Floor Statements

Mr. President, the American people are being told once again not to trust their own eyes. Democrats are telling them not to worry about their soaring electricity bills, telling them to ignore rolling blackouts. Republicans are just fearmongering, they say. But, of course, the reality is that Americans have seen the power shortages. They have paid the higher bills. They have felt the weight of the past 4 years of the failed policies of the Biden administration, and we cannot ignore the resulting crisis anymore.

The power grid is buckling, energy demand is exploding, and the very people who created this mess are now telling us, quite audaciously, that there is no emergency. Why? Well, they claim that the United States is producing more energy than we have in American history, but what they conveniently omit is that we are consuming more energy than at any time in American history, and we are expected to need much, much more within just the next few years--much more than we are producing, much more than we ever have produced.

So it is not enough to just look at how much we are producing relative to what we have produced in the past when you don't take into account the demand, what we need, and what we need is going way, way up.

Now, according to Goldman Sachs, artificial intelligence alone--just artificial intelligence, nothing else; not population growth, not any other uses, household or industrial, of energy--just artificial intelligence alone is likely to drive a 160-percent increase in data center power demand by 2030. The largest data centers can consume more power than 700,000 households. That is equivalent to the energy use of a city of 1.8 million people.

But there is no emergency, according to them. According to the sponsors of this resolution, this is just a handout. It is a handout to Big Oil, as they characterize it.

Now, good luck with that. Try telling that to the American families and businesses that struggled during the January 2025 polar vortex when the U.S. power grid was pushed to its absolute limits. Electricity demand hit historic

highs, forcing grid operators to rely heavily on coal and natural gas-- the very sources of power that Democrats want to eliminate and have been working aggressively, with some effectiveness, to do precisely that: to eliminate--just to keep the lights on.

It is not Big Oil that will suffer in the winters if we fail to keep the power on.

Across multiple power market regions, electricity demand during that event set new single-day records, as heating demand across sectors spiked. In response, grid operators had to rely heavily on dispatchable generation--primarily coal and natural gas--to ensure system reliability and stabilize supply during the extreme event.

Now, during that time, coal-fired powerplants dramatically increased their electric power output--that is, those coal-fired powerplants that have not yet been torn down at the demand of Democratic-backed policies. In many regions, coal capacity factors soared above 80 percent, far exceeding typical winter levels.

On the other hand, wind and solar were challenged by unfavorable weather conditions. On peak days, wind and solar generated only 3 percent and 0.2 percent of the incremental electricity needed to meet demand.

But what exactly are Democrats worried about? What is their concern amidst that very emergency? If that is not an emergency, I don't know what is. What is it they are worried about? Not grid failures. Not surging energy costs. Not the reliability of our power supply. No. No. They are concerned that President Trump is making things worse by canceling the wind and solar projects that failed to generate enough power to meet demand at those peak moments when it was so badly needed.

They are using the same old playbook that they always have: Do anything to prevent President Trump from getting a win regardless of whether his policies might actually bring relief to the American people, which, of course, they would.

I have spent my career fighting against unchecked Executive power. I authored the ARTICLE ONE Act to curb the abuse of Presidential emergency declarations, requiring congressional approval within 30 days. But let me be clear. This is not an abuse of those powers--not by a mile; not at all; not in any way, shape, or form. It is a real emergency, and if President Trump's declaration were put to a vote today, this Chamber would affirm it.

Congress has had countless chances to fix this problem and failed every time. Republicans have fought for years to reform our outdated permitting laws, only to be met with Democratic resistance at every turn. NEPA, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act--Democrats treat these laws as if they were sacred texts, untouchable even when they are clearly broken; a sacred text that can't be not just repealed but even amended meaningfully to avert the disaster that they have created--especially created in the hands of the previous administration.

Now, at this moment, we hear that they are ready to play ball. Now and only now do they say: Oh, yeah, we need to deal with this. Now, if that is true, great, but let's see. If Democrats are serious about fixing it, now is the time to prove it. Until Congress acts, how can anyone really blame the President for stepping in to address this emergency? Which it is, which it has become, which it undeniably is. In some cases, an emergency can be created by the government itself or at least severely exacerbated, and that is the case here.

