Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I am here on the Senate floor this afternoon to call on President Biden to withdraw his nomination to lead the Bureau of Land Management, Tracy Stone-Manning. He should withdraw her for the reasons I am going to talk about here on the Senate floor, but let me stipulate that, while I have often spoken about what I consider far-left extremist environmentalists who are taking over many elements of the Biden administration, often in the context of why I voted against their confirmation, I have not yet called on--haven't in my entire Senate career--a nomination to be withdrawn before they even have gone through their Senate confirmation hearing before a Senate committee. But I am doing it this afternoon. The reason I have never done this before is because we have not yet confronted someone with Tracy Stone-Manning's past, which involves being a member, part of an extreme group that performed violent acts as part of their platform for getting attention in America--violence, a group engaging in overt ecoterrorism. By the way, this is becoming a bipartisan issue--a serious bipartisan issue--as I am going to talk about in a little bit more detail. The Director of BLM from the Obama-Biden administration just yesterday made a statement saying that, if these allegations are true, which they are, then, he firmly believes that her nomination should be withdrawn by the President. That is Mr. Bob Abbey. So this is a serious issue, and it is a bipartisan issue. Before I talk about Tracy Stone-Manning's involvement with ecoterrorism, let me start by saying that BLM is an incredibly important and very powerful Federal Agency, particularly as it relates to my State, the great State of Alaska. The Alaska BLM manages more surface and subsurface acres in my State than in any other State in the country, by far. In fact, I haven't done the math, but I believe that they manage more acreage in Alaska than they do in the rest of the lower 48 combined. That is how important BLM is in my State. Let me give you some of the numbers. This includes over 70 million surface acres of land and 220 million subsurface acres. That is the land equivalent to about one-fifth of the entire lower 48 States. Most States can't even comprehend that size. One-fifth of the lower 48 of the United States of America is the amount of land BLM manages just in the great State of Alaska. So it is a huge amount of land and, of course, by definition, it is a huge amount of power that this Federal Agency has over my State and the people I am honored to represent. And it is imperative--imperative--for the Director of this Agency, the Bureau of Land Management, with so much power and so much control over my State and its future in economic opportunity for working Alaskan families--that the manager of BLM for the country be trustworthy--to be honest, to be fairminded, to be beyond reproach, and, certainly, not to have been involved in an organization that perpetuated violence against its fellow Americans. And from what we know about Tracy Stone-Manning, she is none of these things--trustworthy, honest, and fairminded. That this administration is full of people with far-left agendas certainly isn't surprising. We all know that the national Democratic Party is much further to the left than they were even 4 years ago with the Obama-Biden administration. But what is shocking beyond surprising is that the President of the United States would put forward someone for this incredibly important position in BLM who is not only far left but a member of a group that was an ecoterrorist organization, a group that was undertaking violence against their fellow Americans so they could make a point on environmental issues in America. This is not an exaggeration. Tracy Stone-Manning was a member of Earth First!, a radical, far-left group that has engaged repeatedly in what is defined as ecoterrorism. But she wasn't just a member of Earth First!; she herself was complicit in putting metal spikes--big, thick ones--in trees that were meant to either threaten to hurt or gravely injure those Americans who were harvesting trees, who were cutting down trees legally, who were putting trees in saw mills legally. This was a common technique--tree spiking--deployed by such ecoterrorists in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Earth First! called such tactics ``monkey wrenching.'' That is kind of cute. It is dangerous. It could kill people--``monkey wrenching.'' Logging crews and the Americans who were legally harvesting timber in our country might have called such tactics terrifying, and certainly called such tactics very, very dangerous. So let me briefly talk about the group that Tracy Stone-Manning was a member of. Earth First! began in 1980 by disaffected environmentalists who thought the movement wasn't radical enough, thought the movement wasn't getting enough attention. So they founded a new group that wanted to get more attention, sometimes by perpetuating violence. Among its proposed founding principles, ``all human decisions should consider Earth first, mankind second''--I am quoting now--``mankind second.'' OK. Not sure many U.S. Senators would agree with that. And ``the only true test of morality is whether an action, individual, social or political, benefits the earth.'' These are founding principles of this organization. Given these principles, it is no mystery that the group's slogan is this: ``No Compromise in Defense of Mother Earth.'' In their view, ``no compromise'' meant destroying property, putting steel spikes in trees that could kill someone trying to harvest a tree, and Earth First! celebrated and encouraged such actions. The group even put out a manual--yes, a manual--detailing tree spiking and instructions on how to do other sabotage activities: cut down powerlines, flatten tires, burn machinery of those who were trying to harvest trees legally. We harvest trees legally in Alaska. We have loggers who do that, who are from hard-working families. David Foreman, the founder of Earth First!, talked about all of these activities, and he said: ``This is where the ecoteur can have fun.'' That is a quote from the founder of Earth First! ``Fun.'' That is what he called this--``fun.'' Tell that to those violently hurt by some of Earth First!'s tactics. This is how an article in the Washington Post, from this time, described such an incident of tree spiking that severely, violently hurt one of our fellow Americans. And now I am going to quote from this article: George Alexander, a third-generation mill worker, was just starting his shift at the Louisiana-Pacific lumber mill in Cloverdale, Calif., when the log that would alter his life rolled down his conveyor belt toward a high-speed saw he was working on. By the way, I have seen these saws in Alaska, in mills in Alaska. They are huge. This isn't just some kind of tiny saw. They are gigantic, and they spin at incredibly fast speeds with huge teeth. They are dangerous, even when you are operating without tree spikes in the trees. Let me continue. Here is the continuation of this article from the Washington Post: It was May 1987, and George Alexander was 23 years old. His job was to split logs. He was nearly 3 feet away when the log he was working on hit his saw, and the saw, this giant saw, exploded. One-half of the blade stuck in the log. The other half hit Alexander in the head--again, these are giant saws--tearing through his safety helmet and tearing through his face shield. His face was slashed from eye to chin, his teeth were smashed, and his jaw was cut in half. That is what Earth First! did to this young American doing his job with a tree spike in it. I am continuing with the Washington Post article: George Alexander had never even heard of a sabotage tactic called tree spiking until he himself had become a victim of ``eco-terrorism.'' That is the Washington Post's word, not my word, ``eco-terrorism.'' Someone who objected to tree cutting had imbedded a huge steel spike in the log that violently jammed the saw. And changed George Alexander's life. Tree spiking. That is the Washington Post. These were the kinds of tactics that Tracy Stone-Manning, the Biden administration's choice to lead the BLM for America, once conspired in. Does that disturb you, America? Every U.S. Senator on the floor here in this body should be very, very disturbed. Mr. President--and now I am talking to the President of the United States--think about this, sir. I say respectfully: Come on, man. This is the most qualified American citizen you can find to be the BLM Director? She was part of a group--not just a radical, extreme environmental group but a radical, extreme, violent, environmental group. President Biden, this should be a redline that we all agree to: no nominees who conducted violence against their fellow Americans. But what did she do specifically? The Biden administration's Director of BLM--nominated Director of BLM--here is what she did. In 1989, she did a friend, a fellow Earth First! colleague--``comrade'' maybe is a better word--she did a friend, a comrade, a fellow comrade a favor. She rewrote word-for-word a profane, anonymous letter from this member of Earth First! about the 500 pounds of tree spikes that Earth First! had hammered into trees in Idaho--by Earth First! Pretty dangerous. Pretty violent. She rewrote the letter on a rented typewriter because, she later told a reporter, ``her fingerprints were all over'' it. So she knew she was obviously involved in criminal activity. So she didn't just handwrite it. She didn't want her fingerprints on it. She typed it. She then sent the letter to the FBI. She kept quiet on what she did for years--that was in 1989--until she came forward in 1993 and received immunity for her part in this tree spiking in Idaho, 500 pounds of spikes. This is a serious operation. Deadly. Could be deadly. She received immunity for her part in this tree spiking when prosecutors went after the other members of Earth First! and she testified about it. Here is something that should be very simple for all of us. No matter how young, no matter how naive, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management for the United States of America should not--and I repeat, should not--have ever been involved in ecoterrorism. That is simply unacceptable, and the President of the United States should get that, and certainly every U.S. Senator should get that. Working with people who were so radical on environmental issues that they thought it was OK to perpetuate violence against their fellow American citizens--come on, man. President Biden, you cannot be serious. It is not only me who thinks this is an outrage. I want to compliment my Senate colleague Senator Barrasso, who has been doing a great job. Unfortunately, our press has been asleep at the switch. Senator Barrasso has been doing a great job of highlighting these very issues. But, as I said earlier, this is now becoming a bipartisan issue. It is not just me and Senator Barrasso who have been raising this issue. Just yesterday, Bob Abbey, who led the BLM from 2009 through 2012 under President Obama and Vice President Biden, said the following: If the reports regarding Ms. Stone-Manning's involvement with spiking trees are true, then I firmly believe she should immediately withdraw her name from further consideration for the BLM director job. Let me read that again. The BLM Director of the Biden-Obama administration just yesterday said the following: If the reports regarding Ms. Stone-Manning's involvement with spiking trees are true, then I firmly believe she should immediately withdraw her name from further consideration for the BLM director job. Well, guess what. The reports about her involvement with tree spiking by the ecoterrorist organization Earth First! meant to harm her fellow Americans are true. They are true. Madam President, there are other issues that also call into question Ms. Stone-Manning's character. I am not going to get into these. I will let others focus on them--low interest loans, other things. That is in some ways, in my view, a distraction. Her involvement with an organization that was focused on ecoterrorism certainly disqualifies her, and the President of the United States should know this. I didn't agree with Bob Abbey on much when he was the head of BLM under the Obama-Biden administration, but I certainly agree with him about Tracy Stone-Manning, and I believe the President of the United States should withdraw her name from further consideration. If the President doesn't do that because he gets pressure from the extreme left, then I certainly hope--I certainly hope--my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate, Democrats and Republicans, will resoundingly vote to reject this nomination when it comes to the Senate floor. Yes, we have differences on issues of resource development, energy for America, certainly on issues of jobs and resource development in my great State, the great State of Alaska. We have differences. There is no doubt about it. But here is the thing: We all know--I think every one of us, all 100 Senators, know and would say publicly that these differences should be resolved peacefully in debates here on the Senate floor, at the ballot box, arguing these issues--forcefully, yes, but not violently, not with violence. So if this nominee comes to this floor, it shouldn't be even a close vote; it should be 100 to 0 rejecting her. To my Democratic colleagues, I hope you join me, like Mr. Bob Abbey, in saying: Mr. President, guess what--you screwed up here. Withdraw her. But if he won't do that, I hope every U.S. Senator votes against this. We cannot condone, endorse, or vote for somebody who has been part of an ecoterrorist, radical, extreme, violent organization. My colleagues, America will be watching. If you vote for her, you have to go home and explain that vote to your fellow Americans. As I mentioned, it is one thing for this administration to put forward far- left, extreme environmental nominees. It is quite another to put forward a far-left, extreme, violent environmental nominee, and that is what she is. To the President of the United States: Respectfully, sir, you need to withdraw this nomination. To my colleagues on the Senate floor here: Respectfully to all of you, if the President doesn't take this commonsense action, we need to decisively reject this nomination when it comes to the floor of