[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S507-S508]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Cabinet Nominations
Mr. President, we are voting on several nominees who will be in
charge of executing Donald Trump's environmental and energy agenda,
including Doug Burgum for the Secretary of the Interior.
Of course, the Trump administration's climate and energy policies are
not a mystery. It is to exacerbate the climate crisis.
I think there is a healthy debate to be had, and I think some of my
Republican colleagues know that I can be shockingly reasonable in the
policy space around energy. The reason is, even though I have devoted
my entire political career to climate action, I also come from a State
that is highly dependent on low-sulfur fuel oil for electricity. So the
pragmatism has to kick in because as much as I want us to be 100
percent renewable, and I think we will eventually get there, in the
meantime, I have no interest in turning off the lights. In the
meantime, we have a tourism industry to support. In the meantime,
INDOPACOM is located on the island of Oahu.
[[Page S508]]
So the closer you get to operationalizing a clean energy
transformation, the more reasonable, I think, you become because you
understand that we are currently using electrons that are derived--at
least on the electricity transmission, distribution, generation side--
that are derived from fossil energy. So we are going to have to make a
transition.
So most of us--some people want to cease all fossil fuel generation.
Some people want to, you know, go a little more slowly in the direction
of transition, but most of us are probably in this band where we are
just arguing about how fast we need to make this transition.
But I just want everybody to understand that the Trump
administration's position is not that we are making this transition too
fast but that we should never make it.
One of his first Executive orders was to shut down a bunch of
offshore wind. So we have gone from energy abundance, energy dominance,
all of the above, to, actually we don't really want energy dominance or
energy abundance; we only want one category of energy because a lot of
these offshore wind projects, which, by the way, were in the tens of
billions of dollars--very exciting things--were coming in really low,
cheaper than the current power purchase agreements that the utilities
on the east coast were under. So this was about cheap and abundant
energy.
So to the extent that there are some folks who thought that we were
moving too fast in the direction of a clean energy transformation and
that maybe we should slow down and that maybe we should look at the mix
and maybe we should do natural gas if we can get the methane part of
this under control--all of that I might not agree with, but I can kind
of see where you are coming from, depending on your geography and
depending on your politics.
But that is not what just happened. What just happened is they said
wind is dead on the offshore, and they are trying to do as much of this
as possible to create a demand for coal, right, for fossil gas.
So I am deeply worried about Lee Zeldin and Mr. Wright and Mr.
Burgum.
I will also tell you that I was inclined to be openminded on Mr.
Burgum because he has a very good relationship with his Tribes.
As the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I
have come to take seriously the idea that, as I work with Markwayne
Mullin and Lisa Murkowski and Jerry Moran and John Hoeven and a bunch
of people with whom I don't necessarily vote the same way, we have
common cause when it comes to protecting the treaty and trust
obligations and rights--I was just complimenting you, Mr. Moran--of
Native people: Native Hawaiians, Native Alaskans, and Native American
Indians. So I was inclined to have a good conversation with Mr. Burgum
and at least consider voting for him.
Let me tell you why I am voting no--two reasons. One is, I do believe
what happened this week is unlawful, I think it is unconstitutional,
and I think it was presenting us with a constitutional crisis. So in a
moment of it being a close call, I am going to err on the side of
expressing my opposition to what the Trump administration is doing as
it relates to Federal spending.
But I also specifically said I would like to have a phone call with
Mr. Burgum. Look, I have an ego like the rest of us, but I am not one
to get my nose out of joint--except playing basketball against my older
brother--about someone not getting back to me or treating me, you know,
with the proper protocol. But one of the reasons you vote for a
Secretary is to have a working relationship should anything come up,
whether it has to do with Tribal equities or Native Hawaiian issues or
Federal land in the State of Hawaii or anything that comes under the
Department of the Interior, and Mr. Burgum, I guess, just doesn't feel
he needs my vote because we were never able to land a phone call.
So I will vote no today, and I hope we can continue to explore the
possibility of working together and compromising where we can and
fighting where we must.
This week was a rocky, rocky road, but week 2--democracy is still
standing.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JUSTICE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagerty). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. JUSTICE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to address
the Senate while seated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.