[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 108 (Thursday, June 11, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2922-S2928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 TAXPAYER FIRST ACT OF 2019--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today because I am concerned about 
the Great American Outdoors Act in its current form. It spends billions 
on places where Americans vacation but absolutely nothing protecting 
the areas where 42 percent of Americans live, which are the parishes 
and counties on coastlines. Of course these parishes and counties are 
in coastal States, and 85 percent of Americans live in coastal States.
  To repeat, the Great American Outdoors Act mandates spending billions 
on the outdoors where Americans vacation but does absolutely nothing to 
protect the outdoors where Americans live.
  Tonight, I will speak to why that is a problem for coastal States 
like my State of Louisiana and how one amendment, the coastal 
amendment, addresses this disparity.
  These are uncertain times. Coronavirus continues to kill. Our country 
struggles to confront and address the issues raised by the George Floyd 
killing. Hindsight is 20/20, but we wish that we had stockpiled more 
personal protective equipment. We wish Minneapolis had instituted 
police reforms. If wise action had addressed these issues before, then 
these issues might be better now.
  It highlights the need for wise public policy--looking beyond the 
immediate and thinking about that which may occur. On the other hand, 
there are some things that occur that we know are going to happen 
because they happened before, so 20/20 hindsight is not needed. Coastal 
flooding is an example. Hurricanes happen regularly. Sea levels are 
rising. There will be more coastal flooding, more pictures of families 
on life rafts, the Cajun Navy in small boats doing rescues, the Coast 
Guard

[[Page S2923]]

and helicopters pulling Americans up in harnesses. We know this will 
happen again. We actually have the opportunity to proactively address 
it.
  When the basics of the Great American Outdoors Act were being 
considered in committee, there was another bill passed to address 
coastal issues. The authors of the Great American Outdoors Act don't 
live in coastal States, or if they do, their States benefit greatly 
from the Great American Outdoors Act legislation. But that leaves the 
rest of us wondering, is it right to care more about parks than about 
people? Because that seems to be the priority the Senate is going on.
  Let's establish context. The Senate is nearing a vote on the Great 
American Outdoors Act. The bill dedicates billions in funding for 
deferred maintenance, mostly in national parks where Americans vacation 
and predominantly in seven States. It also puts an additional $900 
million in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is used to buy 
more land for the Federal Government, principally in Western States.
  I have no problem with the idea behind the bill. National parks are 
national treasures. Americans flock to them to learn about history and 
to experience the natural majesty of our great country. I know some of 
the floor speeches extolling this bill have shown grizzly bears and 
mountains and pine trees and such like that. I am with it. I love them. 
I think they are beautiful. But I do take issue with how the bill 
ignores the environmental needs of coastal States in favor of fixing 
broken toilets and leaky roofs, because I can show the needs of coastal 
States, not in terms of grizzly bears and pine trees and majestic 
mountains but in terms of people being flooded out of their homes 
because of the lack of investment in coastal resiliency.
  As a pictorial of where the money is spent from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, the blue States, mostly inland--they have West 
Virginia kind of poking out there, but it is not a coastal State--the 
coastal States actually don't do very well at all, do they. Even though 
this is where 85 percent of the American people live--the coastal 
States--we can see that the remaining 15 percent live in States that 
get the bulk of the funding.
  Coastal per capita spending in the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
is $7.53, but if you look at what inland States receive, it is $17.66 
on a per capita basis. There is a lot of benefit in living here if you 
are putting more money into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but 
if you live on a coastline threatened by flooding, the benefit is not 
there, and that is my concern with this bill.
  Again, let's establish these facts: 42 percent of the population 
lives in parishes and counties directly on a coastline; 82 percent live 
in coastal States. These figures--$17.66 spent on the inland and $7.53 
spent on the coastal--show a stark disconnect between protecting 
Americans from flooding where they live, work, and help others earn a 
living and spending money to fix up the parks where they occasionally 
visit.
  To repeat, more money is being spent on places where people vacation, 
not protecting where they live.
  That is the Land and Water Conservation Fund aspects of it. Let's 
talk about the parks with the deferred maintenance.
  These are the seven States that do pretty well. They do fantastic. 
Sixty percent, roughly, of the money will go to these--including 
Washington, DC--these States that are highlighted; everyone else, not 
so much. In fact, if you are in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa, only 0.2 
percent of the Nation's deferred maintenance is in those States. So out 
of the billions being spent in this program, 0.2 percent will go to 
those States collectively. Clearly, there are winners and losers.
  I spoke of Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas. Other States also get far 
less. The coastal States of Georgia, South Carolina, Connecticut, New 
Hampshire, Minnesota, Delaware, Maine, and other coastal States do very 
poorly.
  Midwestern States like Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska I have already 
mentioned, and why is this important? Well, I will mention it again in 
a little bit, but I have been to some of those coastlines. They are 
kind of going away too. If you go to a barrier island in Georgia, they 
are having to build seawalls because the waves are now crashing on 
beautiful homes, threatening to wash them away into the sea beautiful 
homes, threatening to wash them away into the sea.

