[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 1, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S543-S544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                    Department of Labor Rule Repeal

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to warn against our 
administration's unrelenting campaign to weaken our energy security, 
our national security, and our economic security to advance, truly, 
their environmental and social agenda.
  The ESG rule that we are going to vote on later today is just another 
example of how our administration prioritizes a liberal policy agenda 
over protecting and growing--protecting and growing the retirement 
accounts of 150 million Americans that will be in jeopardy.
  Our country is already facing economic uncertainty, record inflation, 
and increasing energy costs that keep Americans up at night and put a 
squeeze on their pocketbooks. And we all see it, no matter where you 
are. Whether it is Georgia or West Virginia, we are feeling the same 
pain.
  The Inflation Reduction Act was written with the primary goal in 
mind--which has not been at all promoted from our administration. The 
Inflation Reduction Act was intended to be--and it still is--energy 
security for our Nation.
  If we as a nation are not energy secure, if we have to depend on 
foreign supply chains, if we are not able to help our allies in need, 
we will not remain the superpower of the world, and that is what I was 
concerned about as we worked on the Inflation Reduction Act.
  We were going to use all the fossil fuels that we have in America to 
maintain for the next 10 years energy independence, energy security, 
and be able to have the supply chain to help our allies, which the EU--
if you want to see the devastating effect of what a war on energy can 
be, look no further than Ukraine, look no further than the EU, where 
this happened over there.
  So we have talked about this, and we wrote a piece of legislation 
where we could walk and chew gum at the same time. We could basically 
invest and produce more oil, produce more natural gas, basically build 
pipelines that carry the products much safer than rails and roads, 
which we are seeing so much of the devastation happening by rails right 
now, which should be alarming to all of us--but basically to do it and 
do it in a much safer way.
  But when people deny--and any denier of any kind, denying the reality 
of what is needed today, is dangerous. That is what is happening right 
now.
  We have a significant investment in States like mine already that 
allows us to produce more energy here at home, and that means onshoring 
our energy supply chains, creating good-paying jobs, helping our 
economy, and hopefully start working ourselves out of the debt that we 
have accumulated.

  The administration should be our partners in this effort. I have 
always said this. Government should be your partner, not your provider 
but your partner. It shouldn't make all your decisions, but it should 
have guardrails on to make good, sound decisions.
  But when they try to basically infiltrate, such as with the ESG, the 
environmental-social guidance that this bill intends to do, if you 
don't weigh that with the geopolitical risks that are being taken 
around the world today that we are involved in, being the superpower of 
the world and the defender of freedom and democracy anywhere and 
everywhere in the world--if we don't acknowledge that and allow just 
one evaluation, I will guarantee it would make for very unsound 
decisions that will be very harmful.
  And again I say, look no further than the EU. The UK has basically 
thrown all their environmental concerns out the window just to survive. 
They will burn anything they can get their hands on to keep from 
freezing, trying to keep their economy going. That is the geopolitical 
risk when things are topsy-turvy or unraveled, and that is what we are 
facing.
  Instead of the administration basically continuing to take care of 
every opportunity we have to be energy secure, they are twisting the 
legislative text and cherry-picking the pieces that they want to 
advance.
  And I have been very, very critical because I have been watching very 
carefully what is going on.
  When you talk about electric vehicles, well, the reason that the 
Inflation Reduction Act said: Well, if we are going to give $7,500 to 
advance people buying electric vehicles, then we should get something 
as a country out of it--that means being totally, totally self-
sufficient. We should not have to depend on Russia for 80 percent of 
the supply of the batteries that run electric vehicles when we never, 
in the history of the United States of America, relied on any foreign 
entity or supply chains for us to basically take care of our 
transportation needs, whether it be automobiles, whether it be trains, 
planes, whatever.
  Now, all of a sudden, we want to switch to electric vehicles, knowing 
that we don't supply the main ingredients of running an electric 
vehicle, which is the battery. It makes no sense at all.
  So what we said is, basically, you will get a credit of $3,750 if you 
secure the critical minerals it takes to produce that battery in North 
America or countries that have a free-trade agreement with America so 
we have a dependable, reliable supply chain that wouldn't be choked off 
by a country such as China, Russia, and whether it be Iran, North 
Korea, those that don't have any--any--relationship to our values 
whatsoever and do not wish us well, as I would say.
  But with that, the other 3,750--that could equal $7,500 for a 
battery--would be that if the battery is basically manufactured in 
North America.
  Now, what is wrong with bringing these types of jobs in 
manufacturing? If it is going to be our transportation

[[Page S544]]

mode, don't you think we ought to have a dependable supply chain? That 
is all.
  But, no, the Treasury Department has made a decision without even 
putting the rules and regulations out yet. They just made it on the 
whims and wishes of what they want to do, after we passed the piece of 
legislation we voted for. They basically said: OK. Now, we are going to 
basically allow people to continue to get the $7,500. Well, how can you 
do that when you have rules and regulations? But they cherry-picked it. 
They said: OK. We are going to basically say that if your income is 
less than 150--150,000 or less--or 300 total, then you can qualify for 
$7,500 if the car itself is within $55,000 or less for a car and if a 
truck is less than 80,000.
  Let me even give you how much more egregious this is, even more than 
that. They have picked, basically, certain luxury vehicles called SUVs 
that are not trucks, but they want to classify them as trucks so they 
can qualify for $7,500 up to 80,000.
  That is the kind of crap that we are putting up with right now that 
was not intended. It was never intended in that bill. It was not 
written in that bill, but that is how it is being interpreted.
  So this is the thing that gets me upset because I know exactly what 
was in the bill because we had an awful lot of input in that bill to do 
the right thing for our country. It was energy security, supply chains 
here in America that we could count on. And it is just crazy. It is 
against the law, everything that we chose to do and everything we voted 
for.
  The climate goal--I am as concerned as anybody about the climate. 
Every American, everybody who loves the opportunities in life we have 
and the quality of life should be concerned but also be a realist.
  We are not going to be able to be fossil-free for quite some time, 
but we can sure use our fossil industry in a much cleaner way, and we 
have done that with the IRA. We are able to basically have carbon 
capture sequestration that will take us to another whole venue that we 
have never seen before. We have methane capturing, which has been 
harmful from the emission of natural gas. We are capturing all of that 
now. We are doing everything, but that is not good enough for some 
people on the far left. Oh, they want to go even further. Just shut it 
down. Stop it.
  And I have said you cannot eliminate your way to a cleaner 
environment; you can innovate your way to it. And that is where America 
is going. With the IRA, we are bringing more investments from around 
the world than ever before. It is a transformational deal if the 
administration will just do the rules and regulations and administer 
the intent of the bill--energy security. That is the only purpose that 
we have, and we can do that and be able to mature the new technology 
that makes us even much better with our plan. But you can't eliminate 
something before you have something that will replace it that the 
American people depend on every day.
  And if they are worried about what is happening, I can assure you, I 
am worried too. China is using more and doubling down on fossil, and 
India is using more and doubling down on fossil. So if you think they 
are going to take our lead because we put strangleholds on our economy 
and our people and make it difficult for us to survive in these very 
challenging times, I am sorry, that is not happening. This is not what 
I see the rest of the world doing right now.

  We can lead them with the innovation technology we are creating right 
here in America, but leadership takes leadership. We have to be a 
leader to have leadership. In America, we have the opportunity, and the 
Inflation Reduction Act gives us a chance to continue to be a leader 
and the hope of the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.