Joe Manchin

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, first of all, I want to congratulate all of these speakers. It has been wonderful hearing all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle state their positions, as they have done so eloquently. We have all learned a lot. I am not sure it has changed anything, but we sure have learned a lot in this process. But I rise today to rebut what I believe is a great misleading of the American people. Before I get into the details, let me tell you a little bit about where I come from and my political background. I have been involved in public service in my State of West Virginia for over 40 years, in one capacity or another. I have been in the house of delegates. I have been in the State senate for 10 years. I have been secretary of state. I have been Governor for two terms. And now I have been here in the Senate for going on 11 years. When I served in the legislature, I could put a bill on the floor or I could put a bill in committee, and it would go through committee. It would go to the floor if it came out. I could get amendments on it. Sometimes it passed; sometimes it didn't. But, at the end of the day, we had a place we called ``Junior Rules.'' It was behind the senate chamber. You would go behind the door, and there would be ``Junior Rules.'' After it was over, after we had our debates and discussions--whether it be in committee or whether it be on the floor--we would all gather, Democrats and Republicans. We ate together. We had some refreshments together. We spoke about what happened today and what we could do to make it better tomorrow. I never could understand, when I got here, how divided we were. How did this happen? So I kept thinking, when I first got here they said: Well, you know, the Republicans are over there, and we are the Democrats here, and it is nice. We all get along and everything. But now, when they run, we have to be against them. I have to be against you, no matter how close you may be, no matter if I sat beside you, no matter if we have dinner at night. If it is your election cycle, I have to be against you. Not only that I am supposed to be against you, I am supposed to basically write a check to whoever is running against you--to whoever is running against you. And maybe, even, they want me to maybe go to your State and campaign against you. And I am thinking: You know something, where I come from in West Virginia, if I went to work during the day and you did that to me, we are going to go outside and have a little conversation. That ain't going to happen back where I come from. And I wasn't going to do it here. Now, if we can change some things, that is what we should be changing. Why should we do this? How are we expected to sit down at the end of the day or the end of a session or at the end of anything and come back on Monday and say, ``OK, now, Senator Thune, would you go on this amendment with me and help me with this bill,'' after I just came out and basically worked for your opponent that the Democrats have recruited and basically given them money. That is not going to happen. It is not going to happen. So I keep thinking, we keep thinking: What is wrong with the place? That is what is wrong. I tried to get just a little oath that we could all sign that we wouldn't do that to each other. I guess there used to be a gentlemen and ladies' agreement that you just didn't do those things, but not anymore, not anymore. I heard about the good old days. I don't know what happened to the good old days, but I can tell you they are not here now. We can talk about a lot of things and the way we want to change, but I still really believe we should talk about how we treat each other and how we approach each other in a body that this 330 million people are depending upon. But rules--what little bit we have left that maybe makes us take pause before we jump off of that bridge--we had better be careful what we are doing. After the State legislature, I also had the privilege to serve as West Virginia's secretary of state. I never one time, as secretary of state in my official capacity, had anyone ever talk to me: We have got to suppress the vote. Democrat, Republican, Independent, no matter what, no one ever came and said: Joe, we have got to stop this group from voting because that won't help us. No one ever thought that way. You know where most of my ideas came? I brought in early voting. I had a lot of men working in the mines, shift working and all that, and sometimes on Tuesdays, on our election day, they couldn't get off. They had to work. So someone says: Do you know what we did in our State? We got early voting. We call it no-excuse voting. You can come any time you want. You have got 7 days, 10 days, 2 weekends, whatever. So I had a hard time getting people to understand. They think: Oh, maybe something bad is going to happen; something nefarious will happen. It took a while for me to get 7 days in, just one week in. I fought for that. After I got 7 days, they wanted more. I understand that Kentucky just has early voting, and that is great. They make those decisions. That came out of the experiment we call the great experiment, State by State. There are 50 experiments that go on every day in every State. We should learn from them. They should learn from us. We all share together. We have got many former Governors sitting here. We know how this works. And that is what we are talking about. I also started a program called SHARE. It was the SHARE Program. I had low turnout in West Virginia, and I was trying to get the turnout up. So I am thinking: What can I do? And I always thought this: I can't sometimes teach an old dog new tricks, but I can teach a pup some tricks and maybe get the old dog to follow him. So I thought of a program called SHARE, Saving History and Reaching Every Student--Saving History and Reaching Every Student--because Jennings Randolph, former Senator Jennings Randolph in West Virginia, was