Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, you know what time of the week it is, and I think our pages are learning. But it is a special time of the week here in the Senate because it is Thursday, and Thursday is when I usually come out and talk about the Alaskan of the Week. Now, look, the press--where are they? I am not sure they are around right now, but they love this speech. They call it probably the most important speech of the week in the Senate, regardless of what is going on. The Presiding Officer is a big fan and the pages are because I like to tell stories about what my constituents are doing back home to earn them this very prestigious title--very prestigious, by the way--the Alaskan of the Week. I like to begin this speech, as you know, talking a little bit about what is going on back home in Alaska. Here in the Senate, we are all getting ready to go on a recess work period, we call it. We are all going to be going home, seeing our constituents. Speaking of things in Alaska, I just happened to host our Senate lunch. On the Republican side of the Senate on Thursdays, one of the Senators hosts lunch every Thursday. Today was my day to host, which is kind of exciting. I am not going to brag, but I think a lot of the Senators like it when Senator Murkowski or I host because we bring in great salmon, halibut. So we had a feast for lunch today. My wife Julie was here, which was really special. We brought in peonies. A lot of people don't know Alaska is now becoming a huge peonies flower producer. I didn't even know what a peony was a couple of years ago, but now we are big into that. So if you saw these peonies all over the Senate today, they were from Alaska. What I like to do at the lunch is talk a little bit about Alaska. I have this fact sheet with these great facts about Alaska. And during the lunch, we have a video cam going, literally a live feed video of what is happening in Alaska in the Katmai National Park, Brooks Falls. That is the real famous place in Alaska where all the big brown bears gather by the falls because the salmon are trying to jump up through the falls, and the brown bears are literally catching them in their mouths and eating them right there. So that is a live feed in the lunch that we just had, dozens of bears. It is awesome. If you are interested in watching it, just go on Brooks Falls, live feed. It is awesome to watch. So there is a lot going on in our to State. It is kind of dangerous right now. One of the things that I showed to my colleagues is this slide. It is going to be hard to see, but this is a slide of Russian and Chinese strategic bombers--not good. That is a Bear bomber, Russian. That is a Chinese bomber. It is the first time in history they were working together to push into our airspace, Alaska airspace--Russian-Chinese strategic bombers coming into Alaska airspace. Our brave military men and women in Alaska jumped them. Over 10 fighters, fully armed to the teeth, said: Hey, China, Russia, get out of our airspace. Go back to your countries. So up in Alaska, we are on the frontlines of a lot of this great power competition. These authoritarians are on the march pushing. We are not going to let them push in our State. So there is a lot going on. And I was talking about that at lunch. By the way, I was talking about this, too: My wife Julie and I were recently up in Utqiagvik, Barrow. That is the highest point of North America. These are too hard to tell, but we were able to see some polar bears, beautiful polar bears in the wild. We took some photos-- magnificent, beautiful animals. So there is just a lot going on. I always like to make the pitch to people watching here in the Senate or on TV: Come up to Alaska. You will have the greatest trip in the world. It is an incredible place, a lot of fun. Especially now, it is beautiful. You would just love it. So a lot happening there, as I was talking about to my colleagues at lunch today. But I want to talk about the people. Today, we have a really great Alaskan of the Week who I know super well. I just want to talk about what a great job she has done. Her name is Julie Kitka. She has been, for over three decades, the president of a really important organization in Alaska called the Alaska Federation of Natives--the Alaska Federation of Natives, AFN, as we call it, in Alaska. I also want to give a shout-out to Ben Mallott. He is actually related to my wife. He is going to be the next president of AFN. So great job, Ben. He has already been working at AFN for a long time. But what we really want to talk about is Julie Kitka's legacy and what she has done to help literally tens of thousands of people in our State. Now, I have talked about this a lot in my speeches here, but the history of Alaska is very epic. But one of the big elements of our history is who owns our lands, who manages our lands. Sometimes it is a fight, sometimes it is cooperation, but it is a really important issue. One of the largest, most important parts of that history, after America purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867, was what rights to the lands would the Native people have? By the way, it was their lands to begin with, right? So what kind of rights do the Native people of Alaska have to lands? This question has been going on since the purchase in 1867 of Alaska from Russia. (Ms. HIRONO assumed the Chair.) And believe it or not, Madam President, this issue is still in limbo into the late 1960s, when the Alaskan Native people from across the State organized and formed the Alaska Federation of Natives--AFN, as we call it--to push for the rights to their lands. This fight got turbocharged in the late 1960s when oil was discovered on Alaska's North Slope during a crisis in terms of a worldwide shortage of oil. And the Congress was like: We need to produce energy in Alaska, and we need to produce energy fast. Well, wait a minute. The Native people are saying: Hey, these are our lands. What about the settlement? So Congress came together and passed a lot of really important legislation relating to these issues in Alaska. One was called the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act, the TAPS Act; but the most important was in 1971, and it was called the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act--ANCSA, as we call it back home. This is the largest and certainly the most innovative indigenous land settlement in U.S. history, probably in the history of the world, to be honest. It is no exaggeration to say that: 44 million acres of land going from the Feds and the State to the Native people to own it--fee simple, by the way. Very innovative. Very different from what happened in the lower 48 with Indian reservations, a very different system. Congress did that. And it created AFN, the Alaska Federation of Natives. Actually, if you look at the AFN symbol, it has kind of a three-ring symbol that has Aleut, Eskimo, Indian--the symbol of everybody working together. And, trust me, in Alaska, the history of different groups wasn't always so cooperative. There was a lot of conflict between different Native groups. And AFN came together. As a matter of fact, at lunch today, I was telling a story about Alaska. I even told a story about my mother-in- law, my wife's mom, Mary Jane Fate, who is a great Alaska Native civil rights leader. She was one of the leaders, when AFN was being formed, who came to Congress and lobbied Senators on ANCSA. And she actually got a very conservative Senator, James Buckley, a great Senator from New York, to be a cosponsor of ANCSA because it was so innovative: a private sector approach to Native ownership of land that created Alaska Native corporations--all done right here in the U.S. Senate. And the AFN, Alaska Federation of Natives, pushed that and made it happen. Great leadership. So now AFN represents about 140,000 Alaska Natives, hundreds of Alaska Native corporations. And for 34 years, Julie Kitka has been leading AFN--such an important organization to our State--and Julie has done a great job. Now she is stepping down. We are going to miss her. I am going to talk about that. But let's talk about Julie's life. She is the second of five children, born to a Chugach Native father and a Kansas German mother. Growing up, she alternated between living in Cordova, AK, her father's hometown, and Washington State, where she started college at Western Washington University in 1971. By 1973, Julie returned to Cordova to work in a cannery there and later was hired by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, their enrollment office and their adoption division. By the way, she processed over 12,000 adoption applications for Alaska Natives during that time. And it was during this time she first became acquainted with the Alaska Federation of Natives, which, again, as I mentioned, was pretty new. Julie began taking grad school classes. She is very smart. Like I said, I have known her for many, many years. And she later dropped them to help take care of her sick daughter. And then AFN said: Hey, this woman is really smart. We are going to hire her in kind of an accounting-bookkeeper position. They saw her really smart brilliance when it came to her business acumen and her business degree. And that was in 1984, just 6 years before she would begin her tenure as the AFN's longest serving president. So AFN made an early, very smart investment in Julie Kitka. She moved up the chain quickly. She sat in on meetings with intelligence, curiosity. She was hired as a special assistant to the president. And Julie remembers the next few years at AFN as one of huge possibilities. As I said, Madam President, this was an amazing settlement. Congress did great work--the House, the Senate--very innovative, hundreds and hundreds of pages. And Julie said: ``There were [enormous] opportunities left and right. During those first meetings,'' after ANCSA was passed, ``folks would show up with briefcases like `business people,' and they'd be full of smoked salmon and seal oil.'' That was Julie talking about the early days. While unprecedented, the structure of Alaska Native corporations-- again, created by this body, Congress of the United States--through ANCSA, opened up incredible possibilities for the State. Julie said: ``It is beyond our imagination how successful things turned out'' with that legislation. Now, look, it wasn't perfect. We are always trying to amend it and fix it. She goes on to say: What Congress did by doing this settlement, land settlement experiment, with ANCs gave us a pathway to engage with the economy, to strengthen self-determination. The corporate model was an innovative tool which could be modified easily. Now, pivotal changes began to happen at AFN. Workshops, conventions began to roll out across the State to help people prepare to implement this really far-reaching legislation. And part of the legislation said: All right, this is going to pass in--it passed in 1971. Twenty years later, the Alaska Native corporations would essentially be open to the public, enabling outsiders to buy into ANCs. And this, to be honest, Madam President, was a challenging time. It was a scary time. Julie remembers it as challenging and scary. A lot of corporations back in those days--ANCs--were losing money. This legislation, after a 20-year period--the 20-year period in 1991 really loomed large. So she and the other Alaska Natives, working with the Congress and the Senate, worked hard to ensure continued Native ownership of ANCs. This was really important work. And they did this work. Julie came to Congress in Washington, DC, with AFN many, many times to serve as a lobbyist, advocating for ANCs in this legislation, this period in the early--late 1980s and early 1990s. And with the help of her great persuasive talents, AFN was able to include key provisions in legislation here in the Congress that have resounding impacts today, including land bank protections preventing the taxation of undeveloped Native lands, special benefits for our Alaska Native elders, and the designation of ANCs as small or disadvantaged businesses. Madam President, as you know, these relatively small changes grew later into really, really important changes for our ANCs and have created important legacies for the success that we have seen in so many of these Alaska Native corporations. By January 1990, Julie had done such great work that AFN said: Hey, you are going to be our president. You are going to be our leader. And she has done that for 34 years. She presided over AFN. By the way, the Alaska Federation of Natives Conference, the AFN convention, as we call it, every year in October in Alaska, is the biggest, largest meeting of indigenous Americans each year in the country. And, by the way, it is a great event. It is a great event. I love going every year. It is a lot of fun. So many Alaskans, Native and non-Native, are there. It is fantastic. So Julie has built all of that. AFN is one of the most important organizations in our State. Thirty-four years later, Julie talks about some of the seminal programs and initiatives created during her time. AFN helped establish the Job Corps center, which is still thriving in Palmer, AK--a beautiful campus there--training Alaskans in their jobs. It is fantastic work they do. AFN worked to establish Alaska Native education equity, the growing recognition and importance of Tribes. Julie Kitka also did a great job working with our military and Alaska Natives and AFN. Alaska Natives, like Native Hawaiian and lower 48 Indians, serve at higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the country. Special patriotism, I like to call it. That is what they do. Julie Kitka did a great job focusing on those issues and forming dozens of joint Federal and State partnerships that have lasted for decades. Julie said that none of this would have been accomplished without bridge building: It was always about partnerships--nothing was ever done alone. We had conferences all the time to break down barriers and self-limiting silos. Partnerships--what a great way to focus on leadership, Madam President. That is what she did. So after 34 years as the president of AFN and 40 years as an employee of AFN, Julie has now decided to step down. What a career. What an impact on Alaskans. And, by the way, she shows no sign of slowing down yet. This April, the full Alaska congressional delegation, myself included, selected Julie to lead the Denali Commission, an independent Federal Agency, to work on economic development and infrastructure issues in rural Alaska. So we certainly have not seen the last of her incredible work or work ethic on behalf of Alaska and all of our fellow Alaskans. Julie, to you, congratulations. It has been an honor working with you on some of these critically important issues. I know that everybody at AFN, all Alaskans, Native and non-Native, send their congratulations. You have built an incredible legacy. You have worked so hard for our State and our communities. And now you have received one of the most prestigious awards in Alaska: being our Alaskan of the Week. Congratulations on a job well done. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I want to join my colleagues here on the Senate floor and talk about the importance of national security right here in the Congress of the United States. It is certainly one of our top priorities--protecting our Nation. You know, President Ronald Reagan, who very much focused on the issue of peace through strength--and I am going to talk about that here in a minute--he once said: We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is then that the tyrants are tempted. ``It is then that the tyrants are tempted.'' Tyrants like this guy--that is Xi Jinping sporting some cammies there with his military--tyrants like this guy and the tyrants around the world, they are tempted. They are tempted. They are on the march. Look at this poster. That is Xi Jinping again in his military uniform. He kind of looks ridiculous, from my perspective, but, hey, they are on the march. Putin, the terrorists in Iran, Kim Jong Un in North Korea, Venezuela, for goodness' sake--all the tyrants are working together, and they are on the march because the forces of freedom, as President Reagan said, have become weak. You have heard it from my colleagues from North Carolina and Mississippi. We are on Armed Services together. By the way, they are both doing a great job. Let me make sure everyone can see that. Thank you. Yet this body has not taken up what we need to take up. Just a couple of examples. Senator Budd was talking about the chaos in the Middle East, the appeasement of Iran by the Biden-Harris administration. By the way, in my great State, just this past week, we had a joint Russian-Chinese strategic bomber patrol come into our ADIZ, into the kind of territorial airspace right near Alaska. It never happened before in the history of the country--Chinese and Russian joint bomber patrols, with fighters, coming into American airspace. The tyrants-- this guy--they are tempted. They have never done that before. We heard about this. We all know this started due to the botched, chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan that has sent the message of weakness. Our wonderful military up in Alaska scrambled 10 fighter jets, fully armed, went and greeted the Chinese and the Russians, and said: Not today, guys. Turn around. Get out of our airspace. But that was an escalation. It never happened before. In the United States, we need to be stronger--much stronger than the Biden-Harris administration has enabled us to be. So what can we do here on the Senate floor? Well, what we can do--and you have heard my colleagues talk about it--is that we can bring up the National Defense Authorization Act. Like a lot of my colleagues who have been talking on the floor right now, I serve on the Armed Services Committee and was glad to work on this bill in a bipartisan way. I saw Chairman Reed here a minute ago on the floor. He did a great job, the chairman of the committee. We dramatically increased the top-line number that we need in terms of our military, the men and women who did the mission like they did last week in Alaska. By the way, that is not an easy mission, flying 1,000 miles from their base to go intercept the Russians and Chinese with fighters. That was not an easy mission. Our military members did it really well. But here is the issue: For so many of my Democratic colleagues, especially the majority leader, the military and bringing the NDAA on the floor is just not a priority. I mean, no offense to some of the people we are confirming right now, but these are not priorities. The time on the Senate floor reflects priorities, and the majority leader has kind of indicated: Hey, even though we have a good NDAA; even though our country is in peril right now, with the dictators on the march; even though the House already passed a version, the Senate--ah, forget it. We will do a tax judge. We won't bring the NDAA to the floor. I know a lot of Democrats who worked hard--the Presiding Officer is one--who worked hard on this bill. A lot of my Democrat colleagues want the bill on the floor. For whatever reason, the Senate majority leader, during this dangerous time, will not bring a bipartisan bill strengthening our military to the floor. Why won't he do that? Why won't he do that? Well, I will say there is a major, major difference between our parties--a major difference. What is that difference? Well, I like to proudly proclaim that the Republicans have been, are, and I hope will always be the party of peace through strength--peace through strength. By the way, if you take a look at the Republican Party platform that we issued in Milwaukee at our convention a couple of weeks ago, it is all about returning to peace through strength. That is what the platform is about. By the way, I took a look at the Republican Party platform in 2024 and the Reagan-Bush platform in 1984 on peace through strength. They are almost identical. That is what we believe in. That is what President Eisenhower believed in, Roosevelt, Reagan, and President Trump certainly did in his first term. Here is the difference--you know, I know some of my colleagues don't like it when I say this, but, hey, the truth hurts--the Democrats are the opposite of this. When the Democrats have gotten into power in the White House, what do they do? They always come and cut defense spending, and they always undermine readiness. That is why the Senate majority leader is saying: I don't want to bring the NDAA to the floor. That is not our priority. We don't do that. Let me just give a couple of examples. Jimmy Carter cut defense spending in his first 3 years in office, and the Russians and Iranians took advantage of America's weakened posture. Bill Clinton cut the size of our military by one-third, upending a decade of progress under the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations. Barack Obama slashed the Pentagon's budget by 25 percent during his second term. Our military readiness plummeted. I remember coming to the Senate in 2015. I was the ranking member on the Readiness Subcommittee and was shocked to see that 3 out of 58 brigade combat teams in the U.S. Army were at their highest levels of readiness--3 out of 58. Obama slashed readiness. Of course, now we have the Biden administration. Every year Biden- Harris have been in office, they have cut defense spending. Every single year. This year's Biden-Harris budget shrinks the Army, shrinks the Navy, and shrinks the Marine Corps. That is a fact. Next year's budget, in the next 2 years, if the Biden-Harris team is reelected, we will go below 3 percent of GDP. Take a look at this chart. It shows it. These are the numbers on GDP. That is 15 percent during the Korean war; 8, 9, percent during Vietnam; the Cold War, Reagan era, 5, 5\1/2\ percent; Bush, about 4\1/2\ percent; right here, 3 percent. We have been below 3 percent of GDP four times since World War II. That is the wrong message to be sending to dictators in the world. That is what the Biden-Harris budget for the Department of Defense does right now. Now, we can fix this. We can work on the NDAA, which, as I mentioned, in a bipartisan way, we significantly increase the top-line budget. I want to commend Roger Wicker, the Senator from Mississippi, the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, for his great leadership on that. By the way, the White House is against that. They love going below 3 percent. And during the Biden-Harris administration, they will crank up spending for other Federal Agencies by double digits--some up 20 percent--but Homeland Security, securing the border, and our military men and women, they get a cut. Again, that is what national Democrats do. Our tradition is what the American people want, particularly during these dangerous times: peace through strength. And one way we can do that right now on the Senate floor is to bring the NDAA to the floor-- to bring the NDAA to the floor. And yet the Senate majority leader doesn't want to do that. It is not surprising. That is the tradition of national Democrats: weakening our military, not taking it seriously, not a priority. But that is not what the American people want, Madam President. We need the NDAA to the floor now, during these dangerous times. And my colleagues and I--I am glad to be with all of them on the floor. By the way, I am pretty sure there are going to be some Democratic Senators calling for this, too. They are not doing it right now, but we need it on the floor today, and I am honored to be here with so many Republican Senators making the same call. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to ask unanimous consent for a long, long overdue resolution. It is a resolution that I guarantee most Americans are going to be like: What? Wait. What? We haven't done that yet? The Senate, the Congress, hasn't done that yet? It is a resolution on this: recognizing the heroic service of our Vietnam veterans and finally issuing an apology--yes--for the way in which tens of thousands of them were treated when they came home after serving their Nation. So that is what I am going to do right here. I was told a couple of minutes ago that someone was going to object, and I was like: Whoa. Really? Let's have that debate. Let's have that debate. But good news: no objection. So what I wanted to do briefly is just explain the reasoning behind this resolution. I think, as a country, when you look at the broad sweep of American history, we have always rightfully respected, lionized, and celebrated America's veterans--think about it--in the last several decades. The World War II generation--we even have a name for them: the ``greatest generation''--sacrificed over 400,000 Americans killed in action, saving the world from dictatorships in Europe and in the Pacific. The ``greatest generation'' literally defended freedom all over the world. When they came home--and to this day--we celebrated them, and we lionized them with ticker-tape parades, as it should be. At that moment in our history, the respect for our veterans was sky- high. Then you had the Korean war, and unfortunately, in my view--I am a Korean war history buff, and I have studied this a lot--you had kind of an attitude of benign neglect. Even the phrase the ``forgotten war,'' which I don't like--it should be called the noble war, actually--kind of indicates this benign neglect. The veterans came home. People didn't really celebrate what they did. It wasn't really like World War II. It was just kind of, OK, get on with your life; you did your duty. They sacrificed, of course, but there wasn't a lot--it was kind of benign neglect, as I mentioned. Then the Vietnam war happened, and we all know what happened, but to this day, I think most Americans maybe don't even understand what happened, but there is no doubt our country went off-kilter, and the respect given to our servicemembers--World War II was certainly at the high level, even the Korean war with its benign neglect--this respect hit rock bottom. It hit rock bottom. You know, it is just really sad. We all have heard stories of veterans coming home--corporals, enlisted guys, young officers. They did their duty. Some of them were drafted and said: It is my turn to go. For whatever reason--Vietnam was, of course, very contentious, but for whatever reason, when they came home, a lot of people in the American public took it out on them--slandered, spit upon, all kinds of horrible epitaphs. I remember one of my first mess nights as a Marine officer--I was a brandnew second lieutenant, and we had a mess night with a lot of these old retired marines--a very formal, sacred setting in many ways. One of the officers there talked about how he came home from Vietnam. His dad was a World War II vet. He had been in 12 months of combat. He came home to see his father. He hugged his dad. They were walking outside of the airport, and somebody threw red paint on him and his dad. Could you imagine that? You just sacrificed for your country. You are in uniform with your father, who is a World War II vet. What did we do that for? I don't know if there is ever going to be an answer. But this happened literally to tens of thousands of Vietnam veterans. It shouldn't have happened, but it did. So what we can do here in the Senate is just say: Hey, we recognize your great service. It wasn't easy. You were doing your duty. And if you were treated horribly--which a lot of them were when they came home--again, maybe you go attack President Johnson or President Nixon-- not attack but criticize them--but why take it out on the lance corporal? That is what happened, and it shouldn't have happened. So what we can do here--and we are going to do it in a second. I am really glad no one is objecting. I hope no one is objecting. My resolution, S. Res. 778, has a lot of Senators supporting it. It is simply acknowledging the courage and sacrifice of our veterans from the Vietnam war and apologizing for the treatment that so many of them received when they came home--pretty simple--and welcoming them home, finally, from the U.S. Senate. This resolution lays out their heroic service. It talks about the sacrifice. Mr. President, 58,000 members of the Armed Forces lost their lives. More than 300,000 Americans were wounded in Vietnam. Yet many who served bravely and faithfully to the United States during the Vietnam war were repeatedly targeted with shameful attacks when they came home. Why? I don't know. That never really happened in our history before, and it should never happen again. Here is the beautiful thing about our Vietnam vets: Instead of being wracked and incapacitated by bitterness or anger, our Vietnam veterans--and I have seen it throughout my career in the military--when they came home, they said: Here is what we are going to do. We were treated really poorly. We are going to work really hard to make sure that the next generations of veterans who serve overseas aren't treated poorly, that we get back to this level of World War II treatment. Guess what. The Vietnam vets succeeded in that. The vast majority of Americans look at our veterans--whether they agreed with the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else, when they see the vets, they say: Thank you for your heroic service. We may not have liked the war, but we are certainly not going to take it out on you, lieutenant or corporal. That group--our Vietnam vets--had a lot to do with us getting back to that level. I saw this throughout my entire military career. I just retired out of the Marine Corps a few months ago after 30 years. I will give you one example. I had a sergeant from one of my Marine Recon units who was killed by an avalanche in Alaska--a great guy. So we were having a service to bury him. It was very somber. I was just a captain, but I was the lead officer overseeing this service. These guys pulled up on motorcycles--Vietnam vets. There were like five of them at this service, just sitting there. After the service, they came up to me. I said: Hey, thank you, guys, for coming to the service of my sergeant. I said: Did you know him? No, we didn't know him. We just saw that he was killed, and we wanted to come here to honor him. Think about that. Those are Vietnam veterans in my great State of Alaska who probably didn't get treated well but who said: We are going to go to the funeral of this Marine sergeant to make sure he gets the respect that everybody should have gotten and certainly that the Vietnam vet generation should have gotten, but so many didn't. So this resolution does that. It recognizes the extraordinary sacrifice of our Vietnam vets. It commends them for their courage and sacrifice. It urges the President and on behalf of the Congress to formally acknowledge the widespread mistreatment of veterans of the Vietnam war when they came back home. It offers, on behalf of the Congress, a long overdue apology, and it encourages and expresses support for increased education in the schools of the United States to reflect on and learn about the courage and sacrifice of this group of veterans and, unfortunately, sometimes the lack of support when they came home. So that is what the resolution does. Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 778, which is at the desk.