quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, this saturday marks the one-year anniversary of hurricane harvey making land fall on the texas gulf coast. what began morphed into a tropical disturbance and strengthened into a full-blown category 4 hurricane. this is not your average hurricane by any means. dropping a few buckets of rain, maybe soaking through

floorboards or tearing off a shingle or two on a roof. this was a juggernaut. first it crashed into the san jose island off the coast of rockport with wind gusts measured as high as 145 miles an hour. it's hard to know what that means until you see it up close and personal. or so i'm told. two days after landfall, i saw the wreckage firsthand with mayor c.j. wax and governor greg abbott. on broadway and north austin streets in rockport, you could smell the natural gas in the air. storefronts had been leveled, windows had been shattered. powerlines had fallen to the ground and entire boats lay upside down on the side of the road, their sails torn to shreds. roughly 94% of the homes in rockport were damaged and 30% were destroyed outright, and keep in mind this was just the small town of rockport.

this was only the beginning. port arthur, beaumont, houston and victoria many other communities soon faced the brunt of this terrible storm. harvey was relentless, dropping more than 60 inches of rain over the course of several days in some of those places. some -- unlike many hurricanes, it parked itself and it stayed put after making landfall. trapped between two high-pressure systems with nowhere to go, the storm went on to shatter records. some people called it a storm that comes only once every thousand years. others dubbed it the most extreme rain event in united states history. for people who don't live on the gulf coast of texas, who didn't see the shelters firsthand, as i did with my friend and colleague senator cruz at the n.r.g. center in houston, it's really hard to imagine what it looked and felt like.

all the closed roads, flooded homes and exhausted faces of people praying for life to return to normal. over in friendswood, which is right outside of houston, i helped out what is known as texas rubicon, a terrific nonprofit made up of military veterans. we removed sheet rock and hauled debris off residents' yards. i had to wear masks and gloves because of the contamination. it was also in the context of intense heat and mosquitoes and the mud. but all of them were a small taste of what the development and community had to endure for days on end. there were folks like amy, a single mother in houston. this is a scene of her house after the hurricane. you can see on august 22, 2018,

a very nice suburban neighborhood. and this was her house, or what's left of her house and the interior of her house after the hurricane hit. i think these pictures speak to the resiliency of the texans that i got to know in the aftermath of hurricane harvey. their attitude was well, we've been dealt a major setback, but there's no use crying about it. we've got to dig ourselves out of this mess. and that's exactly what they did with the help of tens of thousands of volunteers, donors, philanthropists, business leaders and good samaritans across the country. we're grateful to the many rescuers, people like dan leblanc from port arthur, doug barnes from dallas.

here's a picture of those gentlemen and the great work they did at the cypress glen nursing home. these three had no special expertise in search and rescue but they saved close to 100 patients, some of whom were bedridden and required special boats that could power their life support system. and then there were the bakers at el boleo in houston that provided bread to flood victims. then there was a man we have come to know in houston known as mattress mack, who opened his show room for the displaced. there was officer steve perez, a 34 veteran of the houston police department who paid the ultimate sacrifice during rescue efforts. after the storm hit, he knew the conditions were dangerous, but he insisted on doing his part to help save those he was sworn to

protect and defend. he said simply, we've got work to do. we remember officer perez today and always, and we remember all those courageous first responders who swung into action. the outpouring of texans helping their neighbors over and over again reminded me of a saying i heard years ago at another natural disaster. is that being a texan doesn't describe where you're from. it describes who your family is. during those tough days and long nights that followed, people were hurting after losing so much, not only their homes but their schools where their kids attended schools like alo elementary in milosevic -- in victoria which i visited with principal hurly. in the wake of this devastation

they were wondering what was being done to recover and rebuild. the short answer is a lot. first came the initial response. unlike noah, we didn't have an ark but we had 104 boats courtesy of the u.s. coast guard which rescued more than 11,000 people. fema, the federal emergency management agency, had prepositioned supplies before the storm and worked to coordinate temporary housing after it the hit, led by an administrator brock long, fema did a good job. meanwhile the environmental protection agency worked to restore drinking water. the department of energy worked to restore power. the small business administration approved disaster loans. the national flood insurance program expedited claims. gradually ports reopened, schools and roads started to as well. and governor abbott immediately formed a commission to rebuild texas and wisely appointed a

