Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have come to the floor this morning to speak about the nomination of Dr. Michael Sfraga. He is an Alaskan, and he has been nominated to be our Nation's very first Ambassador at Large for the Arctic.

We are going to have this vote very shortly, and my hope is that colleagues will see not only the imperative for an Arctic Ambassador at this moment in time but also to recognize that this nominee, Dr. Sfraga, is absolutely impeccable in terms of his qualifications for this position.

He is one who is known widely throughout Arctic circles as our Arctic expert and the expert in everything from research to policy, to national security.

We are the only Arctic Nation that lacks an Arctic Ambassador. I think colleagues are at that point in time where they recognize it is past time that we have that representation in the room when issues are as contentious as they are.

Let me just share with you a few reminders about what is happening in the Far North. We were all made aware, on July 24, when Russian and Chinese bombers flew a joint patrol for the first time off the coast of Alaska. What was unusual was not the fact that Russia and China were flying together, but it was the fact that it was the first time they had done it jointly in the Arctic.

We see the Russians regularly fly into our air defense identification zone--or ADIZ--but this was the first time to see the Chinese flying in this area with a joint mission. And we have just seen events continue to unfold throughout the summer.

Just a couple of weeks ago, September 10, Russia began a massive, weeklong, worldwide ``Ocean-24'' exercise with hundreds of warships, more than 100 aircraft, and nearly 100,000 troops. This exercise is the largest since the fall of the Soviet Union, but it also had Chinese participation.

Between its start and end, NORAD and the air forces stationed in Alaska detected, tracked, and intercepted four different Russian incursions into our Alaska ADIZ.

So we have come to expect incursions throughout the year, usually about six or seven. Think about that. In just 5 days, our air defenses were tested as much as they tend to be tested in any given year. So we are now way ahead on publicly reported intercepts this year, up to 10. We have got 3 months left.

There has also been an unprecedented level of naval activity off the coast. We saw the U.S. Coast Guard detect four Russian naval vessels 50 miles northwest of Point Hope. Just take it back a couple of years when Russian warships chased Alaska fishermen out of an area within our EEZ. That was back in August of 2020. Those are not isolated incidents either.

Last August, the Coast Guard detected and shadowed a Russian intelligence ship operating off of the Aleutians. This July, the Coast Guard detected and shadowed a Chinese surface action group within our EEZ and the Bering Sea.

We all remember the Chinese surveillance balloons that transited above Alaska and the Arctic last year.

And then just last night, I received notification from NORTHCOM of yet further intercepts of four Russian aircraft.

I hope that we can all agree that this is an unprecedented time for the region. Normally, we think of the Arctic as ``High North, Low Tension,'' but right now it is ``High North,'' and it is ``Rising Tension.''

One thing that is missing is a Senate-confirmed diplomat who will spend his or her time focused on Arctic issues, working with our allies, engaging our adversaries, and sending these very clear messages that we will protect America's interest in the Arctic.

I had a chance to talk to Dr. Sfraga just literally hours ago. We were talking about this very intercept and what

we are seeing. He wanted to issue a statement as to his concern regarding what we are seeing with these air incursions into our ADIZ and into our EEZ off of Alaska shores.

He says as follows:

If confirmed as the U.S. Ambassador at Large for Arctic

Affairs, I commit to do everything in my power to

relentlessly push back against these malign actors in this

new era of authoritarian aggression and press for more

military assets and infrastructure in the Arctic region to

protect America's economic and security interests.

So it is clear, we need an Arctic Ambassador. And we need this individual, Dr. Mike Sfraga, to be that Arctic Ambassador.

He was nominated in February of last year. His nomination was reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee in March, and today we have got an opportunity to confirm him.

I have mentioned that I think his qualifications are second to none. All you need to do is look at this gentleman's background: 30 years focused on the Arctic, a career of service in this area.

He is an accomplished geographer, a researcher, a teacher with a Ph.D. from the University of Alaska. He helped establish the University of the Arctic. He co-created, co-led the State Department's Fulbright Arctic Initiative. He established the Polar Institute at the Wilson Center, which has become the Arctic Public Square for high-level conversations about the Far North.

He chairs, currently, the US Arctic Research Commission, which advises us in Congress and the President on international research in the Arctic.

When I spoke to him--he is in Helsinki, and he is going be to attending the Helsinki Security Conference. Next week, he is going to be at the Warsaw Conference.

This man is in every conversation--every conversation--that surrounds the Arctic. He has the respect of those within the military, within the academic community, within policy. He is the person who knows the Arctic best.

And his vast experience means that he knows how to handle our adversaries like Russia and China--across the interagency process with allies and partners--and doing it through a position of strength.

Some have argued that perhaps his past interactions with regional players disqualify him from serving in this role.

He is an Alaskan. We share a maritime border with Russia. We used to have regular nonstop air service to Russia, believe it or not. That is part of a time when, obviously, relations were better and Putin hadn't decided to invade Ukraine. But it wasn't uncommon for Alaskans to visit and work and know people who live there.

He has also been criticized for attending international forums. Remember, he is not the only American or U.S. Government official in attendance at these meetings. I can't count the number of times I have gone as the U.S. representative to these meetings, and Mike Sfraga is there in the room, leading the conversation.

Another area of criticism is that he failed to disclose fully before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when his application came forward. Keep in mind, he is at every conference on the Arctic happening out there.

I am told--I am told--that attendance on panels or conferences are not required for inclusion in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee questionnaire. When the committee came back and said: We know that there are other conferences you have attended. You have failed to disclose these. He went back, and he fully--fully--amended his disclosure to make sure that there were no omissions.

So he then, when he submitted that to the committee, realized, through looking at his airline records, that he had failed to disclose yet another conference. So he went back voluntarily to do it. He has made sure that everything that has been asked has been provided.

I tell you, the criticisms that Dr. Sfraga has faced, I think, are a great way to ensure that the United States never has an Arctic Ambassador or that we ultimately have to confirm an individual who has never even been there, who knows very little about it, and won't do anything to protect or advance our strategic interests. That would be a loss because the Arctic is no longer this isolated, distant region. It is the place of strategic importance, economic potential, and growing competition.

And the United States must be prepared to lead. We have to be sitting at the table. We have to have that representation that we have lacked-- that we have lacked.

Personnel is policy, and Dr. Sfraga is ready to take this on. So I urge the Senate to see through the challenges, the attacks, I think, on Dr. Sfraga.

There is nothing in his past or in his file that is disqualifying. We know exactly what we are getting. He has been a public figure. He has shared his views on the Arctic for years, and he continues, to this day, to do just that.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting yes to confirm Dr. Sfraga.

I yield the floor.

I would like to acknowledge for the record an individual who is being recognized as we speak over at the Library of Congress. This is Rev. Dr. Trimble Gilbert. He is 1 of 10 honorees who have been named National Heritage Fellows by the National Endowment for the Arts.

This is an extraordinarily high honor. It is one of the Nation's highest honors in the folk and traditional arts, recognizing artistic excellence, supporting contributions to traditional arts heritage.

I had an opportunity in January to travel to Anaktuvuk Pass, where Dr. Gilbert calls home, and to be able to surprise him with the news that he was getting this recognition and would receive this honor. At that time, we didn't have a date. He has now flown from Alaska to be here as part of, again, an extraordinary tribute.

This is a Native leader, an elder who is a master Gwich'in fiddler and a highly esteemed culture bearer. What he brings to the conversation in the arts is deeply cultural, deeply spiritual, and with an intellectual knowledge that is so extensive, you are just humbled to be in the man's presence.

As was stated in a local newspaper today, ``His life is a walking testament

to the cultural values, practices, traditions, and knowledge of the Gwich'in people.''

So I am proud to be able to acknowledge the fine work of Rev. Dr. Trimble Gilbert of Arctic Village--I said Anaktuvuk; it is Arctic Village--and also to be able to offer him my personal congratulations this evening.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wanted to take just a couple of minutes here at the close of the evening to speak to an anniversary. Today is the 40th anniversary of the Arctic Research and Policy Act. It is known as ARPA. We use the acronym ``ARPA'' around here quite frequently. We talk about ARPA-E and ARPA-H.

But the original ARPA was the Arctic Research and Policy Act. It was legislation that was actually drafted by the previous Senator Murkowski from Alaska. It was one of the first pieces of legislation that Frank Murkowski introduced and got passed into law. It was signed by President Reagan. It was cosponsored by the likes of Ted Stevens and Scoop Jackson, Warren Magnuson; on the House side, Congressman Young.

It was significant in that it laid a foundation for the policies that we are seeing put in place today and over these past 40 years. It has been laying out much of the knowledge and the understanding and the policy for Alaska.

I talk a lot about the Arctic, coming from the State that makes us an Arctic nation, but I think it is important to recognize that many of our allies around the world--many of those who are not our friends around the world--are also talking about and taking a keen interest in the Arctic.

There is a lot of focus on this week because we are seeing levels of engagement from the Russians up in the Alaska ADIZ and the area in the high north. We have seen joint exercises with the Russians and the Chinese, both in the air and on the waters in our northern waters. There is a level of focus and intensity about what may be heating up in a cool place--not something that we like.

But it is important to recognize that when we speak about the Arctic, it is not just its geostrategic location on the globe that makes it such a key place for defense and strategic defense. It is the role that the Arctic plays when it comes to just the health of our planet. Some describe it as kind of the big thermostat up north. And we see down here on the east coast and parts of the country where, when you have Arctic weather coming down, pushing things in different directions, everything kind of goes out of whack. And we are all starting to pay attention to what is going on with the weather and where it is coming from.

Well, the science that comes to us in better understanding what is happening in the Arctic, much of this came about through the development of the Arctic Research and Policy Act.

So leading in these areas has been important for all the right reasons, whether it has been environmental; whether, again, it has been just from a geostrategic perspective; whether it has been a focus on the health and the well-being of indigenous peoples; whether it is understanding the extraordinary science that is unique to the area, understanding the impacts of a thawing permafrost and what that may mean, understanding the impacts within our ocean.

