Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I have 12 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 when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 10; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Calendar No. 64, Jonathan Gould; further, notwithstanding rule XXII, at 11 a.m., the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Gould nomination, and following that vote, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on Calendar No. 261, Whitney D. Hermandorfer; further, if cloture is invoked, the Senate vote on confirmation of the Gould nomination at 1:45 p.m.; and if cloture is invoked on the Hermandorfer nomination, all postcloture time be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader on Monday, July 14; finally, if any nominations are confirmed during Thursday or Monday's session of the Senate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the historic remarks of my Democratic colleagues, led by the Senator from Rhode Island after 300 floor appearances on 1 subject.

Mr. President, I am really very glad we were able to reach agreement today to pass these four bills by unanimous consent and will send them to the President to be signed into law.

I want to acknowledge and thank my colleague and friend from Nevada Senator Cortez Masto. I also want to acknowledge Senator Markey from Massachusetts. They worked with us to try to get us to the place we are today in which we were able to move these bills across the floor.

I also want to thank the chairman of the Energy Committee and the ranking member, Chairman Lee and Ranking Member Heinrich. Their teams worked with us on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as the cloakroom teams, to make sure we were able to be successful today.

The Senate passed all four of these measures last December, so we have seen them once. Now we have seen them twice. But the House ran out of time at the end of the last Congress to take them up, so we are where we are. But now these bills are going to be going to the President for his signature.

Two of the bills we just passed are important for Alaska Natives, and I am proud to have been able to work on these important measures. It has been a multiyear effort to get them to the President's desk. Again, I don't care, really, if we send an H.R. or if we send a Senate bill to the President; we just want to get it accomplished. We want to get some things done for Alaska.

The first measure, which is H.R. 42, amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, or ANCSA. It amends it to ensure that when Alaska Native elders, the blind, and the disabled receive dividends from their settlement trusts, they do not inadvertently become, then, ineligible to participate in Federal needs-based assistance programs.

This is pretty common sense. You have a situation where Alaska Natives who are aged, blind, or disabled should not have to choose between accepting the settlement trust income they are entitled to or qualifying for Federal benefits such as supplemental security income, SSI, or SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as well as housing assistance. Now, with this bill, they are not going to have to make that choice.

The second measure is H.R. 43, the Alaska Native Village Municipal Lands Restoration Act. What this does is eliminate a requirement under ANCSA, section 14(c)(3), that Alaska Native village corporations convey land to the State of Alaska to be held in trust for future municipalities, which are not likely to ever be established.

So what we are doing with this measure is sunsetting this requirement and allowing village corporations to regain title to conveyed lands. This will allow village corporations to fully utilize their lands for the benefit of their communities. This is what we want to see happen. Again, it has been a long time coming. So I am pleased that we are here.

I am hopeful that the Senate can pass more of these similar, very noncontroversial bills through the unanimous consent process. We shouldn't get into the practice where we wait until the end of a Congress or perhaps even multiple Congresses for a package to be knit together. People in these communities are waiting on us, as Senator Cortez Masto noted in her State of Nevada and in my State of Alaska. They are waiting on us to deliver these small legislative priorities that will allow them to move forward, whether it is economic development or just making sure that there is a level of equity and fairness.

So I thank my colleagues, I thank the Energy Committee, as well as the floor team, and my staff who helped us move these measures forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges

of the floor be granted to my first session summer interns Amanda Edgar, Grace Kolean, Jeffry Alsup, Rhiannon Dobbins, Wesley Hulbert, Selby Long, Brooke Markoff, Mia Parish, Karley Thrun, Drake Ward, Braxton Zine, and Vanessa Auth and to my Senate Committee on Indian Affairs interns Elmore Limberhand, Julia King, and Austin West for the month of June 2025 in the 119th Congress.

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

Mr. President, yesterday was a day that really captured the attention of the world. We have all been talking about tariffs for a little bit, but yesterday was the day that really brought the focus to what was going on here in the United States.

At 12:01 in the morning on Wednesday, President Trump's tariffs on the countries with which the United States has had the largest trade deficits went into effect, on top of the 10-percent tariff rates that had previously applied to all countries, which had been initiated on Saturday, April 5.

