Bill Cassidy

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for confirming Louisiana native Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States. Deciding whether to confirm a Justice to the highest Court in the land is among the most important duties and privileges that a Senator has. We must consider the qualifications of the nominee the President puts forward and determine a nominee's fitness to serve. In this case, President Donald Trump made a terrific selection in Amy Coney Barrett. The Senate will vote on her confirmation in the coming days, and I will proudly cast my vote to confirm. Here is why: Judge Barrett is incredibly qualified to serve on the Court. She graduated summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School, clerked for the late-Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and spent 15 years in academia shaping a new generation of legal minds. According to her students, she was not an ideologue but, rather, she would listen and take their thoughts and process them and bring them to a better knowledge of the law. With that, she has been universally praised by her former students and ultimately served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Her record and experience show that she is ready for the Supreme Court. There is some home-State pride. Judge Barrett was raised in Metairie, LA, and is a graduate of St. Mary's Dominican High School. When I go back there, I will see folks with the pen she would have received when she graduated, and they are very proud to have attended the same school and perhaps to have been in the same class. As a fellow Louisianan, I am proud that one of our own will become a Supreme Court Justice. She will be only the second person from Louisiana to serve on the Court, which, for my State, makes the confirmation historic. But it is more than Louisiana rooting for Amy Coney Barrett; she will serve our country well. I will also say that I think it fitting that a woman fill the seat that opened after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing. Although she and I had our differences in political and judicial philosophy, she should be recognized for her service and lifelong pursuit of ensuring that women have a seat at the table. We thank the legacy of Justice Ginsburg and her service to the United States. One of the many things that are notable for Justice Ginsburg that I will emphasize is that she broadened the perspective of SCOTUS--the Supreme Court of the United States--as they treated the law. I think Judge Barrett does the same. She will be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. She and her husband Jesse are raising seven children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti and the youngest of whom has Down syndrome. If there is a mom--whether a working mom or not--who wonders if her perspective is ever spoken to when cases are considered before the Supreme Court, Justice Barrett will bring that perspective to the Court. Finally, I want to thank Judge Barrett for her willingness to serve. To accept a nomination to the Supreme Court is, sadly, to accept ruthless attacks from partisans seeking to score political points. Her nomination was no different. She has been repeatedly attacked for being a practicing Catholic. She has every right to live her faith. No one in public service should be expected to cast aside deeply held religious convictions to satisfy an angry mob fabricating reasons to say no. Thank you, Judge Barrett, for defending your--and by extension all of our--religious liberty. I think the balance and the grace she exhibited during a very difficult 2 days of being before the committee but in her life in general is testimony to the depth by which she considers the best of her faith. That said, her political enemies and some in the press intentionally mischaracterized many of her statements, twisting them into new ways to attack her, again fabricating reasons to say no. Yet Judge Barrett handled each attack with grace and dignity. During her hearing, she displayed time and again that she has the skills, the demeanor, and the experience to serve on the Supreme Court. On Monday, I will proudly cast my vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. She will serve our country well, and she will serve the future generations that will be influenced by her decisions on the Supreme Court well. I encourage my colleagues to put politics aside and to do the same. Thank you I yield back. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I thank the Presiding Officer, Senator Hyde-Smith, and Senator Lee for organizing this colloquy and participating in it in support of the Support and Value Expectant Moms and Babies Act. I love that title: Support and Value Expectant Moms. Isn't that great? We should. I am a doctor--not an obstetrician, but, nonetheless, I have delivered babies. As a doctor, my mission was to save lives--I don't practice anymore; I use the past tense--and improve health outcomes for all patients. We are here talking about chemical abortions. Chemical abortions don't do any of that. The health risks can be severe, obviously, for the unborn child but also, potentially, for the mom, and, particularly, when the mother has this without supervision by a healthcare provider. The total absence of medical support is the total absence of care, and using potentially dangerous chemicals without medical support can lead to the absence of health. If Americans care about a woman's health, they should be concerned when such procedures are allowed. Yet chemical abortions are on the rise. I am told that in 2017 they represented nearly 40 percent of all abortions. Due to a recent court case, women can begin to receive these through the mail, prescribed without even receiving a physical exam. Now, the mom who selects that may not know the potential consequences, but, as a physician, I do. The potential complications include, for example, if the mother has what is called an ectopic pregnancy, where the unborn child and the placenta are not in the womb but are outside of the womb. If that occurs and these pills are taken--the pill known as Mifeprex, RU486--it can cause that pregnancy to rupture, and instead of the bleeding coming out as the child would, through the vagina, it means that internal bleeding occurs, which can result in the mother's death. Chemical abortions have four times the complications that surgical abortions do in the first trimester, and as many as 6 percent of women taking these abortion drugs require surgery to complete the abortion-- potentially painful and life-threatening and, of course, horrific for the unborn child. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has stated that ``compared with surgical abortion, medical abortion takes longer to complete, requires more active patient participation, and is associated with higher reported rates of bleeding and cramping.'' The bill we are discussing today, the SAVE Moms and Babies Act, or the Support and Value Expectant Moms and Babies Act, takes substantive steps to protect the health of women and the unborn child. The bill prevents approval of new abortion drugs by the FDA, keeps the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, protocol, and curtails abortion pills from being dispensed by mail or through telemedicine. I introduced the Teleabortion Prevention Act of 2020 in February, which requires a doctor to physically examine a pregnant mom before prescribing any abortion-related drugs and requires a followup appointment. We actually want women to receive healthcare, by healthcare providers who care about their health. If Senators in this body really care about women's health, they should join with us to stop these do-it-yourself abortions. Preventing abortion protects unborn babies, but preventing chemical abortions protects women. Let's work together to protect women by passing the SAVE Moms and Babies Act to forever end dangerous chemical abortions. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, at the forbearance of my colleagues, if I can interpolate, if you will, and I will yield back. Thank you very much. As I speak, Hurricane Sally threatens the gulf coast, including parts of Louisiana. Our prayers are with those in the path of Sally. I just spoke with the Coast Guard admiral in charge, and the Coast Guard is ready should there be a need. But in the concern over Sally and other issues, we must remember the aftermath of Hurricane Laura, which made landfall August 27 in Cameron, LA, as a category 4-5 hurricane. In terms of wind speed, this is 150 miles an hour. A more powerful storm in that regard is Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, and others. As you might imagine, a storm of such magnitude left death, destruction, and pain from Southwest Louisiana into Texas to North Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi. There were 25 people who died directly or indirectly because of Hurricane Laura, and hundreds of thousands of lives have been upended. As one example--one measure--as of yesterday, 145,000 people in Louisiana have filed for assistance with FEMA. That is expected to grow to roughly 2,800 people a day applying for assistance. Now, the sentiment at home is if you are without electricity, as 97 percent of Cameron Parish goes without electricity, and you are without internet, as most people are, the fear is that folks have forgotten about Hurricane Laura, that recovery efforts will be stalled, and things will be ignored as attention turns to other issues--COVID-19, Presidential race, et cetera. And, anecdotally, there is, of course, evidence that public opinion has slipped. Last week, I spoke with Gail McGovern, the president of the American Red Cross, who told me that donations are lagging well below that which the Red Cross had hoped to receive to cover the cost of their response. She assured me, though, that the Red Cross would still do everything needed. I saw testimony of that, by the way. I flew from Louisiana to Washington, DC, yesterday, and the jet was full of Red Cross volunteers. We are so appreciative. I assure folks back home, just to say, that I did get a call from President Trump just as the hurricane hit. He assured me that whatever resources were needed, he would make sure they were there. As I told folks in Louisiana, there was an audience of one paying attention, a very important audience, and that is the President. In this speech, I hope to continue to bring this hurricane and its aftermath to the attention of other fellow Americans because fellow Americans take care of ourselves and take care of each other. So I am here to be a voice for the people of Louisiana and share a story so that you may know what we are facing at home. Again, I am appreciative of the United Way, American Red Cross, President Trump, and others for swiftly doing all they can do to help us through this recovery, but let's tell the story. Here is a wonderful story from Lake Arthur, LA. She probably doesn't like the fact that I am showing this. She didn't like how she looked. I think she looks fantastic. This is Bethel Boudreaux, a great American patriot and a great Louisiana name. If you look at this picture, there is a tree that has fallen over the guy's house. There is a fellow in the tree cutting down limbs that is on top of his house. Here she is with a tree behind her and all the debris associated with it holding up an American flag. Now, her concern was that if we showed this picture, we recognize that her husband, a veteran, is familiar with how damaged flags should be destroyed, but this had been fluttering during the hurricane, and she just wanted to show it. She has got a smile. This is 1 or 2 days after this devastating hurricane. With all this, in the spirit of Americans, she is holding that flag, and she is smiling. She is a great American patriot, but it also shows the attitude of Americans and the attitudes of people in Louisiana. We are resilient in the face of adversity. There is more than enough adversity to go around. Let me just give you a couple of stories that are on our Facebook page. Mike Williams from Lake Charles gave our office a tour of his home. His metal roof was completely ripped off. Water came all through his house. The ceiling is falling in, and every single room has extensive water damage. There is 20-year-old Hannah Vinson, who shared that her childhood home was gone. The roof collapsed, flooded, and a tree fell in her mother's bedroom and all across their yard. She has this semester off from school because of lack of access and expenses she cannot cover, even though she works. She told us: It's overwhelming. People say why even go back when your school is destroyed? I start a new career, and that has to come to an end because where I work is gone now. There are thousands more stories like theirs. But amid the devastation, there is hope. I am inspired by those who rushed to help however they could. The Cajun Navy is an organization of volunteers who respond to disasters. They deployed immediately and continue to help today, delivering thousands of meals, clearing debris, helping people meet energy needs, and assisting where they can. I recently went to Central Louisiana to hand out supplies and meet with storm victims and volunteers. I met a woman named Mandy in Hineston. Mandy has been loading up trailers of donated groceries. She takes them to the rural parts of the State, where folks can't access critical supplies in Central and Western Louisiana. This is a critical service because folks on the back roads couldn't get out, and there was a gas shortage in some storm-affected areas. While I do believe Hurricane Laura recovery needs more attention nationally, I am so thankful for the thousands of workers who came to rebuild the electrical grid, as well as individuals and churches and nonprofits who came to help. There is a Facebook video from YAIPaks--a nonprofit organization in Clarksville, TN--who came down to Lake Charles with portable showers and trailers of supplies. The lady in the video said they handed out so many meals that they lost count. I cannot say thank you enough to our fellow Americans and those from Louisiana who saw a need and answered the call to serve. Now I ask my colleagues to do the same. Local governments' resources have been stretched to the limit because of COVID-19--tax base destroyed. Damage assessments are still underway, but we will likely need a disaster supplemental from Congress to continue the recovery. I ask my fellow Senators to consider the plight of Hurricane Laura victims and support such a bill, which should include California due to the terrible wildfires and perhaps those affected by Sally. Our prayers are with all of those as well. Local government resources have been stretched to the limit because of COVID-19 in Louisiana, but I suspect in California and Alabama and Mississippi as well. In June, I introduced legislation to do away with the FEMA cost share for local governments for 2020--for this year--given the strain on their budgets caused by COVID. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill. Lastly, let's just reassure my constituents in Louisiana that they are not forgotten. The largest storm in our State's history made news for about 2 days with hardly a mention after. Don't forget about Hannah, who lost her childhood home and her job, or about Mike, who lost his house to the rain and wind, and about the nearly 150,000 people asking for help. Americans are at our best when we help those in need. The time is now to extend that support once more. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, today I rise in recognition of seersucker manufacturers and enthusiasts across the United States. I wish everyone a Happy National Seersucker Day. This uniquely American fashion has a storied history dating back to 1909. The first seersucker suit was designed by Joseph Haspel at his Broad Street facility in New Orleans, LA. Louisiana is proud to have played an important part in introducing the country to seersucker apparel. This lightweight cotton fabric, known for its signature pucker, has been worn and enjoyed by Americans across the country during the hot summer months. Mr. Haspel said it best: ``Hot is hot, no matter what you do for a living.'' In the 1990s, Seersucker Day was established by Members of this Chamber to honor this unique American fashion. I proudly resumed this tradition in 2014 in the U.S. House of Representatives and continued this tradition in the U.S. Senate. This year, I wish to designate June 13 as the seventh annual National Seersucker Day. I encourage everyone to wear seersucker on this day to commemorate this traditionally American clothing.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to a very important piece of legislation, which quietly passed this Chamber last week. It included several provisions I authored and offered based upon my experience as a physician that specifically provides mental health support to America's veterans. We all agree, we owe the men and women who fought and fight for this country a tremendous debt of gratitude for the sacrifices they made to preserve our freedom. It is dangerous, and our servicemembers answer the call. Many carry scars from injuries sustained during that service. But there are scars that we cannot see. Service can take a physical toll but also a mental one. Too many veterans struggle with mental health issues and suicidal thoughts. About 17 veterans per day from all of our wars put together take their own lives. For comparison, 22 servicemembers were killed in combat in Afghanistan throughout all of 2019. We are losing thousands more veterans at home than we are losing fighting men and women in the field. That is something to ponder. We must do a better job of leading the mental health needs of veterans. Thankfully, this Chamber took a big step forward last week when we passed the Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act. The bill improves outreach to veterans and offers new mental healthcare options in five major ways: First, the bill bolsters the VA's mental health workforce to serve more veterans. It gives the VA direct hiring authority for mental health professionals. The VA can offer scholarships to mental health professionals to work at vet centers, and it provides for at least one suicide prevention coordinator at every Veterans' Administration Hospital. It improves rural veterans' access to mental healthcare by increasing the number of locations where veterans can access VA telehealth services. It also offers grants to non-VA organizations that provide mental health services or alternative treatments to veterans. The bill strengthens support and assistance for servicemembers transitioning out of the military by automatically giving every servicemember a full year of VA healthcare when they leave the military. By the way, this came to my mind: It turns out that most suicides occur within 6 weeks of one of our soldiers or sailors or marines leaving the service; within 6 months of that departure is when they tend to commit suicide. But it is about 6 months before they first access VA services. We have to have this kind of transition point tightened and one that makes sure they all know they have VA benefits for that first year. The Veterans Mental Healthcare Improvement Act also studies and invests in innovative and alternative science-based treatment options. It invests in research on the impact of living at high altitudes, on veterans' suicide risk, and on identifying and treating other risk factors for mental health illness. It holds the VA accountable for its mental healthcare and suicide prevention efforts. It does this by examining how the VA manages suicide prevention resources and how the VA provides care and information sharing for veterans seeking mental healthcare from both VA and community providers. This bill takes a strong, evidence-based approach to meeting veterans' needs that haven't always been given priority. It is encouraging to me that is bipartisan. At a time when we don't appear to agree on very much, we are able to deliver for our heroes. I am proud to have worked with my Democratic colleagues to write bills that were included in this package. Senator Tester and I partnered on the Promoting Coordination for Veteran Suicide Prevention Act. This bill, this amendment, ensures that a thorough review of veterans who die by suicide within 1 year of separation from the Armed Services is conducted jointly by both the Department of Defense and by the VA. As I mentioned, most suicides occur within 6 months of separating from service. If that is the case, then the Department of Defense can do a review of what are those risk factors and have a warm handoff to the Veterans' Administration Hospital. And because we made automatic that first year of service within the VA, that warm handoff can be taken without any impediments of is there coverage or is there not. There is also going to be a partnership between the mental health and suicide prevention experts in both the VA and DOD that will contribute to improved information sharing and help further close the gap in ensuring high-quality, seamless care between these two Departments, focusing on the serviceperson who has now become a veteran. Senator Tester and I also worked together on the VA Research Approval Efficiency Act. This provision authorizes the Veterans Administration to leverage accredited commercial institutional review boards for use in connection with VA-sponsored clinical research. Getting the VA commercial options for approving clinical trials will add much-needed efficiencies and begin to reduce the disparity with academic and other institutions that, today, lead in clinical trial administration. If we know that our treatments for those with mental illness often need to be improved, we want to give our veterans access to those improved treatments as soon as possible, but we also want to make sure that those treatments suit the needs of the veteran. You can only do this by encouraging that research activity with full consent of the veteran--full consent--by which she or he may participate in these trials for her benefit, his benefit, but also for the benefit of us all. This reform enables the VA to increase the caliber care it delivers to veterans in a variety of clinical areas. Senator Sinema and I introduced the Improving Mental Health Care for Veterans Act. This provision requires VA and DOD to establish a joint clinical practice guideline for treatment of serious mental illness. This commonsense approach builds on an already robust library of clinical practice guidelines that serve to standardize and reinforce treatment procedures in other areas. Just as a point, if someone is found to be well-controlled in a certain medical regimen but then they transition to another different care with a different formulary, then all the hard work to find just the right clinical pharmaceutical treatment program to keep the person balanced now has to be changed because the second department has a different formulary--a different set of drugs with which they wish to treat--all the good work done here is lost there. We wish to eliminate that possibility by making sure there is a common set of clinical guidelines so that somebody with stress is passed off and it is seamless, both in terms of the clinical care, but also the medicines which they may take. The passage of the Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act is the culmination of a lot of hard work from both Democratic and Republican Senators. It now goes to the House for consideration. I urge the House to swiftly pass this legislation so that President Trump can sign it into law. This bill will have a direct, positive impact in the care the VA delivers to American veterans. They answered the call to serve our Nation; now, Congress must answer the call to better serve them. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to speak of a largely unknown aspect of the Vietnam war and a too neglected aspect. I rise to highlight Air America and its role in military conflicts from the 1940s through the Cold War. Air America, which was previously known as the Civil Air Transport, operated under a shroud of mystery, intrigue, and, at times, purposeful deceit to allow the organization to continue covert operations. Its members lived the motto ``Anything, Anywhere, Anytime, Professionally.'' Now, if you would look at this picture, you would think that this must be an Army helicopter pilot performing a rescue on an active battlefield. No, that pilot was a civilian. He was a contractor of sorts with the U.S. Government and was flying that helicopter to rescue that soldier or that marine, not an enlisted person. Its members, again, lived the motto ``Anything, Anywhere, Anytime, Professionally,'' including rescuing those from battlefields. They garnered respect as cargo and charter airline pilots during the Secret War in Laos in the 1960s and 1970s. As the war progressed, the U.S. Government increasingly relied on Air America pilots to conduct search-and-rescue missions of downed U.S. military pilots--often in heavy combat areas with no weapons of their own. The daily risks that they took to save others earned them the reputation as being the most shot at airline. I shouldn't laugh, but there is, I am sure, kind of a gallows humor they felt when they said that, ``the most shot at airline.'' Here is a depiction of a plaque in Richardson, TX, that President Reagan dedicated. On it are the names of those who died as Air America pilots. At the plaque dedication in Dallas, President Ronald Reagan said: ``Although free people everywhere owe you more than we can hope to repay, our greatest debt is to your companions who gave their last full measure of devotion.'' While President Reagan recognized the contributions that these pilots made to the United States, Air America has received mixed support throughout its history. The Department of Defense and the CIA, among others, have argued that Air America pilots are not veterans, saying their heroic rescues of American soldiers were not part of their contracts or within the scope of their mission. These sentiments have kept Air America pilots from receiving veteran status and the benefits that come with the status. This needs to change. This need to change is based on declassified materials that show these pilots are deserving of such recognition for their exploits. Who were these dedicated Americans serving in Air America? Most crews had military training. Many bore the scars of fighting on the ground in Korea and Vietnam. They are former POWs and Special Forces--all tough as nails. They were also crop dusters and water bombers who fought forest fires. They were smoke jumpers and flight mechanics. Thousands of personnel were indigenous people, both male and female. Air America members came from all walks of life to answer the call to serve. Military aircraft was provided to employees to conduct combat-related activity in areas where the U.S. Armed Forces could not go due to treaties. They served at considerable risk. Numerous employees died or were seriously injured. However, their sacrifices were not given the same recognition as military members. Lowell Pirkle was killed when an RPG hit his helicopter, and it burned to the ground. Sadly, it took years for his remains to be repatriated and sent to Honolulu. When Deborah, Lowell's wife, insisted that he be buried in Arlington Cemetery, she was informed that Lowell was ineligible because he died not in the military but as part of Air America. He would eventually be buried in Arlington due to his previous military service, though the work in both engagements was essentially the same Let me just pause for a second. Let's look at this poster. From 1962 to 1975, Air America inserted and extracted U.S. military personnel and provided combat support across the entire Vietnam field. Air America rescued hundreds of Americans and stranded Vietnamese, including the last out of Saigon in April 1975. Who can forget these dramatic photographs? Air America pioneered remote landings during the Vietnam war to resupply U.S. troops and key allies, like the Hmong in Laos, and Air America pilots were the only known civilian employees to operate non- FAA-certified military aircraft in combat zones. Lastly, as I previously mentioned, here is the memorial plaque in Richardson, TX, that honors the 146 Air America veterans who were killed. These men served ``Anything, Anywhere, Anytime, Professionally.'' Again, it has been denied that they actually performed these military duties, but, once more, declassified documents show that the U.S. Government owes Air America and, therefore, its members status as veterans. In August 1965, Secretary of State Dean Rusk wrote: ``Political factors require that Air America helicopters continue to assume responsibility for all search-and-rescue operations in Laos.'' A year prior, Ambassador to Laos Leonard Unger said: ``Search and rescue is a crucial factor in maintaining the morale of pilots, and there is no prospect at this juncture of establishing effective search- and-rescue procedures without the use of both civilian (Air America) and U.S. military personnel.'' The stories go on, but I will add one more. CIA Assistant General Counsel James Harris wrote to the Civil Service Commission: ``In the case of Air America, it would have been virtually impossible to preserve the cover story had all the corporate employees been advised that they were really employees of the United States Government.'' It is time for the U.S. Government to set the record straight about Air America. Their service is commended by all who served with them, especially by those servicemembers whose lives were saved by Air America. We owe them more than a debt of gratitude. I urge my colleagues to consider the story of these brave pilots and work toward providing the recognition they deserve as Federal employees, including granting veteran status and the associated benefits. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise to address the issues regarding the COVID crisis. Now, as we know, the COVID crisis is a public health crisis which has led to an economic crisis and, in turn, an educational crisis. Today, I am going to speak about an aspect of the economic crisis-- specifically State and local governments, which have had to shut down their economy and, in turn, have lost all the tax revenue they otherwise would receive and, because they have lost that tax revenue, have put the jobs of firefighters, police officers, teachers, sanitation workers, and other essential frontline workers at risk. So let me proceed. Senate Republicans have unveiled a proposal for a second line of support for American families and small businesses as our Nation continues to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. The virus is an unprecedented challenge, but we shall overcome, and the HEALS Act attempts to do that. The introduction of this proposal signals Republicans' commitment to seeing America through this challenging time, as was with the CARES Act. The ultimate safety of the people of Louisiana and the United States are my top priority, and the HEALS Act, as with all major bills, is a starting point of negotiations to build consensus among Members of both parties for the best path forward. The HEALS Act includes stimulus checks for Americans, support for small businesses, and billions to help schools reopen. While these are critically important to economic recovery, so, too, are the essential services provided by States and local communities. I am talking about police officers, firefighters, teachers, sanitation workers, and other municipal workers. Because of this economic lockdown, State and local governments have seen their tax base erode, which threatens their ability to keep these very people we need employed--these people who keep our communities running. I don't want to see, for example, a situation where cities slash police budgets and force layoffs of those who put their lives on the line to keep us safe. That is why Congress should include additional relief for State and local communities in this relief package. Senator Bob Menendez--and his staff has been a wonderful team to work with--and I have offered a bipartisan proposal called the SMART Act to help communities through this pandemic. I am privileged to be joined today by Senator Menendez and Senator Collins to speak on its behalf. The SMART Act calls for $500 billion in funding for State and local governments, and it would be dispersed in thirds. One-third is based on a State's population. Clearly, California needs more than Alaska. One- third is based upon the COVID-19 impact. My State has had one of the highest per capita incidences of coronavirus infection. We have been terribly impacted. One-third is based upon revenue lost, which, again, my State, as well as the States of my colleagues, has been very impacted. It is a fair formula that prioritizes funding to the hardest hit. The need is great. S&P Global released a report detailing the State susceptibility to fiscal distress in a COVID-19 recession. There were 38 States that had a high or very high risk of economic exposure. S&P's findings echo a Moody's report that also predicted dire effects to States and cities if nothing is done. Moody's found that 34 States will see tax revenue fall by double-digit percentage points, the worst of which are Alaska falling 80 percent, Louisiana at 46 percent, and North Dakota at 44 percent. According to the National Association of Counties, local communities--not States; local communities--anticipate a $202 billion impact to budgets through 2021. Their report shows that 71 percent of counties have delayed capital investments, including infrastructure and economic development projects; 68 percent have cut or delayed county services--or parish services in the case of Louisiana--human services, public safety, and community development support; and 25 percent have cut the county workforce. Moody's estimates that 1.3 million have already been laid off, and an estimated 1.4 million more State and parish county workers and municipal workers will be laid off in the coming fiscal year. Sixty-six percent of counties receiving CARES Act coronavirus relief indicate that the funding will not cover the COVID- 19 budget or they are uncertain if the budgetary impacts will be covered. This is the impact of what has happened. By the way, we spoke earlier of $202 billion, and this is how the breakdown is in terms of lost revenue and lost State funding, et cetera. The impact upon State and county and municipal governments is huge. All told, the National Association of Counties predicts a loss of 4.9 million jobs and $344 billion lost in GDP. It does not have to be that way. We can save jobs for police officers, firefighters, teachers, and others by including State and local support in the act we are considering. As I mentioned before, Louisiana, my State, is facing serious shortfalls. We are still struggling with a second wave of COVID cases. Yesterday, we had the No. 1 per capita incidence of coronavirus. The State is having to continue in a phase 2 lockdown, which strains not only my folks in Louisiana but also the revenue of the local communities where they would otherwise spend their money. Folks back home know the consequences if they don't receive support. There were 22 parish presidents who signed a letter supporting the SMART Act. They wrote: As elected leaders with parish populations ranging from over 400,000 to 18,000, the COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for all local governments not only within Louisiana, but nationally. The extreme loss of tax revenues, which provide for essential services, coupled with unforeseen costs brought onto us by the response to COVID-19 pandemic, has the potential to have an extremely detrimental effect on our role to provide for the citizens of our parishes. I received a letter from more than 80 mayors across my State giving ``their strong support and thanks'' for efforts to pass the SMART Act because they know I am working to deliver the support they need for their communities or mutual constituents. And mayors ranging from cities as large as Shreveport to as small as Glenmora and Athens wrote: The SMART Act would provide funding for municipal economic recovery that will support the reopening of businesses and allow Louisiana to move forward. We are grateful for Senator Cassidy's bipartisan efforts and for his longstanding partnership with Louisiana's governments. The same sentiments have been echoed by Louisiana's Chamber of Commerce. I understand concerns about spending money on State and local government. Some are worried the money will be used to bail out poor management decisions and overly generous and unfunded pension plans. I share those concerns, which is why the SMART Act includes specific provisions prohibiting spending in those areas. The SMART Act money replaces lost revenue caused by COVID-19 and nothing more. A city or parish or county would have to show their books and show that they have lost revenue relative to a year ago before they would be eligible to receive funding from this. I understand concerns about spending, but the cost of doing nothing is worse. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell spoke on the State and local funding needs, saying that while costly, it would be ``worth it if it helps avoid long-term damage and leaves us with a stronger economy.'' Congress should not allow police officers, firefighters, first responders, teachers, sanitation workers, and others to lose their jobs by the millions at a time when our country needs them most. The United States cannot fully recover economically if local communities cannot provide basic services, allowing commerce to flow. As I end, I commend my colleagues on the work thus far on the HEALS Act. More work is left to be done, and I look forward to working with others in this Chamber in the coming days to strengthen this bill even further and finding a common path forward with our Democratic colleagues. We cannot let Americans down in this time of tremendous need. By working together, we can deliver the support they need, and we will be stronger as a nation for having done so I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matthew Fegley, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, COVID-19 is a continuing threat to Americans' physical and financial health, and it is at this intersection that Congress can make a meaningful impact on the family budgets of all Americans by passing sensible legislation to lower the cost of prescription drugs through measures such as the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act or, as I like to call it, the ``Making Coronavirus Medications Affordable Act.'' There is an urgent need to lower the cost of prescription drugs. The high price of drugs is not a new problem, but it is a problem that is going to be made worse by the coronavirus pandemic. Millions of households have seen their incomes suffer due to economic lockdowns aimed at containing the virus. It is encouraging that job numbers continue to outpace expectations, but still, millions of fellow Americans are out of work, which affects their pocketbook and potentially their insurance coverage. Americans do not need the added burden of expensive drugs, particularly right now. Congress is providing relief for American families and businesses through the COVID-19 crisis, and we are considering another round of support. I think we should include how do we make drugs more affordable. That way, if folks become ill, they know that they will be able to afford the cure. I believe the best path forward is the ``Making Coronavirus Drugs Affordable Act,'' as I call it, or, as Chairman Grassley calls it, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. I like mine better. Now, the difficulty in addressing the issue of the price of medications is that a balance must be struck between making sure the medication is affordable but also making sure there is still a profit motive that will incentivize the researchers and pharmaceutical companies to find these cures that we know we need. Just think about it. Without innovation, we would not be able to find a vaccine for coronavirus--a vaccine that will save millions of lives worldwide and allow us to go back to a normal life. Let me just praise the pharmaceutical industry. We have seen them respond to this crisis in many helpful ways. Additionally, they recently committed a billion dollars to antimicrobial resistance, which is to say, to find an antibiotic that will work when other antibiotics no longer do. They have invested in large-scale and rapid treatment options, and, again, it is only through innovation that we will beat this virus and end the pandemic. But we must remember this: If a patient cannot afford the innovation, the new medicine, it is as if the innovation never occurred. The ``Making Coronavirus Drugs Affordable Act'' strikes the balance between lowering costs for families and incentivizing companies to find those cures. Let me show you what this bill does. It caps the patient's out-of- pocket expenses. It lets patients pay over time. It protects patients from price gouging, and it preserves the incentive for companies to find cures. Let me explain each of these. First, the bill caps the out-of-pocket expense for those in the Medicare Part D Program, our senior citizens, and particularly for the most vulnerable seniors with chronic conditions. Research has shown that seniors are at the most risk for severe complications and death from COVID-19. When a treatment or cure is widely available, cost should never be a barrier for a senior to access the drug that she or he needs to survive. Under the current system, this is what a senior citizen pays for their medicinal benefit under Medicare Part D. They have a deductible for which the senior pays 100 percent; the initial coverage phase and the coverage gap phase, for which they pay one-fourth of the expense; and then in the catastrophic phase, the patient pays 5 percent of the cost no matter how high that expense goes. So let's imagine a medication which costs over $1 million. They are paying 5 percent of that medication cost, and if I could stand up any higher--but I keep losing my microphone--they will pay 5 percent of that. Think about a theoretical drug that costs $3 million a year. The senior would be required to pay 5 percent of whatever that drug costs. That is under current law. What we are trying to do is fix this. If this occurs, the senior will not be able to afford lifesaving medications. Under the legislation that we are attempting to pass, it would change the Medicare Part D standard benefit so that there is still the initial deductible in which the senior pays 100 percent, but after paying 20 percent of the initial coverage phase, there is no longer that 5 percent toward infinity. We make medications affordable for the senior. If that is all the bill did, we would do something quite remarkable for the ability of a patient to be able to afford a potentially lifesaving drug. By the way, as a physician, I know this is a barrier for patients to be able to have their drugs. So we address that in this bill. The second thing we do--you might say: Wait a second. The senior citizen if he or she has to pay for all this for a very expensive drug in the month of January, they can't afford that. Under the current situation, the senior has to pay her deductible and her initial coverage phase whenever it is due, which might be in the first week of the year. What we also do in this bill is we give the senior citizen the opportunity to pay all this lump sum as a series of payments over 12 months. So let's imagine that this was $10,000. Instead of having to pay all of it in January, she could pay $800 every month over the course of the year. That allows her to budget and to factor it in with the other sources of income that she has. Not only do we cap the senior citizen's out-of-pocket expense, but we also allow her to pay that expense over a set of months so she can factor it into her budget. That is the second great thing that this bill does. What is another thing that we do? Senator Braun also referred to this, but we also have cost transparency. If there is a medication which has the price being elevated unnecessarily, and if the customer knew that, she would know: Wait a second. I can get my medications far less expensively here versus there or, if I accept a substitute, again, the medication will be more affordable. We mandate that kind of price transparency that allows the customer to make an informed decision. Now, I know there are competing ideas on how to lower drug costs. House Democrats, for example, have introduced legislation that they claim would lower costs. But, remember, I told you that there is this tension. How do we preserve the incentive to innovate while still making sure the innovation is affordable? House Democrats have put up a bill. Yes, it makes medicine more affordable, but it kills the desire to innovate. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if the bill the House Democrats have proposed is passed, there will be 38 fewer cures invented by pharmaceutical manufacturers--38 fewer cures. Let me tell you a story. I mentioned that I am a physician. I came of age in my residency, if you will, when the AIDS epidemic hit. I was 25 years old or 27 years old, and I would see men my age dying of HIV. We didn't have an antibody then. If you were diagnosed with HIV--again, we called it AIDS then--you basically were dead because we had no cures. Since then, we now have medications that--if you are infected with HIV, you can live until you are 75 years old or 80 years old. We have found something that doesn't quite cure, but it allows it to be treated as a chronic condition. What if we didn't have that cure? What if that were one of the 38 cures we never had? What if one of the cures we lose out on is a cure for Alzheimer's? My parents died of Alzheimer's. All of us know somebody affected by Alzheimer's or dementia. What if the cure we lose is the cure for Alzheimer's? You may think you are making medications less expensive, but in terms of human life, you are making it that much more expensive because instead of finding that cure for Alzheimer's, you instead have consigned those people with Alzheimer's to a slow, awful death--awful for them and awful for their loved ones as they see their parents decline. I would argue that it is fool's gold to say that the House Democratic bill saves money. It just shifts it, and it shifts it to the misery of the family who will never enjoy one of these cures that are not otherwise developed. To fix the problem of the high cost of drugs, it will take a bipartisan coalition. We have that with this bill. It ends government handouts to pharmaceutical companies, but it doesn't price-fix. It saves $80 billion for the taxpayer and for the patient, and it maintains incentives for lifesaving innovations. Some in this Chamber will be tempted to stop this bill until after this year's election. To them, I would say: Don't let politics keep us from delivering drug-pricing relief for American families. Too much is on the line, especially during this pandemic. To do nothing while families try to pay medical bills is wrong. Let's work together to pass this bill to lower the cost of drugs, to protect innovation, and to save lives. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, Sam Ross is a farmer from Pioneer, LA, and is recognized as a top producer of the year finalist, a great honor in the farming community. Ross's family has been farming for years, and after graduating high school, he got into the trade with his first 100 acres. Fast-forward to now, and Sam owns over 10,000 acres of crops. His farm is a fourth-generation family-run operation. I would like to thank Sam and all the other farmers in America for the great work they do.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, nearly a month has passed since George Floyd died. In a show of unity, which bridged divides Americans-- Republicans, Democrats, Independents--demanded that something be done to prevent such deaths from happening in the future. Republicans are trying to do something. Thanks to the leadership of Senator Tim Scott, the Senate is trying to consider the JUSTICE Act, a major bill to reform police departments in meaningful, practical ways; yet today, Democrats blocked consideration of the bill. I hope Democrats allow the Senate to at least debate the JUSTICE Act. If Democrats don't like the bill, offer an amendment. Make the case. Reforming police departments, making justice fair, and equal for all is a bipartisan issue. I smiled when I was sitting in the Chair where you are right now, Mr. President, when a Senate colleague, who is a Democrat, spoke yesterday and described the Senate as the world's greatest deliberative body. I thought she must be sarcastic. I say that because Democrats refuse to allow deliberation. The people sent us here to solve problems. Let's do the work. As I was sitting in the Chair yesterday, I heard Democrats rationalize why they refuse to allow debate. As best as I can tell, they refused to allow any deliberation because they are not sure that what they want to be included will be included. I think now it is time to review that which most of us learned in fifth grade. Just for a civics lesson for my Democratic colleagues, I am going to go through how a bill is passed and to show that, even though they don't like how the bill starts, they can actually change how it ends and vote against it if they don't like it. We all learned this. This is how a bill is passed. We get an idea from a constituent. Those ideas are on the street right now. They want reform of how policing occurs, to make sure that it is fair and equitable for all. The bill can go through the House. It is debated on the House floor. If it is approved, it comes to the Senate. I am going to interject here. The Senate may come up with its own bill, and it goes to the floor. Here, it says the bill is debated. That is not happening. Filibuster and cloture may occur, and the Senate may approve the bill. Let's stop here. If the Democratic Senators don't like the bill in its current form, they can amend it. If they don't like the way it is when it is amended, they can vote against it. If they vote against it, it will not pass. If they don't like where it ends up, after we deliberate, debate, and offer amendments, they can still defeat it. Let's just imagine that it does get approved, then it goes to the conference committee--you and I know this--but there are some watching who heard this dialogue yesterday or these speeches yesterday from our colleagues on the Democratic side. Let me just remind people, if we approve a bill, it still goes to conference committee. The legislation passed by the House of Representatives is considered; those two bills are merged; and then it comes back for another vote. They have a chance to amend. They have a chance to vote against it if they don't like the final product, and then it is going to a conference committee with Speaker Pelosi's version, and then they get to vote against that if they don't like that. If all they do is allow deliberation of the bill--in what one said sarcastically was the ``world's greatest deliberative body''--they would have this, that, and that opportunity to either change, disapprove, or to vote on something which they finally approve. That is how it is supposed to work. By the way, my young aide was bringing us into the Chamber and saw somebody in the hallway, and the young person said: Hmm, it doesn't work that way. He remembered seeing this cartoon, this YouTube, when he was a kid. All he could say was: It doesn't work that way. It should. It is how our Founding Fathers set it up. But the other side decided it doesn't work that way, and that is too bad. That is too bad because, if we don't do the work, if we don't deliberate, if we continue to have status quo over the change and the reform that all the American people are demanding, then we will not be answering the pleas of those peaceful protesters who are asking for that change. The cynic might believe the Democrats blocked deliberation of the JUSTICE Act because they don't want the President or the Republicans to have a win in an election year. If that is the case, if this is purely political, they have let down the American people, especially those who demand justice. They let down the American people just to score political points. Maybe they blocked it because it doesn't include the Democratic Party's new wish list: defunding and abolishing police forces. Perhaps they knew that, if somebody offered an amendment to the JUSTICE Act to defund police, then Members would be forced to vote on the measure rather than just pay lip service to an idea that is going nowhere. Let me say, defunding and abolishing police forces is not the direction Republicans believe we should take, for obvious reasons. Mobs are destroying and defacing property and destroying and defacing monuments of national heroes--George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant. World War II memorials are being defaced with swastikas, torn down by a mob that hates the United States of America. When you establish a so-called police-free zone--an absurd promise for a utopian society that is, in fact, full of crime--the one in Seattle has had, I think, four shootings--at this point, the mob's goal is not justice for George Floyd; the mob's goal is about displaying their hatred for the United States of America. If Senate Democrats reject that behavior of the mob, let the country hear you. Reject it. But that would require debate. That would require deliberation. That is what is being denied the JUSTICE Act. That is what Senate Democrats will not allow. Here is what Senate Democrats blocked when they decided against allowing deliberation of the JUSTICE Act, if you will, addressing the demands of the people who are calling for reforms of policing. They denied stronger accountability measures for the police departments. The JUSTICE Act requires reporting of use of force and no-knock warrants. It increased penalty for false police reports. It institutes penalties for failing to properly use body cameras. It requires sharing of disciplinary records so that departments will know whether an applicant has the history of bad behavior in another law enforcement department. By the way, some of the Senate Democrats have said they want to outlaw these things. Offer an amendment. That is why you deliberate. You don't come up with a deal in a back room and bring it--and, oh, my gosh, we have to vote on it. You offer an amendment. Allow deliberation. Why will they not respond to the pleas of the American people to deliberate, to consider, to come up with some form of fairness and policing for those who feel like it has been denied? Let me continue. The JUSTICE Act requires the Department of Justice to develop and provide training and deescalation and intervention techniques to prevent police encounters from getting out of hand. That training works. The New Orleans Police Department has implemented it. One of the images I saw when the riots were occurring in Minneapolis was the New Orleans Police Department taking a knee with protesters in Jackson Square--literally on common ground--to say that we are with you to work towards a solution. That is because of this sort of training being instituted there. I am so proud that my State has example of that which works. This bill would take that which works and make it common across the country. The JUSTICE Act also requires training and education about the African-American socioeconomic circumstance so officers can gain a better perspective in these communities. It promotes understanding of how African-American males are impacted by experience, including education, healthcare, financial status in the criminal justice system. It helps departments know the best practices for police tactics, employment processes, community transparency, and how law enforcement can best engage on issues related to mental health, homelessness, and addiction. Senator Scott, drawing from his own experiences, crafted a bill with reforms that will lead to more accountability, fewer uses of force, and a better understanding of disenfranchised and minority communities that police should also serve and protect. Criminal justice reform advocates have long called for the very same reforms the JUSTICE Act institutes. In fact, there is a lot of agreement between Republicans and Democrats on many of the reforms in this bill. I will ask once more: Why are Democrats blocking even a consideration on this floor of this bill? If you don't like it, work to change it. If it passes, it only passes with your votes. If it does pass, it then goes to the House of Representatives for reconciliation with their bill, and then it comes back. But we should at least debate--at least pretend to hear the cries of the American people who are asking for justice for those who perceive that they have been denied. We know that the JUSTICE Act brings about the changes to policing that Americans are calling for: more accountability, deescalation training, education, and other things. Yet again, Senate Democrats have blocked even a discussion of those reforms. I ask myself--it doesn't make sense, good people--why would they block even consideration, any response whatsoever to the cries of the people on the street that the Congress do something? Why would they even do that? Then I return to this. I think they are afraid that someone on their side of the aisle will offer an amendment to defund the police, and they would have to go on the record as to whether or not they are going to appease a radical left base to vote to defund the police or whether or not they are going to support the men and women in uniform that protect us all. They don't want that. It is not just a political calculation that they don't want President Trump to have a win, I suppose; it is a political calculation that they don't want a loss. They don't want to be forced to declare their support for the police or their support to defund the police. They are ignoring the cries of protesters demanding that George Floyd never occur again in order to cover political tracks. I think it is important to recognize that defunding the police, which I think is a radical concept, is absurd. We need police officers. In fact, I am always struck that my colleagues of both parties always thank Capitol Police for the service they do. Don't the people who live in our community thank the police officers to keep their business from being stolen and robbed or burned? I think they do. But on the other hand, if you think police should be defunded, allow that amendment to come up, and then vote on it. The American people didn't send us here to duck tough votes. They sent us here to declare that which we believe in but also to represent their interest. A word about the mob that is not peaceful protesters advocating for justice for all but those who hate the United States of America, who wish to erase our history, and who wish to replace our national heroes with toppled statues and swastikas and hammer and sickles upon the side of the building. The irony is that most of the mob relies upon constitutional protections of free speech and freedom of assembly. We cherish those rights. We cherish them and thank those who are peacefully protesting for exercising those constitutional rights. I also hear from some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that, somehow, these actions of anarchists are just violent. There is a sentiment that says we try to enact change peacefully, but nothing is happening. I, unfortunately, have to agree with them. The Republicans have brought forward a bill that would peacefully begin to make changes in how policing is understood and practiced and, in peacefully doing so, bring about change for which they are advocating. But again, nothing has happened because Senate Democrats have decided that they don't even want to debate a bill, offer amendments, vote against the final product, or allow it to go to a conference committee with the House of Representatives to be changed once more to perhaps come more to their liking. Again, my Senate Democratic colleagues are not just blocking reform; they will not even allow discussion of reform. They don't want to talk to Republicans about it. They don't want to take a stand on defunding and abolishing police departments. Rather than have a debate, we go into hiding, leaving the issues regarding the reform of policing unresolved. I hope my Democratic colleagues allow the debate to occur. I hope they recognize the importance of this issue to all Americans, especially to those in communities of color, but really to us all. To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Come back to the table. Let's hear your amendments. Let's have debate. Let's enact the change we need by building a consensus on the best path forward. Let's live up to the statement that the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body. Together, the Senate--Republicans and Democrats--can deliver change for the American people. We can bring about the unity that we as a country desperately need in order to heal as a society, but this will only happen if my Senate Democratic colleagues stop hiding behind procedural votes. Come to the floor. Let's deliberate. Let's do what the Founding Fathers imagined that we would. I know that it is politically difficult, but sometimes, we have to rise above political difficulty with a challenge of time, and that challenge is now. I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise to speak about the Great American Outdoors Act or, more particularly, about the absence of a coastal resiliency amendment that I wish to have included. Let me begin by congratulating Senators Cory Gardner and Steve Daines, from Colorado and Montana, respectively, of their pending success in passing the Great American Outdoors Act. It takes lots of work to build enough support to get legislation to this floor for a vote, and even more to see that it passes. The people of Montana and Colorado should be proud of how their Senators fought and delivered billions to restore their national parks. I commend my colleagues. Those who have followed the debate know that I have opposed the bill as written. National parks are national treasures, but what led to my opposition is, I believe, that the Senate had the opportunity to help the more than 135 million Americans who live in a coastal parish or county by concomitantly funding flood mitigation and coastal resiliency projects. I fought hard to include a provision that would have invested in the coast to fortify against hurricanes and other catastrophic flooding events. Funding coastal resiliency would have passed as part of this legislation. It is an opportunity lost, but I have been reassured that enough Senators care about the issue, and perhaps they care about the issue because of the arguments that I have made. I will review these arguments first for the Nation and then for the area of the Nation most affected by coastal erosion, which is Louisiana, and then speak about possible solutions. First, over 272 million Americans live in coastal States, and 134 million Americans live in a parish or county directly on the coast, and they know sea levels are rising. Because sea levels are rising, they are increasingly exposed to flooding. Now, if Congress does not act on coastal resiliency, these Americans, their lives, their communities, and livelihood will be increasingly in danger. By the way, the American taxpayer will spend billions in disaster recovery because the Federal Government declined to invest in prevention on the front end. Just to make this point, I will show my first poster. These are major coastal flood events since 2003, and these are only the named storms. It does not include the flood events that were not named, and some everybody remembers. Ivan was $20.5 billion. Katrina was $125 billion. Ike was $30 billion. Sandy was $65 billion. Isaac was $10 billion. Harvey was $125 billion. Irma was $50 billion. And Maria was $90 billion. If you are in one of the States affected by one of these storms, to say that name brings to mind friends that were lost, communities that were devastated, and lives that were overturned. This is merely the accounting, which totals, since 2003, that the Federal Government has spent $617.9 billion in recovery after these storms, and that does not include unnamed flood events. Just as examples, people along the coast, wherever you are on the coast in the United States, including the Great Lakes, are at increased risk for large scale devastation, in part, because of sea levels rising, and natural barriers to absorb storm surge are eroding away. Let's just go around the Nation. Let's first look at the Alaskan village of Kivalina, located on an island that is literally vanishing because of sea level rise. There you see kind of a rock jetty around it, but the rock jetty is kind of missing over here. But you can imagine, as sea levels rise, and waves, which in this picture are not there but you know in that area of the world are high at times, this will fulfill the Army Corps of Engineers' prediction that in 10 years, this island will be uninhabitable. Alaska's Senator, Lisa Murkowski, recognizes the threat to her State should barrier islands disappear. I thank her for her support during the debate on the Great American Outdoors Act for increased funds for coastal resiliency. That is our northern part. Let's go to the Virgin Islands. Erosion has eliminated many trees and water vegetation that are vital to absorbing storm surge. These problems were compounded by Hurricane Irma, meaning that the next major hurricane could be worse. Could it be worse than that? Look at the American Virgin Islands after Hurricane Irma. If it is worse than that, then this may be as the island is in Alaska--threatening to be uninhabitable. Rising sea levels are threatening beaches up and down the coast of California, eliminating barrier islands in North Carolina and Georgia, and causing property values to fall and insurance rates to rise where cases are at their worst. But let me speak of the worst-case scenario of sea level rising and land receding. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the worst area is in Louisiana. By the time I am through with this speech, Louisiana will have lost about half a football field of land from the coast; it is washing away that fast. To date, we have lost land equal to the size of Delaware. At the current rate, Louisiana will lose about 640,000 more acres by 2050. That is like cutting Rhode Island out of the eastern coast. I mention Rhode Island and will take that opportunity to thank Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island for recognizing the challenges coasts face and working with me to provide more support for more resiliency. He actually came down and looked at our plan. Wherever you see red, in a very reasonable scenario, that land will be gone by year 50. And you can see that New Orleans effectively becomes an island. Can you imagine what the Federal Government would have to pay if a big storm came through without any wetlands to decrease the intensity? That would damage not just New Orleans but all the ports that inland United States depend on to get their goods to the rest of the world. I will have more on the importance of that port system later. As the marshes sink into the gulf, Louisiana is losing more than our treasured wetlands and the wildlife that call them home; we are losing natural barriers that save populated areas from the full brunt of hurricane forces. According to NOAA, peak floods can be reduced by up to 60 percent in watersheds that contain 15 percent wetlands. These wetlands act as natural sponges for floodwaters and buffer storm surges. The wetland vegetation holds sediment in place with their roots, and this preserves the land and further helps to absorb waves. What I just described is a dire forecast, but it is also a reality that is playing out. We had a storm a week ago. Tropical Storm Cristobal struck Louisiana. Here we see images of a damaged levee system in Grand Isle, where storm surge completely washed away 2,000 feet of protection. Yes, those are buildings. Yes, that is a street. Yes, that is water in the middle of the street between the buildings. I will add that Grand Isle has lost about 9 feet of elevation over the past decades. When this washed away, it exposed what is called a burrito levee underneath, and that was damaged as well. Mayor David Camardelle recently told the Times-Picayune--the newspaper in New Orleans--that the damage Grand Isle suffers ``is a crisis situation. I'm worried this island will be cut in half.'' Cristobal also flooded the old Mandeville neighborhood. This is Mandeville, and this is Cristobal. This shows how Lake Pontchartrain, which is the lake north of New Orleans, and the streets ashore basically merged for this storm event. This is just from a tropical storm. Imagine if a bigger hurricane had landed instead--except we don't have to imagine. We can look at what happened. And unfortunately it will happen again. What is at stake in Louisiana without more investment in resiliency? Let's start with lives. Hurricane Katrina killed 1,833 people and damaged or destroyed 800,000 homes. That was in Louisiana, in Mississippi, in Alabama, and in Florida. That is just one storm. We have actually seen loss of life worse since then in Puerto Rico, where Hurricane Maria claimed 3,057 lives. As I mentioned earlier, the dollar amount was greater in Sandy, which hit New York and New Jersey, and the most recent flooding events--Hurricane Harvey, for example, in the Houston area flooded so many homes. It is not just my home State; it is across the Nation. By the way, impacting my home State impacts the rest of the Nation. This is a picture from Hurricane Katrina. This Congress was very helpful in the aftermath. But let me speak about what will happen if we don't address these issues. The Nation's energy infrastructure is threatened. The Gulf of Mexico generates about 90 percent of the funds used to pay for the Great American Outdoors Act. Oil and gas development, particularly in the Outer Continental Shelf, is that which funds this bill. Failing to secure the energy infrastructure can result in devastating damage to the heart of America's energy production center should a major storm destroy the roads, ports, wells, and pipelines that keep America running. There is a certain irony that this bill, which chose not to fund coastal resiliency, relies upon funding from an infrastructure that is endangered by the lack of coastal resiliency. But this, in turn, threatens America's heartland. Trade from America's heartland to the rest of the world flows. Agricultural products are shipped down the Mississippi River to the Louisiana ports and then internationally--that is, so long as the ports keep functioning. Again, let's look at the results of the damage to those ports--just the Port of New Orleans--after Hurricane Katrina. Damage to the Port of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina resulted in corn exports falling 23 percent from the heartland--not from Louisiana but from Iowa, from the heartland, from Missouri, et cetera. Barley exports fell 100 percent. Wheat exports fell 54 percent. Soybean exports were down 25 percent. Total grain exports were down 24 percent It is clear that the United States benefits as a whole when Louisiana's coastline is fully functional and secure, both its energy supply--its funding for the Great American Outdoors Act--as well as the ability of farmers in the heartland to ship their goods internationally. But now the coastline is not secure. Aggressive action is needed to save the coastline--not just in my State but all around-- to protect it from erosion and to protect it from flooding. In Louisiana, the money generated from revenue sharing of offshore energy production by an amendment in the Louisiana State Constitution is invested into coastal resiliency. I am trying to make sure that we have the resources to continue to do so. That brings us to revenue sharing. As I have said before, oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico generates 90 percent of the funding for the Great American Outdoors Act, and the gulf coast contributes billions of revenue to the Treasury annually, but the amount of money that is shared with our coastline is quite small relative to what inland States receive. I bring this up because someone said: Well, Louisiana does get money from the coast. Let me just kind of explain this slide. In this slide, this is the total amount of revenue for the Federal for fiscal year 2018 from oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico. You can see there is close to $5 billion generated. These States here--Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas--share $375 million of that money. Let's look at the inland States. Here is all of the revenue from the inland States. The best I can tell, in that same year, New Mexico got about $1.25 billion. Wyoming got $1.15 billion. Colorado did pretty well; it looks like they got about $400 million or $500 million. So the Gulf Coast States split between them $375 million from a total of about $4.8 billion. New Mexico gets 50 percent of the money generated in their inland areas, and so they get close to $1.25 billion. Louisiana could do so much with $1.25 billion to protect and to rebuild its wetlands, the infrastructure for energy, the infrastructure for ports, and I could go on. So folks are right. We do currently participate in revenue sharing. It is a shadow of what other States get with far less of a total amount. By the way, our amendment, which I have written with Senator Whitehouse, is based upon what is called GOMESA, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. In that, Gulf States keep 37.5 percent of the revenues, up until a cap of $375 million. I have mentioned that cap already. Additionally, there is $125 million put into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, that which is now going to receive an additional $900 million annually from the Great American Outdoors Act. My coastal amendment would remove that cap, meaning that Gulf States would have a more equitable share of the revenue we produce. The LWCF would continue to get the $125 million it would receive, but there would be another amount of money that would go into the LWCF portion of this that would, under our amendment, go into a coastal resiliency fund. That coastal resiliency fund would be used all around the Nation. It could be used in Florida, in Georgia, in Maine, in Alaska, in Washington State, in Hawaii--you name it. Where we have beach communities threatened and coastal parishes and counties regularly flooding, this money would be available. What I am asking for is fair treatment for the States that put in the work and contribute so mightily to the rest of the country. Hopefully with this, we can turn the tide of land loss. By the way, the amendment we have is also combined with revenue sharing for offshore wind. This is Sheldon Whitehouse's idea. So in the immediate and intermediate, there would be revenue sharing from oil and gas development, and in the long term, there would be revenue sharing from offshore wind as our Nation transitions to more of that as an energy source. I have talked a lot about gloom and doom in this speech. Let's end on a hopeful note. Not all is lost. With smart strategies in funding, we can turn the tide on erosion, rebuild land, and strengthen the coastline. There are examples of what is working. Terrebonne Parish is in South Louisiana. It is right on the Gulf of Mexico. It has a new flood wall, which recently saved 10,000 households from flooding. We invested in flood protection, and we saved 10,000 families from flooding. We saved money for the National Flood Insurance Program. A community is intact. Kids still go off on Saturday and play ball, and people still go to their jobs on Monday. Investing on the front end saved a heck of a lot on the back end--lives, communities, and money for the Federal taxpayer. Let's look at a coastal rebuilding project we have. Davis Pond is an area along the Mississippi that has eroded. This is Google pictures. Here, you can see that in February of 1998, erosion had occurred such that all of this, which is along the coast, had eroded. You can see kind of a big lake right there, and you can see kind of a breakup of the land. You have a sense of an unhealthy nature. Even though this is a black-and-white photo, nonetheless you have that sense. A diversion was built so that Mississippi River water could flood this area. In the 20 years since, you can see that the lake has filled in, that it is still wetland, it is still marsh, but here you have vegetation growing. Back here, if you stepped out of the boat, you sank into water. Now, you step out of the boat, and the vegetation is so thick that it supports you as you walk along. This is what can happen with wise management. Look at this community. This community is now protected because we now have a barrier of wetlands. So rebuilding wetlands saves communities. It allows nature to do its work. It saves the taxpayer dollars in the long run. I am going to show another example--Mardi Gras Pass, a naturally forming distributary of the Mississippi River that is building new land. Mardi Gras Pass has grown by 13 acres since 2012. Let's see if I have my pictures straight here. Here is the Mississippi River, and here is where the river kind of spontaneously broke through right in this area right here. Since then, as it continues to flow through, we have something which doesn't look very healthy here, which increasingly has vegetation. Here is a bayou, which increasingly is building up vegetation. I am not sure these picture do it justice, but now you actually have trees growing, and you have such a density of land being built that you now again have oak trees, which Louisiana is famous for. We can rebuild our coastline. The Mardi Gras Pass delivers fresh water, nutrients, and sediments to 15,000 acres of coastal marsh. These projects take time, but they never get started without the type of funding I advocated to be included in the Great American Outdoors Act--the amount we could spend on the front end and save lives and dollars for the Federal taxpayer compared to the expenses required for storm recovery. Let me conclude. I end the day by once again commending my colleagues, Senator Gardner and Daines, for getting their bill passed, but I also end by saying that we must continue to fight for dollars for coastal resiliency. The need is far too great around the country. Lives and our economy depend on finding that solution. I hope the Senators who said they recognize coastal needs will join the bipartisan coalition of Senators who now are asking that we invest in the coastal parishes and counties where 82 percent of Americans live in the States and 42 percent of Americans live in a parish or county, where spending money now can save lives, communities, and billions in taxpayer dollars later. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASSIDY

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 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 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.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. We have a few minutes left to go. I didn't realize the colloquy was going on. I would like to give an opposing viewpoint. In this legislation, we put parks over people. We spend billions of dollars taking care of parks and don't spend a dime taking care of those folks who live in those parishes and counties next to a coastline. It turns out that 42 percent of Americans live in a parish or county next to a coastline, and if you haven't noticed, we increasingly have flood events. We increasingly have spent billions of dollars rescuing people from floods, repairing their homes afterwards, and trying to make them whole. Now, we could have put legislation in this legislation that would allow those people's needs to be met, but we are putting parks before people, and that is a tragedy. We are going to spend billions on places where we go on vacation, but we will not spend a dime where we live-- where we live--where we raise our children, where we help other people make a living. In this--particularly since we know that sea levels are rising--we are going to increasingly have these events. We are, if you will, being--I don't know how to put it--blind to the reality that is before us. And someone mentioned outhouses on top of a sinkhole--what a tragedy. Do you know what really a tragedy is? When someone--no, when many people--when whole swaths of a city are flooded out--that is a tragedy. And we are out of time, but I will finish by this: I will feel a lot better about this Senate at the point in which we begin to put people over parks and spend at least something where people live as opposed to where people vacation--not to take any money away from the parks but to just put some money to where people live. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today because I am concerned about the Great American Outdoors Act in its current form. It spends billions on places where Americans vacation but absolutely nothing protecting the areas where 42 percent of Americans live, which are the parishes and counties on coastlines. Of course these parishes and counties are in coastal States, and 85 percent of Americans live in coastal States. To repeat, the Great American Outdoors Act mandates spending billions on the outdoors where Americans vacation but does absolutely nothing to protect the outdoors where Americans live. Tonight, I will speak to why that is a problem for coastal States like my State of Louisiana and how one amendment, the coastal amendment, addresses this disparity. These are uncertain times. Coronavirus continues to kill. Our country struggles to confront and address the issues raised by the George Floyd killing. Hindsight is 20/20, but we wish that we had stockpiled more personal protective equipment. We wish Minneapolis had instituted police reforms. If wise action had addressed these issues before, then these issues might be better now. It highlights the need for wise public policy--looking beyond the immediate and thinking about that which may occur. On the other hand, there are some things that occur that we know are going to happen because they happened before, so 20/20 hindsight is not needed. Coastal flooding is an example. Hurricanes happen regularly. Sea levels are rising. There will be more coastal flooding, more pictures of families on life rafts, the Cajun Navy in small boats doing rescues, the Coast Guard and helicopters pulling Americans up in harnesses. We know this will happen again. We actually have the opportunity to proactively address it. When the basics of the Great American Outdoors Act were being considered in committee, there was another bill passed to address coastal issues. The authors of the Great American Outdoors Act don't live in coastal States, or if they do, their States benefit greatly from the Great American Outdoors Act legislation. But that leaves the rest of us wondering, is it right to care more about parks than about people? Because that seems to be the priority the Senate is going on. Let's establish context. The Senate is nearing a vote on the Great American Outdoors Act. The bill dedicates billions in funding for deferred maintenance, mostly in national parks where Americans vacation and predominantly in seven States. It also puts an additional $900 million in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is used to buy more land for the Federal Government, principally in Western States. I have no problem with the idea behind the bill. National parks are national treasures. Americans flock to them to learn about history and to experience the natural majesty of our great country. I know some of the floor speeches extolling this bill have shown grizzly bears and mountains and pine trees and such like that. I am with it. I love them. I think they are beautiful. But I do take issue with how the bill ignores the environmental needs of coastal States in favor of fixing broken toilets and leaky roofs, because I can show the needs of coastal States, not in terms of grizzly bears and pine trees and majestic mountains but in terms of people being flooded out of their homes because of the lack of investment in coastal resiliency. As a pictorial of where the money is spent from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the blue States, mostly inland--they have West Virginia kind of poking out there, but it is not a coastal State--the coastal States actually don't do very well at all, do they. Even though this is where 85 percent of the American people live--the coastal States--we can see that the remaining 15 percent live in States that get the bulk of the funding. Coastal per capita spending in the Land and Water Conservation Fund is $7.53, but if you look at what inland States receive, it is $17.66 on a per capita basis. There is a lot of benefit in living here if you are putting more money into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but if you live on a coastline threatened by flooding, the benefit is not there, and that is my concern with this bill. Again, let's establish these facts: 42 percent of the population lives in parishes and counties directly on a coastline; 82 percent live in coastal States. These figures--$17.66 spent on the inland and $7.53 spent on the coastal--show a stark disconnect between protecting Americans from flooding where they live, work, and help others earn a living and spending money to fix up the parks where they occasionally visit. To repeat, more money is being spent on places where people vacation, not protecting where they live. That is the Land and Water Conservation Fund aspects of it. Let's talk about the parks with the deferred maintenance. These are the seven States that do pretty well. They do fantastic. Sixty percent, roughly, of the money will go to these--including Washington, DC--these States that are highlighted; everyone