Joe Manchin

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I don't come to the floor that often to ask about or to talk about any person who is being recommended by our President, whether I agree or disagree. This is one time I feel very compelled to do so. I rise today to urge my colleagues not to confirm Chad Readler to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. I would say this: A vote for him, in my estimation, is a vote against every West Virginian and every American with a preexisting condition, and I will tell you why. After 20 State attorneys general and Governors challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and its protections for people with preexisting conditions in Texas v. United States, as Acting Assistant Attorney General, Readler refused to defend the Affordable Care Act. That is his job. That is the law of the land. He refused, basically, to protect and defend it, which resulted in putting nearly 800,000 West Virginians with cancer, heart disease, asthma, or diabetes and women who care to have a baby at risk of financial jeopardy if they get sick. Readler was not just a participant but the chief architect of the Department of Justice's decision to not defend the current law in the case. Let me make sure we all understand how devastating this could have been but also the intent. Coming from the Assistant Attorney General, he was not just a participant, but he was the chief architect of the Department of Justice's decision to not defend--to not do his job, to not defend--the current law in the case. He wrote and filed a brief arguing that the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is unconstitutional, and that if the mandate is stricken as unconstitutional, the Affordable Care Act's protections for the people with preexisting conditions should also be stricken. He is taking the position as one person, not as an elected official, saying that it is unconstitutional when we voted in this body not to repeal it. We voted in this body, representing the people of the United States, not to repeal it. He made a decision as one person, not an elected official, saying it is unconstitutional. This brief was so controversial and inhumane that several career lawyers with the Civil Division refused to sign their name to this brief, and one senior career Department of Justice official resigned because of his decision. After the Department of Justice's announcement, I introduced a resolution to authorize the Senate legal counsel to intervene in this lawsuit on behalf of the Senate and defend all Americans' right to access affordable health insurance. Because of Readler and the Department of Justice's decision to abandon its responsibility, the court ruled against Americans with preexisting conditions in December. This misguided and inhumane ruling will kick millions of Americans and tens of thousands of West Virginians off their health insurance. So 800,000 West Virginians with preexisting conditions will be at risk of losing their health insurance, and the thousands of West Virginians who gained health insurance through the Medicaid expansion will no longer qualify. This ruling is just plain wrong, and it is rightfully being appealed to a higher court. While I continue to fight to pass my resolution to defend Americans and West Virginians with preexisting conditions, I must commend our colleagues in the House who passed a similar resolution earlier this year that allowed their legal counsel to intervene. I wish we had both legal counsel from the House and the Senate intervening together. In this body, I am known for examining judicial nominees fairly, based on their qualifications, temperament, and judgment, which I take very seriously, but I cannot stand idly by and allow the Senate to confirm a person who singlehandedly tried to rip insurance away from West Virginians and Americans when he had no authority to do so. He was not an elected official, not speaking on behalf of the law, not defending the law but trying to represent his own beliefs or political agenda. This vote today will show Americans and West Virginias with preexisting conditions who is really fighting for them and all of us who believe strongly in their right to be able to care for themselves. A vote for Mr. Readler is a vote against people with preexisting conditions, and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join me in voting against his confirmation. This is something I don't do often. I don't take it lightly. It is very serious. This gentleman has basically shown it is not about the law; it is not about the Constitution; it is about his politics and himself and not a man who should be sitting on a higher court. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, at this time, I would like for the former Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the senior Senator from Virginia to please have the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I thank, first of all, the Senator from Virginia for fighting for his coal miners in Southwest Virginia. They have been out there fighting in Westmoreland, and we have 1,200 miners about ready to lose everything that we had to fight for to gain. They are going to lose their pensions. They are going to lose, also, the healthcare. We have to get them in the bill. We have to get our trust fund on the black lung restored.

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I will wrap up now, and I want to, first of all, thank the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senators from West Virginia and Ohio for speaking so eloquently for the people who have worked so hard for our country. This has been a bipartisan movement. This has been bipartisan. I thank all of my Republican colleagues for supporting the hard-working people they all had in their States. We all benefited from the energy they produced for our great country, to defend ourselves in two wars. We had the greatest economy--the only superpower in the world--because of what they have done every day and the sacrifices they have made for us. Mr. President, if you are watching, if you get a copy of this tape, I am pleading with you. I am pleading with you, Mr. President, on behalf of 87,000 retirees: Please help us. One phone call from you to Majority Leader McConnell to support and adopt the American Miners Act of 2019, which is S. 27--ask him to take this up immediately. We can put it on the bill that we are about ready to open to keep the government open or he can take immediate action. But, Mr. President, you can make a difference. These are people who supported you, and I know you support them, and this is the way you can show it. They are only asking for what they worked for. It does not cost the government one penny of debt--not one penny of debt for the taxpayers. We have pay-fors. It has been bipartisan. It came out of the Finance Committee in a bipartisan movement under the leadership of Senator Hatch. I am very grateful for that. You will see the miners going around; they make an effort every week, faithfully, to come here. There are real faces, real people, real families who are involved and affected by our inaction. We are asking for your help, Mr. President. I yield the floor, respectfully.

