Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to speak to a tragedy that we saw this past week, just a week ago today. Two Army AH-64 Apache helicopters were making their way back to Fort Wainwright. Fort Wainwright is an Army post in interior Alaska. They had been training in the Donnelly Training Area. They tragically collided and crashed.

Three soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 25th Aviation Regiment from Alaska's 11th Airborne Division were killed, and I have come to the floor this afternoon to honor their lives and express my deepest condolences to their families.

CW3 Christopher Robert Eramo of New York was 39 years old. He had deployments in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He had served in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and most recently in Kuwait.

CW2 Kyle D. McKenna of Colorado was just 28 years old. He also had deployments in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and had served in both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

And WO1 Stewart Duane Wayment of Utah was 32 years of age. According to an AP article, it said that he was ``excited to be stationed in Alaska, to fly over rugged landscapes and see the northern lights and wildlife.'' His mother, Stacie Weaver, is quoted in that article as saying that ``family was everything to him.''

From basic training to Warrant Officer Candidate School to the Apache pilot pipeline, these men truly dedicated their lives to the service of our Nation; and, in doing so, they added to one of the proudest traditions in America while exemplifying the best of it, and that is the brave men and women who stand ready to protect and to defend us every day.

As we acknowledge the sacrifices that are made by the men and women in uniform, we have to remember that those sacrifices don't always come at times of war and times of combat. This accident, as I mentioned, came after a 2-week training exercise. Training exercises themselves can be dangerous, and for the individuals who take part in them, we recognize that they face challenges daily.

We also must remember, though, the tremendous sacrifices that are made by our military families. Theirs, too, are significant and placed upon them by circumstances that are beyond their control. When something bad happens, when some tragedy occurs, they lose husbands, wives, fathers, and mothers.

Many have never had to worry about that.

But, today, we are grieving with the Eramo, McKenna, and the Wayment families. All three soldiers were married. Mr. Wayment also had three young children that he leaves behind.

Scripture tells us that ``the Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.''

And to the families, I know no words can lessen your grief, but I hope you will find some small measure of comfort in knowing that Christopher, Stewart, and Kyle were heroes and that they will always be remembered as such.

I know that the Fort Wainwright and the Fairbanks communities are absolutely heartbroken. There are families and brothers and sisters in arms who are grieving today. They are attending a private memorial service for their fallen comrades this afternoon in Alaska. My husband Verne and I offer our deepest condolences to them. Know that we are keeping all who serve in our prayers and all who are no longer with us.

This has been an awful, awful tragedy. There is one small sliver of light, however. There was a fourth servicemember who was injured in that same crash. He was treated at Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, and he has now been released. We are told that he is recovering at home. A full recovery is expected. So, hopefully, this can be some small bit of hope to the Fort Wainwright and Fairbanks communities that are suffering this loss.

It is, indeed, a sad moment for this military community, our interior community--know that in our golden hearts we will hold these men and their families tight.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Cardin for his leadership on this issue, not only in this Congress but in the previous Congresses when we have attempted to advance this very important measure.

What we have in front of us right now is S.J. Res. 4, an amendment to add the Equal Rights Amendment to our Constitution. It is pretty simple. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. It is as simple as that. That is it. That is the full substance of the Equal Rights Amendment. We refer to it as the ERA.

I think most people in this country believe that it is already a part of the Constitution, that it is already a protection under it.

Justice Scalia stated more than a decade ago now:

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination

on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits

it. It doesn't.

A little bit of the history here: The ERA was first proposed back in 1923, 3 years after ratification of the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote, fully 100 years removed from where we are today. Now, 50 years later, the ERA finally passed Congress, was signed by President Carter in 1972.

There was a 7-year deadline for ratification. Thirty-five States moved quickly, including the State of Alaska, within that deadline. It was extended once, in 1982, to give the remaining States some more time to consider it. But momentum waned as other things took precedent.

The ERA didn't go away, though. Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia became the 36th, the 37th, and the 38th States to ratify it between 2017 and 2020. And so where we are today is there are 38 States that have ratified the ERA. That meets the threshold of the three-quarters of the States that are needed to ratify a constitutional amendment, but that can't happen because of a technicality because the preamble of the ERA contains an outdated deadline for ratification.

And that is where our simple resolution comes in. It removes that arbitrary deadline to reflect what has actually happened instead of what Congress thought was going to happen some decades ago. It would affirm the Equal Rights Amendment has been ratified by 38 States, met the threshold to be made part of the Constitution, and allow that to finally occur.

Now, some have suggested that the ERA is no longer needed. We have certainly made great strides as women since 1923, but there is a lot more that needs to be done. Women are a majority of the U.S. population but continue to be underrepresented in elected office, in the courts, in the business world, and in so many other areas.

There remains, of course, a pay gap. We know of this. We hear the statistics all the time--a pay gap between men and women: 18 cents on the dollar according to the GAO--and that gap is wider across industries and within certain groups, to 22 cents on the dollar for women at private, for-profit companies and 23 cents for full-time managers.

As the Senator from Maryland has mentioned, the ERA is also needed to help address violence against women. Statistics from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, for example, show that 1 in 7 women compared to 1 in 25 men have been injured by an intimate partner.

Again, what the Equal Rights Amendment provides: It would establish fundamental protections against discrimination based on sex. Every one of us should agree that such discrimination is completely unacceptable and that every citizen, regardless of sex, should enjoy the same rights under our Constitution, and that is all we are doing here today.

Again, equality of rights under the law should not be denied on account of sex. It shouldn't be controversial, but just about everything nowadays somehow is.

There has been debate about whether Congress has the authority to act on this resolution. I believe we do. There is no constitutional provision, there is no law, no Supreme Court decision telling us that we can't. The Constitution contains no time limit for ratification of amendments, and there is clear precedent for States taking years-- decades, even centuries--to do so.

The 27th congressional pay act amendment was ratified in 1992. That was a full 203 years after it was enacted in 1789.

Another issue that has been raised is the five States that have attempted to rescind their ratification, but the Constitution does not contemplate rescissions, and there is clear precedent for Congress determining that rescinding an amendment after ratification is ineffectual. In 1868, Congress adopted a concurrent resolution declaring that the 14th Amendment had been ratified despite the fact that two States--New Jersey and Ohio--had attempted to rescind their prior ratifications.

Again, the purpose of the ERA is to secure full equality for women, and there should be no time limit on that. Men and women should be treated equally under the law, and that is not a controversial position; it is a widely held view. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of Americans support the ERA: 73 percent, according to one poll from 2020; 78 percent according to another; and 85 percent according to a poll from last year, including 93 percent of Democrats, 93 percent of Independents, and 79 percent of Republicans. At least half of the States have Constitutions like Alaska that guarantee equal rights based on sex in some way.

So I am proud, again, that our State stepped up in 1972 and, a few months later, by an overwhelming vote, amended our constitution to prohibit sex discrimination.

Mr. President, we are at the point where we are going to take a vote here right now. I am not entirely pleased by the timing of our debate on this resolution because we have not yet secured the 60 votes needed for its passage. I don't really like it being used as a filler on the floor, as somewhat of an exercise that runs the clock in a largely empty legislative calendar.

I don't see how the ERA or women in this country will ultimately benefit from that, but I am proud to lead this resolution with Senator Cardin. I am proud to be working with him and others that, again, would see through the hollow arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment and would join us in passing it.

The American people are waiting for this. It is long overdue for Congress to act.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my fellows for the rest of the year: Abbie Lyons, Aaron Stuvland, Doson Nguyen, and Robert Bruce.

Mr. President, I am pleased that we are at this point in the Senate calendar when we are talking about legislation on the floor. We have S. 870, which is the Fire Grants and Safety Act. I am a sponsor, a proud cosponsor of this measure.

My State of Alaska routinely faces severe fire seasons every year. As cochair of the Senate Fire Caucus, I follow these issues very carefully. Whether they are wildland fires or fires in our urban centers, I believe we have a bill in front of us, a measure in front of us, that deserves all of our support.