  We should be spending money not just on parks but also where people 
live. That would be wise public policy.
  All the coastal States I just mentioned, including those which do 
receive disproportionate benefit from the Great American Outdoors Act, 
would also benefit, as would the Gulf Coast States, if we invest 
collectively as a nation in coastal resiliency. The reason this is so 
important--failure to invest in coastal resiliency costs lives, costs 
communities, costs taxpayers, and costs us a lot. Land lost due to 
rising sea levels and other factors threaten the safety of the 42 
percent of Americans who live in a county or parish directly on a 
coastline.
  We know that if you invest in coastal resiliency and flood protection 
on the front end, you can save billions on the back end protecting 
against the next hurricane or flood event.
  Again, we are spending billions on parks we occasionally visit, but 
there is nothing in this bill on where we live, raise families, and 
make our livelihoods.
  Perhaps the greatest irony is how the Great American Outdoors Act is 
funded. The bill takes up to $1.9 billion a year in revenue generated 
from energy production principally from the Gulf of Mexico to spend it 
on the deferred maintenance, again, principally in seven States that I 
just pointed out. Ninety percent of that revenue is from the Gulf of 
Mexico. So the State--my State, for example--that produces the energy 
with the resources that disproportionately fund programs in parks where 
people occasionally visit is the one which has its needs unaddressed.
  In my State of Louisiana, this is particularly troublesome. We are 
the hardest hit State in the Nation by land loss, so much so that if 
nothing is done, the energy infrastructure that comes off of the coast 
of Louisiana to support the oil and gas development that supplies the 
revenue for the Great American Outdoors Act--that energy infrastructure 
will be threatened, which means that the goose laying the golden egg 
dies, along with my working coast and the communities of the people who 
live there.
  If it seems like I am passionate about this, by golly, I am. By 
golly, why do people care more about parks than they do about people? 
That just disturbs me.
  But it isn't just the energy infrastructure lost; it will be lives 
and livelihoods, communities and community--again, by the way, costing 
taxpayers a lot of money.
  Let's have some examples of this. Hurricane Katrina. Federal 
taxpayers had to pay $125 billion in Louisiana, Mississippi, and other 
parts of the gulf coast for recovery; Hurricane Harvey, $125 billion in 
Texas and Louisiana; Hurricane Maria, $90 billion in Puerto Rico and 
the U.S. Virgin Islands; Hurricane Sandy, $65 billion in the Mid-
Atlantic--New York, New Jersey; Hurricane Irma, $50 billion in Florida; 
Hurricane Ike, $30 billion in Louisiana and Texas. I could mention 
Rita. I could mention many others that have cost the Federal taxpayers 
billions in order to help States recover.
  The combined cost of hurricane damage from every storm since 1990 is 
nearly $685 billion. Not all of this damage could have been avoided. It 
is clear that it couldn't have been. But a lot could have been. If the 
marshes south of New Orleans had not been allowed to erode away, they 
would have instead eroded the power of Katrina, decreasing its force 
when it hit New Orleans, perhaps preserving those levies. If we put 
money up beforehand, it saves us so much on the back end.
  The coastal amendment does not ask for billions. I feel like it 
should, but I know I couldn't get it. I am only asking that some money 
in this bill be included for coastal resiliency. I will say it once 
more: If we are spending billions on where people vacation, shouldn't 
we spend something on resiliency for the parishes and counties where 42 
percent of Americans live? Should we care more about parks than we do 
about people?
  These numbers I just went through--they are not just numbers; they 
represent people. I see their pictures. I see

[[Page S2924]]

