S. 896Senate115th Congress (2017-2019)In Committee

A bill to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

AI-Generated Summary

Updated April 15, 2026 at 2:46 PM UTC

The bill makes the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) a permanent program by eliminating the temporary expiration language that limited it to 2018. It also sets aside a portion of the fund each year for projects that improve public recreational access—such as hunting and fishing—on existing federal lands.

Key Provisions

Deletes the language that limited the LWCF’s authorization to end on September 30, 2018, making the fund permanent.
Requires that at least 1.5 % of the LWCF’s annual spending, or $10 million (whichever is higher), be used for projects that provide public recreational access to federal lands for hunting, fishing, and other activities.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

1 earlier action

SenateIntro Referral Latest Action

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Energy and Natural Resources Committee

April 7, 2017

View full timeline

SenateIntro Referral

Introduced in Senate

April 7, 2017

SenateIntro Referral

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Energy and Natural Resources Committee

April 7, 2017

Floor Debate

24 members

What members said about S. 896 on the floor

+19

12 Republicans11 Democrats1 Independent

Sen. John CornynR-TX · Aug 23, 2018

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Mr. President, this Saturday marks the 1-year anniversary of Hurricane Harvey making landfall on the Texas gulf…

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this Saturday marks the 1-year anniversary of Hurricane Harvey making landfall on the Texas gulf coast. What began as a wave in the Atlantic in early August of last year morphed into a tropical disturbance and then strengthened into a full-blown hurricane, category 4.

This is not your average hurricane by any means, dropping a few buckets of rain, maybe soaking through floorboards or tearing off a shingle or two on a roof. This was a juggernaut. First it crashed into the San Jose Island off the coast of Rockport, with wind gusts measured as high as 145 miles an hour. It is hard to know what that means until you see it up close and personal, or so I am told.

Two days after landfall, I saw the wreckage firsthand with Mayor C.J. Wax and Governor Greg Abbott. On Broadway and North Austin Streets in Rockport, you could smell the natural gas in the air. Storefronts had been leveled. Windows had been shattered. Power lines had fallen to the ground. Entire boats lay upside down on the side of the road, their sails torn to shreds. Roughly 94 percent of the homes in Rockport were damaged, and 30 percent were destroyed outright.

Keep in mind, this was just the small town of Rockport. This was only the beginning. Port Arthur, Beaumont, Victoria, Houston, and many other communities soon faced the brunt of this terrible storm. Harvey was relentless, dropping more than 60 inches of rain over the course of several days in some of those places.

Unlike many hurricanes, it parked itself and stayed put after making landfall. Trapped between two high-pressure systems with nowhere to go, the storm went on to shatter records. Some people called it a storm that comes only once every 1,000 years. Others dubbed it the most extreme rain event in U.S. history.

For people who don't live on the gulf coast of Texas, who didn't see the shelters firsthand, as I did with my friend and colleague Senator Cruz at the NRG Center in Houston, it is really hard to imagine what it looked and felt like--all the closed roads, flooded homes, and exhausted faces of people praying for life to return to normal.

Over in Friendswood, which is right outside of Houston, I helped out what is known as Texas Rubicon, a terrific nonprofit made up of military veterans. We removed sheetrock and

hauled debris off a resident's yard. I remember having to wear a protective mask and gloves because of the contamination, but it was also in the context of intense heat and mosquitoes and the mud. All of this was just a small taste of what those in the community had to endure for days on end.

Then there were folks like Amy, a single mother in Houston. This is a scene of her house after the hurricane. You can see on August 22, 2018, a very nice suburban neighborhood, and this was her house or what is left of her house and the interior of her house after the hurricane hit.

I think these pictures speak to the resiliency of the Texans I got to know in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey. Their attitude was, well, we have been dealt a major setback, but there is no use crying about it. We have to dig ourselves out of this mess. And that is exactly what they did, with the help of tens of thousands of volunteers, donors, philanthropists, business leaders, and Good Samaritans across the country.

We are grateful to the many rescuers, people like Dan LeBlanc from Port Arthur, Doug Barnes from Dallas, and Robert Bode for managing evacuations at the Cypress Glen Nursing Home, which was no easy task.

Here is a picture of those three gentlemen and the great work they did at the Cypress Glen Nursing Home.

These three had no special expertise in search and rescue, but they saved close to 100 patients, some of whom were bedridden and required special boats that could power their life support systems.

Then there were the bakers at El Bolillo in Houston, who provided bread to flood victims.

Then there was a man we have come to know in Houston as Mattress Mack, who opened his showroom for the displaced.

There was Officer Steve Perez, a 34-year veteran of the Houston Police Department, who paid the ultimate sacrifice during rescue efforts. After the storm hit, he knew the conditions were dangerous, but he insisted on doing his part to help save those he was sworn to protect and defend. He said simply: ``We've got work to do.'' We remember Officer Perez today and always. And we remember all of those courageous first responders who swung into action.

The outpouring of Texans helping their neighbors over and over again reminded me of a saying I heard years ago at another natural disaster, that being a Texan doesn't describe where you are from, it describes who your family is.

During those tough days and long nights that followed, people were hurting after losing so much, not only their homes but schools that their kids attended, schools like Aloe Elementary in Victoria, which I visited with Principal Hurley and Dr. Jaklich, the district superintendent.

In the wake of all this devastation, they and many others were wondering what was being done to recover and rebuild. The short answer is: a lot. First came the initial response. Unlike Noah, we didn't have an ark, but we had 104 boats courtesy of the U.S. Coast Guard, which rescued more than 11,000 people.

FEMA--the Federal Emergency Management Agency--had prepositioned supplies before the storm and worked to coordinate temporary housing after it hit. Led by Administrator Brock Long, FEMA did a good job.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency worked to restore drinking water. The Department of Energy worked to restore power. The Small Business Administration approved disaster loans. The National Flood Insurance Program expedited claims. Gradually, ports reopened, schools and roads started to as well. And Governor Abbott immediately formed the Commission to Rebuild Texas and wisely appointed a great Texan, John Sharp, to chair it.