The Fire Grants and Safety Act is a pretty simple bill. It is not very often that we actually have things that are simple and short, and this one is just a few pages long. It reauthorizes the U.S. Fire Administration, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, as well as the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant Program. That is the SAFER Program. It reauthorizes all of these through 2030, instead of allowing them to expire next year. The Fire Administration's authorization is increased slightly, but the rest are basically straight extensions here.

As I mentioned, it is a pretty simple bill, but I think it is important to appreciate and understand the importance because sometimes I think these programs are underappreciated. They help our local fire departments recruit personnel--pretty important, we have got to get those firefighters to us--but not only to recruit them but to retain them as well. It also helps allow them to purchase updated vehicles and equipment.

We also help our fire stations by providing for safety and rescue training as well as health screenings.

The Fire Grants and Safety Act is also a very timely measure and not just because we are looking at these programs nearing their expiration date, but our U.S. Fire Administrator has reminded us that ``America is still burning.'' That is the quote. Last year, fires destroyed over 1 million structures and over 7.5 million acres of land across the country.

Again, in the State of Alaska, it is not unusual that we have 1 million-plus acres burn each season, and in many seasons, well more than a million.

But in addition to dealing with the impact to the land and to structures that are on them, it is a safety issue that comes with fighting fires. Approximately, 2,500 people, including 96 firefighters, have died because of these fires. Again, as we are seeing wildfires become larger and more catastrophic, the danger that it presents from a health-safety perspective but also the devastation and impact to the land becomes that much greater.

In our State in Alaska, our geography and really our lack of core infrastructure oftentimes makes it harder to respond, sometimes really not possible at all. But you have got wildfires

that can start hundreds of miles from a road system. It is difficult to deal with. But then you have house fires in one village off where road travel--there is no connection between the two villages and an inability to help address a local fire, as we have seen, unfortunately, on far too many occasions.

Just last month, the Kennicott McCarthy Volunteer Fire Department received $77,950. It doesn't sound like a lot in terms of dollars that we talk about here on this floor, but it was $77,000-plus to support recruitment and retention of firefighters. They were able to utilize FEMA's SAFER Grant Program. Again, this is a program that is going to sunset this year. But let me put the Kennicott McCarthy Volunteer Fire Department into context. This fire department is over 300 miles from Anchorage, the large city there. That is about a 7-hour drive in good weather. And I would challenge people--most times getting into McCarthy, it doesn't make any difference what the weather is, the road is tough enough that it is going to take you well more than 7 hours. There are about 42 people who live in the McCarthy-Kennicott area year-round, but in the summertime, you have got a growth in population when tourists come into the area and when folks who have cabins and properties like to spend the summers out there. So it can grow to over 1,000, 1,200 people in the summer. It serves as the gateway to the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park. So it is an important tourist destination for us.

This little town hosted over 65,000 visitors last year. So it kind of causes you to ask the question: How can a town of 42 year-round residents support this influx of outside traffic without the assistance of the Federal Government here? That is exactly what these SAFER grants have allowed them to do. So believe me. That $77,000 is going to go a long way for that volunteer fire department in Kennicott-McCarthy.

I mentioned that we face unique challenges in Alaska, but I would wager to say that every Member of this Chamber or one of your family members or your friends or your neighbors--every one of us has benefited from the emergency services that are provided by our local fire departments. So, as they have helped us, it is our turn to be helping them.

I am hopeful that we will be able to move through this process. It was good to have a vote on an amendment this afternoon. We will have the opportunity for more tomorrow and, hopefully, be able to wrap this bill up soon, this week.

But I do hope that this measure will garner the same level of bipartisan support as its predecessors. Back in 2017, we passed a fire grant reauthorization by unanimous consent. I think that that reflects how every State recognizes the benefit from this act, and I think that this year's effort should, really, be no different.

The Fire Grants and Safety Act has garnered widespread support. We have got organizations and groups, like the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the Congressional Fire Services Institute, the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, the International Society of Fire Service Instructors, as well as the International Association of Fire Fighters. So we have great, great support from these very important organizations.

One of my friends and a real leader in Alaska is the president of the Alaska Professional Fire Fighters Association, Dominic Lozano. He has shared his endorsement of this measure.

He explains and says:

Over the last few years, Alaska has faced record fire

seasons across the state, making our firefighters, rescuers,

and emergency medical workers as vital as ever. And whether

the fires take place in urban or rural Alaska, our rugged

terrain and harsh climate can make emergency response far

more difficult. This bill will assist Alaska Fire Departments

with hiring new firefighters to attain proper staffing levels

as well as provide valuable equipment to agencies across the

state.

I really appreciate Dominic's support for this measure.

I will tell you that I think we know that our firefighters have an extraordinarily difficult job, a dangerous job, a job that tasks them every day. I had an opportunity to participate in a VIP day, where we all donned the turnout suits and had the hats and had the opportunity to see how the ``jaws of life'' actually work.

We had the opportunity to go into a training facility that was built out to be a burning apartment building and to haul the hose from the truck, up the stairs, and into a burning room to put out the fire. I can tell you that those who went in to literally take the heat got a very, very, very small, small glimpse of what our firefighters go through every day.

I thank all of our firefighters. I thank our Alaska firefighters and all of those around the country for the tremendous and selfless work that they do in putting themselves in harm's way to protect our lives, our lands, and our communities. I am certainly committed to making sure that they have the resources to get home safely every single day.

I appreciate the leadership from Senator Peters, Senator Collins, and Senator Carper that they have put into this Fire Grants and Safety Act. Again, I am glad to cosponsor it with them and am glad to be able to give some short comments in support.

Our firefighters deserve this bill, and our communities need this bill. That should be enough for all of us to support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to recognize the life of an extraordinary Alaska Native leader Oliver Aveogan Leavitt, who died January 9, 2023, at the age of 79. With the passing of Oliver Leavitt, Alaska has lost a highly respected Inupiaq leader and elder who dedicated his life to advocating for Inupiat and Alaska Native rights and ensuring that cultural and traditional knowledge will be passed down to younger generations.

Oliver Leavitt was born in 1943 in Utqiagvik and was raised in caribou and fish camps along the Arctic coast living a traditional Alaska Native subsistence lifestyle. Oliver was known as a statewide leader and was instrumental in the legislation and policy changes that he successfully advocated for, including the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act--ANCSA--working in close partnership with dear friends and leaders such as the late Dr. Jacob Anagi Adams. Oliver not only lived in a time of rapid and monumental change, but he was also an agent of that change and progress for his people at a defining period in our State's history, leading discussions about rights to the land and resources and ensuring prosperity for the region as a founder and leader of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation.

Oliver Leavitt's staunch and storied dedication meant sacrificing time away from his family and cultural activities to camp out in DC, working on the passage of amendments to ANCSA that benefited all Alaska Native people for future generations, including legislation which authorized development on North Slope lands. Oliver also provided strong cultural leadership as a whaling captain, leading the Oliver Leavitt Crew, and sharing his skills as an expert skin boat maker. Oliver proudly served his community, State, and Nation at all levels, as an Army veteran, serving in the Vietnam war, and served on many local and early boards, such as Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Alaska Federation of Natives, the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, Arctic Slope Native Association--which led his North Slope region in the fight about land claims--and First Alaskans Institute.

Dr. Leavitt is survived by his beloved wife Annie Hopson Leavitt; his two daughters, Mary Lou and Martina (Jamie); daughter-in-law Doreen; seven grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren. He is preceded in death by his and Mrs. Leavitt's son, William Jens Leavitt. Dr. Leavitt occupied a special place in Alaska's history and in the hearts of those who called him a friend. He prioritized mentoring the next generation. Oliver was loved in return, and Alaskans are immensely proud of all that he contributed to the State. My family and I extend our deepest condolences to his friends, family, and loved ones during this time as we reflect on the life a legendary Alaskan.

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

Mr. President, colleagues who have been around for a while know that it is usually about this time of the year that I come to the floor to talk about my favorite sporting event. I am not talking about March Madness. I am talking about Alaska's version of March Madness, which is the Iditarod, when teams of dogs led by pretty able athletes embark on a thousand-mile mushing adventure across the wilds of Alaska, beginning down in Anchorage, all the way up to Nome.

This year, it is not quite 1,000 miles. It is 998 miles, as they took the southern route, which they try to alternate during different years.

