colleagues, center courage -- have courage, do the right thing, work with me on fixing this problem. so, mr. president, what's the problem? well, i've spoken on the floor about this problem. usually in angry tones because

it burns me up. and any american watching who understands this almost immediately, it burns them up, and the marines and their families, it burns them up as well. but, to be honest, mr. president, this afternoon i'm really down here more in terms of sadness and disappointment rather than anger. but i'm going to explain it once again, and if if you're watching on tv or watching back at home, give a call to your senator and say, hey, fix this this injustice. this is a real easy, easy issue to fix. here's the problem -- we a couple months ago passed here the pact act, which was legislation to help military members who have been sickened by burn pits. this is an issue that i've been focused on my whole senate career.

starting with bipartisan legislation several years ago with senator manchin, senator klobuchar. so that was good, important, expensive but important. we got to take care of our veterans and our military. to me, that's the number-one priority we should be doing here in the senate, which is why a provision of the pact act to provide compensation for marines who were sickened by contaminated water at camp lejeune was also considered in the pact act. that was important. we should do that. -- for these morons and their families e -- for these morons and their for these marines and their families. so far so good, mr. president. that's what's happened. but as the legislation of the pact act and the camp lejeune marines compensation act started to become clear, something

reared its ugly head. and what reared its ugly head was the legislation was more of a gift to america's trial lawyers than it was to sick marines. now, we've all seen these ads. as a matter of fact, this morning on the radio i heard a couple of them already. you can't go anywhere turning on the tv without a lawyer asking marines to call to get them to help under this camp lejeune compensation act. here we are. we've seen it. everybody has seen it. we had a v.a. hearing about a month ago. i asked the v.a., how much do you think trial lawyers have been spending? this is a month ago. they estimated well over $1 billion. a month ago, $1 billion. $1 billion. you think that $1 billion is going to go to sick marines and their families? it's not. it's not, mr. president.

i don't blame the marines dialing these 1-800 numbers and getting bombarded. if they're sick, they think this is the way they're going to get cured and get their money. that's not the case, mr. president. a lot of these are scams, and we know it. a lot of these are scams. the problem, mr. president, right now is if a marine calls one of these numbers there is no limitation on what the trial lawyer can take out of the marine's award. no limitation. no cap on contingency fees, no cap on anything. and here's the real problem. everybody saw this problem coming. that as opposed to the commencer getting compensation for -- opposed to the marines getting compensation for being sick the trial lawyers of america were being enriched.

everybody saw it. to their credit, the biden administration saw it coming. so the justice department of the biden administration lad recommended in their technical assistance to us here in the senate that there should be caps on these awards for trial lawyers. makes sense. this is the combied -- the biden administration justice department, friends of many of these law firms. but they knew it was the right thing to do. they said 10% caps on contingency awards and 2% for filing fees. that was the biden administration's recommendation. now, mr. president, that didn't happen. i won't go into all the bloody, gory details, but as we tried to amend the pact act, we wanted an amendment to do that. the biden administration did, the veterans service organizations did, because it was pretty simple. if there's a cap on fees for the

lawyers, the marines are going to get more. if there isn't, the trial lawyers are going to get more. we worked it hard. unfortunately and sadly, really sadly, my democratic colleagues blocked all those amendments when we tried to pass the pact act. so what's happened? what the biden administration justice department predicted, what we all predicted, it's happening. billions of dollars of ads, see them every day, hear them every day, every night, and marines getting crumbs, trial attorneys getting rich. mr. president, that's just not right. there's not one senator who knows that that the right thing to do. this is an injustice right now in america. and already some marines have lost money because of these

scams. some of these firms are promising big paydays. of course they're asking for money up front. a recent media story highlighted a marine in kentucky whose face was actually used in an ad claiming he had received a $35,000 settlement. in fact, he told a reporter he got 35 cents. okay, that's not justice. so of course right now, mr. president, the v.a., local governments, veterans groups are frantically trying to warn marines and their families, hey, don't listen to that. and, congress, please help us. there's reports that some law firms are charging 50% or 60% contingency fees. are you kidding me? the veterans groups, the v.a. itself, the combiepped -- the biden administration v.a. are

crying out for help. help. no more scams. here's what the american legion said at a recent meeting in a resolution they had passed. whereas predatory law firms charging exorbitant fees have engaged in aggressive marketing campaigns hurting veterans, the american legion urges congress to provide the necessary oversight for the implementation of the camp lejeune justice act to ensure veterans receive fair compensation. that's the american legion. i'm a member. the vfw has also come out in support of what we're trying to do. so this should be simple. this should be simple. so what does my bill do? what does my amendment do, mr. president?

