Floor Statements

Mr. President, today we honor the extraordinary bravery, sacrifice, and devotion of Hmong American veterans who stood alongside the United States during the Vietnam war.

From 1961 to 1975, Hmong soldiers fought in the CIA-backed operation known as the Secret War in Laos under the leadership of Vang Pao, risking everything to defend freedom and support American forces.

Hmong forces carried out dangerous missions, gathered intelligence, disrupted enemy supply lines along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and rescued downed American pilots. Thousands of American lives were saved because of the courage and perseverance of Hmong soldiers.

The Hmong people paid an enormous price for their alliance with the United States. More than 40,000 Hmong fighters were killed or wounded during the conflict.

For many years, the contributions of Hmong veterans remained largely unknown because the conflict in Laos was classified as the ``Secret War.''

Today, we ensure that history remembers their service and that future generations understand the sacrifices they made in defense of freedom.

Alaska is proud to be home to a robust Hmong community whose members continue to serve our State through military service, business ownership, public service, education, and community leadership.

We recognize veterans such as Pasert Lee, a resident of the Mountain View neighborhood in Anchorage, AK, who served as a lieutenant under General Vang Pao and helped rescue American pilots during the war. As communist forces took control of Laos, those who had stood with the United States faced persecution, imprisonment, and even death. The beginning of the exodus of the Hmong people from their homes in Laos began following the May 1975 Communist takeover.

Many Hmong families were forced to flee Laos to escape persecution. Many veterans and their families have never been able to safely return to their homeland.

Mr. Lee, like most of our Hmong American veterans, has never returned home, even to visit, in fear for their lives.

Their story is one of courage, resilience, conviction, and unwavering commitment to the United States.

We have a moral obligation to remember those who fought beside American servicemembers and to ensure their sacrifices are never forgotten.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I would like to echo and reinforce the words of my good friend Senator Barrasso, the majority whip, Senator from Wyoming, who was doing a great job yesterday and the beautiful service that we had here in the Capitol and at the National Cathedral in honor of my very good friend and Senate colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham. And, you know, the eulogies were great. It was a beautiful service.

He was, as I mentioned, a dear friend, colleague, a patriot, a veteran, a staunch advocate for his State South Carolina, staunch advocate for the Senate, and a staunch advocate for a strong America. As Senator Barrasso just said, peace through strength in the sense of American freedom, not just at home but abroad.

He was one of a kind--witty, brilliant. Certainly, Mr. President, as you know, one of our Nation's most important and influential Senators. He had a great sense of humor. He loved to laugh.

And a lot of us here on the Senate floor are talking about his legacy and what we should be doing to honor that legacy.

Well, I think one of the things we should be doing--and we are doing it right now, and it is great--is this sanctions bill against Russia, against Iran. And Senator Graham had been leading the efforts on this sanctions bill for a couple years now, and we are passing it here in the Senate in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion. Over 80 Senators voted to get on the bill last night. I know Lindsey is looking down from Heaven very proud he made this happen.

I was honored to be an original cosponsor of this bill from the very, very beginning working with him on these issues.

And we have got more to do. I have a very analogous sanctions bill with regard to China and Taiwan that Senator Graham was a lead cosponsor of my bill. That is coming next.

But it is about honoring him, and this is a bipartisan win.

Government Funding

Mr. President, I think there is another way we need to honor Senator Graham, and it is not happening. It is kind of a new thing. We have got the minority whip coming to the floor, and I hope he can maybe respond to this. But it is a new thing that I have seen--I have never seen, actually, in my career, and we need to change it. And what that is, is getting on the National Defense Authorization Act to start debating it and working on a defense supplemental because we need it. Now, we are talking about honoring Lindsey Graham. I knew Lindsey Graham really, really well. I guarantee you Lindsey Graham would be on the Senate floor right now saying: Wait. We are moving our sanctions bill forward? Great. Bipartisan? Great. What about the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--that funds our military, pay raises for our troops. It came out of the Armed Services Committee in a big bipartisan vote and then came to the Senate floor--screeching halt because the minority leader blocked it.

