Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to talk about a very important and, I believe, very bipartisan issue. It is the need for us in the Senate and the entire U.S. Government to focus on the intensifying Chinese Communist Party threat and the People's Liberation Army threat to Taiwan and why it matters.

My remarks will be focusing primarily on the Chinese Communist Party and the leader of that party, Xi Jinping, not on the Chinese people, who have a proud history, heritage, culture of thousands of years, and, as we have seen over the last several weeks, they are very brave people who simply want more freedom.

In March of 2021, in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked the then-INDOPACOM Commander, Admiral Davidson, when he thought there would be an invasion of Taiwan by the PLA and the Chinese Communist Party.

He responded to my question by saying this:

Senator, I think the threat of an invasion of Taiwan is

manifest during this decade--in fact, within the next 6

years.

Now, that was 2 years ago almost. His successor, ADM John Aquilino, has confirmed this timeline. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Director of National Intelligence, the CNO of the Navy, and even the Secretary of State have recently been ringing alarm bells on this timeline as well.

On the heels of the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jinping has emerged as the ultimate supreme leader, surprising the assessment of even the most seasoned China hands with his audacity. He has packed the Politburo Standing Committee with loyalists, promoted party stalwarts with military intelligence and technology backgrounds, and positioned the Central Military Commission to preside over the conquest of Taiwan.

Take a look at this poster. Those are Chairman Xi and a bunch of his comrades I just talked about. Let's face it. They might look ridiculous in military fatigues--I think they do--but the message of these kinds of propaganda photos is very, very clear, which was just recently sent out by the Chinese Communist Party. It is this: China is preparing for war.

Americans and the rest of the world should take this threat very seriously. I know that our eyes are on Ukraine, which is something we should stay focused on, as defeating authoritarian aggression in Europe is essential to deterring it in Asia, but we can't lose sight of the threat to Taiwan and of what is at stake.

So I want to lay out, today, what will be the consequences of a potential invasion of Taiwan and why I believe vital American interests--security and economic interests--are implicated by that and what we should do--all of us together--to work to deter it. But I would like to begin my remarks by focusing on a different era in a different region of the world.

In 1948, the Soviets cut West Berlin off from food and fuel, and the United States and our allies, led by our powerful military, responded with the Berlin Airlift. Many of you have seen this very famous photo taken during the Berlin Airlift. At the height of this airlift, allied supply flights were landing in West Berlin literally every minute. Think about that. We did that for a

year to save this city--to save it from absorption into the tyrannical Soviet orbit and empire. Think about that. With our citizens and our country being very tired and exhausted after World War II, just a couple of years later, somehow, we understood that the stakes mattered in Berlin. Americans look back on the Berlin Airlift as a point of pride for our freedom-loving Nation.

John Kennedy famously visited Berlin in 1963. Before he went, he had seen Berlin as an irritant in the Soviet-U.S. relations. But after declaring himself a Berliner, he came back and recognized that ``Berlin is an asset, not a liability, in the wider struggle for Europe'' and global freedom.

The United States defended the city and the people of West Berlin during the 20th century because we understood as a country that this city and these citizens of this city stood on the frontline of the struggle between the American-led free world and a powerful, expansionist, authoritarian regime. The same is true of Taiwan today. Taiwan is the 21st century's West Berlin.

Now, it is not as if American political leaders have disregarded the critical importance of Taiwan. To the contrary, starting with President Eisenhower, there has been a long and bipartisan consensus focused on the security of Taiwan. I have recently been rereading President Eisenhower's excellent memoirs, and you will see the importance of Taiwan weaved in and out of the pages of these books. And this, of course, wasn't just the executive branch. This body in particular, the U.S. Senate, has been the ally of Taiwan during its darkest times. When the United States switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing, it was congressional leaders, like Senators Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole, as well as Democrats, like Representative Lester Wolff, who worked on a bipartisan basis to give us the Taiwan Relations Act-- one of the most remarkable pieces of foreign policy legislation the U.S. Congress has ever passed, led right here in the U.S. Senate.

The President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, wanted to abandon a longstanding ally, Taiwan, and Congress said no. In the process, America's legislative body rewrote our relationship with Taiwan, and that is the policy that still exists to this day and drives our relationship with the island democracy.

With this remarkable legislation, Congress laid down the law and policy on Taiwan for generations, including up until today. In 1979, 84 U.S. Senators, including a young Senator named Joe Biden, voted for that important--very important--piece of legislation.

Those stalwart supporters of Taiwan--Republicans and Democrats-- understood that the stakes were more than just about the island itself; they encompassed the issues of American leadership in Asia and our commitment, like we demonstrated in Berlin, to prevent a communist power on the march from devouring an outpost of freedom, this time in the Pacific.

Given this history, it is not surprising that the fate of Taiwan has been weaved in and out of the careers of countless Americans, including my own.

Twenty-seven years ago, I was a young marine infantry officer deployed to the Taiwan Strait as part of a marine amphibious ready group and two U.S. carrier strike groups, all in response to the Chinese Communist Party's aggressive military provocations on the eve of Presidential elections in Taiwan. The Third Taiwan Strait Crisis this period from 1995 to 1996 is now called. This was an important and decisive demonstration of America's commitment and resolve to an emerging democracy and partner that is still remembered in the region by everybody.

This is a picture of the ship I was on during that time.

Later, I was part of another demonstration of American commitment and resolve when Senators Tammy Duckworth, Chris Coons, and I flew to Taiwan on that aircraft--that is a picture of our flight--where we were able to bring close to a million vaccines to the Taiwanese people. We did this in the face of the Chinese Communist Party's aggressive attempts to prevent the citizens of Taiwan from receiving this lifesaving medicine from Western countries. And so America responded.

I will never forget my first trip as a U.S. Senator on a codel led by Senator McCain to Taiwan. We were getting on the bus after getting off the airplane, and a State Department official from our de facto Embassy there--the American Institute in Taiwan--greeted the Senate delegation by saying this:

Welcome to Taiwan, a vibrant Democracy of 24 million

people, with one of the most innovative economies in the

world. A hub of trade and cutting-edge technology, and the

only reason this incredible place exists on a map as such is

because of the sacrifice and commitment of [the United States

of] America--our military, our government, and our [citizens]

. . . . All Americans should be very proud of this!

That is what he said--very moving, very true. What a powerful greeting.

So American commitment and resolve on Taiwan has been part of our law, our heritage, trade, economics, and military deployments for decades. But I worry that too few Americans know this history and the reason for this commitment. We need to rebuild this understanding to ready ourselves for the test of wills that I believe is approaching.

This starts with all of us doing a better job of explaining to the American people collectively why Taiwan matters. In this regard, one question that I don't believe has been asked or analyzed enough is a difficult question to contemplate, but it is this: What would the world look like and how would American interests be implicated by a PLA or Chinese Communist Party takeover of Taiwan? So over the last several weeks--actually, several months--I have asked different government agencies, intel agencies, think tanks, and military commands to help me think through this important but little-studied question. Perhaps it is little-studied because it is a difficult and depressing assignment to contemplate.

The Chinese Communist Party and the PLA launched a massive, multipronged, violent military invasion of Taiwan, and U.S. forces either do not get there on time, either decide we are not going to go there at all or actually go to the Taiwan Strait and are defeated by the PLA in their attempt to defend Taiwan. None of this is something that we as Americans want to contemplate; nevertheless, I believe it is our job as leaders to help our fellow Americans understand the ramifications of precisely this scenario today in order to better prevent it from taking place in the future. So let's look at that world and what it would look like, particularly with regard to American interests.

A successful PLA military invasion and takeover of Taiwan would be a massive blow to the commanding heights of the technology that powers our digital age.

As you can see from this chart, Taiwan dominates the production of the world's most advanced semiconductors. Secure supplies of advanced computer chips today are as important to our economy and that of our allies as the supply of oil has been for us and our allies for decades previously.

To suddenly be deprived of these advanced computer chips would have a devastating impact on the U.S. and global economies, negatively impacting millions of good-paying jobs. Just look at the impact of the current chip shortage. According to the Commerce Department, in 2021 alone, it cost the U.S. economy $240 billion--one-quarter of a trillion dollars--including 7.7 million fewer cars being produced, because of the low-end chip shortage we have now. This hasn't just been an inconvenience for those in the market for new cars; this has been devastating in terms of manufacturing jobs in America.

Imagine what would happen if the home to 92 percent of the world's most advanced semiconductor production, which is what Taiwan is, were taken offline. It would cost us multiple times more than the $240 billion I just mentioned.

All in all, a military conflict over Taiwan, launched by Xi Jinping, could cost the global economy, according to a recent State Department estimate, $2.5 trillion--$2.5 trillion. This sum does not quantify the huge strategic advantage the Chinese Communist Party would gain if it seized the crown jewels of the global economy, which is what they strongly desire, and that is the fabrication of the world's most advanced computer chips.

This would also present an extraordinary challenge to the United States' ability to defend itself not only abroad but at home.

(Ms. DUCKWORTH assumed the Chair.)

Madam President, as you know, advanced microchips from Taiwan feed directly into our ability to develop and sustain our most sophisticated military weapons--F-35s, radars, missile defenses, just to name a few. This translates into great risk for our national security and, importantly, the men and women in uniform who defend us.

Second, there is Taiwan's geostrategic value--not just economic value--that, of course, would be shattered by a successful PLA invasion of the island.

In his memoirs, President Eisenhower devotes pages and pages to Taiwan. At one point, he says:

If the capture of [Taiwan's] offshore islands should, in

fact, lead to the loss of [Taiwan], the future security of

Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam . . . even Okinawa

would be placed in jeopardy and the United States' vital

interest would suffer severely.

Last year, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs Ely Ratner made essentially the same point in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Certain critics wrung him up for it. Apparently, calling Taiwan ``a critical node within the first island chain'' and an ``anchor [of] a network of U.S. allies and partners'' in Asia, as Assistant Secretary Ratner did, risks offending Beijing's sensibilities.

But, of course, Secretary Ratner and President Eisenhower were correct. Taiwan in the CCP's hands breaks China out of the constraints of this area in the Pacific known as the first island chain, as a CCP takeover of Taiwan has the potential to further push the United States and our forces out into the Pacific to what is called the second island chain, out this far. This includes American territories in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, just to name a few.

Madam President, as you know, these aren't just points on a grand strategist's map; residents in Guam and the Mariana Islands are American citizens. They send representatives to Congress. Guam has an enormous U.S military presence, with tens of thousands of servicemembers and their families. With the first island chain broken, these Americans will come under direct threat from an emboldened China with a massive and growing military.

Here is the other thing: It is highly unlikely that the CCP would stop simply at Taiwan. If history teaches us anything, it is that the appetite of an aggressive authoritarian regime on the march increases with each meal.

For decades, the CCP has focused almost exclusively on building a military, with the objective of conquering Taiwan. Take a look at this forced posture that currently exists across the Taiwan Strait. It is a rather depressing picture. These are the military capabilities in numbers of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, and this is that of Taiwan. If you look at the additional numbers, what each of these means in terms of infantry, naval forces, air forces, it is a massive, massive overmatch right now in this area of the world.

