Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes for my remarks as well as 10 minutes for Senator Wicker and Senator Collins' remarks before the vote.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I think my colleagues are making the really important point of the national security implications of the bill that we are looking at and voting on. And I agree with what my colleagues have already said. Speaker McCarthy had a difficult job. I think there is a lot in this debt agreement that is important, that is positive. But the one thing we are not doing here--and, by the way, it is the most important thing we do as U.S. Senators--is have a strategy for the national defense of our Nation during an incredibly dangerous time globally. We are not doing that. We need a strategy. Already, my good friend from South Carolina mentioned some ideas. I am going to touch on those, but let's just reiterate. The Presiding Officer sits on the Armed Services Committee. Many of us do. We get witness after witness, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense, saying this is the most dangerous time since any period in history since World War II. That is the consensus. Not a lot of people would disagree with that. Authoritarian dictators, with an immense appetite for conquest, are on the march, and yet what does this budget agreement do? It cuts defense spending significantly, as already mentioned. Now, some people will say: Well, look at the top line. We never had a higher top line--$800-plus billion. As the Presiding Officer knows, the actual real measure of how serious we are as a country isn't the top line. Because of inflation over the years it is hard to compare. The real measure of how serious we are, in terms of what we are putting toward defense--what the No. 1 priority of the U.S. Congress should be, in my view--is what percentage of our national wealth we are dedicating to defense. This budget will take us, in the next 2 years, with the cut this year, an inflation-adjusted cut of 4 to 5 percent, and a nominal increase next year of 1 percent, which would be about a 5- to 6-percent cut--it will take us below the 3 percent of GDP number for defense for the first time since 1999, during the peace dividend era of the Clinton administration. So we will be below 3 percent of GDP. When you look at different periods of American history, the Korean war, we were at almost 15 percent; Vietnam, 8 percent; Cold War Reagan buildup, almost 6 percent; Iraq, Afghanistan, War on Terror, 4.5 percent, we are going to be going below 3 percent. It hasn't happened since 1999, and before that it has almost never happened in the history of the country, at least in the 20th century. Here is the most important point: In 1999, the threats to our Nation weren't nearly as dramatic and serious as they are today, and nobody disagrees with that. So what this budget does is it just accepts the Biden defense budget, which, as Senator Graham has already mentioned, shrinks the Army, shrinks the Navy, shrinks the Marine Corps. That is what it does: less ships, not more ships; smaller number of soldiers and marines, not more. So accepting the Biden defense budget is actually something new during the Biden administration. What do I mean by that? As Senator Cotton mentioned, the last two previous Biden budgets came in, in anemic numbers, and in a bipartisan way--a strong bipartisan way, by the way--Democrats and Republicans significantly plussed-up those budget numbers. Last year, it was a $45 billion increase to the weak Biden budget on the Armed Services Committee that every single Senator on the committee voted for, except one. That is about as bipartisan as you can get. The year before, it was a $25 billion plus-up. And as many people know, we were already discussing, in a bipartisan way on the Armed Services Committee, another significant plus-up to this Biden budget. So Democrats and Republicans knew it was weak and not sufficient to meet the challenges of today. But what happened? The music stopped, and now all of a sudden we are accepting the Biden budget. I know Democrat Senators who think that is wrong. They think that is wrong. One amendment I am going to offer, as we are debating this, is to do something very simple. It is to look at the Biden Pentagon's priority list--their unfunded priority list--that this President and his Secretary of Defense put forward. It is $18 billion, which the Armed Services Committee, in a bipartisan way, was already getting ready to agree to move forward and fund. I am going to ask my colleagues to fund it. At a minimum, let's fund it. We are not going to bust out of the top line of this agreement. We will just take that $18.4 billion and move it from the $80 billion IRS account and put it to the Pentagon. It is pretty simple. It should be 100 to 0. Do we want more Navy ships, more marines, or more IRS agents during this very dangerous time? I think the answer is pretty clear. I think the American people know the answer. Senator Cotton already mentioned this idea that the Speaker has talked about. We need more efficiencies in the Pentagon. I couldn't agree more. By the way, the Navy leadership right now--we need a lot more efficiencies out of that place. You have a Navy Secretary who is more focused on getting his climate plan out before his shipbuilding plan. The priorities of the Department of the Navy right now are remarkably misaligned with real-world challenges. What are those