By the way, I have been in the Senate almost 12 years. I have never seen that happen in my entire career. The bill that funds our military, that lays out the strategy and top-line number for our military during a dangerous time, is blocked by the Senate Democrats. Lindsey Graham would be on the floor raising hell about that.

I have never seen it happen, and I have never had anyone on the other side of the aisle explain to me: Why are you blocking the bill that came out of committee in a strong bipartisan way during these dangerous times? You are blocking the bill to fund our military to take care of our troops? Unprecedented.

So if we want to honor Lindsey Graham, which we all do, let's not just vote for the sanctions bill, but let's get on the NDAA and start debating it. I haven't heard one Democrat Senator give a reason why they are blocking it. I have never seen this happen. This is new territory.

Let me give you another one that I know Lindsey Graham would be on the floor right now advocating with me on. We need a defense supplemental, OK?

When President Biden was President and Senator Schumer was majority leader, the Biden White House sent over a defense supplemental on Ukraine. Now, Senators like myself, Senator Graham, others, we said: All right. We will look at that. We will work on that. We will improve it. We will make it better. We think it is important for the national defense of our Nation--which it was.

We put a lot in there for the defense industrial base, which we did. We beefed up stuff relating to China and Taiwan, which made it a better bill. We beefed up elements of that bill to make it stronger with regard to Israel and Iran--made it a better bill and then worked on it together.

We made it a stronger bill and then Senators like myself and Senator Graham whipped other Republicans to get it passed, and we got it passed. It was a bipartisan defense supplemental, primarily for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and our defense industrial base.

Now we need a defense industrial base supplemental for us--for America, for our troops, for our munitions.

A couple years ago when the Biden administration with Senator Schumer in the majority, that happened, and a number of us--myself and Senator Graham--were like: All right. We will roll up our sleeves and work with you guys.

What is happening on the defense supplemental now? No cooperation. No one on the other side of the aisle wants to help our troops, wants to help our munitions.

This is new territory. I have been here two terms and on defense issues with Senator Graham--and, by the way, many other great Senators on the other side of the aisle. We have always locked arms and said: We are going to move forward on the NDAA; we are going to move forward on the defense supplemental, if our troops need it. And what is happening right now is new; it is different; and I think it is really bad for the country.

And do you know who would be down on the Senate floor right now with me making the same arguments that I am? Senator Graham would be. So let's keep talking about honoring Senator Graham. I love that guy. I am going to miss him every day. Such a great leader. So important to the Senate. Mind

you, probably most the important Senator here given his work, given his relationship with the President.

But let's not say we are going to honor Senator Graham--and then we are going to block the NDAA? Lindsey Graham wouldn't be doing that.

We are going to not engage at all with the Trump administration on a defense supplemental that our Department of Defense needs? We didn't do that when you guys were in the majority and President Biden was President. We rolled up our sleeves and got to work to benefit the national security of our Nation, which is what Lindsey Graham was always about.

So let's honor Lindsey Graham. Let's have a strong vote on the sanctions bill that is named after him. But to my Democratic colleagues: You want to honor Lindsey Graham? Then let's start debating the NDAA. Quit blocking it. I have never seen that before in my entire time here. That doesn't help anything. All it does is undermine our national security and our troops. You are doing it. Lindsey wouldn't be for that.

And let's start engaging on a defense supplemental. We need it. We did it when you were in the majority. We did it when Biden was in the White House.

A lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that what they are doing is wrong, and I still haven't heard a good explanation. I know the far left is driving the energy of the party on the Democratic side right now and they don't like the military and they don't like supporting our troops. I know that. But the vast majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I know them. Let's get going on the NDAA. Let's get going on the defense supplemental bill. That is exactly what Senator Graham would be arguing today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to commend my colleague Senator Lee and my colleagues Senator Ricketts, Senator Moreno. We are all on the floor to seek unanimous consent to a bill that actually just makes common sense.