His Executive order tells Agencies to do exactly what Congress has neglected to do for years, exactly what Congress has been unable to do--in large part because Democrats have resisted that, getting back to the sacred text theory of these same laws that have become part of the problem.

However, rather than working with President Trump and Republicans in a productive way to try to make energy more accessible for Americans and more reliable and, of course, remain affordable, Senate Democrats are forcing a vote on a resolution to terminate President Trump's declaration and reinstate the restrictive energy policies from the Biden administration's Green New Deal.

Look at where those policies have left us, where they have put us, where we are, and where we are headed. Energy prices increased by 30.54 percent, gasoline prices increased by 30.5 percent, electricity prices increased by 28.55 percent, and natural gas prices increased by 33.3 percent.

Meanwhile, Democrats' message to American families is clear: Pay more, expect less.

That is the sort of gospel of scarcity, the idea that we have to live off of scarcity because that is what they demand because government wants it that way for reasons that only they can fully articulate but that the American people do not find persuasive.

This is a problem. The United States is, in fact, in an energy emergency--not because of a lack of resources but because the Biden administration's unrelenting regulatory assault on domestic oil and gas production in blind adherence to the climate cartel has put us in this position.

Now, President Biden's Executive orders--including orders he issued on his very first day as President of the United States back in January of 2021--pausing all new oil and gas leasing on Federal lands, where nearly 25 percent of U.S. oil production occurs, significantly hindered U.S. energy independence.

Even after courts mandated the resumption of these leasing programs essential to our energy development, Secretary Haaland slow-walked the process, offering the fewest acres for lease since World War II and holding a record-low number of offshore lease sales.

The chilling effect of the Biden administration's anti-production policies is as undeniable as it is indefensible as a matter of public policy. Oil companies are withdrawing from investments in Federal lands due to the uncertainty created by erratic leasing decisions and hostile regulatory policies.

Now, let's remember, of course, this is made more severe by virtue of the fact that the U.S. Government is not just the largest landowner in the United States, but it owns around 28 percent--between one-quarter and one-third of all land in the United States. We compound that by giving enormous discretion to Federal land management Agencies, to the executive branch, and then you put in place an administration that wants to preach and live by the gospel of scarcity, and that is a recipe for disaster.

Biden's EPA contributed meaningfully to the problem as well. The Biden EPA introduced methane fees starting at $900 per metric ton in 2025 and increasing to $1,500 over just a fairly short period of time. That imposes significant financial burdens on producers, particularly small operators.

Now, lest anyone led by the Democratic talking points might be tempted to look at this and say ``Oh, but they are businesses. They can afford it. Suck it up. Just deal with it,'' that is not really who pays for this, no. These things get passed on. The wealthy folks--at least the wealthy folks who own these businesses--they are not the ones hardest hit by this. Those hardest hit are American families, particularly in low- and middle-income brackets, those who, like so many Americans, live paycheck to paycheck. It is those people whose way of life, whose livelihood, whose ability to afford life is so dramatically affected by these regulatory intrusions into the marketplace. Those are the people who get hurt, and that really is a problem.

Meanwhile, as our domestic production slows, our reliance on foreign oil increases. In 2023, we imported 1.3 million barrels per day from OPEC, up nearly 50 percent from 2020 levels. Meanwhile, critical mineral dependencies on foreign nations--particularly China--threaten everything from titanium in pacemakers, to cobalt in batteries, to copper in transmission lines and antimony in semiconductors. The absence of just one of these minerals would devastate the sectors they serve. Yet the Biden administration, with its vast discretion as it invented and reinvented Federal regulations and as it presided over this Byzantine labyrinth of Federal regulations--laws put in place by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats--can make those things much worse, and it did make those things much worse, and the American people, hard- working Americans, are paying too high a price.

The American people are done. They are done with Joe Biden's failed policies. Over 77 million Americans voted

for President Trump just a few months ago, and a recent poll shows that 60 percent of Americans support expanding American oil and gas production.

Senate Republicans will not let Democrats delay and obstruct any longer. They have created and exacerbated an emergency. President Trump is addressing it, as the law allows him to do. We will ensure the President has the tools necessary to deliver the results that the American people justifiably expect, demand, and truly do deserve, because the facts are undeniable. America is in an energy emergency because of the Federal Government and specifically because of the previous administration's failed policies.