And then just hours later yesterday afternoon, the President announced a 90-day pause on lowering reciprocal tariffs to then 10 percent--at the same time announced that he was raising tariffs on China to 125 percent. Now today, it looks like that number is closer to 145 percent. To say this has been a dizzying week in Washington, DC, is probably an understatement.

Those of us who are following the markets, it has been somewhat headspinning. I am not going to comment here on the floor today about the negotiating tactics of President Trump. I think he is legendary and really world-renowned for his skills at that--his skills in bringing nations to the table.

We are seeing some of this play out literally as we speak; other countries that have approached the administration to have discussions about tariffs.

This is a unique kind of leverage, most certainly keeping those across the table off-balance. But bringing the world, potentially, to a--to the brink of a ruinous trade war certainly qualifies as a very unique point of leverage.

The effort to try to reshore manufacturing here in this country is important, it is admirable, and it is something that we all should be working toward. But I think there has been general agreement that the message from the administration has been decidedly mixed, which leads to further confusion among our trading partners and our allies. If nobody understands where the finish line is, it is hard to reach it.

I don't want to focus my comments here this afternoon about these possible strategies and end results of these policies so much. But I want to focus more on the process of how these tariffs were imposed because I believe--I believe--it is yet another example of Congress is choosing to cede its powers to the executive branch.

If the global implications of these tariffs have shown us nothing else, it is that measures that are as important as the issue be considered by the 535 elected individuals that are in tune with the American people rather than vesting that with just one individual acting unilaterally. It is under article I section 8 of our U.S. States Constitution that clearly enumerates that Congress ``shall have Power To Lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.'' In other words, the power to levy tariffs rests with us here in Congress.

So why--why--have we seen the Executive take control over tariff rates?

And the answer lies in almost a century-long series of bills that we have seen here that Congress has voluntarily--voluntarily--enacted and laid down its authority for the Executive to pick up.

Following the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930, which plunged our Nation deeper into the Great Depression, Congress passed the following legislation: First, it was the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, which authorized the President to make limited tariff rates without congressional review on top of negotiating bilateral reciprocal trade agreements.

Then it was the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which broadened the President's trade powers to include multilateral trade agreements while also allowing the President to unilaterally impose tariffs if imports could threaten national security.

Then the Trade Act of 1974, which allowed the President to protect U.S. workers by adjusting tariffs if foreign countries engaged in unfair trade practices.

And then just a few years later, it was the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which gives the President authorities to address declared emergencies if ``unusual and extraordinary'' threats exist to national security, foreign policy, or to the economy. So powers include--you probably guessed it--the authority to ``regulate'' or ``prohibit'' imports.

So in his April 2 Executive order, President Trump declared a national emergency because of ``a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships'' and our ``trading partners' economic policies that suppress domestic wages.''

He is authorized--he is authorized to do so under the National Emergencies Act of 1976. So I want to be clear about all of this. I know some people might not like it, but all of what he has done is clearly above board.

The President is clearly within his powers to impose tariffs on our allies like Mexico and Canada and the EU just as much as he is with our adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran.

President Trump, and President Biden before him, took this route because Congress has largely relegated tariff authority to the President through the laws that effectively cede to the Executive.

And, my friends, it is just one more example--just one more example-- of Congress abdicating instead of legislating.

In my time here, I have seen a troubling pattern in both bodies where the party that controls the White House seems all too comfortable relinquishing authority to the President and then rubberstamping whatever policies the Executive wants enshrined into law. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have deferred to the Executive to call the shots, in my view, for far too long.

Now, we use the phrase around here a lot, ``coequal branches of government.'' I use it all the time. But the reality is, Congress was created in article I--article I of the Constitution. We are given far more authority than the Executive.

All you need to do is look in your handy-dandy pocket Constitution. Ours is a lot longer, but look at the authorities that we have: Congress may impeach and remove a President and members of the judiciary; Congress can override a Presidential veto of legislation; Congress appropriates the money that funds the operation of all branches of government; and it is Congress that, again, needs to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.