the father of the 18- year-old vote. It took him 21 years to get it done. He started back in World War II and didn't get it done until the 1970s--1970. He was the father. So I had the Jennings Randolph award. I had every high school competing for it, because we went out and educated students that if you are 17 years of age and you turn 18 on election day or before--on general election day or before--you can vote in the primary election at 17 years of age. No one knew that. The kids didn't know that. We got them all fired up, and, I mean to tell you, we had awards and made a big ceremony, and all of our election counts went up. Everything went up. We did a good job. And they really, really appreciated it. So we were able to increase the turnouts, but I believe with every fiber in my body that every eligible citizen of voting age should have the right to vote and be protected by law--everyone. And I think everyone in here believes the same thing--I truly do--that we should be able to do that. Later today, we are going to vote. And I am going to vote, again, to protect that right, and I am going to be proud to cosponsor the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Amendment Act. We all have different positions on that, but I am proud to be a part of that. But that is not what we are debating right now, and I think we all know that. Right now, we are debating a fundamental change in the Senate rules that will forever alter the way this body functions. For the last year, my Democratic colleagues have taken to the Senate floor, cable news airwaves, and pages of newspapers across the country to argue that repealing the filibuster is actually restoring the Senate to the vision that the Founding Fathers intended for this deliberativee body. My friends, that is simply not true. It is just not true. The U.S. Senate has never, in 233 years, been able to end debate on legislation with a simple majority vote. With a simple majority vote, they have never been able to end debate. They could not stop the debate. Robert Byrd used to say that there are two things a Senator can do: A Senator has a right to amend and a right to speak. He always said that. In fact, prior to 1917, there was no mechanism for ending debate in the Senate whatsoever. You couldn't end it. In that year, the Senate adopted the cloture rule. It required the debate to end when two-thirds of voting Senators willed it. Since then, the cloture rule has been amended seven times, always by regular order. I hear all of these things that we are talking about, but we forget that a lot of things are done with regular order. Just recently, Senator Schumer, Senator McConnell, the debt ceiling--they did that using the rules. You didn't break the rules to do that. You did it. You worked it out, which is the leadership's responsibility. It means that the Senate has followed its own rule book when making changes that affect legislative debate. We have changed rules. We have all talked about how many times rules have been changed. We changed them, but we changed them with the rules. We didn't break the rules; we changed the rules. But, all of a sudden, now we just can't do it anymore. We just got to blow it up. The rule book means that the rules changes are done on the basis of broad bipartisan consensus, not imposed on the minority by raw majority power. No matter who is in power, the majority does not have that power to do that in this Senate. Now my colleagues propose to sidestep this process. They would use the nuclear option to override a rule that we have used ourselves but now seem to find unacceptable. Unacceptable now. We are going to break the rules to change the rules. We will make up new rules as we go along and invite ourselves and future majorities to disregard the rule book at will. No rule of the Senate can withstand the act of a willful majority. No rule will withstand a willful majority--not the cloture rule or any other rule. Let this change happen this way, and the Senate will be a body without rules. There will be no rules. The Senate's greatest rule is the one that is unwritten. This is an unwritten rule, and it is the greatest one we have. It is the rule of self-restraint, which we have very little of anymore--self-restraint. That rule will be broken along with the cloture rule if the nuclear option is executed, and for that--I cannot be a party to that. But there is good news. Here is the good news. We don't have to change the rules to make our case to the American people about voting rights, about the John Lewis. We don't have to. We really don't. Senator Schumer didn't have to file cloture to cut off debate. He didn't have to fill the amendment tree to block Republican amendments. We are here. We could have kept voting rights legislation as the pending business for the Senate today, next week, a month from now. This is important. Let's work it out. Let's stay here and go at it. I think you all are here. Everybody is here. We had a lot of good talks today. I am sure you have a lot of amendments you would like to make, and all of us would like to make amendments. If you want to see it work again, let's do it. Let's go for it. That is exactly what I think should be done. I think the American people really need that. I think that we owe that to them. We wasted a year behind the scenes, partisan negotiations back and forth, talking through each other, around each other, but not to each other. Let's have the debate, Democrats and Republicans, and let the American people decide. The pressure will come. That is what the filibuster is all about. The pressure is mounting until you have made either a compromise, you have made a decision; you all have decided to go--you know, one way or another, you are going to end that filibuster. And today, we haven't seen that. Just 4 years ago, 61 of us, 61 Senators--myself being 1--33 of us on the Democrat side, many of whom are sitting in the Chamber today--you have heard this many times. We sent