[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 9, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2785-S2802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

        TAXPAYER FIRST ACT OF 2019--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). The Senator from Tennessee.


                                 Racism

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, U.S. Senator Tim Scott, who is an 
African-American Republican from South Carolina, once told our Bible 
study that police in his hometown had stopped him several times for 
being a ``Black man in the wrong place'' even though, at the time, he 
was serving as chairman of the Charleston City Council.
  During these last few days, I have been thinking a lot about what Tim 
Scott told us, and I wondered how many White Americans know things like 
that happen--White Americans like me. I wondered how I would feel if I 
were stopped for being a White man in the wrong place in my hometown, 
especially if most of the people in the town were Black. Would I feel 
hurt? Scared? Disillusioned? Angry? Weary? Disappointed? Intimidated? 
Probably all of those things.
  One result of George Floyd's killing is that Black Americans are 
telling more stories like Tim Scott's. A professor of religious studies 
in Nashville wrote in The Tennessean that he carries a licensed firearm 
with him when he goes for a run. A columnist remembers that, as a 6-
year-old, a White woman outside a Dallas gas station restroom said to 
him: Now, you don't belong here.
  Well-educated Black businessmen count the times they have been 
profiled because of their race. One of my friends in Memphis, who is 
now vice president of Memphis's largest hospital, told me that when he 
went to Memphis State in the 1960s, it was clear to him that almost 
everyone thought that he didn't belong there.
  During my lifetime, I have seen profound changes in racial attitudes. 
In 1958, when I enrolled at Vanderbilt University, I had no Black 
classmates. African Americans couldn't sit at lunch counters in 
Nashville. Blacks driving across Tennessee couldn't stay in most 
motels; they couldn't eat at most restaurants; they couldn't ride at 
the front of most public buses.
  Then, in 1962, in the spring, the Vanderbilt University Board of 
Trustees changed its policy and admitted Black undergraduate students.
  In August of 1963, I remember standing in the back of a huge crowd 
late that month. I was an intern in the U.S. Department of Justice, and 
I heard a booming voice--which was Dr. Martin Luther King's voice--say: 
``I have a dream.''
  In 1968, I was a Senate aide here, and I remember being in the room, 
which is today the Republican leader's office, where Senators were 
around a big table, and Senator Everett Dirksen and then-President 
Lyndon Johnson were writing the Civil Rights bill.
  During the 1980s, I saw Tennessee adopt a Martin Luther King holiday 
and swear in its first Black supreme court justice. In the 1980s, the 
University of Tennessee hired its first two Black vice presidents, and 
it hired its first Black basketball coach who, as a teenager in Alcoa, 
once sat in the ``colored'' section at UT football games.
  I saw the Voting Rights Act help to elect thousands of African-
American public officials, including President Barack Obama and Senator 
Tim Scott. Last week, I asked Senator Scott if I could tell the story 
that he told us privately in the Bible study. He said: Sure. It 
happened again just last month.
  So despite a half century of profound change, an African-American 
U.S. Senator is stopped again by police for being a Black man in the 
wrong place in his hometown. So what do we do now? Bringing those who 
killed George Floyd to justice will help. Dealing firmly with looters 
who hijack peaceful protests will help. Some new laws and government 
actions will help, such as criminal justice reform and permanent 
funding for historically Black colleges that became law in this 
Congress. It would also help to open schools and colleges in August and 
to open them safely because a good education is the surest ticket to a 
better future for minority students, and those students will suffer 
more from schools being closed.
  Benjamin Hooks, the former NAACP president from Memphis--he was the 
national president of the NAACP; he lived in Memphis. He taught 
students this. Dr. Hooks said: America is a work in progress. We have 
come a long way, but we have a long way to go.
  That long way to go, I would say, will not be as easy as passing 
laws. It will take changing behavior. One way to do that could be last 
week's peaceful protest organized by Nashville teenagers, which was a 
textbook example of First Amendment citizenship, and it hopefully will 
encourage more victims of racism to tell their stories and more White 
Americans to adjust our attitudes.
  I am grateful that Tim Scott gave me permission to tell his story. 
Perhaps a good first step to changing attitudes toward racial 
discrimination would be for each of us who is White to ask ourselves 
this question: How would I feel if police in my hometown repeatedly 
stopped me for being a White man or a White woman in the wrong place, 
especially if most of the other people in the town were Black?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The Senator from New Mexico


                               H.R. 1957

  Mr. HEINRICH. Madam President, during these past months, in the midst 
of a pandemic that has kept most of us inside our homes, Americans have 
grown to appreciate, in new ways, how critical each moment of fresh air 
can

[[Page S2786]]

be to maintaining both our physical health and our mental well-being.
  More people are getting outside than ever before, whether for a quick 
walk in their local neighborhood park or by seeking solitude on the 
many public lands held in trust for each and every American citizen. 
Coming from a State that is blessed with expansive skies and remote 
open spaces, I am convinced that investing in the future of our parks 
and our public lands will be a key path for our Nation to recover from 
the challenges we currently face.
  That is why I am so proud that we are coming together this week to 
bring the Great American Outdoors Act to the Senate floor for a vote. 
Our bipartisan legislation will permanently and fully fund the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund and finally dedicate real resources to begin 
tackling the multibillion dollar infrastructure backlog in our national 
parks, our national forests, and our wildlife refuges.
  If you have spent time enjoying your local parks, trail systems, 
ballfields or open space in the last 50 years, you have almost 
certainly experienced the impact of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. In New Mexico, LWCF has been instrumental in protecting some of 
our most treasured public lands--places like the Valles Caldera 
National Preserve with its trout streams, its high altitude meadows, 
and its massive elk herd. I know it is hard to tell, but this is 
actually me not catching a trout in the Valles Caldera National 
Preserve, but it is OK because any day in the preserve is a good day.
  It also helped us establish the Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge 
in Albuquerque's South Valley, a place where young people will be 
introduced to nature, many for the first time in a really meaningful 
way, in a place that is at the heart of the local community now.
  It purchased and protected the entirety--the entirety--of Ute 
Mountain, which is now a centerpiece of the Rio Grande del Norte 
National Monument. It almost boggles the mind to think about the scale 
of that, but this entire mountain used to be private, and there was no 
public access. Today, it is one of the most treasured places in Taos 
County, a rural county that relies on recreation and fishing and 
boating and camping to drive its economy.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund is also our most effective tool 
for opening up public access to our public lands. Just recently, the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund helped the Bureau of Land Management 
acquire land parcels that finally opened up public access to the rugged 
Sabinoso Wilderness in Northeastern New Mexico. This is Sabinoso, with 
its narrow mesas and spectacular canyon walls, which had previously 
been completely off limits to the public despite being part of the 
national wilderness system. It had become entirely surrounded by public 
land, so there wasn't a legal trail or a legal road to be able to enjoy 
this place. Today, that landscape is something that the local community 
and visitors from afar share on a daily basis.
  LWCF also funds recreation areas in neighborhood parks, sports 
fields, and communities all across our State and all across the Nation.
  Last year, I was proud to be part of a successful bipartisan effort 
here in the Senate to permanently reauthorize LWCF. However, without 
guaranteed permanent funding, Congress still needs to approve LWCF 
expenditures each year, year after year after year. This has resulted 
in us falling far, far short of the $900 million per year commitment 
that was originally intended when LWCF was established over five 
decades ago. Permanently and fully funding LWCF will be a monumental 
victory for conservation and the places where we all get outside.
  It might well be the greatest investment that we can make that will 
pay off for many generations to come because every $1 spent on LWCF 
creates an additional $4 in economic value just in natural resources, 
goods, and services. That doesn't account for the long-term growth in 
the outdoor recreation sector and the tourism industry.
  Teddy Roosevelt once said: ``Conservation means development as much 
as it does protection.'' I believe that this type of investment in 
conservation is exactly what President Roosevelt meant.
  Now, to the second leg of our landmark Great American Outdoors Act: 
We all know how important it is to rebuild the infrastructure in all of 
our national parks. You can't enjoy visiting these iconic American 
places if the bathrooms don't work, if the trails and the campgrounds 
aren't open, and if the roads are in disrepair. These are places that 
we are so proud of, that we cherish. From our oldest national parks, 
like Yellowstone and Yosemite, to our Nation's newest national park--
one I am particularly close to--White Sands National Park in New 
Mexico, they all deserve better
  I am proud that the Great American Outdoors Act also includes 
dedicated funding to address similar infrastructure needs in our 
national forests, our wildlife refuges, and our Bureau of Land 
Management lands. We have also included dedicated funding to address 
the unacceptable maintenance backlog at schools managed by the Bureau 
of Indian Education. There are many BIE schools that serve students 
across Indian country that are in truly dangerous states of disrepair.
  Through this legislation, we are finally going to make major progress 
on providing these students the kinds of safe schools and educational 
facilities that they truly deserve.
  In the wake of our current economic crisis, rebuilding all this 
critical infrastructure will provide tens of thousands of new jobs 
across the Nation. It is estimated that just investing in fixing the 
National Park Service's infrastructure alone would generate nearly 
110,000 new jobs. These investments will also create a lasting heritage 
that will grow the outdoor recreation economy and provide us all with 
more opportunities to get outside. We know this can work.
  The last time we as a nation faced an economic downturn on the scale 
of what we are experiencing today, Americans turned to our public 
lands. At the height of the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
understood well that out-of-work Americans were not without worth but, 
rather, that they could leave an indelible mark on our country.
  Now, over the years, I have been lucky to have met many of the men 
who served in the New Deal's Civilian Conservation Corps, or ``CCC 
boys,'' as they often referred to themselves as. While most of these 
men have now passed away, sadly, the trails, the visitor centers, and 
the other important infrastructure on our public lands that they had so 
much pride in building almost a century ago continue to serve this 
Nation.
  Throughout our long recovery, we will be a stronger nation if we can 
provide a new generation of Americans with meaningful opportunities to 
serve their country and leave their mark. There is so much work we need 
to do to rebuild our country.
  In the midst of a real national reckoning on race over these recent 
weeks and as we continue to face the most severe economic and public 
health crises in generations, we should all be thinking about how we 
can rebuild our country in a way that includes all of us.
  I firmly believe that this urgent goal is intertwined in our efforts 
this week in the Senate to grow opportunities in our great American 
outdoors. That is because our public lands and outdoor spaces are 
fundamental to who we are as Americans. They are the places where we 
can each find a real sense of belonging in this great country of ours. 
I think we must frankly acknowledge the uncomfortable truth that the 
outdoors has not always seemed like such a welcoming and accessible 
place for all Americans. Many of our national parks have a fraught 
history with the Tribal nations whose ancestral lands they are on. In 
New Mexico, many of our national forests were established on the very 
same lands that were deeded as land grants to families by the Spanish 
Crown.
  Our public lands agencies have not always recognized that history, 
and there remains much more hard work ahead to provide meaningful seats 
at the table in the management of these landscapes to the communities 
whose heritage and living cultural ties date back hundreds and, in some 
cases, even thousands of years on these lands.
  We must also recognize that outdoor excursions, which many of us, 
frankly, just take for granted, are not always within reach for all of 
us. I grew up exploring the outdoors on my family's

[[Page S2787]]

ranch and on surrounding lands, and I strongly believe that just one 
opportunity to get outside can change a child's whole world. It can 
inspire a lifetime commitment to conservation and encourage the health 
benefits that come with an active lifestyle.
  Far too many kids don't have access to parks or open spaces. 
According to the Trust for Public Land, more than 100 million 
Americans--and that includes 28 million children--do not have access to 
a park within a 10-minute walk of their home. That number should be 
zero. Especially during the pandemic, that number should have been 
zero.
  On top of physical accessibility, many children grow up in households 
where their parents cannot afford a vacation or they may feel rightly 
unsafe in these spaces, fearing an experience much like that of 
Christian Cooper in Central Park recently. We are not solving all of 
these challenges with what we are voting on here this week, but the 
increased investment in the Great American Outdoors Act will create 
more outdoor opportunities that I hope will truly benefit all of our 
Nation's children.
  Our public lands are places we should all be able to access 
regardless of how thick or thin our wallets are, where we grow up, or 
the color of our skin. To learn about the natural wonders all around 
us, to really learn about our history by exploring the stories that 
reside in these places, I don't know of any easy answers to the 
numerous historic challenges we are facing as a nation today, but I do 
know that the right answers will come only if they are based on an 
honest appraisal of our deep-seated history--the good and the bad, the 
inspiring and the painful.
  I believe one of the best ways for kids--really all of us--to learn 
about that complex history of our country is by visiting our public 
lands. Let me share just one example. When you visit El Morro National 
Monument in Western New Mexico, you walk up to a massive sandstone rock 
wall that dominates the high desert landscape around it. As you 
approach the cliff face, you begin to clearly see etchings and markings 
carved into the stone. These inscriptions give physical form to the 
history of many, many generations of people who have come to our State 
or called it home. There are petroglyphs from indigenous cultures, and 
right next to them--in some cases, even carved over them--are 
signatures of Spanish priests and conquistadors dating back to the late 
1500s and early 1600s. There are records left by American homesteading 
families traveling westward on wagon trains. You can find the names of 
U.S. Army soldiers, including the strange but true Army Camel Corps 
that trained nearby in the late 1850s. And, yes, you heard that right, 
Camel Corps. The military was testing out camels in the New Mexico 
desert long before they started testing out fighter jets, rockets, and 
satellites in New Mexico.
  When you see all of these names and images left behind on El Morro's 
Inscription Rock, you begin to appreciate how varied and also how messy 
the history of just this one place in our Nation is. You begin the 
process of learning that we have always been a country filled with 
diverse, resilient people but also a country riddled with conflicts and 
shortcomings. That is why it is so important to protect our parks and 
to protect our public lands.
  These are the places where new generations of Americans will learn 
about both our natural and our human history. It is where they will go 
to find inspiration to chart new paths forward for our great Nation. 
For all of these reasons, I am so proud that we have come together on 
this legislation. We can all understand why investing in restoring and 
expanding opportunities in our parks and public lands has to be part of 
our national recovery. These are the places where all of us belong.
  These are the places where all of us belong. These lands are our 
lands, and they heal us in a way that few things can.
  I think of all the generations of Americans who have cared for these 
places so my family and I can enjoy them and learn from them today. 
With this historic legislation, the Great American Outdoors Act, we are 
going to help do our part to, literally, pay it forward.
  We often invoke Teddy Roosevelt around here when working on 
conservation legislation. That legislation rarely measures up to the 
level of accomplishment that you see written in the story of his 
Presidency.
  While I am not superstitious, I have to admit that I always visit his 
bust here in the Capitol just outside this Chamber before an important 
conservation vote. This bill--this bill--is the first time in my career 
that we have done something truly on the scale of Teddy Roosevelt's 
work, and I stand here proud to be a part of it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Criminal Justice System

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if you were to approach a random person 
on the street in any city in America today and say: Who is George 
Floyd, I could all but guarantee you that you would be met with a quick 
response. They would tell you about their horror at seeing this video 
of him being killed at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer; that, 
sadly, he was not the first victim of this type of crime; and that his 
death has now mobilized Americans of all races, ages, and backgrounds 
to demand action.
  A friend of Mr. Floyd's for more than 35 years said:

       Everybody in the world knows who George Floyd is today. 
     Presidents, Kings, and Queens--they know George Floyd.

