Joe Manchin

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I wish to honor the 50th anniversary of the Appalachian Regional Commission, a vital partnership that has created abundant opportunities for families and communities in my State of West Virginia and across the Appalachian region for five decades. Since its establishment in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission, known as ARC, has spurred job creation, economic growth and infrastructure improvements, which have helped build a stronger Appalachia. I am proud of all that ARC has done to help improve the region, and I am committed to continue working with the agency to further enhance our communities. Over the past 50 years, the rural communities of Appalachia have faced unique challenges. After the American industrial revolution, which was driven largely by Appalachian coal and other regional resources, these communities experienced a rapid economic downturn. Since then, ARC has partnered with local and State leaders to make critical investments that have helped rebuild and revitalize the region. Located in the heart of Appalachia, which is home to more than 25 million Americans, my home State of West Virginia has benefitted considerably from the contributions of ARC. Through its initiatives, ARC has played a critical role in helping lift West Virginians out of economic turmoil and homelessness. Prior to ARC's establishment, 34.6 percent of West Virginians were living in poverty. Today, that number has been cut in half to 17.6 percent. This is telling of ARC's commitment to the strength of our citizens in rural and economically distressed areas. Also, by investing in our highways, railroads, bridges, as well as water and sewer systems, ARC funding in West Virginia has helped lay the foundation for economic growth in the region. Of West Virginia's 409.6 total eligible miles, 360.4 are open to traffic thanks to help from ARC. Additionally, ARC has made 2,133 strategic nonhighway grants in West Virginia, totaling $387.6 million. These initiatives are vital to improving the quality of life for our residents and growing tourism and business in the State. The agency's investments have undoubtedly been a source of economic vitality and an engine for job growth. All of the Mountain State's 55 counties added employment at a 4.2-percent faster pace and per capita income at a 5.5-percent faster pace than similar counties that did not receive ARC investments. Per capita income has increased from 71.6 percent of the national average in 1969 to 79.4 percent today. Nonetheless, there is still work to be done to bring Appalachia to parity with the rest of the Nation. We must continue to invest in the region's educational programs, because the long-term economic success of this region truly rests in the hands of a well-informed, educated and skilled workforce. We must also focus on working together to fight rampant drug use and abuse, a national epidemic that proliferates in the pockets of Appalachia. And of equal importance, we need to continue to invest in industrial infrastructure, broadband expansion, business development, health care, and workforce training. While Governor, I had the honor of serving as the cochair for the State's representative of ARC and now, as a U.S. Senator from Appalachia, I continue to be a strong supporter of the program. ARC has proven over the past 50 years that a partnership between the Federal, State, and local government can work together to help improve the economic success in regions across West Virginia and Appalachia. It is truly an honor to recognize them today for their work to improve and develop this special American region.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, this amendment would encourage our country to increase our investment in combatting methamphetamine use. Meth abuse has devastated communities across the country. Meth can cause violent behavior and psychosis. In the long run, it changes the way the brain works, causing long-term emotional and cognitive problems. Domestic meth labs, fueled by demand from addicts, endanger communities and the environment. In 2013, in West Virginia, law enforcement officials seized 533 meth labs. That was an 86-percent increase over 2012. I have fought in my State to address meth abuse from every angle: reducing access to the products that are used to make meth, taking down meth labs, and improving treatment for addicts. But this is a national problem, not just a West Virginia problem. It requires a national response. During committee markup I had a similar amendment to enhance investments in efforts to reduce prescription drug abuse and heroin abuse, which passed by voice vote. This drug addiction is devastating families and communities all over America. Too many young people have lost before their lives begin, and too many adults are being pulled away from productive lives. We must change. Congress must do more to combat meth abuse. That is why I urge the support of my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I agree with my friends that we cannot deny that climate change is real and that humans do contribute to it. However, we also cannot deny that we will continue to rely on fossil fuels for decades to come, including for the bulk of our electricity. Coal, specifically, is one of the only two baseload fuels we have that we are able to run 24/7, rain or shine. With new regulations, we are facing more pressure on our baseload coal. Last winter during the polar vortex, the PGM system that provides electricity for West Virginia and the electricity we are using right now in DC will be running full capacity. We saw a record number of plant outages when they were most needed. Further threats to our reliability could result in rolling blackouts, which puts the lives of the most vulnerable, the elderly, the sick, and the poor at risk. The Fossil Energy Research and Development Program at the Department of Energy supports a group of 1,000 projects, including $7 billion of private sector investment, representing 55,000 jobs across the United States. Research supported in this program has led to cleaner burning plants over the past decade, and we have reduced pollutants and increased the efficiency of coal-fired powerplants. Right now, DOE has $8 billion of fossil energy loan guarantees that need to be utilized. The best way to reduce impacts of climate change while still ensuring a reliable electric grid is to invest in the research and development of advanced fossil fuel technology. To combat climate change, I would ask for the support of this amendment. Amendment No. 578 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and call up amendment No. 578.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and call up amendment No. 694.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I also wish to congratulate my colleague from West Virginia. We spoke earlier about how she and I can show the way to have a better relationship-building effort here in the Senate by working together in order to better serve the people of West Virginia and also the country. I congratulate my colleague on her great speech and look forward to working with her. I think she has done a great job for the people of West Virginia, and I again thank the Senator.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. I thank the Senator. I very much appreciate this colloquy, which is basically just common sense. I became a Senator on November 15, 2010, so I have been here a little over 4 years. That is when I was first brought to understand the Keystone project, which was underway at the time and trying to be built. I was asked the question: What do you think? I looked at it very quickly, and I looked at how much oil we buy from other countries around the world. We buy the same type of oil--750,000 barrels of oil a day--from Venezuela. I was thinking that I would rather buy from my friends rather than from my enemies--the people who take the proceeds and the profits from our buying their product and use it against us. I was very clear on that, and I think most West Virginians feel the way I do. Let's look at the facts. Forty percent of this pipeline has already been built. This is the part we are talking about, which has not been built and which we are producing and would like to build. The capacity from the Bakken--we talked about how 12 percent of the volume from this will be Bakken oil from North America. We are saying that we are moving and producing our oil, buying from our best, friendliest neighbor and ally, Canada, and it makes us more secure as a nation. I have heard all of the arguments against it. People have said that we can't do this because basically this oil will come straight down and go out. They