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, with that, given that there is no objection, that Senate resolution has now passed in the United States. It unanimously is on record finally, in 2024, thanking our Vietnam veterans for their service, for their sacrifice; acknowledging the mistreatment they got when they came home; welcoming them home; and saying, on behalf of the Congress of the United States, we do apologize for the mistreatment that you received, and we know that you are the key to making sure future generations of veterans are honored. So to our Vietnam vets, welcome home. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I have a resolution that I am looking forward to passing here on the Senate floor. I am pretty sure no one is going to object to it, but we will see in a minute. Before I begin, I want to do a huge shout-out and congratulations to Alaska's own Alev Kelter and the U.S. women's rugby team. Thanks to Alev's score late in the first half, the Americans beat the vaunted Australians in rugby to deliver the women's rugby team's first Olympic medal in rugby sevens. So great job, Alev. Great job to the American women's rugby team in getting some medals there for our great Nation.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay a special tribute to a very special Alaskan, Suzanne Downing. Suzanne turned 70 this year, and--big news for Alaska--sold her news site Must Read Alaska to businessman Jon Faulkner of Homer, who has already done a great job with it. So thank you, Jon. Established in 2015, Must Read Alaska is a conservative online site that has a huge impact in Alaska. Suzanne's reporting gives voice to issues and opinions that a large part of our State can't get elsewhere, particularly in her unwavering commitment to holding the mainstream media accountable or, as Suzanne puts it, ``at least on their toes.'' Tens of thousands of Alaskans read Suzanne's stories on Must Read every day, in part because of her crisp prose and her point of view, but also because she is so prolific. She works 10-hour days, at least, writing two, sometimes three or more stories a day, covering local political races, national issues, foreign policy, you name it. Must Read Alaska has been so successful in Alaska in large part because she offers an outlet for conservative voices and ideas, but also because of her knowledge on many different subjects, particularly on all things Alaska. This is knowledge that comes from real world experiences, the kind of varied experiences that so many journalists lack today. So let me talk briefly about Suzanne's interesting background. Suzanne moved to Alaska as a child in 1969, only 10 years after statehood. She lived with her family along Auke Bay near the capital city of Juneau in a small cabin on the water. Juneau would eventually be her home as an adult. In Juneau, she worked in various capacities: in the state legislature, at the University of Alaska Southeast, in shops in downtown Juneau, and as an editor of the Juneau Empire. She worked in commercial fishing in Cook Inlet and on a crab boat out of Kodiak. As I said, she has an interesting background, and there is more. Eventually, Suzanne became a mom and finished her technical writing degree at Oregon State University. She got a job as a reporter and editor on Bainbridge Island in Washington State for the island's weekly newspaper. After 3 years, Alaska called Suzanne home once again, and she was hired as the Sunday editor of the Juneau Empire, eventually working her way to full-time editor. Suzanne then moved to Georgia, where she was the editorial page editor for 3 years for the Augusta Chronicle before meeting her husband Patrick Yack. They moved to Florida, where she worked in the inner city for Fresh Ministries, an Episcopalian group which offered wrap-around services for the poor. After Hurricane Katrina hit, she created a ministry called ``Neighbors to the Rescue,'' which connected volunteers to families who had escaped the path of the hurricane and could not return to their Louisiana homes. The cutting-edge technology she deployed in ``Neighbors to the Rescue'' caught then-Florida Governor Jeb Bush's attention. She was hired as the Florida State Director for faith and community based programs, expanding ``Neighbors to the Rescue'' statewide. After 7 years away, Suzanne returned to Alaska in 2007, where she worked as a philanthropic program developer for the newly-founded Alaska Community Foundation. This position reconnected her with people across the State, and the next year, she was hired by then Alaska Governor Sean Parnell to be his speechwriter. Suzanne stayed with his administration until Governor Parnell left office in 2014. The next year, Suzanne started Must Read Alaska, which indeed turned into a must-read for Alaskans of all political persuasions. In addition to news and opinion, the site serves as a community message board of sorts, celebrating the success of local Alaskans, small businesses, and highlighting events throughout the State, uniting a large State with a small population. Importantly, in addition Suzanne's own reporting, Must Read Alaska also offers space for other conservative columnists. In fact, it is one of the things that Suzanne is most proud of. Other outlets across the State tend to shut these voices out--to their detriment. In fact, one of the sites most-read stories was by Juneau sage Paulette Simpson, who wrote a column about the ferry system. Suzanne's job is not easy. It is grueling to write as much as she does. And I can image that it takes an emotional toll, too. She is often under attack--sometimes viciously--from those who take issue with her politics. But I know she has thick skin and takes strength from so many in Alaska who defend her. They, as well as I, fervently believe that defending your beliefs, and giving others a space to do so, is the right thing do to. And Suzanne is doing that. I also know that she is buoyed by her love of our State, our country, and by something her grandfather, the Presbyterian Reverend Robert H. Price, used to tell her: ``The world will hear from you.'' Indeed, the good reverend, whom Suzanne was very close to, was prophetic. The world has heard from her. The sale of Must Read Alaska is thankfully not the end of Suzanne's news career. She is still one of the board members, as well as the day- to-day manager of the publication. While remaining very hands-on, Suzanne is now happy to spend more of her summers in Skagway, AK, where she and her husband Pat plan to dote on their granddaughter Aven Rain Call. I know I, as well as thousands of Alaskans, look forward to seeing Must Read Alaska's continued success as the conservative news source for many more years to come. With Suzanne's guidance, I know it will be. Congratulations again, Suzanne, on all of your great accomplishments, happy birthday, and thank you for all you do for our State and our country.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, like my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, I am going to come down to the Senate floor to talk about the national security supplemental we are voting on today. I commend the senior Senator from Iowa. He is a great U.S. Senator. It was a really good speech. I am going to reinforce some of what he just said on the importance of this bill, but, importantly, the broader context of how we actually got here and where we need to be going in terms of our Nation's defense. In my view, the current occupant of the White House, President Biden, has gotten a free pass on his numerous huge national security missteps that have been undermining our Nation's security and have forced the Congress of the United States to actually take action. That is the whole point. We are taking action. I am a supporter of this legislation, but we are doing it because of the failures of the current occupant of the White House. I am going to encourage my colleagues, particularly my Republican Senate colleagues, to vote in favor of this bill. But I think it is important to put it in the broader context of what is going on in the world. I made a couple of speeches on this before. I am just going to reiterate some and add to some of the challenges we are facing because of the Biden administration. First, I think it is pretty obvious to everybody--to anyone who is watching--that we are in a new era of authoritarian aggression led by this dictator, Xi Jinping. Look at him. He gets in his ``cammies'' every now and then, threatening his neighbors. By the way, China is going through the largest peacetime military buildup in the history of the world. If that doesn't make you a little nervous about what is going on around the world, it should. This guy is a brutal dictator. But it is led by him, Putin, the ayatollahs in Iran, the terrorists in Iran--the largest state sponsor of terrorism--and the ``Mini-Me'' North Korean dictator. They are all working together. They want to undermine our interest. They want to undermine the interest of our allies. They are driven by historical grievances. They are paranoid about their democratic neighbors. They are more than willing to invade them, as we are seeing across the world--whether Israel, whether Ukraine. Again, they are working together, and they are spending boatloads of money on national security issues, military buildups. This is actually led by this guy. He is the big one that we have to keep a close eye on. That is No. 1. We are in a real, real dangerous era. This is one thing I do agree with the Biden administration on. We have had the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs come and say: Hey, we are in the most dangerous time since probably the end of World War II. Dictators are on the march. They are invading their neighbors. They are massively building up their military, and they are all working together. It sounds a little bit like the 1930s to me. The second reason we need a defense industrial base supplemental is our own industrial base--our ability to produce weapons for us, for America--has completely atrophied. I could give a speech for hours. This, again, is part of the Biden administration's fault. But we can't build Navy ships. We can't build Navy subs. Every component of our industrial base is shrinking. It is brittle. It has atrophied. Yet we are in this dangerous period. So that is pretty alarming. By the way, it is our responsibility, in article I of the U.S. Constitution, for the Senate and the House to raise an army, to provide and maintain a navy. My view is it is the No. 1 constitutional duty we have--securing this Nation. Yet we are behind. The Navy just put out, 3 weeks ago, this alarming report saying the U.S. Navy is behind on every ship platform that they are building--3 to 5 years behind--carriers, subs. Almost 40 percent of our attack sub fleet is in maintenance, not even out to sea. He is scared to death of U.S. subs. What is this guy doing? He is cranking out 10 to 12 ships--high-end navy ships--a year. The Chinese Communist Party's navy is now bigger than the U.S. Navy. The danger is our industrial base can't produce weapons the way it could. And then the third reason I think we need a national security supplemental is given how weak the Biden administration has been on national security. The current budget of this President shrinks the Army, shrinks the Navy, shrinks the Marine Corps. Do you think Xi Jinping is impressed by that? He is not--neither is Putin, neither are the ayatollahs. That is what they are doing. By the way, this President, in every budget he submits to Congress for the military during these really dangerous times, what does he do? He cuts it. He cuts the military. I am going to get more into that. These are the big three reasons that I have been supportive of this bill. But here is the thing. When you read the bill and look at it and dig into the details, it is less of a foreign aid bill and much more of a bill to enhance our industrial capacity. It is not a perfect bill, and I am going to get into that in a minute. There is no such thing as a perfect bill, by the way, but almost 60 percent of this national security supplemental bill that we are going to be voting on goes directly into our industrial base, directly into our ability to build submarines--like $6 billion for submarines, $6 billion with the AUKUS agreement, $5 billion for 150mm artillery shells, over half a billion for counter-UAS systems--Patriots, Javelins, Harpoons, Tomahawks, HARM missiles, TOW missiles--built by Americans for our own defense. That is in this bill. It is in the bill. That is a really important component. Almost 60 percent of this bill goes into that. And it has other things in it: $3 billion for our troops in the CENTCOM area of responsibility, right now--who are in combat right now, taking incoming missiles from the Houthis. The USS Carney almost took 100 different missiles and drones. With sailors in combat, this replenishes their weapons systems and helps our troops in combat. By the way, in my view, just that element alone is enough to support this bill. You have American troops in combat in the Middle East. And, of course, this bill does go to help our allies and partners-- Israel, Taiwan, Ukraine--who are facing existential threats, literally, from their very aggressive neighbors. But, again, a lot of this is going to stay home. We are not sending subs to any of those countries. We are building submarines to be ready, if we have to, in a conflict with China. Xi Jinping--that dictator I was just showing you there--is scared to death of the nuclear sub capability of the United States. This is mostly about us protecting our country and our industrial base to produce weapons for America. I think it is going to put a lot of workers to work. But this bill, primarily, if you read it, is about protecting our Nation. As I said, it is not a perfect bill. There are a number of things-- there are some amendments we were debating a couple months ago here on the Senate floor. For example, I think the direct budget support, the economic aid--that should go to our European allies to help the Ukrainians with that, that should go to the Gulf Arab allies who want to support Gaza in terms of economic aid. We should be providing the lethal aid. But, I will say, Speaker Johnson definitely improved the bill from what the Senate sent over a couple of months ago. I applaud him for his impressive leadership. There are a number of improvements, like the direct budget support and economic aid are now in the form of forgivable loans. That was a President Trump idea. That was a good idea. On the REPO Act, Senator Risch has been pushing on that hard. He has done a great job on that. That would enable us to seize Russian assets and use them to help pay for the Ukraine war. There is a requirement that makes the Biden administration lay out a much more detailed strategy on Ukraine and forces them to provide Ukrainians ATACMS weapon systems. It focuses on fentanyl. It focuses on TikTok and the improvements there, breaking the tie between the Chinese Communist Party and control of this popular app. The House did try to take up some border security issues. I certainly wish those would have passed. I am not sure my Senate Democratic colleagues would have voted on it. That would have made it better. But there are many improvements. The Speaker did a good job on it. Mr. President, we had some critics on the left and on the right of this bill. I want to just address a few of those as we are getting ready to vote on this. Some are quite serious. Some of my Republican colleagues have said: Hey, the Europeans need to do more, particularly when it comes to Ukraine. I actually agree with that. No one in this Chamber has worked harder on the issue of making sure our NATO allies meet their 2-percent obligation in terms of defense spending. I had an amendment to the Sweden and Finland accession treaties that we voted on here that said it is the sense of the Senate that all of these countries have to