can produce, but what we can import.
  We lifted that in 2015 because American energy producers were 
producing so much oil and gas.
  And, in fact, rather than import energy, including natural gas, we 
turned around what were built originally as LNG--liquefied natural 
gas--import terminals and created export terminals so we could send 
that low-cost energy to our friends and allies around the world.
  But our Democratic colleagues seem to have a short-term memory 
problem. They seem to have forgotten about our history.
  After years of building our energy independence and strengthening our 
energy security, they want to turn back the clock. The tax hikes they 
are trying to impose on energy producers would ensure that the United 
States, once again, is reliant on other countries, like Russia, Iran, 
Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, for our energy needs. The dangers ought to 
be obvious.
  We should never ever put ourselves in a position where we are reliant 
on any other country for us to keep our lights on, to operate our 
vehicles, for our small businesses to be able to operate, for us to be 
able to get electricity from a wall socket when we plug in an 
appliance.
  So we shouldn't be dependent on our adversaries or any other country 
for our energy needs when we can produce it here in America; and by 
exporting it to friends and allies around the world, we can actually 
liberate them.
  Recently, I was in on a trip with some Senate colleagues to the 
Balkins, in a number of countries that used to be part of the old 
Soviet Union but which are now independent countries, many of which are 
part of NATO and the European Union.
  And one of the things they brought up time and time again is their 
desire to have a diverse source of energy because they know--they 
know--that if they depend on Russian gas, that Mr. Putin could turn off 
the spigot and put them in mortal jeopardy. And that is why it is 
important for us to be able to continue to export and not be dependent 
on imported energy ourselves.
  President Biden unintentionally demonstrated the hypocrisy of some of 
his policies earlier this year when he literally begged OPEC to 
increase production to bring down these prices.
  An American President basically shutting down American energy 
production and begging Russia and Saudi Arabia to please sell us the 
oil and gas we need so we can bring down prices at the pump--it is 
unbelievable.
  If the President is worried about affordable energy, he needs to stop 
pushing policies that will drive up these prices.
  And it is not just gasoline. It is electricity, you name it.
  Well, Texans are already facing high gas prices. Household energy 
bills, your utility bill, is on the rise. This is not the time to make 
it more expensive for families to pay for the energy they need.
  As I mentioned, Texas has always been a proud supporter of an all-of-
the-above energy strategy. We are recognized for the might of our oil 
and gas sector for sure, but a lot of folks don't realize we are a 
leader in renewable energy as well. In fact, we produce one-quarter of 
all of the wind energy in the United States. If we were a country--and 
we were once--we would be the fifth largest wind energy producer in the 
world.
  And we have no plans of stopping there. We are also making serious 
strides in energy innovation through cutting-edge carbon capture and 
storage projects. That is the answer. It is called innovation. Not more 
taxes, not more regulations that raise prices, but innovation, things 
that literally suck carbon out of the environment, deposit it in the 
ground in some of these injection sites so we can actually produce more 
oil and gas, and keep the carbon sequestered in the ground permanently.
  So we need to find a balance--something that is too often missing 
here in Washington, DC--between conservation, production, and economic 
power. That balance will not be found by imposing heavy-handed 
regulations or taxes that drive up the cost for consumers and that 
benefit our adversaries.
  Like the rest of the reckless tax-and-spending spree, the cost of 
this energy proposal far, far exceeds its benefits. There is a better 
way to do this.
  The Biden administration has managed to compound the already 
unprecedented challenges facing our energy sector here in America. 
American energy keeps America and much of the rest of the world 
running, and the administration and Congress need to take action to 
support a strong, post-pandemic recovery, and not get in the way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


     Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
                Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2022

  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor today to introduce 
the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2022. Of course, that is the fiscal 
year that began on October 1.
  Like my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, I am thrilled 
about the great work that has been done over many months to craft 
spending bills that lift up the ideals of our country and put the needs 
of workers and families ahead of the desires of special interests.
  As chair of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee, I can say that 
this is certainly true for the Interior bill that Senator Murkowski and 
I, along with members of the subcommittee, have worked so hard to 
create.
  And I want to especially thank Senator Murkowski and our fellow 
subcommittee members for their contributions to this bill.
  The Interior bill raises some of the more complex and challenging 
issues facing America, so we are delighted that it has been filed 
today.
  Together, we have crafted a bill that recognizes not only the danger 
that hotter, more devastating wildfires, longer fire seasons themselves 
pose, but the dangers of smoke from them. That smoke is making a bigger 
and bigger impact back home on our crops and on our entertainment 
because of outdoor venues being shut down and certainly upon people's 
health. The bill makes critical investments to lessen the peril.
  It doubles the funding for hazardous fuels reductions. When you hear 
that term, you may not be sure what it means. What we are talking about 
is the buildup of fuels in the forest that make the wildfires so much 
worse. So it doubles the funding to take out those fuels to $360 
million so the Forest Service can treat more of the highest risk acres 
of forest lands.
  We particularly want to see a concentration of the wild land-urban 
interface so that the fires are slowed down and can be attacked more 
aggressively when they are close to our towns.
  I will never forget the Labor Day fires of a year ago, where I drove 
600 miles up and down our State and never got out of the smoke, and 
town after town after town was burned to the ground.
  This is why we have to invest in reducing the fuels in our forest and 
making them more fire resilient.
  The bill doubles the funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape 
Restoration program to $80 million instead of $40 million to help fund 
critical projects that will improve forest landscapes and add to the 
resiliency while also removing limitations on how many projects could 
be in each region each year.
  You know, the thing about these landscape restoration programs, it 
brings together the stakeholders from the entire spectrum--from the 
timber companies, the environmental groups, the local elected 
officials, the Indian Tribes--to work out a prescription on how to 
treat the forest, and then that treatment stays out of the courts.
  So it brings an end to the timber wars that have so often frustrated 
so many on all sides while thereby being successful in treating the 
forests, producing more saw logs for the mill, producing more jobs in 
the forests, more jobs in the log trucks. So it is a win for fire 
resiliency; it is a win for jobs; it is a win for our timber industry.
  Funding in this bill goes a long way to transitioning to a larger, 
permanent forest fighting--firefighting force where firefighters 
risking their lives now get a minimum pay of at least $15 per hour. And 
that doesn't sound like very much, but it is an elevation from the 
minimum wages of the past.