But it has been an adventure for the 33 teams that ventured out just last Sunday, and I am here to announce that literally 10 minutes ago-- perhaps less than 10 minutes ago--the winner has just crossed the finish line under the burled arch in Nome.

So Alaskans are excited. The Iditarod website has crashed because everybody was checking in to see if Ryan Redington had made it across, and I am here to announce that Ryan Redington is the winner of the 51st Iditarod race in Alaska. He and his team just, as I say, crossed. He has been in the lead for the past several days, but we are really, really quite excited about his win.

I am looking forward to being able to give a call myself to congratulate him, but I know that right now his family, his friends, and everyone who is there in Nome to greet them after this 8-day journey are really quite excited. So he is probably not going to be answering his phone just yet.

The Iditarod is really an extraordinary, extraordinary event. It is an experience like no other. And when they say it takes a village, it really takes a village. All of these little checkpoints along the way-- some of them are communities; some of them are literally nothing more than a cabin. So it is an opportunity for the musher and their teams to be checking in, be checked out by the volunteer veterinarians who are along the way; refuel in the sense of feeding their dogs, resting their dogs, getting a little food for themselves, but then traveling on.

Think about what it means to drive a dog team for a thousand miles over this period of time and over terrain like this. Mr. President, you are from a northern State. You appreciate snow. We are not afraid of a little weather, but what these mushers and their teams have been through has been pretty amazing.

I was there at the ceremonial start last week. It was zero in Anchorage. It was a pretty great day to be a dog because it was nice and cool. Temperatures increased along the way. They encountered everything from drizzle to rain to mud, then to deep snow, then to freezing cold, then to gale winds--bumps along the way. It is a grueling test for all of these teams.

But as we look to what comes together to put on a race like this, it is something that Alaskans take great pride in. This is fueled by volunteers, whether it is the Iditarod Air Force, whether it is the veterinarians who come to volunteer. There is going to be a mushers' banquet up in Nome, where people come from all over the country to come and volunteer to serve dinner and clean up after dinner.

I met a group a couple of years ago. They were from somewhere in Florida. I didn't know the name of the community. But they said that they took vacation every year to come to Alaska, to come to Nome, and their job was dinner rolls. They take a week vacation to go to Nome, AK, from Florida to be there, to be a part of this extraordinary, extraordinary event.

So let me tell you a little bit about Ryan Redington and this race that he has just finished. So we are still looking at the exact number of minutes, but he has been on the trail now for 8 days, 21 hours, and--again, trying to figure out what the minutes are. This is his first-ever victory.

Ryan is 40 years old, but Ryan has a stake in this race perhaps unlike any other young musher out there. He is a legacy musher, to put it in a sense. He was born and raised in Knik, AK. On his mom's side, his great-grandfather was an Inupiat who delivered the mail from Unalakleet to other villages by dogsled. That was how we utilized dog teams back then.

Ryan comes from a family of mushers. His brother and his sister-in- law have competed in sled dog races. His father and his uncle have both raced in the Iditarod. Not only did they compete, but they are in the Iditarod Hall of Fame. His daughter and son are taking up the tradition by taking on racing.

On his dad's side, it is his grandfather, Joe Redington, Sr., who is the founder. We call him the ``Father of the Iditarod.''

Joe Redington, Sr., has raced that race 20 times--almost 20 times. When he crossed the finish line for his last race in 1997, he was 80 years old--80 years old. Can you imagine being 80 years old and running 1,000 miles standing on the runners, running with your dogs? The Iditarod is not for the faint of heart, and so it is just an example here to say that mushing really runs in Ryan's blood.

In addition to competing in the Iditarod, he has competed in numerous races across Alaska and the lower 48. He is a prior champion of the Junior Iditarod. He was named Iditarod's ``Most Improved Musher'' back in 2017. He is the 2019 and 2021 champion of the Kobuk 440 in Kotzebue.

So, including this race, Ryan has finished the Iditarod now nine times--nine times. He came in seventh in 2021 and then last year had his third consecutive top-10 finish. He placed ninth. So this is a guy who has given his all--given his all--along with his incredible canine athletes, to be where he is today: No. 1.

We are just so excited and so thrilled for him, particularly given the family legacy surrounding the Iditarod. Ryan is the first Inupiaq Iditarod champion since 2011.

It is interesting, Mr. President. I don't want to jinx things, but if you look--this is our reader board that we have outside my office over in the Hart Building.

Every day this week, we have been kind of following the mushers up the trail so that people would know who is in the lead. And these are today's standings: Ryan, of course, in first. But he is followed by Pete Kaiser. Pete is from Bethel. Pete is Inupiaq. Richie Diehl. Richie is from Aniak, an Alaska Native. So if the places hold, it will be quite a strong and telling statement that our top three mushers would be Alaskan Natives.

Dog mushing has been a part of life and culture for Alaskan Native people long, long before the Iditarod. But it is an ongoing reminder--I think a really beautiful reminder--of how men and women and, really, incredible dogs can work together in some pretty extraordinary winter conditions, connecting communities, connecting people.

Ryan is an inspiration to so many of us, inspiring Alaskans and future generations of mushers, for how he cares for his team, for the character that he has shown as he has competed.

And so to Ryan, I am going to have an opportunity to speak with you directly, but you need to know that you represent the true spirit of Alaska. You make us all so very proud. And we certainly congratulate you as the 2023 Iditarod champion.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor for a few moments this afternoon to recognize a woman of great distinction, a woman of valor, a woman by the name of Elizabeth Peratrovich, who championed civil rights for all Alaskans.

February 16, in Alaska, is a significant day. It is a day that the State of Alaska recognizes and observes Elizabeth Peratrovich Day. We have designated this day as early as 1988, but it is a time for us, as Alaskans, to reflect on the contributions of a pretty extraordinary Native woman, a Tlingit woman.

So I think it is important, and I have had an opportunity over the years to speak about Elizabeth Peratrovich. Senator Sullivan and I advanced a resolution recognizing Elizabeth Peratrovich's contributions when it comes to civil rights, and I think it is always important and timely to pay attention, to reflect on the legacies of those who have really worked to advance a more inclusive society and a more representative democracy.

Elizabeth Peratrovich carried the Tlingit name Kaaxgal.aat. I am attempting to do that well but certainly with respect to honor her name. She was of the Lukaax.adi clan. She was born on Independence Day. I think that is pretty fitting--born on Independence Day in Petersburg, AK, in 1911.

It was just right after that, right after the period that Elizabeth was born in Petersburg, that a group of Native people from across Southeast Alaska formed an organization called the Alaska Native Brotherhood, ANB. Two years later, the Alaska Native Sisterhood was formed, ANS. These are considered the oldest indigenous civil rights organizations in the world, coming out of Southeastern Alaska. ANB and ANS sought to advance equal opportunities for education, employment, housing; and they fought to secure Native civil rights.

So Elizabeth Peratrovich and her husband Roy became active in ANB and ANS in the forties. They moved to Juneau, our State's capital, in 1941. And their personal accounts of the discrimination that they encountered in Juneau, as Alaska Natives--you read the accounts, you read the stories, and it truly parallels the Jim Crow practices of the South.

But rather than be diminished, rather than be deterred, Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich were advocates, advocates against the adversity that they saw in their own communities. And it was through their work with ANB and ANS that they began advocating for an anti-discrimination bill in the territorial legislature.

And they pointed out the simple fact that Alaska Natives were paying taxes for a public school system, the same public school system that excluded their very own children. They pointed out that Alaska Native men were fighting in World War II and then, when they returned from the war, those Alaska Native veterans were denied rights that others enjoyed.

These very real, very immediate confrontations with discrimination drove their pursuit of equal rights for people all across the State of Alaska. So they worked on this anti-discrimination bill that was advancing through the legislature. It took a period of time. It was reintroduced in 1945, and in 1945 the measure passed the Alaska State House and moved on to the State senate.

And the debate on the senate floor was apparently quite animated and vocal throughout, but there was a territorial senator who denounced the efforts to desegregate. And he argued, and the words he quoted are ones that, as Alaskans, we see. The story told a lot. He said:

Who are these people, barely out of savagery, who want to

associate with us whites, with 5,000 years of recorded

civilization behind us?