meet their 2-percent-of-GPD obligation on defense as a NATO member. That passed 98 to 0 here in the Senate. I had an NDAA provision that is now law that says the Secretary of Defense shall prioritize training and troop deployments for countries in NATO with U.S. forces that meet their 2 percent obligation. So I agree with those critiques, but some of the critiques from some of my colleagues--let's just say they weren't serious. You might remember one--that this national security supplemental is some kind of secret trap for a future impeachment of President Trump. I am pretty sure that is not what Speaker Johnson was working on the last 2 months. That this national security bill will ``strain our industrial base.'' Actually, it will do the opposite. I think that is clear. It is going to make generational investments in our industrial base that hopefully will continue for years. They will continue for years. That the national security supplemental sends the ``wrong signal'' to what the warfighter in America needs for actual threats we face. Well, I find that really curious. Let me give one example. I worked directly with the INDOPACOM Commander, Admiral Aquilino, on exactly what he thought he needed to help American forces defend Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait. That is in the bill. The original bill from the Biden administration had very little on that. We made it a lot better, a lot stronger. But working directly with INDOPACOM and the admiral--there is no better expert in the world on what they need to fight in the Taiwan Strait. So, again, that criticism seems really off base and not a serious critique if you actually are one of the Senators doing the homework on what our warfighters need. But the biggest issue I have with some of the arguments and critiques of this national security supplemental that are actually coming from the left and the right in the House and in the Senate is their claim that deterrence is divisible--deterrence is divisible. Now, what do I mean by that? Their argument, and I have heard it a lot, is that you can cut off aid to Ukraine, let Putin roll over them, roll over that country, move up to the borders of the Baltics and Poland--NATO allies, by the way--but somehow we can still be strong in the Taiwan Strait with regard to Xi Jinping and the ayatollahs in Iran. So deterrence is divisible. You can kind of show weakness with regard to Putin but strength with regard to Xi Jinping and the ayatollahs. Well, that is not how the world works. Deterrence is not divisible. How do we know that? Well, I think we know that because of this debacle. Joe Biden's failed approach to national security has shown us that deterrence is not divisible. What am I talking about? When this happened, the botched Afghanistan withdrawal--``Biden's debacle,'' as The Economist put it on their front cover--many in this Chamber-- Democrats and Republicans, by the way, myself included--predicted that, given this botched Afghanistan withdrawal, dictators around the world are going to be emboldened to press us other places. Stand by. Putin and Xi are going to invade somewhere else because of this. I didn't only hear that from people here; I have talked to world leaders who have said there was no way Putin would have invaded Ukraine if it hadn't been for this Biden debacle. So deterrence is not divisible, and that is exhibit A, which brings me to my final point here. The press, our friends in the media, as usual are missing the bigger story on what is going on on this national security supplemental. All the focus has been on the House and how Republicans in the House have delayed the Senate bill for 2 months, that we Republicans in the Congress are not taking foreign policy seriously, and that this bill's passage is some kind of victory for President Biden's foreign policy leadership. But here is what I think is going on: This national security supplemental bill actually exposes even further the weakness of the Biden administration's approach to Ukraine on foreign policy that has only brought the world chaos. I was at a Sunday talk show the other day and made the point--a very simple question: Is the world a safer place for America and its allies today relative to 4 years ago? I think everybody knows the answer is no, it is not even close. There is chaos all over the world. I think what is really important is to focus on how we actually got to this point, why we need this defense supplemental in the first place. The reason we do is the failure of the current occupant of the White House's policies with regard to foreign policy and national security. That is the entire reason we have to bring this bill, this national security bill, to the floor and why it is so urgently needed now. This bill is not some kind of exhibit of Joe Biden's foreign policy triumph; it is a needed correction of Joe Biden's foreign policy failure. First, as I noted, the Afghan debacle certainly emboldened Putin to invade Ukraine. I think that is a view that is commonly held. Secondly, our own border debacle has been something that has made it so Republicans who would normally support strong national security were, with a lot of good reasons, saying: Hey, let's take care of our own open borders and national security at the southern border first. The President has not done that. We have an open border that is a humanitarian and national security fiasco in America. Third, this President, with regard to Ukraine, has not been in it to win it. What do I mean by that? Every major weapons system that the Ukrainians have said they need, they have delayed and delayed and delayed because they were fearful of Putin. Let's just call it like it is. The list is long: HIMARS, Stingers, Javelins, tanks, Abrams tanks, F16s, even the ATACMS that are in the House bill, forcing the President to say that we are going to get these really important, long-range, accurate artilleries to the Ukrainians. This is the No. 1 issue we heard from President Zelenskyy a couple months ago when we were in Munich--that they are just not getting weapons they need. Imagine if the Biden administration had gotten all the weapons systems I just mentioned to Ukrainians a year and a half ago. And what has happened every time? This body--Democrats and Republicans--has gone to the President, saying: Mr. President, give them these weapons. Well, we are going to delay. We don't want to escalate with Putin. Escalate with Putin? He invaded a country. They are not in it to win it. The President called an LNG pause on our allies. Our allies in Europe are apoplectic about that. Not in it to win it. Finally, this President has never explained the stakes of why this is so important. He has given two speeches on Ukraine. Two. Two major speeches. And do you know what he does? He attacks Republicans in his speeches. That is not leadership. That is not leadership. Especially on a big national security issue, you want to bring people together and explain the stakes. Speaker Johnson has done more to explain the stakes in a calm, reassuring manner in the last 2 weeks than President Biden has done in 3 years. Finally, again, in terms of lack of seriousness on national security issues, I think the most damning issue is the lack of seriousness with regard to our national defense. As I mentioned, the President puts forward budgets to cut defense spending every year. I have asked the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs--three hearings in a row in the Armed Services Committee--if this is the most dangerous time since World War II, why are you cutting defense spending? Why are you going to bring defense spending in America next year to below 3 percent of GDP? We have only been there four times since World War II. Why are you dramatically undermining readiness? They don't want to do that. The Secretary of Defense doesn't want to do that. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs doesn't want to do that. So why are they doing it? The answer to that is, this is where our Democratic colleagues always are. Since Vietnam, just look at what every President who is a Democrat who has occupied the White House has done--Carter, Clinton, Obama, and now Biden. They come in, and they cut defense spending, and they cut readiness. This is in the DNA of the national party. Republicans have a different tradition. It is this tradition: Peace through strength. Peace through strength--that is our tradition. To my Republican colleagues and friends in the Senate, our tradition is much more serious, it is prouder, and I will tell you this: It is much more supported by the American people. Peace through strength, not American retreat. As I am encouraging my Republican Senate colleagues to vote on this national security supplemental, this is in line with the peace through strength tradition we have in this party. Think about it--Teddy Roosevelt; Eisenhower; Reagan, of course; the Bush Presidencies; and, very much in the tradition of peace through strength, the Trump Presidency. I was here. Heck, I ran for the U.S. Senate in 2014 primarily because the second term of the Obama administration cut defense spending by 25 percent. Readiness plummeted--plummeted. Shocking how badly ready our troops were. When the Trump administration came in, working with Senate Republicans when we were in the majority, we reversed it. Peace through strength. So through arguments, facts, understanding history, a serious view of the world, peace through strength--my Republican colleagues, we need to keep this tradition going, especially during these dangerous times. We certainly can't rely on our Democratic colleagues to support that. We certainly can't rely on this White House. President Biden cuts defense spending every year to support that. That is a really important reason why I encourage my colleagues to support this national security supplemental--imperfect bill, yes, but needed during these very dangerous times. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I came to the floor of the Senate last night to talk about a big choice President Biden was going to make today. Unfortunately, he made the wrong choice for America, for our allies, for Alaska, for my constituents. The choice was whether he was going to make a big decision to shut down two of the biggest resource development areas in America, a place we call the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska in the Ambler Mining District of Alaska, some of the biggest deposits of critical minerals in America--in the world--and one of the biggest, most prolific basins for oil and gas in the world, where we in Alaska produce these minerals and these resources, which we need, better than anybody, with the highest environmental standards in the world. The President shut them down today--shut them down today. It certainly hurt American workers and benefited the dictators of the world. He won't sanction Iran for oil and gas, but he sure as hell will sanction Alaska. It is a little crazy. If you are an American watching: Why would we do that? I will get to that. It is a real disappointment, a dispiriting day in Alaska. I talked about how infuriating this was, particularly for my constituents, workers, Alaskans, but particularly for the Inupiat Alaskan Native people who live on the North Slope of Alaska. One of these rules--the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska rule--directly impacts them. I am frustrated. Senator Murkowski is very frustrated. Congresswoman Peltola is very frustrated. We put out a press release denouncing this decision this morning. But the people who are really, really frustrated and, to be honest, insulted are these great Americans, these great indigenous leaders in my State because they are the ones this rule is going to impact. This rule is about the North Slope of Alaska, an incredible place. They are the leaders. They are the indigenous people who live there. As I mentioned in my remarks last night, the Biden administration just won't listen to them at all. You want to talk about cancel voices for indigenous Americans? The Biden administration won't listen to them. This group of great Alaska Natives, as I mentioned last night, have come to Washington, DC. These are the elected leaders of the North Slope where this rule was solely going to impact. They came to Washington, DC--flew 4,000 miles eight different times--to meet with Secretary Haaland to say: Madam Secretary, this is our land. Don't do this. You are going to hurt our future. You are going to hurt our prospects to live. We have been living there for 10,000 years. Do you know how many times Secretary Haaland met with these great Americans--eight different trips to Washington, DC? Zero. Zero. So, again, I will just show this real quickly. It is really important. This is the area of Alaska that I am talking about, the North Slope, right up here. This whole area is the North Slope of Alaska. It includes ANWR, the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. This is a rule that will impact this whole area. The size is about the size of Montana. We are a giant State. These are the leaders. We have a borough, mayor, and borough assembly. We have Tribal leaders, leaders of Alaska Native corporations. These are all the elected Inupiat leaders. This part of the State, that is where the rule was announced today, and every one of them tried to come here and say: President Biden, Secretary Haaland, don't do that to us. It is going to really harm us, and we know more about our land than you guys do. We have been living there 10,000 years. These are great Americans. Their voices were canceled. But I will tell you, when I saw the press release from the President of the United States today and Secretary Haaland today on this decision, I don't think I have ever been more disgusted in my 9 years as a U.S. Senator from what I saw from this White House, from this President, and this Secretary of the Interior. Here is why, Mr. President. You know me. I am a pretty calm guy. I don't use words like ``lying.'' OK. Here is what happened today. This administration won't listen to these great people--never did. So they are canceling their voices. Then, today, they are stealing their voices--stealing their voices. As I said, I have never seen anything more despicable than this. The Biden administration won't listen to these great Americans, but then when they put their press release out today, they are telling the rest of the country: We are doing this to benefit the indigenous people of the North Slope. That is in the press release. They won't listen to them because they don't want the rule and then they put the statement out today and they told the American people: We are doing this to help these great Americans. Stunning. Mr. President, that is what you call a baldfaced lie. So here is the statement from President Biden, himself, a couple of hours old, and he said: I am proud that my Administration is taking action to conserve more than 13 million acres [of their land] and to honor the culture, history, and enduring wisdom of Alaska Natives who have lived on and stewarded these lands since time immemorial. That is the statement of the President of the United States. That is a baldfaced lie because he is saying: I am the President. I am doing it to help these great Alaska Native people. And guess what. They were totally opposed to this rule, and Secretary Haaland wouldn't even meet with them. It gets worse. Here is Secretary Haaland's statement. She said: We are taking this action today to safeguard ``the way of life for the Indigenous people''--those people--``who have called this special place their home''--their home--``since time immemorial.'' That is Secretary Haaland. This is just unbelievable. Like I said, I have never seen anything like