real-world challenges? I think the Presiding Officer was there when we had a briefing from some of our top Intelligence Agency officials. It was a classified briefing, and I asked him if this number was classified. They told me no. They came out and said the real Chinese budget, in terms of the military, is probably close to about $700 billion. That is a big budget. As Senator Cotton mentioned, they are increasing in real terms 6, 7, 8 percent--cranking out ships, cranking out fifth-generation aircraft. And we are going to cut the budget this year and dramatically cut it next year and go under 3 percent of the GDP in one of the most dangerous times since the end of World War II? As Senator Cotton also mentioned, the National Defense Strategy Commission, which the Congress authorized a number of years ago to look at the serious national security threats facing our country, came back to the Armed Services Committee 2 years ago and said: What we need to do to address these serious national security challenges from China, from Russia, from Iran is to have 3 to 5 percent real GDP--or real growth--on the defense budget. That was broadly accepted by Democrats and Republicans. As a matter of fact, I think one of the members of that national security commission is now the Deputy Secretary of Defense in the Biden administration. But we are not even close. We are going backward. Then Senator Graham's point about a supplemental to get Leader Schumer and the President to say ``we are going to have a supplemental for deterring authoritarian aggression'' is going to be critical. I would say the vast majority of my colleagues here--Democrats and Republicans--would support that. We need a serious, robust defense budget to deter war. If the young men and women who volunteer to serve in our military are asked to go fight a war, we need a strong budget so that they can come home victorious and not come home in body bags. This is deadly serious business, and we are not putting enough attention to it. It is one of the No. 1 things in the U.S. Constitution: that we need to provide for the common defense, to raise and support an Army, and to provide and maintain a Navy. That is our job, and we are not doing it. With this budget, this rushed budget, we need to get serious, and, hopefully, in the next few days, we can do that as we debate this agreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 125 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, unfortunately, does not meet the moment in terms of defending our Nation. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and others have said we are now in the most dangerous period of any time since World War II. And yet this bill cuts defense spending in inflation-adjusted terms by approximately 3 percent this year and 5 percent next year. By endorsing the President's defense budget, this bill shrinks the Navy, shrinks the Army, and shrinks the Marine Corps. Next year, it will take us below 3 percent of GDP spending for the first time in 25 years. My amendment does what the Armed Services Committee and this Chamber have done in a broad bipartisan manner over the past 2 years. It significantly pluses up the inadequate defense budget submitted by the President. My amendment fully funds the Biden Pentagon's unfunded priorities list by----

Mr. SULLIVAN. By $18 billion.

Mr. SULLIVAN. And it raises---- Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds more.

Mr. SULLIVAN. And for fiscal year 2025, it raises the defense top line by 5 percent to simply keep pace with inflation. These increases are offset by rescinding the additional amounts from the President's $80 billion plus-up from the IRS. So, my colleagues, the choice is clear: more Navy ships, soldiers, and marines to protect America or more IRS agents to harass Americans. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important amendment.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for that heartfelt welcome here on the Senate floor. I know the Presiding Officer is excited, and I know the pages are excited. Heck, half of America is excited because, once again, it is Thursday afternoon, and I am back on the floor giving probably my favorite speech of the week, the ``Alaskan of the Week.'' As many of you know, it is an opportunity for me as I love to come down to the Senate floor and brag about somebody in my State who makes it such a great State. Usually, it is somebody who is doing something good for their local community, maybe for the State, maybe for the country, maybe for the world. Boy, we have had so many famous Alaskans of the Week, but this one-- this one, my colleagues--is really special. It is about real special heroism that we see in Alaska a lot. It is about a young man named Andrew Chapoton. I am going to talk a lot about Andrew--he is an Army soldier up in Alaska--and how his bravery and heroism saved some lives in a way that is just remarkable. But I always like to begin my speech by talking a little bit about what is going on in Alaska. I try to get home with Julie, my wife. Hi, Julie. She is up in the Gallery. Am I allowed to do that? I am doing it anyway. Anyway, pretty much every weekend we have been home. Boy, over the last couple of weekends, I was out on an epic--epic--Kodiak hunting trip. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to partake in one of our State's most cherished traditions. It was an experience I won't forget. I will never forget it. Kristin Wilson, if you are watching, I know you love bears, and I love bears too. She is a big fan of the ``Alaskan of the Week.'' But I also like to talk about what is going on with the weather. It is still pretty cold in a lot of places, but the Sun is higher in the sky. It is actually getting really high. The days are getting longer and longer. Today, in Anchorage, the Sun rose at 5:30 a.m., and it will set tonight at around 10:30 p.m., gaining more than 5 minutes since yesterday. So sunlight is really increasing rapidly. Birds are migrating by the tens of thousands. The excitement of spring is in the air. Winter is finally retreating. We love winter in Alaska, but, boy, we had a long, cold winter in most places. So, if you are watching, by the way, in the Gallery or on TV, come up to Alaska. It will be the trip of a lifetime. I guarantee you it will be the trip of a lifetime. Now let's get to our Alaskan of the Week, SFC Andrew Chapoton, and the heroic actions he took last May--about a year ago--that earned him the U.S. Army Soldier's Medal. That is the highest honor a soldier can receive for an act of heroism in a noncombat situation. Andrew was born and raised in the township of Clinton, MI, but he knew that he was always going to join the military. Being in the military, from his perspective and his family's perspective, was a good, honorable thing to do. Of course, he is right. His father fought in Vietnam, and his grandfather fought in World War II. Both of his sisters are in the Army. So he enlisted when he got out of high school and did a number of deployments--three tours to Iraq, a deployment to Haiti--and then was stationed in Alaska from 2015 to 2018 as part of the 4th Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division. It is what we call in Alaska the 4-25. I am a marine, but the 4-25 sure is one of my favorite units in the entire U.S. military, but that is a story for another day. I love the 4-25. Andrew and his wife love Alaska--the hiking, the camping. He said: Everything [is] available right outside my front door. So they were determined to come back to Alaska. They bought a house in beautiful Eagle River, outside of Anchorage. They did come back. In 2021, he came back to Alaska where we now have the storied U.S. 11th Airborne Division. A lot of people don't know that. We stood up an airborne division in Alaska just last year, so now we have the 82nd Airborne Division on the east coast and the 11th Airborne Division in Alaska. Andrew and his wife, now with two children and another one on the way, love Alaska. So what did Andrew do to win the Army Soldier's Medal? Here is how the Army described it in the summary of that medal: Sergeant First Class Andrew Chapoton voluntarily risked his own life in the heroic pursuit of saving others at a deadly car wreck near Seward, Alaska. His extraordinary act of valor exemplified the highest standards of selfless service and character as he repeatedly put himself in mortal danger to save others trapped in a horrific . . . car wreck. SFC Chapoton dived into the burning vehicles again and again to save three trapped occupants, without [any] regard for his own life [or his own safety]. So that is the summary. Here is the longer version of why this great American, great Alaskan, is today's Alaskan of the Week. Last May, Andrew and his wife had an out-of-town visitor who wanted to go whale watching. OK. That is something we do in Alaska. It is amazing. It is a great thing to do in our State. So one of the great places to whale watch is out of Seward, which is a few hours south of Anchorage. He almost didn't go as he had done that tour often, but in his words, he caved and said: Let's go do it. So they all went. Their friend, his spouse, and their two kids got in the car and headed to Seward. They had a great time. By the way, it is another great thing to do in Alaska--whale watching. They saw a lot of whales, and they were celebrating the trip on the way back. Then something tragic--horrible--happened. On the Seward Highway, two cars collided--a Jeep and a Dodge Dakota--almost right in front of his car. He had to swerve to miss them. It was a nasty, horrible crash. Debris went flying; smoke was billowing from both cars; and gasoline was dripping out of these cars. But Andrew didn't continue to drive. He pulled over on the shoulder, jumped out of his car, and without thinking, in his words, ``as cliche and corny as it sounds, 18 years of training kicked in, and I ran toward the scene of the accident.'' That is what Andrew said. As a result, he saved the lives literally of three people. Now, he doesn't even have a memory of how he got from his car to the accident--training, bravery, heroism--but he does remember approaching the first car, the Dakota. He was flagging people down and yelling for a medic. There were three people in the Dakota, but none of them were moving, and the car was bursting into flames. He tried to smash the driver's door open. He had to move the camping equipment that had fallen on the driver, and he was able to get her safely out of the car. At this point, the car was engulfed in flames, but he went back in and got another person out of the car and to safety, which was so difficult because the car door had been smashed and crushed. Unfortunately--and we know this is hard for Andrew. I hope he is watching, by the way, and his family--he went back again but could not save the third person. The door was also crushed, and he