Floor Statements

Mr. President, President Biden liked to be able to say over and over again that we are producing record amounts of oil and gas. Some of my Democratic colleagues have even come to this floor in the last couple of days and have said: We don't have an energy emergency.

Those two things together are kind of a message going out to the American people: There is nothing to see here. Move along. Everything is fine on energy.

But if you talk to electricity-generation companies, regional distribution networks, and ask them ``How are things going with electricity generation? How are we doing with capacity?'' they will give you a very different story.

The feeling is, when you walk into your own house and flick on the lights and the lights turn on, you are like: Yeah, the lights are fine; there is no emergency. But if you talk to the electric company behind it and say ``Two years from now, what does it look like for capacity for you?'' they will probably shake their head and say ``We have a problem coming.''

Now, we can either deal with that problem 2 years from now when we are having brownouts and don't have enough electricity or we can deal with it now. I would rather deal with it now so we don't have the challenges ahead.

How do you do that? Continue to be energy dominant in, actually, the energy that we are producing here in the United States and to be able to make sure that we are producing truly ``all of the above'' energy but we are actually producing energy at a price Americans can afford and at the amount Americans need.

If we are going to be the world leader in AI, if we are going to be the world leader in data centers, if we are going to be world leaders in innovation, you can't be that if you don't have the power behind it. You can't be that if the price continues to go up, up, up for continuing subsidies.

Under the Biden administration, the price of gasoline went up 30 percent--30 percent in 4 years. Under the Biden administration, in 4 years, the price of electricity nationwide went up 28 percent. Every American feels it. When we pay our light bill, when we put gas in our car, we feel it.

So now the question is: What do we do about it? How do we actually engage to be able to make this better?

Well, there are multiple things that we can do. We have already started some of those already. Quite frankly, President Trump, in his earliest days in office, stepped in and started the process of turning around some of the policies to increase more American energy so we can begin to bring prices down and availability up, because sometimes it is not just about price; it is making sure, 2 years from now, we are not running out and we are not having brownouts all across the entire Nation in our electric grid.

So there are a couple things President Trump did right away. He actually changed all the cancellation of leases in Alaska to actually drill in the area literally set aside, decades ago, for drilling. That is an area that should be a no-brainer, but the Biden administration stepped in and said: No, we are not going to allow anyone to drill in the area set aside for oil exploration in Alaska. They canceled that.

President Trump canceled the mandate for electric vehicles, not because he hates electric vehicles. There happens to be a guy who hangs around him a lot that runs a company that sells electric vehicles. The problem is not electric vehicles. The problem is the mandate to try to force Americans to be able to shift to that when we don't see that in the grid.

Quite frankly, the electric grid is not prepared, even, for Americans to be able to do all-electric vehicles, and frankly, most Americans aren't either. If you talk to Oklahomans in rural areas and say, ``Are you willing to have an electric vehicle when it is 35 miles to the next town from where you are and to be able to take the risk?'' they are not.

And even for a lot of our farmers and ranchers that will say, ``Well, there is an electric pickup out there,'' if you ask the question, ``How far does that electric pickup go if you are towing a trailer?'' the answer you will get from the manufacturers is 80 miles. Do you know what? Our farmers and ranchers need to go a little farther than 80 miles with their vehicles.

So there are a lot of issues that are out there. To be able to take the mandate away and say, ``Let people choose what vehicle they want to be able to choose,'' we think is a better option, and, quite frankly, with our grid not prepared for the strain on that long term, it is a wiser option for everybody in the process.

Decisive action has taken place on the issue of drilling in Federal waters. President Biden, literally in the final hours of his administration, put a ban on actually drilling on 625 million acres offshore. So 625 million acres that have oil and gas in them, President Biden just banned it.

Well, President Trump flipped that and said: No, we are going to allow that to be able to happen--quite frankly, as every other President has on that.

So these are basic things the President can do and has done, but what do we, as Congress, need to be able to do?

We have engaged in several areas already. We have chipped away at what we call the methane fee that has been put on. Every single homeowner that has a hot water tank that uses natural gas--or even if their electricity that is

coming into their house is produced by natural gas or they cook with natural gas--had a new fee added on to them at the end of the Biden administration. We have now voted to be able to take that away and say: We are not going to raise the prices of everybody because they happen to use natural gas to cook their food or to be able to heat their homes or heat their hot water or that they get electricity from as well.

We have also now voted on, quite frankly, a regulation that was done by the Biden administration at the very end of their time that was intentionally designed to be able to raise the price of offshore oil drilling, where they intentionally placed a new fee on any company that is drilling offshore. That could be $1 million per well. The reason for that is to try to block more development offshore on that.

What does that actually do? That doesn't decrease the need that we have in the country. It increases the number of imports that are coming into our country. So we are buying more from Saudi Arabia, more from Venezuela, rather than actually producing from our own jobs and our own locations.

I don't have a problem with ``all of the above'' energy. In fact, I have had this conversation with multiple people in this body. I am willing to put the Oklahoma portfolio for energy against any State that is here, as far as our use of renewables versus fossil fuels. Forty- five percent of the electricity produced in my State today is done with wind. We do wind, solar. We do hydro. We do oil, gas, coal. But we are working to be able to make sure that we can actually produce electricity that is needed for manufacturing and for our homes. That shouldn't be a difficult issue for us. That should be what it is actually all about.

Quite frankly, the frustration that we have had is this has been a challenge for energy companies just to produce energy in the last 4 years. This is something that should be normal. America needs energy. Every single American needs energy. Every person sitting in this room or watching this right now is using energy. We need access to that. So let's find the best ways to be able to do it.

A couple of things that we are working on right now: One is that I have a bill dealing with what we are talking about, with the tax treatments that we are all debating right now, as well, on this floor, called Promoting Domestic Energy Production Act. That act is very straightforward. It treats oil and gas companies the exact same way for taxation as every other manufacturer is treated.

Now, a lot of Americans may say: Well, they are not treated the same now? No. When Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act--which was bizarrely named because, actually, inflation spiked after that, with all they put into it. When the Inflation Reduction Act was passed, it created a new tax on oil and gas companies, specifically designed to be able to reduce new wells coming into America and increase the price of oil and gas. That was the design of it because their goal was, if they could make it so expensive to get gasoline, then more people would actually run to an electric vehicle, and they would buy an electric vehicle.

Well, guess what is happening. The more expensive gasoline is definitely happening, but more and more people aren't running to an electric vehicle. They want to be able to choose. And that is a pretty fair option for them for that. So the bill that I have actually moves us back to treating oil and gas companies the exact same way as every other manufacturer is treated in our tax policy.

There is another bill that is not just an oil and gas bill. It is called the ALIGN Act. This handles what we call bonus depreciation. When a company actually buys a big piece of capital equipment, they are going to pay their tax that year on it, but they have to decide, for that big piece of equipment, how many years it takes to be able to depreciate the value of that. The ALIGN Act just says: In the year that you bought it, you can also depreciate it, and you can take it off your taxes.