the lives lost. I see the communities completely upended, taking years 
to recover--and by the way, communities that are vitally important not 
just to themselves but to the entirety of the United States.
  Ocean and coastal communities, including the Great Lakes, account for 
82 percent of the U.S. population and economy. NOAA reports that the 
ocean economy contributes 2.3 percent of the Nation's employment, 1.6 
percent of GDP, 3 million jobs, 154,000 businesses, $129 billion in 
wages, and $304 billion in goods and services. These jobs are 
threatened when sea levels rise and erosion and flooding occur. Their 
contribution to our economy is threatened.
  By the way, I mentioned that energy production is threatened, and if 
we cannot produce energy, there is no funding mechanism for the Great 
American Outdoors Act.
  We are spending money where people vacation, not where they live and 
work.
  I will just use my own State as a case in point of the need for 
coastal resiliency.
  Will you look at that map? This is a reasonable scenario of what will 
happen to Louisiana if there is no investment in coastal resiliency. 
The red is the land that is lost.
  This is New Orleans. It effectively becomes an island protected by 
levees, and all of this is lost. Oh, well. That is Louisiana. It may 
not matter. Second most productive fisheries--in fact, the most 
productive fisheries in the lower 48; Alaska beats us--but in the lower 
48, the most productive fisheries. Port systems that are throughout 
here support the economy of all of the inland waterways. These 
commodities that flow around the world at a competitive price advantage 
because of our fish and port system--threatened because of the absence 
of sustainability. And I could go on
  We are losing roughly--by the time I finish talking, Louisiana will 
lose roughly a football field worth of land. Goggle Maps can't even 
keep up--it will show you land, and it is open water. So if you have 
ever gone fishing in the gulf, you are watching your little radar right 
there, and you think you are about to hit something, and it is just 
open. That land has melted away, and the maps can't keep up.
  So what is at risk? Oil and gas production. I have mentioned that. 
But oil and gas production do not do it justice. All of this is 
pipelines and energy infrastructure that benefit not just Louisiana; it 
benefits the entire country.
  I am a physician. This is the way I look at it: If your body needs 
energy, so does our modern economy. And to the degree that we have oil 
and gas, jet fuel, plastics, resins, natural gas coming from around the 
country, it principally comes from here. To the degree that we support 
jobs by exporting clean-burning natural gas around the world to replace 
coal in, say, China so that hopefully they have fewer emissions blowing 
over into the United States, it disproportionately comes from this gulf 
coast. This is what is sustained. This is what is at risk if we don't 
invest in coastal resiliency--energy assets such as pipelines, 
refineries, oil export sites, natural gas market centers, processing 
facilities, liquefied natural gas export facilities, the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, and ports like Port Fourchon that keep the gulf 
economy running.
  Again, the majority of this infrastructure is based off the coast of 
Louisiana. Without investment in flood protection and rebuilding 
barrier islands, this critical part of the American economy--not to 
mention the funding stream for the Great American Outdoors Act--remains 
exposed and at risk.
  Again, these aren't just numbers; these are people. There are 375,000 
jobs directly tied to the oil and gas industry across the Gulf States, 
and it doesn't include the jobs that are secondary there just because 
of the oil and gas industry stimulating demand on commercial goods and 
services.
  But it doesn't stop there. I mentioned the port structure being 
threatened.
  By the way, somebody from Kansas, Iowa, or Nebraska might be saying: 
You know, I don't do well at all in the Great American Outdoors Act, 
but how does what Senator Cassidy is talking about help me? I don't 
live on a coastline.
  Yes, but your commodities go around the world through the port system 
that is based on the gulf coast, and this shows it.
  After Hurricane Katrina and our port system in south Louisiana was so 
damaged, this is what happened to the export of commodities from the 
heartland: Corn exports down 23 percent; barley, 100 percent; wheat, 54 
percent; soy, 25 percent. Total grain exports were down 24 percent. 
Those aren't just numbers; those are families who suddenly are 
struggling because they thought they had their budget worked out, and 
now their exports are down 100 percent.
  That lower Louisiana, lower Mississippi port system is the reason we 
can ship our grains around the world at competitive prices relative to 
other countries. Without that port system, our farmers are at a 
disadvantage.
  So it isn't just advocating for coastal resiliency for my State 
because I want those communities to be preserved and for the energy 
infrastructure we rely upon to, among other things, fund this bill we 
are about to vote on, it is also vital to the livelihood of these 
farmers and their families and their economy in these inland States. If 
we don't protect that port system by investing in coastal resiliency, 
their livelihoods will be affected.
  Investing in coastal resiliency protects all these endeavors and 
prevents the astronomical costs associated with severe flooding events 
and hurricanes, and it can be done.
  I mentioned earlier about how you invest a little bit on the front 
end, and you can save billions on the back end.
  Terrebonne Parish recently put up a new flood system, and they put it 
up after a flood event in which a major portion of their lower parish 
flooded. They then built the flood system, and then they subsequently 
had another high-water event. Ten thousand homes that would have 
flooded did not flood because of that new flood wall.
  We invested in coastal resiliency. The Federal taxpayer, through the 
National Flood Insurance Program, saved millions--hundreds of millions. 
More importantly, lives were saved and communities were saved, and a 
vibrant community, with workers who go offshore to produce the energy 
that is funding the Great American Outdoors Act, was able to pick up 
and continue with their life without disruption.
  I am speaking of Louisiana; it could be any coastal area across the 
United States. So investing in coastal resiliency protects all these 
endeavors.
  I am not saying take any money away from the Great American Outdoors 
Act. The coastal amendment, if folded in, doesn't touch a dime of the 
billions going to the parks. All I am asking is to have some revenue to 
go to save the lives and the livelihoods of all these people, the 42 
percent of Americans who live in coastal communities.
  Instead, we spend it all on parks, potholes, broken toilets, and 
leaky roofs. I have heard the argument that if you fix that leaky roof 
in time, you save more money down the road, and I accept that argument. 
I am just applying it to where people live. If we do something for 
coastal resiliency now, we save not just a leaky roof and not just a 
little bit of money. We save a community, we save lives, and we save 
lots of money.
  I recently spoke to 20 parish residents. As folks know, in Louisiana, 
we don't have counties. We have parishes. I had another call with 100 
different business leaders, and they just plead for fairness to the 
gulf and to coastal parishes and counties. And what is unfair, you ask? 
Again, if you live in a coastal area that generates the billions being 
spent in the Great American Outdoors Act, you are upset to learn that 
the Senate is passing a bill spending more money on vacation spots than 
on protecting your homes, jobs, and environment.
  It is not just the Louisiana coast. I have a friend who lives in Seal 
Beach, CA. I visited him a couple of years ago, and he said that water 
was coming up and flooding buildings it never had before. Well, in 
showing you that coastal resiliency investment can work, now Seal 
Beach, apparently, spends $1 million a year building berms to protect 
from winter storms driving it in.
  So, first, coastal resiliency can work. But, two, sea levels are 
rising, and the beach is shrinking. It will require more

