[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 195 (Wednesday, November 19, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8226-S8231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO ``EXTENSION OF DEADLINES IN STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW, RECONSTRUCTED, AND MODIFIED SOURCES AND EMISSIONS
GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING SOURCES: OIL AND NATURAL GAS SECTOR CLIMATE
REVIEW FINAL RULE''--Motion to Proceed
Mr. SCHIFF. With that, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 162, S.J.
Res. 76.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 162, S.J. Res. 76, a
joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval
under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to
``Extension of Deadlines in Standards of Performance for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines
for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate
Review Final Rule''.
Vote on Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. SCHIFF. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Justice).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachussetts (Mr.
Markey) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily
absent.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 622 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--51
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--3
Justice
Markey
Sanders
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Trump Administration
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, with me today is one of my colleagues
from my office Mr. Nick Ayers.
Every time I look at or read an article about the One Big Beautiful
Bill, I am shocked--though that sounds pejorative, maybe ``impressed''
is the right word--at its breadth. It is such an expansive piece of
legislation.
On the airplane flying back from our last break, I sat down with some
of my notes and just made a quick list off the top of my head of some
of the things that we did in the One Big Beautiful Bill. And I hate to
read to people, but I will just read you from my notes--and I won't
even read all of them--but this is what we did in the One Big Beautiful
Bill.
We extended the 2017 tax cuts. We saved $1.3 trillion for the
American people. We made them permanent. We cut taxes on tips. We cut
taxes on overtime. We cut taxes on Social Security. We provided
deductions for car loans. We increased the standard deduction. We
continued the 20 percent income deduction for LLCs. We repealed the IRS
reporting requirements for gig workers. Nobody ever talks about that.
That was huge.
We passed school choice tax credits--first time Congress has ever
done something like that. We enhanced 529 education savings accounts.
We provided full expensing for research and development.
[[Page S8227]]
I mean, I could keep going here.
We reformed Medicaid. We ended Federal payments for abortion and
gender surgery and sex change operations through Medicaid.
I could go on for 20 more minutes. It is just an extraordinary piece
of legislation.
My only regret with respect to the bill is that we did it without
Democratic votes. We did it with all Republican votes. I wish that
hadn't been the case. I wish we had been able to convince some of our
Democratic colleagues to join with us.
The obvious question while I make my statement is: How did you do
that? How did you get past the filibuster? It takes 60 votes. You don't
have to be an astrophysicist to know that about the U.S. Senate.
Well, as you know, Madam President, we did it under reconciliation.
Under reconciliation, only a majority vote is required--60 votes
aren't required. You can do it with a majority vote. That is how we
passed the One Big Beautiful Bill.
That is how President Biden passed much of his legislation.
Reconciliation, as we know, is a creature of the Budget Control Act. I
think of reconciliation as sort of a minibudget. That is a gross
exaggeration and oversimplification, but I think of it as a minibudget.
Madam President, could we ask for order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I ask the Senators, please take your
conversations off the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I think of reconciliation as more of a
minibudget. Now, that is an oversimplification and exaggeration, and we
can't do everything in reconciliation, but we can do a lot--we can do a
lot.
We passed the reconciliation bill on July 1, about 5 months ago. And
something that even members of the media are not aware of is we have
the authority before the midterm elections to do two more
reconciliation bills.
The first one that we did--we can do two more--the first of three
potential reconciliation bills we passed 5 months ago.
You know, you can do a lot in 5 months. Five months around here is a
long time ago. In 5 months, you can learn a language. You have to work
at it every day. In 5 months, you can learn how to play a musical
instrument. In 5 months, you can write a book. In 5 months, you can
start a small business.
In 5 months, during World War II, the United States defeated the
Japanese in the Guadalcanal invasion. In 5 months, the Duke of
Wellington defeated Napoleon after he escaped from Elba. In 5 months, a
baby goes from gurgling and crying to saying mama and dada.
Five months is a long time.
How have we used that 5 months? Now, I am not putting anybody down. I
want to say that. I am not criticizing any of my colleagues. I love my
colleagues. I don't hate anybody. I love every one of my colleagues.
And I am labor; I am not management.
But one of the reasons I came to the floor is to suggest to all of my
colleagues--both my Democratic friends and my Republican friends--that
time is wasting. The President has been pounding us. He has been
criticizing us like we stole Christmas--like we stole Thanksgiving--for
not getting rid of the filibuster.
Why does he want to get rid of the filibuster? Because he thinks we
can pass a bill with 51 votes. We can already pass a bill with 51
votes. We just did it with the One Big Beautiful Bill, and we can do
two more.
So why have we sat around for 5 months and not started on the second
reconciliation bill? I just don't get it. I don't get it. I mean, in my
opinion--and really I am not--I am just making an observation--to me,
it is a 12-piece bucket of stupid not to do another reconciliation bill
and to waste 5 months before we even start on a second reconciliation
bill, assuming that we get started tomorrow.
I mean, humans are supposed to have evolved as a species. Why
wouldn't we not do a second reconciliation bill? Think of what we could
do. I mean, moms and dads all across America tonight are going to lie
down to sleep, and they won't be able to.
What are they worried about? Well, they are worried about the cost of
housing for one thing. They are worried about the cost of home
insurance. They are worried about the cost of flood insurance. They are
worried about the cost of health insurance.
We all know that.
They are worried about the cost of living. Now, I think President
Trump has done a good job on inflation. At one point under President
Biden, we experienced 9 percent inflation. We have got it down to 3
percent, and I think that is extraordinary.
But the American people don't understand--nor can they be expected to
understand because they are too busy earning a living--they don't know
the difference between deflation and disinflation.
What we have experienced is disinflation. When we went from 9 percent
to 3 percent, all that meant was that prices were going up at 9
percent. Now they are only going up at 3 percent.
They are still going up.
What the American people are interested in is deflation, getting the
high prices that we have as a result of the policies of President
Biden's administration, getting those prices down, not stopping them
from growing as quickly--getting them down. And the American people are
worried about it.
And again, I applaud President Trump and his economic team for doing
as well as they have, but we have got more work to do.
And reconciliation, assuming it could survive the parameters of the
Budget Control Act, we could address rules and regulations. We spend
almost $2 trillion a year--we, I say ``we,'' the business community
does. It spends almost $2 trillion a year complying with Federal rules
and regulations. They pass that cost on.
Why do you think goods and services cost more today? In large part,
in substantial part, it is the result of rules and regulations. Through
a reconciliation bill, we could pass measures to get the cost of those
goods and services down and actually reduce those prices by getting a
little government off the backs of businesspeople.
We could do all those things through reconciliation.
And so, the first reason I came to the floor tonight is to say to my
colleagues: Pretty please, with sugar on top--I will even add a cherry,
I will even throw in a coupon for a personal pan pizza--please, let's
do another reconciliation bill.
And when I say ``we,'' I am saying the Republican majority. Let's
invite our Democratic colleagues to join with us--and I hope after
inviting them, I sincerely hope they will take us up on it.
But if they don't--and they don't have to; it is a free country--it
only takes a majority to pass the reconciliation bill. And after we do
the second one, we can do a third one before the midterms.
If we do not take advantage of this opportunity to lower the cost of
living for the American people through reconciliation when we only need
51 votes to do it, it is legislative malpractice. It is legislative
malpractice. It is dumb as a bowl of noodles.
So that is my plea to my colleagues tonight. I am not saying we have
done nothing for 5 months. We have done a lot of other things in 5
months, but we haven't done anything to lower the cost of living for
the American people, and we can't look back. We have lost 5 months, but
we should get started tomorrow.
BBC
Madam President, the second topic I want to talk about--gosh, I wish
I started with this first. I hate to end with a negative note, but the
second thing I want to talk about makes me want to stick my head in the
oven.
British Broadcasting Corporation, we have all heard of it--BBC. It is
the United Kingdom's version of the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting. The BBC is the United Kingdom's state-owned, state-paid-
for, state broadcast corporation. I think they call it ``Beeb.'' I
think that is the slang term for the British Broadcasting Corporation.
And everybody in the United Kingdom pays for it. You know, we were
paying--the American people were paying a lot for the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting before we stopped the subsidies. The American
people were paying about $500 million a year. The Corporation for
Public Broadcasting, they were pikers compared to the BBC.
[[Page S8228]]
In the United Kingdom, every citizen, whether they watch BBC or not,
every citizen has to pay $230 a year--everybody. It doesn't matter
whether you watch the BBC or not. You may just have nothing but
streaming services. You still have got to pay $230 a year to the BBC.
They collect billions of dollars a year. Somewhere here in this mess
I have got the exact figure. I think it is something like $4 billion a
year. Our national broadcasting programs were just pikers compared to
theirs.
And they have tentacles like an octopus.
I mean, the BBC is everywhere, not just in the United Kingdom. It is
omnipresent.
I was doing some research today. I mean, they broadcast four
entertainment-oriented television channels. They broadcast two
children's channels. They broadcast Parliament. They have local
language channels in Scotland and Wales. They have a domestic 24-hour
news channel. And these folks are everywhere. They run dozens of radio
stations. They operate their own video and audio streaming services.
I mean, I could go on and on and on. Why am I mentioning that? Well,
the BBC is a big deal. They reach a lot of people--millions and
millions of people--not just in the United Kingdom but across the
world. It is important that they be fair, and it is important that they
be balanced, and it is important that they be accurate. And they are
not, and it has been a problem for a long time.
Five or six years ago, at the suggestion of Parliament, which was
very upset with the BBC's bias, they hired a consultant--a smart
gentleman--and he did a report on how to improve the BBC and make it
fairer. It was a huge report. Here is just part of it right here. This
isn't even all of it. This is just some of it right here.
He spent hours and spent a lot of money preparing this report. He
sent it to the BBC. Do you know what the BBC did? Nothing. Nothing.
Zero. Zilch. Nada. They just continued on doing what they always do,
sucking on their teeth, publishing whatever they want.
And nothing would have happened except that the report issued by the
consultant leaked. Somebody leaked it to a newspaper in the United
Kingdom, the Telegraph, and they published it. And the whole world got
to see what the BBC's own consultant had found.
I will give you a couple of examples.
We all remember January 6. President Trump gave a speech. We have all
seen it. It was a long speech. It was about an hour, maybe longer.
A week before the last Presidential election in America, the BBC did
a documentary on President Trump. And do you know what they did? They
took his hour-plus-long speech, and they took two snippets from that
speech--one snippet at the beginning and one snippet at the end.
The excerpts that the BBC took were 50 minutes apart. So they took
them totally out of context, and they spliced those two excerpts
together to make it look like one speech. And they had the President of
the United States calling, making a direct plea, for violence. The way
the BBC edited the President's speech, he was telling the people at his
speech to march on the Capitol and invade it.
Well, that is not what his speech said.
Now, reasonable people can disagree all they want to, but no
reasonable person can listen to the President's speech and conclude
that he told people to go out and riot and break into the Capitol.
But the BBC took these two snippets and put them together. I defy you
to listen to it. They pulled it down now, but it is on the internet. It
sounds like the President is telling his supporters: Go to the Capitol
and raise fresh hell and invade it and hurt people.
And then you know what they did on top of that? After they edited the
President's speech--he didn't say what they said he said. They showed a
clip of the Proud Boys--we all know who the Proud Boys are--marching on
the Capitol, as if the Proud Boys were acting in response--in direct
response--to the President's speech that the BBC edited.
One problem, the footage that they aired of the Proud Boys, it didn't
happen after the President's speech. It happened--the footage of the
Proud Boys marching along was way before he ever gave the speech. And
they packaged this junk together and ran it on television.
And this consultant called them out, and the BBC ignored it.
Do you know what else the consultant found? The consultant found that
one of their news--he pointed out that a reporter on one of the BBC
News channels reported this to the world. I am going to quote this news
reporter from the BBC:
Trump is out there on the campaign trail saying he wants
people to shoot Liz Cheney in the face. Is that the sort of
thing that women react well to?
This is a reporter for the BBC. The President of the United States
never said that. He never said it. They just made it up. They were
either lying or they need to put down the crack pipe.
Another reporter for World News America, which is part of the BBC,
reported, and I quote again, that Trump ``appeared to suggest that Liz
Cheney should face a firing squad for her stance on foreign policy.''
They attributed that to the President. He never said that. The
consultant for the BBC sent this report to the BBC and said: What
planet are you living on? You are supposed to be a news reporter. You
can't just go make news up.
The consultant's report for the BBC also talked about the BBC's
coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. And the consultant pointed out that
the reporting by the BBC was heavily, heavily biased in favor of Hamas.
It wasn't balanced. It wasn't presenting two points of view. It was
heavily weighted in favor of Hamas.
For example, in February, the BBC produced a documentary on Gaza, and
it was narrated by a young man, a 13-year-old man. What the BBC forgot
to tell its audience is that the 13-year-old's dad was a Hamas senior
official.
Balanced reporting? Gag me with a spoon.
In June of that same year--you probably read about this--the BBC
broadcast a live music performance featuring calls for the deaths of
Israeli soldiers. The consultant pointed this out to the BBC. They
totally ignored him.
The consultant also pointed this out. He said: Your coverage, BBC, of
transgender issues is controlled--it is completely biased, and it is
controlled by a certain group within BBC. And that group within BBC is
a group of reporters called the LGBTQ Desk. They are reporters within
the newsroom. They have their own--their own--what is the term I am
looking for? Their own caucus. It is called the LGBTQ caucus--these
reporters.
And the consultant said: Look, your own reporters, the members of the
LGBTQ caucus, are not reporting anything contrary about transgenderism
to what you say. You are not being balanced. In fact, the United
Kingdom--Great Britain--they have outlawed transgender surgery and
transgender treatments for minors. The BBC never bothered to mention
that.
Now, look, you might be thinking: You know, what is the big deal?
This is another country.
But it is not all right. We may not be brothers and sisters, but we
are certainly first cousins with the United Kingdom, and the BBC
broadcasts worldwide. And this is simply not right when the good people
of our cousin country are having to pay 200 bucks a year.
Now, President Trump has said he is going to sue the BBC. Do you know
what? I hope he does. I hope he does.
This is a disgrace, and it is why I said that it makes me want to
stick my head in an oven.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.
Unanimous Consent Requests
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am coming down to the Senate floor for
the second time in about a month to try to pass a really important bill
for some really heroic constituents of mine, Alaskan Native Vietnam
veterans, and I am going to explain this bill a little bit.
[[Page S8229]]
Hopefully, the Senate is going to work well, because when I tried to
pass this a month ago, Senator Padilla said: Hey, I am going to object,
but if you work with us on some bills that you can move in a pairing,
then we will pass this.
So I have done that, and I will talk about that. I am actually going
to try to pass two bills.
I see that the senior Senator from New Mexico is on the floor, which
doesn't bode well for the passage of this bill, which is disappointing,
and I am going to get to why it is disappointing. It is remarkable that
this bill would be blocked, again, by Democrats. But let me give you a
little bit about the background.
So Alaska Native people in my State serve at higher rates in the
military than any other ethnic group in the country--what I refer to as
special patriotism. You go into Alaska Native villages, you ask how
many veterans are there, and almost everybody raises their hand. It is
remarkable. It is patriotic. It is incredible. If the rest of the
country were like Alaska Native people in terms of service to our
military, we would have a better America.
They underwent an incredible injustice because so many Alaska Natives
went to Vietnam to serve in the war when a lot of Americans--let's face
it--were avoiding service in Vietnam. So these great men and women went
to serve their country in Vietnam. When they got drafted, they would
say: Hey, it is my time. My dad fought in World War II. My uncle fought
in Korea. I am just going.
So they all went. And what happened--every Alaska Native had the
ability to get, under a 1906 law, a Native allotment. You could go and
say: Hey, I grew up in this area. I hunted and fished here. I want to
get 160 acres for an allotment.
The Federal Government would say: Here, you get that allotment.
That was in the law.
When these guys were over serving in Vietnam, Congress changed that
law. It is complicated, but they passed what was called the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act--a very important bill--and it
extinguished the ability for Alaska Natives to get their Native
allotment.
Well, guess what. A lot of these guys and a few women were overseas
serving their country in Vietnam. They didn't know. There was no
internet, no cellphones, right? So they got home. They weren't treated
well because they were Vietnam vets. Let's face that. They weren't
treated well because there is still a lot of discrimination with regard
to Native people, indigenous people. And then they were told: Oh, by
the way, that Native allotment that you wanted? Sorry. When you were
fighting for your country, we passed a law saying you can't get it
anymore.
Well, look, I thought that was a huge injustice, so I worked on a
bill during President Trump's first term to say: Now, wait a minute, if
you were overseas serving your country, and you missed your ability to
apply for a Native allotment, you should get your ability to do that.
That law passed. I was in the Oval Office when the President of the
United States signed it. He said: This is an injustice. I am going to
fix this for the Alaska Native Vietnam vets.
I mean, what is more bipartisan than that? Why would you come down to
the Senate floor and block this bill?
So anyway, when Secretary Haaland, Secretary of the Interior--when
she went through her confirmation process, I talked to her about a
number of things. She was a Congresswoman at the time. I said: The No.