That is what he said on the senate floor.

At the end of the floor debate, at that time, it was not unusual to open up for comments from those who might be part of the public. I served in the Alaska State Legislature, and we have galleries that sit directly behind the chambers that are open to the chambers. And Elizabeth Peratrovich was sitting in the gallery listening to this extended and very offensive debate, quite honestly. But she rose, and she said:

I would not have expected that I, who am barely out of

savagery, would have to remind the gentlemen with 5,000 years

of recorded civilization behind them of our Bill of Rights.

She stood gracefully. She stood firmly. She refuted clearly. And when asked if she thought that the bill would eliminate discrimination--so, again, a pretty interesting exchange between members of the senate and a member of the public in the gallery--and not just a member of the public in the gallery but a Native woman speaking up and challenging, forcefully and calmly but with a determination and a resolve.

And when she was asked if she thought the bill would eliminate discrimination, she replied:

Do your laws against larceny and even murder prevent those

crimes? No laws will eliminate crimes, but at least you as

legislators can assert to the world that you recognize the

evil of the present situation and speak your intent to help

us overcome discrimination.

A pretty powerful reminder.

And there was a long period of silence after her remarks, and then a wave of applause went through the gallery and through the senate floor, including from some who had previously opposed the bill. Alaska's Governor at the time, Ernest Gruening, was the one to sign the anti- discrimination law, the Nation's first anti-discrimination law. He signed it into law on February 16, 1945. This was almost two decades before the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is pretty significant when you think about the contributions of this woman, Elizabeth Peratrovich, her husband Roy Peratrovich, and other Alaska Native leaders, at a time when discrimination was rampant throughout our country, that they had the courage and the strength and the determination to stand up for what is right.

She is an inspiration because she set the example that, when you see injustice, you speak out, you take action. And she also provided a great example for why we need to listen to the perspective of all voices, especially--especially--those who have been left out or were left behind.

Elizabeth Peratrovich is, as I mentioned, recognized in Alaska on this day. She has also been recognized nationally. In 2020, the U.S. Mint released these $1 coins commemorating Elizabeth Peratrovich, and 2020 was the 75th anniversary of when the anti-discrimination law of 1945 became law in our State.

On the one side of the coin, it features the portrait of Elizabeth, the name of the legislation that she advocated for, and the symbol of the Tlingit Raven moiety, of which she was a member. So it is, indeed, a significant reminder to each of us, Alaskan and non-Alaskan.

I think Elizabeth Peratrovich Day is also a timely reminder for those of us who serve here in the Senate. It may not be easy to take on some of these complicated issues, especially when partisanship is pulling Members back to their corners, but we know we can make good progress. We have done it. We certainly did it with the Violence Against Women reauthorization. We need to follow a process that allows us to get something done as opposed to simply sending messages.

So as Alaska celebrates Elizabeth Peratrovich Day, I would hope the Senate would look to her legacy, her example as an inspiration, as we seek unity, as we follow her example of treating fellow citizens with respect.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was in Utqiagvik, AK, also known as Barrow, AK. It is the northernmost community in the United States. I was there for what some describe as a Messenger Feast. The Inupiat word is ``Kivgiq.'' And it really was a reunion, a glorious family reunion, where the communities of the North Slope region, all eight communities and actually neighbors from Canada, gather together during the winter to celebrate family, to celebrate community. It is an extraordinary sharing.

It is very similar to the sharing that they have during the summer months, when the communities come together to celebrate the whale harvest, the Nalukataq, yet another extraordinary family-type reunion but one of a sharing in a region that is built on a culture of sharing--sharing of subsistence foods, sharing of resources--and that is what I want to focus my comments on today, the resources within the North Slope region.

As I was preparing to leave Utqiagvik on Sunday morning to go back to Anchorage, I was at the hotel and visiting

with people who were gathered there for coffee. And as one gentleman was leaving, he said: Lisa, I think there are just two things that we need you to do. We need you to make sure that you protect our whale quotas so we can continue to provide for the sustenance of the people in this region, and we need for you to ensure that Willow is opened up for oil production so that we can continue our lifestyle.

Some might suggest that there is some inconsistency between this culture of a traditional subsistence lifestyle and the harvest of a whale to feed entire communities and the production of oil in the Arctic region. And I would suggest that it is not only absolutely not inconsistent but absolutely compatible because it is with the sharing of these resources that the people of the North are able to have much of what we enjoy in other parts of America today: the opportunity to see our kids educated, the opportunity for healthcare, the opportunity to be safe in our communities, the opportunity to have economies.

So I am here today to speak in strongest possible terms of the Willow Master Development Project within the National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska. We just refer to it as the NPR-A. And what I hope to do, along with my colleague Senator Sullivan, is to further educate Members of the Senate and really people around the country about this project by explaining how it will help to benefit the nearly 11,000 Alaskan Native people and residents who call the North Slope home, how it will support good-paying union jobs, how it will reduce our energy imports from, quite honestly, some of the worst regimes in the world, and why its approval is both necessary and prudent.

And I want to start with a little bit of background just to put Willow in context. Our NPR-A is a Federal petroleum reserve. It is a Federal petroleum reserve. Its lands were explicitly designated back in 1923--so 100 years ago--designated under the Harding administration. It is an area that encompasses 23.4 million acres. It is roughly the size of Indiana up in the northwest corner of Alaska.

It is home to the Alaska Native communities of Wainwright, Utqiagvik, Atqasuk, and Nuiqsut. These people from these communities have been living in this region since time immemorial. They still practice a traditional lifestyle, but they live in this region, and they care what happens in their region.

I mention that the NPR-A is 100 years old this year. Yet it has only seen a few projects, and those have been in the very recent years. And, in part, ironically, that is because the Obama-Biden administration pushed for the oil companies to turn their focus there. They explicitly encouraged--they said: Go develop in the NPR-A--explicitly designated for oil and resource development. They said: Don't go in the offshore, don't go in the nonwilderness part of ANWR. Go over to NPR-A.

That is exactly what ConocoPhillips decided to do. The company first acquired its leases for the Willow Project back in 1999. This was during the Clinton administration. They started developing them shortly thereafter, but they really accelerated that work during the Obama- Biden administration and then moved into Federal permitting in 2018. So they have been seeking Federal approval for 5 years now.

Then, last Monday, the Department of the Interior published its final supplemental environmental impact statement, the SEIS, for the Willow Project in order to address two issues that had been identified by the Federal court. So now where we are is, roughly, 30 days from now, in this time period, the Department of the Interior will be able to issue a final Record of Decision announcing its decision on whether and how this critical project should be allowed to proceed.

So you have got this final SEIS. This is a document that has been worked with career BLM officials. These are scientists. These are engineers. They have decades of experience evaluating environmental impacts of proposed projects. And they, together, with all of this analysis over this 5-year project, selected a new preferred alternative for the Willow Project. They call it Alternative E.

But keep in mind that these scientists, these engineers, these career Agency officials took years of analysis and very rigorous review. They had significant--significant--input and support--support--from the Alaska Native communities within the NPR-A and the North Slope Borough. So in other words, the people who live up there, the people whose home region it is, gave that input. There was back-and-forth. There was give-and-take. They listened to the Native people, and they worked to develop this Alternative E. Now, keep in mind, the Willow Project was already quite small when it was first advanced, in line with all modern development on the North Slope. But what BLM's preferred alternative-- what Alternative E does is it reduces its footprint even further. So from what ConocoPhillips originally wanted to do to now this Alternative E is they have gone from five drill pads to now three, with a fourth deferred to later permitting. The project will have 19 percent fewer road miles, cover 11 percent fewer acres, avoid further--avoid ecologically important areas. These were all considerations that were taken into place and placed into this Alternative E.

So at this point, the total project will cover just over 400 acres. So I have already shared with you the size of the NPR-A. What we are talking about here with the Willow Project is that .002 percent of the NPR-A will be impacted. It will be in full compliance with all of the restrictions that are included in the land management plan that the Obama-Biden administration issued back in 2013. So under that plan, they effectively took 50 percent--50 percent--of the NPR-A's surface area, some 11.8 million acres, they took that off the table to resource development. That is already off. We are not talking about that. We are talking about the area that is available now for development. The Willow Project is just .002 percent of the NPR-A.