this. The Biden administration won't listen to the indigenous people of the very place they are going to do a huge rule on, negatively impacting their lives, and then when they put the statement out on why they are doing it, they tell the rest of the country they are doing it to help them. I have never seen such hypocrisy and lying from the President, from the Secretary of the Interior. And by the way, a little bit of an aside--it is not just lying, it is unbelievable hypocrisy--particularly as it relates to the Secretary of the Interior. When she announced these proposed rules to lock up the North Slope of Alaska, she said she was going to do it because of the ``climate crisis and to deliver on the Biden administration's most ambitious climate agenda in history.'' So that is their rule. We are shutting down the North Slope of Alaska, hurt these great Americans because of the climate crisis. We are going to go after Alaska and the Inupiat Natives. So that was the goal. Ignore their voices. But if Secretary Haaland was really interested in the climate crisis, I am wondering why she doesn't do more with regard to her own State-- her own State. What am I talking about here? In the first 2 years of the Biden administration, over half of all permits--9,000 Federal permits--to drill for oil and gas on Federal lands went to which State? Can anyone guess? Alaska? Hell, no. They are shutting us down every day. More than half--over 9,000 permits to drill for oil and gas on Federal lands--went to which State? You guessed it. New Mexico. Whose home State is that? Oh, my gosh, the Secretary of the Interior. Get this number. And, look, if there is anyone in the press listening, can you please write this story? I am going to get to that in a minute. At the beginning of the Biden administration, New Mexico--New Mexico is in the red, gray is Alaska. Alaska has been about steady for over a decade, about 500,000 barrels a day. That is a lot. We were a lot more at one point--steady. At the beginning of the Biden administration, New Mexico was about a million barrels a day. You know where they are now? Almost 2 million barrels a day. Whoa. Where are the radical environmentalists wanting to shut down New Mexico? Wait a minute. No one is touching New Mexico. They increased production under President Biden by a million barrels a day on Federal land. Where is our intrepid American press to write this story? Think about this one. Think about the flip side of all this. A Republican administration gets elected. They say we are going to shut down the oil production of a Democrat State. We are going to crush the Native people in that Democrat State. We are not going to listen to them at all. And then we are going to make sure that that home State of the Republican Secretary of the Interior is going to be drill, baby, drill on Federal lands--2 million barrels a day, increased by a million barrels a day. And what is this administration doing? Folks are shutting down Alaska. We are steady at 500,000. Drill, baby, drill for Secretary Haaland and New Mexico on Federal lands. If that story were happening right now, the New York Times, the Washington Post would be writing about it every day. They would be calling it a scandal. They would be looking for corruption. They would be calling for resignations. But this identical situation--I don't think the press has written about it once. No wonder the American people don't trust the media. It is such an obvious story of hypocrisy to write about and nobody does. I am digressing here. I want to get back to what happened today. As I mentioned, the President and the Secretary put out statements today saying: Well, we did this to help the Inupiat Native people of Alaska on the North Slope. It is a lie. It is a lie. Let me get back to this. It is simply not true. How do we know? Because I am going to do what the Biden administration didn't do. I am going to give voice to my constituents who live in this place that just got shut down today. Here is a press release from a group called the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this press release printed in the Record.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Let me talk a little bit about the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat. It is a nonprofit organization established in 2015 by the North Slope region's collective elected Inupiat Native leadership. It is dedicated to preserving and advancing the North Slope, the Inupiat culture, and economic self-determination. It includes local governments, Alaska Native corporations, federally recognized Tribes, and Tribal nonprofits across that entire North Slope region. The board of directors of the Voice previously issued a strong resolution in opposition to the Biden administration's NPR-A rule that went into effect today, impacting their ancestral homelands. Just because it is really important, I want to give a sense of how many people. It is literally tens of thousands that the Biden administration is ignoring. The Voice of the Arctic Inupiat constitutes the following communities and organizations: Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, Utqiagvik, Atqasuk, Anaktuvuk Pass, Nuiqsut, Kaktovik. Members include the Arctic Slope Native Association, Atqasuk Corporation, the city of Atqasuk, the city of Kaktovik, the city of Wainwright, the Inupiat community of the Arctic Slope, the Native village of Atqasuk, the Native village of Kaktovik, the Native village of Point Lay, the North Slope Borough School District, the Olgoonik Corporation, the Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, the city of Anaktuvuk Pass, the city of Barrow, the city of Point Hope, Ilisagvik College, the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, the Native village of Barrow, the Native village of Point Hope, the North Slope Borough, Nunamiut Corporation, the village of Wainwright, and the Tikigaq Corporation. That is who is represented. That is tens of thousands of my constituents, and they are all against this rule. And they all live in the region where the rule is going to impact my State. And these are great people, by the way--whaling captains, veterans. Alaska Natives serve at higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the country--patriots. They love America. They are defenders of their culture. They are generous. They are humble. I am so honored to represent these great Americans as their Senator. So here is her letter, and I am just going to quote from it because it shows just what a travesty and what a bunch of baloney the President of the United States and Secretary Haaland's statements were today. Remember, they wouldn't meet with these people--these great people--and now their statements say: We are doing it on their behalf. So let's see what they said in their press release today--the elected Alaska Native leaders who, supposedly, had this rule done for them by Joe Biden's graciousness--a big lie. Here is the president of the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, Nagruk Harcharek, who is a great American. The federal government has again excluded the Indigenous North Slope Inupiat from policymaking by issuing a final rule for the NPR-A that does not reflect our communities' wishes. Oh, I thought Deb Haaland and Joe Biden said it did. He continues: This is a deeply concerning trend by [the Biden] administration that regularly claims to be the most Indigenous friendly government on record. Yet, [the Biden] administration's record does not live up to its own rhetoric. As a result, the final NPR-A rule [issued today] will hurt the very residents the federal government purports to help by rolling back years [of] progress, impoverishing our communities, and imperiling our Inupiaq culture. To quote one of our [great] 20th century leaders, ``There's not much you can do when your own government says shut up. It hurts.'' That is the leader of the Voice in his press statement today. But Secretary Haaland and President Biden just put out a press statement saying: We did it to help that guy. It is a lie--a big lie. Let me get to some of the other leaders in this press statement. And by the way, if you are a national media journalist, can you please quote this, one of you guys, please? New York Times, you never--you never--listen to the voice of the Native people. You cancel them all the time. Washington Post, come on. Do your job. Quote these people. Don't just quote Haaland and Biden. It is frustrating. OK. Here is the mayor of the North Slope Borough. So, remember, this is a big borough--huge, actually. Like I said, I think it is bigger than Montana. Josiah Patkotak--I happen to know him too. He is a great American, a wonderful leader. Here is what he said--the mayor, remember. He is elected, the borough mayor. He is an Inupiat Native. ``The [Department of the Interior] seems to believe that they [can] care about this land''--our land--``more than we do.'' Mayor Josiah Patkotak said: The elected leaders of the North Slope spoke-- Native leaders-- in unison in opposition to this rule [during] the rulemaking process. To refuse to listen to our voices is to say that you-- Federal Government, Joe Biden, Secretary Haaland-- know better--better than the people who have been this land's stewards for the past 10,000 years, and who depend on its continued health for [our] own survival. This is the mayor of the North Slope Borough. He continues: We deserve the same right to economic prosperity and essential services as the rest of this country [as other fellow Americans] and are being denied the opportunity to take care of our residents and community with this decision [by the Biden administration.] It is insulting and, unfortunately, representative of the federal government's treatment of our Indigenous voices for decades. So, Mr. President--and I am talking now to President Joe Biden--don't keep calling yourself the most important administration with Indigenous people. You are screwing the people of the North Slope of Alaska. Let me continue. This is another leader, Tribal Secretary Doreen Leavitt, whom I also know, from a great family. As the North Slope's federally recognized tribe, we have experienced a severe lack of [progress,] meaningful engagement, including a lack of notice for tribal consultation, something we are still waiting for to this day. From the Biden administration. As a federally recognized tribe, we are required to follow federal laws and policies when engaging in the government-to- government relationship, but [the Biden] administration has failed to follow its own policies, executive orders, and department consultation guidelines. So that is the Tribal secretary. Let me give you a couple of other quotes. This is from the CEO of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, President and CEO Rex Rock, Sr., who is a really good friend of mine, like a brother to me. He says: On multiple occasions, the elected leadership of the North Slope shared with [the Biden] administration officials our unified opposition to this rule. The [Biden] administration has chosen to ignore the consensus opinion of Indigenous organizations from our region. Remember, this rule only impacts their region. He continues: As stewards of the Arctic for millennia, the North Slope Inupiat know our lands better than anyone else. Alongside our region's tribes, local governments, and Alaska Native village corporations, we will continue to fight to have our voices heard. Well, they certainly weren't heard at all in this case. By the way, in their press release, they give this narrative, just so you know I am not making it up. Here is what they said about consultation. This is in their press release. I hope the New York Times writes this story. Local Indigenous elected leaders made every effort to highlight the negative repercussions of the Proposed [NPR-A] Rule to the White House and the [Department of the Interior], but they were stonewalled repeatedly by federal officials more concerned with advancing their proposal than listening to the legitimate concerns of Indigenous people [of the North Slope.] They continue: Secretary Deb Haaland herself ignored or denied at least eight meeting requests from North Slope Inupiat elected leaders, including an inexcusable decision to deny a meeting during a recent multi-day trip to our home state of Alaska. Wow. Wow. No kidding. I am like getting sick to my stomach here; I am so mad. Let me end with one more quote from another great leader, the Olgoonik Corporation president and CEO, Hugh Patkotak, whom I also know well. He says: This [NPR-A] rule and the process by which it has been finalized is a setback for [our] Corporation and the future generations [of Alaska Natives] who intend to continue living on [our lands] the lands of [our] ancestors, in our Inupiat community of Wainwright. There are private landowners neighboring the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. He continues: Today's final rule was not something we asked for, [was not something we] wanted, or [is something we] support. This was imposed on them. But Joe Biden says they wanted it. He continues: As the neighboring landowner to the NPR-A, we are frustrated this rule could impede responsible infrastructure and economic development opportunities [for our community.] I will reiterate what I've said previously, when a government entity writes rules about the area in which our people live and subside, they must come to us first. In this case, they never came to them at all--complete ignoring of the Alaska Native voices in my State. ``That didn't happen here,'' he concludes. So let me conclude. As you can tell, I am frustrated. Senator Murkowski is frustrated. Congresswoman Peltola is frustrated. The whole State of Alaska is frustrated. As I mentioned, this is now 62 Executive orders and Executive actions exclusively focused on Alaska, from the Biden administration, to shut us down. The vast majority of the people I am honored to represent have been opposed to every single one of them, but this one is the ultimate insult, because the President of the United States today used his voice to lie to the American people and say: I am doing this on behalf of the Alaska Native people who live in the North Slope region. That is a lie. And you just heard directly, and I hope the media writes it. But that is a lie. It is a sad and dispiriting day for me and my constituents, but, in particular, for the Native leaders of Alaska, whose voices were canceled. Secretary Haaland never listened to them. That was a press conference we all did with the banner: ``Secretary Haaland, hear our voices.'' She didn't. By the way, that is her job--trust and responsibility for the Native people of America. She certainly failed on that today. But, as I mentioned yesterday more broadly, this administration is fine with sanctioning Alaskans--Alaska Natives, in particular--but, heck, Iran, New Mexico, Venezuela, Russia, it is ``Drill, baby, drill'' in their parts of the world. Both President Biden and Secretary Haaland didn't do their consultations and now have put out statements insulting these great people by saying that what they did today was to benefit them. It is going to harm them. You just heard their voices. I am not canceling their voices. I am trying to lift up their voices. We all know what is really going on here, and that is President Biden doesn't care about these people. He is taking direction directly from the far left, the lower 48, ecocolonialists--what we call ecocolonalists--lower-48 radical environmental groups that come up and try to tell the Alaska Native people how to live their lives, and who don't give a damn about the indigenous people of the North Slope of Alaska, and whom the President thinks he needs for his reelection. So he