Congressional Record, Volume 168 Issue 99 (Thursday, June 9, 2022)

[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 99 (Thursday, June 9, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2884-S2887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume legislative session.

Recognizing WGN Radio

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Chicago's very
own WGN Radio for reaching its milestone 100th birthday this year.
In a century's time, WGN has reported on so much of our Nation's
history. The station is synonymous with Chicago's vibrant sports
history and has defined time and again what it means to have a vision
and work to see it through.
WGN, which stands for ``World's Greatest Newspaper'' and pays homage
to the Chicago's Tribune's 20th century slogan, comes from humble
beginnings.
Starting with a single staff member in 1922, WGN went on to cover
some of the past century's defining moments and solidify a legacy of
storytelling and determination.
In 1942, it was WGN who interrupted their broadcast of a Bears game
to report for the next 257 hours and 35 minutes on the attack on Pearl
Harbor.
On 9/11, WGN was there, focusing on Chicago's reaction to the events
on that tragic September morning.
As an Illinoisan, I am proud that WGN has consistently shown up
during some of our country's darkest days. But they have been with us
through many of our brightest moments too.
WGN went from broadcasting its very first sports game--a match
between the Cubs and White Sox--go Cubs--in 1924, to Wayne Larrivee,
Dick Butkus, and Jim Hart broadcasting the Chicago Bears' legendary
Super Bowl XX win to 2010's triumphant cries as the station's
broadcasters described Patrick Kane scoring the winning goal in
overtime, earning the Chicago Blackhawks the Stanley Cup for the first
time in 50 years.
WGN has not just been telling our stories for the last 100 years, but
they have become a vital member of our community.
Judy Markey and Kathy O'Malley's beloved afternoon talk show, and
making Mary Sandberg Boyle the station's first woman general manager in
2019, or bringing the voices like Orion Samuelson and Bob Collins to
our days--WGN is embedded in the hearts of so many Chicagoans.
WGN's legacy isn't just about radio. It is about community. It is
about being proud of where you have come from and where you are going.
So here is to 100 more years of WGN, and many more to come.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Memorial Day

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is Thursday, and I normally come down
on the Senate floor to give the ``Alaskan of the Week'' speech. And,
unfortunately, I am not going to do that today.
Actually, last week, I named two Alaskans of the week. We kind of had
a two-for-one last week. Just as a little wrap-up for that, it was
quite a remarkable thing that took place just last week in Alaska on
Memorial Day.
My two Alaskans of the week, a 92-year-old artist working with a
detective, both Alaska Natives, both from the community of Unalaska out
on the Aleutian Islands chain, worked together. Actually, Gertrude
Svarny worked for decades to right a wrong and get a military burial on
Memorial Day for a young man and also an Alaska Native from Unalaska
who died fighting in World War II and was never recognized, no
gravestone, no tombstone, nothing--for decades. And we had an amazing
ceremony thanks to these two amazing Alaskans--Gertrude Svarny, as I
mentioned, and Mike Livingston. And the memory of this young Alaska
Native soldier, Private George Fox, was now finally recognized.
That was in a Memorial Day ceremony last week. I was trying to get
there. Unfortunately, they sometimes get a lot of bad weather out
there. I flew halfway out to the Aleutian Islands, and we had horrible
weather. We couldn't land.
But the ceremony happened. So there were two Alaskans of the week 2
weeks ago that I just wanted to highlight again. It was an incredibly
moving ceremony.
So I figured that was two for one. So, unfortunately, I am not going
to do an ``Alaskan of the Week'' today. I know we like to end the week
on a high note.

Infrastructure

Mr. President, I am going to talk about a mystery that has really
been, certainly, flummoxing me and, I think, so many people in our
Federal Government on a matter that especially impacts millions and
millions of Americans suffering from high energy prices. It is a
mystery for the American people.
And, you know, our Federal Government can sometimes be so opaque that
you often don't know who is up to what in this Big Government of ours,
particularly when people are trying to do

[[Page S2885]]

things that are so obviously harmful to the American people. So I am
going to talk a little bit about this mystery because I think we
finally solved it. There is a culprit who is usually the culprit in a
lot of bad things happening in our Federal Government, and I am going
to talk about that.
So here is a little bit of background on the mystery. We passed a
bipartisan infrastructure bill in November. Now, I voted for it. Some
of my colleagues didn't. I voted for it primarily because I come from a
resource-rich, infrastructure-poor State.
Alaska has resources--oil, gas, minerals, renewables--that can help
our State and can help the country and, really, help the world, but we
have very little infrastructure.

