Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. So that was the liberal case, defund the Pentagon. The junior Senator from Vermont wrote that. The majority leader put out a tweet saying he was a proud supporter of the defund the Pentagon amendment. That was right here on the Senate floor. Of course, there is the National Defense Authorization Act, the No. 1 bill that focuses on national defense for our Nation. That passed out of committee, the Armed Services Committee, in June in a very strong bipartisan vote, 23 to 3. It passed the House in July. We will have pay raises for our troops so the Army doesn't have to tell them go line up for food stamps because they are hungry. And we need to bring it to the floor right here. So what are we doing? As far as I can tell, the majority leader doesn't want to bring up the Defense Authorization Act until December-- December. That is why I joined a letter led by Senator Tuberville, with whom I serve on the Armed Services Committee, signed by 20 of my colleagues, to say to the majority leader: Mr. Majority Leader, we have a dangerous world right now. Bring the NDAA to the floor. It is going to pass. It has great support. By the way, I know the Democrat Senators feel this way, too, on this topic. So we need to get this body back to what is important for our country--bolstering our economy, fighting inflation, bringing down energy costs, unleashing American energy, and definitely passing the legislation that funds our military, that provides pay raises for our troops during this very dangerous time. So I again ask the majority leader to bring the NDAA to the floor. We need it. I call on the President and his administration--the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief--to truly prioritize our military and their families, and that begins with putting an end to using them in a disgraceful way as political props for your partisan agenda. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, about 4 years ago, I was part of a meeting with several Senators--there were about 11 of us--here in the U.S. Capitol with the Chinese Ambassador. And in the meeting, I had raised a number of issues about the lack of reciprocity that China has with regard to the United States: market access on our trade; their ability to invest here but we couldn't invest there; the fact that they have all kinds of journalists in America and we can't have journalists over there--just across the board on so many things--Confucius Institutes in American universities, no equivalent in Chinese universities. No reciprocity on so many topics. And I will never forget the response of the Chinese Ambassador to the United States. With 11 U.S. Senators right there, he said: Well, Senator, I agree there is a lack of reciprocity in a number of areas, but that is because China is a developing country. China is a developing country. That is what he said just 4 years ago. And my response was: Mr. Ambassador, with all due respect, can you please stop using that talking point about your country being a developing country? It is kind of an insult to all of our intelligence. And to be honest, you are not a developing country. The American people know it; the world knows it; and you need to stop telling everybody and using that as a crutch. What does that have to do with the amendment that I just called up? Well, today, before we vote on the Kigali treaty, I have an amendment that I am asking all of my colleagues here in the Senate to support. I am not talking about the merits of the Kigali treaty itself. There is an element of this treaty that raises a principle that is at stake right now that is so important with regard to China, the United States, and the rest of the world. This treaty that we are getting ready to vote on continues to classify China as a ``developing country.'' Why does that matter? Well, as I mentioned, it is a facade. China is not a developing country; it is the second largest economy in the world. It is one of the most industrialized countries in the world. It has one of the biggest militaries in the world. The World Bank even now considers China an upper middle income country. But what China keeps trying to do in international organizations and in international treaties is continue to get the same benefits as truly developing countries, such Ghana, Somalia, Nigeria, Bangladesh. These are the countries that need global assistance, not China. So my amendment today is very simple to this treaty. It first says that the U.S. Senate concludes: The People's Republic of China is not a developing country, and the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations should not treat the People's Republic of China as such. And then my amendment goes one step further, and it makes the advice and consent of the Senate for this treaty contingent upon the Secretary of State of the United States going to the U.N. and the Vienna Convention Secretariat to file an amendment to the treaty that clarifies that China should be taken off the annex that defines it as a developing country. So we have a declaration--China is not a developing country--and then it says to the Secretary of State, before you get the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, you shall go to the U.N. and file an instrument that says China should be removed from the list of countries to this treaty that are called developing countries. And, again, this matters. This matters, for example, on this treaty. Why? Because in this treaty, the developing country annex gives those countries under that annex much longer time to implement the treaty, and it actually gives them funding from the U.N. to implement the treaty. Now, where does that funding come from? Most of it comes from the United States. So, in essence, right now, the way the treaty is organized, the United States gives the U.N. money to help implement the treaty, and a lot of that money is going to go to China. Does anyone in the U.S. Senate think that makes sense? Does anyone in America think that that makes sense? It does not. Furthermore, on this treaty and on so many other international agreements, whether at the U.N. or other places, when you give China more time for implementation, particularly as it relates to the global environment, all you are doing is harming the global environment. China is a developed country. China is an industrialized country. The U.S. Senate, the international organizations where China is a member, need to start recognizing this. So I am proud to say I worked closely with Senator Barrasso and Senator Lee on this amendment. I actually wish it were stronger. Senator Barrasso was here on the floor, talking about his amendment. I actually think that is the preferred way to go, but we couldn't get agreement in terms of the Barrasso amendment, so I am encouraging all of my colleagues to vote on this principle: The U.S. Senate, on any international agreement or any international treaty, should no longer agree to the obvious. China is not a developing country; it is an industrialized country, and we should make clear in the Senate and in international organizations that that is the view of the United States, and we need to encourage the Secretary of State, which is exactly what my amendment does, to make sure the U.N. and other countries agree with us on that. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, my colleague from Tennessee was just talking about priorities of this administration and this Senate, and I want to continue on that area of focus, relating to what many of us believe is probably the most important priority we have in the U.S. Senate, and that is defending our Nation. Budgets are a reflection of an administration's values and an administration's priorities. And as I mentioned, many of us--and I believe on both sides of the aisle--see that the No. 1 priority we should have in the U.S. Senate is making sure we are a strong nation, to defend this great country of ours and to make sure we have the most lethal, well-trained military anywhere in the world, and that we take care of our troops and their families. But this is not what this administration--the Biden administration-- believes at all. In fact, President Biden's budgets clearly not only do not prioritize our military; they put them consistently last. And that is not a one-time thing. This is a pattern with this administration. Here was the President's proposed budget last year. Take a look at it. We all know it was trillions and trillions. Department of Commerce, 28 percent increase. EPA, 21 percent. Interior, 16 percent--on and on. There are double-digit increases everywhere except--except--in the two Agencies that actually protect the Nation: the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. Last year, the Biden budget put forward a budget that, if it was adjusted for inflation, was almost a 3-percent cut to the Department of Defense. Priorities matter. This administration has not prioritized our military at all. Guess who was really pleased by that budget, by the way? The dictator in Beijing and the dictator in Moscow. No doubt when they saw that, they loved it. Thankfully, the Armed Services Committee, on which I sit, said: Do you know what, Mr. President? With all due respect, this is nuts. We are not going to stand for this. We put forward in the National Defense Authorization Act last year a 3-percent real increase to the Department of Defense budget. It was very bipartisan in the committee, a complete rebuke to the President of the United States, saying: We don't believe in cuts. We are going to increase. The appropriators, thankfully, did the same. So that was the Biden administration's prioritization of our military last year. Now, what happened between last year and this year, when the most recent budget came out? Well, I think a lot of us know, but I am going to talk a little bit about it. Russia invaded Ukraine, and at an April Armed Services hearing, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, said that the invasion was ``the greatest threat to the peace and security of Europe and perhaps the world in any of my time of 42 years in uniform.'' So this is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying we are likely seeing one of the most dangerous periods anywhere in the world in terms of national security in the last four decades. That was testimony from the President's own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That is Russia. And, of course, their ally China is also taking incredibly aggressive actions all around the world. They are beginning to outcompete our country on many fronts--critical minerals, energy, technology. Certainly, Xi Jinping, the dictator of Beijing, has increased China's aggression all around the world--in India, threatening to invade Taiwan, economic aggression toward Australia, snuffing out liberty in Hong Kong. What else has China done? It is dramatically increasing its defense spending--more than 7 percent this year--increasing a navy that is almost becoming larger than ours. This is how General Milley, again, put it in a hearing last April: We are now facing two global powers, China and Russia, each with significant military capabilities, both of whom intend to fundamentally change the current rules-based global order. We are entering a world that is becoming more unstable and the potential for significant international conflict between great powers is increasing, not decreasing. So that is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, again. Now, what do you think the President did, seeing we had this incredibly dangerous period internationally, with his next budget? Last year, as I mentioned, he cut the Pentagon defense budget by almost 3 percent and dead last with Homeland Security in terms of Agencies. So did he listen to his Chairman? Does he really think it is that dangerous? Let's see. This is this year's defense budget and other priorities from this administration's multitrillion dollar budget, and, once again, you see the EPA coming in at a 24-percent increase. Commerce, HHS, and Labor are all double-digit--Interior, DOJ. What about the Department of Defense? It is a 4-percent increase with almost 9-percent inflation. We are talking close to a 5-percent real cut to the Department of Defense. This is outrageous. Last year, the President put forward almost a 4-percent cut to defense spending. In the interim period, we had one of the most dangerous wars that has happened--certainly in Europe and maybe in the world--in a generation. The President's own Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff come before the Senate Armed Services Committee and say it is an incredibly dangerous time--a period, maybe, in almost 50 years in which we haven't seen so many threats to the international order. And the President does what? He, once again, prioritizes our defense almost dead last--almost dead last. Adjusted for inflation, it is a 5-percent cut. Now, with this posture hearing for the Secretary of Defense and Chairman Milley, I asked the question: Gentlemen, with all due respect, you just said it is the most dangerous period in almost the last 50 years. How can you come before this committee and put forward a budget that is almost a 5-percent cut to the Department of Defense and our troops? They didn't have a good answer. The truth of the matter is, I am quite certain that the uniformed military and probably even Secretary Austin do not support this budget, but they are good soldiers. They had to salute the Commander in Chief and try to support it. But we don't have to support it, and I know the American people certainly don't support it. Once again, I do know two people who support it. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping look at this, and this is something they are very pleased with. Once again, the Armed Services Committee, when we met to mark up the NDAA, voted in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion--23 to 3--to, once again, dramatically rebuke the President in a bipartisan way and significantly increase the top line for the Department of Defense to make sure we have a strong nation and that our troops are taken care of and their families by almost $45 billion over what the President requested. It was a bipartisan rebuke, once again, of this administration that won't prioritize our national security and that keeps putting forward budgets that prioritize the defense of our Nation last. We also started in this NDAA to course-correct, which we need to do dramatically at the Pentagon. We have had civilian leadership, primarily driven by the Biden administration's far-left nominees, who have not been focusing the Pentagon on its top priority, which is to win our Nation's wars and to make sure we have the most lethal military of any country in the world. So I was able in this NDAA to put forward some amendments that I was glad to get bipartisan support on, that are in the current NDAA, to start a course correction. First, one of my amendments directs the Pentagon to discontinue any further investment in the DOD-wide effort to root out so-called extremism within the ranks. This has been an obsession of the civilian leadership at the Pentagon, many of whom know nothing about the military. It is an obsession, given the incredibly low rate of extremist activity in our military as determined by the Secretary of Defense's own working group on this topic. The press didn't write about that because they love to kind of weave into the story that somehow our military is full of extremists. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle play that up too. One Senator, at one point, said 10 percent of the military might be extremist--a ridiculous besmirching of the men and women in our armed services. The actual report from the Secretary of Defense's office found fewer than 100 cases of extremist activity in a total military force of over 2 million people. When you do the math, that is less than .005 percent. So let me be clear: Extremism has no place in our military and must be rooted out when discovered, but these numbers simply don't warrant the time and investment that our senior military has put into this issue. So, in the NDAA, we have said we are not funding it anymore. There is a second issue in the NDAA for which I was able to put forward an amendment. The Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force, according to press reports, were starting to devise a policy that would allow each servicemember to veto their duty assignment if they disagreed with the laws and regulations in a State or in a community where they were going to be assigned by the military. Could you imagine the chaos that would result if every soldier, marine, sailor, or airman could say: ``You know, I don't want to go to California; its regulations on the Second Amendment are overly burdensome on my Second Amendment right,'' or for any other reason? So we said, in the NDAA, a policy that gives service men and women the ability to veto their assignments based on whether they want to go somewhere or not is not the way our military is going to operate. That has been nipped in the bud. Finally, there is a very simple amendment that I put forward that just provides clarity to the men and women of the Department of Defense. All it does is remind them of what their job is. The military is too often asked to do so many different things--to focus on climate change and to focus on so many other issues. The military has one job: to provide combat-credible military forces needed to deter our adversaries, to protect the security of our Nation, and to win our Nation's wars when called upon to do so. I put forward an amendment that said just that: Here is your priority, and here is what you are supposed to do. It is needed because of all of the things that our top civilian leaders are now telling the troops they should be focused on. They should be focused on prevailing in a war if they are called on to do so, and that is what my amendment did. Believe it or not, a number of Senators voted against it, but that also made the Defense Authorization Act this year. In addition to significantly increasing the Department of Defense's authorized budget, we are starting to, once again, get the military focused on their primary job: lethality and winning wars. So we need to bring the NDAA to the floor. We have passed it 66 years in a row. As I mentioned, the administration's priorities are clearly not with regard to national defense and our military. We can tell by the budget that has been put forward. In the Senate, priorities are often determined by the time on the floor to get a piece of legislation moving. It is clear to everybody who has been here that the majority leader does not prioritize the military in the same way that the President of the United States doesn't. We passed the NDAA in June--the Armed Services Committee did--in a huge bipartisan vote. The House passed its NDAA in the House in July. So we are waiting to bring up one of the most important pieces of legislation we work on every year: the legislation that sets the policy and funds our troops and their families. Where is it? Senator Schumer, where is it? When are we going to bring it up? You have Democrats and Republicans who are looking at this floor time in September, saying: We need to bring up the NDAA. The rumor, right now, is that the majority leader plans to bring it up in December. Think about that, America. I don't even know what we are doing right now on the Senate floor-- minor nominations. We should be bringing up the NDAA to protect this country and to make sure the men and women in our military know we have their backs. Right now, nobody has any idea--maybe the majority leader does--as to when we are actually going to bring this most important bipartisan piece of legislation to the floor. This is why I joined in a letter that we sent out today, led by Senator Tuberville, who serves on the Armed Services Committee with me, signed by 20 of my colleagues. By the way, I know it would have been signed by some Democratic colleagues as well. They didn't want to put their names on the letter, but they feel the same. It says to the majority leader: You control the Senate. You control the priorities of this body. Bring up the NDAA by the end of September. Here is the letter. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, the letter says: At the founding of our nation, then-General George Washington penned, ``When the civil and military powers cooperate, and afford mutual aid to each other there can be little doubt of things going well.'' As General Milley said, at one of the most dangerous times in recent history, it is vital that our civil and military powers cooperate. What we need to do in this body right now is get back to the important work of bolstering our economy, of fighting inflation, of bringing down energy costs, of unleashing American energy, and, most importantly, of passing the NDAA so we can bolster the national security of this great Nation in very dangerous times. I call on the majority leader, along with 20 of my colleagues and some of my Democratic colleagues, to bring the NDAA to the floor and not wait until the end of the year, which is what we hear he is planning to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5435, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask that the reading be waived.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, we have a true crisis--a humanitarian crisis, a national security crisis--right now on our southern border. It is a huge tragedy that my Democratic colleagues want to ignore, and that tragedy has spread across our Nation--crime; victims of human trafficking, many of them children; a fentanyl epidemic killing our young people; chaos--all fueled by a lawless border. Secure borders work. Walls work. Just ask the Biden administration, as they are quietly building sections of the wall in Arizona right now. The Democrats' partisan reconciliation bill does nothing--nothing--to address this crisis. Instead, it gives DHS $500 million for sustainability and environmental programs when our kids are dying from drugs streaming in from the border, when our communities are under siege. This should not be the priority for DHS. My amendment would take this half a billion dollars and recommit it-- this DHS money--to building the wall and securing our border, which is DHS's primary mission, not environmental programs. I ask that all my colleagues vote yes on this commonsense amendment.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to complete my remarks before the 1:45 p.m. vote.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to compliment my friend from Delaware. He and I do work together on a number of issues. We are going to part ways on this really important issue for me today. I do want to just make a comment to his comments. I would say--I wouldn't say--I know there is no group that has suffered more at the hands of the Biden administration's Executive orders and far-left environmental groups than Alaska Natives. I know that for a fact. I would invite my colleague to come up to Alaska with me, and I will take him to these communities. They can't do anything--no jobs, no nothing--because every far-left group in America wants to shut down their opportunities. It happens all the time. So I would love to take him and others up to Alaska to let them see that when people talk about Alaska Native groups and try to speak for them. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do that. No way. You are not going to get away with that on this one. Mr. President, we have a resolution that we are going to be voting on here in about 10 minutes. This is my Congressional Review Act resolution, and I have spoken on the Senate floor a number of times about this. The CRA today, what we call a CRA, is quite simple. It would rescind the new Biden administration's NEPA rule--that is the National Environmental Policy Act rule--promulgated in April, which will clearly have the impact of slowing down the construction of literally every infrastructure project in America: the construction of roads, bridges, wind, solar, hydro--heck--even chip fabrication facilities, critical mineral projects. Pretty much everything is going to be slowed down by this. It is pretty straightforward. Our resolution just says: We want to rescind the resolution, the regulation, from April. But the vote on this is much more significant than just one Senate resolution. It is a test for all Senators on two key issues. First, are you really serious about permitting reform so that America can build the infrastructure that everybody knows our country desperately needs? Second, who do you stand with--the working men and women of our great Nation who build things or the far-left elite special interest groups who want to shut this country down? Let's take these two issues in order. First, permitting reform. My colleagues know this is a passion of mine. Actually, it is a passion of a number of Senators. It sounds wonky; it sounds boring; it sounds technical--``permitting reform.'' But in reality, it is so important for our Nation--for every community in America, for the dignity of work, for good jobs in this country. Here is why: We used to build big things in America--engineering marvels on time, on budget--the source of pride for literally all Americans and the envy of the world. We did that all the time. Think about it: the Empire State Building--410 days to build; the Pentagon, the biggest building in the world--16 months; a little closer to home for me is the 1,700-mile Alaska-Canadian Highway through some of the world's most rugged terrain--11 months; the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system that feeds a hungry nation with energy from Alaska to the lower 48--800 miles with 70,000 sections of 48-inch pipe joined and welded together, 3 mountain ranges, 800 river beds from the Arctic Ocean to the Pacific--3 years. Incredible. Why did we do this? Why can we do this? Why can we still do this in America? Because we have the best workers--the most productive workforce--in the world. Unfortunately, those days of building great things in America in an efficient, timely fashion are gone. We all know it. Every mayor knows it; every city council member knows it; every Governor knows it; and, yes, every U.S. Senator knows it. We see it every day. We don't see the great building of things, but we see the other things: 8 to 9 years to permit a bridge--yes, in America, to permit a bridge; 9 to 19 years to permit and build a highway. The Gross water reservoir in Colorado, for clean water, took 20 years to permit. The Kensington mine, which is a gold mine in Alaska that is now employing hundreds of people with an average wage of $110,000--really good jobs--took 20 years to permit with litigation. This is killing our country, our economy, and good jobs. We all know it, and we all know the reason for it. Every single Senator knows the reason: a broken Federal permitting system that has turned into a labyrinth of redtape; a system that invites and incentivizes delay and litigation by groups whose goal is to shut down the building of our country. Everybody knows it. It is a fact. Now, how can I be so sure? Because everybody in this body likes to talk about the need for permitting reform so we can get back to building this country and putting Americans who do these hard jobs to work. Last year, I worked hard with a number of my colleagues on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which I voted on. In the EPW Committee--and my colleague from Delaware is still here--we got some important permitting reforms in it. That was good. They were not enough, in my view, but it was a good start. Today, as we consider Senator Schumer's reconciliation bill, which I will oppose, we are all now being assured that Senator Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, and even the President are fully committed to additional robust permitting legislation in the fall, sometime in the future, once their massive tax-and-spending reconciliation bill passes. So everybody is talking about permitting. We all know we need it. But here is what happened. In the meantime, between the ``important but not as ambitious as I would have liked'' permitting reforms in the infrastructure bill last fall and all of the talk of permitting today, something happened. What happened? The Biden administration promulgated a new NEPA rule, supported by far-left environmental groups, that will clearly have the effect of slowing down the permitting of infrastructure, inviting endless litigation and putting people out of work. No one who has seriously looked at this broad, nebulous, and destructive Biden rule disputes this. I have read it. It is a delay bomb for infrastructure. So here is the first test. It was noted in a very good, recent Wall Street Journal editorial this week. It is this: If my colleagues--all of my colleagues but especially my Democratic colleagues--really support permitting reform so we can get back to building America, let's get rid of this destructive, overbroad, vague, litigation-inviting rule. Vote yes on my resolution. Right now, 50 Republican Senators are cosponsors of this resolution. To my Democratic colleagues, join us. Do the right thing for America. We all know that this is the right thing for America. Here is the second test. I asked you to join us in doing the right thing for America. Join us in doing the right thing for the working Americans and building trades that heroically built this country and continue to do so today. Now, I love this photo. It is iconic. It says so much, and I have had it on the floor a number of times. But these are the kind of men and women who built this great Nation--hard-working Americans who are doing incredible stuff. That is a lunch break, by the way, in the building of the Empire State Building. This shouldn't be hard to support the men and women who build this country, and this shouldn't be hard for my Democratic colleagues who often claim to support the working men and women of America. In the past, I certainly will acknowledge that that has been true, but today-- and I have learned this lesson the hard way back home in Alaska. Today, whenever national Democrats have to choose between the interests of the far-left elite environmental groups and these men and women who produce things and build things in America, they sell out the working class every time--every time. I see this every day in my State. I mentioned this in a Congress committee hearing a few months ago. One of my Democratic colleagues, who is a friend--and almost everybody on the other side of the aisle is a good friend of mine--got upset with me. He said: Hey, that is not true. You shouldn't have said that. Well, here is what I say: All right. Prove it. Today's vote is a chance to prove me wrong or to prove me right. Here is why, and this is really important. Let's look at the lineup of the groups that support my resolution today and those that oppose it. These are just some of the 50 groups in America that are supporting my resolution that we are going to vote on here in a couple of minutes, and I am very proud of this incredible, broad, and diverse groups of Americans who are saying to vote yes on the Sullivan resolution. They all have one thing in common: They produce things and they build things for this great Nation. Take a look at this chart. It is kind of hard to decipher who is on it. Let me give you a couple. The American Farm Bureau: So this is all of our farmers and cattlemen--all of our cattlemen, farmers and ranchers, and ag retailers. The National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association: These are the guys who build infrastructure. It is the same with the Associated General Contractors of America, the same with the U.S. Chamber, the same with the National Association of Manufacturers, the same with the American Mining Rights Association. Of course, the entire energy sector is supporting this, groups from Alaska, the resource development sector, groups from West Virginia, and groups from Ohio. This is a huge, broad-based group of supporters. I will tell you this. I am most proud of the strong, robust support for my resolution from organizations that represent the men and women who build stuff and keep our country's economy humming. Take a look at some of them: The North America's Building Trades Union--that is all the unions that build things. The Laborers' International, LIUNA--that is the largest construction trade union in the country. The Operating Engineers--these guys do everything. Another trade union: the Alaska Teamsters, the Alaska AFL-CIO. These are the great men and women who built this country and built the middle class of America. I have the utmost respect for them, and, indeed, my family is part of this labor union heritage. My great- grandfather was one of the cofounders of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. That is a source of pride in my family. But here is the question: Why are they all strongly supporting my resolution to rescind the Biden NEPA regulations? It is a simple answer: because they know that these are job-killing regs. They know that these are the types of regs in America that delay or indefinitely stop the building of infrastructure in our country, and their members are the ones who suffer the most. And the dignity of the work--the dignity of work that we all say we care about--also suffers. Don't take my word for it. Here is what some of the leaders of these organizations have said--and they are great Americans. Let me begin with Terry O'Sullivan, the head of the Laborers' International. This was his letter to the Biden White House when they were contemplating this rule in April. Just take a look. He said: The rollback of updates to NEPA reinstates burdensome requirements that will cause excessive permit delays and allow project adversaries-- Far-left environmental groups-- to use frivolous lawsuits-- Which they always do-- to disrupt or upend long overdue construction. Once again, communities in need of vital infrastructure and the hard- working men and women who build America will be waiting as project details are subjected to onerous reviews. That was Terry O'Sullivan saying: Don't issue the rule. They ignored him. They ignored him because they chose the interests of the far-left environmentalists. Here is James Callahan writing in support of today's resolution. He is the head of the Operating Engineers. You want to talk about great unions--LIUNA, Operating Engineers--these are men and women who build things. This is an incredible statement, and he nails it. This guy really knows what he is talking about. Since its modest beginnings, NEPA has evolved into a massive edifice, capable of destroying project after project, job after job, in virtually every sector of the economy. Dilatory strategies employed by the project opponents-- Far-left environmental groups-- frequently exploit provisions in NEPA, weighing down projects, frustrating communities, and raising costs to the point that many applicants, whether public or private, simply walk away. And when they walk away, it kills jobs. That is from James Callahan's letter, 1 of the 50 groups that is supporting this resolution. The men and women who build our Nation support my resolution, like so many groups. So who is opposed? Well, it is pretty simple. It is pretty obvious. It is the usual groups of far-left, coastal-elite environmental groups that I see every day in Alaska trying to crush jobs and stop infrastructure and put people out of work. I will just give you few. You know, they are the usual suspects: Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, CODEPINK--I am not sure why they jumped in on this--Friends of the Earth. By the way, if you are watching this speech, go take a look at some of those websites and see what they stand for. So that is who is opposed. One more point that I think is important to raise. To be honest, there is something else going on here. Not only is there always opposition by those groups to building anything in America--including my resolution--regardless of how many pink slips result from the actions of these groups to shut down things, there is sometimes a subtle and not so subtle condescension looking down on the Americans who build things. Workers can feel it. Workers can sense it. No one epitomizes this condescending elitist attitude toward American workers more than this guy. You might remember that last year, around this time, he was asked if the Biden administration's Green New Deal policies would put American coal and natural gas workers out of work and end their livelihoods. John Kerry responded: What President Biden wants to do is make sure that those folks-- Men and women who build stuff, coal miners, natural gas workers-- have better choices-- Better choices-- That they can be the people who go to work to make solar panels. Sure, ``better choices,'' from a guy who flies in a jet, owned a 76- foot yacht, several mansions, and has the carbon footprint of a small nation. Yet he tells American energy workers to go make solar panels, when the Biden administration's regulations are killing their jobs. I will end with this, back to the workers: When you are voting today, keep the heritage of these men and women in mind. The Biden NEPA rule that we are trying to rescind today will kill jobs. I am sure it has already killed jobs. That is why we need to rescind it. This should be an easy vote for all of my Senate colleagues today. If you really care about permitting reform, so we can get back to building things in America, you should vote yes. If you really put the interests of working men and women like these incredible Americans over those of elite far-left environmental groups, you should vote yes. And if you truly support the men and women who build this country, feed this country, and grow this country, you should vote yes. I yield the floor. I ask for the yeas and nays on this resolution.