Skip to main content

tv   U.S. Senate Senators Murkowski Lee Gardner Cantwell Daines on Public...  CSPAN  December 20, 2018 7:38am-8:32am EST

7:38 am
10:15 easton on c-span3. you can watch on c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio apps. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company. today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> after passing a short-term government funding bill wednesday, i'll ask a senator lisa murkowski asked for a public landfill package to be passed by unanimous consent. senator mike lee of utah objected to the motion and asked two words to be measured for his approval prompting other senators to weigh in on the issue. the legislation expected to
7:39 am
come up in january as one of the first items of business for the new congress. >> mister president, i ask unanimous consent on behalf of chairman hatch that the senate proceed to the media consideration of the lands package bill. i further asked consent that the bill be considered, read a third time and passed as motion to be considered upon the table. p >> is their objection? mister president? senator from utah. >> are in the right to object. we have a bill we received at 10:00 this morning, 680 pages long, spent many hours reviewing it. this is a bill that came out of committee on which i serve. i have been trying for weeks, many weeks, through the chairman and her staff to get language or at least get an outline of this was we weren't
7:40 am
able to do that until today at 10:00 am. then we asked for an outline. >> that it will be in order. >> senator will hold. please take your conversations out of the floor. the senate will be in order. >> as for an outline or summary of the text from the committee staff and the chairman's staff. didn't respond, wouldn't give it to us just as they haven't for weeks. we got this, the closest thing to a summary for the lobbyists, we had to get it from a lobbyist. this is a great impact to my state that creates 1.3 million acres of wilderness, half of which is in my state. this bill permanently reauthorize is the land and water conservation and m used acquire more federal lands. from a state where the land isc owned by the federal government, where we can't do anything without leave from the
7:41 am
federal government, this hurts. from a state where we had 2 million acres ofme federal lan declared as monuments through presidential proclamations, this hurts. i made a very reasonable offer and i asked that it be accepted. it involves two words. i went the inclusion of two words to this bill. the words or utah to language in the entities act. i have an amendment and i will counter offer, i will exit this bill and agree to it if these two words are added to the antiquities act, the words or utah. i ask my colleagues to accept this. >> will a senator so modify her request? >> mister chairman? >> senator from alaska. >> was the president? it is important to recognize while the text and fairness to
7:42 am
my friend from utah was just laid down this morning these at are bills, these are measures, these are matters that have not only been before our committee but before the subcommittee upon which the senator is the chairman and has an opportunity to have heard many of those public lands. this was a highly negotiated process by four corners, normally senator cantwell and myself but our colleagues on the house side to defeat what could be put together by way of a package in terms of the contours of that package. colleagues will remember when it comes to public land matters many of these are very parochial in nature whether it is a conveyance that allows a water utility to proceed or a
7:43 am
conveyance that will allow a school to be, to have a it is pretty parochial. these don't come to the floor for debate and passage. what happens is typically and traditionally, might not be a perfect process but we bundle them up at the end of the year. what we have done, if we have provided not only to members of the committee, the bills we have had an opportunity to have heard we have outlined what that universe is and in fairness to my colleague and his comment it wasn't until the end the we knew exactly what would fall in based on negotiations c with house colleagues and colleagues on the other side of the aisle but what i would offer up to members is this has been an extraordinary collaborative
7:44 am
process in terms of the priorities we see represented in this bill, just on our side of the aisle alone, there are 43 members that either have bills they have offered her they are cosponsored of, matters that are important to their state and matters that are more globally important, and i understand the senator's position on lw cf. there is also a great number of members on the republican side and the democrats either very supportive of some form of reauthorization of lw cf. we have a sportsman package that many of us have been working on. this is the fourth congress we've tried to advance these priorities for many sports men and women in the country. we have attempted to work through some of the issues my colleagues from utah raised and we offered to withdraw
7:45 am