We also say a lot around here that ``business loves certainty.'' I would suggest the country's entire tariff regime being subject to the whims of one individual lends anything but certainty, and that is why-- that is why--I have signed onto Senator Grassley and Senator Cantwell's legislation. They call it the Trade Review Act of 2025, and it would reclaim this branch's authority and duty to help manage tariffs as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

The bill requires notice to the Congress of the imposition of--or increase in--any tariffs, requires notice to the Congress in 48 hours; and with that congressional notification, it has to include an explanation of the President's reasoning for imposing or raising the tariffs as well as providing an analysis of potential impact on American businesses and consumers.

I can tell you, the Alaskans that I am talking to back home would really like the last part of this, an analysis of: How is this going to impact us?

Another provision within the Grassley-Cantwell act is, within 60 days, Congress would pass a joint resolution for approval on the new tariff. Otherwise, all new tariffs on imports could expire on that deadline.

So what this act effectively would do would be to reaffirm Congress's role with regards to tariffs. It allows for a greater engagement, if you will, between the executive and the congressional branch; allows for the debate; allows for that engagement; allows for that understanding.

Again, I am hearing from folks all over back home because they are worried. We already pay high costs for just about everything in Alaska, but they are worried what it is going to mean for groceries, for cars, for furniture, electronics, coffee.

We had a visit with a group of high school students on the steps yesterday and they were from all over the State. You had some from Ketchikan all the way up to King Cove and out in the Y-K Delta. And the first question from one of the 16-year-olds in that group was: Can you tell me what is going on with tariffs? How is this going to impact us?

You know, I really appreciated that question from that 16-year-old, who is paying attention to what is going on. He has got questions. He is here in Washington, DC, and he is figuring he is going to get some answers from his Senator.

Alaskans are facing consequences. They want to know that they have a voice in it. And their voice is us. It is their Senator. It is their Representative. That is our role here.

Now, it has been suggested--the President himself has issued a statement about this legislation. He has indicated that he does not support it and that he would veto it. That is absolutely within his power, but we also have powers. We also have powers here in Congress, and we need to assert them.

So I would hope that this bill is maybe just the start--maybe just the toe in the water here where we are starting to see Congress reassert its authority. Because if we don't stand up for the institution, if we don't stand up for the legislative branch of our government by debating this issue and others, but holding votes, debating--let's debate this. Let's have a vote on the Trade Review Act. Because if we just sit back, if we don't assert our authority, we have only got ourselves to blame when we don't like the direction that may be taken.

The Executive has slowly arrogated more and more power since the end of World War II, and it has dramatically accelerated post 9/11, but we here in Congress have stood by, and we have accepted it. We have said it is OK.

I think it is time for Congress to reassert itself, whether it is on tariffs, whether it is on the power of appropriation, whether it is overseeing the bodies and the Agencies that we as a body have authorized. So let's legislate. Let's remember our role is to legislate. We owe that to those that we represent as well as to this institution for the long-term good of the Nation.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, before I begin my comments, I wanted to acknowledge the extraordinary life and the contributions of Senator Alan Simpson from Wyoming. I had an opportunity to hear several of my colleagues speak to the accomplishments of Senator Alan Simpson. And while I did not have an opportunity to serve with him, my father served many years with Al Simpson, and he and my mother Nancy were very close friends with Al and his wife Ann. They traveled together. They joked together.

And I had an opportunity to occasionally meet with Al Simpson. As has been mentioned, his humor was legendary. And as a young woman who was kind of observing, here you have this very important person, this Senator from Wyoming, who was very accomplished in so many years, with a sense of humor and a joke for just about everything--sometimes appropriate, maybe sometimes not quite as appropriate. But he was a genuinely beautiful individual, and you saw how he reacted and interacted with people at all levels.

I can only imagine the depth of appreciation and love that he had from the people in the great State of Wyoming because those of us who had just mere glimpses of an opportunity to see him and to know him found him to just be truly a lovely and a good man.

So I know that my parents would want me to be able to express my condolences to the Simpson family and the great appreciation for the contributions that he made to his State of Wyoming and to our great country.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning with my annual update. As the occupant of the Chair heard, just a couple of weeks ago, we began the ``Last Great Race,'' also known as the Iditarod. This is the sled dog race that typically begins from Willow, AK, and goes northward to Nome, a little less than a thousand miles.

This was the 53rd running of the Iditarod this year, and with great excitement, I am able to announce the winner of this year's Iditarod. At 2:55 a.m., this morning, Jessie Holmes crossed the finish line. He crossed the finish line in a remarkable time of 10 days, 14 hours, 55 minutes, and 41 seconds.