couldn't open it. He couldn't find a pulse. He says it haunts him to this day. But, again, Andrew's instincts and training kicked in, and he transitioned to getting the driver out of the other burning car, the burning Jeep. After he got that passenger out, he performed Combat Lifesaver triage and lifesaving medical care for these three very seriously wounded Americans. This story of heroism doesn't end there. Both cars, by now, had turned into raging infernos. Flaming liquid was flowing down the road and toward one of the injured passengers. With the help of another Good Samaritan, Andrew moved one of the gravely injured passengers away from the impending explosion of this car. Then he shielded her body when the car did explode. Debris and shrapnel were flying everywhere. Even after the fire department arrived, Andrew continued to take the lead in performing lifesaving medical treatment. Eventually, a Life Flight helicopter arrived to take the seriously injured individuals to the hospital. Andrew stayed and gave his statement to the troopers. He handed his keys to his wife, got back in his car, and drove back home several miles--a couple of hours--to Anchorage. It was a quiet ride. He said: I used up every single ounce of adrenalin that was in my 38-year-old body. His children saw much of what happened, and they are proud of their father, and Andrew is proud and so deserving to receive the Army Soldier's Medal. But he did say he would trade that in a thousand times over if only all the passengers had survived. These are the kind of people who live in Alaska--brave, selfless, and heroic. And these are the kind of people--by the way, America--who make up our military. Not every American citizen would have done what Andrew just did. As a matter of fact, I would say most people probably wouldn't--people who risk their lives, their own lives, whether it is protecting Americans at home or people abroad, so that others could live. That is what our military members do. This is how the Army summed up this heroic action: SFC Chapoton's ability to perform these heroic acts under extreme pressure while simultaneously taking control of the scene [of this horrific crash] is a testament to his [U.S.] Army values. [Fundamentally] understanding the extreme personal risk to his own life, SFC Chapoton selflessly endangered himself again and again to save American lives. He risked his own safety to help avert a catastrophic outcome. Without his selfless courage in the face of grave danger, more lives would have been lost. So thank you, Andrew, for your bravery, your heroism, your example, not just to your friends and family or to Alaskans but to all Americans and all veterans. Thank you for protecting our Nation. Thank you for volunteering to serve. Thank you for making your home in Alaska. Thank you for your heroic actions on that day. We want to congratulate you for being awarded the U.S. Army Soldier's Medal, one of the highest honors a soldier can achieve and, certainly, Andrew, one of the highest honors you can achieve in the U.S. Senate: being our Alaskan of the Week. Great job. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, recently, there have been numerous articles in the media about the U.S. Navy's lack of amphibious ships-- one that I would like to submit for the Record, headlined ``Grounding of U.S. Marine Unit Spotlights Lack of Ships in Asia-Pacific,'' can be found online at https://www.wsj.com/articles/grounding-of-u-s-marine- unit-spotlights-lack-of-ships-in-asia-pacific-757315b4. (Mr. WHITEHOUSE assumed the Chair.) In this piece, the writer leads with how the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, a rapid response force of the Marine Corps designed for quick deployment on three Navy ships--what we call an ``amphibious ready group''--how they were forced to abandon a training exercise because the amphibious warships that they are supposed to train on were not available due to maintenance problems. Here is what the article said in part: The Marine unit's grounded status illustrates the larger obstacles the United States is facing as it tries to pivot its military to handle the challenges from China. Overall, defense officials said the Navy doesn't have enough amphibious ships to transport marines, and a central part of the Marine Corps's mission is to hop from island to island in the Asia-Pacific and harry Chinese forces in the event of a conflict. By the way, Mr. President, the Marines are really good at this. They have been doing it for decades. But they need ships. Another article from Defense News is also a recent one about the lack of amphibious ships and the problem that poses. This one is from another part of the world but very recent. The article starts with how hundreds of American citizens were stranded in war-torn Sudan. It says: Hundreds of Americans in war-torn Sudan last month needed a way out of the country, but the U.S. Marine Corps, the go-to service for such rescues [of American citizens] couldn't help. The article continued: Typically, this kind of mission would be standard for the Navy and Marine Corps' amphibious ready group-- A Marine expeditionary unit, or what we call in the Marine Corps a MEU, a MEU-R, a Marine expeditionary unit, an amphibious ready group-- three ships, super well trained, special operations capable, can go anywhere in the world, kick the door in, save American citizens. The article continues: For the Americans who fled to the coast [in Sudan] the Pentagon sent an auxiliary transport ship-- that they contracted out, I believe, from another country-- to shuttle them safely to . . . Saudi Arabia. It was, in essence, a self-evacuation of U.S. citizens. Mr. President, NPR reported that the buses actually took hundreds of Americans to the Port of Sudan. Imagine--imagine--my colleagues, what would have happened had those Americans, traveling in contract buses in the middle of a civil war, got caught in the crossfire. The article that I just quoted was entitled ``Marines want 31 amphibious ships. The Pentagon disagrees. Now what?'' I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. Finally, Mr. President, there was another recent article from Defense One. Its title was ``Navy On Path To Violate 31-Amphibious-Ship Requirement in 2024.'' Now, Mr. President, this is what I wanted to get to. Last year, in the Armed Services Committee, we held a number of hearings with the Navy and the Marine Corps saying: What is the minimum number of amphibious ships that would enable the Marine Corps to do its global force response mission--the minimum number? After many hearings, after much discussion with the Marines and Navy, we came up, in a bill of mine, with a minimum of 31 ships. This bill in the Armed Services Committee last year passed unanimously. Every Democrat and every Republican voted for it. The law now reads as follows. I know this is a little small, but here is the new U.S. Code that has the new language. It says: The naval combat forces of the Navy shall include not less than 11 operational aircraft carriers and not less than 31 operational amphibious warfare ships, of which not less than 10 shall be amphibious assault ships-- What we call in the Marine Corps ``big-deck assault ships'' that can carry helicopters and Ospreys and Harriers and now F-35 Bravos. That was the law. That passed. The President signed it. Here is the problem. The U.S. Navy is violating the law. The U.S. Navy is treating that law--31 amphibs, a minimum--as a suggestion from the Congress, as an option from the Congress. How do I know? Because we had a hearing 2 weeks ago on the Armed Services Committee, and the Secretary of the Navy essentially said: We are looking at different options for the President's budget on how many amphibs that the Navy is going to have. And, currently, the Navy presented a budget that doesn't have 31 amphibs. I had some cross words with the Secretary of the Navy, the CNO of the Navy, because they are violating the law. And I will tell you, my Democratic and Republican colleagues on the Armed Services Committee were supportive of what I was saying. We had a hearing on the Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee yesterday. The Vice Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Franchetti, said that the Navy was ``studying the issue.'' The Navy can't study the issue anymore. The Navy needs to follow the law. The U.S. Congress has done the studies. We need the ships. But here is what the Navy presented to the Armed Services Committee 2 weeks ago. They provided us their 30-year shipbuilding plan for the Navy. Right here is the 31 amphib ship statutory minimum that is required by the law. Here is the Navy shipbuilding plan for the next 30 years. You see in the numbers, these are different options: plan one, plan two, plan three. You might notice the Navy never gets to 31 amphibs. So the Secretary of the Navy, the CNO of the Navy, and the Vice CNO of the Navy came to the Congress in the last 2 weeks and said: Your 31 amphib ship requirement, we are going to ignore it. Your 31 amphib ship requirement, Congress, United States of America, we are going to violate that. This is unacceptable. The U.S. Navy, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of Defense should not be thumbing their nose at the Congress, and, worse, they should not be violating the law and not trying to abide by the law. They are saying, for 30 years, we are going to ignore the Congress, and we are going to ignore the laws of the United States of America. This cannot happen. This cannot happen. Let me end with this. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, whether you are a hawk on defense issues or a dove on defense issues, if you are a U.S. Senator, this should make you really mad. This should make you really mad. Last year, the Congress spoke. And, again, on the Armed Services Committee, on which I serve, it was unanimous. Every member of that committee who had studied the issue said, at a minimum, the Navy needs 31 amphibs so the U.S. Marine Corps can do its mission around the world. Everybody agreed. We passed the law. The Navy, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Defense are thumbing their nose at this body, are breaking the law as we speak, are intending to break the law for the next 30 years. That is their 30-year shipbuilding plan. It never hits 31 ships. But here is the worst thing they are doing, and this is a real serious issue. They are putting the lives of American citizens at risk. Why do I say that? Well, let me end where I began, with Sudan, the rescue of American citizens. Again, normally, that is a mission tailor- made for the U.S. Marine Corps, whether in an embassy or another dangerous part of the world--what we call a noncombatant evacuation operation, a NEO. The Marines do them all the time. They bring up their amphibs, launch helos, launch support craft, helicopters, fighters, if they need