[[Page S7118]]

  And it provides $10 million to create a new EPA grant program to help 
States, Tribes, local governments, and others prepare for and protect 
against the hazards of wildfire smoke.
  In recent years, whether it is the impact of air quality on those 
with breathing and health issues or the tourism industry or industries 
like our wineries and our vineyards, the smoke that can blanket Oregon 
from fires during fire season has been nearly as devastating as the 
fires themselves.
  Our subcommittee has also crafted a bill that takes on the climate 
crisis with the seriousness it deserves while we are striving to 
preserve our lands and our natural wonders. There is no question the 
planet is getting warmer. Our oceans are getting more acidic as carbon 
dioxide is transformed into carbonic acid. That is having a big impact 
on our ecosystems on the Oregon coast. We are facing more extreme 
weather--droughts, storms, flooding, heat waves--but for too long, we 
haven't come anywhere close to doing enough to confront this crisis.
  We are starting to make changes through the Interior appropriations 
bill. The bill makes major investments in EPA's climate and enforcement 
programs, including a 46-percent increase in the clean air and climate 
program to tackle the crisis, restore clean air capacity, and expand 
and modernize air quality monitoring. And it provides an extra $56 
million for the Agency's enforcement and compliance efforts and over 
$40 million for the Climate Conservation Corps that will create jobs 
while jump-starting efforts to dramatically expand on-the-ground 
conservation work to address the impacts of climate change; conserve 
and restore public lands and public waters; bolster resilience, 
increase reforestation, protect biodiversity, and improve access to 
recreation.
  There is also $73 million in new funding to the start the process of 
transitioning the Interior Department from fossil fuel vehicles to 
zero-emission vehicles. It is something that has to happen across our 
entire government.
  Finally, we have worked together to craft a bill that makes 
unprecedented, long overdue investments in Tribal communities, in their 
health systems, their education systems, social services, water 
resources and infrastructure, and in law enforcement. For far too long, 
our Tribal communities haven't received the help or the investments 
that they deserve. In this bill, we are starting to right that wrong.
  The Bureau of Indian Affairs is getting a 15-percent increase in 
funding. The Indian Health Service is getting a 21-percent increase in 
funding. And for the first time, the Indian Health Service is getting 
an advance appropriations status. What that means is if the government 
shuts down, we don't shut down the health services for Native 
Americans. When that happened in the past, that was an egregious 
failure. You can't let that happen. This bill puts an end to that, 
creating peace of mind for everyone that the health service will be 
there when needed.
  We are increasing the Bureau of Indian Education budget by 8 percent, 
the Native American and Alaska Natives housing programs by 18 percent. 
We certainly can't make up for centuries' worth of disastrous policy 
and chronic underfunding when it comes to Indian Country overnight, but 
I believe this bill and its unprecedented investments should begin to 
make a large stride toward fulfilling the government's treaty and trust 
responsibilities, showing Tribal communities that their needs are a 
priority.
  There is a lot more in this bill. The Interior appropriations bill 
covers a lot of territory. But I wanted to come to the floor to share 
some of these highlights.
  It is important that we get our funding bills for fiscal year 2022 to 
this floor, to the President's desk, and take all the expertise that 
has gone into these bills into action by bills that have passed and 
been implemented.
  I want to provide a sense for all my colleagues that the real 
investments that these bills are making in our Nation are the kind of 
investments we need to make to ensure strong foundations for families, 
for our communities, and for our Nation to thrive in the years ahead.
  I am grateful for the countless hours of hard work from the Members 
and, very importantly, from the staff who put these bills together, 
raising the salient issues, helping to communicate between the 
Republican side and the Democratic side and the House side and the 
Senate side and the expertise from the executive branch. The staff work 
that goes into a bill like this is enormous. So thank you to the staff 
teams on both the majority and minority side, without whom this bill 
would not exist.
  On my team, we have Melissa Zimmerman, Ryan Hunt, Anthony Sedillo, 
and Martha Roberts. And on Ranking Member Murkowski's team, we have Emy 
Lesofski, Nona McCoy, and Lucas Agnew. To each and every one of them, 
thank you for your tireless efforts. And I must say that the Republican 
and Democratic team members worked so well together on complex and 
difficult issues involved in the Interior bill. So I salute them for 
forging that effort to have a very professional analysis and attitude 
as we work to solve the challenges facing America.
  I look forward to joining with all my colleagues in the Chamber in 
passing this bill and the other appropriations bills that will put 
America on a path to a much better future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.