Now, this is not the fastest Iditarod, but it is by far the longest Iditarod. I mentioned that typically you have an Iditarod race of just about 1,000 miles. This was 1,128 miles through extraordinary wilderness, across conditions that were grueling in perhaps different ways: soft snow, howling winds, blasting sand--believe it or not--as they were crossing through river areas. It is a tough race every year, but this year was particularly rough.

They moved the start of the race, this year, from Willow to begin in the community of Fairbanks--my home town is there--but took a northern route through the interior, along the Yukon River, circling all the way down and doing a loop-the-loop down in Grayling, Anvik, and Shageluk.

The conditions coming up into Eagle Island were described as some of the worst. Actually, the terms that were used were not ones that I am going to share on the floor here, but it was a pretty tough trail, hard conditions on everyone.

But then, moving back to Kaltag and coming along here, across Norton Sound, an 8-hour stop here, just out of Nome, in safety, and Jesse Holmes, again, came under the burled arch at 2:55 a.m., this morning, with 10 dogs in harness.

His lead dogs were Polar and--gosh, who was the other? It was Polar and--I have got to find it here because you got to remember. You have got to acknowledge the names of your dogs because it is the dogs themselves that make sure that you come across safely and with honor.

I can remember Polar, and I can't remember the name of the other dog.

Hercules. Hercules and Polar. I mean isn't that appropriate for your lead dogs that are taking you over 1,100 miles. It is a herculean effort. So it is, indeed, something that we as Alaskans look on with great pride each and every year.

It is a test of endurance of the animals, certainly. It is a test of endurance for the mushers themselves.

Keep in mind, when they set out, on the 3rd of March--that is when they left out of Fairbanks--you are moving. You are moving day and night, although for most of the mushers, they actually prefer to mush at night, when it is cold, because the conditions are actually easier on the dogs so that the dogs don't get overheated.

But it is not like you are checking into a roadhouse or checking into a hotel. When you stop, you are literally getting bales of straw that you have had airdropped to a location. You are putting the straw out as bedding for your dogs. You are tending to your animals. And what I mean by ``tending to them''--I mean that is feeding them, that is watering them, that is taking their booties off, that is massaging their feet, that is massaging their muscles, that is working your dogs to get them in shape to run, before you can pause and heat up a pot of stew over your kerosene burner.

Think about what it means to melt snow--enough snow--to water 10 to 14 dogs that have been running miles and miles and miles.

So the effort there is physical endurance--physical endurance, most certainly--but also mental endurance because when you are just head down, running into the wind, taking on conditions that look the same as you have seen for the past 17 miles, because you are running down the width of the wide-open river or going through tussocks and hillocks and a trail that is just so rough and jerky that you have got to stay mentally awake. You have got to be physically on target. But it is hard in every sense of the word.

And so there is an appreciation for the athletes, both human but particularly the dogs themselves. This is not something where you can have a strategy and say: I am going to run for the next 43 miles, and I am going to rest my dogs for 4 hours, and then we are going to move on.

If you are a musher that is a winning musher and a safe musher, you can only go so far as your dogs will tell you. And when the dogs say it is time to take a pause, you know it is time to take a pause.

The third place, the individual who is going to come in third, Paige Drobny here, had a comment just yesterday. She says she has to make sure that she is watching what her dogs say. And when the dogs give her the look that says, ``We are not with the CEO right now,'' she knows and she says, I am listening to them. I have to make sure that they trust me just as I am trusting them. So there is a relationship that is extraordinary when you think about the humans and the canines teaming together.

We have Jessie Holmes, who came in first; Matt Hall has come in second--he is already a known; and Paige Drobny is well on her way in. But every single one of these mushers is a winner. Every single 1 of these 33 teams are winners, and those dogs remind us of that.

People have asked me: What do you get if you win the Iditarod? If this is something that mushers train for day in and day out of each year, there must be some big grand prize. Well, this year, the prize is $52,000, I believe, the total sum was. In addition to that, Jessie Holmes has won several other acknowledgements as he has entered different checkpoints ahead of the rest of the pack here. His winnings, in addition to the first-place finish, totaled $4,500 in cash on top of what he is receiving, $4,500 in gold nuggets, 25 pounds of fresh Bristol Bay salmon, and multiple trophies to commemorate each event. It is not just about the money; it is not just about the accomplishment, but getting some good old Bristol Bay salmon is also not a bad way to be recognized.