Senator Lee talked about the different provisions of the bill, but I think one thing that is important to underscore is it just passed the House. These are issues that are on the minds of the American people, and it passed the House in a bipartisan manner--a strong bipartisan manner. So I am hopeful that we can move that House bill on both of these issues that Senator Lee just talked about in a way tonight and get this bill to the President's desk.

As I mentioned, Mr. President, common sense. Senator Lee talked about the insider trading provisions. I think every American would agree that Members of Congress should be prohibited, as well as their spouses and children, from purchasing individual stocks while serving in office, particularly given that we have access to different kinds of information.

You know, this has been something that I have done a number of years ago. I moved stocks into index funds to kind of get rid of this issue, from my perspective, personally.

Senator Ricketts has been the lead here in the U.S. Senate on this issue. I am actually a cosponsor of his bill that is very much focused on this commonsense approach to the issue of insider trading.

And then we need to go to the issue of integrity of our election system. As Senator Lee pointed out, it makes sense. It is very, very common sense--simple in many ways--that if you are going to vote, you have to have a valid ID to do that.

Now, this bill mandates that requirement, but it has a lot of provisional elements to this bill that accommodate States like mine that are very big, that have a dispersed population. So this bill includes those kind of accommodations. Eligible voters can access a provisional ballot. They can sign an affidavit attesting to their identity and citizenship if they don't have an ID.

There are many ways in which this bill accommodates the important element of making sure that American citizens vote in American elections. And I don't think that is some kind of radical idea. I think the vast, vast majority of Americans agree with this.

So I want to thank my colleagues for their leadership on this issue, and I am hopeful that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will agree with us, and let's pass this bill and send it to the President's desk.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to H.J. Res. 140, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 313, S. 688.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be withdrawn; that the Sullivan substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to speak on the vote we are getting ready to take here right now.

The minority leader, Senator Schumer, was on the floor just a minute ago. I certainly hope we can continue to move forward in a good-faith manner to fund Homeland Security and get the reforms and compromise that have been demanded on both sides. I am hopeful we can get there.

But one way we can show that momentum--and I believe there is momentum in these negotiations, because we all need to fund Homeland Security--is to have strong, bipartisan support for the Secretary of Homeland Security whom we are getting ready to confirm here in the U.S. Senate right now. That is my good friend and fellow U.S. Senator Markwayne Mullin.

And the Presiding Officer knows it. Every Senator knows it. He is smart. He is thoughtful. He has good friends on both sides of the aisle. As a matter of fact, I would say that Senator Mullin, of all the Senators here, probably works more across the aisle--not just Senators to Senators but Senate and House, Senate and White House. He is a really indispensable convener for this body to get things done. That is his reputation. Everybody knows it, and everybody thinks highly of him. I certainly think highly of him.

But, to me, someone with that skill set and that reputation and that experience of working across the aisle here, of working with Members of the House--by the way, Democrats and Republicans--is exactly the kind of leader we need at Homeland Security at this moment--exactly the kind of leader we need at Homeland Security at this moment.

So I am very hopeful that we are going to have a strong bipartisan vote for our colleague Senator Markwayne Mullin to move forward as the Secretary of Homeland Security. Of course, that would be good for the Senate, showing a bipartisan vote on someone who is clearly qualified-- and, yes, does have the temperament. I know that came up in the hearing. But, again, when I watched him work for years in this body, there is no one who works harder to actually try to get compromise to move things forward. That is his reputation here. And I know my Senate colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with me on this.

So strong bipartisan support is what I have been pitching so many of my Democratic colleagues on, for this highly qualified U.S. Senator. It would be good for the Senate. It would be good for the Department of Homeland Security. To be honest, given what has been going on with Homeland Security, it would be good for the country, and I hope we can get there.

As I mentioned, I have been working with a lot of my colleagues-- Republicans but especially Democratic colleagues--to say: Come on. We need this at this moment. You guys should be a yes. You all know you should be a yes.