a letter to Senator Schumer and to Senator McConnell warning them of the dangers of eliminating the filibuster. That letter presented a united front committed to ``preserve the ability of the members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor.'' While some of the Senators have changed their positions, I have not. I respect that this is a two-way street, and I would hope you would respect where I am. I respect that you have changed your position on this. I would hope that you would respect that I have not, and I have never wavered on this. I do not and will not attack the content of the character of anybody who has changed their position, and I would hope you would give me the same opportunity and not attack mine. Allowing one party to exert complete control in the Senate with only a simple majority will only pour fuel on the fire of political whiplash and dysfunction that is tearing this Nation apart, and you don't have to look very far to see how we are tearing ourselves apart. I can tell you, in every part of this country, people are divided now. It used to be that we couldn't talk about religion at the supper table; now, you can't talk about politics. It has truly become a blood sport, and it should not be that way. The rest of the world is looking at us. They are depending on us. They are looking for guidance. They are looking for some stability. If we do this, there is not going to be any check on the executive branch. Bob Byrd was scared to death of not having a check on the executive branch, even when the executive branch was part of his own party, being a Democrat. He always said: I do not work for the President; I work for the people of West Virginia. He made very sure of that, he made sure that every President knew that, and he made sure he would hold them accountable, and they weren't going to streamroll over him. The filibuster plays an important role in stabilizing our democracy from the transitory passions of the majority and respecting the input of the minority in the Senate. Contrary to what some have said, protecting the role of the minority, Democrat or Republican, has protected us from the volatile political swings that we have endured over the last 233 years. The role of the minority is what ensures the policies of our Nation have input from all corners of the country. We must never forget this is a Senate made up of 50 States, 100 Senators, blue States and red States. For those who believe that bipartisanship is impossible, we have proven them wrong. In the last several years, we have made historic investments in our Nation's public lands, passed trillions of dollars in COVID-19 relief, and finally invested in rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure. These critical pieces of legislation have had significant impacts on Americans across the country. They were passed with broad bipartisan support. We can do it again. We truly can. We can make it easier to vote. We must. We can make it harder to cheat. I think we can. We have heard from our Republican colleagues, who basically agree with us on that. We can reform the Electoral Count Act, which is what caused the insurrection. We agree on that. We can fix that. We will never have to witness another January 6, such an absolutely deplorable stain on this great country of ours. And we can protect local election officials from harassment and intimidation by making them Federal crimes. We can do that, and I know we can do that together. I am going to leave you with this: In May 2010, just a month before Robert C. Byrd died--he died in June of 2010. This was a month before. Senator Byrd was asked by then-chairman Senator Chuck Schumer of the Rules Committee--I believe at that time--to testify about the filibuster before the Senate Rules Committee because of his unsurpassed knowledge on this subject. Senator Capito knew him well too. She knows how he would pontificate at times with us. Senator Byrd began by quoting James Madison. He said: Madison said that the purpose of the Senate was ``first, to protect the people against their rulers, secondly, to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves may be led,'' and that the Senate serves as a ``necessary fence against such danger.'' Senator Byrd testified that ``the right to filibuster anchors this necessary fence.'' He concluded with, ``We must never, ever, ever, ever tear down the only wall, the necessary fence, that this nation has against the excesses of the executive branch and the resultant haste and tyranny of the majority.'' Eliminating the filibuster would be the easy way out. It wasn't meant to be easy. I cannot support such a perilous course for this Nation when elected leaders are sent to Washington to unite our country, not to divide our country. We are called the United States, not the Divided States, and putting politics and party aside is what we are supposed to do. It is time that we do the hard work to forge the difficult compromises that can stand the test of time, and that is why we are here--230 years. Think about it. Wars. Depressions. Think of all the hardships this country has gone through, all the people who have suffered and fought for every right we have. We are not going backwards. But with that being said, we can do better than what we are doing today. We truly can. We must promise Americans a brighter future. I think we can do that together. I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN. I am saying, that is what we are voting on right now.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield for one second, sir.

Mr. MANCHIN. Is it possible we can enter into a talking filibuster now without a rules change? Could we start a talking filibuster right now without a rules change?

Mr. MANCHIN. I understand. The way this rule reads right now, sir: during which all amendments, motions, and points of order are not in order, and any appeal shall be determined without debate. That doesn't allow any amendments whatsoever.