the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, here is how this excellent editorial begins: The U.S. is barreling toward one of the greatest self- inflicted wounds in our country's history. I could not agree more. The editorial goes on to list the different actions that I just mentioned--restricting energy production in America, including in Alaska, with ANWR, restricting pipelines, encouraging defunding of the energy sector. It is not good for the country. The editorial also notes that this will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. None. None. It is virtue signaling at the expense of working families, working Americans, and our national security. Right now, we are beginning to import more oil from Russia than we ever have. How does that make any sense? How does that help a working family in Alaska or Maryland or anywhere? It doesn't. It does one thing: It empowers countries like Russia and Putin and Saudi Arabia at the expense of the United States. This is a fact. Yet, every day you hear a new action. You read a new quote from someone in this administration focused on killing the energy sector of the United States. Again, as the Wall Street Journal just mentioned, this will be recognized in history as one of the greatest self-inflicted wounds, with no upside. No upside. We have the highest environmental standards in the world in Alaska when we produce oil. Highest in the world. Russians have the lowest, and yet we are now preferring Russian oil over American oil. Can anyone tell me how this makes sense? It doesn't. Here is how the editorial concludes: Progressives want to surrender one of America's [most] strategic economic advantages in the name of [so-called] saving the climate. But banishing fossil fuels in the [United States] won't eliminate carbon emissions, which will [just] be produced [elsewhere]. So will . . . jobs [and] economic growth and [the] geopolitical [advantage that comes with our energy dominance]. Let me conclude by saying this. As I mentioned, I agree with President Biden and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. We need to address challenges, particularly with our adversaries like China and Russia, from positions of strength. Two of the most prominent positions of strength--the U.S. military and our energy dominance--right now are being undermined by this very administration. They need to change course, and if they do, we will support their actions. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is Thursday, and it is that time of the week. I know a lot of our reporters in the Senate like this because it is the signal of kind of the end of the workweek here. Of course, it is also a signal that I get to come to the floor and do what is one of my favorite elements about being a U.S. Senator: talking about someone who makes Alaska what I believe to be the greatest State in the country. We call this person our Alaskan of the Week. Before I get to talking about our Alaskan of the Week--an extraordinary young man named Michael Martinez--let me tell you a little bit about what is going on in Alaska right now. Today, in Anchorage, the Sun rose at 4:44 a.m., and it will set tonight at 11 p.m. It was light almost all day. Blackout curtains are up, and 12 midnight Sun celebrations are abounding. It is a great time of the year to be in Alaska. You can't believe the energy you feel. We were recently able to pass a cruise ship bill--and I appreciate the Presiding Officer's doing that a couple of weeks ago--that enables cruise ships to come back to our State this summer. So we are going to have tourists coming, and you should, too, America. If you are watching on C-SPAN, come on up. Alaska is safe. It is beautiful. If it is on your bucket list, make it happen this summer. You will love it. You will see breathtaking scenery and some of the most generous, innovative people in the country. You will not be disappointed. So come on up. You will be in a State where 21-year-old Michael Martinez, our Alaskan of the Week, was born and raised--one of the many, many reasons I remain optimistic about the state of our State and the state of our country. So let me tell you a little bit about Michael. His mother, Mary, is from the village of Kotlik in the Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta. She is Yupik. His father, Eufemio, is from Central Mexico. So those two met and married in Anchorage, and that is where Michael was raised. As I said, he is 21 years old now and has one more year to go before he receives his bachelor of science degree in chemistry from the University of Alaska Anchorage--a great university. Although he has been very successful so far in his already having won many awards for his research, he plans on going to graduate school. There is so much for him to study, after all, and his interest in science runs very deep, as it has since he was a young boy when he began winning science fairs. An Alaska reporter wrote a story in 2016--so 5 years ago--already documenting then young Michael's successes. The first award was for an experiment demonstrating how weight and length affect the throwing distance of traditional hunting spears used by Alaska Natives. Isn't that a cool research topic? In eighth grade, he won an award for designing a robot. Eventually, he moved on to bigger and better things, like, at the tender age of 16, trying to find a cure for cancer and getting mentorship from his high school teachers at Service High School in Anchorage and, very importantly, in the Alaska Native Science and Engineering Program--what we call ANSEP--in Alaska. He won the Emperor Science Award, which is a prestigious science research award offered through PBS Learning Media and Stand Up to Cancer. Michael worked with his mentor, Dr. Holly Martinson, Ph.D., from the University of Alaska Anchorage, to make a database for Alaska Natives suffering from cancer. It was his introduction to the world of research, and he fell in love with it. He entered ANSEP. Let me talk to you a little bit about ANSEP. It is a program that attracts young Alaska Native students from all over Alaska and provides extraordinary educational opportunities for them in science, in the STEM fields. ANSEP students have been enormously successful and have gone on to do incredible, incredible things. I can't say enough about this tremendous program. Eventually, Michael was introduced to another mentor, Dr. Brandon Briggs, a professor of biological sciences and the director of the Advanced Instrumentation for Microbiome Studies. It was his work at Dr. Briggs' lab that led him to his current passion of finding better environmentally friendly ways to extract much needed, even critical, materials from the Earth. Increasingly, both here in Congress and across the country, we have been focusing on metals and minerals that are needed to power our future, particularly rare earth elements and critical minerals. So much of our economic future and our national defense depends upon these minerals. The problem--although we have many of these minerals, rare earths included, in our country and particularly in Alaska--is that our mining industry has had incredibly difficult times in terms of being able to access them, whether it be with permitting delays that take years, with far-left environmental lawsuits that prohibit the extracting of them, or with the lack of production capacity. The result is that China, like it is in so many other areas, is dominant, controlling up to 90 percent of some of these critical minerals. Like many of the challenges we face and confront with China, we need the best minds in America working on these things. Our young minds hold the promise of our future. That is one of the reasons we recently passed a bill right here in the Senate this week to fund research institutions, so that we can unleash this talent and creativity. This is where our Alaskan of the Week, Michael, comes in. It was recently announced that Michael won first place in the High North Young Entrepreneur Award at the High North Dialogue, an international pitch competition for Arctic-related business ideas. Here is what he won it for: forming a company with his adviser-mentor, Dr. Briggs, called Arctic Biotech Oath, which is working on sustainably extracting rare- earth elements, as I said, which are in abundance in Alaska. How does this work? What is the science and chemistry that he is already working on? In a lab, they are using microorganisms, fungi, which dig into the ore, breaking it up, and releasing the rare-earth element into a solution, which is a more natural and sustainable process to extract these rare-earth elements. This process is still in research and development, but it has incredible potential for our Nation and for our State, and he has founded a company that is doing this, and Michael is just 21 years old. Michael could be anywhere doing this, but he is staying in Alaska because Alaska is home, and he is committed to contributing to our State. That is why I'm still here. And that's why the company will be here and will be based in Alaska. I was born and raised here. I am trying to improve our State and see Alaska soar and thrive within the next couple of decades. I want to see a green energy sector evolve in Alaska. So that is Michael. He wants to be part of this, and he is part of this at the tender age of 21. So to Michael, thanks for all your hard work. By the way, thanks to all the mentors in Michael's life and ANSEP and UAA, which have helped him along the way. Good luck in your endeavors, and congratulations, Michael, for being our Alaskan of the Week.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to commend my colleagues for the important work that everybody is doing down here on the Senate floor, bipartisan work, addressing one of the most important challenges we have as a nation. Not just today but for years this challenge is going to be with us, and that is the challenge of dealing with the rise of the Communist Party of China. That is going to be more and more of a challenge and focus of the efforts of all elements of America's economy, military, society. And here is the good news. As you are seeing here, there is a lot of focus, a lot of effort, and a lot of bipartisan work. It is a democracy, a Republic, right? It is messy. It is not going to be perfect. But, for the Chinese, I think the worst nightmare of the Chinese Communist Party is to see Americans coming together and recognizing that this is something we all need to work on together. China's economy is growing. Their high-tech capability is growing. Their military capability is growing. Their aggressiveness throughout the region is growing. Just look in the last year: Hong Kong; the disputes along the China- India border with India; the aggressiveness toward Taiwan; the economic embargo, in many ways, against our ally Australia; Xinjiang Province; the full discrimination against the Uighurs. And, of course, China is now fully focused on exporting its authoritarian model abroad--not just at home but abroad. But again, as I mentioned, the good news is that we as a nation, we as a Senate, we as a Congress, Republicans and Democrats, are starting to awaken to this challenge. This is an issue I have been focused on since I came to the Senate over 6 years ago. I think the previous administration, the Trump administration, with their National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, which said, hey, we know we have challenges with violent extremists organizations, but we need to start shifting our focus to great power competition with China as the pacing threat--that is where we should be focused. Those strategy documents--the National Defense Strategy, the National Security Strategy--these were actually quite bipartisan documents, quite bipartisan strategies. The National Defense Authorization Act, which will be taken up here in a couple of months, in the last few years has been built around this National Defense Strategy, focusing on great power competition--China, Russia. So that is continuing. It is actually continuing on the floor here in the U.S. Senate as we speak. What I have been trying to do is work with Members on both sides of the aisle--certainly with the Trump administration but also with the Biden administration--as they address this challenge. I had some good meetings with a number of senior officials in the administration, and one takeaway I got from discussing these issues with the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, was a comment he had made about how when we were looking at our challenges with China, we need to think about these in the way in which Dean Acheson, who was a very famous Secretary of State, talked about the beginning of the Cold War with the Soviet Union in the late 1940s; how America needs to be dealing with the Soviet Union and that Cold War from situations of strength, positions of strength. I thought that was a really insightful comment by the current National Security Advisor. So I want to mention a few of these because we have a lot of them relative to China. Our comparative advantages, in my view, are much greater than theirs in this competition that is going to, in my view, last for decades. So let me name a few of these situations of strength. First, our allies. The United States is an ally-rich nation. China is an ally-poor nation and getting poorer by the day, by the way. Maybe North Korea is one ally. Maybe Russia sometimes, but I don't really buy it. So that is a huge comparative advantage that we have as a nation, and we need to look at our system, our network of allies and deepen them and expand them. One area that that has happened with regard to our allies, really is a cornerstone of our alliance system in Asia, is the continued focus on what is called the Quad. The Quad is three of the biggest economies and democracies in the whole world: the United States, Japan, India, and Australia. The Quad actually began in terms of a focus of strategy in the George W. Bush administration. The Trump administration highlighted it even more. To the Biden administration's credit, they took the Minister- level meetings that were the focus of the Trump administration's effort with the Quad and took it to the leader level. President Biden met with the leaders--India, Japan, Australia, and the United States--recently. It is a very important development. The Quad can help anchor our alliances in the Asia-Pacific and beyond in a very