Mr. MANCHIN. I am going to make one more plea to the President. I will do that after my good friend and senior Senator from Pennsylvania speaks about his miners, whom he supports.

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, once again, I stand here on behalf of our hard-working and patriotic coal miners. We have been here before, and we are going to stay here until we get the job done. Right now, retired coal miners' healthcare, pensions, and black lung benefits are on the chopping block again, and, once again, there are 1,200 new coal miners and dependents who will lose their healthcare coverage due to coal company bankruptcies. This could happen later this month if the court, as expected, allows Westmoreland to shed their Coal Act liabilities. This has happened time after time because of the bankruptcy laws--the inadequate bankruptcy laws--to protect the hard-working men and women who do all the work. At the end of last year, Westmoreland indicated they would provide 8 months of healthcare funding to the UMWA, but there was a condition. It was dependent upon the sale of certain mines for which they have received no qualified bids, according to documents filed in court. Our broken bankruptcy laws are about to let another coal company shirk their responsibilities and get out of paying for healthcare and pensions the coal miners have earned and deserved. They have worked for this. They have negotiated. They are not asking for a handout. They are asking to get what they paid for, what they negotiated for, and what they didn't take home to their families. We have to keep our promise that was signed into law in the Krug- Lewis agreement. This goes back to 1946--1946. It is the only one of its kind. The agreement makes sure we protect our patriotic coal miners' healthcare and pensions. We have the chance today to pass my bill that was cosponsored with my colleagues, the American Miners Act, that will ensure that none of these coal miners or their beneficiaries would lose their healthcare, pensions, or black lung benefits. The American Miners Act uses the same funding mechanism that the Miners Protection Act did to protect retired miners' healthcare. It is the same funding mechanism Congress has used time and again to protect our miners' hard-earned healthcare after our bankruptcy courts have ripped them away. This is not going to be a drain on the Treasury. It does not cost the taxpayers money. We have pay-fors, and this will be taken care of, as we have taken care of our healthcare benefits. I am asking you to keep the promise just the way we did when we passed the Miners Protection Act and saved the healthcare for 22,600 miners. We need to finish this job. Save the healthcare of these miners suffering from new bankruptcies, protect the pensions of 87,000 miners nationwide, and do it by passing the American Miners Act, which would also ensure the future of the Black Lung Trust Fund, a lifeline for the growing number of miners with black lung. I don't know if you all understand the background or if you have heard about what happened, but with the passage of the bills we are working on, it cuts the black lung fund from $1.10 down to 50 cents. You would think that if you were reducing it, we had found a cure, and there is less need for the money to save our coal miners and to heal them. That is contrary to what is happening. If anything, it is exacerbating, and it is growing quicker, faster, and younger people are getting this horrible disease more than ever before. What we are asking for--my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--is to join us here today to demonstrate our commitment to our promise. That is all it is. I am asking the President of the United States, President Trump, please join in, Mr. President. I know you know the miners. I know you have spoken eloquently about the miners and your support for the miners. This is one way to truly support the miners, to make sure they get what they worked for and what they have earned--what they worked for and what they have earned. We have it paid for. It does not add one penny to the Nation's debt. Everything is ready to go. Please call Senator McConnell and tell him to put this on the agenda. You put it on the agenda, Mr. President, and you have Senator McConnell put in the amendment--a Senator from Kentucky who has an awful lot of coal miners in his State also. I will assure you we will get it passed, and we will do the job we should have done a long time ago for the people and families who have given everything they have, who have patriotically committed themselves to the energy this country has needed, and who have defended this country every step of the way. With that, I yield to my friend from Ohio, Senator Brown.