But it is also better understanding that geography. With the mapping that we have seen that has been spurred from both NOAA and USGS, we have been able to identify an area north of the shore of Alaska--an area, well, two times bigger than the State of California--that we identify as part of our Outer Continental Shelf, allowing us to submit claim to that territory.

The real-world advances that we are seeing in understanding more about the Arctic come about because of good legislation that began so many years ago.

There is a reception probably going on right now with many of those who have been involved with the U.S. Arctic Research Commission over the years and their partner Agencies. There are some 18 partner Agencies that participate. Several of the commissioners who have served currently and who have served in the past are present and are speaking about the contributions.

Two of the former commissioners, heads of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission--actually, both former Lieutenant Governors for the State of Alaska, Fran Ulmer and Mead Treadwell--came together and penned a joint op-ed that ran in the Anchorage Daily News last month. And I want to read just one paragraph from that op-ed because I think it really is a sum of what we have seen as a result of the framework from this law. It states:

Our nation's long-running Arctic research programs in . . .

NOAA and the . . . USGS provided the essential data to enable

America to recently claim new rights to an offshore land area

larger than two Californias. The law has added momentum to

efforts to build new, powerful icebreakers and to increase

our Arctic presence as Russia and China increase theirs. It

laid the groundwork for safe shipping and resource

development in the Arctic by identifying methods to reduce

risk. It helped evolve our understanding of continental

drift, and the plate tectonic evolution of the Arctic Ocean

basin. Arctic health research is informing policy to improve

health outcomes and to reduce disparities. Forty years of

purposeful, coordinated U.S. Arctic effort, involving

national resources, partners across the Arctic region, and

Alaskans is something to celebrate and take pride in.

So I just wanted to include just, again, a few short moments in the Congressional Record today about this anniversary, with a recognition that it is important to recognize the accomplishments of what we have built and the foundation that guides our science and informs our policy, which we use to benefit our people and our Nation.

But it also needs to be a push for us, an impetus to keep our foot on the gas,

so to speak, to keep moving forward, because we need to be more than a nation in the Arctic that has the title. We need to be that active participant. We need to be the leader in the Arctic space.

So what more does that mean? It means confirming our nominee to be the first-ever Ambassador-at-Large for Arctic Affairs, a gentleman by the name of Mike Sfraga, Dr. Mike Sfraga, who is currently the head of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission. He has been nominated by the President. He has gone through the committee. We need to get him confirmed because of the immediacy of so many of these Arctic issues that are playing out now.

Every time we have national conferences and other Arctic ambassadors are there, there is a void in the U.S. space. We need to make progress on matters that have been longstanding. It has been decades now-- decades--that several of us have been working to advance progress on ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty. Some on my side still have a little bit of older history, at a time--actually, during the Reagan years--when there were some concerns about ratification. I think we have tried to address them over the years.

But the world has changed up there. When I say the world has changed, the world is opening up in the Arctic: the levels of commerce that we are seeing; again, the levels of engagement from a national security perspective; other countries--China--looking to the Arctic waters for resources there, whether it be fisheries or whether it be minerals. It has changed, and so our active participation as a member of that important treaty, I think, needs to be an imperative.

We have got to figure out icebreakers. We have got to do better. We have authorized six icebreakers. We have funded--we have appropriated to three, and we still have nothing, nothing that is moving forward fast enough to satisfy anybody out there.

Other nations are not sitting still while we are trying to literally get our act together on this. This is an area where we have to keep moving. We have to keep building out our Arctic infrastructure. We are moving forward with a deepwater port in Nome that is critically important.

There are other aspects of infrastructure that we cannot assume are in place, whether it is adequate housing, water, wastewater, broadband--all of the infrastructure that is so important to live in a cold and remote area--and then recognizing the situation of the people who live and work and raise their families there and have since time immemorial and want to do so for generations going forward, making sure we are paying attention to education, to healthcare, housing, economy, jobs.

So today I have introduced legislation that would amend the Arctic Research and Policy Act with the very fancy title ``Arctic Research Policy Amendments Act of 2024.'' I don't go for the big acronyms in the titles. What we are doing is we are broadening the scope of the act to account for the Arctic's increasing role in national homeland defense; to strengthen climate and environmental research; to establish an annual award for excellence in Arctic research--we need to support and recognize those who are doing great work; and then to reflect the essential role of the indigenous people, incorporating the wisdom and experience of those who have lived there for millennia.

So it is good to work with the Commission. They continue to do great work. It is something that I--I appreciate colleagues here also waking up to the fact that this is the age of the Arctic, and how we embrace it, how we embrace our leadership role, is critical.

Madam President, I wanted to take just a couple of minutes here at the close of the evening to speak to an anniversary. Today is the 40th anniversary of the Arctic Research and Policy Act. It is known as ARPA. We use the acronym ``ARPA'' around here quite frequently. We talk about ARPA-E and ARPA-H.

But the original ARPA was the Arctic Research and Policy Act. It was legislation that was actually drafted by the previous Senator Murkowski from Alaska. It was one of the first pieces of legislation that Frank Murkowski introduced and got passed into law. It was signed by President Reagan. It was cosponsored by the likes of Ted Stevens and Scoop Jackson, Warren Magnuson; on the House side, Congressman Young.

It was significant in that it laid a foundation for the policies that we are seeing put in place today and over these past 40 years. It has been laying out much of the knowledge and the understanding and the policy for Alaska.

I talk a lot about the Arctic, coming from the State that makes us an Arctic nation, but I think it is important to recognize that many of our allies around the world--many of those who are not our friends around the world--are also talking about and taking a keen interest in the Arctic.

There is a lot of focus on this week because we are seeing levels of engagement from the Russians up in the Alaska ADIZ and the area in the high north. We have seen joint exercises with the Russians and the Chinese, both in the air and on the waters in our northern waters. There is a level of focus and intensity about what may be heating up in a cool place--not something that we like.

But it is important to recognize that when we speak about the Arctic, it is not just its geostrategic location on the globe that makes it such a key place for defense and strategic defense. It is the role that the Arctic plays when it comes to just the health of our planet. Some describe it as kind of the big thermostat up north. And we see down here on the east coast and parts of the country where, when you have Arctic weather coming down, pushing things in different directions, everything kind of goes out of whack. And we are all starting to pay attention to what is going on with the weather and where it is coming from.

Well, the science that comes to us in better understanding what is happening in the Arctic, much of this came about through the development of the Arctic Research and Policy Act.

So leading in these areas has been important for all the right reasons, whether it has been environmental; whether, again, it has been just from a geostrategic perspective; whether it has been a focus on the health and the well-being of indigenous peoples; whether it is understanding the extraordinary science that is unique to the area, understanding the impacts of a thawing permafrost and what that may mean, understanding the impacts within our ocean.

But it is also better understanding that geography. With the mapping that we have seen that has been spurred from both NOAA and USGS, we have been able to identify an area north of the shore of Alaska--an area, well, two times bigger than the State of California--that we identify as part of our Outer Continental Shelf, allowing us to submit claim to that territory.

The real-world advances that we are seeing in understanding more about the Arctic come about because of good legislation that began so many years ago.

There is a reception probably going on right now with many of those who have been involved with the U.S. Arctic Research Commission over the years and their partner Agencies. There are some 18 partner Agencies that participate. Several of the commissioners who have served currently and who have served in the past are present and are speaking about the contributions.

Two of the former commissioners, heads of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission--actually, both former Lieutenant Governors for the State of Alaska, Fran Ulmer and Mead Treadwell--came together and penned a joint op-ed that ran in the Anchorage Daily News last month. And I want to read just one paragraph from that op-ed because I think it really is a sum of what we have seen as a result of the framework from this law. It states:

Our nation's long-running Arctic research programs in . . .

NOAA and the . . . USGS provided the essential data to enable

America to recently claim new rights to an offshore land area

larger than two Californias. The law has added momentum to

efforts to build new, powerful icebreakers and to increase

our Arctic presence as Russia and China increase theirs. It

laid the groundwork for safe shipping and resource

development in the Arctic by identifying methods to reduce

risk. It helped evolve our understanding of continental

drift, and the plate tectonic evolution of the Arctic Ocean

basin. Arctic health research is informing policy to improve

health outcomes and to reduce disparities. Forty years of

purposeful, coordinated U.S. Arctic effort, involving

national resources, partners across the Arctic region, and

Alaskans is something to celebrate and take pride in.

So I just wanted to include just, again, a few short moments in the Congressional Record today about this anniversary, with a recognition that it is important to recognize the accomplishments of what we have built and the foundation that guides our science and informs our policy, which we use to benefit our people and our Nation.

But it also needs to be a push for us, an impetus to keep our foot on the gas,

so to speak, to keep moving forward, because we need to be more than a nation in the Arctic that has the title. We need to be that active participant. We need to be the leader in the Arctic space.

So what more does that mean? It means confirming our nominee to be the first-ever Ambassador-at-Large for Arctic Affairs, a gentleman by the name of Mike Sfraga, Dr. Mike Sfraga, who is currently the head of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission. He has been nominated by the President. He has gone through the committee. We need to get him confirmed because of the immediacy of so many of these Arctic issues that are playing out now.

Every time we have national conferences and other Arctic ambassadors are there, there is a void in the U.S. space. We need to make progress on matters that have been longstanding. It has been decades now-- decades--that several of us have been working to advance progress on ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty. Some on my side still have a little bit of older history, at a time--actually, during the Reagan years--when there were some concerns about ratification. I think we have tried to address them over the years.

But the world has changed up there. When I say the world has changed, the world is opening up in the Arctic: the levels of commerce that we are seeing; again, the levels of engagement from a national security perspective; other countries--China--looking to the Arctic waters for resources there, whether it be fisheries or whether it be minerals. It has changed, and so our active participation as a member of that important treaty, I think, needs to be an imperative.