make you believe it is going to come down here, get loaded on a tanker, and taken to another country, so that we get no benefit at all. That is what they are telling me. We had a press conference 2 or 3 weeks ago. We had the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Alberta. Everybody who was there agreed that will not happen, and it can't happen because they need this to refine it. They will be subjected to the same rules and regulations that our Commerce Department puts on oil in America. No crude will be exported unless we change the law. So that prevents that from happening. That is a misnomer. Next, they said they don't pay 8 percent into the Oilspill Liability Trust Fund in case there is a spill. They agreed to do that. They said: Wait a minute; this will not be built with American steel. Yes, it will be. They agreed to that. Everything we have asked for, they have agreed to. We can't even get our side of the aisle to agree basically to put it in a piece of legislation to make sure that it will happen. I trust the Canadians. They will do exactly what they said. I would like to codify it by putting it in the bill, and I am working on that. The politics of what we are dealing with is this. If we can't get four more Democrats on my side to vote with me to repeal and beat the veto the President has, this is coming back. Everybody in this understands the reality of politics. This legislation is coming back in the form of an infrastructure bill or a road bill. It will come back on a bill that we will all vote for, and we will have to spend a lot of time and energy again on this same subject. I have said to do it now. Let's do it now and move on to something that we need to move on to, which will be something of great interest. I have a hard time reasoning with those who say that this pipeline is not going to make us more secure. We buy 7 million barrels of oil a day. We buy that oil from other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and even Russia. If you want to make this country more secure, let's not depend on the foreign oil where they will use resources that will be used against us. The last time I checked, I don't believe Venezuela uses any of the money we give them for their oil to benefit America. I am not convinced that Saudi Arabia uses any of their money to benefit our country or any of these other foreign countries that we buy from. This is a perfect, commonsense solution. I also think that our good friend from South Dakota talked about the amount of trains. My State just had a tragedy. Thank God there was no loss of life, and by the grace of God, no one was injured. I can tell you that the amount of transportation on the rail has increased 3,300 percent since 2009. So 3,300 percent more oil is being transported in America by rail. If we can relieve some of that and be safer--as well as environmentally safer--we should do it. I ask my colleagues to consider this legislation because if we don't do it now, it is going to come back. We have a chance to put it to bed. It makes a lot of common sense as far as jobs. I will say one more thing about jobs. They talked about jobs. When I was Governor and when the Senator from North Dakota was Governor, we built an awful lot of infrastructure, such as roads and bridges. I never remember creating one permanent job after I built a bridge. There were a lot of good jobs that paid good money during the construction, and all of my contractors were happy. All of my affiliated trades people were happy that they had jobs, but we never expected to create permanent jobs. They were construction jobs. That is what it is. Why are people saying that we are not creating jobs? This is construction. When it is done, it is done. I don't know why we can't come to grips with that. We do it all day long. We will talk about an infrastructure bill and be tickled to death that we are getting jobs. But when we talk about 20,000 to 40,000 jobs to build this pipeline, I don't understand why it is not something we can all embrace. I say to all of my colleagues on my side of the aisle, as well as on the other side of the aisle, that we should all support something that makes so much sense to the American people and the working people of America and also for the security of our Nation. I applaud and support my friend. I cosponsored this bill. I feel very strongly about it, and I will continue to speak out about it as long as we have to. I hope today is the last time we have to speak about this legislation. I hope we get this veto repealed and move on.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a dear friend whom we have just lost in West Virginia, Mr. Mike Perry. He was a beloved community leader, a dear friend to all of us, and truly an inspiring West Virginian. Mike was a native of Huntington, WV, which is located in beautiful Cabell County. He was a tireless champion for his community, for Marshall University, and for the entire State of West Virginia. Upon graduating from Marshall University in 1958, Mike attended WVU School of Law and graduated first in his class. He then spent 20 years as a dedicated lawyer with the firm of Huddleston Bolen in his hometown of Huntington, becoming partner after only 5 short years. In 1981 he entered the banking business and was chairman of the board and CEO of the First Huntington National Bank until his retirement in 2001. Mike never failed to give back to the Huntington community that he loved, which had rewarded him with so much throughout the years--an education, endless opportunities to make a successful life for himself and his family, and a truly special place he could always call home. He served as interim president of Marshall University in 1999, donating his entire salary to the university's general scholarship fund. His performance at the university was so highly regarded that the board of trustees voted to remove the word ``interim'' from his title when listing Marshall's presidents. Mike woke up every day aspiring to make his community an even better place to work and live and consistently encouraged others to do the same. Throughout the years he was a great confidant of mine. I enjoyed speaking to Mike on countless occasions on an array of issues, ranging from worldly national and State policies to very localized matters concerning beautiful Cabell County. Remarkably, despite battling cancer for 1\1/2\ years, Mike never stopped working on community projects. He served on countless boards throughout the tristate area, including those for the Huntington Area Development Council, the Tri-State Airport Authority, and St. Mary's Medical Center, among many others. Above all, he was a dedicated family man who was truly devoted to his wife Henriella, his three children, and his eight grandchildren. Mike met Henriella in the fifth grade, and he was certain then that he had met the girl of his dreams. He knew even as a youngster that they would spend the rest of their lives together. The two married in 1958, and I think Mike would agree that Henriella always brought out the best in him and made him a better man. Together, the Perrys moved to Harveytown in 1973, which was the future Heritage Farm Museum and Village. They transported old log structures and began reassembling buildings and accumulating a unique collection of antiques. Today the farm consists of five houses, a zoo, a church, and several buildings that showcase rich Appalachian heritage. In 2010 both Mike and Henriella were honored with the Donald R. Myers Humanitarian Award, which recognizes individuals who have enriched Appalachia through their extensive leadership and community service endeavors. Heritage Farm Museum and Village has become a true mainstay within West Virginia and will forever serve as a reminder of a man who lived to make his community and the Mountain State a better place, a man who was an inspiring leader, a selfless friend, a loving husband, father, grandfather, and so much more. He was a friend to all, and I personally will always value his friendship and his guidance, as will everybody who ever came in contact with Mike Perry. So I say farewell to my dear friend and God bless to the State of West Virginia and the Perry family. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss our truly bipartisan sportsmen's bill. This is a bipartisan bill which has been worked on for quite some time, and I think its time has come. They say Paul Masson's wine's time has come. It has. We have Senators Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, Mark Heinrich from New Mexico, Jim Risch from Idaho, myself from West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp from North Dakota, and Deb Fischer from Nebraska. It is balanced. I think we will find total support hopefully on both sides. Let me talk about the bill and what it does. It is good for sportsmen, hunters, and lovers of the outdoors. This is a bill which shows that Democrats and Republicans can truly come together and work together. The bill should be a model for how we can make things work here in Washington, and we hope the country will be watching. West Virginia has more than 1.6 million acres of public land open to hunting. In a State that is our size, if they flatten the State, it would be bigger than Texas. But with all the mountains and hills and everything, it is an absolutely wonderful and beautiful place to grow up and live and hunt and enjoy the outdoors. We have a year-round fishing season with more than 20,000 miles of streams and more than 100 public fishing lakes. In 2011 West Virginia saw more than 400,000 hunters and sportsmen supporting more than 12,000 jobs--400,000 hunters supporting 12,000 West Virginia jobs. These sportsmen spent $870 million on hunting and fishing in West Virginia and generated $81 million in State and local taxes. That is an industry within itself. In a small State such as ours, we are very appreciative of every job and every dollar that helps us provide a better quality of life. Let me tell you about growing up in West Virginia. It was funny. I had a conversation on the floor of the Senate with some of my colleagues, and we were talking about many issues. We started talking about how we grew up and this and that, and he said: You know, Joe, I grew up in a community in a part of the city where I never knew anybody who owned a gun. I was thinking how much he missed. That means he had never been hunting. No one ever taught him how to shoot and be safe--the safety things we should learn. I kept thinking about that. I thought to myself and I told him: You know something, I grew up in a town where I didn't know anybody who didn't have a gun. It is just the cultures we have. If this bill helps introduce people to the love of the outdoors, to the sporting, whether it is just shooting from the standpoint of targets or sports shooting or actually hunting and basically the game-- it is very nutritional and very healthy. Venison is a big staple of the diet in West Virginia. It is very good quality meat and very low in fat, very high in protein and fiber. It is great. You start learning about gun safety. My father was not a hunter. My father never got into it. My grandfather was not a hunter. My uncles were very much involved. But my dad made sure we had a sporting club in the little town, a little coal mining town, and the people who were very astute in this basically took all of us under their wing. They would teach us how to shoot. They would teach us the safety. They would teach us how to respect where we--if we are going to shoot something, we should be able to harvest the game or know somebody who would use it for nutritional values. Don't waste a thing. But also go out in the woods and enjoy the beauty God gave us. I look back on those days. Then I took my grandson hunting the first time. First of all, I couldn't believe how good his eyesight was and how good he could shoot. It is something that now he is fixated on, and he does a great job, and I am so happy to see him. My son loves fishing, and I take him with me all the time. It is a family tradition. We do it once a year. We do a whole family trip where everybody goes. This bill, the Sportsmen's Act of 2015, does so many things all over America. It really helps us promote and continue to promote the love of the outdoors, the love of hunting, the love of fishing, basically of sports shooting, competitive sports shooting, pleasurable sports shooting, learning the safety of a gun, what we should and should not do, learning to respect others around us, making sure safety is the first and foremost thing we do. I hope this bill gets very quick action, very favorable action. We can start out this new year, if you will, on something that is truly overwhelmingly a bipartisan bill. I am sure there will be people who have something they might object to in any piece of legislation. They will have to work hard to find something in this bill they can object to because I think it is put together the right way, in a bipartisan way. It is good for America.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss our truly bipartisan sportsmen's bill. This is a bipartisan bill which has been worked on for quite some time, and I think its time has come. They say Paul Masson's wine's time has come. It has. We have Senators Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, Mark Heinrich from New Mexico, Jim Risch from Idaho, myself from West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp from North Dakota, and Deb Fischer from Nebraska. It is balanced. I think we will find total support hopefully on both sides. Let me talk about the bill and what it does. It is good for sportsmen, hunters, and lovers of the outdoors. This is a bill which shows that Democrats and Republicans can truly come together and work together. The bill should be a model for how we can make things work here in Washington, and we hope the country will be watching. West Virginia has more than 1.6 million acres of public land open to hunting. In a State that is our size, if they flatten the State, it would be bigger than Texas. But with all the mountains and hills and everything, it is an absolutely wonderful and beautiful place to grow up and live and hunt and enjoy the outdoors. We have a year-round fishing season with more than 20,000 miles of streams and more than 100 public fishing lakes. In 2011 West Virginia saw more than 400,000 hunters and sportsmen supporting more than 12,000 jobs--400,000 hunters supporting 12,000 West Virginia jobs. These sportsmen spent $870 million on hunting and fishing in West Virginia and generated $81 million in State and local taxes. That is an industry within itself. In a small State such as ours, we are very appreciative of every job and every dollar that helps us provide a better quality of life. Let me tell you about growing up in West Virginia. It was funny. I had a conversation on the floor of the Senate with some of my colleagues, and we were talking about many issues. We started talking about how we grew up and this and that, and he said: You know, Joe, I grew up in a community in a part of the city where I never knew anybody who owned a gun. I was thinking how much he missed. That means he had never been hunting. No one ever taught him how to shoot and be safe--the safety things we should learn. I kept thinking about that. I thought to myself and I told him: You know something, I grew up in a town where I didn't know anybody who didn't have a gun. It is just the cultures we have. If this bill helps introduce people to the love of the outdoors, to the sporting, whether it is just shooting from the standpoint of targets or sports shooting or actually hunting and basically the game-- it is very nutritional and very healthy. Venison is a big staple of the diet in West Virginia. It is very good quality meat and very low in fat, very high in protein and fiber. It is great. You start learning about gun safety. My father was not a hunter. My father never got into it. My grandfather was not a hunter. My uncles were very much involved. But my dad made sure we had a sporting club in the little town, a little coal mining town, and the people who were very astute in this basically took all of us under their wing. They would teach us how to shoot. They would teach us the safety. They would teach us how to respect where we--if we are going to shoot something, we should be able to harvest the game or know somebody who would use it for nutritional values. Don't waste a thing. But also go out in the woods and enjoy the beauty God gave us. I look back on those days. Then I took my grandson hunting the first time. First of all, I couldn't believe how good his eyesight was and how good he could shoot. It is something that now he is fixated on, and he does a great job, and I am so happy to see him. My son loves fishing, and I take him with me all the time. It is a family tradition. We do it once a year. We do a whole family trip where everybody goes. This bill, the Sportsmen's Act of 2015, does so many things all over America. It really helps us promote and continue to promote the love of the outdoors, the love of hunting, the love of fishing, basically of sports shooting, competitive sports shooting, pleasurable sports shooting, learning the safety of a gun, what we should and should not do, learning to respect others around us, making sure safety is the first and foremost thing we do. I hope this bill gets very quick action, very favorable action. We can start out this new year, if you will, on something that is truly overwhelmingly a bipartisan bill. I am sure there will be people who have something they might object to in any piece of legislation. They will have to work hard to find something in this bill they can object to because I think it is put together the right way, in a bipartisan way. It is good for America.