Translate Politics Congress in plain language.

MEMBER OF CONGRESS

John Hoeven

Republican ND 9 statements translated

Follow by RSS

Hoeven focuses heavily on North Dakota-specific matters—tribal land exchanges, a state judicial nominee, Canadian wildfire smoke affecting his state—and presses his case with concrete, repeated asks, such as unanimous consent orWritten by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
81 / 100 over 7 statements
Signal 61 / 100
Relevance Not scored
Reasoning 97 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 95 / 100
Averaged over the 7 of 9 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

A remark off to the side of the point.3.9 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×3.9

A story that illustrates instead of making a point.2.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.8

Statements 9

Senate ·

End Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act

“I want the Senate to approve this land exchange. The government keeps the same amount of land, and the trade helps the Tribes. Blocking this also stops another bill that easily passed the House. I want us to pass it now or agree on a clear plan to finish it soon.”

  • Speech in the House

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

I understand. But I, again, emphasize that the Federal Government will have the same amount of Federal land before and after. It is simply an exchange where it will be located within the boundaries of the reservation and will benefit the Tribes. By not doing this, we are denying it, to the Tribe’s detriment. And as far as the lands that the State would retain, then they would be outside the reservation. So there is no net loss there. I will emphasize that again. And the second thing is, by opposing this measure, my colleague is also holding up the Apache County and Navaho County Conveyance Act, which is paired with it to pass the House--well, both bills passed the House without objection, so I just find it interesting. Here is two bills that went through the House on a voice vote, without objection, and they are being held up. I don’t understand. So again, I ask for either consent or some commitment beyond ``we will work together.’’ I mean, I would like something--and I am sure the folks at the Tribes in Arizona would like the same thing--of some commitment as to how we are going to get to resolution within some reasonable period of time. What is it going to take? With that, I ask for consent.

View on govinfo.gov Grade A+ View analysis
“This land trade does not cause any net loss of public land. It is just a direct swap of locations. I do not understand why the senator from New Mexico keeps objecting to it. I want a commitment from him on how we are going to resolve this.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, there is no net loss of public lands. It is simply a straight exchange in terms of location. There is no net loss, none whatsoever. I still fail to understand why the good Senator from New Mexico continues to make the case when there is no net lands. It is just a simple exchange. The second thing I would, again, reiterate is: Okay. I know--I know that my colleague is sympathetic to this issue. I truly believe it. What I would like to hear is how we are going to resolve this. I would really appreciate some commitment for how this is going to be resolved.

View on govinfo.gov Grade A– View analysis
“I want the Senate to pass this land exchange bill for North Dakota, along with a land bill for Arizona. It trades state land inside reservations for federal land outside them. All five tribes in my state support it. It does not reduce public land, and it will actually give hunters more access.”

  • Speech in the House

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I would like to ask the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee who--we have worked together on many different issues and I appreciate that and I hope we can work on this one. But there are some questions that I have to ask because I sincerely would like to get to a solution on a bill that, first off, does not affect other States. It solely affects land within my State of North Dakota, and it is supported by all of the reservations. We have five reservations in my State, and the Native Americans on all of the reservations across the board have asked us to do this for them. There is no net loss of lands. This is simply exchanging State land within the boundaries of reservations for Federal land, which is outside the reservations, which then would be Federal lands within the reservations, which would be to the benefit of the Native American Tribes. The only objection that I have heard from anybody at any time is in regard to hunting and public access. I am a hunter. I truly enjoy hunting, but I must admit I am probably not a hunter on the scale of my colleague from New Mexico. He is an accomplished hunter. We talk about it all the time. He knows how important that is, obviously, to him and his citizens in New Mexico. It is very important to me and to my citizens in North Dakota. But here is a situation where there is no net loss of land, and, in fact, if anything, there will be more land open and available to hunters. I was Governor of North Dakota for 10 years, and those State lands we opened up to public hunting and tourism. So there will be a gain for hunters and fishermen. And on the reservation, there is no net loss of public land whatsoever. It is a simple exchange of State land for Federal land. These Federal lands will go from outside the borders of the reservation to within the borders of the reservation, and be managed for the benefit of those respective Tribes within the reservations. And it is something that every single Tribe within my State has been asking for and we have been waiting for a long time to get done. And here is how it worked out in the House: It passed unanimously. So, yes, I am willing to work on it, but I have been working on it for a long time. And I am simply asking that the House bill be passed and, along with it, a Democrat bill from the House also that would be of real benefit in the State of Arizona, the Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act, which is paired with this bill. So by objecting, my good colleague from New Mexico is also holding up the Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act, which is important to Native Americans in the State of Arizona. And so, again, I would ask for consent on this bill or at least some commitment as to how this is going to get done.