Now, this doesn't change the amount of income coming into the Federal Treasury one bit. You are either going to have it over several years or you are going to have it over one year. It doesn't change the amount at all, but it does make a huge difference to that business, in the year they do a big capital investment, that they also get to write that off on that same year.

Well, I think it is just good policy to be able to say: Let's incentivize every manufacturer to be able to do additional manufacturing. Our economy needs it right now because, when they do more manufacturing, that is more jobs in the country. And for energy, that means more pipelines, more capabilities to be able to move energy at a cheaper rate. Those are commonsense things that don't hurt our deficit as a nation but actually benefit our economy and benefit jobs.

Energy policy should be just commonsense conversation. It shouldn't be political. It should be: What do Americans need? And we should look beyond just today that the lights are on. We should at least look 2 years in the future to say what is about to happen in the country with our electric grid, anticipate the problems that are coming, and make changes in policy here to make sure we don't have an emergency there.

So let's declare the American energy emergency. Let's fix it before we have the challenges that are coming in just a few short months.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to be able to use a prop during my speech.

Mr. President, in Oklahoma, if you were to go to any house anywhere in the State right now and ask them how their money should be spent, they would probably smile at you and say: I would like to decide that, not somebody else.

That would be a pretty common conversation, I would bet, in most every State.

For a lot of folks in my State that make $55,000, $60,000--make enough to be able to get by, work hard, take care of their kids and their family--it is a challenge for them from day to day, so every single dollar counts to them. They think about how every single dollar is spent or saved.

That is why it is surprising, in all the dialogue right now about government waste--there is a big dialogue about how do we handle waste and how do we cut back and how fast should we cut back and what should that look like.

But Oklahomans that I talk to are not offended that we are actually cutting back on waste. Now, they may have questions about how it is done and the speed and where it comes out. Those are all reasonable questions we should have a national dialogue on. But when Oklahomans hear that USAID last year did a grant of $32,000 to create a comic book about transgenders in Peru, they would say to me: Hey, I would like to be able to spend that $32,000 myself rather than the transgender comic book in Peru. If the folks in Peru want that comic book, maybe they should pay for it, not American taxpayers.

The folks in Oklahoma, if I were able to talk to them about the same issue,

would ask me questions about the $2.5 million grant that was given to Vietnam to be able to fund the construction of electric vehicle battery recharging stations--which, by the way, $2.5 million that was given by USAID to Vietnam to do that created one charging station which so far has saved a total of 260 gallons of gas equivalent--$2.5 million. It might have been cheaper just to send them 250 gallons of gas than it is to send them $2.5 million to be able to do that.

Now, if I were to talk to Oklahomans, they would tell me they want to be able to be more in charge of that money, not sending it to do that.

They would do the same thing when they find out that $10 million in food aid that was supposed to be going to Syrian refugees was actually diverted to a terrorist group linked with al-Qaida, and they would want to ask USAID why that was done.

They would ask some basic questions: why almost $1 million was sent to a group linked to Hamas just the week before the October 7 attack was actually done.

All those things are reasonable conversations to have that are really, honestly, not partisan conversations in this room. I don't find anyone that thinks that is a partisan issue. Everybody just says: How do we go after that waste, and what do we do to be able to stop it?

For the last 10 years, I have stood in this room and I have talked about my ``Federal Fumbles'' book. We just released the latest version of my ``Federal Fumbles'' book today. The ``Federal Fumbles'' book that we put out each year is not trying to be overly critical of government. We have released it under Republican and Democrat Presidencies and Congresses. We have said: Why don't we spend time--quite frankly, as I ask every year--why doesn't every single Member of this body assign their staff to go look for areas of waste and regulatory inefficiency and just ask some very basic questions: How could we do this better?

Every business asks that question all the time. They ask the question: How can we be more efficient? How can we do things better?

But we in government ask more ``What can we do next?'' and very seldom stop to evaluate what has already been done. That is all ``Federal Fumbles'' is saying: This is the money that was allocated. How was it actually spent?

Over the years, we have engaged in things to be able to identify some areas of waste and to be able to put a stop to them. We stopped the funding that was going toward drag shows in Ecuador that we used to fund in American tax dollars. That is not happening anymore. We stopped the funding that was being sent to France to help preserve the secret language of French Parisian butchers. We used to fund that. We don't anymore. We stopped the funding that was going to research the Russian wine industry after we exposed that. We even stopped the funding that was going to the border to be able to fund Shakespeare all along our border. There might be other ways to be able to spend our money better at the border other than doing performances of Shakespeare with Federal tax dollars.

This year, we are spending some time actually focusing in on what can we do better; what has already been done that the money has gone out the door or how can we do things better. One of them, interestingly enough, has been one of the areas that are being talked a lot about more that we have already focused on, and that is FEMA and disaster relief. Now it has suddenly become a big topic of conversation over the last couple weeks. But we ask a very simple question: When a community experiences a hurricane, a tornado, a flood, and they want to engage with the Federal Government for disaster relief, this is what they confront: 30 different Agencies, 30 different processes for aid coming to their community, most of them having a different way to actually sign up for them, different deadlines, different information that is needed, and also different percentages. Some of them pay 90-10. Some of them pay 85-15. Some of them pay 50-50. They have to know this intricate set of rules in the middle of cleaning up from their disaster to be able to get relief.

This is a disaster, and it shouldn't be a partisan issue for us to be able to look at it and to say: We can do better. When a small, rural community faces a devastating flood, why are we asking the mayor of that community to figure this out to be able to get aid? They won't be able to. They are trying to help their neighbors dig out. We can do better on this.

So we exposed the 30 different Agencies and the spaghetti map of how to be able to get aid and to say: Let's work on this. We exposed some of the inefficiencies that are out in our Federal Government right now, even for things like permitting.

We all talk about energy production, and I know we have differences of opinion on where that energy should come from, but when we start talking about the permitting to go get energy--whether that is lithium or whether that is natural gas--we get into a conversation about how do you permit to actually go get that resource.

Well, right now in the United States of America, it is taking 29 years to go from the beginning process where a critical mineral is mined to actual production. We are on the same international ranking for efficiency of regulations on mining as Zambia.

If we go into our northern border, to Canada--now currently, apparently, referred to as the 51st State--if you go into Canada, it takes 3 years for them to be able to permit a mine. And they go through all their environmental reviews. They go through their legal challenges. They do all those things in 3 years, what is taking us 29 in current structure, if it ever gets done at all. We can do better on that.

If we want to increase our use of American-made minerals and our American-made production on that, we as the Federal Government, we as the U.S. Senate, have to be able to reform the way we are doing our permitting processes so that we can produce that American energy.

If we have some belief that China or Central Africa or the Middle East is producing energy cleaner than we are, we are kidding ourselves. We will produce it cleaner if we can get to it at all.