Following the emergency response, our job here in Washington was just beginning. In the weeks and months following landfall, Congress passed three separate aid bills totaling $147 billion. Of course, this wasn't just for Hurricane Harvey, it was for the wildfires out West and the hurricanes in Puerto Rico and Florida as well as Texas.

We also passed a new law allowing Texans to receive tax deductions for hurricane-related expenses and successfully encouraged FEMA to reverse a policy that prevented houses of worship from accessing disaster relief funds. Afterward, we codified this change into law.

Meanwhile, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced plans to use $5 billion of the disaster funds to help homeowners rebuild through the Community Development Block Grant Program. These resources will help pay for buyouts, the construction of rental property, and reimbursements for repairs incurred in the wake of the storm. Once HUD finalizes an additional $5 billion, those funds will flow to Texas for mitigation purposes.

Of course, there isn't much sense in rebuilding without ensuring the region can withstand another major weather event in the future. That is why we made sure that the third disaster aid bill, a response to multiple hurricanes and wildfires across the country, designated roughly half of the relevant U.S. Army Corps of Engineer construction funds for Texas-specific projects.

The Corps, of course, is a Federal entity primarily responsible for flood mitigation, and after Harvey laid bare just how vulnerable the Houston region truly is, its expertise became an increasingly valuable asset.

Thanks to the Corps, as well as State and local partners, as well as our colleagues here in Congress, some of the most pressing infrastructure improvements are underway. Across more than 4,000 square miles between Sabine Pass and Galveston Bay, a series of storm surge and flood protection measures will update levy systems, and in some cases, construct new ones.

In places like Clear Creek and Brays Bayou, meanwhile, the funds will be used to widen channels, construct detention basins replace bridges, and renovate dams.

Importantly, these projects include cost-share requirements reflecting the partnership between Texas, local officials, and the Trump administration to rebuild. Instead of a single infrastructure project, the result will be a new, multilayered system of improvements to address our most acute vulnerabilities.

At the same time, the long-term planning with the Texas General Land Office, as well as the Governor's office and the entire Texas delegation continues.

Adding to these efforts is the Corps' ongoing Coastal Texas Study, which Congress has funded and which will provide a comprehensive strategy for flood mitigation, which is the necessary next step toward coastal protection because this is not the last hurricane that will hit the gulf coast of Texas or the huge economic engine known as Houston.

I am confident that having the smartest minds study our coast will ultimately result in recommendations that Congress can then authorize. Once that happens, and in coordination with State legislative and local officials, who, let's not forget, play a very large role, will fight to ensure our coastal communities flourish and are protected for generations to come.

We have to face the facts: Harvey was an unthinkable catastrophe, one of a kind. I can't believe it has already been a year. But for some down there, though, I am sure it feels like a whole lot longer than that.

It is my privilege to serve the people of the great State of Texas, and as part of my job, I have unfortunately had the occasion to see plenty of heartache and tragedy over the years. Few disasters, however, have impacted so many Texans and in such a devastating way as Hurricane Harvey. Over the last year, working together, Texans have begun to heal and rebuild, but the job isn't finished, so I pledge my efforts to work to ensure our State remains protected, and I appreciate the work and support of all of our colleagues as we have met this terrible disaster with an appropriate Federal response.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, the Paul amendment is a germane amendment. It should be taken up and passed with a majority vote in the U.S. Senate.

This counterproposal asks that a 60-vote threshold be set for the Paul amendment, which, obviously, would make it much less likely to actually pass. What I think makes a whole lot more sense is to have a vote on the Paul amendment as a stand-alone to defund Planned Parenthood with a majority vote of 50, but I believe that the Manchin amendment has problems as well.

Firstly, this Manchin amendment inserts itself into pending litigation in Federal court, which is being led by my home State of Texas, by intervening as a party only a few weeks prior to there being oral arguments. This is a role that is generally reserved for the executive branch, and I believe that the legislature--the Senate-- should exercise caution and deference to the constitutional role of other branches before injecting itself into a contested lawsuit at a late hour.

Secondly, the Manchin amendment asserts that the Senate should defend all provisions of the Affordable Care Act. While that may be the position of the senior Senator from West Virginia, I have a number of concerns and objections to ObamaCare which are well-known, as do so many of my Republican colleagues. There are many problematic and possibly illegal provisions of ObamaCare that should not be defended by this body, as the Manchin amendment would urge.

Finally, I strongly believe in protecting Americans who have preexisting conditions and in ensuring they have access to affordable healthcare. Our friends across the aisle act as if the only way you can protect against preexisting conditions is through ObamaCare. That is demonstrably false. There is a much better and more reasonable way to protect Americans who have preexisting conditions other than to shackle them to ObamaCare. I believe the best way for us to address this is by legislating--by working together and coming up with legislation that will actually solve the problem--rather than by injecting ourselves into ongoing litigation against ObamaCare.

While I am opposed to the extraneous amendment by the senior Senator from West Virginia, I am completely in support of voting on Senator Paul's amendment. Frankly, I am a little confused by his statement that Republicans oppose his amendment when, at this point, I renew the request of the Senator from Kentucky. Yet I ask that it be set at a 50- vote threshold as a germane amendment to the pending legislation.

I object.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) would have voted ``yea.''

Sen. Richard BurrR-NC · Aug 23, 2018

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I talked a lot yesterday about the benefits of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and how it is one of the most…

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I talked a lot yesterday about the benefits of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and how it is one of the most popular and successful bipartisan programs that exist for conservation.

I shared with my colleagues and with those who listened a newsletter from the Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation that stated some of the great things they are doing with private sector dollars. They are taking what the Land and Water Conservation Fund provides--which is zero in taxpayer dollars but royalties off of exploration--and they are giving that to the States to protect treasures we have.