Mr. MANCHIN. That is the way this reads, what we are voting on right now.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print the follwing letter in the Congressional Record.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I am here today to honor the lives of our World War II Medal of Honor recipients who bravely served our Nation, including the last surviving recipient who just celebrated his 98th birthday, Hershel ``Woody'' Williams. My colleague is here with me. We have known Woody for years and years and years. This is a person who has never quit serving his country from the day he was born to the day he fought and won the Congressional Medal of Honor in Iwo Jima. If you ever saw any pictures and basically the war videos we see, you see a little guy running around Iwo Jima shooting the flame thrower in the pill boxes. That was Woody. It is just unbelievable. He is a fellow West Virginian. He was a marine, a Medal of Honor recipient for his heroic efforts at the Battle of Iwo Jima that I have been told involved the flame thrower, which I have seen. And it is not just one. I think he went through five flame throwers because when he ran out, he went and reloaded and went at them again. It is just unbelievable. Woody has dedicated his life to our great and our beautiful United States through his service in the military and his dedication to supporting veterans and advocating for their needs for decades after. There is not a time when I know that Senator Capito and myself don't hear from Woody and there is something going on, whether it is at the cemetery, or whether we are having a ride for the Gold Star families. We do a motorcycle ride, which I would like to invite the Presiding Officer to. I say to the Presiding Officer: You would enjoy it. It is wonderful. Senator Capito has been with us before on that. It is just a wonderful thing, and Woody has never failed to be part of it. Now, he rides in a sling shot, but, by golly, he makes the whole route. He has dedicated his life fully to our veterans and to the Gold Star families. He is bound and determined to get a committal shelter built at the Donel C. Kinnard Memorial State Veterans Cemetery. Again, Senator Capito and I, both serving on the Appropriations Committee, have committed that we are united in getting this done. We will get that done, and it needs to be. That basically would ensure that the families of our fallen soldiers and veterans, they have a safe place to lay their loved ones to rest, protected from the weather, rain, Sun, and snow throughout the year. In this year's Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, we include a language to create a pilot program that allows Federal veterans cemeteries to build shelters for those purposes. But we must ensure the pilot program includes State veterans cemeteries, like the Donel C. Kinnard Memorial State Veterans Cemetery. The families of our fallen servicemembers deserve to honor their loved ones in peace, and I am proud to help Woody fight for this simple request. Americans like Woody Williams answered the call to serve our great Nation during World War II, and he fought to ensure democracy prevailed. Their sacrifices allowed the rest of us to enjoy the freedoms we hold sacred and help make the United States the strongest Nation in the world. I am going to share with you one story that Woody has told all of us back home. He says the thing that he remembers most and the thing that he stills grieves the most about, he had two marines that were protecting him with gunfire while he ran around, and their lives were sacrificed for him. I think both got shot and perished. And he says: They gave their life for me to do my job and protect and save my life. There is not a day that goes by, he says, he doesn't think about that, how the Good Lord spared him and the sacrifices that were made for him and our country. So I believe that honoring all of those who served in World War II by allowing the last surviving--and I want to make sure we understand. Woody Williams is the last surviving Medal of Honor recipient from World War II. We are asking that he be allowed to lay in State at the U.S. Capitol Rotunda. And what better way to honor this generation, their sacrifices than the President to authorize the State funeral for that brave individual. And Woody--there is not a better person to represent all of those who sacrificed and given their all, all of those who were basically decorated for their valor, to do this. And bestowing this great honor on the last survivor and the World War II Medal of Honor recipient would be the perfect way to come together as a nation to salute the ``greatest generation.'' So I am honored to be here with my colleague and my friend Senator Capito in a bipartisan--you know, I have always said this: The glue that holds this country together is the people who put themselves in harm's way for all of us. They didn't say: Well, I will put a uniform on and I will take a bullet for the Republican, but not the Democrat, or I will take a bullet for the Democrat and not the Republican. Senator Capito's father took a bullet for all of us too, and she will speak about that, I am sure, and the bravery that he had. He was my dear friend, and we all miss him. But the sacrifices that my parents and Senator Capito's parents and the generation--that was the ``greatest generation,'' I think, that we will ever see because they took responsibility and took responsibility for their action. They held themselves accountable for their actions, and that showed the character that generation has. And that is what I would hope these young interns and all the young pages that we have here understand, that your character is defined the day that you take responsibility for the actions--good, bad, or indifferent--and be able to look yourself in the mirror and say: I made a mistake. I can do better. That is my fault. I will fix that. That is character. So I am honored to be here and to honor every World War II veteran, every World War II Medal of Honor recipient. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in our efforts to honor these brave veterans. And I call on our President, President Biden, to grant our request. With that, I yield the floor to my colleague.

Mr. MANCHIN. I say to Senator Capito, if you could just wait a minute.

