[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 110 (Monday, June 15, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2960-S2972]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                  TAXPAYER FIRST ACT OF 2019--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1957, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1957) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to modernize and improve the Internal Revenue Service, 
     and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell (for Gardner) amendment No. 1617, in the nature 
     of a substitute.
       McConnell amendment No. 1626 (to amendment No. 1617), to 
     change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 1627 (to amendment No. 1626), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       McConnell Amendment No. 1628 (to the language proposed to 
     be stricken by amendment No. 1617), to change the enactment 
     date.
       McConnell amendment No. 1629 (to amendment No. 1628), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this morning, the long march for equality 
for LGBTQ Americans took a step forward. The Supreme Court handed down 
a landmark decision that Federal employment discrimination protections 
do, in fact, extend to LGBTQ Americans. Believe it or not, before 
today, it was not a settled legal matter that you could sue your 
employer for firing you solely on the basis of sexual orientation or 
sexual identity.
  In 2020, in America, it was still OK to discriminate against people 
because of their sexual orientation or identity. Is that unbelievable 
that in the 21st century it was still allowed? Well, now it isn't 
because of the Supreme Court, and they deserve credit for that case.
  One of the cases that formed the basis of today's ruling originated 
in my home State of New York, where a skydiving instructor was fired 
for admitting his sexual orientation. So, today, the Supreme Court did 
the right thing and ruled that workplace discrimination on the basis of 
sexual orientation is just as unlawful as discrimination on the basis 
of gender, race, or religion.
  Of course, the ruling in no way diminishes our efforts here in 
Congress to pass the Equality Act led by my colleagues, Senators 
Merkley, Baldwin, and Booker, which would be a great leap forward on 
equality that we are all looking for. It passed the House over a year 
ago, but it has been gathering dust in Leader McConnell's legislative 
graveyard. Senate Republicans are still not in the 21st century. They 
must think it is OK to discriminate against people because of their 
orientation or identity. Unbelievable. But maybe now, the fact that 
even a few Justices appointed by Republican Presidents believe that it 
was against the law--maybe that will prick the hearts of our Republican 
colleagues and Leader McConnell and they will allow a vote on the 
Equality Act here on the floor. Even without the Senate and its 
backward ways, it is clear that the country is moving in the right 
direction.


                        Justice in Policing Act

  Mr. President, these are not ordinary times in America. For 21 
straight days, hundreds of thousands of Americans have taken to the 
streets to protest police violence and racial injustice. Clashes 
between police and peaceful protesters over the past few weeks, in 
which some police departments have responded with overly aggressive 
tactics, have only articulated further the need for bold and wide-
reaching reform of police practices.
  Being killed by police is now the sixth leading cause of death for 
young Black men in America. Let me repeat that. Being killed by police 
is now the sixth leading cause of death for young Black men in America, 
and that is why the House and Senate have drafted legislation, the 
Justice in Policing Act,

[[Page S2961]]

that will deliver comprehensive reform to police departments, including 
a ban on choke holds, a ban on no-knock warrants in Federal drug cases, 
a ban on racial profiling, and limits on the transfer of military 
equipment to police departments. Our bill would make it a lot easier to 
hold police accountable in court for misconduct and institute several 
reforms to prevent that misconduct in the first place.
  Only a few months ago, the Justice in Policing Act might have seemed 
controversial, but in the wake of such obvious injustice recorded on 
iPhones throughout the country, there is now broad and deep support for 
the policies we Democrats are pushing in the Justice in Policing Act.
  A recent Reuters poll reported--listen to this--82 percent of 
Americans, including 7 in 10 Republicans, want to ban police from using 
choke holds; 83 percent of Americans, including 7 in 10 Republicans, 
want to ban racial profiling; 92 percent of Americans, including 9 in 
10 Republicans, want Federal police to wear body cameras; 91 percent of 
Americans, including 9 in 10 Republicans, support allowing independent 
investigations of police departments that show patterns of misconduct; 
and 75 percent of Americans, including 6 in 10 Republicans, support 
allowing victims of police misconduct to sue police departments for 
damages, also known as qualified immunity reform.
  Now is the time to seek bold and broadscale change, not change around 
the margins. Now is the time for wholesale reform, not piecemeal 
reform. The Justice in Policing Act takes a comprehensive approach, 
but, at the moment, our Republican colleagues seem to be on a path 
toward taking a much, much narrower, less inclusive approach. That is 
wrong.
  Some Senate Republicans have endorsed individual proposals in our 
bill, like qualified immunity reform and bans on choke holds, but it 
looks like these policies may not be included in the Republican bill. 
While our bill recognizes that a strong Federal response is necessary 
to bring change to every police department in America, the Republicans, 
it seems, are going to leave much of the task up to the States. If 
history has taught us anything, particularly when it comes to civil 
rights, it is that progress on civil rights has been stunted, slowed 
down, and sometimes stymied by letting the States take the lead.
  Let me repeat to my Republican colleagues: We need comprehensive and 
bold reform, and we need a commitment from the Republican leader to 
consider broad, strong police reform--the Justice in Policing Act--on 
the floor of the Senate before July 4.
  Again, I ask our Republican leader--I have asked before: Allow the 
Justice in Policing Act to be on the floor. We can debate it. We can 
amend it. Some of you may not vote for it, but the Nation is crying out 
for debate on a comprehensive and strong approach, not to cherry-pick 
one or two items and say ``See, we have done our job'' and go home.
  This has been a pervasive and deep problem in America for decades and 
centuries. To now give it short shift and to try and get off the hook 
would be so wrong at the moment when Americans are calling for it. The 
vast majority of Republican voters are calling for it. Do we have any 
courage here or any strength to face the issue head-on at a time and at 
a moment when we can do it? I hope our Republican friends will summon 
that courage, that strength, and that desire to bring real, strong, and 
comprehensive reform. The time for waiting is over


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. President, meanwhile, a global pandemic continues to assail our 
country and our economy. The COVID-19 pandemic did not disappear while 
the Nation rightfully turned its attention to the issues of racial 
justice. In fact, just as the country was preparing for the early 
stages of reopening, the number of cases began to spike again in a 
number of States.
  Arizona has activated emergency plans to deal with the surge of new 
patients. Over the weekend, Florida reported its highest single-day 
number of cases. Twenty-two States are reporting increases in the 
numbers of confirmed cases of coronavirus after those numbers had been 
declining. The experts tell us that it is not simply because there is 
more testing. There is also more coronavirus in many of these States.
  A headline in Time magazine sums it up: ``America Is Done With COVID-
19. COVID-19 Isn't Done With America.'' It is our responsibility to 
deal with this problem. The trends are extremely concerning.
  I have asked the White House to have members of the coronavirus task 
force, including Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx, give Senate Democrats a 
briefing on these recent spikes. I have yet to hear back. The White 
House continues to muzzle the most knowledgeable people.
  President Trump, haven't you learned that when you don't face the 
truth, it hurts the country and hurts you? You tried to deny that this 
coronavirus was real--it was a hoax; it will go away in a few days; 
there are very few cases--and, of course, it ravaged our country.
  Now they are doing the same thing. President Trump is doing exactly 
the same thing--withholding the experts and withholding the truth in 
hopes that things will disappear. That is just not how science tells us 
things work.
  President Trump now seems ready to dismiss these issues entirely. It 
is appalling. He is planning big campaign rallies, asking reporters, 
amazingly, to sign waivers not to sue if they contract COVID from 
attending. I guess he worries that they might get it, but he doesn't 
care. He wants to have his rally. That is the superficiality of this 
President.
  President Trump has also moved major parts of the Republican 
convention out of North Carolina in order to avoid having to respect 
the most basic precautions against the spread of coronavirus.
  Today, amazingly enough, the FDA withdrew the emergency authorization 
of the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment against COVID. Remember 
how the President of the United States, only a few weeks ago, was 
promoting the use of hydroxychloroquine like a pharmaceutical salesman, 
going so far as to take the drug himself despite not having the 
disease? Now the FDA says that it is not reasonable to believe the drug 
is effective against COVID or that its benefit outweighs the ``known 
and potential risks.'' That is the President's own department telling 
him to stop it--to stop telling Americans lies about the coronavirus 
and about what is good and bad to treat it. It is amazing. An agency 
like this one, which knows they are not supposed to buck the President 
or face his wrath, still felt the obligation to come forward and tell 
Americans the truth about hydroxychloroquine.
  This should be a warning to all Americans. You can't listen to 
President Trump when it comes to healthcare, whether it comes to 
hydroxychloroquine or anything about the coronavirus itself, because 
the experts in his own administration so often contradict his advice. 
It shouldn't need saying that the President is not a doctor, yet he has 
been issuing off-the-cuff medical advice from the White House podium 
only to have the experts scrambling to backtrack weeks later. This is 
not how a leader handles a crisis. This is not even how a normal person 
handles a crisis.
  Senate Republicans, meanwhile, have relegated the COVID issue to the 
back burner. As the expiration dates for several of the programs 
established under the CARES Act quickly approach, Leader McConnell has 
reportedly told his caucus not to expect another emergency relief bill 
until the end of July. The emergency unemployment insurance we passed 
in the CARES Act is soon going to run out. The ban on evictions is soon 
going to expire. State and local governments are preparing to slash 
public services and are in dire need of Federal support. Cliff after 
cliff after cliff faces us. Economic trouble after economic trouble 
after economic trouble is looming upon us very soon. Yet all of these 
problems and all of these deadlines seem to mean very little to the 
Republican Senate majority, which is taking its sweet time to respond 
to an urgent and multifaceted national crisis.
  What are our Republican friends going to tell people whose 
unemployment insurance runs out? Tough luck? What are our Republican 
friends going to tell people evicted from their homes? Too bad? What 
are our Republican friends going to tell the many public servants fired 
because their 

[[Page S2962]]

States are running out of money and we have refused to step up to the 
plate? What are they going to tell the Nation's parents when schools 
will not be able to open because we haven't given them adequate 
resources to do so?