The Willow Project itself is not going to cover all of its leased land, not by a long shot. There are areas that will have no development--no development will take place. There will be areas where development is only allowed with a waiver that would be required and areas where additional considerations will apply before any development takes place.

So, again, think about this. You have got 11.8 million acres of the NPR-A that has been taken off the table. This project is 429 acres. What we are trying to develop here, the project we are talking about developing, is literally 27,500 times smaller than what has already been taken off the table. I impress this upon folks because I think it is important to recognize that this is an extraordinarily significant project for the State of Alaska--for the resources that it will bring to my State, the economic development that it will spur. It is significant to the people of the North Slope Borough who call this region home and who rely on the revenue and the resources.

But as significant as it is, the footprint for Willow is miniscule. It has been meticulously planned to coexist with the wildlife, with the tundra, with the subsistence lifestyle on the North Slope.

Think about it. You would not have the two whaling captains who were wandering the halls here just this week--two whaling captains from the North Slope who are advocating for development of Willow if they felt that this was going to be harmful to their subsistence activity or to the subsistence caribou hunter who was also being interviewed by reporters and meeting Members of the Senate here just Tuesday to talk about why he believes that this coexistence with development, as proposed in the Willow Project, can proceed and is compatible with their life and their lifestyle.

ConocoPhillips, in moving forward with this, will have to abide by hundreds of lease stipulations and best practices. And best practices, keep in mind, when you are exploring and developing in the State of Alaska in the North Slope, it is not like Louisiana; it is not like New Mexico. They are operating in an Arctic environment, which means you have to work within the contours of the area around you. So best practices mean that exploration is effectively limited to about 90 days--90 days out of 365. You have got a lot more time that you can be building. We have to use ice ropes to help facilitate the exploration rigs that might go out.

You cannot be on the tundra when the tundra is not sufficiently frozen, but then that also means that you have got to get off the tundra as soon as the spring comes.

So these conditions, this scenario, is so different than anywhere else that we produce in the United States of America. Even with these lease stipulations, even with all that has to go on, Conoco believes that they can make this extraordinary environmental commitment. They believe that this project, this Alternative E, is viable for them to proceed.

You know, if you are following the news about Willow, you would probably get the sense that the support from most Alaskans is not there because there are a few voices whom we see in objection. I get that, but I will tell you that one of the reasons--probably the biggest reason--that has helped the Willow project garner support throughout the State is that the people of the North Slope who live there have come forward and have said: We believe that this will be helpful to us.

It is not just those who are living on the North Slope. The broader Alaska Federation of Natives has come together in support; bipartisan, nonpartisan entities from around the State. One of the leaders in the region, the North Slope Borough mayor--and I had dinner with him and his wife on Saturday night. Mayor Brower is not only the mayor--a pretty extraordinary man--but he is also a whaling captain himself and is strongly, strongly in support of the Willow project.

In a letter to Secretary Haaland, he wrote:

Responsible oil and gas development is essential to the

economic survival of the Borough and its residents. Oil and

gas activities are the primary economic generator for our

region, and . . . by far the most significant source of

funding for the Borough's community services and

infrastructure.

To put that into context, when he says ``significant source of funding,'' over 95 percent of the Borough's revenues come from oil in the region.

So when we think about our communities and our counties and where they may gain sources of revenue, it is pretty, pretty extraordinary to find any area where 95 percent of your revenues come from one single source.

And what do these revenues provide? They enable the Borough to provide for basic, basic services and basic infrastructure like clean drinking water, like education, like healthcare, like emergency services. The Borough does it all. The Borough is funding their own government, their own government to include search and rescue. I just mentioned emergency services.

I mentioned that the NPR-A is the size of Indiana but that the North Slope Borough is pretty significant in its size and scope, with eight communities spread out over hundreds and hundreds of miles--no roads. In the wintertime, the way that you move around is by snow machine, and in the summer, it might be by boat. But the reality is that the weather is very, very harsh, and snow machiners get lost. As people are trying to travel from one village to the next, who is there on a search and rescue? It is the local community, funded by the North Slope Borough. These are activities that, I think, most don't think that a borough would be providing, but they are able to do so--they are able to care for their people--because of the revenues that they receive from oil.

As one former mayor put it: Oil and gas activities are responsible for 200 years of development on the North Slope in the span of 30 years.

I was on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee when he made that statement on the record.

It is extraordinary how the quality of life has advanced since the days of revenue coming from our oil, and a recent study really kind of brings it home. It is not just about infrastructure that brings clean water or heat to your home, but it is what happens to one's health and well-being. When you have improved infrastructure, when you have sanitation systems, when you have medical care that these revenues have helped to facilitate, people are healthier, and people live longer.

There is an increased life expectancy among Alaska Natives who live on the North Slope. Get this: If you were born in 1985, your life expectancy is about aged 65--pretty young. For those born in 2014, the average life expectancy is 77 years. Think about that. Think about the dramatic leap in life expectancy. The only thing that has changed-- because they still live a subsistence lifestyle; they are still living in a really harsh environment. The only thing that has changed is that they have access to resources that allow them to be better cared for, that allow them to have a quality of life that we would just accept as basic. I think clean running water is basic. I think a flushed toilet is basic. I can't tell you how many communities in my State I go to where they are waiting for the day--waiting for the day--that they will get running water and a flushed toilet--pretty basic.

I think this is important. I have been talking a lot about the benefits to the people of the North Slope region, but when I mentioned that the Kivgiq and the Nalukataq are celebrations of sharing--the sharing of gifts at Kivgiq, the sharing of the whale at Nalukataq--it is not just the subsistence lifestyle that our Native people share. It is in the structure of how ANCSA really came to be such an amazing benefit to the Alaska Native people. ANCSA is the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. There is a provision within ANCSA, section 7(i) that requires--and this was agreed to by the 12 regional Native corporations--that 70 percent of all revenues received by each regional corporation from timber and subsurface estates be divided annually according to the number of Natives who are enrolled in that region.

What I am sharing with you is that, of the resource wealth that comes from the North Slope, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation is not the only Native corporation and beneficiaries to that. All Native shareholders throughout the State, through the 12 regional corporations, are entitled to that sharing of those benefits.

Think about what that means. If you are from a region where you don't have the resources, think about what that means to then have sharing coming to you from the north. When adjusted for inflation, between 1982 and 2015, a total of $3.1 billion was shared between the regional corporations for the benefit of their shareholders, and 56 percent of that, or $1.794 billion, came from oil and gas operations.

So when people ask what is the benefit that you receive from the oil sector in Alaska, it is certainly jobs. Absolutely. It certainly benefits our State, absolutely, in terms of our revenue, and you have all heard of our permanent fund dividend. But the immediate benefit-- the real, tangible benefit--that is shared with the Alaska Native people is an extraordinary model. I think those of us here in the lower 48 think that corporations are all sharp elbows, you know, wanting to get as much as they possibly can for themselves. That is not who the Alaska Native people are. The value that they bring is truly one of sharing.

The North Slope is an amazing place, whether it is summer or whether it is the heart of winter, as it was just this weekend at 30 below. I know the Sun was up for a brief moment in time there for a period of time. Everyone is very excited that the Sun is coming back. You know, it is dark, and it is cold. But for those who would suggest that responsible resource development and a subsistence way of life are incompatible, I invite you to go up to Utqiagvik. Go to these communities and hear for yourselves and see for yourselves how it is just simply wrong, because you will be able to see the benefits of responsible resource extraction and what it can mean to the lives of people in their communities.

I was in Utqiagvik again this past weekend, but I was there in the first week of January for a memorial service for a friend of mine and a great, great Native leader, Oliver Leavitt. Oliver was not only the head of ASRC. As an extraordinary corporate leader, he helped, really, with the formation of the North Slope Borough, and he was a whaling captain. He spent a lot of time here in Washington, DC, trying to educate people.

He would always get grumpy with me when I would say: Oliver, I am so happy you are back.

He would say: I should be at hunting camp. The caribou are coming through.

You know, he was a man who lived in two worlds, but you listened. I listened. I share this. I went to the school of Oliver Leavitt, and I heard his stories about how hard it was for him as a

young boy and as a young man. His job was to go out before school and collect driftwood so that their family home could have some form of fuel.

Keep in mind that there are no trees on the North Slope. It is hard. It is hard.

He said: I went to school not because I wanted to learn but because there was heat in the school.

He saw a transformation of what it meant for the people when they were finally able to get natural gas into his community and how, now, an elder can turn on the heat by just turning on the thermostat. What a concept. Well, for us, we kind of expect that, but it is just a reminder, again, of the benefits that come to those who live there and who have lived there for generations and thousands of years--of how they are compatible with Alaska's future here.

The Willow project will allow development, health outcomes, and life expectancy all to improve--all to improve--on the North Slope.

You think about the resources that the people need and what will happen if they no longer have access to those resources. What will happen? They are telling me, Lisa, we can't go back in time. We don't want to be left out in the cold. We will not be left out in the cold.

This is not social justice. So I ask us, as we are looking at this particular project, to keep in mind and keep in your hearts the people for whom it will most benefit.

But don't forget, the rest of Alaska and the country as a whole--they are also going to benefit. It is projected to create an estimated 2,500 construction jobs. Seventy-five percent of them will be filled by union labor, so unions are pretty supportive of this. Once complete, it will support 300 permanent jobs, which then in turn spins off thousands more across the State and across the country.

I mentioned the unions. If you support unions, you should be supporting Willow. The Alaska AFL-CIO, the Alaska District Council of Laborers, the North America's Building Trades Union, the Labors' International Union of North America, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the United Association--plumbers and pipefitters-- they are all on board. They are all on board and strongly supportive. So are countless others who recognize the importance of creating good jobs in Alaska and around the country to help reverse our GDP decline.

We are in a tough place in Alaska right now. I think we are No. 47, if I am not mistaken, out of 50 States. We are seeing a net migration out of Alaska. That is greatly concerning--greatly concerning. We have a higher than average unemployment rate. So we are looking at this and saying that Alaska needs this project.

I know there is criticism out there. You have folks who are saying: Nope, can't move Willow forward. We all have to address climate. We have to address the issue of climate change.

Let's talk about that for just a second because you know, Mr. President--you have heard me talk about it. You have heard me stand up and say that we need to be actively working to reduce emissions and increase our use of clean energy. I have been pushing policies to do just that. But I think we also recognize that you just can't flip a switch. You just can't get there from here overnight. There is a transition.

So I think what we need to focus on, the true choice that we have to face, is how painful, how chaotic do we want the transition to be for the people whom we serve?

On Tuesday night, when the President spoke at the State of the Union, he acknowledged it. He said we are going to need oil for at least another decade and beyond that. I would argue it is going to be longer than a decade, regardless of what we do at the policy level.

So the question is, What are we going to do to take care of our own needs with our own resources or are we going to empower OPEC at our own expense, and are we willingly going to return to the days of being highly dependent on foreign oil, with all of the economic, all of the environmental, all of the geostrategic consequences that entails?

We have seen what happens when we make poor choices and we don't plan for what a rational energy transition is going to look like. Europe is certainly one example there. But I would suggest--let's bring it a little closer to home. California is another example. Alaska's oil production has declined. We send a lot of our stuff to California. As our oil production has declined, what is happening in California is that their imports have risen and they have risen dramatically. They have turned where? They have turned to countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia for their supply. So now that the Russian supply is outlawed, we saw a recent New York Times article that noted that ``one in every nine tanks of gas, diesel, or jet fuel pumped in California comes from the Amazon.'' So, really, are we OK with this? Are we really OK with this? I don't think California is going to be happy knowing their gas came from Russia. But now that we are not taking it from Russia, now it is going to come from the Amazon rather than from a petroleum reserve in Alaska.

The choice here is not whether we need to continue to develop our oil resources--we do; we clearly do--the choice is where the source is going to come from. We are going to need it for decades to come. I will tell you, I am going to choose Alaska anytime over foreign sources. I will choose Alaska because we have a better environmental track record, because development there benefits our people there, and it ultimately makes it a little easier to address climate.

So you can oppose production on the North Slope. You can impoverish Alaska Natives and blame them for changes in the climate that they did not cause. But can you really feel good about that given the autocrats you are going to empower around the world and the harm and the devastation that come?

We have a better answer, and the better answer here is Willow. It is going to provide up to 180,000 barrels per day at peak production. This is going to help us refill our Trans-Alaska Pipeline. It is going to keep the lower 48 from having to import from some of the worst regimes in the world. So instead of importing from places with no environmental standards to speak of, we should be confident that the energy we need is coming from a project with a tiny footprint that is safely operated with as little impact as humanly possible. And we can ensure that the benefits of production go to the Alaska Natives of the North Slope and the communities around the State and around the country rather than petrocrats like Vladimir Putin.

All we need--all we need--is the approval of the Willow project, which will allow us to continue to tackle climate change while maintaining our energy security. It is not going to be a violation of the President's pledges, which were--I will remind you, they were to allow responsible development on existing leases to occur. Well, Willow--valid existing leases--was approved when he came into office. Its reapproval next month would simply signal to Alaska Natives, to Alaskans, to Americans, and the world that we are serious not only about our climate policies but also our energy policies.

I urge the Biden administration in the strongest possible terms to listen to all who support this important project, and I urge them to reject the false and misguided claims about impacts coming from some. I would urge them to issue a Record of Decision early next month selecting Alternative E without new limits or extraneous conditions. We need to get to work.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is nice to be here on the floor on a Monday evening and to hear final passage by unanimous consent of a bill to recognize and honor the life of our former Congressman Don Young. Don passed in March unexpectedly after 49 years in service, and it is always hard to figure out appropriate ways to recognize the life of a true public servant, as Congressman Young truly was. So the Alaska delegation--Senator Sullivan and myself at the time--really reached out to try to find those ways that might be appropriate means of recognition.

We can name buildings, as we are doing in this legislation, renaming a Federal courthouse in Fairbanks after Congressman Young. We can rename institutions, as we are doing in this bill and in recognizing the Alaska Job Corps Center now as the Don Young Alaska Job Corps Center.

And you can also do it through naming of monuments. And we have certainly a fair number of mountains, lakes, rivers in the State of Alaska that are pretty extraordinary, but it just didn't seem appropriate and fitting that a regular mountain should be renamed after the Congressman.

I had an opportunity to serve with him for many years. For, really, all of my life I think he has been my Congressman. I have known his softer side and certainly his rough and more explosive side.

And so as we were looking for something that might be fitting, we looked not only at mountains, but we looked at mountains that continue to blow their top to this very day and selected a volcano on the Aleutian Islands that is currently named--I believe it is pronounced Mount Cerberus, and we have, through this designation, designated this volcano in the Eastern Aleutians after our former Congressman--fitting tribute to a giant of a man and one that I think of every day. I know Alaskans think of the contributions that he has made.

So in this simple resolution recognizing and honoring the Congressman, whether it is institutions, buildings, or volcanoes, Don Young's name will live for quite some period of time.

So I am pleased to actually be here on the floor with my friend and colleague Senator Sullivan to recognize this evening.

Reserving the right to object, I would like to begin my brief comments here this evening by acknowledging the Senator from New Mexico and agreeing so much with him on this very, very important issue as we seek to protect objects of patrimony, whether in New Mexico or in my State of Alaska or in the home State of the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. It has been a travesty and it has been a crime that we have seen many of these objects that have been taken as art collections, that have been taken with no appreciation of the heritage, of the richness, of the tradition, and the respect to the Native people to whom they belong.

And so the STOP Act, or the Safeguard Tribal Objects of Patrimony Act of 2021, is significant. I am proud to be the lead Republican cosponsor, along with Senator Heinrich, on this. It is an issue that many in my State have been urging action on.

So I do not rise this evening to object to passage of the STOP Act, but at the same time I am acknowledging the significance of this, I also want to raise another bill that is also very important to my State, H.R. 441. We call it the Don Young Alaska Native Health Care Land Transfers Act.

