Floor Statements

Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.

The junior Senator from California knows good and well what ``classifications'' mean because he had 15 years on the House Intelligence Committee until his clearance was pulled in 2023. He understands classifications. He understands when certain things can be exposed and certain things cannot because of the sensitivity of them.

He also understands that committees of jurisdiction are privileged with the correct clearance to be able to watch this video because the junior Senator from California stated that himself. It has been shown to not a partisan but a bipartisan group of individuals who do have the accurate oversight and clearances to watch it.

Now, what is this really about? Politics? Maybe.

During the junior Senator's time on the House Intelligence Committee, then-President Obama had 500 strikes on terrorist organizations. Let's keep in mind that we are striking terrorist organizations, and no one is denying that. There are 24 cartels that are being deemed terrorist organizations that are poisoning our streets, that are killing our families, that are killing our friends, that are affecting all of our homes and all of our streets in all of our States all across the country--in fact, to the tune that there have been more people killed in 2024 by drug overdoses--the sum of 10,000 more individuals--than we lost in U.S. personnel during the entire Vietnam war. If that is not an attack on us, I don't know. If that is not a terrorist organization that is truly poisoning our streets, then I don't know.

During the time that the junior Senator from California sat on Intel, not one time did he ever ask for the release of the same videos from the Obama administration that killed 3,700 individuals, including U.S. citizens.

Now, if you think there would be transparency, that would need to be released. We would want to see the videos at least on the U.S. citizens who were killed in this manner, not these narcoboats that are poisoning our streets. But that really isn't what this is about, and the junior Senator from California knows that. This is all about politics. That is what this is about.

Why are we protecting the ones who are poisoning our streets? Shouldn't we be trying to protect the ones who are on our streets?

I don't think it is crazy to think that we would want to be proactive about going after narcoboats. I, for sure, want to. I have zero issue with this. I have been able to be briefed. I know the junior Senator was recently briefed; he is just upset that he may not have the clearances to watch the videos anymore.

But there is sensitive material, and it was clearly explained why it can't be released.

Of all the people in this Chamber, the junior Senator from California knows that when it is in certain classifications, there is a reason for that.

With that, I object.

Mr. President, I am here today to ask the Senate to pass a bill that helps kids with cancer--the Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act.

Now, very seldom do I actually read remarks. I typically like to just simply speak about it. But I think this is so important that I am actually going to read the remarks that are in front of me because I think it is important for people to know what we are doing, why we are doing it, and who she was--the advocate--and to understand why we are here today.

Mikaela, whom the bill is named after, was a 16-year-old girl from Colorado. As a father of six, this is kind of personal to me, so this is why it is so passionate to me, too, because my son currently--while he doesn't have a cancer like this, we have been going to

Rochester for over a year, and we are doing some experimentative stuff with him too. We got an opportunity--because it is not a death sentence. What he has isn't a death sentence. But we have had to go through this and continue to go through this. So it is even more personal to me now.

In July of 2020, Mikaela was diagnosed with a rare pediatric cancer. She spent nearly 6 years traveling across the country for treatments while also coming to Capitol Hill to advocate for children with cancer. But unfortunately, she tragically passed away October 29 of this year-- advocating literally almost every day of her life.

Mikaela was a fighter. She fought so other children could have an opportunity, that one day, the devastating diagnosis that she received would someday be curable for other kids.

Some things that come across your desk in Congress just make sense, and this is one of them. This bill has 33 cosponsors in the Senate, and they are bipartisan, from liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans.

We worked hard to get this bill passed for over a year, and it passed the House by voice. Not one single person objected to this. Why? Because why wouldn't you want to allow kids, our kids, an opportunity to simply have the same opportunity as adults do with cancer? It is called pediatric cancer. Give kids a chance. Why wouldn't we want to do that?

It is hard to explain why we wouldn't want to do that, but yet I understand the Senator from Vermont intends to object to the Senate doing this. I think it is wrong. I think it is dead wrong.

To think that someone is willing to hold hostage a child who is fighting for their life, who simply wants to have an opportunity to try an experimental drug that may extend their life 1 week, 1 day, or may even cure it, and you are willing to take that away from the family because you have other priorities, because you want to hold it hostage so you can try to do something with community healthcare centers?