i'm going to explain it briefly here. the full name of my amendment, my bill is the protect camp lejeune victims ensnider by trial lawyers scams act, the vets act for short. and it's pretty simple, mr. president. first of all, it just goes back to what the biden administration had recommended in terms of a cap. everybody here agrees there needs to be a cap on contingency fees. they had mentioned 10%. as i mentioned on contingency fees, and 2% cap for filing the necessary paperwork. now my good friend, the senator from illinois, chairman of the judiciary committee, senator durbin, respectfully, i think he's going to speak and say, well, wait a minute, the normal fee is 33.5%, one-third

contingency fees. that's actually correct, but this isn't a normal fee. the reason the biden administration had a low contingency fee at 10% is that the lawyers who are going to receive and help marines get these benefits aren't going to go through big trials. they're not going to go through discovery. it's almost an administrative procedure process to check some boxes. the government doesn't even have a defense in this. so that's why 33 1/3%, the standard fare for contingency fees has no place in this legislation. no place in this legislation. this is a government administrative process that's going to be made easy supposedly in the bill for marines, sick marines to recover compensation

and their families. so when you hear talk about, no, no, it's got to be one-third, that's just not true. the biden administration recommended 10%. so don't be fooled by that, mr. president. americans watching, don't be fooled by that. so here's another thing. the key to my legislation, the other thing we're saying is because the compensation will come out of other benefits that the veterans receive from the v.a., we make sure that the contingency fee is based on the necessary award, not the total award. again, that's to serve the marines and their families, not the trial lawyers. let me give you one final thing my legislation does, mr. president, and i don't think there's any senator who disagrees with this. and i'm pretty sure the chairman of the judiciary committee does

not disagree with this. somehow when the v.a. implemented regulations on the implementation of this legislation, they issued a reg that makes sure the trial lawyers get paid before the sick marines and their families. say what? yes, right now. now that's crazy. everybody, including lawyers, know that the client gets paid, and then the client pays the lawyer. it shouldn't be the lawyer gets paid and then the client gets paid. that's crazy, especially if the client is a sick united states marine. and i even think my colleague, senator durbin, agrees with that. so that's the other piece of this legislation. and, mr. president, we could

fix that overnight by having the secretary of the v.a. take a relook at that reg saying hey that's wrong, let's rescind that. i'd welcome if secretary mcdonough would do that. mr. president, i'm going to keep fighting for this issue. this is an urgent issue. payments under the camp lejeune act will start early next year. the ads that we saw that i showed you here are likely to intensify over to the holidays to try to snare even more marines into these schemes. but here's what i'm going to do. i'm going to withdraw my amendment. i am not going to force a vote on this amendment this afternoon because i want to get to a law. and i had a feeling that unfortunately my amendment was not going to get passed in this senate on this vote this afternoon. so i want to work with senator durbin, senator blumenthal, other members on the other side

of the aisle to do what we all know is the right thing. to pass a law that emphasizes what we all thought the bill was doing in the first place in the pact act, to take care of sick marines and their families, not enrich trial lawyers. again, i urge my colleagues to work with me. like the u.s. marines, have courage to stand up to powerful interest groups who are trying to take more money from individuals who deserve it. work with me on this. it's the holiday season. let's give the marines and their families the gift that they deserve and have earned through courage and sacrifice. not the lump of coal and bread crumbs which is the result of

this bill that dramatically focuses on enriching trial lawyers at the expense of u.s. marines. i'm committed to work all weekend, all next week, but we need to get this done before we finish this congress at the end of the year. every american knows it, every u.s. senator knows it. it's the right thing to do, and i certainly hope my colleagues are going to work with me to make it happen. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, at the outset, let me thank my colleague from alaska for his service to the united states, for his service to the united states of america and the marine corps. and let me thank all the women and men who served in the marine corps and all the branches of our military service. we owe them a great debt of gratitude, and we certainly owe them justice. what is at issue here is the