significant legislation that our president pro tem has offered. that is not something i willingly wanted to do but in an effort to try to get a broader lands package that recognizes the needs of so many, we made some significant offers. my colleague has asked for a simple two words. i happen to believe, as one who comes from a state where we said no more to the antiquitied act without some limitations, i understand the concerns and i d understand the effort he has made repeatedly. i also understand the politics on the side of the aisle and in the other body are such that it was not an acceptable offer or acceptable amendment so we are where we are now where i come before you to make the offer to
7:46 am
allow us an opportunity to vote on this lands package, to move it over to the house and finish this off. i understand that we do not have that consent. what we have come to this evening is a recognition that there is a desire among members of this body to see this package through and so the leader has committed incoha th minority leader has committed that when we return in january this will be if not the first order of business, it will be a matter before this body within the first couple weeks and we will turn to it and it will be a package we will not have begun all over but something members look to tonight, this is an opportunity to study every single page, you will
7:47 am
have an opportunity to vote on that, thumbs-up or thumbs down in early january when we return but this is something i wish we had been able to resolve, i wish we had been able in fairness to be able to provide for greater opportunity to review this before these final hours. in fairness this is wednesday night. we continued until after the new year but we probably had another couple days we could have worked on it. that didn't work in our favor and i regret that but i want to thank those who worked doggedly on both sides to try to come to an agreement so we can resolve this finally and fully. so many of these issues that are so important to people back in their counties and municipalities and their states
7:48 am
and we are going to put it on hold for another month but we will be back in the first of the year and we will continue to address these issues that are so important when it comes to public lands, waters, conservation priorities as well as the priorities of sports men and women. >> mister president? does the senator modify her request? >> i believe there is an objection to the request. >> is there an objection to the original request from the senator from alaska? >> yes, i object. >> senator from utah's objection is heard. the senator from utah. >> i find it unfortunate the addition of two words is somehow unacceptable to membero of this body.
7:49 am
two words, two words which would put utah in the same category as alaska and wyoming. what do they have in common? they have been victims of the antiquities act.of in every single state colorado and west of colorado the federal government owns 15% of the land. many of those states it is much more than 15% of the land. in my stated is two thirds of the land, 57%. what that means is we have to get permission from the federal government to do just about everything. what that also means is our schools are underfunded. everything from fire, search, rescue, education, local governments. all these budgets are underfunded as a result of the fact that most of the land is owned by the federal government.edan we can't text that land, we receive pennies on the dollar in lieu of taxes, pennies on the dollar, mister president. because most of our land is not ours, most cannot be developed privately. most cannot be taxed by states
7:50 am
and localities which makes it harder to educate our children were secure our streets or put out fires, fires which become more severe because of extensive federal land ownership is plainly excessive, plainly unfair, which kills people and results in devastating losses, not only to property but also to the health of the environment. bad federal land management policy is at the root of it. what is interesting, people like to talk about these wildfires. a lot of mccarran the west. why? pu lot of federal public land in the west.public there are parts of the country where they have forests where these things don't happen and when they do they are put out much faster. and things called private forests, privately owned forest and for stones by many states, much less prone to wildfires and when they do occur they put them out more quickly because they are not under a mountain of regulations that make it impossible for us to prevent them and from putting them out
7:51 am
quickly. this is devastating to our state. it is a burden on our state and our state in particular. many of you come from land if you live east of the rocky mountains, you come from lands where federal public lands are almost unheard of or rare, where you have private land left and right. a lot of the same states used to be mostly federal, state like illinois, used to be overwhelmingly federal. many if not most of the states added since the louisiana purchase have had language in their enabling legislation anticipating that in time federal public land within a state's boundaries would be souls and in the case of my state and many other states are presented of the proceeds from the sale of that land would be put into a trust fund for the benefit of the state's public education system. those promises were honored in