In this ``Federal Fumbles'' book, we walk through a lot of areas of waste we have identified and said: Hey, let's find some common areas of agreement that we should all be able to look at.

Let me raise one that is controversial: the SNAP program. I don't know a person in this room that would say they want to end the SNAP program. That is food stamps, for some people that still use the old term. But over $10 billion was actually allocated in the SNAP program last year of what they called improper payments; that is, we don't know if they qualified or not for the program.

Now, a lot of folks in Oklahoma would say: I don't mind people getting some help when they need it, but for folks that don't qualify, why are they actually getting access to that?

We have the same issue in the Medicare and Medicaid Program. We don't want to do anything to be able to hurt that program. We have a lot of things we need to do better in that program to deliver. But over $100 billion in Medicare and Medicaid last year was designated as improper payments; that is, we don't know if it is an appropriate payment that was done or not.

That is something we should spend some time investigating. Mr. President, $100 billion seems like real money to me.

Last year, there was a billion dollars that was allocated in subsidies to a Chinese solar manufacturing facility--a billion in American taxpayer subsidies.

If I went to the folks in Oklahoma and said, ``Where should we get solar power?'' Not a one of them would say China. And if they did, they certainly wouldn't say: We should give a billion dollars to a Chinese company to be able to subsidize them to be able to send solar panels to us.

If I were to walk around Washington, DC, right now, current stats are there are 17 Agencies in Washington, DC, that are using 25 percent or less of their real estate. Seventeen of our Agencies are using 25 percent or less of their occupancy building space. That is billions of dollars in costs in electricity; that is billions of dollars in costs in furniture--for a simple question, because it is not a business. They are not having to pursue efficiency. We have 75 percent of the building unused.

That is an area that we should actually ask some very simple questions about and just say: What can we actually do better on this?

Listen, these aren't partisan things. If I sat down with my Democratic colleagues, they would nod their head and say: Let's take a look at that. Let's figure it out. The most simple thing that we do every year when we bring out this ``Federal Fumbles'' book is say: Here are things we can talk about.

Now, I understand the DOGE conversation has become controversial with Elon Musk and some of the tactics and the speed that they are moving. I completely understand that and respect the conversations about that. But government inefficiency shouldn't be partisan. It shouldn't be controversial.

And for those that have joined all of us that have worked on this for years to expose waste in government, welcome to the club. We are glad to have folks engaging on this. I am not critical. I am excited that you are here because we need more help, because when the Federal Government fumbles taxpayer dollars, people in Oklahoma, in my State, lose their hard-earned tax money on things that aren't education, aren't roads, aren't national defense. They are waste, and that is what people want to see stopped.

So I not only encourage people to be able to just take a glance--it is easy reading, lots of pictures. I not only encourage people to take a glance at our ``Federal Fumbles'' book, now that it is released, but I encourage every Member of this body to assign their staff to go look for waste. And then let's sit down together and see if we can figure out how to make it stop. We should waste less and save more. It shouldn't be that hard.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, over the last several weeks, we have worked at record pace here in the Senate on nominations. This has been one of those tasks that happen literally every time there is a new President that comes in, but the pace we have moved on nominations has been epic based on the last two terms of different Presidents. We have confirmed more people now in the Senate than were confirmed in the first 3 weeks of the Biden administration and in the first 3 weeks of the first Trump administration combined. It is because we have been willing to be able to run the clock and to be able to compress this.

Now, the nominations process does take a long time. Every single one of the Cabinet officials requires 30 hours of debate here in the Senate. Each one of the other individuals requires 2 hours of debate here in the Senate, and we have 1,200 people total that we have to get through.

But, at the beginning of this time period, we focused on the Cabinet- level officials, moving, for instance, Marco Rubio the very first day of the President being inaugurated, and we came into this Chamber that evening and were able to move Marco Rubio.

We started the hearings before the President was even sworn in, to be able to make sure that we are ready. We are literally doing hearings in committees, cueing up the next people, even as we are dealing with the folks that are on the floor, to be able to make sure we can move as rapidly as possible. This is not just about President Trump. It is about the United States and about us having a good operation for our government.

Let me give you a ``for instance.''

Mr. President, you know extremely well, because you were part of this group to be able to move him, but Sean Duffy was actually sworn in. His nomination was done, his hearings were done, we confirmed him on the floor of the Senate, and within 24 hours, we have gotten the worst airline disaster that we have had in 15 years. That Secretary of Transportation was literally on the frontline within 24 hours, dealing with a terrible accident.

It is important that we have people in these roles.

We moved Doug Collins yesterday. Doug Collins, who himself is an Air Force Reserve chaplain, a veteran himself, will now be leading the VA. He is able to step into that role today, taking care of all those issues because we were able to get him confirmed.

Pam Bondi and all the issues that we need to be able to resolve within Justice--she can actually get started on those issues now because she has been confirmed. She is the new Attorney General of the United States.

All these different roles, as we move through them and through the committees, are vital for us to be able to get done. We are fulfilling the task that we need to do, whether that be for Secretary of State in international policy and the chaos happening right now in the Middle East, or whether that is Scott Turner and his experience that he is going to bring dealing with Housing and Urban Development, and with people in poverty in our country that desperately are in need of getting access to housing. We are moving on these folks to make sure that we can actually fulfill the promise that needs to be fulfilled.

Mr. President, I just want to be able to remind everyone, we have more to go. We are going to continue to be here this week to finish out the Office of Management and Budget and Russell Vought in that role, because if we are going to deal with spending and we are going to make the government more efficient, we have to have leadership in the Office of Management and Budget.

That will be done this week, to make sure that we can continue to be able to implement the policies to be able to help the Nation to continue to move forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this week, we observe International Holocaust Remembrance Day. We honor the 6 million Jews whose lives were lost during the Holocaust, their families, and the scar that has left on the world. The term ``We will never forget'' still rings eight decades later.

The end of that atrocity did not bring the end of anti-Semitism, unfortunately. On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists brutally attacked Israel with the intent to wipe Israel off the map. Hamas killed 1,200 people simply because they were Jewish.

People marched in the streets even in sections of America and on university campuses, screaming ``from the river to the sea,'' meaning the obliteration of the Jewish people and the Jewish nation.

A few months ago, I stood at the Nova Music Festival site, literally within sight of Gaza. I walked through that area with a family. I talked to one of the survivors who was there that day. She is still reliving the emotion of being there, just doing an all-night music festival. As the Sun came up, terrorists came in to kill as many people as possible at that music festival.

In the immediate aftermath of that attack, it was clarifying for the United States that we needed to continue to stand with Israel. Terrorism is not done. Anti-Semitism has not ended in the world. We should continue to speak out.