By the way, in private--and I have a lot of good friends on the other side of the aisle--they say: Hey, Dan, I know I should be a yes on this, but--but--there are a lot of buts in terms of excuses. They are not great excuses. I won't go through all of them.

Hey, I am from a really blue State. Tough on me. Hey, I might be running for Governor. Hey, I might be running for President.

This is what they have said.

But I don't think that should matter. We have all taken those kind of votes, tough votes, that we know are the right thing to do. And, again, as I mentioned, it is the right thing to do right now for Homeland Security, for the U.S. Senate, for the United States of America, a strong bipartisan support for this great American, by the way, who is highly, highly qualified.

And you know, the excuses are now coming out, the ``buts.'' I mean, we have all taken tough votes. You know, I certainly have taken my few in terms of Cabinet officials. I supported a strong number of Biden Cabinet officials. Those weren't always popular votes back home in my State. I certainly wouldn't have chosen those nominees had I been in that position, but I am a strong believer in the general principle the President should typically get the Cabinet that he wants. And I think President Trump made an inspired choice by nominating Markwayne Mullin.

So I am hopeful that my colleagues--and everybody knows it is the right thing to do, to give him a strong bipartisan vote.

Enough ``buts.'' I have heard too many ``buts'' from my Senate Democrat colleagues. You know he is a qualified individual. You know he is going to do a very good job leading this critical organization.

I am hoping a strong bipartisan vote can then help us lead to compromise and get Homeland Security funded, which is what we need to do. So I am looking forward to working with my good friend--and he is a very good friend--Markwayne Mullin to be the next Secretary of Homeland Security.

We are going to start voting on him here in a couple of minutes. I look forward to working with him on the historic buildup of the Coast Guard in Alaska that is happening--very exciting, icebreakers in the One Big Beautiful Bill--the Working Families Tax Cut Act. I like that name much better. The biggest investment in the Coast Guard in American history--$25 billion--and everybody loved that: Democrats, Republicans.

He is the right man, right individual, to lead this organization at this time, and I am hoping we have a strong bipartisan vote that he deserves in the next couple of minutes to move his nomination forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Mullin nomination.

Mr. President, I wanted to come down and make a few remarks on a couple of important topics, but I wanted to begin by just letting the American people know--and my constituents back home in Alaska--what just happened here, just a couple of minutes ago, on the Senate floor. We voted again to fund the Department of Homeland Security, and I am down here, like a lot of Senators. By the way, it was a bipartisan Senate vote to fund Homeland Security, but it didn't pass.

And, you know, I have kind of moved through my anger phase more to my sadness phase with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This is the fourth time that we have come down to the Senate floor to vote on a bipartisan, bicameral agreement. The House and the Senate got together several weeks ago--Democrats and Republicans--and agreed to fund the Department of Homeland Security. The House passed the bill-- bipartisan, by the way. The agreed-to bill was going to come over here. It did come over here.

And, all of a sudden, my Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle--not all of them, Senator Fetterman has been voting with us-- said: You know what; we are not going to keep that promise. We are going to not fund Homeland Security.

Now, it is really frustrating because they are saying, well, they don't want to do it now because they want to reform ICE. Now, I am a little skeptical of that claim because the White House and Republicans in the Senate have been waiting for weeks for any proposal from the Democrats on their reforming ICE.

The White House and others have put forward: Hey, here is our proposal.

They haven't responded once.

So if they want to reform ICE, they should at least give people in the administration or in the Congress, here on the Republican side, their ideas for reforming ICE. They haven't. It has been weeks.

By the way, the press is not reporting that. I wish they would because it is very bad faith when you are not negotiating at all.

It is one thing to be far apart on ``hey, I have this proposal; you have this proposal.'' They haven't put forward one proposal.