In those States and localities, they use that Federal seed money to leverage private sector dollars to produce inholdings, edge-holdings, and outparcels, sometimes traded so that we protect the land that is most valuable to us and that leverages volunteers and private dollars. It is on the order of 10 to 1 private dollars to Federal dollars.

Today, I want to give you a great example how LWCF money was used for acquisition of land that has made it safer for outdoor enthusiasts and also easier for local governments in my State of North Carolina.

We have a falls called the Catawba Falls. It is a popular attraction in western North Carolina, but the trail to get to the falls is over private land; therefore, those who venture there for recreational benefits and the beauty of Catawba Falls find a circuitous route to get there, and in many cases, we have individuals who have gotten injured. This becomes very costly to local emergency services because when you extract somebody from an inholding that you have no public access to, you have to airlift those individuals.

The Foothills Conservancy recognized the need, and this wonderful local land trust was able to move quickly when the landowner became willing to sell for public access.

I think it is an interesting fact that this family who sold to Foothills was the first family in the United States to sell land to the U.S. Forest Service in 1911 under the Weeks Act.

The Forest Service was eventually able to acquire the land through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Now there is a road and a parking lot for visitors. The cost of emergency services to get to the falls to respond to accidents has been dramatically reduced. Visiting the attraction is now safer for hikers. Visitor experiences were improved with parking and restrooms. A beautiful trail that belongs to the public was made, and local government's burden was eased.

They average one medical situation a month. Since the Presiding Officer is a physician by practice, I know he understands the cost that is incurred with an emergency of that magnitude. Because of this access, they have saved one hour per extraction, and McDowell County Emergency Management is saving $1 million annually because they don't have to do helicopter extractions.

It is an economic stimulus to the town of Old Fort and protects the headwaters of the Catawba River, which, I might add, is the drinking supply for the city of Charlotte, NC.

Talk about a win-win-win. This is one of them. This is a perfect example of how LWCF helps make access for the public easier by purchasing an edge-holding.

As Americans, we need more outdoor recreation and access opportunities,

not fewer. The program is widely supported by outdoor recreation industry enthusiasts, conservationists, anglers, hunters, birdwatchers, and all who appreciate access to America's unparalleled lands. If I didn't mention it, it requires zero in taxpayer money. Let me say that again. There is zero taxpayer money.

The U.S. outdoor recreation economy generates $87 billion in consumer spending. It generates $65 billion in tax revenue. If you don't utilize the outdoors as an individual and you are a budget hawk, it is a good program. It grows the economy. It produces revenues for the Federal Government.

The program has been so successful that just a decade after its original enactment, in 1977, the Congress decided to triple its authorization to a level of $900 million--the level it remains at today. I might add that the first two authorizations of this bill were for 25 years--25 years. Eventually, the authorization level for funding went to $900 million. It has only been funded at $900 million one time in the over 50 years since it has been established.

In our great wisdom, for some reason, 3 years ago, we authorized it at 3 years, and on September 30, it will expire. As of March 30, the Land and Water Conservation Fund had a credit in its account of $21.5 billion because over the years Congress chose not to allocate the full $900 million that has been credited to the fund. This bill puts the money toward deferred maintenance and returns the rest to Treasury.

Very quickly, let me just tell you about a bill that I am going to ask unanimous consent that this body take up and pass. The base of the new bill is permanent authorization of the program. It also includes a provision that I sprung on everybody yesterday.

Members of the U.S. Senate have expressed a concern about a permanent reauthorization with no ability to go in and alter that, so what I did was I added a provision that allows for the Congress to take up a dissolution resolution every 3 years where, with a 60-vote margin, they can disapprove the automatic renewal.

We have tried to address all of the concerns that have been raised. Since the beginning of the 115th Congress, I have tried to come down here and get this bill on the floor, only to hear: Not today. It needs to be on something else. We can't have a vote on it.

We have never been allowed to have a vote on it. I am sympathetic to individuals who have raised questions on the ability to vote.

If future Congresses believe they need to review the program, this provision allows them to do it by simply passing the joint resolution of disapproval. Every 3 years, they are given the opportunity.

Additionally, this bill shares funds currently available to the LWCF program. Again, let me remind everybody of the background. Every year-- $900 million is credited on an annual basis to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That is in the statute. Every year, appropriators determine how much money they intend to appropriate, and in only one of the years since 1977, when we raised the allocation to $900 million, has it actually been funded at $900 million. So each year, $900 million goes in, and appropriators dole out what they want to. It is all royalty money; it doesn't have anything to do with taxpayer money. That has left a hefty chunk of change just sitting there, waiting for Congress to appropriate--$21.4 billion.

To meet my colleagues halfway, in addition to a 3-year review, with a vote to disapprove an automatic renewal, my bill does this. I have decided to put those available funds toward a program that many of my colleagues have been very vocally supportive of in the past year. This bill would reallocate $11 billion out of the LWCF trust fund, and it would allocate that money and dedicate it to the National Park Service for maintenance.

I know many Members are anxious to get a parks maintenance bill through, and we have had trouble doing that. I am giving you an opportunity and an option that would fund it at a level we haven't even talked about. We are talking about somewhere right around $1 billion. Yet we know we have $10 billion worth of deferred maintenance. With just the reauthorization of this one conservation program, we would shift $11 billion out of the LWCF account and into the parks maintenance account. It doesn't take a mathematician to realize that the money would be available immediately. It would still require the appropriations process.

There would be an additional $10 billion left in the LWCF fund, So what I propose in this legislation is that the bill would credit back to the General Treasury $10 billion to go toward paying down debt.

I have heard a lot of my colleagues stand up here--as a matter of fact, many in this body voted for a rescissions package that had a $16 million reduction in the LWCF fund. I voted against it because I got no help in trying to understand why we were going to cut money out of a program that we had yet to fund at the level at which it was authorized. If they were willing to cut $16 million of LWCF to pay down debt, I am giving them a great opportunity--I am giving them $10 billion in this bill.

