This is not an official government website.
© 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Congressional Daily Record
This section captures a formal floor step rather than a policy debate. It mentions legislation such as One Nation, One Visa Policy Act, committees such as Committee on the Judiciary, members such as Alan Armstrong.
Official title: LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Issued
July 16, 2026
senate side of the record
People
3
Linked members mentioned in this section
Legislation
1
Bills and resolutions linked from this section
Committees
1
Committees connected to this section
Senate Holds
0
No hold activity linked here
Source Document
Connected Data
People mentioned
Bills and resolutions
Committees
Source Control
Reader mode is for comprehension. The linked government PDF is the official published source.
Download official Senate Record PDFReturn to issue contextThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume legislative session.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Maiden Speech
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. President, for generations, Americans understood that building our critical infrastructure was not a partisan cause; it was a national responsibility.
transmission lines, and mines that raised our standard of living, enabled the
opportunity across this country. The generations before us were builders, and their efforts gave us the great Nation we often take for granted today. They understood that large-scale infrastructure was not merely a collection of projects; it was the backbone of national prosperity. That broad consensus built out the most advanced infrastructure of its time, delivering affordable energy and economic growth.
strong economy or a cleaner environment. We could achieve both because we had the confidence to build and innovate.
purpose. Instead of building for the future, we are increasingly living off what previous generations were willing to imagine, finance, and construct. We have been relying on the fruits of their labor for decades. And today, we are beginning to see the harsh realities of infrastructure that is too aged and insufficient to support the next wave of growth.
of ingenuity. It is our failure to build the infrastructure needed to move these resources to the people who need them.
We should be honest about how we got here. Like a frog in the boiling pot, we have slowly gotten into this dangerous condition that holds our great Nation back. Over time, too many political leaders have become complacent. It became easier to oppose a project than to defend the need to build one.
industrial project is treated as something to stop rather than something to build responsibly, the costs of that do not disappear; they accumulate slowly, until families are paying more, reliability is deteriorating, and investment is moving elsewhere.
Nowhere is that failure clearer than in the Northeast. Pennsylvania sits atop one of the most prolific natural gas formations not in the United States but in the world. Yet, only a few hundred miles away, families and businesses in New England pay some of the highest energy prices in the country because the region lacks sufficient pipeline capacity.
That constraint creates an artificial scarcity. When demand rises during the winter, natural gas must serve both home heating and electricity generation. Because the pipelines cannot deliver enough fuel, prices surge, and generators turn to more expensive and dirtier alternatives, like fuel oil.
We saw this during the 2018 bomb cyclone. New England was forced to burn additional oil and actually import LNG from Russia even though abundant natural gas was available nearby. And I will remind you that this is gas that is priced at an equivalence of $0.42 a gallon versus the $4 per gallon fuel oil that it was substituted with. That outcome was not caused by a shortage of American energy; it was caused by a shortage of American infrastructure and by years of political decisions that made blocking projects easier than building them.
I saw this problem firsthand while leading the Williams Companies. We pursued the Constitution Pipeline, a 120-mile project designed to carry low-cost Pennsylvania natural gas to constrained markets in the Northeast. We had our Federal certificate. We had bought the pipe, we had bought the right-of-way, and we were actually in the process of clearing the route. But we were stopped by a State government that used section 401 of the Clean Water Act as a political veto, actually waiting until Earth Day to deny a permit for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with water quality.
It is actually ironic. Opponents to natural gas projects act like they are saving the planet, but what their efforts really do is make us shift to energy sources that have much higher emissions, like having folks in New England burn fuel oil. Yes, New England and New York use more fuel oil for power generation than anywhere in our Nation.
I also saw the chilling effect of judicial overreach. Williams built a billion-dollar pipeline project to move gas from Pennsylvania into New Jersey. It was completely constructed. It was up and running. It was operating at a 90-percent load factor during the peak of the winter load. Yet, 9 months after it was fully constructed and in service, the court vacated the certificate.
Mr. President, put yourself in that board room for a minute. Imagine explaining to your board that you just spent a billion dollars on a project the government now says you have no license to operate. What do you think that board is going to say the next time you bring them a large project to build?