  We are going to tell them that the Republican majority is asleep at 
the switch during a major national crisis, but that will be of little 
solace. We would much rather work together and get things done.
  Even on bedrock issues of democracy elections, the Republican 
majority has once again been absent. The COVID pandemic has made our 
elections a challenge, obviously. In Nevada, South Carolina, Wisconsin, 
and, most recently and most glaringly in Georgia, voters have had to 
overcome significant barriers to voting. Senators Klobuchar, Feinstein, 
and Peters have been demanding that Republican chairs of their 
respective committees hold hearings on these election issues. That 
would be the bare minimum the Senate could do in response to widespread 
election issues.
  Police reform, racial injustice, voting rights, a global pandemic, 
massive levels of unemployment--these are huge issues that demand the 
attention of the U.S. Senate, but Leader McConnell and the Republican 
majority just can't seem to find the time. On issues like COVID, racial 
justice, the economy, voting, the Republican majority is sadly missing 
in action.
  Instead, Leader McConnell is pushing two rightwing judges onto the 
Nation's circuit courts: Justin Walker and Cory Wilson.
  Mr. Walker is a man of limited judicial experience who has made it 
very clear he personally opposes our healthcare law. He called the 
Roberts decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act indefensible and 
catastrophic.
  Mr. Wilson, by the same token, called our healthcare law illegitimate 
and perverse. That is right, folks. If you need healthcare and you are 
suffering because of COVID, well, our Republican friends are nominating 
judges who think the law is illegitimate and perverse. In the middle of 
a public health crisis, the Republican majority is planning to confirm 
rightwing judges who oppose our healthcare law.
  Adding insult to injury, Mr. Wilson has been one of the leaders in 
opposing and undoing voting rights. Here, at a time when people are 
protesting for racial equality, the Republican majority has the 
temerity to put on the floor of the Senate someone who has spent his 
career trying to limit the rights of people, oftentimes minorities, to 
vote. Mr. Wilson has supported restrictive voter ID laws and expressed 
strong opposition to parts of the Voting Rights Act. That is right. In 
the middle of a national movement on issues related to racial justice, 
Senate Republicans are trying to put a judge on the bench with a 
hostile record on voting rights.
  We all know that when you have the Senate majority, it is all about 
priorities. We are all empowered here on the Senate to propose bills 
and amendments and to ask consent to speak for as long as we want, but 
only Leader McConnell gets to decide which bills reach the floor, and 
for the past 2 months, as the economic pain from the coronavirus 
deepens, as the disease starts to come back, as the economy runs into 
trouble after trouble after trouble, as long-simmering issues of racial 
justice and police brutality propel peaceful protesting in our biggest 
cities and smallest towns, the Republican Senate majority has been out 
to lunch. This week, as Leader McConnell asks us to consider more 
rightwing judges for the Federal bench, it could not be more apparent.

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


                        Criminal Justice System

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, across America, people of all ages, races, 
and backgrounds have continued to show up on the streets to speak up 
and speak out against racial injustice. Of course, it is their right 
under the Constitution to do so.
  Galvanized by the tragic death of George Floyd, they are marching in 
peaceful protests, signing petitions, and having frank discussions with 
their families. It is a moment characterized by heartbreak and anger 
over the injustices that many Black Americans feel are perpetrated on 
them every day, but it is also a time for hope for the future as the 
issue has come front and center. Frankly, we have to do something about 
it.
  In city halls, State legislatures, and, of course, here in the U.S. 
Capitol, there is a newfound sense of energy and urgency behind the 
effort to pass meaningful reform. We have an opportunity to create 
profound change in an area that, for too long, has just been a can 
kicked down the road, and I am optimistic we will succeed.
  I told the Floyd family when I talked to them before their son, their 
brother, was buried: My hope for you and my hope for all of us is that 
something positive will come out of this tragedy.
  Here in the Senate, we are working on legislation to respond to these 
events, and the majority leader has tasked our friend and colleague 
from South Carolina, Senator Tim Scott, to lead the effort in our 
conference. I am proud to have been working with him closely--and 
several other colleagues--to draft legislation that I think will help 
us begin the first step down that path and support America's police 
forces.
  As we work through potential policies, it is important to hear 
feedback from my constituents back home, and last Friday I had the 
chance to do just that. I reached out to my friend, Dallas Mayor Eric 
Johnson, whom I have gotten to know pretty well during his first year 
as mayor. Whether it be Dallas tornadoes or the COVID-19 virus or, now, 
discussions about the George Floyd killing and racial injustice, we 
have found the opportunity to work together to support the people of 
Dallas through some incredibly difficult times.
  I asked him if he would help me convene a group of leaders in Dallas 
to discuss these issues, and by Friday we were all socially distancing 
around a large table in city hall in Dallas, TX. The mayor and I were 
joined by Police Chief Renee Hall, Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown, 
Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot, as well as union, 
community, and faith leaders. We had a frank conversation about the 
challenges we are up against as we work to repair the broken trust 
between law enforcement and some of the communities they serve.
  I was able to spend some time talking about the work we are doing 
here in the Senate and the ideas that could be included in any 
legislation. I talked about two specific proposals that I have 
recommended--one being the establishment of a National Criminal Justice 
Commission. This Commission would review the criminal justice system 
from top to bottom and provide recommendations to us, something that 
has not happened at the national level since 1965.
  I also recommended taking steps to ensure more departments and 
agencies are providing deescalation training for their officers so, 
hopefully, officers will know how to use these tactics to prevent 
similar tragedies from occurring in the first place.
  But mostly I was there to listen and to learn from the men and women 
with decades of experience in protecting, serving, and advocating for 
their communities.
  Chief Hall talked about how policing strategies had created a wedge 
between law enforcement and some of the minority communities and the 
work it is going to take in order to repair that trust and eliminate 
that wedge. She noted that Dallas is home to some of the best officers 
in the country and that the vast majority of them show up for work 
every day with all of the right intentions and attitude, but for the 
small number of officers who don't, we need to be able to identify them 
quickly and remove them from our police forces.
  Thinking about the officer who was directly responsible for George 
Floyd's death, according to published reports, he had at least 17 
misconduct complaints already lodged against him. Now, that should be a 
red flag for anybody.
  In any tragedy, you can't help but go through the what-ifs and wonder 
how things might have played out differently. What if his supervisors 
had taken action? What if he had been fired? What if he hadn't been 
available to respond to the incident involving George Floyd because he 
was assigned to some other duties?
  Well, these are difficult questions to ask because the outcome likely 
would

[[Page S2963]]

have been different, but they are the types of questions we need to ask 
in order to prevent history from repeating itself.
  The major theme of our conversation was trust: How do we restore 
communities' trust in law enforcement? Minister Sammie Barry from 
Dallas West Church of Christ made a great point about ensuring that 
police agencies reflect the diversity of the communities in which they 
serve.
  Texas is about as diverse a State as they come. Our cities are a 
vibrant blend of backgrounds, cultures, and skin tones, and our police 
departments should reflect that.
  That is one topic of discussion here in the Senate, one I hope we can 
act on in the coming weeks: How do we encourage police recruitment of 
the right people who can reflect the communities in which they serve?
  As Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown said, we all recognize and 
acknowledge that we have a long way to go, and unfortunately there is 
no magic pill to help get us there. Instead, we are going to have to 
roll up our sleeves and do the hard work of trying to build consensus 
and solve problems.
  As always, the first step in the process is good communication. 
Honest and frank discussions between community leaders, law 
enforcement, and elected officials are a great start, but we are going 
to have to do a lot more than talk in order to create palpable change.
  I will be the first to admit I don't have all the answers. I don't 
think anyone else does either, but these conversations are key to 
helping each of us get closer to finding them.
  I want to thank Mayor Johnson and everyone who took time out of their 
busy schedules to participate in our discussion last Friday. These men 
and women have provided me with valuable insight and ideas about the 
changes that need to be made in order to restore public confidence in 
all of our law enforcement agencies.
  I have come back to Washington with new ideas based on their 
feedback, and I am eager to continue to work with all of our colleagues 
to deliver real reforms for the American people and restore that trust 
which, unfortunately, has been strained, if not broken, in some 
communities
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ernst). The Senator from Washington.


                   Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, before I speak about the legislation 
we are going to be voting on shortly, I wanted to mention today's 
significant Supreme Court decision to protect the LGBTQ community and 
Americans from discrimination in the workplace.
  This is a very important step forward. Gay and transgender Americans 
should not face discrimination in the workplace or live in fear of 
losing their jobs simply because of who they are, and it is an 
important step forward but is also long overdue.
  My home State of Washington has been a leader on this issue for 
decades, but--just think--until today, June 15, 2020, we had no 
nationwide rules against firing an employee or harassing someone at 
work for being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or trans. That is just wrong, 
and LGBTQ+ Americans still face discrimination in far too many areas of 
life: public accommodations, housing, education, and some federally 
funded programs.
  We have proposed legislation that would be, I believe, comprehensive 
civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation to help protect this 
community. The House has passed this legislation, and I believe it is 
time that the Senate pass this legislation.
  Leader McConnell and the Republicans should take the Equality Act out 
of the legislative graveyard and get it onto the Senate floor. Today I 
join my colleagues Senators Merkley, Baldwin, and others who are 
calling for Senate action on this important issue.
  Again, I want to emphasize how important and fundamental I think this 
decision was and how challenging and disappointed I am that we have had 
legislation to protect this community that we could have passed decades 
ago.