This is something that I have been working on for several Congresses now, with my friend the late Congressman Young. We took three land transfer bills. We consolidated them into one. We thought it was a pretty simple effort. All we are asking to do is to convey IHS land to two of our Alaska Native Tribal health consortia, as well as the Tanana Tribe in the interior part of the State.

We passed stand-alone legislation on these three IHS bills earlier this Congress, but instead of passing that legislation, the House did what the House often does. They amended it with technical amendments. They sent it back here as one consolidated bill. That is H.R. 441.

But, again, it is about public health, delivery of healthcare to Alaska Native people in rural and underserved villages, many of which are off the road system. But these simple land transfers would enable construction projects to move forward, to reconstruct and to construct, in some cases, new healthcare facilities to provide care to Alaska Native people, and to also ramp up the delivery of clean, safe drinking water and sanitation facilities in rural villages, which are so key to improving public health.

I think we all would agree that basic services such as water sanitation are pretty important--so everything we can do to help facilitate that. I have pushed the urgent button on these land conveyance issues because time is running out. Construction seasons are very, very limited in Alaska, and so I have been trying to help facilitate that.

I have good commitments from my colleagues who are here on the floor this evening to help us move through this process on our side, or certainly on the House side as well, so that we can see final resolution on the Don Young Alaska Native Health Care Land Transfers Act, and I look forward to working with them on that. And so having said this, I will not object to unanimous consent to advance the STOP Act this evening.

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

Mr. President, we are all watching the news this morning, as a very, very threatening and ferocious hurricane is bearing down on Florida, a storm that is causing great anxiety. Hopefully, people are as prepared as they can be, but the consequences of these storms, these disasters that we are seeing, are ravaging in ways that are seemingly more ferocious than before.

We saw that last week in Puerto Rico, and, just about 10 days ago, we felt the effects of Typhoon Merbok on the western coast of Alaska. I would like to take just a few minutes here this afternoon because, as I was watching the news as this Hurricane Ian is approaching the coast of Florida, I can't help but think about what the folks back home are facing as they have lived through a very terrifying disaster like the typhoon and then what happens next, because, unfortunately--and you know in your State very well with the fires that ravaged New Mexico-- disasters come through and the attention of the country is focused on that, and we all want to be there to be of help and of assistance.

We have FEMA and we have the Red Cross, and we have everybody that is there, and it is all very important and very well intended. But then the next disaster comes. So maybe--I don't know--maybe, the people in New Mexico are thinking that we have forgotten them. I don't want the people of Alaska to think that we have forgotten what happened in their communities.

Typhoon Merbok came up from Japan, came across the gulf, up into the Bering Sea, and impacted an area of land on the coast of Alaska in excess of 1,000 miles.

To put it into context, it is as if the entire west coast of the United States--from the Canadian border all the way down to Mexico-- were impacted and inundated by one massive storm. That is the size and the scope of what we experienced: hurricane-force winds and, in the Bering Sea, waves as high as 50 feet.

The impact to the land was extraordinary, with the strength of the wind, but it was this massive storm surge that came. We get tough storms in the Bering Sea. We get really tough storms in the Gulf of Alaska. But what we saw this year was a storm that was earlier in its intensity than we have seen in previous years.

Oftentimes, people think about Alaska and think, man, it must be tough when the ice is formed out over the whole sea and everything is locked in. Actually, that is when we have safety, because when there is ice, it takes you all the way up to the shoreline, and these massive storms with the wind can't build the waves to that level to eat away at the shore, to cause the destruction that we are seeing with, again, the intensity of the impact of this storm.

We in Alaska are lucky. There were no people who were killed or injured. Really, it is astonishing, given all that the area sustained. I think part of that was just due to being prepared, knowing that everybody had to hunker down. But when your community then is, literally, separated in two, as they were in Hooper Bay, where on the old side of town you are cut off from your evacuation center, which is the school, because the waters have risen to the point where it is no longer accessible, there is no way to get to safety, and it is blowing 80 miles an hour in the middle of the night, the only place that you can go to is the next house up, hoping it is going to be a little bit higher above the water.

And so it is a recognition that preparation is going to be key to saving lives, but it is also making sure that our coastal communities that are so exposed, as the many in Western Alaska are, that they are able to push back or hold back to the extent possible.

For some of the erosion, the threat that comes their way, we have seawalls that are nothing more than boulders that are built up, dunes and berms that have been built over the years. But, again, we recognize how minimal that

is in terms of a protective barrier when you have the extent and intensity of these storms.

This is where many Alaskans are feeling very exposed and very vulnerable, knowing we made it through this storm, but what happens with the next one, because now that berm in Shaktoolik is completely eroded away. For a good portion of the seawall in Nome, the rocks are just jumbled and scattered. What we saw in Elim, around their front street there, they had a seawall of sorts. It was like a giant had come in and just picked up those boulders and sprinkled them, threw them all around. The front street there that had just been asphalted a couple of years ago--the pieces of asphalt almost lifted up, peeled back like a piece of taffy, just curled over the beach there. You look at that and you cannot comprehend the strength of that storm surge, the strength of what had caused that to just buckle and heave and, literally, melt.

I had a chance over this weekend to go and visit the area. I flew up to Nome, and we were able to go out to Golovin and Elim on the first day. Elim is a community of about 125 people--pretty small. It is pretty small but pretty important in terms of what they do. They are trying to build a little subsistence harbor there. They are resilient people. But some of what we saw with the erosion and what that will mean to them and their community--what it is going to mean to them and their water supply.

Golovin is a little bit bigger of a community, several hundred people. Golovin was impacted in a way and a manner that was just almost mind-boggling. The surge from the storm came up over this isthmus there, literally lifting homes up off their foundation, floating them and depositing them in different locations.

We went down a couple of different streets, and you come around and there is a house literally in the middle of the road, and people are moving their four-wheelers on either side of it because the house is in the middle of the road. Another one on another corner that had been floated across was just kind of catawampus. These homes will never be habitable again.

Sand--you look at it from the air, and it is lovely golden sand, not something you would expect to see on the coast of Western Alaska. But this sand now has inundated the entire lower part of the community, making it a thick, spongy, soft--interesting, but it is really very, very impractical in terms of how we move this wet, soggy sand out of everything that has come into the community here.

The areas underneath the homes--the homes in most of these western communities are elevated on stilts, not very high but they are all elevated. They are elevated because you do have instances of flooding. But the flooding was so high that it came up underneath the belly board of these homes and saturated the insulation underneath with water. But worse to the point is that water was mixed with the diesel, the diesel that had come from people's home heating fuel, their stove oil, the fuel they may have had for their snow machines or their four-wheelers. You could smell, going into the homes, the diesel that was below. What everyone was doing was literally ripping the insulation out from underneath their homes and buckets full of--dozer loads full of wet, soggy, contaminated insulation was being hauled off to the dump.

So that is all the activity that is going on now, and it is fast and it is frenetic. And it needs to be because on the day that I was there in Golovin and Elim, then 2 days later when I was in Hooper Bay and Chevak, the weather was kind of nice. It was decent. But in about 2 weeks--in about maybe 3 weeks--winter comes. Winter is on its way.

When winter comes, you can't move around. When the ice comes down out of the north, you don't have fuel barges that return to the area until the spring. That fuel barge comes in maybe May; in the upper river regions, June. Think about that. If you lost your fuel and the last fuel barge has come and gone and you weren't filled up, it is a long wait. What do you do? If you can't barge it in, you fly it in. Imagine what it means to fly in your fuel into these villages.

Construction materials. How do we get the construction materials up there, whether it is the sheetrock or the plywood or the insulation? You put it on the barge. Well, the last barges are like the fuel trucks. Barges won't be back until the spring. Right now, people are planning on: I need to fix up my home, but I am not going to be able to get the materials until June. What happens in the meantime? What happens in the meantime as winter comes? If you don't have any insulation under your home, if you haven't been able to get your home situated, you are going to be pretty vulnerable.

You may have made it through the storm, but it may be a very, very difficult and cold winter. It may be that your family of eight is now going to have to move in with another family that is already in an overcrowded situation. We don't have extra housing. There is no extra housing.

