Joe Manchin

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues who have worked with me on these resolutions to stop the EPA's destructive new regulations such as the new source performance standards. They are truly unrealistic and unreasonable and threaten our security and prosperity. I have always said we are all entitled to our opinion and our views, we are just not entitled to our own facts. As I go through this presentation, I will show my colleagues the facts that we will not be able to give us the energy we need if we go down this destructive path. The CRA resolution I have introduced with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will disapprove and stop the EPA's rule for emissions from new coal-fired powerplants. I thank my colleague from West Virginia Senator Capito and the Senator from North Dakota Senator Heitkamp for joining me in this fight by introducing a separate resolution to disapprove the EPA's rule for emissions from existing coal-fired powerplants. It is time for Congress to step in and stop these rules from harming not only hard-working West Virginians but the American consumer. I am pleased these measures are being brought to the floor for a vote today. Never before has the Federal Government forced an industry to do something that is technologically impossible--until now. I have always said that if a regulation is not obtainable, it is unreasonable, and that is the fact we have in front of us. The EPA has based its final rule for new coal-fired powerplants in the United States largely on a still-developing powerplant unit in Canada, which is called the Boundary Dam CCS Project. The EPA asserted in the final rule that the Boundary Dam facility has been operating full carbon capture sequestration successfully at a commercial scale since October 2014. That is found to be totally untrue. Canadian press reports have recently disclosed that the Boundary Dam project has failed to operate successfully at full CCS for any meaningful period of time. The reports also identify the CCS system of the demonstration plant as being a key issue in the delays for getting the plant up and running. After 1 year of operation, the project was forced to replace certain important features at a cost of $60 million. There have always been nearly $23 million in nonperformance penalties and lost revenues. The plant's management company, which is SaskPower, has acknowledged these recent reports and are now pushing back the project's operational date to the end of 2016, but there are no guarantees this will prove true either. SaskPower is also claiming that the project will need at least a year of stable operation to prove the technical operation and the economics of the project, which would aid in determining commercial viability. SaskPower has announced it will not be able to make an informed decision about carbon capture sequestration until 2018. Yet the EPA here in the United States of America is demanding that all U.S. coal- fired generation industry implement this technology now. That is what I have said all along: If it is not obtainable, which it has not been--we have not spent the money trying to develop this technology, and it hasn't worked--shouldn't we at least make sure it works before we force a complete overhaul of the system or people to meet standards that are unobtainable. These recent revelations prove that CCS is still technically unproven and still potentially damaging in a powerplant application. Therefore, it is foolish for this administration to require it now for new U.S. coal plants. Last week I wrote a letter to Administrator McCarthy about these reports because forcing coal to meet standards when experts know that the required technology is not adequately demonstrated on a commercial scale makes absolutely no sense at all. Instead, I believe the EPA should scrap this impossible-to-meet rule or amend it to require advanced technology that has actually been implemented which would offer improved environmental performance and is commercially viable. For the administration, this rule is more about desirability rather than feasibility, with little regard for rising consumer prices, the effects on jobs, and the impact on the reliability of our electric grid. This administration thinks the country can do without coal. I will simply tell my colleagues this: They are in total denial. They might not like it, they might not want it, but it is built into the plan for the next 20 to 30 years. They have flat out ignored their own data that says that coal will produce more than 30 percent of our electricity through 2040. It is completely contradictory that the EPA continues to impose unreasonable and unattainable rules in an attempt to regulate coal into extinction. The people who suffer are hard-working West Virginians and consumers across this great country. If these regulations go into effect, no new coal plants could begin new operations, more Americans would lose their jobs, and economic uncertainty would grow. The Nation's coal-fired powerplants currently have an average age of 45 years, the average age of all coal plants in America today, which produce close to 40 percent of our power. Many will need to be replaced in the near future, and regulations that prohibit building new coal- fired powerplants can soon become a serious issue for the Nation's electricity grid and the reliability we all depend upon. Although the Energy Information Administration--the EIA--within the Department of Energy still projects 37 percent of electricity generation will come from coal in 2040--I remind you, this administration that has put together rules that are unattainable and unreasonable is saying they are still going to need 37 percent of the electricity this country will need by 2040 from coal. The currently operating plants, without new additions, will average 65 years of age by that time. If nothing is done, these plants are averaging 65 years of age to produce the type of power this country needs. The history of coal plant operations already tells us coal plants at that age will not achieve the levels of hours of reliable operation required to meet the 2040 forecast. The coal industry must be allowed to add the new coal-fired powerplant additions, such as the ultra-supercritical, which we know is technology that works. We know it works, but this is not the direction they are going. They are putting something that is unattainable in place. That is why we need to block this plan, the Clean Power Plan, that the President has brought before us because it cannot be attained and we are going to be in a deficit. There is no doubt this President's agenda has already had a crushing impact on my State of West Virginia and other energy States around the country. We have to say enough is enough. In West Virginia we want clean air, we want clean water, and we are doing everything humanly possible. We have cleaned up the environment more in the last two decades than ever before. If you look around the world, there is more coal being burned than has ever been burned before. The United States burns less than 1 billion tons of coal a year. Over 7 billion tons of coal are being burned elsewhere in the world, with 4 billion tons being burned just in China. I would venture to say nobody is meeting the standards that we are required to here for the technology that is going to be needed to be attained. I will continue to explore all available options to prevent these unattainable regulations from impacting the State of West Virginia and the United States. I would ask the President--this administration--to work with us to find and develop the technology that would allow us to use a product that we have in abundance in this country--which is coal--in the cleanest fashion. We can then export that technology around the world to clean up the overall environment and to help the environment around the globe. Right now Congress needs to move forward to stop these rules that are crippling our energy production, jeopardizing the energy grid, and putting our workers out of good-paying jobs. I urge all my colleagues to support these resolutions that are put forward today when we vote. Thank you.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize with, overwhelming pride, a group of courageous veterans from Ritchie County, WV, who are visiting our Nation's Capital this Thursday. On behalf of our State and Nation, it is a true honor and privilege to recognize these heroic men and women and their families for their brave service and sacrifice as they tour the memorials built in their honor. I have always said that West Virginia is one of the most patriotic States in this great Nation, and we are so proud of the number of veterans and Active-Duty members who have served our country with honor and distinction. The 20 veterans and their family members who are traveling to Washington, DC, embody our State's history and contributions to the freedom of this Nation. They may represent different generations of warriors, but no matter the war or the era, no matter the rank, each and every one of them courageously answered the call of duty to defend our Nation and protect the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. In our time of need, they stepped forward and said, ``I'll do it--I'll protect this country.'' This trip will be a truly moving and special experience for these veterans, many of whom have never been to the memorials that were built for their service. It will include wreath-laying ceremonies at the monuments that commemorate the wars in which many have served, including the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Korean War Veterans Memorial, and the National World War II Memorial. They will also be touring Arlington National Cemetery and have private time for a wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Mr. President, it is also tremendously important to recognize that this visit would not have been possible without the hard work and determination of an inspirational young Ritchie County native, Kirsten Seese. Kirsten is a Ritchie County High School senior who aspires to be a nurse one day. She was inspired to coordinate this trip as her prenursing senior project after hearing about a group of veterans that had recently traveled to Washington, DC, to visit the memorials sponsored by their community. Kirsten wasted no time. She went to businesses in Ritchie County with the goal of organizing a 100 percent free veterans appreciation tour. In just 3 weeks, Kirsten raised enough money for 20 veterans, their family members, and local volunteers to visit to Washington, DC, absolutely free. They will not have to pay for any meals or refreshments and will receive a commemorative shirt and a hat. The funding will also go towards the wreaths for the ceremonies that will be held at each memorial and a group photo at the Capitol to commemorate their special day. I am so proud of Kirsten. She has truly set an extraordinary example for her generation by giving back to those who have served this country and those who have protected our freedoms. It is the devotion and drive of young people like Kirsten that bring our communities together. I wish her the best of luck in her future endeavors, and I commend her for making an enormous impact on the lives of our veterans through this veterans appreciation tour. Mr. President, I am filled with pride every time I meet the patriots who have served our country, and I am so pleased to welcome West Virginia's most courageous veterans who are all heroes to Washington, DC. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in saluting them. They truly inspire us all as we are reminded of their selfless service. It is because of their bravery that all Americans enjoy the greatest liberties and freedoms in the world. We whole heartedly thank them.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, first of all I want to thank my colleague, who has been working so hard on this. It affects Indiana, West Virginia, and every State in the Union. I hope people realize what is going on. This isn't a partisan issue. This is definitely a bipartisan issue, and it affects everybody in our State. I want to thank Senator Markey for allowing me to speak for a few minutes. I have a funeral in Arlington to attend for one of our dear soldiers. I have spoken on the Senate floor many times before about the burdens the EPA has continued to impose on hard-working families and hard- working people in West Virginia. Today, however, I am not speaking about the mining jobs I have spoken about so much. I am speaking about everyday West Virginians. If you have any property whatsoever, if you have a small business or a large business, if you come from any walk of life, if you are in agriculture or are a small farmer or are in large agriculture, this affects you. This allows the overreach of the government, as we have talked about so many times. If you are a government agency, if you are a city, a small town, if you are a county, any decisions you make will be affected or could be affected. If imposed, the agency's waters of the United States rule, known as WOTUS, would have a harmful impact all over this great country. Again, the WOTUS rule will not just impact certain industries; it impacts everybody. The EPA wrote these rules without consulting some of the people who care about clean water the most--everyday West Virginians and Americans all across this great country. The WOTUS rule would impose heavy financial penalties on all of us, including our small business owners, farmers, manufacturers, and property owners. If you have ever seen the terrain of West Virginia, we are the most mountainous State east of the Mississippi. There is very little flat land whatsoever. So anything can be affected and everybody will be affected. Whether you build a home, have a small business or are a little city or community, you are going to be affected. If they can show on an aerial map that there used to be a river or stream of any kind, that comes under their jurisdiction. If anyone thinks differently--that it is not going to happen--this is exactly what is going to happen. That is why all of these small towns and the counties in rural America are totally opposed to this. There is nobody I know of who doesn't want clean drinking water. With that, we are not saying that the Federal Government shouldn't have oversight on all of our waters that are for drinking, are navigable and/or recreational. In fact, I live on the water, so I know what it is to have the clean waters in our streams and rivers. This is not what we are talking about. As my good friend from Indiana and my good friend from North Dakota are going to be talking about, this affects everybody. It affects every puddle, ditch, and every runoff--you name it; it affects it--and that means it affects all of our lives. They are going to say: Don't worry. We are not going to do all that. We are going to exempt it. We have heard that one before--until it is something they don't like, until basically it gives them a chance to shut down something. I have farmers who are concerned about basically the crops they grow, the wildlife, the poultry and the livestock they have to care for. All of this could be affected. We fought this before. The Supreme Court instruction is to clarify the Clean Water Act jurisdiction over bodies of water in use. This proposal goes too far. In fact, the Supreme Court has already ruled that not all bodies of water fall under the Clean Water Act regulations. So why are they expanding it? If they have already ruled on it, why are they expanding these rules? Why do they believe they can grab this? They claim they were not required to consult with local governments under the federalism Executive order, arguing the rule did not impact them. The EPA claims that even though it did not comply with the Executive order, it still reached out to local governments. That is not true. That is not true in West Virginia. I can tell you that. The EPA claims it addressed the concerns of local governments by providing exemptions for public safety ditches and storm water control systems. That is not true either. So that being said, I can only tell you what my citizens, my communities, business owners, and local governments are being affected by and why they are concerned. The bottom line is it is completely unreasonable that our country's ditches, puddles, and otherwise unnavigable waters be subjected to the same regulations of our greatest lakes and rivers. On that we all agree. The WOTUS rule exempts ditches only if the local government can prove that no part of the entire length of a ditch is located in an area where there used to be a stream. The WOTUS rule exempts storm water management systems only if they were built on dry land. The WOTUS rule says EPA can rely on historical maps and historical aerial photographs to determine where the streams used to be--not where they are now. These provisions of the WOTUS rules should strike terror in the heart of every mayor, county commissioner, and manager of a city that was founded before the last century. This is how asinine this is. It is unbelievable that with a sweep of the pen, the EPA is trying to take us back to the days of Lewis and Clark. According to a memo written in April, not even the Corps of Engineers knows how it will determine which ditches are exempt and which are former streams. This is our own government. Morgantown, WV, was founded in 1785. Wheeling, WV, was established in 1795. To go back in time to determine where streams used to be would be near impossible. I don't want West Virginia cities to have to worry about the status of their municipal infrastructure. There is no question that with the additional permitting and regulatory requirements, the implementation of this rule will place a significant burden on West Virginia's economy, which is already hurting very badly. That includes businesses, manufacturing, housing, and energy production. Many in my home State are already struggling to make ends meet. We are one of the highest unemployment States, have been hit harder than any other State. We are fighting like the dickens. We will continue to fight and persevere. The new financial and regulatory burdens will set people up for failure in an already unstable economic climate which in large part is caused by harmful regulations the EPA and the administration have established. We all want to drink clean water and breathe clean air, but we can achieve this without regulating hard-working Americans out of business. This rule represents broad overreach that has the force of law without congressional approval. I would say you cannot regulate what has not been legislated. Why are we here? Why are we elected to represent the people when we cannot even do it, when we have to fight our own government to do the job we have been charged with doing? I urge my colleagues to support this motion to proceed to S. 1140. I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. I come to the floor to speak on behalf of the Acting Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, who is no longer acting but now our Administrator and my friend, Sarah Feinberg. As a native West Virginian, she has the same pragmatic approach to problem solving that we see among our congressional delegation every day. When it comes to politics in West Virginia, it really doesn't matter whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. What matters is if you can get the job done. During my time in the State legislature, Sarah's father, Lee Feinberg, and I served together. At that time Lee was head of the West Virginia Governmental Ethics Commission, and he instilled in her the same sense of moral responsibility that also led him into public service. Today she sits before the Senate, seeking to continue in public service as the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, and I am so pleased this has happened. Over the past 9 months, I believe she has proved herself to be an effective and engaged leader with the courage to make tough decisions and the character to accept the criticism they often incite. She was baptized by fire after being appointed to this position on January 9 of this year and leading the agency's response to five major incidents within her first 60 days at the helm. On February 3, six people were killed when a commuter train hit an SUV at a grade crossing in Valhalla, NY. On February 4, 14 tank cars carrying ethanol derailed just north of Dubuque, IA. Three of them caught fire. On February 16, 27 tank cars derailed outside Mount Carbon, WV, releasing 378,000 gallons of crude oil and igniting a fire that destroyed a nearby house. On February 24, a commuter train in Oxnard, CA, hit a tractor-trailer at a grade crossing and jumped the tracks. On March 6, 21 cars derailed outside of Galena, IL, near the border with Wisconsin, and five of them caught fire. I am a firm believer that elected officials need to be on the ground in emergency situations, supporting first responders and assisting those in need, and I was impressed by Ms. Feinberg's response to the Mount Carbon derailment in West Virginia, which I witnessed firsthand. Five weeks into her new job, she executed an efficient and effective Federal response that was one of the best I have ever seen in my experience as an elected official and a public servant. There are a lot of smart policy people here in Washington, DC, but the best policy in the world will not mean a thing if it doesn't translate into anything in the real word. Sarah's response to the Mount Carbon accident showed me that she understood that, and that gave me faith in her ability not just to lead but to listen to the people we are here to serve. Over the past 10 years, the increase in domestic energy production has been an engine of economic growth. The Energy Information Administration predicts that growth will continue through 2020. From 2009 until 2014, crude oil production in the United States increased by more than 62 percent--up from 5.35 million barrels per day in 2009 to 8.68 million barrels a day in 2014--and the majority of