In my State of Oklahoma, it is extremely personal. We have a lot of Oklahomans who are very pro-Israel because they love freedom and they love a functioning democracy. With Israel being the only democracy in all of the Middle East and having a thriving economy, we have a lot of economic connections to Israel. We have a lot of family connections. We have a lot of individuals who travel to Israel for both vacation and for moments to be able to reflect on their own faith. It is a common connection.

In fact, after October 7, my office and I were personally connected with trying to be able to help some families and individuals who were touring in Israel at that time find a way to be able to escape from the fighting and to be able to get out.

This is a very, very difficult moment, and it continues to be a very difficult moment for the people of Israel because all they want to do is to be able to live in peace with the people around them.

Within days, Israel is not just facing a war with Gaza, Hezbollah began to attack them from the north from Lebanon. The Houthis began to fire missiles at them from the south. And then within a few months, Iran itself began to fire missiles and rockets and one-way attack drones toward Israel, literally facing a war with individuals attacking them from the north, south, east, and west. Israel just wants to live in peace.

In the middle of a war, when a group of terrorists crossed the border and began to slaughter Israelis, the International Criminal Court determined it was going to jump in and make a clear statement. Great. Make a clear statement about terrorism. Call out those who are attacking civilians and slaughtering people as they sleep on that morning.

But instead, the International Criminal Court released arrest warrants for Binyamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and for Yoav Gallant, the now former Defense Minister, for trying to defend their country from terrorism.

Myself and my other colleagues remembered immediately that during the war in Afghanistan, this same International Criminal Court was filing charges against American soldiers trying to defend the United States while they were fighting in Afghanistan. This is the very definition of a rogue court.

By the way, they are in the process of trying to be able to figure out how to be able to fix their image. So just within the past few days, the International Criminal Court has filed an arrest warrant for some of the Taliban leaders. Welcome to the 2000s. The International Criminal Court has now figured out that the Taliban are back, something the rest of the world has known and recognized for more than two decades.

This body had the opportunity to do something pretty common sense: Speak out and say we are not a party to the International Criminal Court. The United States has never participated in that. In fact, no President has ever even requested--Republican or Democrat--to join that agreement for the International Criminal Court. No one wants to be a part of that in the United States. I know of no Oklahoman who would say we want our troops to be under the authority of an international court. We are not going to do that.

Israel, by the way, has also not joined the International Criminal Court. They have no desire to also be under the authority of a foreign court. They have seen full well the U.N. anti-Semitism, and they have no interest to the international bodies trying to be able to tell them right from wrong, so they are not a party to it either. But the International Criminal Court has seen fit to be able to challenge and try to call out American soldiers and to be able to call out the leaders of Israel, even after they have been attacked.

So this body in the U.S. Senate had an opportunity yesterday to be able to speak out on that and to actually sanction and to allow further sanctions of individuals from the International Criminal Court and entities that cooperate with them to say you cannot come after the United States or after our allies.

It is a very simple, straightforward bill. It is a bill that passed with a very large bipartisan majority through the House of Representatives. In fact, it has passed twice now with a large bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives. But when it came here to the U.S. Senate, my Democratic colleagues shrugged and said no.

The Trump administration, I am confident, will speak out with sanctions against the International Criminal Court. They did during the first Trump Presidency. I am confident they will again. What I am not confident of is every future President after President Trump, if they will hold the same high standard to be able to protect American citizens, our soldiers, and to be able to stand alongside with Israel.

I have come to this body over and over and over again, and I have said we should speak out in these areas. We should speak out against anti-Semitism. For instance, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, that definition of what anti-Semitism is, that is a definition the United States was a party to more than three decades ago. Our State Department so recognizes what it means to be anti- Semitic and makes it very clear on that. But this body has failed to actually impose that same definition of anti-Semitism in our Department of Justice--for instance, the FBI--or the Department of Education.

Some may say, well, why is that even an issue? Well, ask the Jewish students at Columbia University, and they will tell you why that is important. This week, at Columbia University, masked students burst into a modern history of Israel class chanting anti-Semitic tropes and calling out to crush Zionism, in their class at Columbia University this week, during Holocaust Remembrance Week.

I think having a clear definition of what anti-Semitism is and calling out universities that would allow that kind of oppression on their own students, I think, is important. I think for this body to be able to speak out with one voice to say we are not going to allow American soldiers nor our allies to be called in by a kangaroo international court, I think, is important to us.

And this week, of all weeks, on Holocaust Remembrance Week, we should speak with one voice. To say ``never again'' means never again. And we will continue to stand with our friends and allies in Israel, and we will continue to stand against anti-Semitism here, there, anywhere.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent, for myself as chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics and for Senator Coons, vice chairman of the committee, that the rules of procedure of the Select Committee on Ethics, which were adopted February 23, 1978, and revised November 1999, be printed in the Congressional Record for the 119th Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, for myself as chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics and for Senator Coons, vice chairman of the committee, that the annual report of the Select Committee on Ethics for calendar year 2024 be printed in the Record.

The committee issued this report on January 31, 2025, as required by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

Mr. President, for the past 45 minutes or so, my colleagues have come to this floor to be able to talk about a bill that is coming soon that we will actually vote on at the bottom of this hour. It is a bill we have talked about for several years. It has been debated some. It is about what happens if a child survives a botched abortion.

Now, I am going to talk about it a little bit. I have got some other colleagues who are going to step in, in a moment. Then I am going to talk a little bit more about this because this seems to be an incredibly misunderstood issue.

It is interesting. We most often talk about a botched medical procedure--that if there is a botched medical procedure, someone dies. This is literally the opposite--that there was a botched medical procedure, and someone lives. The whole debate is, that botched medical procedure that was supposed to take the life of a child ends up actually delivering that child, and now you have a living, breathing child crying on the table, fully viable. The question is, What do we do now?

Yesterday, my Democratic colleagues spent an hour on the floor saying that child should die. I disagree.

In all of our conversations about abortion--and we have various opinions in this room, and, quite frankly, across the country. We have various opinions about when is a child a child. Some people believe a child is a child when they have unique DNA that is different than the mom, different than the dad. Conception has occurred; cell division has happened. That is, quite frankly, how science defines life, as unique, replicating cell division. Some people believe that is a child.

Some people say: Well, it is not a child until there is a heartbeat.

Some people would say: Well, it is not a child until there is actually a developed nervous system.

Some people would say: It is not a child until the Roe standard, that I hear very often--that it is a viable child that could survive outside the womb, which is about 21 weeks of gestation.

And I have a lot of my colleagues who will say: Well, I want to go back to the Roe standard.

But I have yet to have a colleague come to me and say: I am OK with abortion after delivery.

That is what we are talking about in this.

Now, it is an incredibly small group that we are discussing here. But if we are talking about a common-ground issue, why wouldn't this be a common-ground issue?

Earlier this week, we found a common-ground issue on the issue that is very contentious in this body about immigration. We have had a wide variety of opinions about how we do enforcement for immigration, but we found an area to say: If a person has crossed the border, committed multiple crimes in the United States, they should be detained.