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I want to mention one more thing and then I will turn it over to my colleague, my friend from West Virginia, Senator Capito. The reason this is so urgent, our miners' pensions are in dire need. It goes first. They come to insolvency by 2022. What happens is we are one bankruptcy away--one bankruptcy from one coal company--of this thing tumbling down in 2019. When it starts tumbling, then you have the Central States that will come right behind it, the PBGC becomes insolvent, and then we have serious problems. That is why we are working with urgency for this to be adopted and fixed now. With that, I want to go ahead and turn it over to my friend and colleague, the Senator from West Virginia, Mrs. Capito.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the Senators from Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, first of all, I can't tell you what a pleasure it has been to work with Chairman Murkowski. We have been able to show--and even in the 115th Congress, with the ranking member, Senator Cantwell--the committee worked in a bipartisan way. So when people think the process is broken, it is really not broken. It might be wobbling a little bit and might need some repairs, but in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the Senate side, we have shown it can be done. But it has to be a matter of trust. We have to trust each other and, basically, communicate to work through these issues, and we have been able to do that. When there has been a little bit of concern popping up from time to time, we get together. Senator Murkowski and I have called and talked to each other and worked through it. We have talked with the chairman and ranking member over in the House to make sure they are in lockstep with us as we went through this. We look for this to be extremely successful as it reaches the House. These bills are going to improve the way public lands are managed and conserved at the ground level. While these bills are important to the residents of small towns across America, many of the bills in this package do not have a significant impact outside their local sphere. These are truly local bills. As such, it is rare for these bills to receive consideration on the Senate floor. I believe what we are saying is, by themselves it would be hard to move something like this, but as a package--and it has been over 45 years since the lands package has been done; that is really the reason it has been quite time-consuming. I want to again thank my colleagues for their tireless work--of course, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Marie Cantwell, and Senators Heinrich, Gardner, and Daines on the Republican side. Everyone has worked very well together. I also want to thank the committee staff because the committee staff and floor staff really have made this package come together, and they have worked tirelessly. All of the outside groups brought all of their information to us. We were able to work with them, and it was quite fulfilling. The package has been warmly received by both Democrats and Republicans, and from our conversations with folks in the House, we are expecting it to receive a warm reception over there as well. I cannot tell you how many Members are excited to get this to the President's desk for his signature. This package adds thousands of miles to our National Trails System, designates 1.3 million acres of wilderness, designates hundreds of miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers, and will improve hunting, fishing, and recreation access to our Federal lands. As I have said before, our public lands are truly one of our Nation's greatest treasures, and we are fortunate to have so many places set aside for the public to enjoy. Each year, 67 percent of the people of West Virginia take to the outdoors to enjoy our wild and wonderful areas. In my State of West Virginia, it is truly almost Heaven because of the access to all the beauty we have. Again, in my State of West Virginia alone, outdoor recreation supports 91,000 direct jobs--that is a lot of jobs for my State but, really, for any State--and $9 billion in consumer spending. The centerpiece of this package is the permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is truly the part of the legislation that really carries the water, figuratively speaking. This is a simple yet highly effective conservation tool with unrivaled success over the last 50 years. Unfortunately, the LWCF expired last September, but this package will reinstate the program to ensure that States and Federal public land management Agencies can continue to protect and conserve our natural resources. Since 1965, more than $243 million in LWCF funds have been spent in West Virginia on more than 500 projects, both on State and Federal lands. This includes improvements to local parks and public spaces in 54 of our State's 55 counties, and it does so without relying on taxpayer dollars. I again want to highlight the long-awaited priorities for sportsmen's groups included in this package. Hunting in all of our States and in my State of West Virginia is one of our oldest pastimes, where friends and family gather and spend quality time. It is important that we provide opportunities to keep these traditions alive. The Natural Resources Management Act will expand and enhance sportsmen's access by making Federal lands throughout West Virginia and throughout the Nation ``open unless closed'' for hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, and many other outdoor activities. As a hunter myself, and as vice chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I know how frustrated the sportsmen's groups have been in trying to get their bills passed over the last few years. That is why I am so pleased that so many of our priorities are included in this package. I am pleased to say that the Natural Resources Management Act will establish several national heritage areas, including one in West Virginia--the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area. This local heritage area has been operating as an ad hoc national heritage area. By providing an official NHA designation, the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area can earn the national recognition it deserves and is now also eligible for grants and technical assistance from the National Park Service. This will enable the heritage area to take the services they provide to the region to the next level. I believe that this package is a great bill for both Republicans and Democrats and all of our friends. Numerous pieces of legislation have been longstanding priorities for many Members, and they have been included. I would like to thank Chairman Murkowski again, as well as the other Members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, all of the staff members, and the floor members for their efforts to reach an agreement on this bill. I would also like to thank the majority leader for his willingness to bring this bill to the floor in such an expedited manner. I believe it is time for this bill to get over to the House and to the President for his signature. I want to thank all who have been involved. Vote on Amendment No. 182 to Amendment No. 112