Think about this. My State is 120 times bigger than Connecticut, and
we have less road miles than Connecticut. And I know we have less road
miles than Maryland.
So, we need infrastructure. So Senator Murkowski, Congressman Young,
and I participated, certainly in our own ways, on getting this
infrastructure bill written and then over the goal line in terms of
votes.
Overall, I thought it was a positive bill. It wasn't perfect, but
especially with the focus on roads, bridges, ports, harbors, and
broadband--and there is actually a provision in there for Federal loan
guarantees on a huge Alaska gas project--an LNG project. So in my view,
this bill was a win-win-win for jobs, infrastructure, and energy
infrastructure to help bring down energy prices, and, of course, on the
environment.
I like to show this chart a lot. It has gotten a lot of attention.
Some of our national media folks have seen it, and they say: Gee, that
can't be true. Let's PolitiFact or fact-check Senator Sullivan's
emissions chart. So they have, and they have come back and said: Hey,
gosh, he is actually right.
It shows annual emissions from the major economies in the world since
2005 to present. Who is the leader in reducing emissions? Who is the
leader? We are. America is--actually, by far; not even close--with
almost a 15-percent emission reduction since 2005.
Who is the main culprit of spewing emissions out into the global
atmosphere? Well, you guessed it--our good friends, the Chinese
communists--China, India, Iran, and Russia.
So we are the leader on this. I had the opportunity during a
confirmation hearing recently for one of the Biden administration's EPA
nominees in charge of air quality. I showed him this chart. He didn't
seem to know a lot about the chart, but he seemed like a good guy. I
asked: Hey, why do you think this happened? He kind of trotted out
initially the EPA regs. Wrong answer. This is because of the revolution
in the production of American gas. That is a fact, OK? You can check it
all you want.
So you would think that infrastructure, part of the infrastructure
bill that can help us actually produce more energy with more energy
infrastructure, that everybody would be for it--helps the environment,
global emissions, certainly helps workers, and helps build out
infrastructure, which we sorely need.
As I mentioned, Mr. President, big supporters of the infrastructure
bill were all the trade unions in Alaska and America because they know
they are going to get the jobs from the build-out of this
infrastructure bill.
Now, one of the things the bill had that I thought was actually
really important--it was something I worked on in the Environment and
Public Works Committee--were provisions to streamline our Federal
permitting system to be able to get infrastructure projects deployed
and built. That was a big element of this bill--not as much as I
wanted, but certainly a good start.
This has been an issue I have been working on since my time here in
the Senate. It is a bipartisan issue, as the Presiding Officer knows.
When you talk to mayors and Governors in America anywhere--it doesn't
matter what party they are--they want the ability to have the Federal
Government permit infrastructure projects so we can move them out. That
is not controversial.
And here is the thing. As a country, we used to be really good at
building stuff--building stuff on time, building stuff that is
impressive. Just to give you a few examples--I think a lot of people
know this--but our country used to be the envy of the world building
great projects responsibly, efficiently, and on time. The Pentagon was
built in 16 months. The Empire State Building was built in 1 year 45
days. With the 1,500-mile Alaska-Canadian Highway--what we call the
ALCAN Highway, connecting the lower 48 all the way through Canada up
into Alaska, 1,500 miles--it took 8 months to do that. So we know how
to do this as a country.