View on govinfo.gov Grade A View analysis
“I am asking the Senate to take up and pass these bills right now without any debate.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2252 and the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following bill: Calendar No. 106, H.R. 1829; further, that the committee-reported substitute to H.R. 1829 be agreed to; the bills, as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, all en bloc.

View on govinfo.gov View analysis

Senate ·

Legislative Session

“I want the Senate to confirm Judge Daniel Traynor to the federal appeals court. He is a fair judge from North Dakota who follows the Constitution instead of his personal opinions.”

  • Speech in the House

    Signal 42 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Judge Daniel Traynor’s nomination to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Judge Traynor is seeking to fill a seat being vacated by Judge Ralph Erickson, who will be taking senior status upon Judge Traynor’s confirmation. I want to take this opportunity to thank Judge Erickson for his many years of serving on the bench. Whether at the State district court, the Federal district court, or as a circuit court judge, Ralph Erickson has been a dedicated public servant, and we thank him for his hard work over the decades. I actually have known him since high school. He was on both the football team and the basketball team, and he is a huge guy. I remember he was a good lineman, and I remember that if he stood in the lane at basketball, you couldn’t get anywhere near the basket. You had to kind of shoot a 3-pointer. A super guy, great sense of humor, good friend. We will miss Ralph in terms of his full-time status, but the good news is, he will be on senior status and still involved. He is just a tremendous judge, and I am very confident that Judge Traynor will do a fantastic job carrying on his legacy. Today, I have the privilege of supporting a nominee in Judge Traynor who embodies the highest standards of judicial service and who has dedicated his professional life to upholding the rule of law. Judge Traynor is a man of integrity, intellect, and deep faith in our constitutional system. He has earned a reputation as a thoughtful and fair jurist whose commitment to justice is respected by those who know him and those who have appeared before him. Judge Traynor is a lifelong North Dakotan through and through. He was born in Devils Lake, ND. He received his bachelor of arts from the University of North Dakota and his juris doctorate from the University of North Dakota School of Law. Judge Traynor’s roots in our State have shaped his understanding of the law’s impact on individuals, on families, on businesses, and on our rural communities. Throughout his career, Judge Traynor has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to public service and to the faithful application of the law. Since his confirmation to serve as judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, Judge Traynor has distinguished himself through his diligence, impartiality, and careful attention to the facts and law before him. His judicial record reflects a deep respect for the Constitution and appreciation for the limited role of the judiciary and a commitment to deciding cases based on the law rather than on his personal opinion or policies. The Eighth Circuit plays a critical role in interpreting and applying Federal law throughout our region of the country. The citizens it serves deserve a judge who approaches that responsibility with independence, impartiality, and fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law. Judge Traynor possesses each of these qualities. He does not legislate from the bench. Beyond his professional accomplishments, Judge Traynor is a devoted husband, father, and member of his community. His wife Patricia, a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force, along with their three children--Mary, Mack, and Joe--are rightfully proud of what Judge Traynor has accomplished. He understands the values of hard work, service, and responsibility that are central to the people of North Dakota and the Eighth Circuit. I am proud to support his nomination. I am confident that he will serve with distinction on the court of appeals. For all these reasons, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

View on govinfo.gov Grade B– View analysis

Senate ·

Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 811 (Executive Calendar)

“I value our close relationship and partnership with Canada. We need to work together to help both of our countries.”
Official Congressional Record

And to my colleague from Washington, we work together on many things, important things. I appreciate that. I think we both come from border States and recognize the importance of this incredible bond and relationship that we have with our friends in Canada, and I want to make clear, I have tremendous respect, appreciation, and admiration for our friends and allies and that this is about working together for mutual benefit. And with that, I would yield to my good friend and colleague from the State of Ohio. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). The Senator from Ohio.

View on govinfo.gov View analysis
“My colleague misunderstood what I said. My resolution is about the United States and Canada working together to stop wildfires. Doing more to prevent these fires helps people in both countries.”