[[Page S2925]]

of Seal Beach to build those berms to protect those buildings. Now, 
that is just Seal Beach, but it does show you that resiliency can be 
effective, but it also shows you that it is needed.
  I also walked, as I told you before, along those barrier islands in 
Georgia, and I am just struck. Oh, my gosh, I couldn't afford those 
beautiful homes. They had to build sea walls because the high tides are 
higher now and threatening the foundations of those buildings. This 
bill invests nothing to protect the beaches and the outdoors where 
people live.
  I am told that the Army Corps of Engineers--this is hearsay. I think 
it is true, but I don't know. It is a reliable source. The Army Corps 
of Engineers has recently proposed building a $3.5 billion floodgate to 
protect the Miami harbor. I have also read that property values are 
declining on Miami Beach because as sea levels rise, the people who are 
insuring them and may be purchasing are afraid that they will be 
inundated by rising sea levels.
  When I drive along the Mississippi gulf coast, they have homes 
elevated 12 or 15 feet in the air. It is kind of a testimony to the 
threat that our new environment poses to those who live on the beach. 
It kind of reminds me of a picture I saw of Venice, Italy, where they 
used to have shops on the ground floor, but now the ground floors are 
empty because sea level has risen and flooding has extended. So now 
there is such regularity of flooding that Venice no longer uses the 
ground floor.
  Now, we are not Venice in our country. We are not built in the middle 
of a marsh, but we are built and 42 percent of us live in a coastal 
parish. This is a threat. It does not take 20/20 hindsight. We can see 
that this is going to happen. We already hear the Army Corps of 
Engineers planning for this. We see property values declining. We see 
flood walls being built, and we scratch our chin and know that 
ultimately it will not be enough.
  The Senate could be investing in that coastal resiliency, not just, 
to say, in my State of Louisiana, where we are actually generating the 
funds that would be used for the Great American Outdoors Act, but, no, 
we are not. We are fixing potholes and parks where people visit but not 
investing in coastal resiliency where they live.
  What does the coastal amendment do? Because I do think this could fix 
this. Again, there are nationwide benefits. Let me repeat. It doesn't 
take a dime away from the Great American Outdoors Act. There will still 
be the billions going for the parks. But what this does do is it sends 
money to spend on coastal resiliency where people live. It ensures the 
stability of the port system in the Lower Mississippi and down in the 
Texas gulf coast to help America's farmers export. It helps treat the 
Gulf States fairly, which really disproportionately do not benefit from 
these two acts that they are funding. Everybody wins.
  Indeed, if you are a State like California or North Carolina that 
does really well under the Great American Outdoors Act, you also get 
money for your coastline. We are not being prejudicial. We are just 
trying to do something to help create coastal resiliency in the 
parishes and counties where 42 percent of American people live, as 
opposed to not spending a dime to help protect it.
  Now, I said at the beginning of this speech about the coastal 
amendment--I just went over it--how does it functionally work? This 
amendment removes the cap on the amount of money Gulf States receive 
from energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf and makes more 
leases eligible for the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, or, as it 
is known, GOMESA, which thereby generates more money for a State like 
Louisiana.
  Simultaneously, by raising this cap, it puts more money into the 
current fund for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. But, under the 
Great American Outdoors Act, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is 
getting an additional $900 million a year in perpetuity automatically, 
and Congress has no role over it after this bill passes. Any dollars 
that would additionally go to LWCF, above the $125 million it currently 
receives, would instead flow into a coastal fund, and that is the 
coastal fund that would help resiliency in all of our coastal States.
  Now, I can't say how other States would spend it, but in Louisiana, 
our State constitution requires that if we get money from GOMESA, from 
the revenue sharing, that we in Louisiana dedicate these funds to 
turning the tide against land loss to preserve our wonderful and 
ecologically diverse wetlands, which also blunts the effects of 
hurricanes.

  Now some might say: Why should anybody get this? It is Federal land. 
Well, I will point out that there is actually a cap on the amount of 
revenue the Gulf States receive from oil and gas revenue and from oil 
and gas production in the Federal lands off our coast, which limits the 
amount we can receive. There is no such limit in any other State.
  If you are in a Federal land in New Mexico, you get 50 percent of the 
total generated. I think I read last year that New Mexico got $1.5 
billion from shared royalty leases on Federal lands within New Mexico. 
I think Louisiana got $95 million. Wait--$1.5 billion and $95 million. 
We got a coast; they don't. We got people; they don't. We are funding 
90 percent of the Great American Outdoors Act; they are funding a 
fraction.
  Now you know why my parish residents feel anger that the needs of our 
vanishing coastline are totally ignored, and not just ours but those of 
every coastal parish--those coastal parishes in which 42 percent of 
Americans live and who are wondering: Do we care more about parks than 
we do about people?
  We can care about parks, but shouldn't we also care about people?
  Now, the coastal amendment, if added to the base bill, I can say, 
would pass with bipartisan support. I will say once more: It does not 
take any money away from the billions going to public parks in the 
Great American Outdoors Act. It doesn't take any money away from buying 
more lands out in the Western States. What I am trying to do is to 
bring fairness and equity into this equation by directing dollars to 
all coastal States, including the Great Lakes States. Senators from 
both sides of this aisle represent States which would benefit. It 
doesn't matter whether you are from a coastal State. You would 
recognize that it is wise public policy.
  I suggested inserting the coastal amendment into the Great American 
Outdoors Act, into the base bill. The COASTAL Act was originally 
written with Doug Jones, the Senator from Alabama, and had bipartisan 
support in the Energy Committee from Senator Angus King from Maine.
  Since, the coastal amendment has been modified. My Democratic 
colleague, Sheldon Whitehouse, who is from Rhode Island--a State 
greatly threatened by rising sea levels--suggested that we create 
revenue sharing for wind energy. As we look forward into the next 
economy, we see that offshore wind will be a significant source of 
electricity for States like his, in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and 
other New England States. So we would use revenue sharing from offshore 
wind energy to also contribute to coastal resiliency.
  Now, that still is a little ways off. At first, it would principally 
be additional dollars coming from the Gulf Coast, but ultimately it 
would be the north and the south combining to benefit all coastal 
States, whether they were in the Northeast or in the South. Wherever 
you live on a coastline, including the Great Lakes, it would benefit 
from inserting the COASTAL Act into the great American Outdoors Act.
  All I can say is, I would like to think that Senators--Republicans 
and Democrats alike--can see what is at risk: lives, jobs, and energy 
production. In funding for the Great American Outdoors Act, if you 
don't give a twit about the coastal areas, at least you are concerned 
about the funding for the act. Again, if we only invest where people 
vacation instead of investing in coastal resiliency, we do a disservice 
to the States, in those coastal States is where over 80 percent of 
Americans live.
  Now, by the way, we can have common ground on issues of the 
environment. Earlier today, one of the Great American Outdoors Act 
authors, Senator Gardner from Colorado, addressed this Chamber to say 
that his bill is smart conservation. Let me say that two of my best 
friends here are Senator Gardner and Senator Daines, and we are on the 
other side of this issue. But if you are from their State, my gosh, you 
just better give them a real shout-