great texan, john sharp, to chair. following the emergency response, our job here in washington was just beginning. in the weeks and months following landfall congress past three separate aid bills totaling $147 billion. of course this wasn't just for hurricane harvey. it was for the wildfires out west and the hurricanes in puerto rico and florida as well as texas. we also passed a new law allowing texans to receive tax deductions for hurricane-related expenses and successfully encouraged fema to reverse a policy that prevented houses of worship from accessing disaster relief funds. afterwards we codified this change into law. meanwhile the department of housing and urban development announced plans to use $5 billion of the disaster funds to help homeowners rebuild through

the community development block grant program. these resources will help pay for buyouts, the construction of rent properties and reimbursements for repairs incurred in the wake of the storm. once h.u.d. finalizes an additional $5 billion. they will go for mitigation purposes. there isn't much sense in rebuilding without ensuring the region can withstand another major weather event in the future. that's why we made sure that the third disaster aid bill, a response to multiple hurricanes and wildfires across the country, designated roughly half of the relevant u.s. army corps of engineer construction funds to texas-specific projects. the corps of course is a federal entity primarily responsible for flood mitigation. and after harvey laid bare to how vulnerable the houston region truly is, its expertise

became an increasingly valuable asset. now thanks to the corps as well as state and local partners, as well as our colleagues here in congress, some of the most pressing infrastructure improvements are underway. across more than 4,000 squire miles between sabine pass and galveston bay, a series of storm surge and flood protection measures will update levee systems and in some cases construct new ones. in places like clear creek, brays bayou the funds will be used to widen channels, replace bridges and renovate dams. importantlily these projects include cost-share requirements reflecting the partnership between texas, local officials and the trump administration to rebuild. instead of a single infrastructure project, the result will be a new multilayered system of improvements to address our most

acute vulnerabilities. at the same time the long-term planning with the texas general land office as well as the governor's office and the entire texas delegation continues. adding to these efforts is the corps' ongoing coastal texas study which congress has funded and which will provide a comprehensive strategy for flood mitigation which is the necessary sexting step toward coastal protection, because this is not the last hurricane that will hit the gulf coast of texas or the huge economic engine known as houston. i'm confident that having the smartest minds study our coast will ultimately result in recommendations that congress can then authorize. once that happens, in coordination with state legislative and local officials who, let's not forget, play a very large role we'll fight to ensure our coastal communities flourish and are probgted --

protected for generations to come. we have to face the facts, harvey was an unthinkable catastrophe, one of a kind. i can't believe it's already been a year. but for some down there, though, i'm sure it feels like a whole lot longer than that. it's my privilege to serve the people of the great state of texas, and as part of my job, i unfortunately had the occasion to see plenty of heartache and tragedy over the years. few disasters, however, have impacted so many texans and in such a devastating way as hurricane harvey. over the last year working together, texans have begun to heal and rebuild. but the job isn't finished, so i pledge my efforts to work to ensure our state remains protected and appreciate the work and support of all of our colleagues as we've met this terrible disaster with an appropriate federal response.

mr. president, i yield the floor. and i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware car car i ask -- a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: mr. president, i rise today with a number of my colleagues to speak out against the trump administration, e.p.a.'s dirty power plan, a proposal intended to replace the obama administration's clean power plan. this proposal from this administration fails in at least two aspects. first, it fails to address climate change and, second, it will put americans' health at risk. mr. president, millions of american children are headed back to school in my state and

your state, states across the country this week, next week. all three of my children are grown. but not so long ago we were sitting -- sending them off to school, helping them with their homework, making sure they're getting good grades. as far as we know, we didn't know how many failing grades. however, i can't say the same for the trump administration with respect to this latest proposal. a friend of mine recently said if corruption were a class, the trump administration would be getting an a+. well, yet in just about everything else, especially public health and economics, the trump administration continues to fail the american people almost every day. it's clear this administration needs for do a little remedial work, maybe take some courses again, especially in science, basic science. let's be clear that the science behind climate change is settled. it's over. climate change is real. it's happening.