A little bit about our first-place winner this year, Jessie Holmes. I was able to share this with my colleague from Alabama. Jessie Holmes hails from Alabama. Alabama is a far piece from Alaska. The temperatures are a little bit different. But Jessie came to Alaska in 2004. He has been there ever since. He fell in love with Alaska. He found running dogs on a remote track line along the Yukon River was a lifestyle he wanted to adopt, and he has embraced it.

Some of you may recognize the name. He was a regular, between 2015 to 2023, on the Alaska reality TV show ``Life Below Zero.'' Maybe some of the people follow ``Life Below Zero.'' A lot of you follow Alaska reality TV shows.

Let me tell you, Jessie Holmes is the real deal. You may see him on reality TV, but he is the real deal. He has raced in the Iditarod every year since 2018. He placed seventh then as a first-time runner and became the 2018 Iditarod Rookie of the Year. So this guy has just been cruising. He has placed in the top 10 now five times. Again, an extraordinary musher, but a gentleman who has been proving his worth all along for years now, and we are just honored to be able to congratulate him.

This race is one that my colleagues know I get excited about it. This is March Madness, I know, but for us, it is also about the excitement that comes with this amazing race. It is a reminder to us that Alaska is a place that does not yield to those who are unprepared. It rewards those who respect it, who understand its power, and who find strength when faced with some pretty impossible obstacles.

Most people would say it is impossible to run 1,128 miles on a dog sled across these conditions. But the Iditarod is a living tribute to the pioneer spirit and a reminder that hardships are not something to be feared but just faced with courage--just run into the storm.

I want to recognize the values that it upholds: The perseverance in the face of adversity, the partnership that transcends words, and really the unbreakable will to keep it going no matter what the storm is. I wanted to share that with colleagues.

Mr. President, I am scheduled to be part of a colloquy here in just a couple minutes, but I wanted to make a comment about what the Senator from Washington has shared.

I am going to use a term that maybe some people are not familiar with. We are in a ``Morton's fork''--a Morton's fork. We have heard about a fork in the road. Some people know what a Hobson's choice is. But a Morton's fork is a choice between two equally unpleasant alternatives. And if this isn't where we are right now, ladies and gentlemen, I don't know what is.

As Senator Murray has outlined, a long-term CR--a long-term CR--when we have already done our appropriations work and we are not able to get to that work and instead we basically give the administration the ability to direct within the funding levels but direct as they will see fit through the end of September is something that I think many of us-- certainly this appropriator--do not really feel comfortable with.

I spent a lot of time within my Appropriations subcommittee, working very hard with the Department of the Interior, to make sure that we knew, whether it was funding for wildland firefighters or what we were doing within the VA or within any of the other Agencies--that we did what people asked and expected us to do. We did those bills, and I think we did a pretty good job.

Mine moved out of full committee unanimously, and then they didn't advance. So here we are sitting at a place where we have to take either the choice of a long-term CR and basically give up the work that we have done as a Congress or we move to a government shutdown, an equally untenable and equally unpleasant alternative and one that, quite honestly, we should not be in this position. We should not be in this place where we have two bad choices for our government and for the people of this country.

We can do better. I wish--I agree, Senator Murray--I wish that what we were able to advance was a short-term CR that would allow us to move to finish up our appropriations bills, do our work, and then start moving on to fiscal year 2026. I don't know whether it is possible between now and the end of day on March 14, but I, for one, am at a place where I am just beside myself that we are in a place where we feel that we have no good alternatives. We are in a Morton's fork.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor today with the Senator from New Hampshire as well as other colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support Ukraine. We are now more than 3 years into Russia's unprovoked brutal war against Ukraine.

I think we are encouraged by the news that we are seeing advance this afternoon with the talks in Saudi Arabia between the United States and Ukrainian officials as they talk about the potential for a cease-fire and potential for the United States to restore military support and intelligence sharing. These are promising developments.