We found bipartisan agreement on that. We don't agree on everything, but we, at least, agreed on that one.

You realize, that is the first bill like that that we have passed in decades--that has actually passed. It is going to be signed by the President. We are making law on that issue where we found simple common ground on a small, niche issue related to immigration.

Well, this is a small, niche issue on a very contentious issue about abortion--what do we do when a child is actually delivered, instead of destroyed in the womb, that is a viable child?

Now, some of my Democratic colleagues have said this never happens. Well, I would love to introduce you to a friend of mine named Melissa Ohden. When Melissa Ohden's mom was 19 years old, she was compelled by her family to have an abortion. She had an abortion--her mom did--and delivered that child. The child was delivered, and then, literally, the baby was set aside into the medical waste of that procedure at the hospital.

The nurse then, a few minutes later, as she was cleaning up after the procedure, noticed the medical waste was crying and was breathing. So the nurse literally scooped up this child and took the child from that room to the emergency room, where she survived.

Folks, early on, said she would be blind or she would have a major heart condition; she would have everything else. I wish you could meet Melissa. She is amazing. She is fully healthy.

In fact, it was years later that she learned her adopted mom had adopted her because her birth mom literally didn't know she still existed. Her birth mom was never told that, actually, that abortion ``didn't work.'' That child survived.

They have since reconnected, Melissa and her birth mom--her birth mom, with deep regret, thinking about this beautiful child in front of her, that that life was almost destroyed. In fact, it was planned to be destroyed.

Listen, this is not just an academic issue. This is real. Again, it is rare, but the question is: What do we do in those rare situations? How do we track this? How do we engage on it?

I would ask any American: If there is a child lying on the table in an operating room, crying, what do we do then? I don't know many Americans who would say: Kill it.

But here is what happens. In a botched abortion in America right now, when a child is actually delivered rather than destroyed in the womb, when literally there was a medical mistake that didn't take the life of the child but instead delivered that child into life--when that occurs, the current practice is everyone kind of backs away and allows the child to die on the table by exposure because it is against American law in every single State to take the life of a child. But if everybody just steps back and watches the child die, that is OK.

My Democratic colleagues came to the floor yesterday and said: This is already illegal. Why are we even discussing this? This is already illegal. You can't have infanticide in America.

And I would say that is correct; it is already illegal to do infanticide. But what is still allowed is a tiny, little loophole that if an abortion was botched, everyone can just back away and watch the child die; they do not have to give that child medical care.

That is quite a loophole, and it is painful for me to even have to have this conversation in a nation like ours. Of all the things that we could talk about right now, why do we even have to discuss what to do with a child on a table in an operating room, crying? Why is this even a conversation?

So we are bringing a bill to the floor today to be able to fix this. This is a bill we talked about multiple times in this body, but it should be the absolute, easiest common-ground piece to face. Which of us, standing in that operating room, would look at a crying child and would say: Ignore it. If we wouldn't say it there, we shouldn't say that here.

So I will be back in a few moments, Mr. President. I have other colleagues who want to be able to speak to this issue, but I have some facts and myth that I want to do side by side with some of my Democratic colleagues who came to be able to share their perspective on this, and I want to be able to lay some things side by side to say what this bill actually does, not what the myth is and what is actually being told about it.

In the meantime, I would encourage Members of this body to be able to look up my friend Melissa Ohden. Look her up online if you want to, see her beautiful picture, and read her story for yourself, because she is not the only one with that same story. She is just one of many that has that story. Just not many are willing to be able to step out and speak knowing that their life was intended to be taken, though today, they are still smiling and talking about the value of every single life.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in just a few moments, this body will vote on a bill that actually doesn't limit abortion at all. It doesn't slow down one abortion. It doesn't stop one woman from choosing to have an abortion. It doesn't have a nationwide ban on abortion. In fact, this is a bill about what happens after an abortion.

What is unique about this bill is it is asking a pretty simple question that seems like it would be a common ground issue for us, if there is, in this case, a medical mistake that didn't take a life, we normally think about a medical mistake that takes a life. But in this case, if there was a medical mistake that actually protected a life, what happens?

This doesn't limit one single abortion in America, though many people in this body know me well enough to know I would love to protect more children in America. This bill just asks a simple question: If an abortion is botched and the child is delivered instead of destroyed in the womb and the child is alive and viable on the table, what happens next?

Current medical practice is everyone in the room just backs away, and you allow the child to die on the table. I don't think that is what most Americans would want. I think most Americans would say: Hey, I have got boundaries on the issue of abortion and definitely fully born is a boundary.

Now, it has been interesting, I have listened to the debate yesterday and today from my Democratic colleagues, many of them friends, we have a real disagreement on this. This is not extreme--as I have heard it described, an extreme, rightwing proposal about abortion.

I just don't think if I pulled 100 people off the street and said: Hey, if a child is alive and screaming on the table after birth, what do you think we should do? I bet 100 out of 100 of them would say we should probably give them medical care. I just don't think that is extreme or out of the main thought in America.

I think that is just who Americans are. We are compassionate people; that when we see a baby and look in their face, we don't say ignore them; we say let's provide some care.

I have heard some of my colleagues say that we should respect the rights of women in this. By the way, I think one of those women should be that little girl that is born who is lying on the table right there crying. I think she should get some compassion and respect as well because a decision is being made at this point about what to do. And it is not a theory.

Several of my colleagues yesterday have used terms during this debate like this is ``myth-based fearmongering.'' That was my favorite one. ``Republicans are talking about stories that do not happen'' was also expressed by another one of my colleagues.

This one was just a little more blunt. One of my colleagues just came to the floor and said: ``Republicans are lying.'' Well, here is what really happened. Let me give you a status. This doesn't happen very often at all. Thankfully, this is rare, but the CDC does some tracking, and there are, quite frankly, only eight States in America that actually keep track of this; that if there is a botched abortion, the child is actually delivered fully alive. There are only eight States that do it. Most States say don't. In fact, what is interesting is we tried to be able to track which States actually keep track of this and have some kind of instruction of what to do on healthcare on it. A few States do; many States don't. In fact, some States, like Minnesota, literally voted recently: We used to track reporting, but we don't even want to know anymore if this occurs. Don't tell us if it occurs.

Of the few States, just 8, that actually track this, over a several- year period, there were 277 cases like this where a child was actually delivered and was alive after a botched abortion.

Now, again, that is not many, but we know from eight States in that short time period, that that is occurring.

So, again, I go back to the basic question: What do we want to do about that? Do we want to just ignore that or do we have a thought about what should happen to that child?

Some of my colleagues have said this only occurs if there is a pregnancy complication and the child was already going to die or there was a fatal medical condition that was actually occurring. Well, actually, that is not true in this bill. This bill is about a viable child that was delivered late term that is now on the table alive.

