Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record a letter containing the legal opinion of the Government Accountability Office, no. B-337234, titled ``U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management-Applicability of the Congressional Review Act to 2022 National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision,'' dated July 24, 2025.

The letter provides notification that the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision is a rule subject to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq.

Mr. President, I have three requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader and the senior Senator from Oklahoma be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions from July 17 through July 21.

Mr. President, I want to compliment my friend and colleague from Oklahoma. The One Big Beautiful Bill does have a lot of really

good stuff in it. I think, to be perfectly blunt, my State probably has more good stuff in it than anyone. So I am doing what Senator Lankford is doing, primarily back home in Alaska: really trying to inform my constituents on what is in this bill because it is a really good bill.

Boy oh boy, there is a lot of misinformation out there. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are spreading the falsehoods, maybe because they are a little jealous that they can't legislate as well as we do. But that is for another day.

Mr. President, what I really want to do is do something that I think is probably the best highlight of Thursday speeches in the Senate--I think the pages all certainly agree; they are all nodding-- for the people watching across America. It is the ``Alaskan of the Week.''

This is a great tradition. I have been doing it for many, many years. I try to get down here on the Senate floor on Thursday, wrapping up-- not every week but a lot of weeks. And I like to talk about an Alaskan who is doing something really important for our State, community, maybe the country, maybe the world, and then talk a little bit about what is going on back home. So I am going to do that.

But we also had another neat tradition today here in the Senate: our Thursday lunch group in the Senate on the Republican side. One Senator hosts lunch for his or her colleagues and talks a little bit about their home State. Today was my opportunity to host.

I am not bragging, but I do think when Senator Murkowski and I--and by the way, Senator Collins, with Maine lobster--but when Senator Murkowski and I host, we have good attendance because we have great seafood: fresh halibut, fresh salmon. We did that. I did that again today. It was great. The whole room was decorated with Alaskan perfect peonies. We have great peonies in Alaska too--holy cow.

So this a perfect time for the ``Alaskan of the Week.''

First, I want to give a little snapshot of what is going on back home, what life is like in Alaska right now. The midnight Sun is out. A few weeks ago, I was in Fairbanks, the home of Mary Binkley, who is our Alaskan of the Week--we are going to talk a lot about Mary--and we had our famous Midnight Sun Baseball Game. Thousands of baseball fans across the world, literally, come to see this game, which started in 1906. Some minors, some military guys came together for a baseball game in 1906. It is going strong more than 100 years later.

This year, the Fairbanks Goldpanners played the Glacier Pilots, an Anchorage baseball team that is part of the Alaska Baseball Summer League. Now, this is one of the premier collegiate summer baseball leagues in the country. It is something a lot of people don't know about. I was talking a little bit about it at our lunch today.

Great college players come to Alaska to play baseball under the midnight Sun, and so many of them have gone on to do great things. So many of them have not only gone on to the majors; so many of them have gone on to the Baseball Hall of Fame and have been some of America's greatest players. Think about it. All these guys came up to Alaska to play summer baseball: Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Tom Seaver, Dave Winfield, Randy Johnson, Andy Messersmith. This is hall-of-fame baseball. And we get that in Alaska. It is really a great league. So if you are a baseball fan, make sure you come up to Fairbanks for next year's game.

We were also in Fairbanks a couple of weeks ago, and I had the opportunity to run the Midnight Sun Run 10K. It is a great run--again, people from all over the world. We had 4,000 runners this year. I do it every year. I am definitely getting slower, but it is one fun 10K. It is great. So come on up if you are a racer. You will love that one too.

So while you are in Fairbanks, if you come up for a game or the 10K, make sure you get out on Fairbanks' beautiful rivers, the lifeblood of the community. When you do so, on a sunny summer day on the Chena River or the Tanana, chances are you will spot a vintage-style sternwheel paddleboat belonging to Riverboat Discovery gliding along the channel, carrying passengers through one of the most scenic river routes in Alaska--really, in the world.

If you are one of those lucky passengers, there is a good chance you will catch sight of a familiar figure waving from the shore, and that is 99-year-old Mary Binkley, cofounder of Riverboat Discovery and our Alaskan of the Week.

So let's dive into the Alaska institution that is Riverboat Discovery. This year, we will celebrate--the Binkley family will celebrate--the 75th anniversary of this incredible institution. Now, it is made up of three iconic paddleboats: Discovery I, Discovery II, and Discovery III. Riverboat Discovery shows off the best of Alaska's interior landscape, including a bush plane demonstration, a visit to a recreated Athabascan Native village, and learning about traditional subsistence lifestyles.

For tourists, it is a 3-hour snapshot of Alaskan history. For locals, it is a beloved institution and a summer job for many young Fairbanksans, including my sister-in-law Janine, who many, many years ago worked for Riverboat Discovery.

While Riverboat Discovery preserves the history of the interior, the Binkley family, who has owned and operated Riverboat Discovery for 75 years, has its own great history of Alaskan grit and innovation and hospitality and generosity. The center of that history and that great family, the Binkleys, is Mary Binkley, our Alaskan of the Week.

She was born in Vernonia, OR, in 1926--the youngest of six children. You know that is a tough time in our country's history. Mary's story began in hardship. Her mother passed away soon after her birth. Her father, a logger, couldn't raise the children alone. Her siblings were scattered, but they were bonded for life.

Her brothers, who went on to become fishermen off the coast of rugged Kodiak, AK--rugged but beautiful Kodiak, AK--wanted something for their baby sister Mary. They scraped together a college scholarship fund, determined that Mary would be the first in the family to attend college. Isn't that great--brothers taking care of the little sister?

So Mary, from Oregon, journeyed north to the University of Alaska Fairbanks, where she had a cousin who was a professor there. It was at UAF, as we call it, in Alaska, that she met a young, handsome riverboat captain named Jim Binkley, a third-generation steamboater from Wrangell, AK.

They married back in Mary's home State of Oregon in 1946 but quickly returned to Fairbanks that same year. With nothing more than a $4,000 loan and a dream, Jim and Mary purchased their first vessel, the Godspeed, and began a river cruise business that would become synonymous with Fairbanks tourism and the interior Alaska river culture.

Mary greeted every guest personally, often serving as a tour guide, a deckhand, and a hospitality manager all in one. To her, they weren't just tourists; they were her guests. She worked alongside her husband Jim, the captain. And the popularity in Alaska--in America--of this riverboat cruise on one of Fairbanks' great rivers grew and kept growing.

By 1955, the Godspeed could no longer keep up with the demand, so Jim built the Discovery I in his backyard with Mary by his side. Jim called her his ``lifeline and anchor.'' Mary did it all: first mate, deckhand, ticket taker, mother of four kids--who, by the way, have grown up to be pillars of the Alaska community in so many ways. I could do whole speeches on the Binkley kids.