If there is an invasion that is successful, do we really think these forces are just going to stay around Taiwan? No. They are going to shoot out to all other parts of the Pacific and other parts of the world. The Chinese Communist Party and PLA's military will be supercharged for expansion.

President Eisenhower was also deeply concerned about the impact a successful CCP invasion of Taiwan would have on American alliances and our ability to credibly meet our defense treaty obligations to them. This concern continues to today.

We look at our allies in the region--and I want to commend the Prime Minister of Japan, just a few days ago, who stepped up, saw significant challenges--primarily this, the Chinese Communist Party--and is saying: Japan's military is going to grow significantly. That is a hugely important development. It is great news for our national security as we work closely with Japan.

But a Chinese PLA takeover of Taiwan, in my view, would threaten and call into question our treaty military commitments throughout the region: Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand.

Of course, it is always hard to predict the future, but there is little doubt that a Chinese communist takeover of Taiwan would, in some countries' minds, call into question our alliance commitments. It could cause some countries to build up their own military capabilities, including possibly nuclear deterrence, when they currently don't have them, or to choose a much more accommodating ``middle kingdom'' posture toward their powerful neighbor.

This, of course, should concern all Americans. The questioning of our Pacific network of alliances that undergird the security of the American homeland by our allies and by balancing and deterring dangers far away from our shores, I believe, makes Americans less safe.

Finally, Madam President, a Chinese communist takeover of Taiwan would give a global boost to the CCP's model of authoritarian governance that Xi has been offering the world.

In the 1930s, during a time of global upheaval, of which there are striking parallels today, many around the world thought that the future of the world lay with fascism. Such a future was alluring to millions. Democracy can be messy. Disagreement--sometimes ferocious disagreement--is the hallmark of representative government. And because of the transparency inherent in democracies, it is there for all the world to see: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The United States, along with other democracies around the globe, ultimately prevailed against the rise of fascism during World War II. We did so by force of arms but also by appeal to the universal desire for freedom and self-governance that we led. But a military takeover of Taiwan, in the current global climate, could lead many to believe that, as Xi Jinping has put it himself, the CCP's totalitarian vision offers a new choice for humanity, one that relies on techno-authoritarian control rather than self-governance.

We cannot be blind to the implications or the extraordinary new legitimacy that the CCP would gain at home and abroad, and with that would come new forms of CCP aggression throughout Asia and throughout the world.

So, Madam President, the next slide has a summary of a number of these issues of why Taiwan matters. It is actually a slide taken from a slide back in a briefing out at INDOPACOM command, where I serve as a Marine Corps colonel. It is a good summary of what China would gain and what the United States would lose. I won't go through each one of these. I have talked about a lot of them.

But the authoritarian world that the CCP is offering is not what Xi Jinping bills it as. Look at its manifestations today: concentration camps for Uighurs; repression in Hong Kong; prison for peaceful dissidents; no freedom of religion, speech, or assembly; mass censorship and social control; pandemic lockdowns approximating house arrest for millions of citizens guilty of no crime; a cult of personality around a leader who brooks no consent. In a world order built on CCP power and values, freedom and American interests would be unsafe in many parts of the world.

Take a hard look at that. This is why Taiwan matters.

So, Madam President, my purpose today was to paint a picture of what the world would look like in the face of a successful CCP-PLA invasion of Taiwan.

What I want to talk very briefly about next is what we should do about it. I have talked about this slide many times. As a matter of fact, the Presiding Officer and I had a lot of discussions.

But this is where we should be focused. None of us wants a war in the Taiwan Strait; and if one is launched, it is going to be by Xi and the CCP and the PLA. It won't be launched by the United States of America. It won't be launched by Taiwan.

So what do we do? We need to work to deter it. Now, I have often talked about three levels of deterrence that we need in the Taiwan Strait. First is Taiwan's own defense capabilities, like the Ukrainians are showing the world

bravely, heroically right now that smaller countries committed to their own self-governance and self-rule can fight and take on giant authoritarian regimes. As the Ukrainians are showing the world today, we need to make sure Taiwan has the capability to do that itself.

As a matter of fact, there are discussions going on right now in the omnibus, and I sure hope the administration weighs in heavily about more assistance for Taiwan to build up its own military and weapons capability.

The second level of deterrence, of course, Madam President, is our ability as a country, with our allies, to come to Taiwan's aid if the President so orders. That has been a constant in the decades-long history. During these different crises when there have been threats by the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party, the PLA, to invade Taiwan, the United States has shown up every time. That is going to be increasingly important. We need the capability to do that.

And, finally, Madam President, a topic you and I have spoken about quite a lot is a third level of deterrence, which actually isn't talked about that much but, in my view and in the view of many of our Intel analysts, could be the most powerful, and that is devastating economic and financial consequences that we should let the Chinese Communist Party know about now that would ensue if they invaded Taiwan: economic, financial, energy.

Madam President, that is why I have been pushing my legislation called the STAND with Taiwan Act. It is legislation that would have very broad-based sanctions that would be triggered against all aspects of the Chinese Communist Party's economy and its leadership, that would be triggered by an invasion of Taiwan by the PLA. This is something I believe we, as the Congress, need to pass. It is something that I have pitched to many of our allies in Europe, in Asia, and it is something that I think could have an enormous, positive deterrent effect in the Taiwan Strait.

So let me conclude with this. With the invasion of Ukraine, it is clear that we have entered a new era of authoritarian aggression led by Xi Jinping and Putin like we saw in the 1930s. For nearly a century, American Presidents have seen Asia and Europe as theaters that, if under hostile control, would put U.S. national security at extreme risk. And generations of Americans have fought and died so that East Asia in Europe would not fall under the dictatorial control of U.S. adversaries.

Both of these theaters are at risk today. The world cannot be neutral in this contest between freedom and authoritarianism, especially in the Indo-Pacific region. American alliances, power, and ingenuity have helped build a world that has provided more freedom and prosperity to more people than ever before.

In fact--think about it, Madam President--the United States democracy, bolstered by our strong military, has done more to liberate humankind from oppression and tyranny--literally, hundreds of millions of people--than any other force in human history.

The Chinese Communist Party has clear plans to reverse all of this. It knows exactly what it wants to accomplish: to make the world safe for its tyrannical government, to profit off the export of its authoritarian model to other countries, to separate America from our democratic allies, and to erode U.S. leadership.

A world governed by Xi Jinping's totalitarian vision would be a world unsafe for America and our friends, and that is why Taiwan is so important and central to the future of the free world. It is a thriving, prosperous Chinese democracy that holds free elections with power bounded by the rule of law. For that reason, it threatens the CCP's central premise that one man ruling in perpetuity by crushing all dissent knows what is best for 1.4 billion people.

The Chinese Communist Party has already crushed Hong Kong, once a bastion of liberty, and the free world barely raised its voice in protest. Should America and the world stand by as China does something similar to Taiwan, a peaceful democracy of 24 million people, that would not simply undermine the security of the Western Pacific, as the Taiwan Relations Act says, but would undermine America's role in the world and the values we as Americans have infused into it? And I believe it would deeply and adversely affect concrete American national security and economic security interests.

So I am committed to working with all of my colleagues--the Presiding Officer has been a leader on many of these issues--working with her and others to make sure that that world never comes to pass. This is why Taiwan matters and we need policies of deterrence--all of them--to prevent its violent takeover by the Chinese Communist Party.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to say a few words about the Biden administration's policies on the very subject which Dr. Laura Taylor-Kale is going to be in charge.

Now, I have been working with this administration probably more than most Republican Senators, particularly on Department of Defense issues--on Department of Defense personnel, on helping them actually get confirmed--so I don't come down here and do this lightly. Heck, I introduced the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Austin, at his confirmation hearing and then whipped votes to make sure he got confirmed. So this is not my regular course of business even as it relates to the Biden administration but particularly as it relates to the Department of Defense. I have been someone who has been trying to help.

But I am objecting because the Biden administration's policies are completely at odds with the President's public statements and my friend from Wisconsin's statements about the need for an industrial policy in critical minerals that will help our military and help our economy.

Dr. Taylor-Kale will be in charge of this at the Pentagon--industrial policy, critical minerals, rare earths. What we are seeing, Mr. President, is they talk about this, but then they take actions against these very policies that hurt us. The No. 1 area where they take actions is my State, the great State of Alaska, which has more energy for America, more critical resources, more critical minerals, more rare earths for our Nation--for our Nation.

My State has had 40 Executive orders or Executive actions in 2 years from this administration, issued singularly and solely against Alaska. Of course, that is crushing the economy of my State, workers in my State. But here is the broader point for this topic today: It is really undermining America's national security. Critical minerals, natural resources--we all know we need them, yet one big part of America--it is the target of this administration to shut it down. It is ridiculous.

As I said to my colleague, if a Republican administration went to Wisconsin

or issued 40 Executive orders and Executive actions solely against Wisconsin or Maine and you guys came to me and said, ``Hey, Dan, help us. Geez Louise, the war on Alaska. Help,'' I would help.

My State is getting crushed.

Here is the specific issue that relates to this nominee. The President held a summit on critical minerals--a good example of what we need to do--on February 22, 2022, and he said: We need these critical minerals. The demand for them is going to increase 400 to 600 percent over the next several decades.

We can't build a future that's made in America if we

ourselves are dependent on China for the materials that power

the products of today and tomorrow.

And our national security.

That is the President of the United States on his big critical minerals summit hosted at the White House to talk about supply chains and industrial capacity and military issues.

The same day the President of the United States held that critical minerals summit, the Department of the Interior said that they were going to reverse a 7-year EIS record of decision, $10 million by professional staff in the Federal Government, on what is called the Ambler Mining District in Alaska, one of the biggest, most extensive sources of critical minerals in the country, maybe even in the world--a project, by the way, that has been in permitting since the Obama administration.

That same day, they reversed it and said: Alaska, start over.

Nuts. Crazy.

So what I have done is I have put a hold on a couple of Department of Defense nominees who are in charge of this area, and Dr. Taylor-Kale is one. But I have been reasonable. I went to the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, the Deputy Secretary of Defense. We held a conference with White House officials. I simply said: I am not asking to reverse your crazy decision--which it was crazy. It hurts my State for sure, but it hurts the national security of our country.

I simply said: I want three simple asks--so I have been trying to work to get the nominee cleared--three simple asks from this administration: Identify a definitive, workable schedule with a clear, legitimate timeline for completing the review of this project that has already been in almost 10 years of permitting--to do it in a timely manner. That was No. 1. Clearly state the Federal Government's intent to allow the Alaska entities that are trying to move this forward to continue to complete baseline scientific data gathering and design work, such as wetland delineations and engineering reconnaissance for this road. That was No. 2. Allow these Alaska entities that are moving this road and project forward to complete its planned geological drilling and core sampling program, which is critical to advancing the project and engineering design, as this case is now being remanded.

That was it. That was it. Three simple requests. None of these are hard. None of them are hard.