is appeasing them. He is certainly not listening to my constituents. Like the dictators in Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing, these ecocolonialists are overjoyed by this decision of the Biden administration to have shut down major resource development areas in America, while the Alaska Native people who have lived in the North Slope region for thousands of years are despondent, discouraged, and insulted. So am I. But we, collectively, will continue to fight this administration and, when we have to, like today, expose the lies that they are telling to the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am going to come down to the Senate floor right now and build on my Senate colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski's, remarks that she just made dealing with national security, the challenges we are facing as a country, the authoritarian dictatorships on the march, and what the Biden administration is actually going to do to my State--our State, Senator Murkowski's and my State--tomorrow. What we have been told by the Biden administration: Hey, Alaska Senators, here it comes. More crushing of the State of Alaska. And why this should matter, not just to my constituents--which it really does; they are going to be really upset about it--but this should matter to every American who cares about our country's national security and energy security and jobs and the environment. So we all know the United States is facing very serious global national security challenges. In fact, we are living in one of the most dangerous times since World War II. I think anyone who is watching recognizes that. We had the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense testify in front of the Armed Services Committee just last week. They said that. Dictators in Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and North Korea are on the march. They are working together to undermine America's national security interest and those of our allies across the globe. That is happening. I think pretty much everybody here recognizes that. At other times of dangerous global challenges and peril, the normal policy approach of Democrat administrations, Republican administrations--doesn't matter--has been to maximize our country's strengths while undermining the strengths of our adversaries. That is how you beat them. And here in Congress, over decades, we have supported such policies. But the Biden administration is not normal. Indeed, this administration deliberately is undertaking policies to punish Americans, undermine our core strengths, while continuing to empower our adversaries. Now, OK, I know some of you who are watching say: Wow. That is a pretty big charge, Dan. What are you talking about? Well, let's get into that. What am I talking about? I have this chart right up here. The President is making a choice tomorrow. Is he helping out with our dictatorship adversaries or is he going to help out working men and women in Alaska and our country's national security? Let's take the example of Iran. Due to the successful comprehensive approach to sanctioning Iran's energy sector by the Trump administration, by the end of the administration--3 years ago--Iranian exports were down to about 200,000 barrels a day, leaving Iran--the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, the country that swears to wipe Israel off the map--by the end of the Trump administration's massive sanctions policy against Iran, they had about $4 billion in foreign reserves. For a country that size, that is not a lot--$4 billion. So what do we have with the Biden administration? They started their appeasement policy of Iran from day one, and one element of that was to stop enforcing these oil and gas sanctions. I don't know why, you know, appeasement. Maybe we are going to get back into the JCPOA they thought. But they did that. There is no one who doubts that. Jake Sullivan and the President of the United States, they will all admit it because here is the result: As a result, the amount of oil that Iran has started to export over the last 3 years has been up every year, and it is about over 3 million barrels a day--200,000 barrels a day at the end of Trump, 3 million barrels a day now. Foreign reserves that the Iranians have are about $75 billion. Four billion at the end of Trump, 75 billion right now during the Biden administration. And, of course, the terrorist leadership of Iran is using this windfall, as everybody knew they would, to fund their terrorist proxies: Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis. Remember, you don't have those proxy terrorist groups at all if you don't have Iran. Iran funds them; they train them; they resupply them with missiles. So these groups are not only vowing to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth but aggressively targeting the U.S. Navy and American sailors and marines in the Red Sea. So that is happening. China is buying about 80 percent of that Iran oil. So they are being helped by this policy that the Biden administration has to lift sanctions on the Iranian oil and gas sector. And, of course, China is also dominating rare earth and critical minerals throughout the world. Hardly a day goes by without a story being published in the American media about the danger to America's economic strength, transition to cleaner energy, and national security that is posed by China's domination of critical minerals around the world: mining them, processing them. So those are two important trends that are happening: Iran's dominance on exporting oil and gas, the funding they get from that. The Chinese benefit; they get oil at a discounted price, and China continues to dominate critical mineral around the world. So what is the Biden administration doing to reverse these very troubling national security trends? They are undertaking policies that will make them much worse. Tomorrow, the Biden administration has let the media know--they started leaking this at the beginning of the week. By the way, they let the Alaska delegation know much later. They wanted the liberals in the media to know. But here is what they are going to do. They are going to announce that they are shutting down from further development two of the most important areas of energy and critical mineral development in America, the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, what we call NPR-A, and the Ambler Mining District in Alaska. So, tomorrow, the Biden administration is going to announce that it is sanctioning Alaska. They are not going to sanction Iran. They let China produce all the critical minerals. Tomorrow, they are going to sanction Alaska, Americans, my constituents. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. They are coming after the people I represent, and the terrorists in Iran: Hey, drill, baby, drill. It is nuts. It is an insult. Let me give you a little more detail on what this means. I talked about the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. This is a part of the North Slope of Alaska, about the size of Indiana. It was set aside by President Warren Harding in 1923 for oil for the country, particularly the U.S. Navy. They actually called it the Navy Petroleum Reserve, and then in the 1970s Congress called it the National Petroleum Reserve. This isn't ANWR. This isn't a wilderness area. This is an area designated by this body for American oil and gas development because we need it. This is one of the most prolific oil basins on the planet Earth. Estimates close to 20 billion barrels of conventional oil, 15 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as I mentioned, one of the most prolific areas in the world for oil production. It is right next to existing infrastructure. And, oh, by the way, it is developed with the highest environmental standards in the world. Do you think the Iranians have high standards? Do you think the Chinese do, when they mine their critical minerals? Do you think the Russians do? Do you think the Saudis do? They don't. The place that has the highest environmental standards in the world on resource development, by far, is my State, hands down. Everybody knows it. So what does the Biden administration do? Drill, baby, drill for the ayatollahs who don't give a damn about the environment. Alaska, with the highest standards in the world--we are going to shut you down. So tomorrow the Biden administration is going to announce it is going to take 13 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve off the table for development. Wow, that is a good idea, Joe. That is a really good idea for the national security and energy security of our country. Let the terrorists here drill and let Putin drill, and you are going to shut down Alaska--13 million acres. Let's go to the Ambler Mining District. It is considered one of the most extensive sources of undeveloped zinc, copper, lead, gold, silver, cobalt anywhere in the world. Senator Murkowski did a good job just a couple of minutes ago explaining what we have in the Ambler Mining District in Alaska in America. Again, when we mine in Alaska--highest standards in the world, by far. Not even a close call. Do you think the Chinese have high environmental standards when they mine? Yeah, they don't. So this part of Alaska, part of America, is critical for the minerals we need for our renewable energy sector; for our economy, of course, to compete against China; and for our national security--F-35s have all kinds of critical minerals that we need and rare Earth elements. But, tomorrow, the Biden administration is going to announce that they are going to reverse a previously permitted road--by the way, with a 7-year EIS that cost 10 million bucks which we paid for in Alaska that was permitted. Tomorrow, the Biden administration is going to announce that they are going to reverse that permitted road and say: Ah, Ambler Mining District, America--sorry, off limits. Our adversaries will certainly be celebrating these national security suicide measures of the Biden administration. It is only going to strengthen them. Putin, Xi Jinping, the terrorists in Iran, North Korea--they are going to be like: Holy cow, these Americans have all this stuff in Alaska and Joe Biden and his radical allies are going to shut it down. Xi Jinping is going to be like: Damn, the Americans are going to be more reliant on us for critical minerals. I guarantee you they were worried about the Ambler Mining District. But don't worry, Xi Jinping. Joe Biden is sanctioning my State. Don't worry. He is sanctioning Alaskans. He won't sanction the Iranians; drill, baby, drill with them. But you are going to sanction Alaskans. So this is just insanely stupid policy. Everybody knows it. But I want to mention something else. These policies are also lawless. Even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who don't always get it when it comes to American energy, Alaskan energy--you should get it when we pass laws that say: You got to do X, Y, and Z, and when we pass laws that say things like ``shall.'' The Biden administration doesn't get it, especially when it comes to Alaska. We passed, in 2017, the requirement to do two lease sales for ANWR. My State had been working on that for 40 years. The leases, the first one was done during the Trump administration. The Biden administration came along and said: Oh, we are going to cancel those leases. No reason--lawless. But let me just give you an example. So they are going to take half of the NPR-A off the table tomorrow for development--13 million acres-- even though Congress, in 1980, directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an expeditious program of competitive leasing for oil and gas in the NPR-A. So we are telling any executive branch official: Hey, you got to develop the NPR-A. It is for America. It is for the oil and gas that we need. Tomorrow, Joe Biden is going to say: Congress, we don't need to listen to you. That is lawless action No. 1 as it relates to NPR-A. But lawless action No. 2 that they are going to announce tomorrow on the Ambler Mining District is a real shocker. I mean, even Joe Biden and his lawless administration have to be blushing on this one. By the way, there were some emails. There was a FOIA request when they said: We are going to cancel those ANWR leases even though Congress said we had to do it. This is the Biden administration canceling the leases. OMB--in emails back and forth between the Interior and OMB and the Biden administration--OMB was like: Hey, wait a minute, where do you get the legal authority to do that? This is the Biden administration's OMB. This is in emails with the Interior, Deb Haaland. They are like: Yeah, whatever. We don't care. We are just going to cancel them. So then, they are going to take NPR-A off the table, and now with the Ambler Mining District, the law is very, very clear. I will read it to you. This is on the Department of the Interior's website right now as we speak. Their website says ANILCA--a really important law, Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which was passed in 1980-- mandates a right-of-way to the Ambler Mining District. Senator Stevens put that in there. Congress agreed. Here is a poster of Secretary Haaland's Department of the Interior website right now. It says: (ANILCA) requires that a right-of-way access be permitted across NPS lands for this project. The Ambler mining project, OK? That is what the Department of the Interior website says right now. And here is actually the language from the law: Congress finds that there is a need for access for surface transportation purposes across the Western (Kobuk River) unit of the Gates of the Arctic National Preserve (from the Ambler Mining District to the Alaska Pipeline Haul Road) and the Secretary shall permit such access . . . ``Shall.'' I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

