[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 25, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2690-S2692]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, shortly, the Senator from Rhode Island, 
Mr. Whitehouse, will come to the Senate floor and attempt to have a 
live unanimous consent request for a nominee to be the Assistant 
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. When he does so, Madam 
President, I intend to object to that request, and I want to explain 
why to my colleagues. Senator Whitehouse has been delayed in getting to 
the Senate floor, so I am going to outline my objections prior to his 
making the request.
  Madam President, in all of the time that I have served in the U.S. 
Senate, I don't ever recall coming to the Senate floor to object to a 
unanimous consent request. I say that because it demonstrates how 
unusual it is for me to be standing here objecting to one of my 
colleague's unanimous consent requests. Indeed, as I said, I don't 
believe I have ever done this in all of the time I have served in the 
Senate.
  So let me give the Presiding Officer and my colleagues some 
background. On May 1, despite the objections of the entire Maine 
congressional delegation and its Democratic Governor, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, better known as NOAA, imposed 
onerous new regulations on Maine's lobster industry.
  Now, Madam President, if I asked you what is the first thing you 
think of when I say the State of Maine, you probably would say lobster, 
our iconic industry. We have more than 4,500 lobstermen and -women, 
each of whom is self-employed. They have been good stewards, always, of 
the lobster resource. They have taken care over the decades to make 
sure that the lobsters are large enough, for example, to keep. They 
throw back egg-bearing lobsters. There are all sorts of rules and 
regulations that the lobster industry has worked with the State of 
Maine over decades to preserve the precious resource.
  But, now, in comes NOAA. NOAA is imposing onerous, possibly 
impossible new regulations that do not reflect the reality in the Gulf 
of Maine with regard to the right whale. The final rule imposed on May 
1 does not even come close to reflecting the reality of the Maine 
fishing and lobstering industry and the endangered right whale.
  NOAA's focus on the State of Maine's lobster industry is flawed and 
unfair. In fact, Madam President, the Agency's own data show that there 
has never, never been a right whale entanglement death attributed to 
the Maine lobster fishery.
  NOAA denied an entirely reasonable request to at least delay the 
implementation of these onerous new regulations for just 2 months until 
July 1. The entire delegation, plus our Governor, asked for this delay, 
this 2-month delay, because our lobstermen cannot even find enough of 
the gear, the new gear that is being mandated by NOAA. Just a 2-month 
delay would have helped to prevent huge losses to these small business 
owners.
  Now, this isn't the first request that NOAA has refused. We have 
worked over more than a year with NOAA to try to prevent these 
regulations from going into effect in the first place because they are 
not relevant to preserving the right whale. Nobody wants to see the 
population of right whales decimated, but if you look at the data, here 
is what is happening, Madam President. It is ship strikes that have 
been responsible for the death of right whales. They have occurred in 
the St. Lawrence Seaway in Canada, not even in the State of Maine.
  In addition, there is evidence that there is some gear that is used 
for the Canadian snow crab that has been found to entangle the right 
whale. That is different from our lobster gear. And as I said, there 
has never been a right whale entanglement death attributed to the Maine 
lobster fishery.
  So these regulations make no sense in the first place, but at least--
at least--in response to a plea from the lobster industry, from the 
Maine Department of Marine Resources, from the Democratic Governor of 
Maine, from the entire Maine delegation--at least NOAA could have 
answered our plea to delay these onerous regulations for 2 months--2 
months--during which time maybe this brandnew, very expensive gear 
would have become more available. But, no. Once again, NOAA refused.
  This really is outrageous, and the industry is expected to lose out 
on $7 million due to lost fishing time during these 2 months.
  Now, perhaps the Senator from Rhode Island and others do not believe 
what the Maine delegation, the Democratic Governor of Maine, the Maine 
Department of Marine Resources, and many experts are saying about the 
impact of these regulations and the lack of availability of this new 
gear and the fact that the data show that we are not the problem in the 
State of Maine. As I said, it is fish strikes and due to warming 
waters, which I know is of great concern to the Senator from Rhode 
Island, as it is to me.
  The right whale are actually moving and following their food supply 
into Canadian waters. In fact, I have talked to many lobstermen and -
women who have never seen a right whale--never--in all the time that 
they have been lobstering. But as I said, maybe NOAA just thinks that 
we are just automatic advocates for an iconic industry, despite the 
extraordinary record of stewardship by the lobster industry.
  So let me give you another source. Denying this 2-month extension 
conflicted with the recommendations of the U.S. Small Business 
Administration's Office of Advocacy, an independent voice for small 
business within the Federal Government. The office of advocacy asserted 
that NOAA was putting lobstermen and -women in ``an impossible 
scenario,'' and went on to say:

       If they are not granted a short delay of the compliance 
     deadline, they may stand to lose significant amounts of 
     revenue, or in some instances, their entire business.