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I just want to thank my colleagues for the vote that just occurred here on the floor of the Senate. It was a bipartisan victory, 50 to 47, on the Congressional Review Act that I had put forward with all of my Republican colleagues to rescind the onerous, job-killing Biden administration rule that came out in April that would make it harder to build things in America. It would make it harder to employ people, especially our incredibly productive American workers. So that just passed. That was a repudiation of the Biden White House in a bipartisan vote on the Senate floor. Here is the thing. Even my Senate colleagues--because I was working the vote pretty hard down there in the well--even my Senate colleagues who voted against it, several of them came up to me and said: You know what. You are right. We have really got to fix NEPA. It is killing the country. It is killing our ability to do anything. So that was an important vote, but a good conversation is starting here. We have the best workers in the world. If we let them build, we can do great things again in terms of building this country and not let redtape, far-left environmental groups, regulations, and endless litigation stop us. So I also want to thank all the groups that supported this resolution. I had a bigger sign down on the Senate floor when I was giving an earlier speech, but the groups that were supporting this legislation are very diverse. There are over 50 groups of men and women who produce things, grow things, and build the country. I want to thank them for the great support of this Congressional Review Act that just passed. I really want to give a shout-out to the building trades, the laborers, the operating engineers, and the trade unions that are doing such a great job building this country who want to work. They know these regulations are killing workers' ability to get good jobs. We have a long way to go to fix the broken system of permitting in America and the endless litigation by environmental lawyers who want to stop everything, but today was an important start and an important vote on the floor of the Senate, showing America that a bipartisan group of Senators will stand up to these far-left groups and say: Hey, you know what? We gotta build. We need to build. And that was the message here. We are going to try to move this in the House and get it on President Biden's desk. He says he is blue-collar Joe. Well, let's see if he is blue-collar Joe when this comes to his desk and he would veto or not veto something that all the building trades in America support. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, it is always good to follow my friend from Delaware, Navy Captain Carper, who is a Vietnam vet, a naval aviator--the whole works. It is an honor to serve with him on the EPW and other committees. So thank you to my good friend from Delaware.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, after World War II, European leaders looked to the United States to help heal a fractured world and to help provide safety against increasing communist Russian aggression. As Winston Churchill said: There I sat with the great Russian bear on one side of me with paws outstretched and, on the other side, the great American Buffalo. Well, the Buffalo prevailed, NATO prevailed, and the world's most successful and enduring military alliance was born. In 1949, the Senate ratified the NATO treaty by a vote of 82 to 13. President Truman was quoted at the signing ceremony of the NATO treaty by saying: In this pact, we hope to create a shield against aggression and the fear of aggression . . . For us, war is not inevitable. He continued: Men with courage and vision can still determine their own destiny. They can choose slavery or freedom--war or peace. . . . The treaty we are signing here today is evidence of the path they will follow. That was when President Truman signed the first NATO treaty. And, indeed, since the formation of NATO, no world wars have broken out, no country that is a signatory of NATO has been invaded by another country's military forces. In fact, the only time NATO's article V--which is the pillar of the alliance, which states that an attack on one is an attack on all--was invoked was actually after the terrorist attacks on America on 9/11. Our allies came to our help to ensure Afghanistan wouldn't harbor terrorists, and we appreciate that help. We appreciate it deeply from our NATO allies. NATO, however, is more than just a military alliance. It is a group of countries with shared values and beliefs and a commitment to the principles of democracy. All of this, in addition to the military alliance, is the heritage of NATO. President Ronald Reagan summed it up succinctly in a speech to our NATO allies in 1983: What do the Soviets mean by words like democracy, freedom, and peace? Not, I'm sorry to say, what we mean. Replace the word ``Soviet'' with ``Russia,'' and the sentiment, unfortunately, holds true today. We see the antithesis of these democratic values and shared beliefs of NATO being played out in real time before us in the streets of Ukraine, where Vladimir Putin is leading a brutal assault on Ukraine--Russia's democratic neighbor--and committing atrocities, horrible atrocities, against the brave people of that country. As both Presidents Truman and Reagan remarked, members of the NATO alliance are like members of the same house in the same family--the house and the family of democracy. So, today, the U.S. Senate will welcome the nations of Sweden and Finland into the NATO family. Like any family, we may not agree on everything, but when it is most important, we will have each other's back. That is the essence of NATO and the core reason for its success. Neither Russia nor any other country will be able to invade Sweden or Finland, now that they have become members of NATO, without its NATO allies coming to their support. Of course, Finland has experienced the Russian invasion. In 1939, where, without the help from other nations, its greatly outnumbered brave Finnish army fought off over 1 million Russian forces for 3 months. But that won't happen again to Finland. It won't happen to Sweden. They won't be alone now. We welcome these countries' commitment to freedom and their advanced professional militaries, which will make NATO stronger. To Finland and Sweden, no longer will you be working with NATO. You will now be working in and part of the greatest defense alliance in history. So welcome to these great countries. As Churchill once said: There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them! I strongly support the inclusion of these two great nations, Sweden and Finland, into the NATO alliance. Important occasions like this are also an opportunity to reflect on the obligations of membership, not just for these new NATO members but for all NATO members. And on the heels of the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014, the heads of state and representatives of the then-28 member countries who made up NATO attended a very important summit, a NATO summit, in Wales. There, they agreed upon a common goal for all NATO members that they would spend a minimum of 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense by 2024. This 2 percent of GDP NATO defense spending goal has been strongly supported for decades by American administrations, both Republican and Democratic: Presidents Bush, Obama, Trump, and now President Biden. At the time, in 2014, of the NATO summit in Wales, 10 of the 28 members of NATO met that 2-percent guideline. Now, 8 years later in 2022, of the 30 NATO country members, we only have 8 of those 30 meeting that 2-percent threshold. I have a chart here. It lays out the 2-percent goal: who is above it, who is below it. It is many other countries besides the ones that are listed there. But the bottom line is, since Wales and that important commitment, there has not been much progress in NATO on this shared goal and commitment. Now, I am a very strong supporter of NATO and a very strong supporter of the U.S. military, and I want NATO to endure for decades to come. But alliances can't endure if shared commitments and shared burdens are not met. This is particularly true for democratic alliances like NATO. There must be a sense among the citizens of such countries that all are pulling their weight for the collective defense of the alliance, for the collective defense of each other. So as I mentioned at the outset, I am calling up an amendment to the resolution. My amendment is to make this commitment clear. It is to announce the U.S. Senate's expectation for all NATO members: the United States, existing members, and now new members--expectations on what has already been agreed to by each NATO country and its citizens. The amendment is simple. It states the following: The Senate declares that all NATO members should spend a minimum of 2 percent of their Gross Domestic Product . . . on defense and 20 percent of their defense budget on major equipment, including research and development, by 2024, as outlined in the 2014 Wales Summit Declaration. That is it. It is a simple amendment, and I hope it can pass in the next hour by voice vote. Let me conclude with this: A robust, expanded NATO with Finland and Sweden as new members is needed now more than ever, especially given the brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. We need to fully understand the broader implications of this invasion. We have entered a new era of authoritarian aggression, led by Russia and China's dictators, who are increasingly isolated and dangerous, driven by historical grievances, paranoid about their democratic neighbors, and willing to use military force and other aggressive actions to crush the citizens of such countries. These dangerous dictators, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, are increasingly working together to achieve their aggressive goals. We must wake up to the fact that this new era of authoritarian aggression will likely be with us for decades. We need to face it with strategic resolve and confidence. The United States has extraordinary advantages relative to the dictatorships of Russia and China, if we are wise enough to utilize and strengthen them: our global network of allies, our lethal military, our world-class supplies of energy and other natural resources, our dynamic economy, and, most important, our democratic values and commitment to liberty. Xi Jinping and Putin's biggest weakness and vulnerability is that they fear their own people. We should remember this and exploit this in the months and years ahead. NATO, as an alliance, encompasses so many of these powerful comparative advantages: a lethal military, a global network of allies, dynamic economies, and the power of democratic values and the commitment to liberty. We should all welcome and celebrate the addition of Finland and Sweden to the NATO alliance, but we should also use this moment to recognize the seriousness of the authoritarian threats on the rise all over the world and recommit ourselves, all NATO members, to our obligations of collective defense, moving forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I just spoke an hour ago on the floor, and I am a very strong proponent of Sweden and Finland joining NATO. I am also a very strong supporter of NATO, and I want the alliance to endure for decades to come. But alliances can't endure if shared commitments and burdens are not met. This is particularly true for democratic alliances, where there must be a sense among the free citizens of such countries that all are pulling their weight for the collective defense and shared goals they all agree to. So the amendment I just called up an hour ago, No. 5192, is meant to make this clear. It simply states that the U.S. Senate expects all NATO members to spend a minimum of 2 percent of GDP on defense spending as agreed at the NATO summit in Wales in 2014. This will make NATO stronger, as will the accession of Finland and Sweden as new members. And I ask for a voice vote on this amendment.