discovery that the water that they were drinking while they were training at camp lejeune was poisoned, and it was endangering the health of the marines and their families. for years they sought compensation and protection and failed. and just this last year we passed the pact act. under that provision of law, finally gave a cause of action to these marines and their families to recover for the damages they had suffered because of this poisonous water at this u.s. government facility training camp at camp lejeune. i voted for that proudly, and it was a strong bipartisan roll call, as it should have been. but let me make sure you understand and everyone listens understands what these marines who believe that they have been damaged by this poisoned water, this contaminated water have to go through now to recover even the first dollar. the first instances they don't receive it automatically. the senator from alaska

continues to refer to the biden administration standards of 2% and 10% and so forth. he's quoting from a hypothetical that dealt with a compensation fund, not what we passed here in the united states senate. compensation funds like the 9/11 victims. we understand those cases. it wasn't a question of the victims going in and proving that 9/11 actually occurred or that their loved one was killed. it was almost an automatic thing that you qualify for. so the low contingency fees which he quoted was for a hypothetical approach which is not the law. what is the law today? what if my father or someone in my family, my son had gone through training at camp lejeune in the period of time that's affected by this. how do they recover? there are two avenues to recovery. one of them is file a claim with the united states navy, and the navy can decide that the claim is meritorious and pay it.

but if the navy does not pay it, the administrative hearing does not result in a payment to the plaintiff, to the claimant, to the marine, the next step is a serious one. it goes to the federal court. not just any federal court but one we designated, the eastern district of north carolina. and what happens at that court? that marine now is walking into a federal courtroom and has to establish a case and prove the liability of the government for his losses. what does he have to prove? he has to prove causation, liability, and damages. have you ever -- have you ever been in a federal courtroom? it's a humbling experience even for a trained lawyer. i wouldn't want to go through it as something serious as recovering damages for health care costs or injuries that someone dared to me or my family without adequate legal

reputation. what does it cost to get this reputation? there's no requirement that the marine hire a lawyer at all. but if they do, the ordinary course of business says they're going to pay a contingency fee. you don't pay the lawyer up front. the lawyer represents you, and if you recover, you recover. but if they don't recover anything for your claim, they're empty handed as you are empty handed. so the senator from alaska came to the floor about two weeks ago raising this issue and i said let's work on this together. our staffs have worked on this together and i'm sorry we haven't reached an agreement. heefs the proposal i put -- here was the proposal i put on the table. first, the contingency fee. if you file a claim, we put a cap on the contingency fee that lawyers pay, 20%. where did we get that, from the

tort claims act. and we said if you go to a trial in a federal court, the maximum attorney's fee is one-third if you recover, if you don't recover, you don't pay. it's a contingency fee. the senator from alaska said let's do 2% and 10% instead of 20% and 33%. what can you buy for a 2% contingency fee or 10% contingency fee? you can probably buy a lawyer who never tried a case in a court, find an attorney whose office is in the trunk of his car or an attorney who puts it of the case at the bottom of a stack or somebody who will saw my para -- or somebody like a paralegal. the ordinary course of business is 33.3%. you're doing the veterans no

favors by paying no more than a 2% contingency fee if they can't find a good lawyer. you won't request find a lot of good lawyers with a 2% contingency fee. we said we will cap the contingency fees, no more than 33.3% contingency fee if the case goes to trial. he raised a point that i think is valid. how does the marine know if he will be paid. we think the layer will be paid if there is a verdict or settlement. we put in language that definitely the marine has to be the first paid. we went further, there's a bill pending before the united states senate, bipartisan bill, this bill senator blumenthal of connecticut and senator boozman, of arkansas, a republican, have come up with pa bill that says those people who are ripping off veterans unaccredited groups

that are ip ripping off veterans ought to be criminally liable. there's a criminal fine in that bill. those are the three things we offered to the senator from alaska. not that he would go away empty handed but he would get a result and get it in a timely way. we made that offer over the last two weeks, he did not accept it. we wish he had. i will still work with him to reach that goal so all men and women affected by the contaminated water get compensated with competent attorneys. we're doing them no favor if we limit the contingency fee and they can't hire a competent attorney. that's the maximum amount, 20% and 33%, but it's within the realm of ordinary practice. the offer i made two weeks ago, i make again now. let's fix the problem. let's not trade speeches on the floor of the senate.

