00:00Mr. President, last year, this body unanimously passed 41 bills from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
00:09Now, 16 of those bills, for one reason or another, didn't end up getting signed into law last year.
00:18Some of those bills perhaps were casualties of the legislative calendar,
00:23but for one reason or another, didn't make it through.
00:25But they remain undisputed. They remain non-controversial.
00:29And they've been reintroduced by Republican and Democratic senators
00:33and are clear on the Republican side of the aisle.
00:37It's important to note here that these non-controversial bipartisan bills all remain completely unchanged.
00:45Not a single letter, not a single period, comma, exclamation mark has been altered from them.
00:52They remain utterly uncontroversial.
00:56Not a whiff of partisan dispute has between them.
01:00In the past, these bills were, in many circumstances, packaged together.
01:06It's been something of a custom in the Senate to package together groups of bills.
01:13Land's bills, in some cases, were paired together as part of much larger bills.
01:18And in some instances, parts of some of those bills were themselves controversial.
01:26Larger bills, bills that were sometimes written in secret
01:29and not available to individual members to review prior to the time
01:35that they were propounded for a unanimous consent request on the floor.
01:40And so today, I'm going to make an entirely reasonable offer to move four bills off of the floor
01:48from among that group that passed last year by unanimous consent in the Senate.
01:54They are unchanged, they are still non-controversial,
01:57and they carry no substantive policy objections,
02:01no objections to the merits of the bill and what they do.
02:04They are bills that are locally supported,
02:08bills that have been thoroughly vetted by the Committee of Jurisdiction
02:12and that are ready to move today.
02:16In short, they are bills that are ready to move
02:18in the same type of open, member-driven process that the Senate was built for
02:24and that the Senate, quite frankly, prides itself in fostering and encouraging
02:29rather than being held hostage for a larger backroom deal negotiated in secret.
02:36The first is a bill from Senator Barrasso
02:38that would provide common sense flexibility for ranchers
02:42during natural disasters to help ensure rangeland health on federal lands.
02:49The second is a bill that I've introduced
02:51called the Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act,
02:55which would add Utah as a fourth location
02:57for the Southwest Ecological Research Institutes,
03:00which would be housed, for the Utah portion of it,
03:04at Utah State University.
03:06This institute would foster collaboration
03:09to promote healthy forests, wildfire prevention,
03:12and resilient water supplies.
03:16Utah is well-positioned and ready to work with the other institutes,
03:19including the New Mexico Forest and Watershed Restoration Institute
03:23to protect the unique landscapes and communities
03:27across the western United States.
03:29The third bill is one from Senator Cortez Masto,
03:33the Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act.
03:36This bill would make certain boundary changes
03:39and would authorize a right-of-way
03:41for the Horizon Lateral Water Pipeline in Nevada,
03:44something important to Nevadans.
03:46As a desert state like mine, water for Nevadans is very important.
03:52The fourth bill is one from Senator Padilla,
03:55which would adjust the boundary
03:56of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
04:01Now, again, just to reiterate,
04:03all four of these bills have certain things in common.
04:07They do different things.
04:08They operate in different parts of the country.
04:10They've got different sponsors from different political parties.
04:12But they all have a few features in common.
04:17They all passed by unanimous consent in this body
04:20just a few months ago.
04:22Not a single Republican, not a single Democrat objecting to any of them.
04:25And they remain entirely unchanged and entirely non-controversial.
04:30If there is any outstanding policy issue,
04:34I'd love to be aware of it and would love to address it.
04:37But as of this moment, I'm aware of not one.
04:41Not on the House side, not even on the Senate side.
04:44And so to that end, Mr. President,
04:46as if in legislative session and notwithstanding Rule 22,
04:50I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
04:53be discharged,
04:54and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration
04:56of the following bills and block.