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I wish to honor Storer College, a historic educational establishment that truly left a significant imprint on the history of our State and our Nation. Located in West Virginia's Eastern Panhandle in beautiful Harpers Ferry, the legacy of Storer College began following the Civil War. It was established by the Reverend Dr. Nathan Cook Brackett and philanthropist John Storer of Sanford, ME, whose goals were to create a school that was open and accepting of all students regardless of gender, race, or religion. Particularly now, during Black History Month, it is fitting to recognize such a tremendously important endeavor as Storer College because it had such a significant impact on civil rights in the decades following the Civil War. This educational institution was a constant refuge for former slaves who found themselves without the necessary skillsets to lead marketable lives. Attendees were taught how to read and write, but they also gained a sense of purpose. John Brown's raid is largely considered the motivation for the school's creation in Jefferson County, as the 1859 rebellion liberated countless African Americans in the area. Frederick Douglass, also a trustee of Storer College, once spoke at the school about John Brown and the raid's significance. On October 2, 1867, Storer Normal School opened its doors with 2 teachers and 19 attending students. Under the leadership of Henry T. McDonald, Storer converted into a college in 1938. Storer College set the groundwork for integrated education across the rest of the Nation. For many years, it was the only school that allowed African Americans to acquire an education past elementary school. By the end of the 19th century, our Nation faced another battle marked with Jim Crow laws and legal segregation. To combat these injustices, many brilliant leaders in the African-American community created the Niagra Movement, a precursor to the NAACP. The second meeting of the Niagra Movement was held at Storer College in 1906. It was supported by such leaders as W.E.B. Du Bois, William Monroe Trotter, and Booker T. Washington. In 1954, legal segregation came to an end with the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. the Board of Education. This decision, while revolutionary across our Nation, also brought an end to Federal and State funding for Storer College, and regrettably, its doors closed a year later. Today, though no longer a learning institution, the National Park Service continues the college's mission to welcome individuals of all backgrounds by using the campus as a training facility. It continues to serve as a staunch reminder of triumph over injustice. As we reflect on Storer's history, it is important that we continue to pass down this legacy for future generations because it remains relevant in so many ways to this day.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to what seems to be a politically motivated Department of Homeland Security funding bill that we had to vote on. Funding the DHS should be a priority of Congress. It really should be. I know it is for all of us, and we cannot afford to play any of the political partisan games. It is not what people in this country want see. It doesn't do any of us justice whatsoever. We jeopardize the funding for third largest agency in the country that will risk lapse in not only our border security, which is most important to all of us, but also cyber security, also Secret Service protection, disaster response, FEMA, TSA in airports. Our Nation faces many threats from our enemies, both overseas and here at home, more so than ever before. The world is a troubled place. We all go home and the No. 1 thing people are concerned about is the security of our own Nation. They see this evil going on, and now this horrific, barbaric action we saw that took place with the Jordanian pilot is unimaginable to us, that people could act this way to other humans. With that being said, we have to stand united in supporting our values and protecting our citizens in the United States of America. This is not the forum for debate on immigration, and I have said that. I would hope some of my colleagues would feel the same way. We should fully fund the DHS, and this is one that has necessary levels that must be funded for the protection of our country. Then we can deal with our immigration system which is broken. I think we have stated that in the Senate. We have stood bravely, we voted, and we did changes and took some tough votes that needed to be made. I agree with all of my Republican colleagues that our borders need to be secure. I don't think any of us disagree with that. It has to be secured first and then must stem the tide of illegal immigrants flowing into our country. We have seen them coming in all different sizes, races, and sexes. It continues to be something we should be concerned about. I also agree with my Republican colleagues that President Obama should not have executed action--he should not have used his Executive action to make changes in our immigration system. I think we should have doubled down and gotten this bill before us and get the House. I disagree with the House's decision not to even take up the bill we sent. In a bipartisan fashion it was debated on this floor, put together by Democrats and Republicans. I have been here for 4 years. I haven't seen a bill worked more intensely than the immigration bill. I haven't seen the border security worked more intensely and Republicans and Democrats working together to make sure we have a Homeland Security that will secure our borders. That is the first time I saw the Senate truly work since I have been here and saw what the potential would be if we worked together. I was very excited about that. I thought for sure we would get a vote. Now we are back to the same, putting together who is for what and how we are going to posture on this one. I believe this is not the place and this is not the bill for us to get into a political squabble. I don't. I know the House put us in a difficult position. It came over here, it had to be voted on, and it was. Now we have to get on to serious business. How do we take care and make sure our Department of Homeland Security has the necessary funding through an appropriations bill that both Democrats and Republicans worked on, not for another continuing resolution which does not let our different branches that are responsible for Homeland Security be able to upgrade and fight the battle we need to fight. When we think about all of the new equipment that is needed for our forces out there, our National Guard, also our Coast Guard, what they need to be updated and upgraded to and the things that have been planned, it will only happen through a bill we pass on this side. It will not happen through a continuing resolution bill. It will be the same as we have had. The status quo will not change. I am willing to work with all of my friends in here to have a good, clean Homeland Security bill that does the job and protects the United States of America. I am not willing to do a bill that will jeopardize the security of our homeland, which is what I think we have received. I think we can do better than that. I urge all of our colleagues to work together to get a piece of legislation that helps protect America and keeps America safe and also puts the emphasis where it needs to be. That is what the people back home in West Virginia expect. I know people in New Hampshire expect the same from the Presiding Officer. I know we can deliver, working together in a bipartisan way, putting America first and not our politics. That is what they expect. I hope we are able to rise above this, and we will get through this. I think we will get to a clean bill that basically secures America and keeps us safe. I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I wish to honor Pastor Matthew Watts, a dear friend and a truly inspiring West Virginian whose ministry career spans more than three decades. I have personally known Reverend Watts for many years now, and he truly embodies what it means to be a great West Virginian. He is a man of deep conviction and unwavering passion for justice. He is an uplifting force to many and a role model to many more. I have known Pastor Watts for many years, and as the former Governor, the reverend would visit often and bring me his thoughts, suggestions, and