These consequences are not limited to heating bills. The same infrastructure constraints leave our electricity system with less flexibility and almost no margin for error when demand surges. In fact, we saw this just 2 weeks ago in the PJM market—the Nation's largest power market. Electricity that normally trades at approximately $60 per megawatt-hour rose to roughly $300 per megawatt-hour. At certain locations on the system, prices actually reached up to $2,500 per megawatt-hour. In addition to that, PJM reduced and took emergency steps to restrict electricity to certain facilities, shutting down certain industries.
market; they eventually appear in the utility bills paid by families and businesses.
sitting in the presiding chair where you are today, Mr. President, and listening to Democratic leaders rail against high gasoline prices. Well, gasoline is not the only energy bill families have to pay. In New York, retail electricity prices have risen by approximately 60 percent over the last 5 years—significantly more than gasoline prices have risen. Yet we hear far less outrage about the rising costs of keeping the lights on, heating a home, or running a small business.
We cannot simply blame those increases on energy producers. In fact, wholesale natural gas prices have declined over the same 5-year period on an inflation-adjusted basis. We cannot blame them on instability in the Strait of Hormuz either. The problem is actually much closer to home. It is the result of years of complacency here in government and a political culture that rewarded saying no while ignoring the cost of failing to build.
abundant supply with growing demand, the consequences are actually predictable: Prices rise, reliability declines, and generators rely more heavily on costly backup fuels.
The economic consequences extend far beyond the utility sector. A manufacturer, a data center, an industrial facility will not commit billions of dollars to a region if it cannot obtain reliable energy at a competitive price. Those projects move elsewhere, taking jobs, tax revenues, and economic opportunity with them.
produce extraordinary quantities of affordable energy, but our permitting process too often prevents us from being able to deliver it to the consumers. That is not an inevitable outcome. It is the result of political choices, and it can be corrected by political courage. That is why the opportunity before us is so significant, and this is why permitting reform is such a passion of mine.
to solve a problem, but permitting reform presents us with something fundamentally different—an opportunity to strengthen the country that requires zero taxpayer investment. By cutting unnecessary delays and restoring predictability to the permitting process, we can attract private investment, lower consumer costs, create jobs, and grow this economy. It is, quite literally, economic opportunity lying on the ground. We simply need to pick it up.
That leads me to another question: Who would actually be against this? Who would oppose a plan that attracts private investment back to our shores by providing the clarity that project developers desperately need?
Perhaps our enemies would oppose it. They certainly see our inability to build as a huge vulnerability and as a weakness of our great democracy. They benefit when our projects are trapped in an endless loop of reviews, appeals, and litigation—or perhaps it is the cottage industry of litigants that has learned to profit from delay. These special interest groups have increasingly used administrative tools— originally intended to protect legitimate environmental interests—to stall or block projects for political purposes and end up doing more harm than good for our environment.
They may not actually care about the environment, but I do. They need a villain to drive their fundraising. They have made the energy company that villain even though it is the utility—and particularly the consumer of the utility—who ultimately pays the price.
something like a 401 water quality certificate and their skyrocketing utility bills, but I do. I have seen firsthand how these arbitrary standards are used as political footballs. When we allow these delays, we aren't hurting Big Energy; we are forcing American families to pay three times the rate for their power because of the massive risk that we have injected into the system.
It is time to stop the regulatory creep and the endless litigation. It is time to embrace a fuel source-neutral approach that focuses on one thing: building a stronger, more secure America. Unless you are a trial lawyer looking for a payout or a foreign adversary looking for a weakened America, there really is no reason to be against this.
nations must be the best places to host tomorrow's industries. We should honor that inheritance not by merely maintaining what was left to us but by demonstrating the same courage and ambition.
nations that can deploy their resources, not just those that possess them. America has the energy, the capital, and the technology to lead. The only remaining question is whether we have the political will to build the infrastructure necessary to turn those advantages into sustained global leadership.
I am retired from the industry. I have zero political ambition beyond this seat that I hold right now. I am here because I have seen how this system is positioned to strangle our great country. Let's stop choosing short-term popularity over long-term economic and national security.