                               H.R. 1957

  Madam President, I also rise to talk about the several votes we are 
going to have on public lands coming up, and one of them is about a 
budget point of order.
  In my mind, budget points of order are about cost. Well, we are here 
to talk about what a good investment public land is.
  We have the Grand Canyon. We understand that. It is a good 
investment. Mt. Rainier, in my home State of Washington--a good 
investment--is an iconic mountain, maybe, to some, but we in the State 
of Washington also know that it brings in millions of dollars in 
revenue and millions of visitors.
  That is just what our public lands do: They become icons. The 
preservation of the natural world is a good investment--in my mind, 
better than roads and bridges and buildings--because it actually lasts 
for centuries. Places like the Grand Tetons or Denali--which are in 
other States--literally are icons to all of us and help us from one 
generation to the next.
  Besides being icons, they do pay for themselves. That is, the 
economic return of public lands is phenomenal. It does create, but it 
generates. It generates activity that generates income to county 
governments, to State governments, and to the Federal Government--and 
lots of private entities are involved.
  So hundreds of billions of dollars are spent. In fact, $877 billion 
was part of a report that was issued a few years ago. You might not 
think of that right off the top of your head because you are thinking 
about some aspect of the outdoors, and you might not think of it as 
generating dollars, but, OK, try a few of the brand names on, whether 
it is REI or The North Face or Columbia Sportswear Company--or just 
your local fishing guide who does whitewater rafting or fishing or 
other outdoor activities.
  These lands are basically generating billions of dollars in revenue. 
So, in my mind, the fact that they are receiving oil and gas offshore 
leasing revenue, along with getting the benefit of the public lands--
and generating all of that revenue--to me, is very sound fiscal policy 
and a great investment.
  So, to me, the issue isn't the budget point of order as much as it is 
the question of why this program has been around for so long and the 
money wasn't used in the program. Probably somewhere around $20 billion 
has been used for other things instead of the intended purpose of the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund. Maybe it is because not everybody was 
on board with spending that amount of money for public lands, but I 
think we are here today to say there is a new coalition of people who 
are willing to say that, and they do see the economic return.
  We are specifically passing a law that says that you are going to 
spend those dollars for that and that the other purposes Congress may 
have decided in the past are not the specific purpose but that public 
land is.
  So I am very happy we are making this investment that, in my mind, is 
one of the smartest fiscal policies we could ever make; that is, to 
spend money not from the taxpayer but from these private entities on 
offshore drilling that goes into something for the benefit of the 
taxpayer and that generates economic return to all of us.
  I can't ask for a better tax policy or fiscal policy than to use it 
to preserve open space and public land and generate revenue and help 
all of us enjoy the outdoors.
  As I said, revenue raising from offshore leasing and investing in 
public land was exactly what Scoop Jackson had in mind when he authored 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund more than 50 years ago, and it is 
actually what we should be doing. I am glad my colleagues have realized 
this is the right fiscal policy. It is good for us, and it is good for 
America's future.
  I know that Scoop Jackson would be very happy, and I know his son 
Peter, who just passed recently, would also be very happy that this 
correction is being made.
  This will be the first time that the money is fully used for the 
intended purpose of what the money and revenue was put into the fund to 
do. I am glad we are making this milestone happen, and I encourage my 
colleagues to think about this fiscal policy. The fiscal policy that 
benefits the United States by having open space and public lands 
generates $877 billion.
  Yes, if you want another reminder, this is a view of downtown Seattle 
from a very famous park, Gas Works Park, in the north end of Lake 
Union.

[[Page S2964]]

That park probably wouldn't be there if we didn't have the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. The idea was, as Scoop said, as America 
urbanized, we needed to preserve open space for the public to use it. 
Some of the most iconic open spaces across the United States have been 
created for the public to enjoy.
  So let's reaffirm our commitment that was always there. Let's turn 
down the budget point of order and make sure that we are making the 
right investments and finish moving this legislation to its final 
passage
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GARDNER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, last week we had some great 
conversations on the floor of the Senate about the Great American 
Outdoors Act and the combination of two important pieces of 
legislation--the Land and Water Conservation Fund, first authorized 55 
years ago, and the Restore Our Parks Act--both of which would be 
combined in the Great American Outdoors Act and the most significant 
piece of conservation legislation Congress has passed in nearly 50 
years or more.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund, of course, is funded by taking 
offshore oil and gas revenues, and that is how the Restore Our Parks 
Act would be funded as well. Both of them would take dollars generated 
from offshore oil and gas production. There are a few other ways that 
it is funded, like boat fuel excise tax revenues and others, but 
primarily that is the source of funding, and, after a series of formula 
distributions out of the Treasury, the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
is appropriated about $1 billion, and eventually the Restore Our Parks 
Act, under this legislation, would be appropriated dollars as well.
  Ninety-nine percent of the dollars used by the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund is used to purchase inholdings to complete national 
parks and to work on wildlife refuges and other types of important 
public land designations across the country.
  We all know that our national parks are suffering from the amount of 
visitors that they receive. We are grateful for the visitors, but that 
is a tremendous strain on roads and trails and the visitor centers 
across the country. For instance, in Rocky Mountain National Park, the 
third most heavily visited park in the Nation, there is an about $85 
million backlog, including trail maintenance, visitor centers, the 
sewage systems, the campgrounds, and some other challenges that they 
could help fix with the use of these dollars.
  Last week I also talked about some important letters we had received, 
letters of support for the Great American Outdoors Act, including a 
letter from the outdoor recreation industry. I ask unanimous consent 
that this letter from the outdoor recreation industry be submitted for 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     June 8, 2020.
       Dear Leader McConnell and Leader Schumer: The outdoor 
     recreation industry is extremely encouraged by recent 
     announcements that the Senate plans to hold a vote on the 
     Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) in June. As outdoor 
     recreation business leaders, we know investments in 
     recreation access and infrastructure are vital to the outdoor 
     recreation industry and economies across the country.
       Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, the outdoor recreation 
     industry contributed $778 billion in economic output, 
     accounted for 2.2 percent of United States Gross Domestic 
     Product, supported 5.2 million jobs and was growing faster 
     than the economy as a whole in every indicator. 
     Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and shutdowns 
     necessary to slow its progression, America's outdoor 
     recreation economy was hindered when we needed the outdoors 
     more than ever. Outdoor Recreation Roundtable's April survey 
     of the sector shows that 79 percent of outdoor businesses 
     have had to lay off or furlough employees, and 89 percent are 
     seeing decreased revenue. However, we know there is a bright 
     future for outdoor recreation ahead, as several sectors of 
     the industry are already experiencing rapidly increasing 
     demand.
       These outdoor businesses are the backbone of our industry 
     and range from specialty retailers, apparel, gear and vehicle 
     manufacturers, outfitters and guides to campground and marina 
     operators. They are often foundational to a community's 
     economy. With rising unemployment and Americans eager to 
     experience the outdoors, investment in our industry's core 
     infrastructure--public lands and waters--will allow our 
     businesses to get back to what we do best: stimulate local 
     economies, put people back to work, and allow Americans to 
     benefit from time spent outside.
       This is why we respectfully ask you to pass the Great 
     American Outdoors Act as soon as possible.
       GAOA will fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     (LWCF) at $900 million annually, providing more recreation 
     access for communities across the country and fueling more 
     outdoor recreation economic activity. In a nutshell, if 
     Congress invests the intended amount of $900 million into 
     LWCF recreation access projects on local, state and federal 
     lands, it will create much-needed close-to-home recreation 
     opportunities while revitalizing the outdoor recreation 
     economy.
       Additionally, GAOA dedicates up to $9.5 billion over the 
     next five years to maintenance backlog projects that have 
     been devastating our public lands and waters. Investing in 
     these projects will improve outdoor recreation-related 
     facilities such as docks, restrooms, campgrounds, trails, 
     roads and more that have deteriorated significantly from 
     decades of underfunded maintenance. As business leaders, we 
     understand the need to make sure customers have good 
     experiences when they visit stores or facilities, it ensures 
     they come back again. Funding the maintenance backlog will 
     also ensure that adequate infrastructure for all types of 
     recreation on our public lands and waters exists so more 
     people who are seeking the benefits the outdoors has to offer 
     can get outside safely and grow our industry sustainably.
       Passing GAOA now would stimulate the outdoor recreation 
     industry made up of thousands of businesses that support 
     communities in all 50 states, support rural economies, create 
     jobs to carry out essential work, and provide opportunities 
     for millions of Americans to recreate on our public lands and 
     waters for generations to come. We know this vital 
     legislation is slated for a vote in the coming weeks and we 
     urge you to move as quickly as possible to get this 
     legislation across the finish line. Your support of GAOA is a 
     vote for American jobs and health, community resiliency and 
     the outdoor recreation economy. Thank you for your 
     leadership.
           Sincerely,
       Airstream, Inc., Alta Planning + Design, Inc., Arc'teryx 
     Equipment Inc., Arete Structures, LLC, Bass Pro Shops, Bell 
     Helmets, Blackburn Design, Blue Springs Marine, Boat Owners 
     Association of the United States, Boat Owners Warehouse, 
     Boats Incorporated, Brunswick Corporation.
       Cabela's, CamelBak, Camperland of Oklahoma, Chaparral 
     Boats, Inc., CHM Government Services, Chris-Craft, Clark 
     Marine, Cleveland Boat Center, Correct Craft, Creative 
     Pultrusions, Crestview RV.
       Dee Zee, Inc., Delaware North Parks and Resorts, Eagle Claw 
     Fishing Tackle, FERA, Forest River, Inc., Forever Resorts, 
     Formula Boats, Fort Sumter Tours, Freedom Boat Club.
       Galati Yacht Sales, Giro Sport Design, Glacier Guides & 
     Montana Raft, Grand Design RV, Guest Services, Inc., Hagadone 
     Marine Group, Handout Gloves, Head USA, Hellwig Products 
     Company Inc., Hemlock Hill RV Sales, Hipcamp, Hornblower 
     Cruises and Events.
       Indian Lake Marina, Inc., Indmar Products, K2 Sports, 
     Kampgrounds of America, Inc., Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., 
     Lakeview Marine, Inc., LKQ Corporation, Magic Tilt Trailers, 
     Malibu Boats, Inc., Marina Holdings, Marine Center of 
     Indiana, Maverick Boat Group, Inc., Mount Dora Boating 
     Center.
       N3 Boatworks, Nantahala Outdoor Center, National Outdoor 
     Leadership School, Newmar Corporation, Patagonia, Petzl 
     America, Plano Synergy, Polaris, Inc., Port Harbor Marine, 
     Priority RV Network, Pure Fishing.
       Quality Bicycle Products, Rapala USA, Reed's Marine, Inc., 
     Regulator Marine, Inc., REI, Rendezvous River Sports, Rhino 
     Marking & Protection Systems.
       Santa Barbara Adventure Company, Seirus Innovative 
     Accessories, Inc., Shimano North America Fishing, Simms 
     Fishing, Skyjacker Suspensions, Smoker Craft.
       Spiritline Cruises, SRAM LLC, St. Croix Rods, Sun RV 
     Resorts, Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., The North Face, Tiara 
     Yachts & Tiara Sport, Trek Bikes, Turn 14 Distribution Inc.
       VF Corporation, Vista Outdoor, Volvo Penta of the Americas, 
     WARN Industries, Westrec Marinas, WET River Trips, Wildwater 
     River Guides, Winnebago Industries, Xanterra Travel 
     Collection, Yamaha Rightwaters, Yogi Bear's Jellystone Parks, 
     Zebco Brands.