the air support. The capability of a MEU-R to go rescue American citizens--a lot of them--is unsurpassed by any service in the world. The U.S. Marines do it all the time. But guess what they can't do it without? They can't do it without amphibious ships. And right now, we don't have enough. So we dodged a bullet 2 weeks ago in Sudan. American citizens were put on buses and driven across dangerous parts of Sudan in a civil war, for hours after hours, and got to a port, self-evacuated on some other country's ships. We are so lucky that those Americans did not get killed or wounded--did not get killed or wounded--because there was no Marine Corps to rescue them. I am going to keep raising this issue. The Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Navy, today, are violating the law. Today, they have no intention of meeting this 31 amphib ship requirement, and American citizens are at risk. And the next time we might not be so lucky. The next time Americans somewhere around the world need to be rescued, the next time an enemy of our country does something nefarious to our citizens, our national interests, and we don't have the ability to respond as a Marine Corps because we don't have the ships, we are going to know who is responsible. I yield floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Capito and Senator Barrasso for their leadership on an issue that matters to every single American. This is one of those issues where the Congress of the United States should be coming together in a bipartisan way to make sure we have a permitting system that enables us to build things--every kind of thing we need: roads, bridges, ports, energy, renewables, oil, and gas. The system is broken. Everybody knows it. I like to show this photo when I am talking about permitting reform. Why am I showing this very iconic photo of some men here building the Empire State Building? Because we all know that one of the great things about America is that we used to be able to build things--big things-- on time: 410 days to build the Empire State Building. The Hoover Dam took less than 5 years to build. A little closer to home to me, the 1,700-mile Alaska-Canada Highway, what we call the ALCAN Highway, through some of the world's most rugged terrain--11 months. This was the great thing about America. With the best workers in the world, we built huge things, on time, on budget--but not anymore, not anymore. I don't want to be too partisan here, but one of the things that we all know we need is permitting. It is permitting. I am obsessed with this issue. But I will tell you this. Every time--and it is probably going to happen again--we have a big permitting opportunity, a big permitting bill on the floor, what happens? It usually is a battle between the men and women who build stuff. The unions who build things, they want permitting reform. They want to be back in action, like these men decades ago. The men and women who build things want it. The radical, far-left environmental groups hate it because they want to block building anything in America. They want to block producing any energy in America. Unfortunately, when it is a choice between the men and women who build stuff and the far-left radical enviros on permitting, my Democratic colleagues almost every single time go with the radical left, not the men and women who build things. I hope it doesn't happen again, but it happens all the time. Here is the thing: As I mentioned, our country used to build incredible things on time. Now we are a country that is tangled up in redtape. A simple highway in the United States can now take as long as 19 years to permit and build. In Alaska, we are ground zero for these kinds of projects where the permitting is delayed, far-left lower 48 environmental groups sue to stop, and they take advantage of NEPA. Let me give an example. We had a gold mine in Alaska called the Kensington Mine. If you include the litigation from the far-left environmental groups, it took 20 years to permit--20 years. How does that help the country? How does that help my State? How does that help workers? It doesn't. The only people who like that are the far-left environmental groups and Xi Jinping and Putin, who want to make sure America can't produce. So what has happened is the National Environmental Policy Act--NEPA, as we call it--has been abused. It was a great idea when it was passed in the late 1960s. It required builders to engage with the public, consider the environmental impacts of important projects. But back then, it was usually a couple of hundred pages, a NEPA review that would take about a year. Now that is several thousand pages. It takes several years for the NEPA process to move forward. We have, again, some of our great leaders in our building trades. This is James Callahan, general president of the International Operating Engineers. Here is what he said recently on a piece of legislation that I moved forward last year, a CRA on a permitting issues: Since its modest beginning, NEPA has evolved into a massive edifice, capable of destroying project after project-- Destroying, not helping-- job after job, in virtually every sector of the economy. Whether it is the permitting bill that Senator Capito and Senator Barrasso have done such a great job in leading; whether it is my Rebuild America Now Act, which is a major reform of the NEPA process-- by the way, the vast majority of the building trades in America, the men and women who