  • Speech in the House

    Signal 33 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis

  • Speech in the House

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, if I could, I am wondering if my colleague heard the speech I just gave. I guess I want to repeat it because maybe she might have missed it. The United States and Canada--this is what I said, so I can’t think of a bigger mischaracterization of what I just said. And I am not even sure why. If she wanted to come down and criticize our President, that is fine. She can do that, I guess, whenever she wants if that is what she wants to do. But to completely mischaracterize what I said, I don’t think is fair. So I am going to reiterate what I said just a minute ago for the record. I even referenced the fact that I grew up 50 miles from the Canadian border. I went back and forth to Canada so many times I couldn’t even count. But, and I go on, with a shared border between the United States and Canada, we want to manage it to the benefit of people residing in both countries. I am reading from the speech I just wrote; I was listening to the mischaracterization. That is what I am calling for. And in the resolution itself, I make it very clear that this is something that is important to benefit both countries. So, again, you know, I think it would be--if my colleague wants to object, I understand she has that right. But I think it is unfair to characterize that other than I am saying we need more action on these wildfires. Now, if she feels we don’t need more action on these wildfires, it is just fine, OK. But she shouldn’t misrepresent what I am trying to do, which is call attention to the fact that we need more work done so we can avoid these wildfires in the future and that that is something that is mutually beneficial for both of our Nations. And with that, I would yield the floor to my colleague the good Senator from Ohio.

View on govinfo.gov Grade C View analysis
“I want the Senate to pass my resolution. Smoke from Canadian wildfires hurts the health of millions of Americans. Canada needs to do more to put these fires out, take better care of its forests, and stop smoke from crossing the border.”

  • Speech in the House

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 7 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I rise today to highlight and ask unanimous consent to pass a resolution I introduced to call for greater action from the Canadian Government to fight the almost annual wildfires that send smoke over the border, blanketing much of the United States. Over the past several days, more than 100 million people nationwide have been under air quality alerts due to the smoke from Canadian wildfires. This smoke has real impacts to the health and well-being of individuals and families. In my home State of North Dakota, this is an issue we are very familiar with. Unfortunately, over the past number of summers, we have been experiencing hazy skies from wildfires in Canada. The United States and Canada have a longstanding and close relationship based on our shared values and common interests. I know; I grew up 50 miles from the border. But with that shared border between the United States and Canada, we need to manage it to the benefit of the people that reside in both countries. I mean, we have water that flows up into Canada, and we are always working on water quality issues and all those kinds of things. We understand that what we do here in the United States affects our friends in Canada as well. So we feel for those in Canada whose homes and communities are directly impacted by the fires. We also recognize and thank the thousands of firefighters and emergency responders who are working to combat wildfires and protect lives and personal property under dangerous conditions. But at the same time, we need responsible forest management, including hazardous fuels reduction, timber harvesting, grazing, and other forest restoration practices that help reduce the severity and frequency of catastrophic wildfires. With more than 3,640 wildfires in Canada this year alone, it is clear that more action needs to be taken to prevent and stop these fires. And, in fact, in the United States, we have worked many years to help our friends in Canada battle these fires, but, clearly, more action needs to be taken. So the resolution I have introduced does three things: Specifically, it recognizes the significant impact that smoke from the Canadian wildfires has on the safety, health, and well-being of the American people, and it calls upon the Government of Canada to take responsibility for the cross-border impact of these wildfires, including immediate efforts to extinguish the fires and prevent their reoccurrence. And finally, the resolution urges President Trump to further discuss with Canadian Prime Minister Carney the importance of extinguishing these fires and finding ways to prevent their reoccurrence, something that we can do together and we should do together for the mutual benefit of both our great countries. So with that, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 811, which is at the desk. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

View on govinfo.gov Grade A View analysis

Senate ·

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027--Motion to Proceed

“I am honoring Senator Lindsey Graham, who recently died. He served our country in the military and in Congress for decades. He strongly supported our troops, helped pass tax cuts, and helped put conservative judges on our courts. I will miss his friendship, and I welcome his sister to the Senate to take his place.”