I think we all want to--we all want to--arrive at a place where we see peace. But when we talk about how the peace is gained, I think, again, the discussions that are had on this floor--those of us who have had an opportunity to go to Ukraine and see the situation on the ground ourselves, to speak with so many engaged in this effort--the stakes are not only about Ukraine's sovereignty. The stakes also include our values, our security, and our credibility as the leader of the free world.

This is not just a regional conflict on the edge of Europe. It is a global test. It is a test of whether the international community will allow borders to be redrawn by force, a test of whether democracies will continue to stand together when authoritarian regimes literally try to rewrite the rules, and, yes, it is a test; it is a test of American leadership in the 21st century.

As was stated, the Ukrainian people are not asking us to fight their war. They are doing the fighting. It is their sons, it is their daughters that are dying. What they are asking of us as the world's leading democracy is to help us with the tools, help us with the arms, the ammunition, the logistical support; help them protect them; help them with the intelligence that can be provided through satellite imaging; help them so that they can protect themselves.

I think we should be proud. We should be proud as Americans that we have helped to make a difference. We have helped Ukraine push back the Russian advance. It has prevented Kyiv from falling to Russia. It continues to help Ukrainian defenders hold the line there.

So every weapons system, every round of ammunition and radar and drone that we have helped to provide--these aren't just supplies; these are literally lifelines to the people.

When you think about the people, I think it is important to also recognize another way that we have helped in this country. Senator Shaheen showed a picture of the Ukrainian families and the people in her State. In Alaska, we have welcomed, we have embraced, we have helped situate Ukrainian families who have sought refuge, who are here in a place like Alaska, in a place like New Hampshire, because where they call home is not safe to be.

So how we can support them is important because when we support Ukraine, we are not just helping a nation in need, we are protecting and we are preserving the rules-based international order that has helped keep the peace for generations.

If we falter, others are watching. Others are watching the situation in Moscow, in Beijing, in Tehran, Pyongyang. So if it is seen that we are walking away from Ukraine, if we embrace appeasement, we embolden every aggressor around the globe.

More than that, it is our allies, it is our friends, our partners-- they are watching this, and they are asking the question: Is the United States a country that can be depended on? Are we

seeing this alliance that we have had, that we have worked to nurture and build for 80 years--are we seeing that fray?

I understand absolutely the cause for restraint in our support--that war costs too much, that we need to be focusing on issues here at home--but, again, the fight is bigger than that. It is significant, yes, for Ukraine, but it is about democratic values and standing up for democratic values; it is about stopping the expansionist ambitions of authoritarian regimes.

I think we have to be honest here. Look at history. Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. In 2005, in a state of the nation address, Putin said:

The demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest

geopolitical catastrophe of the century.

He has never hidden his ambitions from that statement. When Putin says that the ``ongoing collapse of Western hegemony is irreversible,'' he means us. He means our allies and the broader narrative about the decline of Western influence. He wants NATO to be divided, and he wants the United States isolated. This works to his advantage. He just probably didn't expect that America was going to do it for him.

Now, as an Alaskan, I get geography. I am acutely aware of the threat a more aggressive Russia poses just across the Bering Sea. Two miles separate the United States--Alaska's Little Diomede and Russia's Big Diomede. We see Russia's military buildup when we see the Russian bombers that are flying in our area, when we see the Russian and the Chinese naval forces out in our waters. But we also know and have long known that a destabilized Europe means a more dangerous world for the United States. This conflict may seem like a continent away, a long way away, but the consequences are anything but distant.

We all want this war to end, but it cannot end on Russia's terms. If it does, we should expect nothing more than a temporary respite before the resumption of hostilities. Why are we going to start trusting and believing Putin's word now given his track record? We have seen this before. History doesn't lie, and the appeasement of tyrants does not bring peace.

Russia started this conflict, and it is critical for us to stand with Ukraine to end it--not just because it is right but because it is necessary.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join my colleague from Utah, the chairman of the Energy Committee, in speaking today in clear opposition to S.J. Res. 10, which would terminate the energy emergency that has been declared by President Trump.

I think my colleagues here on both sides of the aisle know that I am not afraid to suggest when I think that the President may be heading in the wrong direction. But, folks, on this one, he absolutely, positively clearly hit the mark, and I think that the chairman of the Energy Committee has outlined in pretty good detail how that has come about.

