Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, we are debating, last week and this week, the authorization for the use of military force authority that was granted in 2002, which is a really important debate that we are seeing right here on the Senate floor. By the way, it is a good-faith argument. There are Members on both sides of the aisle making different arguments. There is not a topic, in my view, more important than the issues at stake here--how to use military force; when to use military force; is it authorized by the President to use military force?--because, as to the issue of the U.S. Government sending young men and women into harm's way to defend our country's interests, there is nothing more important, in my view--nothing more important. I appreciate the time and the debate here on the floor. It is also important because it wraps into--when you talk about young men and women going into harm's way overseas, one of the biggest harms to American service men and women over the past 20 years has actually been from Shia militia groups supported by Iranian terrorist organizations. Now, it doesn't always seem to make sense in that Americans who were killed in Iraq and wounded in Iraq were often--and I will give some of the numbers here--killed and wounded because those who did the killing and wounding were supplied by Iranian terrorist groups. In particular, the Quds Force, which was led by Qasem Soleimani, during the course of the Iraq war, killed over 600 American servicemembers and wounded over 2,000 with very sophisticated IEDs that were supplied by the Iranians to their proxies in Iraq. So what does any of this have to do with the 2002 AUMF for Iraq that we were debating last week and will debate this week? Well, the answer is everything, everything. We eventually figured out--we, the United States--that these very sophisticated IEDs, which are called explosively formed projectiles or penetrators, EFPs, were actually, as I mentioned, caused by the Iranians. It took some time to figure this out because, like so many things, the Iranian terrorists in Tehran and the ayatollahs lie--they lie--and they denied it. ``Oh, we didn't have anything to do with that.'' Well, they actually had everything to do with that. Again, the best and brightest in America, in my view, for many years, during the Iraq war, were being killed by Iranian terrorists and being led by Qasem Soleimani, who was the head of the Quds Force, that was doing this. During that time of 2005 to the middle of 2006, I was serving as a Marine Corps staff officer to the commanding general to the U.S. Central Command, General Abizaid. I was deployed to many parts of the CENTCOM AOR with the CENTCOM Commander. Probably the biggest concern, no doubt, was of these incredibly effective, brutally efficient EFPs that were killing and wounding so many of our best and brightest. To this day, it is just remarkable to me that so few people even know about this or talk about it--the killing and maiming of thousands of American troops by the Iranians and the Quds Force, led by General Soleimani. Again, what does this have to do with the 2002 AUMF? Everything. What happened during that time? Well, when we figured out it was the Iranians doing this, we--we, again, the national leadership--never really retaliated against Iran at all. Imagine that. We knew that they were killing and wounding thousands of our best and brightest, and the United States did not do anything to establish deterrence. As a matter of fact, during that time, we lost deterrence, and it became clear that Iran, with good reason, started to think: Hey, we can kill American servicemembers with impunity. There is no price. So they did. When you lose deterrence with a terrorist regime that likes to kill Americans and has a history of killing Americans, it is not a good thing, especially for the young men and women who are serving our country in dangerous places. I remember, early on in my Senate tenure here, in a briefing we had in the SCIF, I asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: Do you think we have lost deterrence? There have been 600 Americans killed and over 2,000 wounded. Do you think the Iranians believe they can kill as many American servicemembers as they can--again, America's best and brightest--and not pay a price? The Chairman said: Yes. The Chairman said: Yes. I remember that very distinctly. So the whole point is, How do you reestablish deterrence? Because, if you reestablish deterrence, you are going to save lives, and you are going to protect your servicemembers. Again, there is nothing more important that we do as a country than making sure the men and women who go defend our country--who defend us, who defend our interests--are protected, are lethal, are the best trained. But it is difficult because, when you lose deterrence, it is hard to get it back. Well, we did get it back, and I certainly applaud President Trump and the Trump administration. When Qasem Soleimani was back in Iraq, scoping American forces to kill--by the way, a lot of them during that time were from Alaska--in early January 2020, the Trump administration said: The joke is over. This guy with the blood on his hands of thousands of our best and brightest--he is not doing it again. And he was killed during a daring strike on January 3, 2020. He was looking to kill more American troops in Iraq, and he got killed. I think it was justified and an important signal to send to everybody around the world that you can't go around killing American troops and not expect to have retaliation against you or your country. That should be basic. That should be basic. Every U.S. Senator here, today, should agree with that 110 percent. The Trump administration said: We are not going to allow this anymore, and the guy who is responsible for killing so many Americans and wounding so many Americans--he is going to pay. And he did, with his life. The legal authorization for that very justified killing was the 2002 AUMF that we are debating right now. OK. That was only 3 years ago that that happened. So it is very relevant to the issue of deterrence and very relevant to the issue of Iran. For some of my colleagues to say: Well, it is old. It has nothing to do with anything that is happening right now, they couldn't be more inaccurate. This matters, and it matters today. For those who say it doesn't, they don't know this history or they don't want to know this history or they haven't been watching the news for the last 96 hours. Some of us are concerned about the very debate we are having here, which is to say: Let's remove the authorization that we used to kill Soleimani. Let's get rid of it. Hmm, what kind of signal does that send? Could this signal maybe we are not worried about deterring Iran anymore? Could this signal that removing this authorization, this 2002 authorization that, again, was used to regain deterrence with Iran--if we got rid of it, would this embolden Iran? Well, as I mentioned, in the last 96 hours, we have had Iranian proxies unleashing deadly attacks on American servicemembers and American contractors. That is happening right now. Is it a coincidence? I don't know. One American is dead, and five have been wounded with these brazen attacks. Some of us thought this actually might happen. It is happening. It is happening. Unfortunately, there was a little bit of something going on last week that we are going to get to the bottom of. Trust me. On the Armed Services Committee, we are going to get to the bottom of it because, last Thursday, when we were debating the AUMF, these vicious attacks started at 6:30 a.m., DC time. It was on the day we were debating the AUMF--all day Thursday. We didn't hear about it until the close of business Thursday. Was somebody hiding that information from us? It was pretty relevant information. We are going to find out about that. I am going to be offering an amendment to the AUMF tomorrow, and I believe every U.S. Senator should vote for it. Here is why: I believe that the 2002 AUMF clearly helped with deterrence. It was the authority, in addition to article II, to take out one of the biggest terrorists, heck, in the 21st century. That is for sure. He killed more Americans than any other terrorist. That is for sure. So the question is, Will removing this AUMF lessen American deterrence against Iran's malign activities? That is what my amendment asks the Director of National Intelligence to do--to look at that question and certify the answer. If the answer is no, then this new AUMF or the removal of this AUMF can go forward. Again, it is a really simple question: Ask the DNI, for the next 30 days, to look at this question: Will removing the 2002 AUMF lessen American deterrence against Iran's malign activities? Why wouldn't every U.S. Senator want to go: ``That is a really good question. Heck, we are seeing it in the Middle East right now--in Syria. Maybe this is going to embolden Iran. Heck, maybe we shouldn't do it. Maybe, by doing this, we are going to put American servicemembers' lives at risk. Hmm. Maybe we shouldn't do it. Let's ask the DNI''? That is it. Why wouldn't you want that? I was just talking to a couple of the proponents of this AUMF debate. Again, I have a lot of respect for them, but I asked them: Why wouldn't you want this? Wouldn't you want to know? Just wait 30 more days. I know you have been trying to get this removed for years. Wait 30 days. Send it to the President's own Director of National Intelligence and ask her: Review the intelligence. Review what you are hearing with the chatter among the Iranian proxies who are trying to kill Americans and who have killed Americans. Is any of this related to the removal of the AUMF? Then give us an answer in 30 days, and if the answer is no, this can move forward. If it is yes and this will hurt our deterrence against Iran, then we shouldn't be doing this. That is all my amendment is asking. It simply says: As for the authorization for use of military force--the AUMF--of 2002, if it is voted on to be repealed, which it looks like it will be, it will go into effect after the Director of National Intelligence certifies in an intelligence assessment to Congress that the repeal will not degrade the effectiveness of U.S.-led deterrence against Iranian aggression. Who could be against that? We should have 100 U.S. Senators wanting to know the answer to that question, especially given what just happened over the last 96 hours, because maybe this debate is emboldening the Iranian proxies and terrorists. Maybe it is not. So let's get the answer. My amendment would also make sure that it is 100 percent clear that if the 2002 AUMF is repealed, the United States can fully retaliate against the Iranians or any Iranian threat if they are threatening our country or our people. I know that most of my colleagues here agree with that. We negotiated that language with some of my Democratic friends and Republican friends. So it is just that and this issue of asking the DNI to certify that what we are doing on the Senate floor right now is not going to undermine our deterrence against Iran and, oh, by the way, put more American lives at risk. It is simple. I would be shocked if any Senator voted against wanting to know the answer to that basic question. I am asking my colleagues to just think hard. Don't you want more information? Can't you wait 30 more days to get President Biden's DNI to certify that what we are doing right here in the Senate is not going to undermine deterrence and put more American lives at risk? I hope that all of my colleagues would agree with that and vote on my amendment. Finally, I will just say, the deterrence that we regained with the justified killing of Soleimani has clearly been slipping away, particularly once the Biden administration came into office, and it is a concern. I was on a recent bipartisan codel to the Middle East, and the No. 1 issue we were hearing about in every single stop by every single leader was the malign activities of Iran. You name the country we were in--and we were in a lot of them, all the Abraham Accords countries in Israel-- Iran was the No. 1 topic and how aggressive they are getting. The lifting of the terrorist designation for the Iranian-backed Houthis almost in the first month of this administration, February 2021, was a sign of weakening deterrence against Iran. The administration's inability to stand firmly with the United Arab Emirates, one of our strongest allies in the Middle East, when it was attacked by Houthi missiles and drones--of course, with the Iranians' help--was something else that lessened our deterrence. Just last week, when the CENTCOM Commander testified, he said there had been 78 similar attacks on American forces since 2021. We are losing deterrence. That is during the Biden administration's 2 years. They have been attacking the hell out of our troops. What are we doing? What are we doing? The mullahs in Tehran, like all tyrants, are emboldened by accommodation. So I am asking my Senate colleagues to take the very prudent, logical, and responsible step to ask the DNI if what we are getting ready to do here on the Senate floor, which is to remove the 2002 AUMF, will that undermine our deterrence against Iran? Let's wait 30 days and get the answer. Don't put your head in the sand, my colleagues. Stand up. See what the answer is from the DNI so we can move forward in a way that makes sense for our national security, deterrence of the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, and, most importantly, the ability to protect and defend our servicemembers serving overseas in places like Syria that are very dangerous. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I am honored, so honored, to say a few words this morning about Judge James Buckley--a statesman; a patriot; a member of the World War II Greatest Generation; a senior Reagan State Department official; a DC Court of Appeals judge; a former Member of this body, the U.S. Senate; a friend; and a shining example of a good, meaningful life lived in full. It is not very often that you get to say happy birthday to your hundred-year-old mentor on the Senate floor, but today, I get to do that to one of my mentors. Judge Buckley has been a mentor and role model to me and so many other people who worked for him or worked with him over the past century. So, Judge, I hope you are watching. I hope some of your family members are watching. I want to wish you a happy hundredth birthday from the U.S. Senate. We have this wonderful card here signed by dozens of U.S. Senators--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--here on the Senate floor on your hundredth birthday, right now. We are going to deliver this to you soon. For those watching, who is this remarkable American statesman? There is a wonderful Wall Street Journal op-ed in this morning's Journal entitled ``Jim Buckley's Century of Service.'' I encourage all of my Senate colleagues to read it. He was from a very large and famous Connecticut family with many prominent brothers and sisters--10 of them. It is quite large. His younger brother was the conservative intellectual William F. Buckley. James Buckley--Judge Buckley, as I like to call him--served his country in so many ways: as I noted, first, heroically, as a World War II Naval officer. He served in many battles, including the Battle of Okinawa, which was the bloodiest battle in U.S. Navy history. He served as a U.S. Senator from New York and Under Secretary of State in the Reagan administration, a judge on the Federal court of appeals for the DC Circuit right down the road, commonly referred to as ``the second-most important court in the land.'' Think about that. That is service at the highest levels of three different branches of government--the only living American to do that and the oldest Member of the U.S. Senate, former Member. In every position, Judge Buckley, throughout his life, brought integrity, a fierce intellect, and a compelling commitment to American exceptionalism. I have known Judge Buckley for 30 years. He is a man of faith, class, dignity, and humility. He has never stopped serving his country. Even into his late nineties, he was still at work writing a very well- received book on public policy just a few years ago called ``Saving Congress from Itself.'' A few years back, I suggested that he present his book to us at one of our Republican lunches. In so doing, I explained to the judge the way in which we have lunches here in the Senate. Three times a week, we get together. There is the Tuesday policy lunch; there is the Wednesday--what we call--Steering Committee lunch; and then there is the Thursday lunch, more informal, hosted by members of our conference who can brag a little bit about their State and feed us great food from their State. So I suggested to the judge, come by the Wednesday Steering Committee lunch and share with us your new book. And I noted, you know, you may know, Judge, that the Steering Committee was initially set up a long time ago by a group of more conservative Senators but is now pretty much attended by all Republican Senators for lunch. Was he familiar with the Steering Committee, I asked the judge. In typical, James Buckley humble fashion, he said quietly: Why, Dan, yes, I believe I was one of the cofounders of the Steering Committee. Of course, you were, Judge. Of course, you were. Anyway, we all had a great, very memorable lunch here in the Senate with Jim Buckley, where just in an hour, so many of my colleagues learned so much from him, which is what he has been doing his whole life. I got to know Judge Buckley when I caught a lucky break 30 years ago and was hired by him as his fourth law clerk--kind of a law clerk intern--when he was a DC Circuit Court of Appeals judge right down the road and I was in my final year at Georgetown Law School. This was an incredible experience for me. As most know, and I already mentioned, the DC Circuit is considered the second most important court in the country and, of course, is known as a feeder court into the U.S. Supreme Court for law clerks, but particularly for judges. Just look at all the former DC Circuit judges who went on to be Supreme Court Justices: Burger, Scalia, Ginsburg, Thomas, Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Jackson. As a Georgetown law student, this internship was a very exciting opportunity for me, and I saw up close in Judge Buckley an example of principled jurisprudence that was anchored in the text of Federal statutes and the Constitution that recognized and emphasized the limits on Federal judiciary and agency powers and that understood the importance of federalism and the separation of powers in our constitutional system of ordered liberty. These were lifelong lessons for me, and I continue to use them daily right here in the U.S. Senate. I enjoyed this job so much and was learning so much that I pretty much quit going to many of my law school classes. For the young people watching, especially law students, don't do that. That was a dumb idea. My very low grade in my evidence class was evidence of this. Judge Buckley, back then, tolerated me in his chambers 30 years ago, but he really developed a special bond with my then-girlfriend, Julie, who is now my wife of over 28 years. Julie and the judge had a small-world connection concerning the great State of Alaska that was quite remarkable. In 1971, there was a very important bill being debated right here in the U.S. Senate called the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, what we call ANCSA. That bill became the world's largest land settlement for indigenous people ever, anywhere in the world. Right here in America, 44 million acres of Federal land went to the Native people of Alaska. And Jim Buckley, then a first-term U.S. Senator in his first year, became a big supporter of Native rights in Alaska. It was curious, interesting. What was going on there? He was a conservative Republican and believed in property rights, and ownership, and free enterprise, and fee simple lands for the Native people, which was what ANCSA was all about--much different than the lower 48, where the system of reservations and land held in trust by the Federal Government does not work well. There was something else going on there, the Alaska Native leaders went to Washington in force to lobby different Senators. Senator Buckley was lobbied by a beautiful 36-year-old brilliant Alaska Native leader named Mary Jane Fate, who just so happened to be my wife's--then my girlfriend's--mom. So the judge and my girlfriend, Julie, figured that out, put two and two together, that her mom was one of the big reasons in terms of lobbying that he got interested in the ANCSA legislation and was a strong supporter of that. Of course, that cemented their relationship and our relationship, and Julie and I and the judge have been great friends ever since. I do want to thank him, again, on behalf of the people of Alaska for being such a strong supporter of that legislation, which literally changed the history trajectory of our State for the better 51 years ago. A few years ago, I was asked by the outstanding organization, The Fund for American Studies, to give an address about honorable leadership--honorable leadership--and I made my entire speech about the life and example of James Buckley. Honorable leadership and upholding the highest values of ethical service, which is what the life of Judge Buckley epitomizes, is not always easy. For example, as a U.S. Senator, Judge Buckley was one of the first Members of the Senate Republican caucus to call on President Nixon to resign in the wake of the Watergate scandal. That certainly was not easy. He was also an early Republican leader on issues of environmental stewardship and responsible, commonsense conservationism in the spirit of Republican President Teddy Roosevelt that has the support from local communities. He cosponsored legislation that created the Gateway National Recreation Area, which stretches along the northeast Atlantic coast from New York to New Jersey and is home to one of the most significant bird sanctuaries in the northeast part of the United States. As an avid birder himself, I am sure that this is one of the many proud aspects of the judge's important legacy to New York and to the rest of the country. I think without a doubt, the most important legacy Jim Buckley has left all of us in the past 100 years has been his commitment to freedom and American liberty in both words and deeds. He fought for American freedom in the Pacific in World War II. Like so many from his ``greatest generation,'' he literally saved the world from tyranny. He spoke eloquently of American freedom throughout his life. In another one of his books, titled ``If Men Were Angels,'' he wrote the following: I believe that in the last analysis the most important thing in social and political life is freedom, and I believe that it is because of the safeguards written into the Constitution, and the character of the American people, that we have enjoyed it in so great a measure. More than any other country. Mr. President, this great American patriot has left his mark on the American soul and American history and American heritage at the highest levels of our Federal Government, in all three branches of service. Thank you for your exceptional service to our great Nation, Judge Buckley. All of the U.S. Senate and all of America wish you a happy and healthy 100th birthday. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I rise to join the other members of Alaska's Federal delegation--Senator Lisa Murkowski and Representative Mary Peltola--in honoring our very dear friend Georgianna Lincoln, who will be retiring from the board of the regional Alaska Native Corporation, Doyon, Limited, after 47 years of service. For decades, Georgianna has been a force for good in our State. A force of nature, with an indomitable spirit, Georgianna, a Koyukon Athabascan Indian, was born in the village of Rampart, AK, in 1945. She moved to Fairbanks when she was in fourth grade. Like the experience of many Alaska Natives, moving from a small village to a relatively big city was tough. Fairbanks, she said, was ``foreign to me.'' But her mother, Kathryn Evans Harwood, told her repeatedly that she was as good as anyone else--an equal. And that message stayed with her throughout her long career in public service and politics. ``This path is cut clear for me and I am following it, willingly,'' Georgianna later recalled. ``Knowing that, I can take boulders and move them aside because in front of that boulder is green pastures; maybe more trouble, but nothing is insurmountable.'' Indeed, from executive board rooms, to the halls of the State legislature, to communities throughout Alaska that she has worked tirelessly to improve, nothing has been insurmountable for Georgianna. As a young woman in Fairbanks, Georgianna got involved with the Fairbanks Native Association, eventually becoming the executive director of the organization. This was in the 1960s, when the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act--the largest lands claims act in U.S. history--was in full debate. She, along with thousands of Alaska Natives from across the State, advocated tirelessly for the bill, which eventually passed. It redefined Federal Indian policy in Alaska and fundamentally transformed the lives of Alaska Natives. That was just the beginning for Georgianna. She went on to develop health and education programs in her region, helping to improve the lives of so many. And then she decided to run for the Alaska legislature. She won a seat in the house in 1991, then ran for the senate, where she stayed until 2005. In the legislature, she was a fierce champion of issues impacting women and children, as well as natural resource management. Still today, she is the only Alaska Native woman ever elected to the Alaska State Senate. Her achievements didn't end there. She became the director of programs for Tanana Chiefs Conference, served as a director on the Alaska Native Heritage Center board, United Bank of Alaska, Alaska Native Health Board, National Indian Health Board, and the North American Indian Women's Association. Significantly, she dove head first into her work for Doyon starting in 1976, later serving as board chair of the corporation and its subsidiaries--and guiding the corporation through years of remarkable growth. Most recently, she served on the finance committee, shareholder relations committee, and on the Doyon Oil Field Services, Inc., board. She also served as the Doyon representative on the Alaska Federation of Natives board of directors. Throughout the years, Georgianna has mentored countless Alaskans, focusing especially on Alaska Native women. Channeling her mother, she tells them, ``Know that you are Indian. Know that you are Native and that is enough. Apologize to no one. Be proud of who you are. Learn to love yourself.'' Her service to Doyon--now with 20,400 shareholders, and the largest private landowner in Alaska and one of the largest in North America-- and to all of the various organizations of which she has been part, have been invaluable. But she counts her greatest accomplishments to be her two adult children, Gidget Lincoln and Sean Lincoln, and her nine grandchildren. We thank Georgianna's family, including her partner Chris Cooke, for sharing her with Alaska. We thank her for the many years of service to our State and congratulate her on such an illustrious career. We wish her all the best in retirement. ``Ana Baasee' Georgianna.''

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am coming to the floor for the final time to give remarks about the Willow Project. I will explain it a little bit in my remarks. The President is getting ready to make a decision--a huge decision-- on a big project in Alaska--really, an inflection point for our State's future. He is likely to make that decision any day. So I am just going to come down and kind of wrap up the arguments that we have been making. I really want to thank a number of folks: Senator Murkowski, of course, who, with me--we have been focused on this issue for 2 years, the entire time of the Biden administration--2 years, arguments every day, including a meeting with the President last week, last Thursday; Congresswoman Peltola, who has done a really strong job in this regard, particularly in the meeting last week with the President. Some of my Democratic colleagues have been weighing in on this project. I really appreciate that. I know it takes a lot of courage. I am going to talk about some of the far-left lower 48 environmental groups that don't support it based on nothing--no facts, no data. But stand up to them, go to the White House and say: Come on, Mr. President. Come on, Biden administration. You have to make sure Alaska has this. So my Democrat colleagues, I am not going to name you. I don't want to get you in trouble or anything, but thank you. I really, really appreciate this. As I mentioned, we had a meeting with the President last week, and, at the beginning of the meeting, in addition to handing the President a unanimous resolution from the entire Alaska Legislature--the entire State senate, the entire State house; Democrats, Republicans, Independents; Native, non-Native--all passed a resolution saying to the Biden administration: Please support the Willow Project. There were three pads. I handed that to the President. I also handed him this map that describes really the context, as I said to the President, of what is happening in Alaska under this administration. I was respectful. We were in the Oval Office. Of course, you are going to be respectful with the President and his team. The Oval Office is a very historic place, obviously. But I said, respectfully: Mr. President, in every region of the State, every industry--oil, gas, mining, hunting, fishing; you name it--there have been 45 Executive orders and Executive actions--it is now 46; there has been another one since the meeting we had last week--looking to shut down Alaska. It is exhausting, to be honest. No other State is getting that kind of attention. I walked through some of these, but I just, again, respectfully, wanted the President to know, and that is it. Every time we meet with senior White House officials and say--these are the days we have met with senior White House officials--``Hey, how about a ceasefire?'' we just get more, more. There is no other State in the country getting this kind of attention. It is unwanted attention. As I have told many of my Democratic colleagues, hey, if a Republican administration came after you like this, singling your State out, putting thousands of people out of work, and you came to me and said, ``Hey, Dan, could you help me?'' I would help you. Every Democrat here knows I would help you. So I appreciate the help that we are getting. That was the context of the meeting. Again, it was respectful. We appreciated it. We had over an hour with the President and his team. He is a busy, busy man, the leader of the free world. So we appreciated that. (Ms. HASSAN assumed the Chair.) I was also recently down in Houston at this very big energy conference called CERAWeek. To be honest, it is not an exaggeration to say that all eyes are on the Willow Project because, essentially, the question that is being posed in our energy sector is this. There was a very good Wall Street Journal editorial last week calling the Willow Project the test for Biden. This editorial lead by saying that the ``President . . . says the only barrier to more U.S. oil production is recalcitrant'' companies. OK, a lot of us don't believe that, by the way. So here is an opportunity to say: Is that true or not? Because if the Biden administration--the President--approves Willow tonight, ConocoPhillips will start moving people to build it tomorrow. We are ready. The State is ready. The private sector is ready. So I think that is the key question, and it was the key question down in CERAWeek, the biggest energy conference probably in the world, with almost 8,000 attendees. This is a really important question, not just for Alaska but for America. I think the key arguments here are, given the President's priorities, what the President emphasizes, what he and his administration talk about. The Willow Project is actually exactly the kind of project President Biden and his team should support because it reinforces so many things that they talk about and care about. Let me just mention four of those. No. 1, which, of course, is really important, is that this project has the highest environmental standards of any major energy project in the world, by far. It is not even a close call. How do we know this? Because the Biden administration's own environmental impact statement, which came out a month ago, says this. It says this. The Trump administration passed this project in their environmental reviews with flying colors. Then, it was five pads. The Biden administration's EIS, or environmental impact statement, took it down to three. We didn't really like that, but that is about the minimum it could go. And they explained in this administration's own environmental impact statement--the scientists, the career staff were saying things like that the greenhouse gas emissions would be ``minimal,'' not a climate bomb like these lower 48 far-left groups keep talking about-- minimal. Here is the number: Emissions from this project, according to President Biden's own environmental impact statement, 0.15 percent, the 2019 emission levels. And they call it ``minimal.'' They also said if you don't do the Willow Project, the market substitution analysis in the Biden administration's own EIS says that, then, we will likely--we, America--have to go to other countries--Saudi Arabia, Venezuela--to get oil, and their environmental records and standards are so bad that the emissions globally from not doing this project will actually rise. That is in the EIS. I have talked about the high standards for Alaska with regard to the high standards in the world and the impacts on the environment. By the way, this project is next to existing infrastructure. So you don't have to build a lot of infrastructure. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline, just plug it in. This has the highest environmental standards in the world. How do I know that? Because the Biden administration's environmental impact statement lays it out in about 1,500 pages. That is one very important argument that fits with the Biden administration's priorities. Let me give you another one. The Biden administration frequently talks about racial equity, racial justice, environmental justice for people of color, indigenous people. They talk about that all the time. The indigenous people in my State overwhelmingly support this project. There are a few people--and that happens in every State, in every country--who are opposed. They are getting a lot of press, by the way. But the vast majority of the people, the First Nations' people, the Alaska Native people in our State, strongly support this. We held a press conference last week here in the Capitol. Some of the most famous Alaska Native leaders in our State's history flew thousands of miles just to be here to support this. So all this rhetoric from the administration on racial equity, racial justice is going to be very empty if they say: Do you know what? We are going to choose the Center for Biological Diversity and Greenpeace's priorities in the lower 48 over the priorities of the people who live there. I want to go into this a little bit deeper. This is a quote from the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat. This is a group of Tribes and Native leaders, a really broad-based group of the people who live where this project would be. Here is a quote from Nagruk Harcharek: Outside activist groups opposing Willow have drowned out local perspective-- That is for sure-- and are actively working to supersede the views of the Alaska Native people. That is for sure. This is not environmental justice or any kind of justice. It is a direct attack on Alaska Native self-determination. Some of our Native leaders last week were saying: Do you know what really is infuriating? These lower 48 environmental groups that are all driving the opposition of this project, are trying to tell Alaska Natives who have lived in Alaska for thousands and thousands of years how to live and what is good for them. Do you know what some of our Native leaders are starting to call this? The second wave of colonialism, eco-colonialism. Condescending lower 48 environmental groups that don't know anything about Alaska are coming up to our State and telling the Native people how to live--eco- colonialism. By the way, that topic came up in the Oval Office meeting. The administration is going to listen to lower 48 environmental groups that condescendingly tell Alaska Native people how to live? That is certainly not racial equity. That is certainly not racial justice. That is the definition of eco-colonialism, and I hope that they are not going to go there. One other area, another great group of Americans, whom I love to talk about on the floor who support this project, are the great men and women who build things in America. There has been no better champion of that in the entire country than the president of the Laborers, my good friend, Terry O'Sullivan, who, just 2 days ago, wrote another letter to the President. He has been such a great advocate. The Laborers are the greatest construction union in America. This project will create 2,500 jobs, 75 percent of which are union jobs, building trade jobs. Madam President, I would like to submit for the Record another great letter from Terry O'Sullivan. This one is dated March 6, 2023, to the President of the United States. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.

Mr. SULLIVAN. So I am just going to read a few lines from this letter. But Terry O'Sullivan is a very astute man. He has seen what is happening in Washington this past couple of weeks. Here is what he said: Administration officials are considering . . . limiting [Willow's] scope to only two of the proposed Pads. By the way, there is no environmental analysis of that at all in the EIS in the Trump administration or the Biden administration. So if they do that, it won't be based on any science, any data. I want to be clear-- Said Terry O'Sullivan-- a limited approval like this [of two pads] is, in fact, a rejection of the project. This is what we have told the President. This is what we have told his team many, many times. They know that. Proponents of this approach are displaying the kind of con- game that has American voters and LIUNA-- That is the laborers-- members turning away [from] established political norms. So this great American, Terry O'Sullivan, he is a working man. He leads working men and women. He is saying: Don't play these games. Two pads is a denial. That was our respectful message last week. What else did Terry O'Sullivan have to say in his final letter to the President? It is time to listen to local leaders [check] workers [for sure] and residents and reject the game-playing that the press reports indicate is happening behind the scenes in the Administration. [K]eep your commitments [Biden administration] to a rational energy policy that allows for the responsible development of domestic energy resources while the Nation transitions to a lower-emission economy. Terry O'Sullivan, once again, Madam President, weighing in. I can't thank him enough, Sean McGarvey, the building trades. By the way, when we held this press conference last week, every union in Alaska supports this project. The trades, of course, but all the public unions, every single union, 100 percent. Now, again, this administration likes to talk about: Hey, we really care about the working men and women, the men and women who build things, the unions. OK. OK. Let's see where you are on Willow. Finally, Madam President, I want to talk about an issue that, again, came up in the Oval Office, and that is just the foreign policy ramifications of this upcoming decision. We are in a new era of authoritarian aggression that I talk about a lot. The brutal dictators Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and this guy Maduro in Venezuela, they are on the march. But the one thing they fear almost more than anything is American energy power. Read the reporting. Xi Jinping is scared to death, the dictator of Beijing, scared to death of American energy power. So is Putin, by the way. So in the last 2 years--because, like I said, Senator Murkowski and I have been raising this issue about daily--I have asked in dozens of hearings on the Armed Services Committee, military experts, Biden administration officials, Biden administration military members: Do you think it matters and do you think it is good for our national security if we have more energy in a project like this? By the way, Willow, at max production, will produce about 200,000 barrels a day. Every single official in this administration who deals with national security, for 2 years--for 2 years--has said yes. Not one has said no. Now, I am not going to name names. I don't want to get anybody in trouble. But it is obvious. This is one of the great strengths of our Nation. And our adversaries--the dictator in Moscow and the dictator in Beijing--fear it. So why do I have this slide up? There is something going on right now that is unbelievable. And every time I have asked anybody and I have raised it with anybody in this administration, they look at me with a blank stare and don't answer my question. My question is this. This administration came in; they wanted to limit the production of American energy. I fully disagree with that approach, but what happened? Well, the predictable result happened. If you limit supply, prices go up. So prices on energy have gone up on working families for the last 2 years like this. We all know it. Inflation like this. So what have they been doing? They have been going overseas begging other countries to produce more oil and then poured it into America. Now, why on Earth would you do that when you can do it here? So the latest and greatest--they did it in Saudi Arabia. They were rejected, by the way. They were flirting with Iran. My goodness, the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and you are flirting with those guys, with the blood of American soldiers on their hands? Ridiculous. But they went to Venezuela after the election, and they said: Let's lift sanctions on you. So we are now importing over 100,000 barrels a day from Venezuela. Can you believe that? That is a fact. Venezuela pollutes--in its processes to produce oil, it is a production and greenhouse gas emission process that is 18 times--with an ``x'' times--more polluting than in America and certainly way more polluting--probably 30 times more than the great State of Alaska's Willow Project. So if you really care about the environment, why did you just lift sanctions on one of the dirtiest producers in the world? They are a terrorist regime. They have a horrible human rights record, a horrible worker rights record, a well-known U.S. adversary, and we are already importing 100,000 barrels a day from them--just started. And we don't want to produce in Alaska, with the highest standards in the world on the environment and workers? So when I ask the question why would we do that and not let us produce in the great State of Alaska, like I said, I have never gotten an answer to that question. So, hopefully, the answer is going to be: Well, we are going to help the great State of Alaska with this Willow Project. Do it because, right now, Madam President, with regard to energy policy, my State is being treated worse than a terrorist regime. And that is not hyperbole. That is a fact. So in my final appeal before this decision is made, respectfully asking this administration: This is exactly the kind of project that we think should be easily supported by this administration, given their priorities--the highest standards in the world on the environment, no doubt about it; the lowest greenhouse gas emissions--negligible, according to the President's own EIS; racial equity; racial justice. The Native people of Alaska want this. Listen to them. Don't listen to the ecoterrorists down in the lower 48, coastal elites who don't know anything about Alaska and are trying to tell the Native people how to live their lives--insulting, by the way. Don't listen to the ecoterrorists. Listen to the great union members like Terry O'Sullivan, all of whose members support and help enhance the national security of America with strong energy policy in the great State of Alaska. I hope the Biden administration does the right thing. So many of my colleagues have helped. I want to thank Senator Murkowski again for her relentless, relentless advocacy on this with me. We will see. Big stuff for America. Giant stuff for my State. I hope they do the right thing for our country, for our workers, for the Native people, for our national security. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, thank you for that enthusiastic introduction. I am here. Once again, it is the end of the week. At least in the Senate, it is the end of the week, not for the rest of America. But when we end up here with our work, on Thursday afternoon, I usually try and do a story about what I refer to as ``The Alaskan of the Week.'' Hopefully, everybody can see this photo. We have included our Alaskans of the Week's pictures here. This is a really good one, if you are watching anywhere in Alaska, I hope, and across America. Now, the reporters usually like this speech because it signals the end of their week. Normally, we have a crowd of press in the Gallery, maybe not so much today. But it is about somebody who has done something good for their community or the State or maybe for their country. This Alaskan of the Week is actually someone who did something for the world--the world. Saved the world. Stay tuned. No exaggeration. Now, I always like to give an update on what is happening back home. We are getting covered in snow--tons and tons of snow. The Sun is starting to come back. It is a very cold and snowy winter. The Iditarod is right around the corner--the last great race. Senator Murkowski and I will talk about that soon. It is a beautiful time of year if you love the outdoors--skiing, snow-machining. So come visit Alaska. That is what I always do--make the pitch. And people don't know this, but Alaska is also an incredibly diverse State. In fact, Anchorage, my hometown, the State's largest city, is home to the country's three most diverse census tracks--racially, in terms of nationalities. By the way, the fourth most diverse is Queens, NY. So more diverse than Queens, NY, in terms of race, ethnicities, and nationalities. We are very proud of our diversity. More than 100 languages are spoken in our schools--Native languages, other languages, foreign languages. We are diverse. We are very patriotic. In fact, Alaska is home to more veterans per capita than any State in the country. White, Black, Asian American, Alaska Native, all different races make up that key part of Alaska's heritage, military service. By the way, if you are watching the news, you know there is a lot going on over Alaska right now. But I just want to say a word about our military, Active-Duty, National Guard, and Reserve Forces. Think about what our guys and women have done the last 2 weeks: tracked and intercepted this big Russian spy balloon, tracked and intercepted at least two of these smaller unidentified objects and shot two of them down--the one over Alaska. The one in Canada, those were shot down by Alaskan forces in Canada. Then, in the last 4 nights, these same forces have gone and intercepted two different Russian ``Bear'' bombers and fighters--Russian fighters who were trying to get into our airspace. This is in 2 weeks. These are not easy missions. They are very difficult, challenging, missions. Do you know what else wasn't an easy mission? Storming the beaches of Normandy. Storming the beaches of Normandy. I have a little picture here. That is why I want to get to our Alaskan of the Week, a very special, very patriotic Alaskan, a World War II veteran, Mr. R.C. Roberts. I can think of no better way to cap off Black History Month than to recognize Mr. Roberts, his service to our country, and help him and his family celebrate his 100th birthday. How about a round of applause, America, for Mr. Roberts' 100th birthday, a Normandy, D-Day, Omaha Beach veteran. He celebrated that on Tuesday, Valentine's Day, 100 years old. So who is Mr. Roberts? Let's hear a little bit about the life that he has lived in full. Like I said, that is him. That is him, our Alaskan of the Week, on the poster board. He was a handsome young man, saving the world, literally. He was originally born in Garrison, TX, in 1923. Imagine that, 100 years ago. According to letters written by friends, he worked on a family farm, left school early in life, and joined the Army when he was just 18, shortly at the start of World War II. He wanted to go fight for his country, and he did fight. Many Americans have seen movies about D-Day. Again, here is a photo-- our brave soldiers, hitting the beaches at Normandy, facing unbelievable heavy fire, having to navigate mined obstacles on the beach, mines on the bluffs, Germans dug in with machineguns. You have seen in the beginning--I am sure many of you have--``Saving Private Ryan,'' the seawalls to climb. That is what he did. That is what he did for America, for freedom. It was the largest, most complex combined airborne-amphibious military invasion in world history. Mr. Roberts, our Alaskan of the Week, was there on Omaha Beach in 1944. He eventually marched all the way into Germany with the U.S. Army, all the way across Europe. He was part of the heroic mission that saved the world. That is not an exaggeration. Mr. Roberts served 3 years. He was awarded the European Campaign Medal with three Bronze Stars, representing three difficult battles across Europe that he fought in. And here is the thing, you have to remember this. It was 1944. Our military was fully segregated, and Black soldiers were discriminated against. In fact, it took until 1948 for President Harry Truman to order the Armed Forces to be integrated, 16 years before the passage of the Civil Rights Act. But this patriot, despite the discrimination, was fighting for America. How did Mr. Roberts make it through these ordeals--incredible ordeals--of fire? Prayer, he said. He said: Every day, I prayed, and [when I got home] I was so grateful to be back in the United States. When he got out of the military and made his way back to Texas and then to California, he had a friend who was in Alaska who told him that his skills were needed up in the great State of Alaska. It was 1964. Our State had just been devastated by the largest earthquake ever recorded in North America. It was the second-largest earthquake ever recorded in the history of the world--9.2 on the Richter scale--our Good Friday earthquake in 1964. Tsunamis crushed buildings, and of course it killed a lot of people. There was a lot of rebuilding being done. So Mr. Roberts, who at this point was a cement mason, made his way north--north to Alaska, north to the future. He worked all across the State helping rebuild it: Fairbanks, Kenai, Valdez, the Aleutian Islands Chain. He literally helped lay pavement for the construction of what is now Ted Stevens International Airport in Anchorage. He bought a house in Chugiak, AK, outside of Anchorage. He met and married the love of his life, Joan, in 1970, in Anchorage. They joined the Eagle River Missionary Baptist Church, where they remained, and he remains an active member at the tender age of 100. Together for more than 40 years, before Joan passed, they raised four generations of children and had a wonderful life together. Like I said, Tuesday, Valentine's Day, February 14, was Mr. Roberts' 100th birthday. I had the honor of calling him, wishing him a happy birthday, talking to him a little bit about his heroic service, thanking him for his heroic service. The day after his birthday, he caught up with his friend Darrell Little. Mr. Roberts and Mr. Little have been friends--best friends--for more than 40 years. Darrell was visiting Mr. Roberts, making him his favorite meal for his birthday, a beef tongue sandwich. Sounds pretty good. Darrell described Mr. Roberts as a loyal citizen who served his country bravely with honor and distinction. That is what being Alaskan of the Week is all about. Darrell asked Mr. Roberts what he wanted to say about his extraordinary life, and here is what Mr. Roberts said just 2 days ago. He loves Alaska. He wouldn't trade his time in the State for anything else in the world, even with all the snow we are having this winter. He also said it was such a great honor to serve his country, and he thanked God for blessing him. He sounds like an amazing guy. He is an amazing guy. I just spoke to him. Mr. Roberts, thank you for your service. Thank you for helping rebuild Alaska. Thank you for living and leading such an exemplary life for 100 years. Thank you, as we move into Black History Month, for showing an example of a young man, patriotic, despite systemic discrimination against him, who fought the evil Nazi regime heroically and valiantly, part of the ``greatest generation'' that literally saved the world. So, Mr. Roberts, happy birthday. I know you are also happy about one of the most prestigious awards you can ever get, Alaskan of the Week. We wish you well, sir.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to thank my good friend from the great State of Mississippi, who has been a fantastic leader on the Armed Services Committee, a fantastic leader on so many of these important national security topics. He and I share a very strong, similar, identical view on the importance of Taiwan, and we all need to be doing that. So I want to thank my good friend Senator Wicker from Mississippi for his leadership on this and so many other issues. Willow Project Mr. President, I also want to thank my good friend from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, who was just on the floor of the U.S. Senate talking about the importance of the Willow Project not just to Alaska but to America. She and I are going to be down here on the floor a lot in the next several weeks. I was here last week talking about this project. Now, for those of you who haven't watched, a quick recap of the Willow Project: a very large-scale oil and gas project in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, so not a controversial area at all. It is not like ANWR or some of the other areas in our State. NPRA, as we call it in Alaska, was set aside by the Federal Government decades ago for oil and gas development because we need oil and gas. We need it. Some people out there don't think we do, but we do. And if we need it, we should do it in America. Just a quick, little summary of some of the key aspects of this: 2,500 jobs to build this. It is ready to build tomorrow. We have permission. It is completely shovel-ready. Seventy-five percent of those jobs will be union jobs, building trades jobs. It is one of the top priorities of unions. I will talk about that. Peak production: Almost 200,000 barrels a day--highest environmental standards in the world, by far; lowest greenhouse gas emissions of a major energy project in the world, by far; billions in revenues from the Federal Government, from State government, for local governments in Alaska, and broad-base support from every group in Alaska you can imagine. So that is the Willow Project. We got the final EIS last week. And the Biden administration is still kind of saying: Maybe we are going to narrow this so much that we are going to kill it. I am going to talk about that. That would be unbelievable. I have tried to work with this administration and, certainly, Senator Murkowski has. We have made this the No. 1 issue from the Alaska delegation ever since Joe Biden stepped into office on day one. I personally raised this with the President, every Cabinet official. Willow is No. 1. If you want cooperation from the Alaska delegation, you have to work with us. We are there. We are almost there. But I want to talk about some of what happened last week because our good friends in the media, who love to write about this story, Willow, because they hate the project, they are biased in the project. So when the EIS came out last week, if you read the national media--which there was a lot of--guess who they quote. Guess who they quote. Do you think they quote the Alaskans who want it? The Native people? The indigenous people in my State who really want it? The unions? No. No, no, no. Our friends in the national media never quote them. They quote Greenpeace, Center for Biological Diversity. Who are the other radical groups? Earthjustice. All the far left radical groups--none of whom live in Alaska, by the way--they get fully quoted: Climate Bomb--all this crazy stuff. It is not scientific-based at all. But they don't quote people, in my view, who really, really matter--who really, really matter; particularly the Native people. You want to talk about racial justice; you want to talk about environmental justice; you want to talk about racial equity--buzz words the Biden administration uses all the time. The media does too. But somehow they always leave out the indigenous people of my State. It is wrong. It is wrong. Media is wrong. The Biden administration is wrong. I am going to go into this in a big way. But I just want to make one final point. When people talk about the science--the Democrats, we are the party of science--what happened last week was the final EIS came out, and that was the career staff at the Federal Agencies who came out with this final environmental impact statement. It wasn't great. It limited this project from five pads, which is where the Trump administration--their record of decision--concluded based on science that you can do this in an environmentally sensitive way. The Biden administration came out and said: No, we are going to move it to three pads. All right. That is the career staff. We can live with that. The private sector company, ConocoPhillips, can live with that. The Native people can live with that. We have 30 days. If you are an American who cares about energy security, national security, weigh in with BLM.gov, the Department of the Interior. Say: We have got to get the Willow Project going. If this gets limited beyond that, it is pure politics--pure politics. The Democrats, party of science--OK, prove it. If this gets limited more, it will kill the project. We know every far-left environmental group in the country--just read the paper--last week, they said, we are out to kill this thing. If this gets killed, it will be pure politics by Joe Biden, John Podesta--the whole group in the White House. So the Native people are very upset in my State because overwhelmingly they support this. Every major Native Alaskan group in the country supports this. And they can't get one quote in the newspaper. The Washington Post--forget it. They won't quote a Native Alaskan who supports it. They find the one who is against it and quote her. But the vast majority support it. This is the voice of the Arctic Inupiat. They put this statement out a couple of weeks ago. I am just going to read it again. ``Outside activists groups''--that is the ones that always get quoted in the newspaper. You know the ones: Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, Earthjustice. By the way, Center for American Progress-- interesting about them--they are really against it. Now, why is that so interesting? That was started by John Podesta. Until recently, he was the leader of it. They put statements out against Willow all the time. Now, he is in charge of making a decision on whether Willow should go forward. Is that fair? Boy, I hope he is being objective. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. I wouldn't even want to describe what that would look like. So all these groups, they are always against it. But here are the Native people who want it. I will explain for a minute why they want it. So they said: Outside activist groups opposing Willow have drowned out-- Certainly in the media-- [o]ur local perspectives and are actively working to supersede the views of the Alaska Native people. True. By the way, the media--sorry, guys, but you are helping them in a great way to cancel the voices of the Native people. This is not environmental justice or any other kind of justice. It certainly is not racial equity. It is racial cancelization. I am continuing. It is a direct attack on Alaska Native self-determination. So that is going on right now. And it is very frustrating. It is very frustrating because the voices of some amazing people in my State--the indigenous people of Alaska--are being canceled and drowned out. And our national media has no problem quoting in every story the far-left radical enviros who want to shut down every energy project in America, and they won't quote these great people. So why do they care about this project so much? Well, it is jobs. It is energy. It is revenues. But you know what? It is even bigger than that. Here is why they care. I break out this chart a lot. I am going to explain it here. This is a chart from the American Medical Association. And what it does, it looks at the changes and life expectancy in America from 1980 to 2014, a 25-year period. Now, look, we are all Americans. We want progress. Where you see anywhere kind of yellow and then green and then blue and then dark blue and purple, that is good in our country. That means people's life expectancy is increasing. We all want that. We all want that. Now, unfortunately, you see like orange and red--a couple of spots in America, orange, red--that is actually American life expectancies in the last 25 years decreasing. Nobody wants that. This is another topic, but that is primarily parts of the country that were hit really hard by the opioid epidemic. We have to work together and improve it. We don't want to see any orange or red here. Nobody wants an American's life expectancy to decrease. That is bad. But here is my broader commitment. What part of America had the biggest life expectancy increase from 1980 to 2014? Increase. My State--the great State of Alaska. If you look at this map, life expectancy--particularly in the rural areas, the Native areas, Native villages, Aleutian Islands chain, parts of the southeast--life expectancy went up 5, 6, 7--up to 13 years--13 years. The highest in the country. That is great. That is great. As I have said to many folks when we have been debating these issues here on the Senate floor, give me one indicator of policy success more important than are your citizens living longer. I have never heard anyone come back to me and say: Here is something more important, Dan. I don't think there is. So from 1980 to 2014, there are big swaths of Alaska where the life expectancy went like this. It is great. We should all celebrate that. Why did that happen? Why did that happen? I will tell you why it happened. We had major resource development here. We have Prudhoe Bay--the development of Prudhoe Bay--the biggest oil and gas field in North America, other oil and gas fields. They had the development of the Aleutian Islands chain with the Magnuson-Stevens Act for resource development on fisheries. That is a huge legislative change. You had mining. You had resource development, which was jobs and revenues. And all of a sudden, these communities were able to get things like clinics and flushed toilets and running water and gymnasiums--things that in the lower 48, in New Jersey, or other places, you just take for granted. We didn't have them there. And because we had jobs and resource development in an economy, you started having that, and you have people living longer. So I think you are hopefully seeing the point. This Willow Project is a matter of life and death for my constituents. And that is why almost everybody--the Alaska Federation Native, every Native group, every group in Alaska--they are all for it. And that is why we get really mad and frustrated--I saw Senator Murkowski down here a couple of minutes ago, and she was frustrated--when the big Washington Post and New York Times write their left-leaning, anti-Willows, and they have no idea what they are writing about. This is a matter of life and death, and they are canceling the voices of the people I represent, particularly the Native people. That has to change. That has to change. You know who else supports this? I had the great honor of giving my annual speech to the Alaska legislature 2 days ago in Juneau, AK. It is something Senator Murkowski and I do every year. It is a huge honor. I made the pitch on Willow to all the State senators, State representatives. And I am pretty sure we are going to get a unanimous joint resolution from the house and senate, Alaska State Legislature, saying how important this project is and how everybody in elected office in my State supports it. That is very unusual. In any State, you would have outliers. I am pretty sure we are going to get something unanimous. Why are we doing that? Again, to not just show the media but the Biden administration and the Congress that this issue unifies Alaskans. And we should be respected for this. We should be respected. So the Native people of Alaska are very strongly supportive. They get canceled. You even have a couple of real clueless Congressmen on the other side of the Congress last week coming out saying Alaskans don't want the Willow Project, the Native people don't. I mean, these guys are clueless. I forget their names--some guy from Arizona--but they are wrong. I am going to make another point, which is maybe even more frustrating. The media doesn't want to hear from the Native voice. Do you know who else doesn't want to hear? The Biden administration themselves--the Biden administration themselves. I can't tell you how many times I have heard the President, Cabinet officials, the Vice President talk about racial equity, racial justice, environmental justice all the time. Last night, I was with a remarkable gathering of Alaskan Native people. This was a trilateral gathering from the people on the North Slope where this Willow Project is going to take place--right here. I call it a trilateral gathering because it was the leaders--dozens of them--flew 5,000 miles from here--Utqiagvik, the top of the world, by the way--they flew 5,000 miles to Washington, DC. We all met last night: Senator Murkowski, Congresswoman Peltola. And it is the trilateral group because it is the Tribe, what I call Inupiaq Community of the Arctic Slope. This is a regionally, federally recognized Tribe of Inupiat people, their leadership. That was one part of this trilateral group. The second part was the regional borough--like a county. That is right here, the North Slope Borough. By the way, it is bigger than Montana. That is the size I am talking about. These are elected officials--city council, the mayor. They are all Inupiat indigenous people. That is the second part. The third part is the Alaska Native Regional Corporation called Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. Remember, it