Mr. MANCHIN. I say to my friend from Delaware that my understanding is the same as that of the Senator from Alaska, and I thank him for his inquiry into this provision of the bill.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tom Schaff, a staff member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the 116th Congress.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, Chairman Murkowski and I have been working with the majority leader and minority leader to resolve the few remaining issues on our bill, which is the land management bill we have before us. I would like to thank all Senators for their cooperation and for the work they have put in to get this to this point. I believe we are making good progress. We will vote on the motion to invoke cloture at 5:30. I will be joining Chairman Murkowski in voting yes on cloture, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. I understand that Senator Lee, my dear friend from Utah, may want a vote on his amendment to exempt Utah from the Antiquities Act. I have talked to Senator Lee many times about his concerns with national monuments in his State. While I respect his views, I will oppose any amendment that threatens the success of this lands bill. At this point, any amendment would threaten the success of the bill. This bill is truly a great piece of legislation for our country. This package includes numerous important provisions that will enhance conservation, recreation, and hunting, fishing, and shooting opportunities for sportsmen on Federal lands. In my view, one of the most important provisions in the bill is the permanent--I repeat, the permanent--reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I have long supported the permanent reauthorization of the LWCF, which has played a crucial role in making my State all the more wild and wonderful. In fact, since 1965, $243 million of LWCF funds have been spent to enhance recreation and conservation in West Virginia alone. LWCF funds have been used to provide public access and protect many of West Virginia's most popular recreation sites, including the Dolly Sods Wilderness in the Monongahela National Forest, as well as every access point on the Lower Gauley River in the Gauley River National Recreation Area. As you can see on this chart, LWCF funds have protected 57,000 acres in the Gauley River and the New River Gorge. While LWCF funds are used to protect important Federal conservation and recreation lands, the program also provides essential funding to States to enhance State and local park and outdoor recreational opportunities. These are not free giveaways to States but, rather, they are matching grants that result in increased recreational opportunities at the State and local levels. This is Ritter Park in Huntington, WV. Ritter Park offers miles of walking trails along an area called Fourpole Creek. Ritter Park also has numerous tennis courts, playground facilities, and an amphitheater that is used by the community for small events, such as concerts and plays. The rose garden, which you can see here, is a wonderful place to spend some time, and in 2012, Ritter Park was named as one of the ``Great Public Spaces'' by the American Planning Association. Over the years, more than $625,000 in State Land and Water Conservation funds has been spent on improvements at Ritter Park. The Land and Water Conservation Fund also provides other important financial assistance to States, including funding for the Forest Legacy Program, which helps to protect working forests on private lands; the American Battlefield Protection Program, which helps to protect Civil War and Revolutionary War battlefield sites on State and private lands; and grants to protect endangered species' habitats on non-Federal lands. On the Federal side, LWCF funds have been used to safeguard some of our Nation's iconic public lands. Here you can see just a few examples of areas where LWCF funds have been used to ensure that we can set aside these areas for future generations and help our land management Agencies follow their conservation missions as directed by Congress. LWCF funds help to complete the protection of and provide important public access to areas set aside by Congress in recognition of their national significance, including lands managed by the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service. In West Virginia, we have the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Canaan was established in 1994 and was the 500th wildlife refuge to be established. Since 1994, every single acre of the 16,613-acre area was acquired using LWCF funds. As one can see here, the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge is a truly beautiful place that would not have been possible had we not had the LWCF. Permanent reauthorization of the LWCF will ensure States and Federal land management Agencies will continue to protect and conserve nationally significant lands for future generations--all without relying on taxpayer dollars. It is past time for Congress to permanently reauthorize the LWCF. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is one of the many pieces of legislation in this package. It is another reason we need to pass this bill without amendments and send it over to the House and then to the President for his signature. I am pleased that we are making good progress, and I hope we will be able to move to its final passage without additional delays. I thank the Presiding Officer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I also rise to oppose the amendment of my good friend from Utah. I oppose his amendment, and I will be joining Chairman Murkowski when she moves to table the bill. In my view, this is the most significant achievement of this broad public lands package. For the first time, we will be permanently reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is the glue that holds us all together. This is a poison pill. This will not pass if it goes over to the House. I encourage the adoption of tabling this amendment.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I also rise with Chairman Murkowski. This is a timing problem. This is only a timing problem. As far as Senator Lankford's amendment, I will be joining Senator Murkowski when she moves to table the amendment, simply because of the timing situation working with the House. The House has been gracious. Chairman Grijalva has been wonderful, basically sitting with us and working with us. We gave him a list of everything we agreed on after the ``Four Corners'' that Senator Cantwell and Senator Murkowski worked on before. We all sat down and went through this, and it is just a matter of timing. What I am saying to my dear friend from Oklahoma is that when I was Governor, I insisted that my State agencies account for deferred maintenance. I would not let them build anything in any State park or let them do anything in our parks unless they showed me how they were taking care of what we have already done. I understand. I am totally committed to help with working through this, but because this is putting a poison pill--not that we disagree--it is the timing and the effort in the deal that we have already made. That is the poison pill that it puts us in, and that basically sinks it because he will not take anything more back from what we have already cleared on that side. So the LCWF language in this bill has been terribly negotiated and not only in the Senate but between the Houses also. I know that Senators Gardner and Cantwell and everybody have worked so hard on this, and it gives us permanent authorization and it is a step in the right direction that we are finally moving to. So I support Chairman Murkowski's motion to table this amendment. I reluctantly do that because of our agreement with Senator Lankford's intent on what he is trying to do, and we are committed to going back and working with him to get it through the committee.