ideas. I always appreciated his sincere candor and genuine interest in improving our state. As a native of Mount Hope, located in beautiful Fayette County, Pastor Watts currently serves as senior pastor of the Grace Bible Church of Charleston. He is a graduate of the West Virginia Institute of Technology with a bachelor of science in civil engineering, which led to a 20-year career with the Union Carbide Corporation. His theological study and training from the Moody Bible Institute of Chicago and the Christian Research and Development Center in Philadelphia, combined with his years of experience in corporate America, have blessed him with a vitally unique perspective on economic development. In December of 1996, he left Union Carbide to pursue his ministry and focus on community service projects. A year later, he established the HOPE Community Development Corporation, a nonprofit organization with the mission of empowering inner-city communities through spiritual renewal, education, employment training and economic development. With this perspective, he developed Kingdom Management Consultants, which assists minority owned businesses with startup and expansion, as well as provides supportive strategies to those seeking employment. His active community involvement has truly set the standard in West Virginia throughout the years. Much of his community service is still done through the HOPE Community Development Corporation, which now has a branch specifically for youth. Reverend Watts always amazes me with his unique ability to relate to strangers. While he is strong in stature and his voice is so commanding, his approach is dynamic, sincere, and composed. His years of unwavering service and leadership have certainly not gone unrecognized. In 1996, he received the West Virginia Small Business Administration's Small Business Advocate of the Year Award. In 2002, Pastor Watts was awarded the Washington Times Foundation Leadership Award for Faith Based Organization of the Year. He was also the 2004 recipient of the Crown of Peace Award for Exemplary Leadership in Reconciliation and Peacemaking from the Inter-religious and International Peace Council. Pastor Watts is a strong leader, mentor, and friend to so many within West Virginia. It takes a truly remarkable individual to accomplish so much in community service. Particularly now, having just celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and as we near Black History Month, it is fitting that we should celebrate such an inspiring individual as Pastor Watts. His community service programs have empowered countless minority groups within our State and are sure to continue the tradition of excellence for many years to come.

Mr. MANCHIN

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

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, we can all agree climate change is real and that 7 billion people have had an impact on the climate. We have a responsibility. We can all agree we need to act to address the potentially devastating impact of climate change. The Energy Information Administration predicts the United States will continue to rely on fossil fuels for almost 68 percent of our energy through 2040. That is right, the Department of Energy. My amendment basically says that right now the only baseload fuels we have are coal and nuclear and that is going to expand to natural gas. What we are asking for is we need a Federal commitment from the President to Congress to invest in the research and development of fossil energy so we can use the cleanest and most environmentally responsible way possible and find that technology to do it so we are responsible. My amendment does recognize these facts. I ask for a ``yea'' vote and appreciate your support.

Mr. MANCHIN. I am asking for unanimous consent.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, is any time remaining at all?

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. First, I thank the Senator from North Dakota, my friend, for taking the lead and working with me so closely. I am very excited about the process, the open amendment process. We are learning a lot in debates, a lot of good ideas are coming out of this. When all is said and done, we will have a better piece of legislation. That is what this is all about. Let me make sure everyone understands this is not all about pipelines. If this is about an XL pipeline or any other pipeline, we wouldn't have a hundred thousand miles of pipeline in America already. Since the Industrial Revolution we would not have built all the pipelines needed to carry the energy that we need to run this country. This is not about pipeline. This is about the concerns we all have with greenhouse gas emissions and the development of the oil sands in Canada--nothing to do with the pipeline. With that being said. We have to be very clear that Canada is going to develop the oil sands whether or not the Keystone pipeline is built. That is a fact, and we have talked about this. The State Department--our own State Department in this great country of ours, the United States of America--has conducted five environmental assessments of the Keystone Pipeline and have found in all of them that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Now these are the things we have to be cognizant of. The State Department also found the pipeline is unlikely to significantly affect the rate of extraction in Canadian oil development. That means whatever we do here is not going to change the rate of development in the oil sands. The State Department also examined alternatives to the proposed XL Pipeline. These alternatives included what would happen if no action were taken at all. Let's say we do nothing here; that nothing comes about with this pipeline. Likely, the crude would be shipped westward by rail or by tanker. That is happening today. So they are going to ship it anyway. And if that continued, it would be considered no action. If we take no action here and don't build this pipeline for whatever reason, the greenhouse gas emissions--which we are all concerned about, and our debates are about that, really--will be between 28 to 42 percent higher if we do nothing. So those people who are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions should say: Well, OK, why do we want to contribute to more? The pipeline decreases that. If we don't do it, we have 28 to 42 percent more emissions by how we will move this oil. So the pipeline addresses our energy security limits, and I have talked about that before, and our dependence on foreign oil. I have said this many times. We all are entitled to our opinions, and I think we are all going to hear all those opinions in the next couple of weeks. But what we are not entitled to is our own set of facts, because the facts are what they are. I have said this before, and I will repeat it again, and I will continue to repeat: We buy, as of the 2013 figures from the Department of Energy's EIA, we--the United States of America--buy 7 million barrels of crude oil a day. Whether we like it or not, we are buying it. Now, I am sure people say: I wish we didn't. Well, that is what it takes for our economy to run. We are buying that oil--7 million barrels a day. Then we need to look at where the oil is coming from. If you are upset with Canada producing oil, we already buy 2\1/2\ million a day from Canada right now. We are already dependent upon Canada for 2\1/2\ million barrels a day. We also buy oil from other countries, and I think we should all question why we are buying oil from these other countries, especially when we look at Venezuela. We buy 755,000 barrels a day from Venezuela. They are an authoritarian regime that impoverishes their citizens. We know that. They violate their human rights and have shown their willingness to put down political protest with horrific violence. Yet we are supporting that by purchasing a product from them which they then use the resources from to continue this type of regime. The same here: In 2013, we bought 1.3 million barrels from Saudi Arabia. Now I don't know about my colleagues, but I question whether the resources from that or the proceeds from that oil that we paid Saudi Arabia for were used for the betterment of the United States of America, for our best interests. I have my doubts about that. We also buy over 40,000 barrels a day from Russia. I don't need to say anything about what is going on there. I think we all know that. The Keystone Pipeline would allow us to safely import more oil from a stable ally and one of our best trading partners. In fact, it is the No. 1 trading partner of 35 of our 50 States in the United States of America. Our No. 1 trading partner is Canada. It is also the most stable regime we have, the best