  It is true. His name and face are everywhere. He is the subject of 
incredible artwork, passionate speeches, and dinner table 
conversations. He is the reason for marches and demonstrations in the 
cities from Houston to Minneapolis, to London, to Sydney. And today, 
after 2 weeks of grieving, the Floyd family will finally lay their 
beloved brother, father, and friend to rest in his hometown of Houston, 
TX.
  Over the past 2 weeks, I have joined the chorus of voices calling for 
justice for Mr. Floyd. The first step is underway now that the officers 
have been charged, but this alone is not enough. Our country has a 
responsibility to do the best we can to prevent another family from 
burying their son or daughter as a result of excessive force by a 
police officer.
  People of all races are now actively engaged in a national 
conversation about the racial injustices that exist in our country--one 
that is deeply needed and long overdue.
  I want to assure the people of Texas that these conversations are 
happening in the U.S. Senate as well. Our friend and colleague Senator 
Tim Scott, from South Carolina, briefed the Republican conference today 
on the package of bills he is developing, with help from a group of our 
Members, to combat the racial injustice that still exists in our 
country today--particularly, as it applies to law enforcement.
  This is a product of discussions that Leader McConnell and I and 
others have had that would make real and lasting changes in communities 
across the country. I am proud to be part of the discussion led by 
Senator Scott, and I want to commend both him and the majority leader 
for their leadership and sense of urgency--one we all feel.
  I think the necessary changes begin within our criminal justice 
system. Despite calls from some to defund or even disband the police, I 
believe these steps would do far more harm than good. It is not the 
right answer. Instead, we need to do a top-to-bottom review of our 
criminal justice system--something that has not happened in more than 
50 years.
  Senators Peters, Graham, and I have introduced a bill to create a 
National Criminal Justice Commission that would do just that. Over the 
course of 18 months, the Commission would examine our criminal justice 
system and provide recommendations on specific changes that should be 
made by Congress.
  I have recommended this bill be included in the legislation Senator 
Scott is developing, and I am eager to work with him and all of our 
colleagues in the coming days in the hope of gaining broad bipartisan 
support. As we know, the only way things get done around here is with 
bipartisan support. I can't

[[Page S2788]]

think of anything more urgent, at this particular time, than we 
demonstrate we can come together and rise above our partisan 
differences and address this very real need.
  Of course, there is nothing we can do to reverse what happened in 
Minneapolis, but there is a lot that can be done to prevent the name of 
another Black person in America from becoming a trending hashtag. A 
former classmate of Mr. Floyd's at Jack Yates High School said he 
always would say: ``I'm going to change the world.'' While this is 
certainly not the way he or anyone could have fathomed, his story is 
sure to have a lasting impact on our country's history.
  Today, I would like to offer, once again, my condolences to the 
entire Floyd family for their loss. I had the privilege of speaking 
with them on the telephone yesterday. Rodney Floyd reminded me that the 
family was from Houston, TX, and he said: We want Texas-size justice.
  I said: Mr. Floyd, you will have it.
  In the wake of this tragedy, I hope we can come together and deliver 
that change. I appreciate Senator Scott and Leader McConnell leading 
the charge in the Senate and look forward to sharing more details of 
this proposal soon


                      Paycheck Protection Program

  Madam President, on another matter, since the CARES Act was signed 
into law more than 2 months ago, millions of small businesses--I think 
4.5 million businesses--have gotten loans from the Paycheck Protection 
Program. This program has allowed restaurants, retailers, 
manufacturers, farmers, and small businesses from virtually every 
sector of the economy to stay afloat and keep their employees on 
payroll.
  Dr. Nora Walker operates a pulmonary practice in San Antonio--my 
hometown--which experienced a near stop on patient visits once COVID-19 
began to soar in March. Payroll is her largest expense. Without that 
source of revenue, she and her husband were worried they wouldn't be 
able to pay the practice's three employees, but then the lifeline came 
in the form of the PPP loan. They applied for a $26,000 loan, and they 
received the funds 2 weeks later. Because of that funding, these three 
employees could stay on the payroll as Dr. Walker continued her 
practice via telemedicine.
  Her practice is a great example of PPP beneficiaries who don't 
receive enough attention--the small employers who took out small loans 
to help with a small number of workers in a very big way. From the 
truly small businesses to those that have grown their footprint in our 
State, the PPP has been essential to the survival of these businesses 
and to the livelihood of their employees.
  As I have spoken to small businesses throughout the State, I have 
repeatedly heard how vital the PPP has been, but that praise has been 
coupled with requests to make improvements in the program to ensure 
that it delivers the most efficient and maximum benefit.
  Last week, we took the first step in making some of those changes 
through the Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act, which was signed into 
law by the President on Friday. It extends the amount of time 
businesses can use these funds from 8 weeks to 24 weeks and reduces the 
portion of the loan that must be used on payroll in order to be 
forgiven from 75 percent to 60 percent. Many of our restaurants and 
other businesses that simply closed their doors said there is no way 
they can spend our PPP loan on payroll when our business isn't even 
open. This provides flexibility for them and for others. In a nutshell, 
it gives small business owners the ability to use these loans when and 
where they are needed.
  In the short term, these changes will be critical to protecting jobs 
and supporting small businesses as they reopen their doors following 
the coronavirus-induced shutdown. The jobs report we got this last week 
provides great hope and promise that this recovery will come soon.
  In the longer term, we need to ensure that these loans don't end up 
creating any more burdens for small businesses down the road. Under 
normal circumstances, businesses can deduct their expenses from their 
taxable income. Of course, the Paycheck Protection Program covers the 
cost to many of these expenses, and there is some confusion--
particularly, at Treasury--with how businesses should handle their 
taxes.
  I believe the intent of Congress was to allow businesses to continue 
deducting those expenses. Basically, we were trying to get the money 
where it was needed most the fastest. By allowing them to continue to 
deduct those expenses, we do that, but the guidance recently issued by 
the IRS said the opposite.
  While it is fair to say this has led to confusion and frustration 
among many, Congress needs to take action to eliminate the 
misunderstanding. Last month, I introduced a bill to make clear that 
small businesses can still deduct their expenses that were paid for 
with a forgiven Paycheck Protection loan for their taxes. I know this 
is an unusual circumstance, but isn't the pandemic the most unusual 
circumstance we experienced in our lifetime? It calls for extraordinary 
measures, and I believe, under the circumstances, trying to get money 
to these small businesses is necessary.
  Our goal with this loan program was to help them remain solvent and 
keep their employees on payroll so they can recover as soon as 
possible. Without this change, the PPP loan will fail to deliver the 
maximum on this most basic objective.
  The bipartisan Small Business's Expense Protection Act will ensure 
that small businesses have the cashflow they need to survive today and 
prosper in the future. After all, we are not interested in handing out 
meals now only to slap people on the hands later for taking free food.
  The bill has bipartisan support in the Senate. In fact, I introduced 
it with the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, 
Senators Grassley and Wyden, as well as Senator Rubio, who chairs the 
Small Business Committee, and Senator Carper. It has gained the support 
of organizations that advocate for small businesses, including the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers of 
Manufacturers, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. 
It also has been endorsed by groups in the financial services industry, 
including the Texas Society of Certified Public Accountants, the 
American Institute of CPAs, and the Independent Bankers of Texas. Most 
importantly, this bill is an answer to the real concerns that 
businessowners are facing.
  As we work to strengthen our coronavirus response and recovery, that 
should be the guiding principle in the Senate--figure out what is 
working, what isn't, and act appropriately. This is a big contrast 
between the approach we are seeing from our House colleagues. A few 
weeks ago, they passed a bill that was chock-full of ideological policy 
proposals they know has absolutely no chance of gaining any traction in 
the Senate, but they didn't seem to care. They did a driveby vote on a 
Friday and left town and haven't been back since.
  Tax breaks for blue State millionaires--they actually want to cut 
taxes on the richest people in America by reducing or raising the cap 
on the State and local tax deduction. They want to support marijuana 
banking, environmental justice grants, soil health studies, changes to 
election laws.
  Forget about solving the problem at hand. Our Democratic colleagues 
in the House, with this so-called Heroes Act, are attempting to use 
this pandemic as an opportunity to slip their liberal wish list into 
must-pass legislation. They are eager to stick taxpayers with another 
$3 trillion tab. This isn't going to happen. It has no chance of 
passing in the Senate, and they actually know it.
  These unwanted, unaffordable, and, frankly, laughable proposals are 
not the types of solutions America needs to recover from this crisis. 
Indeed, I think it would be wise for a number of folks in the House 
Democratic leadership to start listening to their constituents for a 
change rather than try to figure out how do you posture and position 
yourself favorably for the next election.
  I have lost count of the number of video calls I have held--and I 
know my colleagues have had the same experience--with small business 
owners, medical professionals, farmers, educators, mayors, and 
representatives from nearly every corner of my State. I appreciate the 
countless Texans who have

[[Page S2789]]

shared their feedback with me to help me do a better job on their 
behalf and who will no doubt continue to point out the gaps that need 
to be filled in the months ahead, particularly when it comes to the 
next installment of COVID-19 legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The Senator from Florida.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3837

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about the 
growing threat of Communist China.
  Xi, the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, is a 
dictator and human rights violator who is denying basic rights to the 
people of Hong Kong, cracking down on dissidents, militarizing the 
South China Sea, and imprisoning more than 1 million Uighurs in 
internment camps simply because of their religion.
  General Secretary Xi is interested in one thing--global domination. 
It is time we all open our eyes. Communist China despises the freedoms 
Americans cherish.
  The threat we face from Communist China is the new Cold War. This is 
a Cold War created by General Secretary Xi. It is a Cold War fought 
with technology, misinformation, and political persuasion. And 
Communist China's latest weapon of choice is the coronavirus.
  Communist China lied about what they knew and spread misinformation 
around the world, costing hundreds of thousands of lives, millions of 
jobs, and creating massive economic impact.
  All freedom-loving nations around the world need to come together to 
hold Communist China accountable and financially liable.
  One thing we can do today is make sure Communist China can't steal or 
sabotage American COVID-19 vaccine research. We know Communist China 
steals U.S. research and intellectual property. We have seen this at 
our universities; we have seen it at our research institutions and 
hospitals.
  U.S. officials have been warning American firms to safeguard their 
research against China and others known for stealing U.S. technology. 
The FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency 
recently warned organizations researching COVID-19 of likely insider 
threats, targeting, and network compromise by Communist China.
  Communist China wants to be first in vaccine development, and unlike 
the United States and other freedom-loving countries, Communist China 
will not be quick to share.
  Communist China wants to be the dominant world power, and they have 
made clear they don't care who is harmed in the process. That is why I 
led my colleagues in introducing the COVID-19 Vaccine Protection Act, 
which will require a thorough national security evaluation and 
clearance by the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of 
State, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation of all Chinese student 
visa holders taking part in activities related to COVID-19 vaccine 
research.
  We need to know who in our country is working on vaccine research so 
that we can make sure American efforts are protected. The United States 
and all Americans need to get serious about the threat from Communist 
China.
  The COVID-19 Vaccine Protection Act is a great first step, and I look 
forward to all of my colleagues supporting this effort.
  I am also urging everyone to buy American products. It is the single 
most important thing we can do to send a message to Communist China 
that their behavior is unacceptable
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee 
be discharged from further consideration of S. 3837 and the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that 
the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion 
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER is there objection?
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, none of us in this body is naive enough 
not to understand the challenges the People's Republic of China 
represents to our country and to the world. But this bill, which 
threatens to further incite the tensions already tearing at the fabric 
of our Nation--this time targeting Asians and Asian Americans--is not 
the answer.
  Yes, we know about how the PRC has targeted our intellectual property 
and sought to benefit from the research excellence and technological 
insights developed by our universities and our companies--all for its 
own scientific and military advancement, all to support an 
authoritarian system that is dangerous both to living within and 
outside its borders.
  But taking advantage of this moment of fear and division in our 
country to stoke xenophobia and paint an entire people as guilty by 
association is not the right way to address this challenge. It is not 
the American way.
  If we have specific counterintelligence threats, let's have our 
intelligence and law enforcement communities target the threats. I have 
faith and confidence in their ability to do so if provided the right 
leadership.
  Rather than take that sort of discriminate approach, this bill just 
discriminates. Even setting aside that blanket moratoriums are the 
wrong way to deal with the situation at hand, the AAPI community is 
right to be suspicious that Senate Republicans aren't putting forth any 
bills today barring visas for nationals from our other adversaries, 
such as Russia. They are doing it only when it comes to China.
  If we need to work more closely with our universities to make sure 
they understand who they are engaged with--as students, in accepting 
donations--then we can do so without attacking an entire group because 
of their ethnicity or national background but with little other basis 
or rationale.
  We can do better. We as a nation must do better. We cannot and should 
not go back to the days when there were signs that said ``No Irish Need 
Apply'' or when we had quotas for different races and religions at our 
major universities, let alone the days of the Chinese Exclusion Act. 
That is not the right direction for America, and it is not the America 
any of us should be seeking to build.
  Unfortunately, there are too many today who would rather see us 
fractionalized as a nation--who would rather see us divided, not 
united. In fact, few things would make the PRC happier than to see this 
sort of legislation go forward because it achieves their end.
  So let's take a serious approach to the challenges that we face with 
the PRC, with safeguarding our universities, our intellectual property, 
and our scientific research. But let us also take an approach that is 
consistent with our values as a nation. We can do both. We can and will 
do better.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's 
remarks. Florida and the United States are amazing melting pots, and 
our States and country have both benefited greatly from the 
contributions of people from all over the world.
  This bill isn't about race. This is a commonsense bill to protect 
American citizens from the Government of Communist China, which has 
decided to become our adversary.
  This is about protecting Americans from a regime that is actively 
trying to sabotage our efforts to create a vaccine. We have evidence 
from our intelligence community that China is trying to do this.
  My bill would help identify who in our country is trying to steal or, 
more importantly, delay, sabotage our success of a vaccine, and that is 
Communist China's goal.
  My colleague has even introduced her own resolution recognizing the 
importance of vaccinations and immunizations in the United States, and 
we all agree with her, so blocking my proposal today makes absolutely 
no sense. Why would my colleague not want to save American lives and 
make sure we have a vaccine done as quickly as possible? American lives 
are on the line and depend on this vaccine.
  I am clearly disappointed my colleague objected to passing this bill 
today, but I am completely committed to working with her to get it 
across the finish line.
  As long as our vaccine research remains vulnerable, Communist China 
will not hesitate to use any tool necessary to obtain this sensitive 
information