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I want to talk briefly about a very sacred place on our Nation's Mall, The National Mall, that I had an opportunity to visit yesterday. It is the Korean War Veterans Memorial that millions and millions of Americans have visited. Something happened last Wednesday that I wanted to talk about a little bit, a really important rededication of this very moving war memorial. Now, I like to get out on The Mall most days, go for a run in the morning when I am in DC, and I love our memorials, like everybody in America does, particularly the memorials that are dedications to the service of our military members, our veterans. The Presiding Officer is a veteran, a war hero. I have a ton of respect for her and her service. But whether it is the World War II or the Vietnam Memorial, one of the most moving memorials that I like to visit is the Korean War Veterans Memorial. Why? Well, I think there is so much we can all learn from the Korean war. In the Marine Corps, they really drill into you what happened during the Korean war. Unfortunately, not enough Americans know about the Korean war. But one of the big lessons is, you need to be ready. You need to be ready. In 1945, the U.S. military was the most fearsome military in the world, probably in the history of the world, and in 1950, just 5 years later, we had a very difficult time stopping a third world army in the opening months of the Korean war. Now, we rebounded, as Americans always do, but that is a lesson. That is a lesson for our country. In my view, the uniformed civilian leadership of our military did not serve their country well, letting the state of our forces become very unready. That is one of the lessons of that very difficult, brutal war. There is another lesson, and it is the nobility of service from our veterans that really is epitomized by service in the Korean war. The memorial has many beautifully engraved sayings, but one, when you think about it, is so moving and, in my view, depicts the nobility of American military service, particularly as it relates to that war. It says: Our nation honors her sons and daughters who answered the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met. Think about that--young men and women in America sent to fight halfway around the world to defend freedom. That is exactly what they were doing. And they didn't even know whom they were defending. A lot of them didn't even know where they were. To me, those words capture the essence of nobility, and so does the Korean War Memorial. You see part of it here. The centerpiece is nine large statues--soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines. They are grunts, infantry grunts on patrol. You can see there is a cold, wet wind whipping their ponchos. Their faces are full of fear, when you look at the statues, but also pride and determination. And all of this, in my view, captures the nobility of our service and our sacrifice as a nation in this war. Now, historians have referred to the Korean war as the ``forgotten war.'' I am kind of a Korean war history buff. I really, really dislike that term. I think we should just get rid of it. It is kind of a pejorative term in some ways. I have always thought it downplays the sacrifice and nobility and meaning of this very brutal conflict. I have often thought and said that, instead of the forgotten war, we should call it the noble war because it was a noble undertaking. It was a noble undertaking. Anyone who knows the history of this war or visits the memorial or knows a Korean war veteran or their family members knows that this was a noble undertaking by our great Nation, saving a country--literally saving a country--and we sacrificed a lot for it. That is the other thing that I think is very powerful on this memorial. Take a look at it--another depiction. You have heard it many times, but it is right there: ``Freedom is not free.'' ``Freedom is not free.'' Indeed, the freedoms that we enjoy in America, that so many countries around the world enjoy right now because of our military members over the course of history, decades--I always like to say, probably the greatest force in liberating mankind from oppression and tyranny in the world is the U.S. military. Think about it. Hundreds of millions of people. World War I; World War II; the Civil War, of course; but the Korean war, certainly. Over 37,000 Americans were killed in action, over 8,000 are still listed as missing in action, and over 103,000 Americans were wounded. And, of course, the killed and wounded Korean veterans and military and civilians from that war are literally in the millions--in the millions. But what also resonates are the very, very tangible results of the war in terms of freedom. Many of us have seen the famous satellite images at night taken over the Korean Peninsula--the whole peninsula. And if you look at the 38th parallel and what is north, it is literally dark and looks cold and looks lifeless. And if you look at everything south in that satellite picture, it is alive, bursting with life, and light. In my view, there are very few better illustrations of the disparity between freedom and authoritarianism than the image of that Korean Peninsula at night with those two countries--one is bright and alive, and one is dark and literally dead. American citizens, American soldiers, American military kept an entire country free. So what happened last week? I didn't think this war memorial, to be honest, could be improved--one of my favorites: powerful, as I have talked about; great words--but it was improved. Last Wednesday, I had the opportunity to attend the dedication-- really, the rededication--of the Wall of Remembrance that was added to the Korean War Memorial last week. The wall now has engraved on it the 36,573 Americans that were killed in action--every one of them--like the Vietnam wall. This is an example of what you will see at the new memorial. I encourage everybody, every American, if you are in DC, go take a look; go pay your respects. It is so moving. It is dramatically improved, this memorial, which I didn't think could be improved upon. Importantly, intermixed in the names of the Americans are also the 7,200 KATUSA soldiers. These were the Korean Army personnel who served with American forces, right alongside them. So they are just here. They are not divided by American and Korean. Those are just the ones who served with the Americans. Again, the Korean military--their killed-in- action numbers are way higher than even these. And here is the other thing that is so moving about this memorial. The names are actually laid out by service--Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. And they are actually listed according to rank. So if you look at the Vietnam Memorial, it is mixed in. It doesn't matter what service. And it is the date in which somebody was actually killed, chronologically. This is by military service and their rank. Why does that matter? What does it mean? Well, I will tell you what it means. It depicts the sacrifice of war, regardless of what the war is. Wars throughout history, up until now, always fall upon the young men and women of our great Nation--the 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds. They are the ones who do the fighting, and they are the ones who do the dying. So, for example, this is actually a picture of the section after section after section after section, which is just U.S. Army Private First Class--U.S. Army PFCs. And it is just thousands, one group. Huge sacrifice. Huge sacrifice. So I encourage everybody to go out, take a look at this newly improved Korean War Memorial that was dedicated last week. It was such a moving ceremony. It was made all the more moving by the beautiful voice of Miss America, Emma Broyles, who sang ``God Bless America'' in front of the thousands of veterans who were there--thousands-- Americans, Koreans. By the way, Emma is a constituent of mine. She is the first Alaskan to win Miss America, first Korean American to ever win Miss America. So she did a great job. And the final thing I just want to mention--and I think the whole Senate--I am working on a Senate resolution, and I would love to get some of my colleagues here on the floor right now to join this resolution with me. It is a simple resolution saying thank you to the Korean government and the Korean people, because guess who paid for this memorial. It wasn't the American taxpayer. It was the Korean Government and the people of Korea. Over 22 million. We had tremendous support from our Korean war American veterans associations. They did a great job. But the vast, vast bulk of the funding for this new, incredibly moving Korean War Memorial was from the people of Korea and the Government of Korea. And they sent their defense minister, they sent their veterans affairs minister, they sent a huge delegation of members of their legislature all for this ceremony. So I want to thank all of them. And I want to thank our veterans, our Korean War veterans, who served in the noble war--not the forgotten war, the noble war, a proud moment of history between our two great nations--a history that has bonded us--the Republic of Korea and the United States of America--for decades. And now our Gold Star families and Korean War veterans can visit the names of their friends and families and loved ones who did this, as the memorial says: Answered the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met. That is why this should be called the noble war. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I want to compliment my colleague from Delaware, whom I enjoy working with very much on the EPW Committee. Normally at this time, the end of the week, I talk about the Alaskan of the Week. So stay tuned for next week when we continue that series. It has been going on for 6 years.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, it is Thursday, and we are back at it with our Alaskan of the Week series. We have been doing this for, geez, 6 years now, I think. For the new pages, this is usually kind of the signal of the end of the week but also some really cool stories about Alaska. We know it is your favorite. We think some of the reporters in town like it because it signals kind of the end of the week for them. But I want to talk about, first, what is kind of going on in Alaska. Right now, the sun is high in the sky through much of the day. Some places up north are getting 24 hours of sunlight; midnight sun, we call it. In Anchorage, we are getting about 18 hours, but that starts to decline real quick. But even when the sun sets, it is more of a twilight look than real night. So you have got to come up and visit; you will love it. It has been pretty rainy in parts of the State. We needed that rain. But it can't dampen the magnificent grandeur of Alaska. So, again, if you are watching on TV, you want to come up, have the vacation of a lifetime, do it. The fish are running. We are having a banner year for sockeye salmon. The rivers all across the State are choked with them. Last weekend, actually, I partook at a particular unique Alaskan tradition with my wife and a couple buddies of mine. We went dipnetting--dipnetting. That is on the Kenai River. That is actually when there is so much fish you actually put a pole with a net at the end, and you just put it in the water--boom. You just start to catch them. And you know, people go, Well, can you tell if there is a fish in your net? I am like, Oh, yeah, you can tell. So my wife and I and our friends, we caught 36 beautiful sockeye salmon yesterday--or last weekend, about 5 hours of fishing. It was great. We just loved it. So fishing, hunting, feeding our families from our land and waters is a big part of our life in Alaska. These traditions bind us. They keep us together as a State, as a community, as families. Our longstanding businesses are also part of the fabric of our State, particularly the ones that have grown up