Later, she was a grandmother while watching three generations of Binkleys get involved in this great family business. And they have expanded into other things really important to Alaska. Taking tickets with Mary remains a rite of passage for Binkley grandchildren to this day.

As the tour company expanded, Mary remained its heart--greeting travelers on the riverbanks, hiring Alaska Native guides to share their knowledge and traditions of Native Athabascan life during Chena Village visits, and helping to craft that Alaskan hospitality that guests feel to this day.

``My grandma has the ability to make meaningful connections with

perfect strangers,'' her granddaughter Kai recently said. ``She treats them less like tourists and more like family.'' That is Mary. Everybody who meets her thinks she is incredible.

So this fleet, the Binkley fleet, would grow and continue to grow to Discovery II, launched in 1971, which was a converted freighter; then Discovery III, in 1987, a grand, 900-passenger vessel, launched fittingly on the Fourth of July in Fairbanks. That day, as the boat pulled away from the dock, generations of Binkleys waved from the deck. Waving from the shore was Mary, and she still is waving from that same Fairbanks riverbank at 99 years young.

So what began in 1950 as a modest river tour on a converted missionary boat has grown into the cornerstone of Fairbanks' tourism economy, and Mary has been at the center of it all--welcoming guests, sharing the experience, and setting a tone of genuine hospitality that endures to this day. At 99 years young, Mary is still part of the fabric of the business, waving from the riverbank as Discovery III rounds the river bend.

This weekend, the Binkley family will gather together to celebrate 75 years of operation but, more importantly, 75 years of a family legacy with Mary at the front and center. More than 500 family members and friends and guests from across America and from across Alaska will join Mary at Steamboat Landing this Saturday for a nighttime cruise on the Discovery III, which will be a fitting celebration for this incredible woman and incredible family behind an Alaskan institution.

So congratulations, Riverboat Discovery, to 75 years. And to Mary: Congratulations on one of the most prestigious awards you can ever receive: the Alaskan of the Week from the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 314.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No. 280 and 281, with the exception of Col. Henry R. Jeffress, III, and Col. George H. Sebren, Jr.; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of S. 350, a bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to select and implement landscape-scale forest restoration projects, to assist communities in increasing their resilience to wildfire, and for other purposes, and be referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, July 21; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; finally, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motion with respect to Executive Calendar No. 171 ripen at 5:30 p.m. on Monday.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record a letter containing the legal opinion of the Government Accountability Office, no. B-337200, titled ``U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management--Applicability of the Congressional Review Act to Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan,'' dated June 25, 2025.

The letter provides notification that the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan is a rule subject to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq.

Mr. President, I certainly hope my Democratic colleagues can let us move forward on this, or we are going to stay all night until we get the President's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs confirmed.

Now, look, I know there was some concern about removing General Brown, CQ Brown. I actually really like General CQ Brown. I thought he did a good job. I publicly stated a number of times that he served his country very well.

But here is the deal: The President of the United States is entitled to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that he wants. You look at history, senior military commanders on the Democrat's side, on the Republican's side--if the President doesn't feel comfortable with them, he has the right to remove them and move on. That is just our history. That has happened with Democrats.

George W. Bush wasn't comfortable with Gen. Peter Pace. He is a marine.

I happen to respect him a lot. He said: Hey, I am not comfortable. I am moving to another Chairman.

President Obama fired two very senior, four-star generals inside of 2 years. One was General McChrystal, one of the most seasoned warriors, you know, in a generation of warfighters, and he removed him.

So President Trump clearly had the authority to remove General Brown. He has now put forward General Caine, who, by the way--everybody on the Armed Services Committee thought he did a great job. He is going to get a really big vote here. So why are we delaying it? I don't know. It doesn't make any sense to me.

The President deserves his senior military adviser. That is what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is--his senior military adviser. The President needs to feel comfortable with that person. That person is actually out of the chain of command. We have seen throughout history that when the President doesn't feel comfortable, he can remove one general and bring in another one. That is what has happened here.

We should confirm General Caine immediately. I think he is going to do a really, really good job. As a matter of fact, I have interviewed, sat down with, served under hundreds of flag officers. General Caine is one of the most impressive I have ever met. So we need to get on with it.

You know, there are these press stories about why President Trump removed General Brown. I think it is just because he wanted to have a general whom he trusts and feels comfortable with, and that is exactly his right as the Commander in Chief.

So we should move on. General Caine is going to get a very, I think, significant bipartisan vote. He should. And if the minority leader wants to object, we will just grind it out all night and get it done.

Mr. President, I yield to my good friend from Mississippi.

My good friend from Mississippi, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, by the way--a Senator who knows probably more about the military than anyone else here--has it exactly right.

General Caine has this breadth of experience, not just as a fighter pilot with thousands of hours, combat hours, in flight but has worked very closely with our intel services and has very significant combat experience in Iraq and Syria.

Very interestingly--and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows this--he has private sector experience. You would say: Why does that matter? It actually matters a lot because of our military and the need to integrate our very powerful private sector.

So he brings a wealth of experience that, to be honest--in my 10 years in this position as a U.S. Senator on the Armed Services Committee and my 30 years in the Marine Corps, I have never seen a general that brings it all together. So I think he is going to be outstanding and exceptional.

Mr. President, I would yield to the distinguished minority leader. Maybe having him watch this distinguished debate between me and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee has convinced him to bow to the inevitable, and that is the confirmation of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Mr. President, maybe the minority leader will explain why he is objecting given that we just laid out very cogent, strong reasons that we need to move forward on confirming the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff right now. It is a very dangerous world. Why would we wait? I am curious on what the minority leader says.

I yield the floor if he has an answer.

This Senator yields the floor to answer that inquiry that I asked about.

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

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

Mr. President, I just want the American people who are watching this that care about our national security--the chairman of the Armed Services Committee just had a colloquy here on the floor talking about why we needed to move the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to get confirmed in the Senate here. And I and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, respectfully, asked the question of the minority leader, Democratic minority leader, why are you blocking this? And you may have seen he just walked off the floor.

He didn't answer. I don't know if he has an answer. If he has an answer, it sure would be good to hear what the answer is because we need President Trump's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed. And I bet he gets strong bipartisan support, in terms of his confirmation, because he is very qualified. And yet, without any explanation, the minority leader of the U.S. Senate just said, ``I object,'' and he walked off the floor.

I hope the press reports on that. Holy cow. That is kind of big news. And if we have to be here all night, jamming down on them to get the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed because our country needs it during a very dangerous time, a general who is immensely qualified, then that is what we are going to do.

But it sure would be easier to just agree with us, start moving on the vote, and get this highly qualified general confirmed as President Trump's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

But what you just witnessed, for anyone watching, the American people watching, was a nondebate. My good friend from Mississippi and I were describing why we need to move this forward. The minority leader of the U.S. Senate, who has the power to do it, just said: ``I object.''