We have got to figure out icebreakers. We have got to do better. We have authorized six icebreakers. We have funded--we have appropriated to three, and we still have nothing, nothing that is moving forward fast enough to satisfy anybody out there.

Other nations are not sitting still while we are trying to literally get our act together on this. This is an area where we have to keep moving. We have to keep building out our Arctic infrastructure. We are moving forward with a deepwater port in Nome that is critically important.

There are other aspects of infrastructure that we cannot assume are in place, whether it is adequate housing, water, wastewater, broadband--all of the infrastructure that is so important to live in a cold and remote area--and then recognizing the situation of the people who live and work and raise their families there and have since time immemorial and want to do so for generations going forward, making sure we are paying attention to education, to healthcare, housing, economy, jobs.

So today I have introduced legislation that would amend the Arctic Research and Policy Act with the very fancy title ``Arctic Research Policy Amendments Act of 2024.'' I don't go for the big acronyms in the titles. What we are doing is we are broadening the scope of the act to account for the Arctic's increasing role in national homeland defense; to strengthen climate and environmental research; to establish an annual award for excellence in Arctic research--we need to support and recognize those who are doing great work; and then to reflect the essential role of the indigenous people, incorporating the wisdom and experience of those who have lived there for millennia.

So it is good to work with the Commission. They continue to do great work. It is something that I--I appreciate colleagues here also waking up to the fact that this is the age of the Arctic, and how we embrace it, how we embrace our leadership role, is critical.

Madam President, on behalf of the men and women who serve at the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the countless Americans who have benefited from his distinguished service to our nation, I rise to pay tribute to the life and career of Mr. Keith L. Englander, the MDA's former director for engineering, who passed away on May 2, 2024 at the age of 70.

Mr. Englander gave 45 years of exemplary Federal service to our country and was the driving engineering force behind the missile defense system that protects the United States, our deployed forces, and our allies from missile attacks. He took on and conquered the toughest engineering problems during his service with the Department of the Navy, the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO), and later the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMD) and the MDA.

Mr. Englander's passion for aviation was inspired by his life near the Naval Station at Norfolk, VA; volunteering at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, PA; and the successes of NASA's Gemini and Apollo programs. In high school, he joined the Junior Engineering and Technical Society and was a member of the local Boy Scout Explorer Post focused on space exploration. He graduated from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute in 1975 with a BS in aerospace and ocean engineering and soon embarked on a long career of civil service.

Mr. Englander's career began with the Department of the Navy in 1975, where he was responsible for the design and development of propellant devices for rocket motors. He later served as chief engineer for the Navy A-6 attack aircraft. He left the Navy for SDIO in 1992 to tackle the pure engineering challenge of intercepting ballistic missiles using space-based weapons. As leader of the Brilliant Pebbles System Engineering and Integration Directorate, he addressed significant challenges, such as miniaturization, that pushed the boundaries of 1990s technology.

In 1995, Mr. Englander assumed the role of the National Missile Defense

(NMD) System engineer and later served as technical director, responsible for all aspects of the NMD system that would eventually become the ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) element that continues to defend our homeland from missile attack. Always an innovator, he was the first NMD manager to use Integrated Product Teams, and he led the engineering and integration that allowed the individually developed weapon, sensor, and battle management, command, control and communications components of the NMD system to function as an integrated network. This integrated approach would later become the foundation of the BMDS engineering process.

In 1997, Mr. Englander was selected to be NMD deputy for system integration and entered the Senior Executive Service, where he pursued a capability-based approach to missile defense requirements, identifying necessary system engineering changes, and leading the team to implement those changes. The result was an evolutionary system engineering process to design, develop, and deliver ever-improving performance increments to the BMDS, which would later be renamed the missile defense system (MDS).

In 2001, Mr. Englander was selected to be the MDA director of system engineering and integration, where he applied the engineering organizational skills developed during his NMD leadership tenure to develop and shape the Agency's engineering processes. In this role, he was a key advisor to the Director and received his first Presidential Rank Award. A firm believer in the value of engineering collaboration, he led the integrated MDA systems engineering team (MDSET) comprised of Government, Industry, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers and University Affiliated Research Centers (FFRDC/UARC), and systems engineering and technical advisory engineers and analysts who focused on developing, integrating, and evolving the BMDS.

As system engineer, he established the technical objectives and goals for the BMDS, including both technical and operational metrics. He continued to shape MDA's engineering processes with his vision to integrate six separate engineering functions within the Agency: system engineering, test, modeling and simulation, targets and countermeasures, manufacturing and producibility, and independent assessment. He created and led the MDA summer study process, translating policy guidance into overarching objectives for missile defense. He continued this process for several years, making him a decisive voice in the development and approval of the Nation's ballistic missile defense development and fielding roadmaps.

In 2003, Mr. Englander became the MDA technical director, charged with articulating Agency programs to the services, Congress, public, and international community. Late in 2004, the Secretary of Defense directed ``Initial Defensive Operations,'' the first implementation of a limited homeland missile defense, and Mr. Englander personally led the significant engineering effort that allowed this to deploy with a meaningful capability. He was integral to the design, development, and fielding of the GMD system on alert today in Alaska and California that defends our Nation against long-range missile threats from North Korea.

In 2006, as a result of the Base Realignment and Closure, Mr. Englander successfully managed the migration of BMDS engineering functions from the National Capital Region to Huntsville, AL. Later, as MDA implemented a consolidated approach to the contractor workforce, he led the seamless transition of critical engineering niche contractor support efforts into a few performance-based contracts. He also developed and implemented a strategy for centrally managing MDA's FFRDC/UARC efforts to more efficiently apply National Laboratory subject matter expertise to critical technical challenges across the agency.

Mr. Englander also played a significant role in the 2008 satellite shoot-down known as Operation Burnt Frost. Although analysis showed several BMDS elements could achieve the intercept, he reasoned the flexibility and adaptability of the sea-based Aegis ballistic missile defense system offered the least impact to the program and provided the best chance of success. Based on his assessment, Aegis BMD engineers quickly made the required hardware and software modifications, and, with the support of other BMDS and service assets, the Agency successfully executed a pinpoint intercept that potentially saved many lives.

Working with NATO technical committees, Mr. Englander promoted analyses that led to confirmation of the importance of missile defense to the Alliance at the 2009 Strasbourg-Kehl Summit, where NATO heads of state and government supported deployment of U.S. missile defenses in Europe to counter the ballistic missile threat from Iran. As a result, the U.S. began development of a phased, adaptive approach to ballistic missile defense in Europe. Working with the National Security Council and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Mr. Englander refined candidate architectures and provided a variety of deployment options for the placement of missile defense assets, giving State Department and Department of Defense negotiators the required flexibility to conduct meaningful nation-to-nation discussions with countries such as the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey. His insightful, quick-turn engineering analysis was critical in obtaining administration and international support of the European Phased Adapted Approach, which included a new weapon system concept known as Aegis Ashore. His work resulted in a more flexible strategy for regional missile defenses and saved critical national resources.

Throughout Mr. Englander's engineering career, he maintained a close and supportive relationship with the ultimate end user of the systems: the warfighter. In 2012, he saw an opportunity to improve the technical interface between MDA and the combatant commands and international partners. He created a warfighter technical interface organization to serve as the single point of contact to the warfighter for all engineering and technical issues related to the BMDS. This organization was responsible for leading the exchange of BMDS technical information with external stakeholders and assuring BMDS operational performance is correctly represented in the request for analysis and request for information process with combatant commands.

Mr. Englander's effective engineering leadership, which resulted in the unprecedented integration of the BMDS across the three services, did not go unnoticed at the highest levels of the Department of Defense. In 2015, the Department gave MDA the role of Technical Authority for Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) to lead all the system engineering for joint IAMD interoperability. Mr. Englander led development of a unique modeling and simulation representation of cross-service weapon system kill chains to help identify and implement multiple fixes to service weapon systems and improve interoperability for joint track management, combat identification, and integrated fire control.

Similarly, Mr. Englander established engineering policies and processes for the BMD system and propagated them to the BMDS elements. To rapidly deliver incremental defensive capabilities to the warfighter, he tailored the engineering process to pace the evolving threat, resulting in the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)- Patriot Missile Segment Enhancement integration, which was provided in response to U.S. Pacific Command's Joint Emergent Operational Need in the Korean area of operations. To ensure an enterprise-level solution to a costly and difficult technical effort, he shaped MDA's modeling and simulation program for ground testing. This program provided faithful representations of BMDS elements and components to improve confidence in end-to-end performance assessment.

Mr. Englander received numerous honors over the years, including three Presidential Rank Awards, the American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics (AIAA) David R. Israel Award for Meritorious Achievement for International Ballistic Missile Defense, the National Defense Industry Association Outstanding Leadership Award, and the Secretary of Defense's Exceptional Civilian Service Award. In 2016, he was inducted into the Virginia Tech College of Engineering Academy of Excellence and the Virginia Tech Aerospace

and Ocean Engineering Department Academy of Excellence.

Mr. Englander's technical acumen was matched by his gift for leadership. He took care of his people by recognizing their potential, mentoring many rising engineers, and creating opportunities for them to grow. Mr. Englander's legacy lives on at MDA through the talented and capable engineering workforce he trained, the engineering national team he founded, and the analysis quick response team he established.

Mr. Englander's commitment to excellence and pioneering spirit were critical to delivering today's proven multilayered and integrated missile defense system that protects the United States homeland, the men and women of our services stationed overseas, and our allies and international partners. He truly is the father of the modern-day missile defense system.

The achievements of Mr. Englander were on display on April 14, 2024, when Iran conducted an attack on Israel with over 300 weapons, including ballistic missiles, land attack cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles. The vast majority of the drones and missiles were intercepted by Israel's own air defenses and warplanes and in coordination with U.S. forces. The U.S. Standard Missile-3 ballistic missile interceptor was used for first time in combat, and the Israeli Arrow 3 and David's Sling weapon systems were both used successfully. Mr. Englander's lifetime work enabled the defense of Israel and saved many lives. Although he is no longer with us, he helped realize President Ronald Reagan's dream of making missile defense a reality.