we both feel tensely about our point of view, but we share a common value that i think we ought to make clear, we want these marines to be compensated. we want to do it in a way that they're not exploited. i abhor those attorneys trying to exploit these individuals. let's put it to an end and do it in a timely way. by the time we get back here and consider legislation, it will be almost february and time is wasting. i would just say to the veterans administration and all the veterans service organizations, warn all of those who would be plfers in these lawsuits -- plaintiffs in if these lawsuits not to be taken in by win who will cheat them -- by anyone who will cheat them. and we can do our part too. let's pledge to get that done in the new year. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska.

mr. sullivan: i admire my colleague for trying to get this done before we leave. i'm willing to compromise on some of these issues. with the senate schedule, he makes a good point, we're not going to be back until almost the end of january, and by then some of these payments will start to be awarded and we do not want and i think the senator from illinois greece with me, situations where payments are going 50%, 60% contingency fees. nobody wants that. we shouldn't want that. that is unfair and the regulation at the v.a. is unfavor. favoring trial lawyers over sick -- i will try to to get it done before we leave. before we leave. otherwise you're going to have a lot of marines, sick marines and their families, who are going to get ripped off and we know

that's going to happen and we shouldn't allow it, but i will work with the senator from illinois. he's got a lot of power as the chairman of the judiciary committee on this important issue that i think we should all care about. i appreciate his comments and i will redouble my efforts on this topic. thank you. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask recognition. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i want to close by thanking the senator from alaska, republican, democrat, but committed to the same values, make sure these marines and their families are treated fairly. we have currently 14,000 pending claims, these marines had two years since july. there's going to be a mountain of claims here and we need to make sure it is done in a thoughtful and timely way and fair to the marines every step of the way and i will be part of that effort every step of the way, senator.

the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur with respect to amendment 6533, the motion to concur with amendment be withdrawn, if cloture is invoked, the second-degree amendment be withdrawn. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. manchin: i ask unanimous

consent that floor privileges be granted to david rossner, effect effective immediately through the end of the congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: mr. president, i'm here today to speak about a very important piece of legislation we have coming before us and we have an amendment to that legislation. the legislation is the national defense authorization act. this piece of legislation is something that we do annually to protect our country and defend ourselves and maintain the superpower status that we are. part of that is what they call energy security and independence. you cannot be a superpower in the world if you do not have energy independence, and you can't be secured if you don't have energy independence. what's happened to us since the horrible war putin bestowed on the citizens of ukraine, he weaponized energy and he has doubled down and he has put europe in a tremendous biden. --

bind. we use fossil fuels. can we use them cleaner and better? absolutely. and we can use it and do more to it. we have a piece of legislation, a couple of them. we have the bipartisan infrastructure bill, we worked on across the i'll and now we have the inflation reduction act. the ira. those two pieces of legislation and unbelievably unprecedented in our country. and what the i.r.a. did was this, guarantees energy security. for ten years we're going to be able to basically produce the fisa fos -- the fossil energy, more of it, while we're also investing record amounts of money into the new, clean technology for the future. people say well, my definition on energy, on climate is elimination. i want to eliminate.

no coal, no oil, no gas. we don't live in the real world. you just seen that happen. and our nation when we got pimpled a little bit in -- pinched a little bit and these high prices people are paying at the pump, we started thinking about removing sanctions from iran, the most prolific terrorist supporters in the world and giving them money to continue to do what they do, wreak havoc on the world. we're also talking about lifting the sanctions on venezuela who basically has very little oversight as far as environmental controls because we needed it. we wanted someone else to do what we wouldn't do. that's just wrong. it's not who we are as a country. we can do it. we can lead the world. we are the super tower. that means we have to produce everything that we have and all the energy policy, better than any place else in the world. in order to do that we passed a piece of legislation that puts us on a two path. you can walk and chew gum. you've got to have fossil. if you're doing fossil which is