So we are going to take $21 billion that the LWCF has accrued over its existence, that has been unallocated to them but is still there, and we are going to give $11 billion to the parks and recreation maintenance fund, and we are going to give $10 billion to the Treasury to pay down debt.

I have been working on all aspects of LWCF for about 5 years, if not longer. I think that in the last 24 hours, I have addressed every concern that has been expressed--budget, taxpayer money, parks maintenance, why we should do it. Let me suggest to the Presiding Officer and to my colleagues why we should do it. Because Americans really appreciate this program because across this country, there are generations today who believe that their children and their grandchildren will be able to experience the same experience they had because we have been smart enough to protect some of those treasures.

I don't want to be greedy. I would love to appropriate $21 billion, as I am sure my colleague from Colorado, who I see standing over there, would love to do. It is probably not needed all at one time, but the credit is there. If we are willing to reauthorize this program and to give them some degree of permanency, then I believe every person who is the beneficiary of or interested in the Land and Water Conservation Fund will not argue with saying: OK, we will take the $21 billion we built up, and we will give $11 billion to the parks maintenance program and we will pay $10 billion to the Treasury. And we will start over at accruing at $900 billion a year what the American people, through their Congress, in the past have said we are going to invest in these conservation efforts.

It is a significant gift. There are winners and winners and winners. There is no difference between this and the Catawba Falls example I gave you where the winners were the local community, the individual who sold the land, and the emergency services cost to the county. This is a win-win for America, and we are doing all of this with zero taxpayer money. We are using the royalties off of exploration to fund it.

I am going to do something that is probably a first in this body. There are individuals who still would like to object to this. I am going to ask unanimous consent, and then I will object to my own unanimous consent request because I understand the rights of any one individual in the Senate.

I could have waited hours to speak until one of them came to object, but I saw it more worthy of my time to come here and to raise this issue, to present solutions, and to object to my own unanimous consent request because I respect the rights of every individual.

But I hope through doing this those colleagues that might have an objection to this would alleviate that objection. If you don't like the program, that is one thing, but don't claim that it is because you want to reduce the debt. Don't claim that you don't want to use taxpayer money. Don't claim that you want to package this with the parks and maintenance program.

I am giving it all to you in one bill. The only thing I am asking in return for the Land and Water Conservation Fund is to give us the ability to know long-term that this is in place so that we can leverage every private sector dollar in this country that we possibly can toward whatever appropriations the appropriators decide on an annual basis to give to the fund.

So at this time, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill in relation to LWCF, which is at the desk, with 1 hour of debate, and the Senate then vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I reluctantly object.

Sen. Jeff MerkleyD-OR · Aug 23, 2018

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about two things. The first is that this Saturday will be the…

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

Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about two things. The first is that this Saturday will be the 1-year anniversary of the beginning of a horrific genocide against the Rohingya in the country of Myanmar.

This genocide was preplanned. All kinds of preparations were put in place, as various independent investigations have established. It is time for the United States to take a strong response as a statement of global leadership on human rights on behalf of this horrific circumstance. We have 350 or so villages burned, countless individuals slaughtered as they ran from their villages, shot from helicopters, systemic rape, and children tossed into burning piles. It doesn't get much worse anywhere in the world at any time in history.

Now 700,000 refugees who escaped have found their way to Bangladesh, but there is no room in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a country half the size of Oregon. Yet Oregon has 4 million individuals, and Bangladesh has 160 million individuals.

Here are some things the United States should do right away on or before this Saturday. The State Department should release the report it has been compiling on the factual circumstances. Second, they should send this report to their legal counsel for an official determination if this constitutes genocide. The third thing they should do is ask the Senate to act quickly on the repatriation resolution that sets standards for the return of these refugees back to Burma, back to Myanmar. The fourth thing they should do is call on the Senate, followed by the House, to pass the Burma Human Rights and Freedom Act, which creates specific sanctions on those who planned and carried out this horrific ethnic cleansing.

Elie Wiesel said: ``A destruction, an annihilation that only man can provoke, only man can prevent.'' But if we do not respond clearly and effectively when there is this type of ethnic cleansing, this type of assault, then we are failing to prevent future assaults by those leaders who will be so tempted to divide their country on ethnic or racial lines, to take brutal action against a despised minority community.

The seeds of this slaughter began with a military coup in 1962, following which the military demonized this ethnic group year after year. Not only should the United States respond with a State Department report and a clear decision if this is genocide--and clear sanctions-- but it is time for the President of the United States to speak out boldly and clearly on the international stage on this issue. A year has passed, and we have not a single public statement from the leader of the United States of America. So let that change.

Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

Madam President, the second issue I am here to talk about--and I am going to keep this short because my colleague is here, prepared to speak to his amendment--is the issue of whether the Senate proceeds to have hearings on nominee Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court. The answer should be, by every Member in this Chamber, a resounding no.

First, we have the Kagan standard that has been set by the Republican majority, which states, when there is a Supreme Court nomination, it is essential to have all of the facts, all of the records that have been touched on, because only then will Senators be able to exercise their responsibility under the Constitution for advice and consent. So, if individuals want to exercise their responsibility effectively under advice and consent on a nominee from a Democratic President, shouldn't the same individuals make the same argument to exercise their responsibility effectively when the nominee comes from a Republican President?

The standard should be the standard. Let's stand up, out of the partisan troughs that have been dug, and fight for the vision of a fair and transparent and fully credible nomination process.

No hearing should be held until we have the full set of documents. It escapes no one's vision in the United States of America that only a fraction of the documents have been delivered. It escapes no one's vision in the United States that even those documents have been vetted by a Republican lawyer, a partisan lawyer, who has worked beforehand for the nominee. That is not transparent; that is not fair; and that does not allow us to have the full scope of the record.