I have also heard that this is going to have this massive overreach for doctors; that they are going to be oppressed, and they are going to be afraid to practice on this.

Actually, the bill is pretty clear on this. This still gives the doctor the ability to use his or her professional judgment in the care that would normally be provided to a child that is born. That is it.

The doctor may look at it and say: This child is not going to make it. That is still a professional judgment that is there or they may have a professional judgment that the child will make it. And as I have mentioned on this floor before, there are adults walking around today that survived an abortion, like Melissa Ohden and other folks that I know personally.

So this is not something that just never occurs. So it doesn't limit abortion. It doesn't restrict doctors. It actually does happen-- contrary to what some of my colleagues have said that this never happens, it actually does happen on this.

I have had colleagues that have said: Infanticide is already illegal. This is unnecessary so let's move on. This is unnecessary. Except we have also established the issue that, yes, taking the life of that child on the table, literally once that child is on the table crying, they can't reach down and take the life of that child. That is Kermit Gosnell, horrific stuff. But just allowing them to slowly die, that is still protected. So that is not there.

One of my colleagues came to this floor and made this statement:

At the center of this debate is whether we believe in the

premise from the Declaration of Independence that all are

created equal, that freedom belongs to everyone, and that

women deserve to be treated as equal citizens.

I actually couldn't agree more with my colleague because that same Declaration of Independence, right next to that statement about everyone being created equal, also includes a simple little comment that says:

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And our question on this particular bill is, when that child is born and she is crying on the table, does she have the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or not? That is all this bill does. This bill should be a simple process to say this is not who we are as Americans.

As Americans, we respect the opportunity for life for that child that is fully delivered, and then we determine what we are going to do.

Just because a baby can't defend herself, doesn't mean she is disposable. It means she is vulnerable, and that means we as a nation should determine what we are going to do with the life of the most vulnerable.

I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this. This should be a bipartisan conversation where we speak from this body for those who cannot speak for themselves.

I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns be granted floor privileges until May 30, 2025: Hinson Peed and Madeline Becker.

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

Mr. President, you will see for the next hour a whole group of Republicans coming to the floor to be able to talk about one issue: our need for border security and safer communities. This is something that not just Republicans in the Senate are talking about; this is something that the American people spoke loudly and clearly about during the last election when they elected President Trump, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House. There is not a single Member who is a Republican in this body, in the House, or, clearly, President Trump, who didn't talk about border security and safer communities throughout the entire election.

Every single poll showed that this was one of the priority issues that every single American was thinking about. A Gallup poll last year found that more than three-quarters of Americans support increasing the number of Border Patrol agents; that two-thirds of Americans want the President and the Homeland Security Secretary to temporarily halt all asylum requests when the border is overwhelmed; and third, a majority of Americans support expanding border wall construction. People want a secure community.

On the floor this week--we started last week and are still debating it this week--is what to do on what is called the Laken Riley Act. Some Americans are familiar with Laken Riley's story; some are not. Laken Riley was a college student in Georgia who was brutally murdered by a Venezuelan who came into the United States illegally, was detained at the border, but then released. He traveled around the country wherever he wanted to under a parole system that was given to him at the border in 2022. He committed a crime, was arrested for that crime, and then was released. He committed another crime--shoplifting. He was arrested for that crime and was then released. The third crime, as far as we know--there might have been many more, but the third crime, as far as we know, was his murder of Laken Riley.

He should have never been in the United States. He should have never been paroled at the border. He should have been detained and then deported, but he wasn't. He was paroled into the United States. When he committed a crime in the United States, he should have been deported, but he was not. He was released. When he committed a second crime in the United States, he should have been deported, but he wasn't. He was released--before he ever got to murder.

The Laken Riley Act is pretty simple. It says: If someone is here illegally and they commit a crime in the United States of stealing Americans' stuff, like he did, that he is deported. I don't think it is a radical concept to be able to say that Americans don't want someone to come into the country illegally and take their stuff. Why this is even a challenge to be able to pass this, I have no idea. This passed in the House last session, but the Senate never took it up to even discuss it.

If I go to any of the great 4 million Oklahomans in my State and I say ``What do you think about someone illegally coming into the country and stealing people's stuff? Do you think that is OK, that they should still be able to stay?'' I don't think I would find anybody of the 4 million Oklahomans who would say ``I am OK with someone illegally coming into the country, stealing people's stuff'' and say ``You can go ahead and stay.''

That is all that this bill does. It says that if someone comes into this country illegally and starts stealing stuff, they are detained; they are held. They are not just allowed to be released to be able to drift around the country to steal other things or to commit a murder later. If they come into our country illegally and start stealing things, they are detained, and they will go through the rest of the legal process. It doesn't mean they are automatically deported the very next day. They still have a legal challenge there. They can have their legal challenge. But they are not going to just wander around the country.

That is why we believe this Laken Riley Act is so important. It is because we never, ever, ever, ever want to have another American who is murdered by someone illegally present here, especially someone who had already committed multiple crimes before they ever got to that murder.

So let's have the debate. I am willing to be able to talk to any one of my Democratic or Republican colleagues who has a question about this, but at the base of this is, why would we let someone who is already illegally present in the country and who we already know has committed additional crimes just continue to walk our streets just to commit more crimes? Why would we not detain those individuals?

On Monday, President Trump will be inaugurated. I am looking forward to working with him and seeing even what happens on day one to be able to secure the border. This is something the American people want. They want a border that is secure; they want communities that are secure; and they want just basic commonsense things done, like if someone breaks into our country and then steals stuff, they are actually detained rather than just released to go do it again. Let's at least do the basics that we can do while we continue to be able to work toward the big projects that still need to be done.

Multiple of my colleagues will be coming in the moments ahead to talk through this same issue because we feel like, on this side, it is incredibly important we get this done.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I don't even know how many times I have come to the floor of this Senate to be able to talk about government efficiency. It is not a shock for me to be able to come back here again today and to say: Let's talk about this. I don't know a single one of the great 4 million Oklahomans that if I went to their house today, knocked on their door, and said: Is the Federal Government the most efficient body in the country, that they would say yes.

This should not be a partisan issue that government should be more efficient. Every single dollar that is spent was taken from an American in tax dollars or was borrowed so that their children would have to pay for it. This should be a straightforward issue.

Every single year I put out a ``Federal Fumble Report,'' and I will put one out in a month or so. And when we release that report, everyone nods their heads and says: Yes, those are areas of inefficiency. And year after year, I highlight things like Federal tax dollars that were spent paying for a drag show in Ecuador.

If the nice folks in Ecuador want to have drag shows, why are my folks in Oklahoma being forced to pay for them?

I highlighted things like we did a research study in Ghana to be able to determine whether helmets made people on bikes in Ghana safer. By the way, I could go ahead and tell you that today without spending any Federal tax dollars. Yes, they will make it safer, but why were the folks in Oklahoma being forced pay for the study in Ghana to be able to study head injuries on folks on bikes and whether they should wear a helmet.