I have raised this with the Secretary of Defense, the national security team, of course, Interior, and they keep telling me no. This is easy. If the Secretary of the Interior came and said, ``Senator Sullivan, I saw your remarks on the floor. I agree with all three of those things. You are right; they are simple,'' I would lift my hold today.

So the ball is in the administration's court. If they really want Dr. Taylor-Kale to be confirmed, they could do it tonight. Meet my requests, which are quite reasonable. I did not ask them to review or reverse the crazy decision that they made in February of 2022. These are very simple requests. I have been very reasonable on this. No one on their side is being reasonable, so I will continue to hold her and some of the other DOD nominees who are in charge of critical minerals and industrial capacity in the Department of Defense until the simple demands that I am asking for that not only will help my State but will help the national security of America.

They won't do it, so I object.

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

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am really working hard with my colleagues here--I see Senator Durbin has come to the floor--to make a law that we all know is the right thing to do.

In fact, in my 8 years in the U.S. Senate, I don't think I have ever been involved with a matter that more desperately cries out for a just resolution to a simple issue. And it is this: Do we, as the U.S. Senate, want to help sick U.S. Marines and their families, or do we want to allow a legislative bill that continues to further enrich trial lawyers in America? That is the question. That is the law I am working hard with many of my colleagues to make happen.

And I think everyone knows the answer. Everyone in this body knows what the right thing to do is. Every American watching knows what the right thing to do is, and that is to help the brave Marine Corps heroes and their families who have sacrificed for decades to serve our Nation.

I have spoken to many of my colleagues, many of my Democratic colleagues in particular, and I know in their hearts that they also recognize we need to fix this problem.

So what I am asking my colleagues to do, particularly my Democratic friends, is this: Help me fix it.

Now, I want to say something. You are going to need a little courage, like the marines that we are helping. You have a constituency that really does not like my legislation: the trial bar of America. We know they are very powerful. We know that most of my colleagues don't ever want to cross them, and they certainly don't want my bill to pass.

But, again, I ask my Democratic colleagues: Have courage. Do the right thing. Work with me on fixing this problem.

So what is the problem?

Well, I have spoken on the floor about this problem, usually in angry tones because it burns me up. And any American watching who understands this, almost immediately, it burns them up. And the marines and their families, it burns them up as well.

But to be honest, this afternoon I am really down here more in terms of sadness and disappointment rather than anger. But I am going to explain it once again, and if you are watching on TV or watching back at home, give a call to your Senator and say ``Hey. Fix this injustice.'' This is a real easy, easy issue to fix. Here is the problem.

We, a couple months ago, passed here the PACT Act, which was legislation to help military members who have been sickened by burn pits. This is an issue that I have been focused on my whole Senate career, starting with bipartisan legislation several years ago with Senator Manchin, Senator Klobuchar. So that was good. Important. Expensive, but important.

We have got to take care of our veterans and our military. To me, that is the No. 1 priority we should be doing here in the Senate, which is why a provision of the PACT Act--to provide compensation for marines who were sickened by contaminated water at Camp Lejeune--was also considered in the PACT Act. That was important. We should do that for these marines and their families--marines serving in the 1970s, 1980s at Camp Lejeune.

So far, so good. That is what has happened.

But as the legislation of the PACT Act and the Camp Lejeune marines compensation act--it started to become clear something reared its ugly head, and what reared its ugly head

was the legislation was more of a gift to America's trial lawyers than it was to sick marines.

Now, we have all seen these ads. As a matter of fact, this morning, on the radio, I heard a couple of them already. You can't go anywhere, turning on the TV, without a lawyer asking marines to call to get them to help under this Camp Lejeune compensation act. Here we are. We have seen it. Everybody has seen it.

We had a VA hearing about a month ago. I asked the VA, How much do you think trial lawyers have been spending? This is a month ago. They estimated well over a billion dollars a month ago. A billion dollars. A billion dollars.

Do you think that $1 billion is going to go to sick marines and their families? It is not. It is not. Now look, I don't blame the marines who are dialing these 1-800 numbers. They are getting bombarded. If they are sick, they think this is the way they are going to get cured and get their money.

That is not the case. A lot of these are scams, and we know it. A lot of these are scams. The problem right now is if a marine calls one of these numbers, there is no limitation on what the trial lawyer representing the marine can take out of the marine's award. No limitation, no cap on contingency fees, no cap on anything.

And here is the real problem. Everybody saw this problem coming; that is, as opposed to the marines getting compensation for being sick, the trial lawyers of America would be enriched. Everybody saw it coming. And to their credit, the Biden administration saw it coming. So the Justice Department of the Biden administration had recommended in their technical assistance to us here in the Senate that there should be caps on these awards for trial lawyers. Makes sense. This is the Biden administration Justice Department--friends of many of these law firms, but they knew it was the right thing to do. They said 10 percent caps on contingency awards and 2 percent for filing fees. That was the Biden administration's recommendation.

Now, that didn't happen. I won't go into all the bloody, gory details, but as we tried to amend the PACT Act, we wanted an amendment to do that. The Biden administration did, the veterans service organizations did because it was pretty simple. If there is a cap on fees for the lawyers, the marines are going to get more; if there isn't, the trial lawyers are going to get more. We worked it hard.

Unfortunately and sadly--really sadly--my Democratic colleagues blocked all those amendments when we tried to pass the PACT Act.

So what has happened? What the Biden Justice Department predicted, what we all predicted, it is happening. Billions of dollars of ads--see them every day, hear them every day and every night, and marines getting crumbs and trial attorneys getting rich. That is just not right.

There is not one Senator who knows that that is the right thing to do. This is an injustice right now in America, and already some marines have lost money because of these scams. Some of these firms are promising big paydays. Of course, they are asking for money upfront. A recent media story highlighted a marine in Kentucky whose face was actually used in an ad claiming he had received a $35,000 settlement. In fact, he told a reporter he got 35 cents, OK? That is not justice.

So, of course, right now the VA, local governments, veterans groups are frantically trying to warn marines and their families: Hey, don't listen to that, and, Congress, please help us. There are reports that some law firms are charging 50 or 60 percent contingency fees. Are you kidding me?

The veterans groups, the VA itself, the Biden administration VA, are crying out for help--help--no more scams.

Here is what the American Legion said at a recent meeting in a resolution they had passed:

WHEREAS, Predatory law firms charging exorbitant fees have

engaged in aggressive marketing campaigns [hurting veterans].

. . . The American Legion urges Congress to provide the

necessary oversight [for] the implementation of the Camp

Lejeune Justice Act to ensure veterans receive fair

compensation.

That is the American Legion.

I am a member. The VFW has also come out in support of what we are trying to do. So this should be simple. This should be simple.

So what does my bill do? What does my amendment do? I am going to explain it briefly here. The full name of my amendment, my bill, is the Protect Camp Lejeune Victims Ensnared by Trial Lawyers Scams Act, the VETS Act for short. And it is pretty simple. First of all, it just goes back to what the Biden administration had recommended in terms of a cap. Everybody here agrees there needs to be a cap on contingency fees.

They had mentioned 10 percent, as I mentioned, on contingency fees and a 2-percent cap for filing the necessary paperwork.

Now my good friend, the Senator from Illinois, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Durbin, respectfully, I think he is going to speak and say: Well, wait a minute. The normal fee is 33\1/2\ percent, one-third contingency fees. That is actually correct.

But this isn't a normal fee. The reason the Biden administration has a low contingency fee at 10 percent is that the lawyers who are going to receive and help marines get these benefits aren't going to go through big trials. They are not going to go through discovery. It is almost an administrative procedure process to check some boxes. The government doesn't even have a defense in this. So that is why 33\1/3\ percent, the standard fare for contingency fees, has no place in this legislation--no place in this legislation. This is a government administrative process that is going to be made easy, supposedly, in the bill for marines--sick marines to recover compensation and their families.

So when you hear talk about: No, no, it has got to be one-third. That is just not true.

The Biden administration recommended 10 percent. So don't be fooled by that. Americans watching, don't be fooled by that.

So here is another thing.

That is the key to my legislation. The other thing we are saying is because the compensation will come out of other benefits that the veterans receive from the VA, we make sure that the contingency fee is based on the net award, not the total award. Again, that is to serve the marines and their families, not the trial lawyers.

Let me give you one final thing my legislation does, and I don't think there is any Senator who disagrees with this. And I am pretty sure the chairman of the Judiciary Committee does not disagree with this. Somehow, in the VA-implemented regulations on the implementation of this legislation, they issued a reg that makes sure that trial lawyers get paid before the sick marines and their families.

They what? Yes, right now. Now that is crazy. Everybody, including lawyers, knows that the client gets paid and then the client pays the lawyer. It shouldn't be the lawyer gets paid and then the client gets paid. That is crazy, especially if the client is a sick U.S. marine. And I even think my colleague Senator Durbin agrees with that. So that is the other piece of this legislation.

We could fix that overnight by having the Secretary of the VA take a relook at that reg and say: Hey, that is wrong. Let's rescind that. I would welcome if Secretary McDonough would do that.

Well, I am going to keep fighting for this issue. This is an urgent issue. Payments under the Camp Lejeune Act will start early next year. The ads that we saw that I showed you here are likely to intensify over the holidays to try to ensnare even more marines into these schemes.

But here is what I am going to do: I am going to withdraw my amendment. I am not going to force a vote on this amendment this afternoon because I want to get to a law, and I had a feeling that unfortunately my amendment was not going to get passed in this Senate on this vote this afternoon.

So I want to work with Senator Durbin, Senator Blumenthal, other Members on the other side of the aisle to do what we all know is the right thing--to pass a law that emphasizes what we all thought the bill was doing in the first place in the PACT Act, to take care of sick marines and their families and not enrich trial lawyers.

Again, I urge my colleagues to work with me. Like the U.S. marines, have courage to stand up to powerful interest groups who are trying to take more money from individuals who deserve it.

Work with me on this. It is the holiday season. Let's give the marines and their families the gift that they deserve and have earned through courage and sacrifice, not the lump of coal and breadcrumbs, which is the result of this bill that dramatically focuses on enriching trial lawyers at the expense of the U.S. marines. I am committed to work all weekend, all next week, but we need to get this done before we finish this Congress at the end of the year.

Every American knows it. Every U.S. Senator knows it. It is the right thing to do, and I certainly hope my colleagues are going to work with me to make it happen.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois.

He has my full commitment to try to get this done before we leave, and I am willing to compromise on some of these issues. He makes a good point in that, with the Senate's schedule, we are not going to be back here until almost the end of January, and by then, some of these payments will have started to be awarded.

We do not want--and I think the Senator from Illinois agrees with me--situations wherein payments are going by 50, 60 percent to contingency fees. Nobody wants that. We shouldn't want that. That is just unfair. This regulation at the VA is also ridiculously unfair in favoring trial lawyers over sick marines.

So the Senator from Illinois has my commitment. I will work day and night on this issue to try and get it done before we leave--before we leave. Otherwise, you are going to have a lot of marines--sick marines--and their families who are going to get ripped off. We know that that is going to happen, and we shouldn't allow it.