this product is moving by rail. In 2008, our railroads moved a meager a 9,500 tank cars carrying crude oil. Last year, that number grew to 500,000 tank cars--a 5,000- percent increase. That is unbelievable. Unprecedented new challenges come along with the new economic opportunities presented by the growth in domestic energy production, and Ms. Feinberg's experience makes her uniquely qualified to lead the FRA through this transition. As Chief of Staff to Secretary Foxx, she helped the Department of Transportation develop a holistic strategy to improve the safety and security of crude by rail that required coordination between multiple administrations within the Department. The tough new tank car safety regulations that were finalized in May were dependent on close collaboration between the FRA and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Sarah's experience in the Secretary's office and her existing relationships throughout the Department allow her to cut through redtape and get the right people in the room to get the job done. While the new rules do not solve every problem, they represent a major step in the right direction. They satisfy all or part of 10 outstanding National Transportation Safety Board recommendations, including all 4 recommendations that were made in April of this year. Since taking the helm at the FRA earlier this year, I have been very much impressed with Ms. Feinberg's willingness to tackle difficult issues and engage stakeholders about realistic solutions. In May, she convened a positive train control task force to try to identify opportunities for the FRA to help railroads meet their 2015 deadline and become a real part in this process. I think her proactive approach to problem-solving will be an asset to the FRA and the entire Department of Transportation. I thank Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson for moving her nomination through the committee yesterday on a strong bipartisan vote of 19 to 1. I want to thank all my colleagues for not only nominating Sarah but confirming her today. I think she will be a great asset to our country and do us all proud. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank my colleagues, Senator McConnell, Senator Capito, who is my colleague from the State of West Virginia, Senator Daines, Senator Inhofe, and my good friend Senator Heitkamp. This is a bipartisan approach. Not often do we see a bipartisan effort, a bipartisan colloquy on the floor of the Senate anymore, and there should be because we all have the same interests. Basically, how do we provide affordable, dependable, and reliable energy? That is what this country was built on. We have defended this country by having resources that we could use to basically defend ourselves, and that resource has come from what the Good Lord gave us. Coal has been in abundance in the United States of America. We have fought every war, we have defended, we have energized, and we have built a middle class unlike at any time in the history of this world. So now it comes to the point where there is a group--basically the ones on an ideological pathway--who says we can do it differently. If someone came to me and said: We have this new great energy, and I am sorry, West Virginia and North Dakota and Oklahoma and Montana, we have this new energy--and maybe it is commercial hydrogen, which will be water vapor--that is wonderful. We will figure a way. We will embrace that. We will figure a way to make it. We will do something. We will diversify. That is not the case. The case is simply this: This country has depended and will depend--even by this administration's admission, this country will depend on fossil fuel for at least the next three decades. It is in the EIA report. They are going to have to have it. Baseload, as the Senator from North Dakota said, is simply this: something that will give us power 24/7, day and night, rain or shine. There are only two things in the world that can do it: coal and nuclear. Gas is coming on and gas will be a baseload when the distribution lines and the pipelines are there to provide it. Right now it is not, but it is coming on strong. Just look no further than Japan. Japan was mostly moving toward nuclear. Fukushima happens. When that happened, Japan had to change. What did they do? They changed to coal. But they decided the new plants they would build would be ultra super critical. That means 40 percent efficiency, burning at the highest levels to reduce the emissions. They are moving in technology ways. Now, what does the plan that we are talking about and we have our colleagues talking about--existing source, which means they can't continue with what we have today, and new source, which means any new plant has to be built to certain standards. Carbon capture sequestration has not been proven commercially, not at one plant in America. Yet these rules are based on using carbon capture sequestration. All we have said--some of us have said this: Why don't you at least demonstrate that you can have that type of commercial operation and that it can withstand 1 year under commercial load and show us those are the new limits you want us to meet? That, to me, is reasonable. Let me tell my colleagues this: If you were in the business of producing power and you desired not to do that even though we had technology, then you would have to close your plant. I understand that. That is not the case. They can't show us technology and show us that it has a commercial feasible pathway to be able to perform and provide the energy we need. There is no way they can do it. So I have said this: If it is unobtainable, it is unreasonable. That is all. Don't expect me to do something that has never been done. If the Federal Government says: Fine, we have $8 billion lying down at the Department of Energy--$8 billion that hasn't been tapped--does that not tell us something? The private sector has not stepped up to take those types of loans and to use those types of loans to find the new technology for the future because they don't believe the administration wants us to find any new technology that might be able to adhere to the standards they have set. So we sat back and we have done nothing. Then, on top of that, they expect these plants, 30 years from now--if they are expecting to get commercial power, electricity, fill the grid with power coming from coal for the next 30 years--most of our plants average 50 years of age. They can't produce the power they are going to produce--that we will need for this country to have for 30 more years. An 80-year-old plant just won't do it. So that means they come off the line, off the grid. When that comes off the grid, what we call dependable, reliable, and affordable energy goes away. It goes away. I have said this: Someone needs to respectfully ask our President, this administration, the EPA, the DOE: If for the next 90 days not another ton of coal was delivered to a coal plant in America--not another ton of coal because--and I have said this to the administration. They have been very eloquent in basically telling the American people: We don't like coal, we don't want coal, and we don't need coal. If those were the facts, then make sure you tell the American people, if they didn't have coal for 90 days, what the United States of America would look like. Just tell me what it would look like. Ask anybody what it would look like. The lives of 130 million people would be in jeopardy tomorrow--130 million people. This system could collapse. The east coast could be dark. Now, you tell me how you are going to fill that in. And if you are not willing to be honest with the American people and tell them that, don't make them believe there is something that is not there, that you can run this off of wind and solar. We have a lot of wind in West Virginia, and we are proud of that. I will give an example. My colleagues will remember the hottest days this past summer, that very hot spell we had, 90 to 100 degrees. We have 17 acres of a wind farm on top of a beautiful mountain in West Virginia, 560 megawatts. We have a coal-fired plant sitting there, the cleanest super-critical coal-fired plant on Mount Storm, 1,600 megawatts. Guess how many megawatts of power the wind produced during the hottest times of the summer when we needed the power. Two megawatts. Two. The wind didn't blow. It was so hot and stagnant, it didn't blow. That poor little coal-fired plant was giving it everything it had to try to produce the power the Nation needed. I am just saying the facts are the facts whether we like them or not. So when this plan comes out and says that any new coal-fired plant being built has to be--you can basically be assured they are not going to build any. When they are saying existing plants have to meet certain standards, they won't invest and try to hit a moving target. So now what happens? For the 35 to 40 percent of the power you are telling the United States of America, the people in this great country, that we have--don't worry, we are going to take care of you, it is not going to happen. We are not going to stand by and say we are not going to fight for that. We are not only fighting for a way of life for West Virginia, we are fighting for a way of life for this country. This country depends on energy we have been able to produce. We have always depended on our little State. North Dakota, now one of the best energy-producing States we have in the country--Montana, Wyoming, Oklahoma--we have been the heavy lifters. We will continue to work for this great country. We just need a little help. That is all we are asking for. So I would say, ask the question: What would the country look like tomorrow? The standards they are setting are basically unreasonable, totally unreasonable, because they are unobtainable. The impact is going to be devastating, basically. The system is going to be to the point to where we can't depend on it, it is not reliable, and we don't have the power of the future yet. Maybe our children or grandchildren might see that. I hope so. But until the time comes where we are going to transition from one to the other, make sure it is a smooth transition. Make sure it is a dependable transition. Make sure it is one that keeps this country the superpower of the world. If we don't, I guarantee we will be the last generation standing as a superpower saying that we are energy independent; we are not fighting wars around the world basically for the energy this country needs. We have the ability to basically take care of ourselves. We can be totally independent with energy if we have an energy policy that works, but it has to be realistic. This is not. That is why I totally oppose this new power plan which is coming out. It is a shame that we have to rely on the courts to protect something we should be doing in the Halls of this Senate. It is a shame that the courts have to step in to protect us. With that being said, I yield the floor, and I thank my colleagues for being here on this important issue.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. God bless.