Instead of embracing abundant, affordable, and reliable energy, Democrats--again preaching and living by the gospel of scarcity to which they are so closely wedded--are doubling down on a radical agenda to make everything, from gasoline to electricity, more expensive for working families.

Remember, as the price of those energy inputs goes up, so, too, does the price of everything else because it becomes more expensive to make, to process, to buy, to sell, to transport all of those same things.

Instead of learning from those failures, Senate Democrats are trying to block President Trump from taking action to fix it. What? Are they too afraid that their own policies will be exposed as the source of a significant amount of the problem? You will have to ask them about that. But one could certainly make that argument, and it certainly appears to many that this is the case.

They are standing in the way of relief for American families, hoping that if they delay long enough, the American people will simply accept high costs as the new normal. Only in Washington could you light the house on fire and then act shocked when someone else tries to put it out. Make no mistake, that is exactly what is happening here.

We refuse to let that happen. We applaud President Trump for taking action to address an emergency created by our own government--presided over, directed, embraced, and now defended by the Democratic Party.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution.

Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit the rules governing the procedure of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for publication in the Congressional Record.

I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

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

committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 26, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on commerce, science, and transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 26, 2025, at 11 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on environment and public works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 26, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 26, 2025, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

committee on small business and entrepreneurship

The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 26, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on veterans' affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 26, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a joint hearing.

special committee on aging

The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 26, 2025, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

select committee on intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 26, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed business meeting followed by a closed briefing.

subcommittee on digital assets

The Subcommittee on Digital Assets of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 26, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, reducing energy costs for all Americans starts with reducing rent pay to develop our energy resources. If we built more gas pipelines, if we built more powerplants, more transmission lines, it will lower costs for consumers across the country.

Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, spent decades attempting to force unreliable, expensive nonbaseload sources of power--things like solar, wind, and battery storage--not using the free market, using mandates and subsidies. That is not how we do things. It doesn't actually reduce costs.

This just forces American taxpayers to subsidize those industries. If we end the clean energy mandates and cut through the redtape that is stifling the energy development, we can make energy affordable and reliable for all Americans.

But, look, since the amendment does not meet the standard required by law, I raise a point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2)of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Motion to Waive

Mr. President, article II of the U.S. Constitution declares the

President of the United States to be the person who holds the executive power. He has the discretion to hire and fire those who work in executive branch Agencies.

Now, for decades, staffing for the Federal land and wildlife management and outdoor recreation Agencies has been a bipartisan issue. This amendment does not do that. Instead, it attempts to turn Federal land management Agency employment into a political football.

As chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address issues affecting Federal land management and Federal land management employees, including finding innovative solutions for their housing, working to ensure the concessionaires have flexibility and are not held up in endless paperwork, and giving land managers flexibility to work with their counties and gateway communities to hire qualified employees and work with gateway community businesses.

This is not that amendment. This goes the wrong way, and I oppose it.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 922 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, Congress, not unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, should be making our laws. Article I, section 7 of the Constitution requires nothing less. And yet we generate about 100,000 pages of new laws a year. This is choking the American people.

The prior administration imposed countless rules and regulations that imposed trillions in new economic costs on the private sector. Many of these rules have been estimated to increase Federal spending, Federal mandatory outlays, by hundreds of billions of dollars without congressional approval.

The Federal Government already spends too much money. This has contributed to persistent inflation the last couple of years and a debt level that will soon reach record-level highs that we cannot sustain.

Congress shouldn't allow regulatory-driven spending to continue to worsen our country's fiscal and economic health. I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and demonstrate to the American people that they are serious about reducing excessive regulatory burdens. What we are trying to do is to push ``pause'' on these to bring about the reduction in these mandatory outlays. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, you don't need to be an economist to know that something went terribly wrong over the last 4 years. Just ask any family paying their utility bills and buying appliances or filling up their cars with gas at the pump. Prices skyrocketed, and wages haven't kept pace--not even close. When Americans opened their energy bills, they didn't see climate plans; they saw costs piling up and questions they couldn't answer: Why is this so expensive? Why is Washington making it so much worse?