I will work with the Senator from Illinois, as he has got a lot of power as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, on this important issue that, I think, we should all care about. So I appreciate his comments, and I will redouble my efforts on this topic.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I just want to follow on from what Senator Murkowski just said.

Here is our resolution, S. 5066, introduced by Senator Murkowski and myself, and we just want to thank our colleagues for agreeing to this tribute to Congressman Don Young. We miss him every day, and as Senator Murkowski so eloquently stated, we are naming buildings and job centers--he did a great job on that--but it is great to be able to be naming a volcano, very appropriately a volcano, for Don Young.

So good to be here on the floor with my friend and fellow colleague from Alaska, and it is great to see the majority leader and my colleagues agree to this naming.

Hopefully, we will get this signed into law soon--a volcano, a Federal courthouse in Fairbanks, a job training center, all in the name of our greatest Congressman ever--50 years, half a century almost. Pretty remarkable and really an honor to be here on the Senate floor to watch it get passed.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, nobody wants a strike right now in our country. We have had challenges with supply chains. We have had challenges with finding enough workers with regard to our businesses. Nobody wants a strike.

My amendment would certainly focus on not having a strike but making sure that the sides in this disagreement, between management and labor, get back to work to resolve the problems at hand. It is a simple amendment. It says we need a cooling-off period for 60 more days.

Congress finds itself in another last-minute emergency being rushed to the floor of the Senate. We got the details of this about 24 hours ago on a very complicated subject.

Since 2019, negotiations have been going on between labor unions representing railway employees and the railway industry over employee pay, hours of service, benefits, sick leave--complicated negotiations.

Now that the negotiations have met an impasse, we have been asked to endorse a proposal that the Presidential Emergency Board has endorsed and that the union members have rejected. Complicated.

Barring additional action, as I mentioned, there could be a strike that would harm our economy and workers and families and other businesses. Again, we don't want that.

Here is the other issue: We also don't want Congress to become the de facto endgame for all future negotiations--private contract negotiations--enacting the agreements reached at the bargaining table or having Congress then dictate the terms of minutia in these contracts with regard to sick leave or other things.

Now, I know Senator Sanders has a provision on this. It might be a great idea; it might not be a good idea. I don't know. But we got this 24 hours ago. No hearings, no discussion.

So all I am asking for is a 60-day cooling-off period so the sides can get back to the bargaining table, so the President of the United States and the Secretary of Labor, Secretary Walsh, can get involved and do their jobs. That is it: a cooling off period for 60 days, handing this negotiation back to the parties involved to resolve.

Now, some people say, well, that is just kicking the can down the road. Well, there is precedent for this course of action by Congress. The legislation covering these kind of labor agreements contemplate Congress asking for additional cooling-off periods. We have done this many times before, including in 1986, where it actually worked. A 60- day cooling off period. The sides went back to the bargaining table, and they resolved their issues on their own without the Congress of the United States having to come and dictate terms.

As I mentioned, less than 36 hours ago, we were asked to decide on issues that are complicated, that are important--without necessary deliberations, without congressional hearings to gain knowledge and expertise required to make informed decisions.

My amendment would certainly avoid a strike. We all agree on that. It will give negotiators more time to get to an agreement, and it will not make Congress the entity of last resort in these kind of negotiations where the knowledge of the issues that are very complicated have not been thoroughly studied and have not received the due diligence that I believe every American, every union Member wants us to have. It has worked before. Exactly this kind of amendment has worked before in this kind of situation. It can work again. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to talk about one of the strongest storms in many, many years to hit my State. It was called Typhoon Merbok, and it hit western Alaska late last week and into the weekend. It brought gale-force winds, massive flooding, and loss of power, water, and communications. It has wreaked havoc.

I have just a few photos here. You see a house literally floating away into the ocean; whole communities completely flooded; a giant wave system--again, communities completely flooded in western Alaska.

This is an area of our State dotted with dozens of small villages, nearly all of them, the majority, Alaska Native communities. Roughly about 21,000 people live in these communities in western Alaska with a coastline of roughly 1,300 miles. That is just one little, small part of my State, but that is just about as many miles of all the Florida coastline combined just here in western Alaska. They got hammered.

There are very, very few roads. Alaska has over 200 communities that are not connected by any roads at all, and so it presents many challenges in terms of relief. Unfortunately, the very small number of roads that we have, many were washed away in these communities. The storm knocked out lines of communication, prompted evacuations, and wrenched homes from their foundations, as I mentioned, floating in the water.

The preliminary assessment shows very significant damage to bridges, roads, water treatment plants, bulk fuel tanks, seawalls, breakwaters, airstrips--if you don't have a road, every one of these small communities has an airport, a tiny little airport--generators, powerplants. This was a devastating storm.

But I am proud to say my fellow Alaskans pulled together--the Native communities in particular, as they do so often--to make sure that all residents and particularly the most vulnerable, the elderly in particular, were out of harm's way when this storm came pounding ashore in western Alaska.

Our State and local government emergency management teams, the Alaska National Guard, the Coast Guard, and our first responders have also been working day and night to ensure that communities are safe and that utility services and major infrastructure are becoming operational as soon as possible, but it is still a real challenge.

I will say from the Federal Government's perspective, FEMA has done a good job thus far--a really good job. They immediately got teams on the ground and are working to evaluate the damage. The head of FEMA, whom I spoke to shortly after the storm hit, is on her way to Alaska. The Secretary of Homeland Security just called me today on their focus on this. The Region 10 FEMA Director--which covers Alaska--is also on the ground there.

Thankfully, thank God there have been no reports of death or serious injury, and it is in part because of the resilience of the people in Alaska and the preparation.

Further, donations of food, water, clothes, and other essentials from businesses and nonprofits and just generous individuals throughout Alaska have been pouring in to this community. We are so grateful for all the help that has come.

Even though most Americans are very unaware of this, this was a devastating storm.

Let me talk a little bit about some of these wonderful communities that were hit by the storm. All of these communities--I have spent a lot of time in western Alaska. They are amazing people with an incredible generosity of spirit and thriving Alaska Native cultures. But these are some of the poorest communities in America--the poorest communities in America. Like I said, almost none of them have roads. Several of them do not have any water or sewer--running water or flush toilets. American citizens.

You know, I get a little frustrated in this body whenever there is a lower 48 community that has a problem with drinking water--the latest in Jackson, MS, and Detroit, MI. There is all this money, and they say: Hey, let's fix that aging infrastructure. I get it. That is important. But what I always say is, why don't we fix communities like mine that have no infrastructure, no water and sewer, no flush toilets, no access to the internet, housing where multiple generations are often crammed together?

And here is the thing. These are some of the most amazing people on the planet, and as Americans, they are some of the most patriotic people in the whole country. I always like to brag about Alaska, where there are more veterans per capita than any State in the country. But the Alaska Native people serve at higher rates in the U.S. military than any other ethnic group in America. This is what I call special patriotism. When you go to these small communities, everyone there is a veteran. It really warms your heart as an American.

So we need to help these communities, and we are going to do that. The Senate is going to do that; the Federal Government is going to do that; and the State of Alaska is going to do that.

I do want to make one mention of one issue that is important to me. It is an issue just to fairness, and I am just putting down a marker to make sure we have fairness as it relates to my constituents in this very significant storm that we need help with.

The majority leader was here on the floor recently talking about the impact that Hurricane Fiona was having on Puerto Rico, and we are all thinking about Puerto Rico as well. We want to make sure they are all safe, and that is something we need to be focused on in the Federal Government, in the U.S. Senate.

Now, normally, the Federal Government pays for 75 percent of the costs of

emergency medical care, disaster response, food distribution when those requests are made.

Our Governor just recently declared a Federal disaster for this part of Alaska. The Alaska delegation sent a letter to the President urging him to immediately approve this Federal disaster declaration for Alaska. When this happens, as I mentioned, the Federal Government usually pays 75 percent; others are responsible back home for 25 percent. Sometimes it is even 90 percent and 10 percent.

As I mentioned, the majority leader recently requested, in a floor speech on the Senate floor--and I am fine with the speech--that the FEMA Federal Government pay 100 percent of the costs in Puerto Rico. OK. If FEMA wants to do that, if that is going to happen at the request of the majority leader, here is what else has to happen: Then FEMA must pay 100 percent of the costs in western Alaska, OK. That is a no- brainer. One hundred percent of the costs from FEMA in Puerto Rico, then the great people in western Alaska are going to get 100 percent of the costs paid for as well.

As a matter of fact, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter I led with Senator Murkowski and Congresswoman Peltola to Administrator Criswell, the Director of FEMA, just making note that, hey, if you are going to do 100 percent for Puerto Rico, you need to make sure you are doing 100 percent for western Alaska. I would like to submit that for the Record.

So, Madam President, one of the things that I have always done in my job here in the U.S. Senate is, whenever there is a bill dealing with disaster relief, regardless of what part of the country it is, I always vote for it. The reason I do that is because I come from a State that has earthquakes, that has wildfires, that has typhoons, that has a lot of cold weather. We are tough in Alaska, but every now and then, we are going to need Federal help as well, and now is the time we do.

So we are all going to work together here in the Senate, whether it is Puerto Rico or Kentucky or western Alaska, where there have been a lot of recent natural disasters. We will work together.

I just want to make sure my constituents know: We got your back here in DC. We thank you for your resiliency, toughness, and everybody coming together. We will make sure that, whatever the results are in any of these other natural disasters, that Alaska is going to get the same result as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there has been much made in the Biden administration about the value of diversity, and I agree that having diversity in any organization is positive. You get different viewpoints. But diversity encompasses much more than race or gender or religious orientation. Those are all important. Diversity actually means having people around you with varied experiences. As I mentioned, in my mind, that is certainly important, but it is particularly important in the Oval Office, particularly important in the White House. It is particularly important in the leadership of our Federal Government.

Let's take the example of military experience in this administration. You would think the Biden administration would think it is important to have members in his Cabinet or senior White House officials who have served in the military. After all, he is the Commander in Chief, a very important part of his responsibilities. But, in fact, virtually no one in this administration, with the exception of Secretary Austin, at the highest levels--Cabinet officials, senior White House officials--have any significant military experience at all.

Why does this matter? The President doesn't have it, of course. His Secretary of the VA, Chief of Staff, National Security Advisor--just go down the list. Nobody has any experience.

In the Federal Government of the United States, why does this matter? It matters because it is obvious by the people this President surrounds himself--the people who are giving him advice on big decisions for America--that this President doesn't prioritize military, our national defense, and our troops and their families. This manifests itself in many, many ways.

First, most importantly, it matters in how we fund our national defense. I was on the floor last week, speaking about this very topic. This is President Biden's first budget. You can see this here, what he proposed. It has the increases through every Federal Agency. This was a multitrillion-dollar budget. And it says this is what we are prioritizing as the Biden administration. You can see, heck, double- digits. That is Education and Commerce. And EPA is over 20 percent, and Interior over 15 percent--on and on and on, all the green. It is just a massive expansion of Federal Agencies, except two Agencies: Department of Defense and Homeland Security, the two Agencies that actually protect Americans.