with our State. When the State's done well, they have done well. When the State struggled, they struggled; but they have hung in there. And we want to celebrate these businesses and the families that have run them. And the great Alaskan we are honoring today as our Alaskan of the week is Betsy Lawer. And she is part of an amazing family in an amazing business in Alaska--First National Bank of Alaska, which this year is celebrating its 100th anniversary. So it started in 1922. This amazing financial institution has been part of the landscape of Alaska--good times, difficult times--for 100 years. Betsy has been at the helm, a strong, sturdy force helping to guide this incredible business and, by extension, other businesses and communities throughout the State, part of her family tradition--the Cuddy family--for 100 years. So let's talk about Betsy and the family. She is the president of the First National Bank of Alaska and also part of a really impressive family that has run this bank for decades in Alaska. So here is the beginning: Literally with a vault full of gold nuggets and untanned animal pelts, that was their original deposits. In 1922, First National was founded then in what was part of the rough-and- tumble tent city of Anchorage. Anchorage was referred to as a tent city. In 1930, the patriarch of the Cuddy family, Warren Cuddy, began buying stock in the bank. By 1941, he purchased controlling interest, and Warren became the bank's president. Then, one of his sons, at that time, joined the bank's board--this is Dan Cuddy, the legendary Dan Cuddy, Betsy's dad. His service was remarkable. First, I would like to talk briefly about Dan Cuddy's service as an Alaskan veteran in World War II. He served as a captain in the 1255th Engineer Combat Battalion, which was attached to General George Patton's Third Army. Dan fought in the Battle of the Bulge in Luxembourg and was one of the troops who assisted in the discovery and then closing of the Buchenwald concentration camp. This is an American hero. And, by the way, throughout his entire career, I was so honored to meet with Dan Cuddy before he passed away in 2015. Throughout his incredible career, one thing he talked a lot about was the unspeakable atrocities that he saw in World War II, so it would never happen again. So Dan Cuddy comes back from World War II--warrior patriot, war hero. He becomes a lawyer, and in 1951, he becomes the bank president. And the Cuddy family's involvement, again, throughout our State is legendary. The bank thrived after that under Dan's leadership. It grew with the State. It helped Alaskans rebuild after the huge 1964 earthquake. By the way, do you want to read about a huge earthquake? It was 9.2 on the Richter scale, one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded. It destroyed cities, tsunamis. It lasted almost 5 minutes. Think about that, sitting through an earthquake for 5 minutes. And the bank the whole time kept supporting communities, and it continues to do that. It was among the first in the Nation to distribute check image statements to its customers in the 1990s. The only bank in America to welcome dog mushers through drive-throughs. Yes, think about that image. And it is probably certainly the only bank in America that has a branch that is bilingual both in English and Yupik. That is the branch in Bethel, 1 of 19 branches across America. First National Bank of Alaska--100 years of service--has received so many accolades and awards, including being named one of the top banks in America, and it was recognized in 2013 as one of America's most trustworthy companies by Forbes magazine. You can see the Cuddy family integrity in this institution. But the most important thing about First National Bank of Alaska's mission statement is that it is what drives the bank: Success depends on taking care of the community, employees, and customers. If the community isn't strong, businesses won't be strong, the bank won't be strong. So, Betsy, one of Dan and Betti's six children, was raised on those tenets that I just talked about. She saw how they worked firsthand. On Saturdays, she would join her father Dan while he went on his outings visiting customers. Sometimes those visits happened in Anchorage, where she would politely listen to business being discussed and then grab a late breakfast at Peggy's, a mainstay in Anchorage. Sometimes they would jump into a prop plane and head out to rural Alaska, where she learned so much about that part of our great State. Betsy said she loved those visits and she learned, in the ways that children do, that helping people realize their hopes and their dreams is what her father did, what their business did, and why it was so important to so many Alaskan communities. Jump forward to September 10, 1969. Betsy was a college student at Duke, spending her summers, as she always did, working at the bank as a secretary at the bank. Just down the street from First National in downtown Anchorage, the Prudhoe Bay oil lease sale was underway. This is the giant oilfield in Alaska--oil and gasfield. The first big lease sale by the State. It was a huge event for our Nation, huge event for Alaska. Back then, the country needed Alaska oil and gas, just like today our country needs Alaska oil and gas. On that day in September 1969, Betsy remembers looking out the window of the bank. She said the streets were completely empty, like the ``Twilight Zone.'' Everybody was huddled in front of their radios, listening to the lease sale that would change Alaska and, in many ways, America forever. First National Bank of Alaska--the Cuddy family's bank where she was working, her dad was president then--was assisting Bank of America on the lease sale. After the sale, get this image, Betsy got a ride back to the east coast on a jet with bank executives headed to New York to directly deposit the $900 million check that was made out to the State of Alaska--that is about 7 billion in today's money--that got our State up and moving. She was on that plane depositing that money. Imagine the excitement that she felt then. The first thing Betsy did after that when she got back to Duke was to change majors from interior design to economics, which was probably a good move for a future bank president. Two years later--she didn't even wait for her graduation ceremony-- she came back to Alaska and immediately got to work. Now, because management programs back then were mostly for men, Betsy started from the bottom up--teller, clerk, secretary--which she said later in life gave her an advantage when she began processing loans for the bank because she knew exactly how it all worked and the people at every level in that bank. She knew the bones of the bank and the banking industry. Throughout the years, as the bank has grown, our Alaskan of the Week, Betsy, has grown with it. She became president of the bank in 2013, CEO in 2018, and she is also the board president. She is a mother, a wife, an active member of the community. She is a great community banker, and I will tell you this. During the pandemic, there was no financial institution that was more dedicated to getting the PPP loans out to small businesses in Alaska than First National Bank of Alaska and Betsy Lawer. They did an incredible job. Betsy helps people in our State realize their hopes and dreams, and for Betsy, it all comes down to having a deep understanding and caring for the community--the many communities that they serve. ``You can't automate those relationships,'' she said. So I want to thank Betsy, the Cuddy family, congratulate the First National Bank of Alaska--100 years of service to our great State, what an amazing record. And I want to congratulate Betsy on perhaps one of her most prestigious awards ever: being Alaskan of the Week. CHIPS Act of 2022 Madam President, we have been discussing on the Senate floor the USICA bill, the America Competes bill, the bill that is supposed to focus on our ability to outcompete the Chinese communist economy, and I can think of very little legislation more important than this. This is an issue that since I arrived in the Senate in 2015, I started talking about the importance of a broad-based strategy as it relates to China and outcompeting China and recognizing that they don't play fair, that they steal, that they subsidize, that they coerce, and yet they are a huge entity in the global economy so we need a strategy to deal with them. And this bill that we are now debating on the Senate floor, the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act of 2021, USICA is something that I, with a number of other Senators, have worked hard on for literally over the last year and a half, and I want to thank a number of Senators who have put their heart and soul into this legislation, commend them: Senators Young, Schumer, Wicker, Cantwell, Warner, Cornyn. This is important legislation. As I mentioned, I have supported it and its Senate iterations when we passed it out of the Senate, out of committee in the Commerce Committee, but I have concerns. I have concerns, and I am going to mention a few of them briefly and then one concern that permeates so much of what has been happening here in the U.S. Senate over the last year and a half that is really important to me and my constituents. And I am asking my Senate colleagues--my Democratic Senate colleagues--to help me on something that I don't think a lot of them maybe even know that they are doing, but let me get to the concerns. First, on the chips provision--this isn't a concern. This is what Senator Warner, Senator Cornyn, and many others have focused on--really important to shore up semiconductor manufacturing in America. Now, look, my State, unfortunately, is not one that is competing right now hard for a big fabrication plant. I understand that. We have other assets like energy I am going to talk about here in a minute, but wherever this government support for the chips industry is going to go in America, I think it is really important because this industry is like energy. It is so important to America, and we can't let China outcompete us in that area. But let me talk about a couple concerns. First, on energy, one of the biggest areas that we can compete against China that they are scared about competing with us is our incredible natural resources, ``all of the above'' resources, all of our energy. If you read the intel and you see what China's leadership is worried about, one thing they are worried about is American energy dominance. So I have worked hard on this legislation for a year and a half to make sure that when we are looking at research--advanced research that this legislation is going to fund--it needs to include all energy. It has been a struggle, I will admit. Some of my Democratic colleagues, certainly the Biden administration, have this thing where they don't like certain areas of energy--oil and gas in particular. They have targeted it. They want to put it out of business. It makes no sense. It is probably the biggest strategic blunder of the Biden administration across so many areas--targeting and unilaterally disarming American energy, when it is one of our greatest comparative advantages. Unfortunately, some of the language coming back over from the House continues this trend, and I am very concerned that we would have a bill that could give Federal bureaucrats the opportunity to continue to target American energy, as opposed to help bolster it in our competition with China. So that is one concern. It wasn't in the Senate bill. I made sure of that. But now after some of the far-left Members in the House got to put language in that came back over here, it is a concern, and it should concern every single American, every single Senator. We need all of our strengths to compete with China, and to not use the strength of American energy--``all of the above'' energy--is nuts. Hopefully, this administration is waking up to that, but it hasn't been a great record at all in terms of that. There is another provision, something that built on a provision that I tried to get that I did get in the original USICA bill that Senator Portman has now put forward with Democrats and Republicans, a provision to make sure that all of these Federal dollars that are going to be in this bill do not go to Chinese researchers working in our facilities-- in research facilities, in university facilities--and then take them back to China. At a recent