Mr. MANCHIN. I second.

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I first thank Congresswoman Murkowski for all of her hard work. I thank the majority leader for allowing us to move on this bill--it has been 4 to 5 years--on the lands bill. We are very appreciative. We continue to work with a handful of Members to try to address their concerns and make improvements that we can add to this public package. I again thank Chairman Murkowski and other Members. It appears we will need to take votes on a few amendments, some of which I am concerned could put the entire package in jeopardy. It is my sincere hope it does not come to that situation, and Chairman Murkowski and I are going to do everything we can to address Members' concerns while protecting the package. This is in jeopardy. We have an agreement with the House, with the Chairman in the House. We have an agreement that they will take what the Senate has been working on in a fair way, and that is what is important. A great deal of hard work went into this package. It is a great piece of legislation. It has many reasons to be warmly received by both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate. Furthermore, the package addresses many Members' long-term standing priorities, which will improve the way our public lands are managed and will help constituents in small towns across America. I respectfully encourage Members with outstanding concerns to continue working with Chairman Murkowski and me to meet their needs-- but not in this package. My door is open. I know Chairman Murkowski's door is open. We are committed to working with those who have not been successful in getting something they desire into this--or some people who basically requested a vote--and keeping this thing clean, so that we can send it over to the House and have a successful day. I think it would be great. It has been 4 to 5 years. It is well beyond its time. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, first, I am so pleased to work with my good friend Chairman Murkowski on something she has worked on for quite some time with Senator Cantwell. Taking up this new position, I want to make sure I help them the best I can to bring this to fruition. That is what we are working on right now. To have S. 47 in front of us is pretty special. The public lands package includes such a wide variety of bills, as the chairman has spoken about. There are currently more than 130 different pieces of individual legislation that will address many Members' priorities for public lands and natural resources in their respective States. A public lands package doesn't come together that often. I think it has been 5 years, as was said, and they are far and few between. When it does, we try to accommodate and do the right thing that really helps our country and future generations. Many of the bills in this package provide technical corrections and improvements to existing policies but do not have a significant impact outside their local sphere. However, these minor bills will improve the way our public lands are managed and conserved at the ground level. While these bills are important to the residents of the small towns like mine across America and Members of this body who represent them, rarely will these individual bills receive the floor time they truly deserve. Because of this, it is necessary for us to move these bills together in this package, which is what we have coming up before us probably by tomorrow. This package was literally years in the making. As I said, it builds on the package that was negotiated last December by Chairman Murkowski, then-Ranking Member Cantwell, then-Chairman Bishop, and then-Ranking Member Grijalva of the House Natural Resources Committee. Together, this group came together and negotiated a large package. Unfortunately, the Senate could not pass the package last December, which is why we find ourselves here today. I am grateful for the opportunity to serve as the ranking member of the committee and to be working with my friend from Alaska Chairman Murkowski on this package but also on many other issues we will consider in the committee in the coming time. I would also like to take this moment to thank the committee staff, the majority and minority, as well as the floor staff for their diligence in working on this package. I would like to include a list of names who worked on the package for both me and Senator Cantwell and in our committee over the last few months. I would also like to include the names of the floor and leadership staff. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this list of names be printed in the Record.