With America's abundant resources of oil, gas, nuclear, geothermal, hydropower, et cetera, Biden's Secretary of Energy could have spearheaded an era of energy dominance and energy abundance. Instead, the opposite happened. Secretary Granholm used her position to funnel taxpayer dollars to her friends in Michigan, while the rest of the country struggled under soaring energy prices and mounting inflation. Under Secretary Granholm, the Department of Energy was reduced to a taxpayer-funded piggy bank for political allies and for her pet projects.

Rather than unleashing American energy, the DOE green-lit almost $23 billion in last-minute loan guarantees, with nearly 70 percent flowing to Granholm's home State of Michigan. Talk about suspicious math.

The Department of Energy is a powerhouse that can help make or break our economy, our national security, and our ability to lead on the world stage. Yet, under the Biden administration, the DOE mismanaged Federal loan programs, rubberstamped regulations that raised consumer prices, and did very little to support the development of critical infrastructure that we need. The former administration's so-called clean energy policies became a subsidy machine for well-connected corporations--companies that pocketed billions while everyday Americans paid more for gas, electricity, appliances, and groceries.

The Biden administration drained the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its lowest level in decades. This was an unfortunate move. They weaponized environmental regulations to block the development of critical pipelines, making it nearly impossible to transport energy across the country, and they made us more reliant on foreign energy resources, putting American security in the hands of OPEC and other adversarial nations.

That is all about to change. It is all about to change under soon-to- be Secretary Chris Wright.

Chris Wright understands that affordable, abundant energy is imperative to our national security. It is what allows families to heat their homes in the winter without going broke. It is what enables businesses to grow, hire, and compete globally; and it is what keeps America secure, independent, and free from the whims of foreign suppliers.

At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Wright commented on a lot of this and made commitments to rein in waste, fraud, and abuse, especially at the Loan Programs Office, which Granholm used to dole out loan commitments at a pace exponentially faster than what we have seen in years past. This kind of reckless spending didn't lead to breakthroughs in efficiency or cost savings for consumers. No. Instead, it drove up the national debt and lined the pockets of the well-connected.

Chris Wright won't treat the Department of Energy as a slush fund of sorts for political favors. No, his vision is simple: Get the DOE back on track--back to work on prioritizing energy abundance, technological innovation, and exports that strengthen our position on the global stage rather than weaken it.

Mr. Wright also promised to review the DOE's Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, which has become another example of how the previous administration drove up costs, all under the guise of energy savings. As nearly every American can attest, these regulations on common household appliances like dishwashers, dryers, and stoves--just to name a few--haven't made appliances work better or last longer; they have mostly made things more expensive and work not nearly as well. It is important to remember the extent to which they really have made things more expensive. Chris Wright understands that innovation doesn't come from forcing inferior products on consumers. It comes from creating an environment where better technologies can thrive.

It is telling that even my colleagues across the aisle recognized Mr. Wright's competence by giving him really strong bipartisan support out of committee. Chris Wright deserves that same bipartisan support on the floor today. He deserves it because we all understand that continuing down this path--our current path, the path we have been on for the last 4 years, this path of reckless spending and ideological crusades--is unsustainable. Chris Wright, of course, must do more than reverse the damage. He must rebuild trust with the American people and secure our place as the dominant global energy leader.

We have a new path ahead. Mr. Wright offers us a path where the Department of Energy serves the American people, not special interests; a future where entrepreneurs, not bureaucrats, are the ones who drive innovation; a future where energy abundance lowers costs, grows our economy, and protects our national security. We can continue down the path of inflated prices, foreign dependence, and mismanaged resources, or we can choose a better path. We can make a clean break. We can choose leadership prioritizing the American worker, the American family, the American consumer, and the American future.

The failures of the past don't have to define our future. We find ourselves in the position where we can look at this and chart a course--a course directed at what can be unburdened by what has been.

With Chris Wright leading the way at DOE, we can unleash American energy and ensure prosperity for generations to come. It is time for us to confirm Chris Wright as Secretary of Energy.

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

Mr. President, Americans are paying more and getting less for just about everything--more for energy, more for housing, more for the most basic necessities--and, frankly, they are tired of it.

Across the country, businesses are struggling with higher costs. Families are burdened by rising prices, and entire industries are stalling under the weight of heavyhanded regulations handed down from unelected bureaucrats in Washington, DC.