hearing, FBI Director Wray said this is one of the biggest threats our country faces, the counterintelligence perspective with regard to the Chinese Communist Party. He said: They are targeting our innovation, our trade secrets, our intellectual property on a scale that's unprecedented in history. So if we are going to spend all these Federal dollars on American research at American research institutions and American universities, we need strong guardrails to make sure it doesn't fall into Chinese hands. Senator Portman has done a great job on this. It is a commonsense amendment. Apparently, some have had concerns that this amendment would be ``racist.'' That is ridiculous. We need to prevent China from stealing our intellectual property. Period. It is not racist; it is common sense. I hope we can make sure that amendment gets in. But I want to go into a little detail on the final issue that I have with this bill. And to be honest, it is kind of shocking that a bill focused on competing with China--once again, from the Democratic side of the Senate or the House, I don't know where it comes from--has provisions that actually target in a negative way Alaska Natives. OK? This is an issue that, to be honest, I am kind of flabbergasted. It comes up everywhere. It is discrimination. It is racial discrimination--good old-fashioned racial discrimination--that I thought we tried to get rid of in this country a long time ago, and it keeps popping up. I am tired of it, and, remarkably, it popped up in the bill that competes against China. So I am sure a lot of you are saying: Well, jeez, how did that happen? I want to explain because I really want my colleagues, many of whom I am convinced have no idea what is going on, to understand what is happening. And it happens again and again, and to be honest, it shouldn't. I hope some people in our media finally write about this. I think it is shameful. But I am going to explain it here right now. Here is the issue. In Alaska, we have a very big indigenous population--wonderful people, incredible people, amazing people. It is almost 20 percent of the population of my State. They bring culture, heritage, values. By the way, they have been there for tens of thousands of years. This is really important to me and to Senator Murkowski. Congress--Congress, not the Native people, the Congress of the United States--over the course of many years, essentially, has classified--we in the U.S. Senate have classified--Alaska Natives into two broad categories. There are Tribal members, which is this circle here, and there are members of Alaska Native Corporations. They are in this circle here. Now, a lot of the indigenous people of Alaska are both Tribal members and an ANC members. Some are not both. Some are just Tribal members. Some are ANC members. But we are talking about tens of thousands of indigenous people. So whenever we work on legislation that benefits the Alaska Native people--but American Indians, writ large--what we always try to do is say: Remember, Congress did this. The Native people didn't do this. So let's make sure that we cover everybody. Let's make sure everybody is included. You wouldn't want to discriminate against one of these groups. They are all indigenous people. So that is what me, Senator Murkowski, Ted Stevens--every Senator, every great Congressman, our great Congressman Don Young, whom we just lost--we have been doing that for decades. All of a sudden this has become controversial to some Members, to some groups. This group, the ANC members, these are indigenous people of Alaska designated as ANC members, not by themselves but by the Congress, OK? So here is what happened. Here is the beginning. It is sad, and I am going to talk about it. It shouldn't happen, and I really want my Democratic colleagues to help me stop this because if you put another minority group in and talked about what is happening to the Native people of Alaska, people would be shocked. The New York Times and the Washington Post would write front pages stories about official discrimination by the U.S. Senate against a minority population. But for whatever reason, it seems to be OK to do it against Alaska Natives. But it is not OK. Here is what happened. In the CARES Act we had this historic funding, $8 billion for the Native people of America. We wrote a definition. I was very involved with it. Everybody cleared on it--Indian Affairs, majority, minority. That included all indigenous people of Alaska--OK, just like we include all indigenous people of Nevada and New Mexico. We wanted to cover with $8 billion in the CARES Act the very vulnerable populations, all the Native people. Unfortunately--unfortunately--as opposed to being viewed as $8 billion, the biggest historic investment in Indian communities in history, there was a dispute, and certain groups said: Hey, we got this $8 billion, but we don't want this group to get anything. We don't want this group, ANC members, to get any of that $8 billion. Remarkably, the majority leader in a tweet attacked the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, an Alaska Native woman of impeccable integrity, saying somehow that these members getting any of that money was corrupt. Of course, that was ridiculous. One of the Senate Democrats here, Senator Udall, launched an investigation of this incredible Assistant Secretary of the Interior, an Alaska Native woman, on this charge. It was refuted. It was ridiculous. It was sad. By the way, Senator Udall apologized to her. Our Ambassador to New Zealand right now apologized to this incredible Alaska Native woman, saying: Do you know what? That was probably really bad. I am sorry. It was bad. So what happened is that you had a group saying: Let's exclude this group of tens of thousands of Alaska Natives from getting any CARES money. Well, look, we wrote the language. We knew that the language was inclusive of everybody. So that, unfortunately, went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Trump administration and, to its credit, the Biden administration said: No, the language of the CARES Act included all Alaska Natives. Why would we discriminate one against the other? So we won that. That was the way it was written. I had a lot to do with writing it. So I know. But that is just fair. OK, so that is what happened. So then my Democratic colleagues write the American Recovery Act. The $2 trillion relief package, with $20 billion for American Tribes. But do you know what came out of that package? Express language written by my Democratic colleagues saying that of the $20 billion, every Native group in America gets some of that money, but this group--tens of thousands of ANC members in Alaska--we are going to make sure they don't get any of that. That happened, right here on the Senate floor. I have no idea why. Let me just pose a counterfactual. Imagine you had Congress say there are two groups of minorities. Let's say not two groups but Asian American minorities in New York, group A, group B--Congress categorized them, not themselves--or African Americans, group A, group B; or Hispanic Americans, group A, group B, in the State of New York--just in the State of New York. And a Republican Congress said we are going to do a giant relief package for that minority group across the country. But, group B in New York, we are going to expressly exclude you from getting any money. What would you call that? I would call that good old-fashioned racial discrimination. If that happened, if a Republican Congress did that, to say a group of African Americans or Hispanic Americans or Asian Americans, the New York Times and the Washington Post would be going crazy--rightfully so, by the way. This happened. This happened. OK, I don't know why. I would love it if one of my Senate colleagues came down and said: Hey, Dan, here is why we went to great lengths to exclude tens of thousands of Alaska Native indigenous people from getting relief. Here is why we did that to you. I would love for somebody to tell me that. They haven't. I think it is wrong. I think most people who know about it probably would be like: Jeez, I didn't know we had $20 billion for Tribes, but we specifically excluded this group. Was it because we were mad about the Supreme Court case? I don't know. But here is the thing. Back to the USICA bill, there is a lot of money going to universities.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am finishing up. So I am not going to yield. It is important to me, to my colleague from Maryland. There is a lot of money going to universities. This is really important to me, and I have been wanting to give this speech for a long time. There is a lot of money going to institutions for research to compete against China. There are specific provisions that say: Hey, there is going to be money that goes to Native American groups. That is great. They have a lot to bring to this battle with China. But that provision that came over from the House--guess what it did. It said: Not to this group. Not to this group. So do you see where I am going with this? I have no idea why Democrats in the House and Senate want to keep targeting this group of indigenous people. Imagine if Republicans did this to a minority group in Maryland or New York. But it is happening, and it is happening even in this bill. So that is another big concern I have of this bill, this continuation of--I have no idea. I would love it for someone to come down and say: Hey, Dan, here is why we discriminate against tens of thousands of indigenous people in your State. But it is happening. I sure hope my colleagues listen to this. Maybe the New York Times or the Washington Post would write about it once. But just a ceasefire--when we are trying to help Native people in America, in Alaska we want to help them all. Remember, this is how Congress set up these groups, not the people. So all I ask is let's kind of do what we did in the CARES Act for all legislation. But I and Senator Murkowski are going to scrub every piece of darn legislation that comes out of here, and we are going to start calling out people, asking: Why are you discriminating against tens of thousands of people in my State who are indigenous? Wrong. It is inexplicable, and it is even in the darn bill to compete with China. And I sure hope my colleagues will work with me to start making sure this doesn't happen anymore. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you to my friends from the great State of Utah and the great State of Florida, Senator Scott and Senator Lee. Mr. President, I want to explain to any American who is watching just what happened here because, to be honest, it is kind of shocking what just took place. Senator Scott came down to the floor. He had a bill, S. 3086. Normally when you have a bill that is considered pretty noncontroversial, you can come down and do what is called a unanimous consent, which is you ask the Senate: Do you want to pass the bill? And if anyone objects, they actually have to come down and object in the Senate Chamber. So what does S. 3086 bill do? Here is the language: ``to require the Energy Information Administration to submit to Congress and make publicly available an annual report on Federal Agency policies and regulations and Executive orders that have increased or may increase energy prices in the United States.'' That is it. That is it. That is the bill. It is one page--less than one page. It is two paragraphs. All we were doing was asking, why are energy prices in America going through the roof, and is the Federal Government contributing to that through its actions and regulations? It is a really important question. Why is it an important question? It is an important question because when you get out of this bubble in DC and you go home--like I was just home in Alaska last weekend--energy costs and inflation are the No. 1 issue hurting American families--the No. 1 issue. So shouldn't we in the Senate want to know why it is happening? Now, look, what else happened here--a little bit of inside baseball in the Senate--when a Senator comes down and objects to a UC, usually he gives a strong reason why--strong: Here is my reason why this bill is bad for the country, and I am going to object. You may have seen my colleague object and say ``I am getting the heck out of here; I am not going to explain this'' because there is no reason to object to this--none. So he objected and left. He didn't try to defend