[[Page S2926]]

out, because they have done a good job for your State. I don't feel 
good about the job for my State of Louisiana, but, you, by golly, 
better feel good about the job they have done for your State.
  I would add that I think that Senator Gardner's bill and my amendment 
work together on important issues of conservation and environment. I am 
told that 800 environmental groups support the Great American Outdoors 
Act as is and don't want any changes. I find that hard to believe. Is 
there really an environmental group out there that doesn't want to 
invest in coastal resiliency, that hasn't looked at the devastation of 
Katrina, of Rita, of Ike, of Maria, of Irma, and doesn't recognize that 
taking care of the environment is essential to our coastal regions? I 
am sure that if you poll those 800 groups and say we are going to spend 
additional dollars on those coastal parishes where Americans live, they 
would stand up and applaud. And if we put it in there, they will 
support this bill.
  Now, I will say the GOMESA States is an irony here. They are often at 
odds with these environmental groups because the environmental groups 
claim that GOMESA incentivizes drilling or that we are spending money 
in a revenue sharing program funded by oil and gas, but, needless to 
say, that argument is out of the window.
  The Great American Outdoors Act has the exact same funding source as 
GOMESA, and it is supported by all the anti-fossil fuel environmental 
groups because they want to take care of parks. Well, I want to take 
care of people, and I also want to take care of your parks, but my 
first priority is that working family. My first priority is that family 
which wakes up every day and struggles to make ends meet and wants 
their child to have a better future than they, but then they learn 
there is high water coming and they might be flooded and that better 
future is flooded away. I care about that family. We, in the Senate, 
should care about that family. We should not care for parks more than 
we care for people.
  The coastal amendment supports the environment. As I said earlier, it 
goes directly to coastal resiliency initiatives that include recovering 
lost land and supporting the wetlands. I am not at odds with 
environmentalists. As I said before, every environmentalist is going to 
support restoring the wetlands of Louisiana. I am just asking that we 
be allowed to support that coastal environment. For people who live 
along the coast, these coastal systems are the ecosystems that make our 
homes special. It is why I look at those marshes in Louisiana, and, to 
me, they are just as beautiful as that grizzly bear and that pine tree 
and that majestic mountain. It is all part of God's creation, if we 
don't let it wash away. This is more than potholes. It is more than 
leaky toilets and leaky roofs. It is about preservation and about it 
not being here in 50 years if we do not act now. We spend billions on 
the environment where people vacation but not anything on the 
environment where they live.