Mr. MANCHIN. You have worked through that. All of our States that had concerns about that know they will not be usurped by preemption, that we will commence and you have to reduce your standards.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill that is long past due--long past due--and one that, in part, honors our dear colleague and my dear friend Frank Lautenberg. Anybody who served with Frank knew he served with compassion, and he had a passion with that compassion that was unbeatable. This is one of those pieces of legislation he had compassion for and the passion to get it done, and I think we can all agree the current Toxic Substances Control Act, which we know as TSCA, is inadequate and the law is long past due to be reformed. The Toxic Substances Control Act has not been improved in more than 30 years. I couldn't believe that when Frank explained to me the history of this piece of legislation. How this all came about and how I became involved is that in 2013 I started talking to Senator Vitter. He was working it diligently, and he told me that Frank had always been on the frontline and championed this thing. So I went to Frank to get his input, and he said: Joe, the time has come. We have to do something. We have to move the ball forward. It is not going to be a perfect bill. I understand that. And to be honest, I have never seen a perfect bill. So we worked on it, but Frank was willing to move it forward. Here are the facts. In the 30 years that we have been talking about doing nothing but talking about it, 80,000 chemicals have been registered in the United States--80,000 new chemicals have been registered--which many of us use every day. We use these unknowingly. Only 200 have undergone EPA testing--only 200 out of 80,000. So Frank thought, very pragmatically, if we can just move the ball, can we do 20,000 or 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 of them? That is all we were trying to do, and he knew this. There is not one person here who can question Senator Lautenberg's dedication to not only reforming the law but also protecting the environment and the health and safety of every American. This thing got a little bit nasty, to the point where Frank, really sincere about moving this forward, knew he had to take some steps. After 30 years, I can tell you Frank Lautenberg knew exactly what he was doing. He knew exactly that he had to make some adjustments to move the ball forward, and that is what we are here for. Frank wanted to do that. So we had a long talk about that, and Frank said: Joe, try to move it if you can. So we all got together, our staffs got together, and things started to happen. Then Senator Udall became very much involved, and I appreciate that he was on the committee. He championed it from there. He and Senator Vitter are sitting on that committee and really making things happen. Reforming TSCA would establish much needed regulatory certainty for the chemical industry, which directly and indirectly employs about 40,000 West Virginians and over 800,000 people nationwide. When Senator Lautenberg met with Senator Vitter, he toughened many of the most important provisions in the law, and Senator Udall has taken up that effort and further strengthened the bill. The bill we have before us includes increased States' rights under preemption. That was our hangup for a long time. They worked through this, and I commend both of them for working through preemption and making sure that the States that have been out front and doing things are not going to be harmed by this. That was never the intention. It ensures that doctors, first responders, and government health and environmental officials would have greater access to confidential business information to guarantee that those potentially exposed to harmful chemicals could receive the best possible treatment. Most importantly, it contains a safety standard that, unlike current law, is based solely on human health and the environment and includes no cost-benefit analysis. Now let me get personal here. In my State we had Freedom Industry leak a chemical called MCHM, used in the coal cleaning process in West Virginia. We had no idea what effect this chemical had on humans. We had one plant, one intake on the Elk River that supplied about 300,000 homes with water. The whole valley was affected--everybody. Don't drink it, don't bathe in it, don't wash. We didn't know what effect it would have so all precautions were taken. It shut down a whole industry. It shut down the whole community--the whole city, if you will. In July of last year, I pushed the NIH and CDC to conduct further studies into the potential impacts of crude MCHM. We didn't know. We had to push them, and we had to get everybody onboard to tell us as quickly as they could what effect it has on our humans and on our children. Does it have any long-lasting effects? The NIH's National Toxicology Program concluded their study into crude MCHM and indicated that no long-term health effects should be expected for residents who were impacted. That was great news, but it came long after a lot of harm was done. While I am thrilled with the findings, we shouldn't have to wait more than 1 year to get safety information on the chemicals in question. This bill that we are working on right now would require the EPA to systematically review all chemicals in commerce for the first time ever. While this will be a long process, it is far superior to the current system that allows the chemicals we use every day to go untested for health impacts on all of us. Some of my colleagues have argued that the bill could be better. I assure you it could be better. Every bill that we ever pass here could be better. But you have to start somewhere. Frank Lautenberg knew that. After 30 years, he said: Listen, enough is enough. If Frank Lautenberg had been able and we could have gotten this done 2, 3 years later, my community, my State--300,000 residents out of 1.8 million--wouldn't have been affected for 1 year with the uncertainty of what effect it is going to have on them. I do know that before I decide to vote for a bill, I ask myself three things. Will this improve the quality of life of my constituents? Is it better than the status quo? And have we worked as hard as we can to preserve our core beliefs? For me, the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is a yes on all three. It is a win-win for all of us. Senator Lautenberg was an extremely smart legislator who knew it was time to move past partisan politics and craft a bill that would finally protect all Americans. This bill does that. It does it in grand fashion. I think Senator Vitter summed it up. We have a little bit of a jousting going on, if you will. I understand it. I sympathize with Senator Burr and Senator Ayotte in wanting to get a piece of legislation that most of us--I think all of us--support. It may not be the right fit for it right now, and this bill should go as clean. As much work and as much time as has elapsed, this bill should go clean. I truly believe that. We are committed with our energy bill coming up, as we are with the LWG--the land-water grant--and we are going to be there. We are going to fight for that. But it should be done in a different format than what this piece of legislation is being done in and given how important this piece of legislation is--the Frank Lautenberg legislation, which he worked so hard on and dedicated his life to. I want to make sure that we support this in the fashion that it should be. It is bipartisan. There are not too many things here that are bipartisan. This is one moment that we should seize and move forward for all of our constituents. With that, I say to Senator Udall, I commend you for the job you have done and the work you have put into this, and I know that Frank would be proud of you.

Mr. MANCHIN. If I may, I ask the Senator, the preemption was the last thing hanging, right?