objecting to this, because every American wants to know. It is the biggest issue back home, but here is another reason we need the bill: because this President has come up with excuse after excuse after excuse on why energy costs since he got into office have gone through the roof. Let me give you a couple of examples. He first said: Well, we are emerging from the pandemic, and the supply chain couldn't keep up with demand. All right, if that is really true, let the Energy Information Administration--of the Biden administration, by the way--see if that is one of the reasons. OK. Then he said: Well, shoot, the pandemic is kind of over so it is Putin's invasion of Ukraine that is driving the increase in energy prices. Putin's unprovoked, brutal war--which it is unprovoked and brutal--has led to higher energy prices. And President Biden then started to say it is Putin's price hike. No one is buying that one either because energy prices were spiking way before the brutal invasion of Ukraine. So then the President started saying: Well, it is COVID and Putin. OK. Then he started blaming the oil companies. Then he started to say: Well, we have all these amazing permits that we want the oil companies drilling on, but they are not using them. So we need Senator Scott's legislation because the Biden administration, the President himself, has put out all these ideas on why Americans are getting crushed by inflation and high costs at the pump. Yet the one thing the President hasn't done, has never talked about, is he hasn't looked internally and said: Hmm, maybe it is my own administration's policies that are driving up energy costs. Maybe. By the way, it is not maybe; it is certainly. And my colleagues have talked about this. Heck, I talked about this earlier today. I talk about it every day because it is crushing my home State and my constituents. But what we want the Energy Information Administration to look at is possibly these reasons: Day 1, this administration came in and said: We are going to limit production of American energy. Anyone who went to econ 101 in college knows that when you start to limit supply, prices go up. Well, that is a culprit. No. 2, from day 1, they said: We are going to shut down, kill, and delay moving energy through infrastructure--pipelines, LNG terminals. They are doing that all the time. So that is a policy, those are Executive orders limiting the ability to move energy. That sends up costs. No. 3 is that they have actively gone to the American financial sector--the Biden administration--and told them not to invest in American energy, choking off capital. That increases prices. So Senator Scott's bill would simply ask the experts in the Federal Government, the Energy Information Administration, to just take a look: What is driving up the cost of American energy? What is crushing middle-class working families? And the reason my colleague objected and then ran off the floor without saying anything is because everybody here knows what the answer is going to be: Joe Biden has done this. It is his policies that are driving up energy costs. And here is the thing that Senator Lee touched on, and this is the thing that should scare everybody. It is likely purposeful. Pain is the point. They are all talking about this wonderful, glorious transition. Gina McCarthy talks about: Hey, if the prices go up, it will accelerate the transition to renewables. They don't give a damn about the people who are suffering. It is all this green utopia stuff. All we are asking for is what is driving up the cost of energy on the backs of working-class Americans? That is it. A two-paragraph bill, and my colleagues came and objected to it. And every American should know this. They don't want you to know what we all know, which is this: The pain at the pump is the purposeful policies of the Biden administration, and the American people are paying for it. We want the Federal Government to look into the details of this, and the Democrats were just now objecting to that transparent information request. And, in my view, it is shameful. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I want to join my colleagues here in an important discussion as it relates to American energy. My colleague from the great State of Missouri said it well in so many different ways: Now we are pleading with dictators to import more energy. That is one element of what, certainly, has been the Biden administration's most colossal, strategic mistake of its entire first year in office. Trust me. There have been a lot of mistakes on the Biden administration's watch. There has been nothing that has undermined American interests in terms of working families, in terms of skyrocketing inflation, in terms of national security, in terms of energy security, and--yes, I am going to talk about it--in terms of environmental policy for America and the world. Nothing has been more harmful to America's interests and the interests of American working families than the reckless policies of the Biden administration's approach to American energy. I have talked about this issue a lot because a lot of those policies are zeroed in on my State and my constituents, but as many have already said and as Senator Blunt has already said, it can be summed up, in my view, in kind of four key areas. No. 1, from day one, they have come in and said: We are going to limit the production of American energy. That is happening. It is certainly happening in Alaska. On day one, the President made an order on ANWR. We got ANWR done in this Congress, but he shut that down, and they are canceling lease sales. As for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, they are taking half of that off the table. Everywhere you look, they are trying to limit the production of American energy. That is a fact. It makes no sense, but it is a fact. That is No. 1. No. 2 is the slow rolling and killing of energy infrastructure, the ability to move energy through pipelines or LNG terminals. They are stopping it, slow rolling it, or killing it. That is a fact, OK? That is what they have been doing from day one. No. 3, they are going to the American financial community--John Kerry, Gina McCarthy, and all of these far-left, crazy, policy folks-- and saying to American banks and insurance companies: Don't invest in American energy. This is choking off capital to this incredibly important sector of the U.S. economy. When they are not doing that, they are appointing senior officials--just think Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, the SEC Chairman--who are undertaking policies to choke off capital to the American energy sector. That is happening. No. 4, when they have seen prices spike and hard-working American families paying hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars more to get to work in their cars or trucks, the administration is going around, begging dictators for more energy production. This is an insult. We have the highest standards with regard to the environment and American energy production in Alaska and in other places. Do you think the Saudis care about their environment? Do you think the Venezuelans care? Do you think the terrorists in Iran care? They don't, but the administration is going and begging dictators for more energy. So those are the policies of the Biden administration on energy, and we all know it is not working. It is having the predictable consequence of driving up energy costs on all American families--and, of course, giving pink slips to American energy workers, who I believe are heroic workers: union workers and others--and empowering our adversaries. So that is what is happening. Today, the President is in Boston, so I want to talk about a couple of policies--energy policies--emanating from people and the communities of Boston that further show just how irrational the far-left Democratic Party is on energy. Let me first talk about this issue, which I like to trot out a lot, on this chart. This is a factual chart of emission changes from major economies in the world from 2005 to the present. You don't hear about this a lot, but take a look. Take a look at this chart. What does it show? Of all of the major economies in the world, the one economy with the biggest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is America, the United States of America, by far. Take a look. We have reduced emissions since 2005 by almost 15 percent. EU didn't do that. Germany didn't do that. Japan didn't do that. And here you go: In China, there is a new coal plant every couple of days, it seems. In India, it is the same thing. Why am I bringing out this chart? A, people need to know that we are the leader; we are not the bad guy. I know John Kerry keeps thinking we are the bad guy; he goes around telling everybody we are. We are not. If every other country in the world had emissions profiles like we had, you would see a much, much cleaner and less emitting planet. That is a fact. So let me talk about a couple of these policies. John Kerry, the climate envoy, has been reported as going to certain countries in Asia, saying: You know, we really don't like hydrocarbons in America, so don't buy any of that American LNG. What? We are paying this guy's salary to say that? Whose side is he on? By the way, exporting clean-burning American LNG to places like India or China or Japan is exactly what we need to do to reduce global emissions. So you have got this one guy out there--and I am not sure why he is being paid by the U.S. Government; he should be paid by the Chinese Communist Party Government. There are recent press reports that John Kerry's private jet--that he flies all around the world on--last year, emitted over 300 tons of CO2. What? Yes. Look, he is smug, hypocritical, and his policies are hammering the middle class--and now this. John Kerry is one of the single biggest polluters and greenhouse gas emitters in the world for an individual. In Boston, one of the best things the President can do today is to either fire John Kerry or ask him to resign. That would be great. That would probably do a lot for climate in America. Let me give another policy that should be raised in Massachusetts. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this Boston Globe editorial--a very long one--from February 12, 2018, be printed in the Record. It is called ``Our Russian `pipeline,' and its ugly toll.''

Mr. SULLIVAN. Again, these are far-left policies that are having a negative impact on actual environment and climate issues. This is the Boston Globe editorial page, not some rightwing editorial page, and they are writing about how the Massachusetts State legislature said: We are not going to have any pipelines coming across Massachusetts to be able to take gas from Pennsylvania and let people in Boston use it. Here is the editorial page on Massachusetts' reliance on imported gas. So what happens? They are importing all of their gas from Russia in the Arctic. How does that help America? You have American gas from American pipelines that is produced by Americans, with the highest environmental standards, coming across Massachusetts to Boston. No. The Massachusetts State legislature says: We are too good for that. We are not going to build pipelines. So what do they do? They import all of their gas from Russia. This is an editorial that says: This policy is insane, and that is, in essence, the definition of what we are seeing by the Biden administration, by John Kerry, and by the Massachusetts State legislature--all of these woke pronouncements that actually have the impact of degrading our environment, empowering dictators, laying off Americans, and raising the price of energy on our economy, small businesses, and working families. So I am hopeful that today, in Boston, the President starts to get serious about American energy policy and that he starts to reverse his administration's focus on shutting down the production of American energy, on permitting pipelines and infrastructure, and on helping to finance energy projects and production. That is the reversal he could make and announce today. That would help the American people. It would help my constituents. Unfortunately, I think that it is unlikely to happen. The people of our great Nation are going to continue to suffer, and the environment is going to continue to suffer because of these policies on energy that undermine American interests everywhere you look. I yield the floor.