The Department of the Interior could and should be part of the solution. Instead, it has been part of the problem. In fact, in many instances, in countless respects, it is the problem. The worst part is that it didn't have to be this way.

Under Secretary Deb Haaland, the Biden administration had a choice. They had the tools at their disposal to alleviate the struggles of millions of Americans and to ensure affordable, reliable energy. Instead, it chose to abandon them. Instead, it chose to surrender to ideological zealotry and foreign powers that do not have our best interests at heart. Now Americans are paying the price.

The Department of the Interior is not an Agency of limited consequence. It governs nearly one-fifth of the land mass of the entire United States. It wields the power to dictate the fate of energy production, water rights, wildlife conservation, and the livelihoods of millions of Americans, especially in public land-rich States like my home State of Utah. And yet, for the last 4 years, Secretary Haaland stood idly by, doubling down on policies that throttled domestic production while begging foreign adversaries to fill the gap.

Governor Doug Burgum understands what Secretary Haaland apparently forgot--that abundant, affordable energy is a fundamental pillar of our national security as Americans. But Secretary Haaland's failures don't stop at energy. The Department of the Interior touches nearly every aspect of life in the West, from land management to water rights, often to the detriment of those who depend on it.

Now, for States like Utah, where two-thirds of the land is owned by the Federal Government, Washington's mismanagement is not an abstract or a theoretical debate. The consequences that we face as a result of decisions made at Interior affect us in a real and profound way. Expanding national monuments without local input and contrary to what local input was given, imposing suffocating land use restrictions, and burying--quite deliberately--resource development under an avalanche of redtape are not the actions of a government that serves them. They are the actions of a government that rules and lords over them.

The consequences of that mismanagement stretch higher than elevated prices at the pump. As wildfires ravaged the West, reducing homes to ash and livelihoods to memory, Secretary Haaland and President Biden condescendingly lectured the American people that climate change was to blame. Unfortunately, for them, the reality is far less convenient. Decades of Federal neglect have transformed our forests into kindling. Their refusal to engage in responsible forest management to clear the dead wood and to thin the overgrowth has created a

veritable tinderbox of catastrophic proportions. And still, they offered nothing but platitudes and punitive regulations that all but ensured that the cycle of destruction would continue.

The West faces another government-made crisis--housing. Entire generations are locked out of homeownership as Federal mismanagement hoards vast swaths of land that could be used to alleviate the crisis. The Department of the Interior could be an instrument of relief, identifying underutilized Federal lands and unlocking them for development.

My bill, the HOUSES Act, shows how we can do this. But for the past 4 years, the government has lamented housing shortages while ensuring their permanence. It has drawn near to the plight of the American people with its lips, but its heart has been shown to be far from those they are supposed to serve.

Then, of course, there is water. The Colorado River, a lifeline of the West, is withering, strangled by indecision and regulatory paralysis. States plead for coordination to create a coherent strategy to preserve this resource for millions. What they receive, instead, are ditherings from an administration more interested in virtue-signaling than problem-solving.

DOI desperately needs a leader who will act. Governor Burgum is that leader. We need a leader who grasps that our national parks--America's crown jewels--have great potential to be economic engines, drawing millions and sustaining, in some cases, entire communities. Yet infrastructure crumbles, visitor access is restricted, and the Federal Government's response is as lethargic as it is incompetent.

Governor Burgum understands what is at stake. He has spent his entire career bringing people together to solve problems. He has earned the trust of Tribes, of businesses, conservationists, and working families alike. He understands that we cannot regulate our way into prosperity, nor can we regulate our way into abundance.

He understands that it is not just numbers on a balance sheet or reports gathering dust in Washington. It is real; and for many of us, it is deeply, deeply personal.

A rancher in Utah is watching his grazing rights disappear under arbitrary Federal decrees. A miner in West Virginia sees his livelihood strangled by regulations written by people who have never even set foot in a coal town. A small business in Arizona is struggling with soaring energy costs that make it harder to keep the lights on. A farmer in Wyoming is fighting for water that once flowed freely but is now trapped.

These are the people who suffer when the Department of the Interior forgets its mission. These are the families who pay the price when Washington prioritizes leftist ideology over reality.