it's a growing threat to americans. and it's getting worse every year. climate change is leading to rising global temperature, rising sea levels and frequent weather events. noaa tells us extreme weather events costing $1 billion or more have doubled in frequency over the past decade. with $425 billion in losses occurring over the last five years alone. that's $425 billion with a "b" over the last five years alone. it's now hard to find a part of our country that isn't being affected in some way by climate change. we see the examples almost everywhere. not too far from my home in delaware, a place called ellicott city, maryland. my wife was there with a bunch of her friends from the dupont company. they all are retired now and

wanted to visit there and support the local people, local economy in ellicott city who have been through just terrible devastation. but in the last two years alone, two 1,000-year floods have devastated ellicott city, maryland, which is just north of washington, d.c., two 1,000-year floods in the last two years. forest fires and extreme heat continue to ravage states like montana, states like california, states like oregon. since we started keeping records, only 49 category 5 hurricanes have threatened the united states. that's since we started keeping records and i think we've been keeping records for maybe a century. three of those 49 category 5 hurricanes occurred in the last year. now think about that. 49 category 5 hurricanes since we've been keeping track, and i think it's about a year, three of those in the last year.

one of them right now is threatening the people of hawaii. i could go on and on and on. but make the mistake, climate change is costing americans -- it's costing us in the form of lost income, lost livelihoods and sadly in some cases lost lives. as someone who represents -- proudly represents the lowest-lying state in the nation, that's delaware, climate change is not a science lecture for us. it affects my constituents daily. for us this issue is personal, intensely personal. that's why i've worked literally my entire career here in the united states senate to find ways to move us away from fossil fuels and reduce carbon pollution. it all started in 2002 when i introduced one of the first bills in congress to cap carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. the good news is that we've made some progress in this country.

that's in part due to huge investments that the obama administration and congress made over the last decade in clean energy. it's also due in part to smart regulations, such as the clean power plan. i proudly supported these efforts. i still do. in addition, many companies across many -- many companies across our nation have stepped up and they deserve some credit. for they're making real investments in clean energy has turned out, though, to be the right thing and to be a wise investment. demonstrating that it's possible once again to do well and do good at the same time. as a result of these actions, our country rebounded from one of its greatest economic downturns in the history in the last decade. we lowered the energy costs, reduced air pollution, and added 16 million new jobs during the obama administration. and also launched the longest

running economic expansion in the history of our country which continues to this day. got a chart here. it says since 1970, the u.s. has cut common air pollutants by almost three-quarters while the u.s. g.d.p. grew by not a little bit but by over 200%. so instead of building on the obama administration's forward-looking environmental standard, this administration has taken pride in tearing the protections apart. this administration's so-called clean energy proposal fails to provide energy with the certainty needed to make clean energy investment for the future and also providing an uncertain future for generations to come. people say at least maybe from where i'm from -- might be north carolina, my wife is from north carolina. she tells me they say this as well in north carolina, mr. president. you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. and no matter what e.p.a. calls

this proposal by the agency's own account, it doesn't achieve affordable energy or clean energy and it definitely doesn't address climate change. e.p.a.'s proposal which i think might more appropriately be called the dirty power plan is instead another step by this administration to dismantle our nation's environmental protections and protect polluters over the public. if i were -- the e.p.a.'s proposal to replace the clean power plan, i wouldn't give it an a. i would not give it a b, nor a c or a d. i might well give it an f, an f. and i take no joy in saying that. but that's the way you call balls and strikes. that's what i would call it. a friend of mine -- maybe you have a friend like this, too, mr. president -- but a friend of mine, when we ask him how he's doing, he sometimes responds with these words, compared to

what? compared to what? when compared against the clean power plan using the e.p.a.'s own number, using the e.p.a.'s own numbers, it's easy to see the dirty power plan's shortcomings. and let's start, if you will, with the clean power plan. we have a chart here. it says the clean power plan would create $54 billion per year in public health and climate benefits. impair that to the dirty power plan. got another chart. this one shows e.p.a.'s -- e.p.a.'s own analysis. not my analysis. not the democratic party's analysis. e.p.a.'s own analysis of trump's clean power plan replacement. what happens to smog? it goes up. what happens to soot? it goes up. what happens to mercury? it goes up. what happens to carbon

pollution? it goes up. and how about premature deaths per year? well, they go up by a couple, by a hundred, a thousand? no, no, no. up by 1,400 premature deaths per year. that's enough for me to say no thank you. and to give the dirty power plan a failing grade, a failing grade. but there's more. the clean power plan would reduce household energy prices by $85 a year through energy efficiency investment. clean power plan also provides long-term certainty for the u.s. businesses helping american companies make smart investments at home. and compete in the global clean energy market. dirty power plan does not help

consumers save money on energy costs, does not provide businesses with certainty and instead will likely see clean area -- creed clean energy jobs to places like -- you guessed it -- china. so let's just recap. when we compare the dirty power plan over there in the red to the clean power plan here in green, cleaner air, clear winner, clean power plan. saving lives, clear winner, clean power plan. job creation, clear winner, clean power plan. energy savings, again clear winner, clean power plan. safer climate, again clean power plan. where i come from, we call it running the table. running the table. well, that's why, mr. president,

