Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, we just voted in a very important vote on the Senate floor--a bipartisan vote--to confirm Mr. David Bernhardt as the next Secretary of the Interior for the United States of America. It was a strong vote--56 to 41. I want to begin my remarks this afternoon by rising to express my gratitude and appreciation to Mr. Bernhardt for stepping up to the plate to continue to serve his country and to continue to serve the Department of the Interior now in the role of Secretary, the individual who is going to be running the Department of the Interior for the United States. I thank my colleagues. It was a bipartisan vote in the Senate, which I think is important for voting for now-Secretary Bernhardt. Actually, I would like to be the first Senator to call him Secretary Bernhardt. If you and your family are watching, Mr. Secretary, thank you. I also want to mention that I have been listening to some of the speeches made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. To be perfectly blunt, I find what we just witnessed a bit disheartening. I would like to say at the outset that we can and should disagree on policy disputes. Certainly issues like land issues are really important to me in my State, that is for sure. We can disagree about the direction of how we are going to move some of those policies forward. What is disheartening, though, is when you have someone like Mr. Bernhardt, who is willing to serve his country again--and I am going to talk about that--essentially getting his reputation dragged through the mud on the Senate floor. It is not a good thing. It doesn't encourage people to want to serve. So, Mr. Secretary, thank you. I know this wasn't an easy confirmation process. When you look at his background, this is actually one of the most qualified individuals to serve as the Secretary whom we have had in many years. He was the Solicitor General under President George W. Bush, confirmed by the Senate; he was the Deputy Secretary for the last 2 years, confirmed by this body; and now he is the Secretary. I would say those are very high qualifications. I just want to talk about him for a little bit. Why do I support Mr. Bernhardt? The Secretary of the Department of the Interior is really important to America. It is critically important to my State, the great State of Alaska. We have over 200 million acres of land under the Department of the Interior's control in Alaska--200 million acres. That is over two times the size of California. In fact, one-quarter of all the lands that the Department of the Interior manages for the United States reside in Alaska. Let me repeat that. One-quarter of all the lands that the Secretary of the Interior manages in America are in my State. So we take this role of Secretary of the Interior very, very seriously, which is why I wanted to come to the floor and again thank Secretary Bernhardt and let him know that even though there were a lot of Senators down here really ripping into him, the vast majority of us--56 of us, at least--think he is going to do a great job. Why do we think that, Mr. Secretary? Well, certainly with regard to Alaska, sometimes Secretaries of the Interior understand our State and that we are different and unique and that Federal laws passed by this body say so. Other Secretaries of the Interior don't. They don't understand that in Alaska you have to balance conservation with resource development and economic opportunity. Secretary Bernhardt does understand this, and this is refreshing. Secretary Zinke did. This was refreshing. It was a refreshing break from the previous administration, the Obama administration, where Secretaries of the Interior, like Sally Jewell, went out of their way to tilt Federal power in a way that disadvantaged the State of Alaska, despite Federal law saying you shouldn't do that. Well, we just had a U.S. Supreme Court decision 2 weeks ago saying that that practice of the Department of the Interior and their different officials tilting the law against Alaskans had to stop. It was a huge case that I talked about on the floor last week, Sturgeon v. Frost, which says that in the laws of the Federal Government, particularly as they relate to Alaska--the Supreme Court stated it several times in a 9-to-0 opinion--Alaska is unique and Alaska is different. When it comes to the Department of the Interior, it is very different. Well, Mr. Secretary Bernhardt knows that, and that is one of the reasons why I am so pleased to have voted for him and supported his confirmation, which we just saw on the Senate floor. It is not just me who supports him. Let me provide some quotes from letters and support groups, because, again, after listening to some of my colleagues the last couple of days, you would have thought that everybody was against him. Actually, most groups who care about conservation were for him. Let me give one really important group--the Alaska Federation of Natives, an extremely important group in my State. The Secretary of the Interior has trust responsibilities to lower 48 Indians and Alaska Natives. This group had this to say about Mr. Bernhardt: He listens well. He is articulate in his responses. He draws reasonable conclusions. Moreover, he has established a trusting relationship with the Alaska Native community around the issues of resource development and subsistence hunting and fishing. So they have been complimentary and supportive. The American Farm Bureau says: This President's nomination of David Bernhardt as Secretary of the Interior is great news for American agriculture. He understands the needs of America's farmers and ranchers and is an excellent choice for Interior Secretary. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies--who are they? Those are the men and women in each State who manage fish and game like the Department of the Interior. Here is what they had to say: The Association is appreciative of Mr. Bernhardt's continued support for the great work of state fish and wildlife agencies in conserving our nation's natural resources. The Congressional Sportsmen Foundation says: Mr. Bernhardt has demonstrated he is a true advocate for sportsmen and women across the country by working with the community throughout his career in natural resources management, and implementing Secretarial Orders that promote sportsmen's access to public lands. That is a very big issue in my State. Even a group like Ducks Unlimited says: ``His integrity in following the law is beyond reproach.'' Let me say that one again. ``His integrity in following the law is beyond reproach.'' David Bernhardt is a champion of conservation and the right person for the job. When I was the commissioner of natural resources in the great State of Alaska--which actually is a job similar to the Secretary of the Interior, where we manage an enormous portfolio of land, water, oil, gas, minerals, and timber--I had the opportunity to actually hire Mr. Bernhardt when he was in the private sector as an attorney helping the State of Alaska with a big complicated lands issue. He did a great job. He was a hard worker. He was a man of integrity. So the list goes on and on of the supporters. So, again, Mr. Secretary, we just want you to know that given your background as former Solicitor of the Department of the Interior and former Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior and as someone who has gotten rave reviews from groups all across the country, and now as the Secretary of the Interior, my view is that you are actually one of the most qualified individuals to hold this position. So congratulations. You certainly earned it. We appreciate your service to this great Nation of ours, your service to the Department of the Interior, and your service to my State, the great State of Alaska, and we certainly look forward to working with you as you continue your public service for our country, for Interior, and for Alaska. I just wanted to come to the floor to commend you on a strong bipartisan support, and we are going to look forward to working with you.

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. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is Thursday afternoon on the Senate floor, and it is one of my favorite times of the week because I get to come down and talk about an Alaskan who has made a difference in my State and in the country sometimes. This one, by the way, is a big one. I think I am being a little bit presumptuous, but the pages, I think, view this as kind of one of their favorite speeches of the week because you learn about Alaska, and I get to brag about my wonderful State. Now, I have been hearing a little bit back home that people like to watch this sometimes, but the gentleman I am going to talk about is John Sturgeon. That is him right there in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, and that is him with his hovercraft in Alaska when he is out moose hunting. This is an epic tale--epic, and it just happened. So I am going to be a little bit more long-winded on this ``Alaskan of the Week'' speech because it is actually really important for Alaskans; it is really important for my colleagues; and it is really, really important for Federal judges who rule on things that relate to Alaska. We had an epic, huge U.S. Supreme Court case that just came down last week relating to this heroic figure, John Sturgeon, related to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA--that is a mouthful; that is a huge statute that was passed by this body in 1980-- and how that has been interpreted over the years, over the decades. The Supreme Court just last week interpreted this case in a way that we Alaskans think it should have been interpreted, but unfortunately Federal Agencies for 40 years have been interpreting it another way. So I am going to talk a little bit about that. I will begin by talking about John Sturgeon and this battle he waged. Literally, they are going to make a movie out of this someday. Trust me. This is an epic--an American classic--12-year legal battle that he waged so he could go hunt a moose off the Nation River, a river in Alaska, and the Feds were saying he couldn't. So he fought and he fought, and he went to the Supreme Court not once but twice. So are we ready? This is one epic story that, again, I guarantee you they are going to make a movie out of someday. So let me begin by talking about John Sturgeon, the 74-year-old man right there and what brought him to Alaska. Well, he is from Minnesota, originally and, like so many Alaskans, soon-to-be Alaskans--people watching, we want you to come up and visit, by the way. We want you to come up and live there. He felt the pull of Alaska very early in life. John says he remembers dreaming about Alaska as a child. When he was graduating from high school, he applied for a few jobs as a hunting and fishing guide, but like many patriotic Americans--actually, many of my fellow Alaskans--he joined the military instead. My State has more veterans per capita than any State in the