else, not so much. In fact, if you are in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa, only 0.2 percent of the Nation's deferred maintenance is in those States. So out of the billions being spent in this program, 0.2 percent will go to those States collectively. Clearly, there are winners and losers. I spoke of Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas. Other States also get far less. The coastal States of Georgia, South Carolina, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Delaware, Maine, and other coastal States do very poorly. Midwestern States like Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska I have already mentioned, and why is this important? Well, I will mention it again in a little bit, but I have been to some of those coastlines. They are kind of going away too. If you go to a barrier island in Georgia, they are having to build seawalls because the waves are now crashing on beautiful homes, threatening to wash them away into the sea beautiful homes, threatening to wash them away into the sea. We should be spending money not just on parks but also where people live. That would be wise public policy. All the coastal States I just mentioned, including those which do receive disproportionate benefit from the Great American Outdoors Act, would also benefit, as would the Gulf Coast States, if we invest collectively as a nation in coastal resiliency. The reason this is so important--failure to invest in coastal resiliency costs lives, costs communities, costs taxpayers, and costs us a lot. Land lost due to rising sea levels and other factors threaten the safety of the 42 percent of Americans who live in a county or parish directly on a coastline. We know that if you invest in coastal resiliency and flood protection on the front end, you can save billions on the back end protecting against the next hurricane or flood event. Again, we are spending billions on parks we occasionally visit, but there is nothing in this bill on where we live, raise families, and make our livelihoods. Perhaps the greatest irony is how the Great American Outdoors Act is funded. The bill takes up to $1.9 billion a year in revenue generated from energy production principally from the Gulf of Mexico to spend it on the deferred maintenance, again, principally in seven States that I just pointed out. Ninety percent of that revenue is from the Gulf of Mexico. So the State--my State, for example--that produces the energy with the resources that disproportionately fund programs in parks where people occasionally visit is the one which has its needs unaddressed. In my State of Louisiana, this is particularly troublesome. We are the hardest hit State in the Nation by land loss, so much so that if nothing is done, the energy infrastructure that comes off of the coast of Louisiana to support the oil and gas development that supplies the revenue for the Great American Outdoors Act--that energy infrastructure will be threatened, which means that the goose laying the golden egg dies, along with my working coast and the communities of the people who live there. If it seems like I am passionate about this, by golly, I am. By golly, why do people care more about parks than they do about people? That just disturbs me. But it isn't just the energy infrastructure lost; it will be lives and livelihoods, communities and community--again, by the way, costing taxpayers a lot of money. Let's have some examples of this. Hurricane Katrina. Federal taxpayers had to pay $125 billion in Louisiana, Mississippi, and other parts of the gulf coast for recovery; Hurricane Harvey, $125 billion in Texas and Louisiana; Hurricane Maria, $90 billion in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Hurricane Sandy, $65 billion in the Mid- Atlantic--New York, New Jersey; Hurricane Irma, $50 billion in Florida; Hurricane Ike, $30 billion in Louisiana and Texas. I could mention Rita. I could mention many others that have cost the Federal taxpayers billions in order to help States recover. The combined cost of hurricane damage from every storm since 1990 is nearly $685 billion. Not all of this damage could have been avoided. It is clear that it couldn't have been. But a lot could have been. If the marshes south of New Orleans had not been allowed to erode away, they would have instead eroded the power of Katrina, decreasing its force when it hit New Orleans, perhaps preserving those levies. If we put money up beforehand, it saves us so much on the back end. The coastal amendment does not ask for billions. I feel like it should, but I know I couldn't get it. I am only asking that some money in this bill be included for coastal resiliency. I will say it once more: If we are spending billions on where people vacation, shouldn't we spend something on resiliency for the parishes and counties where 42 percent of Americans live? Should we care more about parks than we do about people? These numbers I just went through--they are not just numbers; they represent people. I see their pictures. I see the lives lost. I see the communities completely upended, taking years to recover--and by the way, communities that are vitally important not just to themselves but to the entirety of the United States. Ocean and coastal communities, including the Great Lakes, account for 82 percent of the U.S. population and economy. NOAA reports that the ocean economy contributes 2.3 percent of the Nation's employment, 1.6 percent of GDP, 3 million jobs, 154,000 businesses, $129 billion in wages, and $304 billion in goods and services. These jobs are threatened when sea levels rise and erosion and flooding occur. Their contribution to our economy is threatened. By the way, I mentioned that energy production is threatened, and if we cannot produce energy, there is no funding mechanism for the Great American Outdoors Act. We are spending money where people vacation, not where they live and work. I will just use my own State as a case in point of the need for coastal resiliency. Will you look at that map? This is a reasonable scenario of what will happen to Louisiana if there is no investment in coastal resiliency. The red is the land that is lost. This is New Orleans. It effectively becomes an island protected by levees, and all of this is lost. Oh, well. That is Louisiana. It may not matter. Second most productive fisheries--in fact, the most productive fisheries in the lower 48; Alaska beats us--but in the lower 48, the most productive fisheries. Port systems that are throughout here support the economy of all of the inland waterways. These commodities that flow around the world at a competitive price advantage because of our fish and port system--threatened because of the absence of sustainability. And I could go on We are losing roughly--by the time I finish talking, Louisiana will lose roughly a football field worth of land. Goggle Maps can't even keep up--it will show you land, and it is open water. So if you have ever gone fishing in the gulf, you are watching your little radar right there, and you think you are about to hit something, and it is just open. That land has melted away, and the maps can't keep up. So what is at risk? Oil and gas production. I have mentioned that. But oil and gas production do not do it justice. All of this is pipelines and energy infrastructure that benefit not just Louisiana; it benefits the entire country. I am a physician. This is the way I look at it: If your body needs energy, so does our modern economy. And to the degree that we have oil and gas, jet fuel, plastics, resins, natural gas coming from around the country, it principally comes from here. To the degree that we support jobs by exporting clean-burning natural gas around the world to replace coal in, say, China so that hopefully they have fewer emissions blowing over into the United States, it disproportionately comes from this gulf coast. This is what is sustained. This is what is at risk if we don't invest in coastal resiliency--energy assets such as pipelines, refineries, oil export sites, natural gas market centers, processing facilities, liquefied natural gas export facilities, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and ports like Port Fourchon that keep the gulf economy running. Again, the majority of this infrastructure is based off the coast of Louisiana. Without investment in flood protection and rebuilding barrier islands, this critical part of the American economy--not to mention the funding stream for the Great American Outdoors Act--remains exposed and at risk. Again, these aren't just numbers; these are people. There are 375,000 jobs directly tied to the oil and gas industry across the Gulf States, and it doesn't include the jobs that are secondary there just because of the oil and gas industry stimulating demand on commercial goods and services. But it doesn't stop there. I mentioned the port structure being threatened. By the way, somebody from Kansas, Iowa, or Nebraska might be saying: You know, I don't do well at all in the Great American Outdoors Act, but how does what Senator Cassidy is talking about help me? I don't live on a coastline. Yes, but your commodities go around the world through the port system that is based on the gulf coast, and this shows it. After Hurricane Katrina and our port system in south Louisiana was so damaged, this is what happened to the export of commodities from the heartland: Corn exports down 23 percent; barley, 100 percent; wheat, 54 percent; soy, 25 percent. Total grain exports were down 24 percent. Those aren't just numbers; those are families who suddenly are struggling because they thought they had their budget worked out, and now their exports are down 100 percent. That lower Louisiana, lower Mississippi port system is the reason we can ship our grains around the world at competitive prices relative to other countries. Without that port system, our farmers are at a disadvantage. So it isn't just advocating for coastal resiliency for my State because I want those communities to be preserved and for the energy infrastructure we rely upon to, among other things, fund this bill we are about to vote on, it is also vital to the livelihood of these farmers and their families and their economy in these inland States. If we don't protect that port system by investing in coastal resiliency, their livelihoods will be affected. Investing in coastal resiliency protects all these endeavors and prevents the astronomical costs associated with severe flooding events and hurricanes, and it can be done. I mentioned earlier about how you invest a little bit on the front end, and you can save billions on the back end. Terrebonne Parish recently put up a new flood system, and they put it up after a flood event in which a major portion of their lower parish flooded. They then built the flood system, and then they subsequently had another high-water event. Ten thousand homes that would have flooded did not flood because of that new flood wall. We invested in coastal resiliency. The Federal taxpayer, through the National Flood Insurance Program, saved millions--hundreds of millions. More importantly, lives were saved and communities were saved, and a vibrant community, with workers who go offshore to produce the energy that is funding the Great American Outdoors Act, was able to pick up and continue with their life without disruption. I am speaking of Louisiana; it could be any coastal area across the United States. So investing in coastal resiliency protects all these endeavors. I am not saying take any money away from the Great American Outdoors Act. The coastal amendment, if folded in, doesn't touch a dime of the billions going to the parks. All I am asking is to have some revenue to go to save the lives and the livelihoods of all these people, the 42 percent of Americans who live in coastal communities. Instead, we spend it all on parks, potholes, broken toilets, and leaky roofs. I have heard the argument that if you fix that leaky roof in time, you save more money down the road, and I accept that argument. I am just applying it to where people live. If we do something for coastal resiliency now, we save not just a leaky roof and not just a little bit of money. We save a community, we save lives, and we save lots of money. I recently spoke to 20 parish residents. As folks know, in Louisiana, we don't have counties. We have parishes. I had another call with 100 different business leaders, and they just plead for fairness to the gulf and to coastal parishes and counties. And what is unfair, you ask? Again, if you live in a coastal area that generates the billions being spent in the Great American Outdoors Act, you are upset to learn that the Senate is passing a bill spending more money on vacation spots than on protecting your homes, jobs, and environment. It is not just the Louisiana coast. I have a friend who lives in Seal Beach, CA. I visited him a couple of years ago, and he said that water was coming up and flooding buildings it never had before. Well, in showing you that coastal resiliency investment can work, now Seal Beach, apparently, spends $1 million a year building berms to protect from winter storms driving it in. So, first, coastal resiliency can work. But, two, sea levels are rising, and the beach is shrinking. It will require more of Seal Beach to build those berms to protect those buildings. Now, that is just Seal Beach, but it does show you that resiliency can be effective, but it also shows you that it is needed. I also walked, as I told you before, along those barrier islands in Georgia, and I am just struck. Oh, my gosh, I couldn't afford those beautiful homes. They had to build sea walls because the high tides are higher now and threatening the foundations of those buildings. This bill invests nothing to protect the beaches and the outdoors where people live. I am told that the Army Corps of Engineers--this is hearsay. I think it is true, but I don't know. It is a reliable source. The Army Corps of Engineers has recently proposed building a $3.5 billion floodgate to protect the Miami harbor. I have also read that property values are declining on Miami Beach because as sea levels rise, the people who are insuring them and may be purchasing are afraid that they will be inundated by rising sea levels. When I drive along the Mississippi gulf coast, they have homes elevated 12 or 15 feet in the air. It is kind of a testimony to the threat that our new environment poses to those who live on the beach. It kind of reminds me of a picture I saw of Venice, Italy, where they used to have shops on the ground floor, but now the ground floors are empty because sea level has risen and flooding has extended. So now there is such regularity of flooding that Venice no longer uses the ground floor. Now, we are not Venice in our country. We are not built in the middle of a marsh, but we are built and 42 percent of us live in a coastal parish. This is a threat. It does not take 20/20 hindsight. We can see that this is going to happen. We already hear the Army Corps of Engineers planning for this. We see property values declining. We see flood walls being built, and we scratch our chin and know that ultimately it will not be enough. The Senate could be investing in that coastal resiliency, not just, to say, in my State of Louisiana, where we are actually generating the funds that would be used for the Great American Outdoors Act, but, no, we are not. We are fixing potholes and parks where people visit but not investing in coastal resiliency where they live. What does the coastal amendment do? Because I do think this could fix this. Again, there are nationwide benefits. Let me repeat. It doesn't take a dime away from the Great American Outdoors Act. There will still be the billions going for the parks. But what this does do is it sends money to spend on coastal resiliency where people live. It ensures the stability of the port system in the Lower Mississippi and down in the Texas gulf coast to help America's farmers export. It helps treat the Gulf States fairly, which really disproportionately do not benefit from these two acts that they are funding. Everybody wins. Indeed, if you are a State like California or North Carolina that does really well under the Great American Outdoors Act, you also get money for your coastline. We are not being prejudicial. We are just trying to do something to help create coastal resiliency in the parishes and counties where 42 percent of American people live, as opposed to not spending a dime to help protect it. Now, I said at the beginning of this speech about the coastal amendment--I just went over it--how does it functionally work? This amendment removes the cap on the amount of money Gulf States receive from energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf and makes more leases eligible for the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, or, as it is known, GOMESA, which thereby generates more money for a State like Louisiana. Simultaneously, by raising this cap, it puts more money into the current fund for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. But, under the Great American Outdoors Act, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is getting an additional $900 million a year in perpetuity automatically, and Congress has no role over it after this bill passes. Any dollars that would additionally go to LWCF, above the $125 million it currently receives, would instead flow into a coastal fund, and that is the coastal fund that would help resiliency in all of our coastal States. Now, I can't say how other States would spend it, but in Louisiana, our State constitution requires that if we get money from GOMESA, from the revenue sharing, that we in Louisiana dedicate these funds to turning the tide against land loss to preserve our wonderful and ecologically diverse wetlands, which also blunts the effects of hurricanes. Now some might say: Why should anybody get this? It is Federal land. Well, I will point out that there is actually a cap on the amount of revenue the Gulf States receive from oil and gas revenue and from oil and gas production in the Federal lands off our coast, which limits the amount we can receive. There is no such limit in any other State. If you are in a Federal land in New Mexico, you get 50 percent of the total generated. I think I read last year that New Mexico got $1.5 billion from shared royalty leases on Federal lands within New Mexico. I think Louisiana got $95 million. Wait--$1.5 billion and $95 million. We got a coast; they don't. We got people; they don't. We are funding 90 percent of the Great American Outdoors Act; they are funding a fraction. Now you know why my parish residents feel anger that the needs of our vanishing coastline are totally ignored, and not just ours but those of every coastal parish--those coastal parishes in which 42 percent of Americans live and who are wondering: Do we care more about parks than we do about people? We can care about parks, but shouldn't we also care about people? Now, the coastal amendment, if added to the base bill, I can say, would pass with bipartisan support. I will say once more: It does not take any money away from the billions going to public parks in the Great American Outdoors Act. It doesn't take any money away from buying more lands out in the Western States. What I am trying to do is to bring fairness and equity into this equation by directing dollars to all coastal States, including the Great Lakes States. Senators from both sides of this aisle represent States which would benefit. It doesn't matter whether you are from a coastal State. You would recognize that it is wise public policy. I suggested inserting the coastal amendment into the Great American Outdoors Act, into the base bill. The COASTAL Act was originally written with Doug Jones, the Senator from Alabama, and had bipartisan support in the Energy Committee from Senator Angus King from Maine. Since, the coastal amendment has been modified. My Democratic colleague, Sheldon Whitehouse, who is from Rhode Island--a State greatly threatened by rising sea levels--suggested that we create revenue sharing for wind energy. As we look forward into the next economy, we see that offshore wind will be a significant source of electricity for States like his, in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and other New England States. So we would use revenue sharing from offshore wind energy to also contribute to coastal resiliency. Now, that still is a little ways off. At first, it would principally be additional dollars coming from the Gulf Coast, but ultimately it would be the north and the south combining to benefit all coastal States, whether they were in the Northeast or in the South. Wherever you live on a coastline, including the Great Lakes, it would benefit from inserting the COASTAL Act into the great American Outdoors Act. All I can say is, I would like to think that Senators--Republicans and Democrats alike--can see what is at risk: lives, jobs, and energy production. In funding for the Great American Outdoors Act, if you don't give a twit about the coastal areas, at least you are concerned about the funding for the act. Again, if we only invest where people vacation instead of investing in coastal resiliency, we do a disservice to the States, in those coastal States is where over 80 percent of Americans live. Now, by the way, we can have common ground on issues of the environment. Earlier today, one of the Great American Outdoors Act authors, Senator Gardner from Colorado, addressed this Chamber to say that his bill is smart conservation. Let me say that two of my best friends here are