The folks in Oklahoma paid for a study that came out as a book that was analyzing humans and chimpanzees in Sierra Leone and the effects of climate change on them. Again, I am sure there are nice folks in Sierra Leone that are very interested in that. Why are my folks in Oklahoma being forced to pay for that?

I could go one after another after another on things that we have studied over the years, but let me tell you what happens. When we highlight these things and a little sunshine hits them, suddenly people start backing up, and Agencies stop funding some of these things that everyone nodded their head and said: Where did that crazy thing come from?

So because of the reports that we put out, we are not paying for helmet studies in Ghana anymore. We are not paying for drag shows in Ecuador anymore. We are no longer paying for the study on the Russian wine industry that Americans used to pay for. We are no longer funding the 3D puppets that we once paid for. We have been able to put sunshine on those things, and those things have stopped.

The challenge is, how do we actually set this into a process so that we are not having to play Whac-A-Mole all the time to be able to take down one after another after another.

The people of my State, they don't want to pay for those things. They want to pay for border security and they want to pay for good schools and they want to have good roads. They want to have lower gas prices. Those are the things that they want.

So how do we actually get to that? Well, I could outline right now $170 billion in wasteful spending in the Federal Government just today, simple things that most Americans would agree on. We spend $8 billion a year just for Federal buildings to lease them or to do maintenance for them--$8 billion a year. Currently, most of those buildings, because we have so many Federal employees that are teleworking, most of those buildings are 25 percent full. We are spending $8 billion a year on buildings that are mostly empty. Most businesses in America would say that is a waste of money. I am going to find a way to do that less, except the Federal Government doesn't do that. We just continue to be able to lease empty office space and maintain empty office space.

That should not be a partisan issue. That should be an issue everybody in this body looks at and says: There is something that we could do to be able to make this better. Let's be more efficient.

Starting with the new Trump administration, they have launched a new initiative that folks have made fun of, DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. And I am fascinated by the number of people that step out and they make fun of this initiative, to say: This Department of Government Efficiency--and then I ask them the simple question: Do you know a way the government could be more efficient? And people will say: Well, yeah, should we do that? Yes is the answer.

So the very simple statement is: If we find duplication in government, why don't we highlight it and then eliminate it? If we find areas where there are tax regulations that actually don't make sense that actually slow the economy down rather than actually encourage economic development in the country, why don't we fix that? If we find areas of permitting, where permitting actually prevents government growth rather than accelerates the growth of our economy, why don't we go after that?

Where there is waste in Agencies, where there are empty Federal buildings, where there are Federal projects that really should be done by the State or local government, why don't we make those changes?

That is what this whole concept is about--the Department of Government Efficiency--is to actually create a mechanism to say: Let's stop talking about it and highlighting it a little bit at a time. Let's actually work to be able to make this better in the days ahead.

I am very pleased that a whole group of colleagues are passionate about this as well. They are coming to the floor today to be able to highlight some of these areas of inefficiency and to say: Yes, absolutely. I see it as well.

Because while I do ``Federal Fumbles'' every single year, I continue to also say to all of my colleagues: We should not be the only office doing this, and thankfully we are not. There are multiple offices that their staff are also looking for areas of government efficiency. And for the first time in a long time, we have built enough momentum to say: Let's get these done. Let's not just show them so we embarrass Agencies not to do it next year; let's actually set a process in place.

So today I have invited multiple colleagues, including my colleague sitting at the dais today, to be able to find a moment in their very busy schedules to be able to come and highlight areas where the government can be more efficient, where we can be more effective at protecting taxpayer dollars, and where we can stop throwing American's dollars out the door for things that everyone would recognize as wasteful.

When we have almost $2 trillion in debt, it is definitely the moment for us to say: Let's work on being even more efficient in the days ahead because we desperately need that.

So, with that, I yield the floor to my colleague from West Virginia who has been very outspoken in trying to be able to protect taxpayer dollars in West Virginia and for the Nation and to try to make ways to make this more effective in the days ahead.

I yield the floor.

I am especially grateful for all the work you have done.

Mr. President, I would like to introduce a fellow colleague, Senator Joni Ernst from Iowa. She is the founder of the DOGE Caucus and has been the one who has been very passionate about trying to find the waste in government. I ask that she be recognized to speak.

Mr. President, as this body knows well, for the past hour, we have had multiple colleagues who have come to this floor to be able to talk about how do we make the government more efficient. They have been talking about, out loud, what they are working in their offices on, what their staff are working on, and what we plan to be able to implement. This is a public conversation, but there is a lot of private, behind-the-scenes work because the focus is not just what we talk about. It is what we actually get done.

There are a lot of areas of government efficiency that need to get done. This is a target-rich environment. Literally, you can pull out of this building and look in any direction you want to any number of Agencies and get started there.

But the focus that we need to have as a body is not what we do to talk about government waste but what are we going to do to get it done.

We are looking forward to President Trump's inauguration in a week and a half. We are looking forward to beginning to implement both on the executive branch and through legislative action real changes that can actually get our government toward more efficiency.

Now, I have to warn everybody: It is going to take a while because there is a lot to get done. But the good news is, we are not just talking about it; we are actually going to get something started.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, several years ago, it was a December like this; there were big bills that were coming through the House and the Senate, one of them being the National Defense Authorization Act, which has passed every single year for the last six decades.

Stuck in that multi, multi, multipage bill was a little piece on beneficial ownership. Now, most everyone just didn't even notice what it would be. But in the past couple of years, the Biden administration has released the rules for beneficial ownership and what will be required to be able to deal with ``opportunities for fraud.''

What it has become is a way to be able to get from every single small business in America--I do need to emphasize these were all small business; in fact, smallest of the small businesses--every LLC, every businessowner in America a list of them of this: their name, their date of birth, their address, an I.D. number--that is simple--but then, also, a listing of all the senior officers of the company, someone who has authority over the appointment or removal of a senior officer, and this little jewel--someone who substantially influences important decisions in your company.

Every business owner in America is required by January 1--in just a couple of weeks--to turn in that document for every single business that they own.

Now, for many folks in real estate or in construction or in many other businesses, they actually start a company and raise it up for that company. And so they may not own one company or have one LLC; they may have 20 or 30. And they have to go through the paperwork for every single one of those and be able to turn in, including answering the question: Who influences your important decisions on your company? No one even knows what that means.

Well, you may say: Well, it is no big deal if they don't turn it in.

Oh, no, it is, because under the rule that has been put out, if they don't turn this form in, it is a $10,000 fine for each company that they don't turn in or 2 years in jail if they don't submit it.

Let that soak in. Every small business owner in America has to turn in who influences their decisions, or they could go to jail for 2 years.