in my classroom, if i were the teacher assigning grades, this dirty power plan would not get an a, b, c, d. it would get a failing grade. but let's be honest. e.p.a.'s dirty power plan proposal is not a climate change replacement. it is a retreat. e.p.a.'s dirty power plan proposal from this administration is not a climate change replacement, it is a retreat. it is a retreat from e.p.a.'s most basic responsibilities to ensure breathable air. it is a retreat as well from e.p.a.'s most basic responsibility to usher in economic progress and tackle the greatest environmental crisis that i think we face on this planet of ours. the clean power plan with its long-term certainty and flexibility structure is the federal policy that moves us in

the right direction. fulfills e.p.a.'s legal and scientific obligations to address climate pollution. repealing the clean power plan and replacing it with a proposal is ill-conceived as a dirty power plan will have serious consequences for the health of the public, for our economy, and for this planet in which we are entrusted. the american people people deserve better than a dirty power plan, plain and simple. my colleagues and i are going to do everything in our power to make sure that happens. let me close with this, mr. president. real quick. i see some of my colleagues are waiting to speak. i would say maybe ten years or so ago, mr. president, one of my colleagues, i think it was either george voinovich or lamar alexander were working on legislation to address for our air pollutants, night are tron

oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide. and we offered legislation in response to the bush administration. they said they who dealt with nitrogen oxide and mercury. they called it clear skies. pretty clever. we added that to carbon dioxide. we called our proposal really clear skies. and i remember having a meeting in my office about a decade ago and we had -- in my office we had my colleague, my republican cosponsor, we also had representatives from six, seven, eight, nine utilities from all over the country and we were debating, discussing whether or not clear skies, the bush proposal, or really clear skies, our proposal, really made sense. at the end of the discussion, i'll never forget what one of the utility c.e.o.'s said. i foe he -- i know he was from

the south. he said, senators, here's what you should do. tell us what the rules are going to be. give us a reasonable amount of time, some flexibility, and get out of the way. that's what he said. i'll never forget it. tell us what the rules are going to be with respect to air emission, give us a reasonable amount of time, some flexibility, and get out of the way. i think that's what the clean power plan did. and we need to get back a lot closer to that proposal because i think it mirrors and reflects the advice we received a decade ago. mill time has expired. i thank my colleagues for their patience. i'm happy to yield to the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. mr. flake: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i just want to rise very briefly to address something that happened overnight. the president tweeted with regard to south africa, and i serve as chairman of the africa

subcommittee on the foreign relations committee. the president tweeted the following, i asked secretary of state pompeo to closely study the south african land and seizures and killing of farmers. the south african government is seizing land from white farmers. i think it's important for the president, if he's going to conduct foreign policy by tweet, to be more careful and to not base something on one news report. these things matter. south africa is, in fact, the ruling party has proposed land reform measures in south africa's parliament. i hope that they think long and hard about some of the proposals that are coming forward and not to mimic what happened in zimbabwe 15 years ago, that zimbabwe is still recovering

from. this would not be, in my view, a good road to take to expropriate land without compensation. having said, it is simply a proposal. it has not been implemented. on the second part of that, there is a large-scale killing of farmers. there is no evidence to suggest that there is a large killing of farmers. of course the death of one farmer is too many, but to suggest that there is somehow a large-scale killing going on when the evidence suggests that the number of farmers that have been killed over the past year is about one-third of the level that was reached in the 1990's. so i would just encourage the president to be more careful when he tweets, to not -- do not conduct foreign policy by tweet, and to certainly say to our

south african friends, a new government that we're working with on a number of issues, we have a good relationship with and want to remain close to, that we in the congress believe that we are their friends and we want to move forward in ways that will bring the best to south africans and a good partnership with our country. and with that, i yield back. mr. durbin: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call quorum

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: will the member suspend?