cleaner, that means carbon capture sequestration, we put billions of dollars in there for that. we put billions of dollars for methane, plugging old wells. we're cleaning up everything. tremendous. and if you're using the fossil that we use in united states in helping our allies around the world, we have been able to help the climate more than it can ever be helped by anything else. as we developed the new technologies of the world, hydrogen, we can make that all day long. we're on the verge of doing something unbelievable. but let me tell you, most of it will be for not because without permitting reform, the united states of america is more litigious than any nation on earth that's been developed, anyone. takes longer to do anything. we have people talking about trying to get permits for 15 years. can darks average of three years. our friends in australia, down under, two to three years.

us? five, seven, 10 and more. this is a ten-year path we have. we've appropriated money in this piece of legislation for a ten-year path. a lot of the programs we want to do, whether it's building pipelines, whether it's building new transmission lines to carry the energy that we need, whether it's developing new cleaner technologies, whether it's carrying pipelines that's carrying hydrogen and co2, we have all of this that we need. that's all -- it's not going to happen. and i just can't believe it. and here's the thing i can't believe. all my republican friends, and i have worked with them and i know they're upset of the politics that plays into this but they're upset about the ira. we did it through reconciliation. well, it was the only vehicle we had to do something that was monumental. and we did that and we did that by working with my colleagues on the other side for the last five years. my colleagues on the other side,

my republican friends, have always said joe, we have to have more energy. guess what? the ira is going to put more energy in. inflation reduction act is going to produce more oil, more gas, cleaner than anywhere in the world, and we're going to have more energy. why did you call it inflation reduction? because if you have more product, you can reduce the price. pretty simple, supply and demand. so we're on that. and they said well, we've got to pay down debt. guess what the ira did? paid down $250 billion of debt. first time in history. for 30 years we haven't paid down on debt. we did. so we've done so many things. but that seems to be a pretty good thing that's kind of stuck in their craw and i'm ashshamedf that and afraid of that and we're going down the path where it's all about the politics and not the policy. the policy is the permitting bill we have in front has been worked. we've worked it and have been sitting down and talking for two

or three months. we talked with senators on this side and on the republican side. and we looked at different things. we're not basically eliminating any of the review process. we're basically expediting how we do it. and that's all we're asking for. we're asking the courts to expedite when they take this under consideration because of the environment. the environment is near and dear to all of us and we all have a responsibility. what we haven't taken into consideration is if we don't do this, we will not be able to maintain independence, energy independence which means energy security which means national security. that's what we're not taking into consideration. who are we going to ask to do what we won't do for ourself? who will come to our rescue? didn't see the saudis coming. that didn't work too well. nothing else is coming on board. i had something in this bill, they said dirty joe. oh, yeah. 283 miles is completed of that pipeline out of 303. 93% is completed.

we have a pipeline there that comes out of west virginia that's a gathering, southwestern pennsylvania. it's also southeast ohio. the marcela shale. it will put two billion cubic feet into the market. it will backfill in the south and southwest and also help at coves point. you have lng for all of our allies who are in desperate need of it. so much has been done and it's been so politicized. if you want to know why people are upset, watch this place operate for a while. i had a person one time said joe, i can't believe would i see on television. i said oh, you're upset and you're mad and you can't believe what you see on television. you're sitting in your nice comfortable home. try it from my seat. try it from this seat when you have to play politics day in and day out to do what's right for our country. if we don't have energy, we're not the country. my little state has given its

all. we've produced the coal for the last hundred years, built the ships, built the guns and basically everything that we've had. the guns and ships and built america. we're probably one of the most patriotic states in the nation. we have more people give more life to the cause of freedom than most any other states. we do the heavy lifting and don't complain. never have. yet we try to do something to produce more energy because the country needs it, oh, can't put a dirty pipeline in. it's not. it's gas, a transitional fuel. we need it. we'll have it for a while. the best supply in the world is right here next door. yet the politics is being played. they're afraid that maybe i'm up in cycle in 2024, this might give me a leverage to get reelected. i've been on the ballot for 40 years. i don't know what's going to happen. i don't know what tomorrow is going to bring. i know what we have before us today. you have an unbelievable opportunity that's not going to happen in our life time again. if we don't pass permitting