Mr. MANCHIN. I would like to recognize Mrs. Lautenberg here to observe this historic moment. We are so happy to have you here, Bonnie. I know that Frank would be proud of you, having fought the good fight that he fought forever. There is our good friend right there.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, when I go home to my beautiful State of West Virginia, I have always said that if I can't explain it, I can't vote for it. When this process began, I was supportive of the diplomatic efforts led by Secretaries Kerry and Moniz. I have always believed that to truly be a superpower, you must engage in superdiplomacy. Whenever I am able, I will choose diplomacy over war because the stakes are so high for West Virginia and our entire country. In our State of West Virginia, we have one of the highest rates of military service in the Nation, participation-wise. But as I struggled with this decision, I could not ignore the fact that Iran, the country that will benefit most from the sanctions being lifted, refuses to change its 36-year history of sponsoring terrorism. For me, this deal had to be about more than preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon for the next 10 to 15 years. For me, this deal had to address Iran's terrorist actions. Without doing so, it would reward Iran's 36 years of deplorable behavior and do nothing to prevent its destructive activities. In fact, even during the negotiating process that we have been watching unfold, it has continued to hold four American hostages, support terrorism around the world, breed anti-American sentiment, and acquire arms from Russia. The continued actions by Iran and its recent activities with Russia have proven to me that when we catch Iran violating the agreement--and I believe we will--I have grave doubts that we will have unified committed partners willing to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I also cannot, in good conscience, agree to Iran receiving up to $100 billion in funds that everyone knows will be used--at least in some part--to continue funding terrorism and further destabilize the Middle East. Lifting sanctions without ensuring that Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is neutralized is dangerous to regional and American security. The administration has accepted what I consider to be a false choice--that this is only about nuclear weapons and not terrorism. However, the fact of the matter is that we are concerned about Iran having a bomb because, in large part, it is the world's largest state sponsor of terror. Asking us to set aside the terrorist question is irresponsible and misses the point. Over the last 36 years, Iran has carried out thousands of acts of terror that have killed thousands of innocent lives, and not just in the Middle East but around the world. They have defied international sanctions and treaties, continued to call for an attempt to violently destroy the State of Israel, bombed diplomatic buildings, and murdered innocent civilians. On top of it all, Iran is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. soldiers. This regime has shown no signs that its deplorable behavior will change, and the deal does nothing to guarantee that behavior change. The deal places real constraints on Iran's nuclear program for the next 10 to 15 years. After that term, Iran will be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in a very short period of time. While I hope its behavior will change in that span, I cannot gamble our security and that of our allies on the hope that Iran will conduct itself differently than it has for the last 36 years. It is because of that belief and a month of thoughtful consideration that I must cast a vote against this deal. I do not believe that supporting this deal will prevent Iran from eventually acquiring a nuclear weapon or from continuing to be a leading sponsor of terrorism against Americans and our allies around the world. To those who are upset by my deliberations, I will simply say that the decision to pursue diplomacy is every bit as consequential as the decision to pursue war, and in many cases--possibly even this one--the choice to abandon the first path leads inevitably to the second. I, like most Americans and West Virginians, have already seen too much American sacrifice in the Middle East to push us down the path towards war. However, I don't believe a vote against this deal forces us to abandon the diplomatic path. We must continue to pursue peace but on terms that promise a lasting peace for the United States and our allies. I met with and spoke to every national security expert I could. I attended every secured briefing that was made available to me. I spoke with representatives of every Middle Eastern country, and most importantly, I listened to the good citizens of West Virginia. I thank all of my constituents who reached out to my office and to the many advisers who took their time to help me reach this decision. I will continue to listen to my constituents, and I will support a path towards peace and diplomacy over war and aggression. But make no mistake about it. I will vote to use all of our military might to protect our homeland whenever it is threatened, defend our allies whenever they are put in harm's way, and to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. To be a superpower I believe you must possess superdiplomatic skills, and I believe we can use these skills to negotiate a better deal. We need a deal that citizens of West Virginia, our country, and the world know will make us safer. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, all of us have challenged areas in our States. I have a county--one of the poorest counties in the country is McDowell County. These children have no chance whatsoever. It has the absolute worst statistics any child could be living in. And it is because of these programs that are bringing the compassion of public- private partnerships that we are able to work through to reestablish the services these children won't get. The areas are so sparsely populated, and there is high unemployment. I would encourage all of you to support this amendment. It continues the program. It is worthwhile. We have McDowell County now with 125 public-private partnerships that we would not have, and these children will not have a chance without them. I encourage your support.

Mr. MANCHIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a problem that each one of us--all 100 Senators--knows. In any gathering we go to, in our State or around the country, people are affected by drug abuse, whether legal or illegal. In our personal families, immediate families or extended families, we know somebody whose life is affected. So today I urge my colleagues to support a commonsense amendment that I have introduced to the Every Child Achieves Act that addresses an epidemic that is devastating to my State and our country--and I know to the Presiding Officer's State also--which is substance abuse. Communities across the country, including many in my beautiful State of West Virginia, are seeing an alarming rise in substance abuse and addiction to legal prescription drugs. These are drugs we would find in the medicine cabinet of our home. West Virginia is No. 1 in overdose deaths--No. 1 in overdose deaths-- due to drug abuse. We have seen over a 600-percent increase in the number of people dying since 1999. Nationally, 21.6 million Americans are battling substance dependence or abuse. But as most of us know, we can't truly understand substance abuse by just listening to facts and statistics. It is one that can only be understood by hearing stories of those impacted. When I was Governor of the State of West Virginia, I traveled around the State, and I saw firsthand the effects that substance abuse can have. We tried to tackle many of these issues at the State level. But it is impossible. All of us have to be in this. But one of the most moving experiences occurred during my first trip back to the Mountain State after becoming a Senator. I traveled to the really beautiful little town of Oceana, WV. I went to Oceana Middle School, where I had expected to talk about the importance of receiving a good education and working hard to gain the necessary skills to be successful in the workforce. Instead, I heard personal stories from 11-year-olds who spoke candidly about the ways that drugs were tearing apart their families, their homes, and their community. As tears trickled down their faces, they shared how they rarely played outside because too many needles coated the streets and drug deals often took place right in front of them. It is one thing to hear about overdoses and addictions from doctors, medical experts or police officers who deal with substance abuse cases every day. But I can tell you that it is another thing to sit across from an 11-year-old girl who is fighting through tears to describe how her family and her family life have been destroyed. Her father was hurt in the coal mines and gradually became addicted to painkillers, causing her family to lose everything. As I listened to her story, I couldn't help but think that this young girl had to grow up so very fast and miss some of the pleasures of childhood. That is why I am doing everything in my power to fight this national problem. My commonsense bipartisan amendment with Senator Ayotte would simply require that, in States where this is a significant problem, the State education plan include a strategy for how the State will help local education agencies educate students who face substance abuse in their home. What we are saying is no child can be in a drug-infected home and have a normal childhood. They can't have a normal learning experience in the school system. To be clear, it does not prescribe or require any particular response. We are not saying you have to do this. The States that wish to have this done can. It simply gives the States the flexibility to craft proposals that meet particular local needs. That means if there is a child that basically needs extracurricular activity, extra help, extra support, preschool or afterschool, they are able to intervene and change the system that would meet the needs of that community. Substance abuse by parents and other caregivers can have a significant negative impact on the well-being of children, and it makes it more difficult for them to learn and thrive in schools, as we know. This amendment is a small step forward toward addressing that problem. But it will encourage the States to consider solutions that will enable local schools and communities to better help these vulnerable children and ensure that every child is ready to learn. Our country, our States, our communities, our schools, and our children need us to take action to protect them from the devastation of substance abuse. I am often reminded of the five promises we as adults should make to every child. Colin Powell started this--the five promises--and my wife and I have adopted it when I was Governor. We still have a foundation. The first promise is that every child has to have a loving, caring adult in their life--a loving, caring adult and unconditional love. Second, every child should have a safe place. Every child should have a healthy start in life. Every child should have an education and have a skill set. The fifth promise is what we can't teach. We can usually show it from example. Every child should grow to be a loving, caring adult and give something back. If we don't give children the chance to have that type of an experience and they know they don't have a loving, caring adult, and they don't have a safe place because the home has been ruined because of drug abuse, this is where we need to step in. If we are going to save a generation, this is where we do it. This is the frontline of defense today. The No. 1 thing that is killing our country is drug abuse, and it is basically coming from prescription drugs. It starts with manufacturing. It goes down with the FDA putting all these lethal drugs on the market that we never had before. It goes down to distribution and dispensing by doctors. Yet we don't have any treatment centers to cure people once they get into it. So I am asking all of you to please consider supporting this amendment. It is most reasonable, most responsible. It is not mandatory. It is optional. You can fit the needs and tailor this however your community, your State or your county might need. I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I appreciate the hard work Senator Toomey has put in. Our staffs have worked together. I wish to thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray for their hard work on this. This young man from West Virginia, Jeremy Bell, was the victim of a crime that was preventable if we had known. We did not know. This person who basically was a predator was passed down to West Virginia without West Virginia having any knowledge at all. This will prevent this from happening anywhere in the country. I urge all of my colleagues to please support this piece of legislation. This amendment is most reasonable. It will protect your children.