If you look to this line of inflation, which when the Biden administration put out their budget last year was about 4.5 percent, these are actual inflation-adjusted real cuts by about 2 to 3 percent to our military. That was the Biden budget not prioritizing our troops, our national security at all. My view is that that is the No. 1 job of this government. It is not the President's view, not his team's view.

In the interim--that was last year's budget--we had a war in Ukraine. We had the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense testify in front of the Armed Services Committee that we are probably seeing the most dangerous time globally in any time in the last 40 years.

So what about the Biden budget this year?

Mr. President, you did it again.

This is actually EPA, a 25-percent increase--wow.

But here we go, all the big double-digit increases. When you get down to the Department of Defense, with now the 9 percent Biden inflation, we are talking a 5-percent real cut to our military. That is not prioritizing our military.

You are starting to see how this inflation and other things are really impacting our troops. The Army, last week, in an article, suggested that the American military members who are having trouble making ends meet because of high levels of inflation should go on food stamps. You heard that correct. We are going to give the EPA a 25- percent raise. We are going to cut defense spending by a 5-percent real cut, and if you are a soldier struggling because of high inflation to actually put food on the table, you can go get food stamps. That is the perfect example of not prioritizing our military.

I want to unpack this further. The Army is saying that, if our troops don't have enough food to eat, they should look at going on food stamps. But the President finds it absolutely essential to forgive $560 billion in student loan debt just a couple of weeks ago. Who are the preponderance of Americans who will benefit from that lawless bailout? High-earning Americans, the elite--White House staffers, certainly. They are going to get a half-trillion-dollar bailout, and our troops are being told to go on food stamps. This should shock every single American.

So we know the President and his team don't prioritize the military. Look at these budgets or our troops or our national security. But that doesn't mean they don't find the military useful. I am going to put up a picture of a recent speech that, I will tell you, every time I look at it, my blood boils, and so should every American's blood boil.

It is this picture.

Now, every President gives partisan speeches. Now, I don't think it is wise for every President to give the kind of partisan speech that President Biden gave on September 1 in Philadelphia in which he vilified millions, tens of millions of his fellow Americans who don't agree with his administration's policies. Some of you may have seen that speech. The President told the country that many of his fellow Americans, all of whom are Republican, don't ``respect the Constitution,'' are ``destroying American democracy.'' He gave this speech against a blood-red backdrop, fists clenched--look at him-- yelling that millions of his fellow Americans embrace anger--while he embraced anger in his speech--and chaos. This President who continually issues lawless Executive orders, like shutting down the ANWR in my State, his half-a-trillion-dollar student loan bailout, then says that Republicans are ``against the rule of law.'' He went on and on--the insults, very partisan, somewhat deranged, attacking tens of millions of his fellow Americans.

Now, look, Presidents do that. I don't think it is a good idea. But here is the thing about this speech: To make matters worse--look at this--he did all this, a clearly partisan speech, while being flanked by two Active-Duty marines as his political props. Look at that. Look at that--in my view, a sickening abuse of authority from a Commander in Chief who has never served in the military--I think he got five Vietnam deferments--and knows nothing about the Marine Corps' ethos of honor, courage, commitment.

Remember when General Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs--and was Chairman under President Trump as well--released a video where he apologized for standing beside the President, then-President Trump, when that could have been perceived as political.

This is what General Milley said:

I should not have been there. My presence in that moment

and in that environment created a perception of the military

[being] involved in domestic politics.

I thought that was a good speech by General Milley. He made a mistake; he apologized; and that was the right thing to do.

This is much worse. This is much worse. These marines, unlike General Milley, they are being ordered to stand next to the President of the United States while he rants against millions of his own fellow Americans.

The President certainly didn't apologize for this speech. In fact, when criticized by both Democrats and Republicans for the politicization of the military with these marines propped up next to him, the Biden administration actually doubled down in terms of their use of these two Active-Duty marines as political props in a very partisan speech.

Here is what the spokesperson at the White House said:

The presence of [the] Marines at [that] speech was intended

to demonstrate the deep and abiding respect the President has

for [these servicemembers] . . . [for] the ideals and the

unique role our independent military plays in defending our

democracy, no matter who is in power.

This is Orwellian doublespeak. What a bunch of nonsense.

Here is the fact: The presence of these marines was meant to politicize the President's speech and politically benefit from the honor and respect the few and the proud have earned in the hearts of Americans over decades, over millennium. This should disturb every single American, whether you are Democrat or Republican. This was just wrong.

Let me provide another example of the politicization of our military by

the Biden administration. Now, this is something that hasn't gotten a lot of attention. Some people were like, hey, it wasn't a really big deal. I actually think it was a big deal.

We have some of the best service academies in the world. They are the best in the world--the U.S. Naval Academy, West Point, Air Force Academy, Coast Guard Academy. Each of our military service academies has board members, some of whom are appointed by the President of the United States for 3-year terms.

Now, I am honored to serve on the U.S. Naval Academy Board. I was appointed as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Here is the tradition in our country that every single President has abided by: When they come into office, they let the Board members finish out their terms. So, for example, when President Trump was elected, the Obama administration officials, who were President Obama's appointees, finished out the terms on the Naval Academy Board, the West Point Board, and the Air Force Academy Board. That is what we do.

The point is not to politicize the service academies. That has always been the tradition, every single President--except for Joe Biden. When President Biden came into office, he looked at West Point, Annapolis, the Air Force Academy, and somebody said to him ``You know what, Mr. President, let's fire all the Trump appointees. Let's fire them right now, all 18 of them'' to clearly politicize the service academies of America. So that is what they did--something that had never been done before by any President in the history of the country--and they did it regardless of qualifications of the current members serving on these boards. Let me give you some examples.

Retired Army LTG H.R. McMaster was fired off the West Point Board. Ironically, the same day he was fired by President Biden's White House, he was honored by the West Point Association of Graduates as the distinguished graduate of the year of West Point. So one President fires him, and West Point gives him a great honor. GEN Jack Keane, a former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, was fired from the West Point Board; retired Army COL Douglas Macgregor; an Afghanistan war veteran, clinical psychologist Meaghan Mobbs; a Bronze Star recipient and businessman, David Urban; a retired Army lieutenant general, Guy Swan-- 18 qualified people, all fired.

The politicization of the service academies of America was undertaken by this administration--the first President, the first White House ever to do it, all fired by Joe Biden and not allowed to fulfill their terms.

Of course, the Biden administration loves to use our military to push other agendas that have nothing to do with lethality in winning our Nation's wars--many, many examples. Let me give you just a couple. From the beginning, issuing Executive orders not focused on how we have a stronger military but using taxpayer dollars to establish a committee within the Pentagon to do what ended up being witch hunts on so-called extremists in the military, of which--when they came back with their report, they said they had actions of .005 percent. They also issued Executive orders to use taxpayer dollars to mandate transgender transition surgeries for Active-Duty soldiers. Importantly, they become nondeployable when that happens.

So back to my original point, no one in senior positions in the White House or the Cabinet--with the exception of Secretary Austin--has significant military experience, and on so many of these issues, there is no adult in the room.

Think about these White House conversations where they are talking about, hey, let's cut the defense budget, and we will grow the EPA by 25 percent. Well, that is a great idea, Mr. President. Let's make sure we give a partisan speech at Independence Hall, and, oh yeah, let's grab a couple Active-Duty marines to stand right next to the President as his props. That is a great idea, Mr. President. Let's come in and politicize the service academies and fire all the Trump administration appointees--even American heroes like H.R. McMaster, General Keane-- despite the fact that no President had ever done that before. Great idea, Mr. President.

This is really problematic, what we are seeing right now, and that lack of prioritization extends here in the U.S. Senate, unfortunately, as it relates to our military.

As we know with regard to defense budget cuts, in the 2020 NDAA, we had a debate right here on the Senate floor where my colleague the junior Senator from Vermont proposed an amendment to dramatically cut our military, almost by 15 percent, across-the-board cuts. He even actually wrote an op-ed in POLITICO. Remember, this is when Democrats were pushing to defund the police. Here is the op-ed. It is actually called ``Defund the Pentagon: The Liberal Case.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the op-ed ``Defund the Pentagon: The Liberal Case.''

So that was the liberal case, defund the Pentagon. The junior Senator from Vermont wrote that. The majority leader put out a tweet saying he was a proud supporter of the defund the Pentagon amendment. That was right here on the Senate floor.

Of course, there is the National Defense Authorization Act, the No. 1 bill that focuses on national defense for our Nation. That passed out of committee, the Armed Services Committee, in June in a very strong bipartisan vote, 23 to 3. It passed the House in July. We will have pay raises for our troops so the Army doesn't have to tell them go line up for food stamps because they are hungry. And we need to bring it to the floor right here.

So what are we doing? As far as I can tell, the majority leader doesn't want to bring up the Defense Authorization Act until December-- December. That is why I joined a letter led by Senator Tuberville, with whom I serve on the Armed Services Committee, signed by 20 of my colleagues, to say to the majority leader: Mr. Majority Leader, we have a dangerous world right now. Bring the NDAA to the floor. It is going to pass. It has great support.

By the way, I know the Democrat Senators feel this way, too, on this topic.

So we need to get this body back to what is important for our country--bolstering our economy, fighting inflation, bringing down energy costs, unleashing American energy, and definitely passing the legislation that funds our military, that provides pay raises for our troops during this very dangerous time.

So I again ask the majority leader to bring the NDAA to the floor. We need it.

I call on the President and his administration--the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief--to truly prioritize our military and their families, and that begins with putting an end to using them in a disgraceful way as political props for your partisan agenda.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, about 4 years ago, I was part of a meeting with several Senators--there were about 11 of us--here in the U.S. Capitol with the Chinese Ambassador. And in the meeting, I had raised a number of issues about the lack of reciprocity that China has with regard to the United States: market access on our trade; their ability to invest here but we couldn't invest there; the fact that they have all kinds of journalists in America and we can't have journalists over there--just across the board on so many things--Confucius Institutes in American universities, no equivalent in Chinese universities. No reciprocity on so many topics.

And I will never forget the response of the Chinese Ambassador to the United States. With 11 U.S. Senators right there, he said: Well, Senator, I agree there is a lack of reciprocity in a number of areas, but that is because China is a developing country.

China is a developing country. That is what he said just 4 years ago. And my response was: Mr. Ambassador, with all due respect, can you please stop using that talking point about your country being a developing country? It is kind of an insult to all of our intelligence. And to be honest, you are not a developing country. The American people know it; the world knows it; and you need to stop telling everybody and using that as a crutch.

What does that have to do with the amendment that I just called up?

Well, today, before we vote on the Kigali treaty, I have an amendment that I am asking all of my colleagues here in the Senate to support. I am not talking about the merits of the Kigali treaty itself. There is an element of this treaty that raises a principle that is at stake right now that is so important with regard to China, the United States, and the rest of the world.

This treaty that we are getting ready to vote on continues to classify China as a ``developing country.''

Why does that matter?