[[Page S2790]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                               H.R. 1957

  Mr. KING. Mr. President, someday, 100 years from now, a family will 
camp on a mesa in Utah or a hillside in North Carolina or a canyon in 
New Mexico or they will hike the rocky coast of Maine. They will play 
on a ballfield in Kansas, and it will be because of the work that we 
are going to do this week in this Congress.
  They will not know King or Daines or Alexander or Portman or Warner 
or Manchin or Gardner or all the others who are going to support our 
efforts. Our names will be long forgotten, but what we do will be 
benefiting this country for generations.
  There are very few things we can do in our work here that are 
permanent. Bills can be repealed. Programs can be amended. Times 
change, and all can change with it.
  What we are talking about this week in the Great American Outdoors 
Act is making a gift to our fellow Americans. Setting aside special 
places, setting aside opportunities for outdoors and recreation is a 
sacred trust, and it is one that goes back to the beginning of this 
country.
  As I said, there is very little we can do that is permanent, but this 
is one of those things. It is the right thing to do, but it also makes 
sense from the economy's point of view in all of our States.
  Acadia National Park in Maine generates more than $300 million a year 
in economic activity in the surrounding communities. Our new Katahdin 
Woods and Waters National Monument is already generating economic 
activity in the area where it is located. A visit to Maine to see the 
seacoast and the forest at those two sites would be rewarding for any 
family.
  What we are doing today will enable families to continue to make 
these kinds of journeys--the next generation and the next and the next. 
That family will see a sunrise on the coast of Maine, a sunset on a 
mesa in Arizona. They will not know who it was, but they will know what 
we did.
  In Maine there is a wonderful mountain, Mount Katahdin, the highest 
point in the State, and it was proposed to be set aside for the people 
of Maine by the Governor named Percival Baxter in the twenties, one of 
my predecessors.
  The legislature of Maine said: No, we don't have to do that. We 
shouldn't really do that. Who is going to pay for the roads? We are 
going to take property out of the tax base. What about the trees?
  There were all kinds of reasons for not doing it, so it didn't 
happen.
  It didn't happen while Percival Baxter was Governor, but he dedicated 
the rest of his life to making it happen. Individually, privately, he 
purchased full parcels of land to assemble what is now Baxter State 
Park, one of the gems in this country that contains, at its center, 
Mount Katahdin. He did this as one of the greatest acts of private 
philanthropy in the history of the United States. It was the legacy of 
a lifetime.
  Few of us will have an opportunity to do what Baxter did, but we have 
that opportunity now. Where does the money come from? It comes from the 
people, in the sense of revenues from the use of Federal lands for 
mineral extraction. This is an idea that was brought forth in 1965 when 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund was created, and the idea was 
this: We are using the public's resources and assets, and, therefore, 
the money that flows from that should go back to the people and should 
go back into conservation. It is a beautifully symmetrical idea.
  The problem is that the fund that was created in 1965 has been 
systematically looted by the Congresses in successive years. There have 
been only 2 years since then that it has been fully funded with the 
funds that are available.
  Today, this week, we are going to correct that historic error and 
make a commitment not only to the people of the United States today but 
to people we don't even know--the children and grandchildren and great-
grandchildren of today's citizens.
  The other thing this bill will do is begin to fund the backlog of 
maintenance at our national parks, bureau of public lands, and other 
public lands across the country. This sounds pretty boring, pretty 
mundane, and some of my friends are going to say: Well, you can't do 
this. We are going to raise a budget point of order.
  This is money, again, coming from excess funds in the generation of 
minerals, oil, and gas. But they are going to say: No, no. You can't do 
that.
  What we are doing here is paying a debt. Deferred maintenance is a 
debt.
  When I was Governor, I used to go to New York to kiss the ring of the 
rating agencies and hope and beg that they would give us a high bond 
rating so that our interest costs for our State debt would be low. At 
one point, I was making a presentation about how prudent Maine was. We 
didn't have much debt. We paid it off in 10 years, and we really needed 
this high bond rating.
  One of the analysts stopped me, and he said: Governor, don't forget 
that if you are not maintaining your infrastructure, that is debt just 
as sure as if you borrow money from the bank, and it is debt that is 
going to have to be paid, and it is going to have to be paid in the 
future, which means it is going to cost more.
  I had never thought of it that way, but that is what we are doing 
here. That is why what we are doing here is eminently fiscally 
responsible because we are paying off a debt, and we are preserving 
these wonderful, incredible places for people to visit and enjoy.
  Believe me, after this spring, people really want to get outdoors. In 
Maine, for example, Acadia National Park has more than 3\1/2\ million 
visitors a year. That is a big number. It is a really big number when 
you realize that more than twice the population of our whole State 
comes to visit this one small, beautiful, incredible spot on the coast 
of Maine on Mount Desert Island. So what we are talking about today is 
paying a debt and making a contribution to the well-being of the 
American people for generations to come.
  When Baxter completed the acquisition of Katahdin and the area that 
is now Baxter State Park, he had an amazing quote that I think applies 
to what we are talking about today. He said:

       Man is born to die. His works are short-lived. Buildings 
     crumble, monuments decay, and wealth vanishes, but Katahdin 
     in all its glory forever shall remain the mountain of the 
     people of Maine.

  Areas across our country in all their glory will forever be part of 
the legacy for the people of America.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Police Departments

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today at a time that 
you and I have heard the Democrats' latest rallying cry. Astonishingly, 
the rallying cry is: Defund the police. Defund the police. That is what 
I am hearing from Democrats all across America. This comes on the heels 
of a previous battle cry: Abolish ICE. That is what the Democrats are 
calling for today.
  Leading Democrats--radical leftwing lawmakers like Alexandria Ocasio-
Cortez--are pushing these very dangerous ideas. Let me say it again. 
Liberal Democrats all across the country are asking all of us to defund 
law enforcement in America. If we did that--if we did that--crime would 
go through the roof, school safety would cease to exist, and the most 
vulnerable in our society would have no one to turn to or call in case 
of an emergency. Yet Democratic mayors across the country seem to be on 
board.
  Last week, the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles said that he plans to 
slash the LA Police Department's budget. New York City Mayor de Blasio 
has vowed to cut funding for the New York Police Department. The 
Minneapolis City Council announced Sunday that it would vote to 
disband--disband--the city's police department and said they had a 
veto-proof majority.
  House Democrats have now just released a new bill that supposedly 
seeks police reform. This is from a party that just last month pushed a 
trillion dollar--the total bill was $3 trillion for the Heroes fund to 
support the police. Well, now funding for police has purposely been 
left out of the bill.

[[Page S2791]]

  As our economy begins to recover--and I will tell you the jobs 
numbers are very promising--we need to make sure that our communities 
are safe. This starts at the local level with Governors and mayors in 
cities like Minneapolis and New York and Los Angeles.
  Last week, the Wall Street Journal had an editorial that was titled 
``Liberal Cities, Radical Mayhem.'' Democratic mayors and Governors 
seem unable to stop the lawlessness. It included a warning. It said:

       This isn't merely about damage to property. It's about 
     destroying the order required for city life.

  They went on to say:

       Non-criminals are afraid to go into these cities in order 
     to make a living.

  Now you have seen New York Governor Cuomo blaming Mayor de Blasio, as 
well as the New York Police Department, for failing to stop the 
violence in New York City. The Manhattan Institute says that the riots 
likely caused New York businesses tens of millions of dollars last week 
alone. This is in damages.
  Nationwide, at least 12 people have been killed in the riots last 
week, including police officers. The rioters have committed many acts 
of violence against police officers, as well as against innocent 
bystanders. In New York City alone, 292 officers have been injured last 
week. One New York police officer was stabbed in the neck, and two 
others were shot last Wednesday night in Brooklyn. In Los Angeles, 27 
officers were injured during just one night of rioting. One officer 
suffered a fractured skull and another a broken knee.
  On Thursday, Attorney General Bill Barr gave a briefing on the 
administration's efforts to end the violence. The Attorney General also 
said that President Trump has directed him to spare no effort in 
seeking justice in the George Floyd case.
  The State has filed criminal charges against the four officers, and 
Federal authorities are investigating civil rights violations. The 
Attorney General is claiming and now has said that there is clear 
evidence that extremist groups like antifa were inciting the riots. The 
lawlessness, he said, must and will stop.
  Our free society depends on the rule of law, and the Attorney General 
has said that the rule of law will prevail. We need to continue to 
focus on social, economic, educational, and police reforms. Still, no 
sensible reform involves defunding the police. Police are civil 
servants. Their job is difficult, and their job is dangerous.
  They may need more resources, not fewer, as Democrats across the 
country are calling for defunding. I am saying they may need more. They 
may need more training. They may need more resources for body cameras. 
They may need more resources to help recruit officers who match their 
communities.
  There is much more that needs to be done, and defunding is not part 
of it. We can never abandon those who protect us.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Racism

  Mr. RUBIO. The murder of Mr. Floyd at the hands of law enforcement 
officers was an outrageous crime that has shocked this Nation, but it 
would be a mistake to conclude that the unrest of the last 2 weeks are 
only about his death or are only about relations with the police.
  At its core, what this unrest is about is the question of what kind 
of society we are and what kind of society do we want to be.
  A society is a voluntary agreement, by people, to live together. For 
a society to thrive, those in it must believe that their interests are 
protected and their voices are heard, but when a substantial number of 
people in a society come to believe that they are not valued; that they 
do not matter; or that they are not wanted, then that society will have 
big problems.
  For decades, African Americans have complained that they feel their 
voices are being ignored, their problems not being addressed, and their 
lives not valued.
  Given our Nation's history with race, this is an uncomfortable 
grievance--one many would rather avoid. Like a bad debt that must 
eventually be paid, it is a grievance we can no longer ignore.
  Like before, the latest unrest has given rise to voices arguing that 
the foundations of our Republic are built on systemic racism and must, 
therefore, be brought down. The only difference is that, this time, 
claims like these don't just come from the fringes of our politics. 
Like before, we also have voices that say that, today, race is only a 
factor in individual cases, distinct from our society at large. Both of 
these views are wrong.
  The foundations of our country are not irredeemably racist. 
Abolition, women's suffrage, desegregation, the civil rights movement--
these were not appeals to overthrow our values; these were demands that 
we fulfill them.
  The Constitution that once considered slaves three-fifths of a human 
being was ultimately the vehicle that was used to free them and, 
eventually, to secure their most basic rights.
  It is also true that we have made tremendous progress on racial 
equality over the last 50 years, but there remain shocking racial 
disparities on health, on education, on housing, on economics, and on 
criminal justice, and there remains the fundamental truth that any 
society in which a substantial percentage of the people believe that 
they are treated unjustly is a society that has a problem, a society 
that can never fulfill its full potential unless those grievances are 
addressed.
  None of this excuses radical, violent extremists setting fires, 
looting buildings, and hurting innocent people, but it also shouldn't 
lead us to stupid ideas like defunding the police.
  And this is not going to be fixed by endless emails from corporation 
after corporation trying to prove how woke they are, even as they 
outsource your job to China.
  It is also not going to be fixed by pretending that race is no longer 
an issue and by accusing everyone who disagrees and says it is of 
hating America. Yes, there are still vile racists among us, although 
few of them will ever openly admit it, but in 21st century America, few 
people consider themselves racist.
  The primary reason why race remains relevant today is that the 
African-American community faces a unique set of challenges that far 
too few people in positions of power and politics fully understand.
  If a child is raised in a stable home, in a safe neighborhood, 
attends a good school, and they have a private tutor to help them with 
the SAT, while another child 2 miles away is raised by one parent, or 
maybe even a grandparent, they live in substandard housing, in a 
dangerous neighborhood, they attend a school that is failing, or 
failing them, and they don't have a private tutor for the SAT--on most 
days they don't have access to Wi-Fi--do these two kids really have an 
equal opportunity to go to the same college?
  If one college student has the connections or the money to do unpaid 
internships in the summer or to study abroad and another student has to 
work in the summer just so they can afford to go back to school in the 
fall, do they really have an equal opportunity to get hired when they 
graduate?
  If one young adult does something stupid and gets arrested, but his 
parents hire good lawyers, and he is able to avoid having a criminal 
record, but another young adult who does the exact same thing has to 
use a public defender, pleads guilty to a lesser charge but now has a 
criminal record, do they really have an equal opportunity when they 
apply for the same job?
  When policymakers encourage sending manufacturing jobs that once 
employed African-American men overseas in an effort to benefit those 
employed in technology and finance, how can we truly expect widespread 
prosperity for all Americans?
  When a disproportionate number of those with these disadvantages 
comes from one race while a disproportionate number of those with the 
advantages comes from another, the result is a racial disparity.