Mr. Englander is survived by his wife Jana of Alexandria, VA; his son Alexander and his wife Sarah of Columbia, MD; and his sister Denise Englander-Kraut and her husband Bill of West Chester, PA. Mr. Englander was the son of Captain Felix (U.S. Navy) and Elaine Englander. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the entire Englander family.

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

Madam President, it is Monday afternoon. We are back for what appears to be the last week of full session before we are due to go on an August recess. There is lots to do back home but clearly lots to do here in the Senate as well.

It looks that this week we are going to probably spend the end of the week wrapping up some of the nominations that are out there, and I want to speak to a nomination that I feel very, very strongly about and would hope that we will have an opportunity to weigh in as a Senate on, on a priority that I don't think enough of us as Americans think about: our role as an Arctic nation.

As we are processing nominations, I want to kind of move our attention to the top of the world, up in the Arctic.

We have a lot of hotspots in the world right now, and the last thing in the world that we need is for the Arctic to become one of those hotspots. Whether we want it to or not, whether we want to will it away or not, the Arctic is increasingly gaining attention by others for different reasons, and the fact that the United States doesn't have that diplomatic presence, if you will, is a disservice, I believe, to us as an Arctic nation.

So I have come to urge this body to take up the nomination of Dr. Mike Sfraga. Mike is an Alaskan, but he would be our Nation's first Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs.

We have not had a confirmed Ambassador at Large position. We have had a Special Representative to the Arctic, but when you send a ``Special Representative'' to some of these dialogues, to sit at tables with other countries' Ambassadors, there is a disparity there, and I think we have recognized the importance and the role of this Ambassador at Large position.

Dr. Sfraga was nominated in February of 2023. He was reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee this March, and it is time for us to take him up and confirm him.

And I get it. I mean, there is a lot going on. I mentioned hotspots around the world. You look at what is happening in Ukraine and in Israel and in Taiwan and in China and in North Korea, and you have everything that is happening domestically. Sometimes I think the Arctic is out of sight, out of mind for many, but it is important that we not lose sight of the consequential nature of the Arctic itself. Again, we use the phrase ``It is a cold place,'' but it is becoming its own hotspot. So what we can do, again, to assert not only our areas of oversight and overlay but also from the diplomatic perspective is something that I think is worthy of focusing on.

So why this time? Why this particular nominee?

First, we have incredible opportunities on the Arctic issues-- everything from resource development to tourism, to shipping, to infrastructure. You have the people who live and work and raise their families there. Thousands of American Alaskans live in the Arctic, and their interests deserve to be taken seriously and represented in the highest councils of our government. We also have a very dynamic situation in the Arctic right now with climate change, with national security, engagement with other nations.

So let's just talk about our neighbor to Alaska's west there, and that is Russia, the largest Arctic nation. Their war on Ukraine is now in its third year, but it is being powered by their revenues from oil and from gas and now, more and more, also from seafood.

Russia is increasingly shipping its oil through the Northern Sea Route, which has the potential to threaten Alaskan waters and our marine resources. They are testing a combat icebreaker, which could give it a significant, strategic advantage that we currently lack.

The Acting President pro tempore is well aware that in this country, we lack that icebreaking capacity. We have one operational icebreaker. She is currently at dry dock and will be there for a period of months. Our medium-strength icebreaker, the Healy--it was just reported last Thursday--had a fire aboard ship as it was going across the Northwest Passage. I have not yet received the report, but my understanding is that that vessel is not in a condition to continue with the mission they had set out on. And that is it. That is it.

We have worked through the appropriations process to authorize the icebreaking capacity to build out the fleet. We are not there. We are not even close to being there. In fact, the updates we get from the Coast Guard on this are beyond frustrating. They are to the point where we have a responsibility to ensure that the commitment we have made for the taxpayer dollars, for the infrastructure that we need, which is the icebreaker--we have to line these up, and we have to line them up quickly.

Last week was an interesting week. I know that Senator Sullivan and I had some pretty in-depth briefings from the head of NORAD and the head of the Alaskan Command when we saw really an unprecedented air exercise between the Russian Bear bombers--two of them--coming together, coordinating with two Chinese H-6's and coming into the Alaskan ADIZ, into our area, some close to--basically separating these aircraft by about 200 miles from our shore. They were close enough to certainly get our attention. They were operating within the rules, and they were operating safely. But, again, it is a demonstration, a show of partnership. While it may not be the first time we have seen the Russians and the Chinese flying together, we have never seen them in these northern areas. So it begs the question: Why? What is their interest up there? So making sure we are engaged has to be a priority.

I mentioned seafood. People don't necessarily think about the prospect or the reality that Russia would be engaged in economic warfare on seafood--overharvesting fisheries that are shared with Alaska, selling that overharvest to China for reprocessing to get around the sanctions that are in place, and generally throwing the global seafood markets into chaos--all to generate additional revenues for its war machine. This threatens not only the species, the seafood, but also the way of life for so many who count on the fisheries for their very existence.

In many, many areas, we are seeing the Russians and the Chinese partnering to help enhance the Chinese position in the far north. I mentioned the activity we just saw last week in the air. We are seeing the cooperation and the collaboration on Russian energy, the collaboration with the processing of Russian seafood. Now the Russian Federation's security service has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Chinese Coast Guard to enhance maritime security cooperation in the North Pacific, in the Bering Sea, and in the Arctic.

Last year, one of the pictures that got, again, a lot of attention was a flotilla of 11 Russian and Chinese warships off the Aleutian Islands. Just a few weeks ago, there was a new flotilla of Chinese military ships that transited the U.S. EEZ off of Alaska. We know they are not going out whale watching or looking at the glaciers. This is activity that is close to Alaska, along our shared maritime border with Russia and just beyond our sovereign territory.

But I share these because these are the events that are happening now. These are the events that are happening now, and they are capturing the attention of the country. So we need to make sure that, as we are paying attention to these current events, we have somebody whose day job it is to do nothing more than monitor, engage, work with the State Department, work with our friends and allies, and work with the administration.

We have made some good progress in recent years on infrastructure in the Arctic. We have done a lot more in partnering from a diplomatic perspective by putting a consulate there in Nuuk, Greenland. We have to do a lot more to ensure our Nation's interests and well-being in the region, and that is why it comes down to the right people in the right place--the right people in the right place.

This is why I am so strong in urging that we take up Dr. Sfraga's nomination to be the Arctic Ambassador at Large. He has over three decades of experience on Arctic issues. He is the Chair of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission and has been since 2021. Prior to his nomination for Ambassador at Large, he was the founding director of the Polar Institute. He was the director of the Global Risk and Resilience Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. He was a colead scholar at the State Department for the Fulbright Arctic Initiative. He has served as chair of the Committee of Visitors Review of the Section for Arctic Science, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation. He earned the first Ph.D. in geography in northern studies from the University of Alaska in Fairbanks.

The guy knows the Arctic. He gets it. He is clear-eyed about the realities and the intentions of our adversaries. He understands what we need to do to advance our Nation's equities in the Arctic. He knows the people; he knows the scene. And they know him. That is really incredibly important.

They are waiting for us. They are waiting for us to confirm Dr. Sfraga's nomination. They have worked with him in the past, and they are really anxious to have him in this position.

I was at an event last week. It was the going-away for Iceland's Ambassador to the United States. Her next role is a newly created role. She will be Iceland's Ambassador to the Arctic-at-Large. We should confirm our own already.

The Arctic is where our domestic policy meets foreign policy. It is where homeland defense meets the protection of our national fisheries. It is where our changing climate meets increased resource development and shipping and trade. It is where NATO's ``other flank''--its western flank--meets Russia and China. It is the most strategically important place in the world.

I know that people are looking at our calendar. They are saying that time is running short. I don't disagree. But I think it is critically important that we have somebody of Dr. Sfraga's caliber in this position. We need to have that representation. I would certainly urge the Senate to act on his nomination, hopefully, before we are able to conclude at the end of this week.

The reality is, if we want to do right by the Arctic and all of our growing interests and challenges in the region, we really can't wait any longer.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am here today to follow my colleague Senator Warren to discuss the legislation that we have been working on together, S. 1723. This is the Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policies Act.

As Senator Warren has just noted, this is legislation that will allow the Nation to address a chapter of American history that I think has been overlooked for far too long. This is a dark history, a dark legacy of the Indian boarding school era.

From 1819 to 1969--1969, not too terribly long ago--throughout that period, the U.S. Government forcibly removed Native children from their families and their Tribes, placing them in boarding schools. These Indian boarding schools, as they came to be called, were not just education institutions, but many were tools to eradicate Native cultures, languages, and traditions to ``civilize'' Native American children.

The traumatic effects of these boarding schools are still being felt by their survivors--not only by their survivors but by their children and really by their communities as well.

I heard from some of those survivors who are still with us that the act of sharing, being able to tell the truth about their experiences, can help contribute to healing. But it takes courage, it takes extraordinary courage, and I have heard that.

Fred John, Jr., who is the son of Katie John and Fred John, Sr., attended the Wrangell Institute in Alaska. He was assigned the number 77. He was not referred to as Fred John, Jr.; he was No. 77.

In 2018, he wrote that following his time at the boarding school, he still carried the pain and scars from his time at the institute. He never talked about it until his children gave him the strength and the encouragement to do so.

General Pratt, who opened the Carlisle Industrial School, established what he called a ``rapid coercive assimilation'' process in these schools. The goal there was to separate Native children from their Tribes, from their language, and from their ways so that they might never want to return home. The stated purpose of the policy at that time was to ``Kill the Indian, and save the man''--again, a dark, dark legacy.

Our committee report details this history. To hear just some memories of how these policies were implemented really is devastating.