Mr. SULLIVAN. The Biden administration, tomorrow, is going to say: We don't care about the law. We are going to take that off the table and reverse the EIS and the road that you guys have, tomorrow--for good. Again, who is going to benefit? Who is going to benefit? Well, I think these dictators are going to benefit--the Ayatollah, Xi Jinping. Certainly, the Alaska workers aren't going to benefit. That is a big issue. The Presiding Officer is my friend, but I am going to say something I said on the floor many times. When it comes to national Democratic policy, when they have a choice between that guy or that woman building a pipeline--the great men and women who built this country--their interests--because everybody wants to develop resources in my State; that is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline--or the interests of the radical far left who is driving these policies to shut down my State, every time, the national Democratic leaders go with the radical far left, and they tell that young woman who is building that pipeline: Good luck. Sorry for your job that you just lost. So the working men and women of Alaska, of America, because these are big projects, they are going to lose. But I will tell you who else is going to get hurt really badly by this--and this is a fact--by these decisions tomorrow: These great people. These great people. This is a picture of some of the Inupiat Native Alaskan leaders from my State. They live on the North Slope of Alaska. They have been living there for thousands of years--thousands of years. They are fully, unequivocally against this rule that Secretary Haaland and the White House are putting out tomorrow--100 percent against it--the tribal leaders, the borough leaders--that is our new borough mayor, the North Slope borough, Josiah Patkotak--the Alaska Native Corporation leaders. They are fully against this. Every Alaskan Native leader who lives up there--this is where they are going to do this. This is their homeland. And the Biden administration tomorrow is going to look at them and go: We don't care what you think. We don't care what your interests are. The lower 48 eco-colonialists are telling us what to do, so you Alaska Natives, tough luck. Now let me tell you a story that is really infuriating. We held a press conference a couple months ago in Alaska, led by these great Alaskan Native leaders. They are wonderful, incredible people. They have been living in Alaska for tens of thousands of years. They don't like this rule, so they come to DC. They came to DC eight times--eight different times--traveling over 4,000 miles. The leaders of the North Slope, where the Biden administration is going to issue this rule tomorrow, eight times they came to DC, flew here, and asked for a meeting with Secretary Haaland to advocate: Madam Secretary, this is bad for us. Bad for our future. Bad for our economy. Bad for jobs. We do not want this rule. Hear us. Eight times they have come here. Do you know how many times Secretary Haaland met with them, the leaders of the North Slope, the Inupiaq Native leaders of the North Slope? Eight times they came to this city flying 4,000 miles. Guess how many times Deb Haaland, who has an Indian trust relationship with these great Americans, guess how many times she met with them? You know the answer: Zero. Zero. They came here. They came here eight times. So we held a press conference with that banner: ``Secretary Haaland, Hear Our Voices.'' She doesn't want to hear their voices. She doesn't want to hear their voices. She won't hear their voices. You want to talk about cancel culture? This administration talks a big game about, oh, we are going to take care of the indigenous people of America, the people of color. But, guess what. There is a giant asterisk when it comes to that policy on the Biden administration: Not if you are an Alaskan Native. Not if you are an Alaskan Native. If you want to develop your resources, we are not going to listen to you at all. Eight times they came to this city. Eight times Deb Haaland said: Sorry, I am not listening to you. I am not going to listen to you. I am not going to meet with you. So what is going to happen tomorrow? The Biden administration is going to issue a rule that every single one of these leaders is adamantly opposed to, and not one official in this administration gives a damn. Let me give you a couple of quotes from these great Alaskan Native leaders. This is Charles Lampe, President of the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation. This is about the Department of the Interior's actions locking up their lands. These are their lands. This is not Interior's lands, not Deb Haaland's lands. We will not succumb to eco-colonialism and become conservation refugees on our own lands. That they have lived in for 10,000 years. The [Inupiat] people have every right to pursue economic, social and cultural self-determination. My community unapologetically supports the leasing program. ANWR--that is what he is talking about. Many people try to steer the debate to caribou. For Kaktovik, it's about our people and having an economy to survive. Here is Nagruk Harcharek. He is the president of the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, this great guy right here. He is talking about the NPR- A rule that Secretary Haaland won't meet with him on. In this press conference, here is what he said: [This NPR-A rule from the Department of the Interior] is yet another blow to our right to self-determination in our ancestral homelands, which we have stewarded for over 10,000 years. That is Nagruk Harcharek right there, talking: Not a single organization or elected leader on the North Slope [of Alaska] which fully encompasses the [National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska] supports this proposed rule. None of them do. Joe Biden, Secretary Haaland, are you listening? None of these great Alaskan Native people want this rule. And you don't give a damn. He continues: In fact, everyone has asked the [Department of Interior and Secretary Haaland] to rescind the rule . . . [These] actions will also foreclose on future development opportunities and long-term economic security for North Slope Inupiat communities . . . The Native communities. You can tell I am a little mad because these great Alaskans are being canceled. Secretary Haaland will not hear their voices. We are going to see that tomorrow. They are going to issue a rule that locks up a huge chunk of their homeland. Here is the bottom line: The Biden administration sanctions Alaskans--sanctions them--while the terrorists in Iran and the communists in China get strengthened by their policies. No wonder authoritarians are on the march. You are sanctioning us. You are sanctioning them. The goal is to sanction the terrorists, not these great Americans whom you won't listen to. When I say ``sanctioning Alaskans,'' I am not just talking about what we are going to see tomorrow--which, by the way, again, every American should be worried. They are going to shut down one of the biggest oil basins in America and one of the biggest critical mineral basins in America. For what? Well, I think we all know for what. Joe Biden is kowtowing to the far-left radicals because that is the way he thinks he is going to get reelected. But how bad is it when I talk about sanctioning Alaska? Here is how bad it is: My State, since the Biden administration came into office, has had 60 Executive orders and Executive actions exclusively focused on Alaska--60. Tomorrow, it will be 61 and 62. It hits every part of our State--every resource development project, every access to Federal lands, every infrastructure project. We got a lot done during the Trump administration, a historic amount of things done for Natives, for non-Natives--things we had been trying to get done for Alaska for decades. During the Trump administration, working with a Republican Congress, we got a ton done. The Biden administration comes in, and on day one--day one--they start their war on Alaska. This is a tough chart to read. These are the specific 60 Executive orders and actions targeting Alaska by the Biden administration on day one. By the way, that is the President's first day in office, January 20, 2021. He issued 10 Executive orders and Executive actions exclusively focused on Alaska--10. So this administration loves to sanction us. It loves to sanction Alaskans. When that happens, you are hurting the country. We need Alaska's resources--our oil, our gas, our renewables. We are proud of all of it, and we have the highest standards in the world on the environment. So this is really bad for my State. By the way, I was in the Oval Office last year, trying to convince the President not to keep crushing Alaska, and I handed him this chart. At the time, it was 46 Executive orders. Now it is 60--62 tomorrow. I handed him that. I was respectful--I am in the Oval Office--but I said: Mr. President, do you know what you are doing to my State? Do you have any idea what you guys are doing? At the time, it was 44 Executive orders and Executive actions singularly focused, exclusively focused on Alaska. I handed him this. I said: Sir, this is wrong. You know it. I know it. It is wrong. If a Republican administration came in and issued 44 Executive orders and actions targeting little Delaware--sorry; it is little--and you were still a U.S. Senator, sir, you would be on the Senate floor, raising hell every day, because it is wrong. You know it, and I know it, and it is wrong. But let me end by saying this: It is not just wrong for Alaska. It is not just wrong for Alaska. It is wrong for America. The President is making a choice not just whether to stiff the working men and women of our great Nation, which he is doing with these orders tomorrow, not just whether he is going to hurt my constituents, which he is going to do tomorrow, particularly the Native people, but whether or not to damage our national security even greater. When you shut down the great State of Alaska's potential and ability to produce natural resources for America, you are hurting the country--it doesn't matter where you live. He is making a choice to favor these terrorists over these workers, to favor these terrorists over these great Native people in my State. Here is the message they are going to be sending--the Biden administration is going to be sending to the world tomorrow. They are going to be sending this message to the dictators in Iran, in China, in Venezuela, in Russia. President Biden is essentially going to be saying this: We won't use our resources to strengthen our country. Sorry, Alaska. You are off the table. But we are going to let you dictators develop your resources--Iran--to strengthen your country. I will end with this: I will never forget a meeting I had many years ago with the late Senator John McCain and a very brave Russian dissident named Vladimir Kara-Murza. A lot of my colleagues know who Vladimir Kara-Murza is. As a matter of fact, a bunch of us wrote a letter on his behalf. Putin has poisoned him twice. He survived those, but now he is in jail in Moscow, and I worry about his life--a brave man, a wise man. Senator McCain, Vladimir Kara-Murza, and I were having a meeting, and at the very end of the meeting, I said: Vladimir, one more question. What can the United States do to further undermine the Putin regime and other authoritarians around the world? What can we do? He looked at me without even hesitating, and he said: Senator, it is easy. The No. 1 thing the United States can do to undermine Putin and other authoritarian regimes is produce more American energy. Produce more American energy. We are not doing that tomorrow. The Biden administration is going to tell the world that we are going to shut down Alaska in terms of critical minerals and any more oil and gas development. Joe Biden is fine with our adversaries producing more energy themselves and dominating the world's critical mineral supply while shutting down our own as long as the far-left radicals he feels are key to his reelection are satisfied. So they are probably going to be satisfied tomorrow, and so are our adversaries. They are going to be gleeful. But certainly the people I represent and I would say the vast majority of Americans who understand these issues are going to be once again dismayed that this administration is selling out strong American national security interests and American strength for far-left radicals whom he listens to more than the Native people of my State or commonsense Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, we seem to be in unprecedented territory here. So I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, has there been a successfully invoked point of order to dispose of an Article of Impeachment prior to opening arguments by the House managers?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Madam President. Unprecedented territory.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to talk about some of the important issues that we are debating here on the Senate floor. Actually, they are quite important, and we are having a good debate. I want to just talk about some of the votes that we have taken in the last couple of days. We voted on what I think was termed--really focused on--the Senate's border bill. A lot of people worked hard on that. I know the Presiding Officer did and Senator Lankford. I did not vote to proceed to consider that bill. There are a whole host of reasons. I think the most important, from my perspective, was this administration--the Biden administration--came in and said: We are going to have a policy of full open borders--which they have. There is no doubt about that. Every American knows it, sees it. It impacts people in Alaska negatively--over 300,000 illegal immigrants in December, an alltime record, and on track for 10 million. In my view, the border bill did not go far enough, and it is hard to trust the administration, even on provisions that we would want them to enforce, given their disastrous record for the last 3 years. So I was a no on that. Then we turned to the national security supplemental. I want to talk a lot about that this afternoon because it is very important. I voted, actually, to proceed to the debate, to start debating--hopefully, amending--this important bill. It is being called many things. Some are calling it the Ukraine bill, the Ukraine aid bill, the Israel bill. Having read it, having worked hard over the last 4 to 5 months to actually shape it, I think it should have a different name, maybe this name: the fighting authoritarian aggression national security bill. But probably the best title for this piece of legislation that we are now debating should be the national security industrial base renaissance bill. I hope my colleagues take a look at it. I hope they read it. But I am going to explain why I think it should be called that, and then we are obviously going to have a good debate on this bill. I am hoping that this bill--and I have mentioned this to my Republican colleagues, in particular--when people look at it and we debate it and try to make it better here on the floor, that it will unify the Republican conference, and, at the end, hopefully, get more support, because I think there is an important reason. There are a lot of reasons why I think this can unify Members of the Senate, Members of the Republican conference. First, let me just go into one of the most obvious, which I think almost everybody agrees with. If you don't, maybe you are not reading the news. But we are in a real dangerous period, led by this guy--this new era of authoritarian aggression, as I call it, where you have dictatorships on the march, very aggressive. That is Xi Jinping, the dictator of China. They are going through the biggest peacetime buildup in world history of their military--biggest peacetime buildup ever, of any country ever. I keep close tabs on what the Chinese are doing. This guy likes to dress up in fatigues. He is an aggressive, authoritarian dictator, working very closely with Putin; working very closely with the ayatollahs, the terrorists in Tehran; working very closely with Kim Jong Un, the dictator in North Korea. These dictatorships are all working together. I won't go into all of it, but if you go to Armed Services hearings and Intel hearings, they are working closely together, and they are willing to use military force, particularly against their democratic neighbors, either directly or through proxies--like Hamas, when they invaded Israel--to try to undermine American interests and those of our allies. That is happening. We are in one of the most dangerous periods since World War II right now. That is one reason that a bill like this should unify us. Another is that our industrial base in the United States has dramatically withered, particularly in its ability to protect us. What do I mean by ``protect us''? To produce weapons systems, to produce ammunition. Again, this is a fact. If you don't believe that, well, maybe you should do a little more research. Our industrial base is withering. It is a shadow of its former self during the Cold War, certainly, during previous wars. Mr. President, let me just give you an example. You know a lot about submarines. We are supposed to be building 1.2 Virginia-class subs a year. That is our goal. We can barely build one a year. This is making our sub fleet, which is one of our greatest asymmetric advantages over this guy, shrink. Even worse, 37 percent of our attack submarine fleet--that is about 18 subs--are in maintenance or idle or awaiting maintenance, just sitting there because we don't have the industrial capacity to maintain our