Mr. MANCHIN. I know you remember this very well. Woody is a person who taught us all how to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Because we think we know how to say it. We all memorized it as a little kid: ``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.'' Woody would always say: One Nation under God--do not stop, do not hesitate at ``one Nation.'' It is ``one Nation under God.'' It is not ``one Nation.'' ``Under God with liberty and justice for all.'' He corrected us, and he never would let us say it without going with no pause because he said we are a nation under God. And I will never forget. He drove that home so many times to all of us. So the young pages here, I hope you will remember that. With that, maybe we should do a ``happy birthday'' together to Woody because he is probably watching. So together, you and I? Happy birthday, Woody.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, last week, Senator Ernst asked unanimous consent to bypass the committee process and pass her bill. At the time, I committed to work with her and that we would schedule this bill for a vote at the next Energy and Natural Resources Committee legislative markup. That commitment remains. In fact, we are fulfilling it. In fact, just this morning, both of our staffs were on the National Mall walking through potential sites with the National Park Service and representatives from the Foundation to get a better understanding of the issues associated with the locations proposed in Senator Ernst's bill. My goal is to get this memorial built as quickly as possible. I was the proud lead Democratic sponsor of this legislation to authorize construction of the National Global War on Terrorism Memorial 4 years ago and remain just as supportive and committed to seeing the memorial built today as I was then. It is important that we commemorate and honor the members of the Armed Forces who served on Active Duty and supported the Global War on Terrorism. The original legislation authorizing construction of the Global War on Terrorism Memorial required that the memorial be located and designed in accordance with the Commemorative Works Act. The Senator's bill is now proposing to waive a key provision in that law. I am concerned that trying to legislatively force a memorial into the Reserve area of the National Mall will result in a more contentious approval process that will take longer to get the memorial built than staying with the process that applies to all of our memorials. I restate my commitment to keep working with Senator Ernst and to schedule a vote on this bill at the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's next legislative business meeting so that committee members can weigh in, which is the process, on with what the appropriate policy should be. Again, I remain a very strong supporter of the Global War on Terrorism Memorial, and I believe that all of our colleagues on the Republican and Democratic side feel the same. The National Park Service should give it the highest priority, and they will, in finding an appropriate site. But the memorial should be built following the same process--the same process--that applies to all of our memorials and commemorative works. I will continue to work with my friend and colleague from Iowa, but I must respectfully object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. MANCHIN. First of all, I want to thank the total commitment and dedication that my friend from my Iowa has; the same as, I think, all of us have. But on that, since 2003, when Congress acted about basically putting a moratorium on the Mall so the Mall would be preserved for all of us to enjoy, there were some that were still pending but were allowed to complete. There has not been any new approved since 2003. But we have a process, and I respect that, and I am going to work as hard as I can to make sure that that process is going to be honored and we go through it in our markup and everyone have input on it. And I think that is the proper way for us to proceed. And I appreciate the Senator working and understanding and working with us. Right now, we just have to continue to do what we are doing and let this process basically go forth as quickly as possible. That is my commitment, and I will honor that.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, my dear friend from Wyoming, we agree on a lot of things; we just happen to see this one different. We disagree. I rise in support of the motion to invoke cloture on a nomination of Tracy Stone-Manning to be the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. I do so after giving very, very, very careful consideration to this serious--and I mean serious--allegations that many of our colleagues have leveled against her. If there were any truth--a shred of truth--or evidence to support the charges, I wouldn't be standing here; I couldn't support her. But I have found no such evidence, and I have looked. Now, I have said this: Every one of us, we are entitled to our own opinion here. And we are not bashful to sharing that opinion with others. We are just not entitled to create our own facts to support our opinions. That is it. All I am asking for is look at the facts. That is all. The facts surrounding the spiking of the trees in the Clearwater National Forest in March of 1989 are well known. It is public. They are known because the facts were tried by a jury in a Federal district court in Spokane, WA, in June of 1993. I still believe we all believe the rule of law applies to all of us, and that is who we are. Trial by jury is how we find facts and discover the truth in this country. That is it. It is the keystone in our criminal justice system. A jury heard the evidence in the tree-spiking case. They weighed its credibility and reached a unanimous verdict that four men spiked the trees. I repeat: Four help spiked the trees in the Clearwater National Forest. All four of them admitted that they spiked trees. All four of them admitted they spiked these trees. And each identified the other three as their accomplice. Each one identified the other. And you know what. Ms. Stone-Manning was not one of them. None of the four said she was. Opponents of her nomination are now seeking to impute the guilt of the confessed and convicted tree spikers to her. But Ms. Stone-Manning was never charged with tree spiking. She was never indicted or tried. There is no evidence in the trial record that she participated in the tree spiking. Her opponents claim that is because she was given immunity for her testimony. I have heard that, so I want to investigate that. But while the Federal prosecutor agreed not to use her testimony against her, she still could have been prosecuted if there was any other evidence against her. If there was any evidence against her, she could have been prosecuted. But there wasn't. And no charges were ever brought against her--none. Finally, opponents of Ms. Stone-Manning's nomination accused her of lying to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which is the committee that I do chair and the committee, Madam President, that you sit on with us so honorably. On her committee questionnaire, they said she lied to us. As the Chairman of that committee, I took that allegation seriously. I wanted to find out if she lied to us or not. Each nominee that comes to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is asked whether he or she has ever been investigated, arrested, or charged with a violation of law. Ms. Stone-Manning responded, ``No, I have never been arrested or charged and to my knowledge I have never been the target of such an investigation.'' She then went on to disclose that she testified before a Federal grand jury as part of a tree-spiking investigation in 1989, and later testified at the tree-spiking trial. This allegation seems to be that her response was false and misleading because she was subpoenaed, because she was asked to come and testify and had been required to give fingerprints and hair