Governor Doug Burgum's leadership offers a clear alternative: a future where the Department of the Interior serves the people rather than ruling over them; a future where energy abundance strengthens our economy and our national security; a future where public lands are managed with the input of those who depend on them, not dictated by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats far off in Washington, DC; a future where housing is within reach, water is safeguarded, and natural resources are used responsibly to support the communities that rely on them; a future where Americans can depend on more than just serendipity; they can rely on sound policies designed to benefit them.

Americans can and should be getting more for their dollar. Governor Burgum understands that and has the experience and vision to make it happen.

It is time for us to confirm Governor Doug Burgum as the next Secretary of the Interior. It is time for us to move forward. It is time to accept that freedom is the destiny and birthright of the American people; that government exists to serve us, not the other way around.

I urge my colleagues, with all the urgency I am capable of communicating, to swiftly and resoundingly confirm Governor Doug Burgum.

Mr. President, I have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

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

committee on commerce, science, and transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 29, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct an executive session.

committee on commerce, science, and transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 29, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination.

committee on finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 29, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination.

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 29, 2025, at 9 a.m., to conduct an executive business meeting.

committee on small business and entrepreneurship

The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 29, 2025, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination.

special committee on aging

The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 29, 2025, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I have great respect and admiration for my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma.

When I listen to the arguments being presented, I am reminded of a couple of things.

No. 1, these claims arise out of and relate to a treaty--a treaty going back to 1805. Those claims had the opportunity, more recently, to have been litigated in front of the previously existing Indian Claims Commission. Congress, in recognizing the need at the time to open up what might have been a confusing set of legal circumstances or an inadequate availability for relief, opened up a 5-year window for claims related to this treaty that was entered into with the Miami Tribe in 1805. They opened that up for a period between 1946 and 1951.

Jurisdiction over what was previously the Indian Claims Commission has since been transferred over to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Interestingly, the Court of Federal Claims still maintains jurisdiction over such things, but it lacks the ability to enter orders, and the statute of limitations has long since passed. There was this 5-year window under which they were able to bring up claims like this.

Now, during that time period between 1946 and 1951, the Miami Tribe did pursue and litigate on a number of claims related to that treaty, enough for them to have received a remedy--a remedy of about $11 million at the time. I am told that, in 2024 dollars, that is about $200 million.

There are reasons why we have statutes of limitations. Those reasons have to do with the fact that, at some point, a stone rolling down the mountain has to come to rest. When you are dealing with litigation, especially litigation on claims dating back a couple hundred years, it is especially important to have finality.

Now, my friend and colleague refers to the need to reopen this window today to remove what he describes as a cloud to the chain of title. The problem with that argument is that it overlooks the fact that the United States is an indispensable party for any and all such claims as might arise so as to underlie the punitive cloud to any chain of title on these lands. As an indispensable party, the United States must be added, or the court can't handle anything like that. The court, under existing law, can't address them in the absence of the indispensable party, and because the United States is and has been deemed an indispensable party pursuant to rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no such claim exists. Therefore, any and all claims that could create the asserted cloud to the chain of title are, in fact, illusory--entirely illusory--as the U.S. Department of Justice articulated well when delivering testimony in July of 2019 on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice--Environment and Natural Resources Division of DOJ--before the Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources.

These claims are especially important here. In other words, the existence of a statute of limitations is especially important here.

Here is what they say:

Statutes of limitations serve valuable purposes. They are

designed--

In supporting Supreme Court precedent here--

to promote justice by preventing surprises through the

revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until the

evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses

have disappeared. Those concerns are particularly acute here,

where the United States will be required to litigate claims

based on events that occurred more than 150 years ago. Such

litigation can be complex and expensive, and it typically

requires hiring expert historians and other professionals.

There is no valid basis to expend Federal resources to

undertake this effort here.

I concur with that assessment and would add that this would add a layer of complexity, create a massive slippery-slope problem, and open up settled expectations and understandings regarding Federal land ownership that had been settled long ago and as to which statutes of limitations have now run.

On that basis, I object.

Madam President, if my colleague left me a message, I am unaware of that. I did look and see that he tried to call me today. I have had a million calls today and been in and out of a lot of meetings. If he left me a message, I haven't seen it on my phone, and I apologize for that. I had a lot going on today.