04:58S-211, Resiliency for Ranching and Natural Conservation Health Act
05:03from Senator Barrasso, S-457,
05:07the Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 25
05:13from myself and from Senator Curtis,
05:18S-1142, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area
05:23from Senator Padilla,
05:26S-392, Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act
05:30from Senator Cortez Masto.
05:32Further, that the bills be considered read a third time and passed
05:35and that the motions to reconsider be considered made
05:38and laid upon the table, all end block.
05:42Is there an objection?
05:44Mr. President.
05:45Senator from Washington.
05:46Mr. President, reserving the right to object,
05:48and I appreciate the senator from Utah being here tonight
05:51to offer this package,
05:52but I believe there needs to be a more bipartisan
05:55and thoughtful way to consider how we protect the future
05:59of our public lands.
06:01For example, that the legislation
06:02that the senior senator from Utah wants to pass tonight
06:05does not include my Wild Olympics bill.
06:08Now, this is a bill that will help to preserve
06:11the wild and scenic rivers of the Olympic Peninsula
06:14that has very strong support from Democrats
06:17and Republicans in my state.
06:20There is a strong nonpartisan coalition
06:22of support for this bill from tribes, hunters, fishermen,
06:27conservationists, and even loggers.
06:30And that is because my bill supports the peninsula economy
06:33and ensures that continued access
06:35to our world-class outdoor recreation
06:37on the Olympic Peninsula,
06:40and it conserves critical habitat for salmon
06:43and water resources for our very rural communities.
06:47Moreover, this bill has passed the House
06:49several times now with bipartisan support.
06:53In fact, Mr. President,
06:54I have been working on this for over a decade
06:57to build support and consensus around this bill.
07:00It is carefully drafted,
07:02it's a thoughtful piece of legislation,
07:04and the grassroots support for this bill
07:06has only grown over the years.
07:08That is exactly the kind of bill
07:10which should be included
07:11in a bipartisan public lands package.
07:15I would invite the senior senator of Utah
07:17to visit the land this bill covers
07:19to help protect our Olympic national forest.
07:23I think you would find out
07:24why I am here tonight objecting to this,
07:26because it doesn't include it.
07:28I want the senator from Utah to know
07:31my door's always open.
07:32I hope that in the future we can work together
07:34in drafting a public lands bill
07:37that does include legislation
07:38like my Wild Olympics bill.
07:41And I know I'm not alone.
07:42Many of our colleagues have worked
07:44on important legislation
07:45for their respective states.
07:47So for now, I object,
07:49but I do so, Mr. President,
07:51with my hand outstretched,
07:52ready to work with the senator together
07:54on a public lands package
07:56that is comprehensive.
07:58Objection is heard.
07:59Mr. President.
08:00The senator from Utah.
08:02Mr. President,
08:02I appreciate the characteristically thoughtful
08:05and thorough remarks
08:07by my friend and colleague,
08:08the distinguished senator from Washington.
08:11I do want to be clear
08:13about a couple of things.
08:14Number one,
08:14this has been the product
08:16of a lot of effort on our part,
08:19good faith efforts,
08:20that we've made
08:21to work with ranking member Heinrich
08:23and members of both political parties
08:26to move these bills to the floor
08:30and to get them passed over many months.
08:33Now, again, I want to reiterate
08:35if there are substantive policy concerns
08:38with any of the bills in this package,
08:40understanding that these are only four bills.
08:42Those four bills don't comment on,
08:46they neither preclude,
08:48nor prejudice in any way, shape, or form,
08:50our ability to pass other bills.
08:53Anytime you're choosing a finite group
08:56of legislative proposals
08:59to be considered for adoption
09:02by unanimous consent
09:04or through any other expedited process,
09:06you are necessarily excluding others
09:08that are not on that list.
09:10And so it becomes incumbent
09:12upon those involved in the effort
09:14to decide which ones belong.
09:16So let's talk a little bit
09:17about how we go about that,
09:18about how we went about that here.