was created by Congress. It is an economic engine. It has Tribal and heritage components. So it was the leaders of all these three organizations, the Tribe, the borough, and the Regional Alaska Native Corporation--all their leadership. I have known these people for a long time. They are amazing, incredible Americans. You would love them. A couple dozen of them flew from right here, from Barrow, to Washington, DC. They wanted a meeting with the Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland. They wanted a meeting with her. They didn't get the meeting. You would think: Geez, it is pretty important. Do you want to hear the voice of the Native people? Do you want to talk about racial equity, racial justice, environmental justice? These people just flew 5,000 miles to Washington, DC. The Secretary doesn't have time to meet with them. That is not very respectful. They are all supportive, by the way--the Tribe--they are all supportive of the Willow Project. But here is the thing. It wasn't just this week. This group of Alaska Natives, the trilateral group, some of the most important people in my State, have tried at least five different times to meet with the Secretary of the Interior. They have flown 5,000 miles to Washington, DC, to get one damn meeting with the Secretary of the Interior. Do you know what? Her office has said no every single time. Environmental justice, racial equity, respect for the Native people--come on. It is a bunch of baloney--five times at least. The only time Deb Haaland has ever given these people an audience was when she was up there for about 20 minutes. It is shocking. She is canceling the voices of the Native people of Alaska who want this project. They flew 5,000 miles--this trilateral group, the Tribe, the borough, the ANC. Nope, the Secretary is too busy. Nope, the Secretary is too busy last time and last time and last time. At least five different times they tried to meet with her. She won't listen. That is what I call cancellation. Media, you are welcome to write that. You won't, of course. I guarantee you that in that time, she has probably met with representatives from some of these far-left radical groups--probably dozens of times--but she won't do it. You want to hear some real irony? As I mentioned last week, the scientists came out from the Federal Agencies and said: Here is the final environmental impact. It was very long, very detailed, very data- filled scientific studies. Remember, the normal course of business in the Federal Government is once you do an EIS, you have 30 days for the final Record of Decision. That almost always gets stamped ``approved.'' Rarely, do you have the Record of Decision 30 days later changing the EIS. What is happening in America is all these radical lower 48 environmental groups are trying like crazy to pressure John Podesta and the President of the United States to change it. That would be pure politics. The Democrats say they are the party of science. This wouldn't be science at all. This would be pure, raw political power to appease the Center for Biological Diversity and completely screw the people I represent on the North Slope. That would happen. Here is the real irony. Last week, BLM put out this EIS. It was a pretty good statement. They narrowed it more. Then, the Department of the Interior put out a statement. They didn't attribute it to anybody. Deb Haaland certainly didn't say it was her statement. It was just a statement from the Department of the Interior saying the Department has substantial concerns about the Willow Project. Wait a minute. BLM is part of the Department, and BLM just came out with an EIS saying it was good. That is weird. It is the preferred alternative in the final EIS, which BLM just put out, so that is really strange. And then they said: One of our concerns is direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions. Indirect--I don't know what that means. Deb Haaland doesn't worry about greenhouse gas emissions from New Mexico, which has increased production in oil and gas in the last 3 years by 700,000 barrels a day. Where is that story, Washington Post? But they also said they are concerned about the impacts to wildlife and Alaska Native subsistence. They might change it based on that. But who are the people who understand impacts to wildlife in Alaska Native subsistence on the North Slope? Who are they? They are the people I was with last night. They are the people Deb Haaland refuses to meet with. So the Department of the Interior was really concerned about ``impacts to wildlife and Alaska Native subsistence.'' She had 30 Alaska Native leaders in DC yesterday to tell her about it. These are the whaling captains; these are the hunters; these are the people who know this issue more than anybody. Do you know what this is? This is just a ruse, right? If the Department of the Interior was really worried about impacts to wildlife and Alaska Native subsistence, don't you think Deb Haaland would at least have taken one meeting with these great leaders who are the leaders on Alaska Native subsistence and wildlife? The North Slope Borough Project has the best wildlife experts in the world, and the borough was here yesterday--same with ICAS, the Native Tribe. They were here. It is a little fishy that the Secretary of the Interior won't meet with these great Alaska Natives. Why? Because they are going to say: Madam Secretary, respectfully, we really want this project. Let me conclude with one other voice that is being ignored, canceled, whatever you want to talk about on the Willow Project. I like this picture. I love this picture, actually. It is a very iconic photo of men and women--actually, it is just all men in that photo. These are the great Americans who built this country. This is taking a lunch break while they are building the Empire State Building. I think they built that in 18 months, 12 months, something incredible like that. The reason I like this picture is because there has become a theme, unfortunately. Some of my Democratic colleagues don't like it when I say this, but there has become a theme that I have seen over the years--certainly in Alaska and maybe not in the rest of the country-- but I think it is pretty much the rest of the country, and it is this. My friends in the Democratic Party used to say: We are the party of the working men and women, men and women who built stuff like the Empire State Building and build projects like Willow or the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Here is the thing. Whenever the national Democrats--Joe Biden, you name it--whenever they have a choice, a choice between the radical far- left environmental elites who want to stop stuff and these men and women who build things, every time--every single time--they go with the radical elites and sell out the working men and women in America, every time. Some of my Democratic colleagues don't like it when I say that. Well, I am sorry, but I think it is truthful. I will say--and I said it on the floor the other day--I have a lot of Senate colleagues, Republicans and, in particular, Democrats, and I am so thankful, who have called and reached out to the White House and said: Look, you guys, come on, this Willow project makes so much sense. It has been in permitting for decades. Every environmental review has passed with flying colors. The President is really going to Saudi Arabia to get on bended knee to beg for oil? He is really going to Venezuela to lift sanctions to get oil from them, and we are not letting Alaskans produce it? That is crazy. A lot of my Democratic colleagues--I am not going to name them because they probably don't want to be named--I appreciate you guys calling the White House to say: Come on, you have to approve this Willow project. But here is the thing. Last year, I had what is called a Congressional Review Act on a permitting issue. The White House, believe it or not, after the infrastructure bill, which I supported--we had good permitting reform in it. After the infrastructure bill passed, the White House put out a rule that would make infrastructure projects much harder to permit, particularly energy projects. I brought what is called a Congressional Review Act piece of legislation to rescind the Biden administration rule so we could build things more quickly. I am proud to say, a bipartisan group of Senators supported it. President Biden said he was going to veto the Sullivan bill if it comes to his desk. All right. Mr. President, that is a bad idea. But the reason I am mentioning that now was that was a test because I had every building trade in America supporting my Congressional Review Act resolution to rescind the Biden administration's arcane rule that would make permitting infrastructure projects harder, and the working men and women said we are supporting the Sullivan Congressional Review Act. And guess what. It passed. Now, the usual suspects, Center for Biological Diversity and all the left green groups, were against it. That was a test. Whom are you with, the working men and women of America or far-left elite, radical environmental groups that want to shut it down again? That is a test. I posed it to my Senate colleagues. The Senate passed the test. It was bipartisan--not by much, but it was still bipartisan. Thank you, Joe Manchin. Here is the thing. Willow is another test. It is not a test for my colleagues here. If we had a vote on Willow right now, I bet it would pass well over 60, 65 Senators. So, again, I thank my Democratic colleagues for helping me. All my Republican colleagues want it done. They know it is good for Alaska and really good for America. But here is the thing: Once again, all the big building trades, all of them are coming out in huge support for the Willow Project. They are making it--the laborers, the building tradesmen--they are making it one of their biggest priorities, if not their biggest priority, for these people. Why? As I mentioned, 2,500 construction jobs--that is the estimate to build this--75 percent of which will be labor and building trade union jobs. Here are just a few of the statements from some of these great Americans--and they are great Americans. I have gotten to know these labor leaders, the heart and soul of the country. Here is Terry O'Sullivan, Labors International, LIUNA: Energy infrastructure, oil and natural gas in particular, is the largest privately funded job-creating sector for LIUNA construction workers. The oil and natural gas industry has provided tens of thousands of jobs, resulting in millions of work hours for our members. These are quality union jobs with families supporting wages and benefits. The same is true for the Willow project. LIUNA, Terry O'Sullivan, laborer, pro-Willow. Where is that story, Washington Post, New York Times? You won't write it. You never write it. You canceled these twice. These are great Americans. How about Mark McManus, general president of the Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Union? Let's see what he said about Willow: It is long past time we create good-paying union jobs and invest in North Slope [Alaska] communities that will benefit directly from this project in the [NPR-A, as we call it]. NPR-A set aside 7 years ago for oil and gas development. The Willow Project will help deliver reliable energy to consumers and provide billions of dollars in economic investments in these communities. There you go. Pipefitters. Come on, national media, write that story. Just don't keep quoting the far-left environmental groups; quote working men and women who built this Nation. Who else? James Callahan, president of the operating engineers. Willow will also put operating engineers to work. Those are his union members. He is in charge of them. He is another great American, along with others in the skilled trades. These jobs offer families sustaining wages and offer strong health and pension benefits. Furthermore, construction of the Willow Project will provide much needed revenue to Alaska and the North Slope communities, the Native communities. Another union leader in America. Now, look, the President likes to call himself blue-collar Joe and working Joe and all of that. Prove it, Mr. President. Prove it. This is another example of a choice. The only groups in this country right now who want to shut down the Willow Project are far-left, radical environmental groups who don't want to build anything, who don't give a darn about working men and women in America and certainly don't give a darn about the Native community on the North Slope. I really wish our media friends would write this story. The unions support it; quote them. The Native people support it; quote them, don't cancel them. This administration needs to wake up. The American people are getting tired of this. This is a test. The EIS came out last week. If it is changed, it will be because of raw political power by far-left environmental groups who forced the White House to kill this project. I am just going to end with this. This is just an example. These are union members. These are broad-based groups of Alaska Native organizations. These are just economic groups in our State and nationally. This is not a hard call. This project has the highest environmental standards in the world, and if we need oil and gas, which we do, why wouldn't we get it from American workers, like the people I just quoted, to help Alaska Native communities, like the people I just quoted? Why is the Federal Government--Joe Biden--going to Saudi Arabia to beg for oil? By the way, he got rejected. Why did we lift sanctions on Venezuela, a terrorist regime? To get more oil--whose production processes are 18 times more polluting than an American oil and gas project. Why? None of this makes sense. So, again, I want to thank my Democratic Senate colleagues in particular. We have 30 days. If you are an American and you care about energy security and good jobs, if you are a union member, pick up the phone, send an email--blm.gov--and tell them: Stop the madness. Finalize the Willow Project for the benefit of the Native people in Alaska, for the benefit of working Americans, for the benefit of our national security, and for the benefit of our environment. That is what we need to do. I am hoping that the Biden administration makes the right call. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, yesterday, as some of my colleagues may know, the Federal Government issued the final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on what is called the Willow Project in Alaska. This is a very large oil and gas development in my State. It has been in permitting for about 20 years--20 years. That is a whole other topic. We don't need 20 years to do anything in terms of permitting. But I want to first begin by thanking several of my Senate colleagues, particularly a number of my Democratic Senate colleagues who have been reaching out to the Biden administration and saying: Hey, you guys need to move this Willow Project forward, for reasons I am going to talk about. By the way, I am going to talk about this a lot for the next 30 days here on the floor. It is so important to my State, my constituents, but to America. But I want to begin by thanking so many of my Senate colleagues--a big number of them. I am not sure they all want to be recognized. So I won't recognize any of those. Senator Manchin put a statement out on this yesterday. But a number of them--especially my Democratic colleague friends--reached out over the last several weeks of the Biden administration saying: Hey, it is time; it is time. This is good for Alaska, good for America, good for our environment. So I want to talk a little bit about this. As I mentioned, I will be down here talking a lot about this because it is so darned important to Alaska and, I would argue, America. This project, as I mentioned, has been under some kind of regulatory review since ConocoPhillips got the leases from the Federal Government during the Clinton administration, the late 1990s. Again, something that people always forget: This is a lease from the Federal Government to the private sector. They paid hundreds of millions of dollars for these leases. We are in a contract with the Feds saying we are going to explore and then develop. It is also in what is called the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, NPRA. It is not a controversial area, unlike ANWR--we recognize that--or some of the offshore developments. This is the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. This was set aside by Congress, this body, I think almost 70 years ago. It used to be called the Naval Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. For what? For developing identifying oil and gas, which our country needs--still needs. It is going to need it for decades to come. So the review process has been going on for years. Every environmental review, this project advances with flying colors. I will get to that. The Trump administration finished the permitting with a record of decision in 2020. They approved five drilling pads. The Biden administration, after some court delays--and to be honest, after delays from the Biden administration--came back, finally, with a supplemental final EIS and said: We are going to go from five pads down to three. All right. That is not what I would have preferred. But these are the career people. And they think that this can be developed with this new plan. We would agree. But that is a bare minimum. There were some indications yesterday that the administration is still looking at maybe less. We have 30 more days to review this. And they are looking at maybe less pads. Well, we have all stated--the private sector companies stated: Hey, anything less than this, you are essentially killing it, because you can't make this an economically viable project. So let me just give a little bit of a background on this because it is so important, and then I want to make a few points that relate to the voices that need to be heard as it relates to the Willow project. We could start building this tomorrow. This is clearly a shovel-ready project. We only build, in Alaska, projects like this in the winter because we have such high environmental standards, the highest in the world. We build ice roads, ice paths so we don't disrupt the tundra, and we only, generally, build from January to April. The Conoco team is ready. Estimates are 2,500 jobs--2,500 jobs. Could we use that in America? Could we use that in Alaska? Darn right we could. By the way, the estimate is 75 percent of those jobs will be union jobs, building trade jobs. That is why the laborers--pretty much every major union in the country--has viewed this as one of their top priorities, not just for Alaska, for America. Revenues are about $17 billion for Federal, State, and local governments--$17 billion. America, Alaska, the North Slope Borough could all use that. Racial equity, racial justice. I come down here and speak a lot about why resource development in Alaska is so important because it mostly happens in the rural communities in my State where people, primarily indigenous people, don't have the things that the average American takes for granted, like running water, like flushed toilets, like gymnasiums, like health clinics, let alone hospitals. So Alaska Natives in Alaska, over the last 25 years, have had an explosion in life expectancy. It increased by almost 13 years, more than any other part of America by far. They are living longer. That is a big indicator of policy success. Are your constituents living longer? My constituents are living a lot longer. Why? Because of projects like this. You get jobs; you get revenues; and you start to get things that the average American thinks that every American citizen has. In a lot of our rural communities in Alaska, we don't. When you want to talk about racial equity and racial justice, this should be No. 1--No. 1. I am going to get to it. The Native communities in my State are 100 percent behind this project. For that reason, let me talk about another benefit, the environment. This will be the lowest greenhouse gas-emitting project of an energy project of this size, of any project like this in the world--in the world. If we need oil and gas, which the Biden administration's Energy Information Agency says we will need for decades to come and the International Energy Agency in Paris says we are going to need oil and gas for decades to come, wouldn't you want to produce it in the place with the highest environmental standards? The answer is yes. Wouldn't you want to produce it with those 2,500 American jobs--good jobs--that pay a real high wage? The answer is yes. Wouldn't you want to do it in a way that really promotes environmental justice and racial equity by helping indigenous people in their communities with jobs, with revenues, with services that most people take for granted? The answer is yes. This project, at peak production, will be about 200,000 barrels a day. That is a lot of oil, but you are going to be able to do it without barely any new infrastructure--as I mentioned, five pads or three pads--and it is right next to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline that is two-thirds empty. You plug it in there, and it flows down to America. You think we need energy? We need energy. One thing I have said to the Biden administration, which makes no sense at all, is why would the President go to Saudi Arabia on bended knee asking for more oil? Why would this administration go to Venezuela--Maduro, a terrorist--and lift sanctions on Venezuela, which has some of the most dirty, polluting energy projects anywhere in the world, so we can import more oil into America from Venezuela and from Saudi Arabia, when we can get it from Alaska with our workers, our high environmental standards-- highest in the world--our Native people? These are all the reasons why this makes sense. These are the reasons why--again, thank you to my colleagues, so many of my Democratic colleagues. All my Republican colleagues are, of course, supportive, but they don't have the sway with the Biden administration. This is why everybody here--with the exception of a few, and I will just name one because I can't help but name him--are for this. In terms of energy security--and I know the Presiding Officer follows this--which countries fear American energy dominance more than anything? Read the intel. It is Putin in Russia. They are worried about projects like