Now, listen. All of us around this room would say: That is too much. Why is the Federal Government asking that of every pet owner, of every hair shop, of every builder, of every subcontractor? Why are we asking them who substantially influences them? And what authority do we have to have them do that?

Well, it is a good question, actually, because a Federal judge, just a couple of weeks ago, stepped in and did a preliminary injunction, just temporarily stepped in--this, by the way, was a Federal judge who was appointed by President Obama. They stepped in and put a halt on this rule. And they said this rule is--their term--``quasi-Orwellian'' and ``likely unconstitutional.''

Now, this was an Obama judge stepping into this. They put a pause on it. But the problem is, the pause is completely dependent on the judge at this point. They can unpause it at any moment.

So the simple thing that I have asked for throughout this entire year is, let's get rid of this rule. This rule should not be there at all. Congress has no right to go to every business owner and hand them a stack of forms and say to fill these out and tell us who helps you make decisions in your company.

What in the world? So we have no right to be able to do that. So I have asked all year long: We need to get rid of it entirely. I have not been successful getting that. So we have asked a simple thing: Let's take it out for 1 year. Let's just delay it. Let's get more time to be able to talk about this. This is a big issue that Congress is laying down.

Now, I have to tell you, I have not been successful getting that either. But do you know who has been? The House of Representatives. The House of Representatives passed a 1-year delay on this rule--wait for it--420 to 1; 420 to 1.

Yeah, the House said: This is a massive overreach; let's pause this for a year, at least, until we figure out what this actually means.

What does this mean for small business owners across the country? They could--in the very earliest time of next year under a new administration, any single small business in the country could face a $10,000 fine or 2 years in prison if they haven't turned this in.

But they have all turned it in already, right? It was due January 1. Actually, FinCEN has given us the latest numbers of who has turned it in.

Let me just give a few States as an example and the percentage. In New York State: 80 percent of the small businesses haven't turned this form in yet--80 percent.

In my State in Oklahoma, 77 percent of the small businesses have not turned this form in.

In Rhode Island, 72 percent of the small businesses have not turned this form in.

In West Virginia, 80 percent of the businesses have not turned this form in.

In Wisconsin, 74 percent of the businesses have not turned this form in.

That means they could all face--all those businesses could all face a $10,000 fine or 2 years in jail because they haven't submitted a form most of them don't even know exists.

Listen: Delaying for a year is not a radical proposal. And 420 to 1 in the House is a pretty good vote, especially considering the votes of the House in the past week.

That is broad bipartisan agreement. All I am asking is: Let's pause this for a year. Let's agree with the House and not have 75 to 80 percent of American small businesses suddenly be under the heavy hand of a potential fine or jail time because they don't even know this exists. But it does. It is Federal law.

So that is my simple request that I am bringing on this very last moment to be able to deal with this.

Madam President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5119 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time, be passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, my friend from Rhode Island and I, we have a lot of great conversations. I think we both agree on the problem here. There is clearly a problem that money could be laundered and hidden in American companies and shell companies. There is no question. I think what we disagree on is the answer to that problem.

In this setting, with this set of forms, the assumption is that those who are doing international money laundering would put down their accurate information and would identify themselves as international terrorists and money launderers. In this particular setting, every small business owner who owns a restaurant or a pet store or a bookstore or is a plumber or owns a roofing company--30 million, in fact, small businesses in America--they all have to prove their innocence.

The assumption is that a Russian oligarch who is trying to hide money will tell the truth when he fills his form out, and I find that hard to believe. But in the meantime, 30 million small businesses have to go through a form, and within weeks, probably 23 million of those will be in violation of the law, and they will face penalties of $10,000 or 2 years in jail. And most of those small business owners who run that restaurant down the street don't even know this rule exists.

It is the kind of stuff that drives Americans crazy, that they woke up one day and found out they may go to jail tomorrow because they didn't fill out a form that someone wanted.

That is what we are trying to pause. The problem is real. I just don't think this is the right solution for it in the way it is being implemented. Let's see if we can solve the problem without actually causing, literally, tens of millions of small business owners to be under the sword of Damocles that they could be rounded up and go to jail at any moment because they didn't get a form filled out.

That is what we are trying to solve in the days ahead, and I wish we could at least put a pause on this and think it through more before those small business owners find out.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my gratitude to the Armed Services Committee and Energy and Natural Resources Committee for working to include an important provision that passed as part of the fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (FY25 NDAA). The provision is in section 1706, titled ``Use of royalty gas at McAlester Army Ammunition Plant.''

The Department of Defense has issued a charge to ensure that all U.S. military installations are energy resilient by 2035. Under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2911, the Secretary of Defense is responsible for ``ensur[ing] the readiness of the armed forces for their military missions by pursuing energy security and energy resilience.'' In implementing this section of the U.S. Code, the Department of Defense has pursued a plan to establish microgrids at all military installations, utilizing a diverse array of energy sources to be energy resilient. In FY 2022, the Department of Defense consumed $4.2 billion in fuel for installation energy. Further, natural gas was the largest nonelectric fuel source, used in almost 75 percent of installation energy consumption. As my colleagues know, the purpose of energy resilience is to ensure our military installations are able to continue operations in the event of a local, gridwide, or national energy supply disruption.

In 2021, Senate Report 117-39, which accompanied the National Defense Authorization Act of 2016, requested that the Department of Defense review a 2016 analysis of installations with likely gas and oil reserves to provide a recommendation for a pilot site to initiate use of on-site mineral reserves for energy resilience and security purposes. The program aimed to provide the installation with onsite energy production, light refining, storage, and onsite generation to maintain critical operations during grid outages. The report stated that the Department of Defense had an absence of general statutory authority for the Department of Defense to extract and use minerals at installations. The report also includes a list of nearly 150 military installations that are located within 25 miles of the top 100 most productive natural gas and oil reserves in the United States, of which McAlester is one.

In order to clarify the authorities necessary for the deployment of natural gas resources for the use of military energy resilience and security, I worked with the Senate Armed Services Committee and Energy and Natural Resources Committee to include section 1706 of the FY25 NDAA. This provision would provide the appropriate authorities for McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in McAlester, OK, to develop natural gas on the installation for energy resilience purposes. This language would require coordination between the Department of Defense and Department of the Interior to allow McAlester Army Ammunition Plant to produce, treat, manage, and use national gas by contracting with appropriate entities to meet directives from the Department of Defense for energy resiliency.

This authority has been years in the making starting from efforts led by Oklahoma's former senior Senator and my friend, the late Jim Inhofe. The language also includes feedback and technical assistance from the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management, multiple committees in the House and Senate, and Senate leadership. There is already precedent for the production and use of natural gas on military installations, as is the case with Fort Knox in Kentucky. The strategic use of energy such as natural gas promotes the readiness of the Armed Forces for their military mission. I urge the Department of Defense to swiftly implement this authority, and I congratulate McAlester on the opportunity to reach energy resiliency and continue the great work they do for our national security.