submarine base. Anyone who studies this knows this is a giant, giant problem. We all know this. If the bullets start flying, if a dictator like this launches a war against one of our allies, or Putin does or Iran does--they are trying to sink U.S. ships in the Red Sea right now, anyway, literally troops under attack--when the bullets are flying, that is not the time you need to build up your industrial base. So if we are in a real dangerous period, which we are, and the American ability, in terms of our industrial base, to protect our own country has withered, which it has, that is another reason we should be thinking: Let's do something about it. A third reason the people on my side of the aisle should be taking this legislation seriously is that it is an opportunity to make up for what has been an incredibly weak Biden administration approach to national security. I talk about this a lot, but this administration is not serious about national security. The President has put forward three times in his budget each year Department of Defense cuts, inflation-adjusted cuts. He will crank up the EPA and the Department of the Interior 20, 25, 30 percent. The DOD, every year, Joe Biden cuts it. The current budget shrinks the Army, shrinks the Navy, shrinks the Marine Corps. Do you think he is impressed by that? He is not. In next year's budget, the Biden budget will bring the United States below 3 percent of GDP on military spending. It is probably the fourth or fifth time we have been below 3 percent in 80 years. Do you think he is impressed with that? He is not. We have an administration, led by civilians at the Pentagon, who are not focused on lethality, who are not focused on warfighting, who have been distracted by some of these far-left social issues, which, in my view, have no business being in the Pentagon with our warfighters. So this bill that we are debating right now is a chance to start a course correction in the dangerous world we are facing because of dictators like this and the very weak response of the Biden administration's approach to national security and defense, which they have always--go look at the budgets--always prioritized dead last of any Federal Agency. So what does it do? Let's take a look. This is from an article from the Washington Post based on a study by the American Enterprise Institute on what this supplemental--this is actually where it was in November--what this does. I think the most important point that I want to emphasize here is that this bill is primarily focused on rebuilding our military industrial base in this new era of authoritarian aggression. That is the principal focus. Over half of the dollars that are in this bill--over half, over $50 billion--go directly to America's capacity, our capacity in States all across this great Nation, mostly in the Midwest and on the east coast, some out in California, to build weapons, to build ammo, and to be ready for war if it comes--over $50 billion. There will be thousands and thousands of jobs created by these direct investments in America. This is a generational investment in our ability to defend ourselves. What do I mean by ``generational''? Some of these investments we will see 15 or 20 years from now, hopefully, still producing weapons, submarines. Let me just give you a few examples. Let's start with submarines. Our greatest comparative advantage, relative to China--they are catching up in a whole host of areas, but not in terms of subs. This has $3 billion to go directly into the American submarine industrial capacity, which will unlock another $3 billion from our AUKUS agreement with Australia. That is $6 billion to our industrial base for submarines. There is $5 billion for 155 artillery shells; over half a billion for counter-UAS systems. On the other weapons systems, this is directly invested in America--Patriots, GMLRS, Javelins, Harpoons, Tomahawks, HARMs, TOW missiles--built by Americans for our defense. Do you get the picture? Over $50 billion of this bill will go directly into our industrial base to defend ourselves. Working-class Americans, America's national security will benefit. This is replenishing our weapons stocks, our ammunition stocks, for the U.S. military and, yes, for our allies to purchase, some of whom are at war today--Ukraine, of course, and Israel. Now, there is a lot of focus on Ukraine and a lot of arguments about whether to provide continued lethal aid. I strongly support that. But this bill also focuses on other allies, which, like I said, in the Republican conference, I believe unifies us. Ukraine has been a debate. But let me start with Israel. I have been out to Israel twice in the last year, including about 10 days after the October 7 attacks, with a bipartisan group of Senators. It is, obviously, our most important ally in the Middle East--one of our most important allies in the world. Here is what I think a lot of people miss. Right now, if you go there, you will see it; you will feel it; you will understand it. Israel is under an existential threat to the very existence of their State and their people, as clear as day--Iran, all the proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis. This is not an exaggeration. This Defense bill has close to $17 billion for Israel in U.S. forces, in U.S. Central Command, that, right now, are being attacked--right now: Iron Dome, David's Sling, interceptors--about 2\1/2\ billion for CENTCOM operations for our U.S. Forces, who are literally taking missiles from the Houthis right now on Navy ships in the Red Sea. I think everybody agrees: You have to fund our troops. Let me give you another area that I think unifies us; should unify all Senators; I think it unifies a lot of Republicans. And that is Taiwan and INDOPACOM. Taiwan has been kind of--not kind of--a big focus of mine throughout my career. I just retired from the U.S. Marine Corps last week, actually, as a colonel, after 30 years of service. My first deployment as a U.S. Marine was to the Taiwan Strait in 1995 and `96. Two carrier strike groups and a Marine amphibious ready group that I was a young infantry officer on, we were there as a U.S. commitment when the PLA was threatening to invade Taiwan. That is called the third Taiwan Strait crisis. It was their first Presidential election. American commitment was there. I finished out my Marine Corps time as the chief of staff with the Marine Force's Pacific Command, which is a whole focus on Taiwan. The first time I ever visited Taiwan as a U.S. Senator, I will never forget. A number of Senators were there. We got on the bus. The head of our AIT embassy, essentially--not really an embassy, unofficial embassy--he welcomed us, an American citizen: Welcome to Taiwan. One of the most dynamic economies, one of the most vibrant democracies on the planet. And the only reason it exists today is because of the commitment of the U.S. military and America. For eight decades, we have kept Taiwan free. The initial supplemental that came up to the Senate, it didn't have a lot for Taiwan or INDOPACOM. A number of us knew why. President Biden was getting ready to meet with President Xi Jinping. They didn't want to ruin the mood music at that meeting, so they didn't put much in to defend Taiwan--help us defend Taiwan--as the Taiwan Relations Act requires. So a number of us worked together--Senator Collins, in particular, and my office. This bill has about $16.4 billion for INDOPACOM relevant munitions, security assistance, capacity expansion to deter China in the Taiwan Strait and throughout the INDOPACOM theater. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the list to be printed in the Record.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, these are areas that I think can unify us: industrial base, workers, Taiwan, Israel. Like any bill, there are things in here I don't like: too much direct support to Ukraine, direct budget support. I think the European Union--Europeans--should be doing that, not us. Senator Collins did a good job of limiting that. It still has too much. If we have an amendment process here, I have an amendment that would strip that. Focus on lethal aid, not budget support where the Europeans can do that. There are other amendments out here to enhance what we give our allies. President Biden's team recently said we are not going to send any more LNG to Asia or Europe. I just spoke with a very senior European elected official who thinks that is a real bad idea. We have an amendment that said you can't do that, Mr. President. We have to send energy to our allies. So there is a lot more we can do to improve this bill. I will end with this. You know, one of the arguments against this bill will say: Well, you know what, we don't have to do anything in Ukraine; we will let Putin roll. But we will be real strong in Taiwan. We will be real strong all over the rest of the world. We will deter these authoritarians there; don't worry so much about Ukraine. But, as you know, that is not really how the world works. It is not how the world works. Deterrence is not divisible. American credibility is not divisible. You can't say we are going to be real strong in the Taiwan Strait, but, you know, no problem in Ukraine or with Israel. These authoritarians are working together, and we need a strategic response through this very dangerous period. And how do we know deterrence is not divisible? I think the Biden administration demonstrated it with their botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. When that happened, a number of us, myself included, said: Watch. Watch. The authoritarian regimes around the world are going to test. They are going to probe. They are going to go into different areas and press. And, of course, that happened. I don't think you have the Ukraine invasion by Russia without the botched Afghanistan withdrawal. But, again, what I am trying to do here with my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--is say: It is not a perfect bill. I want to amend it. I certainly hope we can get to an amendment process. I know a lot of people want to get to that. But there is a lot in this bill--more than half dedicated to American industrial base, billions dedicated to Taiwan, billions dedicated to Israel--that I think should unite us. And I am hopeful that is going to happen. I yield the floor.

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 afternoon, and, as you know from presiding at this time frequently, it is my favorite time of the week because I get to come down to the Senate floor and talk about our Alaskan of the Week. This is somebody who is doing something great for our local communities, our State, maybe the country, maybe the world. I have been doing this for several years now, and it really helps highlight what makes Alaska, in my view, the greatest State in the greatest country in the world. I would like to talk about, at the beginning of this speech, a little about what is going on in Alaska. We have seen all the snowstorms across the country this week. Trust me, that is just another day in our State. I think by Christmas Eve this year in Anchorage, my hometown, we had close to 100 inches already of snow, so no worry about a white Christmas back home. It is actually a really beautiful time of the year--great to get outdoors. I have done some skiing already. People are out snow machining. If you are watching on TV or in the Gallery, come up to Alaska any time of the year. In winter, you can see the northern lights. In summer, you will have a great time fishing, hunting-- whatever you want to do. It is truly an incredible State. Year-round, we want people to visit--our great fellow Americans to come up. You will have a fantastic time. Now, it is not always the easiest place to live. It is far from the lower 48 here. The weather can be extreme. It can be pretty harsh. As a result, the people in the communities bond a lot. They have to. They work together, particularly in some of our most remote communities. Every community in Alaska--in America--needs to be able to share reliable, credible information. Local journalism across this great Nation of ours is vital--more vital, probably, in Alaska than any other State, I would say. It isn't talked about nearly enough how vital that local journalism is. We all benefit all across the country from thousands of local reporters who are working on stories day in and day out. That is certainly the case in Alaska. I believe that we should be saluting these frontline journalists--local journalists--for doing this important work a lot more here. What we are trying to do is do that today for one of the alltime best. Our local reporters in Alaska are so important. So what I would like to do today is introduce to the U.S. Senate and the American people a great Alaskan of the Week, Maria Downey--longtime Anchorage journalist, news anchor--who for more than 40 years has brought Alaska's news directly to our homes and kept us informed about our State, our communities, our country--with professionalism, sincerity, kindness, and grace. Let's talk about Maria Downey--Alaskan of the Week, Maria Downey. She moved to Alaska from Florida with her husband Ron in 1981. In 1981, a lot was going on in Alaska.The Trans-Alaska Pipeline--which, by the way, this body approved--was flowing.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I am honored to be on the floor with my colleague, Senator Kaine from Virginia, and we are getting ready to pass in the U.S. Senate, unanimously, a resolution commending Taiwan for its history of democratic elections and expressing support of Taiwan's democratic institutions and its upcoming elections this Saturday. This resolution we have has half the U.S. Senate as cosponsors, and we are going to pass it here in a few minutes. That means every Senator in the U.S. Senate is supporting this. So why are we doing this? Well, it is very important. Taiwan has a Presidential election this Saturday. And, of course, the Chinese Communist Party and Xi Jinping are doing everything they can to coerce the Taiwanese people to interfere in the election, and that is something that we are not supportive of at all. This resolution goes through the history of Taiwan's democracy. It mentions that on Saturday, January 13, Taiwan will hold its 8th Presidential election and 10th legislative election since it began its transition to democracy. It then moves to the sense of the U.S. Senate, where we are commending Taiwan for the example it has set for self-governance--not just in the Indo-Pacific region, but throughout the whole world where the Senate regards the democracy of Taiwan as a great strategic strength for the free world and an indispensable component of contemporary United States-Taiwan relations, and a sense of the Senate in this resolution that we all--all 100 of us--remain concerned about the Chinese Communist Party's aggressive interference that is happening right now. We have had two very good articles recently in our American press. Here is one from the Wall Street Journal. (Mr. BOOKER assumed the Chair.) Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article entitled ``China Isn't Backing Off Taiwan: President Xi Jinping is using military pressure and propaganda to sway the island's presidential election in January'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article entitled ``4 ways China is trying to interfere in Taiwan's presidential election'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, for those watching all over the world, this Senate resolution, with 50 Democratic and Republican Senate cosponsors, has now passed the U.S. Senate as an official resolution commending the people of Taiwan for their democratic elections and expressing our support for the upcoming election this Saturday. I yield the floor.