Senator Gardner and Senator Daines, and we are on the other side of this issue. But if you are from their State, my gosh, you just better give them a real shout- out, because they have done a good job for your State. I don't feel good about the job for my State of Louisiana, but, you, by golly, better feel good about the job they have done for your State. I would add that I think that Senator Gardner's bill and my amendment work together on important issues of conservation and environment. I am told that 800 environmental groups support the Great American Outdoors Act as is and don't want any changes. I find that hard to believe. Is there really an environmental group out there that doesn't want to invest in coastal resiliency, that hasn't looked at the devastation of Katrina, of Rita, of Ike, of Maria, of Irma, and doesn't recognize that taking care of the environment is essential to our coastal regions? I am sure that if you poll those 800 groups and say we are going to spend additional dollars on those coastal parishes where Americans live, they would stand up and applaud. And if we put it in there, they will support this bill. Now, I will say the GOMESA States is an irony here. They are often at odds with these environmental groups because the environmental groups claim that GOMESA incentivizes drilling or that we are spending money in a revenue sharing program funded by oil and gas, but, needless to say, that argument is out of the window. The Great American Outdoors Act has the exact same funding source as GOMESA, and it is supported by all the anti-fossil fuel environmental groups because they want to take care of parks. Well, I want to take care of people, and I also want to take care of your parks, but my first priority is that working family. My first priority is that family which wakes up every day and struggles to make ends meet and wants their child to have a better future than they, but then they learn there is high water coming and they might be flooded and that better future is flooded away. I care about that family. We, in the Senate, should care about that family. We should not care for parks more than we care for people. The coastal amendment supports the environment. As I said earlier, it goes directly to coastal resiliency initiatives that include recovering lost land and supporting the wetlands. I am not at odds with environmentalists. As I said before, every environmentalist is going to support restoring the wetlands of Louisiana. I am just asking that we be allowed to support that coastal environment. For people who live along the coast, these coastal systems are the ecosystems that make our homes special. It is why I look at those marshes in Louisiana, and, to me, they are just as beautiful as that grizzly bear and that pine tree and that majestic mountain. It is all part of God's creation, if we don't let it wash away. This is more than potholes. It is more than leaky toilets and leaky roofs. It is about preservation and about it not being here in 50 years if we do not act now. We spend billions on the environment where people vacation but not anything on the environment where they live. So here is where we are in this debate. We have established that over 80 percent of our fellow Americans live in coastal States and stand to benefit very little from the Great American Outdoors Act. Oh, yes, if you live in the beach of North Carolina, you are kind of glad that the people in the Rocky Mountains and the Smoky National Parks have a little bit more tourism, but your home is the one being washed away. And if you are in Seal Beach and your taxes are going up because they have to build a bigger and bigger berm every year because the winter storms are that much worse, or you are kind of glad in Yosemite--I am glad Yosemite is getting money, by the way. I love Yosemite. But on the other hand, it doesn't help you with your taxes. It doesn't help you with your building getting flooded. You begin to wonder, if you see a picture of Venice, is that what your home will look like in 25 years--a major investment of your life getting flooded so regularly that it loses all its value. Apparently, that is what they are looking at in Miami. That is what we hear in this debate. We have established that most of the country that lives in coastal States stands to benefit very little from the Great American Outdoors Act. We have established that failing to invest in coastal resiliency leads to death--death. Think about Hurricane Katrina. It threatens millions of jobs and billions of economic activity. We have established that both the coastal amendment and the Great American Outdoors Act help the environment. They really do. We have established that that one amendment, the coastal amendment, added to the Great American Outdoors Act can address funding and equity--stop. Here we have billions for the Great American Outdoors Act and here will be a few million. So there isn't any semblance of equality between the funding that I am proposing for coastal resiliency where 42 percent of Americans live and the billions going to the parks that we visit occasionally, but at least there is some money going for coastal resiliency where most Americans live. From where I am standing, including the coastal amendment in the Great American Outdoors Act is a win-win. The Great American Outdoors Act passes with funding to address the needs of national parks and funding for coastal resiliency. It has bipartisan support. Democrats and Republicans can come together on it. The cause is just. If you just think about that family, the cause is just. The support is there, but the ability to vote on it is not. The bill's authors will not allow this amendment to come to the floor included in their package. This is a disservice to the 82 percent of the country who live in coastal States and face the threats of hurricanes and flooding. I am asking that the Senate do what the Founders envisioned us doing. Consider ideas, vote on them, try and expand ourselves beyond our narrow parochial interest, and think about all Americans, not just those Americans that live in your State. Put people before parks. That is not to say, with 20/20 hindsight, we know we should have invested in coastal resiliency because look at the pricetag of not doing so, because we have already seen that pricetag. Instead, let's think, going forward, that we are going to make the investment now because we see that investing can save millions--if not billions--of dollars, and I only speak of dollars. I should speak only of lives because sometimes I just think we take lives for granted. I don't. We should invest in coastal resiliency most of all to protect those lives, those families, and those futures. I hope that we will include this. I hope the idea will be considered. It is germane. It is bipartisan. It will pass. I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening about something very important to me and those whom I represent. We know the gulf coast is paying for the bill, and it is not getting a fair share. All I am asking is that we amend the underlying bill to spend money now on resiliency projects so we don't spend billions later on flood and storm recovery and perhaps thousands on funerals. It deserves a vote. It would pass. It protects so many lives and takes nothing away from the Great American Outdoors Act, but it does establish that we in the Senate care about people and parks and that we not just care about where we vacation but we wish to protect where we live. I encourage my colleagues to consider what I have said tonight. If you have heard this by other means, contact your Senator. Ask them what they think. I would hope they would ask whether it is appropriate for our country to spend billions on vacation spots, which are wonderful vacation spots, but spend nothing to prevent flood and devastation. Scripture says that if you build your home on shifting sand, the house will collapse. It is better to build it on a firm foundation. I would also add once more that we built this funding on the shifting sand--the literal shifting sand--of a Louisiana coastline, which is smaller since I began to speak, by about the size of a football field. That shifting sand supporting that infrastructure, which is shifting out into the Gulf, will erode not just my coastline but also the ability to pay for the Great American Outdoors Act. Even if someone does not care about the 42 percent of the Americans who live in coastal parishes and counties, they should care about that. I hope others join my coalition. I call upon the bill's authors to include this in the underlying amendment. It needs to be considered for the good of all Americans who call the coast home. I think it needs to be considered for the good of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, right now we are debating the Great American Outdoors Act, which would be great if only it were balanced. My problem with the Great American Outdoors Act is that it spends billions on places where we vacation, but the authors of the bill would not allow a few million to be spent to protect the places where we live and we work and we help create livelihoods for many. There is an amendment that would do that that is bipartisan and that would not take any money away from the billions that the bill is already allocating for those places where we vacation. First, let me kind of make my point. Forty-two percent of Americans live in a county or parish adjacent to a coastline--42 percent. Eighty- five percent of Americans live in a coastal State. But of the billions that go into the Great American Outdoors Act, of those billions, 50 to close to 60 percent are spent in seven States, seven localities, and if you exclude Washington, DC, and areas around Washington, it is not spent on coastal areas. We are spending billions on places where we go to vacation, but the authors of the bill will not allow millions to be spent to protect where we live. That is foolish public policy. We should be investing in coastal resiliency. Now, of course, the irony is, we are going to spend billions on the coast. Why? We have seen it. Harris County flooded--that is Houston; Florida flooded, the panhandle, other parts of Florida; Puerto Rico; the American Virgin Islands; North Carolina; South Carolina; Georgia; Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey and New York; Hurricanes Rita and Katrina on the coast of Louisiana; also Mississippi and Alabama. We are going to spend billions. We are going to spend billions, but we are going to spend those billions in the wrong way. We are going to spend those billions on the coast repairing damage that could have been prevented if we had spent millions now. I draw attention to a flood wall, a levy, in Terrebonne Parish, LA, which was recently completed. So we had a high-water event where flooding came off the Gulf of Mexico. Ten thousand homes were not flooded because that flood protection had been erected. Ten thousand homes were not flooded. All I am asking is for the authors of this bill to allow a few million to be spent where people live, where people work, where people help others earn their living, and they can still have their billions to spend on the places where we vacation. I don't want to minimize the need to take care of our national parks. When someone speaks of a leaky roof, and if you fix it early, then fixing it early keeps the damage from getting greater--that makes sense. We should find a way to pay for it, but it makes sense that you would do that. How much more so when we are speaking about coastal resiliency? I was told recently that the Army Corps of Engineers wants to build a $3.5 billion floodgate in Miami to prevent Miami from flooding--$3.5 billion. We are going to spend billions on the coast; it is just a question of whether we do it in reaction, or whether we do it in kind of ``we have to fear the worst,'' or whether we do it like in Terrebonne Parish--building a flood wall now so that 10,000 homes don't flood. It is my disappointment that the authors of this legislation will not allow this bipartisan amendment to be added. By the way, we have heard that Democrats are OK with the amendment, but for whatever reason, the authors will not allow it. Let me show you one other thing, just to make the point. The Great American Outdoors Act actually has two pots of dollars, if you will. One is for deferred maintenance--again, 50 to 60 percent of that goes to seven States. But this shows where the Land and Water Conversation money goes. These are the coastal States. This is where people live, and these States, on average, per capita, get $7.53 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. These blue States in the interior--some of them populated, some of them not--on average get $17.66 per capita. We are sending money to where people don't live to fix vacation spots, which are important, but it is not where we live, and we are not spending money where people do live, where their homes are, where their cities are, and where, if we don't enhance resiliency, we are going to spend billions when the hurricane hits. This is foolish public policy. By the way, some of my fiscal conservative colleagues--and I consider myself a fiscal conservative--have weighed in against the Great American Outdoors Act, saying that we are not paying for it; we are pretending to pay for it. We are taking dollars that would otherwise go to the Treasury--otherwise go to the Treasury--and pretending like they are new dollars. That is actually true. But what we can also say is that if we add the amendment, the Coastal Act, which I worked on with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse--he has been a great partner to work with-- we actually would be paying for it. We would be paying for it by putting in the coastal resiliency that will prevent the future billions from having to be paid to pick up the pieces after a hurricane hits a populated area. I will speak again on the floor tomorrow, but I just want to make the point that the Great American Outdoors Act spends billions where we vacation, fixing things that we don't wish to get worse. The Coastal Act does not take away from these billions--these billions that are spent on places where we vacation; these billions spent where people do not live--it just spends millions, a paltry few million trying to add resiliency to where we do live, to where we do work, to where we do create livelihoods not just for ourselves but for others, and that is a fiscally sound, fiscally conservative way to spend dollars. That would save Treasury money, and it would save lives and maybe give people a little extra money to spend in these parks we are spending billions to fix up. Mr. President, I thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I am on the Senate floor today to talk about the protection and restoration of the Gulf Coast, an issue extremely important to those I serve in Louisiana in the Gulf Coast, but important to the rest of the Nation, whether the rest of the Nation knows it or not. I will explain why that is. In the coming days, the Senate will vote on whether or not to pass the Great American Outdoors Act. This bill dedicates funding over 5 years towards deferred maintenance. We have spoken about it at length. It adds an additional $900 million to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, an amount which is already authorized but never funded. This would make it mandatory that it is funded. Many will say that this is a good thing or even a great thing. I will tell you, for Louisiana, for the Gulf Coast, and for a lot of other States, this is not a great thing in its current form. In fact, I will show how this bill currently benefits only certain States at the expense of others. First, it is almost entirely funded with money from the Gulf of Mexico oil and gas production. So 50 to 60 percent of the dollars go to five States. So we are going to put up about $9.5 billion, and 50 to 60 percent of it goes to five States. Needless to say, that lacks equity. I would argue that we can make this bill better in terms of benefiting many more Americans than it currently does. First, let's speak about where the revenue comes from. Again, about $1.9 billion a year comes from energy production, redistributing that across the country, as we mentioned, to deferred maintenance programs. About 90 percent of that revenue from which this money will be extracted comes from oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico. This will be about $4.3 billion coming from the Gulf of Mexico. Now, this makes the Gulf of Mexico the primary revenue source for this whole project. It adds $900 million to what is already designated the Land and Water Conservation Fund. There is $1.9 billion a year for 5 years to go for deferred maintenance, and this is in addition to $125 million a year, which is currently being spent on the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Now, some of the advocates, by the way, just for a point of clarity, will say or imply that these dollars are not otherwise allocated. Let's just be clear. The dollars are allocated. Right now, the dollars that will be used for this fund come to the U.S. Treasury and are used for the priorities of the American people, and they are allocated for, you name it, higher education, debt service, paying troops, defense, et cetera. This would make it mandatory that a certain amount of this money would go towards both deferred maintenance and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Now, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is supposed to be a fund that functions to benefit, kind of, all Americans, but I would argue that it really benefits select regions of America. If you look at this map, where the dollars are spent are not where the people live. These are the coastal States, and here are the inland States. As it turns out, the areas that are most benefited by this funding are not on the coast. And, yet, as you will see in a second, that is where the people live. If you live in a coastal State, on a per capita basis, your State receives about $7.53 per person. If you live in one of these inland States, from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, you get $17.66, more than two times plus. In fact, from about 2011 to 2015, if you are in one of these inland States, you got a ratio of almost 8-to-1 in terms of the dollars spent in the coastal States. If you take out Washington, DC, and Virginia and maybe New York, then this $7.53 is going to go far lower. If you are not one of those three States and you are on the coast, you are not doing very well on a per capita basis. To make that point, in 2015, about 40 percent of the Nation's population lived in a county or parish that was directly on a coastline, and 82 percent of people live in a State which has a coastline. So 82 percent of the people live in one of these yellow States, and yet, on a per capita basis, two plus times is spent on those living in States which are inland. Now, my point is that the dollars are not spent relative to where people live. This disparity disproportionately impacts States such as South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, Maine, and other coastal States. Now, I am a person who would rather have a solution, and the solution I am going to propose does not take money away from the Great American Outdoors Act. They will still continue to receive, in relatively sparsely populated States, a significant sum of the money. I worked with Senator Whitehouse on a bipartisan solution that would at least add some equity for those States which are coastline, as opposed to being inland. Now, that said, we acknowledge national parks have deferred maintenance. At the end of fiscal year 2018, this was estimated at roughly $12 billion, but those parks are not uniformly distributed. I mentioned earlier how a disproportionate amount of the money is going to go to five different States. According to the Park Service data, if you just looked at deferred maintenance, which will presumably guide where this money is spent, California; Washington, DC; Virginia; New York; North Carolina; Wyoming; Arizona; and the State of Washington make up nearly 60 percent of the deferred maintenance needs at national parks. If you live in one of those States, you are doing well, but if you are living in a State other than those, not so well. Now, some will say that even though almost 60 percent of the money is going to seven States, everyone in the country benefits because you might visit the park, or we are all in it together, so why shouldn't I support a national park in a State which is far away from my hometown I suppose there is something to be said to that. On the other hand, if the person saying that lived in one of the States, which is getting just a tiny fraction of the total sum of dollars, and, yes, the people in their State will leave their State and go spend their money in Montana, for example, that will be great. People in Montana, on a per capita basis, get far more than anybody else. We are in it together, I suppose, but you probably wouldn't reverse it. You probably wouldn't say: Wait a second, we think it is unfair that seven States get almost 60 percent of the dollars. We actually think it is better to be more equitably spread, or maybe you would. I hope that you would. States like Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska see almost no benefit. Collectively, the deferred maintenance in these three States--Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska--is .2 percent of total deferred maintenance backlog. It is the same for Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, and New Hampshire. Again, while there is deferred maintenance in Gulf Coast States, the real benefit to our States is investing in the coastline, which has a direct impact on sustainability. To be fair, by the way, the Gulf of Mexico States do currently benefit. The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act shares revenue with the four Gulf Coast States. We use this revenue, by State constitution, for coastal restoration. There is a little bit of irony, as the Senator from Alaska pointed out, that those who strongly support this bill oftentimes strongly disapprove of drilling for oil and gas, particularly in coastal areas, but they are now reliant upon that drilling in order to fund the Great American Outdoors Act. I do believe that we can address this inequity, which has been highlighted. I put together a bill, as I mentioned earlier, with Sheldon Whitehouse, called the COASTAL Act. We are working with other colleagues. We passed it out of the Energy Committee. Actually, by that, Senator Whitehouse was not on that bill, but we passed the COASTAL Act out of the Energy Committee with a bipartisan vote. The junior Senator from Alabama is my cosponsor. He should cosponsor, and he did. Alabama benefits exponentially more from the GOMESA Act than anything that the Great American Outdoors Act has to offer. So all of this is to say that the Gulf Coast just wants equity. We want a more general benefit, not almost 60 percent of the benefit, going to seven States, and we also want the money to be distributed nationwide where people live, as opposed to where they might go on a 1- week vacation every 5 years. I will speak just very briefly about the COASTAL Act. It is a bipartisan bill, again, passed by the Senate Energy Committee, committing more dollars towards environmental protection, reducing flood risks to businesses and industries along the Gulf Coast, protecting regions of the Gulf Coast for public recreation--we talked about recreation elsewhere. But committing dollars for all coastal States for environmental protection, once more, does not take money away from the Great American Outdoors Act. Colleagues have heard me talk about the importance of revenue sharing for environmental protection. Again, the COASTAL Act passed out with bipartisan support, and its goals are consistent with the Great American Outdoors Act. By the way, the recent flood event in Louisiana--crystal ball--flooded homes in Mandeville and property in Grand Isle. If we have flooding now, this bill would help prevent that flooding. The COASTAL Act also places millions of dollars in a coastal fund, which benefits all coastal States, including those along the Great Lakes, putting money to protect where people live. Once more, let me just show this. This is where people live, and 82 percent of the people live in a State with a coastline. Yet, where the money is going is, yes, to the coast, if you consider Washington, DC, and Virginia the coastline, but typically, it is going to five or six places, not to the places which have had the most flood events. I walked around barrier islands in Georgia. Those barrier islands are evaporating. I hear that barrier islands in South Carolina are similarly under great duress. In Louisiana, as I already mentioned, we just had a flood event this past week. The COASTAL Act would put money for resiliency in States where 82 percent of the population lives. I just don't understand what is the objection to spending money to protect where people live. Why must we only do something nice for places where people vacation. If you put it to a referendum, people would first take care of their homes, and then they would take care of the place where they vacation. I am not saying, by the way, don't take care of where they vacation, but I am saying we should at least give some dollars to where people live. Now, I will quote a statistic once more: 42 percent of Americans live in a parish or county that is directly on a shoreline. Why don't we do something to protect that shoreline where 42 percent of Americans live, not taking any dollars away from those sparsely populated places where people vacation? By the way, when the COASTAL Act passed the Energy Committee, environmental groups such as the Energy Defense Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, Audubon Society, and Louisiana-based organizations such as the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation and the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana signed a letter saying: As we move to address the significant land, water, and wildlife conservation funding needs in our Nation, it is important that our coastlines are also equipped to confront the unique challenges that climate change presents. GOMESA has been a critically important funding stream for Louisiana and other Gulf Coast States, and expanding upon this success will protect national economic assets, providing better protection from storms, and enhance coastal habitat. Now, bill sponsors will, rightly, say that the Great American Outdoors Act does not impact revenues flowing to GOMESA States, but-- let's face it--it does cannibalize these dollars in Louisiana, so sooner or later you run out of money. So if we are going to take all these dollars that could be spent elsewhere and put in these sparsely populated States where people vacation but not spend it in States where people actually live, not spend it in counties where 42 percent of the people live, which are directly upon a coastline, sooner or later you run out of money. And we are going to--just like a vacuum cleaner--suck those dollars down to these sparsely populated areas where people love to vacation. So my point is that, in Louisiana, for example, we have a $50 billion, 50-year master plan to protect our coastline, reducing flood risk to communities and assets so important to the rest of the Nation. The Great American Outdoors Act will make it more difficult to secure future dollars for this gulf coast restoration. Now, as I mentioned before, a lot of people live in coastline communities, in counties and parishes, and from 2000 to 2016, the Gulf of Mexico region grew by almost 25 percent, more than any other coastline region. Harris County, TX, and areas in Florida and New York also accounted for substantial growth along our Nation's coast. The proposal I filed commits dollars to these coastal States so that they can have a sustainable revenue stream now and in the future for needed investments. If you asked the people in New York, after Hurricane Sandy, if they would like to have dollars in New York to protect against a future flood event, they would say yes. Houston and Galveston have really borne the brunt of major flood events, of hurricanes striking their coastline. Do we think that they could use more money for coastal resiliency? Yes--as well as Lake Charles, LA, after Hurricane Rita, Calcasieu Parish and Cameron Parish. We talked about Louisiana with Hurricane Katrina, the gulf coast of Mississippi and Alabama, devastated after Hurricane Katrina. Would it be wise, as a nation, to put dollars there in order to have coastal resiliency to prevent, if you will, more flooding in the future so as to actually save more relief dollars that might be needed? There are people, there are regions, battling rising sea levels, and I am mindful about their concerns and how we can address those. I am told recently, by the way, that the Army Corps of Engineers has proposed a $3.5 billion flood wall for Miami. Think about that--$3.5 billion. This is in response to rising sea levels. But we are passing legislation now in which folks refuse to consider spending money for coastal resiliency. Instead, we are going to spend money on a $3.5 billion seawall because we don't want to spend the money on other forms of coastal resiliency. I recently spoke to one of my House colleagues, Donna Shalala, who represents the Miami-Dade region, and she speaks about the rising sea levels and the investments they need to make around South Beach. It is something touching where people live, not where people vacation. I am not sure why we emphasize where people vacation over where people live. To pay for this bill, again, we are taking dollars from an area of the country greatly impacted by coastal erosion, so these gulf funds actually play a role in restoring or maintaining-- You will see a poster later on which shows the oil and gas development taking place off the coast of Louisiana, the oil and gas development that funds the Great American Outdoors Act. Louisiana's coast is a working coast in which people from this working coast go out to maintain that source of revenue, but look what is happening to Louisiana's predicted land loss. Over the next 50 years, in a reasonable scenario, all of this red spot will be lost to erosion. By the way, look what happens to New Orleans. It is now directly along the Gulf of Mexico. The next hurricane comes, and there goes the port structure. There goes the ability for people in the Midwest to get their grains to the international market and the ability of this working coast to support the oil and gas drilling and, therefore, to support the source of revenue required and relied upon by the Great American Outdoors Act. It will be lost. It is not just me saying it. Of course, I am the Senator. I love my State. I am going to do whatever I can. You may not believe me, but on the other hand, the State's land loss has been highlighted in countless feature stories, including in the New York Times and National Geographic, to name two. By the way, Google Maps can't keep up. When looking at the Louisiana coastline, Google Maps will show an area with land that has now been replaced with open water. Louisiana loses about, oh, a football field of land, I think it is, an hour. Whenever I say it, I can't believe it, it is so fast. It is so rapid. So not only does this pose a risk to the energy assets, a risk to communities, and a risk to port assets; it poses a risk to our national livelihood. Now, folks in Louisiana are going to look at this and say: How is the Great American Outdoors Act going to help us? We are going to work to produce all this oil and gas, and we are not going to get any of the benefits. Senator Kennedy and I recently had a call with more than 20 Louisiana parish presidents. They are, very understandably, concerned about the lack of equity. ``Concerned'' is diplomatic. ``Ticked off'' is how better to describe it. I had another call with close to 100 businesses. They, too, are pleading for equitable treatment along the gulf. So when I speak about the Great American Outdoors Act cannibalizing dollars from the Gulf of Mexico to spend money in places where people don't live as opposed to protecting my coastline, which, in turn, ensures tha we can continue to have the source of revenue--but also coastlines around the Nation in counties and parishes where people actually live as opposed to going to places where people only visit--I am trying to make a case for those people. Will you show the energy assets. I have been speaking about these energy assets that are required. It is one thing to say it; it is another thing to look at it. All of these are part of the gulf coast energy infrastructure that the rest of our Nation relies upon. I am a doctor. I think like this. If you saw a map of the Nation, you would see pipelines coming out of this region across the rest of the Nation, and in my mind, as a doctor, I think of this as being a heart. If we need energy to fuel our lives, the heart is right here, and it beats here. The aorta, if you will, the pipelines that flow out, taking gasoline to Philadelphia, taking natural gas to another part of our country, taking the refined fuel products to Atlanta, GA, in the case of jet fuel--you name it, they come out of this area. If this area cannot be sustained, we cannot sustain that part of our energy economy. We will not have jet flights to Hawaii or jet flights from Atlanta around the world, as the hub, or for New Orleans, people coming in for Mardi Gras, Jazz Fest, or to Breaux Bridge for a crawfish festival. It will not happen because this pipeline structure cannot be sustained with a coastline which is eroding. Some of these--let me just speak--are oil import sites, natural gas market centers, processing facilities, liquefied natural gas export facilities, strategic petroleum reserve, major working ports, such as Port Fourchon. I could go on. These assets and companies then employ hundreds of thousands of men and women contributing billions of dollars in government revenues with an even greater impact on our annual GDP. This is what powers our country. This is where the revenue is coming from for the Great American Outdoors Act. This revenue stream will not be sustainable if we don't at least have some consideration of how to restore this. The Senator from Ohio had spoken about a leaky roof and the leaky roof increased its leak and now all those assets are being damaged within a park. That is great. People like to visit parks, and we should take care of leaky roofs. I am more concerned about a coastline that is dissolving, and, as it dissolves, you lose the energy infrastructure, which is required to pay for that park building to be fixed. I will also point out the flooding risk for the folks in my State. Again, I spoke about the communities at risk. This is predicted future flooding from a 100-year flood event, without action. Let's just say, if it is colored, it is bad, where you are going to get 0.5 to 5 feet of water north of New Orleans. If you want to speak about something that should be done now to prevent future problems, I have bigger issues than a leaky roof in a park building. I have entire communities washed away into the ocean, at risk for great flooding. I am speaking of New Orleans. I could be speaking of Miami, of Houston, of New York. Why don't we spend money where people live as opposed to spending it only where people vacation? Now, you might be sitting in Iowa or Kansas or Nebraska thinking: Well, I am only getting 0.2 percent of this money. I am not getting any benefit whatsoever, but why does it matter to me to have a coastline? Why does it matter to me at all? Well, let's look at how investing in the coast impacts our Nation economically. Let's look at what happened after Hurricane Katrina. After Hurricane Katrina, the flooding took out the port structure in South Louisiana; therefore, the in place for all the goods coming from the Ohio, Missouri, Mississippi, and other rivers for export to the rest of the world--the rest of the United States--was terribly impacted. If you look at this--if we have a lack of coastal investment--corn exports were down 23 percent post-Hurricane Katrina; barley, down 100 percent; wheat, down 54 percent; soy, down 25 percent; total grain exports, down 24 percent after Hurricane Katrina. If that port system in South Louisiana and in the lower Calcasieu River in Houston is damaged by flooding--that is going to happen under current scenarios--then our midwestern farmers are not able to ship to international markets. Their livelihood is damaged. In moving goods across our country for export, one coalition committed to ensuring future navigation on the Mississippi said that the lower Mississippi has an estimated annual impact of $735 billion to the Nation's economy and is responsible for 2.4 million jobs. That starts with being able to navigate goods through the various locks and port complexes near the mouth of the river. The USDA recognizes this. It says in a report on the importance of inland waterways that farm products are 14 percent of total commodities moved along inland waterways. Further, processed flour, animal feed, milled grain products, and fertilizers add another 5 percent to agricultural related products. It is important to remember, the Mississippi River Valley encompasses almost 60 percent of our country, so many major rivers connect with the Mississippi to deliver those products around the world. If we are going to have a port system that is going to take those goods and allow them to be transported around the world, it has to be a sustained, reinforced coastline. In my State, we have some of the largest barge and container ports in the country. The Port of South Louisiana is the largest grain exporter in the country. The Port of Baton Rouge is home to the largest grain operator in the State. Ports farther to the south in Mobile and Texas are, likewise, important. If we are going to have rising sea levels and spend all of our money on the inland areas--not where people live but where people visit on vacation--as opposed to the coastlines, which have the ports that sustain where people live and sustain the vitality of those in the heartland, we are being foolish with our public policy. The same USDA report highlighted the consequences of an inadequate infrastructure along the waterways, saying that inadequate infrastructure leads to reduced transportation capacity, raising shipping rates, meaning less income to the farmers who are shipping-- which reduces U.S. economic activity--and a loss of global competitiveness. I could go on. I will just say that associated industries impacted by the Iowa grain exports support business from agriculture, forestry, real estate, restaurants, and pesticides, to name a few. This is just in Iowa. The ports in the gulf coast support those folks in Iowa, and we should support the ports. We should support the ports, which support Iowa. To summarize, my colleagues and I are fighting for fairness and equity. That is what this is about. I have highlighted obvious inequities both in how the gulf region is treated and how other States are treated--spending money not where people live but where people visit. I am pointing out the consequences to midwestern farmers. They don't benefit very much at all--if you live in Iowa, Kansas, or Nebraska-- from the Great American Outdoors Act, but they would benefit from a sustainable port system, which means that those ports they rely upon to ship goods around the world will be there even as sea levels rise. Now, I am all for, by the way, taking care of deferred maintenance in parks, but I think, in the relative hierarchy of what we should do, we should take care of where people live. And I will repeat once more: 42 percent of the people live in a parish or county that is directly on a coastline; 82 percent of Americans live in a coastal State. That is not where the bulk of these dollars are spent. We have a bipartisan group of Senators supporting; we have environmentally focused groups supporting as well, and what they are supporting is an amendment which would actually help create this equity that would allow dollars to be put into a fund to help coastal States-- where people live--but would be part of a bill to take care of where people visit. I wish it were the other way around, but those are not the priorities of the people who are promoting the Great American Outdoors Act. I thank you for this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, first, I thank the Energy Committee chair for her kind words and for her advocacy. I may be speaking for a bit, and then when the majority leader comes, I will interrupt and allow him to close, and then I ask unanimous consent to finish my speaking, if that is OK.