  So here is where we are in this debate. We have established that over 
80 percent of our fellow Americans live in coastal States and stand to 
benefit very little from the Great American Outdoors Act. Oh, yes, if 
you live in the beach of North Carolina, you are kind of glad that the 
people in the Rocky Mountains and the Smoky National Parks have a 
little bit more tourism, but your home is the one being washed away. 
And if you are in Seal Beach and your taxes are going up because they 
have to build a bigger and bigger berm every year because the winter 
storms are that much worse, or you are kind of glad in Yosemite--I am 
glad Yosemite is getting money, by the way. I love Yosemite. But on the 
other hand, it doesn't help you with your taxes. It doesn't help you 
with your building getting flooded. You begin to wonder, if you see a 
picture of Venice, is that what your home will look like in 25 years--a 
major investment of your life getting flooded so regularly that it 
loses all its value. Apparently, that is what they are looking at in 
Miami. That is what we hear in this debate.
  We have established that most of the country that lives in coastal 
States stands to benefit very little from the Great American Outdoors 
Act. We have established that failing to invest in coastal resiliency 
leads to death--death. Think about Hurricane Katrina. It threatens 
millions of jobs and billions of economic activity. We have established 
that both the coastal amendment and the Great American Outdoors Act 
help the environment. They really do. We have established that that one 
amendment, the coastal amendment, added to the Great American Outdoors 
Act can address funding and equity--stop. Here we have billions for the 
Great American Outdoors Act and here will be a few million. So there 
isn't any semblance of equality between the funding that I am proposing 
for coastal resiliency where 42 percent of Americans live and the 
billions going to the parks that we visit occasionally, but at least 
there is some money going for coastal resiliency where most Americans 
live.
  From where I am standing, including the coastal amendment in the 
Great American Outdoors Act is a win-win. The Great American Outdoors 
Act passes with funding to address the needs of national parks and 
funding for coastal resiliency. It has bipartisan support. Democrats 
and Republicans can come together on it. The cause is just. If you just 
think about that family, the cause is just. The support is there, but 
the ability to vote on it is not.
  The bill's authors will not allow this amendment to come to the floor 
included in their package. This is a disservice to the 82 percent of 
the country who live in coastal States and face the threats of 
hurricanes and flooding. I am asking that the Senate do what the 
Founders envisioned us doing. Consider ideas, vote on them, try and 
expand ourselves beyond our narrow parochial interest, and think about 
all Americans, not just those Americans that live in your State. Put 
people before parks.
  That is not to say, with 20/20 hindsight, we know we should have 
invested in coastal resiliency because look at the pricetag of not 
doing so, because we have already seen that pricetag. Instead, let's 
think, going forward, that we are going to make the investment now 
because we see that investing can save millions--if not billions--of 
dollars, and I only speak of dollars. I should speak only of lives 
because sometimes I just think we take lives for granted. I don't. We 
should invest in coastal resiliency most of all to protect those lives, 
those families, and those futures.
  I hope that we will include this. I hope the idea will be considered. 
It is germane. It is bipartisan. It will pass.
  I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening about something 
very important to me and those whom I represent. We know the gulf coast 
is paying for the bill, and it is not getting a fair share. All I am 
asking is that we amend the underlying bill to spend money now on 
resiliency projects so we don't spend billions later on flood and storm 
recovery and perhaps thousands on funerals.
  It deserves a vote. It would pass. It protects so many lives and 
takes nothing away from the Great American Outdoors Act, but it does 
establish that we in the Senate care about people and parks and that we 
not just care about where we vacation but we wish to protect where we 
live. I encourage my colleagues to consider what I have said tonight.
  If you have heard this by other means, contact your Senator. Ask them 
what they think. I would hope they would ask whether it is appropriate 
for our country to spend billions on vacation spots, which are 
wonderful vacation spots, but spend nothing to prevent flood and 
devastation.
  Scripture says that if you build your home on shifting sand, the 
house will collapse. It is better to build it on a firm foundation.
  I would also add once more that we built this funding on the shifting 
sand--the literal shifting sand--of a Louisiana coastline, which is 
smaller since I began to speak, by about the size of a football field. 
That shifting sand supporting that infrastructure, which is shifting 
out into the Gulf, will erode not just my coastline but also the 
ability to pay for the Great American Outdoors Act. Even if someone 
does not care about the 42 percent of the Americans who live in coastal 
parishes and counties, they should care about that.
  I hope others join my coalition. I call upon the bill's authors to 
include this

[[Page S2927]]

in the underlying amendment. It needs to be considered for the good of 
all Americans who call the coast home. I think it needs to be 
considered for the good of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I want to congratulate my colleague 
from Louisiana, one of the most diligent Members of the U.S. Senate. He 
complimented the occupant of the Chair, Senator Gardner from Colorado, 
for doing a great job for his State. I think Senator Cassidy did a good 
job advocating for his State. But he left a little bit of perspective 
out on what he offered, and I would like to add some perspective.
  As he was speaking, I was thinking about the creation of the Great 
Smoky Mountains National Park. This occurred in the 1930s. During the 
Great Depression, when everyone was worried about a job and everyone 
was worried about our country, the people of North Carolina and 
Tennessee appropriated through their State legislatures $2 million 
each. Then John D. Rockefeller, Jr., heard about the effort, and he 
said: ``I will give $5 million if the States will match it.''
  So you had four--two from North Carolina, two from Tennessee--and 
then they set out to raise another $1 million. They raised that from 
schoolchildren. They collected pennies and dimes and quarters in the 
middle of the Depression to create the Great Smoky Mountains National 
Park.
  At the time they did that, what did the people of Tennessee and North 
Carolina do? They gave it to the people of the United States of 
America. They gave it to all of us. They didn't charge for it. In fact, 
they said: ``The only way we will give it to you is if you will not put 
an interest fee on it.''
  They didn't say: ``Only Tennesseans, only North Carolinians can 
come.'' They didn't say: ``We don't want anybody from Louisiana coming 
to the national park and the Great Smokies or from Colorado or from any 
other State.'' They gave it to the people of this country.
  And what has happened? There are now 14 million people a year who 
come to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. We only have 6 or 7 
million in Tennessee, so we have a lot of people. We have a lot of 
interlopers, don't we? We have a lot of people who don't live where our 
park is, who use it. We are happy about that. We are proud of it. We 
are glad we gave it to the country, and we are glad Ken Burns includes 
it among one of the great treasures that he calls America's Best Idea. 
It is a park for the country given by the people of Tennessee and North 
Carolina and the schoolchildren, and we didn't object to everybody 
enjoying it.
  I believe I voted every single time that the coastal States have been 
decimated by a hurricane. The Senator from Louisiana talked about $685 
billion. I didn't say, as a Senator from Tennessee: ``You know, we 
don't have a coast. We don't have an ocean. It wasn't us. Hurricanes 
don't come here. Don't charge me.''
  We gladly paid our share of the bill because we are part of one 
country. We are part of one country. That was four people, right? Six 
hundred and eighty-five billion dollars for people who were hurt, not 
just paid for by people who live on the coast but by people who live in 
Colorado and Tennessee and Iowa and places where there is not a coast--
because we are one country.
  So the idea that we should only favor those items that come just from 
our State is not a very good argument for coastal resiliency because, 
if the Senator from Louisiana wants to bring that bill up based on the 
argument he made, why should anybody who doesn't live on a coast vote 
for it? I voted for it in committee because I thought it was an 
important issue, even though we don't have a coast. He is a very 
skillful advocate, a very diligent Senator. He is doing a good job of 
talking for his State, but he is missing the point.
  His other point is, let's add it to this bill. Well, the Senate floor 
is littered with bills that never made it through here because they got 
loaded down with too many good ideas. People say: ``Well, there is a 
train that is likely to get to the station, let's load it up.'' And 
what happens? It just slows down, and after a while, it stops, and 
nothing happens. Because people have said: ``If I don't get what I want 
on the train, I am not for anything.''