  This letter is written by a number of some of the most notable names 
in the outdoors that people around the country would recognize: 
Polaris, Patagonia, and Colorado's own VF, headquartered now in 
Colorado.
  In a State like Colorado, the outdoor economy is a huge driver of our 
State's economy, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of 
dollars of

[[Page S2965]]

economic activity. This letter from the outdoor recreation industry 
says they are extremely encouraged by the Great American Outdoors Act, 
and they note that this is an incredible opportunity to invest in 
recreation access and infrastructure, both of which are vital to the 
outdoor recreation industry and economies around the country.
  Earlier today, we received another very important letter--a letter 
that I think a lot of people will find very important. This letter, 
dated June 15, 2020, begins with this paragraph:

       From east to west, America is home to incredible lands, 
     waters, and cultural treasures. Now, more than ever, we are 
     relying on our public lands to get outdoors, to connect with 
     the world, to support jobs, and to strengthen our 
     communities. In this time of uncertainty, we have been given 
     a once in a lifetime opportunity to protect our public lands 
     and waters for all generations to come.

  This letter was written by Theodore Roosevelt IV. This letter in 
support for the Great American Outdoors Act comes from the great-
grandson of President Teddy Roosevelt.

       Passing the Great American Outdoors Act would be taking a 
     page from President Theodore Roosevelt's book: protecting the 
     quintessence of who we are as Americans in the stewardship of 
     our natural places, great and small. President Roosevelt set 
     conservation as a priority--a duty--for a great and far-
     sighted nation in recognition that our national bounty is the 
     foundation for all else. Without it, we cannot prosper.
       I am glad to see strong bipartisan support for the GAOA in 
     the House, Senate, and from the President. We are counting on 
     you to protect and preserve our public lands. And we need 
     your continued leadership to secure this monumental 
     legislation.
       Sincerely, Theodore Roosevelt IV.

  I have talked often about the legacy President Roosevelt left our 
country when it comes to our lands and conservation. In fact, the 
genesis of the Great American Outdoors Act comes from a meeting Senator 
Daines and I had, along with the majority leader, Senator McConnell, 
talking to the President in the Roosevelt Room at the White House about 
these two programs, which people like Mark Warner, Richard Burr, Angus 
King, Joe Manchin, Martin Heinrich, Maria Cantwell, Rob Portman, and 
Lamar Alexander worked so diligently on. We talked about the legacy 
Theodore Roosevelt has, and now we have this letter from his great-
grandson securing that legacy for this country.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter from 
Theodore Roosevelt IV printed in the Record
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    June 15, 2020.
       Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, Minority 
     Leader Schumer, and Minority Leader McCarthy: From east to 
     west, America is home to incredible lands, waters, and 
     cultural treasures. Now, more than ever, we are relying on 
     our public lands to get outdoors, to connect with the world, 
     to support jobs, and to strength our communities. In this 
     time of uncertainty, we have been given a once in a lifetime 
     opportunity to protect our public lands and waters for all 
     generations to come.
       I write to you today to urge swift passage and enactment of 
     the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA)--legislation that will 
     provide much needed support to the outdoor places we all 
     depend on. This bill will fully and permanently fund the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), our nation's most 
     important conservation program, to ensure protection and 
     increased access to public lands in every state and county in 
     America. Additionally, GAOA will fund priority repairs in our 
     National Parks and on other public lands to address an ever-
     growing backlog of maintenance needs.
       This outstanding bipartisan legislation will ensure every 
     American has access to the outdoors, no matter where they 
     live. It will also help our communities and nation recover by 
     creating jobs and economic growth across the country--in both 
     cities and rural areas. Nationally, outdoor recreation 
     contributes roughly $778 billion in consumer spending and 
     supports 5.2 million jobs. Moreover, economic analysis shows 
     that every $1 million invested in LWCF could support between 
     16 and 30 jobs, while national park funding in GAOA could 
     support 100,000 jobs, $17.5 billion in economic output, and 
     contribute $9.6 billion to the US GDP. At a time when small 
     businesses are struggling, GAOA would provide much needed 
     stimulus to get Americans outdoors and back to work.
       Passing the Great American Outdoors Act would be taking a 
     page from President Theodore Roosevelt's book: protecting the 
     quintessence of who we are as Americans in the stewardship of 
     our natural places, great and small. President Roosevelt set 
     conservation as a priority--a duty--for a great and far-
     sighted nation in recognition that our natural bounty is the 
     foundation for all else. Without it, we cannot prosper.
       I am glad to see strong bipartisan support for GAOA in the 
     House, Senate, and from the President. We are counting on you 
     to protect and preserve our public lands. And we need your 
     continued leadership to secure this monumental legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                            Theodore Roosevelt IV.

  Mr. GARDNER. I know tonight we will have continued conversations 
about the legislation and the cost of the legislation. There are some 
who will say that this bill isn't paid for or perhaps that the revenues 
aren't accounted for properly. I would like to speak to the contrary. 
Again, I will be speaking about this later this evening.
  If you look at how this bill, the Great American Outdoors Act, is 
funded, it doesn't cost the taxpayer money. It comes from offshore oil 
and gas revenue. That is revenue generated from oil and gas production 
on Federal land in fiscal year 2019, which totaled $11.6 billion. This 
is just an example of one of the years of funding.
  In 2019, the revenue generated from oil and gas was about $11.6 
billion; $11.6 billion went into the Treasury.
  Right off the top of that, $2.4 billion went to the States. We don't 
change that. The $2.4 billion goes to the States. This bill does not 
change that.
  Another $1 billion of that $11.6 billion from back in 2019--the same 
formula would apply every year--another $1 billion went to Tribal 
entities right off the top.
  So $2.4 billion went to States, and another $1 billion went to Tribal 
entities. After that, $1.7 billion of this amount of money went to the 
Reclamation Fund. To get this straight, there is funding that goes out 
to the States, funding that goes out to Tribal entities, and funding 
that goes to the Reclamation Fund.
  Then fourth in line for this, $1 billion went to the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  A curious thing happened on the way to the forum, as they say. Only 
$495 million got appropriated to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 
So $1 billion gets taken out of the money in 2019, the $11.6 billion, 
with $1 billion to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but only $495 
million gets appropriated. That is because even though it was 
authorized to get more, that money has been syphoned off and spent on 
other things.
  And $150 million went to the Historic Preservation Fund.
  That is a total of $5.25 billion from 2019. That is what we accounted 
for so far out of that revenue: money to the States, money to Tribal 
entities, money to the Reclamation Fund, $1 billion to the LWCF fund 
even though only $495 million got appropriated, and $150 million to the 
Historic Preservation Fund. That left $5.35 billion that went directly 
into Treasury. That is the money that would be used--at least a portion 
of it--for the Restore Our Parks Act.
  You can see this is paid for. Congress just has bad habits that need 
to be corrected around here. We will have additional time to have that 
conversation this evening and obviously others about the merits of this 
legislation and what it means.
  There has been more and more talk around the country about how this 
isn't just about national parks and it isn't just about national 
forests; it is about our urban parks and urban centers. Some of our 
colleagues made passionate, eloquent statements about the need for 
access in all of our communities, to make sure we have more access for 
communities across the country--our urban settings, our rural settings, 
whether it is a ballpark or some other kind of recreation activity at a 
park.
  This is the opportunity for us to get to work, with no cost to the 
taxpayer, to do something we can all be proud of. I am grateful that 
Mr. Roosevelt would send a letter highlighting the work this Congress 
is doing that can stand, generations later, the test of Teddy 
Roosevelt's leadership and the opportunity for us to build on the 
leadership of President Roosevelt.
  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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered

[[Page S2966]]

  