reform right now, my republicans are saying don't worry. when we have control of the house, we'll be able to have a better deal. my friends, let me say this. you had from 2016 to 2020. you had the president was a republican. the house was republican. the senate was republican. you only had one vote for permitting reform and that was mine as a democrat. nobody else. now we're going to have a supermajority of democrats that's willing to move forward. and maybe not be all that comfortable about it but it's the right thing to do. and now because of politics, my friends aren't going to step to the plate? that's what they don't like. that's what people don't like. that's the politics that basically is destroying our country. you can't have it. so i come before you to ask you for your support on a piece of legislation that's so much good that we can do. we can fix the mistakes that we've made. but you can't do it if you don't have the energy to provide the citizens of your country to have the opportunities to defend

themselves and be able to help our allies around the world. we will not maintain superpower status, i can assure you if that can't be done. and this piece of legislation without the permitting, what we've been able to do so much in the bipartisan infrastructure bill, the inflation reduction act, and now having this to be able to put it into operation is something that's desperately needed. with that, mr. president, i can only say that i pray that the good lord that we can put our politics aside and look at what's needed and go back home and tell the people this was absolutely -- it's a win for everybody. it truly is a win for everybody. and this is something that i don't know how we can explain it if we vote against it. i don't know how we wouldn't vote for it and it's something we all want. let me make one more point. all 50 of my republican colleagues have signed on to a piece of legislation which is a permitting with my colleague from west virginia which is permitting reform. all 50. they know it needs to be done. now, if you're going to let the

perfect be the enemy of the good, you're going to say it's just not good enough. is it 50%, 70% better than what we've ever had? is it moving in the right direction? does it build a foundation, something to work off of? i believe it does because you've had tremendous amount of input. that's all i'm asking for. i'm asking for a fair evaluation of a piece of legislation that will not pass through these halls again. so with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from can sasse. mr. marshall: mr. president, concern the chairman of the energy and natural resources and i agree on so many common goals when it comes to american energy. we both believe in american energy independence. we believe in affordable clean energy. we agree that we want to leave this world cleaner, healther and safer than we found it but unfortunately i oppose his amendment and ask my colleagues

to oppose it as well. i'm afraid this amendment will do more harm than good. it will give the federal energy regulatory commission ferc as it's known, the power to socialize the cost of a new high voltage transmission lines. that's right, a huge shift of power will go from the states to the federal government. unelected bureaucrats would have the authority to make electric customers in mostly red states pay to deliver expensive and intermit tent energy that fits the green energy dreams of blue states. in many cases causes rural america to pay for urban america's electricity. it would even give federal regulators the authority to make residents of inland states pay for transmission lines that connect offshore wind farms to coastal states such as california, new jersey, and new york. it would allow the same regulators to make residents pay for these transmission lines

even if power on those lines would not serve them. and why this transportation and wind and solar leb electricity fits -- electricity fits their agenda, the cost of transporting the electricity is approximately ten finals more than transporting clean, natural gas -- we need not only clean energy, we need affordable energy. this is why republican attorney generals from across the nation and the nonpartisan national association of regulatory utility commissioners strongly oppose this amendment. these expert public officials plead with us not to go down this road in september. they remain opposed to senator manchin's latest draft. in a december 12, 2022 letter, the attorney general state that they, and i quote, right to again express strong opposition to the renewed attempt to make

sweeping changes to the federal energy regulatory commission's authority. they go on to say that the manchin amendment -- again i quote -- guts states' traditional authority over energy and land use policies. let me say that again. they go on to say that the manchin amendment guts states' traditional authority over energy and land use policies. they tell us that the amendment does little if anything to address the concerns they raised in september. in their december letter, the public utility commissioners say senator manchin's legislation eliminates the last vestiges of state's electric transmission sitting jurisdiction. this is simply bad policy. another issue is the damage the amendment would do to the efforts to develop hydrogen as an energy source. it would choke hydrogen pipelines under a mountain of regulation. the final text of this amendment only saw the light of day just a week ago. the amendment has not been the