  That is why the Land and Water Conservation Fund has never been 
permanently funded. This was an idea Congress passed in 1964, 60 years 
ago. In 1985 and 1986, I was chairman of President Reagan's Commission 
on America's Outdoors. It looked at what we should do in the great 
American outdoors. We didn't say the great Tennessee outdoors or the 
great Louisiana outdoors or the great Colorado outdoors. We looked at 
the great American outdoors. We looked at the great American outdoors 
and said: ``What can we do so our children and grandchildren can enjoy 
what we have enjoyed?''
  The people of Wyoming aren't the only ones who enjoy Yellowstone--or 
the people of Montana. Three or four million people a year go to a 
western park like that. They travel from all over the country to go 
there.
  When I look at the Great Smokies in football season, when we play 
LSU, those Tigers arrive on Tuesday. Well, the game is not until 
Saturday. Why do they come? Because they want to go to the Great Smoky 
Mountains National Park. We don't put up a big sign and say: ``Sorry, 
you didn't pay for it. We gave it to the country. It is not for you.'' 
They like it, and we like to have them there.
  So the point, though, was that sometimes you have a good idea, and if 
you add one more good idea to a piece of legislation, it sinks the 
whole ship. That would be the case here. The Senator from Louisiana is 
talking about a very big idea: What do we do about revenue sharing from 
oil and gas revenues and coastal resiliency and climate change? He 
didn't say too much about climate change, but if his sea level is 
rising, it is probably because of climate change, so maybe we ought to 
think about that too. So if we are going to bring up this whole issue 
of coastal resiliency, my guess is that some Senators will say: ``All 
right, let's talk about a moratorium on oil and gas drilling. Let's 
talk about a fairer share.''
  Ninety percent of the drilling in Alaska goes to Alaska. Fifty 
percent of the drilling in Wyoming goes to Wyoming. Twenty-seven 
percent of the drilling 3 miles off the coast of Louisiana goes to 
Louisiana. If it is in the Federal lands beyond 3 miles, 37\1/2\ 
percent is split up among four States. That is the area where the oil 
comes from, but that land belongs to all 46 States. So we could have a 
pretty good debate about that, about the moratorium.
  Then someone would say: ``What about the oceans? The oceans deserve 
some of the care that comes from drilling in the oceans, drilling in 
the water, so let's talk about the oceans.'' If we got into a 
moratorium on oil and gas drilling, adding the oceans, changing revenue 
sharing, there is no more difficult issue in the U.S. Senate than to 
adjust and say: ``Well, Louisiana gets 27 percent, maybe it ought to go 
to 40. Alaska gets 90, maybe Wyoming should go up to 90.'' There is no 
more difficult issue than that to deal with. It sunk a lot of bills to 
bring that up.
  I remember the member of the congregation who was disappointed 
because the preacher only preached a verse from the Gospel of Luke. 
Well, you can't preach the whole Bible in one sermon, and we can't pass 
every good idea in one bill. In fact, we have two bills together here 
that are, by themselves, about enough to stop the train before it gets 
to the station.
  Everybody here knows that it has been since 1964 that people have 
tried to pass the Land and Water Conservation Fund funding, even though 
the idea--money from environmental burden, that is drilling offshore--
for an environmental benefit--that is to let States and the Federal 
Government buy land that is treasured, as Senator Daines from Montana 
says, 80 percent of the access good fishing in Montana comes with Land 
and Water Conservation Fund money. So that bill has been out there a 
long time.
  How long have we tried to fix the national parks and the boat ramps 
and the wildlife refuges and the roads and the national forests and the 
Indian schools, which are in shambles in many cases? Decades. We have 
been going