Normally, on the Senate floor when someone objects, they explain why. But he didn't want to do it. He just walked off the floor. So that is what we just witnessed. It is a little bit unusual, particularly when it comes to a confirmation that is so important. There are very few confirmations that the U.S. Senate does that are more important than confirming the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And I guess the Democrats are going to block it for now, and we will go all night to make sure President Trump has his principal senior military adviser, which he needs during these dangerous times.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is Thursday here in the U.S. Senate, and it is time for a great tradition--I think one of the greatest traditions in the history of the U.S. Senate. It is called ``The Alaskan of the Week'' speech, which I try to give most Thursdays. It has been a while. For the pages, this is the highlight of the week. Even our friends in the media like this speech because it usually signals the end of the work week, but not right now. You saw the minority leader's objection without any explanation on why on confirming the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, so we might be here for a lot longer.

So I wanted to highlight what is going on in Alaska, as I usually do during my ``Alaskan of the Week'' speech and just give a snapshot of what is happening back home.

It is still pretty cold, still have a fair amount of snow. Anchorage just got a bunch of snow that lasted a couple of days. The 53rd Iditarod just concluded in Nome with a stunning first-time win by Alaskan Jessie Holmes and his 10-dog sled team.

The Iron Dog Race, that is a snow machine race, longest, toughest snow machine race in the world, was won by--that is done in kind of tandem--Robby Schachle and Bradley George, their second victory of the Iron Dog snow machine race.

Things are starting to thaw, as I mentioned. It is beginning of the summer tourism season, right around the corner. The first cruise ship will dock in Southeast Alaska in less than 2 weeks, and thousands of tourists from all over the world will come to our great State.

Anyone watching in the Gallery, we would love to have you. Come to Alaska.

For many of these tourists, this is going to be the trip of a lifetime. For Alaskans, this is where we live every day. And our Alaskan of the Week does something that is very unusual: He is beloved by Alaskans and tourists--not an easy task--and this person is my friend Jay Ramras.

Like many Alaskans, Jay is a jack-of-all-trades. He owns restaurants and beautiful hotels. He has had a successful political career. He is a prolific philanthropist. He loves history. And more importantly, he loves Alaska and especially his great hometown of Fairbanks--by the way, my wife's hometown.

Now, I love to talk about our Alaskan of the Week. There are so many. We have talked about hundreds over the course of many years here on the Senate floor.

Jay was born in Fairbanks in 1964. His father Dan moved to Fairbanks from Brooklyn, NY, in 1948. And as Jay says: There has been a Ramras in Interior Alaska going on 80 years.

And Jay's entrepreneurial resume, which is legendary in Alaska, began in 1986 at the tender age of 22 years old when he started a chicken wing restaurant, expanding his business footprint to other eateries across Fairbanks and, eventually, purchasing the iconic Fairbanks landmark called Pike's Landing.

For anyone going to Fairbanks, you have got to stay at Pike's Landing.

It was this purchase that led Jay to uncovering some really incredible chapters of Alaskan history--as I said, Jay is a real history buff--and he credits this to his bachelor of arts degree in American history, but it all started with Pike's.

So let's talk about Pike's. Pike's Landing was established after World War II when Lloyd Pike claimed land along the Chena River--the Chena River runs right through Fairbanks--under the Homestead Act.

In 1959--by the way, the same year Alaska became the 49th State--Pike opened the original Pike's Landing. Throughout the years, Pike's Landing cemented itself as a landmark in the Fairbanks community.

When Jay purchased Pike's Landing in 2000, he found himself wondering about the history of the property and the man who established the landmark location of Pike's. The original owner had sort of disappeared from history. So Jay asked around, collecting oral histories from Fairbanks old-timers who had seen the growth of Pike's Landing over the decades.

Jay found that Pike's Landing had long faced congestion at the boat launch due to its prime location right there, as I said, on the Chena River. That was a problem Lloyd Pike solved by building a public launch to clear up some of the demand in terms of getting boats on the river.

The original boat launch was washed away when the Chena River flooded--huge flood by the way--in 1968. But decades later, Jay found himself building another boat launch, unknowingly, right at the same spot. As he said: If I hadn't already been born, I would have believed in reincarnation. I would have thought I had been reincarnated as Lloyd Pike because he put his boat launch right where Lloyd Pike lived. Since then, Jay has been working with Fairbanks North Star Borough Historic Preservation Commission to put Pike's Landing on the National Register of Historic Places. I have no doubt that is going to happen. ``It was so important to me that we rescue Lloyd Pike from obscurity,'' Jay said.

But this wasn't the only historical figure that Jay has connected himself

and the community of Fairbanks to. As Jay was in the process of building an aviation-themed extension of his hotel, he felt it needed a real airplane mounted in front to honor the lodge's proximity to the Fairbanks International Airport. While searching, he stumbled on a refurbished Cessna 140 on Craigslist. After purchasing this plane, Jay discovered it had been owned by none other than Noel Wien.

The Presiding Officer is a pilot. Maybe he knows who Noel Wien is. For those who don't, Noel Wien is considered the father of Alaska aviation--the first pilot to successfully fly from Anchorage to Fairbanks in 1924. Wien went on to found Wien Airlines, a commercial airline that operated in Alaska for nearly 60 years.

As the Presiding Officer knows, these were some intrepid pilots. That was 100 years ago he did that first flight--open-air cockpit, really cold.

Jay's interest in history, once again, piqued, and he dug into that period and discovered some great photographs of Noel Wien, Wien Airlines, and had a great celebration last year in July of 2024, celebrating the 100th anniversary of that historic flight in Alaska. Really, that was a historic flight for America. My wife Julie and I were there. Senator Murkowski was there. Our Governor was there. By the way, the Wien family was there, including Leslie Wien Hajdukovich, my former regional director. It was a great classic Jay Ramras event. Hundreds of people came out to celebrate a huge moment in Alaska history, Alaska aviation history--I would say, American aviation history.

In addition to preserving this incredible chapter in Fairbanks' history, Jay has invested in Fairbanks' future. Let me tell you about a few of his other endeavors. Each summer, Jay hosts the Yukon 800 boat race, the longest, toughest, roughest speedboat race in the world. It starts at Pike's, up to the Chena, gets out on the mighty Yukon--huge race.

Just as I mentioned, he just recently hosted the fourth Iditarod start at Pike's. Normally, the Iditarod starts down in Anchorage. That is the toughest, longest, greatest race in the world, the Iditarod. It occasionally starts in Fairbanks, but it did this year at Pike's. And as I mentioned, he regularly sponsors the Iron Dog snow machine race that, yes, is the toughest, longest, roughest snow machine race in the world.

Jay also had a successful political career, serving three terms in the Alaska House of Representatives. And he is a great philanthropist in Fairbanks--a key player in Fairbanks Food Bank and doing so many other things in terms of philanthropy.

On top of all this, Jay says his greatest legacy, he believes, will be something he recently did--which I think is just fantastic--the creation of a new synagogue in Fairbanks, the northernmost Chabad in the United States.

It began with a call from Rabbi Greenberg in Anchorage. He is a great friend of mine, one of the leaders of our Jewish community throughout the State. He asked Jay if he could host a young orthodox rabbi and his wife for a short visit. Of course, Jay, a very generous man, agreed. ``I think it would be around a two-week summer stay.'' Then they came again for a second visit, this time in January when it is 45 below zero in Fairbanks. It gets really cold in Fairbanks. And they still returned.

The young couple, Rabbi Heshy Wolf and his wife Chani have now chosen to make Fairbanks their permanent home.

Jay, generous as ever, purchased a small church with his own money. The previous congregation at the church had outgrown the place. They refurbished it, transforming it into the Fairbanks Jewish Center. The original congregation stayed on rent-free until they found a new home, a new church. Just a few weeks ago, five rabbis gathered in Fairbanks for the first time in over 120 years and hosted this new synagogue, the northernmost synagogue, I believe, in America, in Fairbanks.

Jay, thank you. What a life of accomplishment. What a legacy, not just for Fairbanks, but for all of Alaska. For every different community--sports community, Jewish community, historical community-- you have done it all. And now, Jay, you have been awarded one of the most prestigious awards anyone can achieve in their life, Alaskan of the Week.

China

Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to discuss a recent op- ed in the New York Times just a few days ago. It kind of made a stir. A lot of people thought it was a really good op-ed. I didn't.

I wanted to come to the floor and talk about this op-ed because it is making the rounds. It is by the columnist Thomas Freidman, and it is on national security, economic security, and trade issues relating to China.

Now, I normally enjoy, respect--don't always agree with--the seriousness of Mr. Freidman's writings. He has written a lot of books, a lot of columns, especially on the Middle East, where he has a lot of insights, no doubt about it.

But when I read this latest column called ``I Just Saw the Future. It Was Not in America,'' I couldn't believe how shockingly naive Mr. Freidman was in writing this. So I just wrote a response. I just started writing after reading this thing. My goodness, this is very naive. Then I submitted that to the New York Times. They said: Hey, sorry, it is too long.

Maybe they didn't like it. Maybe they didn't think it was that good. I said: I can just read it on the Senate floor because I think this is a big debate, our relationship with China, how we view it, how he views it, how others view it, how President Trump views it, and it needs to be debated.

That is what I want to do the next couple of minutes, talk about the Freidman piece and, in my view, why it is so naive and misses so many things and, particularly, gives Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party a giant pass in terms of their history and what they have done to the international trading system.

First, the Freidman article kind of condescendingly mocks, to be honest, a lot of us. He quotes some Senators, U.S. Senators, and says, you know, these Senators ``need to get out more'' when it comes to China. That is a quote in the article.

Well, in my career, I have actually gotten out to China a lot, I mean in terms of working on the Chinese issues. I served on the National Supreme Court Council Staff under Condoleezza Rice and served as her Assistant Secretary of State in charge of economics, trade, energy, and finance. Again, under Secretary Rice, I was the Commissioner in charge of natural resources and energy in Alaska. I went to China then.

In all these positions, I met with Chinese leaders, traveled to China a fair amount. And, of course, China national security issues really bookended my entire 30-year Marine Corps career. My first deployment in the Marines was to the Taiwan Strait during what is now referred to as the ``Third Taiwan Strait Crisis,'' in 1995 and 1996. My last billet in the Marine Corps was chief of staff to the Marine Forces Pacific Commander at Indo-Pacific PACOM. It was all about China and Taiwan. As a Senator, I continued to focus on these issues, traveling to Asia frequently.

The lessons I learned when it comes to China are very different from those in the Thomas Freidman piece. As someone who has actually gotten out a fair amount to China, as Mr. Friedman tells us Senators we need to do, let's go into some of these lessons. For a smart guy, they sure were kind of naive to me.

First, Thomas Freidman talks about the need for an agreement between the United States and China. But the big worry is that President Trump would not ``stick by'' any agreement with China. That is what he says.

Now, he says this without even hinting at one of the Chinese Communist leadership's most consistent, salient, and frustrating traits, and this is it. They, the Chinese Communist leadership, almost never abides by their agreements with the United States--and I mean never. Big agreements, small agreements, it doesn't matter. They never abide by their agreements. I have seen this throughout my career.

In 2003, I was actually in this meeting right there. That is President George W. Bush and the Vice Premier of China, Madame Wu Yi in the Oval Office. I was a young staffer right there next to the President. And President Bush pressed her, Madame Wu Yi, on this theft of intellectual property that China does. He pressed her hard.

``Madam Wu Yi, you have to stop stealing our IPR.'' That senior Chinese official, 2003, looked at the President of the United States and solemnly and sincerely said: Mr. President, we will stop this. You have my word.

Well, we all know what happened. For decades, they lied about that. The last report USTR did on China's theft of intellectual property rights from the United States was $600 billion a year. Madam Wu Yi lied to President Bush in the Oval Office, no doubt about that.

I was also part of Secretary Rice's senior leadership at the State Department, taking part in the twice-yearly Cabinet-level meetings launched by President Bush and China's President Hu Jintao, called the Strategic Economic Dialogue. SED, it was called. That is more Bush- China. They never kept any of their SED commitments ever. I saw this.

This is what I refer to as ``promise fatigue''--promise fatigue. The United States makes an agreement with China, and they never keep it-- never keep it. You know who has made an art form out of promise fatigue and not keeping their promise? This guy, Xi Jinping. You remember this in the Rose Garden with President Obama--in the Rose Garden 2015. President Xi Jinping looked at Barack Obama, looked at the American people and said: We are not going to do any more cyber theft, and we are not going to militarize the islands of the South China Sea. That is what Xi Jinping told President Obama.

Guess what. That was a huge lie. They were already doing it.

Remember these? President Trump and then President Biden--Xi Jinping made commitments to both President Trump and President Biden: We are going to stop the importation of fentanyl into Mexico and the United States. Xi Jinping said that to President Trump and to President Biden. Guess what. He never kept that agreement--ever.

Of course, during the Trump administration--in the first term--the phase one China deal was signed with all this fanfare in the East Room of the White House--I was actually there when that happened--and they never kept any of those commitments.

So no matter what, when it comes to China, they just don't keep their word. They don't keep their word. And yet Tom Friedman's article focuses on President Trump's reliability?

As Joe Biden would say, ``Come on, man.''

These are the guys who cheat and aren't reliable at all, and we all know it.

Second, Friedman highlights what he sees as a great opportunity with China as it relates to our economic relations. Yet he never mentions the overriding goal of this guy, Xi Jinping. What is that overriding goal? He never mentions it once. That is to make sure the Chinese Communist Party stays in power and expands its power base at home and abroad through any means necessary, including coercion and violence. This is the goal that we all know drives his decision making.

Like many in the Senate, I frequently attend classified briefings on China. We just had the INDOPACOM Commander testify today, Admiral Paparo, who, by the way, is doing a great job. Make no mistake--it is in all the Intel briefings--this guy, Xi Jinping, is preparing for war in the Taiwan Strait. Look at him there; he is in his fatigues. His aggressive efforts might extend beyond that.

What am I talking about?

The Chinese military just completed another massive military exercise to not only blockade Taiwan but to stop any reinforcements from coming into Taiwan. Then they conducted offensive military exercises off the shores of our allies the Philippines and Australia. Their navy went all the way around Australia just a couple of weeks ago.

Friedman naively references Chinese Communist Party talking points: ``healthy interdependencies'' and ``win-win.'' These guys always use that ``win-win'' and ``We will rise together.'' Yet he ignores the military menace of the CCP abroad and its genocidal tendencies at home.

But, hey, that is OK.

Mr. Friedman says: Hey, there are a lot of smart people in China who can help us with AI.

Sorry. I am a little more worried about that.

Then he notes:

[Beijing] does not want a trade war.

No, in fact, they are actually preparing for a real war, and that is a fact for anyone who knows about China.

Finally, the entire thrust of Friedman's piece builds on and reinforces one of the biggest strategic blunders that the United States has made with regard to China and our China strategy, over the past four decades, and that is outsourcing much of our national security to corporate America.

Friedman argues that we should concentrate on letting both of our private sectors, in China and the United States, work together, and if we do that, ``Americans, working in partnership with benevolent Chinese capital and technology, will prosper just like the Chinese benefited from American capital and technology in the last four decades.''

And Tom Friedman has the nerve to call President Trump's thinking ``magical.''

Well, this is really magical from Tom Friedman. First off, the Chinese communist system doesn't really have a private sector. Again, anyone who gets out to China knows this. Everybody in China, ultimately, works for the CCP, for Xi Jinping, for the Chinese Communist Party.

Just as importantly, as we have so painfully learned over the past four decades, the U.S. private sector, especially Wall Street and some of the big corporate CEOs, are very poor guardians of America's national security and economic interests when it comes to China. The U.S. Government finally, during President Trump's first term, started to say: Whoa. Wait. Stop. We can't outsource our national security to corporate America. We, the U.S. Government, need to safeguard our own interests, and that is what we are trying to do.

I will say--and we just saw it a couple of years ago--the annual American CEO confab in Beijing with Xi Jinping, in the People's Hall, which, in my view, has become a national embarrassment, with Xi triumphantly leading the sycophantic-looking American CEOs behind him, does nothing to dispel the concern that this remains a strategic weakness in our national security relative to China.

As we speak, CCP--the Chinese Communist Party--propaganda is flooding the world to fan the flames of a narrative that Friedman seems to embrace, and it is this: Their narrative is that President Trump has broken the World War II liberal international trading system.

This charge is ridiculous, and it gives a pass to the real culprit. The Chinese Communist Party broke the system a long time ago, and that has been their intention all along.

In 2005, then-Deputy Secretary of State and future World Bank president Bob Zoellick delivered his well-received speech, called the ``Responsible Stakeholder'' speech. It noted that, more than any other country, China has benefited from the international economic order set up by the United States after World War II, and it was now time for China to safeguard and embrace and become a responsible stakeholder in this system to help it endure.

I was in meetings with senior Chinese officials, not long after this speech, and they deceivingly used the term ``responsible stakeholder'' much to the American policymakers' delight. But the CCP leaders clearly had other plans: to unleash policies that continued their rampant intellectual property theft of American businesses; to never keep their promises and commitments that they make to Americans; forcing U.S. companies to hand over proprietary technology in order to gain access to China's market; aggressively subsidizing important industries, like steel, where they flooded global markets and destroyed the American heartland; blocking U.S. exports from having fair and reciprocal access to China's market; and unleashing economic coercion on our allies, like Australia, Korea, and Japan, when they dared to question CCP orthodoxy.

The Trump administration's policies are a course correction to all of this. But make no mistake, it was the Chinese Communist Party and its policies that took a wrecking ball to the international trading system. Yet, like so many other aspects of Friedman's piece, he gives the CCP and Xi a pass on this most consequential point.

U.S. Senators on both sides of the aisle, including those who don't even get out much, according to Mr. Friedman, have recognized this truth. It would be good progress if an insightful observer of the international system, like Thomas Friedman is, would do so as well.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2035 and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, my amendment says we are going to strengthen Medicaid and Medicare so that they are available for years to come because these are important programs. They are certainly important programs to the Alaskans I represent.

Madam President, this is the exact same amendment I offered in February. Nearly every Republican voted for it but not one Democrat.

My colleague and friend from Oregon, who is on the floor here, said my amendment back then was a ruse to kick people off the program. But to my colleague and friend from Oregon, if that is true, here is my question: Why did he vote for the exact same amendment in 2017? That is right, 24 Democrats who voted against my amendment 2 months ago voted for the same amendment in 2017.

I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed in the Record.

Talk about a ruse. This is the worst kind of partisanship, using people's healthcare to fearmonger.

We should all want to weed out waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid and Medicare, and we must keep these programs going.

We should do both.

I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment. And all my colleagues who voted for this amendment in 2017 should simply vote for it again.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, like all of us, last week, I was back home in my great State--the great State of Alaska. And, actually, I try to be home every weekend, even when we are in session. But this trip back home was particularly important because I was in Juneau, AK, our State's capital, to deliver my annual address to our legislature.

We have a really great tradition in Alaska where the Senators get invited to come back and give a big address to the entire State senate, to the entire State house. Senator Murkowski did it a couple of days before I did, and then I was able to do it. Then you kind of do like a little prime minister time, where the legislators get to ask you Q&A's and do a big press conference.

So it is a really important event for me. I know it is for Senator Murkowski. It is certainly one of the most important speeches I give all year, and I wanted to touch on some of the themes because the themes of the speech were actually about the long history and two visions that we have in DC about the great State of Alaska--my State. And boy, oh boy, these visions are competing all the time still, and it really, really matters to the people I represent.

When one vision is kind of ascendant--and I will talk about that--my constituents really get harmed. That is the national Democrat vision for Alaska, which is the shutdown of Alaska. When the Republican vision is ascendant--and now we have President Trump, who is really, really focused on actually helping Alaska, unleashing Alaska's economy--then we do well.

This has been going on for decades, and I feel very passionate about it because it really impacts the day-in and day-out lives of the people I am so privileged to represent.

So let me just mention these competing visions in a little bit more detail. You have one vision, like I said, where there is this historical belief that Alaska would do better continuing as almost a territory run by an absent Federal landlord who protects us, occasionally gives scraps from the national wealth of America's table to our constituents back home, but they are not focused on truly unleashing the private sector opportunities and jobs and economy for Alaskans.

Of course, this gets debated all the time and litigated all the time. We are one of the few States that have several very specific, large, complex Federal pieces of legislation that often get litigated and, of late, have gone all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. I want to talk about one of those because it really lays out the entire kind of debate, back-and-forth.

In 1980, the Congress--over the objection of most Alaskans, by the way--passed a law called the Alaska National Interest Lands Conversation Act--that is a mouthful; it is called ANILCA back home-- which has had a huge impact on my State.

ANILCA federalized over 100 million acres of land in Alaska. Can you imagine that? That is as big as California. The Fed said: Guess what, Alaska, we are taking it over.

Since that time--1980; that was Jimmy Carter; we didn't like that-- Federal Agencies have interpreted ANILCA, and they have often interpreted ANILCA to say--the Federal Agencies--our role is to shut down Alaska, to not provide access to the lands, access to the resources. That is the way the Federal Government--especially when Democrats are in power--has interpreted ANILCA.

But we just had actually not one but two U.S. Supreme Court cases interpreting ANILCA. The case is called Sturgeon v. the Department of the Interior--Sturgeon I and Sturgeon II--where the U.S. Supreme Court, 9 to 0, said: Now, wait a minute, Federal Agencies. Wait a minute, Democrats and Congress. Alaska is different. Alaska is the exception. Federal Agencies, you can't just go and shut down Alaska the way you think you can with other Federal lands.

Justice Kagan actually wrote the opinion in Sturgeon II and captured the principle that is at stake in so many of the specific litigation cases my State deals with.

The lower 48 what we call ecocolonialists--the radical, far-left environmental groups--sue on everything in Alaska. You want to try to build a sidewalk in Alaska? You will have 13 environmental groups sue to stop. You can build a sidewalk in Connecticut. You can build a sidewalk in New Jersey. You try to build anything in Alaska, and here they come litigating.

Well the Supreme Court said: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Federal Agencies, all these environmental groups, under ANILCA--that involved a great Alaskan. I know him well. John Sturgeon. He wanted to go moose hunting, and the Fed said: You can't go in a certain area. He was on a hovercraft to go moose hunting in a certain area of Alaska. He knew his rights. He was cited. He said: You know what, I don't believe the National Park Service has the right to cite me. I am going to appeal this citation all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here is what Justice Kagan said--not some kind of conservative, mind you, but a good Justice: ``If Sturgeon lived in any other State, his suit would not have had a prayer of success. . . . Except that Sturgeon lives in Alaska. And as we have said before''--``we,'' the Supreme Court of the United States--`` `Alaska is often the exception, not the rule' '' to these giant Federal lands issues.

We like those Sturgeon I and Sturgeon II cases, but I will tell you this: When you hear that Alaska is often the exception, it plays the other way too.

No offense to my friends on the other side of the aisle, but when national Democrats are in power, they often get there through the support of far-left, radical environmental groups. Those groups say, ``Hey, we helped you get elected''--President Biden, President Obama, President Carter, and Senators on the other side of the aisle--``so here is what we want.'' The environmental groups say, ``We want to shut down Alaska.''

So guess what happens. Guess what happens. My colleagues here--the minority leader is certainly one of them--in the White House, they put a huge amount of effort into shutting down my State, killing jobs.

Throughout the decades here in DC, the national Democrats and their special interest, far-left environmental allies have not only encouraged this mindset of shutting down Alaska, they have used it for political gain and contorted it to keep my State locked up as some kind of beautiful American snow globe.

Well, we are not a snow globe. We are one of the most important States in the country, from national defense, to resources, to strategic location. Just talk to the military, talk to the Pentagon.

So this mindset has been on display for leaders of the Democratic Party for decades. It was on display, as I mentioned, when President Carter signed ANILCA in 1980. Our delegation secured some important terms and concessions, which is what Justice Kagan was talking about, when they locked up more than 100 million acres of our State. Try that anywhere else. Most States aren't even 100 million acres big.

Jimmy Carter, when he signed this legislation, said: ``Public lands are Alaska's future.'' I don't think anyone else has ever said that about any other States. ``Public lands are Alaska's future.''

We didn't like Jimmy Carter up in Alaska for what he did to our State.

The mindset was also fully on display when we had President Obama-- his last couple weeks in office, he locked up what is called the Outer Continental Shelf, the entire Outer Continental Shelf of Alaska. He said: I am going to take that off the table.

By the way, Congress said: No, you actually have to develop that. It is called the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

He didn't care. He said: I am taking it from Alaska. It is all coming off.

Then he said that Alaska needs to ``move decisively away from fossil fuels'' and that the way ``to build a strong . . . economy''--this is the President of the United States--is to rely on things like ``philanthropy.'' Philanthropy. Charity.

Could you imagine in any other State a President saying ``By the way, don't worry about a strong economy. Don't worry about good private sector jobs for your citizens. You should rely on philanthropy''--kind of patting us on the head. Charity. Come on. Really? They do it for our State. Charity.

But, of course, this arrogant Federal landlord view of Alaska was on its most full display and reached its zenith under President Biden in what I refer to as the ``Last Frontier Lock-Up.''

Do you know what this was? I mean, it is really kind of hard to believe. That is the map of it. Every part of the State, every region of the State, all the resources--by the way, particularly targeting Alaska Native people, the indigenous people of my State, great, patriotic people. Holy cow, Joe Biden, Deb Haaland--they made sure Alaskan Natives got nothing.

The whole State--here is what it was. I am going to show this for a minute. It is kind of amazing. The Last Frontier lockup was 70 Executive orders and Executive actions during the Biden administration--7-0; by the way, there would have been more, but we stopped a few of them--exclusively and uniquely focused on shutting down Alaska. Think about that. That has probably never happened in American history, that a White House comes into power and says: I am going to focus on this State, and I am going to use all our Executive authority, many of which are illegal, and I am going to use it to crush one State in the Union.

Has that ever happened? I don't think so. That is what happened with this administration. Seventy.

By the way, I was in an Oval Office meeting with President Biden when they were at 46. I handed him the lockup. I said: Mr. President, with all due respect, I know I am in the Oval Office, I am not sure you even know what is going on with your administration. You guys have declared a war on working families in my State. Sir, with all due respect, it is not right that you are using the power of the Federal Government that you are in charge of to crush my State. Why are you doing that, Mr. President? Why are you doing that? And why are you particularly hurting the Native people? I thought you care about communities of color, indigenous people. You certainly don't in my State.

I even told him: If a Republican administration came in and issued-- at the time, 46; this would be 2 years ago--46 Executive orders targeting little Delaware and you were still a Senator here, you would be on the Senate floor raising hell every day because it is wrong. You know it. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know it. This should have never happened in any State in the country.

Do you know what else about this that was a little frustrating? Do you think there was one national media story on this from the New York Times, the Washington Post, or, heck, even the Anchorage Daily News? Not one story. Not one story.

The Federal Government using all its power to crush one State--often illegally, and I will get into that--and nobody wrote one story. Why? Because most of the media loved it. Hey, we love all these environmental groups. They want to shut down Alaska, so we are not going to say a word about it.

You wonder why people doubt the media. That is a big story. Four years. The power of the Federal Government to crush one State, and we never had anyone write about it--not just that, but they wouldn't listen. They wouldn't listen.

So a big part of these orders in Alaska were focused on this region we call the North Slope of Alaska. We have State land up here. We have ANWR. A lot people know about ANWR for oil and gas. We have a thing called the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska here, set aside by Congress to do what? The national Petroleum Reserve of Alaska? To develop petroleum for our country's strength and power.

This is the North Slope Borough. It is led by Inupiat indigenous people. They are tremendous people. They are patriotic. They serve in the military. They are whale hunters. They are amazing people, some of my favorite people in the whole world.

Their Tribe, their Alaska Native corporation of the borough--by the way, this is about as big as Montana; huge--they came to DC eight times, all the leaders of the North Slope. It takes a long time to get there, by the way. It is about 4 or 5,000 miles from DC.

When they heard that Joe Biden and Deb Haaland were going to do all kinds of regulations to remove their lands from any kind of productive economic use, eight times they flew all the way to DC to meet with Secretary Haaland--eight times. Do you know how many times Secretary Haaland met with my great constituents? Zero. Zero.

We held press conferences. We wrote letters: Madam Secretary, you are indigenous. These people are indigenous. You have a trust responsibility with them. How about meeting them once before you crush their economy?

Never met with them.

So talk about an arrogant, faraway landlord.

By the way, there is good news here. Some of the leaders of the North Slope Borough just last week came down and requested a meeting with the new Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum. He met with them for an hour and a half the first time they were in town under the Trump Administration. Eight times under Biden--nope. Sorry. We are too busy. First time for Secretary Burgum--all these great leaders--an hour and a half. That is respect.

It is not just Democrat administrations. Unfortunately, my colleagues--many of them, too many of them--weren't alone in this unprecedented lockup of our State.

Let me just give you one example. We got ANWR open, fair and square, in 2017, in the tax bill. It is in the law: Open it up. Hold lease sales. Passed it. We have been trying to get that done for 40 years.

It was bipartisan, by the way. Back home in Alaska, Democrats and Republicans, we all want this done--the Native people that live there. So that was done.

The Trump administration is going to have a lease sale. They have mandated it at the end. But in the interim, my colleagues, led by the senior Senator from New Mexico--I am going to get to that in a minute. My colleagues, in a letter--boy, there is a whole bunch of them. Do you know what they did?

My colleagues here, Democrat Senators, a bunch of them, they wrote all the insurance companies and all the big banks in America, and they said: Don't invest in Alaska. Don't invest in Alaska.

A bunch of my colleagues, after we got a law passed that we have been trying to get done for decades: Don't do it, banks and insurance companies.

A bunch, about a third of the Democrats here--that is pressure: Don't do it. We don't want you to do it.

Why? Do you know what they said? It was remarkable. Because if you develop Alaska, America won't achieve ``its climate goals''--``its climate goals.''

So that was Democrat Senators. By the way, no one asked me about this. They came in to crush my State about climate goals.

Now, let's just talk a little bit about hypocrisy here. That was led by the senior Senator of New Mexico.

Now, during the Biden administration, remember, they wanted to shut down Alaska. They were doing everything they could to shut down my State. We didn't increase production at all. Our oil production has been going like this.

But there is one State in America where it is ``drill, baby, drill.'' The production of oil is through the roof. Guess what State that is. Oh my goodness, it is New Mexico--on Federal lands--when Secretary Haaland was the Secretary. Whoa, are you kidding me?

The gray here is Alaska. The red is New Mexico. During the Biden administration, the 4 years they tried to crush my State, the senior Senator from New Mexico led the efforts to crush my State. Secretary Haaland, another New Mexican, crushed my State. And guess what. In New Mexico, on Federal lands, it was ``drill, baby, drill.'' They went from a million barrels a day to 2 million barrels a day.

Where is the New York Times on that one? Where is the Washington Post on that one?

Could you imagine the counterfactual? A Republican administration comes into office, and they target a Democrat State to crush them, and then that same Republican administration, with the Secretary of the Interior and one of their senior Senators, says: But in our State, we are going to unleash it. And we will shut down the other States because of climate concerns, but we will be the climate bomb of America--which is what New Mexico has become.

OK. Where is that story? Where is that story?

Again, you wonder why people don't trust our media. This is an unbelievable story.

So is this, by the way. My colleagues all, can you imagine if every Senator here decided, hey, I am going to get a bunch of Senators, and we are going to write a letter to make sure we crush the economy in New York or Connecticut? Like this place wouldn't even work. But if it is Alaska, you get to do that.

Well, I don't like it. But here is the other reason I feel so passionate about this, and this is what my colleagues--and look, they are writing a letter. We know why the senior Senator from New Mexico writes this letter--because all the radical far-left groups who support these guys tell them to do this.

But here is what makes me really upset, because they don't realize what their letters do. It is not just about producing energy that our country needs or jobs. For me and the people I represent, it is about something even more.

What am I talking about? I have brought this chart out a lot. This is an American Medical Association study from 1980 to 2014.

What does it show? It shows life expectancy in America. It is a little bit hard to read here, but the increases or decreases in life expectancy. So if you are looking at, kind of, orange and red, unfortunately, parts of the United States have a little bit of orange and red. That is actually a decrease in life expectancy. We experienced that for 25 years, 1980 to 2014. In some parts of our country, according to the American Medical Association, the people in those parts, they lived less longer lives. It is really bad. I mean, it is horrible.

Now, if you look at the map--I won't go into all of it--a lot of this is where the opioid epidemic really surged and destroyed so many lives. But other parts of America, if you look here--the blue, the purple--had an explosion in life expectancy.

Wow, that is pretty important. As a matter of fact, I have debated a lot of my Democratic colleagues: Give me an indicator of policy success more important than that the people you are representing are living longer. Give me one. There isn't one. It is really important.

So guess which State in that period, 1980 to 2014, had a huge increase in the life expectancy. My State. And guess which regions of Alaska had that. The North Slope--I was just showing you that--the Northwest Arctic Borough, the Aleutian Islands chain, all the way out here, had giant increases in 25 years, up to 13 years of life expectancy increases.

Hmm, why did that happen? Well, it happened for two reasons. One, unfortunately, these are a lot of the areas where our Alaska Native communities live, and they started at really low levels of life expectancy--really low, 50-, 55-years-old average lifespan. It is horrible.

So it was a low level. But what else happened? These areas all started to experience major resource development, fisheries.

There is a huge law called the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which Americanized our fisheries. So the Aleutian Islands chain had incredible opportunities for resource development with fisheries.

The North Slope, as I was talking about, the discovery of Prudhoe Bay, had big oil and gas developments.

This area had a huge mine called the Red Dog mine, one of the biggest silver-zinc-lead mines in the world--or lead-zinc mines in the world.

So resource development happened, and guess what. The Native people of Alaska started to get clinics, running water and flush toilets-- which a lot of them don't have--hospitals, gymnasiums, good jobs.

Again, what policy indicator of success is more important than that the people you are representing are living 13 years longer than they did 20 years earlier?

I don't think there is one. But all my colleagues came and said: No-- the Federal Government, Joe Biden, the senior Senator from New Mexico. We are going to shut all of this down.

They are not listening to me or Lisa Murkowski. We are going to shut it down because some radical far-left groups, who don't give a damn about my constituents, are telling us to do it.

Shame on you guys. Shame on you guys. I hope I never see another letter like this again--all the banks, all the insurance companies, led by Martin Heinrich--ridiculous. I wouldn't do that to New Mexico. Even though I was tempted, I didn't.

So let me end with a couple of more points, with some good news.

So like I said, you have 70 Executive orders and Executive actions. As I said, a lot of these were just blatantly illegal. Well, we just found out that I wasn't just saying that. One of the biggest Executive orders that Joe Biden put in place right away was like: Hey, I know you Republicans have ANWR open. Donald Trump signed it. But guess what. I am going to cancel all the leases.

Wait a minute. You can't cancel all the leases. Congress said you have to put forward the leases.

They don't care. Deb Haaland said: Hey, I don't care what Congress did. You can't develop ANWR.

You can't do that. The Congress of the United States just passed it. The President of the United States, Donald Trump, signed it into law. You can't just cancel the leases. That is illegal.

Nope, they did it. Joe Biden did it. Deb Haaland did it.

Two days ago, the Federal district court in Alaska, on litigation, when we sued and said: You can't do that--a court, to be perfectly honest, where she usually favors the far-left environmental groups. She wrote a big opinion saying: Guess what. What Joe Biden did, what Deb Haaland did was totally illegal.

Where is the New York Times and Washington Post story on that one? I don't know. They haven't written it.

So the Biden action on ANWR was what? Illegal.

Now, we have all kinds of people talking about a constitutional crisis right now. But my constitutional crisis was the last 4 years, because it wasn't just this. It wasn't just the ANWR provision. The Biden administration took this area of Alaska, the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, completely off the table. It is as big as Indiana right here, the NPR-A. They just said: We are taking it off the table.

But the Congress said that the Department of the Interior ``shall conduct an expeditious program of competitive leasing for oil and gas in the'' NPR-A. That is what we said. So that is certainly illegal.

I will give you another one. This is a huge critical mineral deposit area in Alaska called the Ambler Mining District. It has more critical minerals, probably, than any place in America.

The Trump administration said: We are going to build a road to it. Congress, in 1980, said the Secretary of the Interior ``shall permit'' a road to the Ambler Mining District. ``Shall''--that is what we said.

Guess what the Biden administration did. They canceled the road-- completely illegal.

So it is not just actions to hurt my constituents. It is complete lawlessness in the process of doing that.

So I am sounding a little cranky here because I am cranky about the attacks on my State. You have got an administration saying: We are going to shut down Alaska.

And then you have a lot of my colleagues saying: And we are going to help.

They never asked me. They never asked like: Hey, Dan, if we do all this, will we be hurting the life expectancy of the people you represent?

Answer: Yes. They don't care.

But I will tell you, we now have a new vision, and it is because Republicans are in charge in the Senate, in the House, and, very importantly, in the White House.

And I want to thank President Trump and his team; Secretary Burgum; Secretary Wright, the Secretary of Energy; the Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles; all of them.

On day one--day one--in the Trump administration, they said: We are not going to shut down Alaska. We are not going to hurt Alaska. We think Alaska is critical, not just for Alaskans but for America. We are going to unleash Alaska's extraordinary resource potential.

That is the Executive order President Trump signed on his first day in office. And this is the vision that Alaskans want. This is the vision that will strengthen my State's economy, create more jobs, and not have this arrogant Federal landlord focused on shutting us down.

It is a vision arising from our frontier heritage in Alaska, a spirit of strength, invention, energy, resilience, and shaking off the shackles of the past, and building a new world. It is a spirit of opportunity. It is a spirit of the last frontier.

And we get it from the Alaskan Native people who have thrived on these lands for thousands of years, in some of the harshest conditions in the world. We get it from the gold miners who traveled north to find their fortune. We get it from the pioneers who came from thousands of miles away to build new communities in Alaska.

We get it from our incredible veteran population. We have more vets per capita than any other State in the country, who have defended freedom for America all over the world.

We get it from our construction workers and building trades, who have built Alaskan manmade marvels like the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, which, by the way, is another example of what I am talking about. It passed the Senate by a tie vote. The giant Trans-Alaska Pipeline system that has produced over 40 billion barrels for our State passed right here on the Senate floor with a tie vote from the Republican Vice President of the United States. We get this from our law enforcement officers who have brought law and order to a rough and rugged land. We get it from our fishermen on dangerous seas, and we get the spirit, the spirit that President Trump wants to unleash in our State, for the benefit of Alaskans, for the benefit of America. We get this from Alaskans who want to create private sector jobs, who want to create wealth for our State and our country, and want to reject what the national Democrats do every single time they get into power, which is crush my State; crush jobs; undermine working families; in particular, go after the interests of the Alaska Native people.

So the final thing on this Executive order, which we are seeing--and this is where some of my Democratic colleagues in the Senate have actually been helpful to me, so I appreciate that--so we have a huge opportunity for a giant LNG project in Alaska that will be a counter to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative by getting clean-burning Alaska natural gas to our allies in Asia, to Alaskans, to our military, to Americans. This is a huge project that the President of the United States in his State of the Union, in his Executive order, and in his recent meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan has said is one of his administration's top priorities.

It will unleash jobs by the thousands. It will revitalize our steel industry.

And at full capacity, given how much natural gas we have on the North Slope, the estimates are that this will reduce our trade deficit by $10 billion a year.

So we are very focused on this. It is a new day in Alaska with regard to our economy and energy. And the new day is because Republicans are back in the White House. Republicans are back in control of the Senate, and Republicans are still in charge of the House. That is how we need to unleash our economy.

One day, I am going to be able to convince some of my Democratic colleagues: Let us do this. We don't come attacking your States. We don't write letters to all banks and all the insurance companies saying: Let's shut down Arizona.

We should all be trying to lift each other up. Someday, my Democratic colleagues will do that. But until now, with Republicans in charge, we got huge opportunities in my great State, and I am very, very thankful for that.

I yield the floor.