subject of any debate in committee. we've had no hearings, no witnesses, and no markups. changing the complex federal power act and natural gas act during a lame-duck session without opportunity for meaningful public input is a recipe for disaster. this is no way to make major changes to complex laws. finally, senator manchin's amendment does nothing to address the problem of never ending environmental litigation. we both represent proud energy states, west virginia, a great coal state. kansas, oil, gas, wind, solar. but it seems like there's never an end to the environmental litigation challenges we have. nuisance lawsuits block energy projects from moving forward driving up the cost to consumers. this is an issue that needs to be addressed. i look forward to working with my colleague and with the chairman this next congress through regular order to enact changes to laws that will actually speed energy projects

of all kinds. we must enable federal permits for energy projects to be more durable. we must ensure that federal permitting is even-handed. we must rein in the federal funded litigation that is killing projects. senator manchin's amendment addresses none of these problems. the senate should reject this amendment. we should work together under regular order. we should enact real permitting reform in the next congress. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: i need to respond to that. i want to clarify that and i would hope my good friend would listen to my clarification because it's in the bill. and either someone had not informed you, circumstance but basically that can't be done what you said. i can't charge new kansas, if the line passes in kansas and you don't benefit from it. if it doesn't reduce conjess, doesn't reduce carrier losses, doesn't reduce operating reserve

requirements, all of these things, you have to have benefit to have any cost. we made that in the bill. we were very, very correct and you know who brought that to me? senator cramer our good friend from north dakota, our republican friend. you said, joe, you can't do that. the other thing is you were saying basically that the states lose all their rights. again, senator cramer said, no, you got to at least have one year. let me tell you what happens. if there's new energy coming into the market, new transmission lines coming in, if that line is is going to come into a state and the state thinks it's invading its territory, because most of all the utilities have monopolies on their grid system, correct? they all have monopolies. they don't want anyone infringing on that. well, guess what? they all have great relationship with the public service commission. if the public service commission is saying, okay, who wants to come in here and they're coming,

and let's sit down and talk. now, if the person that's already there, let's say you have your own power company and you have the utility lines, the grid system s you say, i'm not going to expand, i am ape not bringing any more power because i'm not going to develop any more power. if you can't agree in one year and it's something of national interest, then it can move. but think what would happen if dwight eisenhower building the interstate highway system from, i think your part of the world, the great general, the great president, okay? this would never happen. he'd have never built the interstate system. how about the interstate pipeline system? we'd never have the energy we have today and all we're asking for is the opportunity to bring energy to the market, where it's needed. that's all. and then when you said, well, it's going to be a litigious nightmare, that's what we tried to work through, and we did that. you know why? we basically put deadlines, we

set firm deadlines for permitting decisions. two years for environmental impact statements, one year for environmental assessments. that's a tremendous improvement where we've been. and then we baskly put enforcement. we've stronger enforcement than any other permitting law reform act ever passed in the united states of america. let's -- it lets project developers seek a court order so if you are trying to get something and you're being held up, then you have basically the expedited right to go to the court and have expedition. you don't have that now. to me, i've heard people say, just that right there allows me to make a decision whether you stay with the program or get out of it. if i'm going to do a project or not without losing my rear end and going bankrupt. we have answered every question that we possibly could. it's the most advanced bipartisan bill we could ever get. and still have the support we need. all we need is your support,

sir. thank you, mr. president. i call for the vote, mr. president. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. under the previous order, the sullivan motion is withdrawn and the motion to refer with instructions is also withdrawn. there are now two minutes equally divided before a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the manchin motion to concur with amendment. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the

motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 7776 to provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the united states and so forth and for other purposes, with an amendment numbered 6513 signed by 16 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 7776, an act to provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the united states, to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources and for other purposes, with an amendment shall be brought it to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: vote:

vote:9

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 47, three-fifths of the ?eaforts duly sworn -- duly chosen around sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. under the previous order, the motion to concur with manchin amendment 6513 is withdrawn. mr. johnson: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: i move to concur --