significant way. The Chinese are constantly talking about it because they don't like it because they know what it signifies. So that is one area of strength, situation of strength that I think all of us can agree on, and I think Members of this body can certainly help play a role As we look to head into a work session, I am going to head to the Asia-Pacific with some of my Senate colleagues here--Senator Duckworth, Senator Coons, and maybe a few others--and we are going to help build on this important comparative advantage that we have as a nation-- allies. We are an ally-rich nation. China is ally-poor. The more aggressive they are acting in the region, the more this situation of strength is going to play to our advantage. Let me give you another situation of strength for the United States, particularly as it relates to China. It is a huge position of strength. It is our energy sector, the all-above energy sector for America--I mean renewables, oil, natural gas. This is an area that for decades we have tried to become energy independent. We have tried to return to the status we had during World War II, which was the world's energy superpower in terms of the production of energy. The good news on that is we have returned to that. Prior to the pandemic, the United States had once again become the world's energy superpower--a lot of people thought we could never achieve that again, but we have--the largest producer of natural gas in the world, bigger than Russia; largest producer of oil in the world, bigger than Saudi Arabia; largest producer of renewables in the world. This is really good for our economy. It is really good for jobs. It is really good for our national security and foreign policy. And yes, it is really good for our environment. Why is that? I know some people don't like the production of energy in America, but here is a fact: We need energy, ``all of the above'' energy. My State has it all, all the things that I just mentioned--oil, gas, renewables. We have an enormous abundance in Alaska. But here is the other fact: We produced these energy opportunities, we produced this energy in America with a higher environmental standard than any other place on the planet. That is a fact. That is a fact. So if we need energy, which we do, ``all of the above'' energy, which we do, we need to make sure we are producing it in a place with the highest standards, in a place that will employ American people workers. By the way, energy jobs are great jobs. Here is one other thing. You look at the intel. You talk to people who know the region. The Communist Party in China recognizes this comparative advantage, and it scares the living daylight out of them because they are very energy dependent, and we have literally become, through the hard work and ingenuity of so many in our great Nation, energy independent. By the way, not only has this helped our environment, it has helped with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. From 2005 to 2017, the United States reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by almost 15 percent--15 percent. You don't hear that often, but it is a fact--more than any other industrialized nation in the world. China was going like this. Still is. By the way, right now, the latest numbers on greenhouse gas emissions--China is producing more than the United States, the EU, and India combined. That is also a fact. So we have reduced global greenhouse gas emissions dramatically. Why? We all know why. It was the revolution and the production of American natural gas. That is a fact. That is a fact. So if we want to grow our economy, have an enormous comparative advantage relative to China and adversaries like Russia, produce more good-paying jobs, protect our environment, and enhance our national security and foreign policy, continuing the production of ``all of the above'' energy, which we are going to need for decades, is something that we should be doing. Now, some in the Biden administration understand this. Others don't and want to restrict production of American energy, and when those people speak, guys like John Kerry, the leaders in China and Russia are smiling. They are smiling. Fortunately, this legislation here, the Endless Frontier Act, is focused on outcompeting the Chinese, all of us coming together and outcompeting them in many different areas--artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and, yes, energy as well. Specifically, what is in the bill is called advanced energy and industrial efficiency technologies, advanced energy technologies. That is in the legislation. Again, I think it is here because we recognize what a critical, comparative advantage we have relative to China in this sector, so we want to take advantage of it. It is in the legislation. Advanced energy technology is not defined in this bill, but that is because the Congress has been abundantly clear on what this means. In my discussions with Senators and, more importantly, what the Congress has passed a number of times, advanced energy technology means what it states in the definition of a law unanimously passed in the Senate and in the House just two Congresses ago, 42 USC 18632. It actually has the definition of advanced energy technology, which is what is the focus of this bill, the Endless Frontier Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 42 USC 18632 be printed in the Record

Mr. SULLIVAN. The definition of advanced energy technology, which is in the bill, the Endless Frontier Act, and is defined in 42 USC 18632 is along the following lines. It says ``Definitions,'' ``advanced energy technology'' means an ``innovative technology that produces energy from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, tidal, wave, ocean, or other renewable energy.'' That is important for our country. It goes on to say ``that produces nuclear energy''--that is important for our country--``for carbon capture and sequestration.'' Again, a critical comparative advantage. ``That enables advanced vehicles, vehicle components, and related technologies that result in significant energy savings.'' Again, important. And it also says ``that enhances the energy independence and security of the United States by enabling improved or expanded supply and production of domestic energy resources, including coal, oil, and natural gas.'' That is in the definition of advanced energy technologies, and that is the definition that was passed two Congresses ago, unanimously, and that is why it has not been defined here because it has already been defined in this. Congress is very clear on what advanced energy technology means in the Endless Frontier Act. That is a huge comparative advantage, as I mentioned, oil, gas, renewables. And that is an important element of this legislation in our competition with China, and I am glad that is recognized. One final area of what, again, the current administration's National Security Advisor called a situation of strength relative to China, and that, of course, is our military. To be honest, this is where I am worried. The second term of the Obama-Biden administration cut defense spending by 25 percent. That is actually one of the reasons I ran for the Senate. I never ran for anything, but what I saw what was happening to the U.S. military--an institution I love and I served in for over 25 years--that was enough motivation for me to say I need to help do something. The readiness of our forces during that era, the second term of the Obama-Biden administration--the readiness of our forces plummeted--plummeted. And our adversaries in Moscow and Beijing watched this and were gleeful. We can talk about AI and everything else that we are talking about in this bill, but if we are gutting our military, that is one of the worst things we can do with regard to sending a message to China about our seriousness. I worry. Last year on this floor--last summer--we had a big debate in the NDAA over defense spending. The majority leader--who was then the minority leader--and the Senator from Vermont, Senator Sanders, put forward an amendment they called--no kidding--``defund the Pentagon'' then. That was the name of their amendment, with 14 percent across-the-board cuts to the entire U.S. military. My response was: There they go again. There they go again. Well, now that they regained power, it looks like this movie is coming to a theater near us again, and it is not going to be nice. Tomorrow, the Biden administration's budget is going to be coming out. The numbers that we are anticipating are about a 16-percent increase in domestic spending and a real decrease in military spending--inflation- adjusted decrease in military spending again. Beijing will be watching this and will be gleeful. When Republicans were in the White House and the Senate majority just recently, we were respectful of our colleagues in the minority, and there was an agreement essentially about a one-for-one, domestic programs increasing and the military budget is going to increase by about the same amount. That is what we all agreed on here. That is what we worked on here. Now, it looks like it is going to be 16-for-1 or maybe even worse. This is something we really need to focus on. Make no mistake, we can talk about supply chains, intellectual property, competitiveness, which is what we are talking about here with this legislation. These are all important topics. But all the policy changes that we are debating here right now are not going to amount to much in our overall competition with respect to China if we lose our military edge with respect to China. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues just don't recognize that or don't want to recognize that. Soft power isn't much good without hard power to back it up. We learned that lesson before. It has been a painful lesson, if you look at our history. But the Chinese Communist Party certainly appears to understand this. According to one watchdog, it has increased its military investments by 76 percent over the last decade, and we are going to put out a budget tomorrow with an inflation-adjusted decrease in our military spending, despite the runaway domestic spending proposed by this administration. That is worrisome, and that is not operating from a position of strength with regard to the Chinese Communist Party. We need to watch out for that one. I am very concerned. Yes, there is a lot of bipartisan work going on in the Senate, but if the leadership on the Senate floor and the House leadership as well and the Biden administration work together to cut defense spending, that is going to be one of the worst things we can do for our long-term competition with regard to China. As we are focused on these challenges with the rise of China, let me conclude by predicting that not only is this challenge going to be with us for decades, but how we need to address it. I have talked about some of these situations of strength. We must face this challenge with confidence and strategic resolve. As I have noted and I just talked about a few, America has extraordinary advantages relative to China: our global network of alliances, our military power, and economic leadership, our innovative society, our abundant and innovative energy supplies, advanced energy technology as defined in this bill and other bills, the world's most productive workforce, and a democratic value system. Yes, it can be messy, but that makes countries around the world, and particularly in the INDOPACOM region, far more comfortable as American partners and allies than as subservient members of a New Middle Kingdom led by China. As a result of the long twilight struggle with the Soviet Union, we also know what works: maintaining peace through strength, promoting free markets and free people at home, and having the confidence in George Kennan's insights when he set forth the strategy of containment in the late forties to deal with the Soviet Union--that the Chinese Communist Party, like the Soviet Communist Party, likely bears within it the seeds of its own decay. While democracies are resilient, adaptive, and self-renewing, there are many vulnerabilities embedded in Chinese's perceived strength. One-man rule creates acute political risks. Historical grievance can bring violent nationalism. State-directed economic growth can produce massive overcapacity and mountains of debt, and the gradual snuffing out of freedom that we are literally seeing daily in places like Hong Kong sends fear throughout the entire region. China's budding military power and historical view of itself as a natural and cultural superior to many others is beginning to alarm neighboring states, inspiring them to want to step up security cooperation with the United States, not with China. Nearly half of wealthy Chinese want to emigrate. Remember, these are the winners from China's four decades of heady economic growth. As we have in the past, we can prevail in this geopolitical and ideological contest, but doing so will require a new level of strategic initiative, organization, and confidence in who we are as a people and what we stand for. This also means that we must redouble our efforts in making this strategic case to others around the world, particularly our allies. This kind of work here--although it can be messy, although it can be difficult, although it can be challenging--is part of the process we need to put together to compete. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, with all due respect to my colleague from Washington, when the universities say they can't do this because it is too burdensome, again, to me that actually demonstrates the very problem my simple amendment is trying to resolve. All it is saying is in exchange for the tens of billions of dollars that America's universities will be getting as part of the Endless Frontier Act, they have to do one simple thing: once a year, send a letter to the National Science Foundation saying--and this is in the amendment right here--they have committed to protecting free speech, viewpoint diversity, the free exchange of ideas, academic freedom, and the protection of religious liberty, and prohibiting against discrimination. That is it, Mr. President. It is very simple. This is what universities should be doing. It is a letter, once a year, that is very simple in exchange for billions and billions of Federal research dollars. I certainly hope all of my colleagues will support this amendment--simple, needed. Again, this is how we outcompete communist China, which is all about what the Endless Frontier Act is focused on. I encourage my colleagues to vote yes. Vote on Amendment No. 1911

