Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Wednesday, December 3; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Orso nomination; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions filed during Monday's session of the Senate ripen at 11:15 a.m. tomorrow; and if cloture is invoked on the Orso nomination, the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at 2:15 p.m. tomorrow; and if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. I further ask that following disposition of the Orso nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each and Senator Murkowski or her designee be recognized to make a motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 91; further, that if the motion to proceed is agreed to, all debate time be expired and the Senate vote on passage of the joint resolution at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, on Thursday, December 4; I further ask that following the vote on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 91, the Senate resume executive session to consider the Rodriguez nomination and the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Rodriguez nomination at 4:30 p.m. tomorrow; finally, that if cloture is invoked on the Rodriguez nomination, the postcloture time be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, on Thursday, December 4, notwithstanding rule XXII.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Reserving the right to object. Look, the package just proposed by Senator Heinrich harkens back to a time when a Senate sometimes did those things. Sometimes it worked; sometimes it didn't. More recently, it doesn't work. More recently--as recently as a year ago--it proved not to work right here in the Senate and has proven not to work over in the House. My friend and colleague insists that this process isn't working. It is not working only because of this particular objection. It is not working here only because of these specific pairings--pairings suggested to us by the ranking members' own staff a matter of weeks ago. It is not just that he has voted for these within the last year, 11 months ago; these specific pairings were suggested by his own team to mine. I don't understand why this means that we should put them all together. Now, let's take it at face value. We received word that this was happening just a few hours ago. Just a few hours ago, we got the bill that, to my knowledge, hasn't been read yet. Let's assume for a second all that this does is to put the exact text in each of those four bills into one large bill introduced in Senator Heinrich's name, then brought to the floor. I struggle to understand why that is acceptable, but passing them in one fell swoop, in one unanimous consent request on the floor of the Senate, is objectionable to him. We heard a moment ago an argument that I foreshadowed a moment ago-- the argument that somehow this would result in Democratic bills in the other Chamber being neglected while Republican bills were expedited. Were this a concern that were borne out, in fact, it would be a reasonable and legitimate one. But we have been told by the House not only that they will pass these, if at all, on the suspension calendar, which requires a supermajority vote, about 290 votes, as I recall, but that because it has to be passed that way over there--they pair them just as we pair things here quite frequently with uncontroversial bills like this to make sure we have party balance between Republican bills and Democratic bills. We have been told it will cause problems and likely signal doom. The two bills, when we sewed them all together in one package, that is not how they like to do it over there and, in many cases, not how our Members want to do it here--from our own colleagues today, some of whom are affected by these bills who are concerned about what this practice will do to them. So, look, we tried to do this. We paired these according to suggestions made by the ranking member's own staff. We requested a meeting with him in September. We were rebuffed, declined. We remain ready to meet at any time to discuss how we can do them. I am simply trying to move bills that have been sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats in a fair and balanced fashion, in a way that everyone can understand in the Member-driven process for which this body was built and rather uniquely designed. Yet my colleague, the ranking member, continues to object. It makes me wonder what the end is here. If the end is passing good legislation, legislation that we can all agree on, then why not pass these now? It isn't always possible to present bills like this. It is not on every issue, which is not lost on any of us, but on most issues we don't have unanimity. We pass a lot by unanimous consent, but not everything can pass that way. These bills, individually, are uncontroversial here, and they are in the House. But they become controversial the minute someone insists that they be sewn together in one package where you have to vote for all of them or none of them in order to get them through. That kind of practice--used by Members of both parties at times in the past with varying degrees of success but less success more recently--is a type of extortion for bills imposed on the bills that have no opposition and that have no substantive objections. There is no legitimate reason to not pass these here today. I can't, in good conscience, let that process continue. I will work with any Member, Republican or Democrat, including the ranking member, to move noncontroversial bills and get them across the finish line for our constituents. I will be happy to do it with packages like these that are fair and balanced between the two parties. It is not an objection that is rooted in anything about these bills. It is just a vehicle by which they are presented. But if we have to sew them all together in one package, that is not going to work. It is not going to work here. It is not going to work on the other side of this building. So I will continue to come to the floor and try to move these, particularly these noncontroversial bills that have passed unanimously within the last year. We will be back to do this. On this basis for the reasons articulated, I object.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is a shame that we don't have more of an opportunity to pass more bills, particularly bills that are not controversial. This is an opportunity that we should take to pass noncontroversial bills every time we get the chance. We have four bills coming out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that we can, and I believe we should, pass today--bills with no substantive objections that I am aware of, bills that have been cleared by both parties in the Senate, bills that will have positive impact for Americans--Americans that the bills themselves were designed to serve. And yet, sadly, I am anticipating an objection today when I offer those up for passage. So why am I anticipating an objection? Well, I am looking forward to hearing from my colleague--my friend and colleague from New Mexico--Senator Heinrich, on what objections he might have to a bill from Senator Hawley that would designate America's National Churchill Museum in Missouri as a national historic landmark. I am looking forward to hearing from him what problems he might have with Senator Padilla's uncontroversial bill to adjust the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I am looking forward to hearing what changes he would propose to Senator Husted's bill, which simply adjusts the boundaries of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, or what he thinks would be harmed by passing a bill from Senator Gillibrand and Minority Leader Schumer, his own colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that would establish the Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historical Park. All the bills that I am offering have passed out of this body and did, in fact, pass out of this body last year with unanimous support-- not just bipartisan but unanimous support. All are locally supported. All should be passed today. And I fear they might not be, and I am really looking forward to why--looking forward to hearing why my colleague might want to stop these--because if there are real substantive objections to these bills, to any of them, bring them forward. I will be the first to work with him or others who may have concerns on those. Perhaps, then, we can work to improve the bill and resolve what concerns might exist around it to get it to a place where everyone is happy with it and where we could get something done for the American people. After all, this is the business of law making. But I don't think we are likely to hear substantive objections today, based on what I have heard. I don't anticipate that my friend and colleague Senator Heinrich will offer substantive objections or changes that he wants made to these particular bills. I hope I am wrong. But if he doesn't have any problems with the substance of the bills, then why not let them pass? Well, there is a tendency sometimes exhibited in the Senate, and I have seen it done by people of both political parties and by Members at different ends of the political continuum, from time to time. When Members want leverage, sometimes, they will reach for whatever is popular, in some cases even what is uncontroversial. During the shutdown, we saw a parallel use of the technique with some using air traffic controllers, TSA officers, and Coast Guard families as pressure points because the public trusted those people and needs the services that they routinely and uniquely perform. And, sometimes, Members--again, of both political parties and of every political persuasion--will sometimes use popular bills the same way. In other words, they will oppose popular, noncontroversial bills not because they are controversial or unpopular but because they are uncontroversial and popular. They are blocked because their broad support makes them useful cargo for a lands package or another aggregated legislative vehicle packed with measures that might not withstand scrutiny under the light of day if they were considered on their own or even when paired with a small handful of other bills. Instead of moving bills off the floor one by one or two by two in a transparent, bipartisan process, some would prefer a really big omnibus package, often prepared by staff behind closed doors, where only a few Senators and no members of the public are participating or even allowed to participate. Then Members are told to take it or leave it in its entirety--up or down, binary choice, no other option, no amendments, no adequate time for debate. Simply, take it all or leave it all, even the uncontroversial and the popular. Now, this puts many of us--particularly, those of us from public lands States, like Utah, where the Federal Government owns two-thirds of the land--in a difficult position. In States like mine, almost every action requires some sort of ``Mother, may I'' from the Federal Government. This is not a process that can continue, at least not one that can continue without causing a lot of other problems. So as chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I have set out to change that. I have set out to--at least with regard to noncontroversial bills that have passed the Senate in the last year, unanimously, it is a good place to start--where there is consensus, because there is consensus. My aim is to build on the progress from last year, when this body passed out 41 bills, and to that end, I have suggested that we start by passing the bills, at least a few of them, paired Republican and Democrat bills at the same time--bills that passed the Senate unanimously last year, including bills that the ranking member himself agreed to less than a year ago. And, again, if there is a policy objection, then let's hear it. I am more than willing to work with you to address whatever substantive objections there might be. But these bills should pass in the light of day, where every Member-- Republican or Democrat or Independent--could be part of the process. This has been going on, back and forth, in one way or another for a few months. In May, I came to the floor and asked unanimous consent to pass two Republican bills alongside two Democrat bills, both of which, like the bills that are at issue today, passed the Senate unanimously last year. Now, this drew an objection from the other side of the aisle. And in July I came to the floor again and offered to work with the ranking member on these bills. I offered two additional Republican and two Democrat bills that passed out of this body last year, also with unanimous support, and it drew the same objection. Now, as always, I have offered to work with the ranking member and the minority if they have any substantive concerns on any of these bills, and I make that offer again now. But as you may see in just a moment--as I suspect we will see; I can't tell the future--I haven't heard any substantive policy concerns with them. Now, a small minority of Members who want to block bills--including bills supported by, introduced by, sponsored by Members of their own caucus--just because they want them in a broader package isn't going to cut it. Now, 2 weeks ago, you had the junior Senator from Alaska, Senator Sullivan, who came to the floor and asked consent to pass his bill to give Alaska Native Vietnam veterans the land they earned and have long been owed. At the request of Senator Padilla and the ranking member, Senator Sullivan paired his bill with the bill from Senator Gallego, keeping it bipartisan. However, to the surprise of Senator Sullivan and the Native Vietnam veterans who were relying on the legislation, this, too, drew the aforementioned objection, moving the goalpost again. That process isn't defensible. It is not sustainable. It is not going to work. It is not going to work for a whole host of reasons, including the fact that I have heard from our counterparts in the House of Representatives--including in a conversation as recently as just a couple of hours ago with Chairman Westerman, my committee chairman counterpart on the House of Representatives side--that this is problematic. They want them to come over not as a big, sewn-together package but as bills, even if passed while paired over here. They will also be paired over there. Sometimes, the concern is raised: Well, then Democrat bills will suffer and atrophy over there, while Republican bills are prioritized and passed to the exclusion of the Democrat bills. This is not true. In fact, because these bills are passed as a matter of course--routinely passed--under suspension of the rules on the House side--and I believe suspension of the rules requires a super majority, about 290 votes--these always end up getting paired together. You end up with Democrat-Republican balance as they submit them on the floor. So, today, I will again ask the minority to work with me to pass both Republican and Democrat bills--bills that, yet again, are noncontroversial and have passed this body unanimously within the last year. These four bills are just the start. I have a list of 19 bills that Republicans are prepared to pass today. My staff has shared the list with the ranking member's staff. In fact, we did so weeks ago. And yet we continue to hear talk of an objection today. I am willing to commit to working with my colleagues on the lands bills they wish to pass, with the understanding that, as we bring them to the floor to try to pass them by unanimous consent, we will continue to pair them so that there is balance. So, please, let's work together. We can do this. This isn't hard. There is a lot in the legislative process that is difficult. The last thing we ought to be doing is making the areas where we do agree, where there is unanimity, to make that, too, part of the unresolvable conundrum of bills. And another thing happens. If we do this, it tends to slow down the process. Last year, there was an effort to try to sew a bunch of these together for some sort of year-end lands package. One thing led to another, and we got to the end of the year, which was the end of the Congress, and as the list got bigger, it got more and more difficult to sustain it. Whereas, if we go a little bit at a time, pair a few Republican bills and Democrat bills, bring them forward, pass them by unanimous consent, little by little, throughout the 2-year Congress, we are much more likely to be able to achieve passage, not just in the House but also here. That is a recipe for success. But when we box stuff that has been passed unanimously, where there is no substantive policy objection, it is not the best way to serve those who elected us. Our country faces huge challenges. And in many of those challenges, public policy consensus can be difficult--not impossible--to achieve but much more difficult than it is with these bills, these unanimously passed bills from just last year. We have health prices that are soaring. Our national debt is out of control. How can we come together as a legislative body to tackle these more vexing issues if we can't even agree to something as unanimously supported, as totally noncontroversial, as a proposal to adjust the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Dayton Aviation Heritage National and Historical Park? The American people deserve a government that tells them what it is doing and why. The American people deserve bills that succeed or fail on their own merit in a digestible format. They do not deserve a process in which someone can slip a controversial idea past the public without debate by smuggling it into a much broader package, consisting mostly, but not entirely, of completely uncontroversial bills? This Chamber should reject that approach. If nothing else, then, because it has failed. It brought us to failure in the last Congress at the end of last year, just as it will end in failure if we try to do that again. We have been told--we have been reminded by our counterparts in the House of Representatives as recently as a few hours ago--it will also contribute to failure over there. We can do better. This is a start. This won't solve all of our problems or resolve all of our disagreements, but it will bring this one to a close because there is no disagreement here. At the end of the day--this should end today but only if we insist bills be able to stand on their own two feet and that we are willing to bring them forward one by one, two by two, with Democrat and Republican balance. To that end, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc; further, that the bills be considered read a third time and passed en bloc, and that the motions to reconsider these bills be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc: S. 650, America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark Act from Senator Hawley; S. 432, Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historic Park Establishment Act from Senator Gillibrand; S. 2434, to amend the Dayton Aviation Preservation Act from Senator Husted; and S. 1142, Golden Gate National Recreation Area from Senator Padilla.

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I want to commend my friend and colleague the Senator from Wisconsin for his outstanding work on this bill, the Shutdown Fairness Act. Senator Johnson seized on something very important here. We are surrounded by people in this very building and throughout the United States and across the globe--people who are faithfully, valiantly working for the U.S. Government. Now, some of them are staffers in this very room who are not being paid. Some of them are the Capitol Police officers we greeted on our way in who are keeping the Capitol Complex safe. Some of these are soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardsmen all over the world who are serving the U.S. Government at risk of life and limb to keep us safe, and there are countless others in different occupations who are not being paid. Why? Well, they are not being paid because our friends on the other side of the aisle are wanting to expand government yet again. They may think that this is the right message, that this is a winning message. It is not. It is not the right message. It is not a winning message even for them because it highlights something. It highlights the danger in putting too much trust, too many responsibilities, too many functions in the U.S. Government--so much so that when a crisis like this emerges, and the Schumer shutdown now drags well into its second month, they see that what the American people have previously regarded as a service performed by the government to them is now being held over them to extort even more money out of them under the threat of planes falling from the sky. We are told by Democrat after Democrat on television interviews and elsewhere: Well, it is OK. It is OK because this is leverage. This is our leverage. Well, what do they want to use that leverage for? They want to use it so as to paper over the failures--the abject failures--of ObamaCare, this law that has succeeded in doing exactly one thing: enriching large health insurance companies while making all Americans poorer. Premiums have skyrocketed. Coverage has diminished. Quality has completely tanked as a result. They know this. They understand this. They see premiums continuing to increase year after year after year. So what do they want to do with it? Well, they want to spend a lot more money moving forward--money at a time when the U.S. Government is already $38 trillion in debt; money to hide, to conceal what it is that ObamaCare is doing to the American people, when, in fact, what ObamaCare has done is diminish the healthcare options that the American people have. It used to be that you could negotiate with a health insurance company and buy a health insurance policy, but ObamaCare, in many ways, made what was once health insurance illegal. We need to make health insurance legal again. We need to allow a willing customer to pay a willing insurer for a health insurance policy rather than an ObamaCare health plan, which very often, through its Byzantine labyrinth of Federal regulations, just adds to the cost and adds to the profit, the bottom line of these huge healthcare companies. So, yes, they want to take this to extort the American people and their position of vulnerability at a time when we are told planes may start falling from the sky; at a time when people's airplane tickets are being rendered valueless because a lot of these flights are not going to be able to be made. And all kinds of other problems are happening while, at the same time, our Federal workforce is not being paid. These are not the right people to punish for the failures of ObamaCare. Don't let them carry that burden. Don't make them do it. They didn't do this to the American people; ObamaCare did. Let's fix ObamaCare. Let's make it legal again to have health insurance--actual health insurance, not that sort of bastardized form of health insurance that has emerged from ObamaCare's endless regulations that have resulted in diminished quality, lower coverage, and endlessly higher premiums. This shutdown has gone on long enough. This shutdown should come to an end, and it should come to an end by the very generous offer made by Republicans time and time and time again to continue at spending levels that, until just months ago, were the Democrats' own spending levels. It is not enough for them. We have got to end the madness and end the shutdown. At the very least, even if we are not to end the shutdown, we should pass Senator Johnson's bill. We should do that tonight. We should do it right now because regardless of what you think we ought to do with ObamaCare or any other aspect of government, these workers who have now gone for some time without a paycheck should not be required to make this sacrifice, especially when you consider what it is for--hiding the true cost of ObamaCare. That is shameful. Again, I thank and I commend Senator Johnson and his team for putting together this legislation. I am proud to support it, I wholeheartedly endorse it, and I plead with my colleagues to vote for it. Let's get these workers paid. They deserve nothing else.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, last week, the Senate passed three resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, CRA, H.J. Res. 104, H.J. Res. 105, and H.J. Res. 106. Each resolution responds to actions by the Biden administration to eliminate multiple uses on Federal lands, defying the multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate of existing law. Following their enactment, the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, will have the opportunity to promulgate Resource Management Plans, RMPs, that properly reflect the multiple-use and sustained yield mandate while addressing the concerns raised by Congress and the impacted States. While Congress has long known that it can use the CRA to disapprove of a resource management plan, it has yet to. But the Biden BLM's attacks on American energy producers through these RMPs were so offensive, Congress needed to act. On November 20, 2024, BLM issued a Record of Decision and Approved RMP Amendment for the Miles City Field Office in Montana. Within the planning area, this amendment prohibited coal leasing on an additional 1.2 million acres and curtailed multiple use by creating an additional 22,000 acres of special recreation management areas. It is these policies that Congress disapproves of through the Congressional Review Act. Governor Greg Gianforte, eastern Montana coal communities, and other impacted parties also opposed the ARMP. Governor Gianforte warned that the plan would result in a loss of $4.32 billion in future revenue for the State and would have devastating impacts on Montana schools and rural communities. With the enactment of H.J. Res. 104, were BLM to promulgates a new RMP or an amendment to the current RMP, it must not limit coal leasing or limit multiple use in a way similar to the 2024 Miles City Plan. Instead, BLM, should issue a plan that emphasizes access and multiple use in coordination with the State and local governments, as mandated by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, FLPMA. Prior to finalizing the North Dakota Field Office RMP in 2025, the North Dakota legislature and congressional delegation wrote letters to the Biden administration opposing the BLM's draft proposal due to the negative impact it would have on energy production in the State. Ignoring these objections, on January 8, 2025, BLM issued the Record of Decision and RMP for the North Dakota Field Office. The RMP prohibited coal leasing on 4 million acres within the planning area and restricted energy production by restricting an additional 213,000 acres from future mineral development. Congress disapproves of these policies through the Congressional Review Act. H.J. Res. 105 would nullify the Record of Decision and Approved RMP for the North Dakota Field Office and revert land use plans to the 1988 RMP that North Dakota has relied on for decades. With the enactment of H.J. Res. 105, were BLM to promulgate a new RMP or an amendment to the 1988 RMP, it must not limit coal leasing or limit mineral development in a way similar to the 2025 North Dakota Plan. Instead, BLM should issue a plan that emphasizes access, multiple use, and coordination by the Secretary of the Interior with State and local governments, as mandated by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, FLPMA. H.J. Res. 106 would nullify the Record of the Decision and Approved RMP for Alaska's Central Yukon planning area that was issued on November 12, 2024. H.J. Res. 106 requires BLM to revert to plans that the State has relied on to manage Federal lands since 1991, 1986, and 1981. The 2024 Central Yukon Resource Management Plan, RMP, significantly restricted future energy and mineral development in northern Alaska by designating approximately 3.6 million acres as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, ACECs, and by withdrawing large tracts of land adjacent to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, TAPS, corridor and Dalton Highway from new mineral entry and leasing. These withdrawals and designations directly contradict congressional intent under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, which recognized the need to maintain access for transportation and resource development in this region. Congress disapproves of these policies through the Congressional Review Act. With the enactment of H.J. Res. 106, were BLM to promulgate a new RMP or an amendment to the 1991, 1986, or 1981 plans, it must not withdraw land that is critical for energy development or limit access to natural resources in a way similar to the 2024 Central Yukon RMP. Instead, BLM should issue a plan that emphasizes access, multiple use, and coordination by the Secretary of the Interior with State and local governments, as mandated by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, FLPMA. On September 3, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget issued a Statement of Administration Policy saying, in part, that the RMPs are ``out of touch rules that collectively raise costs for Americans by artificially restricting energy and mineral production. These rules further undermine energy security by furthering our dependence on foreign countries and limiting America's preeminence in powering innovation across our great economy. These RMPs are rules of general applicability and prospective effect because they directly threaten our nation's energy security, increase American dependence on foreign nations for coal and mineral production, and damage the economy while devastating communities. This administration will continue to unleash America's affordable and reliable energy and always put the American people and their paycheck first.'' This statement and the administration's intention to promulgate new land management plans that emphasize the multiple-use and sustained yield mandate were key considerations in the Senate's deliberation on these resolutions. I ask unanimous consent that this statement, as well as a letter from Deputy Secretary MacGregor to Majority Leader Thune be printed in the Record. Last week, the Senate took action to clear the way for the Department of the Interior to promulgate new RMPs properly based on the productive use of Federal lands. In my view, this will not require a wholly new environmental analysis, as we are not disapproving the underlying analyses. Rather, we are disapproving the administrative decisions: the final RMPs and RMP amendments issued by BLM. BLM will soon have the opportunity to address this disapproval, and I look forward to working with them and my colleagues as the Trump administration continues to expand access to and use of Federal lands.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, across the country, our guardsmen are on the frontlines of our national security. They are on the frontlines of our national security, securing our cities and our border, and, most commonly, leading natural disaster recovery efforts in our various States. In 2022, over half of the National Guard's members responded to natural disasters, including wildfires, hurricanes, winter storms, tornadoes, and even volcanoes. The National Guard's motto is ``Always Ready, Always There,'' and yet there is an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle jeopardizing the readiness of Guard assets for future missions. When the National Guard is used in a State Active-Duty status for missions like disaster response, the State may use Federal equipment to complete the mission but must reimburse the Federal National Guard Bureau for the associated expenses. Current law requires those reimbursements to flow through the Treasury Department rather than the Guard unit incurring the expense. Why does this matter? Well, it matters because we need to get rid of this unnecessary step that is harming the States and the Guard. The amendment simply directs reimbursements to the appropriate Guard unit directly, the unit where the asset resides, to ensure its readiness for future missions. If we are going to expect the Guard to be always ready and always there, we must streamline the State Active-Duty reimbursement process and ensure the Guard is made whole. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I call up the Lee-Duckworth amendment No. 3288 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the story of America is the story of a people that looked upon the West and saw promise. Where others saw wilderness, Americans saw a future. They dammed rivers that had flowed ungoverned since creation, mined mountains that had defied the reach of man, and turned harsh plains into fields that would feed a continent. From that audacity came a republic that could feed itself, power itself, and then, when tested, defend itself. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act--known commonly as FLPMA-- enshrined this principle of multiple use and sustained yield for Federal lands. It codified the promise that the land belongs to the people and ought therefore to serve them. Its promise was plural: energy, grazing, recreation, timber conservation--each coexisting with the others in balanced and productive harmony. The law does not permit Federal officials to choose one purpose to the exclusion of all the rest. It demands balance, and it demands use in particular. But the Biden administration's clerics of the green new scam disregarded that agreement struck nearly half a century ago. They preferred a museum to a nation, an America under glass, admired but untouchable. Under their edicts, vast stretches of land--millions upon millions of acres--have been sealed off from the citizens who built their livelihoods upon them. In Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska, communities that have mined, grazed, and worked for generations are now treated as trespassers in their own story. Their supposed crime is self-reliance--hardly something we should be seeking to punish. Their punishment is unemployment. The Senate now faces three resolutions that would help restore the balance. Each disapproves of a Biden administration decision that violated the multiple-use mandate of FLPMA and locked away public land from productive Americans, contrary to FLPMA's promise. In Montana, for example, the Miles City Resource Management Plan barred future coal leasing across nearly 2 million acres, erasing access to 338 million tons of clean domestic coal. In North Dakota, more than 4 million acres of Federal coal reserves were closed--nearly 99 percent of the reserves available in that State. In Alaska, the Central Yukon Resource Management Plan imposed new restrictions on 56 million acres of land, including millions of acres newly labeled as ``areas of critical environmental concern''--one of the great trick plays used by the left in order to bring about de facto wilderness or de facto monument designations without actually having to go through the process that the relevant laws would require. Joe Biden's bureaucrats wrote over the voices of those who actually live near that land and live with the consequences of these bad decisions, and the results were predictable: higher costs, lost jobs, and deeper dependence on nations that, to put it mildly, do not wish us well. Every shuttered mine, every idled rig is an act of self-imposed amnesia--a willful type of forgetting of what made America both prosperous and free. Now, luckily, President Trump and Secretary Burgum are correcting that course. They are returning resource management plans to their proper role under the law; that is, to manage the land responsibly and keep it working for the American people, the intended beneficiaries of those lands. The Congressional Review Act allows us, mercifully, to repeal these unlawful plans and restore the statutory balance Congress intended and Congress, in fact, created with the Congressional Review Act. When these resolutions of disapproval take effect, after they have been passed and signed into law by President Trump, the Bureau of Land Management will still have the necessary environmental analysis to issue new resource management plans that are consistent with the law and the clear intent of Congress--plans that open access where it was previously closed, respect local voices that were previously ignored, and bring Federal management back within its legal bounds. That is how the process should work. That is how it is supposed to work. Under the law as written, it is how it does work. It is, at least, how it always should have worked but didn't work under the Biden administration, like so many other things. Now Republicans are defending the right of a free people here--the right of a free people to power their own future, to determine their own course. Democrats are still genuflecting before the alter of the green new scam, clinging to their faith and their false hope that if only Americans grow poorer, the planet will somehow grow purer. In that same spirit of self-righteous delusion, this week, Democrats are yet again bringing forth a measure to denounce President Trump for declaring an energy emergency. It is a gesture so unserious, it would be comical if it weren't so dangerous. At the very moment when the world is entering an energy race that will decide who commands the engines of artificial intelligence and all that goes along with it, who manufactures the tools of war, and who will feed and defend their people, Democrats have instead chosen to strike a pose. They are congratulating themselves for denying the existence of the fire while standing in the smoke and holding the matches. Theirs is the politics of aesthetic virtue: better to be cold and appear righteous than to be warm and competent. But the American people fortunately are not fools. They understand that we can no longer afford to pad the pockets of Democratic allies propping up unreliable industries that cannot--no matter how hard Democrats wish it were otherwise--cannot keep the lights on, while punishing the workers and the communities that can and will if only we will allow it without undue interference from the U.S. Government. These resolutions to overturn the reckless Biden-era land plans are part of that larger defense. They would restore lawful management of public lands, honor the voices of those who live nearest to them and are therefore most directly affected by them, and keep faith with the law Congress enacted. Nations that lose their memory soon lose their nerve. The same spirit that split the Rockies and bridged the Golden Gate cannot be reconciled with a bureaucracy that measures virtue by paralysis. America, in short, was not built by those who made idols of the land but by those who worked it and in so doing, ennobled both themselves and it. We cannot continue to bow to the Ashtoreth of climate alarmism and bow to the Moloch of ecoterrorism and pretend that is going to work out well for America. Americans know better. Rewinding these management plans will not desecrate the environment-- far from it--but they will deliver it from an orthodoxy that mistakes idleness for piety, reminding us that liberty, like the land itself, withers when left untouched. It is therefore with all the energy and enthusiasm that I am capable of communicating that I invite my colleagues to do the right thing--to vote for these resolutions of disapproval and to right the gross wrong that has been inflicted on the American people, particularly Americans in and around the States affected by these ill-designed, ill-conceived resource management plans.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the characteristically thoughtful and thorough remarks by my friend and colleague the distinguished Senator from Washington. I do want to be clear about a couple of things. No. 1, this has been the product of a lot of effort on our part, good-faith efforts that we have made to work with Ranking Member Heinrich and Members of both political parties to move these bills to the floor to get them passed over many months. Now, again, I want to reiterate that if there are substantive policy concerns with any of the bills in this package, understanding that these are only four bills--those four bills don't comment on--they neither preclude nor prejudice in any way, shape, or form our ability to pass other bills. Anytime you are choosing a finite group of legislative proposals to be considered for adoption by unanimous consent or through any other expedited process, you are necessarily excluding others that are not on that list. And so it becomes incumbent upon those involved in the effort to decide which ones belong. Let's talk a little bit about how we go about that, how we went about that here with these bills. These are four of the bills that, again, passed the Senate unanimously just a few months ago that remain unchanged in this conference; that didn't draw a single ``no'' vote, a single objection from any Republican or from any Democrat. In that respect, they all have things in common, even though they operate in different States, have different sponsors from different political parties and do different things. The bill of which my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington, refers does quite opposite of those things. I am sure she put an enormous amount of effort into it. I am sure it is important to her. And I am sure it has been carefully drafted because my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington, is thorough. But there are some things that bill doesn't have in common with these. In fact, harkening back to childhood, there is a song called ``One of These Things Is Not Like the Other.'' If you were trying to include that bill in a list of these bills, that would be the clear standout. Why? No. 1, it hasn't passed the Senate; No. 2, it was considered in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and it resulted in strict party line votes--Democrats vs. Republicans, Shirts vs. Skins. There was not a single vote overlapping between the two parties. That doesn't mean it is not a good bill. It doesn't mean it is not important to her or the people in the State of Washington. But it does mean it lacks the core characteristics held in common by each and every one of the bills I just offered by unanimous consent. If that is going to be the standard, that anytime there is any package of bills--a package consists of two paired sets, a Republican and Democratic legislation brought forward together; in this case, bills that drew not a single ``no'' vote, not a single objection from Members of either party and remained unchanged since that last happened. If anytime we try to offer those bills, it is appropriate to object in the absence of any substantive on-the-merits objection or concern with the legislation, it is going to be very difficult for us to get this done. Now, none of this means we couldn't find a way to pair that with something that would make sense, coupled with any changes that Members of both parties might insist on in order to make them comfortable with moving it forward. But it does mean that it would be incongruous, illogical, counterproductive, and destructive to the effort to pair that bill with this bill. That is a wilderness bill. By definition, by its very nature, it designates large tracts of wilderness and large scenic rivers. It is not something inherently repugnant to either party, but it ended up drawing objections and ``no'' votes from literally every Republican on the committee. That suggests to me that before it is ready to be included in a unanimous consent request, it might need some additional work. I am confident we can get it there. Most types of legislation can get to the point where objections can be addressed through some combination of modifications to the legislation itself and the legislation that it might be paired with in order to help offset those objections. But, nonetheless, I will keep working to pass bipartisan bills that have unanimous support. I hope and expect and respectfully request that my colleagues across the aisle would take into account these dissimilarities. If they want to add others that meet similar characteristics, let's have that conversation. If they want to get to the point where we can pass Senator Murray's bill, I am sure there is a way that could be considered and we could possibly get there. But we can't assume that you can pair something that is that dissimilar; that is, by its very nature and according to the legislative record, it is the very definition of partisan and not the kind of thing that one can expect. We would be crazy to assume that something that resulted in a party line committee vote last year would suddenly get to the floor and not draw a single Republican objection. I would also hope that next time, when we add pairings to the floor-- Democrat and Republican bills--I would love to see those hotlined on the other side of the aisle in the same format of which they were hotlined on our side. My understanding is they were not; and they should be. There should be an apples-to-apples comparison. If they are given the opportunity, I can't imagine that many, if any, of my Democratic colleagues would object to any of these bills in isolation. If they wouldn't object to them in isolation based on their substantive policy merits and if they were given that in a hotline request, I think this would have turned out differently. I do think it is important we should pass bills expeditiously and in the light of day. These bills have gone through public examination in the light of day, and they have been found not wanting for bipartisanship. They have been found richly blessed with bipartisanship through a proven, undisputed track record. So, look, I think it is a big mistake to hold noncontroversial bills put forward by Senators in good faith--to hold those hostage in order to perpetuate a broken and sometimes corrupting process from a bygone era, one in which bills were prevented from passing, not because they were controversial but because they were popular and being used as bait in order to bring about the passage of other bills that were controversial. That makes no sense. What makes the Senate work best are those moments when we can identify things as to which we do not disagree. This, Mr. President, is one of those things. This, Mr. President, is where we can do better; and do better we must. I am not going away. I will be back. I will be back soon--hopefully, successful next time--and we will do what we have to do in order to move the legislative process. I humbly implore my friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Let's not take these moments where we do agree for granted. Let's not assume that just because anytime--by definition, anytime you come up with a list of four bills offered at once, that necessarily excludes the thousands of others that may be submitted during the course of any particular Congress in that legislative Chamber. You can't get everything all at once. Why not take the things that we know can pass and have passed in the past? Let's get that done.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, last year, this body unanimously passed 41 bills from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Now, 16 of those bills, for one reason or another, didn't end up getting signed into law last year. Some of those bills perhaps were casualties of the legislative calendar but for one reason or another didn't make it through but remained undisputed and remained noncontroversial. They have been reintroduced by Republican and Democratic Senators and are cleared on the Republican side of the aisle. It is important to note here that these noncontroversial, bipartisan bills all remain completely unchanged. Not a single letter, not a single period, comma, or exclamation mark has been altered on them. They remain utterly noncontroversial--not a whiff of partisan dispute between them. In the past, these bills were, in many circumstances, packaged together. It has been something of a custom in the Senate to package together groups of bills. Lands bills in some cases were paired together as part of much larger bills. In some instances, parts of some of those bills were themselves controversial--larger bills, bills that were sometimes written in secret and not available to individual Members to review prior to the time that they were propounded for a unanimous consent request on the floor. So today, I am going to make an entirely reasonable offer to move four bills off of the floor from among that group that passed last year by unanimous consent in the Senate. They are unchanged, they are still noncontroversial, and they carry no substantive policy objections, no objections to the merits of the bill and what they do. They are bills that are locally supported, bills that have been thoroughly vetted by the committee of jurisdiction and that are ready to move today. In short, they are bills that are ready to move in the same type of open, Member-driven process that the Senate was built for and that the Senate, quite frankly, prides itself in fostering and encouraging rather than being held hostage for a larger backroom deal negotiated in secret. The first is a bill from Senator Barrasso that would provide commonsense flexibility for ranchers during natural disasters to help ensure rangeland health on Federal lands. The second is a bill that I have introduced called the Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act, which would add Utah as a fourth location for the Southwest Ecological Research Institutes, which would be housed, for the Utah portion of it, at Utah State University. This institute would foster collaboration to promote healthy forests, wildfire prevention, and resilient water supplies. Utah is well positioned and ready to work with the other institutes, including the New Mexico Forest and Watershed Restoration Institute, to protect the unique landscapes and communities across the Western United States. The third bill is one from Senator Cortez Masto, the Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act. This bill would make certain boundary changes and would authorize a right-of-way for the Horizon Lateral water pipeline in Nevada-- something important to Nevadans as a desert State like mine. Water for Nevadans is very important. The fourth bill is one from Senator Padilla which would adjust the boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Now, again, just to reiterate, all four of these bills have certain things in common. They do different things. They operate in different parts of the country. They have different sponsors from different political parties. But they all have a few features in common: They all passed by unanimous consent in this body just a few months ago. Not a single Republican, not a single Democrat objected to any of them. They remain entirely unchanged and entirely noncontroversial. If there is any outstanding policy issue, I would love to be made aware of it and would love to address it, but as of this moment, I am not aware of one--not on the House side and not even on the Senate side. So to that end, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: S. 211, Resiliency For Ranching and Natural Conservation Health Act from Senator Barrasso; S. 457, Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025 from myself and Senator Curtis; S. 1142, Golden Gate National Recreation Area from Senator Padilla; S. 392, Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act from Senator Cortez Masto; further, that the bills be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, there will be two votes at 11:30 a.m., two votes at 2:15, p.m., and more votes expected throughout the afternoon and evening.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, July 29; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 110, Earl Matthews, postcloture; further, notwithstanding rule XXII, at 11:30 a.m., the Senate vote on confirmation of the Matthews nomination, and if cloture has been invoked on Calendar No. 94, William Kimmitt, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings; further, at 2:15 p.m., all postcloture time be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the Kimmitt nomination, and if confirmed, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on Calendar No. 274, Susan Monarez; finally, if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is my privilege to recognize Emily Wiscombe's devoted public service to the people of Utah across the past 31 years. Emily's three decades of ardent work have uplifted Utahns beyond measure, supported multiple Members of Congress, and contributed immensely to the betterment of our State and our country. Emily's service to the people of Utah began in the office of Senator Jake Garn. Emily supported his Washington, DC, office until her heart called her back to our inimitable State, where she continued her congressional tenure in the office of Representative Howard Neilson. Emily later joined Senator Orrin Hatch's Provo office, where she handled casework of all kinds before lending her talents to the work of Senators Bob Bennett and Mitt Romney. Finally, my staff welcomed Emily as one of Utah's most experienced and committed public servants over a decade ago. All along and in between her service to our State, Emily reared a beautiful family, helping Utahns flourish through both her work in Congress as well as in her own home. Emily's work covered many areas throughout the years, but she found her passion in caring for our Nation's veterans. From helping veterans navigate the complexities of the Federal Government to attending monthly gatherings of those who have served, Emily's hands have uplifted and magnified many across our State. She has aided countless Utahns in need of some type of rescue, including from war-stricken nations. She is a tremendous asset to my team and an invaluable resource to her community. Emily Wiscombe has a record of service to our great State that any public servant would find difficult to match: 31 devoted years of work, six Members of Congress supported, and countless Utahns uplifted. The great state of Utah, the U.S. Congress, and I are indebted to her service. I express my gratitude for her dedication, her patriotism, and her demonstrated love for our people and our State.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, this amendment completes the half-baked task performed by the House of Representatives on these subsidies. Now, remember, the ``green new scam'' was adopted in 2022 without a single Republican vote. Not one Republican in the House, not one Republican in the Senate voted for the ``green new scam'' subsidies. This language would complete the circle of repeal on these subsidies by echoing exactly what the House of Representatives did. We can save more money for the American taxpayer if we adopt this. Not one Republican voted for it. Not one Republican should oppose this. I implore all within the sound of my voice to adopt this amendment, save the American people money, and allow for the American energy revolution to begin.

Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, Lee amendment No. 2745.