the presiding officer: the senator will be in order. the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: i move to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 7776 with amendment 6526. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from wisconsin, mr. johnson, moves to concur in the house amendment to senate amendment h.r. 7776 with amendment 6526. mr. johnson: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for up to six minutes to debate equally divided. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. johnson: mr. president, i rise to advocate for an amendment on -- the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. the senate will be in order. please take your conversations off the well. the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: i rise to offer an amendment on behalf of myself and senator cruz. wasn't to say, i appreciate senate leadership for allowing this amendment. i appreciate, as does senator cruz, the conferees' willingness

to consider a repeal of the vaccine mandate, which they didn't include. we truly appreciate that. this amendment reflects the fact that we don't think the vaccine mandate went far enough. our amendment is pretty simple. it immediately ends the vaccine mandate, whereas what's in the bill allows it to continue for 30 days. it prohibits dod from imposing a future covid-19 vaccine mandate, without the express authorization of congress. it prohibits dod from taking any adverse action against a servicemember solely for refusing to get the covid-19 vaccine. it allows the servicemember to be reinstated with back pay, if kicked out of military solely for refusing the vaccine and redresses any other types of actions dod took against a servicemember for refusing the covid-19 vaccine. mr. president, people serving in our military are the fine us

among us. offense 8,000 were terminated because they refused to get in experimental vaccine. i urge all my colleagues to support senator cruz's and my amendment. mr. reed: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i stand in opposition to the proposed amendment. august 24, 2021, the secretary of defense issued a legal order, directive, that all personnel in the u.s. forces should be vaccinated against covid-19. at that point, it was an approved fda pharmaceutical. it's a legally binding order. we need a healthy and ready force to defend the united states, and i think we've gotten where we were before the vaccine. for example, the uss thee door roosevelt -- uss theodore roosevelt was effectively put out of commission when 27% of

her crew were infected with covid. hundreds were hospitalized. the carrier had to dock in guam for two months. for two months, we did not have the striking power an american aircraft carrier in the pacific. since secretary austin's mandate, we have had no repeat incidents where our naval vessel had to be essentially taken out of service, no, in the other services have we seen anything like that. mandatory vaccination is not a new issue for military personnel. servicemembers are commonly required to get 17 different vaccinations when they enter the military or deploy to certain overseas areas, including measles, mumps, diphtheria, hepatitis, smallpox and flu. the first mandatory vaccine was ordered by general george washington for the smallpox during the mesh revolution. the department of defense -- the american revolution. the department of defense issued the mandate, it was a lawful

order. department made the expectations very clear, a personnel could take the vaccine or request an exemption. if their exemption was denied and they still refused the shot, they would be discharged. in the united states military, a lawful order is not a suggestion. it is a command. for those of us who had the privilege of commanding american military personnel, that is the essence of order and discipline in the united states military, which distinguishes us from many other services throughout the world. 90% of our troops are vaccinated because they are putting their nation, their fellow soldiers, and their families ahead of their personnel opinions or personal desire. that's the function of the military. this unserving dedication to nation and to following and protecting their fellow personnel. what message do we send if we pass this bill? it is a very dangerous one.

what we're telling soldiers is if you disagree, don't follow the order, then just lobby congress and they'll come along and restore your rank, restore your benefits, restore everything. so orders are just sort of suggestions. they're not. let me conclude by this, this is a critical line in the united states army oath of enlistment -- i will obey the orders of the president of the united states and the orders of the officers appointed over me. that is what we're talking about tonight. we must reject this amendment, to reaffirm that oath, that commitment, that pillar of american military discipline and order. mr. johnson: how much time do i have left, mr. president? the presiding officer: a minute and a half. mr. johnson: i would argue it's not a lawful order, because the executive order required that the vaccine be fully fda approved. in august 2021 the fda did

something very strange. they extend the emergency use authorization for the vaccine available in the u.s. and granted approval on comernady. to my knowledge, i've asked repeatedly, none of that has been made available to our members of the service. it is not a fully fda approved product, and the fda is completely ignoring its own safety surveillance system. there have been over 3250 deaths worldwide, 26% on day zero, one, or two following vaccination. there are different scary safety signals being ignored. it was not unreasonable for people to refuse the experimental gene therapy. the presiding officer: senator, do you yield the remainder of your time? mr. johnson: yes. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment with

amendment 6526. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote: