La Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation Act

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman, Chairman Lee, for his comments, I want to thank Senator Bennet for his hard work, and I really want to thank Senator King.

You know, I have worked well with Senator King of Maine for many years. He and I are good friends, good colleagues. We have worked together on a lot of issues--actually, all the Senators down here: Senator Bennet, Senator Padilla, who was here a little bit ago.

So I certainly give my word to Senator King on working with House Members. As a matter of fact--I think he knows it--my team and I have already been doing that with the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee over there and with our Alaska Congressman. We have been pressing them already on the issues that Senator King has raised. He has my word and continued commitment to work with him on these other bills that I think it is important to continue to move forward on.

What we just did, Mr. President--as you know, but I think for people watching, particularly back home, our Alaska Native Vietnam veterans-- we just passed four Senate bills that were actually House bills that were pushed by four different Senators--two Republicans, two Democrats. I think that is a good example of cooperation and moving forward on these issues that matter to all of us, and they matter to all of our constituents.

Now, I want to talk again--I have probably given 10, 12, 15 speeches on the Senate floor about my bill, the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Land Allotment Act, and I already mentioned this idea of special patriotism. Alaska Natives--almost 20 percent of the population of my State--serve at higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the country.

This is a great picture of a good friend of mine, George Bennett, who served in the Army from 1966 to 1968. He served in Vietnam from 1967 to 1968--a tough time to be in Vietnam, by the way--from Southeast, where we have a lot of our Vietnam vets.

Let me talk about the importance of this program and this bill.

By the way, just so there is no confusion, these four pieces of legislation are going to the White House to be signed. It is really exciting, particularly on this bill.

It is a simple bill. It is essentially changing a program--it is a one-sentence bill--from 5 years to 10 years.

Let me step back and speak a little bit about this bill because I am so pleased and it is such a great honor to represent great Americans like George Bennett and others. Here is the background. As I mentioned, Alaska Natives--whether it is World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Korea, the gulf war--they just serve in the military. It is part of their heritage. It is part of their culture. It is an incredible part of who they are. It is remarkable, like I said. I refer to it as ``special patriotism.''

This special patriotism was on full display during the Vietnam war, in the Vietnam era, when so many Alaska Natives answered the call. Here is what happened. A lot of them, like George, got drafted. They didn't complain. They said ``Hey, my dad served in World War II. My uncle served in Korea. It is my turn to go,'' and they did. They went overseas.

But here is what happened. It is a little complicated. They came home during this time--and it is not just for Vietnam vets. If you deployed to Korea or Germany during this time, we had a program in the law dating back to 1906 that gave Alaska Native people the right to apply for what was called a Native allotment--very, very important program for these people. It said: Hey, if you can show that this part of Alaska you hunted, fished, your family raised you in this part of the great State of Alaska, you have a right to a 160-acre allotment.

Now, look, you can't do that in a lot of States, but Alaska is so big, so vast, that these Native allotments were a really important part of the Federal Government taking care of but helping Alaska Native people. So that was going on for years--very noncontroversial.

When they were overseas in 1971, Congress passed one of the most important pieces of legislation, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. And it was a great piece of legislation. I won't go into it. I have talked about it on the floor many times. But what that legislation did, it extinguished the ability for Alaska Natives to get their allotment--extinguished it.

Well, think about it. If you are in Vietnam or Germany or Korea serving your country, let's face it--especially during the Vietnam era when a lot of people were avoiding service--you didn't have the internet; you didn't have iPhones. They didn't know. Nobody knew that their right to an allotment was extinguished.

So they came home--and let's face it, they weren't treated well. A lot of Vietnam vets were not treated well. It is still a stain on the honor of our great Nation. They are Alaska Natives. There was still a lot of discrimination against Alaska Natives. That wasn't good.

Then they are told: Oh, by the way, that allotment that you wanted, sorry. When you were serving your country, fighting in Vietnam, the deadline passed.

A triple whammy, in my view, of injustice.

We worked on that in a bipartisan way and got my Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Land Allotment Act that said: Hey, if you were serving overseas and you missed the deadline to apply for your allotment, you can still do it. That is just fair.

I was in the Oval Office when President Trump, during his first term, signed this legislation. It was part of a bigger land package. And I remember his saying the injustice that happened to the Alaska Native Vietnam vets--that we ended that with this bill. It was great. We were so excited.

The law created a 5-year window by which to have Alaska Native Vietnam vets--and there are still several thousands--apply for their allotment. It was all great, exciting. Again, a lot of them are getting a little old in age. We wanted to hurry up and make sure you apply for your allotment.