So in the meantime, when we have a very dangerous world out there--we have been briefed in classified hearings that we should anticipate that the Iranian Quds Force, the lead terrorist organization in Iran, is looking for attacks in our homeland. And they won't fund Homeland Security.

Now, one of the things that I am a little concerned about is that this is kind of from the old Biden-Majority Leader Schumer playbook to defund the police and have open borders.

Now, what do I mean? We know that, during the Biden administration, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--many of them--and certainly the Biden administration, they had as policies: We are going to defund law enforcement, and we are going to have open borders.

That is what they did. Eleven million people illegally came into our country during the 4 years of Joe Biden.

And they also knew that the American people did not like those policies. I think that was clear in the 2024 election.

But here is the thing: The far left of the Democratic Party is still committed to these policies.

So, essentially, when you look at what is going on right now, it is back to the future. It is defund the police and open borders 2.0.

What am I talking about? Right now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying they will not fund ICE. That is a law enforcement Agency that helps protect us. And they are also saying they will not fund Customs and Border Protection. That is the Agency that controls the border.

It is defund the police, defund law enforcement, and open borders. Once again, they are trying to do it kind of in a backdoor way, but the American people are noticing, and it is a frustration.

You know, the Democratic leader used to oppose shutdowns. As a matter of fact, when we were in the minority here, President Biden was in office, and Senator Schumer was the majority leader, we never had one shutdown. Now, the reason was, when we were negotiating things and we got close, but we weren't there yet, and we ran into the deadline of the government shutting down, we would pass what are called short-term continuing resolutions to keep the government open and keep negotiating.

Senator Schumer said, in 2019, that defunding DHS, which is what they are doing now, would: hurt TSA, hurt Border Patrol, hurt FBI agents, air traffic controllers, food safety inspectors, Coast Guard members. They deal with our security right now--right now--so if you believe in the security of America, vote yes to fund Homeland Security.

I am quoting Senator Schumer. Well, I would agree with his 2019 quote wholeheartedly. Vote yes to fund Homeland Security, keeping our country safe by all those Agencies that he just mentioned.

But now, again, given the far-leftwing tactics and energy in the Democratic Party, anytime--and we saw this in the fall, and we are seeing it right now--that if they don't get their way on an issue, they don't do what we have traditionally done, which is: All right, we are not there yet. Let's compromise. Let's put forward a short-term CR. Let's keep the government open.

They just say: Let's shut down the government.

So that is what we are dealing with. It is a real travesty. It is particularly a travesty for the TSA agents who aren't getting paid, for the Coast Guard agents who aren't getting paid and their families, and for FEMA.

We all have States, including especially mine, where disasters happen. We are still recovering from a big typhoon last fall. The payments going to our State for disaster relief--FEMA is shut down.

And it just doesn't have to happen. It just doesn't have to happen.

We just voted again, in a bipartisan way, to do what the bipartisan agreement with the House and Senate was. Let's fund Homeland Security.

By the way, the reforms for FEMA are in that bill.

There is $2 million of deescalation training that is really important. There is $20 million for body cams for ICE. And yet, for whatever reason, they don't want to fund the government during this dangerous time.

I hope that there is a compromise coming forward. The rumor is that after, I think, 5 weeks, our Democrat colleagues are going to finally respond to the White House and Republicans with their ideas. But, again, it is hard to say you want compromise, you want reform on ICE when you haven't put forward anything in almost 2 months. That is not negotiating in good faith.

But I am hopeful. This is too darn important for the safety of our citizens during a dangerous time, for the men and women of the Coast Guard who do such heroic work and who are now not getting a paycheck.

My Democratic colleagues need to quit listening to the far left, come to the middle, and do what we have always done: compromise and vote to fund the government.

Mr. President, there is a lot of focus, of course, right now, as there should be, on the Middle East and Iran, and that is important. But I also think it is important to stay focused on the Chinese Communist Party and this dictator who runs it, Xi Jinping, because they are the longest term threat--the biggest threat to our country. There is no doubt about that.