Mr. MANCHIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, first of all, let me say to my colleague, Senator Toomey from Pennsylvania, that I have enjoyed working with him on many ventures, if you will, but this is one that is particularly gratifying now that we have finally come to an agreement. I think it is bipartisan all the way. I think it will pass. It makes all the sense in the world. It was Jeremy Bell from my State of West Virginia who was the victim of this tragic crime that could have been prevented if we had just known. That is what this is all about. As Senator Toomey has said, we are not going to give up on making sure we can find out who these perpetrators are, if they have a record we can follow and trace and keep them out of the school system before they ever begin their careers. That is a situation on which we will continue to be very vigilant. Again, I thank Senator Toomey for his commitment and his hard work. His staff and our staff enjoyed working together. We will continue to work on many endeavors that will benefit most importantly the children of this great country of ours in our respective States. I thank Senator Alexander and Senator Murray for including my amendment--another amendment I will be speaking about--to promote volunteerism and community service. This is an issue about which I feel very strongly. I go all over the State of West Virginia and speak in different parts of the country, and I speak to young people and ask them if they feel as if they own the country. I say: Do you have ownership? Do you believe this is your country? They look at me very strangely. They really don't feel as though they have ownership. I ask them: In the Constitution and in the preamble where it says a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, whom are we speaking about? It is you. It is your government. You own it. What have you done to invest in it? Are you taking care of it? Are you doing preventive maintenance? I am often reminded of the five promises that were made, which were started by Colin Powell and his five promises committee. It is an idea that my wife and I, when I was Governor of West Virginia, endorsed. We have a five promise program that we still support in West Virginia. The five promises are simply these: Every child when they are born into this world should have a loving, caring adult in their life, somebody who unconditionally loves them. Sometimes, unfortunately, it is not always the biological parents or the biological family, but every child deserves to have unconditional love. Second, every child must have a safe place where harm can't enter their life, where they know they will be kept safe. Every child deserves that. Third, every child deserves a healthy start. We know that nutrition is important and basically the ability to provide good nutrition. Sometimes, because of economic conditions, the opportunity doesn't always exist. That is a responsibility we have as the greatest country on Earth, the superpower that we are. Every child should have a healthy start. Fourth, every child should grow to earn a skill, learn a skill, be able to obtain a skill that will carry them to be a successful adult in life. I will speak about the fifth promise in just a moment. Giving back to our communities, contributing our time and services to improve our world--this is something everybody can do. We can't use the excuse of ``I am sorry, my family is not wealthy enough for me to do something''--that is not an excuse--or ``I am sorry, I live in a rural area where I just don't have that available to me.'' There is a need everywhere in the world. In every part of this great country, there is a need for people to give something back and do something to contribute, to reach out and help somebody of lesser means, or maybe they don't have any assistance whatsoever in their life. There is an opportunity for every person to give. I learned from my grandparents. I watched them open up their home and make sure there was always a bed for a stranger, make sure there was always food, and make sure there were a few rules we had to live by. You couldn't swear when there were too many young children around, you couldn't drink, and you had to work and provide something. If that was the case, then my grandparents took care of you and they wanted to share with you. They are pretty simple rules to live by. Unfortunately, true public service is not there. We for some reason have thought it was somebody else's responsibility to take care of-- just offer a government program, a Federal or State program. What happened to reaching across the room, if you will, or reaching across your town or your community or your State to help people? Our world is different, but our commitment to our neighbors shouldn't be. That is one value that doesn't change. One person can still have a meaningful impact on another person's life. We know that. My amendment with Senator Shaheen basically aims to counter this trend by giving every school the flexibility to use their Federal funding on programs that promote volunteerism and community service. That is all. It is optional. It is not mandatory. But if one believes that is such an intricate part of our responsibility as an educator, to make sure these young people have a chance to get into a food bank or a food pantry or a homeless shelter or a senior citizen opportunity to help people in need, or a nursing home--given that chance, they can use some of those resources they will have through this updated bill we are about to pass, which I think is historical and much needed--this amendment will allow them to do that. That is all we have asked for. I am very appreciative that both Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray have accepted this. My amendment today is part of keeping General Powell's fifth promise. I spoke about the four promises. The fifth promise is this: Every child should grow to be a loving, caring adult and give something back. We can't teach that one. People have to earn that one. People have to learn that for themselves. Sometimes people are able to get it from where they live, the family they live with, the community around them. Sometimes people see it and they know it is the right thing to do. This is going to provide an opportunity in an educational setting to find one's lot in life, to be able to give something back, to be able to grow into a loving, caring adult. That is what this is all about. So I believe very strongly in this amendment. I believe very strongly that it is going to help the youth of America to be able to be Americans and what is expected of us as Americans--to help one another. I would say that an investment in community service pays off both for our students and our communities. In 2013, that 1 year, U.S. taxpayers invested $1.7 billion in our national service programs that we have to date. The total social return on this investment is estimated to be $6.5 billion--almost a 4-to-1 return in the value we receive back as a society. I don't think we can get a better return on an investment than having the youth of America being able to give something back and learn that fifth promise to be a caring, loving adult and be able to carry this tradition on. With that, I appreciate very much the chairman and the ranking member accepting this amendment. I think it will greatly help the school systems of America to be able to be involved in volunteerism, without social media but truly hands on. So I think this is something we need. I am appreciative, and I thank my colleagues. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I have the utmost respect for my colleagues, and I think they make compelling arguments. I just have a hard time. I really have a hard time, with this. I have not had one West Virginian--average, working West Virginian--who had a good job at one time and lost a job who thinks this type of approach to trade is good. Not one. And I am hearing them talking about how much trade we do from our States. I would like to know what type of trade. Manufactured products? I don't see many manufactured products leaving this country. I see an awful lot of resources, such as oil that has been refined into diesel fuel or gasoline. It probably comes from Texas, I would say. I think that is probably a big part of their trading, and those types of things. But how many people actually benefit from that who really have a good manufacturing job? That is all I have asked. We talked about TAA. We are all hung up on TAA. Do you know why we are hung up? Because we all understand we are going to lose more jobs. We have already lost 6 million jobs since NAFTA. We have all lost 6 million jobs across this country. I lost 31,000 manufacturing jobs. I understand NAFTA hasn't been enforced, and they had some rules in there. And then you take this piece of legislation, TPA--there was more security around this piece of legislation than there was around the Iran nuclear deal we were talking about. My staff could go there, they could take notes, we were briefed, and we were able to ask questions. We couldn't even take a note or take a note out. They are telling me: Well, you know, we all depend on trade and the market shrinking. We are at $18 trillion GDP. Think about this. We in the United States of America have the greatest economy the world has ever seen--$18 trillion. Do you know that of all these 11 countries we are talking about, the closest one to us is Japan--$4.5 trillion. It falls off the Richter scale. But yet we have to be very secretive because somebody might leave us. Well, let me tell you, I have been a businessperson all of my life. If I wanted to get into a market, I will assure you, I would be able to evaluate my competition, the people with whom I want to do business. If that was the big person on the block, I had to make more adjustments than they had to make. But yet we are so concerned about the secrecy of this deal that none of us are able to see it, work it, define it, dissect it, and improve upon it. Now we are just voting basically carte blanche and saying: OK, sure, you are going to get a 60-day review. You can't do a thing about it if you don't like it. I didn't think we were elected to do that. I really didn't. When you start looking at everything this stands for and you look at basically--and my father--my grandfather had a grocery store and my dad had a little furniture store, so I was raised in retail. One thing my dad always encouraged was competition. He enjoyed having it. He said: Joe, listen, good competition brings out more buyers. More buyers gives us more of a chance to sell our goods. What he never did like and what he thought was unfair was when you had unfair competition--didn't pay their taxes, didn't live by the rules or play by the rules. And if we didn't enforce those, it gave them an unfair competitive advantage. If you believe our past performance in our trade deals makes us an expert at enforcing and making sure people play by the rules