[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 166 (Wednesday, October 8, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7009-S7011]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 410
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, now I hope we can move to the next bill
that, to be honest, should be even easier because the bill I am going
to try to pass right now passed the U.S. Senate in December,
unanimously. It already passed, so this should be a no-brainer. I hope
my Senate colleague from California is on the floor here ready to give
this bill his full endorsement and not object to it.
Let me just talk about this bill, briefly. Again, it already passed.
It passed the House in July, so if we pass it right now, it is going to
go to the President of the United States' desk for a signing. And this
is a really big deal for my constituents.
Here is what it is: I talked about what I called the special
patriotism of Alaska Natives. They serve at higher rates in the
military than any other ethnic group in the country.
They had a situation when so many--and I mean thousands and
thousands--of Alaskan Natives were serving in Vietnam. When a whole
host of Americans didn't want to serve in Vietnam, Alaska Natives
answered the call. So we have tens of thousands of Vietnam vets.
And when they came home, like a lot of Vietnam vets, they were not
treated well. That was horrible. Our country should apologize for the
horrible treatment our Vietnam vets got. Let's face it, as Alaska
Natives, a lot of people still discriminated against Alaska Natives
back then. They weren't treated well in that regard either. And,
finally, a law had changed when they were overseas.
Alaska Native people used to have a right, starting in 1906, for a
Native allotment; that is, 160 acres of land that if they can prove
this is where their family raised them and hunted and fished, they
could get that allotment--160 acres.
Well, when they were overseas fighting in Vietnam, that law changed.
So here they were serving their country--when a lot of American males
were avoiding service--and they got home, and they were told: By the
way, your allotment that you are supposed to be able to get, that you
wanted your whole life, that allotment changed, and you can't do it
anymore. Huge injustice.
So during the first Trump administration, I introduced legislation
called the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Land Allotment Act. And it
said: Hey, if you were overseas serving in the military and you came
home and the ability to get your allotment extinguished, you shouldn't
be penalized for fighting for your country. You get the extended time
to get your allotment. So that bill passed.
I was in the Oval Office when President Trump signed it. It was a
great day for Alaska Natives, Vietnam veterans, very patriotic. It was
a 5-year program. Unfortunately, we had Secretary Haaland implement it.
Secretary Haaland did not implement it. Secretary Haaland, when she
went through her confirmation hearing, committed to me twice: Senator,
I will make this a priority of mine to implement this bill. You know
what she did? She didn't do anything.
Shamefully, because radical leftwing environmental groups told her:
We don't want anyone else getting land in Alaska, she did 40 allotments
out of well over almost 3,000 available. She dragged her feet. She
delayed it for 2 years.
So the 5-year program has almost run out of time because Secretary of
the Interior Haaland was more interested in appeasing radical leftwing
environmental groups than she was getting Alaska Natives their
allotment, which is what the law demanded.
So this bill is very simple. Because of that delay, it changes two
words in the already passed law. It says ``5 years'' to ``10 years.''
It is just a 5-year extension to a bill that everybody agrees with.
These patriotic Alaska Native Vietnam vets deserve their allotments,
and they shouldn't have to suffer because of Secretary Haaland's delay
tactics.
So this bill has already passed the House. This bill passed the
Senate unanimously in December, and I am really hoping that my
Democratic colleagues--respecting the indigenous Native people of my
State and their valiant Vietnam service--will join with me in just
passing it, like we did in December, and it will go right to the
President's desk, and they will have 5 more years to really implement
this really important piece of legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R.
410 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further,
that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from California.
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am very
glad that we were able to find a bipartisan approach to the Commerce
Committee bills that were passed just a few minutes ago, not just
because I know it is important to my colleague from Alaska and to his
constituents, but so that Native Alaskans know that this side of the
aisle also supports them as well.
But as it pertains to these bills, I think we need to find a similar
bipartisan approach on the Energy and Natural Resource bills that the
Senator from Alaska is suggesting that we approve by unanimous consent.
I am more than happy and eager to sit down with my colleague and the
chair and ranking member of the committee to put together a larger
package of bills to ensure that both Republican and Democratic
priorities reach the President's desk and get signed into law.
I think, historically, we have been successful at avoiding a
piecemeal approach, instances where only one party's priorities or one
Chamber's priorities reach the President's desk and get signed into
law.
And so I look forward to continuing to work in that spirit to
continue the conversation with my colleague from Alaska to arrive at a
balanced, bipartisan package of bills and work together to advance
them. Therefore, I must object at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from
California's cooperation on the first bill, the ARTIST Act.
I am a little disappointed here on this one because, you know, it is
a little bit of a delay tactic, but he certainly has my commitment to
work with him, if they need to try to pair this. But I will say this:
The 5 years of this bill expires at the end of this year, and we
cannot--regardless if there is pairing or not pairing--we cannot let
this bill expire. These great American
[[Page S7010]]
patriots served their country and deserve their allotment that they
were unable to get during Vietnam. And then, when we passed the bill,
Secretary of Interior Haaland purposefully dragged her feet to make
sure that no Alaska Native--or very few--got their allotment. That was
a disgrace.
And so, Mr. President, to my colleague from California, you have my
commitment to work with you, but we have got to get this done by the
end of the year--before the end of the year--and get it on the
President's desk. These great patriotic Americans deserve nothing less,
and we can't delay much longer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
Senators be permitted to complete their remarks prior to the scheduled
rollcall vote: Senator Grassley, Senator Cramer, and Senator Hoeven.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa.
Waiving Quorum Call
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the
mandatory quorum call with respect to the Mascott nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Nomination of Jennifer Lee Mascott
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, we are going to move to our first
vote on Professor Jennifer Mascott's nomination to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. I want to take a few minutes to express
my support for her nomination and to urge my colleagues to vote
accordingly.
Bipartisanship in this body has become, unfortunately, rare. Our
government shut down because of partisan obstruction, and even the few
instances of bipartisanship in our committee have been condemned by
leftist, dark money groups, such as Demand Justice. The situation is
bad for our country and really bad for the American people.
Putting high-quality judicial nominees on the bench to serve the
American people should be something that unites this body. In fact, in
the Biden administration, that happened. Over 80 percent of the
judicial nominees in that administration received bipartisan support on
the floor.
By contrast, this Congress, only 20 percent of the Trump nominees
have had bipartisan support.
I encourage my colleagues to ignore the pressure from inflammatory
progressive groups like Demand Justice and to recognize Professor
Mascott's tremendous qualifications.
Professor Mascott is a law professor at Catholic University. She is
so beloved by her students. She has had a very distinguished career as
a public servant and has impeccable professional qualifications.
Just as an example, as a law student at George Washington University,
she earned a recordbreaking 4.22 GPA. Her professors even wrote to the
Judiciary Committee prior to her hearing to explain that these
professors often thought that her exam answers were better than their
own answer keys.
It is no surprise, then, that she went on to clerk for two Supreme
Court Justices.
Since her time as a clerk, she has grown into an impressive and
nationally influential scholar. Justices of the Supreme Court have
cited her scholarship eight times and even mentioned her by name in
oral arguments.
She is also well known and well respected by our own Senate Judiciary
Committee. The committee has called on Professor Mascott repeatedly to
testify about some of the toughest constitutional and statutory
questions. She has also filed amicus briefs on behalf of Members of the
committee in very important cases. We trusted her judgment then, and we
can surely trust that judgment now.
I am confident that Professor Mascott will make an outstanding judge,
and I know that she will serve the people of Delaware and the circuit
with distinction.
President Trump made an excellent selection in Professor Mascott, and
I hope my colleagues will join me in voting to support her nomination
so she can serve on the Third Circuit.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I just want to supplement the
distinguished chairman's remarks with one observation for the benefit
of all of my colleagues, and that is that, not long ago, when circuit
court nominees were brought forward, they had cleared the Senate blue-
slip process because each circuit court seat was associated with a
State, except for DC. But, normally, a DC Circuit Court seat was
associated with a State, and the Senators from that State had the
ability to recommend a nominee to the President.
The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee undid that--what we call
the blue-slip rule--for circuit courts. So Senators lost that power.
When we were in the majority, when President Biden was there, there
were strident objections when we applied the same standard to circuit
court nominees that the Republicans had applied when they broke the
blue slip.
With this nomination, we are taking it the next step further. Now,
not only are the Senators from the home State not consulted, but in
this case, the candidate has almost no relationship with Delaware, the
State with which this seat is associated.
She has a summer house there. She has never had a driver's license.
She has never had a fishing license. She has never been an income
taxpayer. She has never been registered to vote. She has never been a
member of the bar. She only recently joined the Third Circuit bar.
She is being airdropped into this seat.
So just be aware that, in the future, when the shoe is on the other
foot and people here would like to make sure that their home State is
honored and recognized as being the State with which a circuit court
seat is associated, that may very well not happen any longer. And we
will look back to this minute as the minute that destroyed that
tradition.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
S.J. Res. 62
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, in a little while, we are going to vote to
proceed to S.J. Res. 62, which I introduced with Senator Hoeven to
repeal the Biden administration's Bureau of Land Management resource
management plan for North Dakota.
Of course, H.J. Res. 105, which mirrors our bill, introduced by
Congresswoman Fedorchak, has already passed the House of
Representatives, and final passage is scheduled for later this evening.
The Bureau of Land Management--or BLM, as we call it--is the landlord
of 745 million acres of land and subsurface deposits nationwide. BLM's
management of these public resources is governed by what is known as
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, otherwise known as FLPMA,
which requires--I stress ``requires''--the Bureau to develop resource
management plans or RMPs to guide management decisions.
And, when created, Congress was clear: These RMPs must abide by the
multiple-use mandate.
Now, ``multiple use'' is a term that is thrown around a lot in the
public lands discussions. It was championed by President Theodore
Roosevelt, who drew from his experience in his two ranches in North
Dakota, the Maltese Cross and the Elkhorn Ranch, and throughout the
West.