  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I am here on the floor today to talk 
about the legislation that is before the Senate, which is a great 
opportunity to help our national parks.
  The bill does a number of things that people have heard about to help 
with regard to our public lands, with regard to fishing access, and 
with regard to community parks. Yet one thing it does that is 
absolutely essential is it included the Restore Our Parks Act. That is 
legislation which is necessary right now to fix our national parks.
  I say fix our national parks--they are our treasure. When people are 
asked about the national parks, they usually use that word. It is a 
treasure. It is a great asset of the United States. I think Ken Burns 
said it is ``America's best idea.'' He did a great documentary on the 
parks, by the way.
  The point is, our national parks are spectacular. They are majestic. 
They tell the history of our country. There are so many good things 
about them. The problem is that right now, our parks are under a huge 
backlog of maintenance projects--$12.5 billion. That is way more than 
the parks' budget. They just can't get out from under it. It has been 
happening for years and years and years.
  Think about people going back to our parks this summer after the 
coronavirus hopefully gets better and people are able to go to these 
reopened parks. We will probably have huge attendance. When they get 
there, they will find out that a trail is closed because of erosion, or 
the bathroom doesn't work because the bathroom has deteriorated, or 
they can't go to the visitors center because the ceiling has been 
leaking, which caused mold on the walls, which caused the floors to 
buckle, or the highways and bridges are crumbling. This is what is 
happening in our national parks.
  As Members of Congress, we asked them to give us a full list over the 
last few years of this because we keep hearing about this, and they 
have. They have talked about $6.5 million of high-priority projects and 
about $6 billion of priority projects, and the list continues to grow.
  By the way, the costs continue to compound. In other words, they get 
worse and worse every year. Just think about your own home. If you 
don't fix the leaky roof I have talked about, you will have all these 
other problems. If you can get to it and fix it when it happens, you 
will have much lower costs. All of us as taxpayers should want to fix 
this maintenance backlog and be able to say that not only are these 
parks a treasure, but these parks are open, everything is open, and we 
can do a better job in stewardship. This legislation does that.
  Not a penny of the funding, by the way, can go toward expansion of 
the parks. I have heard that from some of my colleagues--well, you all 
keep putting money into expanding the parks. No, that is not what this 
is about. This is about stewardship. This is about ensuring that we 
take better care of what we have. I can't think of a more fiscally 
conservative idea than that. I think it is important for us to realize 
that this legislation before us is not about expanding anything; it is 
about taking better care of what we have.
  The annual appropriations from Congress to the parks funds the 
rangers, the nature programs, and the basics to continue to operate the 
parks. They do not fund these maintenance backlog problems or these big 
projects. We have been ignoring them for decades, by the way. This is 
not new. It has built up and is getting worse and worse as the costs 
compound.
  Let me give an example. Cuyahoga Valley National Park is in Ohio. We 
love Cuyahoga Valley. It is the 13th most visited national park in the 
country. You may never have heard of it, but if you are in the Akron-
Cleveland area, I hope you go. It is spectacular. Guess what. They have 
a maintenance backlog of just over $50 million. Their annual budget 
from the Park Service is $11 million. That covers everything. That 
operates the entire park--the 13th most visited park in America. It is 
a beautiful park that extends basically from Cleveland to Akron. It is 
beautiful along the Cuyahoga River. It is beautiful. It has a tourism 
train that goes through it, a single-track, narrow-gauge train. It is 
just a great place. The train tracks are falling apart. That is a huge 
expense that can't come out of this annual budget because you have to 
replace the ties and so on.
  There is a bridge that I saw that is crumbling. It is not going to be 
able to be used soon by bicyclists or hikers to go over the river 
because it is falling apart. That bridge is a capital expense. It takes 
a lot of funding to do that and to do it right. So the legislation 
before us says: Let's take this on. Let's get started on getting this 
backlog behind us so that we can focus on having the most majestic and 
the most beautiful parks in the world here that we can continue to be 
proud of.
  The way we do it is really interesting. We say, OK, we are going to 
continue to have the annual appropriations, and we are going to 
properly fund the parks that way, but for these backlog problems, we 
are going to take funding from offshore and onshore oil and gas and 
other energy projects that are currently going directly into the 
government, and we are going to take no more than half of that funding 
that is unobligated--in other words, not obligated to any other 
purpose--and we are going to say: Let's use that funding, up to a cap 
every year, to reduce about half the backlog over the next 5 years. It 
is the priority projects I talked about, the $6.5 billion.
  To me, this makes all the sense in the world. Again, it is going to 
save us money over time--assuming we want our parks to be working, we 
want the trails to be open, we want the business centers to be open, 
which of course we do and we must. Our parks are more visited than 
ever, and it is important that we have parks that are ready, 
particularly when people start to go back to the parks this summer.
  Some of my colleagues have come to the floor and said: Well, isn't 
there another way to do this? I mean, I wish there were, but this is a 
pretty good funding source.
  For those who say it is not paid for, well, I am telling you what the 
funding source is. Is it is the royalties that come off of these energy 
projects.
  By the way, this is for a good conservation cause and a good fiscally 
conservative cause--to get these long-term maintenance problems under 
control so that they don't continue to grow and grow and grow.
  I first started on the project over 13 years ago, which is why it is 
kind of exciting for me that is finally coming, I hope, to fruition 
here in the Senate, at least.
  I was the OMB Director for George W. Bush--the Office of Management 
and Budget--and in our budget in 2007, we put in place a centennial 
project for the parks. The Park Service celebrated its 100th 
anniversary in 2016, and building up to that, we wanted to deal with 
this long-term maintenance backlog and provide some more funding for 
the parks.
  I worked with the Secretary of the Interior at the time--this was, 
again, the George W. Bush administration, a Republican administration. 
I worked with Democrats here on the Hill. We worked with all the 
outside groups concerned about the parks and came up with a creative 
way to get public-private partnership money in it to provide more 
funding for this long-term maintenance problem. We were not successful 
in getting Congress to take it up and to appropriate those funds at the 
time, but I continued working on this.
  A couple years later when I was asked to serve on the centennial 
commission on the parks--I was not in office at that time. I had left 
politics--thinking forever--but now I am back here in the Senate. But 
on the centennial commission, we analyzed what was going on in the 
parks in connection with the centennial coming up, in 2016, and what 
was the No. 1 issue? Of course it was this long-term maintenance 
backlog and how do you deal with it and the great frustration people 
felt because we just couldn't get on top of it. So I have been at this 
for some time.
  Again, I see that some of my colleagues are saying there must be 
other ways to fund this, and some have suggested, well, let's raise 
some fees.
  Well, I am the author of the Centennial Act, which was passed about 3 
years ago--on the last day, practically, of session in 2016. That 
legislation actually took the senior fee, which is the lifetime senior 
pass, and increased it, actually quadrupled it, to provide more funding 
for this very purpose and other purposes at the parks.

[[Page S2967]]

  That was not without controversy. I can show you some of the letters 
and emails that I got and some of the phone calls that we received with 
regard to increasing the senior pass. But we did it for the right 
reasons--because we thought the senior pass was a relatively good 
deal--which it still is, by the way. It is a tremendous deal for our 
seniors. But we decided we were going to take some heat on this in 
order to provide more revenue for the park because we were so 
frustrated because we couldn't find other sources.
  I am also the author of the Centennial Challenge as part of that 
legislation, which allows for the private sector to provide funding to 
our parks. Again, we did this because we were very interested in 
finding more funding. The Centennial Challenge Fund is a public-private 
partnership. It requires that every Federal dollar that goes into the 
parks be matched at least one-to-one with a private sector dollar. And 
I have been involved with that. I have been involved in selling that 
program and encouraging the private sector to do more.

  Since we passed that in 2008--fiscal year 2008--Congress has provided 
$129 million in appropriations, which has been leveraged by an 
additional $167 million in non-Federal funding. In other words, it has 
been more than one-to-one. There has been more than 1 dollar of private 
sector funding that has matched the 1 dollar of Federal funding, so 
that has worked. But, folks, it has its limits. We are talking about 
$12.5 billion in the backlog, and the numbers I just gave you--we were 
able to raise $167 million in non-Federal funding.
  So I would just say to my colleagues who say ``Gosh, why can't you 
raise fees and so on?''--that has been done.
  I will say also with regard to fees into some of our parks, it is not 
very practical. At the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, as an example, 
there are literally dozens of entrances to the park. I mean, the park 
is in a suburban area through Akron and Cleveland, that area, and you 
can get to the park through all sorts of different roads and avenues, 
and there is no grand entrance to the park. There is a great visitors 
center, which people are encouraged to go to as they enter the park, 
but there are bike trails through it, and there is a railroad through 
it, as I talked about, and there are lots of roads that come into it. 
So it is not like you are driving into Yellowstone Park and you have to 
go through a designated entrance.
  So is there more we can do in some of these areas to provide 
additional pay-fors to the parks? I am sure there are, and I will 
continue to work on that, and I will continue to look at ways to do it. 
But $12.5 billion? It is not going to happen without a lot of 
controversy. So this is about being sure we are doing what is right for 
our parks.
  It is also, though, helpful in terms of jobs, as you can imagine, 
because these projects are infrastructure. We talk a lot about that 
around here and, typically we don't even think about paying for it. We 
just say we are going to do an infrastructure stimulus project, as an 
example, as was done back in 2008 and 2009.
  In this case, these are shovel-ready and vetted projects. Again, we 
have required, as Congress, for the Park Service to tell us what the 
projects are. So I can give you a list for your State. I have done that 
with my colleagues--given them the list of what the top priorities are 
for their States, how much money it is, what the project is, how you do 
it. You don't have to go and get the permits that you might have to get 
on non-Federal land because these are on national park property, and 
they just keep building up, higher and higher, but they are ready. They 
are ready to go. They are also vetted. They also don't have to go 
through the same process that some would if they were on non-private 
land.
  They create a lot of jobs. We just had a report that has been 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget that came out of the 
Park Service showing that the number of jobs that are direct jobs 
related to this national park restoration act we are voting on today is 
over 40,000 jobs when you do direct and indirect, including suppliers 
to these projects.
  So you have the person who is fixing the bridge I talked about or the 
railroad tracks, but who provides the material to put in the new 
railroad ties? It is over 100,000 jobs. So over 100,000 jobs are 
created just from this legislation.
  So it is the right thing to do no matter what, but it also happens to 
be a really opportune time for us to put in place some funding that 
goes directly into good-paying, high-quality jobs--average pay, $65,000 
to $70,000 a year--to be able to help with regard to the post-
coronavirus economic downturn we have seen and will see for some time.
  So this is good legislation for all these reasons
  There has also been an analysis done recently about what happens if 
you don't fix these parks and the parks aren't able to open.
  There is a $41 billion economic benefit for communities around the 
parks. That is $41 billion a year. Think about that. It supports more 
than 340,000 jobs. These are not jobs in the parks themselves but 
surrounding. So these are the restaurants and the hotels and the 
outfitters and so on.
  Our national parks are not only a great way for us to help create 
more jobs with regard to the infrastructure needs that are 
overwhelming, with good stewardship--not expanding one acre but just 
taking better care of what we have--but it is also an opportunity for 
us to help our economy, to help ensure that we are putting people back 
to work in good-paying jobs, and help ensure that taxpayers aren't 
going to foot an even higher bill by not taking care of that leaky roof 
that then causes the mold on the wall that then causes the floor to 
couple.
  We are going to get this started. Will there be need for more 
funding? Absolutely. Again, some of the ideas I have talked to my 
colleagues about on how to find additional funding, I am all ears. 
Again, I have done it. I have raised the fees in legislation. I have 
looked at the private sector, and we brought in over $150 million of 
private sector money. But this $6.5 billion, which is the amount in 
this legislation, to deal with the highest priority infrastructure 
projects and problems at our parks is absolutely essential.
  Let's not wait any longer. Let's get this done now and ensure we can 
continue to enjoy not just the beauty and the history of our national 
parks but also those economic benefits I talked about and do so for 
generations to come.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, it seems clear this body is prepared to 
pass the Great American Outdoors Act. It will be doing so without the 
bipartisan language to strengthen coastal resiliency around the 
country, sending a final message to the American people that the Senate 
cares more about parks than it does about people.
  Let me just say a couple things first. My colleague has just said 
that this is paid for. I almost burst out laughing. It is paid for by 
taking dollars currently obligated to go to the U.S. Treasury and 
shuffling them over. That is paid for like I am going to take money 
that is going for groceries and instead I am going to pay for the movie 
theater. We are going to take money that is spent on essentials and 
spend it on something that is wonderful, but no one would say it is 
essential.
  And I say that one only needs to follow the money--to follow the 
money--to see that the Senate cares more about parks than it does about 
people.
  The Great American Outdoors Act will spend billions on deferred 
maintenance--broken toilets, leaky roofs, et cetera--in national parks, 
but, in fact, 60 percent of this money is going to seven States.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund spending shows the disparity 
clearly, spending $17.66 per capita on inland States, while just $7.53 
on coastal States, and is spoken of as an economic development tool, 
raising $40-something billion for the communities in which the 
investment is made, which tells you why the Senators from these seven 
States are the cosponsors of the bill. Who wouldn't want $40 billion in 
economic activity at the expense of everybody else?
  But who is it at the expense of? Forty-two percent of Americans live 
in parishes or counties in coastal United States; 85 percent of 
Americans live in those coastal States; and zero percent