And we need to stay focused on the Chinese Communist Party threat, not just to the United States but to our allies. And this is something that I have been focused on since I came to the Senate.

As a matter of fact, when I came to the Senate, about 11 years ago, I would give speeches on China. And in my first couple of speeches, I was kind of surprised that there wasn't a lot of focus on the Chinese threat, the long-term threat to our Nation. And so I came down here a lot to speak about that.

The good news is that that is all changed. Many of my colleagues-- this is actually a very bipartisan issue here in the Senate. I have worked with a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on how we can strengthen our national security, our economic security, as it relates to the biggest threat we have, and that is the Chinese Communist Party.

Now, most of my focus, especially being on the Armed Services Committee, spending 30 years on Active Duty and then the Reserves and the U.S. Marine Corps--most of my focus has been on the military issues you see here. The President of China, Xi Jinping, is in his camis--kind of look a little ridiculous, in my view, but whatever. They are very focused on their military building.

So my focus has been on military issues, deterrence in the Taiwan Strait, and economic issues, to some degree. But as I have spent time here and I have delved into this challenge--and it is a huge challenge--it is important that we not just focus on those issues.

And the one thing that I think is happening in the Congress right now is a recognition of emerging new technologies that, someday, and maybe even today, might be considered more important than an aircraft carrier, a submarine, or an F-35, because these technologies, in which we are in a race with China in terms of their development, might determine who controls the entire 21st century between the United States and China.

Fortunately, we are starting to focus on these. I am starting to focus on these, and I would say there are three main areas: digital currency and blockchain technology, artificial intelligence, and biotech.

So if you are on the Hill on different committees--and I am on the Commerce Committee as well as Armed Services--we are doing hearings, and we are doing markups. We have established commissions. There is a lot of work, a lot of debate. And, I would say, a lot of it is bipartisan, which I think is good, to focus on these emerging technologies because, in some ways, they are just as important as our military competition with the Chinese Communist Party.

And, in my view, it is becoming increasingly clear that we are in a race with the Chinese Communist Party on who will control these critical technologies and the economic resilience and financial strength and productivity of our economy. And, yes, the national security of our citizens increasingly depends on who wins these races in these critical emerging technology areas.

There are a couple of things related to that that I just want to touch on, and I am going to come down on the floor and speak more and more about where we are on these and what we need to do. But make no mistake, as I dig into these issues deeper, as we get the briefings from the experts, it has become clear that we should not--should not-- underestimate the Chinese Communist Party in these areas.

They can compete. They are competing. I think sometimes in the area of technology, we think, well, we are the United States; we are the top dog. But we need to take them very seriously.

And in some areas in these technologies, in subcomponents of these technologies--say, for example, like robotics--I think you can make a good case that the Chinese are already in the lead, and we have to take that very seriously.

Another thing is that a fundamental component of competing successfully against China in at least two of three of these technologies--blockchain technology and AI--is that we have to have abundant American energy to power in and advance in these technological areas.

Again, for the benefit of our own citizens and our own national security, it is critical that we unleash American energy--all forms of American energy. I am an ``all of the above'' energy proponent: oil, gas, coal, renewables, nuclear. We used to talk about the energy transition, but in terms of winning the race on these kinds of technologies, we really need to be talking about energy addition because we are going to need all forms of American energy--American energy dominance--when it comes to blockchain technologies, crypto, and

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 642, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, March 16; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 673; finally, that the cloture motion with respect to the St. John nomination ripen at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, we are here on the floor, a number of Senators from both sides of the aisle, trying to move some important legislation for all of us, our different States, and different constituencies.

I have spoken a lot on this bill--my bill--the Alaska Native Vietnam Era Veterans Land Allotment Extension Act. So I am going to keep this quick. I will talk about this more, hopefully, once we get to a positive resolution.