7:52 am
the dakotas, in states like indiana and illinois. they were honored as we expanded westward. when we got to the rocky mountains they stopped honoring it. there are a lot of reasons for this. some of it had to do with what we were occupied doing as a country at the time.im some of it has to do with the fact that our land was once regarded as rugged and perhaps undesirable for a time. the understanding was still there is it was the understanding in the dakotas in states like indiana and illinois. the effects are still there. we are still impoverished. our ability to expand economically is impaired. the health of our environment is degraded as a result of this excessive unnecessary federal land ownership. make no mistake, i am not talking about national parks. people like to caricature those who complain about federal land ownership and suggest we are going to put oil drilling rigs
7:53 am
underneath national treasures. what we are talking about is garden variety federal public land, land that is sitting fallow for the most part.or it is excessively restricted and environmentally degraded as a result of poor federal land management policies because these decisions are made by federal land managers who live and work and make decisions many hundreds, many thousands of miles of those most affected by those decisions.s how then does this relate to the antiquities act? estate like-minded has federal public land like alaska doesn't like wyoming does is particularly uniquely vulnerable to predatory practices under the antiquities act allowing the president of the united states under a law passed a century ago to utilize discretion to set aside land is a national monument. it is already federal, just put into a new classification,
7:54 am
classification subjecting more restrictions eligible for even less developed, less human activity, less access for recreational or agricultural or cultural purposes. when you put it in that category it makes it even more difficult for those people surrounding it, those people living in and around the federal public land in question. so utah like wyoming and like alaska has had a whole lot of presidents declare a whole lot of federal public land national monument land. fortunately for the state of alaska and the state of wyoming they had congressional delegations that in the past have said no more, have demanded relief and said they in the case of a state like mine, a couple million acres across federal public land, declared monuments by presidential proclamation, this is important.
7:55 am
if it is good enough for alaska, if it is good enough for wyoming, why not extend the same courtesy to the state of utah? why, in a bill that is 680 pages long, which i received at 10:00 am today, what may well be the last or penultimate day of this legislative session of this congress, why are we receiving this just now? especially during the term of congress that was originally believed we might be adjourning by december 6th or seventh or 13th or 14th? here it is on december 19th. my daughter's 18th birthday,
7:56 am
happy birthday, eliza. december 19th. we are just getting this bill for the first time today. what does that mean? we had adjourned when we were originally thinking we might adjourn, would this never have happened? we had it suggested to us byst that had we been adjourning earlier this would have been released on last day of session. i can't get into anyone else's head, i can't. into anyone else's so intentions but this y makes me nervous, the fact that i sit on this committee from which this bill originated and i chaired the public land subcommittee and yet there are a whole lot of these the chairman and ranking member know darn well i oppose and voted against in committee. there are other provisions they know had long-standing concerns. i wonder if maybe, just maybe that is part of the reason they wouldn't tell me what was in it. i understand it is difficult negotiating a piece of
7:57 am
legislation. i sympathize greatly with that. i am not suggesting that short of receiving the entire 680 page document exactly as it has been submitted that i would irrevocably bound myself to voting against it. i'm not suggesting that at all. nice to have a roadmap, to whom might have been in there. i know from conversations i ha have had with members today that they have known for weeks if not months that they were putting permanent reauthorization in this bill. i don't believe it was a coincidence that i wasn't informed of this. i don't believe it was a coincidence that after the bill was released at 10:00 am today that the staff of the committee refusedwh to give me an outlin of what was in the bill after they filed it. we had to get this from a lobbyist. this is wrong. it is wrong that the state of utah is treated as it is and you won't give us that languagt
7:58 am
or that you won't treatise the same way alaska and wyoming are treated. this is wrong. we can do better and i implore my colleagues to make this simple change, two words, two words, mister president. at the words for utah to this bill and i will wholeheartedly support it. if not i will continue to oppose it. >> my colleague from utah knows we had a chance to vote on those words tonight, the two words you are asking for tonight we offered a chance to vote on. let me talk about this. because i'm pretty upset. the people of colorado tonight are worried whether or not they can protect himself from fire lost the wildfire technology act in this bill. that was in this bill. a bill our committee has heard, that our committee voted on, voted with bipartisan support
