Congressional Record, Volume 166 Issue 110 (Monday, June 15, 2020)

[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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:

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.

____________________