Fred John, Jr., describes seeing a group of kids arriving from Anaktuvuk Pass. This is a small Native community at the gates of the Arctic, very far into the interior of the State, very far--1,000 miles away from the Wrangell Institute down in southeastern Alaska. Fred John, Jr., remembered the fur parkas that they were wearing. He remembered their caribou pants. These were kids who came from a part of the State where caribou was their primary food source. He remembered how beautiful they all were. But when they came in, the school staff stripped them down, taking all their clothes, all the food, including the dry caribou and the salmon that they had been given to tide them over. The staff showered them, shaved them, and gave them a number.

But the most painful in his retelling was how all of their clothes-- the beautiful fur parkas, the caribou pants--all their clothes-- everything--were taken and burned up in a furnace to completely wipe away their connection not just to the clothing but to the culture.

In this time period, students were punished and endured violence. Some survived and are pursuing healing, but unfortunately, many others did not.

This photo--there are two of them, actually, here on the same chart, and it may be difficult to see from a distance, but the photo on top is of a child laying on the floor. It is part of the Sheldon Jackson collection at the Presbyterian Historical Society. This shows an Alaskan Native child aboard a ship--it is called the Revenue Cutter Bear--to be taken to the boarding schools by Sheldon Jackson. According to Alaskan Native Heritage Center research, most of the children who were taken aboard never returned to their homes. It was a long and lengthy journey. Many went to school and never returned to their homes, passing away at the various boarding schools they were sent to, including the Sitka and Carlisle Industrial Indian Schools.

This photo on the bottom here--you can see how young these children are. This comes from the National Library of Congress, and it shows a group of children who were sent to Catholic Holy Cross Mission--again, in the interior part of the State. Here, they are wearing essentially military uniforms--everything from the boots to the uniforms themselves.

Benjamin Jacuk-Dolchok was one of the experts we worked with on this topic, and he shared his research, including these photos.

According to testimony from elders who attended the Holy Cross school, every child received a haircut upon entrance, but if they disobeyed, if they angered any of the matrons or the priests, their heads would be completely shaved as punishment.

And these are just a handful of the stories from survivors from Alaska, but Alaska was not the exception. Over the 19th and the 20th century, stories like these from survivors are, unfortunately, not too uncommon across the country.

One of the most profound reasons for Congress to establish this Commission is that it is time. It is time the Federal Government take responsibility for the legacy of its harmful policies. So our Commission will provide a Native-led process for communities to share the stories, share the truth, and pursue healing with the goal of breaking the cycle of intergenerational trauma.

And like other congressional advisory Commissions that this body has established, it will be an independent, bipartisan, formal forum with expertise to examine the Federal Indian boarding schools' legacy but also to document it and to provide recommendations for action.

Our legislation builds on an extensive congressional record that was developed through strong bipartisan work that started several Congresses ago. We

have had multiple hearings throughout our committees, listening sessions, and meetings and research by the relevant Senate and House committees. Over 100 written comments for the record from Indian Tribes, from Native communities and organizations, individuals, and religious institutions helped shape this legislation that we have reported to the floor of the Senate.

And I think it is worth taking a moment here to talk about that process that we had in the Indian Affairs Committee. We had a pretty robust markup that began with a strong bipartisan effort by our staffs to put together a substitute amendment to the bill for the committee to consider, and that substitute amendment was then further amended by our down-dais members on the committee, who offered some really good amendments to address the hot-button issues, including extending subpoena authority to the Commission. These amendments were adopted, and the bill, as amended, was reported from the committee by voice vote.

And through these additional amendments that we adopted at the business meeting, we now have a Commission that will have to meet higher standards than any other congressionally established Federal Commission in order to exercise that subpoena authority. And that is OK. That is OK here because subpoena authority should be a tool of last resort, but I do think that it is important for the Commission to have the tool to ensure that it can meet its investigatory function and deliver complete findings and recommendations to Congress.

So I want to thank all those, the many, who have shared their stories--Fred John, Jr., and so many who have shared their stories--and for offering ways to pursue healing. Again, I want to acknowledge and thank Senator Warren for her leadership on this issue and for the leadership of Chairman Schatz from the Indian Affairs Committee for being a great partner as we have worked to develop this legislation through the committee process.

So I am looking forward to building even more bipartisan support for this and would urge my colleagues to support this very important and very timely matter.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor, and I see my friend and colleague from Colorado is here.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my second session summer interns: Maddie McGowan, Mason Oney, Zayden Schijvens, Ben Lassey, Ellen Kennedy, Grayson McGuire, Kara Johnson, Mariana Low, Dylan Thompson, Kelsey Kimmel; and my Senate Committee on Indian Affairs intern Nyche Andrew for the month of July 2024 in the 118th Congress.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this was supposed to be a really great week for us in Alaska. We had an opportunity to kick off the Alaska Resources Day back here in Washington, DC.

The leaders of 10 of my home State's trade associations--notably, all women, which I think is worth commenting on--all flew back to Washington, DC, for Resources Day. They and other industry leaders gathered to really celebrate the success of the industries that are present in our State--everything from oil and gas to mining, to seafood, and tourism. It was a good day spent educating folks about Alaska's commitment to and, really, our record--a very strong record-- of responsible development to benefit Alaska and the Nation.

It should have been a really great opportunity to reflect on how far we have come as a State. But instead of being able to focus on that, the big buzz was the reminder that we are really at the mercy of an administration that views us--views Alaska, views Alaska's resources-- as really nothing more than a political pawn in a reelection campaign.

The rumors are out there, and there is more substance to them now than there were a few days ago. But the Biden administration is set to announce yet two more decisions to restrict and prohibit resource development in the State of Alaska.

This is almost getting to be so routine that we are coming to dread Fridays in the State of Alaska because that seems to be the day that the administration reserves to just dump more closures, more lockups, more shutdowns on us, on top of the dozens and dozens of initiatives that have already been imposed on us over these past 3 years.

Unfortunately, the decisions that are going to be unveiled tomorrow are probably some of the worst that we have seen from the administration--an administration that I think has just lost their way when it comes to energy and mineral security.

I want to talk, first, about the mineral security piece of it because we are going to see announced tomorrow the rejection of the Ambler Access Project.

This is a private road. It is a private road that is needed to access and unlock a region that we call the Ambler Mining District.

There was a 1980 law under ANILCA, part of the balance that we struck on conservation. This was the big deal in 1980, but it was an effort to put into conservation status while still allowing for certain development. But under that law, we were guaranteed road access to the district.

Why is the district important in the first place? It was important back then, in the 1980s, but even more so important now because of the critical minerals that this country needs to break our dependence on China and other foreign nations.

This project is not new. This project was fully approved, and I think it is worth underscoring that--fully approved--in 2020. But this administration said: Never mind all that.

Interior sought a voluntary court remand for Ambler's approval on the very same day that President Biden held a roundtable to discuss-- what?--the importance of critical minerals and how this country needed critical minerals. He is saying that on one screen, and on the other screen you have got a remand effectively putting the brakes on the Ambler project.

And for the past couple of years now, Interior has magnified the impacts of this simple private haul road so that they could really find a way to just turn the tables, to turn this project from one that had been approved to one that will be rejected.

The second action that we are anticipating from Interior tomorrow will be the finalization, the final rule, to shut down further access to our National Petroleum Reserve in the northwest portion of the State. This is a 23 million-acre expanse. This is an area about the size of Indiana. There are only a few hundred acres of this Indiana- sized piece of the State that have ever been approved for any type of development, and it is exactly what the Obama-Biden administration had pointed to. They said to the oil and gas companies: Go there. Go to the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Don't go to ANWR; go over here. Develop there.

So now you have the interest in it, and after approving exactly one significant project in our petroleum reserve, the Biden administration has now completely abandoned that approach. And what we expect to see tomorrow is Interior issuing just a sweeping rule to now cut off access and, to add insult to injury, with barely consulting the Alaska Natives who live on the North Slope--failed to consult. They violated their own policies. They ignored Federal law.

This is really tough for us in Alaska because this is not the first time now that this administration has just turned their eye to what the law requires. They ignored Federal law which requires an expeditious program of competitive leasing and development. So where there was once opportunity, they are now creating uncertainty and restrictions that will cut off access and halt future projects.

But again, never mind all that, the administration says, because it just doesn't seem to matter to them. That is what I don't get--not the rule of law, not the local people who support responsible development, not the State benefits or the national need, not even the international events and crises that we are dealing with right now this moment that should have prompted a gut check and maybe folks within the White House saying: Maybe we should dial this back just a bit right now, given what is happening in the world. But none of that seems to matter as, once again, this administration makes two more politically motivated decisions against responsible resource development in Alaska.

And we need to be clear here. These were not fair processes. These were fait accompli, decided behind closed doors, likely in concert with the national environmental groups well before the administration even publicly announced that it was even considering them.

So here we are. Here we are. Under the administration, there hasn't been and there won't be any new leasing in our petroleum reserve. There aren't any more project approvals in sight to help supply west coast refineries that have now turned to imports from abroad.

And where are they looking for those imports? Previously from countries like Russia, but now--now--at the direct expense of the Amazon rainforest, which the environmental community

calls the lungs of our planet. But that is where California, believe it or not, is going to be looking to import.

And nor will we be able to build the private, restricted-use Ambler Road that Federal law explicitly allows for that we need to access minerals that are crucial to our security, to our economy, and to the success of this administration's own policies.

And I think this is all because it is a political year. It is a political year, and this administration is putting partisan payoffs ahead of sound policy, and that is regrettable. It is mightily regrettable.

Setting aside Alaska Resources Day, think about what these decisions say about the administration's priorities and the signals that they send to our adversaries because I think sometimes we just look at these, and we think about them in the context of what people in our own country are saying. But what is the message that is being sent to our adversaries? We know and they know that we are deeply dependent on foreign minerals. This is our Nation's Achilles' heel--I keep talking about it--especially as China dominates so many global supply chains.