Then we had another speed bump in this long saga. The incoming Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Haaland, in two different meetings with me--two--committed to me that she would expedite the application process in granting these allotments to these Vietnam vets under the new law. Twice she committed to me on that before her confirmation vote. As a matter of fact, I told her: This is more important than anything else you can commit to me on, Congresswoman Haaland. She was a Congresswoman then. It is more important than oil and gas in Alaska, more important than our resource economy, this issue. Please commit with me to work with me, expedite it. Let's get these American heroes their allotments before a lot of them start passing away.

Well, that didn't happen. About 2 months into her tenure, she put a 2-year freeze on getting any of these allotments out to anybody. I mean, a blatant--blatant--I am still mad about it--disregard to the commitment she made to me twice. It was the biggest thing I asked her.

By the way, I voted for her--big mistake.

Two years' freeze. None of these guys could get their allotment. Remember, it is a 5-year program. We only have so much time, and it is complicated to prove that this is where you grew up and hunted and fished. In the 4-year tenure they had with Secretary Haaland, only 40 of these were issued. That is just shameful.

What this bill does--all it says is, we are going to keep the status quo. We are going to extend the program from 5 years to 10, so we can go back to the business that the Trump administration and Secretary Burgum are doing of getting these veterans their allotments.

That is the bill. That is what it does. It is a one-sentence bill saying this really important program is going to go from 5 years-- which, by the way, was going to expire at the end of this year. It was going to expire in 2 weeks. It is going to go from 5 years to 10 years. We are going to have time.

I hope heroes like this guy are going to work with us, work with the Department of the Interior to get their allotment. This is kind of a Christmas gift for these great American heroes. I put on my Christmas tie today thinking maybe we can work this out--a Christmas gift for these great American heroes.

Even if you don't live in Alaska, you have to love this story. These are great heroes, and they served at higher rates in Vietnam. If you go to Alaska Native villages and ask: How many veterans do we have, almost every male in the village raises their hand. It brings a tear to your eye. It brings a tear to my eye.

I want to thank Senator King, Senator Bennet, Senator Padilla, and, certainly, Senator Lee, Senator Hoeven, and, again, my staff. Erik Elam is the best LD in the U.S. Senate. He is relentless and creative, bringing everybody down here today. It wasn't easy, but we got this done at the buzzer. It is going to be signed into law. It is going to go to the White House. The President will sign this, and we are going to get to work--get to work--and get these heroes the land allotments that they deserved.

The only reason they don't have them right now is they were serving their country in a war. I mean, I think it is a really important day, a really good day.

I commit to working with all my Senate colleagues on other commitments. Senator King, Senator Padilla, thank you again.

I yield the floor.

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.

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?

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.

Mr. President, I want to thank my friend and colleague the senior Senator from Colorado for his outstanding work on this, for working with me and my team. I am glad that we were able to make this a success. It is my hope and my intent that this will not be the end but the beginning of a much bigger pattern of success. It is a good example of the kind of legislation we ought to pass every time we get the chance. When we have bills that are uncontroversial, we can get them passed.

Sometimes these bills are held up not in spite of the fact that they are noncontroversial but because they are noncontroversial--because we want to couple them with other legislation that may be less popular.

We have heard some observations today, some concerns expressed about the ability, once we pass legislation over here, to get it passed over on the House side. There are a couple of things I think we ought to take note of that should give us hope on this.

In the first place, the way legislation like this works on the House side--they don't have the 60-vote cloture standard that we have in the Senate, but with these lands bills, they tend to pass them under a procedure known in the House as suspension of the rules.

Under suspension of the rules, it requires them to be passed with 290 votes instead of 218. Because of the way that works, it ends up yielding a similar outcome to how it works over here. They tend to be able to enhance their ability to pass those under the suspension calendar if they bring them to the floor while paired with other bills--not surgically stitched together so it is the same legislation, but they bring them forward for procedural consideration in the House on the floor, resulting in an approximate number of noncontroversial Republican and Democratic bills passing regardless of who happens to be in the majority at the time.

My friend and colleague the distinguished Senator from California had mentioned a moment ago concerns about that process over in the House, but I will remind him that at the end of the last Congress, he and I had several bills that were brought together and passed through the procedure that I am describing on the floor and that were passed into law by the House of Representatives after that.

Although, under certain circumstances, two separate bill sponsors of two separate bills may choose to merge, surgically stitch their bills into one bill, there are downsides to that too, and it certainly ought not be that without which, not passing legislation in the Senate--they ought to be able to stand on their own.

I, for one, am happy--particularly within the range of this type of bill

that we have dealt with here, bills that have passed the Senate in the past and that do not have significant opposition over here--happy to work with my counterparts in the House to make sure those move forward.

There are sometimes reasons why something doesn't move as quickly over there as it might over here, and there are as many different reasons for that as there are types of legislation.

In any event, I want to thank all the people participating today--in particular Senator Bennet and Senator Sullivan for their tenacity in moving these bills forward.