Mr. MANCHIN. This package enjoys the support from numerous national stakeholder organizations across the political spectrum. For example, the National Wildlife Federation and the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation are two of its strongest and most dedicated advocates. I thank them for their support. I ask unanimous consent that the list of organizations writing in support of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MANCHIN. This package should be warmly received by both Democrats and Republicans. It is truly a bipartisan effort. For starters, the package includes numerous land exchanges and conveyances, designates over 1.3 million acres of wilderness, designates 367 miles of wild and scenic rivers, and provides boundary adjustments, designation changes, and management improvements to numerous areas in all four corners of the country. All of this will improve access, provide recreational opportunities, and allow four of our Federal public land management Agencies--the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service--to better serve the public through their varying missions as directed by Congress. Our public lands are truly one of the Nation's greatest treasures, and we are unique in how we set aside some of our most special places in the country to be conserved, protected, and easily accessible to the public so we can all enjoy the beauty these areas offer. Usually, these lands are located in rural areas, with few other economic opportunities, making these treasures economic engines for the surrounding communities. In fact, data from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis shows the outdoor recreation economy accounted for 2.2 percent of GDP and grew faster than the overall economy. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, outdoor recreation supports 7.6 million direct national jobs and $887 billion in consumer spending. Overall, this contributes billions to the Federal, State, and local governments in tax revenue. In West Virginia, outdoor recreation supports 91,000 direct jobs and $9 billion in consumer spending. Each year, 67 percent of West Virginia residents take to the outdoors to escape the hustle and bustle of their daily lives to enjoy the peace and certainty of our wild and wonderful outdoor heritage. It is truly almost heaven. If you haven't been there, we welcome you. This package provides permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which Senator Murkowski has pointed out. This is something most every one of us--535 Members of Congress--is truly supportive of because it affects our States and our districts. LWCF is a simple yet highly effective conservation tool with unrivaled success over the last 50 years. Every year, $900 million in royalties paid by energy companies drilling for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf are put into this fund. Unfortunately, LWCF expired last September. The National Resource Management Act provides permanent reauthorization of the LWCF. That is enough to bring all of us together. This permanent reauthorization ensures that States and Federal public land management Agencies have the ability to continue to protect and conserve our natural resources for the next generation, and it does so without relying on taxpayer dollars. Since 1965, more than $243 million in LWCF funds have been spent in my little State of West Virginia on more than 500 projects, both on State and Federal lands. This includes improvements to local parks and public spaces and 54 of our little State's 55 counties. It also funded acquisition for our most cherished public lands, such as the Gauley River National Recreation Area, the New River Gorge National River, and Dolly Sods in the Monongahela National Forest. This package also includes some long-awaited priorities for our sportsmen's groups. Each year, more than 350,000 hunters take to the woods in West Virginia to pursue game. These hunting traditions directly benefit rural communities, generating annual revenue and supporting 5,000 jobs. According to the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, hunting-related expenditures total nearly $270 million of the State's economy. Aside from this, and perhaps most importantly, hunting in West Virginia is one of our oldest pastimes in which friends and families can gather and spend quality time together. As I work with other Members of this very body on difficult issues where we may strongly disagree with each other, we are able to set aside differences when it comes to sportsmen's traditions. The conversations quickly turn to stories of hunting a deer with our children and grandchildren or taking a child to the first deer camp. It is important that we provide opportunities to keep these traditions alive. The Natural Resource Management Act will expand and enhance sportsmen's access by making Federal lands throughout West Virginia and the Nation ``open unless closed'' for fishing, hunting, recreational shooting, and other outdoor activities. As a hunter myself and as vice chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I know how frustrated sportsmen's groups have been in trying to get their bills passed the last few years. That is one of the reasons I am pleased that Chairman Murkowski's bill, of which I am an original cosponsor, the Sportsmen's Act, is included in this package. The Natural Resource Management Act also establishes several national heritage areas, including one in West Virginia, the Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area. National heritage areas are designated by Congress as places where natural, cultural, and historic resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally important landscape. The Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area has been operating as an ad hoc national heritage area for more than a decade. Despite not having official designation, the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area has continually done a great deal for West Virginia. For example, the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area administers a credible AmeriCorps program. In one recent program year, 38 AmeriCorps members completed more than 65,000 service hours directly benefiting local rural areas in West Virginia, as in every State. These 38 members improved 1,700 acres of public land and managed more than 1,000 total volunteers. By providing the official NHA designation, the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area can earn the national recognition it deserves and is now also eligible for grants and technical assistance from the National Park Service. This will take their programmatic efforts and other services they provide to the region to the next level. I believe that this package is a great bill for both my Republican and Democratic friends. Numerous pieces of legislation that have been longstanding priorities for many Members are included. I would like to thank Chairman Murkowski again, as well as other members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for their efforts to reach an agreement on this bill. For those of our colleagues who felt that they were not able to get exactly what they wanted or exactly what they would love to have had in this bill, we are committed to working with them to further help them in getting access to any