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. paul: mr. president, planned parenthood ends the lives of 320 ,000 babies each year. that's about 900 babies every day. planned parenthood receives over $400 million of taxpayer money. the government with the wink and a nod tells us that planned parenthood doesn't spend the money on abortions. but everybody knows that the

taxpayers really cross subsidizing planned parenthood's abortion bills. my amendment would end funding to planned parenthood. my amendment is already included in the house version. and yet my amendment is now being blocked by republicans. why would republicans block a vote on defending planned parenthood? it may surprise some. because so many republicans go home saying they're against planned parenthood but this vote could happen right now, right now today if republicans don't object. everybody knows democrats love abortion and planned parenthood more than life itself. but republicans? many voters think the republicans actually care about the unborn. many voters think republicans are really opposed to government-funded abortions. but the dirty little secret is that republican leadership is blocking my amendment to defund

planned parenthood. that's right. the republican leadership has filled the amendment tree to block my defund planned parenthood amendment. but how can that be? surely republican leadership doesn't favor abortion funding? the answer is a curious one. the truth is that republican leadership favors bloated government spending more than they care about plan the parenthood. this appropriations bill before us exceeds the spending caps by nearly $100 billion. big spending republicans fear that blocking funding for plan the parenthood would derail their plans to greatly expand the welfare warfare state. so be it. the public has long known the democrats are the abortion party. now the public will know that many republicans just give lip service to pro-life issues and really are more concerned with

boated government spending -- bloated government spending than saving lives. of the 320,000 babies that plan the parenthood will abort this year, about 6,400 of these babies would be geniuses. they would develop into geniuses if they were allowed to live. perhaps one of these potential geniuses would have discovered a cure for cancer or lou gehrig's disease. of the 320,000 babies aborted by plan the parenthood -- planned parenthood every year, about a thousand would become doctors. 1,500 would become engineers. 1,200 lawyers, 3,400 teachers and 400 pastors. but all of that potential is lost each year as a consequence of planned parenthood. what i would say to my republican colleagues is please, please explain to voters at home why you allow planned parenthood

to continue receiving taxpayer funds. explain to those at home why you blocked, why you purposely filled the amendment tree to block an amendment to defund planned parenthood. please explain to voters at home why passing huge deficit spending bills is more important than trying to save lives. and please explain to america why anyone would trust politicians who continue to break their promises. so make no mistake about it, my amendment to block funding for planned parenthood is being blocked by republicans. in a moment, one of the democrat leaders will stand up and ask for a vote on my amendment as well as a democrat amendment. we don't agree on the policy but we agree that if you allow an amendment from each side, we could have some comity. we could have some debate and we could live to disagree on another day. but this amendment is not being blocked by the democrats. this amendment is being blocked by republicans who refuse to vote on a democrat amendment.

republican leadership has the power to unblock the amendment tree and allow the vote. the question is, what is more important to these republicans? saving lives or spending money? i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up my amendment 3967. a senator: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, let me say at the outset the issue of abortion is a divisive issue in america. many people have different strongly held, different held beliefs on this particular issue. we have a law on the books now and have for decades that no federal funds may be spent for the performance of abortion procedures, including at planned parenthood. but planned parenthood does much more than that.

planned parenthood provides health care for millions of women across the united states and planned parenthood provides family planning so that these women could avoid unplanned pregnancies which sadly in many cases lead to abortion. so regardless of your position on abortion, the position of the planned parenthood and counseling families so they can control the number of children is to avoid unplanned pregnancy and the likelihood of an abortion procedure following. it is for that reason that i have consistently voted against senator paul when he stands here to defund planned parenthood and will today. but i'm about to make a modification request in the hopes that we can have the vote that he just asked for. we could have the vote on planned parenthood as long as we also have a vote, a democratic vote, one of each that's being offered by senator joe manchin of west virginia and it basically says that we in the united states senate will join in an effort to preserve those portions of the affordable care act that protect families who

have a member with a preexisting condition. that's basically it. time and again we've heard republicans say we don't want to have discrimination against families because there's a child who is a cancer survivor or a spouse who has diabetes. we don't want them discrime natured -- discriminated against and charged more for health insurance. that's all senator manchin is asking for. we'll have the paul amendment and the manchin amendment which goes to the heart of the preexisting protection. those two amendments could bring us to a close in this debate, i think that's a fair bipartisan conclusion. and i would agree with what senator rand paul has said of kentucky. this is the right way to end this debate. a republican amendment, a democratic amendment. so i move to modify the request of senator paul and that the following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number, paul 3967, manchin 3865. i further ask consent that at 4:00 p.m. the senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, there be no