ally we have ever had. The pipeline will have a final capacity of a little more than 800,000 barrels a day. So right there we could stop buying any oil from Venezuela or cut down dramatically the amount of oil we buy from Saudi Arabia and become less dependent. We can continue to produce energy in North America while stabilizing global supply as well as benefiting Americans and our allies. In fact, last year, one of President Obama's former national security advisors--one of President's former national security advisors, Retired Marine Gen. James Jones--told the Foreign Relations Committee: The international bullies who wish to use energy scarcity as a weapon against us all are watching intently. If we want to make Mr. Putin's day and strengthen his hand, we should reject the Keystone. Let me repeat that: If we want to make Mr. Putin's day and strengthen his hand, we should reject the Keystone. If we want to gain an important measure of national energy security, jobs, tax revenue and prosperity to advance our work on the spectrum of energy solutions that don't rely on carbon, it should be approved. So you have to decide which side you are on. Do you want to make Mr. Putin's day or do you want to find alternatives and use all of the above and be less dependent on foreign oil? In addition to our national security interests and energy independence, this bill will also create thousands of jobs. I think we have talked about that. I hear the argument: Well, yes, but they are not going to be permanent. You know, we have built a lot of bridges in America, a lot of infrastructure, and a lot of roads. I don't know of any permanent jobs we have after we build a bridge, but we have a lot of good construction jobs when we are building the bridge. I don't know of any permanent jobs after we build a road, but we have a lot of good construction and high-paying jobs. And when you start looking at that, the building and construction trades, the teamsters, the AFL-CIO, all of our friends of working Americans, the middle class--the hard-working Americans--support this piece of legislation. They want these jobs. Our own State Department says it will create about 42,000 jobs to construct the pipeline and thousands of other related jobs. So why don't we seize the opportunity? We talk about amendments. This is an open amendment process. A lot of my colleagues, a lot of my Democratic colleagues on my side of the aisle, have some great ideas and I am going to work with them. I agree with my Democratic friends that companies shipping oil through this pipeline should pay the excise tax to the oilspill trust fund. There is no reason they should be exempted from these payments. I am going to work with them to put that amendment in. It is a good amendment and it will strengthen the bill. That is what the amendment process is about. I agree also with my colleagues on the Democratic side that any steel needed in the future on this product should be bought from American steel companies. That is great. That is promoting more jobs in America: Buy American steel. Don't let them dump on us. We should be supporting American jobs. I also agree with our friends we shouldn't export any of our oil abroad. If that oil comes to America, it should be subjected to the same laws as all the oil that is extracted in America. So if we extract in the Balkans, if we extract in Texas, we treat them all the same. Those are all good amendments. I would like to think this process will strengthen a piece of legislation and hopefully give us 68, 70 votes. That would really give us a good piece of legislation for the American people. We have been promised an open amendment process, and I am so thankful for that. This presents an incredibly valuable opportunity to accomplish some of our Democratic priorities--some of our Democratic priorities that we talk about all the time on my side of the aisle. I believe the process will improve the bill, and I hope to convince my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Let us get the needed votes we need to make sure we move our country forward, become less dependent on foreign oil and more self-sufficient and more secure as a nation. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. I say to the Senator, he is absolutely correct. I thank him for this opportunity not only to work with him but also to bring the facts forward. We have heard many times: We are all entitled to our own opinions, we are just not entitled to our own facts. If you start looking at what we are consuming today in America, at last count 7 million barrels of crude oil is purchased every day in America from other countries--7 million barrels of crude a day. So this line would possibly furnish 830,000 barrels of that dependency that we have. Let's look and see where it comes from right now. Mr. President, 2.5 million barrels we are already purchasing from Canada--our best, greatest ally we could possibly have; the best trading partner and the No. 1 trading partner that 35 of the 50 States have. So it is not an unknown there. But let's look at where we are purchasing some of the rest of the oil from. We purchase 755,000 barrels of heavy crude a day from Venezuela. Let's look at Venezuela, where it is an authoritarian regime. It impoverishes its citizens. It violates their human rights. It shows its willingness to put down political protests with horrific violence. We also purchase 1.3 million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia. We all have our concerns about Saudi Arabia and a lot of the money we follow goes into the wrong hands. Forty-two thousand barrels a day from Russia--from Russia. We know their intent and what they have been doing with their energy policy. Their regime has invaded its neighbors and they armed pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine. So when we start looking at what we are doing, those are the facts. This is not just hearsay. It is not just rumors. These are facts. We purchase 7 million barrels. When I first was approached on this 4 years ago when I came to the Senate, they said: What do you think about the Keystone Pipeline that will be bringing oil from Canada into America? I said: Where I come from in West Virginia it is pretty common sense. We would rather buy from our friends than our enemies. I would rather support my friends, my allies, my trading partners more so than I would the enemies who use anything I buy from them--the money they receive from that product that I buy from them and use it against me. It is pretty common sense, not real complicated. I know everybody is trying to make this complicated. Also, they talk about--we just had a caucus talking about what would happen to the oil. I know the Senator has been watching this very closely. But they said the Keystone Pipeline will strictly be just an avenue and a vehicle for exporting this oil out. They are just going to use America to bring that oil through. We checked into that a little bit further. That is not true. Even the Washington Post gave it three Pinocchios that said it was untrue. We found out, basically, the crude oil from Canada is expected to be mixed with the domestic oil from the Bakkens, from the Senator's region, North Dakota, and that the Canadian oil is a heavier crude, similar to Venezuelan oil. It will be mixed with the light crude from the Bakkens, which enables it to flow much easier and be produced. Once it commingles, this oil is basically American oil. It lives and dies and basically is marketed with the policies of the United States of America. Our policy is not to export crude oil. So I do not know why people are using this argument and scaring people that we will get no benefit. Then we talked about the jobs. They said there is not that many jobs. In West Virginia, you give us 42,000 jobs. We would be very appreciative. We will thank you. These are all high-paying jobs. They said: Well, they are only contract jobs. But yet I hear everybody talking, Republicans and Democrats, about building roads and building bridges. Those are also seasonal types of jobs. Those are also contracting jobs. They are not permanent jobs, but we are tickled to death to get them. That is the whole trade union. All the unions that I know of are supportive of this piece of legislation. Every working man and woman whom we keep talking about who supports themselves and their family supports this legislation. Why we are running into such a roadblock I have no idea. Then when we put the map up--the other map we had. I said: When I first heard about this pipeline, I thought it was an anomaly that we did not have many pipelines in America. Then we put up this map. This is what we have in America today. So this is not foreign to any of us in any State we have