We imported at least 50 percent of our supply of 49 different mineral commodities last year, including 100 percent of 15 of them. And that has risen quite dramatically over the past couple of decades, and for many crucial commodities, it is still going up.

So why does the Ambler district matter? It matters because it has copper. Our top experts warn that copper is on the verge of a global shortage. It has cobalt, which we imported 67 percent of our supply last year, including from African nations where malnourished children are the ones who dig it out by hand. We can't feel good about that. The Ambler district has resources like gallium and germanium, which China, in an effort to show who is boss here, recently cut its exports of. This was a clear shot across the bow to the West.

About the only thing that Ambler doesn't have is access to a road, which it needs to facilitate the mining, which we need to facilitate everything from advanced munitions to electric vehicles. So let me assure you, we should want to mine in Ambler, where it will happen safely, under the highest environmental standards in the world. And we should stop outsourcing mining abroad, particularly to these jurisdictions where there are no or very little environmental protections, and we see horrific human rights abuses among workers.

The administration's NPR-A decision--again, that is our petroleum reserve. We shouldn't just talk in these acronyms. NPR-A means National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. This decision is just as reckless. The Middle East is on the verge of a regional war, thanks to Iran, and the one thing standing between us and $200-a-barrel oil is American producers that operate on State and private land. And yet the President criticizes them. He criticizes them instead of thanking them for saving his administration. That is what is helping to keep a lid on some of these prices.

It is one thing to conjure up a villain; it is another to let the real villain, which in this case is Iran, off the hook, and that is exactly what we are seeing happen right now. Since taking office, President Biden has relaxed sanctions on Iranian oil exports, allowing them to do what? To produce more, to sell more, and thus to gain tens of billions of dollars.

According to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, as of last September, Iranian oil revenues had increased during the Biden administration by $26.3 billion to $29.5 billion. And we know that those numbers have just grown today. And what is Iran using the revenues on? You don't need to guess. It is terror. It is regional destabilization--from their Quds Force, from Hamas, from Hezbollah, from the Houthis, and from the regional militias backed by the regime. And last weekend we saw what that means when Iran launched more than 300 drones and missiles at our ally Israel. The attack was designed to overwhelm Israel's air defense and only failed due to the heroic efforts of a coalition that also included the United States, France, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

We know what happens. We know what happens when Iran is allowed to enrich itself. Their proxies attack Israel. They attack Israel. They fan the flames of regional war that could draw in global superpowers, and they continue their direct attacks on American troops who are present in the region to fight ISIS, among others.

The Secretary of the Navy testified this week that American military ships had been attacked 130 times and used more than $1 billion in munitions in the Middle East over the last 6 months. Those are our warships. And that doesn't even count the attacks on our bases.

So deterrence has been lost. The administration's Iran policy has failed. But how do they react? By suggesting that we don't go after Iran's oil.

Reuters ran a story with the headline that said, ``Biden unlikely to cut Iran's oil lifeline after Israel attack.'' And then POLITICO dished on this by saying, ``Why Biden could leave Iran's oil alone.'' And then the Washington Post had a well-sourced piece about the Biden administration telling Ukraine to stop attacking Russian refineries because they are nervous about the gas prices leading up to the election.

I mean, I read these stories, and it drives me crazy. I mean, what does Alaska have to do to get some recognition that we might just have a resource that not only we need in this country but our friends and allies need? You have got a regime that is actively funding terror with its oil revenues, another regime that is funding a catastrophic war against an innocent people, and on the other hand, you have a State-- part of the United States--that wants to responsibly develop its resources to build basic infrastructure and provide services for some of its least well-off residents.

And somehow--somehow--out of that, the President has decided to relax enforcement of our energy sanctions on Iran and put it on Alaska. That is what we feel like. We feel like those sanctions are on us directly. They don't want to hurt Russian production, but they are sure not hesitant to hurt Alaska. So I think you can understand why so many of us are frustrated and, really, even angry with the Biden administration about these policies. It is unfair to always be picked on anytime the administration needs to shore up its credibility with national environmental groups.

We kind of feel like we are the giving tree at this point--except, ironically, we know that this administration would never allow anyone to harvest timber, so we can't be a giving tree. That is pretty well off limits too. But it is also bad policy--just truly bad policy--to sacrifice our jobs and our revenues and deprive our country of steady, affordable supplies of domestic energy and minerals. And it is truly bad policy to ignore the rule of law and our strategic vulnerabilities.

We will all feel the consequences as we let some of the worst people in the world produce and gain from their resources instead of the very best here at home. So, Mr. President, no State or nation produces its resources, I believe, in a more environmentally responsive manner than Alaska. No people care more about their surrounding environment than Alaska.

I know I have got my friend from Vermont here, and he cares passionately and I know the people of Vermont care passionately, but we have a lot that we care passionately about.

So I just ask the question of colleagues; I ask the question of those in the administration: Given a choice between China and Africa or Alaska for minerals, it should be Alaska every time. And given a choice between Iran and Russia and Venezuela or Alaska for oil, it should be Alaska every time. And I think most Americans would agree, but it is deeply disappointing--I believe, harmful--that those who hold positions of power in the Biden administration are not among them.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and respect that my colleague from Vermont has been waiting.

Mr. President, I am here today for a really fun update. Some of you have been here before when I have had occasion to speak about the Last Great Race. The Last Great Race in Alaska is really all about the Iditarod.

I note the presence of my friend from Vermont, who was sitting where the Presiding Officer is last year, and he was so captivated by the story of the Iditarod. He said: Lisa, when you come back and you give the great announcement, let me know.

So I am pleased to be able to regale you with yet another Iditarod.

This is an extraordinary tradition--51 years in Alaska--where dogs and mushers have left the starting in the Willow, Wasilla area to head north on an almost 1,000-mile--and in some years, an over 1,000-mile race--test of a musher and K-9 against all of the elements.

And it is always a bit exciting, but this year, I am really excited to be able to announce that we have made history yet again with the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race. Dallas Seavey has won for the sixth time in a row. This is the first time any musher has ever won more than five Iditarods. This extraordinary young man from an extraordinary mushing family has made history in a way that is absolutely worth celebrating.

Again, for those who are not familiar with the Iditarod, it is about a 1,000-mile sled dog race. It goes from the Anchorage area, where we host the ceremonial start--I was there a couple of weeks ago--and then they begin their actual race the following day, on Sunday.

They proceed all the way up to Nome, and this is not easy terrain. You are going over mountains. You are going over ice on the ocean. You are going over rivers. The terrain is challenging, and, certainly, the temperatures are challenging. This year has been a test for all of our mushers. On certain parts of the trail, they were seeing temperatures down in the negative 40 degrees. When you get yourself moving behind a dog team and get that wind in your face, it is no pleasant journey by any stretch of the imagination. It is tough. It tests the mushers. It tests the canine athletes. But it is an extraordinary, extraordinary race that was based off of a relay effort to get diphtheria serum to Nome during an outbreak in the 1920s. We no longer carry the diphtheria serum, but we carry strong messages about, again, the role of working dogs, the role that mushers and their teams have had in a State like Alaska.

I want to speak a little bit about the Seavey family because, as we are celebrating and recognizing Dallas's extraordinary achievements, having won now six Iditarods, it is important to know that he comes to this race with the Iditarod literally in his veins.

The family tradition started back in 1973. This was the very first Iditarod, and Dallas's grandfather participated in that race. Dan Seavey ran the very first Iditarod. He ended up placing third--pretty respectable, absolutely--but he stayed with it. He stayed with the Iditarod, and he raced in four additional Iditarod races.

Then there is Dan's son, Mitch Seavey, who took the reins from his dad. He started his own racing kennel, and Mitch went on to win three Iditarods himself. He raced in a total of 28 different Iditarods. That is a lot of racing. That is a commitment to the race.

Mitch had four sons, three of which have taken on the Iditarod themselves. The oldest, Danny Seavey, raced three times in the Iditarod; Tyrell Seavey, he has raced twice; and then, of course, Dallas, who has competed in a total of 14 Iditarods. I think it is also worth noting that Dallas's wife, Jen, has also herself competed in the Iditarod. So this is a family, again, who is extraordinarily committed and dedicated to dog racing and, particularly, with the Iditarod.

I think it is somewhat unique to know that it was just a couple of years ago that Dallas and Mitch--his dad--were competing in the same race. How many different sports activities, competitions--intense competitions--do you see a father and a son as competitors? It is really quite remarkable how the Seaveys came to this race and how they have committed to it.

When Dallas started racing in the Iditarod, he was the youngest competitor when he entered the race. It was just 2 weeks before his 18th birthday. So he started pretty young and has stayed in it since 2005.

At 25, he became the youngest competitor to win the Iditarod. He also

holds the record for the fastest Iditarod ran. This was set back in 2021. In that race--the fastest race ever--he completed that race in 7 days, 14 hours, and 51 seconds--7 days to race 1,000 miles. So, now, with his sixth win, he has overtaken another five-time champion, Rick Swenson, for the most Iditarod championships of all.

Dallas is going to be inducted into the Alaska Sports Hall of Fame this year, which, again, is certainly appropriate, given all of his accomplishments.

One of the things that is so great about the Iditarod, one of the things that is so great about these mushers, is they will tell you: It is not about me. I am the individual who is standing on the sled. I am making sure that they are getting the water, the food, the rest that they need. But this is about the mushers. This is about the canine athletes.

Dallas gives due credit to the lead dogs that got him through the race: Arrow, Sebastian, and occasionally, one of his older dogs, Prophet. He kind of joked. He says: You know, just about every dog on my team could be that leader--except one. Frank, apparently, is the name of the one. Dallas says: Not that he won't do it. He will run right up there. I just don't trust him. He would rather pee on things. That is Frank. He runs in the back.

So we all have different challenges with friends and people who we work with. And sometimes the people who we work with are not people, but they are dogs. Frank is exactly in the place that he needs to be.