second-degree amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes and that each amendment be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption. i further ask following disposition of the paul amendment, the managers' package which is at the desk be agreed to, a bipartisan package and all postcloture time be yielded back. the presiding officer: is there objection to the modification? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the paul amendment is a germane amendment. it should be taken up and passed with a majority vote in the united states senate. this counterproposal asks that a 60-vote threshold be set for the paul amendment which obviously would make it much less likely that it would actually pass. i think that makes a whole lot more sense is having a vote on the paul amendment as a stand alone to defund planned parenthood with the majority

vote of 50. but i also believe that the manchin amendment has problems as well. first, this manchin amendment inserts itself into pending litigation led by my home state of texas by intervening as a party only a few weeks prior to oral argument in a lawsuit pending in federal court. this is a role that's generally reserved to the executive branch, and i believe that the legislature, the senate, should exercise caution and deference to the constitutional role of other branches before injecting ourselves into a contested lawsuit at a late hour. secondly, the manchin amendment would assert that the senate should defend all provisions, all provisions of the affordable care act. while that may be the position of the senior senator from west virginia, i have a number of concerns and objections to obamacare which are well known as do so many of my republican

colleagues. there are many problematic and possibly illegal provisions of obamacare that should not be defended by this body as the manchin amendment would urge. finally, mr. president, i strongly believe in protecting americans from preexisting conditions and ensuring they have access to affordable health care. our friends across the aisle act as if the only way you can protect against preexisting conditions is obamacare. that's demonstrably false. there is a much better and more reasonable way to protect americans against preexisting conditions other than shack -- to shackle them with obamacare. but i believe the best way for us to address this is by legislating, working together and coming up with legislation that will actually solve the problem rather than injecting ourselves into ongoing litigation against obamacare. while i'm opposed to the

extraneous amendment by the senior senator from west virginia, i'm completely in support of voting on senator paul's amendment. i frankly am a little confused by his statement that republicans are opposing his amendment when at this point i will renew the request of the senator from kentucky, but i would ask that it be set at a 50-vote threshold as a germane amendment to the pending legislation. the presiding officer: is there objection to this modification? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. i would like some explanation of where we are on the floor at this moment. the presiding officer: senator paul has the floor. he has a unanimous consent request to which there have been two modifications sought.

is there objection to the modification for the senator from texas? mr. durbin: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. is there objection to the modification from the senator from illinois? mr. cornyn: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. is there objection to the original request by the senator from kentucky? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. we have agreed, the senator from kentucky, republican senator is offering an amendment to defund planned parenthood. i will be opposing that but i believe he's entitled to a vote. we are asking on the democratic side to have an amendment in a bipartisan nature so that a democratic amendment can be offered which may be opposed by both of the republican senators. that would be a real debate in the senate which we rarely, rarely have. and because senator paul and i agree there should be both amendments, a democratic, republican amendment and move forward to close down the debate on the overall bill, i will object until we get the agreement of senator cornyn. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia man mr. manchin: i can't believe we're getting into the tat or tat and whether you agree or not on the amendment that's up, we thought we had an agreement that both amendments would be able to be voted on. my amendment, simply trying to intervene using the senate's legal staff to intervene on preexisting conditions. it affects every one of us. it affects 1.8 million kentuckians. it affects 800,000 west virginians. every state that has people who have some form of preexisting conditions and every family has someone in them. what we're asking is for us to go and fight the good fight. this whole piece of legislation,

the law, is going to be in the suit -- the presiding officer: the senate will hold. the senate will be in order. mr. manchin: the suit we're dealing with is texas versus the united states. 20 attorney generals are bringing suit to basically taking preexisting conditions away allowing insurance companies being able to decide whether they're going to sell you insurance or not or how much they're going to charge you for the insurance or putting caps back on saying you're too sick in order for us to spend more or invest any more money into you. all we're asking for is give us a vote on it. let's see if the senate wants to intervene and see if we can fight to save some of the people's health care around the country. 800,000 west virginians are depending on this. that's all we've asked for. senator paul's asked for a vote on his amendment. i think that should be granted. and i think equally right that ours should be granted. we thought there was an agreement earlier. i don't know why politics -- i don't know why i would not believe that politics has not

been involved but why it got involved at this level to give us a vote. all i'm asking again is for common sense and cooler heads to prevail and let's move on. we can get this accomplished. we thought we had it worked out. you know, you're talking about cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, all other types of illnesses that can be determined to be a preexisting condition. we have 400,000 west virginians who have severe conditions, preexisting conditions, that won't even be able to buy insurance because the insurance companies won't sell it to them. they are just too costly. there is not enough profit in it. they are too sick. they're out. another 400,000 are going to have their rates raised to the point they probably can't afford it. i just don't know why we're going down this path again. and i don't think there is a democrat or a republican -- this is not a political issue. this is a life-or-death issue. so all i'm asking my colleagues on the republican side, please consider this. let us vote on it. you can vote the way you want