Everybody is moving as quickly as they possibly can to try to bring relief. We have the National Guard that are doing amazing things. Red Cross was out there analyzing. We were out there with the FEMA administrator. I took her to Nome, was able to take her to Golovin. She was able to see the destruction that came to the fish camps right outside of Nome. Fish camps are not where people go for a holiday. Fish camp is where people work. This is where they harvest and they process and they prepare their food, whether it is the salmon nets to catch the salmon, the Beluga nets, the gear that they have for their fishing. If they are able to get caribou or moose, this is where they come and they process. They harvested their berries. Everything kind of comes together at fish camp. Then you are ready for winter.

What happens when you have harvested and gathered and fished and you put it all in your freezer and then the power goes out, as it did for multiple days, and you lose everything in your freezer? The power went out here in Washington, DC, when I was back in Alaska in August, and I lost the stuff in my freezer. You know what? I am just fine. I can go down to the grocery store here. Folks in Elim don't have that opportunity.

The people in Golovin and Chevak and Hooper Bay and Shaktoolik and all the other places that have been impacted--the outdoors is their grocery store and the outdoor grocery store is now shut down because salmon season is over, fishing is pretty much over, berries are gone, moose and caribou--maybe they will be able to get a little bit of game, maybe not.

Think about what that means when your food source is now gone. You lost your boat because that was swept away or demolished. You have lost your motor. This is not a recreational boat. This is how you feed your family; this is how you live. The four-wheelers are just thrown up and crumbled and crushed. That is not recreation; that is how people move around. When you think about the ability then to--what do you do now? What do you do now?

I am sharing this with people because this is what has been keeping me up at night and getting me up really early in the morning to figure out what more we can do--what more we can do to help the people in these small communities that lived through a very scary natural disaster but who have looming in front of them perhaps a very frightening winter--a cold winter, one where their food resource is gone, where the expense of living has always been high, but now--we don't even know how to account for how high it is.

I was talking about this with a guy in Chevak who said he had ordered a little bit of lumber. He was working on something. He didn't even say what it was. It was $1,500 worth of lumber, but it cost him $2,200 to get it there, to freight it up.

I went into the grocery store, as I do in as many of the small towns and villages as I can. I always price things like, What is a box of Tide? I know what it is in Anchorage, I know what it is in Fairbanks, but in Chevak, it is $45 before the tax is added on to it.

But I had heard--I had heard this crazy story that water, bottled water, was more expensive than fuel. That can't possibly be. Fuel is $7 a gallon out there in Nome and probably more than that in Chevak. A 24- pack of bottled water--I don't know what the label was, it was like generic bottled water you probably get at Costco--$91.

That did include tax. It was $91 for bottled water. And this is in a community where they were still on a boil water notice because they were just still checking out their water systems.

We are working hard. Nobody is sitting back and waiting for the Federal Government to come in and help them because they don't have time. They are cleaning things up.

The FEMA administrator saw in Nome--in fairness compared to where she was in Puerto Rico, it probably didn't look that bad. But when you peel it back and you look at the damage and you realize the vulnerability going forward into this winter, that is where it looks scary.

So we are using every resource that we have--every volunteer, every agency. People are there and they are putting their muscle into it. We have asked for the same support that President Biden has given to Puerto Rico with a 100 percent cost-share waiver for the first 30 days to get things cleaned up. I am hopeful--I am desperately hopeful--that the administration hears us on that.

For us, right now, it is this immediacy of time to get things pulled back together as fully as we possibly can because we cannot--they cannot--be in a situation where, in the middle of winter, when resources may be there but they are a long way away and they are very expensive, that we then realize that we have to provide additional support and additional relief.

There is a resilience in Alaska and, certainly, a resilience in Western Alaska. These people have lived in these villages for thousands of years--maybe not exactly the same place, but they are not going anywhere. They are not going anywhere.

And what I feel compelled to do is everything in my power to make sure that they are not forgotten and that they and their families are able to move forward in these next months.

With that, I just share that my thoughts and my prayers are not just limited to those in Alaska, but we think about all those who have suffered due to disasters, whether in New Mexico, in Puerto Rico, or those who are very, very fearful in Florida right now.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the United States' mineral security has really become our Achilles' heel. It is a significant threat to our economy, to our competitiveness, to our security, and to our geopolitical leverage, all at the same time.

We know that mineral demand is skyrocketing, and yet it is harder than ever to produce minerals here in this country. So what we have done is that we have turned to imports to fill the gaps in our supply.

We are seeking, through this amendment, to put some limited assistance on the table to make sure that projects for the most critical minerals can move forward in a timely manner. That is what my amendment does for cobalt and for nickel.

Right now, we import 76 percent of our cobalt, 48 percent of our nickel, but demand is growing so dramatically for both as a result of EVs, of energy storage systems, and other clean technologies. So what we are seeking to do with this is repurpose $400 million for States to implement energy efficiency codes to instead ensure that domestic nickel and cobalt projects can advance.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes and Senator Durbin for up to 15 minutes prior to the scheduled vote.

Madam President, I am happy to come to the floor today to join my colleague the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Sullivan, as well as my colleague from Kansas, to talk about where we are with this administration or where, unfortunately, we aren't when it comes to prioritizing American-made energy.

As has been noted here on the floor by my colleagues, the President has just returned from the Middle East. It wasn't for a sightseeing trip; it was really all about oil. He was talking about oil. Above all, the President made that trip to ask the leaders of several foreign nations, members of OPEC, to increase their production levels.

OK, we get it. Gasoline prices are way too high. We know that. We have hit national records in recent weeks. They are averaging right now about $5.32 a gallon in my State. That is actually down a little bit from where we were last month, but it is up over 50 percent from where we were last year.

As has been said repeatedly, and we don't need to say it here on the floor of the Senate, people are feeling it in their homes. They are feeling it in their pocketbooks. Families are. Businesses are. Whether you are in places like Anchorage or Fairbanks, your budgets are stretched thinner and thinner and thinner.

It is increasingly difficult for small tourist operations, whether you are trying to take people out on sightseeing trips in the air or on the water. Our fishing fleets have to fill up their fishing vessels. But especially, particularly, our outlying villages--these villages that are off the road system--that already faced high prices, now the prices are astronomical.

I met with some leaders from the Northwest Arctic Borough just a few days ago, and they shared with me that in many of their communities, the communities were paying about $5.25 on average. But these were prices that were locked in from last fall when the last fuel barge came into those northern waters and was able to make its way up the river systems. Now, with the first spring barge comes literally--literally-- in 1 day going from $5.25 to over $8 a gallon. That is a lock-in price that they are going to be living with until that next barge.

Think about what that means when you are a community that is locked into these extraordinarily high prices. When that last fuel barge comes, you are going to have small villages that are going to be looking to see how much--not how much do we need to get through the winter but how much can we afford? They don't have much of a tax base. How much can we afford?

My theory is that they are only going to be able to buy as much as they can, and it is not going to be enough to get them through the winter. So halfway through the winter, in the darkest and coldest, when everything is locked in the ice, they are going to run out of fuel. And you have to be able to keep the heat on or everything breaks. So how do you get the fuel? You fly it in. Think about what those costs then become. So for us in Alaska, this is not only frightening, but it has the potential to just be catastrophic as we look at no end in sight for these prices.

I don't begrudge the President for meeting with world leaders. We expect him to do this. And I think it is a great idea to do what we can to increase supply to reduce prices. This is kind of the basics of supply and demand. I have championed this for years. Let's increase our supply. But the question is where that energy is going to come from. Where should we focus our time? Where should we focus our efforts? I think it just has to begin at home. It has to be here.

But apparently this administration has decided they are going to go elsewhere. They are going to seek oil from the Middle East. They are sending envoys to Venezuela. They are pushing for a weakened Iran deal, signaling that oil from the two worst regimes in the world could somehow come back online? This makes zero sense to me. It just makes no sense. Why would we do this? Why would we go abroad when we have the resources here? Why choose oil produced at low environmental standards, like my friend from Kansas just said? You are going to countries that have lower environmental standards and track records when it comes to human rights abuses, and we are just going to turn our eye to it? We are just going to close our eyes and say that is OK now? No, it is not