There is never an Iditarod where there isn't a story that captivates--captivates--the news. The weather was significant. I mentioned the 45 below. You come to a place on the ocean where they are going across ice. There is an area where it is so windy they call it the blow hole. There are accounts of several of the mushers not being able to see their hands in front of their face, much less the dogs in front of them. The markers on the trail are gone. The winds are so intense that it blows the sleds and the mushers off the trail. This is not easy stuff. That is toward the later end of the trail.

One of the incidents that got everyone's attention was just about at the first 100 miles. Our champion, Dallas Seavey, is coming down the trail, and there is a blind spot, a blind corner, that he comes around. And right there, in front of him, in the middle of the trail, is a moose. Moose and sled dogs and teams do not get along well. The moose are ornery and cranky. The dogs are looking at them and barking at the moose. It is not a good combo. Dallas knows that this is not good. But the moose kind of gives the first half of the team--he has 16 dogs in harness. The moose kind of gives the first half of the team the go- ahead but then turns around and starts charging the latter half of his team.

We have had dogs that have been severely injured and have died on the trail because of moose attacks. They are just ferocious and cranky, particularly this time of year when the snow has been so deep and it is just hard for the moose to walk. So Dallas does what he needs to do. He dispatches the moose. He has a revolver, and he takes it out of the sled.

There are actually rules of the Iditarod that tell you what you have to do if you encounter an animal that you need to take out that is threatening yourself or your team. The rules require that if it is an edible animal, you have to gut it properly and notify the authorities at the next checkpoint.

Remember, this guy has won five Iditarods. He wants to win the sixth. He has got a mission, and gutting a moose was not necessarily part of his travel plan. But he gets out his knife, and he guts the moose. In his own words, he doesn't do the best job that he could, but he does an acceptable job. He then moves on.

Keep in mind, he is one man with 16 dogs that are in a bit of a tizzy because you've got a moose on the trail; you have heard a gun; you now have blood. They are in the middle of a race. They want to go. Dallas Seavey is not going to be able to haul that moose off the trail. So he leaves the moose on the trail. He goes up to the checkpoint ahead and notifies them that there is a moose on the trail.

Three mushers come behind, the same blind corner. They come around the corner. The dogs see this thing in the trail and leap over it like horses going over a jump. The sleds are flying. The stories of the mushers about it being almost surreal to be using this moose like a speed bump.

Anyway, the story ends that the moose was taken to the village and shared with the villagers. So it was good use of the moose. But it is one of those things that you think: Wow, only in Alaska.

What has not been shared as much as the dispatch of the moose, however, was the very first musher to come around that same blind corner and see the moose in the trail. He was able to stop his team quick enough--Jessie Holmes. Jessie sees the moose. He needs to get the moose off the trail. He punches the moose in the nose.

Now, I don't know whether that is bravado; I don't know whether the moose just looked like he needed a punch in the nose. But, anyway, Jessie was able to move past the moose safely with his team.

These are some of the things that make the stories interesting and amazing. A lot of people swear like that is the craziest thing ever. Why would you do it?

I think it is important to note that Dallas not only won in 9 days, 2 hours, 16 minutes, and 8 seconds, he did so--he finished ahead of Matt Hall, who came in in 9 days, 6 hours, and 57 minutes. So Dallas was 4- hours-plus ahead, and he did that with a 2-hour penalty that he received from the Iditarod for not properly gutting the moose. So the Seavey stories continue.

Dallas's time--again, think about it. Think about it, my friends. We do some things around here where we say this is a long slog. When you are standing behind a sled, when you are running next to your team, when you are guiding them through not only extreme, bitter temperatures but howling winds, to be on your feet for about 9 days, 2 hours, 16 minutes, and 8 seconds--Dallas finished with a total of 10 dogs in harness. Their average speed was 4.42 miles, so they are clipping along. It is a tough, tough, tough endeavor.

There are some stories from other mushers that you hear. A rooky musher, Josi Thyr--she is still on the trail right now. But she was having trouble staying awake going across the frozen Yukon, so she switched her sled up to a version where she could kind of sit down. She is on the flat of the river, and you are literally falling asleep behind your dogs. That is trust. That is trust, when you know your animals can take you, guide you, while you get a few minutes catnap. But it is tough when you are doing that.

I mentioned Josi as a woman there. I think another history-making fact for this year's Iditarod is that four women finished in the top 10 of the Iditarod. This was the most ever women in the race's history to finish in the top 10. We had Paige Drobny, who came in fourth; Mille Porsild, who finished seventh; Amanda Otto, eighth; and Jessie Royer, who finished tenth. The top 20 for the Iditarod has seven women this year.

A lot of times you think, in order to do this extreme sport, in order to handle a dozen dogs, in order to take all of this on, you have to be some tough, burly guy. Women are doing an extraordinary and exceptional job.

One of my dear friends and a longtime musher, DeeDee Jonrowe, mushed 33 separate Iditarods. DeeDee is about 5 foot 2 and maybe 100 pounds, blonde hair, and blue eyes--a great, beautiful woman, 70 years old. She didn't mush the Iditarod this year, but she did the snowmachine trail all the way up. Just go out for a 1,000-mile snowmachine ride. Tough women, let me tell you.

There were 16 rookies in the race this year. Four of those rookies have dropped out, 2 have finished, 10 are still racing. So right now, as we speak, there are 11 mushers still out on the trail. Seven mushers total have dropped out, and 20 mushers have finished the race so far. So it is an extraordinary endeavor.

As the rest of the teams finish up, we are praying for their safety, and I am sure they are praying for a little bit of a nap when they come in. But congratulations and commendations to everybody who participates in this. There are no losers. They are all winners. From the mushers to the dogs to the amazing volunteers--very few paid staff, but the volunteers who come, whether it is to put on the banquets,

whether it is to be dog handlers, whether it is to help make sure that there is straw for teams in certain locations, the Iditarod Air Force-- which is an all-volunteer Air Force that helps move everything along the way--the veterinarians who come from all around the country to volunteer a week of their time to make sure that the dogs' care is taken care of, those in the communities who come out, who sponsor gourmet meals for the first-place person to come into Cripple, or in Unalakleet, the pizza place that is called Peace on Earth, where if I want to make sure that a particular musher gets a nice, hot pizza when they come into Unalakleet, I can call up. They will write a nice message on the box and give it to the musher when they come in-- so it is everybody coming together to make this extraordinary event possible.

Nothing better captures the grit, the determination, the ruggedness, the perseverance, the spirit, or just the sheer audacity of Alaskans. So I am delighted to be able to come and celebrate Dallas Seavey and the Iditarod once again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes today to talk about the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill. I happen to be the ranking member on that Appropriations Subcommittee.

I thought it might be interesting to actually talk about what is contained in one of these six appropriations bills that are on the floor while discussions are going on as to how we move forward now.

I am one who is proud of the committee product that we have produced. It was not easy, by any stretch of the imagination. It is always hard, but this year it has been even harder.

This is an Agency within the Interior that really has oversight of all of our major Federal land management agencies. This is the National Park Service, this is the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency--the EPA.

Included in this broader bill is funding for essential Indian health, education, and resource management programs through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service. And then, just to add more complexity in terms of the scope of our committee, we also provide funding for important cultural institutions like the Smithsonian, the National Gallery of Art, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Humanities. So it is a pretty broad appropriations priorities.

I want to recognize the work of the chairman of the committee, Senator Murray, and the vice chair, Senator Collins, who have worked to advance these 12 appropriations bills through the committee. It seems like decades ago--in fact, it was last summer--that we were able to move them through. The Interior Subcommittee bill moved through unanimously. It is pretty good, given the complexity and, again, the scope within the Interior Department. But it is a process that allows Members to have meaningful input.

Now, I understand that not everybody in the Senate is on the Appropriations Committee, but that committee process that we went through was a good, honest, robust, transparent process, and I appreciate the effort that

went into it by Members as well as their staffs and then the outcomes that we were able to advance.

The Interior budget is pretty important to a State like mine, where some 60-plus percent of our lands are held under Federal management. So there is a lot of space here where, when we are trying to advance priorities, it seems that we can't move without permission from one Federal Agency or another. So we pay attention to these budgets.

And it is not just the land management Agencies. It is the fact that we have such a significant Native population in the State of Alaska. So the BIA, the IHS, these have great implications for us. And then, within the EPA Agency itself, when it comes to funding for clean and safe drinking water, these are clearly areas where, in States like Alaska, where our infrastructure is so delayed, these budgets are important.

So as we are moving through a somewhat tortured process to get these bills through to avoid a government shutdown, for this Senator, there is no value in seeing the Department of the Interior being shut down because we have failed to meet our requirements when it comes to delivering on a budget.

The Interior bill's allocation is $38.5 billion. This is a reduction of $1.5 billion to the enacted level. So this is about a 3.8-percent cut. This is pretty substantial. And when you have cuts of that nature, it really does require some very difficult funding choices. So how you balance all this, how you work to address the most pressing needs within the bills while ensuring that you do have meaningful reductions that are able to help us meet the terms under the Fiscal Responsibility Act--it isn't an easy endeavor.

One of the significant areas that we are responsible for within the Interior bill is when it comes to wildland fires. The Presiding Officer comes from a State where you have seen your share of wildfires. Certainly in Alaska, but in so many of our States, this is a very real and an immediate threat. So one of the most important investments that we made was in our wildland firefighters, to protect capacity to fight fire by maintaining the salary increases that we provided in the infrastructure bill.

Without this additional support, those who are fighting on the frontlines of wildfires were facing up to a 50-percent cut. We have already seen the impact, the hard times that we have in being able to attract and retain. You are not going to be able to keep many folks if they are going to be looking at a 50-percent pay cut. So we were able to make that investment.

For those of us who come from States where, again, a significant part of the State is held in--where Federal lands occupy so much of your State, whether it is Alaska, Nevada, or Utah--PILT, or payments in lieu of taxes, is a very, very important account. We have fully funded this. It is estimated at $515 million. But what this helps do: When you don't have a tax base in your State because so much of your State is occupied as Federal land, where do you generate that tax base to provide for the needs of local communities, whether it is for county roads, public safety, or schools? Well, PILT helps with that, to support energy development critical to our Nation's economy, recreation activities that power our rural communities, conservation efforts to protect our public lands and wildlife. So much of this comes under this category.