1 issue I care about more than anything--more than oil and gas, more
than resource development--the No. 1 issue I care about that you need
to commit to me, Congresswoman Deb Haaland, is to rapidly implement
this bill, OK? These are Vietnam vets. A lot of them are dying, OK?
Make this a priority.
I met with her twice, and she committed to me twice to do that. Guess
what. Secretary Haaland did not keep her commitment at all. As a matter
of fact, one of the first things she did when she got into office, the
Secretary of the Interior under Joe Biden, she delayed implementation
of this bill for 2 years, just put a moratorium on it.
I was like, whoa, you certainly lied to me there, Madam Secretary.
OK. Two years. She just did nothing.
Overall, the program is a 5-year program. She shamefully did 40
allotments in 4 years. Forty Alaska Native Vietnam vets got this. There
are 2,000--over 2,000 who are eligible. They just didn't do it because
they didn't want people to get land--even Alaska Native Vietnam
veterans.
So anyway, this bill has a 5-year window. It expires in December. All
I am trying to do is extend it for 5 more years. That is it. This is a
one-sentence bill. It changes the words ``5 years'' to ``10 years.''
Guess what. Last year in December, I came down to the Senate floor,
and I passed this unanimously. It passed. So the Senate passed it last
year. The House has already passed it. If this bill passes tonight, it
is going to go to the President, and he is going to sign it.
Why would anyone block this?
So I tried to do this a month ago, and Senator Padilla was on the
floor, and he said: Hey, I am going to block it because we kind of
don't think it is fair if we just get one Republican bill over the goal
line.
So he and I talked on the floor and said: Let us work with you, Dan,
because we know this is important to you. We know this is important to
your heroic constituents. Let us work with you. If you pair this with a
Democrat bill that is important, we will work to pass it.
So Senator Padilla objected when I tried to pass it last time.
Democrats even suggested to me what bill to pair it with. It is called
H.R. 1034 or S. 909. It is the La Paz County Solar Energy and Job
Creation Act. It is a pretty good bill. It is a land exchange. This is
Senator Gallego's bill.
So the Democrats told me: If you can pair your bill for Vietnam vets
with the Gallego bill, H.R. 1034, then that is fair because we are
moving a Democrat bill and we are moving a Republican bill. They are
paired together. By the way, they are both ready to go to be signed by
the President. That would be fair.
So my team worked really hard to clear all the Republican holds on
the Senator Gallego bill. We worked on it for the last 3 or 4 weeks.
There were a number of holds, and I went to my Republican colleagues:
Hey, guys, can you lift the hold, right? This is a pretty good bill
from Senator Gallego. It is important to him in Arizona, and this is
really important to me.
I explained the Alaska Native Vietnam vet bill. So we lifted the
holds. Republicans cleared the hotline.
So that is what has happened.
Now, I guess, unless he is here to talk about how he supports my
bill--so 2 hours ago, we thought this was going to clear. Gallego's
bill. Sullivan's bill. Good for Arizona, Democrats. Good for Alaska
Native Vietnam vets. We get a call an hour ago saying: Nope, the Dems
are going to move the goalpost, and they are going to object.
Why? I am really looking forward to hearing from my good friend from
New Mexico on why they are going to object, but I am pretty sure I know
why. He is going to tell me: Hey, we want to move more bills.
Well, wait. You guys just told me 2 weeks ago: Pair the Gallego bill
with the Alaska Native Vietnam vet bill, and we will pass it.
Normally, the Senate works on trust, right? So I did that. But I
guess now the Democrats are going to move the goalpost, and they want
to leverage--leverage--Alaska Native Vietnam vets, heroes, to get more
stuff. I don't know. I want to hear from Senator Heinrich.
You know, the Dems are starting to get really good--it is a pattern--
at leveraging really good Americans--air traffic controllers for the
last 40 days--to get other stuff. Now it looks like they are going to
leverage Alaska Native Vietnam vets who got hosed by their own
government. All they want is to get their allotment that they missed
the opportunity to get when they were serving their country in Vietnam.
Like, how hard is that?
So, again, we have two good bills right now. One is a Dem bill, and
one is a Republican bill. If we pass the H.R. bill, they are going to
go right to the President's desk.
Now, the other objection I heard from my Democratic colleagues is
that, well, they don't want to pass House bills. So I am like, all
right. Well, if you don't want to pass House bills, let's pass the
Sullivan Senate
[[Page S8230]]
version of this and the Gallego Senate version.