pipelines, many in West Virginia and all through this country. Then we look at public support. We think: Here we are Democrats and Republicans. We look at the polls, and we live and die by the polls, they tell us, or we should. But the bottom line is that if we do believe in the polls, this has been a consistent poll. It has not varied for over 5 years. We have not seen the numbers fluctuate that much. Overwhelmingly, we have Americans in all aspects of the political realm--whether you are a Democrat, Republican or an Independent--who overwhelmingly support this pipeline. So I cannot see the objections to it. I was very disappointed when the President said he would veto it-- or the White House once we said we would go through this process. I think the Senator and I talked about this. We thought this is going to be an open process. I was encouraged by my colleagues on the Democratic side who have some good amendments, I believe, that should be considered and I believe would pass and enhance the bill. We only need four more--four more Senators on my side of the aisle who can see the benefit of a good bill, a good process with good amendments to strengthen this bill, to put us in a position that is veto-proof. That should be our goal. Basically, we should not be deterred by the White House or the President saying already that they are going to veto this bill. Let's see if we can make this bill so good that when we are finished with this product and this process 2 or 3 weeks from now, we will have a product that basically we are all proud of, that the American people are proud of and will support, and maybe, just maybe, the White House will change its mind. I am hopeful for that. I appreciate all the effort and work. We are working very well together. At last count, we had nine Democrats working with our Republican colleagues. That puts us at 63. I am hopeful to get four more at least that will look at the virtues of this and the assets and what it will do for our country. My main goal is this: Energy independence makes a secured and protected Nation. Anytime we do not have to depend on oil coming from other parts of the world--and the resources we give them when we purchase their product, they use those resources against us time after time again. We can see now, with the oil prices dipping, the benefits the consumers in America receive, the strength that gives our country. I am so thankful for that, that we are getting a break. I think we can continue to make that happen for many years to come if we are able to be smart strategically in what we do today. I think the Senator spoke about the environment. He might want to touch on that again. But most of this oil is being produced now, some way or another, and it is also getting transported in different ways and means. The bottom line is there is no significant environmental impact. I think the State Department has even done five studies that show that to be true. I said also 2.5 million barrels a day are being purchased from Canada today. Refineries in Illinois are now refining this product. They said we should not do it. We have been doing it for quite some time. We are using this product. With technology we are using it better. It has helped us be more independent of foreign oil. That is No. 1, the security of our Nation. Being an American, and for West Virginians, the security of our Nation is first and foremost what we support. That is why I think we see a tremendous amount of people from the Mountain State, I say to the Senator, who support this piece of legislation. We are going to work diligently. We have a long way to go, but I think the facts are on our side. We are all entitled to our opinions, but we cannot change the facts.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my opposition to the spending bill we are being forced to vote on. I am not voting to shut down the government. I am voting to negotiate on a bill where we are at least able to participate. I am voting to stay here, work with all my colleagues on a better bill, and put an end to the dysfunctional process we are forced to endure every year. I have read through the bill, and I am sure everyone can find something in here that they like. I certainly have some items in the bill that will help my little State of West Virginia. But there is just too much waste, too much taxpayer risk, and too little transparency for me to stomach. In the 4 years I have been in the Senate and on the Armed Services Committee, I have heard from officials on the damage done by the sequester and how it has cannibalized the Armed Forces. And yet, while DOD officials were forced to absorb across-the-board cuts in 2013, I have made it a point to ask if they are being forced into projects they don't want or need. This bill, however, completely ignores what the Department of Defense has said. We are wasting $5 billion on Department of Defense spending that the Pentagon did not ask for and does not need. They didn't ask for some of these ships, tanks and airplanes, but we are forcing them to purchase those projects anyway. And not only are we wasting this money, but we are denying it from other important programs that desperately need those funds. In this bill, we gut hard-working Americans' pensions, and instead of using the $5 billion to fund the Care Act, which ensures that the UMWA's Pension Plan remains solvent to benefit miners who have helped power this Nation, we give the Pentagon tanks and ships and planes they don't need or even want. We have seen our political process become more corrosive than ever in recent years. We have already seen the negative effects that the Citizens United ruling has had on our elections. It has allowed unlimited and dark money to distort the records of our colleagues, flood our airwaves with negative advertisements and shrink our campaigns to sound bites instead of ideas. And what does this bill do to address this? It increases the limits for individual contributions to political parties by 10 times the current limit--10 times. The current limit of $32,400 was already too high for most West Virginians and Americans to be able to take full advantage. The new limit of $324,000 is inconceivable for the vast majority of Americans. That means that our political process will only be available to a small number of wealthy individuals who will have more influence on our government than the hard-working Americans we are sent here to represent. Main Street America is still hurting from the fallout of Wall Street's greedy behavior. Americans lost 8.8 million jobs and our GDP fell by at least $7.2 trillion. We lost a generation of jobs and economic progress. And while our economy is still trying to recover and millions of Americans are still out of work, Wall Street has seen record profits. Instead of working to help our small businesses, community banks, and credit agencies, this bill allows Wall Street banks to go back to the same risky behavior that drove us into the great recession in the first place. If we pass this bill, we will allow Wall Street banks to trade risky derivatives and once again force American taxpayers to bail them out if they lose their bets. Haven't we learned our lesson yet? If big banks want to trade in risky derivatives and act with greed, then they should bear the cost of their mistakes, not the American taxpayer. Mr. President, I understand omnibus bills are made out of negotiation and compromise, but negotiations start with participation. Here, most Members of the Senate were not even consulted on this bill, nor was there an opportunity to offer amendments. Senator Robert C. Byrd, a man who defined what it meant to be a representative of the people and one of the most dedicated and passionate United States Senators to date, told me what it was like to work in the Senate before the process was broken. Upon arriving in the Senate, I assumed those same rules of conduct applied until Members here in this body explained to me just how much has changed. We used to consider individual appropriations bills that were carefully deliberated by committee members, and then we brought those smaller bills to the floor and were given an opportunity to offer amendments and debate the bill in a timely, proper manner. Somehow, the Senate process has gotten away from the days of regular order. Instead, here we are today, where we were given two days to read a 1,600-page bill loaded with provisions that we cannot even amend. Since we are forced to consider this bill as a whole, I have determined that it is simply too flawed for me to support. I urge my colleagues to stay here another week and truly draft a bipartisan omnibus package that fairly represents American values.