samples to the grand jury investigating the tree spiking in 1989. Being required to testify or give physical evidence to a grand jury does not make someone the target of a grand jury investigation. It just doesn't. Again, I go back to the rule of law, which is unique in this world today that we are still able to treat everybody as innocent until proven guilty. And there is no evidence, and she was not involved. The Justice Department defines a ``target'' as someone the grand jury is considering indicting. That is the target: They are considering to go after you. The Federal prosecutor in the case asked the Forest Service's criminal investigator--they asked the criminal investigator whether the investigation in 1989 had identified possibly anyone as a subject in the investigation. The Forest Service investigator replied under oath-- I repeat: under oath--no; no, it didn't happen. She could not have been a target of an investigation that had not identified her or anyone else as a subject. Her response is further corroborated by recent comments in the press made by the former Assistant United States Attorney who prosecuted this trial. You being a prosecutor, Madam President, understands. They prosecuted the tree-spiking case. This is the person who did that, who confirmed--he confirmed that Ms. Stone-Manning was not a target of the investigation in 1993. He confirmed that. In sum, I am unable to find any credible evidence in the exhaustive trial record of the tree-spiking case that supports the allegations levied against Ms. Stone-Manning. What I find instead in the committee's hearing record on her nomination is compelling evidence that Ms. Stone-Manning has built a solid reputation over the past three decades as a dedicated public servant and someone who has worked with one of our colleagues, a dear friend of ours from Montana, who is about to say what he believes in his heart, and as he knows, as that person's credibility. As a problem-solver, she has been and is a consensus-builder. She faithfully served Senator Tester for 5 years in a position of trust and responsibility on his staff. She went on to serve Governor Bullock of Montana for 2 years as director of Montana's Department of Environmental Quality and 2 more as Governor Bullock's chief of staff. That is the evidence on which I will base my vote to support her, and I would encourage every one of my colleagues to do the same. This is a person who basically has given herself to public service. This is a person, as a youth, basically in her compassion--all of the things she might have believed does not make her guilty. This is a person who basically deserves an opportunity to be able to serve all of us in America with her knowledge, her desire, and her absolute, unwavering dedication to the outdoors and everything that we hold near and dear. I just want to say that we are not here to prosecute people. That is not our job. We are not here to pass judgment, basically, once judgment has already passed and basically regurgitate something that is not credible. So I say again: You are truly entitled to your own opinion. You really are. But before you pass judgment, look at the facts. It could be you. It could be me. That is not going to happen. So with that, I urge my friends, I urge all of them to please--John Adams, the first person to preside in the Senate, said: Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. They cannot. So let us put our partisan passions aside. Put them aside and look at the facts. Let's vote to confirm Ms. Stone-Manning's nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of a diligent public servant and proud West Virginian who was recently taken from us far, far too soon. His name was John Kennedy Bailey. Gayle and I extend our deepest condolences to the members of John's beloved family. I have known John since he was a child. He grew up in Fairmont, my home area, with an absolutely loving family. I have been so proud to watch him grow into such a hard-working, compassionate person who raised his own loving family. My heart aches for his whole family but especially his wife Holly and their children, Jack, Brooks, and Lisette, whose lives have been changed in a tragic instant. It is in these sorrowful moments that we see how much a person meant to so many. Since we lost him, John's friends have stepped forward with stories of his compassion, his kindness, and of his public service. I know that all of us who are grieving him find comfort that his last measure was giving himself through organ donation, sharing the gift of life for someone who needed it most. When I think of John, I think of a man who all of us aspire to be--a man who lives life to his fullest, makes the most of every day by giving back to those around him. I think of the words of Dylan Thomas, a Welsh poet, who described such a man as: Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way, Do not go gentle into that good night. John lived every day by catching the Sun in flight, and that is one of the many reasons that so many people loved him. It is my hope that his friends and family have found peace, strength, and support in one another and in the support of our entire home State as we mourn our shared loss of this wonderful, wonderful person. That is why it is befitting that his life is forever memorialized in this Congressional Record through this speech on the U.S. Senate floor today. John represented the very best of West Virginia from a very young age. As a Knight of the Golden Horseshoe in eighth grade, president of his senior class at Fairmont Senior High School, and attendee of the Mountaineer Boys State, he excelled throughout his entire scholastic career--so much so that after graduating from Yale University, he joined Congressman Nick Rahall's staff, helping West Virginians in Washington, DC. But the call of the mountains was strong for John, and he returned home to attend WVU Law School. While at WVU Law, he clerked on Wall Street but knew his biggest impact would be in his home State, so he found his way to Charleston. John was dedicated to bettering the Charleston community as the owner of his own law firm and while serving as city councilman. John was dedicated to his community, whether through his recent mission to revive Charleston's recycling program or his brilliant idea to increase the Cardinal Train's service to Charleston that he recently worked on with my office. John was not only a dedicated public servant but a talented attorney and successful businessman. He will be remembered for his professional abilities, as well as his service to his community. But most importantly, John will be remembered for his commitment to his children and family, spending much of his time at Jack, Brooks, and Lisette's many activities. He was well-known among the staff and parents of Capital-Midwestern Little League, Capital High School, Horace Mann Middle School, and Mountaineer Montessori. He would stop by the community center often just to see how the staff and students were doing. John was so very kind and always thinking of how he could make his community better, no matter how out of the box his ideas seemed to be. He never met a stranger, and was also such a good friend to myself, my Charleston staff, and all West Virginians. What is most important is that he lived a full life, surrounded by the people he loved most. I extend my deepest condolences to John's wife, Holly; and their children, Jack, Brooks, and Lisette; his parents, Joyce and former State Treasurer Larrie Bailey; his siblings, Anne and David, and their families; and his many friends and extended family. We will forever keep John and his family in our prayers. Godspeed, John. We miss you. I yield the floor.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. I respectfully object to the Senator's request but maintain my commitment to working with my friend from Iowa and the families who, rightfully, want to memorialize their loved ones to find a path forward for this important memorial.