  • Speech on a bill

    Signal 31 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to my colleague but, most of all, to my friend, Senator Lindsey Graham. We were all shocked to learn of his passing this weekend, and I mean it--stunned. It is hard to imagine the Senate without Lindsey. It already seems quieter. We will miss his humor, his advice, and, of course, his friendship. Lindsey was dedicated to serving the people of South Carolina and the Nation. He spent nearly his entire adult life in public service, from the military to the South Carolina House, to the past 31 years--31 years--here, both in the House and in the Senate. In having spent 33 years in the Air Force, the South Carolina Air Guard, or the Reserves, Senator Graham was a staunch supporter of our men and women in uniform. Since 2010, he served as co-chair of the National Guard Caucus. With his help, we were able to successfully convince the Department of Defense to change its policy and allow guardsmen and reservists to concurrently receive their Federal tuition assistance and their GI bill benefits in full. Given our close, personal friendship and his ardent support of our servicemembers, our national defense, and our military, I liked to call him ``Grambo.’’ For me, that was his nickname, ``Grambo’’--you know, kind of like ``Rambo.’’ Well, he was ``Grambo.’’ He really was the Senate version of ``Rambo’’ in all things military, and he was relentless, as we saw. I mean, right up until almost the day he died, he was working and advocating for our military, on behalf of American military strength, and our role as, truly, the leader of the free world. As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Graham advanced conservative causes that have made our Nation stronger and more prosperous. He helped steer through the Working Families Tax--the One Big Beautiful Bill, or the OB3. It has got a lot of names, but the important point is that it really made a huge difference for our country and for working families. He cared about that. He cared about taking on the big challenges and doing big things. Likewise, as the Budget chair, he was instrumental in helping us fund border security and law enforcement. He was a big part of helping us implement the Trump agenda, and that was so appropriate. Lindsey was really--you know, as they say in sports, he was a triple threat. He was a triple threat. He was a force in our Republican caucus, and he could work with the Democrats. Of course, he had a tremendous relationship with President Trump, and they truly cared about each other. They were real friends. They worked together, but they truly were friends. We will miss all of that. As the former chairman and the senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham shaped the Federal judiciary. Think of how impactful that has been from the Supreme Court down to the district courts. He played a central role in the confirmations of Supreme Court Justices, including Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett, while also helping to oversee a massive conservative shift in the Federal judiciary. I think the time that, on the Judiciary Committee, he really said what he thought, what he felt in his heart about Justice Kavanaugh was perhaps, if not his finest moment, one of his truly finest moments where he truly stood up and said what he felt was right on the national stage and made an incredible difference, a lasting and important, incredible difference. And it wasn’t rehearsed; it was just Lindsey spontaneously being Lindsey, saying what was in his heart. There is that old saying: Speak from your gut and your heart. Boy, did he, and it made a huge difference. That was vintage Lindsey Graham. His leadership on defense, judiciary, and budget issues will be felt for years to come. But for all his accomplishments in the Senate and around the globe, Senator Graham was most proud of his family. He was a loyal and loving brother and uncle who once said of his sister: It is only fitting that his sister Darline will serve in his place. We extend her a warm welcome to the Senate like Senator Graham did with so many of us. It is almost as if Lindsey and President Trump had one more call after the call that night where they talked. Lindsey had gotten back from Ukraine, and the President called him or he called the President. They talked on the phone, and it was shortly after that that Lindsey had his heart attack and died. But it is almost like they had one more call--one more call--where Lindsey was able to call President Trump again or President Trump was able to call Lindsey and they talked about, you know, who should replace Lindsey during that period before the election when the people of South Carolina will elect their next Senator to replace Lindsey, and they decided on Darline. And how fitting. How appropriate. So big thanks to President Trump for recommending to Governor McMaster that he appoint Darline. We are so pleased to have her here, and it is so fitting and appropriate. My wife Mikey and I are praying for Lindsey and for his whole family. I have to say that my wife Mikey was always a big Lindsey fan. One time, we are at dinner or something, and she just tells Lindsey how much I like and respect Lindsey. I said to her: Why did you do that? She goes: Well, because you do. You really like him. You respect him. So I just said: Yes, I know I do, but he is my buddy. You are not supposed to tell your buddy that; they are just supposed to know it. But it is true. I think we all did, both sides of the aisle. We will miss him incredibly. The country, the State of South Carolina will miss him. Our country will miss Lindsey Graham and his incredible service. May God bless Lindsey and his entire family.

View on govinfo.gov Grade C View analysis