We have a bill. Let's work together to legislate a solution. We cannot let what has been one of our greatest strengths turn into our biggest vulnerability.
It is time for this Senate to show courage and lead. It is time to restore confidence in America's capacity to outrun our competition, and it is time to get America building again.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to welcome Senator Armstrong from Oklahoma in his delivering his maiden speech. It is an important part of this institution, and I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who weren't able to hear him in person will have a chance to listen to it and to get to know him during his stay here.
Welcome to the Senate.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I welcome my colleague from Oklahoma and thank him. I completely agree with his ideas. We have got to get energy production increased in this country and drive down the prices for all consumers.
Unanimous Consent Request—S. 3857
Mr. President, I rise today to seek the passage of my One Nation, One Visa Policy Act.
allow foreign nationals to travel to their States without a visa. In other words, imagine if American States allowed anyone, from anywhere, for any reason, to access American sovereign territory—even those from adversarial countries; that you could do it in any State. Most Americans would say that that would be an insane policy, and they would be absolutely right. Florida can't set its own visa policies, neither can, you know, New Mexico, Texas, California, or New York. That would be chaos, and it would make our immigration system meaningless.
from foreign countries is allowed—the only place—is in the Mariana Islands, a territory. It is in this small U.S. Pacific island territory where foreign nationals can legally enter America without having a visa.
CNMI, has become a hotbed for birth tourism, which is a strategy used by citizens of foreign powers to deliberately undermine our Nation's immigration laws. Over 3,300 communist Chinese nationals have been born on these islands except they are also bona fide American citizens. They have passports, birth certificates, and Social Security cards. Keep in mind this is a territory where only 45,000 Americans live. The CCP and Chinese civilians found this loophole and have exploited it for birthright citizenship. You can be a full-fledged devotee of the CCP— you can actually hate America and hate our people and hate our way of life—and still abuse birth tourism to get a foothold in the country you seek to undermine and destroy.
Now, come on. That is ridiculous. It all needs to end now.
travel from communist China to the United States. It doesn't ban travel from China—you can still come—but it says: If you are a citizen from China, which is our foremost adversary, you have got to get a visa. We have got to know who you are if you want to enter my State, any of our States, or any other sovereign territory of our country. You have got to get a visa if you are from communist China. It is common sense.
I am grateful to Secretary Mullin, who, while a U.S. Senator, signed on to my letter to then-Secretary Noem that called for an end to China's participation in any Chinese visa waiver program.
privilege, I hope the United States Senate can offer the administration the support it deserves by passing this legislation immediately.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 3857 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, this bill will needlessly punish the Northern Mariana Islands and significantly—or I should say further—harm its tourist economy, which is the islands' largest source of revenue and jobs.
There is a current program in place. The current program requires any visitors who come to the Northern Mariana Islands through this program to undergo a two-step vetting process by the Department of Homeland Security, including having an in-person interview. That program has already reduced visitation from the PRC from over 185,000 visitors down to 18 in 2026—not 18,000 but 18. The purpose is to ensure that visitors do not pose any risk to the United States but allow the islands' economy to grow. The current visa program was put in place after a long and thoughtful consultation between the United States and our territory the Northern Mariana Islands. It successfully balances both our national security needs and supports the economic vitality of the Northern Mariana Islands.
territory; they are one of our most important partners in the Pacific to actually
counter China's influence in this critical theater. We can't ask them to further decimate their tourism economy. This legislation, as well meaning as it is, would certainly undermine the stability of our partner and American territory. We should not abolish the program. Instead, we need to ensure the Department of Homeland Security is doing sufficient screening to prevent visitation that poses a risk.
that is why I am objecting today in support of our partner in the Pacific.
with Senator Scott and others to support the security of our Nation in a way that does not harm the people and government of the Northern Mariana Islands.
So I object to the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I recognize my colleague. We both are in the same position. We don't want to do anything that absolutely hurts the economy of the CNMI, but at the same time, we have got to figure this out to make sure that we don't have birth tourism.
manner to make sure that, you know, the Communist Party of China does not abuse this so as to have birth tourism there.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.