Furthermore--and I will say this in just a summary format--there is an enormous conflict of interest here by which the President is attempting to print a ``get out of jail free'' card. Out of his 25 nominees who had been put forward from the list of names that had been given to him from the Federalist Society, one of them had an expansive view of the Presidency; that being that the President of the United States cannot be indicted and that the President of the United States cannot be investigated. That is the standard that says a President is above and beyond the law.

I challenge every Member in the Chamber to pull out the Constitution and find the provision that says our Founders established a kingdom and a King because I think they are going to

find that is not the case; that there is no clause in our Constitution that says the President is above and beyond the law.

As our oath of office requires, let's exercise our responsibility appropriately with the advice and consent responsibility, and let's get the full documents and resolve this conflict of interest before any hearing is held.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, somebody once said: What is the use of a house if you don't have a tolerable planet to put it on?

That is a question that we should all grapple with in this Chamber. It is a question that propels my colleagues from the Environment Committee to come to the floor and take note that the Trump administration's plan to replace the Clean Power Plan with a dirty power plan is one egregious step in damaging our planet. It is an egregious step to increase carbon pollution.

Carbon pollution has all kinds of effects that we are seeing across the country, from raging forest fires in the Northwest, with my State covered in smoke, to the stronger, more powerful hurricanes that hit the city of Houston of my colleague from Texas and the cities in Florida of my colleague from Florida, to the impact across the country on agriculture, to the impact with greater droughts in some cases and greater floods in others. One of the single most effective steps that can be taken is to reduce the amount of carbon pollution from powerplants and transportation.

Let's be clear. This dirty power plan from the administration increases the damage to the citizens of the United States, all just to pander to polluters. We have seen so much of this in the last year and a half.

I know that we are living in an era in which the administration has created a parallel universe of alternative facts, where truth isn't necessarily truth, as the President's lawyer said this past couple of weeks. But let's remember that if you are outside that parallel universe, if you are in the real world, there are real numbers.

By 2030, the Clean Power Plan would stop 870 million tons of pollution from poisoning the air that you and I, our families, our children, and our friends breathe. That is represented here by looking at this blue line in the year 2030 and the descending line of carbon pollution that is driven both by the fuel economy standards and the electricity standards. What we see under the President's dirty power plan is that, from here into the future, there is no further reduction--essentially zero reduction--then, past 2030, an increase in the carbon pollution that is doing all this damage across the country.

There is damage in every one of our States. This damage doesn't just happen in blue States. Texas is not a blue State. Texas suffered horrific consequences of this carbon pollution, so certainly representatives from that State would want to do something about it, and so on, through every single State. The amount of difference in the carbon pollution between the Clean Power Plan and the dirty power plan is equivalent to the pollution from 166 million cars on the road for a year.

It isn't just the impact on forest fires and the impact on hurricanes and the impact on drought, affecting agriculture, and the impact on floods. It is also the impact on human health. The estimate is that, by the year 2030, the difference between the Clean Power Plan and the dirty power plan is 4,500 premature deaths. So this decision kills people.

The difference between those two lines, by the year 2030, is 90,000 children's asthma attacks. The difference between those two lines is 1,700 heart attacks. Picture that many children with asthma attacks going to the hospital, 90,000 children. Picture that many heart attacks. Picture that many premature deaths. Aren't we here to make America stronger and better, not to kill Americans, not to put Americans in the hospital? Yet the President's plan does exactly that.

Those health problems result in a lot more expenses. The Clean Power Plan could result in $54 billion in health and climate benefits, and it creates a lot of jobs by driving renovation of the energy industry. When you renovate a house, you create a number of jobs. When you renovate an energy economy, you create a lot of jobs--millions of jobs--millions of jobs in clean and renewable energy, in wind and solar and geothermal.

The dirty power plan the President is putting forward says this: Instead of having a plan, we will simply tell the States to develop an idea of what they should do. In other words, the States have the responsibility, but no requirements, to act.

There is a little bit in there about improving the efficiency of coal-fired plants. But the idea is that if you extend the plants for a couple of years by making them more efficient, then you will reduce the adoption of renewable energy that is cheaper. So we are also talking about more expensive power by keeping inefficient, expensive forms of power, producing into the future.

These ideas that the administration has put forward about making the plants work a little bit more efficiently come with the caveat that, if you do that, you don't have to put the additional modernization pollution controls on them. It means more fine particulates, it means more sulfur, and it means more mercury--all things that damage human health. So it all keeps coming back to this assault on the health of Americans and on ag and on forests and on fishing. All three of those are affected by carbon pollution and climate chaos. That is the basic picture we are looking at.

Why don't we take a step back and just ask the simple question: What is the best outcome for America? Is it the adoption of cheaper renewable energy over more expensive fossil fuels? I would say: Yes, let's adopt the cheaper energy.

Is it the adoption of cleaner energy over dirtier energy? Yes, let's keep our air cleaner.

Is it doing what is right for the health of Americans? Yes, let's do right by the health of Americans.

Is it taking and contributing to a strategy of driving carbon pollution hopefully, eventually, down to zero? We want a plan that drives carbon down, not a plan that drives it sideways--that is, no change--or works eventually upward.

The question that David Thoreau put before us, ``What is the use of a house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?'' includes great significance for those American citizens who had their homes burned down this year because of carbon pollution. It would certainly be very relevant to those working in agriculture in America who are losing their farms because of drought or floods. It would certainly be relevant to those citizens living in Texas and Florida who have been deeply damaged by the hurricane storms of last year.

So let's do right for Americans, and let's reject this dirty power plan that will hurt us in every way possible.