Again, I am down here on the floor trying to help Senator Gallego, a
Democrat from Arizona. He is a marine. I like marines. He has a good
bill here. It seems like it is going to help his constituents. So I am
ready to go.
All right. If you guys want to object to the House bill, I get that.
We are objecting--some of our Senators are objecting to House bills
even though those go right to the President's desk. We will move
forward on the Senate bill. Now, that means it will have to go back
over to the House, so it won't get signed by the President right away.
So I am ready to do that too.
I just want to help the people I represent, and these are very
special people. If any of you or Senator Heinrich met some of these
Alaska Native Vietnam vets, you would cry when you hear their stories.
So heroic. And all I am trying to do is help them. And we got this
done.
By the way, the program expires in December. The program that I got
done with President Trump's signature on it expires in a month.
Secretary Haaland slow-walked it. I got it passed last year to extend
it, and now my Democrat colleagues are going to slow-walk it. It is
going to expire next month.
I came here a month ago. They told me: All right, Dan. We know it is
important to you. Go pair it.
They said: Go pair Gallego's bill with this, and we will sign off on
it.
I got all the Republicans to sign off on my bill and Gallego's, and
just an hour ago: Nope. We are going to leverage these Vietnam vets
against you, Dan Sullivan, to get more.
Now, look, the Senator from New Mexico is probably going to say: Hey,
I want to move more bills.
All right. I will help you move more bills. You just saw I worked
Gallego's bill. But these two bills are ready to go to the President's
desk--a Democrat bill which is a pretty good bill for Arizona and a
Republican bill which is a really good bill for my constituents, heroic
constituents.
So I am going to try, and maybe Senator Heinrich is going to get up
and say: Gosh darn it, Dan Sullivan. This is a great bill, and I just
want to come here and speak out on behalf of it.
You know, a lot of the Democrats talk about indigenous people, people
of color, how much they care about minority communities. When it comes
to my State, these guys target Alaska Natives. I have seen it my whole
career. I mean, geez, the minority leader--the guy goes after Alaska
Natives like they are some kind of criminals. It is outrageous.
This is a bill for indigenous people of America, and all the
Democrats: Oh, we care about--no, you don't. If you did--maybe Senator
Heinrich tonight is going to talk about how much he cares about
indigenous people in Alaska. I have seen him talk about it before. If
he does, then he should prove it right now.
So, Mr. President, 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; further,
that the bills be considered read a third time and passed en bloc and
that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table, all en bloc: H.R. 410, the Alaska Native Vietnam Era Veterans
Land Allotment Extension Act of 2025, and H.R. 1043, the La Paz County
Solar Energy and Job Creation Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I rise
today to object on behalf of my colleague from California Senator
Padilla and my colleague from Colorado Senator Bennet.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee does have a long tradition
of bipartisanship and cooperation when it comes to passing very local
and oftentimes very parochial land bills. Typically, this is negotiated
in a package rather than the piecemeal approach that we are seeing
today--for many reasons but in part because we have literally hundreds
of bills within our committee's jurisdiction that need action,
including the ones that my colleague is talking about today, with most
representing very important local priorities in our States.
Unfortunately, attempting to pass individual bills through unanimous
consent in this manner tends to favor one party or one Chamber's
priorities and is often ineffective at actually getting legislation
signed into law.
Senator Padilla, Senator Bennet, and I are happy to sit down with my
colleague from Alaska and with the chairman to make sure that both our
Chambers--both our parties' priorities can be put together in a way
that we see them reach the finish line. Therefore, in support of my
colleague from California and my colleague from Colorado, I must object
at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am disappointed in this. Now, I was
trying to pass the H.R. bills from the House because those bills have
already passed--the Gallego bill, the Sullivan bill, the lands transfer
bill for Arizona, the Alaska Native Vietnam vets bill for my brave
Alaska Native veterans. I was informed--and you heard it from the
Senator from New Mexico--that maybe they don't want to pass House
bills. He kind of said that. He did mention that he is objecting
because he doesn't want to favor one party over the other. That
argument is irrelevant because I am passing a Democrat bill and a
Republican bill. So this is even stephen when it comes to the parties.
I am very surprised that he is objecting on behalf of Senator Padilla
because, when Senator Padilla objected to my bill a month ago, he
literally said: Hey, Dan, work with us. Pair it with the Democrat bill.