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise to address American military involvement in the Syrian civil war and our strategy for protecting America and our interests in the region. I would first like to say that I am adamantly opposed to extending authority to provide funding to train and arm Syrian rebels. That authority is provided in the defense authorization bill that we are considering today. I voted against it in committee, spoke against it on the floor in September, and raise my objections to it now. I do not know where the Syrian rebels' allegiances truly lie or if they will remain our allies once the Syrian civil war comes to an end. What I do know is that once our military begins to train and equip Syrian rebels of uncertain provenance, we will have put ourselves on a path that leads inevitably to regime change and nation-building in Syria. Such a course defies the lessons of American-led Middle Eastern nation-building over the last twelve years. And I cannot in good conscience justify to the people of West Virginia why we should continue down this path. Before we commit more of our country's blood and treasure, we should acknowledge that after more than a decade of war, trillions of taxpayer dollars spent, and over 7,000 American lives lost in that part of the world, we have not established the pro-western representative democracies that were once envisioned. But that doesn't mean we can't protect ourselves. While I caution against repeating the mistake of Middle Eastern nation-building, I reiterate my strongest support for our military, intelligence, and law enforcement professionals who are today defending Americans at home and abroad from the kind of vile atrocities perpetrated by ISIS. These professionals demonstrate every day that we have the means to identify terrorists and prevent them from doing harm to America. If I thought that sending military trainers and weapons into Syria would further that end or would make Americans safer, I would support doing so. I do not. I reiterate what every Member of this body certainly believes, which is that we can and should take any necessary action to prevent a direct threat to the United States. But I firmly believe that protecting America does not require nation building in Syria. Yet our military involvement in Syria and Iraq continues to grow, though to what end no one is certain. Because Congress has not had a robust public debate about our strategy in the Middle East, nor made hard decisions about what our military response should be. We know that ISIS is a threat to Americans in the Middle East as well as to friendly nations and our allies there. But we have not debated whether entering another war is in our national interest. One of the reasons this debate has not yet happened is that the President has not submitted to Congress a request for authority to use military force against ISIS. Instead, what is happening in Syria is basically this: the White House is relying on a decade-old congressional authorization that allows military force against al-Qaeda and is using that as its legal justification for attacking ISIS. Well, the world is changing, and we ought to be adapting our policies with it. My colleague Bob Menendez is pushing forward with an AUMF of his own. This week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed out of committee an AUMF that gives the President authority to go to war with ISIS, but which prohibits ground troops. This is a first step, and I look forward to debating the AUMF on the floor of the Senate. But we should be debating this military authorization in the context of the President's Middle East strategy, which we have not yet seen because I believe we have a moral duty to have a full debate before we send any more Americans into harm's way. Two important things are going on here. The first is that Congress is moving closer to give legal authorization for the President to conduct strikes against ISIS. The second is that the President is also pursuing a scheme to arm and train Syrians, which will certainly lead to regime change and nation building. It is therefore critically important that the President tells us clearly and plainly not just what the objectives of the military mission are--to degrade and destroy ISIS--but how he plans on doing so without putting us back into an open-ended war. I support, as all my colleagues do, any action that prevents attacks on American property or persons. But before we commit more of our Nation's blood and treasure to political reform and religious settlement in the Middle East, we should consider the lessons of our decade of war there. History has taught us that militarily training and arming Syrian rebels of uncertain provenance will put the United States on a path that leads inevitably to regime change and nation-building in Syria. Such a course defies the lessons of the American-led military operations of the last twelve years. For these reasons I am adamantly opposed to sending American troops into Syria to further escalate a ground war that I do not believe is in the best interest of America or the region. I ask the President and my colleagues in the Senate to allow us to give the American people the public debate they deserve, before we find ourselves again in an open-ended war in the Middle East.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise with honor and pleasure to be able to say thank you to my dear friend. I am the most junior Member, besides the Presiding Officer, in this body today. When I first came to the Senate, I asked to be on the Armed Services Committee. West Virginia has a proud heritage of an awful lot of people--percentage- wise probably more than most States--having served in all of the branches of the military. So that is very near and dear to me, and our National Guard is very near and dear to our State. So there were many reasons why I wanted to be on the Armed Services Committee. When I got here, it was one of the most toxic times of the political arena, if you will. It was not what I expected, to say the least. And seeing the toxic atmosphere that I came into, people would say it didn't used to be this way; it used to work. The process worked. The whole aura of the Senate was there, and we are losing that. That was their excuse for telling me that is why it is not working today, but it used to work. Then I became part of this committee called the Armed Services Committee with this unbelievable chairman whose name is Carl Levin. I watched and observed. I didn't say a whole lot at first because freshmen aren't supposed to, but I watched and I learned and I saw the system the way I imagined it probably was 20, 30, 40 years ago when it did work. I saw the Senate, and I was thinking, Why can't the rest of the Senate work the way the Armed Services Committee works? There is one reason. We don't have enough Carl Levins. We just don't have enough Carl Levins. Carl Levin is practical, reasonable, and sensible. It made sense to me what he would say. Just recently I have had difficulties on a piece of legislation that is very important. Carl spoke to me in terms that my father would have spoken to me, and I understood very well: State your opposition, record your opposition, and look at the whole situation as the betterment and the good of the bill, which is better than basically this piece that you oppose. He said I could explain my opposition. Carl Levin would say this, too. He would say: Listen, I can't tell you what to do. I can't tell you what to do. Really, you have to do what you think is right, but let me give you some points to think about. He has been an unbelievable mentor who will give us the ability to kind of process this whole system we are in. Let me say this, Carl. I am sorry that I didn't have the honor and the opportunity and the pleasure to serve with you for many more years. I really am. Or I am sorry I didn't get here soon enough, whatever the case may be. But the Senator from Michigan has left an impression on me as to how this place should work. Robert C. Byrd, my predecessor, felt as passionately as you do. There is a process here and there is a reason for the process, which is to make us talk to each other, to make this place work. There should never be a situation we would get into that is important to the American citizen or this country where we can't work it out and can't get at least 60 votes. There should never be a time that we cannot get 60 votes. If we do that, then basically just changing a rule is not going to change the attitude and the atmosphere we create. I believe very strongly in that. And I appreciate the Senator's fight. In the hills of West Virginia, we have a saying: They are good people. You meet somebody and someone says, They are good people. Carl, you are good people. Thank you.