Sen. Robert MenendezD-NJ · Aug 23, 2018

Madam President, I come to the floor because President Trump, his administration, and this Republican Congress are engaged in a heartless and deliberate plot to rip healthcare away from millions of…

It was a little over a year ago when Americans rose, made their voices heard, and stopped Republicans from passing TrumpCare. Ever since they were able to repeal the Affordable Care Act on the Senate floor, this administration has pursued a cynical campaign to sabotage the Affordable Care Act from behind closed doors. The Trump administration slashed the open enrollment period, leaving Americans with less time to get covered, and, to confuse consumers, they cut advertising and outreach funding. They abruptly eliminated cost-sharing payments, raising out-of-pocket expenses for many struggling families.

Earlier this summer, they rolled back consumer protections and gave insurers permission to sell more junk health plans to consumers--plans that leave people more vulnerable to massive medical bills that bankrupt their families. They even intervened in a court case to have protections for preexisting conditions struck down, jeopardizing coverage for 3.8 million New Jerseyans who have a preexisting condition.

Every act of sabotage has contributed to soaring healthcare premiums, fewer choices for consumers, and millions of Americans losing their healthcare coverage under this President's watch. Now we face President Trump's greatest act of sabotage yet--the nomination of a judge to the Supreme Court who has decried the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act at the very same time this administration is arguing in court that protections for preexisting conditions are unconstitutional-- unconstitutional.

As a candidate and as President, Donald Trump repeatedly pledged to

protect people with preexisting conditions, saying on ``60 Minutes'' that he would ``take care of everybody.''

Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies could discriminate against any American who had a preexisting condition. What is that? That is some illness you acquired in your life. It is that heart attack or the Parkinson's disease or the birth defect you had when you were born that allowed an insurance company to discriminate against you and either deny you healthcare coverage or make the cost so exorbitant, it was impossible to afford. The Affordable Care Act I helped write ultimately eliminated that discrimination and the ability of insurance companies to do that.

In New Jersey alone, which has a little over 9 million people in the State, 3.8 million New Jerseyans have a preexisting condition.

The President also said he replaced the Affordable Care Act with ``something terrific.'' There is nothing terrific about breaking a promise that threatens the lives and livelihoods of millions of families.

I remember when President Trump promised to stand up for the so- called forgotten men. I guess he forgot about them when he signed a Republican tax scam into law, handing trillion-dollar tax cuts to big corporations at the expense of working families and New Jersey's middle class, taking away or limiting significantly our State and local property tax deduction. He definitely forgot about the forgotten when he reversed his position on preexisting condition protections.

The administration's plot to derail the Affordable Care Act and the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh has implications for every family in America, no matter whether they are covered by an employer or by their own insurance on the marketplace.

People remember what it was like before we passed the Affordable Care Act. It wasn't so long ago that healthcare insurance companies could pick and choose who got covered and drop their customers the moment they got sick. Before the Affordable Care Act, women could be denied coverage for maternity care. Women in many parts of the country ultimately were discriminated against by being charged more than their male counterparts in the same age group, in the same geography, simply because they were women.

Today, women no longer are considered to have a preexisting condition under the law simply because they are a woman.

Before the Affordable Care Act, babies born with heart deformities could hit lifetime limits within days of being born. Today, families don't have to worry about lifetime caps.

Before the Affordable Care Act, cancer survivors and Americans with chronic conditions like diabetes or asthma could be charged exorbitant premiums and priced out of coverage altogether. Today, those patients are protected from discrimination.

This guaranteed coverage for preexisting conditions formed the very heart of the Affordable Care Act. But if confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could drive a stake right through it. That is because this judge has a long history of ruling against consumers and for big corporations, and that doesn't bode well for the 133 million Americans who live with preexisting conditions in this country. That includes those 3.8 million people in New Jersey. For me, that is 3.8 million reasons to oppose Kavanaugh's nomination, and that is before we even get to his hostile views with respect to Roe v. Wade.

Make no mistake, the anti-choice, anti-Affordable Care Act, and anti- everyday American views of Judge Kavanaugh are not up for debate. President Trump has been crystal clear about nominating only judges opposed to Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose.

So when I read reports about Judge Kavanaugh telling my colleagues here in the Senate that Roe v. Wade is ``settled law,'' I have to chuckle because, let's be clear, his hollow words mean absolutely nothing. The Supreme Court has the power to unsettle so-called settled law whenever they make a ruling, and we have seen in the Court's recent decisions, such as in the Janus case, where years of settled law all of a sudden became unsettled.

I don't question Judge Kavanaugh's experience or his intelligence, but I do question his history of partisanship and impartiality. I question his ability to put aside his decades of work in Republican politics. I question his connections to far-right groups that have spent decades rolling back women's constitutional rights and rigging our courts in favor of the rich and powerful.

The American people deserve a Supreme Court Justice who will defend their rights and strive for a legal system in which workers, consumers, patients, and families go to court on a level playing field at a time when powerful special interests are too often holding all the cards.

Instead, they have been given a nominee groomed by rightwing organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society to do the bidding of their big corporate donors.

If confirmed, Donald Trump will have replaced the only swing vote on the Supreme Court with a partisan who swings only to the far right, and Brett Kavanaugh will be in a position to cast a deciding vote, should the Trump administration's assault on the Affordable Care Act end up in the Supreme Court. That is frightening, and it is frustrating, especially because any one of my Republican colleagues has the power to make a real difference. Any one of my colleagues in the majority could demand we don't confirm a Supreme Court nominee until this administration stops its assault on the rights of patients with preexisting conditions. Republicans claim they support these protections, but this is not a time for halfhearted statements. This is a time for action. If Republicans truly believed in preventing insurance companies from discriminating against patients who have endured complicated pregnancies or survived cancer or have a chronic disease, they would do something about it.

Instead, as the Trump administration carries out this campaign of sabotage against the Affordable Care Act, my Republican colleagues are engaged in a campaign of silence and complicity. When you have the power to use your voice and your vote to protect millions of patients and families across this Nation and you choose not to do so, you are indeed complicit. It is sad and shameful that not a single Republican in this body has put their foot down and stood up for the rights of patients, stood up for all of those millions of Americans who have a preexisting condition.