[[Page S2792]]

  Some suggest that these disparities are the result of 
institutionalized racism or of a deliberate effort designed to harm 
African Americans.
  What I truly believe is that it is the product of something far less 
sinister but sometimes equally damaging. It is the result of racial 
indifference, of the fact that many in positions of power and influence 
are oblivious--are unaware--of the unique challenges that 
disproportionately face African-American communities across this 
country.
  We must now acknowledge these challenges and address these 
disparities that they create because, when disparities go unaddressed, 
they become grievances. When grievances are ignored, it leads to 
friction and division and, ultimately, unrest.
  By no means do these disparities alone fully capture the entirety of 
the challenge before us. There still remain points of friction, more 
reminiscent of a different and shameful era in our history.
  Here, too, we can also suffer from indifference because the vast 
majority of Americans simply do not personally know the sting that 
comes from implicit and sometimes explicit reactions to the color of 
your skin, which is why true progress requires that we listen to the 
viewpoints of those who do.
  Listen to the young man I know who sees reports of a young man who 
looks like him--like his uncles, like his grandfather--being murdered 
by vigilantes in a case of mistaken identity. Who knows, had they had 
not taken video of themselves doing this, they would have gotten away 
with it.
  Listen, and he will tell you that he feels his life wouldn't matter 
either if it wasn't because he played professional football.
  Listen to the police officer I know who was pulled over while off 
duty at least seven times by his own department for no reason, and he 
will tell you of the humiliation of having to explain this to his 
teenage son.
  Listen to what it feels like to see on the news that, when a mother 
in Miami recently drowned her own autistic son in a terrible tragedy--
do you know how she tried to cover it up? By falsely telling the police 
that he had been abducted by two African-American men demanding drugs.
  Listen to what it feels like to read about the indictment of the 
chief of police of Biscayne Park, FL, who, in an effort to brag about 
having a perfect crime-solving record, ordered his officers to arrest 
anybody Black walking through their streets and, if they had any kind 
of criminal record, pin one of their unsolved crimes on them.
  Listen not because it is your fault, not because you are to blame; 
listen because this is what people who want to live together in harmony 
must do.
  This is the respect we owe one another as colleagues, as coworkers. 
This is the empathy that is required of us as neighbors, as friends, 
and as children of the same God.
  This may not be your fault, but this is our problem because, until we 
heal this divide, we will never ever have the kind of society we want, 
and we will never fulfill the full promise of our Nation.
  There is reason for hope, even in a deeply divided country where the 
political and cultural lines that divide us continue to harden.
  A clear consensus has emerged that we can no longer ignore matters of 
race in America, but it is a fragile consensus, already being tested by 
loud voices appealing to our most basic fears or those who see the 
opportunity to advance divisiveness and extreme ideas.
  If this is the path we choose, we will all look back at this time 
with profound regret, and we will be left with a society that is even 
angrier and more divided than it is now. We will be left with an 
America that no longer resembles the one we honor when we stand during 
the National Anthem.
  Ironically, we will ultimately be left with an America even further 
away from the one some kneel to demand.
  The only way forward is to treat each other with the empathy and 
respect required of the people who have decided to share a nation and a 
future.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               H.R. 1957

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here tonight on the floor to talk 
about a historic opportunity for our country and for our national 
parks--a true treasure of this country. When Teddy Roosevelt started 
the national parks, he wanted to preserve some of the most beautiful, 
pristine lands in America for public use.
  It was a good decision. Now we have 84 million acres of parkland all 
around the country. Some of them are historical parks, battlefields, or 
Presidents' homes. Some of them are like Yosemite or Yellowstone. The 
Tetons are known as spectacular, beautiful vistas. Others, like 
Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Ohio, are really suburban parks. It 
sits between Cleveland and Akron, OH. It is the 13th most visited park 
in the United States of America. It is a fantastic park--for fishing, 
for hiking, for bicycling, for going on a scenic railroad.
  People love the parks. There is a good reason for that--because they 
are spectacular. In fact, visitation at the parks is up. During the 10 
years just before the park centennial, which was in 2016, we had about 
a $58 million increase in visitors to our national parks.
  As the coronavirus begins to fade--thank goodness--more and more 
people are wanting to be outside, do things with their family, do 
something that is not expensive but is fun and healthy. Our national 
parks are the perfect place. As our parks begin to reopen, we are going 
to get more and more visitors to those parks.
  The problem is, when they go to these parks, they are going to find 
that there are some issues. These issues are that our national parks 
over the years have not kept up with their maintenance, with the basics 
of what you would expect in any organization--the water systems, the 
roads, the bridges, the bathrooms, the visitor centers, the trails. 
Many of these are now closed in some of our parks because they haven't 
had the funding to do the capital improvements, the things you would 
think about in deferred maintenance at your home. For instance, if your 
roof starts to leak, you want to fix it because if you don't, then your 
wall begins to get moldy or your floor begins to couple. That is what 
is happening in our national parks.
  Not only has Congress not provided the money for these more expensive 
infrastructure changes in our parks, but that has caused additional 
damage. Every day it is causing more and more damage. It is the biggest 
challenge we have in the parks.
  I was a member of what is called the Centennial Commission for the 
national parks, which is a private sector group that was formed when I 
was not in public office a few years ago, and it was working up to the 
2016 centennial. The top issue was this deferred maintenance.
  I have been on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and have 
been passing legislation related to the parks. The Centennial Act we 
passed in 2016. That was very important because it provided more 
funding for the parks.
  Frankly, we could not come up with enough money through the 
appropriations process to deal with these long-term problems. Why? 
Because they are so expensive. In the parks, it is believed there is 
now a $12.5 billion shortfall--a $12.5 billion deferred maintenance 
project.
  We fund the parks every year, but we fund them for the rangers, for 
the naturalist programs. We fund some of the good work that is being 
done with schoolchildren and so on, but these big expenditures, like a 
new road or a new bridge or, in the case of Cuyahoga Valley National 
Park, a new railway system because the rails themselves need to be 
improved and replaced--those things are too doggone expensive for 
annual appropriations.
  Several years ago, some of us came up with an idea of providing more 
public-private partnerships with the parks. The Centennial Act, which I 
authored, does that. In fact, we have been able to provide a match of 
greater than 1 to 1 for money that is put into what is called our 
Centennial Challenge Fund.
  The money goes in from the Federal Government, and it has been 
matched

[[Page S2793]]

more than 1 to 1 by private sector money. That is helpful, but it 
cannot again handle these huge expenditures.
  Another idea--Senator Mark Warner of Virginia actually came to me on 
this several years ago and said: Why don't we take some of the revenue 
that is coming from our oil and gas and other energy projects that are 
on Federal land, both onshore and offshore, and take some of those 
royalties--the revenue the Federal Government derives from that, which 
is not going to another purpose--and say that a part of those revenues, 
not all but a part of it, should be focused on this issue of 
infrastructure, of this deferred maintenance, that is growing and 
growing in our parks and getting more expensive every year if we don't 
fix it.
  I love that idea because that is exactly what the oil and gas revenue 
money ought to be used for--to help in terms of our natural resources. 
It is not everything. The $12.5 billion has about $6 billion of 
immediate projects that need to be handled right away. These are the 
priority projects. Those are the ones we focus on. For the next 5 
years, in our legislation, we are requiring that enough of those 
resources from the royalties come in to handle that $6 million, 
assuming that the royalties are there. Right now, the cost of oil is so 
low that it would be tough to meet that. We think, over time, that will 
even out, and we will have enough. If there is not, then the money will 
not be there, but if it is, the money will be there to do exactly what 
we ought to do, which is, in the end, to save taxpayers' money by 
fixing some of these problems before they get worse.
  Some people say: Well, it is better to do it with an annual 
appropriations in Congress. I would say to that, in many respects, this 
funding for our park is a debt unpaid. In other words, it is money that 
we should have been paying all along to keep up with the roads, the 
bridges, the buildings, the railway systems, the seawalls--which I will 
talk about in a minute--but we haven't. We have allowed this to build 
up.
  In a way, this is a debt that is on our books that we have to deal 
with. Think about it in your family or in your business, if you allow 
these deferred maintenance problems to continue to grow, you end up 
having additional costs. We need to take care of it. This is a great 
way to do it, taking these revenues and applying it to these immediate 
problems.
  By the way, there was a lot of discussion in Congress over the years 
about shovel-ready projects. When you do infrastructure spending, you 
want it to be shovel-ready. These are shovel-ready because they have 
been vetted. We require the Park Service to provide us every year what 
their infrastructure needs are, what their priority infrastructure 
needs are and to rank them
  For every single national park property in America, we know what it 
is. As an example, this is the William Howard Taft birthplace in my 
hometown of Cincinnati, Ohio. As you can see, the ceiling is leaking. 
What happens is, the ceiling leaks. And then, the walls are getting 
damaged, the floor is getting damaged, and some beautiful furniture 
from the Taft era is getting damaged. We need to fix it. It is a big 
expense. It is the entire roof that has to be repaired.
  Their annual budget is not nearly enough do that. They have an annual 
budget. It takes care of a few park rangers who are naturalists and 
interpreters. They have a lot of school kids who come through, as an 
example, and others who want to see the history of William Howard 
Taft's upbringing, who was a Chief Justice as well as President of the 
United States. There is no way the annual appropriation from Congress 
able to do something like that. It needs these additional resources.
  Here we are at the Cuyahoga National Valley National Park. This is 
one of the buildings. As you can see, it is not in great repair. They 
don't have money to take it down and not enough money to repair these 
kind of buildings. All they want to do with this building, by the way, 
is to take it down. It is a hazard. As you can imagine, it is 
attracting crime and drug use and other issues. They have several 
buildings like that.
  Here is another one. This is the railway I talked about at the 
Cuyahoga Valley National Park. I am here with the park director. This 
ranger is a guy who has been all around the country. He told me that in 
every single one of our parks, he has had to work through this issue. 
How do you take our budget and make sure you have the rangers, have the 
naturalist programs, and keep things in order but then don't have 
enough to pay for these big expenses?
  We are right near a bridge here that is also falling down. When the 
bridge is falling down, the people will not be able to access the trail 
and the bike trail. It is a big expense. You have to do it.
  Here I am at the Perry Monument. This is on Lake Erie. For those of 
you who have been to Put-in-Bay, you know it is a great place to go. 
The Perry Monument is awesome. It not only talks about William Perry 
and his history and legacy but the War of 1812 and all of the veterans 
of that war and the relationship now between Canada and the United 
States and the UK, now being our great allies. That was not always so. 
The War of 1812 was essential for the United States and something as 
part of a historical park to be remembered.
  The seawall that protects that memorial is crumbling. The seawalls 
don't last forever. This one is not lasting forever, particularly as 
the Lake Erie water level is increasing. You can see that not only is 
the seawall crumbling, but there are potholes behind me that cause 
sinkholes, they call them. People are not allowed to go out on the 
lakefront here in many places because of that. That is a huge expense 
to do a seawall. They have to do it to protect the monument itself. The 
visitor center there is not ADA compatible, the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. They need funding to do that, which is a major 
expense.
  These are the kinds of things we are talking about. This is not just 
my home State of Ohio. This is about $100 million that needs to come 
out of this fund just for the State of Ohio.
  Again, there are other States that have bigger national parks and 
more needs and more infrastructure and more roads and bridges that need 
help, but for us this is really important. We have to be sure that we 
are protecting this incredible treasure from future generations.
  That is what this legislation is about. It is going to be on the 
floor this week and voted on as part of the Great American Outdoors 
Act, which includes, also, money for the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund.
  I will say, with regard to the national park funding, this funding is 
directed at stewardship. In other words, not a single penny of the 
money we are talking about with Restore Our Parks Act that I have been 
describing can go to expansion of a park--not one penny. All of it has 
to go toward restoring the parks, toward stewardship of the parks.
  I think that is important because whether you are a Republican or a 
Democrat, I think you should agree that to the extent we have these 
parks and have this land, we need to take better care of them. It is 
our responsibility. We are the stewards. Our generation is the steward 
for future generations. We have not done it. This is an opportunity to 
right that wrong. We need to get back on track.
  My hope is that we will continue to see support for this on both 
sides of the aisle, both sides of the Capitol. It is really important. 
We saw on Monday night there was a first trial vote to be able to 
proceed to the debate on this bill. That vote was overwhelming--80 
Senators voted for it out of 100. That is unusual around here. That 
shows, again, the bipartisan nature of this and the fact that this is 
carefully thought out. We spent a lot of time on it. We got it out of 
committee not once but a couple of times. We have done a lot of 
research on it. We made sure the parks are providing us with good data 
to know what these projects are, what are their highest priorities.

  There is a lot of discussion in this Chamber about putting more money 
into infrastructure, and maybe that will be done as part of the next 
legislation. They have been talking about it, in terms of the next 
stimulus package, to have infrastructure funding. Whether it is rural 
broadband or whether it is our ports or our roads or our bridges, I 
think there is an opportunity there. If you put a dollar in, you get 
more than a dollar back if you do the right kind of smart economic 
infrastructure.
  There are two problems with it. One, often it is not merit-based if 
Congress

[[Page S2794]]

does it. Remember the Bridge to Nowhere years ago where there was a 
bridge in Alaska that didn't go anywhere, but we were going to pay 
millions of dollars for it. These are not ``bridges to nowhere.'' These 
projects have all been vetted. It is a merit-based process.
  Second, sometimes they just aren't shovel-ready. In other words, the 
priority is to fix something, but you don't have the permits; you don't 
have the approval. These are on national park lands. They have the 
approval. They are ready to go. They are shovel-ready. They are merit-
based.
  Discussion around here often about infrastructure is not to pay for 
it with an offset but rather--because infrastructure spending returns 
capital, which it does if it is done properly. This would return a lot 
because this is stuff that is going to involve more visitors, more 
revenue being raised--through people coming to the parks and attendance 
at the parks--for the communities, certainly, that the parks are in but 
even for the parks themselves. We are talking often about not paying 
for it. Here, we actually do have it paid for. It is not a traditional 
pay-for--I acknowledge that--but it is funding that comes from the 
royalties, again, from offshore and onshore oil and gas and other 
energy projects that goes into fixing our national parks. It is our 
responsibility as stewards to do that.
  My hope is that what we will see tomorrow and the next day and maybe 
into next week, depending on how long people want to debate this, is 
that we can continue to have the support we saw on Monday night for our 
parks. It is one of the true treasures of our country. It is a great 
asset that if we don't fix it, it will not be there for future 
generations because these things--once they start to crumble, once the 
seawall is gone, the monument is gone. When you have a situation where 
bathrooms are closed or trails are closed, people are going to show up 
and be, understandably, disappointed that the U.S. Congress did not 
take advantage of this opportunity if we do not vote for this to be 
able to fix the parks for future generations.
  Finally, I would like to thank not just my colleague Senator Warner, 
whom I talked about earlier, who has been a champion on this issue, but 
also Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Angus King. Senator Alexander 
has been involved in these issues for many years. Back in the Reagan 
administration, he was on another Commission. I mentioned the 
Centennial Commission for the parks. He was on another Commission for 
the great outdoors, which recommended dealing with this issue. Again, 
it has been the top issue for our national parks.
  If we can pass this legislation--$6.5 billion over the next 5 years 
for our national parks--this will truly be historic. This is, in a 
sense, a Teddy Roosevelt moment for us, in this generation, our 
generation, to be able to right the wrongs and fix the problems and get 
our parks back on track so they will be there for future generations.
  I also want to thank the President of the United States and his 
Cabinet because they have been helpful in this--the Secretary of the 
Interior, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 
President Trump himself actually increased the size of this program by 
saying: Let's not just include our national parks; let's also include 
our national wildlife; let's include our national forests.
  This is even a broader program than just national parks now. This is 
really important. It was in the President's budget each of the last 3 
years, and I appreciate that. That gives us a chance to talk about how 
to get this not just through the Senate and through the House but 
actually signed into law because the President is prepared to sign it 
if we can get our work done here.
  I hope my colleagues will do again what they did on Monday night--
recognize that this is an important initiative at a time when our 
country is once again polarized. We have plenty of issues between the 
coronavirus and what is happening on the streets. Isn't it good to see 
something that can bring our country, our Senate, our House, and our 
President together to do something that is important for future 
generations
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                        Remembering Larry Walsh

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week, my State of Illinois is saying 
a fond and final farewell to a deeply loved and respected public 
servant, Larry Walsh. He devoted 50 years of his life to serving, as he 
called them, the folks back home. He won his first election to the 
local school board in 1970 at the age of 21.
  He served in local and county government positions and in the 
Illinois State Senate. For the last 16 years, Larry was county 
executive for Will County, the fourth largest county in my State of 
Illinois and one of the fastest growing.
  Larry Walsh was as good at retail politics as anybody I have ever 
seen. He loved politics and he loved people and it showed. People loved 
him back. Democrats, Republicans, farmers, city folk--they all loved 
Larry.
  He was one of the longest serving county executives in Will County 
history. When he announced last August that he would not run for a 
fifth term as executive because the cancer he was battling for 5 years 
was gaining the upper hand, there was hardly a dry eye in the room. 
Everyone with whom he had worked was saddened by that announcement.
  He said at that press conference: ``I've been a very blessed man and 
a very lucky man.''
  From where I am sitting, I think the really lucky ones were Larry's 
folks back home. Also lucky were those who worked with him and called 
him a friend. I am honored to count myself among them.
  Lawrence Michael Walsh, born on a farm in Elwood, IL, about 10 miles 
outside of Joliet. He was the second of eight children. His parents 
were farmers, as were his grandparents and great-grandparents. He 
carried on that family tradition. Farming was in his blood.
  He won his first election to the school board about 3 weeks before 
his first child was born. Three years later, he was elected to the 
local board of supervisors. He was elected to the Will County board in 
1974 and again in 1992.
  From 1997, until the year 2005, Larry served in the Illinois State 
Senate in Springfield. His Senate district--the 43rd--included most of 
Will County, parts of Kankakee and Iroquois Counties.
  There were cities, suburbs, and farms. In Springfield, he sat in the 
back row of the chamber. He became good friends of another senator who 
sat in the seat right next to him.
  To some, it was an amazingly odd couple to see the two of them, Larry 
the farmer and conservative Democrat and his seatmate, a very liberal, 
left-leaning lawyer from Hyde Park in the city of Chicago.
  Both men had an ability that is all too rare in today's brand of 
politics. They could see beyond labels. They were both passionate about 
building coalitions and finding common ground, and they both liked a 
good game of poker. So they became good friends.
  In 2004, when his friend decided to run for the U.S. Senate, Larry 
Walsh was the first Senator to endorse him. Larry took his seatmate to 
meet the farmers and other folks in small towns in Will and Kankakee 
Iroquois counties.
  Four years later, that seatmate of his was elected President of the 
United States, and Larry Walsh was right here in Washington to see 
Barack Obama inaugurated as the leader of our great Nation.
  Larry Walsh was a fine and decent man. He was thoughtful and witty, 
loyal and trustworthy. He seemed to radiate joy, and his joy would fill 
a room. He was grounded in reality and modest. He had a big booming 
voice--you couldn't miss it--and you sure as heck could not miss his 
laugh, and there were plenty of them.
  His friends included a President, Cabinet members and Governors and 
men and women who swept the floors in his offices.
  In 2007, Will County Democrats created a new award to honor those 
working to promote progress and the common good. They named the award 
after the man who exemplified those qualities--the Larry Walsh Lifetime 
Achievement Award.
  Well, fittingly, the first recipient of the Larry Walsh Lifetime 
Achievement Award was Larry Walsh. I laughed

[[Page S2795]]

about that so many times and never let him forget it. Every time he 
visited my office, I would remind him that he was the first recipient 
of the Larry Walsh Award.
  Larry's admirers transcended party labels. George Pearson, chairman 
of the Will County Republican Party, told a reporter that Larry 
``greeted me each time we met with a handshake, a smile and a pat on 
the shoulder. You would never have known we were on opposite sides of 
the political aisle, and that is what made Larry popular with Will 
County residents.''
  The other thing that made Larry Walsh so popular with the people of 
his county was that he was just incredibly good at his job.
  As county executive, Larry worked hard to professionalize and 
modernize county government and make it more responsive. He built a 
strong financial foundation for this great county, which improved its 
bond rating and enabled him to lead the largest capital improvement 
program in the history of the county. The county built new roads and 
bridges, a new public safety complex, new county health facilities, and 
a new courthouse scheduled to open in October.
  In the Illinois State Senate, he was instrumental in, among others 
things, developing the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Elwood; the 
redevelopment of the Joliet Arsenal into a modern intermodal freight 
terminal, the CenterPoint Intermodal Center; and the designation of the 
Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie--the first national tallgrass 
prairie in the United States.
  There was a time when we thought it was the end of the world for Will 
County when Joliet Arsenal was given up by the Federal Government, but 
thanks to Larry Walsh and his buddy George Sangmeister and many others, 
it became a showpiece for the rest of the United States to see how this 
piece of Federal real estate had a bright, bright future.
  Larry was most proud of his family. My wife Loretta and I offer our 
deepest condolences to Irene, Larry's wife of 50 years, and the love of 
his life. I called her on the phone just the other day when Larry 
passed, and we talked about the rough period toward the end of his 
life, but we knew it was coming. Today, we look back on it as a moment 
of trial that he endured until that moment when he left and left behind 
not only that love of his life Irene but their daughter Sarah, their 
five sons, Larry Jr. and Shawn--both of whom followed dad into public 
service--Frank, Matthew, and Brian and 20 grandkids. He was so proud of 
every single one of them.
  Because of the pandemic, the sendoff for Larry is going to be much 
smaller than it would have been in Will County. There will be 
visitation from 2 to 8 on Thursday, followed by a private funeral mass 
on Friday, and local folks are expected to line the route from the 
church to the cemetery.
  A couple of final thoughts about my friend Larry: He was a bridge 
builder. He had inexhaustible patience when it came to searching for 
common ground in order to make government work and solve big problems. 
Don't we need more leaders like him today?
  Larry loved life. Every Christmas season, for years, the local 
theater company in Joliet put on a stage production of that classic 
movie ``It's a Wonderful Life.'' The show was always broadcast on a 
local radio station, and for many years, right up to this last 
Christmas, Larry Walsh played the part of Clarence. You will remember 
Clarence at the end of the movie. He was the guardian angel. Clarence 
was always hoping to earn his wings. Clarence was assigned to watch 
over George Bailey, who is so despondent one Christmas Eve he is 
thinking about jumping off a bridge. Clarence the guardian angel's 
assignment was to get George to change his mind.
  Clarence did that by showing George how much the people in his 
hometown would have missed had George not been part of their lives. 
Clarence tells George:

       Strange, isn't it? Each man's life touches so many other 
     lives. When he isn't around, he leaves an awful hole, doesn't 
     he?

  Many of us are feeling an awful hole today with the passing of Larry 
Walsh--this good man and devoted public servant.
  Even though we can't schedule the kind of Irish wake that Larry so 
richly deserved, there is something we can do.
  Besides his family, his faith, his community and public service, 
there was something that Larry was also fond of. After a hard day of 
work, Larry was known to enjoy a Pabst Blue Ribbon beer. In his honor, 
if you are so inclined, may we raise a PBR to Larry and a life well 
lived, and may we resolve to fill the hole he has left by following his 
uncommon example


                        Criminal Justice System

  Mr. President, this past weekend, I went back to Illinois and visited 
with two different groups--one on Friday, another on Saturday. They 
were young African Americans on the South Side of Chicago and in my 
hometown of Springfield.
  I wanted to sit down with these young people, some just barely high 
school students, who had been engaged in protests and demonstrations in 
their hometowns and ask them what it was about, what it meant to them. 
I wanted to hear it firsthand.
  They talked about the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis and how 
it changed the conversation about justice in America, and it moved them 
to stand up and speak up.
  I am proud to say that those I met with have engaged in peaceful 
demonstrations consistent with American values and our Constitution.
  I am proud of them because there were no distractions. They were 
focused on Black Lives Matter and true justice in America.
  When we met, I asked questions of some of them. I wanted to know a 
little bit more about them and their lives and what brought them to 
this moment.
  I asked each of them about the conversation--you know, that 
conversation when young people are called in by their parents and 
warned about the perils and challenges of being Black in America.
  One young woman remembered her mother cautioning her to always ask 
for a receipt with every purchase to prove, if ever challenged, that 
the item had not been shoplifted. Many talked about hairstyles and 
clothing that they learned to be dangerous in the eyes of some White 
Americans.
  They were even warned about the danger of any contact with the police 
and how their tone of voice and every move had to be carefully 
considered--every one of them.
  Every one of them remembered the first time they were called the 
``N'' word.
  That graphic video of the last moments of George Floyd's life, when 
he was pleading ``I can't breathe'' and the cold stare of the 
policeman, with his knee on George Floyd's neck, ignoring the pleas for 
mercy--those images touched the conscience of America and the world, 
and these young people were touched by it.
  They know and we all know, sadly, that what happened to George Floyd 
was not an exception.
  Since 2015, the Washington Post has been following the number of 
people shot and killed by police. Through 2019, the total number has 
hovered near 1,000 annually. Ninety-four percent of the victims were 
armed.
  The Post reports:

       The number of black and unarmed people fatally shot by 
     police has declined since 2015, but whether armed or not, 
     black people are shot and killed at a disproportionately 
     higher rate than white people.

  They note in their newspaper this morning the death rate by race in 
unarmed shootings was 7.3 percent for Whites, 10.7 percent for 
Hispanics, and 30.3 percent for Blacks.
  The anger and pain that we have seen on the streets in recent days is 
a reflection of generations of trauma. People are fed up with racism 
that has led to this injustice, and many of these young people leading 
this protest are determined not to live in its shadow any longer.
  There are hundreds of thousands of police officers in our Nation. 
Most will never use their firearms. Many who do must make split-second, 
life-or-death decisions. I know many of them personally. I believe the 
ones I know are professional and humane.
  If we are honest, we know that within their ranks are police officers 
who do not have the training or temperament to be entrusted with the 
authority and power they have been given. We need an honest 
conversation with police chiefs and law enforcement leaders

[[Page S2796]]

on inherent bias, use of force, training and accountability for unjust 
actions.
  Prosecutors and judges need to join us in the pursuit of real 
justice, and legislators like myself need to undo the damage of a 
criminal justice system fraught with racial disparity.
  The Obama Task Force on 21st Century Policing released a report in 
2015 to strengthen community policing and restore trust between law 
enforcement and the communities they serve. The Trump administration 
shelved this effort in 2017. It is time to take it off the shelf.
  This week, I join Senators Booker and Harris in cosponsoring the 
Justice in Policing Act of 2020--a comprehensive approach to bring 
accountability to policing, change methods and practices, and build 
trust. It draws the line on odious police practices and sets goals and 
standards for recruitment, training, and retraining.
  Even that is not enough. Justice in America requires more than 
improving law enforcement. We cannot put racism behind us until we 
invest in opportunities for quality education, medical care that meets 
the highest standards, jobs with livable wages, opportunities, and safe 
affordable housing.

  The young people I met with want an America that is more just. Let 
them lead us into a future where we can all breathe more easily.
  I held hearings on race in America when I was chairman of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Rights--one in December of 
2014. The hearing was held just a month after the death of Tamir Rice, 
a 12-year-old boy shot and killed by a police officer in Cleveland 
while he played with a toy gun.
  I said then, and, sadly, I must repeat today, when unarmed African-
American men and boys are killed in our streets, there is much work to 
be done to find justice in America.
  This followed a hearing I had held the previous year where we heard 
heartbreaking testimony from Sybrina Fulton, the mother of Trayvon 
Martin, and Lucy McBath, the mother of Jordan Davis. Lucy has been 
elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Georgia since.
  Both of these innocent young Black men were gunned down by violent 
White vigilantes.
  Now we again grieve the lives of two Black men and a Black woman--
lives cut far too short in incidents of inexplicable and inexcusable 
violence--Ahmaud Arbery out for a jog; Breonna Taylor at home in her 
bedroom; and George Floyd on a curbside in Minneapolis.
  Once again, those gut-wrenching words ``I can't breathe'' bring tears 
to our eyes. How many more names of Black men, women, and children will 
we cry out in protest before things change? We need to have an honest 
American conversation with law enforcement officers about training, 
inherent bias, use of force, and consequences for wrongdoing. We need 
to prohibit police misconduct that is discriminatory and deadly. We 
must recruit and train the next generation of law enforcement to 
protect and serve everyone in America. We need to invest in social 
services instead of expecting law enforcement to intervene in crisis 
situations that they are not equipped to deal with.
  This will require us--Senators, other legislators--to continue to 
undo the damage of a criminal justice system that is unfair, in many 
respects--most importantly, require those of us with privilege and 
power to step back and listen to African Americans affected by 
pervasive, systemic racism.
  What can we do? A good place to start is President Obama's task 
force. As I mentioned earlier, it was that administration's response to 
deal with community policing and trust in the community. It was shelved 
by the Trump administration, and I think it would be a good start--a 
bipartisan start--for the Trump administration to bring it down from 
the shelf and start a conversation.
  We have an important role to play right here in Congress. 
Unfortunately, since Republicans took the Senate majority in January 
2015, the Senate Judiciary Committee has rarely addressed issues of 
racism in our Nation.
  The last hearing on policing in the Judiciary Committee was actually 
5 years ago--November 2015--chaired by the junior Senator from Texas. 
It was entitled ``The War on Police: How the Federal Government 
Undermines State and Local Law Enforcement.'' It was a thinly veiled 
attack on the efforts of the Obama administration's Civil Rights 
Division.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Lindsey Graham, has 
announced the Senate will hold a hearing on police misconduct next 
week. I was glad to hear it. I hope it is not just one and done. We 
need multiple hearings--long overdue.
  It is critical that we also hear from Attorney General William Barr. 
We need to know whether the Justice Department will revive the efforts 
of the Obama administration to address police misconduct, and we need 
answers about what happened at Lafayette Square last week--right 
outside the White House, when the Attorney General reportedly ordered 
Federal law enforcement to clear peaceful demonstrators. They used 
rubber bullets and some form of gas. The Attorney General insists it 
wasn't tear gas, but I have seen it, and it looks like some sort of a 
gas spray designed to push the demonstrators away.
  Hearings aren't enough. We need to do something the Senate rarely 
does anymore--pass a law. How about that? We need legislation on this 
subject, not lamentation.
  I am proud to join Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris in 
introducing this Justice in Policing Act. Our bill includes the End 
Racial Profiling Act--legislation I have cosponsored for many years, 
finally prohibiting the scourge of racial profiling.
  In 2012, I held a hearing on this bill to end racial profiling. This 
was the only hearing that the Senate has held on racial profiling in 20 
years.
  Our bill would ban choke holds--like the one that killed George 
Floyd. It will ban no-knock warrants--like the one that led to the 
death of Breonna Taylor.

  In 2014, many Americans were shocked to see tanks rolling through the 
streets of Ferguson, MO. Shortly afterward, I held a hearing in the 
same subcommittee where we heard compelling testimony about the 
shocking reality that local police departments all over the country are 
armed to the teeth with billions of dollars of military surplus 
equipment.
  Our bill will limit the transfer of military-grade equipment to State 
and local police so the weapons of war do not become commonplace in the 
streets of America.
  The Justice in Policing Act also requires the use of dashboard 
cameras and body cameras for Federal officers, State, and local law 
enforcement.
  Our bill establishes a National Police Misconduct Registry to prevent 
officers who have engaged in misconduct from simply moving to another 
department without accountability. It will ensure that individuals 
whose constitutional rights are violated by police officers can recover 
in court.
  After the Civil War, the Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1871 
to ensure that any person acting in official capacity who deprives 
another of a constitutional or legal right can be held liable in court. 
However, judges have strictly limited the use of this statue to recover 
damages for police misconduct by creating what is known as qualified 
immunity for police officers.
  The Justice in Policing Act will end this. This is a doctrine created 
by judges and never approved by Congress.
  I call on Senator McConnell to do more than just join in speeches 
about George Floyd. I call on him to bring the Justice in Policing Act 
to the floor of the Senate as soon as possible.
  Wouldn't it be amazing, with all the protestations and all of the 
statements made by all of the people in the streets, by representatives 
in this administration from the Department of Justice who came before 
our committee today, and each and every one standing up and saying they 
are concerned about George Floyd, if we in the U.S. Senate actually 
considered a bill on the subject--actually considered passing a law on 
this matter?
  We owe it not just to the Senate, we owe it to George Floyd, Breonna 
Taylor, to Ahmaud Arbery, and all of the Black and Brown lives we have 
lost in these brutal acts of racial injustice.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. McSALLY). The Senator from Alaska.

[[Page S2797]]

  



                               H.R. 1957

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, last night, I had the opportunity to 
join probably more than 80 of my colleagues in voting for a motion to 
proceed to S. 3422, the Great American Outdoors Act.
  This bill is sponsored by a strong group of Senators here--Senator 
Gardner of Colorado, Senator Daines of Montana, and Senator Manchin 
have been working very hard on the LWCF piece.
  Senator Alexander, Senator Portman, and Senator Warner are working on 
the parks' deferred maintenance aspect of this measure. There has been 
lot of work from a lot of Members and a lot of good thought that has 
gone into it and some good policy behind it, but I would like to share 
with colleagues some of the reservations I have, albeit this is good 
policy, solid policy in so many areas.
  As with much of everything that we can do on the Senate floor, we can 
always seek to improve. With some of my colleagues, I think we have 
some ideas in areas where we can improve our Great American Outdoors 
Act.
  I come from a State where we know a little bit about our great 
outdoors. I know we all like to advertise our scenery, the wildlife 
that we have, but back in Alaska we have some pretty unrivaled scenery. 
We have the mountains. We have got the glaciers. We have some of our 
State's most important natural features that have been conserved in 
some world-famous national parks, from Katmai and Denali to the Kenai 
Fjords, Wrangell-St. Elias, Glacier Bay--names that so many Americans 
know and have visited or hope to one day visit before they die.
  We actually had an advertising campaign: See these majestic 
landscapes before you die.
  Americans recognize the importance of preserving our very best lands 
and making the most of our ability to experience their natural 
splendor. We are not welcoming visitors this year in a very different 
time, as we are dealing with COVID, but we have no doubt that the 
tourism industry will be back. It will be back better than ever before. 
In fact, in yet another advertising campaign, we remind people that 
Alaska waits for you, and we would welcome you at any time.
  We have more than 223 million acres of Federal lands in total. 
Included within that are more than 76 million acres that are managed by 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more than 71 million acres managed by 
the Bureau of Land Management, more than 52 million acres managed by 
the National Park Service, and more than 22 million acres managed by 
the Forest Service.
  So we have a lot. We have a lot of Federal land, and that means that 
the Federal Government has a major responsibility to help us maintain 
it and preserve it, just like in every State.
  So I would like to take a few minutes to discuss how the policy that 
we will be considering can help us do just that.
  The Great American Outdoors Act combines two bills, again, that we 
reported from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last year. The 
first one is S. 500, the Restore Our Parks Act, as I mentioned, led by 
Senators Portman, Alexander, Warner, and King, which aims to tackle the 
Park Service's $12 billion deferred maintenance backlog.
  The second one is S. 1081, from Senators Manchin, Gardner, and 
Daines, to provide full and mandatory funding for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  To tackle deferred maintenance needs, the Great American Outdoors Act 
establishes a new National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration 
Fund. That fund will provide up to $1.9 billion per year for 5 years to 
relevant Federal land management agencies.
  The Great American Outdoors Act also expands the list of agencies 
that can receive funding beyond the Park Service to include the Forest 
Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, and the Bureau of Indian 
Education, which also has significant maintenance needs. This was 
something we recognized within the Energy Committee as we were looking 
at the status and situation on the maintenance of national parks. It 
begs the question, What about our other public lands?
  In Alaska, our forest lands are great sources of recreation and 
opportunity, but they, too, have seen a maintenance backlog just 
continue to accumulate. When you visit Denali, the Grand Canyon, or 
Yosemite, you may not necessarily notice immediately the deferred 
maintenance issues. Likewise, as you drive into Washington, DC, you 
might not even realize that the George Washington Parkway is part of 
our National Park System, let alone a major contributor to the agency's 
maintenance backlog. The reality is that the Park Service, in 
particular, has carried substantial backlogs for a long time.
  As chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, this is 
something we have been working to try to get on top of, but it is like 
getting on top of this wave. If you can't get on top of it, it is just 
going to bury you. That is what has happened when you think about the 
$12 billion backlog. These deferred maintenance needs just aren't 
possible to resolve through the annual appropriations process despite 
the considerable best efforts we have made. The longer they last, the 
more they jeopardize the visitors' ability to safely enjoy our national 
treasures.
  In Alaska, the National Park Service has $106 million in deferred 
maintenance. When you think about what I just outlined to you in terms 
of the number of acres we have in Federal land and parks and BLM 
refuge, $106 million out of $12 billion doesn't seem like that much. It 
is a lot to us back home, and $33 million of that is considered 
critical.
  Within Denali National Park we have a pretty significant visitor 
center, the Eielson Visitor Center, and the roof and the furnaces in 
various buildings need to be replaced there. We have a water treatment 
center at the Wrangell-St. Elias headquarters that need to be replaced. 
I think it is important for people to realize because those are not 
things you are going to notice. You are not going to notice that the 
road is in disrepair or you don't have restroom facilities, but when 
you are going into the park toward the end of the summer--in early 
September--and there is no heat in the visitor center, you are probably 
going to notice that.
  I think it is important to recognize that the current list of 
deferred maintenance does not account for some of the very major 
challenges we are facing in Alaska, such as the situation with the 
Denali route. It is the only route in and out of the park. It needs 
substantial improvements due to ongoing subsidence. The estimates are 
all over the map, but, in fairness, we are talking tens of millions, 
perhaps in excess of $100 million, to help repair or to perhaps even 
reroute that access.
  When thinking about deferred maintenance in Alaska in the parks, we 
can account for only a fraction of that system. Recreation is the 
biggest user of our national forest system lands, but our forestlands, 
trails, and campgrounds need about $5 billion in repairs. In Alaska, we 
have about $105 million in backlog up there.
  BLM manages nearly 50,000 buildings and structures--bridges, trails, 
and roads mostly in Western States, but they also have a growing 
backlog. In total in the Department of the Interior, we have about 
$17.3 billion in deferred maintenance in fiscal year 2019. When 
combining that with the Forest Service, their maintenance backlog is 
$22.5 billion in our Federal land management agencies.
  The Great American Outdoors Act is attempting to remedy the issue by 
providing a downpayment to upgrade and to improve the aging 
infrastructure on our public lands. I kind of outlined the need for why 
we are here today. I indicated that I support funding to address the 
maintenance backlogs, making sure visitors are able to enjoy our 
landscapes and have the safest, most enjoyable experience as they see 
America's beauty. That is important. I think it is also important that 
we are cognizant about how we pay for this maintenance, how we address 
that.
  As I mentioned, I am on the Appropriations Committee. We are trying 
to get ahead of this by making sure we are not seeking to add more to 
the account without making sure we are caring for the lands already 
under our jurisdiction.
  The second part of the Great American Outdoors Act focuses on the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund. LWCF provides for both Federal and 
land acquisition and financial assistance for States' recreation 
development. You

[[Page S2798]]

will hear me talk a lot about LWCF stateside programs because I think 
it recognizes the role that States play in facilitating recreational 
access and leverages funds to build out those opportunities.
  We have certainly seen the benefits in Alaska. Providing a few local 
examples, the State of Alaska has used LWCF matching funds to build 
ballfields in Utqiagvik, an accessible urban playground in Anchorage, 
and a ski area in Cordova.
  I do think it is important for us to remember how LWCF was 
established, the core purpose of why it came about in the first place. 
Congress established this program in 1965 to build a national 
recreation system primarily in the East. To accomplish that, the 
Federal Government determined that it needed the ability to acquire 
this private land. So our predecessors provided LWCF with the authority 
and financial means to do so through revenues from offshore oil and 
gas.

  We had a lot of discussion in the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I was a proud 
sponsor of last year's lands package, which made permanent the 
collection and deposit provisions in the LWCF and put an end to years 
of uncertainty and lapses in those deposits. I was pleased to be able 
to help offer a series of commonsense reforms, which included a 
requirement that at least 40 percent of the funding go to stateside 
programs every year.
  I also believe that LWCF's ability to acquire new Federal lands 
should be focused on the eastern States where the proportion is 
dramatically lowered. I also believe that it is better--much better--to 
decide LWCF's funding in the appropriations process each year in the 
context of the rest of our Nation's conservation and budgetary 
priorities, as opposed to mandatory funding.
  I have stated that we should have an opportunity to discuss these 
priorities related to our obligations to our parks and to our 
conservation efforts. Again, I believe it is only fair and honest, as 
we debate this subject, that we recognize there are areas where we can 
improve this bill.
  I come to this debate from a very constructive place. I think I have 
some very commonsense ideas to expand the bill to include conservation-
related priorities that make sense for Alaska and our States across the 
country, priorities such as offshore revenue, which I am going to be 
speaking to in just a moment. There are some pretty simple, commonsense 
things; for example, if we are going to allow for deferred maintenance 
to be addressed within the LWCF account, why would we not want to make 
sure that our States have a similar flexibility?
  In States like Alaska, where we have significant Federal lands 
already, it is not that we need to be buying up additional lands into 
the Federal account in Alaska, but what we do need is to help preserve 
those lands we have now but that are subject to aggressive erosion. To 
be able to use funds from the LWCF account to deal with a coastal 
resilience initiative is something my colleague from Louisiana and my 
colleague from Rhode Island--we have been talking about how we can help 
improve that.
  I think these discussions are not only timely but smart policy. I 
think it would be unfortunate if the Senate chooses not to allow good 
ideas to be incorporated.
  We have a measure in front of us that has strong bipartisan support. 
We recognize that, and that is good at a time when we are trying to 
come together as a Congress and as a nation. I take great pride in the 
fact that, once again, leadership turns to the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee for good ideas that have come out of our committee. 
The opportunity to include strong measures that will enhance this bill 
is something I think we need to be focusing on.
  I would like to address the amendment that my colleague from 
Louisiana, Senator Cassidy, has filed and that I am cosponsoring. This 
is an initiative that he has worked on, and he has explained that it is 
a matter of equity. It is a matter of equity and fairness as to how 
revenues are shared with the coastal States that enable offshore energy 
development.
  Adding key portions of the COASTAL Act, S. 2418--which I am proud to 
cosponsor and was reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee--to the measure we have in front of us, I think, makes sense. 
Senator Cassidy has spoken to how this would expand offshore revenue 
sharing for States along the Gulf of Mexico, which post and support 
some of the most impressive and expensive coastal facilities anywhere 
in the world. If any of our colleagues have not had the opportunity to 
view what happens in the offshore areas of Louisiana, it is a trip that 
should be a priority.
  Senator Cassidy has spoken to the Gulf of Mexico piece of it. I want 
to speak to what the amendment would do for Alaska because it includes 
provisions that have been written by myself and by Senator Sullivan to 
establish a revenue-sharing program specific to our State, which has 
prolific offshore resources that we hope, one day, to be able to safely 
produce for the good of the Nation. But we are in a very, very 
different position than they are in the Gulf. We need investment to 
improve our coastal infrastructure, particularly in the Arctic. We have 
some different conservation priorities from some noncoastal States, 
which are enshrined in the purposes of the language in the amendment.
  These principles of equity and fairness that we talk about as they 
relate to the Gulf of Mexico are the same principles here.
  Just like from onshore Federal development, local governments and 
communities need to share in the revenues from offshore development. We 
are the ones that host it, we bear the impacts, and the benefits the 
entire country derives from it simply wouldn't be possible were it not 
for these host States.
  I think that this bill, this Great American Outdoors Act, is the 
right place to address offshore revenue sharing because everything 
within it relies on oil and gas revenues and LWCF, the fund that will 
help with our deferred maintenance. Everything relies on oil and gas 
revenues.
  So, for as much vitriol as there may be out there, and criticism, as 
the industry takes, I think this might be a good time to recognize that 
oil and gas production generates Federal revenues, and it is these 
Federal revenues that fund these conservation priorities for dozens and 
dozens of Members on this floor and for hundreds of stakeholder groups.
  Again, that is what has been happening within the LWCF, and it is 
about to be true for the deferred maintenance backlog, that where you 
are getting this funding source is from the oil and gas revenues. Those 
funds wouldn't come were it not for places like Louisiana, the Gulf 
Coast States, and again, hopefully, one day, Alaska.
  When it comes to offshore revenue sharing, Alaska faces a disparity 
not only with onshore rates but with other coastal producers. So you 
have got the four Gulf States--Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and 
Texas--that currently have a limited revenue sharing program 
established by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. Alaska, 
however, receives no revenue sharing, zero revenue sharing beyond the 
near-shore areas that all coastal States receive under section 8(g) of 
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
  If Alaska is granted offshore revenue sharing, know that we will put 
it to productive use for conservation and environmental purposes. I 
think it is instructive because I think there is so much rhetoric and 
concern that we can't be doing further development in Alaska. It just 
shouldn't happen. Well, let me share with you, again, we are seeing 
coastal impact. We are seeing levels of erosion. We would like to be 
able to address the expenses that are associated with it.
  So within the amendment that Senator Cassidy has filed, in the Alaska 
provision, we looked specifically to authorize purposes--coastal 
protection, conservation, restoration, and assistance, including 
relocation for communities that are directly affected by coastal 
erosion, melting permafrost, and climate change related lawsuits.
  Another authorized use is mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, and 
natural resources. Adaptation planning, vulnerability assessments, 
emergency preparedness to build healthy and resilient communities, and 
the installation and operation of energy systems to reduce energy costs 
and greenhouse emissions, and then programs at institutions of higher 
education, these are the

[[Page S2799]]

primary prescriptions that Alaska would use its shared revenues for.
  If you support the Great American Outdoors Act, you will be able to 
support offshore revenue sharing and the significant environmental 
benefits that it would provide to the Gulf of Mexico and to the State 
of Alaska, but we can only get there if we have an opportunity for the 
good ideas--substantive ideas--that Senator Cassidy is leading with his 
COASTAL Act that I have introduced with regards to concerns that I 
briefly outlined and that I know that other Members have raised and 
shared as well.
  I appreciate the support that we have received for offshore revenue 
sharing within the committee process itself. We are now asking for the 
full Senate to support the coastal States in equitable sharing of 
revenues. I think this is a key step, and I would urge that we have an 
opportunity to adopt that as we move forward.
  With that, I yield to my friend, the Senator from Louisiana. I thank 
him for his leadership on this initiative. I have been so impressed not 
only by his advocacy when it comes to addressing the fairness and the 
equity issues that are associated with revenue sharing and what we need 
to do to lift the cap, but also to his commitment to ensure that his 
State and other coastal States that are seeing impact from climate 
change and seeing impact from erosion, that the conservation purposes 
that we have spoken to will have an opportunity to be addressed. I am 
thankful to be able to work with him and to follow his lead on this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, first, I thank the Energy Committee 
chair for her kind words and for her advocacy. I may be speaking for a 
bit, and then when the majority leader comes, I will interrupt and 
allow him to close, and then I ask unanimous consent to finish my 
speaking, if that is OK.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I am on the Senate floor today to talk 
about the protection and restoration of the Gulf Coast, an issue 
extremely important to those I serve in Louisiana in the Gulf Coast, 
but important to the rest of the Nation, whether the rest of the Nation 
knows it or not. I will explain why that is.
  In the coming days, the Senate will vote on whether or not to pass 
the Great American Outdoors Act. This bill dedicates funding over 5 
years towards deferred maintenance. We have spoken about it at length. 
It adds an additional $900 million to the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, an amount which is already authorized but never funded. This 
would make it mandatory that it is funded.
  Many will say that this is a good thing or even a great thing. I will 
tell you, for Louisiana, for the Gulf Coast, and for a lot of other 
States, this is not a great thing in its current form. In fact, I will 
show how this bill currently benefits only certain States at the 
expense of others.
  First, it is almost entirely funded with money from the Gulf of 
Mexico oil and gas production. So 50 to 60 percent of the dollars go to 
five States. So we are going to put up about $9.5 billion, and 50 to 60 
percent of it goes to five States. Needless to say, that lacks equity. 
I would argue that we can make this bill better in terms of benefiting 
many more Americans than it currently does.
  First, let's speak about where the revenue comes from. Again, about 
$1.9 billion a year comes from energy production, redistributing that 
across the country, as we mentioned, to deferred maintenance programs. 
About 90 percent of that revenue from which this money will be 
extracted comes from oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico. This 
will be about $4.3 billion coming from the Gulf of Mexico. Now, this 
makes the Gulf of Mexico the primary revenue source for this whole 
project. It adds $900 million to what is already designated the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund. There is $1.9 billion a year for 5 years 
to go for deferred maintenance, and this is in addition to $125 million 
a year, which is currently being spent on the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  Now, some of the advocates, by the way, just for a point of clarity, 
will say or imply that these dollars are not otherwise allocated. Let's 
just be clear. The dollars are allocated. Right now, the dollars that 
will be used for this fund come to the U.S. Treasury and are used for 
the priorities of the American people, and they are allocated for, you 
name it, higher education, debt service, paying troops, defense, et 
cetera. This would make it mandatory that a certain amount of this 
money would go towards both deferred maintenance and the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  Now, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is supposed to be a fund 
that functions to benefit, kind of, all Americans, but I would argue 
that it really benefits select regions of America. If you look at this 
map, where the dollars are spent are not where the people live. These 
are the coastal States, and here are the inland States. As it turns 
out, the areas that are most benefited by this funding are not on the 
coast. And, yet, as you will see in a second, that is where the people 
live.
  If you live in a coastal State, on a per capita basis, your State 
receives about $7.53 per person. If you live in one of these inland 
States, from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, you get $17.66, more 
than two times plus. In fact, from about 2011 to 2015, if you are in 
one of these inland States, you got a ratio of almost 8-to-1 in terms 
of the dollars spent in the coastal States. If you take out Washington, 
DC, and Virginia and maybe New York, then this $7.53 is going to go far 
lower. If you are not one of those three States and you are on the 
coast, you are not doing very well on a per capita basis.
  To make that point, in 2015, about 40 percent of the Nation's 
population lived in a county or parish that was directly on a 
coastline, and 82 percent of people live in a State which has a 
coastline. So 82 percent of the people live in one of these yellow 
States, and yet, on a per capita basis, two plus times is spent on 
those living in States which are inland.
  Now, my point is that the dollars are not spent relative to where 
people live. This disparity disproportionately impacts States such as 
South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, Maine, and other coastal 
States. Now, I am a person who would rather have a solution, and the 
solution I am going to propose does not take money away from the Great 
American Outdoors Act. They will still continue to receive, in 
relatively sparsely populated States, a significant sum of the money.
  I worked with Senator Whitehouse on a bipartisan solution that would 
at least add some equity for those States which are coastline, as 
opposed to being inland. Now, that said, we acknowledge national parks 
have deferred maintenance. At the end of fiscal year 2018, this was 
estimated at roughly $12 billion, but those parks are not uniformly 
distributed.
  I mentioned earlier how a disproportionate amount of the money is 
going to go to five different States. According to the Park Service 
data, if you just looked at deferred maintenance, which will presumably 
guide where this money is spent, California; Washington, DC; Virginia; 
New York; North Carolina; Wyoming; Arizona; and the State of Washington 
make up nearly 60 percent of the deferred maintenance needs at national 
parks. If you live in one of those States, you are doing well, but if 
you are living in a State other than those, not so well.
  Now, some will say that even though almost 60 percent of the money is 
going to seven States, everyone in the country benefits because you 
might visit the park, or we are all in it together, so why shouldn't I 
support a national park in a State which is far away from my hometown
  I suppose there is something to be said to that. On the other hand, 
if the person saying that lived in one of the States, which is getting 
just a tiny fraction of the total sum of dollars, and, yes, the people 
in their State will leave their State and go spend their money in 
Montana, for example, that will be great. People in Montana, on a per 
capita basis, get far more than anybody else.
  We are in it together, I suppose, but you probably wouldn't reverse 
it. You probably wouldn't say: Wait a second, we think it is unfair 
that seven States get almost 60 percent of the dollars. We actually 
think it is better to be more

[[Page S2800]]

equitably spread, or maybe you would. I hope that you would.
  States like Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska see almost no benefit. 
Collectively, the deferred maintenance in these three States--Kansas, 
Iowa, and Nebraska--is .2 percent of total deferred maintenance 
backlog. It is the same for Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, and New 
Hampshire. Again, while there is deferred maintenance in Gulf Coast 
States, the real benefit to our States is investing in the coastline, 
which has a direct impact on sustainability.
  To be fair, by the way, the Gulf of Mexico States do currently 
benefit. The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act shares revenue with the 
four Gulf Coast States. We use this revenue, by State constitution, for 
coastal restoration. There is a little bit of irony, as the Senator 
from Alaska pointed out, that those who strongly support this bill 
oftentimes strongly disapprove of drilling for oil and gas, 
particularly in coastal areas, but they are now reliant upon that 
drilling in order to fund the Great American Outdoors Act.
  I do believe that we can address this inequity, which has been 
highlighted. I put together a bill, as I mentioned earlier, with 
Sheldon Whitehouse, called the COASTAL Act. We are working with other 
colleagues. We passed it out of the Energy Committee.
  Actually, by that, Senator Whitehouse was not on that bill, but we 
passed the COASTAL Act out of the Energy Committee with a bipartisan 
vote. The junior Senator from Alabama is my cosponsor. He should 
cosponsor, and he did. Alabama benefits exponentially more from the 
GOMESA Act than anything that the Great American Outdoors Act has to 
offer.
  So all of this is to say that the Gulf Coast just wants equity. We 
want a more general benefit, not almost 60 percent of the benefit, 
going to seven States, and we also want the money to be distributed 
nationwide where people live, as opposed to where they might go on a 1-
week vacation every 5 years.
  I will speak just very briefly about the COASTAL Act. It is a 
bipartisan bill, again, passed by the Senate Energy Committee, 
committing more dollars towards environmental protection, reducing 
flood risks to businesses and industries along the Gulf Coast, 
protecting regions of the Gulf Coast for public recreation--we talked 
about recreation elsewhere. But committing dollars for all coastal 
States for environmental protection, once more, does not take money 
away from the Great American Outdoors Act.
  Colleagues have heard me talk about the importance of revenue sharing 
for environmental protection. Again, the COASTAL Act passed out with 
bipartisan support, and its goals are consistent with the Great 
American Outdoors Act. By the way, the recent flood event in 
Louisiana--crystal ball--flooded homes in Mandeville and property in 
Grand Isle. If we have flooding now, this bill would help prevent that 
flooding.
  The COASTAL Act also places millions of dollars in a coastal fund, 
which benefits all coastal States, including those along the Great 
Lakes, putting money to protect where people live.
  Once more, let me just show this. This is where people live, and 82 
percent of the people live in a State with a coastline. Yet, where the 
money is going is, yes, to the coast, if you consider Washington, DC, 
and Virginia the coastline, but typically, it is going to five or six 
places, not to the places which have had the most flood events.
  I walked around barrier islands in Georgia. Those barrier islands are 
evaporating. I hear that barrier islands in South Carolina are 
similarly under great duress. In Louisiana, as I already mentioned, we 
just had a flood event this past week. The COASTAL Act would put money 
for resiliency in States where 82 percent of the population lives. I 
just don't understand what is the objection to spending money to 
protect where people live. Why must we only do something nice for 
places where people vacation. If you put it to a referendum, people 
would first take care of their homes, and then they would take care of 
the place where they vacation.
  I am not saying, by the way, don't take care of where they vacation, 
but I am saying we should at least give some dollars to where people 
live. Now, I will quote a statistic once more: 42 percent of Americans 
live in a parish or county that is directly on a shoreline. Why don't 
we do something to protect that shoreline where 42 percent of Americans 
live, not taking any dollars away from those sparsely populated places 
where people vacation?
  By the way, when the COASTAL Act passed the Energy Committee, 
environmental groups such as the Energy Defense Fund, the National 
Wildlife Federation, Audubon Society, and Louisiana-based organizations 
such as the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation and the Coalition to 
Restore Coastal Louisiana signed a letter saying:

       As we move to address the significant land, water, and 
     wildlife conservation funding needs in our Nation, it is 
     important that our coastlines are also equipped to confront 
     the unique challenges that climate change presents. GOMESA 
     has been a critically important funding stream for Louisiana 
     and other Gulf Coast States, and expanding upon this success 
     will protect national economic assets, providing better 
     protection from storms, and enhance coastal habitat.

  Now, bill sponsors will, rightly, say that the Great American 
Outdoors Act does not impact revenues flowing to GOMESA States, but--
let's face it--it does cannibalize these dollars in Louisiana, so 
sooner or later you run out of money.
  So if we are going to take all these dollars that could be spent 
elsewhere and put in these sparsely populated States where people 
vacation but not spend it in States where people actually live, not 
spend it in counties where 42 percent of the people live, which are 
directly upon a coastline, sooner or later you run out of money. And we 
are going to--just like a vacuum cleaner--suck those dollars down to 
these sparsely populated areas where people love to vacation.
  So my point is that, in Louisiana, for example, we have a $50 
billion, 50-year master plan to protect our coastline, reducing flood 
risk to communities and assets so important to the rest of the Nation. 
The Great American Outdoors Act will make it more difficult to secure 
future dollars for this gulf coast restoration.
  Now, as I mentioned before, a lot of people live in coastline 
communities, in counties and parishes, and from 2000 to 2016, the Gulf 
of Mexico region grew by almost 25 percent, more than any other 
coastline region.
  Harris County, TX, and areas in Florida and New York also accounted 
for substantial growth along our Nation's coast. The proposal I filed 
commits dollars to these coastal States so that they can have a 
sustainable revenue stream now and in the future for needed 
investments.
  If you asked the people in New York, after Hurricane Sandy, if they 
would like to have dollars in New York to protect against a future 
flood event, they would say yes.
  Houston and Galveston have really borne the brunt of major flood 
events, of hurricanes striking their coastline. Do we think that they 
could use more money for coastal resiliency? Yes--as well as Lake 
Charles, LA, after Hurricane Rita, Calcasieu Parish and Cameron Parish. 
We talked about Louisiana with Hurricane Katrina, the gulf coast of 
Mississippi and Alabama, devastated after Hurricane Katrina. Would it 
be wise, as a nation, to put dollars there in order to have coastal 
resiliency to prevent, if you will, more flooding in the future so as 
to actually save more relief dollars that might be needed?
  There are people, there are regions, battling rising sea levels, and 
I am mindful about their concerns and how we can address those.
  I am told recently, by the way, that the Army Corps of Engineers has 
proposed a $3.5 billion flood wall for Miami. Think about that--$3.5 
billion. This is in response to rising sea levels. But we are passing 
legislation now in which folks refuse to consider spending money for 
coastal resiliency. Instead, we are going to spend money on a $3.5 
billion seawall because we don't want to spend the money on other forms 
of coastal resiliency.
  I recently spoke to one of my House colleagues, Donna Shalala, who 
represents the Miami-Dade region, and she speaks about the rising sea 
levels and the investments they need to make around South Beach. It is 
something touching where people live, not where people vacation. I am 
not sure why we emphasize where people vacation over where people live.

[[Page S2801]]

  To pay for this bill, again, we are taking dollars from an area of 
the country greatly impacted by coastal erosion, so these gulf funds 
actually play a role in restoring or maintaining--
  You will see a poster later on which shows the oil and gas 
development taking place off the coast of Louisiana, the oil and gas 
development that funds the Great American Outdoors Act.
  Louisiana's coast is a working coast in which people from this 
working coast go out to maintain that source of revenue, but look what 
is happening to Louisiana's predicted land loss. Over the next 50 
years, in a reasonable scenario, all of this red spot will be lost to 
erosion.
  By the way, look what happens to New Orleans. It is now directly 
along the Gulf of Mexico. The next hurricane comes, and there goes the 
port structure. There goes the ability for people in the Midwest to get 
their grains to the international market and the ability of this 
working coast to support the oil and gas drilling and, therefore, to 
support the source of revenue required and relied upon by the Great 
American Outdoors Act. It will be lost.
  It is not just me saying it. Of course, I am the Senator. I love my 
State. I am going to do whatever I can. You may not believe me, but on 
the other hand, the State's land loss has been highlighted in countless 
feature stories, including in the New York Times and National 
Geographic, to name two.
  By the way, Google Maps can't keep up. When looking at the Louisiana 
coastline, Google Maps will show an area with land that has now been 
replaced with open water. Louisiana loses about, oh, a football field 
of land, I think it is, an hour. Whenever I say it, I can't believe it, 
it is so fast. It is so rapid. So not only does this pose a risk to the 
energy assets, a risk to communities, and a risk to port assets; it 
poses a risk to our national livelihood.
  Now, folks in Louisiana are going to look at this and say: How is the 
Great American Outdoors Act going to help us? We are going to work to 
produce all this oil and gas, and we are not going to get any of the 
benefits.
  Senator Kennedy and I recently had a call with more than 20 Louisiana 
parish presidents. They are, very understandably, concerned about the 
lack of equity. ``Concerned'' is diplomatic. ``Ticked off'' is how 
better to describe it.
  I had another call with close to 100 businesses. They, too, are 
pleading for equitable treatment along the gulf.
  So when I speak about the Great American Outdoors Act cannibalizing 
dollars from the Gulf of Mexico to spend money in places where people 
don't live as opposed to protecting my coastline, which, in turn, 
ensures tha we can continue to have the source of revenue--but also 
coastlines around the Nation in counties and parishes where people 
actually live as opposed to going to places where people only visit--I 
am trying to make a case for those people.

  Will you show the energy assets.
  I have been speaking about these energy assets that are required. It 
is one thing to say it; it is another thing to look at it. All of these 
are part of the gulf coast energy infrastructure that the rest of our 
Nation relies upon.
  I am a doctor. I think like this. If you saw a map of the Nation, you 
would see pipelines coming out of this region across the rest of the 
Nation, and in my mind, as a doctor, I think of this as being a heart. 
If we need energy to fuel our lives, the heart is right here, and it 
beats here. The aorta, if you will, the pipelines that flow out, taking 
gasoline to Philadelphia, taking natural gas to another part of our 
country, taking the refined fuel products to Atlanta, GA, in the case 
of jet fuel--you name it, they come out of this area.
  If this area cannot be sustained, we cannot sustain that part of our 
energy economy. We will not have jet flights to Hawaii or jet flights 
from Atlanta around the world, as the hub, or for New Orleans, people 
coming in for Mardi Gras, Jazz Fest, or to Breaux Bridge for a crawfish 
festival. It will not happen because this pipeline structure cannot be 
sustained with a coastline which is eroding.
  Some of these--let me just speak--are oil import sites, natural gas 
market centers, processing facilities, liquefied natural gas export 
facilities, strategic petroleum reserve, major working ports, such as 
Port Fourchon. I could go on. These assets and companies then employ 
hundreds of thousands of men and women contributing billions of dollars 
in government revenues with an even greater impact on our annual GDP.
  This is what powers our country. This is where the revenue is coming 
from for the Great American Outdoors Act. This revenue stream will not 
be sustainable if we don't at least have some consideration of how to 
restore this.
  The Senator from Ohio had spoken about a leaky roof and the leaky 
roof increased its leak and now all those assets are being damaged 
within a park. That is great. People like to visit parks, and we should 
take care of leaky roofs. I am more concerned about a coastline that is 
dissolving, and, as it dissolves, you lose the energy infrastructure, 
which is required to pay for that park building to be fixed.
  I will also point out the flooding risk for the folks in my State. 
Again, I spoke about the communities at risk. This is predicted future 
flooding from a 100-year flood event, without action. Let's just say, 
if it is colored, it is bad, where you are going to get 0.5 to 5 feet 
of water north of New Orleans.
  If you want to speak about something that should be done now to 
prevent future problems, I have bigger issues than a leaky roof in a 
park building. I have entire communities washed away into the ocean, at 
risk for great flooding. I am speaking of New Orleans. I could be 
speaking of Miami, of Houston, of New York.
  Why don't we spend money where people live as opposed to spending it 
only where people vacation?
  Now, you might be sitting in Iowa or Kansas or Nebraska thinking: 
Well, I am only getting 0.2 percent of this money. I am not getting any 
benefit whatsoever, but why does it matter to me to have a coastline? 
Why does it matter to me at all?
  Well, let's look at how investing in the coast impacts our Nation 
economically. Let's look at what happened after Hurricane Katrina. 
After Hurricane Katrina, the flooding took out the port structure in 
South Louisiana; therefore, the in place for all the goods coming from 
the Ohio, Missouri, Mississippi, and other rivers for export to the 
rest of the world--the rest of the United States--was terribly 
impacted. If you look at this--if we have a lack of coastal 
investment--corn exports were down 23 percent post-Hurricane Katrina; 
barley, down 100 percent; wheat, down 54 percent; soy, down 25 percent; 
total grain exports, down 24 percent after Hurricane Katrina.
  If that port system in South Louisiana and in the lower Calcasieu 
River in Houston is damaged by flooding--that is going to happen under 
current scenarios--then our midwestern farmers are not able to ship to 
international markets. Their livelihood is damaged.
  In moving goods across our country for export, one coalition 
committed to ensuring future navigation on the Mississippi said that 
the lower Mississippi has an estimated annual impact of $735 billion to 
the Nation's economy and is responsible for 2.4 million jobs. That 
starts with being able to navigate goods through the various locks and 
port complexes near the mouth of the river.
  The USDA recognizes this. It says in a report on the importance of 
inland waterways that farm products are 14 percent of total commodities 
moved along inland waterways. Further, processed flour, animal 
feed, milled grain products, and fertilizers add another 5 percent to 
agricultural related products.

  It is important to remember, the Mississippi River Valley encompasses 
almost 60 percent of our country, so many major rivers connect with the 
Mississippi to deliver those products around the world. If we are going 
to have a port system that is going to take those goods and allow them 
to be transported around the world, it has to be a sustained, 
reinforced coastline.
  In my State, we have some of the largest barge and container ports in 
the country. The Port of South Louisiana is the largest grain exporter 
in the country. The Port of Baton Rouge is home to the largest grain 
operator in the State. Ports farther to the south in

[[Page S2802]]

Mobile and Texas are, likewise, important.
  If we are going to have rising sea levels and spend all of our money 
on the inland areas--not where people live but where people visit on 
vacation--as opposed to the coastlines, which have the ports that 
sustain where people live and sustain the vitality of those in the 
heartland, we are being foolish with our public policy.
  The same USDA report highlighted the consequences of an inadequate 
infrastructure along the waterways, saying that inadequate 
infrastructure leads to reduced transportation capacity, raising 
shipping rates, meaning less income to the farmers who are shipping--
which reduces U.S. economic activity--and a loss of global 
competitiveness.
  I could go on. I will just say that associated industries impacted by 
the Iowa grain exports support business from agriculture, forestry, 
real estate, restaurants, and pesticides, to name a few. This is just 
in Iowa.
  The ports in the gulf coast support those folks in Iowa, and we 
should support the ports. We should support the ports, which support 
Iowa.
  To summarize, my colleagues and I are fighting for fairness and 
equity. That is what this is about. I have highlighted obvious 
inequities both in how the gulf region is treated and how other States 
are treated--spending money not where people live but where people 
visit.
  I am pointing out the consequences to midwestern farmers. They don't 
benefit very much at all--if you live in Iowa, Kansas, or Nebraska--
from the Great American Outdoors Act, but they would benefit from a 
sustainable port system, which means that those ports they rely upon to 
ship goods around the world will be there even as sea levels rise.
  Now, I am all for, by the way, taking care of deferred maintenance in 
parks, but I think, in the relative hierarchy of what we should do, we 
should take care of where people live. And I will repeat once more: 42 
percent of the people live in a parish or county that is directly on a 
coastline; 82 percent of Americans live in a coastal State. That is not 
where the bulk of these dollars are spent.
  We have a bipartisan group of Senators supporting; we have 
environmentally focused groups supporting as well, and what they are 
supporting is an amendment which would actually help create this equity 
that would allow dollars to be put into a fund to help coastal States--
where people live--but would be part of a bill to take care of where 
people visit.
  I wish it were the other way around, but those are not the priorities 
of the people who are promoting the Great American Outdoors Act.
  I thank you for this time.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________