7:59 am
probably unanimously. that was in this bill to protect our communities from wildfires and protect firefighters from injury in this bill. the everything i in this bill colorado, a water system over a wilderness area that has for they can't because it is in a wilderness area so we need an act of congress to allow the citywe o to fix their water sy. rejected tonight. because we were not allowed a vote on y it tonight and you b permanent land water conservation fund is in here tonight because it has the majority support of this body. if we had a vote tonight it would have passed. republicans and democrats would have voted yes. it would have passed. not only that, we have boundary justice because people died, wanted to give it a national monument. that is not controversial. somebody wanted to do the right thing and if we can't even vote on it here, i give covenants to the chairman of the energy
8:00 am
committee who struck a deal yesterday. we got the bill as fast as we could and so many of these pieces of legislation we have already heard. we had committee hearings on, we voted unanimously, bipartisan support. we offer deal after deal after deal to try to get a deal arranged. go tell the people of minturn, colorado, that they don't have a water system they can fix because congress has decided we're not going to allow that to come to a vote. sportsmen back home, tell them we're not going to have a sportsmen package abuse we decided not to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor for a vote. when we come back to this body next year, we have an agreement. i believe that's correct. defer to the chairman of the energy committee, that this will be one of the first actions that this chairman addresses. and when that happens, there will be a chance to file
8:01 am
cloture. there will be a chance for open debate, and we will have that vote. vote. and we will have that vote. we will have it next to.e there will be differentot leadership in the senate so different negotiations will have to take place but i've no doubt we will get this done. it's frustrating to me that some of these bills have languished for year after year after year after year. that it received unanimous support out of committee. i remember coming to this for a year ago offering a unanimous consent agreement. eb was objected to because somebody didn't get what they wanted and somebody didn't get what they wanted so everything was objected to. it created a whole domino effect. effect. here we are waiting for the lands package come had a a chae to do it and we tried and tried and tried to make offer after offer to get something agreed to. i have great respect for my colleague from utah.
8:02 am
we're a public landscape, too. and yes, our agencies need to make better decisions about how they can serve that public land. people of color better have great support for it. they would like to see it made permanent. i'd like to see it may permit. my next year -- my guess is next it will be made permanent. why can't we have a vote? like it would let people vote no, people do like about this. plenty of opportunities to do that tonight. the people of colorado expect this place to get its work done. the bills we've had have been through negotiated house and senate. many of the committee with bipartisan support, not unanimous, and i guess the folks have to wait one more congress to get the water system fixed
8:03 am
because this body couldn't agree to allow a vote. wonder why people are sick of this place? because tonight. mr. president, i yield my time mr. president? >> the senator from utah mr. president, all i'm asking is for the language that i've asked for, two words. the words or utah to be added to this legislation. i'm asking to be treated on equal footing as the language proposed by the senator from colorado, centered from alaska, the senate for washington, the senator from montana and others. equal footing. with equal representation in the senate. the one type of institutional amendment that is presumptively unconstitutional. you can't modify the equal representation of the senate. that's what makes this place unique. each state is represented equally as i will defend my
8:04 am
state, the state of utah, to my dying breath of fungicide. breathing and holding e an election certificate i will defend it. now, my distinguished friend and colleague for whom ife have gret affection and respect has just pointed out that the people of colorado might be disappointed about this water measure that was in there, or this or that of the provision of colorado. do they havee reason to be concerned? you bet. to those people in colorado have objection to the idea that utah might be treated equally with or wyoming? i think not. most people in america will look at a state that is that a couple million acres of emolument declared, that just wants to be treated the same way as alaska and wyoming and say that's not unreasonable.nr this is a sovereign state, one that has been mistreated by federal land managers.
8:05 am
we don't want to continue doing that. this is a generous offer. it's a reasonable offer. as to the suggestion that because it was offered that this receive a separate vote, that's really not equivalent at all, what he's saying is put this out, everything else sinks swims together. all of bears passes and ours stands alone. ifif are going to consolidate ts many bills at once, and is right, some of these passed out unanimously, a bunch of them didn't. some of them are new, others are old but have been modified. one provision involving my own state involved or hundred 50 or 500,000 acres of wilderness and has since it moved to the committee been modified to include an additional 200,000 acres ofof wilderness. that's for my state and they sit on the committee and i chair the subcommittee that is supposed to review theseee things. this is the first i've seen of
8:06 am
it. so yes, i say to my dissing bush grant and colleagues for mobiles of great respect and admiration and affection, yes, there are a lot of parochial matters that are dressed in the public lands bills, and probably so. what am asking is for my state to be treated like your state. that's all i'm asking. it's not unreasonable. it is not unfair. so if you're going to put 640 pages worth of legislation significant ramifications are my state i ask you to take those two words into the bill. that is that of reasonable. thank you, mr. president. i used the fourth mr. president? >> the senate from washington mr. president, i come first and foremost on to thank the staff who worked so hard on this package and i mean not just in the last few weeks but for literally years work to try to get to an agreement on something we could vote on. it's not a surprise to the united states senate that it's december and people are voting
8:07 am
on a lands package pick my colleague from colorado outlined it very well, that when you have these bills that deal with water, that deal with public lands, deal with giving federal land back to communities so they can improve their communities and yet designating some special places so they can preserve for the public, yes, not all your colleagues care about the details of that and you areet never going to get the leader who is in control of the united states senate to b give you flor time on that bill. so every december we are here with a b lands package to be considered, and it's a package that has a lot of input from a lot of people negotiated in this caseth with the house and the senate, with democrats and republicans, a four corners negotiation. so the missed opportunity tonight as myt colleague from colorado said is that we don't get to vote on it. my colleague from utah is not
8:08 am
being correct and that he was offered a chance to read that vote. he was offered a chance to have this bill brought up and to have his ideas voted on, , antinuke s going to lose and he knows is going to lose in january but he wants to insist tonight on prevailing. i'm notur sure why, because as y colleague from colorado said, why continue to all of these smoking reduce from getting the resources they need? and trust me,d trustee, or immunities like yakima, washington,ng want answers to te challenges of changing conditions that impact water and the fact that fish and farmers and tribes andet evangelists all had have to get together to solve those problems. so when they work for years on coming up with a solution, collectively at a local community, and then put the before the united states senate for hearing and for consideration, that proposal passed the united states senate
8:09 am
and i think 85-12 vote two years ago. as did permanent reauthorization of the land and water conservation fund. two years ago. pass the united states senate. so i colleague who is from utah imagining some of the land and water conservation fund being made permanent and start going to pass the united states senate, he ist just dreaming of something that is really going to take place and become reality in the very near future. but what you are done is tonight made it a lot harder for us to make sure that we're moving ahead. this legislation that he refused to love to vote out tonight also includes important i would say one thing, the one thing that may be you could say hasn't had constant, constant attention over two years but certainly has grown in importance is new
8:10 am
technology to help our firefighters fight fires, locate with a fire is happening, gps systems that make people more safe. that was in this package, and probably yes has gotten against a great guilt over the last six months as we've seen the tragic devastating impact of fires throughout the west. so yes, that was in here and part of consideration. and yes, there were legislative action, 90% of this package either saw legislation passed by the house of representatives or passed by the united states senate. legislation the basically passed out of a committee, either the senate committee or house committee. so it's not like these ideas came out of nowhere. they are as my colleague from colorado said best, parochial issues that we find it very hard to get the rest of our colleagues to ever want to pay attention to and ever want to pay attention to thels details.
8:11 am
so this has been the tried and true fashion by which the united states senate has passed land packages as long as i've been here for 18 years. that's what you do in december, you pass the lands package. i wish it was different. my colleague from colorado made a good suggestion about seven or eight months ago, why do we do some right now? thanks to his initiative we actually bundled together 15 or 20 but he was right, guess what, everybody came and said where's mine? was my package? was this? i'm not going to let you do this, and we were in the same boat. so the best answer to all of that is in december we would do a lands package. so the notion that people didn't know this was coming is a little bit facetious. everybody has known that this is the time and that these are the packages and these of the proposals. and to my colleague from utah, i get it.
8:12 am
he's not necessarily an agreement with some of his own delegation who pushed things for utah that are in this package that i get it, he has a differentou philosophy about wht should happen. and i guarantee you, utah is going to aor lot more debate abt what it wants to see for its future. and i think that's ultimately healthy. i can just answer for my state who has three national parks and generate millions of dollars from them. i can just answer for my state who thinks that the outdoor economy is a number one reason we attractee and keep high skild and unbelievably and your faction jobs in the pacific northwest. why? because businesses want to locate there because the workers want have access to that. my state knows that the outdoor economy because it is companies like rei is over an $800 billion
8:13 am
annual economy. so yes, when you invest in public land you get more access for hunters and fishers and people who want to go and enjoy and recreate for our veterans and so guess what, it's a great economic development tool. so the notion that a state of public lands doesn't economic opportunity is not telling the whole story. we all get it. i represent counties that have nothing but an outdoor economy of public land and then they dot to know how to build a school or a fire station or keep the lights on for basic services. we get that complexity, too. but our colleagues did consider these ideas, and our colleagues did consider the notion that there are diverse opinions. it's just that at the end of the day you have to have a vote. you have to be able to come into
8:14 am
the united states senate on the subject, that is land packages, and have a process. listen, if my colleagues who care soca much about this what o create a new norm and the united states senate that the first week of december will be the deadline for all lands packages and then by the end of that session we will have lands packages always considered and the united states senate, i am all for it. i'm all forig that right now because i see devastation happening on water writ large. i see unbelievable problems happening throughout the west just on water. now, you can say we will do nothing and we would just let the courts and the lawsuits and everything play out, but guess what, that's where we were on fire. they tell what happened? until the gentleman from montana and the gentleman from idaho and the gentleman from oregon and the gentlewoman from washington,
8:15 am
we all got together on a fire built and we said this is what we think would be great for the west to do to move forward. that's what we're trying to do tonight on water and on other fire measures and on public lands and helping veterans and native americans in alaska who never got a fair deal on access to their own land. so the solutions i get may take a few pages to print out and for people to read, but they are important public policies that need to have this bodies attention. and you are doing nothing but shortchanging the public debate if you won't even allow the bill to come to the floor for that debate. we are always, always going to get sidelined as individual bills is not being important enough to take up the time of
8:16 am
the senate. it's only o collectively in a bundle like we saw tonight that they can be considered. but i guarantee you, i guarantee you they are not going to grow into a package that becomes less important with time. they are just not. they are just not. they are going to continue to be amplified as important public policies where a local government, a county or city and the forest service and blm and a school district andng the community are going to have to work together they are going to have to work together. they're going to have to work together on water, on fire, on public access, on conveyance, and how we're going to preserve open space, on how we're going to recreate. it is going to be demanding. i do know my colleague from utah
8:17 am
doesn't agree with all of these philosophies, but i guarantee you there are lots of people utah that would've just loved to have a vote tonight to see how those issues would have played out. so i just, i just want to thank staff. they have worked night and day literally literally literally for months if not years on these policies. they have worked so hard to try to find the common good in the place to t move forward. and i so appreciate that our leaders are not committingo to s to what move this forward in january. where definitely going to take them up on it even though it will be a new congress and a new house of representatives. we're going to take it up and i'm sure that our colleagues, congressman bishop will be there to work with us. but there will never be an easy
8:18 am
day to vote on public lands. never.ev you will just never happen. so we better own up to the responsibility and get the commitment to the cities and communities that need us to help them hold federal agencies accountable, make investments are constituents want to see, and solve these problems so our communities can continue to grow and thrive. that's what they did in various parts of the west, whether that was in one can with what to do at yellowstone or whether thato was in alaska what to do with this native issue, but yeah, i'm to do with water. there are public of the ideas, lease what we can do is give them the courtesy of having a vote so they can be considered. i think the president and think of the four mr. president?
8:19 am
>> the senator from alaska mr. president, i know myan colleagus from montana was she to speak, but the senator from washington departs, i also want to acknowledge the good work of both of our staffs. not just our staffs but worked with our colleagues on the house side and withh so many members. when youki are going through the volume that we're were talking, someone had 14 different bills on house side, on senate side,, it's extraordinary tedious work and difficult work, and i think we owe them all a great deal of thanks. what i also want to rise and thank senator cantwell, because in thiss next congress she will be moving to another position as ranking member, and i won't be working side-by-side with her as we have. i think it's important to
8:20 am
note that on the difficult things that came before us, we didn't always start off in agreement, but we slogged through it and our teens stuck with it and slogged through it. -- teams here. and we got to where we are tonight. while it's not a good ending from my view in that we were not able to provide these counties, these communities, these people that have worked so hard, the satisfaction that they are seeking, theg, commitment to continue this until we're done is real, it is in place, it is intact and it was agreed to tonight and will be moving forward in the first few weeks of january but it want to thank senator cantwell for the working relationship that we have had over the past couple years, moving through important matters for your state, for my state and really for the good of the country when it comes to energy site just appreciate your courtesies and opportunities to
8:21 am
work together and that of your staff. >> mr. president, i just want to thank the gentlewoman from alaska for her great work and working such a collaborative certainly not leaving the energy committee and certainly not going to back away from any of these big issues, but certainly as she said won't be working as closely as the ranking member to her as the chair but certainly definitely going to work in t a collaborative way so i i thankr for her kind comments and look forward to what we can do in the new year. >> mr. president? >> the senator from montana mr. president, i want to share some comments, what we saw happen tonight as relates to this public lands package. we saw a glimpse here tonight on, one hand, how this institution can really come together years of bipartisan
8:22 am
work, years of collaboration on the ground to come together to put together a lands package and asking for a simple up or down vote tonight in the united states senate. and i am very confident had we had opportunity to have voted to tonight, to have seen this lands package passed the united states senate by at least a two to one margin. would've gone to the house, it would have passed, it would've gone to president trump's desk and i'm confident he would have signed it. the reason we've been fighting for a permanent reauthorization of the land and water conservation fund is because of what happened right here tonight. is the uncertainty of this institution. where 90 senators can say let's move ahead for a vote, two senatornd say no and we were not able to have a vote tonight. it's okay to oppose legislation. that's the american process.
8:23 am
come down there and express their opinions. some will say yes, some a signal. what we are asking you for tonight is let's have that debate on the floor, let's have that vote on the floor and let the senators speak on behalf of the people who sent them here in the first place to represent their interests. but the land and water conservation fund, the reason we probably reauthorize it is because tonight you could see we didn't get it done. in fact, it expired on septembe. here we are halfway through december and we still do not have the reauthorization of lwcf. that is what we need to make it permanent because you can'tde depend on this institution. and so often the transactions required back and our home states will use the funds to access public lands with a checkerboard nation against nature ownership structure of
8:24 am
many places out west, it takes years to put together these deals your private land owners, the states, the federal government, together. when you have the federal government, united states congress can't get its job done, it creates uncertainty and consequently loses when there is uncertainty, the american people lose. that is why we need toth permanently reauthorize it. it actually creates more certainty in taking care of a lot of these complex lan issues out west. and it saves the taxpayer dollars. by the way, as senator burr has said over and over again, lwcf doesn't cost the taxpayer anything. it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything. that was in the stillea tonight, to promote reauthorize it. it didn't get done. as you read through the titles of these various bills, you heat the story, there may be one can look like one line item, section
8:25 am
1009, senate bill 1219, or some little obscure title that the guy from montana has no idea what's going on in louisiana tennessee or alaska but i know i can the suspected communities, or colorado, there's a lot of hard work bringing people together collaborative to come together to put together a bill that would then bring to congress. we move it through committees. with hours of hearings literally there's probably 100 years of effort, at least that is gone in this legislation tonight that were not able to have an up or down vote on. wildfire technology modernization. the yellowstone gateway protection act. that's important to me and montana tell you what, the people who are closest to the land ought to have the loudest voice. at i can tell the c people in paradise valley and montana, they don't want to see a large
8:26 am
money operation. it's time to withdraw the rights there and allow that back toward yellowstone national park to be protected in perpetuity. that was part of this land package tonight. you take a look at the sportsman access to federal lands. one ofer the issues that set our nation apart is our public lands. tell you what, go to europe, you don't see public lands. you go virtually anywhere else in the world, you don't see public land. it is a unique american experience here that a mom and dad in montana, a grandma and grandpa, an aunt and uncle can still go down to walmart and buy an elk tag and jump in the pickup and within 20 or 30 minutes be an elk country on public lands. that was part of the sportsman access package. we had the open book on equal
8:27 am
access to just accurate in fact, something senator barrasso put in to ensure transparency in the way these funds are spent. there's a migratory bird and hunting opportunities for veterans act in here. my point is there are over 100 bills t in your with a lot of careful thought, a lot of consideration. all we want to do tonight is have an up or down vote. we didn't get it. but i'm grateful we had a good bipartisan spirit here tonight, which with leadershipar in both parties here in the senate, both parties in house including future leadership in the house, we will bring the spill back to the floor of the use senate in january. we're going to move this through, moving to the house, fight to get this thing on the president's desk and sign as one of the early acts of congress in 2019. it didn't and w welfare tonight with this package, we'll start strong in january. i'm not giving up the fight. i want to thank the staff in the
8:28 am
committee leadership on both sides inpi helping us get to ths point tonight. merry christmas, happy new year, be back in january i think. i yield back my time. ♪ ♪ >> the united states senate, a uniquely american institution. legislating and carrying out constitutional duties since 1789. >> on wednesday january 2, c-span takes you inside the senate learning about the legislative body and its informal workings. we will look at its history of conflict and compromise with original interviews. >> arguing about things and taking them around and having great debates is a thoroughly
8:29 am
american thing. >> key moments in history and unprecedented access, allowing us to bring cameras into the senate chamber during a session. >> follow the evolution of the senate into the modern era from advice and consent to the role in impeachment proceedings and investigations. the senate, conflict and compromise, a c-span original production exploring the history, traditions and role of this uniquely american institution premiers wednesday january 2 at 8 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. be sure to go online at c-span.org/senate to learn more about the program and watch original full-length interviews with senators, you farewell speeches from long serving members, and take a tour inside the senate chamber, the old senate chamber, and other exclusive locations.
8:30 am
>> here's some of our live coverage thursday on c-span.
8:31 am
>> i didn't know much about the steamy problematic down south my parents had come from. i knew the south was steamy because they never stop complaining about chicago's cold tea. i knew was problematic because television told me so. are flickering -- people who look like me were recorded by starling police dogs are doused with sugar and catch up on the set stoically at lunch counters. i heard about people who look like me gone missing, swaying from toddlers, swirling in rivers. i heard other names for people who looked look like me, namesh ugly blighted edges, names to make a a smaller, quieter, less boisterous, less of ourselves. >> sunday at 9 p.m. eastern on "after words," the other side of
8:32 am
freedom, the case for hope. >> you make the case for hope. why so important, is her difference between faith and hope? >> we believe that our tomorrow will be better that are today's. we have to fight for it. i think everybody who came on the streets parsing the early days come deeper in hope, and a plea is can't be that this version of this is we got, like we make something. think about the tax bills. if they can rebut the tax bill on the back of a scrap paper, don't come with weight 10,000 wait 10,000 years to end mass incarceration. we can do it correctly. >> watch booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> next, look at just china relations over the past you. speake

8 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on