09:23With these bills,
09:25these are four of the bills
09:26that, again,
09:27passed the Senate unanimously
09:29just a few months ago
09:30that remain unchanged in this Congress,
09:34that didn't draw a single no vote,
09:36a single objection
09:38from any Republican
09:41or from any Democrat.
09:43In that respect,
09:44they all have things in common,
09:45even though they operate
09:46in different states,
09:47have different sponsors
09:48from different political parties,
09:49and do different things.
09:52The bill of which my friend and colleague,
09:54the distinguished senator
09:55from the state of Washington,
09:56refers,
09:57is quite the opposite of those things.
09:59Now, I'm sure she has put
10:00an enormous amount of effort into it,
10:03and I'm sure it's important to her,
10:05and I'm sure it's been carefully drafted
10:07because my friend and colleague,
10:09the distinguished senator
10:10from the state of Washington,
10:11is thorough.
10:13But there are some things
10:15that that bill doesn't have
10:17in common with these,
10:18and in fact,
10:19hearkening back to childhood,
10:23there's a song called
10:24One of These Things
10:24is Not Like the Other.
10:26If you were to try to include
10:28that bill in a list with these bills,
10:31that would be the clear standout.
10:33Why?
10:33Number one,
10:34it has not passed the Senate.
10:36Number two,
10:37it was considered
10:38in the Senate Energy
10:39and Natural Resources Committee,
10:40and it resulted
10:42in a strict party-line vote.
10:44Democrats versus Republicans.
10:46Shirts versus skins.
10:47There was not a single vote
10:49overlapping between the two parties.
10:52That doesn't mean
10:53that it's not a good bill.
10:54Doesn't mean it's not important
10:55to her or people
10:56in the state of Washington.
10:58But it does mean
10:59that it lacks
11:00the core characteristics
11:01held in common
11:02by each and every one
11:03of the bills
11:04that I've just offered
11:05by unanimous consent.
11:08Now,
11:09if that is going
11:10to be the standard,
11:11that any time
11:11there is any package
11:13of bills,
11:14a package consisting
11:16of two paired sets,
11:18a Republican
11:19and Democratic legislation
11:21brought forward together,
11:23in this case,
11:24bills that drew
11:25not a single no vote,
11:26not a single objection
11:27from members
11:27of either party
11:28and remain unchanged
11:30since that last happened,
11:32if any time
11:32we try to offer those bills,
11:34it's appropriate
11:36to object
11:38in the absence
11:39of any substantive
11:40on-the-merits objection
11:42or concern
11:43with the legislation,
11:45it's going to be
11:45very difficult for us
11:46to get this done.
11:48Now,
11:48none of this means
11:49that we couldn't find a way
11:50to pair that
11:51with something
11:52that would make sense,
11:53coupled with any change
11:55that members
11:56of both parties
11:57might insist on
11:57in order to make them
11:58comfortable
11:59with moving it forward.
12:02But it does mean
12:03that it would be
12:05incongruous,
12:07illogical,
12:08counterproductive
12:08and destructive
12:09to the effort
12:10to pair that bill
12:11with this bill.
12:12That's a wilderness bill.
12:14By definition,
12:16by its very nature,
12:16it designates large tracts
12:18of wilderness
12:18and wilds
12:19and scenic rivers.
12:21That's not something
12:22that is inherently repugnant
12:24to either party.
12:25But it does so
12:26in a way
12:26that ended up
12:27drawing objections
12:28and no votes
12:28from literally
12:29every Republican
12:30on the committee.
12:31That suggests to me
12:32that before it's ready
12:34to be included
12:35in a unanimous consent request,
12:37it might need
12:38some additional work.
12:39I'm confident
12:40that we can get it there.
12:40Most types of legislation
12:42can get to the point
12:43where objections
12:45can be addressed.
12:47Through some combination
12:48of modifications
12:49to the legislation itself
12:50and the legislation
12:52that it might be paired with
12:53in order to help
12:54offset those objections.