Well, as I mentioned, it is a facade. China is not a developing country; it is the second largest economy in the world. It is one of the most industrialized countries in the world. It has one of the biggest militaries in the world. The World Bank even now considers China an upper middle income country.

But what China keeps trying to do in international organizations and in international treaties is continue to get the same benefits as truly developing countries, such Ghana, Somalia, Nigeria, Bangladesh. These are the countries that need global assistance, not China.

So my amendment today is very simple to this treaty. It first says that the U.S. Senate concludes:

The People's Republic of China is not a developing country,

and the United Nations and other intergovernmental

organizations should not treat the People's Republic of China

as such.

And then my amendment goes one step further, and it makes the advice and consent of the Senate for this treaty contingent upon the Secretary of State of the United States going to the U.N. and the Vienna Convention Secretariat to file an amendment to the treaty that clarifies that China should be taken off the annex that defines it as a developing country.

So we have a declaration--China is not a developing country--and then it says to the Secretary of State, before you get the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, you shall go to the U.N. and file an instrument that says China should be removed from the list of countries to this treaty that are called developing countries.

And, again, this matters. This matters, for example, on this treaty.

Why?

Because in this treaty, the developing country annex gives those countries under that annex much longer time to implement the treaty, and it actually gives them funding from the U.N. to implement the treaty.

Now, where does that funding come from?

Most of it comes from the United States. So, in essence, right now, the way the treaty is organized, the United States gives the U.N. money to help implement the treaty, and a lot of that money is going to go to China.

Does anyone in the U.S. Senate think that makes sense? Does anyone in America think that that makes sense?

It does not.

Furthermore, on this treaty and on so many other international agreements, whether at the U.N. or other places, when you give China more time for implementation, particularly as it relates to the global environment, all you are doing is harming the global environment.

China is a developed country. China is an industrialized country. The U.S. Senate, the international organizations where China is a member, need to start recognizing this.

So I am proud to say I worked closely with Senator Barrasso and Senator Lee on this amendment. I actually wish it were stronger.

Senator Barrasso was here on the floor, talking about his amendment. I actually think that is the preferred way to go, but we couldn't get agreement in terms of the Barrasso amendment, so I am encouraging all of my colleagues to vote on this principle: The U.S. Senate, on any international agreement or any international treaty, should no longer agree to the obvious. China is not a developing country; it is an industrialized country, and we should make clear in the Senate and in

international organizations that that is the view of the United States, and we need to encourage the Secretary of State, which is exactly what my amendment does, to make sure the U.N. and other countries agree with us on that.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, my colleague from Tennessee was just talking about priorities of this administration and this Senate, and I want to continue on that area of focus, relating to what many of us believe is probably the most important priority we have in the U.S. Senate, and that is defending our Nation.

Budgets are a reflection of an administration's values and an administration's priorities. And as I mentioned, many of us--and I believe on both sides of the aisle--see that the No. 1 priority we should have in the U.S. Senate is making sure we are a strong nation, to defend this great country of ours and to make sure we have the most lethal, well-trained military anywhere in the world, and that we take care of our troops and their families.

But this is not what this administration--the Biden administration-- believes at all. In fact, President Biden's budgets clearly not only do not prioritize our military; they put them consistently last. And that is not a one-time thing. This is a pattern with this administration.

Here was the President's proposed budget last year. Take a look at it. We all know it was trillions and trillions. Department of Commerce, 28 percent increase. EPA, 21 percent. Interior, 16 percent--on and on. There are double-digit increases everywhere except--except--in the two Agencies that actually protect the Nation: the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.

Last year, the Biden budget put forward a budget that, if it was adjusted for inflation, was almost a 3-percent cut to the Department of Defense.

Priorities matter. This administration has not prioritized our military at all.

Guess who was really pleased by that budget, by the way? The dictator in Beijing and the dictator in Moscow. No doubt when they saw that, they loved it.

Thankfully, the Armed Services Committee, on which I sit, said: Do you know what, Mr. President? With all due respect, this is nuts. We are not going to stand for this.

We put forward in the National Defense Authorization Act last year a 3-percent real increase to the Department of Defense budget. It was very bipartisan in the committee, a complete rebuke to the President of the United States, saying: We don't believe in cuts. We are going to increase. The appropriators, thankfully, did the same.

So that was the Biden administration's prioritization of our military last year.

Now, what happened between last year and this year, when the most recent budget came out? Well, I think a lot of us know, but I am going to talk a little bit about it.

Russia invaded Ukraine, and at an April Armed Services hearing, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, said that the invasion was ``the greatest threat to the peace and security of Europe and perhaps the world in any of my time of 42 years in uniform.''

So this is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying we are likely seeing one of the most dangerous periods anywhere in the world in terms of national security in the last four decades.

That was testimony from the President's own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

That is Russia. And, of course, their ally China is also taking incredibly aggressive actions all around the world. They are beginning to outcompete our country on many fronts--critical minerals, energy, technology.

Certainly, Xi Jinping, the dictator of Beijing, has increased China's aggression all around the world--in India, threatening to invade Taiwan, economic aggression toward Australia, snuffing out liberty in Hong Kong.

What else has China done? It is dramatically increasing its defense spending--more than 7 percent this year--increasing a navy that is almost becoming larger than ours.

This is how General Milley, again, put it in a hearing last April:

We are now facing two global powers, China and Russia, each

with significant military capabilities, both of whom intend

to fundamentally change the current rules-based global order.

We are entering a world that is becoming more unstable and

the potential for significant international conflict between

great powers is increasing, not decreasing.

So that is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, again.

Now, what do you think the President did, seeing we had this incredibly dangerous period internationally, with his next budget? Last year, as I mentioned, he cut the Pentagon defense budget by almost 3 percent and dead last with Homeland Security in terms of Agencies.

So did he listen to his Chairman? Does he really think it is that dangerous? Let's see.

This is this year's defense budget and other priorities from this administration's multitrillion dollar budget, and, once again, you see the EPA coming in at a 24-percent increase. Commerce, HHS, and Labor are all double-digit--Interior, DOJ.

What about the Department of Defense? It is a 4-percent increase with almost 9-percent inflation. We are talking close to a 5-percent real cut to the Department of Defense. This is outrageous.

Last year, the President put forward almost a 4-percent cut to defense spending. In the interim period, we had one of the most dangerous wars that has happened--certainly in Europe and maybe in the world--in a generation. The President's own Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff come before the Senate Armed Services Committee and say it is an incredibly dangerous time--a period, maybe, in almost 50 years in

which we haven't seen so many threats to the international order. And the President does what? He, once again, prioritizes our defense almost dead last--almost dead last. Adjusted for inflation, it is a 5-percent cut.

Now, with this posture hearing for the Secretary of Defense and Chairman Milley, I asked the question: Gentlemen, with all due respect, you just said it is the most dangerous period in almost the last 50 years. How can you come before this committee and put forward a budget that is almost a 5-percent cut to the Department of Defense and our troops?

They didn't have a good answer. The truth of the matter is, I am quite certain that the uniformed military and probably even Secretary Austin do not support this budget, but they are good soldiers. They had to salute the Commander in Chief and try to support it. But we don't have to support it, and I know the American people certainly don't support it. Once again, I do know two people who support it. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping look at this, and this is something they are very pleased with.

Once again, the Armed Services Committee, when we met to mark up the NDAA, voted in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion--23 to 3--to, once again, dramatically rebuke the President in a bipartisan way and significantly increase the top line for the Department of Defense to make sure we have a strong nation and that our troops are taken care of and their families by almost $45 billion over what the President requested. It was a bipartisan rebuke, once again, of this administration that won't prioritize our national security and that keeps putting forward budgets that prioritize the defense of our Nation last.

We also started in this NDAA to course-correct, which we need to do dramatically at the Pentagon. We have had civilian leadership, primarily driven by the Biden administration's far-left nominees, who have not been focusing the Pentagon on its top priority, which is to win our Nation's wars and to make sure we have the most lethal military of any country in the world. So I was able in this NDAA to put forward some amendments that I was glad to get bipartisan support on, that are in the current NDAA, to start a course correction.

First, one of my amendments directs the Pentagon to discontinue any further investment in the DOD-wide effort to root out so-called extremism within the ranks. This has been an obsession of the civilian leadership at the Pentagon, many of whom know nothing about the military. It is an obsession, given the incredibly low rate of extremist activity in our military as determined by the Secretary of Defense's own working group on this topic.

The press didn't write about that because they love to kind of weave into the story that somehow our military is full of extremists. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle play that up too. One Senator, at one point, said 10 percent of the military might be extremist--a ridiculous besmirching of the men and women in our armed services. The actual report from the Secretary of Defense's office found fewer than 100 cases of extremist activity in a total military force of over 2 million people. When you do the math, that is less than .005 percent.

So let me be clear: Extremism has no place in our military and must be rooted out when discovered, but these numbers simply don't warrant the time and investment that our senior military has put into this issue. So, in the NDAA, we have said we are not funding it anymore.

There is a second issue in the NDAA for which I was able to put forward an amendment. The Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force, according to press reports, were starting to devise a policy that would allow each servicemember to veto their duty assignment if they disagreed with the laws and regulations in a State or in a community where they were going to be assigned by the military.

Could you imagine the chaos that would result if every soldier, marine, sailor, or airman could say: ``You know, I don't want to go to California; its regulations on the Second Amendment are overly burdensome on my Second Amendment right,'' or for any other reason?

So we said, in the NDAA, a policy that gives service men and women the ability to veto their assignments based on whether they want to go somewhere or not is not the way our military is going to operate. That has been nipped in the bud.

Finally, there is a very simple amendment that I put forward that just provides clarity to the men and women of the Department of Defense. All it does is remind them of what their job is. The military is too often asked to do so many different things--to focus on climate change and to focus on so many other issues. The military has one job: to provide combat-credible military forces needed to deter our adversaries, to protect the security of our Nation, and to win our Nation's wars when called upon to do so.

I put forward an amendment that said just that: Here is your priority, and here is what you are supposed to do. It is needed because of all of the things that our top civilian leaders are now telling the troops they should be focused on. They should be focused on prevailing in a war if they are called on to do so, and that is what my amendment did. Believe it or not, a number of Senators voted against it, but that also made the Defense Authorization Act this year.

In addition to significantly increasing the Department of Defense's authorized budget, we are starting to, once again, get the military focused on their primary job: lethality and winning wars.

So we need to bring the NDAA to the floor. We have passed it 66 years in a row. As I mentioned, the administration's priorities are clearly not with regard to national defense and our military. We can tell by the budget that has been put forward. In the Senate, priorities are often determined by the time on the floor to get a piece of legislation moving. It is clear to everybody who has been here that the majority leader does not prioritize the military in the same way that the President of the United States doesn't.

We passed the NDAA in June--the Armed Services Committee did--in a huge bipartisan vote. The House passed its NDAA in the House in July. So we are waiting to bring up one of the most important pieces of legislation we work on every year: the legislation that sets the policy and funds our troops and their families.

Where is it?

Senator Schumer, where is it? When are we going to bring it up?