Let's fast-forward to today. A new U.S. highway construction project,
to build a highway, usually takes 9 to 19 years. That is according to
the GAO. Let me just give you a couple of examples of those.
The Gross Reservoir in Colorado, which is going to offer clean water
to the people of Colorado, has taken two decades of planning and
permitting. To expand the Gross Reservoir northwest of Denver has taken
two decades--20 years--to get this important project in Colorado
permitted.
The California bullet train project was approved in the late 1990s.
It is still not built. Its costs, because of permitting delays, have
gone from $33 billion to $105 billion.
The Mountain Valley Pipeline in Virginia and West Virginia began in
2015 to bring natural gas. There are only 20 miles left to complete. It
might not ever be completed because of permitting delays. The Federal
courts are delaying, delaying, and delaying energy projects.
The Kensington mine in Alaska, which now employs over 400 people--it
is a gold mine with an average wage, by the way, of over $100,000, the
average wage--took 20 years to permit if you include the litigation.
The list goes on and on and on.
When NEPA was originally passed, the EIS, the environmental impact
statement, was to take less than a year. It usually took less than a
year and was usually a couple hundred pages. Now the average EIS takes
4 to 6 years to complete on any project in America, and it usually
costs several millions of dollars. We are killing ourselves as a
country in our ability to build or to not build infrastructure
projects.
What did we do in the infrastructure bill? It was bipartisan. We
worked together and put together some pretty good permitting reform
provisions. They are not nearly as good as I would have wanted them,
but they were pretty good, pretty good, to get the infrastructure that
is in this bill--roads; bridges; ports; yes, energy projects of
pipelines for oil and gas, which we need--built quickly or at least in
a reasonable amount of time, not in 20 years.
So here is the mystery. That all happened. The President said he
liked it. The unions really liked it. The building trades--the men and
women who build stuff in this country--liked it. I have worked with
Terry O'Sullivan, the great leader of the Laborers, on permitting
reform--this very issue. We have got some good things in there. So what
is the mystery?
Here is the mystery: After all of this work and the President touting
the infrastructure bill and our getting ready to build and having good
impacts in terms of natural gas, not just on environment and emissions
but in continuing to make us the global leader, the White House set out
new rules in April, under NEPA, for infrastructure projects.
What did they do? They made the NEPA rules much harder to actually
build infrastructure, not just for oil and gas, but it targeted oil and
gas. This is for all infrastructure--roads, bridges, ports, renewable
projects, LNG projects, natural gas projects.
The White House put out new NEPA rules rescinding the Trump
administration's rules, which were quite good and similar to some of
the reforms we got in the infrastructure bill, and everybody knows that
these White House rules are going to delay infrastructure projects. Why
in the heck would we do that as a country? We just passed a big
infrastructure bill with permitting reform in it, and somebody over at
the White House said: No, let's make it harder.
Here is an editorial from the Wall Street Journal that talks about
the infrastructure NEPA regs. It is called: ``How to Kill American
Infrastructure on the Sly. The White House revises

[[Page S2886]]

NEPA rules that will scuttle [the ability to build] new roads, bridges
and oil and gas pipelines.''
(Ms. CORTEZ MASTO assumed the Chair.)
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record this editorial.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From The Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2022]

How To Kill American Infrastructure on the Sly

(By The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board)

Americans are going to need a split-screen for the Biden
Administration's policy contradictions. Even as the President
on Tuesday promoted the bipartisan infrastructure bill he
signed last November, the White House moved to make it harder
to build roads, bridges and, of course, oil and natural-gas
pipelines.
The White House Council on Environmental Quality is
revising rules under the National Environmental Policy Act
for permitting major construction projects. CEQ Chair Brenda
Mallory says the changes will ``provide regulatory
certainty'' and ``reduce conflict.'' Instead, they will cause
more litigation and delays that raise construction costs, if
they don't kill projects outright.
NEPA requires federal agencies to review the environmental
impact of major projects that are funded by the feds or
require a federal permit. Reviews can take years and run
thousands of pages, covering the smallest potential impact on
species, air or water quality. Project developers can be
forced to mitigate these effects by, say, relocating species.
While the 1970 law was intended to prevent environmental
disasters, it has become a weapon to block development. The
Trump Administration sought to fast-track projects by
limiting NEPA reviews to environmental effects that are
directly foreseeable--e.g., how a pipeline's construction
would affect a stream it crosses.
Some liberal judges, however, have interpreted NEPA broadly
to require the study of effects that indirectly result from a
project such as CO2 emissions. Now the Biden Administration
is mandating this. CEQ's new rule will require agencies to
calculate the ``indirect'' and ``cumulative impacts'' that
``can result from individually minor but collectively
significant actions taking place over a period of time.''
This means death by a thousand regulatory cuts for many
projects.
The Transportation Department will likely have to examine
how a highway expansion could increase greenhouse-gas
emissions in concert with new warehouses. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission might have to calculate how a new
pipeline would affect emissions from upstream production and
downstream consumption.
Wait--didn't FERC recently walk back its policy to do
exactly this? The White House is thumbing its nose at West
Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who blasted FERC's now-suspended
policy for shutting ``down the infrastructure we desperately
need as a country.''
The rule's obvious intent is to make it harder to build
pipelines, roads and other infrastructure that would enable
more U.S. oil and gas production, even as the Administration
makes phony gestures to reduce energy prices. Last Friday the
Administration announced it would comply with a court order
to hold oil and gas lease sales on public land. Those leases
won't matter if energy companies can't get federal permits
for rights-of-way.
While fossil fuels may be the rule's political target,
don't be surprised if green energy is snagged in this trip-
wire. Environmental groups have used NEPA to block new
mineral mines and transmission lines that connect distant
renewable energy sources to population centers. In this
Administration, the left hand doesn't seem to know what the
far left hand is doing.