I do want to just thank my colleagues. A lot of people are working hard on this. I want to thank my legislative director Erik Elam, Senators King, Padilla, Bennet, Hoeven, and Senator-Chairman Lee--a lot of hard work, a lot of cooperation, on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate very much the cooperation. I think we will get to a good outcome here, and then we will make more commitments to

help each other. That is what this body has long been about.

All the Senators on the floor, I have the deepest respect for. As I will say later, I have said on the floor many times: This is an issue for some great constituents of mine--what I refer to as special patriotism, Alaska Native Vietnam vets. Alaska Native people serve at higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the country.

This is going to be a good outcome, I hope, that addresses some of their challenges. I will talk in more detail about it.

Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: H.R. 131, H.R. 187, H.R. 410, and H.R. 1043.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills, en bloc, be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bills en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman, Chairman Lee, for his comments, I want to thank Senator Bennet for his hard work, and I really want to thank Senator King.

You know, I have worked well with Senator King of Maine for many years. He and I are good friends, good colleagues. We have worked together on a lot of issues--actually, all the Senators down here: Senator Bennet, Senator Padilla, who was here a little bit ago.

So I certainly give my word to Senator King on working with House Members. As a matter of fact--I think he knows it--my team and I have already been doing that with the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee over there and with our Alaska Congressman. We have been pressing them already on the issues that Senator King has raised. He has my word and continued commitment to work with him on these other bills that I think it is important to continue to move forward on.

What we just did, Mr. President--as you know, but I think for people watching, particularly back home, our Alaska Native Vietnam veterans-- we just passed four Senate bills that were actually House bills that were pushed by four different Senators--two Republicans, two Democrats. I think that is a good example of cooperation and moving forward on these issues that matter to all of us, and they matter to all of our constituents.

Now, I want to talk again--I have probably given 10, 12, 15 speeches on the Senate floor about my bill, the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Land Allotment Act, and I already mentioned this idea of special patriotism. Alaska Natives--almost 20 percent of the population of my State--serve at higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the country.

This is a great picture of a good friend of mine, George Bennett, who served in the Army from 1966 to 1968. He served in Vietnam from 1967 to 1968--a tough time to be in Vietnam, by the way--from Southeast, where we have a lot of our Vietnam vets.

Let me talk about the importance of this program and this bill.

By the way, just so there is no confusion, these four pieces of legislation are going to the White House to be signed. It is really exciting, particularly on this bill.

It is a simple bill. It is essentially changing a program--it is a one-sentence bill--from 5 years to 10 years.

Let me step back and speak a little bit about this bill because I am so pleased and it is such a great honor to represent great Americans like George Bennett and others. Here is the background. As I mentioned, Alaska Natives--whether it is World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Korea, the gulf war--they just serve in the military. It is part of their heritage. It is part of their culture. It is an incredible part of who they are. It is remarkable, like I said. I refer to it as ``special patriotism.''

This special patriotism was on full display during the Vietnam war, in the Vietnam era, when so many Alaska Natives answered the call. Here is what happened. A lot of them, like George, got drafted. They didn't complain. They said ``Hey, my dad served in World War II. My uncle served in Korea. It is my turn to go,'' and they did. They went overseas.

But here is what happened. It is a little complicated. They came home during this time--and it is not just for Vietnam vets. If you deployed to Korea or Germany during this time, we had a program in the law dating back to 1906 that gave Alaska Native people the right to apply for what was called a Native allotment--very, very important program for these people. It said: Hey, if you can show that this part of Alaska you hunted, fished, your family raised you in this part of the great State of Alaska, you have a right to a 160-acre allotment.

Now, look, you can't do that in a lot of States, but Alaska is so big, so vast, that these Native allotments were a really important part of the Federal Government taking care of but helping Alaska Native people. So that was going on for years--very noncontroversial.

When they were overseas in 1971, Congress passed one of the most important pieces of legislation, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. And it was a great piece of legislation. I won't go into it. I have talked about it on the floor many times. But what that legislation did, it extinguished the ability for Alaska Natives to get their allotment--extinguished it.