to, go home and explain your vote. i'm okay with that. you want us to vote on the planned parenthood, whether people think they should or should not. let them go home and explain it. but not to let us vote and not even talk about it because i look here, kentucky, 1.8 million people in kentucky have been diagnosed with preexisting conditions. i'm sure they would like to be able to buy their insurance. i'm sure they would like to have protection. the insurance companies can't say i'm sorry, not for you today. so i would hope you all would consider this. let's put it up for a vote and see where it goes. let's go after them in court. this thing happened september september 5 -- happens septembe. i know the senator says it's not germane or he is using different technologies or different reasoning for that. when they moved this court date from the 14th to the 5th, it's of urgent necessity for us to get in and intervene and see if we can protect the people of america, and i need to fight the people of west virginia, and i will continue to do that. thank you, mr. president.

i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: i rise today to talk about the conservation act. i ask unanimous consent that my remarks be at the appropriate place in the senate records. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, i talked a lot yesterday about the benefits of the land and water conservation fund and how it's popular, it's one of the most popular and successful bipartisan programs that exist for conservation. i shared with my colleagues and with those who listened a newsletter from the blue ridge parkway foundation and some of the great things that they're doing with private sector dollars where they have taken what the land and water conservation fund provides, which is zero in taxpayer dollars but royalties off of exploration, and they placed that through the states to protect treasures that we have, and in those states and localities, they use that federal seed money to leverage

private sector dollars to produce inholdings and edge holdings and out parcels, sometimes traded so that we protect the land that's most valuable to us and how that leverages volunteers and private dollars. it's on the order of ten to one private dollars to federal. today i want to give you a great example of how lwcf money was used for acquisition of land that's made it safer for outdoor enthusiasts and also easier for local governments in my state of north carolina. we have a falls called the cawtawba falls. it's a popular falls in north carolina. but the trail to get to the falls is over private land. therefore, those who venture there for the recreational benefits and beauty of the falls find a circuitous route to get there, and in many cases we have

individuals that become injured, and this becomes very costly to local emergency services because when you extract somebody from an inholding that you have no public access to, you have to airlift those individuals out. the foothills conservancy recognized this need and this wonderful land trust was able to move quickly when the landowner became willing to sell for public access. now, i think it's an interesting fact that this family that sold to foothills was the first family in the united states to sell land to the u.s. forest service in 1911 under the then-weeks act. the forest service was eventually able to acquire the land through the land and water conservation fund. now there is a road, a parking lot for visitors. the cost of emergency services to get to the falls to respond to accidents has been dramatically reduced. visiting the attraction is now

safer for hikers, visitors, experiences are improved with parking, rest rooms. a beautiful trail that belongs to the public was made and local government's burden was eased. they used to average one medical situation a month. since the president of the senate is a physician by practice, i know he understands the cost that is incurred with an emergency of that magnitude. because of this access, they have saved one hour per extraction in the mcdowell county emergency management is saving $1 million annually because they don't have to do helicopter extraction. it's an economic stimulus to the town of old fort and protects the headwaters of the catawba river, which i might add is the drinking supply for the city of charlotte, north carolina. talk about a win, win, win. this is one of them.

this is a perfect example of how lwcf helps make access for the public easier by purchasing an edge holding. as americans, we need more outdoor recreation and access opportunities, not fewer. the program is widely supported by outdoor recreation industry enthusiasts, conservationists, anglers, hunters, birdwatchers, and all who appreciate access to america's unparalleled land. if i didn't mention it, it requires zero in taxpayer money. let me say that again. there is zero taxpayer money. the u.s. outdoor recreation economy generates $887 billion in consumer spending. it generates $65 billion in tax revenue. if you don't utilize the outdoors as an individual and you're a budget hawk, it's a good program. it grows the economy. it produces revenues for the federal government. the program has been so successful that just a decade

after its original enactment, the congress in 1977 decided to triple its authorization to a level of $900 million, the level it remains at today. i might add that the first two authorizations of this bill were for 25 years. 25 years, 25 years. eventually the authorization level for funding went to $900 million. it has only been funded at $900 million one time in the over 50 years it's been established. in our great wisdom, for some reason, we authorized it at three years three years ago, and this september 30, it will expire. and as of march 30, it had a credit in its account of $21.5 billion in the land and water conservation fund because congress every year chose not to allocate the full $900 million that has been credited to the fund. this bill puts the money towards deferred maintenance and returns the rest to the treasury.