other piece of legislation we will have working through the committee. I want to thank the majority leader for his willingness to bring this bill to the floor. I believe it is time to send the bill to the House and to the President for his signature. We have had a great working relationship with Chairman Grijalva, and he is committed to working with us as we work through this process. There are many pieces of good legislation in this package that will be valued for years to come by communities across the country and each one of our States. I strongly encourage Members to vote yes on this final package. Thank you. I yield the floor to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. I am just saying that this is a piece of legislation that has been worked on for quite some time. It is a piece of legislation that basically does an awful lot for an awful lot of people all over this country. Every one of us has something in this that is good. Land and water conservation is basically reauthorized permanently. It is something that we worked hard on. I appreciate all of the hard work, and thank you so much, Madam President. Cloture Motion

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, first of all, I want to echo what my colleague said. Senator Cantwell has worked hard the last 2 years or 3 years on this process. The lands bill was recently--

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Cardin, Senator Murkowski, Senator Collins, and all of my colleagues here. This is a good step. We are all here for the first time after 30 days. But guess what. You have been back home talking to the people who are hurting. They have no idea why we are doing what we are doing, allowing them to be harmed the way they are. I voted for both proposals today. I will vote for whatever it takes to get us back in the room to make something happen--to open up the government. I understand that the CR works this way. If we have a CR, then, proportionately, there is going to be 3 weeks of money still being used for DHS and for border security. I understand that is how it works. It is based on $1.3 billion of last year's approps. A CR continues the spending from last year. So there will be money there to continue on in good faith. I don't think any of us would want to come back 3 weeks from now and say: It is your fault for shutting it down. No, it is the President's fault. No, it is our fault. No one wants to go through that. I don't know why the 3 weeks is unreasonable for anybody if it is presented properly to the President that you are going to have continuation of money, proportionately, for the 3 weeks that we are going to be in that CR. The thing that I can't understand is that I am hearing that the President wants $5.7 billion. Senator Portman just told us where that came from--from the people who are experts and should know, the Customs and Border Patrol people. I am understanding also--and I heard this morning--that some of the leadership from the Democrats on the House side are saying that they would consider $5.7 billion for anything but a wall. That means they know we need border security, but they have a different idea of how to secure the border. Well, guess what. If you want to spend $5.7 billion for border security and the President wants to spend $5.7 billion for border security, then, surely, we can sit down in that 3-week period and, talking to the professionals, figure out what needs to be done and where our greatest risks are. How do we stop the opioids and all of the drugs that are coming in? It has ravaged my State. It is horrible what my State is going through. On top of that, I have about 12,000 people who are working for the Federal Government. I have never seen more people impacted. All they are saying is this: You people really don't care because none of you are hurting. You talk a good game. You throw a lot of words back and forth, but no one is hurting. We are the ones who are hurting. Then, I have essentials working in prisons. Basically, most of our prisons are in very rural areas. The average drive time to our prison is 1 hour. The prison I am talking about is Hazelton. It is a 1-hour drive time. People are making decisions. They are not not going to work because they are upset and mad. They know their responsibility, but here is the other responsibility: They have to make a decision because they have no cash. They say: Of what little bit of money I have in resources, do I put gas in the tank or do I put food on the table for the kids? It is one of the two because we don't know how long this is going to take. Now we are trying to decide whether we are basically going to carpool or take what public transportation we can get. Guess what. Public transportation is starting to shut down too. The buses are starting to shut down. It is the way they can get to work in masses. Colleagues, let me tell you that I have been in public service, like all of you, and I think we are all in it for the right reason. We wanted to truly serve the public, but we are not serving the public. We are all guilty, every one of us. I don't care how you vote on bills. I don't care what we talk about. We are all getting painted with the same brush right now. No one is going to escape this. It is absolutely horrific what is being done. I have always said this: Government should be your partner and your ally, not your adversary. Right now, the government is the enemy of the people who basically are providing the services that people depend on and who are protecting us. This is why this has to stop. I am saying to the President: Mr. President, please, give us the 3 weeks. We understand we need border security. Basically, our colleagues on the other side understand there should be compassion. When you have a child who was brought here at 2 days old, 2 weeks old, or 2 months and now is an adult and has no idea how they got here but they would like to enjoy the fruits and be able to give something back to this country, there ought to be a pathway forward. These are the things that we all seem to agree on at certain times. Along with many of the Senators who were here in 2013, I voted for one of the biggest packages we have ever had--$44 billion in security; basically, border security--and not one person could get a pathway to citizenship or become a citizen of this great country if they were not here for the right reason. They might have gotten here the wrong way, but they came for the right reason. Should they not have an opportunity? They could not become a citizen after 10 or 13 years until we secured the border. That is what this was all about. Now we are fighting over whatever. I don't know. I can't even explain it when I go back home. So I tell them: Listen, I am for border security. I will vote for border security. I will vote compassionately to try to help people to find a pathway to be an American citizen also, especially children. The other thing is that I think we can find a pathway forward if the President will give us the 3 weeks. I guarantee you that I don't think any of us will vote for another shutdown or let this happen. We can't let this go another day longer. We cannot leave here until we fix this. The people back home say: I will tell you the only way you are going to fix it is when you are hurting as bad as I am hurting. Why don't you all stop your pay? Why are you still getting a paycheck? Oh, yes, you fixed that because that is a constitutional amendment. You are taken care of, and it is out of your hands. You can't deny your pay. It is going to come. They say: I will tell you that this will never happen again if, basically, the day that the shutdown begins, for every Congressperson-- every Senator and every Representative, all 535--and the President and everybody who works in that White House over there who is making policy--the pay stops. I guarantee you one thing: You will work around the clock. You will work around the clock to prevent another shutdown. I cannot disagree with them. So I am saying: I am all in. I am all in. I will do whatever it takes. I will stay here 24/7. I will do whatever it takes to bring people back together, but, most importantly, to get people back to work. We can do that and still have border security and have some compassion for the people who are hurting the most. Thank you.