this. It is Xi Jinping in China. They are scared to death of American energy dominance. And it is the people in the Middle East. I was just there on a codel with six Republican and Democratic Senators--in the Middle East. The Presiding Officer was going to come with us. We really missed him. He couldn't make it. Our National Security Advisor was there. We had breakfast with him. He knows all about this project, by the way. The Biden administration's national security teams--Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor--they think this is a no-brainer. Of course, we need more energy. Imagine what we can do if you are going into a meeting with the, say, Saudis or Emirates saying: By the way, we just approved a project that will be 200,000 barrels a day for America with the highest standards in the world. That is power. That is still power. We need all the above. I want all kinds of energy-- renewables, wind, solar--but we are still going to need oil and gas. If we do, let's get it from us, not our enemies. This announcement came--like I said, three pads is not great, but we can work with it. BLM put out a pretty good statement. The Department of the Interior put out a statement. They didn't quote anybody, which was very strange. It was a headless Department of the Interior statement that kind of indicated maybe they are going to kill this project in 30 days. That is very troubling. Our delegation has asked for a meeting with the President to finally pitch him on this. I pitched President Biden on this before. At the time, he was very supportive so it will be hard to walk it back. Here is my issue. I just want to make a couple of final points. The media coverage on this--to our friends in the media, I am going to ask--look, I interview with the media all the time. I talk with anybody who has issues, but it was remarkable. Go read the articles yesterday on the Willow project. They quote every far-left radical environmental group in America, none of whom, by the way, live in Alaska. The list is very long. They are calling this a horrible project. It is the highest standards in the world, there is no doubt about it. They are just saying apoplectic things about this project. So yesterday's press quoted all these voices who are all negative. By the way, they don't want to build anything. They don't want to have one additional energy project in America. They don't; ask them. You don't want energy from Alaska? You would rather get it from Venezuela, 18 times more polluting than an American project? When you ask them that question--trust me, I have asked that question a lot--they never have an answer. They don't know what to say. They just say: We hate all oil and gas. Guess what. We need it. Let's do it here. Here is my point. This is a list of just some groups that need to be heard. Next time my colleagues--my friends in the media write a story-- go ask all the unions. Laborers' International, the biggest construction union in America, LIUNA, led by a great American, Terry O'Sullivan, put another statement out. He has been writing letters once a month. This is one of our biggest projects for the laborers, the building trades, all the unions that build stuff--a giant coalition. Sean McGarvey, another great American is head of the building trades. They put out a huge statement. They have been putting out statements on Willow for years. Did any of our great media in America quote the unions yesterday? No. They quote the Center for Biological Diversity and all these other far lefties, but the men and women who build stuff weren't quoted at all. This is one of their biggest priorities in America right now, 100 percent. The group that they really did not quote at all--and this is troubling to me--is all the Alaska Native leaders and Alaska Native Tribes and Alaska Native elected leaders in this part of Alaska. There are dozens of them. I was down here and gave a speech a few months ago with all the letters from all these different groups. You know what they do? They love to pick the one person in Alaska who is against them and quote that person. My ask of the media is next time you write about Willow and the Biden administration, when you are looking for the people who really know how this matters to their State, quote some of these incredible groups--the ANCSA Regional organization, the city of Wainwright, the North Slope Borough, the Native village of Barrow, the Voice of the Arctic, which is a grouping of different Native groups on the Arctic. Here is what they said. Here are a few. This is from the Inupiat leaders of the Alaska's North Slope: The Administration cannot proclaim to support meaningful tribal consultation and environmental justice while at the same time killing a critical resource that supports . . . the Inupiat communities of the North Slope region. The Native Alaskans want this. This is the Alaska Federation of Natives. That is the biggest Native group organization that represents all Natives in Alaska: Southeast, North Slope, Interior. They are huge supporters of this--every group. My friends in the media, go ask them, quote them. Don't go to Greenpeace out of New York City or San Francisco. Quote the Alaska Native people who live there. I will make two final points. As you can tell, this is very important to me. You know we have a couple of Members of Congress--I forget this one guy's name from Arizona--Grijalva, I think. He was saying the Alaskan people don't want it; Alaska Natives don't want it. He said that yesterday. He has a new member on his committee, Mary Peltola, Congresswoman from Alaska, who is an Alaska Native. Maybe you should ask Mary what she thinks about this project instead of spouting off on an issue. Unfortunately, I have one colleague here--I am not going to get into it. He knows who he is. He makes it his life's work to go after Alaska, including this one. I will give a speech later on the hypocrisy of that action. I want to just quote the voice of the Arctic Inupiat, a group of Native leaders. Here, they sum up what happened yesterday, what the media kind of highlighted while, literally, canceling the voice of the people in Alaska. Here is what they say: Outside activist groups opposing Willow have drowned out local perspectives-- That is what happened in the press reports yesterday. and are actively working to supersede the views of the Alaska Native people. This is not environmental justice or any other kind of justice. When you put that back to a Biden administration official and say: You guys care about environmental justice, racial justice, racial equity that you talk about all the time, what about my constituents? Every time I have asked that question of a Biden administration official, they look at me blank: Hmm, I don't know how to answer that. The indigenous people of my State want this project, undeniably. Our friends in the media won't write that story. It is a direct attack on Alaska Native self-determination. This is the voice of the Arctic Inupiat. Like I said, I am going to be coming down here talking about this because it is really important for my State and really important for America. A final point, too. I frequently make the argument--some of my Democratic colleagues don't like it--you know, on these kinds of issues, the Democratic Party that used to be for the working men and working women of America, the people who build things, kind of migrated, kind of left the working men and women out. If the far-left environmental groups want something, they almost always go with them, not the working men and women of America. This will be a test for the administration. You say you want to support the working men and women and the Indigenous people in my State? This is an easy answer--easy answer. Look at the supporters. So I hope we can get there. Thirty days is going to be a battle, but I hope our friends in the media, when they are writing about this in the next few weeks, don't cancel the voices of Alaskans, don't cancel the voices of the Alaskan Native people, the Indigenous people. Hear from them. I know you have a bias against a project like this, but listen to the people I represent. They are great people, and they are very clear that they are supporting the Willow project, as am I, as is Senator Murkowski, as are, by the way, a lot of my colleagues in a bipartisan way. I thank them again. This is going to be really important. And it doesn't just matter to Alaska; it matters to America. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is Thursday, and it has been a while since I have been on the floor here on a Thursday afternoon, but it is my favorite time of the week because I get to do something that I certainly enjoy. We have a new set of pages here. I think they enjoy it, and I know some in our media enjoy it because it kind of signals the end of the week here. But it is when I get to talk about an Alaskan--or Alaskans, plural--who are doing great stuff for our State or their community or maybe even the country, somebody I refer to as the Alaskan of the week. We have been doing this for, geez, quite some time. I think 5 or 6 years, going on that. We have covered a lot of ground. And before I talk about our two Alaskans of the week--special Alaskans--I usually give an update about what is going on in the great State of Alaska for anyone watching on TV. We have people back in the Gallery. So we love that. We always do a plug for Alaska. You have to get up there. Take a vacation with your family. You will love it. You will have the vacation adventure of a lifetime. So I usually give an update of what has been going on. We have had an intense winter, a lot of snow, particularly in Southcentral Alaska, where I live. Schools have even been closed. That is very rare for our State, to close schools because of winter or really cold weather, but we have had both--some cold snaps, some warming--and much winter fun, as you can imagine, if you love winter sports. The winter solstice has already come and gone since my last ``Alaskan of the Week'' and so have Christmas and the holidays. By the way, there is no better place to spend Christmas than in Alaska, where a man named Santa Claus--a good man, by the way--lives in North Pole, AK, and even runs for Congress. You may have seen that news last year. He didn't win, but he is a good guy. I know him well: Santa--Santa Claus--a politician in North Pole, AK. Now, our two Alaskans of the week are Frank Hughes and Lincoln Bean. They are both Alaska Native leaders, longtime community leaders and members of the organized village of Kake. Kake is a village of about 500 people in beautiful--gorgeous, actually--Southeast Alaska. So, again, if you are visiting, you have to come to Southeast. But we are such a big State that you have to go everywhere. Now, Frank and Lincoln know what the holidays are about, which we just celebrated, and because of their efforts, they and many others in Kake got a very special early Christmas gift this year that I want to talk to everybody about. On November 18, both Frank and Lincoln were on a plane from Oregon back home to Alaska. In the belly of the plane was a 40-gallon bin locked with zip ties, filled with 25 precious Native objects, some estimated to be up to 200 years old. And because of their efforts, these precious, sacred objects and the spirits in them were coming home once again and are now resting in Kake, where these objects belong. Those items include baskets, a headdress, a replica of a canoe, ceremonial paddles, and rattles used by Tlingit spiritual medicine men. There was also a wooden mask, which would have been carved into a tree in Kake as a territorial marker. Frank said the mask would have had to have been cut out of the body of the tree to be removed. These items were painfully and lovingly crafted by the village's Tlingit ancestors generations ago, precious items that didn't belong to others but were taken--in some cases, ripped from villages--without even a thought of whom they belonged to. But like I said, now they are home, and, according to Frank and Lincoln, both say that the spirits within these sacred objects are also at home and at peace. So who are Frank and Lincoln, and why did they think it was so important to bring these items back to their village of Kake? This is an effort, one of many, being taken across the country since Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in 1990. NAGPRA is the acronym. This congressional act requires any public institution receiving Federal money, like colleges and museums, to return indigenous human remains--yes, these institutions literally have human remains--and cultural items to Tribes or descendants throughout America, to Native communities, wherever possible. Since then, many artifacts have been, and are continuing to be, returned to Tribes in Alaska and in the lower 48. Still, it is a slog. Many institutions, believe it or not, are not always cooperative--big institutions, famous American institutions. According to the National Park Service, remains from more than 108,000--let me say that number again--108,000 indigenous people and more than 600,000 artifacts are known to be still held by museums, universities, and Federal Agencies across the country. Think about that. Your ancestors' bones are in a museum somewhere. Not acceptable. My wife Julie is on the board of the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian and actually serves on the repatriation committee. And the process can be tedious. But it is so important for the communities who have had artifacts removed from their communities--or remains, for goodness' sake--removed from their communities. It is so important for these communities to be able to heal. It is certainly not always easy to identify these objects, for the recipients to request them, and then to get these objects back to where they belong. And it takes work and determination and, literally, years, particularly for small villages like Kake, which don't have a museum or a trained curator. But Frank and Lincoln and others in the community had the will and determination to make this happen. So a big shout-out to them. That is why they are Alaskans of the week today. They had a letter--and this is a university, by the way--George Fox University in Newberg, OR, a private Christian college that reached out to Kake--very cooperative, by the way--telling them they thought they had some items that might belong to the village. By the way, that is a great example of a university--an institution-- doing the right thing: helping, taking the initiative. It is unclear exactly how the artifacts made their way a thousand miles to George Fox University in Oregon in the first place. There were Quaker missionaries in Alaska in 1891, and George Fox University was founded in 1891 by the Quakers. So Frank and Lincoln think there is probably a pretty good chance that there is some connection between the missionaries and the artifacts. And the process, as I mentioned, has taken a long time, starting back in 2018, when Frank was the coordinator for NAGPRA and Lincoln was a council member. As a coordinator, Frank had done many indigenous artifact repatriations across the country, but when the community received the letter from George Fox University, they both got very excited because this was their home village. Some of them, they thought, might be artifacts from members of the Eagle and Raven clans in Kake. These are Tlinget, Haida clans in southeast Alaska. Now, a little bit about both of these great Alaskans. Frank is an Army veteran. By the way, Alaska Natives--they are both Alaska Native leaders--serve at higher rates in the U.S. military than any other ethnic group in the country. Special patriotism, I refer to this as. And Frank is a great example of that. You go to Native communities, Native villages in Alaska, you ask to raise your hands for veterans, and pretty much every male in the village, in communities I have been to raise their hand. It is unbelievable, the patriotism and service of guys like Frank. He spent his career serving his country. When he got out of the Army, he worked as a substance abuse counselor, as an EMT, served on his village council, and continued serving by being the commander of the veterans of Kake, his village, and making sure his Alaskan Native veterans got the care and benefits they have earned. Lincoln also spent his career helping his fellow Alaskans in his community. He has been a tenacious advocate for self-determination and for healthcare for Alaska Natives, particularly Alaska Native veterans. He did an amazing job. And I saw him in action for many years as chair of the Alaskan Native Health Board, which is an extremely important organization for our whole State, where he did a great job leading that for healthcare for all Alaska Natives. So that is a little bit about Frank and Lincoln's background. As I mentioned, in 2018, they get this letter. Wow. We have a great opportunity here to get artifacts from their village back home. They got involved, undertook the very tedious process of reaching out, writing grants. And by the time they were ready to go, COVID hit. So, of course, that set them back and everybody back. They had to wait. Finally, the two, as we were coming out of COVID, reenergized their efforts. They took a plane from Kake to Juneau, Juneau to Seattle, Seattle to Portland, where they went to George Fox University. By the way, as I mentioned, it was very, very gracious, very respectful. They actually held a ceremony at the university. The university wanted these items to be returned. They knew it was the right thing to do. It was an emotional experience for all. So they started to bring back the objects, the artifacts. This is how Frank described it. When he was there, when the box of items that had been in storage at the university for about 100 years was put in front of him, he said: It was like running into an air-conditioned room. And then when they opened up the box [with the artifacts and objects from our village, it was like] the sun hit them, it was like spirits hitting me in the face. ``Can you feel the spirits?'' he asked other people gathered in the room. Lincoln said that he could feel it, particularly when they opened the boxes of the rattles that belonged to his family--imagine that feeling--and his clan, the Eagle Clan, with the Killer Whale House. Lincoln said: It was like looking directly back at my family's heritage. He said he felt a certain wholeness when he saw the items. A piece of his culture and that of his community that had been missing for so long was now back. When they got back to Kake, a crowd was there to greet them. They sang greetings songs. They ate traditional food. And then, as per the guidelines, Frank filled out the last paperwork--you always have paperwork when you are dealing with the Feds--and put his hand up and said: I am relieved of duty. I got it done. Lincoln's next project is to build a Tribal house along with a wellness center where these and all the artifacts and art can live in a temperature-controlled room so the spirits he was talking about can be there--set free, back home to pass down the wisdom to the next generation. As Lincoln said: It's powerful looking back on people we know that were here before us--as a family, as a tribe--and it's tangible, we can touch it. And now they are back home. Because of their efforts, Frank and Lincoln and the whole community in Kake can now experience this power. They can touch it. So to my friends, Frank and Lincoln, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year to Kake. Thank you for the great job you have done--the determination-- and congratulations once again on being our Alaskans of the Week.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I rise to talk about a very important and, I believe, very bipartisan issue. It is the need for us in the Senate and the entire U.S. Government to focus on the intensifying Chinese Communist Party threat and the People's Liberation Army threat to Taiwan and why it matters. My remarks will be focusing primarily on the Chinese Communist Party and the leader of that party, Xi Jinping, not on the Chinese people, who have a proud history, heritage, culture of thousands of years, and, as we have seen over the last several weeks, they are very brave people who simply want more freedom. In March of 2021, in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked the then-INDOPACOM Commander, Admiral Davidson, when he thought there would be an invasion of Taiwan by the PLA and the Chinese Communist Party. He responded to my question by saying this: Senator, I think the threat of an invasion of Taiwan is manifest during this decade--in fact, within the next 6 years. Now, that was 2 years ago almost. His successor, ADM John Aquilino, has confirmed this timeline. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Director of National Intelligence, the CNO of the Navy, and even the Secretary of State have recently been ringing alarm bells on this timeline as well. On the heels of the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jinping has emerged as the ultimate supreme leader, surprising the assessment of even the most seasoned China hands with his audacity. He has packed the Politburo Standing Committee with loyalists, promoted party stalwarts with military intelligence and technology backgrounds, and positioned the Central Military Commission to preside over the conquest of Taiwan. Take a look at this poster. Those are Chairman Xi and a bunch of his comrades I just talked about. Let's face it. They might look ridiculous in military fatigues--I think they do--but the message of these kinds of propaganda photos is very, very clear, which was just recently sent out by the Chinese Communist Party. It is this: China is preparing for war. Americans and the rest of the world should take this threat very seriously. I know that our eyes are on Ukraine, which is something we should stay focused on, as defeating authoritarian aggression in Europe is essential to deterring it in Asia, but we can't lose sight of the threat to Taiwan and of what is at stake. So I want to lay out, today, what will be the consequences of a potential invasion of Taiwan and why I believe vital American interests--security and economic interests--are implicated by that and what we should do--all of us together--to work to deter it. But I would like to begin my remarks by focusing on a different era in a different region of the world. In 1948, the Soviets cut West Berlin off from food and fuel, and the United States and our allies, led by our powerful military, responded with the Berlin Airlift. Many of you have seen this very famous photo taken during the Berlin Airlift. At the height of this airlift, allied supply flights were landing in West Berlin literally every minute. Think about that. We did that for a year to save this city--to save it from absorption into the tyrannical Soviet orbit and empire. Think about that. With our citizens and our country being very tired and exhausted after World War II, just a couple of years later, somehow, we understood that the stakes mattered in Berlin. Americans look back on the Berlin Airlift as a point of pride for our freedom-loving Nation. John Kennedy famously visited Berlin in 1963. Before he went, he had seen Berlin as an irritant in the Soviet-U.S. relations. But after declaring himself a Berliner, he came back and recognized that ``Berlin is an asset, not a liability, in the wider struggle for Europe'' and global freedom. The United States defended the city and the people of West Berlin during the 20th century because we understood as a country that this city and these citizens of this city stood on the frontline of the struggle between the American-led free world and a powerful, expansionist, authoritarian regime. The same is true of Taiwan today. Taiwan is the 21st century's West Berlin. Now, it is not as if American political leaders have disregarded the critical importance of Taiwan. To the contrary, starting with President Eisenhower, there has been a long and bipartisan consensus focused on the security of Taiwan. I have recently been rereading President Eisenhower's excellent memoirs, and you will see the importance of Taiwan weaved in and out of the pages of these books. And this, of course, wasn't just the executive branch. This body in particular, the U.S. Senate, has been the ally of Taiwan during its darkest times. When the United States switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing, it was congressional leaders, like Senators Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole, as well as Democrats, like Representative Lester Wolff, who worked on a bipartisan basis to give us the Taiwan Relations Act-- one of the most remarkable pieces of foreign policy legislation the U.S. Congress has ever passed, led right here in the U.S. Senate. The President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, wanted to abandon a longstanding ally, Taiwan, and Congress said no. In the process, America's legislative body rewrote our relationship with Taiwan, and that is the policy that still exists to this day and drives our relationship with the island democracy. With this remarkable legislation, Congress laid down the law and policy on Taiwan for generations, including up until today. In 1979, 84 U.S. Senators, including a young Senator named Joe Biden, voted for that important--very important--piece of legislation. Those stalwart supporters of Taiwan--Republicans and Democrats-- understood that the stakes were more than just about the island itself; they encompassed the issues of American leadership in Asia and our commitment, like we demonstrated in Berlin, to prevent a communist power on the march from devouring an outpost of freedom, this time in the Pacific. Given this history, it is not surprising that the fate of Taiwan has been weaved in and out of the careers of countless Americans, including my own. Twenty-seven years ago, I was a young marine infantry officer deployed to the Taiwan Strait as part of a marine amphibious ready group and two U.S. carrier strike groups, all in response to the Chinese Communist Party's aggressive military provocations on the eve of Presidential elections in Taiwan. The Third Taiwan Strait Crisis this period from 1995 to 1996 is now called. This was an important and decisive demonstration of America's commitment and resolve to an emerging democracy and partner that is still remembered in the region by everybody. This is a picture of the ship I was on during that time. Later, I was part of another demonstration of American commitment and resolve when Senators Tammy Duckworth, Chris Coons, and I flew to Taiwan on that aircraft--that is a picture of our flight--where we were able to bring close to a million vaccines to the Taiwanese people. We did this in the face of the Chinese Communist Party's aggressive attempts to prevent the citizens of Taiwan from receiving this lifesaving medicine from Western countries. And so America responded. I will never forget my first trip as a U.S. Senator on a codel led by Senator McCain to Taiwan. We were getting on the bus after getting off the airplane, and a State Department official from our de facto Embassy there--the American Institute in Taiwan--greeted the Senate delegation by saying this: Welcome to Taiwan, a vibrant Democracy of 24 million people, with one of the most innovative economies in the world. A hub of trade and cutting-edge technology, and the only reason this incredible place exists on a map as such is because of the sacrifice and commitment of [the United States of] America--our military, our government, and our [citizens] . . . . All Americans should be very proud of this! That is what he said--very moving, very true. What a powerful greeting. So American commitment and resolve on Taiwan has been part of our law, our heritage, trade, economics, and military deployments for decades. But I worry that too few Americans know this history and the reason for this commitment. We need to rebuild this understanding to ready ourselves for the test of wills that I believe is approaching. This starts with all of us doing a better job of explaining to the American people collectively why Taiwan matters. In this regard, one question that I don't believe has been asked or analyzed enough is a difficult question to contemplate, but it is this: What would the world look like and how would American interests be implicated by a PLA or Chinese Communist Party takeover of Taiwan? So over the last several weeks--actually, several months--I have asked different government agencies, intel agencies, think tanks, and military commands to help me think through this important but little-studied question. Perhaps it is little-studied because it is a difficult and depressing assignment to contemplate. The Chinese Communist Party and the PLA launched a massive, multipronged, violent military invasion of Taiwan, and U.S. forces either do not get there on time, either decide we are not going to go there at all or actually go to the Taiwan Strait and are defeated by the PLA in their attempt to defend Taiwan. None of this is something that we as Americans want to contemplate; nevertheless, I believe it is our job as leaders to help our fellow Americans understand the ramifications of precisely this scenario today in order to better prevent it from taking place in the future. So let's look at that world and what it would look like, particularly with regard to American interests. A successful PLA military invasion and takeover of Taiwan would be a massive blow to the commanding heights of the technology that powers our digital age. As you can see from this chart, Taiwan dominates the production of the world's most advanced semiconductors. Secure supplies of advanced computer chips today are as important to our economy and that of our allies as the supply of oil has been for us and our allies for decades previously. To suddenly be deprived of these advanced computer chips would have a devastating impact on the U.S. and global economies, negatively impacting millions of good-paying jobs. Just look at the impact of the current chip shortage. According to the Commerce Department, in 2021 alone, it cost the U.S. economy $240 billion--one-quarter of a trillion dollars--including 7.7 million fewer cars being produced, because of the low-end chip shortage we have now. This hasn't just been an inconvenience for those in the market for new cars; this has been devastating in terms of manufacturing jobs in America. Imagine what would happen if the home to 92 percent of the world's most advanced semiconductor production, which is what Taiwan is, were taken offline. It would cost us multiple times more than the $240 billion I just mentioned. All in all, a military conflict over Taiwan, launched by Xi Jinping, could cost the global economy, according to a recent State Department estimate, $2.5 trillion--$2.5 trillion. This sum does not quantify the huge strategic advantage the Chinese Communist Party would gain if it seized the crown jewels of the global economy, which is what they strongly desire, and that is the fabrication of the world's most advanced computer chips. This would also present an extraordinary challenge to the United States' ability to defend itself not only abroad but at home. (Ms. DUCKWORTH assumed the Chair.) Madam President, as you know, advanced microchips from Taiwan feed directly into our ability to develop and sustain our most sophisticated military weapons--F-35s, radars, missile defenses, just to name a few. This translates into great risk for our national security and, importantly, the men and women in uniform who defend us. Second, there is Taiwan's geostrategic value--not just economic value--that, of course, would be shattered by a successful PLA invasion of the island. In his memoirs, President Eisenhower devotes pages and pages to Taiwan. At one point, he says: If the capture of [Taiwan's] offshore islands should, in fact, lead to the loss of [Taiwan], the future security of Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam . . . even Okinawa would be placed in jeopardy and the United States' vital interest would suffer severely. Last year, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs Ely Ratner made essentially the same point in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Certain critics wrung him up for it. Apparently, calling Taiwan ``a critical node within the first island chain'' and an ``anchor [of] a network of U.S. allies and partners'' in Asia, as Assistant Secretary Ratner did, risks offending Beijing's sensibilities. But, of course, Secretary Ratner and President Eisenhower were correct. Taiwan in the CCP's hands breaks China out of the constraints of this area in the Pacific known as the first island chain, as a CCP takeover of Taiwan has the potential to further push the United States and our forces out into the Pacific to what is called the second island chain, out this far. This includes American territories in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, just to name a few. Madam President, as you know, these aren't just points on a grand strategist's map; residents in Guam and the Mariana Islands are American citizens. They send representatives to Congress. Guam has an enormous U.S military presence, with tens of thousands of servicemembers and their families. With the first island chain broken, these Americans will come under direct threat from an emboldened China with a massive and growing military. Here is the other thing: It is highly unlikely that the CCP would stop simply at Taiwan. If history teaches us anything, it is that the appetite of an aggressive authoritarian regime on the march increases with each meal. For decades, the CCP has focused almost exclusively on building a military, with the objective of conquering Taiwan. Take a look at this forced posture that currently exists across the Taiwan Strait. It is a rather depressing picture. These are the military capabilities in numbers of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, and this is that of Taiwan. If you look at the additional numbers, what each of these means in terms of infantry, naval forces, air forces, it is a massive, massive overmatch right now in this area of the world. If there is an invasion that is successful, do we really think these forces are just going to stay around Taiwan? No. They are going to shoot out to all other parts of the Pacific and other parts of the world. The Chinese Communist Party and PLA's military will be supercharged for expansion. President Eisenhower was also deeply concerned about the impact a successful CCP invasion of Taiwan would have on American alliances and our ability to credibly meet our defense treaty obligations to them. This concern continues to today. We look at our allies in the region--and I want to commend the Prime Minister of Japan, just a few days ago, who stepped up, saw significant challenges--primarily this, the Chinese Communist Party--and is saying: Japan's military is going to grow significantly. That is a hugely important development. It is great news for our national security as we work closely with Japan. But a Chinese PLA takeover of Taiwan, in my view, would threaten and call into question our treaty military commitments throughout the region: Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand. Of course, it is always hard to predict the future, but there is little doubt that a Chinese communist takeover of Taiwan would, in some countries' minds, call into question our alliance commitments. It could cause some countries to build up their own military capabilities, including possibly nuclear deterrence, when they currently don't have them, or to choose a much more accommodating ``middle kingdom'' posture toward their powerful neighbor. This, of course, should concern all Americans. The questioning of our Pacific network of alliances that undergird the security of the American homeland by our allies and by balancing and deterring dangers far away from our shores, I believe, makes Americans less safe. Finally, Madam President, a Chinese communist takeover of Taiwan would give a global boost to the CCP's model of authoritarian governance that Xi has been offering the world. In the 1930s, during a time of global upheaval, of which there are striking parallels today, many around the world thought that the future of the world lay with fascism. Such a future was alluring to millions. Democracy can be messy. Disagreement--sometimes ferocious disagreement--is the hallmark of representative government. And because of the transparency inherent in democracies, it is there for all the world to see: the good, the bad, and the ugly. The United States, along with other democracies around the globe, ultimately prevailed against the rise of fascism during World War II. We did so by force of arms but also by appeal to the universal desire for freedom and self-governance that we led. But a military takeover of Taiwan, in the current global climate, could lead many to believe that, as Xi Jinping has put it himself, the CCP's totalitarian vision offers a new choice for humanity, one that relies on techno-authoritarian control rather than self-governance. We cannot be blind to the implications or the extraordinary new legitimacy that the CCP would gain at home and abroad, and with that would come new forms of CCP aggression throughout Asia and throughout the world. So, Madam President, the next slide has a summary of a number of these issues of why Taiwan matters. It is actually a slide taken from a slide back in a briefing out at INDOPACOM command, where I serve as a Marine Corps colonel. It is a good summary of what China would gain and what the United States would lose. I won't go through each one of these. I have talked about a lot of them. But the authoritarian world that the CCP is offering is not what Xi Jinping bills it as. Look at its manifestations today: concentration camps for Uighurs; repression in Hong Kong; prison for peaceful dissidents; no freedom of religion, speech, or assembly; mass censorship and social control; pandemic lockdowns approximating house arrest for millions of citizens guilty of no crime; a cult of personality around a leader who brooks no consent. In a world order built on CCP power and values, freedom and American interests would be unsafe in many parts of the world. Take a hard look at that. This is why Taiwan matters. So, Madam President, my purpose today was to paint a picture of what the world would look like in the face of a successful CCP-PLA invasion of Taiwan. What I want to talk very briefly about next is what we should do about it. I have talked about this slide many times. As a matter of fact, the Presiding Officer and I had a lot of discussions. But this is where we should be focused. None of us wants a war in the Taiwan Strait; and if one is launched, it is going to be by Xi and the CCP and the PLA. It won't be launched by the United States of America. It won't be launched by Taiwan. So what do we do? We need to work to deter it. Now, I have often talked about three levels of deterrence that we need in the Taiwan Strait. First is Taiwan's own defense capabilities, like the Ukrainians are showing the world bravely, heroically right now that smaller countries committed to their own self-governance and self-rule can fight and take on giant authoritarian regimes. As the Ukrainians are showing the world today, we need to make sure Taiwan has the capability to do that itself. As a matter of fact, there are discussions going on right now in the omnibus, and I sure hope the administration weighs in heavily about more assistance for Taiwan to build up its own military and weapons capability. The second level of deterrence, of course, Madam President, is our ability as a country, with our allies, to come to Taiwan's aid if the President so orders. That has been a constant in the decades-long history. During these different crises when there have been threats by the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party, the PLA, to invade Taiwan, the United States has shown up every time. That is going to be increasingly important. We need the capability to do that. And, finally, Madam President, a topic you and I have spoken about quite a lot is a third level of deterrence, which actually isn't talked about that much but, in my view and in the view of many of our Intel analysts, could be the most powerful, and that is devastating economic and financial consequences that we should let the Chinese Communist Party know about now that would ensue if they invaded Taiwan: economic, financial, energy. Madam President, that is why I have been pushing my legislation called the STAND with Taiwan Act. It is legislation that would have very broad-based sanctions that would be triggered against all aspects of the Chinese Communist Party's economy and its leadership, that would be triggered by an invasion of Taiwan by the PLA. This is something I believe we, as the Congress, need to pass. It is something that I have pitched to many of our allies in Europe, in Asia, and it is something that I think could have an enormous, positive deterrent effect in the Taiwan Strait. So let me conclude with this. With the invasion of Ukraine, it is clear that we have entered a new era of authoritarian aggression led by Xi Jinping and Putin like we saw in the 1930s. For nearly a century, American Presidents have seen Asia and Europe as theaters that, if under hostile control, would put U.S. national security at extreme risk. And generations of Americans have fought and died so that East Asia in Europe would not fall under the dictatorial control of U.S. adversaries. Both of these theaters are at risk today. The world cannot be neutral in this contest between freedom and authoritarianism, especially in the Indo-Pacific region. American alliances, power, and ingenuity have helped build a world that has provided more freedom and prosperity to more people than ever before. In fact--think about it, Madam President--the United States democracy, bolstered by our strong military, has done more to liberate humankind from oppression and tyranny--literally, hundreds of millions of people--than any other force in human history. The Chinese Communist Party has clear plans to reverse all of this. It knows exactly what it wants to accomplish: to make the world safe for its tyrannical government, to profit off the export of its authoritarian model to other countries, to separate America from our democratic allies, and to erode U.S. leadership. A world governed by Xi Jinping's totalitarian vision would be a world unsafe for America and our friends, and that is why Taiwan is so important and central to the future of the free world. It is a thriving, prosperous Chinese democracy that holds free elections with power bounded by the rule of law. For that reason, it threatens the CCP's central premise that one man ruling in perpetuity by crushing all dissent knows what is best for 1.4 billion people. The Chinese Communist Party has already crushed Hong Kong, once a bastion of liberty, and the free world barely raised its voice in protest. Should America and the world stand by as China does something similar to Taiwan, a peaceful democracy of 24 million people, that would not simply undermine the security of the Western Pacific, as the Taiwan Relations Act says, but would undermine America's role in the world and the values we as Americans have infused into it? And I believe it would deeply and adversely affect concrete American national security and economic security interests. So I am committed to working with all of my colleagues--the Presiding Officer has been a leader on many of these issues--working with her and others to make sure that that world never comes to pass. This is why Taiwan matters and we need policies of deterrence--all of them--to prevent its violent takeover by the Chinese Communist Party. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to say a few words about the Biden administration's policies on the very subject which Dr. Laura Taylor-Kale is going to be in charge. Now, I have been working with this administration probably more than most Republican Senators, particularly on Department of Defense issues--on Department of Defense personnel, on helping them actually get confirmed--so I don't come down here and do this lightly. Heck, I introduced the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Austin, at his confirmation hearing and then whipped votes to make sure he got confirmed. So this is not my regular course of business even as it relates to the Biden administration but particularly as it relates to the Department of Defense. I have been someone who has been trying to help. But I am objecting because the Biden administration's policies are completely at odds with the President's public statements and my friend from Wisconsin's statements about the need for an industrial policy in critical minerals that will help our military and help our economy. Dr. Taylor-Kale will be in charge of this at the Pentagon--industrial policy, critical minerals, rare earths. What we are seeing, Mr. President, is they talk about this, but then they take actions against these very policies that hurt us. The No. 1 area where they take actions is my State, the great State of Alaska, which has more energy for America, more critical resources, more critical minerals, more rare earths for our Nation--for our Nation. My State has had 40 Executive orders or Executive actions in 2 years from this administration, issued singularly and solely against Alaska. Of course, that is crushing the economy of my State, workers in my State. But here is the broader point for this topic today: It is really undermining America's national security. Critical minerals, natural resources--we all know we need them, yet one big part of America--it is the target of this administration to shut it down. It is ridiculous. As I said to my colleague, if a Republican administration went to Wisconsin or issued 40 Executive orders and Executive actions solely against Wisconsin or Maine and you guys came to me and said, ``Hey, Dan, help us. Geez Louise, the war on Alaska. Help,'' I would help. My State is getting crushed. Here is the specific issue that relates to this nominee. The President held a summit on critical minerals--a good example of what we need to do--on February 22, 2022, and he said: We need these critical minerals. The demand for them is going to increase 400 to 600 percent over the next several decades. We can't build a future that's made in America if we ourselves are dependent on China for the materials that power the products of today and tomorrow. And our national security. That is the President of the United States on his big critical minerals summit hosted at the White House to talk about supply chains and industrial capacity and military issues. The same day the President of the United States held that critical minerals summit, the Department of the Interior said that they were going to reverse a 7-year EIS record of decision, $10 million by professional staff in the Federal Government, on what is called the Ambler Mining District in Alaska, one of the biggest, most extensive sources of critical minerals in the country, maybe even in the world--a project, by the way, that has been in permitting since the Obama administration. That same day, they reversed it and said: Alaska, start over. Nuts. Crazy. So what I have done is I have put a hold on a couple of Department of Defense nominees who are in charge of this area, and Dr. Taylor-Kale is one. But I have been reasonable. I went to the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, the Deputy Secretary of Defense. We held a conference with White House officials. I simply said: I am not asking to reverse your crazy decision--which it was crazy. It hurts my State for sure, but it hurts the national security of our country. I simply said: I want three simple asks--so I have been trying to work to get the nominee cleared--three simple asks from this administration: Identify a definitive, workable schedule with a clear, legitimate timeline for completing the review of this project that has already been in almost 10 years of permitting--to do it in a timely manner. That was No. 1. Clearly state the Federal Government's intent to allow the Alaska entities that are trying to move this forward to continue to complete baseline scientific data gathering and design work, such as wetland delineations and engineering reconnaissance for this road. That was No. 2. Allow these Alaska entities that are moving this road and project forward to complete its planned geological drilling and core sampling program, which is critical to advancing the project and engineering design, as this case is now being remanded. That was it. That was it. Three simple requests. None of these are hard. None of them are hard. I have raised this with the Secretary of Defense, the national security team, of course, Interior, and they keep telling me no. This is easy. If the Secretary of the Interior came and said, ``Senator Sullivan, I saw your remarks on the floor. I agree with all three of those things. You are right; they are simple,'' I would lift my hold today. So the ball is in the administration's court. If they really want Dr. Taylor-Kale to be confirmed, they could do it tonight. Meet my requests, which are quite reasonable. I did not ask them to review or reverse the crazy decision that they made in February of 2022. These are very simple requests. I have been very reasonable on this. No one on their side is being reasonable, so I will continue to hold her and some of the other DOD nominees who are in charge of critical minerals and industrial capacity in the Department of Defense until the simple demands that I am asking for that not only will help my State but will help the national security of America. They won't do it, so I object.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I just want to say that I certainly would be willing to work with my colleague from Wisconsin on this issue. I have been working on it in good faith with other Members on the other side of the aisle. Maybe, perhaps, she can help me with the three simple asks we have put forward to the Department of Interior, and if they agree to those simple asks--and they are simple--then I will lift my hold. So maybe the Senator from Wisconsin and I can work together on this. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I move to concur with a further amendment, No. 6522, to the message to accompany H.R. 7776, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am really working hard with my colleagues here--I see Senator Durbin has come to the floor--to make a law that we all know is the right thing to do. In fact, in my 8 years in the U.S. Senate, I don't think I have ever been involved with a matter that more desperately cries out for a just resolution to a simple issue. And it is this: Do we, as the U.S. Senate, want to help sick U.S. Marines and their families, or do we want to allow a legislative bill that continues to further enrich trial lawyers in America? That is the question. That is the law I am working hard with many of my colleagues to make happen. And I think everyone knows the answer. Everyone in this body knows what the right thing to do is. Every American watching knows what the right thing to do is, and that is to help the brave Marine Corps heroes and their families who have sacrificed for decades to serve our Nation. I have spoken to many of my colleagues, many of my Democratic colleagues in particular, and I know in their hearts that they also recognize we need to fix this problem. So what I am asking my colleagues to do, particularly my Democratic friends, is this: Help me fix it. Now, I want to say something. You are going to need a little courage, like the marines that we are helping. You have a constituency that really does not like my legislation: the trial bar of America. We know they are very powerful. We know that most of my colleagues don't ever want to cross them, and they certainly don't want my bill to pass. But, again, I ask my Democratic colleagues: Have courage. Do the right thing. Work with me on fixing this problem. So what is the problem? Well, I have spoken on the floor about this problem, usually in angry tones because it burns me up. And any American watching who understands this, almost immediately, it burns them up. And the marines and their families, it burns them up as well. But to be honest, this afternoon I am really down here more in terms of sadness and disappointment rather than anger. But I am going to explain it once again, and if you are watching on TV or watching back at home, give a call to your Senator and say ``Hey. Fix this injustice.'' This is a real easy, easy issue to fix. Here is the problem. We, a couple months ago, passed here the PACT Act, which was legislation to help military members who have been sickened by burn pits. This is an issue that I have been focused on my whole Senate career, starting with bipartisan legislation several years ago with Senator Manchin, Senator Klobuchar. So that was good. Important. Expensive, but important. We have got to take care of our veterans and our military. To me, that is the No. 1 priority we should be doing here in the Senate, which is why a provision of the PACT Act--to provide compensation for marines who were sickened by contaminated water at Camp Lejeune--was also considered in the PACT Act. That was important. We should do that for these marines and their families--marines serving in the 1970s, 1980s at Camp Lejeune. So far, so good. That is what has happened. But as the legislation of the PACT Act and the Camp Lejeune marines compensation act--it started to become clear something reared its ugly head, and what reared its ugly head was the legislation was more of a gift to America's trial lawyers than it was to sick marines. Now, we have all seen these ads. As a matter of fact, this morning, on the radio, I heard a couple of them already. You can't go anywhere, turning on the TV, without a lawyer asking marines to call to get them to help under this Camp Lejeune compensation act. Here we are. We have seen it. Everybody has seen it. We had a VA hearing about a month ago. I asked the VA, How much do you think trial lawyers have been spending? This is a month ago. They estimated well over a billion dollars a month ago. A billion dollars. A billion dollars. Do you think that $1 billion is going to go to sick marines and their families? It is not. It is not. Now look, I don't blame the marines who are dialing these 1-800 numbers. They are getting bombarded. If they are sick, they think this is the way they are going to get cured and get their money. That is not the case. A lot of these are scams, and we know it. A lot of these are scams. The problem right now is if a marine calls one of these numbers, there is no limitation on what the trial lawyer representing the marine can take out of the marine's award. No limitation, no cap on contingency fees, no cap on anything. And here is the real problem. Everybody saw this problem coming; that is, as opposed to the marines getting compensation for being sick, the trial lawyers of America would be enriched. Everybody saw it coming. And to their credit, the Biden administration saw it coming. So the Justice Department of the Biden administration had recommended in their technical assistance to us here in the Senate that there should be caps on these awards for trial lawyers. Makes sense. This is the Biden administration Justice Department--friends of many of these law firms, but they knew it was the right thing to do. They said 10 percent caps on contingency awards and 2 percent for filing fees. That was the Biden administration's recommendation. Now, that didn't happen. I won't go into all the bloody, gory details, but as we tried to amend the PACT Act, we wanted an amendment to do that. The Biden administration did, the veterans service organizations did because it was pretty simple. If there is a cap on fees for the lawyers, the marines are going to get more; if there isn't, the trial lawyers are going to get more. We worked it hard. Unfortunately and sadly--really sadly--my Democratic colleagues blocked all those amendments when we tried to pass the PACT Act. So what has happened? What the Biden Justice Department predicted, what we all predicted, it is happening. Billions of dollars of ads--see them every day, hear them every day and every night, and marines getting crumbs and trial attorneys getting rich. That is just not right. There is not one Senator who knows that that is the right thing to do. This is an injustice right now in America, and already some marines have lost money because of these scams. Some of these firms are promising big paydays. Of course, they are asking for money upfront. A recent media story highlighted a marine in Kentucky whose face was actually used in an ad claiming he had received a $35,000 settlement. In fact, he told a reporter he got 35 cents, OK? That is not justice. So, of course, right now the VA, local governments, veterans groups are frantically trying to warn marines and their families: Hey, don't listen to that, and, Congress, please help us. There are reports that some law firms are charging 50 or 60 percent contingency fees. Are you kidding me? The veterans groups, the VA itself, the Biden administration VA, are crying out for help--help--no more scams. Here is what the American Legion said at a recent meeting in a resolution they had passed: WHEREAS, Predatory law firms charging exorbitant fees have engaged in aggressive marketing campaigns [hurting veterans]. . . . The American Legion urges Congress to provide the necessary oversight [for] the implementation of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act to ensure veterans receive fair compensation. That is the American Legion. I am a member. The VFW has also come out in support of what we are trying to do. So this should be simple. This should be simple. So what does my bill do? What does my amendment do? I am going to explain it briefly here. The full name of my amendment, my bill, is the Protect Camp Lejeune Victims Ensnared by Trial Lawyers Scams Act, the VETS Act for short. And it is pretty simple. First of all, it just goes back to what the Biden administration had recommended in terms of a cap. Everybody here agrees there needs to be a cap on contingency fees. They had mentioned 10 percent, as I mentioned, on contingency fees and a 2-percent cap for filing the necessary paperwork. Now my good friend, the Senator from Illinois, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Durbin, respectfully, I think he is going to speak and say: Well, wait a minute. The normal fee is 33\1/2\ percent, one-third contingency fees. That is actually correct. But this isn't a normal fee. The reason the Biden administration has a low contingency fee at 10 percent is that the lawyers who are going to receive and help marines get these benefits aren't going to go through big trials. They are not going to go through discovery. It is almost an administrative procedure process to check some boxes. The government doesn't even have a defense in this. So that is why 33\1/3\ percent, the standard fare for contingency fees, has no place in this legislation--no place in this legislation. This is a government administrative process that is going to be made easy, supposedly, in the bill for marines--sick marines to recover compensation and their families. So when you hear talk about: No, no, it has got to be one-third. That is just not true. The Biden administration recommended 10 percent. So don't be fooled by that. Americans watching, don't be fooled by that. So here is another thing. That is the key to my legislation. The other thing we are saying is because the compensation will come out of other benefits that the veterans receive from the VA, we make sure that the contingency fee is based on the net award, not the total award. Again, that is to serve the marines and their families, not the trial lawyers. Let me give you one final thing my legislation does, and I don't think there is any Senator who disagrees with this. And I am pretty sure the chairman of the Judiciary Committee does not disagree with this. Somehow, in the VA-implemented regulations on the implementation of this legislation, they issued a reg that makes sure that trial lawyers get paid before the sick marines and their families. They what? Yes, right now. Now that is crazy. Everybody, including lawyers, knows that the client gets paid and then the client pays the lawyer. It shouldn't be the lawyer gets paid and then the client gets paid. That is crazy, especially if the client is a sick U.S. marine. And I even think my colleague Senator Durbin agrees with that. So that is the other piece of this legislation. We could fix that overnight by having the Secretary of the VA take a relook at that reg and say: Hey, that is wrong. Let's rescind that. I would welcome if Secretary McDonough would do that. Well, I am going to keep fighting for this issue. This is an urgent issue. Payments under the Camp Lejeune Act will start early next year. The ads that we saw that I showed you here are likely to intensify over the holidays to try to ensnare even more marines into these schemes. But here is what I am going to do: I am going to withdraw my amendment. I am not going to force a vote on this amendment this afternoon because I want to get to a law, and I had a feeling that unfortunately my amendment was not going to get passed in this Senate on this vote this afternoon. So I want to work with Senator Durbin, Senator Blumenthal, other Members on the other side of the aisle to do what we all know is the right thing--to pass a law that emphasizes what we all thought the bill was doing in the first place in the PACT Act, to take care of sick marines and their families and not enrich trial lawyers. Again, I urge my colleagues to work with me. Like the U.S. marines, have courage to stand up to powerful interest groups who are trying to take more money from individuals who deserve it. Work with me on this. It is the holiday season. Let's give the marines and their families the gift that they deserve and have earned through courage and sacrifice, not the lump of coal and breadcrumbs, which is the result of this bill that dramatically focuses on enriching trial lawyers at the expense of the U.S. marines. I am committed to work all weekend, all next week, but we need to get this done before we finish this Congress at the end of the year. Every American knows it. Every U.S. Senator knows it. It is the right thing to do, and I certainly hope my colleagues are going to work with me to make it happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois. He has my full commitment to try to get this done before we leave, and I am willing to compromise on some of these issues. He makes a good point in that, with the Senate's schedule, we are not going to be back here until almost the end of January, and by then, some of these payments will have started to be awarded. We do not want--and I think the Senator from Illinois agrees with me--situations wherein payments are going by 50, 60 percent to contingency fees. Nobody wants that. We shouldn't want that. That is just unfair. This regulation at the VA is also ridiculously unfair in favoring trial lawyers over sick marines. So the Senator from Illinois has my commitment. I will work day and night on this issue to try and get it done before we leave--before we leave. Otherwise, you are going to have a lot of marines--sick marines--and their families who are going to get ripped off. We know that that is going to happen, and we shouldn't allow it. I will work with the Senator from Illinois, as he has got a lot of power as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, on this important issue that, I think, we should all care about. So I appreciate his comments, and I will redouble my efforts on this topic. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I just want to follow on from what Senator Murkowski just said. Here is our resolution, S. 5066, introduced by Senator Murkowski and myself, and we just want to thank our colleagues for agreeing to this tribute to Congressman Don Young. We miss him every day, and as Senator Murkowski so eloquently stated, we are naming buildings and job centers--he did a great job on that--but it is great to be able to be naming a volcano, very appropriately a volcano, for Don Young. So good to be here on the floor with my friend and fellow colleague from Alaska, and it is great to see the majority leader and my colleagues agree to this naming. Hopefully, we will get this signed into law soon--a volcano, a Federal courthouse in Fairbanks, a job training center, all in the name of our greatest Congressman ever--50 years, half a century almost. Pretty remarkable and really an honor to be here on the Senate floor to watch it get passed. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, No. 6503, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, nobody wants a strike right now in our country. We have had challenges with supply chains. We have had challenges with finding enough workers with regard to our businesses. Nobody wants a strike. My amendment would certainly focus on not having a strike but making sure that the sides in this disagreement, between management and labor, get back to work to resolve the problems at hand. It is a simple amendment. It says we need a cooling-off period for 60 more days. Congress finds itself in another last-minute emergency being rushed to the floor of the Senate. We got the details of this about 24 hours ago on a very complicated subject. Since 2019, negotiations have been going on between labor unions representing railway employees and the railway industry over employee pay, hours of service, benefits, sick leave--complicated negotiations. Now that the negotiations have met an impasse, we have been asked to endorse a proposal that the Presidential Emergency Board has endorsed and that the union members have rejected. Complicated. Barring additional action, as I mentioned, there could be a strike that would harm our economy and workers and families and other businesses. Again, we don't want that. Here is the other issue: We also don't want Congress to become the de facto endgame for all future negotiations--private contract negotiations--enacting the agreements reached at the bargaining table or having Congress then dictate the terms of minutia in these contracts with regard to sick leave or other things. Now, I know Senator Sanders has a provision on this. It might be a great idea; it might not be a good idea. I don't know. But we got this 24 hours ago. No hearings, no discussion. So all I am asking for is a 60-day cooling-off period so the sides can get back to the bargaining table, so the President of the United States and the Secretary of Labor, Secretary Walsh, can get involved and do their jobs. That is it: a cooling off period for 60 days, handing this negotiation back to the parties involved to resolve. Now, some people say, well, that is just kicking the can down the road. Well, there is precedent for this course of action by Congress. The legislation covering these kind of labor agreements contemplate Congress asking for additional cooling-off periods. We have done this many times before, including in 1986, where it actually worked. A 60- day cooling off period. The sides went back to the bargaining table, and they resolved their issues on their own without the Congress of the United States having to come and dictate terms. As I mentioned, less than 36 hours ago, we were asked to decide on issues that are complicated, that are important--without necessary deliberations, without congressional hearings to gain knowledge and expertise required to make informed decisions. My amendment would certainly avoid a strike. We all agree on that. It will give negotiators more time to get to an agreement, and it will not make Congress the entity of last resort in these kind of negotiations where the knowledge of the issues that are very complicated have not been thoroughly studied and have not received the due diligence that I believe every American, every union Member wants us to have. It has worked before. Exactly this kind of amendment has worked before in this kind of situation. It can work again. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I want to talk about one of the strongest storms in many, many years to hit my State. It was called Typhoon Merbok, and it hit western Alaska late last week and into the weekend. It brought gale-force winds, massive flooding, and loss of power, water, and communications. It has wreaked havoc. I have just a few photos here. You see a house literally floating away into the ocean; whole communities completely flooded; a giant wave system--again, communities completely flooded in western Alaska. This is an area of our State dotted with dozens of small villages, nearly all of them, the majority, Alaska Native communities. Roughly about 21,000 people live in these communities in western Alaska with a coastline of roughly 1,300 miles. That is just one little, small part of my State, but that is just about as many miles of all the Florida coastline combined just here in western Alaska. They got hammered. There are very, very few roads. Alaska has over 200 communities that are not connected by any roads at all, and so it presents many challenges in terms of relief. Unfortunately, the very small number of roads that we have, many were washed away in these communities. The storm knocked out lines of communication, prompted evacuations, and wrenched homes from their foundations, as I mentioned, floating in the water. The preliminary assessment shows very significant damage to bridges, roads, water treatment plants, bulk fuel tanks, seawalls, breakwaters, airstrips--if you don't have a road, every one of these small communities has an airport, a tiny little airport--generators, powerplants. This was a devastating storm. But I am proud to say my fellow Alaskans pulled together--the Native communities in particular, as they do so often--to make sure that all residents and particularly the most vulnerable, the elderly in particular, were out of harm's way when this storm came pounding ashore in western Alaska. Our State and local government emergency management teams, the Alaska National Guard, the Coast Guard, and our first responders have also been working day and night to ensure that communities are safe and that utility services and major infrastructure are becoming operational as soon as possible, but it is still a real challenge. I will say from the Federal Government's perspective, FEMA has done a good job thus far--a really good job. They immediately got teams on the ground and are working to evaluate the damage. The head of FEMA, whom I spoke to shortly after the storm hit, is on her way to Alaska. The Secretary of Homeland Security just called me today on their focus on this. The Region 10 FEMA Director--which covers Alaska--is also on the ground there. Thankfully, thank God there have been no reports of death or serious injury, and it is in part because of the resilience of the people in Alaska and the preparation. Further, donations of food, water, clothes, and other essentials from businesses and nonprofits and just generous individuals throughout Alaska have been pouring in to this community. We are so grateful for all the help that has come. Even though most Americans are very unaware of this, this was a devastating storm. Let me talk a little bit about some of these wonderful communities that were hit by the storm. All of these communities--I have spent a lot of time in western Alaska. They are amazing people with an incredible generosity of spirit and thriving Alaska Native cultures. But these are some of the poorest communities in America--the poorest communities in America. Like I said, almost none of them have roads. Several of them do not have any water or sewer--running water or flush toilets. American citizens. You know, I get a little frustrated in this body whenever there is a lower 48 community that has a problem with drinking water--the latest in Jackson, MS, and Detroit, MI. There is all this money, and they say: Hey, let's fix that aging infrastructure. I get it. That is important. But what I always say is, why don't we fix communities like mine that have no infrastructure, no water and sewer, no flush toilets, no access to the internet, housing where multiple generations are often crammed together? And here is the thing. These are some of the most amazing people on the planet, and as Americans, they are some of the most patriotic people in the whole country. I always like to brag about Alaska, where there are more veterans per capita than any State in the country. But the Alaska Native people serve at higher rates in the U.S. military than any other ethnic group in America. This is what I call special patriotism. When you go to these small communities, everyone there is a veteran. It really warms your heart as an American. So we need to help these communities, and we are going to do that. The Senate is going to do that; the Federal Government is going to do that; and the State of Alaska is going to do that. I do want to make one mention of one issue that is important to me. It is an issue just to fairness, and I am just putting down a marker to make sure we have fairness as it relates to my constituents in this very significant storm that we need help with. The majority leader was here on the floor recently talking about the impact that Hurricane Fiona was having on Puerto Rico, and we are all thinking about Puerto Rico as well. We want to make sure they are all safe, and that is something we need to be focused on in the Federal Government, in the U.S. Senate. Now, normally, the Federal Government pays for 75 percent of the costs of emergency medical care, disaster response, food distribution when those requests are made. Our Governor just recently declared a Federal disaster for this part of Alaska. The Alaska delegation sent a letter to the President urging him to immediately approve this Federal disaster declaration for Alaska. When this happens, as I mentioned, the Federal Government usually pays 75 percent; others are responsible back home for 25 percent. Sometimes it is even 90 percent and 10 percent. As I mentioned, the majority leader recently requested, in a floor speech on the Senate floor--and I am fine with the speech--that the FEMA Federal Government pay 100 percent of the costs in Puerto Rico. OK. If FEMA wants to do that, if that is going to happen at the request of the majority leader, here is what else has to happen: Then FEMA must pay 100 percent of the costs in western Alaska, OK. That is a no- brainer. One hundred percent of the costs from FEMA in Puerto Rico, then the great people in western Alaska are going to get 100 percent of the costs paid for as well. As a matter of fact, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter I led with Senator Murkowski and Congresswoman Peltola to Administrator Criswell, the Director of FEMA, just making note that, hey, if you are going to do 100 percent for Puerto Rico, you need to make sure you are doing 100 percent for western Alaska. I would like to submit that for the Record.

Mr. SULLIVAN. So, Madam President, one of the things that I have always done in my job here in the U.S. Senate is, whenever there is a bill dealing with disaster relief, regardless of what part of the country it is, I always vote for it. The reason I do that is because I come from a State that has earthquakes, that has wildfires, that has typhoons, that has a lot of cold weather. We are tough in Alaska, but every now and then, we are going to need Federal help as well, and now is the time we do. So we are all going to work together here in the Senate, whether it is Puerto Rico or Kentucky or western Alaska, where there have been a lot of recent natural disasters. We will work together. I just want to make sure my constituents know: We got your back here in DC. We thank you for your resiliency, toughness, and everybody coming together. We will make sure that, whatever the results are in any of these other natural disasters, that Alaska is going to get the same result as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 5518 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, there has been much made in the Biden administration about the value of diversity, and I agree that having diversity in any organization is positive. You get different viewpoints. But diversity encompasses much more than race or gender or religious orientation. Those are all important. Diversity actually means having people around you with varied experiences. As I mentioned, in my mind, that is certainly important, but it is particularly important in the Oval Office, particularly important in the White House. It is particularly important in the leadership of our Federal Government. Let's take the example of military experience in this administration. You would think the Biden administration would think it is important to have members in his Cabinet or senior White House officials who have served in the military. After all, he is the Commander in Chief, a very important part of his responsibilities. But, in fact, virtually no one in this administration, with the exception of Secretary Austin, at the highest levels--Cabinet officials, senior White House officials--have any significant military experience at all. Why does this matter? The President doesn't have it, of course. His Secretary of the VA, Chief of Staff, National Security Advisor--just go down the list. Nobody has any experience. In the Federal Government of the United States, why does this matter? It matters because it is obvious by the people this President surrounds himself--the people who are giving him advice on big decisions for America--that this President doesn't prioritize military, our national defense, and our troops and their families. This manifests itself in many, many ways. First, most importantly, it matters in how we fund our national defense. I was on the floor last week, speaking about this very topic. This is President Biden's first budget. You can see this here, what he proposed. It has the increases through every Federal Agency. This was a multitrillion-dollar budget. And it says this is what we are prioritizing as the Biden administration. You can see, heck, double- digits. That is Education and Commerce. And EPA is over 20 percent, and Interior over 15 percent--on and on and on, all the green. It is just a massive expansion of Federal Agencies, except two Agencies: Department of Defense and Homeland Security, the two Agencies that actually protect Americans. If you look to this line of inflation, which when the Biden administration put out their budget last year was about 4.5 percent, these are actual inflation-adjusted real cuts by about 2 to 3 percent to our military. That was the Biden budget not prioritizing our troops, our national security at all. My view is that that is the No. 1 job of this government. It is not the President's view, not his team's view. In the interim--that was last year's budget--we had a war in Ukraine. We had the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense testify in front of the Armed Services Committee that we are probably seeing the most dangerous time globally in any time in the last 40 years. So what about the Biden budget this year? Mr. President, you did it again. This is actually EPA, a 25-percent increase--wow. But here we go, all the big double-digit increases. When you get down to the Department of Defense, with now the 9 percent Biden inflation, we are talking a 5-percent real cut to our military. That is not prioritizing our military. You are starting to see how this inflation and other things are really impacting our troops. The Army, last week, in an article, suggested that the American military members who are having trouble making ends meet because of high levels of inflation should go on food stamps. You heard that correct. We are going to give the EPA a 25- percent raise. We are going to cut defense spending by a 5-percent real cut, and if you are a soldier struggling because of high inflation to actually put food on the table, you can go get food stamps. That is the perfect example of not prioritizing our military. I want to unpack this further. The Army is saying that, if our troops don't have enough food to eat, they should look at going on food stamps. But the President finds it absolutely essential to forgive $560 billion in student loan debt just a couple of weeks ago. Who are the preponderance of Americans who will benefit from that lawless bailout? High-earning Americans, the elite--White House staffers, certainly. They are going to get a half-trillion-dollar bailout, and our troops are being told to go on food stamps. This should shock every single American. So we know the President and his team don't prioritize the military. Look at these budgets or our troops or our national security. But that doesn't mean they don't find the military useful. I am going to put up a picture of a recent speech that, I will tell you, every time I look at it, my blood boils, and so should every American's blood boil. It is this picture. Now, every President gives partisan speeches. Now, I don't think it is wise for every President to give the kind of partisan speech that President Biden gave on September 1 in Philadelphia in which he vilified millions, tens of millions of his fellow Americans who don't agree with his administration's policies. Some of you may have seen that speech. The President told the country that many of his fellow Americans, all of whom are Republican, don't ``respect the Constitution,'' are ``destroying American democracy.'' He gave this speech against a blood-red backdrop, fists clenched--look at him-- yelling that millions of his fellow Americans embrace anger--while he embraced anger in his speech--and chaos. This President who continually issues lawless Executive orders, like shutting down the ANWR in my State, his half-a-trillion-dollar student loan bailout, then says that Republicans are ``against the rule of law.'' He went on and on--the insults, very partisan, somewhat deranged, attacking tens of millions of his fellow Americans. Now, look, Presidents do that. I don't think it is a good idea. But here is the thing about this speech: To make matters worse--look at this--he did all this, a clearly partisan speech, while being flanked by two Active-Duty marines as his political props. Look at that. Look at that--in my view, a sickening abuse of authority from a Commander in Chief who has never served in the military--I think he got five Vietnam deferments--and knows nothing about the Marine Corps' ethos of honor, courage, commitment. Remember when General Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs--and was Chairman under President Trump as well--released a video where he apologized for standing beside the President, then-President Trump, when that could have been perceived as political. This is what General Milley said: I should not have been there. My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military [being] involved in domestic politics. I thought that was a good speech by General Milley. He made a mistake; he apologized; and that was the right thing to do. This is much worse. This is much worse. These marines, unlike General Milley, they are being ordered to stand next to the President of the United States while he rants against millions of his own fellow Americans. The President certainly didn't apologize for this speech. In fact, when criticized by both Democrats and Republicans for the politicization of the military with these marines propped up next to him, the Biden administration actually doubled down in terms of their use of these two Active-Duty marines as political props in a very partisan speech. Here is what the spokesperson at the White House said: The presence of [the] Marines at [that] speech was intended to demonstrate the deep and abiding respect the President has for [these servicemembers] . . . [for] the ideals and the unique role our independent military plays in defending our democracy, no matter who is in power. This is Orwellian doublespeak. What a bunch of nonsense. Here is the fact: The presence of these marines was meant to politicize the President's speech and politically benefit from the honor and respect the few and the proud have earned in the hearts of Americans over decades, over millennium. This should disturb every single American, whether you are Democrat or Republican. This was just wrong. Let me provide another example of the politicization of our military by the Biden administration. Now, this is something that hasn't gotten a lot of attention. Some people were like, hey, it wasn't a really big deal. I actually think it was a big deal. We have some of the best service academies in the world. They are the best in the world--the U.S. Naval Academy, West Point, Air Force Academy, Coast Guard Academy. Each of our military service academies has board members, some of whom are appointed by the President of the United States for 3-year terms. Now, I am honored to serve on the U.S. Naval Academy Board. I was appointed as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Here is the tradition in our country that every single President has abided by: When they come into office, they let the Board members finish out their terms. So, for example, when President Trump was elected, the Obama administration officials, who were President Obama's appointees, finished out the terms on the Naval Academy Board, the West Point Board, and the Air Force Academy Board. That is what we do. The point is not to politicize the service academies. That has always been the tradition, every single President--except for Joe Biden. When President Biden came into office, he looked at West Point, Annapolis, the Air Force Academy, and somebody said to him ``You know what, Mr. President, let's fire all the Trump appointees. Let's fire them right now, all 18 of them'' to clearly politicize the service academies of America. So that is what they did--something that had never been done before by any President in the history of the country--and they did it regardless of qualifications of the current members serving on these boards. Let me give you some examples. Retired Army LTG H.R. McMaster was fired off the West Point Board. Ironically, the same day he was fired by President Biden's White House, he was honored by the West Point Association of Graduates as the distinguished graduate of the year of West Point. So one President fires him, and West Point gives him a great honor. GEN Jack Keane, a former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, was fired from the West Point Board; retired Army COL Douglas Macgregor; an Afghanistan war veteran, clinical psychologist Meaghan Mobbs; a Bronze Star recipient and businessman, David Urban; a retired Army lieutenant general, Guy Swan-- 18 qualified people, all fired. The politicization of the service academies of America was undertaken by this administration--the first President, the first White House ever to do it, all fired by Joe Biden and not allowed to fulfill their terms. Of course, the Biden administration loves to use our military to push other agendas that have nothing to do with lethality in winning our Nation's wars--many, many examples. Let me give you just a couple. From the beginning, issuing Executive orders not focused on how we have a stronger military but using taxpayer dollars to establish a committee within the Pentagon to do what ended up being witch hunts on so-called extremists in the military, of which--when they came back with their report, they said they had actions of .005 percent. They also issued Executive orders to use taxpayer dollars to mandate transgender transition surgeries for Active-Duty soldiers. Importantly, they become nondeployable when that happens. So back to my original point, no one in senior positions in the White House or the Cabinet--with the exception of Secretary Austin--has significant military experience, and on so many of these issues, there is no adult in the room. Think about these White House conversations where they are talking about, hey, let's cut the defense budget, and we will grow the EPA by 25 percent. Well, that is a great idea, Mr. President. Let's make sure we give a partisan speech at Independence Hall, and, oh yeah, let's grab a couple Active-Duty marines to stand right next to the President as his props. That is a great idea, Mr. President. Let's come in and politicize the service academies and fire all the Trump administration appointees--even American heroes like H.R. McMaster, General Keane-- despite the fact that no President had ever done that before. Great idea, Mr. President. This is really problematic, what we are seeing right now, and that lack of prioritization extends here in the U.S. Senate, unfortunately, as it relates to our military. As we know with regard to defense budget cuts, in the 2020 NDAA, we had a debate right here on the Senate floor where my colleague the junior Senator from Vermont proposed an amendment to dramatically cut our military, almost by 15 percent, across-the-board cuts. He even actually wrote an op-ed in POLITICO. Remember, this is when Democrats were pushing to defund the police. Here is the op-ed. It is actually called ``Defund the Pentagon: The Liberal Case.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the op-ed ``Defund the Pentagon: The Liberal Case.''