I support community healthcare centers. I want them. They are important to rural Oklahoma. But there is a time and place for everything, and to hold this bill hostage because of it is not right. You are stealing from a family an opportunity to spend maybe an extra minute or an extra day or maybe a lifetime with a loved one.

I don't know how you argue this. I don't know how you can possibly stand up here with a straight face and say that it is OK; it is just politics. This isn't just politics. We are playing with people's lives. This isn't politics. This is more than just politics.

But I will tell you, if this is objected to and we can't find a path forward here today, I can promise you I will not stop fighting on this. It won't happen. We are going to rinse and repeat and continue to go down this path until we give the families with these rare diseases an opportunity to live because that is what this is about.

I recognize my friend from New Hampshire who may have some comments about this too.

I yield to the chairman from Louisiana, Mr. Cassidy.

I, too, want to say I support community health centers. As I said, they are very important in rural communities, very important in my hometown of Westville. In fact, it is the only healthcare that is available. I don't want them to be harmed; I want them to be well funded, but that is a separate conversation we can have.

The chairman just said he will work to get it passed next year. Now, there is no reason to hold our kids hostage anymore.

So, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1262, which was received from the House; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I reserve the right to object.

Mr. President, you know everything that the Senator from Vermont has railed about is why I think he supported the Affordable Care Act a.k.a. ObamaCare. I thought it was supposed to fix all this stuff that he wrote about, and we figured out it hasn't. It has wrecked the system. It is unaffordable for the American people. Yet it was the Democrats that sold us or sold the American people on it--not us, not Republicans, sold the American people on it.

It has been disastrous. And so now he wants to hold kids that are dying of rare diseases and pediatric cancer, wants to hold them hostage, to now try to push his agenda further and not go through the committee of jurisdiction but hold the kids hostage--the kids.

Everything the Senator from Vermont just talked about was political. I am talking about lives. I am talking about giving kids a chance to live an extra day or a lifetime. That is what I am talking about.

This has nothing to do with politics. Nothing. Nothing I am talking about has to do with politics. This has to do with kids. Yet the Senator from Vermont wants to make it about politics. You know, this time of the year at Christmas we talk about grinches, all the time, right? They go in, and they steal the kids' gifts. By the end of the show, their hearts grow bigger and they give the gifts back and they allow kids to be excited about Christmas morning.

What has happened right here in front of us, the grinch is stealing kids' lives, and they are stealing hope from the families, hope from the families that might have an opportunity just to try for a political agenda.

And I hope to God that every single family that is going through this will hold the Senator from Vermont accountable, and the State of Vermont will hold him accountable, too, because he is playing with kids' lives. He is literally killing kids in front of us because of his political movement, and it is ridiculous.

Therefore, I object.

Just speaking the truth.

I am, sir.

I object.

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

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3412 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to ask my colleagues to support this fiscal year 2026 Legislative Branch bill.

This is a solid, bipartisan bill that meets the needs of Congress and supports our Agencies, especially the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police, in a very fiscally responsible manner.

I commit to my colleagues to continue working in a bipartisan manner to address the best path forward for all of our security needs for the Members, for our families, and for the friends who may be around us. It is challenging, and I understand that. I commit to you guys--all--that I will work to meet those needs. We have had a bipartisan commitment from both sides, and I hear y'all's concerns. We will get those addressed, but this amendment moves us in the right direction.

With that, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as we hear my colleague from Arizona use I would say very liberal truths as to what he was saying by not giving all the facts, I would also pose this question: Where was all this outrage over the last 4 years when Director Wray was over the FBI and Attorney General Garland was over the DOJ?

He knows, I know, and all the Democrats know that if there was anything to do with President Trump, they would have happily released it. My lord, you went after him for everything else you could possibly think of. Why wouldn't you possibly go after this?

Well, it is because this is nothing but political theater. We know that. We know that what your resolution is--it doesn't actually have transparency because we all want transparency. All of us want transparency. We want to know actually what happened. The American people want to know what has happened. But what this resolution does is it actually is a blurred line between the separation of powers.

When we start dictating to the Department of Justice what they can and can't do--there is a clear separation of power. We are the legislative branch. That is what we do. We make laws. We can't dictate to the other branches on what they must and how they must do their job.