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I respectfully disagree with my friend from Wyoming. First of all, the reason I asked for a live unanimous consent request on my resolution was to protect the 800,000 West Virginians with preexisting conditions, along with millions and millions of Americans. We have tried. We have come to an agreement on how to fix the high cost of third-party and individual payer. It has been lying on the majority leader's desk for a year with no movement or action. People say that we all have sympathy and empathy for people with preexisting conditions. If you want to protect that, then remove your lawsuit or at least allow us to move forward on a unanimous consent request so that we can fight and have a fighting chance, as this will be appealed to the higher courts. It is absolutely wrong that people who have insurance for the first time, now have the threat of having it taken away from them. As a former Governor, let me tell you how this system works. If you think people are not deserving of insurance or should not be able to have affordable access to insurance, then you are paying anyway, because the people who don't have that or didn't have it before go to the emergency room at the highest cost. They go right to the emergency room. They don't pay. That cost is then distributed on to the Governor, and the Governor of each State has to come up with supplemental payments to keep hospitals and rural clinics open. That is the way the system works. If you work for a company and couldn't afford the copayment, if you work for a company that didn't offer insurance--a small company that didn't have insurance at all--what you would do if you got hurt at home or got sick, you would hobble into work and make a workers' comp claim. That is the only access to insurance. If you want to go back to those draconian days, that is where we are headed if this lawsuit succeeds. What we have asked for is simply the ability to fix what we have in front of us. I haven't supported the single-payer system; we are not talking about a single-payer system. We are not talking about anything but fixing the existing Affordable Care Act. The President of the United States, Donald Trump, could do this very easily, taking this up. I will be happy to call it Trump RepairCare. I think it would be a fitting name because he can fix it. He can bring us together so that we can basically look at a bipartisan solution to bring down the high cost of premiums. We can also look at a bipartisan solution to fix the runaway costs, teaching people how to take care of themselves, keep themselves healthier and be preventive in the care they receive. This resolution allows the Senate and legal counsel to intervene and defend West Virginians and Americans with preexisting conditions from this inhumane lawsuit. If you believe in that, there should be no consideration for objections. We should be able to sit down and let the legal staff that we have here in the Senate intervene on our behalf and the people we represent. That is all we have asked for. Millions of Americans with preexisting conditions have been trusting us to defend their rights. Now they are hearing the political rhetoric. They hear it every day when anybody goes on the campaign trail. The last thing I heard from my colleagues on the Republican side--and these are my friends--they said: Oh, yes, Joe, we want to make sure that people with preexisting conditions have access; they cannot be denied. But guess what the proposal is that they were going to come forward with. It would say simply this: We will make sure insurance companies offer you affordable insurance, but, basically, they will not have to protect you or insure you for an existing condition you have had. So we will basically insure your entire body, except for the cancer or the heart condition that you might have had prior to that. That made no sense whatsoever. So they are really not sincere about coming up with allowing people with preexisting conditions to have access to affordable care. That is all we are doing today. Right here and right now we have the opportunity, and we have heard the objection, and I am so sorry for that. We could have done the right thing and directly been involved in defending the lives of Americans. I believe that the Texas judge was wrong in his ruling because we never removed--even those who voted for the tax cuts, and I think a lot of people begrudgingly did that, looking back on that--but, with that, it said they removed the mandate. The mandate did not remove the language of the code of the law. It removed the money from it, but it didn't take the language away. So I think anybody with any type of background in the legal process understands that will not hold up in court. All we have asked for is the right to defend the people we represent. So I am very sorry for the decision to object. I really thought that we could get a unanimous consent agreement and move forward, and then, really, you could go out and talk to your constituents and say: I truly am fighting to make sure that any of you all who have preexisting conditions--800,000 West Virginians who have a preexisting condition-- will have affordable access and cannot be denied and cannot be overcharged. That is all. Give them a chance. I don't know where you come from, but where I come from, before we had any access to healthcare, before there was a law that forbade insurance companies to charge outrageous prices or cut people off to say that, basically, you have hit your cap and you are no longer able to be insured--you are too sick for us to invest any more into you-- they would say: I don't want to be a burden to my family. What a person is telling you, if they have a preexisting condition is this: I don't want to be a burden to my family because I don't want to put them in a position that would be absolutely ruinous for them, put them in bankruptcy; one of my illnesses could put my family in bankruptcy because I cannot buy nor will the insurance company sell me insurance, nor can I afford what they want for it. That is what we did away with, and that is where we are going back. We want to intervene so we do not go back to those dark ages. With that, I hope my friends on the Republican side will reconsider this, and, as a body, let this move forward to protect the people of America. With that, I yield the floor.