so that America is treated right, then you probably would have voted for this. I don't. I can only judge off of our past performance, where we are today. When you go shopping for whatever types of goods--household goods, clothing goods, furniture--the greatest furniture markets in the world were in the United States. We make very little furniture in this country today. They still want our wood products, so you know what, yes, we ship logs out of West Virginia around the world so people can make the furniture that they want to send back to America. So I guess they say: Oh, yes, that is good trade. The only reason they are buying our logs is because they don't have the quality logs we have. They don't have the quality hardwood forests. The best coal in the world, the best metallurgical coal--coking--that makes the steel, the best in the world comes out of West Virginia. Sure they are going to buy it because they don't have it. They are going to make their products and send them back to us and come into these markets subsidized. I would just say sooner or later we ought to do something for America. You have to rebuild this country, and you don't build the wealth of a country based on basically moving paper back and forth. Moving paper back and forth--there are some people, with the wealth they accrue from this, I am sure they are very satisfied and happy with that. And we see the income inequality over the last 20 years. We have never seen this big of a spread. Never. You see the flatline of workers all over America, just as flatline as can be. I don't know how we can look them in the eye and say we have done the best because now we have opened up 11 new countries. Vietnam--58 cents an hour is what they are going to pay their workers. And we said: Whoa, whoa, NAFTA is going to be basically bringing the whole North American trade up to par. Twenty-two years later, I understand that Mexico's minimum wage is still under $1 an hour, around 80 cents. You think a person who makes 58 cents an hour or 80 cents an hour or $1.50 an hour--7 out of 11 countries make less than $2--that those people will have disposable income to buy the products we would like to sell so that we can expand our economy and our jobs? I am sorry, I don't think that is going to happen. I really don't. It doesn't make any sense to me at all how we expect a person who can barely survive to have disposable income to buy products that we in the United States of America wish to sell to really lift our manufacturing base. But I guess that is why we have TAA that we are arguing about because we know we have given that up. We just about wrote that off 22 years ago, so I guess we are going to write the rest of it off now. Technology is great. I am all for innovation, creation, technology. I am for every bit of that. But sooner or later, you have to make something, you have to build something, you have to reinvest, and there have to be people making these products, being able to support their families and to have a benefit package that gives them a decent life. When I was growing up in little Farmington, WV, we had manufacturing, mining. We had people who could go to work, work hard, make a living, take their family on vacation, pay the bills. And we let all of that slip away from us. I am not saying they will be the jobs of the past, but we could have the jobs of the future--steel, manufacturing. So I am not willing to give up on this. You don't find me chastising my colleagues on the Republican side or my colleagues on the Democratic side. I think we are all here for the right reason. Sometimes we get a little bit off track, and I think this is one time we have gotten off track. Something that would really help the United States of America, working families all over this country, we have kind of forgotten about, and I am concerned about that. I am concerned about going home to my beautiful State of West Virginia and telling the people: I am sorry, we are going to have a harder time competing with some of these countries because there is just no way. We have opened up our borders. We have let international trade, an international manufacturing base go wherever they get the best deal. And I guarantee you that in every developing country, they are not going to be as tough as we are on human rights and on the environmental quality they should be aspiring to. They are not going to be tough on those things. They are trying to build an economy. They are trying to build, basically, a nation, bring it up. And they are going to be a little bit lax on these things. That is unfair competition, which my dad always warned me against. When we talk about European trade, I am not worried about European trade because they are basically on the same level playing field that we are. But when you are trying to build up a country, should you sacrifice and tear down your country? Should you give away everything you have worked hard for and built? I want to help these countries. I have not a bit of problem helping these countries. I am not an isolationist. But I basically would have put something in there that would have protected our manufacturing base. I would have put something in that said that when we fell below certain jobs in manufacturing, it stops. You don't give it all away. It is hard to regain that and recapture it. I am sure Wall Street is very happy today. I have a lot of friends who work on Wall Street. There are a lot of good people who work on Wall Street, but there are a lot of people who basically are just driven by the almighty dollar. They are not driven by Main Street. They are not worried about West Virginia. They are not worried about my little town of Farmington or any part of my State. And they are going to be very happy. They are not worried about 99 percent of the people who are still on Main Street trying to survive. We talked about the Export-Import Bank. They said: Trust us; we are going to get a vote on Export-Import Bank. Maybe we will sometime. I would hope that comes to fruition. That helped a lot of small businesses. We haven't gotten that vote yet. So you would have thought there would have been a priority to get a vote on that. It has done an awful lot to get us in the market so we can compete on a more level playing field. That hasn't happened. But here we go again. We are going to have some votes tomorrow, and the votes tomorrow are going to be based on the TAA because the House couldn't pass TPA fast-track with TAA in it. It is basically what we are dealing with. So they think we can do a backdoor. What makes you think TAA would be acceptable in any way, shape, or form in the House? What makes you think now, since we have carved this out--but we were promised a vote here on the TAA, which we know we are going to need--it is going to make it more acceptable on the House side when they made them take TAA out and couldn't pass TAA in the TPA bill? Doesn't make any sense to me. So I think it is a sad day today. I really do. And I am concerned. I am concerned about our country. I am concerned about my hard-working people in West Virginia--and I know you are--and all the other States we have. These are good people. They deserve an opportunity. They deserve fair trade. They really deserve a fair trading country, people who will trade honestly with us and who have a quality or standard that they have to live up to in order to get into our markets. I don't think we should sacrifice our markets basically just to build them up. I think we should assist them, but they are going to have to find their own markets to the point where we don't sacrifice. So I think this could be a troubling thing. I am hoping it is not, but it could be. I have concerns. And I have said that if I can't explain it back home, I can't vote for it. And this is one I could not explain back home. I could not make the people feel comfortable that this is really going to improve quality of life and opportunities for them and their families. I couldn't do it because I don't see it. I don't believe in it. And I said I wouldn't vote for it, and I didn't. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. With that being said, Mr. President, all I am saying is that we should be smart and learn from our past and the experiences we have had. It has not worked well for us right now, and we can change it. We are the only ones who can change it. This country has a strong economy. It could be even stronger if we work together. The bottom line is we want to be smart. We want to be smart about where we invest our money and where we send our troops and put Americans in harm's way. We want to be smart in the domestic investments we make here in this country. We want to make sure they are working. If they are not working, then, you know what, do not be afraid to say: I tried and it did not work. I am going to try something different. Basically, if you have two programs doing the same thing, consolidate. Let's start looking for ways that we can run this country the way each American is expected to run their life. Every small business or large business is expected to make prudent investments and work efficiently. That is all we have asked for. This type of spending, basically unaccountable, will lead us down the path to increase the debt and does not make us any more secure and gets us involved in places where we do not have any oversight or any input. I do not--I do not--as a U.S. Senator wish to walk away from my responsibilities to make recommendations for what I think would be best for not only the West Virginia people, whom I represent, but for this entire country, which I love. I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I have always said that being a superpower means more than super military might. It means super diplomacy. It would contain restraint and super fiscal responsibility. All of these are part of being a superpower. Admiral Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, once said that the greatest threat to our national security is our debt--not another nation, not another army, not the fear of terrorism, but basically our debt. The United States has and will continue to have the greatest military in the world. But in order to remain the most powerful, we have to get our financial house in order. I think we all agree to that, but we don't seem to be practicing it very much. I fully support Senator Reed's amendment to basically fence the OCO funding. If we look to see how we have gotten ourselves into the situation we have now, it is not Democrat or Republican. It is our fault, and it is our responsibility to fix it. Basically, we have had two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that we didn't fund. We did it through accounting procedures, emergency procedures, and contingency funds. Now we continue to expand upon that, if we go down this route without fixing it with Senator Reed's amendment. Ensuring the safety of the American people does not mean increasing defense spending to fund never-ending