Then Senator Padilla's team even suggested which Democrat bill to pair
it with, which was the Gallego bill, which I am trying to pass right
now.
So, as to what my colleague from New Mexico just said, none of it
makes sense unless people are going back on their word, which is a
little bit frustrating because the Senate operates on trust here. Maybe
it is because my colleague doesn't like a House bill.
So what I am going to try and do now--again, for Senator Gallego, a
Democrat from Arizona, and for me, a Republican from Alaska--is try and
pass by unanimous consent the Senate version of these bills. What I
did--because I told the other side that I would do it--is I told
Senator Gallego and Senator Padilla that I will clear Senator Gallego's
bill; that I will clear it on the Republican side. It took a lot of
work, but we got that done. So let's see if we can pass the Senate
version of these bills.
Mr. President, 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; further, that
the bills be considered read a third time and passed en bloc and that
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table,
all en bloc: Senator Gallego's bill, S. 909; the La Paz County Solar
Energy and Job Creation Act; and my bill, S. 785, the Alaska Native
Vietnam Era Veterans Land Allotment Extension Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am just going to end by saying I am
very disappointed. I tried to do this a month ago. This bill of mine is
really for some great heroes in America, and the program is going to
expire in a month. This bill passed unanimously in December. My
colleague from New Mexico came down and talked in process terms about
why he is objecting. It is a little hard to understand, but I actually
think there is probably something else going on here as I have been
around this place long enough.
This is a chart that I have called the last frontier lockup. It lists
the 70 Executive orders and Executive actions all throughout the State
of Alaska to lock up my State--70 Executive orders and Executive
actions issued by the Biden administration to shut down Alaska, to stop
getting access to Federal lands in Alaska, to stop any kind of resource
development in Alaska--and 1 of those 70 was to delay and stop the
Alaska Native Vietnam Era Veterans Land Allotment Extension Act
[[Page S8231]]
that Secretary Haaland committed me to implement.
This is what my Democrat colleagues do. This is what they do to
Alaska. They have groups--far-left groups--that tell them, when they
get in power, to shut down Alaska.
But wait a minute. We have bills that help Alaska Native indigenous
people.
They are like: Hey, we don't care about them. Shut down Alaska. Shut
down indigenous people's opportunities.
I saw, for 4 years with the Biden administration, this whole area of
the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, which is meant for oil and
gas development--that they shut down the whole thing, OK? Guess who
wanted that to be open. All the indigenous leaders of the North Slope:
the Tribe, the Alaska Native Corporations, the Borough Leadership. They
came down here eight times to DC--eight times--to try to meet with the
Secretary of the Interior, saying: Don't lock up my lands. Don't lock
up my lands. She never met with them. She never met with them.
My colleague from New Mexico has been the leader in locking up
Alaska. I mean, I have come down to the floor and raised a little bit
of heck on all of the actions he has taken to lock up my State.
So, look, the Democrats really don't want anyone, including heroic
Alaska Native Vietnam vets, to have access to land even though that is
the law. It is really, really ironic that they always say they want to
help indigenous people, but in my State, their actions are very
different, and this is a great example of what they are doing.
You know, it is really ironic, too, that during the 4 years of the
Biden administration, when this was going on, it was ``drill, baby,
drill'' in New Mexico. New Mexico, with the Secretary of the Interior's
help, increased oil production from 1 million barrels to 2 million
barrels a day on Federal lands. Yet the Senator from New Mexico and the
Secretary of the Interior and Joe Biden said: We are going to shut this
place down.
Now they are saying: We are going to make sure the Native Vietnam
vets--they have had a real injustice. We fixed it under law. Then it
was delayed by the Biden administration's Secretary of the Interior.
All I am trying to do is get a two-word change so this program can
continue. These guys are dying every day, these great heroes. I came to
the floor a month ago and tried to get it done.
The Democrat Senator said: Do this, Dan.
I did it.
Do this, Dan.
I did it.
Pair it with the Democrat bill.
I did it. It was ready to go.
Then, an hour ago, they said: Nope. We are going to block it again.
It is an outrage--it is an outrage--and it is not because of process.
It is because they want to keep my State shut down. I see it every time
here, and it is wrong. It is wrong.
I will keep working. If you guys want to pass more bills, I will keep
trying, but I am starting to lose a little trust. A month ago, I was on
the floor, and you guys told me what to do to move this. I did it and
none of you kept your word and that is not how this place operates.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
____________________