Well, think about it. If you are in Vietnam or Germany or Korea serving your country, let's face it--especially during the Vietnam era when a lot of people were avoiding service--you didn't have the internet; you didn't have iPhones. They didn't know. Nobody knew that their right to an allotment was extinguished.

So they came home--and let's face it, they weren't treated well. A lot of Vietnam vets were not treated well. It is still a stain on the honor of our great Nation. They are Alaska Natives. There was still a lot of discrimination against Alaska Natives. That wasn't good.

Then they are told: Oh, by the way, that allotment that you wanted, sorry. When you were serving your country, fighting in Vietnam, the deadline passed.

A triple whammy, in my view, of injustice.

We worked on that in a bipartisan way and got my Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Land Allotment Act that said: Hey, if you were serving overseas and you missed the deadline to apply for your allotment, you can still do it. That is just fair.

I was in the Oval Office when President Trump, during his first term, signed this legislation. It was part of a bigger land package. And I remember his saying the injustice that happened to the Alaska Native Vietnam vets--that we ended that with this bill. It was great. We were so excited.

The law created a 5-year window by which to have Alaska Native Vietnam vets--and there are still several thousands--apply for their allotment. It was all great, exciting. Again, a lot of them are getting a little old in age. We wanted to hurry up and make sure you apply for your allotment.

Then we had another speed bump in this long saga. The incoming Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Haaland, in two different meetings with me--two--committed to me that she would expedite the application process in granting these allotments to these Vietnam vets under the new law. Twice she committed to me on that before her confirmation vote. As a matter of fact, I told her: This is more important than anything else you can commit to me on, Congresswoman Haaland. She was a Congresswoman then. It is more important than oil and gas in Alaska, more important than our resource economy, this issue. Please commit with me to work with me, expedite it. Let's get these American heroes their allotments before a lot of them start passing away.

Well, that didn't happen. About 2 months into her tenure, she put a 2-year freeze on getting any of these allotments out to anybody. I mean, a blatant--blatant--I am still mad about it--disregard to the commitment she made to me twice. It was the biggest thing I asked her.

By the way, I voted for her--big mistake.

Two years' freeze. None of these guys could get their allotment. Remember, it is a 5-year program. We only have so much time, and it is complicated to prove that this is where you grew up and hunted and fished. In the 4-year tenure they had with Secretary Haaland, only 40 of these were issued. That is just shameful.

What this bill does--all it says is, we are going to keep the status quo. We are going to extend the program from 5 years to 10, so we can go back to the business that the Trump administration and Secretary Burgum are doing of getting these veterans their allotments.

That is the bill. That is what it does. It is a one-sentence bill saying this really important program is going to go from 5 years-- which, by the way, was going to expire at the end of this year. It was going to expire in 2 weeks. It is going to go from 5 years to 10 years. We are going to have time.

I hope heroes like this guy are going to work with us, work with the Department of the Interior to get their allotment. This is kind of a Christmas gift for these great American heroes. I put on my Christmas tie today thinking maybe we can work this out--a Christmas gift for these great American heroes.

Even if you don't live in Alaska, you have to love this story. These are great heroes, and they served at higher rates in Vietnam. If you go to Alaska Native villages and ask: How many veterans do we have, almost every male in the village raises their hand. It brings a tear to your eye. It brings a tear to my eye.

I want to thank Senator King, Senator Bennet, Senator Padilla, and, certainly, Senator Lee, Senator Hoeven, and, again, my staff. Erik Elam is the best LD in the U.S. Senate. He is relentless and creative, bringing everybody down here today. It wasn't easy, but we got this done at the buzzer. It is going to be signed into law. It is going to go to the White House. The President will sign this, and we are going to get to work--get to work--and get these heroes the land allotments that they deserved.

The only reason they don't have them right now is they were serving their country in a war. I mean, I think it is a really important day, a really good day.

I commit to working with all my Senate colleagues on other commitments. Senator King, Senator Padilla, thank you again.

I yield the floor.