[[Page S2968]]

of this money is going to address coastal resiliency--areas 
increasingly threatened by rising sea levels and flooding, lives being 
lost, communities being upended by catastrophic flood events such as 
hurricanes can cause. I have seen it in my State of Louisiana. We have 
seen it on the news. We should be painfully aware at this point of the 
devastation hurricanes and other flooding disasters can cause in our 
society.
  So the Great American Outdoors Act spends billions on where people 
vacation but absolutely nothing on where people live.
  I have been vocal in my opposition to the bill in its current form, 
and the reasons for that opposition have been misconstrued, so let me 
please now clarify.
  I heard one Senator say that I only wanted money for Gulf States. 
Yes, I do want money for Gulf States. Louisiana has been the hardest 
hit by coastal erosion.
  By the way, 90 percent of the funding for the Great American Outdoors 
Act comes from energy production off the gulf coast. But I want funding 
for all coastal States.
  Louisiana's wetlands are eroding into the gulf at the rate of one 
football field per hour, but we are not alone. Go to barrier islands on 
the eastern coast. Go to Alaska and see the communities that are 
dissolving into the ocean. Miami property values are falling as the 
Atlantic Ocean rises, threatening with greater flooding, causing rising 
insurance rates, and causing lower property values. That is Miami 
Beach. Sea Island, GA; Cape Fear, NC; Rhode Island; Maine; you name 
it--each has water coming higher than it ever has.

  Wouldn't it have been great if, as these bills passed out of the 
committee together, a coastal resiliency piece of legislation had been 
added to the Great American Outdoors Act? But now the 42 percent of 
Americans who live on the beach, live in a coastal parish or county, 
and the 85 percent who live in a coastal State are waiting for some 
help to come later.
  Now, that said, some have said I am against giving any money to the 
national parks. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have stated 
before from this very desk in speeches on this issue that I believe 
that national parks are a vital part of the American experience. Just 
as one of my colleagues said, they provide opportunities for Americans 
to experience a natural environment and learn about our Nation's 
history.
  I would vote happily for the Great American Outdoors Act, giving it 
billions, if only we would spend at least a little bit--maybe a dime--
on coastal resiliency for where people live. I am not against parks; I 
am just against parks over people.
  As people misstated my opposition, they correctly stated the reason 
they do not wish to include my language to provide protection--coastal 
resiliency--for the parishes and counties where people live. This is 
the one true thing: Folks are afraid that if the coastal resiliency 
legislation is included, the bill would not pass. For some, it would be 
perceived as encouraging offshore drilling, that it would raise issues 
of climate change, and, again, that it would not pass.
  Well, there are several responses. First, if you don't try, you fail. 
Henry Ford said: Whether you say that you can or you say you cannot, 
you are correct. Such is the case with this bill.
  If people say that we cannot include legislation for coastal 
resiliency to protect parishes and counties where 42 percent of 
Americans live, we can't do so because it would not be included in the 
first place.
  Secondly, it was said that the Great American Outdoors Act is based 
on revenue from offshore drilling, and therefore folks would not vote 
for it--again, one of those things you have to almost laugh at because 
if people really think that, it is either the epitome of hypocrisy, or 
it just shows gross ignorance. The Great American Outdoors Act is 
funded with revenue from offshore oil and gas production. So for 
someone to say that, no, folks won't vote for a coastal resiliency bill 
because it relies upon offshore oil and gas revenue, but they are to 
support the Great American Outdoors Act, which relies on offshore oil 
and gas revenue to pay for it--again, you just have to laugh. It is 
either hypocrisy, or it is gross ignorance. I actually think it is just 
not true; that the real reason the coastal resiliency bill is not 
included is that folks are afraid that if it is included, it would not 
pass.
  One of my colleagues who agrees with me on this issue said that it is 
kind of like being in a lifeboat and you say: We are in; pull up the 
ladder. Once we got this legislation in a form that would pass, the 
folks who wanted it to pass, whose States disproportionately benefit 
from this, that they will recognize and realize the economic 
development, they said: Let's pull up the ladder. We don't care about 
coastal resiliency enough that we are going to actually include 
legislation that would support it financially. So they had their money. 
They achieved their objective. The heck with those at risk from rising 
sea levels. The heck with those 85 percent of people who live in 
coastal States, the 42 percent who live in a coastal parish or county. 
We will get our bathrooms fixed, the potholes done. Come visit us. You 
will absolutely need to because, in the meantime, you will be flooding.
  So the idea of getting your funding and your bill in place--you are 
on the life raft, and then pulling up the ladder brought to mind this 
image.
  Here you see folks being pulled up a ladder. Hurricane Katrina. The 
wetlands south of New Orleans had eroded into the ocean. When Katrina 
hit, it was almost a straight shot to those levees, and such a straight 
shot, eventually they collapsed. Because they collapsed, we had 
flooding in New Orleans.
  There you see a truck almost completely submerged.
  There you see somebody who broke through their roof so that they 
could get on top of their roof so they could be rescued. They are being 
pulled up because the people who wrote this bill said, No, if we 
include the coastal resiliency, our bill will not pass; therefore, we 
aren't going to try. Because they said, By golly, we are in the life 
raft and being pulled up a ladder, there will be many more Americans 
who will be pulled up a ladder, but they will be pulled up a ladder by 
the Coast Guard, which will rescue them from a rooftop because of 
rising sea levels--and, therefore, flooding and hurricanes--in their 
hometowns. I would like to say that this would be a rare event. We have 
seen it increasingly, though. Again, since more and more Americans live 
in coastal parishes and counties, this will become a bigger and bigger 
issue. So this photo seems appropriate.

  Folks didn't want to try. They feared that caring for Americans and 
helping to prevent an incident such as this would imperil the fixing of 
potholes in national parks located disproportionately in seven States. 
Again, because of that, we will have more scenes like this--more 
deaths, more devastation, more lives in turmoil, and billions upon 
billions that will be spent on disaster relief because this body will 
have refused to have invested in coastal resiliency. If there were ever 
a case of a stitch in time could save nine, it would be this.
  Again, folks, ask: Well, what could you do with coastal resiliency?
  I will just speak of Terrebonne Parish in South Louisiana, which 
borders the Gulf of Mexico. They recently put in a flood wall. There 
was a high water event, and of the 10,000 homes that would have been 
flooded--maybe with $1 billion or $2 billion in disaster relief--no 
flooding occurred because of an investment in coastal resiliency.
  Now, we can do it if we try, but if we say we are not going to, then 
we are in the life raft that is being pulled up the ladder, and we have 
our money, and potholes will be fixed in our home States. In the 
meantime, if you are in a parish or a State or a county, we will be 
there afterward to give you money through FEMA, but we will not be 
there beforehand to keep you from flooding in the first place. This is 
what happens when you put parks over people. Perhaps this Senate should 
reverse this and put people over parks.
  At the outset, I said that the Great American Outdoors Act is going 
to pass. I see it. They have done their work, and it is going to pass. 
I will just go home tonight, frustrated, thinking of this picture and 
how many more we have. Yet, if the sponsors of this bill who have been 
all about ``we will be with you next time'' are truly, truly wanting to 
prevent another incident like this, then maybe they will join my