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, for decades, even centuries, America's universities have been the envy of the world and one of America's biggest comparative advantages. At their best, they are hubs for innovative thinking, places where free exchange of ideas are not only encouraged but expected on campus. They have been the backbones of innovations that have changed countless lives in America and, really, across the world for the better. Now, of course, freedom of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution. The birth of our Nation was the result of our Founding Fathers escaping tyranny and pursuit of freedom of thought and expression. And since the inception of our country, we have prevailed over every country an empire that we have competed with, in part, because of America's commitment to the free exchange of ideas, and our universities have traditionally amplified this longstanding American ideal and comparative advantage. But, unfortunately, this is changing. Today, it is becoming increasingly clear that many of our universities too often stamp out the exchange of ideas for certain politically correct narratives. This is having a chilling effect on our students, on campus, and most importantly, their ability to express themselves. Let me present some disturbing findings. A recent Gallup survey of 3,000 undergraduate students found that 81 percent of students widely support a campus environment where they are exposed to all types of speech, even speech they find offensive--81 percent. However, that same survey found that only 59 percent of college students believe that free speech rights are secure, and that is down from 73 percent just 4 years ago. That same survey also found that 63 percent of university students in America agree that the climate on their campus deters students from expressing themselves openly, almost two-thirds of American students. That is remarkable. It is dangerous, not just for university life but for American life, and I believe it is unacceptable. Fortunately, we can do something about it with the simple amendment that I have offered today. This bill that we are debating right now, the Endless Frontier Act, will be sending billions, tens of billions, of dollars--taxpayer dollars--to America's universities. My amendment says, in return for these billions of dollars when applying for National Science Foundation funds, universities will be required to attest that they are protecting free speech, religious liberty, and prohibiting discrimination on campus and explain what steps they are taking to ensure compliance. That is it, a letter to the NSF once a year for billions in Federal research dollars. Now, already, we are hearing that some universities oppose my amendment, calling it ``burdensome.'' Well, here it is. It is 2 pages. It is simple. It is easy. This university opposition actually illustrates the problem that, in exchange for billions of dollars in Federal research money, America's universities can't be bothered to demonstrate to Congress and the American people that they are committed to the principles of the First Amendment which, by the way, have made our country and our universities so exceptional. Censorship, oppression, and one-sided thoughts are characteristics of Communist China, not America, and certainly should not be the characteristics of America's great universities--to the contrary. One of the most important ways to compete with and win against Communist China is to ensure that America--and, yes, our universities-- remain what they have traditionally been: laboratories of free expression, free thought, creativity, innovation, and ingenuity. My simple amendment will help make sure this happens, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes to support this amendment, an America of free liberty, free thinking, and innovation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, thank you for passing that very important piece of legislation. The official name of that legislation that just passed the Senate is the Alaska Tourism Restoration Act. This is a really good day for Alaska right now and for our small businesses and working families and the overall economy in Alaska, across our State. I want to say this is also a good day for the Congress. Both Houses, over the last week, have been able to come together, Members on both sides of the aisle, when they recognized that a relatively narrow segment of this great Nation--my State, Senator Murkowski's State--had a huge challenge right now with our economy relating to tourism. Senators and Members of the House worked together, and we just passed a piece of legislation that is going to the President's desk. It is really going to help. This pandemic has really hurt a lot of our economies in different States. I would say the Alaskan economy has been really hammered--the energy sector, the commercial fishing sector, and, of course, our tourism sector. But we have hope. As I mentioned, we just passed the Alaska Tourism Restoration Act. This bill, cosponsored by Senator Murkowski and myself here in the Senate and Congressman Young in the House, is going to give our tourism season and the tens of thousands of Alaskans in that industry and the hundreds, if not thousands, of small businesses in Alaska in that industry that are hanging by a thread--it is going to give them a fighting chance this summer. These are businesses whose owners have put their life savings, their hard work, their hopes, and their dreams into these small businesses, and many have been on the brink financially because of the pandemic and because the short cruise ship season that drives the tourism economy in Alaska was about to be canceled again this summer. That is now not going to happen. Think about these numbers. In 2020, last year, during the pandemic, Alaska was estimated to get--we were supposed to get, prior to the pandemic, a record number of tourists via cruise ships: 1.5 million. It would have been the alltime record. Of course, in 2020, with the pandemic, none of them showed up, not one, and 2021 was shaping up to be the same. Think about that. These small businesses get almost all their revenue during the summer season. That would have been 2 years with no revenues. No small business can withstand that. So 2021 was looking to be canceled again as a result of the CDC, which took too long to provide clear guidance to the cruise ship industry, but they are now working cooperatively with our communities back home in Alaska and the industry. So that is good news. That is starting to happen. It is really important. But even with the CDC cooperating an working constructively, which is now happening, 2021 wasn't looking good anyway because of a law--dating back to the 1880s, by the way--a U.S. law that made it impossible, without Canada's cooperation, to sail to Alaska on a cruise ship. It was impossible unless we got a bill from Congress passed that would allow cruise ships to sail to Alaska without stopping at a Canadian port, and that is just what we did. That is just what we did. I want to thank, again, Members of the House and Members of the Senate. We are hoping that this bill is now going down to the White House for a signing by the President as soon as possible. I know I am speaking on behalf of Senator Murkowski and Congressman Young in thanking all the Members of this body and the House for that work. We are going to have a fighting chance in Alaska for a summer tourism season that was looking very dismal just a couple of weeks ago. One of the reasons it was looking very dismal is unfortunately because of our neighbor, who hasn't been really helpful. In Alaska, we have one neighbor, if you don't count Russia, and that is Canada. We don't have our wonderful lower 48 State neighbors; we have Canada. We read in the Canadian press the last several weeks that there was no way the Americans could get their act together to pass a law that would fully bypass Canada--no way. That is what the Canadians were saying, Canadian politicians. So there wasn't a lot of need to work with us. Well, here is a message for Canada: Never bet against America. Never bet against America. Pretty much every country in the history of our country's history that has bet against us has lost. I would say that our delegation, the Alaska delegation, is probably the most pro-Canadian delegation there is. It is certainly more knowledgeable than most on Canadian issues. We work together on all kinds of things, big and small--trade issues, military issues, NORAD issues, mining issues. We, in my view, have a typically great relationship. Alaska-Canada is really strong. But that relationship needs cooperation, collaboration, and on this issue, it really didn't happen. So next time we ask our Canadian colleagues for cooperation, we think that is important, but we didn't need it, ultimately. So I mention in closing, good news for Alaska. But I will say this to anyone watching on TV: This is good news for America. Why is that? Here is a message for the rest of our beautiful country: Alaska is open for business. Come on up. We are safe. We are healthy. By the way, if you come up, you can get a vaccine. It is open to all tourists. We are beautiful--breaching whales, soaring mountains, salmon-choked rivers, the best people in the world. It has been a tough year. Now, I am not just talking Alaska; I am talking the whole country. We know it. Everybody has been at home. To our fellow Americans who are ready to get out and see our beautiful Nation, come on up and see one of the most beautiful parts of America--really, one of the most beautiful parts of the world. Come on up to Alaska. We are waiting there for you. If it is on your bucket list, there is no time like the present to do it. Get on a cruise ship. Fly up. I think the Canadians have still blocked the border, so it is hard to drive up. That is a whole other issue. But there will be cruise ships heading up to the great State of Alaska, hopefully by mid-July. In fact, I have a call with several cruise ship executives this afternoon, and I am going to encourage them, in the aftermath of the U.S. Congress passing this bill, encourage them to rev up their cruise ships and get up to Alaska soon. We know that demand is high. To all Americans, we would love to have you. In closing, to my fellow Alaskans, while this tourism season certainly won't be one of our biggest--it certainly won't be like what we were anticipating in 2020--we are confident now, with this action, there will be ships, and there will be people. Help is on the way. We are a resilient, strong, tough State. Thank you, Alaskans, for your patience. We now have a fighting chance at a decent summer tourism season in 2021. Hopefully, every American citizen watching this will head on up to Alaska. You will have a great time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, it is Thursday, and it is that time of the week I come down on the Senate floor and get to do one of my favorite things of the whole week. I get to recognize the special Alaskan, someone whom we call the Alaskan of the Week. But before I talk about our Alaskan of the Week--and my good friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn, just talked about the importance of supporting our police and leaders in the police forces, and it is National Police Week. It is very appropriate that the Alaskan of the Week this week is outgoing Anchorage Police Chief Justin Doll. I am going to tell you a lot about Chief Doll's great career in Alaska. I want to first begin by just giving a quick little update. I know people who watch the Alaskan of the Week want to know: Hey, what is going on in Alaska right now? It is such a great place, a special place. Right now, it is approaching midnight Sun time in most places across the State. I will give you one example. In Anchorage, the Sun officially rose at 5:16 a.m. and will set at 10:37 p.m. That is a lot of daylight. Twilight actually starts around 4 a.m. and ends around midnight. We are getting to that midnight Sun time, summer solstice time. A frenzied energy hits the State at this time of year. It is all the more so because the State is opening up, like so many States across America now, after a long year of hunkering down--late night walks, softball, yard work, gatherings. If you are watching and you have never been to Alaska, it is a great time to be in Alaska. I urge everyone in the Gallery and at home to come on up to Alaska. You may have seen some of the action on the Senate floor a couple of minutes ago. It is looking more and more like we are going to have, hopefully, at least part of a cruise season. But we are welcoming everybody to come to Alaska this summer. You will love it. Heck, you can even get vaccinated if your State is not doing that for you, so come on up. We all know that what makes the State truly great is not the hours of Sun it gets or its salmon-choked streams and rivers or the magnificent wildlife--moose, bear, caribou--or the soaring mountains, all of which, of course, in Alaska we have in spades. Nothing makes our communities, our State, our country strong like the people who live in our communities, and none are perhaps more important to community strength and cohesion than our brave first responders, our police officers who wake up every day determined to protect others. I know there is a movement across the country, and Senator Cornyn just talked about it--in my view, a dangerous movement--and that is the call to defund the police. It makes zero sense, by the way. You want your communities safe, and you are going to get rid of your police? It makes no sense. Here is the thing about police officers like Chief Doll and first responders. These jobs are not only important, in my view, they are sacred. Now, every job in America is an important job, but there is something special, there is something even sacred about the job of our first responders--police, firemen, our military--whose job it is literally to go lay down their lives for their fellow citizens if called to do that. That is sacred. I think it is important for all of us here in the Senate to be very clear how much we support our police and our first responders all across the Nation, especially during this week. That is why I am so honored and thrilled