build things, support my legislation. We need permitting reform. It is that simple. When you talk to a Governor in pretty much any State, whether they are Democrat or Republican; when you talk to a mayor, Democrat or Republican--it doesn't matter--they say: We have to fix our broken permitting system. We had a hearing on airport infrastructure in the Commerce Committee several years ago. The head of the Seattle-Tacoma Airport was testifying. They had just built a new runway at Sea-Tac. I asked him: How long did it take to build that runway? In the hearing, he said: Three to four years. I said: Well, that seems a little long, but I am not in construction, so I don't know exactly, but it seems a little long to build a new runway. How long did it take you to get the permits from the Federal Government to build that runway? I didn't know the answer, but I am obsessed with this topic because it is killing our country. It is really hurting working men and women, like James Callahan, one of our great union leaders. This witness looked at me--the head of the Sea-Tac Airport--when I asked him: How long did it take to get the permits? He said: Senator Sullivan, 15 years. Fifteen years to get a permit to build a new runway. You could hear the entire hearing room just kind of collectively groan because everybody knows it is bad for America. Then he said: Senator, with the time it took to build the new runway--4 years--and the time it took to get the permits--15 years-- almost 20 years. The ancient Egyptians would have built the Pyramids by then. This is killing us. Everybody knows it. This should be a bipartisan issue. I will end with this: Last year, I was proud to lead the efforts on what is called a Congressional Review Act, CRA. What it was for was--we passed the bipartisan infrastructure bill. We got some OK permitting reform in there--not as much as I wanted, but it was not bad. So that was good. I voted for the bill. It wasn't perfect. But then the Biden administration White House, at the behest of the far-left radical enviros, issued rules on permitting that were undermining its own bipartisan infrastructure bill. The CEQ put out rules that would make it much harder to build things in America--not just energy projects, all projects. It was crazy. So I introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution to rescind the Biden rule driven by the far-left radical enviros. Here is the good news: My CRA passed in a bipartisan way on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Over 40 groups--you name them--farmers, ranchers, people who build things, all the building trades in America, all the unions--this collective group of over 40 groups representing millions of Americans who build stuff, who farm things, who grow things, all came and said: We support the Sullivan Congressional Review Act. That is what we should be doing now. The Barrasso-Capito bill; Senator Manchin introduced his permitting legislation--we all know it is the right thing to do. To my Democratic colleagues: Listen to the men and women who build stuff. Listen to the men and women who grow things. Don't listen to the far-left radical enviros who don't want any permitting reform because they love to crush projects. Be courageous. Vote with us on the permitting reform that everybody in America knows we need. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I thank the majority leader for his fine compliment to me on the Senate floor about learned remarks. I appreciate that.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I appreciate that very much. Not if you are going to take away your compliment--if you are going to keep it, I will yield.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Actually, I think you will appreciate these remarks.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Murkowski, to bring awareness to National Education and Sharing Day U.S.A., which we recognized on April 2, 2023. On this day, we acknowledged the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Schneerson's global campaign to educate youth about our responsibility to be a moral and compassionate society. Education and Sharing Day is observed each year on the Rebbe's birthday in recognition of his outstanding and lasting contributions toward the improvement of education, morality, and acts of charity around the world. It is a day to pause and reflect on our responsibility to ensure our youth have the foundation necessary to lead lives rich in purpose and fulfillment through service and good works. This year's National Education and Sharing Day coincided with the 121st birthday of the Rebbe, one of the most significant Jewish leaders of the 20th century. The Rebbe was a global spiritual leader and leading advocate for the advancement of education. He stressed that a moral and ethical education empowers every individual to develop their full potential in making the world a better place. This year's Education and Sharing Day has even greater significance as this year is also a year of ``Hakhel,'' a biblical event of unity, education, and spiritual growth emphasizing how every person is crucial to perfecting the world. The basis for the continuity of any society is education, and in the great State of Alaska, the education of our youth is a priority. We recognize that in order to achieve its highest goals, education must not only impart knowledge but also help our youth learn how to live meaningful lives by strengthening their moral character to make a better life for themselves as individuals and for society as a whole. Such education can nurture the unity of diverse peoples by encouraging increased acts of goodness and kindness, imbued with the awareness that even a single positive act of an individual can change the world. We strongly affirm the purposes of National Education and Sharing Day U.S.A. and encourage educational institutions, businesses, community and civic associations, and all people of the United States to celebrate and promote National Education and Sharing Day U.S.A.