Now, with that being said, I would simply ask the question: Why now? Is it because of their hatred toward President Trump, because they want to do anything they can possibly do to distract from what they might be hiding? Why wasn't this done the previous 4 years? What happened? They had the same files. This case wasn't new.

So this resolution does absolutely nothing; therefore, I object.

Mr. President, we all want transparency and for credible information on the Epstein case to be made public so that the American people can decide.

The Trump administration has already said they are committed to releasing all available files. Last week, President Trump directed AG Bondi to produce any and all permanent grand jury testimony in the Epstein case.

My colleague from Arizona's resolution tells the FBI and the DOJ how to do their job.

My resolution would echo the seriousness of the directive from the President and the DOJ to the courts and calls immediately to unseal all materials. When combined with what our House colleagues have done, this resolution moves forward providing justice to the victims and transparency to the American people.

Mr. President, as I said before, we want transparency, but the courts control the grand jury; the judges that oversee the courts control the grand jury. We in this body can have resolutions back and forth and suggest that it be done, but truthfully, the judges have to do it. AG Bondi and the President have both already called upon the judges to release this information.

What my resolution is simply saying is that we agree with the President, we agree with AG Bondi on the judges and calling upon the judges to release it.

As if in legislative session and not withstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 335, which is at the desk. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is interesting that my colleague wants to continue talking about the elites, but the elites are the ones who actually covered up the last 4 years of the Biden administration.

I mean, think about what happened during the Biden administration. They covered up, No. 1, for his cognitive behavior; No. 2, they covered up the Hunter Biden laptop; No. 3, they covered up the Russiagate and continue to cover up the Russiagate; and No. 4, they covered up the fact that an autopen signed every--well, every one of his papers except one.

Where was the coverup? Where did the elites come from? Well, it is because of the pressure from the Biden administration that actually did put it on all the social media outlets.

It is interesting, when I started talking to the social media founders after President Trump was elected, they said: We feel like we can actually do our job again. Why? Because the DOJ wasn't threatening to sue them; the Biden administration wasn't threatening to blackmail them. Yet my colleague from Arizona is saying that we are covering up for the elites?

Let's be honest. We know these files have been out there forever. I don't remember a single time the Biden administration called on these things to be released, and I definitely don't remember my colleague from Arizona calling for these files to be released.

As I said before, this is nothing more than political theater. Everybody sees it. The American people see it. And what else can President Trump and AG Bondi do but call on the judges to release the information? We are simply going back and forth here saying the same thing.

The difference between my resolution and my colleague from Arizona's resolution is mine isn't blurring the boundaries between separation of power; mine is simply calling upon the judges to release the information. What my colleague's resolution does is truly trying to tell the FBI and the DOJ how they can proceed in doing their job and how they can actually present the information--basically saying: We want all that information to go through Congress.

Well, I am sure Congress has never once played politics with any information. I am sure that this investigation would be handled much like other investigations into this administration that the Democrats have done over the last, I don't know, 8 years. I am sure this will be handled just like any other thing they have tried to go after, like the baseless impeachments or the baseless special counsels or the unbelievable amount of charges they have tried to file against the President. I am sure this will be handled the exact same way.

What we are simply wanting to do here is give them cover. So if my colleague from Arizona actually wants transparency, then he would drop his objection to my resolution and just simply have mine go through, and we

can move forward with the transparency that maybe both of us actually want.

Therefore, I object to combining them. I would ask my colleague once again to accept my resolution.

Mr. President, in closing, I would just simply say that maybe my colleague from Arizona and I can work together, if he wants to, and we can drop some of the stuff in his resolution. Maybe we can come up with a conclusion with my resolution. I have concerns about yours blurring the lines between the separation of powers and at the same time want transparency.

If we can both agree we want transparency--we have worked together on several issues in the past. Let's sit down and try working this one out.

Mr. President, with that, I yield back.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is nothing but political theater. It is so obvious that the Democrats are just using this for a political football.

If they are really serious about this, what happened the last 4 years? Where were they? Silent. Doing nothing but covering up for an absent President. And now, all of a sudden, they want to talk about transparency.

We haven't even figured out who ran the White House the last 4 years, and now all of a sudden, they want to make something of this. Are you kidding me?

If they are serious about it, then why didn't they say something the last 4 years? This is nothing more than just political theater trying to go after a President that they truly despise; therefore, I object.