in many ways to be able to recognize our Alaskan of the Week this week, who is outgoing Anchorage Police Department Chief Justin Doll, who has served with APD for 25 years and has been the chief of the department since 2017. Justin has worked with, supported, and overseen more than 600 members of the APD, brave men and women who keep about 300,000 residents in the Anchorage area, my hometown, safe--roughly 200 square miles. Let me tell you a bit about Justin, who also happens to be a Marine Corps brother of mine--a man of service, a man of honor, courage, and commitment. Born and raised in Oregon, he moved with his family to Anchorage in 1985 when he was just 12 years old. The country was coming out of a recession. Alaska was doing well. His parents saw opportunity, so they packed their U-Haul and drove up to Alcan. His mother ended up working in an orthodontist office, and his father worked for 22 years at the famous Hotel Captain Cook, one of the great locally owned hotels in all of Alaska. Justin graduated from West Anchorage High School, and after a few years in college, he joined the Marine Corps Forces Reserves. Now, he didn't join just any Marine Corps reserve unit; he joined Echo Company, 4th Recon Battalion--the premier cold weather recon unit in the U.S. Marine Corps, reserve or active. How do I know? Because I was serving in that unit with Chief Doll for 5 years. As a matter of fact, I was Justin's platoon commander. Now, he laughingly describes himself as my Marine Corps disciplinary challenge. I don't remember him as a disciplinary challenge; I remember him as a fine marine and a great NCO who did a really good job with Echo Company. In 1996, he was in the Reserves at that time, and he got a job with the APD. A lot of the marines in Alaska join our law enforcement, which is another great path into service. He didn't grow up wanting to be a police officer, but when presented with an opportunity to serve his community as he was serving in the Marines, he jumped at it, and he excelled. Throughout the years, he served as a patrol officer, an academy instructor, a motorcycle officer, a SWAT team member, a patrol shift commander. He was on the bomb squad and was a commander of the Homicide and Robbery/Assaults Detective Units. He did it all, and he did it all well. Here are some of the ways in which his colleagues and his bosses have described him throughout his years in his fitness reports: ``Outstanding performance''; ``proactive leadership''; ``Gives credit where credit is due''; ``genuine concern for his fellow officers''; ``earned the respect of everybody''; leadership philosophy is to help guide and train up leaders to rise''; ``committed to excellence.'' Those are his reviewing officers' remarks. His executive assistant, Gia Currier, talks about how, when people would meet Chief Doll, community members--young kids; it didn't matter--he never introduced himself as ``chief.'' He would just say: ``Hey, I'm Justin.'' She said: He makes me proud to work at APD, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to work and learn from him. It should be noted here that, in the meantime, in 2000, he married fellow police officer Monique, and in so doing, like many of us-- certainly, like me--he married up. Like Justin, Monique also rose through the ranks to become one of the APD's top detectives. In fact, she was the lead in catching one of the most sickening serial killers in Alaska's history, Israel Keyes. We are so grateful for her dedication and service to our State and our community. We have a very unique community in Alaska, in Anchorage. We have earthquakes. Not too far away, we have volcanoes. We have 100-mile-an- hour windstorms. Our moose charge, and our bears attack sometimes. Once, when he was at a national training event with big-city police officers from across the country, he was talking to his fellow police chiefs, over beers, about bears and what was going on in their respective cities. He told the group how just the day before, a brown bear had charged, mauled, and tragically killed an Alaskan resident. Terry Monahan--at the time, the police chief for New York City--said: What? In the city? How do you deal with that? By the way, I am pretty sure Justin, when he was telling that story to us, cleaned up the language from the New York City police chief when he recounted that story. But these are the many things that a police chief in Alaska has to deal with, has to be ready for, and has to be able to lead on. Like all cities, we have had serious problems with crime. As a matter of fact, in 2017, right when Justin took over as the chief for the Anchorage Police Department, my hometown of Anchorage was going through a very serious, major crime spree. Violent crime was way up. Homicides were breaking records. Property crime and vehicle crime were way, way up. Justin got to work. He focused on making sure his officers had the training they needed to do their jobs. His goal was ``to set them up for success and let them be successful.'' His motto: ``One Team, One Mission.'' It sounds a lot like a marine: ``One Team, One Fight.'' He put a focus on engaging with the community. He organized the beats so that the officers got to know the people in their areas and patrolled those same areas during the course of their time. He brought back walking beats in the downtown area. He and his officers attended community council meetings and joined the communities throughout the entire city in smaller gatherings. Now, as I mentioned, Anchorage is a big city in terms of area, but in a lot of ways, it is really a small town. Word gets around. When you get to know your police officer, you trust your police officer, and you begin to work with that person to make your community safer. That was Justin's philosophy, and that is what started to happen. At its heart, community policing is not more complicated than that, according to Justin, Chief Doll. Getting to know one another, respecting one another, trusting one another--that is how communities become safe. He also worked on forming partnerships with the Department of Justice, the Attorney General's Office, and the FBI, which doesn't always happen in other localities across the country. Again, Anchorage is a big city and a small town. Federal agents were also having their cars stolen. They had friends whose houses were getting broken into. This crime spree became personal for everybody, and everybody started to work together--with Chief Doll in the lead to solve it. Again, word got around. All of it-- training, empowering police officers, working with the Feds, community engagement--started to work. We still have challenges, no doubt, in Anchorage, but since the time Justin Doll started, homicides have gone down almost 50 percent. The rates of property crimes and other violent crimes have also come down. That is a win. Mostly, it is a win for the people of Alaska, for the people of Anchorage. So Justin is leaving the department a winner, and he is also leaving the department with good memories. That was important to him. There are challenges, and he recognizes those. Burnout, he said, is a problem, particularly these days. He didn't want to get that, and he hopes his fellow officers don't get that. According to Justin--he said: ``The world's a little insane right now when it comes to law enforcement,'' and he sees for himself what that does to the morale of his officers. He has experienced how disheartening it is to have the whole force, not just in Alaska but across the country--these are hundreds of thousands of good police officers across our Nation who have very, very stressful jobs--being disparaged because of the horrific actions of a few. Across the Nation, he said: We have completely lost sight of the fact that there are so many people doing a good job keeping communities safe every day. These are people who really want to do a good job and take care of the people and citizens around them. We should remember that, especially during this week, National Police Week, when we remember the sacrifices of so many of our frontline heroes. Justin and Monique, his wife, will be leaving the force permanently in June. The current acting chief is Kenneth McCoy--also a very impressive officer. We are all rooting for Chief McCoy. Of course, we are rooting for Justin and his future endeavors. As we are for all of our police officers across the country, we are thankful for Chief Doll's service--fulfilling his sacred duty--for keeping us safe, and for keeping our communities whole. So, Justin, one more time, congratulations on a great job. Congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week. Semper Fi. Energy

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I would like you to hear a quote: ``You know, if you drive an electric car, this would not be affecting you, clearly.'' That was from our Secretary of Energy, Jennifer Granholm, yesterday, as she told reporters all about the cyber attacks on the Colonial Pipeline and the ensuing gas shortages and price spikes. Think about that, America. Of course, the media just let her go. They didn't ask her if she knew that, just as meat doesn't come from a grocery store, energy just doesn't come from a wall. It doesn't just appear like magic when you plug into it. It comes from many sources, including from natural gas, including from oil. The media didn't ask about natural gas--yes, and oil--needing pipelines. The media didn't ask her if she knew that all energy, including alternative energy, requires transmission lines--lines that are also subject to being attacked like the Colonial Pipeline. They didn't ask her if she knew that the cost of an electric car, the average price, is more than $55,000. Maybe that is a bargain for her, but for the people the Biden administration is putting out of work in the energy sector, that is a huge pricetag. The media certainly didn't ask the Secretary of Energy how this cavalier, condescending attitude, once again, about our energy sector-- one of our country's huge strengths that employs hundreds of thousands of hard-working Americans--is received by the average American who is being hurt right now. There are so many questions that were not asked, so many questions that aren't being asked about the Colonial Pipeline issue, and so many that continue to not be answered by the administration when it comes to this specific situation and how this administration's energy policies threaten to make this short-term disruption of our energy supplies into a long-term reality across the country. The cyber attack on the Colonial Pipeline is a warning for America not just from a cyber security standpoint but from a broader energy perspective standpoint. I participated yesterday in the briefing of U.S. Senators by the Secretaries of Energy, Transportation, and Homeland Security on this cyber attack that is creating disruptions in energy supplies across the country, particularly on the east coast. Here is the advice I gave these members of the Biden administration: Respectfully, I said that I fear that this is going to be commonplace, this kind of disruption--and not just from a cyber standpoint--if we don't change the Biden administration's energy policies for America. What was I talking about? They are restricting the production of American energy. That is one of the great comparative advantages of our country--that of producing more in oil, more natural gas, and more renewables than any other country in the world. They are restricting the production of oil and gas. You have senior administration officials going to Wall Street saying: Don't invest in energy companies. You have Federal Agencies that are either killing pipelines or slow-rolling pipelines. None of this is good for the country. So here is the advice I gave them. Pipelines are good. We need them, as this Colonial Pipeline shutdown certainly demonstrates. Importing more oil from our adversaries like Russia is bad, but, by the way, that is what is happening with the Biden policies. So we need a change. We have plenty of oil and gas for Americans. We should produce it, as we do, with the highest environmental standards for the benefit of our own citizens and not restrict it or, this issue, this kind of disruption is going to be much more commonplace in our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Murkowski for her hard work. For the Alaskans who are watching, what just happened here is kind of quick but important. The U.S. Senate just passed our bill, the PVSA suspension act, that is going to give our tourism season and the thousands of Alaskans in that industry and the hundreds, if not thousands, of small businesses that are hanging by a thread a fighting chance for this summer--a fighting chance for the summer. That just passed the U.S. Senate and is going over to the House. So, again, I want to thank Senator Murkowski for her leadership on this and, of course, the Senators that she mentioned who were very engaged: Senator Lee, Senator Markey, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Cantwell, Senator Wicker. You know, this, to me, is an example of the U.S. Senate working at its best--at its best. What was going on here and what we did for the last several weeks is we went to all of our colleagues and said: Look, we have a unique problem right now. In the Great State of Alaska, we are so proud of how we have done in terms of getting through the health aspects of this pandemic, but our economy is getting crushed for a whole host of reasons I have talked about on the floor here many, many times. One of the huge areas is the tourism sector and the unique challenges we have with the borders being closed by the Canadians, which is not helpful; the cruise ship industry not being able to move; and the millions of passengers who were expected to come to Alaska on cruise ships. So we were going to each Senator and saying: Look, we know you have big, philosophical differences on some things that relate tangentially to this issue, but right now this issue is very narrow. Help us help our constituents. That is it. It is not going to impact any other State. And to our colleagues' credit, all of them said: OK, Senator Murkowski, Senator Sullivan, we will help. And that is a good spirit of cooperation. We essentially went to them and said: Hey, if your State had a problem uniquely focused on just your citizens, we would help you. So that is what you just saw here. It took a little while. That is