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I thank Senator Menendez and return the compliment. We have worked through a lot of issues to find a bill that meets a valid, public purpose that can pass on a bipartisan basis in both Chambers. I thank Senator Menendez for working with me on that. The title of this bill is the ``SMART Act,'' but in retrospect, I wish we had renamed it ``the Thin Blue Line Act'' because this is about helping cities and States preserve essential services such as police, fire, and education for the reopening of our economy. Let's just kind of review. The Federal Government asked that State and local governments shut down their economy in order to control the coronavirus, and just like those small businesses closed at the behest of the government authority, so did State and local governments close, if you will, at the behest of the Federal authority. But what that did is it devastated the tax basis. Moody's, which Senator Menendez already alluded to, the independent agency that looks at the finances of cities and States, has said that if your State is dependent upon income tax, upon sales tax, upon tourism, and upon proceeds from energy, you have been hammered. Your tax base has fallen dramatically, and with the dramatic fall of that tax base comes a dramatic fall in the ability to support the thin blue line--the educators, the firefighters, the you name it, the essential services that are essential to the reopening of our economy when we come out the backside of this epidemic. Now, it has already happened. Moody's predicts that 3 million of these essential workers will be laid off. I am told that 1 million already have been. You can read about universities laying people off, but let's go back to the thin blue line. The city of Shreveport, LA, just put out a budget in which there is a $20 million hit to their city budget overall, and $3.9 million was, unfortunately, laid upon law enforcement and 54 positions eliminated. Now, I am told that some Federal dollars came through and allowed the restoration of some of those positions, which, if you will, is a proof in concept that if there is help from the Federal taxpayer to the State and local taxpayer--because they are one in the same--then, these essential services can be preserved. And we know that if those police positions are preserved, then, that downtown in Shreveport is more likely to safely reopen for commerce. Now, we talked about Moody's predicting loss of revenue. Louisiana is predicted to lose 45 percent of its revenue, but there are other States affected. New Jersey, Maine, Florida, Oklahoma, Michigan, Idaho, Alaska, Arizona, and Illinois are all predicted to lose large sums of tax revenue. So let me speak specifically about the SMART Act, or, again, as I call it, the ``Thin Blue Line'' bill. It is a reasonable, bipartisan, ``this is how we go forward'' bill in both Chambers. We picked $500 billion. Some would say: Well, that is too much. Actually, that was the amount of money that Moody's predicts State and local governments will lack over the next year and a half. So we actually kind of nail where the independent agency puts the need for our State and our local government, and it is targeted. One, there has been a lot of concern that this would be used to ``bail out States,'' that those who have accumulated a large, unfunded accrued liability in their pension funds would use that money to support those pension funds. We specifically do not allow that. So if that is somebody's political concern, that has been addressed. What do we do? Well, first, a third of the dollars can go out now because it is based upon population. This recognizes that if California has 31 million people and Wyoming has 500,000, there needs to be some accommodation for just the population size because, inevitably, that is going to influence the total need. The next third will go out at the end of June, based upon how hard a State was hit in terms of health from the coronavirus. So if your State was slammed from coronavirus--Louisiana was, New Jersey was, and other States have been--then, that is where you get the help. Frankly, it is unfortunate that you are getting the help. It would be a lot better if your State had not been impacted, but if it has been impacted, it is there to support your State through the health aspect of this crisis. The last third will go out at end of this calendar year. That is based upon the financial hit that your State has taken. So if your State's tax base has been decreased by 45 percent, then, you would get additional dollars in the third tranche of money, which comes out at the end of the calendar year. Obviously, at the end of this calendar year is almost beyond the fiscal year for most States, and so that would place the dollars at the State's disposal for the next fiscal year. In that way, we cover this prolonged period that Moody's says that State and local governments will be out. There is one more concern, and that is whether or not all this money will go to a Governor's office and none will go to counties or parishes or municipalities in Louisiana. One-third of the dollars will go directly to municipalities and counties--those local governments that are on the forefront of providing services to those who are being affected by the coronavirus epidemic. We think we have something which balances the needs of stakeholders-- the most important stakeholder being the American citizen--that both addresses the need for fiscal accountability and the need to preserve those essential government services to get our economy going once more. Again, I am going to ask all of my colleagues to support the ``Thin Blue Line'' bill, otherwise known as the SMART Act. I think it is a smart way to go forward to make sure we don't slip into a recession, but we return with as robust an economy from this crisis as when we entered the crisis. With that, I will yield to my colleague from Maine.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I would like to speak to the coronavirus--more specifically, the Senate's response to the coronavirus or, shall I say, apparently the absence of a response. I am a doctor, and one of the most exciting things they often show in a TV show is when there is an emergency--there is a car wreck, somebody's heart stops beating, somebody faints, something like that-- every resource is brought. I have been in that situation, and when it occurs, there is someone who might be called--you know, runs the show, if you will, or the captain of the show and begins to say ``You must do this'' or ``You must do that.'' At that point, nicety does not matter. Orders are given, you respond, and things are done. That is because there is not a moment to be lost. I think I bring that sense of urgency to this situation. Our Presiding Officer was in the military as a combat pilot. She knows quite well that sometimes minutes matter. Sometimes minutes matter. I would argue that ``sometime'' is now. I have been staying away from grocery stores, et cetera, and eating through my frozen food. There is stuff in the fridge. Somebody told me they went to the grocery store, and businesses that had been in business last week are now boarded up. I am having calls regularly with small business owners back in Louisiana, and they are so worried about cashflow and trying to keep people on. Some have already laid folks off, wondering what they can do. The uncertainty is destroying their livelihood. If the livelihood of a small businesswoman is destroyed, so is the livelihood of everyone she employs. There is a sense of urgency that everyone in the Nation should feel but is not being acted upon now. Now, let's describe the situation, because what I actually think--I have tried to understand why that urgency is not here. It is not a general lack of urgency; it is a specific lack of urgency of the Speaker of the House and the minority leader in the Senate--the minority leader being the senior Senator from New York. It is a specific lack of urgency in which they attempt to leverage the misery of the American people so that they can achieve their political goal. I have thought deeply about that political goal. In fact, I have noticed whenever something is said by the minority leader--the senior Senator from New York--I have to think, well, it is opposite day, as my children will say. There is actually something opposite being said. Let me just figure out what that opposite thing is. So let's go through where we are, and then we will go through the opposite-day aspect of our conversations. First, people are hurting, but not just people being laid off. Schools have been discharged. My wife cofounded a school for children with dyslexia--a public charter school. Children of all backgrounds come and have their dyslexia addressed. It is critical that those children be in school. There is a science-based way for those kids to learn how to read, and if they have to be dismissed because of fear about spreading disease, then those children are not being exposed to that science-based curriculum, and those children are, therefore, losing the opportunity both to learn and to have their issue of dyslexia addressed. That is just one school. There are very many more. So, to address that, last week, the Senate majority leader put together a proposal where he would have Senators from the Republican Party draft some initial concepts--clearly not written in stone and clearly open to negotiation--and then meet with Democratic counterparts to come up with a bipartisan solution that would reflect the perspectives of all 100 Senators, knowing that each Senator represents a different constituency elected by people with a different viewpoint, but the amalgamation of those viewpoints and constituencies would come up with a wide public policy that would help to address both the medical crisis and the economic crisis. It was bipartisan. And I was struck when one of our Democratic colleagues was on a show and was asked about the process, and he said that it actually worked well. I met with the small businesspeople. I met with this Senator from the Democratic side and this Senator from the Republican side, and we had a process that worked. It worked very well on the Member level. It is in the leadership that it broke down. Oh, that is interesting. In the leadership, the bipartisan process, with a product that both sides had agreed upon, broke down. Now, let's contrast this bipartisan process, which led to a series of policies, with the opposite-day rhetoric that has been used by the Senate minority leader. The bipartisan product came up with an economic stabilization fund in which dollars would be transferred to the Treasury Department, which would then be transferred to the Federal Reserve to set up guaranteed loans so that an industry, not a specific business, an industry--think tourist industry, think healthcare, somebody particularly affected by the coronavirus epidemic--as a class, would be able to come and get guaranteed loans to keep their people employed and to keep their business going so that when we get through this rough patch, their business can restart as before. Now, the opposite-day rhetoric of the Senate minority leader is that this is a bailout for big corporations, and it was a sweetheart deal put together by Republicans. Oh, opposite day. It was actually a bipartisan deal that goes through the Federal Reserve in a way that is sector-specific but not business-specific with the goal of keeping people employed. The opposite-day rhetoric is that it is a bailout. These are loans-- specifically, loans that have to be paid back. By law, the Federal Reserve cannot take a loss. That is not a bailout. That is a loan to keep people employed, and it is wise public policy brought together on a bipartisan basis--bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans--to come up with a solution reflecting all viewpoints across the country. So, despite the opposite-day rhetoric, as somebody who wishes to disparage, who wishes to diminish, who wishes to depreciate a process that worked as the Senate is supposed to work--instead, it was denigrated. I kept asking myself why. Why? We will come to that in a little bit. What else about the opposite-day process? That not enough is spent on healthcare. I am a doctor. I went through these provisions for healthcare. We are spending literally--literally--tens of billions of dollars on healthcare, trying to find where to use it best. The opposite-day rhetoric is that we are not. I didn't quite figure that one out. We are not spending on the average American--opposite-day rhetoric. We give $1,200 to an individual and $2,400 to a couple. That just goes out the door. Those folks get it. That is a commitment. We are also committed to keeping small businesses afloat with an expedited process by which that small business can obtain cash and a loan, and that loan, the portion of which is used to keep people employed, is forgiven--forgiven. So if I borrowed--if I were a restaurant owner and I borrowed $100,000 and I use $75,000 of it to keep my employees employed, that $75,000 is forgiven, and I only owe back--I only have to pay back $25,000. That is a bipartisan policy put together specifically to keep Americans employed with their benefits. By the way, if you were a waitress or a waiter, your tips were included in your salary, so even though you might get a smaller amount, you make it up on tips. We took that into account with this bipartisan legislation--bipartisan legislation that addressed that need. Opposite day--the Senate minority leader's rhetoric was that we weren't taking care of people. Why would he not tell the truth? Why would he specifically attempt to fool the American people about what was actually being done? I had to think about that. Why would he attempt to corrupt the entire process to tell the American people something which is not true? I am not sure about that. I am not sure about that. So we got the deal put up by the Speaker of the House in which she said: In exchange for the airlines being able to continue to employ flight attendants and pilots and ground crew and administrators, they would have to do an emission profile for every airplane. Hmm, I am struggling to stay afloat. I have no passengers, and my cashflow is immediately interrupted, but, by the way, let me go out and get an emissions profile for my airplane or else, otherwise, I don't get to stay in business. That is so absurd that I kept thinking: That cannot be the answer. That is so stupid. How can you label it anything else in this circumstance? When people are in the process of boarding up their businesses, that is the nonsense you would propose? So I kept thinking: Why would they want that when American people are hurting, and just like in a military emergency and just like in a medical emergency, it demands rapid action? I was just presiding before you, and as I was about to come on, I heard on the TV somebody speaking, the senior Senator from Illinois, and I got a clue. He was not speaking of the Senate working, where Republicans and Democrats come together and respecting 100 different constituencies, 100 different viewpoints on a bipartisan basis, establishing policy that works for all, taking into account that Louisiana is different than Arizona, and Arizona is different than Maine, and Maine is different than Washington State. We are all Americans, but we have different industries, and so part of this bipartisan process, involving as many Senators as possible, was to totally reflect that which was going on. But I finally had my clue as to why the Senate majority leader wants this process to break down. It is not to be representative of us as a whole but, rather, that merely which he and the Speaker of the House can negotiate. The Democratic whip from Illinois spoke of the four corners process. Now, those who are watching may not know what the four corners are. The four corners are when nothing else can work, you get the Senate majority leader, the Senate minority leader, the Speaker of the House, and the minority leader of the House meeting with the White House, and the four of them decide on everything. There is no transparency. They will come out with a 2,000-page bill with all kinds of sweetheart bills tucked into it, totally leaving out 98 other Senators but not leaving out those stakeholders. If you are a stakeholder and you have someone on your speed dial as one of those four corners, you can get what you want. So in this opposite-day type reality, where someone speaks of bailouts, I am thinking: Ah, somebody wants a particular industry bailed out and doesn't want the scrutiny of 100 Senators looking at it with enough time to consider it. No, they want to release the bill tonight to vote on it tomorrow morning. Now, the emergency kicks in. They say: Oh, it is something we can think about--until that deal is baked, and then we have no time to consider it, and then we must vote. That is how the four corners process works. Suddenly, it dawned on me. Remember the process that I spoke of in which Senators from both parties came together on a bipartisan basis to come up with something that would provide a little bit of support--no, a lot of support--for the economy? Let's talk about the airlines. In the deal that came together with all the Senators represented in one way or another, where the airlines would get a loan but would not get free money, that is what Republicans, frankly, wanted. That is what the White House wanted. That was agreed to in the bipartisan arrangement before it got blown up by the Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader. Do you know what I am going to be curious to see? I am going to be curious to see if the airlines get free money--not just a loan to bridge over the rough spots to keep people employed--the attendants, the pilots, the administrators, the ground crews, et cetera--but free money, and then I will understand opposite day. I will understand that the reason people have been talking about corporate bailouts is because they have particular industries which they wish to bailout. And those who speak of no transparency--again, opposite day--now we are into the four corners situation, where no one knows what is being put into that package because 98 Senators have been excluded. By the way, let me just compliment my Senate majority leader. He is the one who proposed the transparent process of a bipartisan set of Senators putting this together. So let's just drop blame where blame should be. As my Democratic colleague said on TV, it was going pretty well until it came to leadership. We will see that bill. We will vote on it after not having time to read it because it has been crafted in a small room with people who did not include Senators of both parties from different places because they had something they wished to put in there, and we will find out later what those stakeholders were able to get. My stakeholders are the American people. My stakeholders are the ones who are boarding up their buildings right now because a bill we could have voted on Sunday is still not decided upon because somebody has a special deal which they wish to place. The way the Senate works is not a four corners arrangement, where all the powers are in a group of one or two or three or four, in which deals are released the night before, released the next day, and no one has a chance to read, but some people are taken care of. Rather, it is to be as the Senate majority leader put up, where there is bipartisan agreement with an opportunity to study, to understand, to reflect upon, the American people are represented, and special interests are kept in their place. That is the way it should be. Unfortunately, that is not where we are now. I wish it were not opposite day, but we shall find out. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASSIDY

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I spoke to you earlier when you were presiding. I am about to take the Presiding Officer's place, as she took my place earlier, and we will swap once more. Yet, before I sit down, I want to repeat the message I gave earlier. As we wait for a decision to be made between the Democratic minority leader, the Speaker of the House, and the administration, we had a deal that they had agreed to that was bipartisan, on which Senators from both parties had come together, had reviewed, and had an awareness of. No Senator thought it was a corporate bailout. If one did, one didn't say so at the time. Every Senator felt like this was the way to emerge. This could have been passed into law on Sunday, but we are nowhere close, apparently. Tonight, I was asked on a TV show: What about the single mother in Baton Rouge? What would I tell her? Do you know what I would say to that single mother? I would tell her I care about single moms. I would say that we had a deal, but then the Speaker of the House and the Democratic minority leader decided to leverage the misery of the American people, the businesses that are shutting down as we speak, and the people who are being laid off every day, to their political advantage. I am so sorry to say that, but that is a fact. Then, afterward, they had to come up with a big, sort of, ``Oh, my gosh. We can't support it because of this or that.'' It wasn't what they were saying when they agreed to it. They had to come up with a reason to justify mendacity. They are leveraging the misery of the American people to their political advantage. A deal could have been signed on Sunday--a bipartisan deal that 100 Senators had some input into and that the Speaker of the House had input into. Someone pointed out the irony to me--and I have to wrap up shortly-- so I tweeted that the Democratic minority leader and the Speaker of the House tried to impeach the President of the United States for allegedly withholding aid from Ukraine, and now they withhold aid from the American people. Whatever gloss they put on it, we could have finished this up on Sunday, and now we are stretching it out to their political advantage. I believe that was the allegation against the President: To his political advantage, he was using aid that was to go to the Ukrainians. Now we see two people--again, the Speaker of the House and the Democratic minority leader--both of whom are from States that have been hard-hit; my State of Louisiana and theirs, being New York and California, have been hard-hit--who are using that misery as leverage to their political advantage. I am sorry to be so worked up, but I have people calling me, asking: Do I have to lay somebody off? Oh, my gosh. I have lost my job. Will I have unemployment benefits? You say there is a check coming. When will this legislation pass? I realize it could have been done on Sunday until two people saw an opportunity that was to their political advantage. In their political advantage, they withhold aid from the American people, but they tried to impeach the President for such an allegation against another people. I hope they answer to the voters. I understand that the people who support them might not be touched by this, but my people are touched by it, and my State is affected by it. As a physician, I don't care where you live in the country, for I feel, as a physician, that we should be doing everything we can for those who are in distress right now and not using it to our political advantage or using it in a way to extract a little bit more--maybe in requiring airlines to do this or that or maybe in sneaking a sweetheart deal in for a friend because we will get that language and have to vote on it 2 hours later. This is not how our Founding Fathers had imagined. It is, unfortunately, how it has become--not to the benefit of the American people, to the benefit of two people, and I find that outrageous. I yield the floor. (Ms. McSALLY assumed the chair.) (Mr. CASSIDY assumed the chair.) (Ms. McSALLY assumed the chair.) (Mr. SASSE assumed the chair.)