We also are very focused on making sure that we are providing investments for the general operation and delivery of critical programs throughout Indian Country, and I will speak to that in just a moment here.

Within the EPA account, we provide the Environmental Protection Agency with $9.2 billion in grants and program funding. This is close to a 10-percent funding cut within EPA to the enacted level. What we attempted to do within this budget is to prioritize funding for those programs that result in concrete actions to improve the quality of the environment across the country. And I think we tried to ensure that the mission moved forward in a way that does, again, allow for that protection of the environment but recognizing that there are many areas within the EPA budget that we could look to reduce.

One of the things that was pretty important to me was ongoing funding for contaminated lands. We have significant issues in the State of Alaska when, under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the Native people were promised lands, and many of those lands that were conveyed to them were conveyed as contaminated properties. So we have critical funding to help clean up ANCSA contaminated lands.

We also addressed the issues of air quality--in one of my interior communities, Fairbanks, they have struggled to meet the PM2.5 requirements--and providing for these types of issues for our communities as they try to meet these attainment levels of cleaner air. What we do within the EPA account to invest in critical water and wastewater projects--and again, in many places where you lack existing infrastructure, these funds are critically important.

There has been some discussion about what the Interior bill does when it comes to the Superfund Program because we did take reductions to the Superfund Program itself. That was not something that I was initially comfortable to do. I think we recognize that we have such an obligation to address the contaminated lands throughout this country. But what we have allowed for is funds that will help to address the needs in front of us but also recognizing that we are receiving significant resources from recently reinstated taxes. So that will allow for the funding levels to really address the needs within the Superfund Program.

Wildland fire activities, again, as I mentioned, are key for so many of us in the West. The Forest Service receives an increase, as well as the Department of the Interior, to address wildland fire activities. But what we needed to do was to end the practice of paying for annual wildland fire preparedness and suppression out of emergency funds. These are happening across the landscape every year, and so how we have, in our budget, accounted for the increased demand that we see in this account has been important.

I mentioned the support throughout Indian Country, particularly as it relates to the Indian Health Service and many programs that we have an obligation to fund that are so vital. Many of the costs within these programs have grown, particularly within compact support services and leasing and staffing costs associated with new healthcare facilities that are operated by IHS or by Tribes under compact. So these are not nice to fund; these are required to fund. So the bill supports these necessary increases.

And I mentioned the cultural institutions like the Smithsonians, the National Gallery of Art, the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. We basically have just kept the funding levels for the operation and maintenance of our museums and centers.

But we were able to, in a tough budget environment, put together a bipartisan bill. It is a bipartisan bill that protects our land and people. It enables infrastructure projects that provide clean and safe drinking water. It helps communities provide vital basic services that I think many take for granted.

But we also helped to shape this bill so that it reflects the priorities of Members on both sides of the aisle, and I am proud of the good work that we have done to make sure that we are really targeting and directing Federal resources where they are needed most.

There has been a lot of discussion on this floor, particularly on this side of the aisle, about earmarks or congressionally directed spending. I am one who--again, you hear me talk about the needs, whether it is for infrastructure, water and sewer, and some of the statistics that drive our State that make us so unique. I am not afraid to stand on this floor and say, when my constituents come to me, when I have city leaders, when I have legislators, when I have the State of Alaska come to me and say: These are our priorities. These are where we would like you to focus your energy. This is how you can make a difference for our communities--and I look at those. We go through a very transparent process.

In my office, when we get a CDS request, we post. You can go to an interactive map of the State where you can click on and see what congressionally directed spending requests have been allowed to advance. And so I view this as my job because I don't really feel comfortable in telling my State legislators, Governor, my mayors, my city councils: Thank you for letting us

know what your priorities are. But in order for you to make sure that they are going to be included in the President's budget or that that Agency is going to hear you, you have got to go visit the BLM, you have got to go visit the EPA, you have got to petition, you have got to make your case.

That is why we are here. That is why we are here: to advocate and stand up for the people whom we represent. So I will stand in front of any of my colleagues and, again, remind them that these are not priorities that Lisa Murkowski has invented. These are priorities that have come to us from communities, from the regions where they have debated and weighed and analyzed and stacked and ranked. And they come to us and say: We need help. Can you help us?

So I am going to be there for them. I am going to stand up, and I am going to say yes. This is our job. This is our role. This is Congress's role. It is not the Agency's role to determine what that targeted spending is for.

So we are dealing with those issues today. My hope is that we are going to be able to advance to this measure, that the issues that have kind of brought us to this midafternoon already will be worked forward.

I know that there are requests for amendments. I don't know why we are having such a hard time figuring out how we deal with amendments around here. It is just not that hard. It is just not. I don't think that there is anything out there that should scare any of us about taking an amendment. And if you win, you win. If you lose, you lose. But the fact that we cannot figure out how to get to a time agreement because the Democrats don't want to entertain amendments or they want to direct what amendments we have--I think we can do a little bit better.

The last thing I am going to conclude with is something that Senator Sullivan and I have been working on for a while. And I actually regret saying that it is just the two of us who have been working on it because this is a national issue. This is a national security issue, and this relates to icebreakers, polar security cutters. You all might not think about them, in Arizona, as being something that is important to you, but I would suggest that every State, every corner of this country, needs to know that we have security through our waters, and, sometimes, our waters are not always wide open. Sometimes, they are choked with ice.

Hopefully, the Presiding Officer and I are going to have an opportunity to go up and see some ice and understand what is going on in the Arctic, understand what is going on in the Bering Straits, understand what is happening around us, and to appreciate the fact that, as an Arctic nation, we have one polar security cutter that is in the water, and--you know what--she doesn't even go to the Arctic.

She plows out McMurdo every year. And she is so old and she is so tired that she has to go back into dry dock. She sits there until she is all done, and she goes back, and she plows out McMurdo. So we are probably never going to see her in the Arctic. What a shame. What a shame. Russia has more than their share of icebreakers up there. By some counts, it is over 50--54. China has their icebreakers that they are working on. They have six that we know of, probably more by now.

We are not engaging as an Arctic nation when others can move in the Arctic and we can't--we can't. So what we have been working towards and what this body has done and agreed to, we have a program with the Coast Guard and authorized three polar security cutters. We funded one; funding for the other two for design.

Things have slowed and stalled and are beyond frustrating. It is pushing their arrival here far too many years. We have known that this was going to be a multiyear initiative with the PSCs, so we planned for that. We worked with the Coast Guard, and we worked with everyone in the Department of Defense. They all agree that we need assets in the water; we need to have icebreakers.

So what we are looking at is what we call a commercially available icebreaker. In other words, you don't have to take 10 years to go out and build yourself one; we have one that is built. It is sitting down in the gulf right now. But we need to be able to buy it.

We had this approved in the President's budget last year. It was authorized at all levels. It was funded until the very, very end-- literally in the middle of the night before we closed out--and, boom, $150 million for a commercially available icebreaker gone. Gone. Nobody is claiming credit or blame, but it is gone. So we are here again.

Funding for the commercially available icebreaker has been in the President's budget. It has been approved on all sides. It has been submitted. But somehow or other, it is still kind of in play. What does that mean?

This is not on this tranche of bills that we are dealing with because the Coast Guard's budget is in Homeland, but I am standing on the floor because this is an issue for us. Colleagues need to understand that as we are moving forward and we are talking about our priorities and what should be included as we advance, I just want people to realize that these are not matters that are Lisa and Dan's to work through; these are ours as U.S. Senators, making sure we are addressing our national security concerns. National security also includes our ability to navigate through ice and our ability to be prepared in the eventuality or the prospect of anything coming our way.

So we are going to keep pushing to make sure that everybody understands what a significant priority this is. My hope is that once we get through this initial minibus and we get onto the second tranche, that this will not even be a matter of debate because it will be resolved and people will recognize that we will soon have, coming from the United States, an icebreaker that is capable of operating in the Arctic.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have had an opportunity over the years to work with some extraordinary leaders in our military, but one of the exceptional leaders whom I have recently come to know and work with is Gen. Glen D. VanHerck. He is the commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command--we know it as NORAD--and the U.S. Northern Command, or USNORTHCOM.

General VanHerck is preparing to retire after more than 36 years of service to our Nation. As I mentioned, he is an individual whom I have come to know over the recent years, and I am proud to have been able to work with him in parts of my career. But I want to ensure that his distinguished service, which includes successful commands at every level--as director of the Joint Staff and a long list of U.S. Air Force assignments, flying the F-15, the F-35, and the B-2--is all reflected in the Congressional Record.

General VanHerck has led by example and served selflessly throughout his career. He has always, always thought of the men and women under his command. He has thought of their families. He has thought of our future and the world that we all hope to leave for our grandchildren.

I know that General VanHerck and his wife Marilyn are looking forward to his upcoming retirement, but I would hope that he will continue to serve in a different way, utilizing his extraordinary expertise and knowledge.

From August 2020 to November 2023, General VanHerck oversaw the most robust and dynamic transformation in the history of NORAD and USNORTHCOM. This transformation enabled the commands to support the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada while ensuring the defense of both homelands. His direction singlehandedly resulted in decisive national and international military operations that operationalized the commands and shifted from a reactive regional focus to a more proactive and globally integrated campaigning effort.

General VanHerck has also been instrumental in leading a wide range of homeland defense operations, including defense efforts against Russian long-range aviation, North Korean intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Russian and Chinese out-of-area maritime operations. He established a clear strategic vision, focus, and priorities, inspiring consistent operational and organizational excellence throughout pandemic response operations; Operation Allies Welcome, which supported over 84,000 Afghan refugees; and the first kinetic engagements of hostile objects over North America in the whole history of NORAD and