OK. Nothing moves fast in the U.S. Senate, but that is a step forward-- an important step forward. But we still have work to do, as Senator Murkowski mentioned. This bill right now is going to be heading over to the House, right now, and we certainly hope, with the great leadership of the dean of the House, Congressman Young, and all his relationships in the House, that the House is going to show the same cooperative spirit that we just witnessed here on the U.S. Senate floor. So we are hoping for that. That is the next step. But as Senator Murkowski mentioned, we are working all kinds of different angles--plan B, plan C, plan D. We need the CDC to continue its progress, finally--frustrating but finally. They need to continue to provide detailed guidance to operationalize their lifting of the no- sail order. And as Senator Murkowski also mentioned, we are going to continue to work with our friends in Canada--``O Canada.'' Now, you know, in Alaska, we have one neighbor. We don't have any of our wonderful lower 48 States as neighbors. We have Canada. We don't really include Russia. Canada. So I would say that the Alaska delegation is probably the most pro-Canadian, certainly the most knowledgeable about Canada issues of any delegation in the U.S. Congress. We work to help them out on issues--big issues, small issues, trade issues, NORAD, military issues, mining. We have a great relationship--the Alaska-Canada relationship. But, to be frank, we are not getting a lot of help right now. The border is closed--fully closed. We think that is pretty draconian, to be honest. Alaskans are having a hard time even driving home to get through Canada. We put forward a number of very reasonable suggestions to try to accommodate what we are hoping will be a fighting chance for our tourism season, for our small businesses that have been so decimated by this pandemic. To our colleagues in Canada, reasonable compromises in the event that we don't make progress here--we are making progress here in the U.S. Congress. That is good, again, so that we can have a fighting chance for somewhat of a tourism season this summer. But up until now, all of these suggestions--they are really not even neighbors to the north; they are neighbors for us to the east--haven't gotten a lot of cooperation. So this is not the cooperative spirit that has defined the Alaska-Canadian relationship for decades, and quite frankly, we have been disappointed by it. So to our House colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--you have just kind of witnessed two examples of cooperation. What happened here on the Senate floor just a couple of minutes ago was really good cooperation. All 100 Senators essentially had to agree to move this bill forward, and they just did. That is what just happened. That is good cooperation. We haven't had such good cooperation from our Canadian neighbors-- disappointing. But look, my own view is that we need to start making sure that the Alaska economy is not held hostage to another country. We are going to start working on that. But until then, to our House Members, please, if you can look at what just happened in the Senate, listen to Congressman Young, whom you all know is a great advocate. If we can get this done in the next 24, 48 hours, our State--your fellow Americans, who are working hard like everybody else here to get out of this pandemic--will have a fighting chance With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, Madam President, my colleague Senator Murkowski did a good job of explaining some of the economic challenges--actually, the dramatic economic challenges--facing our State: small businesses, families, workers by the thousands who are really hurting right now because we lost the tourism season last year due to the pandemic and are on the verge, possibly, of losing another one, which could be devastating. That is the purpose of our legislation, to focus on lifting the challenge and bringing relief so that we can bring tourism back to Alaska. We are open for business. You know, we have been able, in Alaska, to weather the health impacts of this virus in a way that we are proud of in Alaska, with one of the lowest death rates per capita--any death, of course, is horrible--but one of the lowest death rates, one of the highest testing rates per capita with regard to this vaccine, the highest vaccination rates per capita, which is a minimiracle if you look at how big our State is. But the economic impacts have been devastating, as Senator Murkowski laid out. Our commercial fishing industry, our oil and gas industry, our tourism industry--these sectors of the Alaska economy, which are critical, have lost thousands of jobs. So this bill, the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act, is something that is very narrowly focused. It is very narrowly focused. It is to give our State a fighting chance this summer with regard to our tourism sector. Now, I very much appreciate Senator Blumenthal and Senator Lee, with regard to their passion and focus on the issues that they have raised tonight. Some of the safety regulations on cruise ships, the PVSA Act-- these are issues that they feel very passionate about, and I appreciate that. As they know, what we are trying to do here, Senator Murkowski and I, is not tackle those issues so much as to tackle the issue directly before Alaskans, and that is how to salvage a summer tourism season. So despite what you have witnessed here on the Senate floor, I want to say I appreciate their willingness to continue to work with us. The clock is ticking, but we do have Senator Blumenthal's and Senator Lee's strong commitments to work with us to resolve these issues--both the ones that they care about and, certainly, the ones that matter to Alaskans--very soon. To our fellow Alaskans, my message is, don't give up right now. Here on the Senate floor, despite what you have seen, there has actually been momentum and movement, and I am confident we can get there, and even with the CDC--even with the CDC. Some of you might recall that I was here on the floor last week with Senator Scott of Florida, trying to move our legislation relating to the CDC's role here. We are starting to see progress with them. So we are going to continue to fight and continue to try to move this. Do not give up, Alaska, on our summer tourism. We haven't. To the contrary, we have made progress. We are not there yet. Finally, to our Canadian friends, we are going to continue to work with all of you as well. You can be part of the solution to help Alaska, to help Canada, in a cooperative spirit, as you are seeing here on the Senate floor from all of you on a number of these issues. It would be very much appreciated. I anticipate and look forward to reaching out to my colleague and friend, the Minister of Transportation, and others in the Canadian Government to try to make sure we can get this spirit of cooperation that will benefit both our State, our country, and your country. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to complete my remarks, given the time constraints.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose Colin Kahl's nomination for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and I advise my colleagues to do the same, as we are getting ready to take a vote on this very important position in the Pentagon. That, to me, is one of the most important positions we have at the Department of Defense. While I have many policy disagreements with Dr. Kahl, which I have discussed at length with him, I want to say I have a long history of working across the aisle, with Democrats and Republicans, on defense issues, even with those with whom I don't agree on their policies. As a matter of fact, the Presiding Officer and I have a very strong working relationship, and we don't agree on a lot of issues, particularly on issues of the military. I serve on the Armed Services Committee, and I take these matters very seriously. They are some of the main reasons I ran for the U.S. Senate 6\1/2\ years ago. I focus a lot on military personnel, uniform and civilian, whom we put in the Pentagon and who have this enormous responsibility to oversee the Department of Defense. Whether they are Assistant Secretaries, Under Secretaries, admirals, or generals, I try to understand where they are coming from, and I have a record of strongly supporting almost all of them, whether they have been in the Obama administration, the Trump administration, or even are in the Biden administration. For example, I not only supported the Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, knowing that I wasn't going to agree with him on everything, but I actually introduced him at his confirmation hearing because I served with him in the military, and I know he is a man of honor and character. I strongly supported the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Kath Hicks, given her background and knowledge. Yet some nominees I have not and I will not support, particularly in this area that is so important to our Nation's defense. I will object to these people because, like Dr. Kahl, I don't believe he has the temperament or judgment to do the job. Like I said, I have looked at and focused on dozens and dozens of members with regard to their temperament and judgment who need Senate confirmation to the Department of Defense. The vast, vast majority, Democrat or Republican, I have supported but not this one. And this is a really important position. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy is essentially the No. 3 position in the Pentagon. As I mentioned, it is my view and, I believe, the view of most of my colleagues, at least on this side of the aisle, that Dr. Kahl does not have the temperament or judgment. In fact, I believe that he has the potential to be a liability to our national security and our defense and not to be viewed favorably by the men and women he is supposed to lead. Let me talk about temperament and give a little bit of background. Not even a year ago, a number of Senate Democrats, my colleagues, wrote of the official who was nominated by the Trump administration for this same position, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, BG Anthony Tata. The letter that was signed by a number of my Senate Democratic colleagues, many of whom are on the Committee on Armed Services, focused on that nominee's record of ``offensive and inflammatory comments which would disqualify you from serving in your current position and the position for which you have been nominated.'' That is one of the quotes. Remember, this was for the same position but with the Trump administration. This letter also read that he had made inflammatory remarks regarding the President--that would be President Obama--and inflammatory remarks regarding rhetoric for Members of Congress as well. Again, that was last year. This is the standard that was being used. This letter goes on to read: Your multiple past statements cannot be dismissed as simple aberration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter dated July 24, 2020

Mr. SULLIVAN. You have almost the identical situation here. What happened with General Tata is that his nomination, for a lot of these reasons, was withdrawn by the Trump administration. Yet now you have the same, almost identical issues with this nominee, and when I showed this letter to my Democratic colleagues, they were like, ``Oh, no. That's OK.'' It is not OK. It is not OK. So let's talk about temperament and tweets with Dr. Kahl. Really, the issue here is, is he more of a political hack who is tweeting all of the time--he tweets quite a lot--or is he somebody with the temperament of a partisan internet troll, or is he a measured national security professional who can lead the Pentagon in the No. 3 position? Unfortunately, I think it is the former issue, not the latter. He has a long history of tweets. Just like the issues that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected to last year for this same position with the Trump administration's nominee, who was withdrawn for these reasons, here is just a small example of Dr. Kahl's tweets. These are the same issues that my colleagues were concerned about. There have been a lot of attacks on Members of Congress. OK. That is fine. We are in the public arena. Here is what he wrote: The GOP used to pride itself as the party that put values front and center in U.S. foreign policy. Now they are the party of ethnic cleansing. OK. I don't think we are the party of ethnic cleansing. That is pretty strong stuff. He tweeted more: Let's not mince words. The Trump administration kidnapped children. The Republican Party, in terms of national security, are now part of a ``death cult.'' He retweeted the now discredited Lincoln Project attacks. I know a lot about them. It spent a lot of money in my race. It is a very discredited group of people, by the way. Very disturbed are some of their leaders at the Lincoln Project. He calls and tweets that the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, is a moron, is repugnant, is a coward. He went on to call my colleagues in the Senate many additional things that I won't repeat here. He did this a lot. No matter what your views are of my colleagues or of the former President, words matter, and attacks matter. If you can't refrain from making them, maybe you don't belong in the No. 3 position in the Pentagon. That was the conclusion that pretty much everybody made last year, so why should it be different with this candidate? It shouldn't be different. Don't get me wrong. It is a free country. You are allowed to tweet and criticize the Commander in Chief and Members of Congress all the time. That is fine. That is what America is. That is what democracy is. But that doesn't mean you get a free pass to be the No. 3 guy at the U.S. Department of Defense, which is what he wants. So that is temperament, and I don't think it is a good temperament with which to lead the Pentagon at all. Let's talk about judgment, especially policy judgment. The questions of temperament are often closely aligned with but they are not the same as judgment, particularly as it relates to policies. Judgment is being able to assess a situation, use history as a guide, and take appropriate action. I think this nominee lacks judgment, which is something that was shown when he was then-Vice President Biden's National Security Advisor. Let me provide a few examples. First, as