[[Page S2969]]

bipartisan coalition that advocates for either a coastal amendment or 
some legislation in the future. They will show that they are as willing 
to fight as hard to save the lives of those who live on our coastline 
as they are to secure the funding to fix broken toilets and potholes 
and leaky roofs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, we have a series of votes today on the 
Great American Outdoors Act, including one to adopt the substitute 
amendment. There are 60 of my Senate colleagues who cosponsored this 
bill, and 20 more joined us last week, resulting in strong, bipartisan 
votes to begin consideration of the bill. These votes today will put us 
within 1 vote of passing this important bipartisan legislation.
  Over the last week, many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
have taken to the floor to talk about how the Great American Outdoors 
Act will benefit the entire country, and they have shared examples of 
how their home States have been positively impacted already by the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund. It is a testament to the importance of 
this historic conservation legislation that has brought so many of us 
together during such a toxic atmosphere. Yet that is the beauty of our 
Nation's great outdoors. It brings us all together--all walks and 
shapes and political preferences. It makes no difference. We all love 
the outdoors, and it is available for everyone to enjoy in any number 
of ways, whether that be through hunting, hiking, fishing, biking, or 
just simply by soaking in nature.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been responsible for helping 
to acquire many of our Nation's most iconic and scenic lands and to 
provide wonderful outdoor recreational opportunities, but it is 
important to remember that it is also used in many ways that provide an 
economic boost to our States and counties, whether that be through an 
LWCF grant that allows community spaces to be built, like the 47 
community pools the LWCF supported across my beautiful State of West 
Virginia, or a baseball field in Colorado.
  It is also a job creator. A recent analysis from Boston University 
shows that, at the full funding of $900 million annually, the LWCF 
could support approximately 15,000 to 28,000 jobs at a time when our 
country needs them most.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a major contributor to the 
rapidly growing outdoor recreation economy. According to the most 
recent information provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the 
U.S. outdoor recreation economy accounts for 2.2 percent, or $427 
billion, of our Nation's gross domestic product. Likewise, the Outdoor 
Industry Association has calculated that the outdoor recreation economy 
generates almost $890 million in annual consumer spending and supports 
over 7.6 million jobs.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been able to do wonderful 
things with the funds that have been appropriated to date even though 
those appropriations, in recent years, have averaged only about half of 
the authorized funding level. In previous years, they were even less 
than that. Just imagine what we can achieve for our country with the 
full LWCF funding of $900 million per year as the Great American 
Outdoors Act would provide.
  We need to secure this funding because, since the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund was established 55 years ago and despite the fact 
that every State, every territory, and almost every county in this 
country has benefited from the LWCF, it has only been fully funded 
twice. I say it has only been fully funded twice in 55 years. The 
passing of the permanent LWCF authorization last year was an important 
step, but securing a permanent, dedicated funding source for the 
multiple conservation programs funded by the LWCF is the ultimate goal.

  I would be remiss not to acknowledge the many Democratic Senators and 
Members of the House, both retired and here today, who have been 
champions for LWCF. They have helped to pave the way of where we are 
today--within striking distance of realizing the goal of permanent, 
mandatory funding.
  I am incredibly proud, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources, as the sponsor of the LWCF Permanent 
Funding Act, and as the lead Democrat on this bill, to be in good 
company of 43 of my Democratic colleagues who have signed onto this 
legislation.
  As a member of the Committee on Appropriations as well, I have heard 
the concerns that this bill sidesteps the ability of the committee to 
oversee LWCF expenditures, so I want to take a moment to clarify that 
this isn't the case. The Great American Outdoors Act retains 
congressional oversight and involvement in determining how the 
mandatory funding is allocated.
  To quote from the bill: ``Appropriations Acts may provide for 
alternate allocation of amounts made available, including allocations 
by account, program, and project.'' There is similar language for 
deferred maintenance spending.
  The Great American Outdoors Act is necessary, however, to ensure that 
the full $900 million each year that is authorized for the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund is spent so that we don't end up with what has 
happened over the past 50 years, wherein over $21 billion has been 
deposited into the Land and Water Conservation Fund but has not been 
used for LWCF purposes. It never will be. We will never see that. It is 
in the Treasury. Similarly, the Great American Outdoors Act takes the 
necessary step of putting $9.5 billion toward deferred maintenance 
projects on Federal lands, with 70 percent of that amount dedicated for 
our national parks. This legislation will be the most significant 
reduction ever in eliminating a major portion of deferred maintenance 
backlog on our national parks and public lands.
  The impact of failing to fund maintenance for so long is clear to see 
for the hundreds of millions of visitors to our public lands each year. 
This includes the deterioration of historic buildings at Independence 
Hall; the failing water treatment facilities at Yosemite and the Grand 
Canyon; the public access roads at our national parks and our forests 
that are in disrepair; and outdated and unsafe employee housing. We 
need to do better in taking care of these very, very special places.
  The infrastructure projects that will be funded through this bill are 
critical to protecting many of our national treasures, and like the 
LWCF funding, it will provide a significant benefit to the outdoor 
recreation economy. The Great American Outdoors Act will help us to be 
good stewards of our public lands while, at the same time, it will 
create thousands of new jobs. It is a bipartisan win-win.
  At the end of the day, this is an opportunity for us to pass down a 
legacy to our kids, to our grandkids, and to generations to come. I 
believe this will be the most impactful nationwide conservation 
legislation since the Land and Water Conservation Fund was first 
created over 50 years ago, and 50 years from now, I know that this body 
will be remembered for getting this bill across the finish line. We 
have broad, bipartisan support with 60 Senators signing on, which is 
representative of how important these bills are to every State. We have 
support from the administration and unwavering support from over 900 
conservation and sportsmen's groups throughout the Nation.
  I know that not all of my colleagues can support this bill and that 
others would have liked to have seen their priorities added. I also 
want to mention that I know it has been portrayed by some that we are 
doing one instead of the other. We are taking care of recreation and 
outdoors. There might be coastal deterioration, and we are very 
concerned about that. Yet I want you to know that, since there has been 
offshore drilling, a tremendous amount of those resources have gone to 
the four coastal States of Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas. 
Louisiana is the only State that has used all of its funds for coastal 
restoration, and I applaud it for that. I know how costly that has been 
and how costly it will be, and we will help in any way we possibly can.
  It is not an either-or. It is not that we are getting this and that 
they are being punished for something else. That is not the case 
whatsoever. We are finally getting the funds that were basically 
dedicated 55 years ago that never did go to the LWCF, the Land Water 
and Conservation Fund. We have

[[Page S2970]]

over $9 billion in our park system that needs to be for repairs, and we 
are using these funds in the most prudently possible way we can. We 
would hope that everyone would look at it in the most positive way and 
pass something that we could all look back on and be very, very proud 
of.
  I know that my commitment, as the ranking member of the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, is to work with Senators on 
their priorities. It always has been, and it always will be no matter 
what one's party affiliation--Democrat or Republican. When you are in a 
position of being a ranking member or of being chairman of that 
committee, you work with all of the committee members, which helps to 
ensure the consideration of those committee bills on the Senate floor.
  What we saw last week and that I anticipate we will see again today 
is a shining example of Democrats and Republicans coming together to 
put politics aside to do what is best for conserving the natural 
resources of this great Nation. So I urge all of my colleagues to join 
me in voting yes on each of the three votes tonight. They are all very, 
very important. They will get us closer to the final passage of the 
Great American Outdoors Act
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Great American 
Outdoors Act and on the fact that this legislation will add over $17 
billion to our deficit over the next 10 years.
  When I first rose to speak on this bill and on my amendment to it, I 
closed by saying that if we could not pay for even a portion of this 
bill, then we were in worse trouble than I had thought. Sadly, I rise 
today, knowing that we, apparently, want such trouble.
  During this fiscal year, we have already run up a deficit of $1.9 
trillion--more than twice the size of the deficit we ran at the same 
time last year. We also just added $2.4 trillion to our debt as the 
Nation necessarily responded to the coronavirus pandemic.
  For the past 2 years, I have been working on and consistently 
suggesting a way to responsibly pay for deferred maintenance at our 
national parks. I love our national parks and have fond memories of 
visiting our first national park, Yellowstone, and many other parks 
when I was younger and still today. That is why I offered my amendment 
that would have created a paid-for legacy restoration fund that would 
have ensured permanently dedicated revenue for our parks and their 
maintenance needs.
  For the longest time, I was told that my spending concerns would be 
addressed when the bill moved out of committee. When the bill moved to 
the floor, I asked that my amendment be included in the substitute or 
that it receive a vote. It was not included, and we did not receive a 
vote.
  While my amendment did not address it, I would also mention that many 
of my colleagues regularly express concern about how we increasingly 
have moved discretionary spending to mandatory spending. This bill does 
just that with the Land and Water Conservation provisions.
  Mandatory spending is always renewed and never voted on or evaluated 
again. When the Land and Water Conservation Fund was permanently 
authorized at the start of this Congress, we were told that its 
spending would remain subject to appropriations and the oversight that 
goes with that. Instead, we are taking away that protection and 
increasing mandatory spending even more without increasing revenue. 
That means more additional national debt each year without a single 
vote.
  So here we are today, asking future generations to pay for what we 
are not even willing to consider paying for when we could have 
responsibly funded the maintenance provisions. We won't even consider 
my amendment that would have a modest charge to foreign visitors as 
part of their visa fees to help to address this issue, and that is 
revenue that will be lost forever from the tourists because we can only 
collect the fees when they buy visas. The revenues cannot be collected 
retroactively. If we won't pay for even a part of the bill, what will 
we pay for?
  Congress must stop with gimmick spending, wherein we attempt to spend 
the same money twice. That is what this bill does. If we keep adding 
new mandatory spending without adding new revenue, Congress will be 
forced at some point to eliminate mandatory spending or to get new 
funding streams that survive well into the future. Mandatory spending 
is the portion of our bill that will be covered by this that we will 
not vote on. We will not take a look at it again. They say, yes, there 
will be oversight--not on whether we spend it, not on where the money 
comes from. There will not be another opportunity on that. Therefore, I 
oppose this legislation and oppose adding to the already massive debt 
burden being placed on future generations and the increase in mandatory 
spending when the solution to charge foreigners is available.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. President, the pending amendment, No. 1617, would violate the 
Senate pay-go rule by increasing the on-budget deficit. Therefore, I 
raise a point of order against this measure pursuant to section 4106(a) 
of H. Con. Res. 71, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal 
Year 2018.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                    Motion to Waive a Point of Order