We know that our country is blessed with extraordinary-- extraordinary--assets. We have the potential to become the world's leading resource superpower. But in order to do that, we have to be able to produce more energy domestically, and that means we have to be able to extract more minerals. We have to be able to build more transmission lines. We need to be able to overhaul what is clearly a broken Federal permitting process. And we can do this. We can do this in a way that is cheaper, that is more reliable, more clean, really, than any other nation in the world. But we have got to kind of dig out now from where we have been over these past 4 years, where we saw setback after setback for resource-producing States like mine, the State of Alaska.

Let me give you a little detail in terms of what we are facing in the State of Alaska--a State that, again, is known for its resource wealth. But right now, in the south central part of the State, we are on the verge of importing LNG to meet the needs of some 75 percent of our population during the colder winter months.

I will just repeat that. Alaska, the place where everybody knows we have got extraordinary oil resources--we have extraordinary natural gas potential, not only in the North Slope but down in Cook Inlet. Well, Cook Inlet reserves are on the decline, and we are actually talking about importing LNG from Canada. That ought to just be considered a nonstarter for anyone who knows and understands the extraordinary potential for resource development that we have in our State with the wealth that we have.

Right now, in some of our remote communities across the State, residents are truly in what I would describe as an energy emergency. They might not use that term anymore because they have just gotten so used to the fact that they are paying so much to keep their lights on and to keep warm. We have residents in many communities that are spending up to one-half of their incomes on energy just, again, to keep the lights on and to keep warm.

Think about what that means when you are spending half of what you make for just the basic necessities. It means that you have less to feed your family, to educate your kids. We have got communities where power costs 10 times the national average, where gasoline can easily exceed $10 a gallon, and that includes diesel as well.

And those costs, of course, impact everything--everything--because you have got to move your food, your goods, usually by airplane, sometimes over the water, sometimes you are able to drive it. But when you are paying this much for diesel, for gasoline, for avgas, it impacts everything. So it is not unusual to go into a village store, and if you can find a gallon of milk, see that it costs 18 bucks a gallon.

I do my comparison shopping by checking the prices of a box of Tide. People need to be able to wash their clothing just for sanitary purposes. Almost in every village that I am going to, you are looking at prices over $50 a box--$50 for a box of Tide laundry detergent--and it is not because Tide is any more expensive than anything else. It is just the reality of what we are paying here. So I think we have got an energy emergency when it comes to affordability.

Right now, in our State, we have an oil pipeline that is one-quarter filled. We have this pipeline that has been pumping oil safely from the North Slope to delivery down in Valdez, going to other parts of the country for refining. That oil pipeline was completed in 1974 and has been producing for America ever since. But right now, it is about one- quarter full.

That pipeline starts in, again, one of the most geologically prospective regions on the Earth. But what is happening is you have Federal Government control that surrounds most of the lands there, and it has led to decreased opportunities to expand production up there and a pipeline that, again, is about one-quarter full.

I mentioned the benefits of oil here and talked about natural gas, but we also have known deposits of about 50 critical minerals, the building blocks of our modern society and our national security. We have just about everything that our Nation needs to break its deep dependence on China, to be able to rebuild our supply chains. But if you can't access it, you can't produce it, and we can't benefit from it.

When we try to build a road from the Dalton Highway to the Ambler Mining District--this is explicitly provided by a 1980 Federal law--we did this as part of a grand compromise. The road corridor was in exchange for the creation of a massive national park and preserve. But we can get that project approved in one administration, only to have the next one come in, reopen it, ignore the law, and then make a political decision to reject it.

And then, here in Congress, we run into a partisan wall with some less interested in the rule of law than the whims of the very same environmental groups that pushed this resolution.

And then, meanwhile, what is happening when we are not able to produce in our own home States, China is cutting us off from its mineral exports, including the gallium and the germanium that we could produce from the Ambler District, if only the Federal Government would uphold its promise to allow Alaskans to responsibly access it.

So, yes, when I look at my home State, when I look at Alaska, I do see an energy emergency--I see several, actually--and I see even more reasons to be concerned nationally.

As the chairman of the Energy Committee just noted, electricity demand is growing, and yet we can't permit new powerplants or build transmission

lines. We can't build pipelines in the Northeast or almost anything, particularly mines, on Federal lands in the West.