many know, he was a staunch advocate for the Iran nuclear deal and, I believe, an advocate on being soft on Iran. By the way, it is not always said in public, but a bipartisan majority of U.S. Senators and a bipartisan majority of Members of the House all opposed the Iran deal, but in my view, appeasing the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, these terrorists--leaders with the blood of thousands of American troops on their hands--is not smart policy judgment. Dr. Kahl doesn't seem to know when we can press the Iranians, and this is a really big issue. Every time someone tried to press them-- draw a redline, take aggressive action--he criticized it. Dr. Kahl, in 2015, argued for sanctions relief on Iran, claiming that the vast majority of the relief would go to butter, not guns. Well, we know how that turned out. That money went to arming terrorists and the continuation of Iran's proxies around the Middle East and around the world who were committing terrorism. Dr. Kahl said that pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal was ``a dangerous delusion.'' He said: The ``hawks in Congress''--and I think he meant that as an insult. By the way, I view that not as an insult, particularly after the Obama-Biden administration cut defense spending by 25 percent and drastically reduced readiness--who are supporting pulling out of the Iran deal ``won't be satisfied until they get the war they have pushed for decades.'' Really? I didn't want war with Iran. Those who opposed the JCPOA--again, a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senators--didn't want a war with Iran. We just thought the JCPOA was misguided. After the U.S. strike that killed Iranian terror commando Qasem Soleimani, Kahl tweeted the following: Trump has started a war with Iran and Iraq. Really? I think what the President and our fine military did when they killed General Soleimani was reestablish deterrence, which we had lost in the Middle East when this terrorist killed thousands and wounded thousands of U.S. service men and women and never had to pay consequences. We reestablished a redline and said: If you kill Americans, you are going to pay. Guess what. That war never happened, although Kahl predicted it Even Iran's Foreign Minister, Mohammad Zarif, acknowledged in these tapes that we have been talking about here on the Senate floor that the killing of Soleimani ``was when the United States delivered a major blow to Iran more damaging than if it had wiped out an entire city in an attack.'' That was from the Foreign Minister of Iran's knowing that what we did was very significant. Dr. Kahl, if you look at his tweets, wouldn't have done that because he thought it would have ``brought the war that the hawks want.'' We didn't want a war, and we didn't get a war. Just like John Kerry, who is now being accused of leaking secrets that Israel had--one of our most important allies--to Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, I believe he is soft on Iran. We are going to get to the bottom of the Kerry issue, by the way. It is alleged what he did, but if he did it, if he sold out Israel for Iran, he needs to resign and be fired. We are going to get to the bottom of that. Let me mention one other issue. It is a sensitive one--I admit it-- but I think it is also an important one with Dr. Kahl. At his confirmation hearing, he said that one of his priorities was to ``stamp out `systemic racism' within the ranks of the military.'' Now, look, I care about this issue, and every organization has bad people in it. I spoke on the Senate floor last year about some of these issues. I put forward legislation last year in the NDAA that looks at why we aren't having promotions of African Americans at higher ranks and at the highest ranks of the military. This is an issue I care about, but when he said this in his confirmation hearing--systemic racism within the ranks--I was very curious. Has he served in the ranks, maybe? No, he hasn't. I have for 26 years--still serving. Where did he get the information? That is a broad statement to make about our troops whom you want to lead. During the hearing, Dr. Kahl admitted he had ``no credible evidence to back up that kind of statement.'' Well, that is a real lack of judgment. You are besmirching a bunch--a big portion of the force, with no credible data to back it up, and you want to be the No. 3 leader in the Pentagon? This is judgment, and this is one of the many reasons I am going to vote against him, and I hope that my colleagues do. Let me end with one final thing. Dr. Kahl made a statement in his confirmation hearing about the requirements of the job: The position of undersecretary of defense for policy, while it's a political appointment, is not a political job. It's a policy job, one that requires [whoever is in the position] to be nonpartisan. Well, given his judgment, given his temperament, I don't believe Dr. Kahl has lived up to his own assessment of what is required to serve in the Pentagon's third most important defense role. I don't believe he has the qualifications for this position. There are plenty of good policy experts--Democrats, I am sure, who do--and I would encourage my colleagues to vote against this nomination for these reasons. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. The beginning of this article says: Let's pause to reflect on how monumentally stunning it is that the former U.S. secretary of state allegedly tattled on Israel to Iran. It goes on to say: A high-ranking American official would feel comfortable sharing this kind of classified information ``with an autocratic adversary--a government that's murdered hundreds of Americans, regularly kidnapped them, interfered with our elections, and propped up a regime that gasses its people--about the covert actions of a long-time critical American ally.'' What else did Kerry tell Zarif, this article asks? Press reports don't say, but if this is true, if John Kerry told Iran--the leaders of Iran--about issues relating to our most critical ally in the region, Israel, which Iran has repeatedly said they want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, if he did this, he needs to resign. If he did this with the intent of undermining the current President of the United States at the time, President Trump, and the Members of this body, he needs to resign. He is a member of the current administration's National Security Council. It has become clear that our adversaries, whether Beijing or Iran, like it when John Kerry is in charge of foreign policy and national security. Why? Because they know how to use him to their advantage. And our allies fear him. Why? Because they know his judgment is off on so many issues. So, too, do America's working families. We need to look into this. If this is true--if this is true--I certainly hope other Members of this body, Democrats and Republicans, will join me in calling for the resignation of John Kerry. Enough is enough. The redline that was crossed, if this is true, revealing secret information to one of America's most sworn enemies, with the blood of thousands of American military members on its hands, undermining the interests of one of our most important allies, the State of Israel, if this is true, John Kerry needs to go. He should resign or he should get fired by the President of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I rise today on the Senate floor to call for the resignation of John Kerry as a member of the Biden administration's National Security Council. Now, I don't do this lightly. As a matter of fact, in my entire time in the Senate, I have never called for anyone's resignation--Obama- Biden administration, Trump administration, Biden administration now. I have been tempted, particularly when some in government have tried to hurt my State. A lot of that is going on right now with the Biden administration. But his record--John Kerry's record--of undermining working families and working against American national security interests is too much to bear. He needs to go. Today, I have heard such disturbing news that, if true, it should absolutely result in the call of John Kerry either being fired or resigning. Enough is enough. Why am I saying this? First, he is killing jobs, arrogantly killing American jobs. That is a fact. He is putting hard-working Americans, particularly in the energy sector--the great men and women who make our country strong by developing oil and gas resources; a lot of my constituents--in the name of climate goals, he is putting them out of work. He is going to Wall Street, saying: Don't finance these projects anymore. That is what reporters are saying. On these issues, I completely and adamantly disagree with the arrogant way--frankly, callous way--he says: Hey, people need to move on to better jobs. But for this issue alone, I wouldn't be calling for his resignation. This is a major difference in the Biden administration's policies and priorities with regard to the American people. I think it is going to really come back and hit this administration hard because the vast majority of Americans don't agree with putting people out of work, energy workers out of work during a recession and pandemic, but that is going to be decided in the voting box in the elections. The American people will ultimately decide whether arrogantly putting thousands and thousands of energy workers out of work right now is a good idea. In the name of these climate goals, he has also been a strong appeaser of countries that threaten ours. Let me take you back to 2015. I was a brandnew U.S. Senator. President Obama and President Xi Jinping are meeting in the Rose Garden. President Xi Jinping from China tells the President of the United States and the American people: No, we are not going to militarize the South China Sea. We won't do it. Of course, the Chinese Communist Party was not telling the truth to the President of the United States and the American people. They started to do this already, militarizing one of the most important sea routes in the world. Many of us here in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, said: We need to stand up for our interests. We need the U.S. Navy to do freedom of navigation operations. The Secretary of Defense wanted to do this. The admiral in charge of the INDOPACOM area of responsibility wanted to do this. But we now know, in principals' meetings, we delayed doing this for almost 3 years because John Kerry said: We don't want to get the Chinese mad, or they will go back on their Paris climate deal and commitments--which, by the way, are way out in the future. This is true. This is true. This happened. Again, in my view, this bordered on treacherous but not treasonous. I didn't call for his resignation then. I was mad about it. By the way, a lot of people in the Obama administration were mad about this, including the Secretary of Defense. We lost a lot of time. It certainly makes me nervous that John Kerry is out in Beijing again. What kind of deal did he cut this time with China, the Communist Party of China, which won't keep any commitments? But, again, that wasn't a call for resignation. The straw that broke the camel's back came out today, and it is the reason I am up here calling for John Kerry to resign. It is a tape that was leaked of an interview with Iran's Foreign Minister, Mohammad Zarif. First, some background. Zarif was being interviewed by an economist and journalist who is an adviser to Mohammad Khatami, the pro-reform cleric who served two terms as Iran's President. An edited version was intended to be public of this interview only after Iran's current President left office in August, but it was leaked. Zarif, according to reports, says many interesting and telling things in the tape, one, for example, that, in my view, the rightful killing of General Soleimani, the Quds Force commander, in January of 2020 when he was in Iraq looking to kill more American soldiers--Zarif said this ``was a major blow to Iran, more damaging than if it had wiped out an entire city in an attack''--that was what a lot of us were arguing at the time--and that unlike what John Kerry had been telling the public when negotiating the Iran nuclear deal in the Obama administration, it is the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Quds Force, not Zarif, who calls the shots in Iran. That is all on the tapes. But the most disturbing part of the interview that was leaked was when Zarif said that John Kerry told him, the Iranian Foreign Minister, about covert Israeli actions against Iranian interests in Syria. Now think about that. According to news reports, Zarif is heard as saying: It was former U.S. Foreign Secretary John Kerry who told me Israel had launched more than 200 attacks on Iranian forces in Syria. That is Zarif saying John Kerry told him that, classified information about one of our most important allies in the world, Israel. Zarif said that he ``listened to this information [from Secretary Kerry] in astonishment.'' Now, when I read this today, I was astonished as well, that a former Secretary of State, now a member of President Biden's National Security Council--who wasn't confirmed for that, by the way, by this body--would reveal the secrets of one of our most important and enduring allies in the region to an avowed enemy and the largest state sponsor of terrorism, a country that was responsible for the killing and wounding and maiming of thousands of American service men and women, whose leaders have the blood of American soldiers on their hands. He is telling them that information. It is unclear why John Kerry would relay such information to the leaders of the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, but here is a guess: During the Trump administration, after that administration pulled out of the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal, which John Kerry negotiated--and by the way, a bipartisan majority of U.S. Senators in this body were against that deal--John Kerry started to freelance. He admitted to meeting with Zarif in 2018 to try to salvage the nuclear deal. In other words, he was likely acting and working against the previous administration, the elected administration, the Trump administration, and many of us here in Congress who applauded when we pulled out of the JCPOA. Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article written today by the National Review titled ``John Kerry, Enemy of Israel.'