  This isn't just the Maine delegation. It isn't just our Governor. It 
isn't just the Maine Department of Marine Resources. This is another 
government agency. It is the Small Business Administration's Office of 
Advocacy which is saying this.
  Maine harvesters are justifiably worried about what they are going to 
do and I don't know what more the Maine delegation can do. We have had 
countless meetings with the Department of Commerce, with NOAA. I met 
with the Fisheries Administrator in NOAA. I asked for his help. He 
promised to work with us. Instead, things have gotten only worse. And 
now our lobster industry worries that NOAA will continue to steadily 
whittle away at their livelihoods while ignoring not only their on-the-
water expertise, the expertise of the State of Maine, but the impartial 
advice of the Federal Government's Small Business Advocate as well.
  The entire agency, all of NOAA, needs to recognize that the practice 
of implementing management decisions based on incomplete, imprecise, 
inaccurate data--especially when those decisions have a harmful effect 
on a fishery that is known for its conservation methods and on the 
communities that this fishery has supported forever in the State of 
Maine--cannot continue.
  So that is the situation in which we find ourselves, and that is why 
I believe, for the first time in all the years that I have served in 
the Senate, I have come to the floor to object when the unanimous 
consent request is made.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I do not want to keep the distinguished Senator from 
Maine on the floor any longer than we have to, so I am going to move 
rapidly to the unanimous consent motion.

[[Page S2691]]

  But I do want to tell the Senator that I am actually rather 
sympathetic to her concerns. In Rhode Island, we have had issues 
regarding the black sea bass, which NOAA scientists have known for more 
than a decade were moving up into our waters, yet the fisheries 
regulation and the allotments have not moved accordingly. We have 
problems with evanescent species like butterfish and loligo squid that 
replicate more rapidly than the regulatory regime can keep up, so the 
information is really nonsense. And we have an urgent need to enhance 
electronic monitoring on our boats so that human monitors don't have to 
be taken out on the boat.
  Yes, we have frustrations with NOAA about its pace in a lot of these 
areas, but I simply think that an understaffed NOAA is not a solution 
to those problems.
  If I may, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the 
Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 768, Jainey 
Kumar Bavishi, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 
Atmosphere; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening 
action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table; that any statements related to the nomination be 
printed in the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Ms. COLLINS. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, let me just say I hope we can find a 
way to move forward. Ms. Bavishi is needed to fill a very important 
position. Those of us in coastal States know the problem with Oceans 
and Atmosphere is profound. Perhaps my favorite new figure is called 
the zettajoule, the joule being the unit of heat energy by which we 
measure energy. The zettajoule is a joule with 21 zeros. It is a very, 
very big number. It is twice the complete full energy production and 
use by human species on the planet. All of our energy, our cars, our 
trucks, our homes, our factories--everything is half a zettajoule. For 
the price of that, we add 14 zettajoules of heat into the ocean every 
single year--every single year. It is the equivalent of three or four 
Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs being set off in the ocean every second 
and the ocean having to absorb that heat energy.
  As the Senator from Maine knows, the Gulf of Maine is one of the 
fastest heating bodies of water on the planet, and she sees it as her 
fisheries and her lobster fisheries, in particular, move northward.
  I am eager to find a way to make sure that Bavishi can get in place. 
She is a leading climate expert who worked in the New York Mayor's 
Office of Climate Resiliency and, before that, in the CEQ at the White 
House.
  I respect the concerns that the Senator from Maine has indicated. As 
I said, I have my own. I just have a different view as to whether 
stopping the Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Administration position 
from being filled is conducive to getting those concerns met.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1787

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise again today in support of the 
bipartisan State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act. This is an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan bill. In fact, 99 Senators support passing 
this bill. Only one--oddly, the lead cosponsor of this bill--has 
objected.
  Now, the nature of the objection was that passing this bill would 
somehow reduce the chances of passing that Senator's own wholly 
unrelated bill, a different bill, a bill not touching the subject 
matter of this bill. But the idea that it must be all or nothing is 
silly, and it highlights one of the more vexing problems facing 
Congress. The idea that unless Congress will pass all of what a 
particular Senator wants, that no one else can pass anything is 
something that is a cause of great dismay and frustration.
  Making it easier for State attorneys general to enforce the antitrust 
laws is good policy, but it is, of course, not a silver bullet. I agree 
we still need meaningful reform at the Federal level. Passing this bill 
would, in no way, shape, or form, set back that project. It would just 
allow State attorneys general to bring antitrust suits now rather than 
worrying that Big Tech companies will be able to slow them down by 
requesting that courts combine them with private litigation.
  This UC is precisely what happened in the Texas v. Google case. In 
fact, unanimously passing this bill will only strengthen momentum in 
Congress for meaningful, much-needed antitrust reform. It will be a 
proof of concept of sorts, one that indicates that we can set aside our 
egos and partisan differences in order to achieve a shared goal--in 
this case, a goal that I believe is shared by all 100 Members of this 
body.
  Standing in the way of that achievement accomplishes nothing. In 
fact, it only plays into the hands of Big Tech. Big Tech would love 
nothing more than to see antitrust reform suffocate and die on the 
Senate floor, yet another victim of this ``all or nothing'' mindset, of 
this mindset that would suggest unless we pass all of what I want now, 
you can't pass anything, even something that I support.
  It is important that we pass this bill. All 100 Senators support it. 
There is only one who has been objecting, and the basis of that 
objection has nothing to do with the merits of the legislation; it has 
only to do with the misguided and, ultimately, incorrect assumption 
that this would somehow interfere with that Senator's wholly unrelated 
bill.
  To that end, Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 261, S. 1787; I further ask that the Lee 
amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as 
amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. As chairman of the appropriate jurisdictional committee 
and on behalf of Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I appreciate the longstanding friendship I 
have with my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from 
Illinois. I know he has no objection to passing this bill in this 
fashion. In fact, it was after a long negotiation process culminating 
with an agreement between me and the Senator from Illinois that we made 
modifications to this legislation--modifications I didn't want to make 
but I made in order to get this passed.
  It was represented to me in good faith by the Senator from Illinois 
that it would pass the hotline; it could pass by unanimous consent, if 
it happened. Had it all gone according to how we had every reason to 
believe and how the Senator from Illinois had every reason to believe 
at the time, this would have been passed by now.
  What we didn't anticipate was that the lead cosponsor of this 
legislation who had herself been a part of these negotiations, been a 
part of the conversation about how we were going to get it passed, and 
been a part of the conversations about the very modification that might 
be necessary in order to get it passed by unanimous consent, would then 
suddenly decide to object.
  Again, this is based not on a substantive objection to the bill, of 
which she is the lead cosponsor; it is based solely on her assessment 
that this might somehow jeopardize her chances of passing another 
antitrust bill, an antitrust bill that does not contain any provision 
like this one, an antitrust bill that does not preclude consideration 
of this one nor would this preclude consideration of that one. It is, 
in short, folly, to say the least, to object to this under these 
circumstances.
  It is also bad faith, I believe, to object at the very last minute 
after many, many months of negotiation on this issue as the lead 
cosponsor of the legislation. It is unfortunate that she is unwilling 
to agree to that.
  It is unfortunate, also, she is not willing to be here to raise the 
objection on her own but insisting on doing so through a third party--
through no fault of his own--who is here at her request, being a good 
colleague, as he is, doing as she had requested.

[[Page S2692]]

  This is unnecessary. This is petty. We are better than this. We need 
to pass this bill. I will be back. I am not going to quit until this 
thing is passed, because the fact is, all 100 Senators agree that this 
is good legislation, including the objecting absent party.
  We should never get to the point where egos get in the way. And egos, 
alone, prevent us from passing legislation that all 100 Senators agree 
would make things better. I can tell you, there is no one who would be 
happier about this than Big Tech. So if the objecting Senator, who is 
absent today, wishes to make sure that Big Tech is held accountable, 
then she should allow this to pass forthwith without her objection. If, 
on the other hand, she wants to make it easier for Big Tech, then this 
objection would be the way to go.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. As cosponsor of both pieces of legislation that are being 
debated here, I would say to the Senator from Utah: Keep the faith. The 
day will come. This legislation will see the light of day, and I 
believe should become law along with Senator Klobuchar's bill. I 
believe both are good pieces of legislation.
  This is not the appropriate moment, but that moment will come.