I will say this. My staff has met with my colleague's staff on a number of occasions to discuss this. The concerns here should not be a surprise either to my colleague or to my colleague's staff.

With regard to the question of whether we should just let the court decide, I understand what he said, but that is literally not what this is about. It is not about whether the court can decide whether to reopen the statute of limitations. That is not for the court. That is for Congress. That is for us to decide.

The punitive reason for reopening the statute of limitations, which has been closed since 1951 for claims going back to an 1805 treaty, the purported reason for reopening it is the alleged cloud of title on the chain of title. What I am saying is that is an entirely illusory cloud on the chain of title because there is an indispensable party under rule XIX of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You cannot litigate that. Unless the United States is a party and unless the United States has abrogated its sovereign immunity sufficiently to allow the United States to be added as an indispensable party, it cannot be litigated; thus, making any claims entirely illusory.

So if there is some other argument, we can pursue those on the merits. But there is no cloud on the chain of title because there can't be because the United States has not, since 1951, recognized an abrogation of U.S. sovereign immunity to a degree sufficient to allow the existence of any type of a cloud on the chain of title.

Madam President, it is December 20. We are on, likely, the last legislative break before we break for the Christmas holidays. The first time I personally became aware of this issue was this afternoon. So it is not as if one could argue that there has been dilatory conduct on my part and not listening to it. I didn't even know this was an issue. I didn't know what it was until just a few hours ago.

This is a problem to bring something like this up that could have, potentially, an economic impact on the U.S. Government of tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars. To rush something through like this at, literally, the final hour before the end of a legislative year, before the end of a Congress, is not something that we do. And for my colleague to suggest that I have been dilatory, when he is bringing this up to rush this through by unanimous consent at the last possible minute, under an argument that is legally specious and vacuous. The alleged cloud on the chain of title does not, cannot exist. So the argument doesn't work.

If he wants to bring this up in the next Congress, let's do it. Let's talk about it. Let's have it go through regular order but not at the last hour, at the last day, at the end of the Congress.

Look, we are in fact at the last effective legislative day of the year and of the Congress. And what my colleague from Oklahoma is saying is that we should call it up and pass it tonight.

Now, whether he thinks I should have been aware of this issue long ago--fair enough. I wasn't. But the way this is supposed to work around here is, unless there is unanimity, we don't pass legislation. That is a significant issue. Nor should we pass legislation that could and would expose the United States, potentially, to tens--if not hundreds-- of billions of dollars in liability for a lot of transient reasons that haven't been fully vetted on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

The economist Milton Friedman once said:

Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much the

government is spending, because that is the true tax. . . .

If you're not paying for it in the form of explicit taxes,

you're paying for it indirectly in the form of inflation or

in the form of borrowing.

The Senate is poised to enact another tax on the American people this week--tonight, in fact--a $200 billion tax that will leave a hole in the Social Security trust fund. This tax will give extra Social Security benefits to just 4 percent of the American workforce at the expense of the other 96 percent of hard-working Americans.

We must be honest with ourselves in acknowledging that this bill is fiscally irresponsible. To make matters worse, it is entirely unnecessary at this moment in time. There is no reason why we have to be pressed to pass it tonight. Congress is up against no particular deadlines, nor is any program at risk of expiring.

Social Security is already on a dangerously unsustainable path. The trust fund is projected to run out of money in the next decade, which would lead to an across-the-board benefit cut. This bill would accelerate that crisis. To tax the American people to the tune of another $200 billion is ludicrous by itself, but to do so when there is no immediate need is nefarious.

To that end, the pending measure, H.R. 82, would cause an increase of $197.81 billion in the level of Social Security deficit relative to the level deemed for budget enforcement.

Therefore, I raise a point of order against this measure under section 311(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 8666 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further consideration of S. 4511 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the Lee substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I appreciate the passion and sincerity and hard work of my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, who is a dear friend whose presence I will miss here.

We have a situation in which we have got a new administration coming on board, and President-elect Trump has asked that we hold off on confirming additional Presidential nominees until he gets into office. It is an understandable request, but particularly in these circumstances, I agree with him.

On that basis, I object.