Mr. MANCHIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, 4 years ago, I was proud to join Senator Ernst in sponsoring legislation to authorize construction on the National Global War on Terrorism Memorial to commemorate and honor the members of the Armed Forces' Global War on Terror. That bill passed the House and Senate on a voice vote and was signed into law August 2017. A memorial honoring the men and women of the Armed Forces who served our Nation in the Global War on Terror--our country's longest military conflict--is the least that we can do to recognize their service and sacrifice and especially those who gave their lives in the service of our Nation. In 2017, I said that it was incredibly important to honor these men and women, and it remains incredibly important today. I want the memorial to be built as quickly as possible. In fact, I think it should be the National Park Service's highest priority for approving new memorials, but it should be built following the same process that applies to all other memorials and commemorative works. Since 2003, the Commemorative Works Act has prohibited new memorials in an area called the Reserve, which is essentially the National Mall. Since that time, there have been several proposals to waive the prohibition for new memorials or museums in that area on the Mall, including the World War I Memorial and the Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial. Ultimately, these were located in other high-profile areas in compliance with the Commemorative Works Act. This legislation would override this provision in law to allow the Global War on Terrorism Memorial to be sited on the Reserve. As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I believe this precedent would reopen the fight to locate other memorials on the National Mall and create more controversy that will ultimately delay the construction of this memorial which is much needed. While I am a strong supporter of the Global War on Terrorism Memorial, this would be creating an exception to the law for one memorial where others have been turned away and doing so without full committee process. Our Subcommittee on National Parks, which is chaired by Senator King from Maine, held a hearing on Senator Ernst's bill on June 23. At that hearing, the Department of Interior testified in opposition to S. 535 as currently drafted. I would respectfully ask my friend Senator Ernst to withdraw her unanimous consent request to discharge her bill from committee and would commit to holding a markup of the bill so we can consider the options, the impact, and a path forward for this most important memorial.

Mr. MANCHIN. In response to my friend from Iowa, you have my commitment. We will do this markup and get it scheduled as quickly as we possibly can, and we will work through that. We encourage you to be at the markup, if you would like, and speak on it at that time. We will have the park people there and go through this in a very diligent way and hopefully get a result as soon as possible.

Mr. MANCHIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of college football coaching legend and my very good longtime friend, Bobby Bowden. Gayle and I offer our deepest condolences to the members of the Bowden family, as well as to the entire extended Bulldogs, Mountaineers, and Seminoles families. We have lost a shining star in the college athletics community, but everything he stood for and represented lives on in the hearts and minds of all who had the privilege of knowing him, myself included. I will never forget the first time I met Bobby. It was 1966, and he and Ann pulled up in a station wagon with six kids in the back. He made an impression, to say the least. I have never met a more humble and kind person, and he was always such a positive influence in my life and the lives of all the players he coached. Bobby was also a deeply devoted man of faith. It didn't matter what your faith was, as long as you believed in something greater than yourself. He holds a special place in the hearts of West Virginians in particular because of his tribute to the Marshall University team who perished in a plane crash in 1970. Our entire statewide community felt this loss. Friendly rivalries were set aside, and Bobby, who was head coach, led the way to tell the Nation ``We are Marshall.'' West Virginia University players wore Marshall's initials on their helmets, and the next season, Bobby gave Marshall's new coaches access to film and gamebooks to help them rebuild their program. His selflessness toward Marshall during that devastating time has been cherished in the decades that have followed. He was really something special. Bobby had a gift for teaching the game and motivating you to be the best you could be in all aspects of your life. And it wasn't all for the athletes; he treated everyone the very same. No one was more important than anyone else. It didn't matter who your family was or where you came from, what mattered is what you made of yourself with the circumstances the Lord gave you. He earned the legacy we know him for and expected no less from anyone else. With 377 wins and two national titles during his 40 years as a major college coach, he was the winningest coach in Division One history. But when the game was over, no matter the score, Bobby showed us the man he has always been--a leader, a fierce competitor, and despite his humility, a man completely deserving of the prestige his legacy brought to himself and to the teams he coached. Good coaches certainly win games, but great coaches, like Bobby, have a profound impact on your life. They are models for how to handle perseverance, leadership, success, and failure and how to take what you learn from athletics and utilize it to build the rest of your life. He knew sports can