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of 
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections 
of that Act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of amendment 
No. 1617, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, just to talk a little about bit how this 
bill is funded, again, the legislation relies on the use of the oil and 
gas revenues from both onshore for part of the bill and offshore for 
other parts of the bill, and that has been the tradition of the 
legislation since its passage in 1965 until 5 years ago, since we have 
had the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Of course, the new Historic 
Preservation Act provisions rely on these revenues as well.
  To give you kind of a run-through or an example of how this would 
have proceeded in 2019--and thanks to my colleague Senator Alexander 
for really pointing this out and highlighting how this funding works--
it would have been the total revenues generated from offshore 
production and the revenues that the Federal Government would have 
received from that. This gives us, I think, a good example of how this 
works.
  The revenue generated from oil and gas production on Federal land in 
fiscal year 2019 totaled about $11.6 billion. Of that $11.6 billion, 
$2.4 billion went to the States. First out of the gate was the $2.4 
billion. Now, this may change from year to year, but the formula 
distribution is the same. So $2.4 billion of that went to the States. 
Another $1 billion went to Tribal entities. Then another $1.7 billion 
went to the reclamation funds.
  First, the money comes into the Treasury. It goes out to the States. 
Then it goes out to the Tribal entities. Then it goes out to the 
reclamation fund. Then $1 billion goes to the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. In this last year, Congress appropriated, though, to 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund $495 million, and the rest of the 
money got siphoned off and went somewhere else. Then $150 million went 
to the Historic Preservation Fund, which was a total of $5.25 billion 
in 2019 for this distribution. That left about $5.35 billion to go 
directly to the Treasury.
  These dollars that we are using help to fund the Restore Our Parks 
Act to catch up with deferred maintenance. I think our colleague 
Senator Portman has done an outstanding job of explaining that this 
deferred maintenance is also considered debt. So we are actually using 
these dollars that have been collected from oil and gas revenues that 
have gone to the Treasury and have been distributed out to go to the 
debt and the deferred maintenance projects at national parks across the 
country: Colorado National; $85 million for Rocky Mountain National 
Park, $75

[[Page S2971]]

million for Mesa Verde; $8 million for the Great Sand Dunes; $7 million 
for Black Canyon National Park; and the list goes on and on. That is 
not even including the Forest Service, the BLM lands, and other efforts 
by the Bureau of Indian Education. That is how this revenue would work.

  I also wanted to point this out again to my colleagues, some of whom 
may have heard this before and some may not have. Today, June 15, 2020, 
we received a letter that was written to Senator McConnell, Senator 
Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader McCarthy from Teddy Roosevelt IV. 
This is the great-grandson of President Teddy Roosevelt. I will read it 
here:

       From east to west, America is home to incredible lands, 
     waters, and cultural treasures. Now, more than ever, we are 
     relying on our public lands to get outdoors, to connect with 
     the world, to support jobs, and strengthen our communities. 
     In this time of uncertainty, we have been given a once in a 
     lifetime opportunity to protect our public lands and waters 
     for all generations to come.
       I write to you today to urge swift passage and enactment of 
     the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA)--legislation that will 
     provide much needed support to the outdoor places we all 
     depend on. This bill will fully and permanently help fund the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), our nation's most 
     important conservation program, to ensure protection and 
     increased access to public lands in every state and county in 
     America. Additionally, GAOA will fund priority repairs in our 
     National Parks and on other public lands to address an ever-
     growing backlog of maintenance needs.

  The letter goes on and talks about the principles of President 
Roosevelt and the public lands protections that this Congress continues 
to build upon, standing on the shoulders of those generations past so 
that we can preserve and protect our generations to come.
  I know it has been said by some of the opposition to the legislation 
that there are no people who live in the areas where the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund and Restore Our Parks Act helps, that this goes to 
protect States that apparently don't have enough people to merit it.
  Look, every State in the Union has benefited from legislation covered 
by the Great American Outdoors Act. Every county--nearly every county--
across the country has benefitted from programs within the Great 
American Outdoors Act. It is not just national parks. My town in 
Colorado, in the Eastern Plains, is 40 miles away from the Kansas-
Nebraska border. We don't have a national park in our county. It is 
several hours to get to Rocky Mountain National Park. But even that 
little town that I live in, in that little tiny county in the Eastern 
Plains of Colorado, has benefited from the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund--whether it was decades ago, the purchase of water rights that 
went along with the reservoir, called Bonny Reservoir in the Eastern 
Plains, to help protect those water rights or recreation opportunity 
for youth. This is a farming community. We live in the High Plains. 
There are no mountains around us. There are no ski areas around us. Yet 
this has helped us too. It helps all Americans. It helps corner to 
corner across this great Nation.
  Tonight, we are going to be given a choice and a chance to vote on 
three different efforts. I hope my colleagues will join me in waiving 
the budget point of order, as I have laid out in my objection and in my 
request for a waiver. I hope my colleagues will join me in the next 
votes following that--one of which will require a simple majority and 
one of which will require, yet again, a 60-vote threshold.
  This is an opportunity for us to work together on a bipartisan 
basis--the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats coming 
together, and with the White House. They have announced their support. 
The President announced his support for this legislation several months 
ago. We come together to do something that we can build upon for this 
country--the greatest ideas this country has ever put forward--our 
public lands, our public places, and most special spaces in America.
  In Colorado, Wyoming, Louisiana, California, New Mexico, and in every 
State, we see dollars coming in and jobs being created because of this 
legislation--the land that this legislation represents and the policies 
that this legislation will cover.
  It is estimated that this legislation will create 100,000 jobs--over 
100,000 jobs, quite frankly--just in the national parks section alone. 
And the way the economy is right now, every one of those jobs matters. 
For every $1 million that is spent in the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, it supports nearly 16 to 30 jobs. For every $1 million, it 
supports another 16 to 30 jobs.
  I think one of the most important factors in the jobs analysis is 
where we are at in the country with the economic crisis we face. When 
the coronavirus came into Colorado--that first wave, the initial step--
it hit our Western Slope communities the hardest. You had a lot of 
international visitors coming to ski the best skiing areas in the 
country. You had a lot of travelers from the Front Range coming up to 
enjoy the weekend, and it created some big challenges from COVID-19 in 
those communities as a result. Some of those towns have 20 percent, 22 
percent, 23 percent unemployment in the immediate aftermath of the 
pandemic and the shutdowns of restaurants and hotels, and the ski areas 
shut down a couple of months earlier than they normally would have.

  Of course, it didn't just impact the winter ski season and the winter 
recreation season. It impacted the summer recreation season. Outfitters 
who had their trips canceled, who had their reservations yanked because 
you couldn't travel or you couldn't go out, decided it wouldn't be 
right to stay at a hotel or maybe the hotel was closed. If you were out 
camping, the parks were closed as well. I think that became one of the 
reasons why this legislation is so important too. It is not just about 
the resources. It is not just about protecting the public lands. It is 
about the jobs that can be created in these public land communities 
that were hit hardest and first by that initial wave of coronavirus.
  That is all the more reason I hope my colleagues will join me in 
voting to waive the budget point of order, as well as the procedural 
votes that we will have this evening and the eventual passage of the 
legislation itself, the Great American Outdoors Act, which most likely 
will occur sometime Wednesday morning, maybe around noon or so.
  I am grateful for the support of people like Teddy Roosevelt, great-
grandson of President Roosevelt. I am grateful for the support of my 
colleagues and the work of Senators Heinrich, Manchin, Cantwell, King, 
and Warner, who have been so diligent across the past several months as 
this legislation moves its way to passage, and of Richard Burr, who has 
been an incredible stalwart champion of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. I thank Senator Alexander for his work.
  It goes to show you this didn't happen alone. It didn't happen in a 
vacuum. It didn't happen because one person or one party decided to get 
behind it. It happened because of a group effort of people in both 
Chambers and at the White House to support it.
  Today, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce reiterated their support of this 
legislation. The American Petroleum Institute supports this 
legislation. Countless environmental and conservation organizations 
support this legislation. Some 850-plus groups support this 
legislation.
  We have an opportunity to do something good for our country, to do 
something good for future generations.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the budget act.
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 118 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Daines

[[Page S2972]]


     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Tillis
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--30

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Cassidy
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cruz
     Markey
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 68, the nays are 
30.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to, and the point of order falls.
  The majority leader is recognized.


                   Motion to Table Amendment No. 1628

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 1628.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.


                   Motion to Table Amendment No. 1626

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 1626.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1617

  The question occurs on agreeing to the substitute amendment No. 1617.
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 119 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--24

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Cassidy
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Hawley
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Sullivan
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Markey
     Shelby
     Warren
  The amendment (No. 1617) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 75, 
     H.R. 1957, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to modernize and improve the Internal Revenue Service, and 
     for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, John Hoeven, John Thune, Cory Gardner, 
           Pat Roberts, Lindsey Graham, Susan M. Collins, John 
           Boozman, Kevin Cramer, Thom Tillis, Rob Portman, Roy 
           Blunt, Lamar Alexander, Todd Young, Steve Daines, 
           Shelley Moore Capito, David Perdue

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on H.R. 
1957, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modernize 
and improve the Internal Revenue Service, and for other purposes, shall 
be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 75, nays 23, 
as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 120 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--23

     Barrasso
     Cassidy
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Hawley
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Markey
     Warren
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Colorado.

                          ____________________