wars in the Middle East while ignoring nondefense programs that are also crucial to our national security. I have said this over and over. If we thought money and military might could fix that part of the world, the United States of America would have done it by now. For years, critical nondefense programs, such as the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department, have been forced to absorb damaging across-the-board cuts. They are also extremely important in safeguarding the homeland. While we continue to keep in place the budget cuts for these agencies, we have underhandedly gone around spending limits and improperly increased war funding. The most recent gimmick we are talking about, which has been explained, is an attempt to transfer roughly $39 billion from the base budget to the OCO budget to increase funding for overseas conflict. I have said time and again that after a decade of war in the Middle East, costing more than $1.6 trillion, does anyone believe we haven't done our part and tried? If money and might could have changed it, we would have done it by now. What is more important is that we are denying the funding from other important programs that desperately need these funds to keep our country stable, safe, and secure. In order to be truly secure, we need our non-Department of Defense departments and agencies to be able to function at full capacity also. The Pentagon simply cannot meet the complex set of national security challenges without the help of other government departments and agencies. We are all in this together. We are all responsible to protect this country. But we are all responsible to make sure that we can properly ensure that people have the opportunity to take care of themselves also. Retired Marine Corps General Mattis said: ``If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.'' He might have said that in jest, but I think underlying it he really meant it. And last week showed how vulnerable our networks are to cyber attacks from foreign nations and those who wish us harm. We have had a cyber bill before us for many years now. We have been told on an almost weekly or monthly basis of the threat we face from all different countries trying to hack in to do us harm. Yet we haven't been able to move because of the toxic political atmosphere we have here. Our national security is also inherently tied to our economic security. Failures to invest in programs such as STEM education and infrastructure projects are short sighted. Failing to provide BCA cap relief to non-DOD departments and agencies would also shortchange our veterans who receive employment services, transition assistance, and housing/homeless support through other agencies such as the Department of Labor. The bottom line is that we need to get our long-term budget that reduces the deficit in line. Increasing the OCO money, as the bill does right now, only hurts that goal and makes it much more difficult and elusive. Defense budgeting needs to be based on our long-term military strategy, which requires the Department of Defense to focus at least 5 years into the future. This is only a 1-year plan. Do we think it is not going to be extended and extended and extended? Do we think we are going to start it and stop it in 1 year? I don't think so. The fiscally responsible approach we need to take is to fix the BCA caps. We are hearing about the whole issue of sequestration and how horrible it is. Well, let me tell you how you can fix it: Sit down and put together a budget that is realistic and makes our long-term financial plans solid. That is all it takes. Yet we are unwilling to do it. We are just condemning it. We are condemning it because it constrains how we want to do business, which means not being held accountable or responsible. That is all. Every meeting I go to, whether it is nondiscretion or military spending--we all need more to expand programs. Yet we never take the GAO's report. The General Accountability Office says we could save $300 billion to $400 billion a year if we could just get rid of the waste and the redundancies that go on, and we are not doing anything about that. I say again that our national debt is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem. It is our problem. We all own this one. In 2008, our country faced one of the worst financial crises in our Nation's history. We added $1 trillion to our debt--on top of the trillions of dollars already spent on two costly wars and the Bush tax cuts, which President Obama basically extended twice. Between the wars, the tax cuts, the recession, and our out-of-control spending, our Nation's debt has exploded from $5 trillion to $18 trillion. Currently, our deficits are decreasing, from $1.4 trillion in 2009 down to a little under one-half billion dollars, according to the CBO, and it is expected to remain stable for the next couple of years. The bad news is that after 2017, if we don't change our ways, the deficits are projected to increase over $1 trillion a year through 2025. Unless Congress can put aside partisan politics and put the country on a fiscally sustainable path, we will add over $7.5 trillion to our debt in the next 10 years. That is adding $7.5 trillion to $18 trillion of debt we have right now. There is no way the next generation and the generation after will ever be able to dig out of this hole if we don't fix it now. But we have to be smart about how we reduce spending. As we saw in the 2013 sequestration, indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts harmed bad and good programs alike, did nothing to reduce waste and abuse, and caused individuals to be furloughed and lose their jobs. I have always said this: When you start cutting, you don't cut, basically, the items that continue to make progress for you. When the IRS doesn't do its job and it is incapable of doing it--the revenues owed to this country and the taxes that people should be paying--we can't cut back on that and expect it to be solid. I have pushed hard for a bipartisan compromise that would reduce spending, fix our broken tax system, and reform entitlement programs in order to reduce our debt and provide the economy with certainty and stability. For instance, we could enact $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years if we just follow the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. It is an all-encompassing approach that raises revenue and promotes growth through comprehensive tax reform that brings our Tax Code into the modern age--increasing efficiency and simplifying the process for both individuals and businesses. Additionally, the plan enacts serious entitlement reform and makes additional targeted spending cuts aimed at long-term deficit reduction so that we can encourage economic growth. It is crucial that we make the necessary reforms that will make this Nation a better place for future generations. With that being said, I again express my support for Senator Reed's amendment to the defense budget that would block any additional unnecessary, unaudited spending for a continual war effort where we have no oversight. We were elected to basically look at the process we have. I ask unanimous consent for an extra 2 minutes, if I could, to finish.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I wish to honor Ammaline Helen ``Amy'' Howard, a beloved member of the Charleston, WV community. The Howard family is a great, well-respected family in my beautiful State and I am honored to call the members of this family my dear friends. I had the privilege of meeting Amy, who was affectionately known by so many as Aunt Amy, many times. She was always humble, welcoming, and supportive. She was a pillar in the Howard family, standing strong on values with a captivating yet calming spirit. Her nieces and nephews knew if their parents told them ``no'' to something, that they could go to Aunt Amy and she would find a way to help them out. Put simply, individuals like Amy stand out. She was the epitome of what West Virginians are all about, with her welcoming nature and unwavering commitment to help those in need. Amy led by example and treated her neighbors as friends and her friends as family. She instilled this same loyal community service mindset throughout her family. She leaves behind her loving brother Victor, sister-in-law Elaine, and many nieces, nephews, great-nieces, and great-nephews. She was a second mother to many, and truly brought the whole family together. She made sure a hot meal was ready every evening, and if she saw you, she made sure you were invited to dinner that night. A native of Charleston, Amy graduated from Charleston High School in 1933 and gave back to her hometown in many ways. She began working at the Naval Ordinance and Armor Plant in South Charleston before joining her brother in his successful grocery business, Sabe Howard's Market. She then worked for many years as a loyal employee of the Kanawha County Clerk's Office before her retirement in 1974. Among her many roles, she was a member of the Charleston Hightop Club and the West Virginia Woman's American Syrian League. Amy also supported the West Virginia Symphony League and the St. Jude Hospital because she was passionate about investing her time and efforts to helping others in any way that she could. She was a lifelong member of St. George Orthodox Cathedral, and was also a member of the Order of St. Ignatius of Antioch and the St. George Ladies Guild, serving as an officer. Amy was fiercely committed to her church family, always willing to lend a helping hand or prepare food for church functions. Every year at the annual dinner she would help prepare food and make sure there were plenty of her legendary cabbage rolls. Aunt Amy was a model for the ages. She understood what really mattered in life and I enjoyed chatting with her about the jewels in the treasure box of life--family, faith, community, and service. She believed that staying active was the key to living a long, happy life. Amy loved to walk and visit the mall to get her favorite coffee and biscuits, and remained active until her late 90s. I recall one time being invited to Aunt Amy's basement kitchen where the heavy cooking really took place. It was filled with freezers, refrigerators, microwaves, and every cooking utensil you can think of. Not many people were invited down to her kitchen, so I knew I was really taken in as part of the family. She truly had that effect on people--it was a second home, and you were considered family. And family comes first. Amy was a beloved aunt, friend, and inspiration to the Charleston community. Her glowing smile and positive attitude were contagious and will live on in the memories and hearts of all those who had the privilege of knowing her. Amy's service was greatly appreciated and will certainly never be forgotten.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. It is a 3-3. You are right.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor on that amendment.