I object.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, for 8 years, beginning with my time in the House, I have worked on the Miami-Illinois Land Claim Settlement Act, which is now S. 2796.

I want to thank Chief Lankford of the Miami Tribe for his assistance to move this bill forward and to help lay out a solid, factual background before the Indian Affairs Committee, which is why it uniquely came out of the committee.

This is a unique piece of legislation. The Miami Tribe is not seeking a settlement for their treaty claim or an appropriation from Congress. This is zero cost to Congress. The Miami Tribe--or ``My-am-uh'' Tribe-- is not seeking a settlement. The Tribe is simply asking Congress to do what only Congress can: to extinguish the Tribe's treaty title claim to the land in Illinois.

First, this bill will remove a cloud on the title for non-Indian landowners in eastern and central Illinois, benefiting the Tribe and non-Tribal members alike. Second, the bill will allow the Tribe the opportunity to plead their case before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

This is a straightforward bill, cosponsored by both of my colleagues from Illinois, Senator Durbin and Senator Duckworth. The Miami Tribe has waited long enough to get this done, and it is time to act.

Madam President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 489, S. 2796; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I appreciate my colleague from Utah in his fine arguments. Obviously, you can tell he is a great attorney.

What frustrates me is that I am literally down the hall. My colleague could have, at any time, picked up the phone and called me. The Senator could have simply talked to me. He could have even called me back today when I called him on the phone, and we could have discussed this. At any given time, we could have had this discussion not here on the floor, but we could have actually taken the time and walked through this.

I do understand his concerns, but his argument is that, since the statute of limitations has been looked at, we should not deal with any Indian issues--which I live in and always have lived in Indian Country, which I know my colleague from Utah has not and may not always understand the complexity which we live with consistently. But, under the Senator's argument, the court should never look at anything inside the treaty because it has been done; it is over with. So why should we even look at it? Yet the court always looks into it, and that is why we have the court. We also have the separation of powers. We are the

legislative branch, and the Senator is quoting the judicial branch.

In this case, the only people who can solve this issue is Congress. The court can't. This is unique. Only Congress can do this--no one else. And there is a dispute because my colleague is from Utah. He is not from Illinois, and he doesn't understand the title issues that there is a dispute on, which is why Congress has looked at this over and over and over again. That is why we have had hearings in the House and in the Senate in the committees that have jurisdiction over this. And both committees have spoken and said, yes, this is something that needs to move forward and that Congress does need to act on.

I would have loved to have had this debate not in public but in private, and we could have discussed this. But the Senator didn't give me that opportunity; so now, we are here.

So, if Congress isn't going to solve this issue, that means we just throw our hands up and leave the Tribes in limbo? I think we have walked away from the Tribes enough, and I take it personal because, when the Tribes do need assistance, where else are they supposed to go? They can't go back and litigate this in the courts until Congress acts, which is why this legislation is in front of us. And then the Congress--once we act, it can be referred to the court, and then the court can decide if the statute of limitations has already run out on it or not or if they have the right to go back and look at it.

Just recently, there was what is called the McGirt decision that went back in and completely changed what was going on in Indian Country inside Oklahoma and uprooted something that was settled a long time ago, we thought, especially considering that the ruling came out and said that they believed the reservation lines still exist inside Oklahoma, under the McGirt decision.

Now, the statute of limitations had run out on that before because, actually, Congress had acted and ended it in 1906 by giving title to the landowners, who in this case would be Indian Country, which would be my relatives, and we still own the land that was given to us at that time before we achieved statehood in 1906, because Congress said, before we can actually become a State, we have got to settle this issue with the Tribes. So we did it. Yet the court still picked up that decision and went back and looked at it and made changes.

So, under my colleague's argument, that can't happen because it is done. And I will say this again: I would have loved to have had this conversation in private, but the Senator didn't give me that opportunity. So here we are.

I would ask the Presiding Officer: If we don't work this out and Congress is the only entity that can handle this, then where is the Tribe supposed to go?

I yield the floor.

Well, if there wasn't a cloud, then this wouldn't be an issue. So, obviously, there was, and there is.

You can say what you want to, but there is. That is why we are here today. That is why we are trying to solve the issue.