Failing to speak up means you are part of the problem. You are destabilizing our insurance markets and kicking millions off of their coverage. You are driving higher out-of-pocket costs for families and skyrocketing healthcare premiums. You are leaving Americans who have struggled with opioid addiction or endured a sexual assault vulnerable to discrimination. You are enabling President Trump's worst instincts, which is to do whatever he pleases whenever he pleases, with no regard for the rule of law or the role of Congress or the havoc he is wreaking on people's lives.

Most Americans can't believe we have to refight the healthcare battles of the past. They want their leaders to work on building them a brighter future.

There are so many ways we could be working to improve our healthcare system and making a real difference in the lives of our constituents. We could be passing legislation that ensures that women have access to reproductive healthcare and the right to control their own bodies, no matter which State they live in, like the Women's Health Protection Act. We could be holding powerful drug companies accountable for price gouging consumers and playing fast and loose with the rules by passing commonsense bills like the CREATES Act and the SPIKE Act. We could be pursuing reforms to reduce healthcare costs, not by reducing access to care but by encouraging efficiency and becoming better at preventing and managing costly chronic disease. We could be creating more transparency so that patients headed to surgery can shop around before going under the knife with a wish and a prayer that they don't wake up to a massive medical bill. We could be pursuing solutions to reduce risk in the private marketplace and lower premiums for younger consumers, not by inflicting a punishing age tax but by letting Americans 55 years and older buy into Medicare.

Before we make our healthcare system better, we have to stop President Trump from making it worse. It is time we do the responsible thing: Put the brake on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination. Tell the President his nominee will not get a hearing until he drops his legal assault on patients with preexisting conditions. Demand that the administration stop playing games with American lives and stand up for the right of every man, woman, and child across America to quality, affordable healthcare. We have that opportunity in this Senate.

I don't hear any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle raising their voice in the midst of an attack against the essence of the protections under the Affordable Care Act that we supposedly all collectively embraced, that the President heralded, but now the President is directing the Justice Department to attack.

It is time to speak up. And if not, then one is complicit. If that ultimate attack against the Affordable Care Act is successful, then for 130 million Americans across this country who will no longer have those protections, I think they will remember on election day.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Sen. Thomas R. CarperD-DE · Aug 23, 2018

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Mr. President, I rise today with a number of my colleagues to speak out against the Trump administration EPA's…

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

Mr. President, I rise today with a number of my colleagues to speak out against the Trump administration EPA's dirty power plan--a

proposal to replace the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. This proposal from this administration fails in at least two aspects: First, it fails to address climate change, and second, it will put Americans' health at risk.

Millions of American children are heading back to school in my State and in your State and in States across the country this week and next week. All three of my children are grown, but not so long ago, we were sending them off to school, helping them with their homework, and making sure they were getting good grades. As far as we know, they never brought home any failing grades. However, I can't say the same for the Trump administration with respect to this latest proposal.

A friend of mine recently said: ``If corruption were a class, the Trump administration would be getting an A-plus.'' Well, in just about everything else--especially public health and economics--the Trump administration continues to fail the American people almost every day. It is clear this administration needs to do a little remedial work, maybe take some courses again, especially in basic science.

Let's be clear. The science behind climate change is settled. It is over. Climate change is real. It is happening. It is a growing threat to America, and it is getting worse every year. Climate change is leading to rising global temperatures, rising sea levels, and more intense and frequent weather events. NOAA tells us that extreme weather events costing $1 billion or more have doubled in frequency over the past decade, with $425 billion in losses having occurred over the last 5 years alone.

It is now hard to find a part of our country that isn't being affected in some way by climate change. We see the examples almost everywhere. Not too far from my home in Delaware is a place called Ellicott City, MD.

My wife visited there with a bunch of her friends from the DuPont Company. They are all retired now, and they wanted to go visit there and actually support the local economy in Ellicott City, the local people who have been through just terrible devastation. In the last 2 years alone, two 1,000-year floods have devastated Ellicott City, MD, just north of Washington, DC. There have been two 1,000-year floods in the last 2 years.

Forest fires fueled by extreme heat and drought continue to ravage States like Montana, California, and Oregon.

Since we started keeping records, only 49 category 5 hurricanes have threatened the United States. That is since we started keeping records, and I think we have been keeping records for maybe a century. Three of those 49 category 5 hurricanes occurred in the last year. Think of that. Out of 49 category 5 hurricanes since we have been keeping track--and I think it has been a century--3 of those were in the last year. Right now, one of those is threatening the people of Hawaii.

I can go on and on and on. Make no mistake--it is costing Americans in the form of lost income, lost livelihoods, and sadly, in some cases, lost lives.

As someone who proudly represents the lowest lying State in the Nation--Delaware--climate change is not a science lecture for us; it affects my constituents daily. For us, this issue is intensely personal. That is why for my entire career in the Senate, I have fought to find ways to move us away from fossil fuels and reduce carbon pollution. It started in 2002, when I introduced one of the first bills in Congress to cap carbon emissions from coal-fired powerplants.

The good news is that we have made some progress in this country. That is in part due to the large investments that the Obama administration and Congress made over the last decade in clean energy. It is also due in part to smart regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan. I proudly supported those efforts, and I still do.

In addition, many companies across our Nation have stepped up, and they deserve some credit. Making real investments in clean energy has turned out to be the right thing and to be a wise investment, demonstrating that it is possible once again to do well and do good at the same time.

As a result of these actions, in the last decade, our country rebounded from one of its greatest economic downturns in history. We lowered energy costs, reduced air pollution, and added 16 million new jobs during the Obama administration. We also launched the longest running economic expansion in the history of our country, which continues to this day.