Mr. SULLIVAN. So the new rules come out. They are clearly meant to
kill infrastructure, especially oil and gas but kind of everything. The
President is touting this infrastructure bill as one of his big
achievements. It was bipartisan. A number of us, myself included, voted
for it, but there is somebody out there who is trying to make sure the
infrastructure doesn't get built. Hmm. That is the mystery. That is the
mystery. Who would do that? Well, heck. I am trying to find the answer
because I really care about this issue--permitting reform--in order to
get infrastructure projects built. My State has been ground zero about
projects being delayed. So who is it?
So I am starting to ask around the White House. Secretary Granholm
was testifying in front of the Armed Services Committee 2 weeks ago.
I raised this issue with her: Madam Secretary, who the heck is doing
it? Are you?
Senator, I didn't know anything about this CQ rule.
It is a little surprising. I mean, there was a lot about energy, but
that is what she said in the hearing. Go take a look at it. I believe
her. I don't think she was pushing to delay infrastructure.
Would it be the Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh? He is a former
laborer, a LIUNA guy, right? I supported Marty Walsh strongly because I
talked to him before his confirmation about--Hey, look. There is a
group in the White House who hates energy even though it has great
jobs, and there are some in the White House who think that they want to
help the building trades build stuff. If you are with that group, Marty
Walsh, I will support you as Secretary of Labor. He said he was. So I
don't think it is he.
As a matter of fact, when these regs came out, the Laborers'
International put out a statement, saying:

Once again, communities in need of vital infrastructure and
the hard-working men and women who build America will be
waiting as project details are subjected to onerous reviews
[by these new rules].

This is the Laborers' International. The men and women who build
stuff are not happy about this new NEPA rule.

Americans will continue to bear the expense of NEPA-related
delays, which cost taxpayers millions of dollars annually.
Lengthy review processes and unpredictable legal challenges
[will result from these new NEPA regs. They will have] a
chilling impact on private investment in infrastructure.

Of course, when we need energy, these new NEPA rules will make it
harder for Americans to get energy, and the price of energy is going to
continue to go like this: on the backs of working families.
So was it the Secretary of Labor pushing this? I doubt it. I doubt
it.
Who was it?
Well, as I have said on the floor of the U.S. Senate many times
before, if there is something bad happening to the national interests
of our country either domestically or internationally, it is probably
not farfetched to assume John Kerry is near it. There is nobody in the
Biden administration who so regularly tries to undermine America's
national interests than John Kerry's kowtowing to the Chinese Communist
Party or kissing up to Iranian terrorists. When Putin began his
barbaric invasion of Ukraine, John Kerry publicly voiced his first
concerns not about people dying and not about a democracy being overrun
by a dictator; it was how Vladimir Putin might take his eye off his
climate change goals.
This is embarrassing as Americans. He is a senior official. Now, he
has no power in terms of being confirmed by the Senate. Yes, he is a
former Secretary of State and a former Senator, but on these issues, he
is so out of touch with the average American.
So who was pushing these new NEPA rules to delay energy projects for
America? It is the big mystery. Heck, I don't even think it was the
President. He seems proud of this infrastructure bill. He has told all
of the unions he wants them to get to work and build, but now we have a
new rule that is going to delay the building of infrastructure.

The mystery is solved. The mystery is solved.
This is a headline from a TIME magazine news story that just came out
yesterday of John Kerry saying:

``We Have to Push Back Hard'' on Efforts to Build New
[Energy] Infrastructure in Response to Rising Gas Prices.

We have to push back hard. You can't make this stuff up. This is the
guy. This is the guy. So we have a new bunch of Federal rules right
now, driven by this guy--and probably Gina McCarthy--who want to drive
up energy prices and make it harder for infrastructure to be built,
which is exactly what this will do. Nobody is even arguing against
that. It will drive up energy prices on the backs of working-class
Americans, and now he is out publicly saying that we have got to do
it--stop infrastructure.
We have this new revisionism suggesting we have to be producing more
energy. Well, yes, we do. It is amazing. You never know whose side this
guy is on, but he is not on America's side, I will tell you that.
So this is a new regulation, a NEPA reg. We have the authority here
in Congress to use what is called a Congressional Review Act, a CRA. We
have the power, when a new reg comes out, to say: No, we don't like
that in the Senate. We are going to have a vote, a Congressional Review
Act vote, on whether to rescind an amendment that is clearly driven by
this guy--a regulation by

[[Page S2887]]

this guy--that will delay energy projects; that will delay renewable
projects; that will make sure Americans continue to pay record high
energy prices.
So we are going to have a vote on that. I plan on bringing that
resolution to the floor soon. It is a privileged resolution, so we will
get a vote whether Majority Leader Schumer wants to vote on it or not.
I am assuming the President will like my CRA because he can't want
delays to his infrastructure bill. He can't want delays to getting
energy relief for American families. This guy does, right? So we are
going to have a little test, and we will have another mystery solved
here on the Senate floor.
Two weeks ago, in the Commerce Committee, I had a little debate with
a couple of my colleagues, friends of mine, but I made a statement,
which I think is very true. It is certainly true in my State, and it is
this: At the national level, my Democratic colleagues, when they have a
choice between supporting guys like this and his radical environmental
allies and the working men and women of America who want to build
stuff, they always choose him and his allies.
My colleagues--some of them--really got upset: How can you say that,
Dan? That is not true.
Well, it is true in Alaska. I see it every day.
So my CRA is going to just ask a simple question: Whom are you for?
Whom do you stand with? Do you stand with the American working
families, the laborers, the people who build the infrastructure that we
need, the families who are suffering from high energy costs or this guy
and his radical environmental ally and special interests who have a lot
of power in this White House and who are clearly behind this reg that I
am trying to rescind to make it harder to build infrastructure,
especially American energy infrastructure?
For my colleagues who say no, we are with the working men and women
of America--we will see. We will see. I hope you vote with me to
rescind this reg that is only harming our country, only harming working
families, only harming working Americans, and promotes the radical,
out-of-touch agenda of John Kerry, Gina McCarthy, and the far-left,
woke environmental interests that they answer to. It is going to be an
interesting vote, and the American people are going to be watching.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

H.R. 3967

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, this week, the Senate has worked
towards passing the largest expansion of healthcare benefits for our
veterans in a very long time. Millions of veterans today face the
flabbergasting indignity. They served our country valiantly, were
exposed to toxic chemicals in the line of duty but cannot get the
healthcare benefits they need because of outdated rules at the VA.
This needs to change, and the PACT Act would provide the fix. Many on
both sides want to get this bill done as soon as we can. We cannot have
dilatory or destructive amendments to the PACT Act because it is too
important for our veterans' well-being.
To that end, Democrats have spent the day working with Republicans on
a list of amendments, and these negotiations are ongoing. But while we
work on an agreement and to keep the process moving, I will be filing
cloture so we can take the next step towards passing the PACT Act next
week. We hope to get an agreement--and we are making good progress
there--so we hope to get an agreement before that, but the legislative
process must move forward.
So for the sake of our veterans who have made the ultimate sacrifice
serving our Nation and defending our freedom, there is no reason we
can't pass the PACT Act ASAP. Our discussions continue with our
Republican colleagues in an effort to get that done, and I am hopeful
that we will succeed.

Amendment No. 5076

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have an amendment to the underlying
bill at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 5076 to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment numbered 5051.

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask to dispense with further reading
of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To add an effective date)

At the end add the following:

SEC. __. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect on the date that is 3 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.

Cloture Motion

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Tester
substitute amendment No. 5051 to Calendar No. 388, H.R. 3967,
a bill to improve health care and benefits for veterans
exposed to toxic substances, and for other purposes.
Charles E. Schumer, Jon Tester, Tammy Duckworth, Robert
P. Casey, Jr., Margaret Wood Hassan, Kyrsten Sinema,
Mark Kelly, Christopher Murphy, Sherrod Brown, Tina
Smith, Jacky Rosen, Benjamin L. Cardin, Jack Reed,
Tammy Baldwin, Jeanne Shaheen, Mazie K. Hirono, Ben Ray
Lujan.

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
388, H.R. 3967, a bill to improve health care and benefits
for veterans exposed to toxic substances, and for other
purposes.
Charles E. Schumer, Jon Tester, Tammy Duckworth, Robert
P. Casey, Jr., Margaret Wood Hassan, Kyrsten Sinema,
Mark Kelly, Christopher Murphy, Sherrod Brown, Tina
Smith, Jacky Rosen, Benjamin L. Cardin, Jack Reed,
Tammy Baldwin, Jeanne Shaheen, Mazie K. Hirono, Ben Ray
Lujan.

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, Thursday,
June 9, be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 3967

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the filing
deadline for first-degree amendments to substitute amendment No. 5051
and the underlying bill, H.R. 3967, be at 4 p.m., Monday, June 13.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________