You have Democrats and Republicans who are looking at this floor time in September, saying: We need to bring up the NDAA.

The rumor, right now, is that the majority leader plans to bring it up in December.

Think about that, America.

I don't even know what we are doing right now on the Senate floor-- minor nominations. We should be bringing up the NDAA to protect this country and to make sure the men and women in our military know we have their backs. Right now, nobody has any idea--maybe the majority leader does--as to when we are actually going to bring this most important bipartisan piece of legislation to the floor.

This is why I joined in a letter that we sent out today, led by Senator Tuberville, who serves on the Armed Services Committee with me, signed by 20 of my colleagues. By the way, I know it would have been signed by some Democratic colleagues as well. They didn't want to put their names on the letter, but they feel the same. It says to the majority leader: You control the Senate. You control the priorities of this body. Bring up the NDAA by the end of September.

Here is the letter. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, the letter says:

At the founding of our nation, then-General George

Washington penned, ``When the civil and military powers

cooperate, and afford mutual aid to each other there can be

little doubt of things going well.''

As General Milley said, at one of the most dangerous times in recent history, it is vital that our civil and military powers cooperate.

What we need to do in this body right now is get back to the important work of bolstering our economy, of fighting inflation, of bringing down energy costs, of unleashing American energy, and, most importantly, of passing the NDAA so we can bolster the national security of this great Nation in very dangerous times.

I call on the majority leader, along with 20 of my colleagues and some of my Democratic colleagues, to bring the NDAA to the floor and not wait until the end of the year, which is what we hear he is planning to do.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, we have a true crisis--a humanitarian crisis, a national security crisis--right now on our southern border.

It is a huge tragedy that my Democratic colleagues want to ignore, and that tragedy has spread across our Nation--crime; victims of human trafficking, many of them children; a fentanyl epidemic killing our young people; chaos--all fueled by a lawless border.

Secure borders work. Walls work. Just ask the Biden administration, as they are quietly building sections of the wall in Arizona right now.

The Democrats' partisan reconciliation bill does nothing--nothing--to address this crisis.

Instead, it gives DHS $500 million for sustainability and environmental programs when our kids are dying from drugs streaming in from the border, when our communities are under siege. This should not be the priority for DHS.

My amendment would take this half a billion dollars and recommit it-- this DHS money--to building the wall and securing our border, which is DHS's primary mission, not environmental programs.

I ask that all my colleagues vote yes on this commonsense amendment.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I want to compliment my friend from Delaware. He and I do work together on a number of issues. We are going to part ways on this really important issue for me today. I do want to just make a comment to his comments.

I would say--I wouldn't say--I know there is no group that has suffered more at the hands of the Biden administration's Executive orders and far-left environmental groups than Alaska Natives. I know that for a fact.

I would invite my colleague to come up to Alaska with me, and I will take him to these communities. They can't do anything--no jobs, no nothing--because every far-left group in America wants to shut down their opportunities. It happens all the time.

So I would love to take him and others up to Alaska to let them see that when people talk about Alaska Native groups and try to speak for them. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do that. No

way. You are not going to get away with that on this one.

Mr. President, we have a resolution that we are going to be voting on here in about 10 minutes. This is my Congressional Review Act resolution, and I have spoken on the Senate floor a number of times about this.

The CRA today, what we call a CRA, is quite simple. It would rescind the new Biden administration's NEPA rule--that is the National Environmental Policy Act rule--promulgated in April, which will clearly have the impact of slowing down the construction of literally every infrastructure project in America: the construction of roads, bridges, wind, solar, hydro--heck--even chip fabrication facilities, critical mineral projects. Pretty much everything is going to be slowed down by this.

It is pretty straightforward. Our resolution just says: We want to rescind the resolution, the regulation, from April.

But the vote on this is much more significant than just one Senate resolution. It is a test for all Senators on two key issues.

First, are you really serious about permitting reform so that America can build the infrastructure that everybody knows our country desperately needs?

Second, who do you stand with--the working men and women of our great Nation who build things or the far-left elite special interest groups who want to shut this country down?

Let's take these two issues in order.

First, permitting reform. My colleagues know this is a passion of mine. Actually, it is a passion of a number of Senators. It sounds wonky; it sounds boring; it sounds technical--``permitting reform.'' But in reality, it is so important for our Nation--for every community in America, for the dignity of work, for good jobs in this country.

Here is why: We used to build big things in America--engineering marvels on time, on budget--the source of pride for literally all Americans and the envy of the world. We did that all the time. Think about it: the Empire State Building--410 days to build; the Pentagon, the biggest building in the world--16 months; a little closer to home for me is the 1,700-mile Alaska-Canadian Highway through some of the world's most rugged terrain--11 months; the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system that feeds a hungry nation with energy from Alaska to the lower 48--800 miles with 70,000 sections of 48-inch pipe joined and welded together, 3 mountain ranges, 800 river beds from the Arctic Ocean to the Pacific--3 years. Incredible.

Why did we do this? Why can we do this? Why can we still do this in America? Because we have the best workers--the most productive workforce--in the world.

Unfortunately, those days of building great things in America in an efficient, timely fashion are gone. We all know it. Every mayor knows it; every city council member knows it; every Governor knows it; and, yes, every U.S. Senator knows it.

We see it every day. We don't see the great building of things, but we see the other things: 8 to 9 years to permit a bridge--yes, in America, to permit a bridge; 9 to 19 years to permit and build a highway. The Gross water reservoir in Colorado, for clean water, took 20 years to permit. The Kensington mine, which is a gold mine in Alaska that is now employing hundreds of people with an average wage of $110,000--really good jobs--took 20 years to permit with litigation.

This is killing our country, our economy, and good jobs. We all know it, and we all know the reason for it. Every single Senator knows the reason: a broken Federal permitting system that has turned into a labyrinth of redtape; a system that invites and incentivizes delay and litigation by groups whose goal is to shut down the building of our country. Everybody knows it. It is a fact.

Now, how can I be so sure? Because everybody in this body likes to talk about the need for permitting reform so we can get back to building this country and putting Americans who do these hard jobs to work.

Last year, I worked hard with a number of my colleagues on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which I voted on. In the EPW Committee--and my colleague from Delaware is still here--we got some important permitting reforms in it. That was good. They were not enough, in my view, but it was a good start.

Today, as we consider Senator Schumer's reconciliation bill, which I will oppose, we are all now being assured that Senator Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, and even the President are fully committed to additional robust permitting legislation in the fall, sometime in the future, once their massive tax-and-spending reconciliation bill passes. So everybody is talking about permitting. We all know we need it.

But here is what happened. In the meantime, between the ``important but not as ambitious as I would have liked'' permitting reforms in the infrastructure bill last fall and all of the talk of permitting today, something happened. What happened?

The Biden administration promulgated a new NEPA rule, supported by far-left environmental groups, that will clearly have the effect of slowing down the permitting of infrastructure, inviting endless litigation and putting people out of work. No one who has seriously looked at this broad, nebulous, and destructive Biden rule disputes this. I have read it. It is a delay bomb for infrastructure.

So here is the first test. It was noted in a very good, recent Wall Street Journal editorial this week. It is this: If my colleagues--all of my colleagues but especially my Democratic colleagues--really support permitting reform so we can get back to building America, let's get rid of this destructive, overbroad, vague, litigation-inviting rule. Vote yes on my resolution. Right now, 50 Republican Senators are cosponsors of this resolution.

To my Democratic colleagues, join us. Do the right thing for America. We all know that this is the right thing for America.

Here is the second test. I asked you to join us in doing the right thing for America. Join us in doing the right thing for the working Americans and building trades that heroically built this country and continue to do so today.

Now, I love this photo. It is iconic. It says so much, and I have had it on the floor a number of times. But these are the kind of men and women who built this great Nation--hard-working Americans who are doing incredible stuff. That is a lunch break, by the way, in the building of the Empire State Building.

This shouldn't be hard to support the men and women who build this country, and this shouldn't be hard for my Democratic colleagues who often claim to support the working men and women of America. In the past, I certainly will acknowledge that that has been true, but today-- and I have learned this lesson the hard way back home in Alaska. Today, whenever national Democrats have to choose between the interests of the far-left elite environmental groups and these men and women who produce things and build things in America, they sell out the working class every time--every time. I see this every day in my State.

I mentioned this in a Congress committee hearing a few months ago. One of my Democratic colleagues, who is a friend--and almost everybody on the other side of the aisle is a good friend of mine--got upset with me.

He said: Hey, that is not true. You shouldn't have said that.

Well, here is what I say: All right. Prove it.

Today's vote is a chance to prove me wrong or to prove me right. Here is why, and this is really important.

Let's look at the lineup of the groups that support my resolution today and those that oppose it. These are just some of the 50 groups in America that are supporting my resolution that we are going to vote on here in a couple of minutes, and I am very proud of this incredible, broad, and diverse groups of Americans who are saying to vote yes on the Sullivan resolution. They all have one thing in common: They produce things and they build things for this great Nation.

Take a look at this chart. It is kind of hard to decipher who is on it. Let me give you a couple.

The American Farm Bureau: So this is all of our farmers and cattlemen--all of our cattlemen, farmers and ranchers, and ag retailers.

The National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association: These are the guys who build infrastructure.

It is the same with the Associated General Contractors of America, the same with the U.S. Chamber, the same with the National Association of Manufacturers, the same with the American Mining Rights Association.

Of course, the entire energy sector is supporting this, groups from Alaska, the resource development sector, groups from West Virginia, and groups from Ohio. This is a huge, broad-based group of supporters.

I will tell you this. I am most proud of the strong, robust support for my resolution from organizations that represent the men and women who build stuff and keep our country's economy humming.

Take a look at some of them: The North America's Building Trades Union--that is all the unions that build things. The Laborers' International, LIUNA--that is the largest construction trade union in the country. The Operating Engineers--these guys do everything. Another trade union: the Alaska Teamsters, the Alaska AFL-CIO.

These are the great men and women who built this country and built the middle class of America. I have the utmost respect for them, and, indeed, my family is part of this labor union heritage. My great- grandfather was one of the cofounders of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. That is a source of pride in my family.

But here is the question: Why are they all strongly supporting my resolution to rescind the Biden NEPA regulations? It is a simple answer: because they know that these are job-killing regs. They know that these are the types of regs in America that delay or indefinitely stop the building of infrastructure in our country, and their members are the ones who suffer the most. And the dignity of the work--the dignity of work that we all say we care about--also suffers.

Don't take my word for it. Here is what some of the leaders of these organizations have said--and they are great Americans. Let me begin with Terry O'Sullivan, the head of the Laborers' International. This was his letter to the Biden White House when they were contemplating this rule in April. Just take a look. He said:

The rollback of updates to NEPA reinstates burdensome

requirements that will cause excessive permit delays and

allow project adversaries--

Far-left environmental groups--

to use frivolous lawsuits--

Which they always do--

to disrupt or upend long overdue construction. Once again,

communities in need of vital infrastructure and the hard-

working men and women who build America will be waiting as

project details are subjected to onerous reviews.