12:56But nonetheless,
12:57I'll keep working
12:58to pass bipartisan bills
13:00that have unanimous support.
13:02I hope and expect
13:05and respectfully request
13:07that my colleagues
13:08across the aisle
13:10would take into account
13:13these dissimilarities.
13:15And if they want
13:15to add others
13:16that meet similar
13:17characteristics,
13:18let's have that conversation.
13:19If they want
13:20to get to the point
13:21where we can pass
13:22Senator Murray's bill,
13:24I'm sure there is a way
13:26that that could be considered
13:28and we could possibly
13:29get there.
13:30But we can't assume
13:31that you compare something
13:32that's that dissimilar
13:33that is by its very nature,
13:36and according to
13:37the legislative record,
13:38it's the very definition
13:39of partisan
13:40and not the kind of thing
13:42that one can expect.
13:45We would be crazy
13:46to assume that something
13:47that resulted
13:48in a party-line committee vote
13:51last year
13:51would suddenly get to the floor
13:52and not draw
13:53a single Republican objection.
13:56I would also hope
13:57that next time
13:58when we add pairings
14:00to the floor,
14:01Democrat and Republican bills,
14:02I would love to see
14:03those hotlined
14:04on the other side
14:05of the aisle
14:05in the same format
14:06in which they were hotlined
14:07in our side.
14:09My understanding
14:09is that they were not
14:10in this instance,
14:11and they should be.
14:12There should be
14:12an apples-to-apples comparison.
14:14If they're given
14:15the opportunity,
14:16I can't imagine
14:17that many, if any,
14:19of my Democratic colleagues
14:20would object
14:20to any of these bills
14:22in isolation,
14:23and if they wouldn't object
14:24to them in isolation
14:24based on their
14:25substantive policy merits,
14:27and if they were given that
14:28in a hotline request,
14:30I think this would have
14:31turned out differently.
14:33Look, I do think
14:34it's important
14:34that we should pass bills
14:36expeditiously.
14:37And in the light of day,
14:39these bills have gone
14:42through public examination
14:44in the light of day,
14:45and they have been found
14:46not wanting
14:47for bipartisanship.
14:50They have been found
14:52richly blessed
14:53with bipartisanship
14:54through a proven,
14:55undisputed track record.
14:56So, look,
14:57I think it's a big mistake
14:59to hold non-controversial bills
15:02put forward by senators
15:04in good faith,
15:04to hold those hostage
15:05in order to perpetuate
15:08a broken and sometimes
15:10corrupting process
15:11from a bygone era,
15:13one in which bills
15:14were prevented from passing,
15:17not because they were
15:18controversial,
15:19but because they were popular,
15:21and being used as bait
15:24in order to bring about
15:27the passage of other bills
15:29that were controversial.
15:30That makes no sense.
15:32What makes the Senate work
15:34best
15:36are those moments
15:37when we can identify
15:38things as to which
15:39we do not disagree.
15:42This, Mr. President,
15:43is one of those things.
15:45This, Mr. President,
15:46is where we can do better,
15:47and do better we must.
15:49I'm not going away.
15:50I'll be back.
15:50I'll be back soon,
15:51hopefully successful next time,
15:53and we'll do what we have to do
15:55in order to move
15:56the legislative process.
15:58But I humbly implore
15:58my friends and colleagues
16:00on both sides of the aisle,
16:02let's not take these moments
16:05where we do agree
16:06for granted,
16:07and let's not assume
16:09that just because
16:11any time,
16:13by definition,
16:14any time you come up
16:15with a list of four bills
16:16offered at once,
16:17that necessarily excludes
16:20the thousands of others
16:21that may be submitted
16:22during the course
16:23of any particular Congress
16:24in that legislative chamber.
16:26You can't get everything
16:27all at once.
16:28Why not take the things
16:29that we know can pass
16:30and have passed in the past?
16:32Let's get that.
Comments