[[Page S2928]]

and using up our parks and our public lands, and we haven't been 
maintaining them.
  Again, you don't just get to go to the public land in Kansas, if you 
are from Kansas, or to the Great Smokies, if you are from Tennessee or 
North Carolina, or to Yellowstone, if you are from Wyoming or Montana--
all of us go to that, and we have let them run down. That is about 
people. That is about people.
  Here we are in this big COVID-19 crisis. What does everyone want to 
do today more than anything else? Get outdoors. Get out of the house. 
Here you are, cooped up with teenagers or Grandma or all of you, just a 
few people sitting there for 3 months. You want a little space.
  The people who go to these open spaces are the people who live on the 
coast. They live in the big cities. They want a little variety in their 
lives, and we are glad for them to have it. When they go, they don't 
want a bathroom that doesn't work or a visitors center that is in 
shambles. They don't want a pothole in the road or a trail that is worn 
down. They would like to have a place they could enjoy, that is in good 
shape, and they can go home.
  I think about the campground on Chilhowee Mountain just outside the 
Smokies. There might be a few campers from Louisiana who like to come 
up there whenever we play LSU. I don't know, but probably there are. 
Well, it has been closed for 2 or 3 years because the sewage system 
doesn't work. That is at least 500 families who don't get to have the 
opportunity to do that.
  I am sympathetic to the Senator from Louisiana. I think he is one of 
our most able Senators. He is making a very forceful argument for a 
real problem: coastal resiliency. But I don't buy this idea that just 
because this bill doesn't fix that problem we should jeopardize this 
bill.
  Think about it. We have the President of the United States, who 
personally is interested in this bill. His Secretary of the Interior 
came down to Tennessee to see me 2\1/2\ years ago. It is the 
first administration that said: ``We are going to look at the money we 
get from energy exploration, and after we give some to Louisiana and 
after we give some to Wyoming and after we give some to Alaska and the 
other coastal States, we are going to take half of what is left for 5 
years, and we are going to use it to fix all of those things that need 
to be fixed in our national treasures.''

  I said: ``OK, if the President is going to support it and his Office 
of Management and Budget is going to be the first Office of Management 
and Budget to allow money to be spent in that way, I am going to get 
behind it.''
  Then I came up here and fell into some pretty good company; the 
Senator from Colorado, the Senator from Montana, Senator Warner from 
Virginia, and Senator Portman from Ohio were already working on the 
subject. Senator King of Maine, Senator Heinrich, Senator Cantwell were 
involved in the land and water. It became absolutely clear that, if we 
didn't put these two bills together, none of them--neither of them--
would pass. If they didn't go together, neither of them would pass.
  We consulted with all of the people in the Senate who were working on 
this. There wasn't complete agreement. There were a number of Senators 
who had other amendments that they would have liked to have, Senators 
whom I greatly respect and whose amendments I would probably support by 
the one. But as we looked at it and as we consulted with the more than 
800 groups--the sportsmen, the anglers, the environmental groups--we 
all agreed that our only chance to get both bills was to put them 
together and say to the Senate: ``Let's vote on it; let's send it to 
the House to see if they will vote on it; and after 60 years of trying, 
maybe we can get a good result.''
  I think that is why we got 80 votes. The first time, this came up on 
a procedural vote, and 79 the second time it came up.
  A number of Senators have gone home tonight because this is a late-
night vote. The reason we are having a late-night vote is because those 
who agree with Senator Cassidy have insisted on taking the maximum 
amount of time. That is their right to do, so we are here. If we 
succeed tonight, then we will have three votes on Monday, all of which 
are very important votes. So we are close to getting this train to the 
station.
  Senator Cassidy has made an eloquent appeal to add an idea that is 
good, but an idea that is big and complex and deserves its own day in 
the Sun, just as it came to our Energy Committee, of which I sit and he 
sits. I voted for it at that time, but we just can't add it to this 
bill and get this train to the station. That is the fact of the matter.
  As much as I respect him and his ideas, I hope that he and others who 
agree with him would say: ``Look, this is our one chance to get this 
kind of funding to make our national parks and all the rest of our 
public lands--the boat ramps, the trails, the roads, the sewage--our 
one chance to begin to fix the maintenance over a 5-year period of time 
instead of 10, 15, 25 years, or never. It is our one chance to do 
that.''
  I am sure it is our one chance to get the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund permanently funded, as Congress agreed to do in 1964 and as 
President Reagan's Commission on America's Outdoors, which I chaired in 
1985 and 1986, recommended as its No. 1 priority.
  Let's not try to preach the whole Bible in one sermon. We have two 
good big ideas. Together, they make the most important piece of 
conservation legislation in a half century.
  You say: ``Well, Senators are always exaggerating.'' I don't try to 
exaggerate too much, and I defy anyone to point me another bill that 
does more. I know we have been working on land and water since 1964. 
That is more than a half century. I know that this deferred maintenance 
has been building up for a long, long time. It is the single biggest 
problem the national parks and our public lands have.
  I think 95 percent of the American people would wonder why we can't 
pass it in 5 minutes. The reason is, there are lots of good ideas here, 
and if you load them all up in the same wheelbarrow or on the same 
train, the wheelbarrow collapses, and the train doesn't get to the 
station. That is where we are. That is where we are.
  I hope that, with respect to the good ideas advocated tonight by the 
Senator from Louisiana--I know he will keep at it. I am on the same 
committee he is. I have voted for his idea before. I think it deserves 
its day in the Sun, and I will help him do that, but I would like to 
ask him to help us finish the job here on the most important piece of 
conservation legislation. I want him to know that those LSU Tigers are 
always welcome in the Great Smoky Mountains, even if we bought it and 
paid for it and gave it to the whole country.
  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. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered

                          ____________________