This is why the gentleman from Utah isn't from Indian Country; he is not from Illinois; and he doesn't understand the issue, which is why we should have had a conversation one-on-one, not just your staff--because I promise you, if there was an issue that I had with the gentleman from Utah, I would have simply just said: Hey, Mike, let's talk.

I yield the floor.

That is your staff's problem.

That is just not right.

Eight years. This was filed at the beginning of this Congress. Just because your staff didn't make you aware isn't my fault. That is not my fault. To say 8 years, which I opened with--maybe if you would have listened to what I said. We have been working on this for 8 years. This bill has been around for a long time. To accuse me of saying that I am waiting until the last minute, until the last day, at the last hour to do it is just absolutely wrong.

I yield the floor.

I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, thank you and thank you to the Senator from Alabama for doing this.

I think it is very important that we understand what is happening in our economy right now with the energy issue and the energy crisis we find ourselves in.

And so the bill that I bring forward today is Protecting American Energy Production Act.

It is real simple. It allows us to be energy independent. The backbone of our economy is energy, and if you have high energy costs, which we have had a 37-percent increase in energy under this current administration, you obviously are going to have inflation increase because energy is the backbone of our economy. You cannot make a product, nor can you deliver the product, without factoring in the cost of energy.

With a 37-percent energy increase over the last 4 years, we have to bring back that resilience. We have to bring back that energy independence. And the way we do that is we understand real numbers.

For instance, in 2019, fracking, which our current Vice President has been on record saying that she wants to ban fracking, in 2019, fracking accounted for 63 percent of our total crude oil production and 75 percent of our natural gas supply.

Underneath the current administration, we have seen a significant decline in fracking wells. At the same time, we haven't seen demand decrease, we have actually seen demand increase, which by the amount that has actually been taken away from oil or from American producers, now we have seen an increase in imports.

Not all of them are friends of ours. As I said, the bill is very simple, Protecting American Energy Production Act.

So as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1121 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Reserve the right to object.

While I understand my colleague from Oregon, where he stands on this issue, there are just some factual things that need to be checked on that.

One, he said that we are the No. 1 exporter of gas. That is just not true. Russia is the No. 1 exporter of gas.

When they say production has increased, that is actually not accurate either. Could we have been the largest liquefied natural gas exporter? Yes. That was until the permits for the pipelines to go to export terminals in Louisiana were canceled, which put a lot of our allies in Europe in a situation to where now they had to go buy gas from a bad actor that is right now invading Ukraine called Russia.

Our allies do not want to be dependent, obviously, on Russia. They would love to have our gas.

And as far as being the No. 1 seller to China with crude and refined products, it is not true again. At current rate, Iran is the No. 1 seller to China, and they are the ones that are buying it because of the Biden-Harris administration being extremely weak on the sanctions that we put on Iran under the Trump administration--which now Iran is actively funding the Houthis and Hamas and terrorist organizations all around the world.

What we are saying is: Let our allies count on us. We have more reserves underneath our feet, and we can produce it cleaner and more efficient than OPEC, than Russia, than Iran. Our allies want to do business with us, and our economy desperately needs it. We are in a recession, and no one is denying that. Why should we depend on allowing OPEC to set the world price for crude? Why are we allowing them to set the price and become rich off of our backs when we ourselves could easily do that in a much cleaner and more efficient way?

Why are we still importing petroleum products from Russia? Why are we still importing oil, which is a dirty crude, from Saudi Arabia, when we can still produce it--a sweet crude--that comes out of Oklahoma, that comes out of North Dakota, that comes out of Pennsylvania, that comes out of Texas, that is a much easier product to refine and burns cleaner. And there is no denying that.

Because the world's demand for fossil fuels is increasing not decreasing--so why are we doing it at the cost of the American taxpayer? Why are we hurting our economy along the way?

As far as the change that my colleague from Oregon wants to do, it is not necessary. The change isn't there. This is just to try to kill the bill because the legislation that my colleague is trying to do--we already know that the President, currently, already has the authority to restrict oil and gas exports because he did exactly that earlier this year, which is why I brought up Louisiana.

All this does is deflect blame away from the Biden-Harris administration, which has been very soft on sanctions with bad actors-- as I mentioned, Iran. The majority of which are bought, as I mentioned before, by China. And as I mentioned before, this does nothing but enable Iran, when they sell their product, to sponsor the largest groups around the world operating in terror organizations.