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, it is Thursday, and by now many know-- particularly our members of our press corps--that it is time for what I feel is probably one of the best moments in the Senate each week. It is time for the ``Alaskan of the Week.'' We get to talk about Alaska, talk about somebody who is doing extraordinary things for our State, for our country a lot of times, and I like to give an update when I do my ``Alaskan of the Week'' speech on what is going on in Alaska. It is spring, of course. The Sun is high in most parts of the State-- actually, in all parts of the State. Spring--we call it breakup, actually, relating to the ice on the rivers--it is upon us. Now, of course, it can still snow, and it still gets pretty cold in a lot of places in Alaska, but winter is on the run. The promise of summer is in the air, and what a glorious summer it is going to be. We aren't out of the woods yet on the pandemic in Alaska, but we have managed--we are proud of it, I am proud of my fellow Alaskans--the pandemic, the virus, as well as possible. One of the things that is happening right now, our vaccination rates have been, almost from the beginning when we got the vaccine, the highest per capita in the country. Despite our huge challenges in terms of size, limited population, it is really kind of a minimiracle--No. 1 vaccination rates in America in Alaska. We did it by dog sled, snow machine, small airplanes to make that happen. So if you are watching, America, please come on up to Alaska. It is safe. It is open for tourism. This summer we want you to come on up. By the way, not only will you have an amazing experience, our State just announced a few days ago you will get a vaccine if you come to Alaska. If your State is too inefficient or bureaucratic to actually get a vaccine, come on up to Alaska. You can have the trip of a lifetime, and you and your family can get vaccinated. We want you up there. We are open for business. We want to see Americans come on up and enjoy our great State as we are getting through this pandemic. It is a naturally beautiful place, you will see, but the people in my State work hard to keep it pristine and are really what makes it such a great place. So, today, in honor of Earth Day, I wanted to honor Homer, AK, resident Beth Trowbridge, who has spent her career--about 40 years, four decades--working to keep our waters in Alaska and our beaches clean and pristine. So let me tell you a little bit about Beth. Originally from St. Louis, Beth first came to Alaska in 1981 as a college student to work on the Youth Conservation Corps in Fairbanks, AK, the interior. She only intended to stay a year or so--by the way, this is a very common story--only intended to stay a year or so, but as so many do, she got to Alaska and fell in love with the State so she transferred to the University of Alaska in Fairbanks where she got her degree in Northern and Alaska Native studies. Now, Beth loves the wilderness. She loves living off the land, studying the plants, studying the animals. She said: ``There are beautiful and amazing people and amazing resources'' in Alaska. She said she always loved the sense that, while we can all live there, nature in Alaska is always in control--the earthquakes, the volcanoes, the extreme weather, the coldness. They are a constant reminder that, in her words, in Alaska ``there are the bigger forces out there''--a lot bigger, and she wants to keep it that way. So she became a steward of her environment and dedicated her life to educating others so that they, too, could become stewards. With all the talk about climate change, I fear that not nearly enough attention is given to those outside of politics, like in this town, who work day in and day out to care for the environment in the place they call home--in their communities, in their States, every day on the ground at home, making a difference. That is what Beth has done. After college, she got a job as the education coordinator for the Prince William Sound Science Center, where she authored the ``Alaska Oil Spill Curriculum.'' Then, in 2000, she began her work--in many ways, her life's work--for the Center for Alaskan Coastal Studies, or CACS, in the drop-dead gorgeous community of Homer, AK, surrounded by the beautiful Kachemak Bay. Some people call Homer ``the place where the land ends and the sea begins''; others, ``the cosmic hamlet by the sea''; and others, ``the halibut capital of the world.'' If you haven't visited Homer, America, you have got to go to Homer. My goodness, it is beautiful. In Alaska, we just call it awesome, in part because of people like Beth and organizations like hers that keep it that way. In 2012, Beth became the organization's executive director and helped expand the good work that CACS has been doing since 1982. Now, this organization is primarily an educational organization and offers people of all ages, really from across the globe--not just Alaska, not just America, everywhere--opportunities to connect with the outdoors, learn about coastal environments through guided walks, tours, educational programs, overnight school programs, and so much more. So think about this impact. Homer, where CACS is located, is a town of about 6,000 people. CACS educates roughly 16,000 people through these science-based programs every year. That is a big impact. They have camps for everyone, and I would encourage anyone who is listening who is going to go to Homer to sign up for one of these camps to explore the unique marine ecology, the tidal pools, and the abundant sea life; to watch whales, seals, and sea lions; to swim against the backdrop of the Kenai Mountains; and to go into the forest and learn about the forest, wildlife, and adaptation in the forest. There is so much to do. One of the big initiatives of this important organization is to deal with marine debris. So today, on Earth Day, let me put a plug in for the marine debris programs in my State and across the country. This is an issue that I have been very focused on since my time as a U.S. Senator, working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have gotten a lot done. We passed the Save Our Seas Act a couple of Congresses ago, and we passed the Save Our Seas Act 2.0, which the Congressional Research Service called the most comprehensive ocean cleanup legislation ever in the history of the Senate. It was just passed and signed into law in December. So we are making progress. I do want to give a shout-out to one of my good friends, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. You know, some of us miss his weekly ``Wake Up'' speeches. I think mine is the only weekly speech anymore. Senator Whitehouse, I am not sure what happened. But Senator Whitehouse and I have worked closely on this kind of legislation--ocean debris, ocean cleanup, and to help organizations like CACS with marine debris cleanup and to call attention to this issue that is solvable. We can solve this--marine debris, ocean plastics--and it is bringing a lot of people in America and across the world together. One of CACS's biggest annual events is the annual Kachemak Bay Coast Walk. It involves more than 200 volunteers who adopt a section of Kachemak Bay shoreline. And, again, you have got to visit Kachemak Bay, one of the most beautiful places on the planet Earth. Trust me. Surveying changes, collecting data on marine life and human impact and cleaning up beach litter and marine debris is what people do every year with the Kachemak Bay Coast Walk. It is the kind of great local work that really makes a difference. It brings people from all across Alaska together--people who know how special and beautiful Kachemak Bay is-- and it creates community. It creates community, and that is so important, not just for our State but for our oceans and the coastline. So that is one of the many things Beth has done. Beth and her husband, Charlie, who is a retired shellfish biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game have four children. The youngest is finishing eighth grade, and the oldest is 33. Beth develops environmental curriculums for schools. She is a Rotarian, a Girl Scout leader, and keeps CACS running seamlessly. She says she does all of this because she has a passion for sharing the outdoors with people--Alaskans, Americans, people from all over the world, but especially the next generation--and she hopes that her work not only will have an immediate impact on the environment but helps people to understand the challenges of our oceans and to focus more on cleanup, because who doesn't want to clean up our oceans? Local businesses, she is noticing, are using more recyclable material. People are leaving less trash behind. People are talking more about cleanup and ownership, and that is how you make a difference at the local level, and it spreads out all over the State and the country. Beth said: I hope that, through my work, we can provide the opportunities to understand and appreciate nature. I am proud of where I live. I love Homer. I want to take care of it. I hope that others [in the community] feel that way too. Beth, that is a great sentiment, and it is also one of the many reasons we are proud to honor you today with this very prestigious award, being our Alaskan of the Week. Congratulations. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, to my colleague from Washington, whom I have the utmost respect for, it is true that at the beginning of the pandemic, there were all kinds of challenges with the cruise ship industry. There is no doubt about that. We saw that, but that was over--well over--a year ago. We didn't know anything about the virus then, we didn't have vaccines then, and we didn't see the economic devastation then. It is a very different period right now, a year later. What we are asking for is the CDC to move. That is what our bill does. You know, Senator Murkowski and I had a meeting--our second meeting-- with the CDC Director just 3 weeks ago, and in that meeting she told us that they were going to issue all the guidance for the cruise ships-- issue it all so people can plan. They said that they could anticipate with this guidance that we could meet cruising opportunities to start by mid-July in Alaska. They said that with this guidance the CDC wouldn't have to be approving every move--every move going forward--and they said that they would take into consideration this huge progress we have made on vaccinating Americans. In my State, in southeast Alaska, there are communities with 60, 70, 80 percent vaccination rates. That is where these cruise ships are going to be going. The unfortunate thing is that not one thing the Director of the CDC told us turned out to be true. That is not good. Her staff or somebody in the CDC needs to be held responsible for telling us something that was not true at all. Again, what is happening right now is an economic and health devastation. In my State, the estimates are up to $3 billion worth of damage just in Alaska alone because of the foot-dragging, mixed messages, and unresponsiveness when it comes to the CDC's guidance. As my friend from Florida just mentioned, airlines, schools, hospitals, and hotels have all gotten CDC guidance and have been able to open. But for some reason, they are focused on this industry, which negatively impacts thousands of small businesses across America, in Florida and Alaska. And I certainly hope that the CDC, seeing that we are trying to move this--and it is a bipartisan issue, by the way--will start to do its job--will start to do its job and make the commitment that was made to me and other Senators to get this moving quickly in terms of guidance so we can be having tourism, cruise ships, and otherwise in America by mid-July. That is what I was told by the Director 3 weeks ago. They need to keep that commitment. I yield to my good friend from Florida.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 1105 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.