so let me just very quickly tell you the bill that i'm going to ask unanimous consent that this body take up and pass. it is a bill -- the base of the new bill is permanent authorization of the program. it also includes a provision that i had sprung on everybody yesterday. members of the united states senate have expressed a concern about a permanent reauthorization with no ability to go in and alter that, so what i did was i added a provision that allows every three years for the congress to take up a dissolution resolution where with a 60-vote margin, they can disapprove the automatic renewal. you see, we have tried to address all the concerns that have been raised. for the 115th congress, i have tried since the beginning of it to come down here and to get

this floor -- get this bill on the floor, only to hear not today. it needs to be on something else. we can't have a vote on it. we have never been allowed to have a vote on it. i'm sympathetic for individuals who raise questions on the ability to vote. if future congresses believe they need to review the program, this provision allows them to do it by simply passing the joint resolution of disapproval. every three years, they are given the opportunity. additionally, this bill shares funds currently available to the lwcf program. now, let me just again remind everybody background. $900 million credited on an annual basis, land and water conservation fund every year. that's in statute. every year it's determined by appropriators as to how much money they intend to appropriate, and only one out of the plus-50 years since -- one of the years since 1977 when we

raised the allocation to $900 million has it actually been funded at $900 million. so each year goes -- each year $900 million goes in, appropriators dole out what they want to, and it's all royalty money. it doesn't have anything to do with taxpayer money. that's left a hefty chunk of change just sitting there, waiting for congress to appropriate it. $21.4 billion. now, to meet my colleagues halfway, in addition to addressing a three-year review with -- a vote not to approve its -- to disapprove of automatic renewal, my bill does this -- i have decided to put those available funds towards a program that many of my colleagues have been very vocally supportive of this past year. this bill would reallocate $11 billion out of the lwcf trust fund, and it would

allocate that money and dedicate it to the national park service for maintenance. so i know many members are anxious to get a parks maintenance bill through, and we have had trouble doing that. i'm giving you an opportunity and an option that would fund it at a level that we haven't even talked about. we're talking about somewhere right around a billion dollars, yet we know we have $10 billion worth of deferred maintenance. and with just the reauthorization of this one conservation program, we would shift out of the lwcf account $11 billion to the parks and maintenance account. now, it doesn't make a mathematician to realize that the money would be available immediately. it would still require the appropriations process, but that there is an additional $10 billion in the lwcf fund that's left. so what i propose in this

legislation is the bill would credit back to the general treasury $10 billion to go to pay down debt. now, i have heard a lot of my colleagues stand up here. as a matter of fact, many in this body voted for a rescissions package that had a $16 million reduction in the lwcf fund, and i voted against it because i got no help with trying to understand why we were going to cut money out of a program that we had yet to fund at the level it was authorized at. if they were willing to cut $16 billion -- $16 million of lwcf to pay down debt, i'm giving you a great opportunity, i'm giving you $10 billion in this bill. so we're going to take $21 billion that the lwcf has accrued over its existence that's been unallocated to them

but still there, and we're going to have $11 billion in parks and recreation maintenance fund, and we're going to give $10 billion to the treasury to pay down debt. now, i have been working on all aspects of lwcf for about five years, if not longer. i think i have addressed in the last 24 hours every, every concern that has been expressed -- budget, taxpayer money, parks and maintenance, why should we do it. let me suggest to the president and to my colleagues, why should we do this because americans really appreciate this program, because across this country, there are generations today that believe that their children and their grandchildren will be able to experience the same experience they had because we have been smart enough to protect some of those treasures.

i don't want to be greedy. i would love to appropriate $21 billion, as i'm sure my colleague from colorado, who i see standing over there, would love to do. it's probably not needed all at one time, but the credit is there. but if we're willing to reauthorize this program and to give them some degree of permanency, then i believe every person who is the beneficiary of or interested in the land and water conservation fund will not argue with saying, okay, we will take the $21 billion we built up, we'll give $11 billion to parks maintenance program, and we will pay $10 billion to the treasury, and we will start over at accruing at $900 million a year what the american people, through their congresses in the past have said we're going to invest in these conservation efforts. it's a significant gift. there are winners and winners and winners.

there is no diffee