The bill my colleague from Oregon is raising today would do nothing to address the massive amounts of Russian oil flowing into China, and what Republicans are trying to do here today is bolster American energy production by preventing this administration and future administrations from banning fracking.

As I said, as the current Vice President openly said in 2019, she was 100 percent for banning fracking across the United States.

So with that, I have to object to my colleague from Oregon's legislation and changes to my current bill.

Mr. President, one quick response to this: My colleague is correct about the LNG, or liquefied natural gas. What my colleague said in his remarks was ``natural gas.''

Natural gas is much different than shipping liquefied natural gas. Liquefied natural gas is a small percentage of what is exported and as far as what we call natural gas. Once it is liquefied, what actually is by far the biggest is the pipeline that this administration approved, which President Trump put a hold on, going into Germany for the second time.

So my original statement is true: Russia is the largest exporter of natural gas.

Once again, this wasn't to do anything, as my colleague said, talking about China. The export ban which the administration put on the exporting of LNG out of Louisiana by canceling the permits, that has affected Europe. They are allies of ours.

If this administration wanted to do something about China, they could do it today. They could do it this hour. They could do it right now by an executive order. Last I checked, they still had the authority to do so.

So as I go back to my colleague from Oregon's change to my current bill, the modification does nothing. The current administration, currently, already has that authority.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is interesting to me that my colleague from Massachusetts is lecturing us on energy prices when the last time I checked, Massachusetts has the highest cost of energy to heat their homes in the Nation; when he starts calling fracking a dinosaur technology, when the last time I checked, Boston had one of the collective largest group of individuals still heating their homes off heating oil and propane.

Infrastructure is what creates an opportunity to bring down energy costs, which is why Oklahoma, on the other hand, which embraces fracking and embraces pipelines, has the lowest energy cost on average around the country.

So if we really want to talk about bringing down cost for consumers, let's look at a model that works instead of having someone lecture us from a State that their model doesn't work. We can build infrastructure. We would love to build pipelines in Massachusetts, but they block them. The infrastructure would be awesome.

I know there is a tremendous amount of companies that would love to supply natural gas to Massachusetts. In fact, there is a pipeline right now ready to go that has been blocked.

So let's have some serious conversations, not just lay blame and call CEOs bad names and give false opinions that they are just wanting to export. This says nothing about exporting. This is talking about becoming energy independent so we don't have to import oil, so we don't have to import refined products. This is about becoming energy dependent so we can bring down energy cost.

As I said earlier, the current policy that we are operating under with the Biden-Harris administration has brought energy costs up by 37 percent, which is directly affecting every single American's pocketbook today, right now as we speak. That is why every single American out there is paying $1,085 more per month in their household bills and grocery bills than they were 4 years ago, which, if you think about that, that is over $13,000 a year directly reflecting our current energy policy.

This does exactly what it is supposed to do: help bring down the energy cost and inflation will follow. It is not hard math; it is common sense.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today, I take to the floor for the first time. I really am not one to speak a whole lot on the floor. My time in the House was very limited as to how many times I spoke on the House floor. Then, being in the Senate, this is my first time to speak, but it comes on an occasion that I feel is, I guess, the right time to speak.

A gentleman whom I took great pride in knowing, whom I referred to quite often as a grandfather, Senator Jim Inhofe, passed away, unfortunately, this morning.

And I was asked right off the bat, ``Would you be willing to do some interviews?'' on it. And then, obviously, we were asked to speak on the floor.

And I didn't even know what to say. How do you describe Senator Jim Inhofe, right? How do you describe his family--Miss Kay, who, from the first time I ever met her, she made me feel as comfortable as if I was her own child, just someone who took time to pet on me and love on me when I was trying to learn just to be in politics because politics was new.

Senator Inhofe would often take me by the hand--literally, by the hand--and say: Hey, listen to me, son. And over time he became quite a mentor--I mean, quite a mentor of mine.

And I get asked all the time: How do you plan on filling the shoes of Senator Inhofe? And I say: How do you fill the shoes of a gentleman whose middle name was ``Mountain''? How fitting is that, right? Senator James Mountain Inhofe, because he was a mountain of a man.