Finally, Mr. President, let me just remark briefly on another topic that has come up within the last few minutes where we are celebrating anniversaries related to the First Step Act. This is something that I worked on for nearly a decade before it became law. It was an honor and privilege to do that.

I appreciate the remarks made earlier by Senator Booker from New Jersey. I still remember the exact moment Senator Booker first stepped onto the floor in the Senate right after he came to the Senate in October of 2012, I believe it was. He introduced himself to me and in the same sentence said: I am really interested in your criminal justice reform efforts, and I want to be partners.

So it was a great privilege to work with him, with Senator Durbin, Senator Grassley, and all the others who made it possible. It has been a good development for the United States of America.

We have been more effective in combating crime by being smart in the way we punish crime. When we unduly take away discretion from judges to allow them to be judges, sometimes it can present odd outcomes, as it certainly did in the case of Weldon Angelos, the young man who, in his midtwenties, sold three dime-bag quantities of marijuana over a 72-hour period to what turned out to be a confidential informant.

The firearm that he had in his possession at the time--because of the way minimum mandatory laws were being interpreted and applied in the courts at the time, Mr. Angelos was subjected to a minimum mandatory sentence that would put him in prison for the rest of his natural life--to a 55-year minimum mandatory sentence because he had a gun on his person at the time even though the gun was neither brandished nor discharged in connection with the offense.

Under the so-called three-strikes laws at the time, the Federal district judge, Paul Cassell of Salt Lake City, who sentenced him said: There are hijackers, there are murderers, rapists, all kinds of people who do horrible things who don't get anywhere near this much time in prison, but I, as a Federal judge, have no discretion here, no choice but to send him to prison for 55 years based on three dime-bag quantities.

Each of the two first offenses, even though they were all charged on the same document and occurred over the same 72-hour period--they counted as prior convictions for purposes of the three-strikes law, and that is one of the many issues we set out to address in the First Step Act. The country is better off for it.

Mr. President, back to the lands package, I again want to thank Senator Sullivan for his tenacity in this, for his patience and his willingness to stick with the effort. The people of Alaska are fortunate to have him serving that great State.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1043) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal land in Arizona to La Paz County, Arizona, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1043, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my legislation, H.R. 1043, the La Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation Act.

My bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to convey 3,400 acres of BLM land to La Paz County, Arizona, for rural economic and solar development.

If you have ever visited southwest Arizona, Mr. Speaker, you will know it is pretty darn sunny. Conveying the land to the county for solar maximizes the potential for renewable energy generation and unlocks employment opportunities for county residents.

It is simple: energy and jobs.

This conveyance is vital to the financial future of La Paz County.

Only established in 1983, La Paz is home to nearly 17,000 residents with a median household income of $49,000 per year. It is primarily a farming economy, with nearly 78 percent of cash receipts derived from the sale of crops, like sugarcane and alfalfa hay.

As Arizona expands its technology and semiconductor industries, it is critical to meet the needs of our electric grid, and I believe we must take an all-of-the-above energy approach to ensure the grid's reliability.

In fact, on July 9, Arizona's largest utility providers, APS and SRP, reported a State record of energy demand as we were hit by a heat wave. Luckily, Arizona did not have a blackout, but we must meet the growing needs for electricity.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a legacy priority of mine since 2015. In 2019, the House passed the first allotment of this land for the county, and now my bill conveys the remaining acres to provide the maximum benefit of renewable energy production and a vibrant local economy.

Importantly, this bill respects the land's cultural and Tribal significance. It requires consultation with the Colorado River Indian Tribes if any Tribal artifacts are uncovered during the conveyance process. However, it also enhances the partnership between the county and the Tribes for years to come.

At a time when Congress is exploring all opportunities for cost savings, the La Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation Act is a win- win. The county receives opportunities for jobs and economic development, and the Federal Government receives a fiscal benefit for otherwise undeveloped lands.

My neighbors in La Paz County need a hand up, and I hope that I can count on my colleagues to lend a helping hand.

Mr. Speaker, I once again ask my friends to support this legislation, H.R. 1043, and our Nation's domestic energy dominance, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, American energy is America First. My bill means more American jobs, more American energy, and more American prosperity.

On January 20, 2025, his very first day in office, President Trump declared a national energy emergency to expedite permitting and emergency regulations to unlock domestic energy production. Now it is time for Congress to do its part.

This modest land conveyance will empower the people to meet the national demand for energy generation with countless jobs and the capacity to power thousands of American homes.

I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Westerman, committee staff, and my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee for helping me bring this legislation to the floor today. A special thank you to my Arizona delegation cosponsors, my good friends, Representatives Biggs and Schweikert.

Mr. Speaker, I once again ask all my colleagues to support my legislation, H.R. 1043, the La Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation Act. I yield back the balance of my time.