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 83 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes of debate, equally divided.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, every job in America is important, but there is something special, sacred, even noble about a job that entails putting your life on the line to keep your fellow citizens safe, and that is the job of our firefighters. In Alaska, firefighting season will be upon us soon. It can be brutal. In 2005, roughly 6 million acres of the State burned. That is about the size of Vermont. Think about the dedication and courage it takes to fight those fires, many of which are in rural parts of our States. It is only right that when firefighters come to Congress asking for assistance, that we give them the flexibility they truly need. So why is my amendment necessary? Currently, the Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program only allows modification to existing fire stations rather than new facilities. Many old firefighting facilities can't be modified. A 2021 report by the U.S. Fire Service found that 44 percent of fire stations are over 40 years old. The issue is even more acute in rural parts of our country where facilities have problems which cannot be fixed through maintenance and repair alone. For example, roughly 61 percent of fire stations over 40 years old exist in communities serving less than 10,000 people. So, Mr. President, my amendment is simple. It costs zero dollars. It gives discretion to the firefighters in rural communities to allow Federal grants to small communities of less than 10,000 people to use the Federal funds to build new stations. That is it: a simple, commonsense amendment backed by data to help firefighters in small communities in America who often don't have the tax base to build new facilities. We should help them. We all have rural communities that need this help. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to respond.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, again, I want to work with Senator Stabenow on this issue, but we have an opportunity right now. Every Senator knows that our firefighters in small communities come to the Senate and ask for help because they don't have the tax base to actually build new facilities. And the facilities, as I mentioned, are very, very old. All this amendment does is add a new category to request for assistance only from communities of 10,000 people or less. It is common sense. We all know it is needed. Again, I encourage my colleagues to support it. I respect all the firefighter groups who are saying they oppose it, but the only reason they are opposing it is because they say they want a clean bill. You know what, sorry, but that is not a very good argument. I urge the support of this amendment No. 83. Vote on Amendment No. 83

Mr. SULLIVAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 33 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, do I have any time left?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, Iranian proxies have attacked U.S. forces in the Middle East 80 times since President Biden took office. Deterrence is failing. Many of us are deeply concerned that removing the 2002 AUMF will further erode American deterrence relative to Iran, further jeopardizing our troops in the region. Why are we concerned about this? First, the 2002 AUMF was, as recently as 2020, used to support the very justified killing of the Iranian Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani. And, second, even as we are debating removing the 2002 AUMF right now, Iranian proxies have stepped up attacks on Americans. My amendment is simple and prudent and common sense. It requires the DNI to certify that the removal of the 2002 AUMF will not undermine American deterrence against Iran. This is prudent, and it is due diligence. Why wouldn't every U.S. Senator want to know whether the actions we are taking right now here in the Senate enhance or diminish deterrence against Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism? Under my amendment, the DNI has 30 days to do this analysis, and 30 days should not be considered an inconvenience when American lives are literally at stake. I urge all of my colleagues to support this prudent, commonsense amendment.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am not conflating Iran and Iraq. Iran right now is the threat, and, again, I ask my colleagues--none of whom have an answer--why wouldn't we do the due diligence, 30 additional days, to ask the DNI if what we are doing on the Senate floor right now undermines American deterrence relative to Iran? It is a simple request. It shows that we are acting to make sure we protect our troops in the region. And, again, 30 days is not a lot of time----

Mr. SULLIVAN. To make sure our troops in the region are safe and secure. Vote on Amendment No. 33