He blazed his own trail. He was full of grit and tenacity. You always knew where he stood. I never doubted what his thoughts were. He would tell me right off the bat. When it was time for a decision to be made, he would get the delegation together. He would come in, and he wasn't someone that demanded you to go with him. He just let you know where he was at and why he was right. And you found a lot of respect in that. At the same time, if he didn't agree with you, he let you know he didn't agree with you. But you can respect a guy that you always know where he stands.

So it saddens me deeply to know that, today, this Earth is less one gentleman that I think we all learned from. Everybody in this Chamber who knew James or Senator Inhofe knew a guy as a friend. You knew he was someone that you could trust.

I remember one time--it was in 2016--my wife and I, we were making a decision if we were going to continue to stay in public office. Quite frankly, I was done. I had my fill. I came from the private sector. And just politics, in itself, to me, was not something that I enjoyed. I was ready to just throw in the towel.

And Senator Inhofe called me. He says: Hey, come into my office, which, coming over from my little Senate office in Longworth, I went into this Taj Mahal office of Senator Inhofe's, and I just was in shock.

And he said: Do me a favor. He says: Don't leave yet. And I looked at him. He said: Just give it time. He said: I understand it is bad right now. I understand it is rough. He said: But take it from a guy who came out of the private sector--from me--who at that time had been in office almost 55 years. He said: Take it from me, a guy that came out of the private sector, how frustrating it can be. But it can also be the most rewarding thing you will ever do. It can be more satisfying than anything you have ever built if you will just stay put because, I promise you, it will get better.

And I can't say it has actually gotten better, but I can say that he was right, because it is gratifying. What he did is he allowed me to change my focus from understanding that all the outside distractions that can take place, all the nasty things that can happen on social media, the things that can be written about you that are out of your control, things that people automatically assume about you because you are in public office--that can all easily go away if you will stay focused on what you were elected to do, which is to serve the great State of Oklahoma and just focus on constituent service, focus on building things for the State, focus on staying passionate about what your passion is, and you can create such a legacy for yourself.

I don't think Senator Inhofe ever set out to build a legacy that his name is built upon. He always wanted to serve, from being mayor of the city of Tulsa, to being a Congressman for three terms, to serving in the Senate for almost 30 years. All he did every day was work hard for Oklahoma, and I am grateful to get to know him.

His family, the whole time he served--I have just got to brag about his family because, the whole time he served--which was a big thing for me too--it was, how do you balance the political life and the family life? Because if you knew Jim, Jim was--or Senator Inhofe--always going home. Miss Kay was his priority. If she was ill, wasn't feeling good, he was headed that way. And every time I talked to him on the plane, when we sat beside each other, when we would land, the first person he would call would be Miss Kay.

And he would want to know how she is doing and want to make sure that this project is being complete. And sometimes he would even talk to me about some of the projects going on to his house. It was always a priority.

And for me, who had six kids at home--and at the time when I got in office, my oldest was 7 years old--that was a concern of mine of how you can balance it.

And he says: Markwayne, I have been doing this--like I said, at that time, when we first had that conversation, he had been in office for over 50 years. He says: I have done it, and I think I have raised some pretty good kids. His kids loved him. His wife loved him. His grandkids loved him.

And not to talk about the way that he necessarily left the world, but I think he left it the way he would want to, a guy that was always moving. He was always on the run. He always had a project. He never sat still. To be able to be here one day, go through a little trouble for a maybe a few days, and leave this Earth and people loving you and you had a great reputation--I don't know how any of us would rather be remembered.

And so, while I take the podium for the first time, I just want to say again, it is an honor to walk in that trail that he blazed because, as I said, I am not ever going to fill his shoes. But he built a trail, as people want to refer to it, as a mountain man. What did the mountain man do, right? The mountain man went up, and he blazed trails--new trails. He was in territory that no one else knew about. He blazed a trail that I could build a highway on, and I have full intentions of doing that.

So to Miss Kay, to his kids, and to his grandkids and to all his family, thank you for giving so much of your time to allow Senator Inhofe to serve. Thank you for giving him to me and allowing me to call him--even though he sometimes got mad at me because he thought I was talking about his age. I wasn't. I meant it in an affectionate way. Thank you for allowing me to call him my grandfather, because I lost both my grandfathers. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to know him and to know your family. May God bless you.

I think it is pretty evident when I say this: We are all going to miss him.