And, by the way, North Dakota is where his Presidential Library is
being built, and it will be open next July 4--unpaid announcement.
``Multiple use'' means that land is sustainably used by the State and
local population, rather than preserved like a national park or a
wildlife refuge. Multiple use lands are used by miners, cattle grazers,
oil and gas developers, and recreationalists alike. They are not meant
to be locked up.
Multiple use is a mandate, as I said earlier. It is not a suggestion.
And that is what brings us here today.
In the final days of the Biden administration, they approved the
North Dakota resource management plan, which governs the management of
58,500 surface acres and 4.1 million acres of mineral estate across our
State for the next 15 to 20 years.
Despite vocal objections from the State, the people who actually use
the
[[Page S7011]]
land, the final plan prohibits coal leasing on over 4 million acres by
inexcusably prohibiting all future development outside of a 4-mile
radius from current development--over 90 percent of North Dakota's
affordable, reliable coal, out of touch. It is gone.
It also blocks 213,000 acres, or 44 percent, of federally owned oil
and gas acreage from future development. This restriction alone
deprives the State--and we are a small State--of $34 million annually
and--get this--the State's Common Schools Trust Fund a minimum of $50
million.
And if that wasn't enough, non-Federal minerals are also held hostage
to the Federal Government's management plan. As I mentioned earlier,
these RMPs govern subsurface acreage. Whether it is coal, oil, or gas,
federally owned subsurface minerals are intermingled with State and
private mineral owners. In plain speak, the Biden resource management
plan is a de facto taking from the State and private mineral owners.
Throughout the rulemaking process, this point was made very clear,
but BLM ignored it. And it is unacceptable and needs to be undone. And
I will add that it needs to be undone by Congress so it is clear to the
bureaucracy that this sort of resource management plan is out of
bounds.
By passing this resolution, we reassert congressional intent and
remind the bureaucracy: Our boundaries are not optional.
Mr. President, this rule will need to be replaced once we repeal it.
Thank goodness Congress had the foresight in the Congressional Review
Act to say no replacement rule could be substantially similar to the
one it is replacing. But by no means does it preclude the proper
replacement of a rule.
I have the utmost confidence in Secretary Burgum and Deputy Secretary
MacGregor to get this done right, but this cannot sit on the back
burner.
Nearly 6 years ago, during the first Trump administration, I wrote a
letter on behalf of a single constituent advocating for this RMP to be
updated so he could develop some of his privately held minerals. They
started the work, but unfortunately the Biden administration finished
the work.
While Congress is acting to repeal their disastrous plan today, the
administration must swiftly replace this RMP, ensuring North Dakota
gets the best long-term plan possible to responsibly utilize our
natural resources.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution that
Senator Cramer and I introduced to overturn the Bureau of Land
Management resource management plan for North Dakota.
This flawed plan, finalized during the closing days of the Biden
administration, undermines BLM's multiple-use mandate and restricts
access to vast, taxpayer-owned energy reserves in North Dakota. It is
yet another example of the Biden administration's overreaching Green
New Deal agenda intended to block access to domestic energy production.
North Dakota is an energy powerhouse and the third largest oil-
producing State in the Nation. Our energy producers operate under the
highest environmental standards in the world.
But the Biden administration's North Dakota resource management plan
ignores that record of responsible energy development. Instead, the
North Dakota resource management plan seeks to curtail coal, oil, and
gas production by locking away taxpayer-owned energy reserves and
jeopardizing our Nation's energy security.
Under this plan, nearly 213,000 acres--or 45 percent--of Federal oil
and gas acreage is closed off to new leasing. It also closes off access
to over 4 million acres--nearly 99 percent--of Federal coal, impacting
development at all of North Dakota's major lignite coal mines.
These restrictions will drive up supply costs for baseload coal-fired
powerplants--costs that will be ultimately passed on to electric
customers across the region. We supply a large region of the Midwest
with electric power.
This comes at a time when energy demand is rising. As manufacturing
is brought back home and new industries like artificial intelligence
and data centers are coming online, our need for affordable, reliable
energy is only growing. It makes no sense for the Federal Government to
restrict access to the very resources needed to power our economy.
In North Dakota, BLM manages 58,000 acres of surface land and about
4.1 million acres of subsurface minerals. Federal minerals are
scattered and often intermingled with State and privately owned
minerals due to North Dakota's unique split estate. So when the Federal
Government imposes blanket restrictions as included under the Biden-era
resource management plan, it blocks development of State and privately
owned minerals as well.
The State of North Dakota estimates that this plan would cost $34
million every year in lost revenue from oil and gas alone, including
revenue for school trust lands that is meant for North Dakota
classrooms.
I am pleased to join Senator Cramer and Congresswoman Julie Fedorchak
in introducing this CRA resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support
it and help overturn this overreaching and restrictive plan. By passing
this resolution, we can continue working with President Trump and
Interior Secretary Burgum to take the handcuffs off and unleash North
Dakota's full energy potential.
I yield the floor.
____________________