That was Terry O'Sullivan saying: Don't issue the rule.

They ignored him. They ignored him because they chose the interests of the far-left environmentalists.

Here is James Callahan writing in support of today's resolution. He is the head of the Operating Engineers. You want to talk about great unions--LIUNA, Operating Engineers--these are men and women who build things. This is an incredible statement, and he nails it. This guy really knows what he is talking about.

Since its modest beginnings, NEPA has evolved into a

massive edifice, capable of destroying project after project,

job after job, in virtually every sector of the economy.

Dilatory strategies employed by the project opponents--

Far-left environmental groups--

frequently exploit provisions in NEPA, weighing down

projects, frustrating communities, and raising costs to the

point that many applicants, whether public or private, simply

walk away.

And when they walk away, it kills jobs. That is from James Callahan's letter, 1 of the 50 groups that is supporting this resolution.

The men and women who build our Nation support my resolution, like so many groups.

So who is opposed? Well, it is pretty simple. It is pretty obvious. It is the usual groups of far-left, coastal-elite environmental groups that I see every day in Alaska trying to crush jobs and stop infrastructure and put people out of work.

I will just give you few. You know, they are the usual suspects: Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, CODEPINK--I am not sure why they jumped in on this--Friends of the Earth.

By the way, if you are watching this speech, go take a look at some of those websites and see what they stand for. So that is who is opposed.

One more point that I think is important to raise. To be honest, there is something else going on here. Not only is there always opposition by those groups to building anything in America--including my resolution--regardless of how many pink slips result from the actions of these groups to shut down things, there is sometimes a subtle and not so subtle condescension looking down on the Americans who build things. Workers can feel it. Workers can sense it.

No one epitomizes this condescending elitist attitude toward American workers more than this guy. You might remember that last year, around this time, he was asked if the Biden administration's Green New Deal policies would put American coal and natural gas workers out of work and end their livelihoods. John Kerry responded:

What President Biden wants to do is make sure that those

folks--

Men and women who build stuff, coal miners, natural gas workers--

have better choices--

Better choices--

That they can be the people who go to work to make solar

panels.

Sure, ``better choices,'' from a guy who flies in a jet, owned a 76- foot yacht, several mansions, and has the carbon footprint of a small nation. Yet he tells American energy workers to go make solar panels, when the Biden administration's regulations are killing their jobs.

I will end with this, back to the workers: When you are voting today, keep the heritage of these men and women in mind. The Biden NEPA rule that we are trying to rescind today will kill jobs. I am sure it has already killed jobs. That is why we need to rescind it.

This should be an easy vote for all of my Senate colleagues today. If you really care about permitting reform, so we can get back to building things in America, you should vote yes. If you really put the interests of working men and women like these incredible Americans over those of elite far-left environmental groups, you should vote yes. And if you truly support the men and women who build this country, feed this country, and grow this country, you should vote yes.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays on this resolution.

Madam President, I just want to thank my colleagues for the vote that just occurred here on the floor of the Senate. It was a bipartisan victory, 50 to 47, on the Congressional Review Act that I had put forward with all of my Republican colleagues to rescind the onerous, job-killing Biden administration rule that came out in April that would make it harder to build things in America. It would make it harder to employ people, especially our incredibly productive American workers.

So that just passed. That was a repudiation of the Biden White House in a bipartisan vote on the Senate floor.

Here is the thing. Even my Senate colleagues--because I was working the vote pretty hard down there in the well--even my Senate colleagues who voted against it, several of them came up to me and said: You know what. You are right. We have really got to fix NEPA. It is killing the country. It is killing our ability to do anything. So that was an important vote, but a good conversation is starting here.

We have the best workers in the world. If we let them build, we can do great things again in terms of building this country and not let redtape, far-left environmental groups, regulations, and endless litigation stop us.

So I also want to thank all the groups that supported this resolution.

I had a bigger sign down on the Senate floor when I was giving an earlier speech, but the groups that were supporting this legislation are very diverse. There are over 50 groups of men and women who produce things, grow things, and build the country. I want to thank them for the great support of this Congressional Review Act that just passed.

I really want to give a shout-out to the building trades, the laborers, the operating engineers, and the trade unions that are doing such a great job building this country who want to work. They know these regulations are killing workers' ability to get good jobs.

We have a long way to go to fix the broken system of permitting in America and the endless litigation by environmental lawyers who want to stop everything, but today was an important start and an important vote on the floor of the Senate, showing America that a bipartisan group of Senators will stand up to these far-left groups and say: Hey, you know what? We gotta build. We need to build. And that was the message here.

We are going to try to move this in the House and get it on President Biden's desk. He says he is blue-collar Joe. Well, let's see if he is blue-collar Joe when this comes to his desk and he would veto or not veto something that all the building trades in America support.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, after World War II, European leaders looked to the United States to help heal a fractured world and to help provide safety against increasing communist Russian aggression. As Winston Churchill said:

There I sat with the great Russian bear on one side of me

with paws outstretched and, on the other side, the great

American Buffalo.

Well, the Buffalo prevailed, NATO prevailed, and the world's most successful and enduring military alliance was born.

In 1949, the Senate ratified the NATO treaty by a vote of 82 to 13. President Truman was quoted at the signing ceremony of the NATO treaty by saying:

In this pact, we hope to create a shield against aggression

and the fear of aggression . . . For us, war is not

inevitable.

He continued:

Men with courage and vision can still determine their own

destiny. They can choose slavery or freedom--war or peace. .

. . The treaty we are signing here today is evidence of the

path they will follow.

That was when President Truman signed the first NATO treaty.

And, indeed, since the formation of NATO, no world wars have broken out, no country that is a signatory of NATO

has been invaded by another country's military forces. In fact, the only time NATO's article V--which is the pillar of the alliance, which states that an attack on one is an attack on all--was invoked was actually after the terrorist attacks on America on 9/11. Our allies came to our help to ensure Afghanistan wouldn't harbor terrorists, and we appreciate that help. We appreciate it deeply from our NATO allies.

NATO, however, is more than just a military alliance. It is a group of countries with shared values and beliefs and a commitment to the principles of democracy. All of this, in addition to the military alliance, is the heritage of NATO.

President Ronald Reagan summed it up succinctly in a speech to our NATO allies in 1983:

What do the Soviets mean by words like democracy, freedom,

and peace? Not, I'm sorry to say, what we mean.

Replace the word ``Soviet'' with ``Russia,'' and the sentiment, unfortunately, holds true today. We see the antithesis of these democratic values and shared beliefs of NATO being played out in real time before us in the streets of Ukraine, where Vladimir Putin is leading a brutal assault on Ukraine--Russia's democratic neighbor--and committing atrocities, horrible atrocities, against the brave people of that country.

As both Presidents Truman and Reagan remarked, members of the NATO alliance are like members of the same house in the same family--the house and the family of democracy.

So, today, the U.S. Senate will welcome the nations of Sweden and Finland into the NATO family. Like any family, we may not agree on everything, but when it is most important, we will have each other's back. That is the essence of NATO and the core reason for its success.

Neither Russia nor any other country will be able to invade Sweden or Finland, now that they have become members of NATO, without its NATO allies coming to their support.

Of course, Finland has experienced the Russian invasion. In 1939, where, without the help from other nations, its greatly outnumbered brave Finnish army fought off over 1 million Russian forces for 3 months. But that won't happen again to Finland. It won't happen to Sweden. They won't be alone now.

We welcome these countries' commitment to freedom and their advanced professional militaries, which will make NATO stronger.

To Finland and Sweden, no longer will you be working with NATO. You will now be working in and part of the greatest defense alliance in history. So welcome to these great countries.

As Churchill once said:

There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies,

and that is fighting without them!

I strongly support the inclusion of these two great nations, Sweden and Finland, into the NATO alliance. Important occasions like this are also an opportunity to reflect on the obligations of membership, not just for these new NATO members but for all NATO members.

And on the heels of the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014, the heads of state and representatives of the then-28 member countries who made up NATO attended a very important summit, a NATO summit, in Wales. There, they agreed upon a common goal for all NATO members that they would spend a minimum of 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense by 2024. This 2 percent of GDP NATO defense spending goal has been strongly supported for decades by American administrations, both Republican and Democratic: Presidents Bush, Obama, Trump, and now President Biden.

At the time, in 2014, of the NATO summit in Wales, 10 of the 28 members of NATO met that 2-percent guideline. Now, 8 years later in 2022, of the 30 NATO country members, we only have 8 of those 30 meeting that 2-percent threshold.

I have a chart here. It lays out the 2-percent goal: who is above it, who is below it. It is many other countries besides the ones that are listed there. But the bottom line is, since Wales and that important commitment, there has not been much progress in NATO on this shared goal and commitment.

Now, I am a very strong supporter of NATO and a very strong supporter of the U.S. military, and I want NATO to endure for decades to come. But alliances can't endure if shared commitments and shared burdens are not met. This is particularly true for democratic alliances like NATO. There must be a sense among the citizens of such countries that all are pulling their weight for the collective defense of the alliance, for the collective defense of each other.

So as I mentioned at the outset, I am calling up an amendment to the resolution. My amendment is to make this commitment clear. It is to announce the U.S. Senate's expectation for all NATO members: the United States, existing members, and now new members--expectations on what has already been agreed to by each NATO country and its citizens.

The amendment is simple. It states the following:

The Senate declares that all NATO members should spend a

minimum of 2 percent of their Gross Domestic Product . . . on

defense and 20 percent of their defense budget on major

equipment, including research and development, by 2024, as

outlined in the 2014 Wales Summit Declaration.

That is it. It is a simple amendment, and I hope it can pass in the next hour by voice vote.

Let me conclude with this: A robust, expanded NATO with Finland and Sweden as new members is needed now more than ever, especially given the brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. We need to fully understand the broader implications of this invasion. We have entered a new era of authoritarian aggression, led by Russia and China's dictators, who are increasingly isolated and dangerous, driven by historical grievances, paranoid about their democratic neighbors, and willing to use military force and other aggressive actions to crush the citizens of such countries. These dangerous dictators, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, are increasingly working together to achieve their aggressive goals.

We must wake up to the fact that this new era of authoritarian aggression will likely be with us for decades. We need to face it with strategic resolve and confidence. The United States has extraordinary advantages relative to the dictatorships of Russia and China, if we are wise enough to utilize and strengthen them: our global network of allies, our lethal military, our world-class supplies of energy and other natural resources, our dynamic economy, and, most important, our democratic values and commitment to liberty.

Xi Jinping and Putin's biggest weakness and vulnerability is that they fear their own people. We should remember this and exploit this in the months and years ahead. NATO, as an alliance, encompasses so many of these powerful comparative advantages: a lethal military, a global network of allies, dynamic economies, and the power of democratic values and the commitment to liberty.

We should all welcome and celebrate the addition of Finland and Sweden to the NATO alliance, but we should also use this moment to recognize the seriousness of the authoritarian threats on the rise all over the world and recommit ourselves, all NATO members, to our obligations of collective defense, moving forward.

I yield the floor.