And, you know, I guess I am listening to some of the arguments that are being presented here, and maybe I would feel differently if my home State was producing more than 2 million barrels of oil per day, as some are. But we are not, and it is not because we can't. It is because we have been denied the opportunity to do so. And that is why I am very thankful for President Trump and the administration for the focus that they have given to the State of Alaska with a specific Executive order to allow us to unleash Alaska's energy and resource potential.

I have shared with the Secretary of the Interior, as well as the Secretary of Energy, that we need to stop treating energy like it is some kind of an evil or a bad thing. We need to recognize that it is good. When I was chairman of the Energy Committee, we had a little bumper sticker, and I summed up my whole policy with ``Energy is good.''

I haven't deviated from that policy. Energy makes us stronger, makes us less vulnerable, and it is an asset, not a liability, like we have seen it treated as such. We need to be unleashing our resources, including--including--all of our renewables, because that is all part of the energy basket as well. So it is not an either-or in my view. It is all of the above. And that is good for our economy. It is good for our security. It is good for our geopolitical power.

America's resource production is good for the global environment because, when we are producing our resources--where we stop paying countries that have little to no environmental standards, no interest in reducing their emissions, and that often rely on child or slave labor and that, frankly, don't even like us--so why not seize the opportunities that we have here, benefit our own people, our own economies, and, again, benefit the global environment as well.

So if an energy emergency helps us figure this all out, then I am good with that. And if it helps us take the Federal sanctions that we have seen placed on Alaska and return my State to the heart of our national strategy for resource production, then that is also good. I think we will all be better off.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to shift gears for just a moment. Colleagues know that I am the chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. I have been on this committee since I came to the Senate, and it is a position that I hold very close. I represent a constituency of Alaskan Natives back in my home State.

We have over one-half the Tribes in the United States of America, and so my responsibility to them as their Federal representative is one, again, that I take very, very seriously.

There has been a fair amount of confusion, I think, uncertainty that has been brought about by many of the Executive orders, some of the Federal actions that we have seen, whether it is funding freezes or programs that are being put on pause. But one area that I want to make very, very clear to colleagues, as I have sought to make clear to those who are part of the incoming administration, that when we are speaking about our Indian Tribes and our Tribal programs, and the Federal funding that they receive, they do not fall into the category, if you will, of diversity, equity, inclusion.

And so when the Executive order was announced in the very first week of the Trump administration, there was confusion as to whether or not Indian and Tribal programs were impacted, and in that confusion, I think, a lot of undue stress and anxiety.

And so I immediately asked the OMB--I met with Mr. Vought personally, and I asked him to take steps immediately to reaffirm the unique treatment, the programs and services to Indian Tribes based on their political and their legal status, which is recognized in our U.S. Constitution, in our treaties, under many Federal laws and policies, to ensure that there is no disruption to our Federal Tribal programs.

We know--our Supreme Court has affirmed our Indian Tribes are a unique political class--this is not a racial one--and their sovereignty and their trust relationship with the Federal Government must be upheld. And I shared this in a letter to the Acting Director of OMB.

We have seen, at least in a couple of the Departments already, that they clearly understand this distinct legal and political relationship. The Department of the Interior very quickly moved to add clarification.

On January 30, the Department of the Interior issued a Secretarial order that acknowledges that nothing in their order should be construed to affect the activities that implement the legal requirements, independent of the EOs, including the statutory authorities, treaty, and/or trust obligations of the Department to our Tribal nations and to our Native Hawaiian community. And so I appreciated that very clear message coming out of the Department of the Interior so early.

I think that it can be used as that model, that template, for other Federal Agencies because it is not just within Interior that we see Tribal programs, it is in other areas. We have just recently seen, out of the Department of Health and Human Services, that they recognize that as well. We are working, again, to make sure that any Tribal program has the clarity that they need and assurance that they and the beneficiaries will not be impacted.

We have a trust responsibility. We have an obligation that is clear. So avoiding any confusion, misunderstanding, or anxiety is something that I think we owe to our indigenous peoples across the country, and I am thankful that many within the new administration have stepped up to work with us to clear up any confusion that may be out there.

I yield the floor.