make you into so much more than a good athlete if you have the right attitude, and I know there are many former student- athletes who have Coach Bowden to thank in great part for their success. I had the honor of knowing him not only as one of the greatest coaches but also as a true friend and a man I have the greatest respect for. The relationships he forged with the players, his colleagues, and the communities he called home had a profound impact, bringing both national attention and respect to the teams he coached. If he lost a game, he was the first to go congratulate his opponent. Put simply, even though he wasn't born in the Mountain State, he represented the very best of West Virginia, which is saying quite a lot. Again, I extend my condolences to his loving wife Ann; their children, Terry, Tommy, Jeff, Steve, Robyn, and Ginger; and their many grandchildren. May God Bless you and your family, my dear friend.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Dr. Karen O'Neil and to thank her for her service as director of the Green Bank Observatory for the past 15 years. Dr. O'Neil received her Ph.D. from the University of Oregon in physics, with a specialty in astrophysics. In addition to her work at Green Bank, she has worked as a professor of physics at the University of Oregon. She was also a staff astronomer at the National Ionosphere and Astronomy Center's Arecibo Observatory in Arecibo, PR, where she worked on the commissioning and testing of a wide variety of instruments and software for the 300m telescope. I am proud to join all of West Virginia in thanking Dr. Karen O'Neil for bringing her vast expertise to the Mountain State. For more than 60 years, the National Science Foundation, Pocahontas County, and the State of West Virginia have supported the ability of innumerable national and international scientists to make discoveries about our universe using the capabilities located at the observatory within the National Quiet Zone. Scientists at the Green Bank Observatory have made significant discoveries that have helped us better understand our universe. Among the many achievements during Dr. O'Neil's tenure, researchers helped discover a massive star that strains the limits of physics, a discovery that wouldn't have been possible without the research made possible at Green Bank. It is a testament to the tremendous amount of research and data the observatory provides to the global scientific community. For the past several years, I have been committed to ensuring Green Bank stays open for the next generation of young West Virginia scientists. Dr. Karen O'Neil has been a tremendous part of this effort. Not long ago, we were fighting to keep the observatory open, and thanks to Dr. O'Neil's efforts, we are now discussing Green Bank's integral role in the next generation of astrophysics. Once again, I am truly grateful for her service as director. Fortunately, she is not going far, and will continue to be a vital part of the continued growth of the observatory. I am also proud to join her in welcoming the incoming Green Bank Director, Dr. James M. Jackson, who recognizes the observatory's role as an essential facility in the Nation's astrophysics portfolio, and I know he will continue this legacy of excellence.

Mr. MANCHIN

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, Senator Lummis's amendment targets new oil and gas leases that the administration instituted while the Department of Interior reviews our Federal and oil gas leasing program. I, too, am eager to see the results of that review and was hoping we would have received it by now. I will continue to be vocal on my advocacy for American energy independence and addressing climate change through innovation, not elimination. However, drilling continued on existing leases throughout the time, and Secretary Haaland testified before the Energy Committee that the Department is in compliance with the recent court order, which still allows leasing. I believe the administration has the responsibility to evaluate these programs and to make sure that we are getting a reasonable return for the taxpayers, while using our abundant resources in the most responsible way. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 3104

Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise also in support of my colleague's amendment. Climate change is a global issue. We need to deploy all the climate solutions that we can if we are going to meet our global climate goals. That includes coupling the use of our abundant resources with technologies like CCUS that will ensure that we can use them in the cleanest way possible. We need to continue to do more to bring down the cost of these critical technologies and expedite the wide-scale deployment both domestically and abroad, including in countries like China and India, that are aggressively expanding their fossil fuel fleets as we speak. If the United States of America gets out of fossil fuels, I will guarantee you there won't be another country to step up to the plate to do the research and development it takes to combat climate change. So I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation. (Chorus of ``voice vote.'') Vote on Amendment No. 3284

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President.

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition. This makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, our friends--no one voted on that side for the ARP. Next of all, this was done to help people with the programs that were going, who needed help. It was not intended to use people's tax dollars to regive them to the States so the States could look like they were reducing the taxes by not using the money. That's ridiculous. We should not be supporting this whatsoever. It makes no sense at all.