We have a chart here that shows that since 1970, the United States has cut common air pollutants by almost 75 percent, while the U.S. GDP has grown by over 200 percent.

Instead of building on the Obama administration's forward-looking environmental standards, this administration has taken pride in tearing the protections apart. This administration's so-called affordable clean energy proposal fails to provide industry with the certainty needed to make clean energy investments for the future, while also providing an uncertain future for generations to come.

People say, at least where I am from and maybe in North Carolina--my wife is from North Carolina, and she tells me they say this in North Carolina as well. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. No matter what EPA calls this proposal, by the Agency's own account, it doesn't achieve affordable energy or clean energy, and it definitely doesn't address climate change. The EPA's proposal, which I think might more appropriately be called the dirty power plan, is instead another step by this administration to dismantle the Nation's environmental protections and protect polluters over the public.

If I were to grade the EPA's proposal to replace the Clean Power Plan, I would not give it an A, and I would not give it a B, a C, or a D. I might well give it an F. I take no joy in saying that, but that is the way--calling balls and strikes, that is pretty much what I would call it.

A friend of mine--maybe you have a friend like this, too, Mr. President--a friend of mine, when we ask him how he is doing, sometimes responds with these words: ``Compared to what?'' When compared against the Clean Power Plan, using EPA's own numbers, it is easy to see the dirty power plan's shortcomings.

Let's start with the Clean Power Plan. We have a chart here that says that ``the Clean Power Plan would create $54 billion per year in public health and climate benefits.''

Compare that to the dirty power plan. We have another chart. This one indicates--and this is EPA's own analysis. This is not my analysis, not the Democratic Party's analysis; this is EPA's own analysis of Trump's Clean Power Plan replacement. What happens to smog? It goes up. What happens to soot? It goes up. What happens to mercury? It goes up. What happens to carbon pollution? It goes up. How about premature deaths per year? Well, they go up. By a couple? By 100? By 1,000? No, no. Up to 1,400 premature deaths per year.

That is enough for me to say no thank you and to give the dirty power plan a failing grade, but there is more. The Clean Power Plan would reduce household energy prices by $85 a year through energy efficiency investment. The Clean Power Plan also provides long-term certainty for U.S. businesses, helping American companies make smart investments at home and compete in the global clean energy market. The dirty power plan does not help consumers save money on energy costs, does not provide businesses with certainty, and instead will likely cede clean energy jobs to places like--you guessed it--China.

Let's recap. When we compare the dirty power plan over there in red to the Clean Power Plan here in green--cleaner air? The clear winner is the Clean Power Plan. Saving lives? The clear winner is the Clean Power Plan. Job creation? The clear winner is the Clean Power Plan. Energy savings? Again, the clear winner is the Clean Power Plan. Safer climate? Again, the Clean Power Plan. Where I come from, we call that running the table. That is why, in my class, if I were the teacher, if I were assigning grades, this dirty power plan would not get an A, B, C, or D; it would get a failing grade.

Let's be honest. EPA's dirty power plan proposal is not a climate change replacement, it is a retreat. Let me say that again. EPA's dirty power plan proposal from this administration is not a climate change replacement; it is a retreat. It is a retreat from EPA's most basic responsibilities to ensure breathable air. It is a retreat as well from EPA's most basic responsibility to

usher in economic progress and tackle the greatest environmental crisis that I think we face on this planet of ours.

The Clean Power Plan, with its long-term certainty and flexibility structure, is the Federal policy that moves us in the right direction and fulfills EPA's legal and scientific obligations to address climate pollution. Repealing the Clean Power Plan and replacing it with a proposal as ill-conceived as the dirty power plan will have serious consequences for the health of the public, our economy, and this planet with which we are entrusted.

The American people deserve better than a dirty power plan, plain and simple. My colleagues and I are going to do everything in our power to make sure that happens.

Let me close with this real quick. I see some of my colleagues are waiting to speak. I would say maybe 10 years or so ago, one of my colleagues--I think it was either George Voinovich or Lamar Alexander-- was working on legislation to address four air pollutants: sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide. We offered legislation in response to the George W. Bush administration's proposal. Those affiliated with SOx, NOX, and mercury-- sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury--called the Bush administration's proposal Clear Skies. Pretty clever. We added to that carbon dioxide. We called our proposal Really Clear Skies.

I remember having a meeting in my office about a decade ago. In my office, we had my colleague, my Republican cosponsor, and we also had representatives from six, seven, eight, nine utilities from all over the country debating and discussing whether Clear Skies, the Bush proposal, or Really Clear Skies, our proposal, made more sense. I will never forget what one utility CEO said at the end of the discussion. He might have been from North Carolina. He was from someplace down South. He said: Senators, here is what you should do. Tell us what the rules are going to be, give us a reasonable amount of time, some flexibility, and get out of the way. That is what he said. I will never forget that: Tell us what the rules will be with respect to air emission, give us a reasonable amount of time, some flexibility, and get out of the way.

I think that is what the Clean Power Plan did. We need to get back a lot closer to that proposal. I think it actually mirrors and reflects the advice we received a decade ago.

My time has expired. I thank my colleagues for their patience.

I am happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Flake.

Show 8 more

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in SenateIssued April 7, 2017

115th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 896

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 7, 2017

Mr. Burr (for himself, Mr. Bennet, Ms. Collins, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Daines, Mrs. Shaheen, and Mr. Heinrich) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Permanent reauthorization of Land and Water Conservation Fund

(a)

In general

Section 200302 of title 54, United States Code, is amended—

(1)

in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking During the period ending September 30, 2018, there and inserting There; and

(2)

in subsection (c)(1), by striking through September 30, 2018.

(b)

Public access

Section 200306 of title 54, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(c)

Public access

Not less than 1.5 percent of amounts made available for expenditure in any fiscal year under section 200303, or $10,000,000, whichever is greater, shall be used for projects that secure recreational public access to existing Federal public land for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes.