[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 212 (Tuesday, December 16, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8766-S8768]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              HOUSE BILLS

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, we are here on the floor, a number of 
Senators from both sides of the aisle, trying to move some important 
legislation for all of us, our different States, and different 
constituencies.
  I have spoken a lot on this bill--my bill--the Alaska Native Vietnam 
Era Veterans Land Allotment Extension Act. So I am going to keep this 
quick. I will talk about this more, hopefully, once we get to a 
positive resolution.
  I do want to just thank my colleagues. A lot of people are working 
hard on this. I want to thank my legislative director Erik Elam, 
Senators King, Padilla, Bennet, Hoeven, and Senator-Chairman Lee--a lot 
of hard work, a lot of cooperation, on both sides of the aisle. I 
appreciate very much the cooperation. I think we will get to a good 
outcome here, and then we will make more commitments to

[[Page S8767]]

help each other. That is what this body has long been about.
  All the Senators on the floor, I have the deepest respect for. As I 
will say later, I have said on the floor many times: This is an issue 
for some great constituents of mine--what I refer to as special 
patriotism, Alaska Native Vietnam vets. Alaska Native people serve at 
higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the 
country.
  This is going to be a good outcome, I hope, that addresses some of 
their challenges. I will talk in more detail about it.
  Mr. President, 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: H.R. 131, H.R. 187, H.R. 410, and H.R. 1043.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to proceeding to the 
measures en bloc?
  The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just want 
to raise a few concerns before we pass these four House bills. We have 
developed a new process in this Congress where, instead of passing a 
large public lands package, we are moving packages of smaller bills 
simultaneously.
  But for this new process to work, not only does the Senate need to 
pass House bills, but the House should be passing Senate bills. This 
Congress, the Senate has passed so far five House bills under the 
jurisdiction of our Energy and Natural Resources Committee by unanimous 
consent. All of them have been signed into law.
  During the same period, four bills from our committee--from our 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee--have passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent but are being held at the desk in the House and have 
neither been referred to committee nor taken up for a vote.
  And these are bipartisan bills. One is sponsored by Senator Cornyn, 
one by Senator Lankford, one by myself, and one by Senator 
Hickenlooper.
  So the picture is, we are passing the House bills, but they are not 
reciprocating and passing the bills that we have sent them from this 
Chamber. It is not sustainable for us to continue to do our side of the 
bargain and not have a response from the House when they refuse to even 
take up the bill.
  So the Senate has given the House the courtesy of taking up their 
bills, passing them in a previous group, as I mentioned, and now this 
group of House bills that we are going to be passing this afternoon. 
All I am asking is that the House extend to this body the same courtesy 
that we have extended to them.
  So this is about mutual respect and comity, and in the spirit of 
comity, I look forward to working with Chairman Lee and Chairman 
Westerman, and we can resolve these concerns in the new year.
  Mr. President, noting my reservations, I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from California.
  Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as the 
Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Utah, and others know, I have 
been down here many times as we tried to work through a better way of 
ensuring that we have a fair and bipartisan and bicameral approach to 
passing these public lands bills.
  The Senator from Maine just articulated one of the concerns about the 
Senate passing House bills or the House passing the Senate bills. Let 
me be a little bit more blunt and direct, because I don't think we are 
quite there yet, but I do think we are seeing the beginning of a more 
equitable process developing.
  I was encouraged to see that, just earlier today, a Senate Republican 
bill and a Senate Democratic bill were packaged together as a single 
bill and sent over to the House. I think this approach is critical to 
ensuring that neither the House of Representatives nor the White House 
can discriminate against our Democratic priorities.
  So I hope that we are now going to see action on the House side on 
that bill and other Senate Democratic bills, like that of my colleague 
from Maine, that we have sent over.
  Therefore, as a gesture of good faith, I will not object to the 
passage of these four bills today, but I want to be very clear--I want 
to be clear with my colleagues in this body and our colleagues in the 
House of Representatives--that I will not consent to any additional 
House Republican public lands bills passing the Senate until the House 
passes and the White House signs into law these Senate Democratic 
bills.
  Good faith must go both ways. I think it is critical that all 
interested Senators have an opportunity to sit down, when we return in 
January, with the leadership of both the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee to 
finally hammer out what that fair, bipartisan, and bicameral approach 
to passing public lands bills will be.

  Now, I also acknowledge--and this may be a little insight for folks 
watching from home--that this year we have welcomed a new chair, in the 
Senate, of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, along with a new 
ranking member. On the House side, in the House Natural Resources 
Committee--which, Mr. President, you are very familiar with--the 
chairman there is not new, but as I understand it, given the rules of 
the Republican conference in the House, he is in his last session as 
chair, and there will soon be a new chair in the years ahead. There is 
a new ranking member of that committee in the House as well.
  So as there has been this transition of leadership in both Chambers 
in these two very important committees, I think it is even more timely 
to bring the leadership together with interested Senators to hammer out 
what the understanding will be to establish a fair, bipartisan, and 
bicameral approach to the consideration and approval of public lands 
bills.
  In that effort, I would appeal to our colleague from Alaska to help 
facilitate such a convening and the development of such an 
understanding and plan for going forward.
  So with my concerns being articulated and my request and suggested 
path forward being on the record now, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do have a 
hold on one of the bills in this package. It is not the bill that 
Senator Sullivan is talking about. It is one of the other bills. But I 
do have a hold on one of the bills.
  And it is because there are holds on the Democratic side on one of my 
priorities in the jurisdiction of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee. That is S. 675, which is the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential 
Library Museum Artifacts Act. This bill passed the Senate by unanimous 
consent last year.
  I will try that one more time. The bill I am talking about passed the 
Senate by unanimous consent last year. Now, there are holds on it.
  It is the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library, and it is 
scheduled to open on July 4, 2026, in concert with the 250th 
anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The 
library will honor our Nation's 26th President and ensure that future 
generations of Americans can access the rich history and enduring 
impact of President Roosevelt.
  As President Roosevelt proudly claimed, he would not have ascended to 
the Presidency had it not been for his formative years in my State, 
North Dakota. President Roosevelt first traveled to the Dakota 
Territory in 1883 to hunt bison and returned in 1884, while mourning 
the passing of both his wife and his mother. President Roosevelt called 
the Dakota Territory home for 3 years, while enjoying the vast beauty 
that the Badlands have to offer.
  Fittingly, the Roosevelt Library will be located adjacent to the 
Theodore Roosevelt National Park. My legislation would authorize 
funding for the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library for continued 
construction and the preservation of President Roosevelt's history and 
his legacy. This funding would be contingent on matching funds from 
non-Federal sources.
  The measure also authorizes interagency agreements to allow for the 
exhibition of collections associated with Theodore Roosevelt that are 
currently

[[Page S8768]]

in the custody of the Federal Government.
  As I said, there are, unfortunately, Democrat holds on this 
noncontroversial, bipartisan--bipartisan--legislation. Now, my 
understanding is that these holds are unrelated--unrelated--to the 
legislation itself.
  While I do have a hold on one of the bills in the package, I will 
acknowledge now that Senator Bennet has been working with me to help 
clear the holds on my Roosevelt Library bill, and I want to express my 
appreciation for his help, and I look forward to continuing to work 
with him.
  So, therefore, at his request and in the spirit of good faith, I will 
not object at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the 
Senate proceeded to consider the bills en bloc.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills, 
en bloc, be considered read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bills were ordered to a third reading and were read the third 
time en bloc.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. I know of no further debate on the bills en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the bills 
having been read the third time en bloc, the question is, Shall the 
bills pass en bloc?
  The bills were passed en bloc as follows:

                          ____________________