country. After he finished two tours in Vietnam in the Navy--so we are talking a real heroic guy here--he formed a plan. He was going to go to college, get a degree in forestry, and then head north to Alaska. That is what he did. He stuck with the plan. As soon as he finished his last exam in college, he put it on the professor's desk, and without even getting his diploma, he jumped into his car and drove all the way out to Alaska. He didn't even wait for graduation. So, initially, he moved to Wrangell in Southeast Alaska, and then he became director of the division of forestry for the State of Alaska--a great job, a really important job. It was a position he held until 1986, and then he formed his own timber company, which he runs today with his son. Now, throughout all this time, John Sturgeon, like many Alaskans, loved to get out to see our great outdoors, to hunt, to fish. There was a particular area in the interior part of Alaska that he discovered that was particularly good for moose hunting. For those of you who have been up to Alaska or haven't, we have very large moose, and we have a lot of them, a lot of moose. To get to this area, however, he had to cross a river--the Nation River, within the Yukon-Charley National Preserve, which is a preserve that was actually created by Congress. I am going to get to that. The Nation River, in a lot of areas, is very shallow. It is very shallow, so the best way to traverse the Nation River is via hovercraft. You are looking at John Sturgeon's hovercraft right there. It was 2007, and John was in his hovercraft when the steering cable broke, and he and two friends lugged the hovercraft to a sandbar to fix the cable--just like this. This is the sandbar right here at the Nation River. Three park rangers then showed up. We love our park rangers up in Alaska, but we also have a little more skepticism than most States about Federal agencies saying they can control what we can and can't do. John says that they were very cordial, asking all sorts of questions about hunting in the area. He said: I just thought they were interested in the hunting. Then one of them pulled out a thick rule book. Uh-oh. They found and pointed to a section in the rule book in which hovercrafts aren't allowed in Federal parks or preserves. They told him they were going to cite him for violating this Federal regulation if he didn't move his hovercraft. I talked earlier about this big law, a giant law that passed in 1980. Most Alaskans didn't want it passed. Think about this. Unfortunately, this happens a fair amount to my State. There are laws that come from the Federal Government that we don't want; yet Senators and Congressmen pass them anyway and tell Alaskans how to live their lives. That is what ANILCA did. It is a huge law. Of course, back then, our Senators fought for provisions that protected Alaskans' interests, even though they didn't really like the law. I will talk a little later about what that law did. John Sturgeon knew ANILCA specifically said that in Alaska--ANILCA is only about Alaska--navigable waters and submerged lands within a park or reserve were governed by State laws and regulations, not Federal laws and Federal regulations. It gets a little complicated, but Senators like Ted Stevens and Congressman Young fought this bill. They said: Look, if you are going to pass it, you have to make sure things are in there to protect our citizens. So John Sturgeon looked at these park rangers and said: Look, I am on State land and State water. You can't cite me. You shouldn't even be on these lands. They said that it didn't matter, that they still had the authority, just as they had the authority to ban hovercrafts on all parks and preserves across the country, and they showed him this regulation book. John Sturgeon thought they were wrong, but he moved his hovercraft anyway without getting cited. But this issue still really gnawed him. If you are being told by a Federal official to do something and you think it is wrong--well, he thought it was time to fight it. John had personally seen when ANILCA passed--and a lot of people predicted it--this huge bill that gave so much of Alaska away to the Federal Government. Little by little, Federal agencies and Federal officials started telling Alaskans: Hey, you can't do this. You can't do that. We have authority over you on this. It was this creeping maneuver, which we thought was ignoring provisions of ANILCA and treating the public lands in Alaska as if they were in the lower 48, but they are different. Most people who have been impacted over the years by this overreach of the Federal Government, quietly but aggressively telling Alaskans what they can and can't do according to the law, couldn't do anything about it. Going against the Federal Government--a lawsuit, for example--is time-consuming. It is expensive. As John said, ``You just can't fight the beast.'' So most went away, and the Federal power kept creeping, creeping, and creeping. After consulting with some lawyers about 12 years ago, John Sturgeon decided, you know what, I am going to fight this. I am going to fight it. So guess what. He did it. He filed a suit. He lost in district court. He lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Trust me, I am going to talk about that court of appeals, which, unfortunately, has jurisdiction over 40 percent of the entire country and one in five Americans. They very frequently get the cases wrong. This is another great example of their completely blowing it. It went to the U.S. Supreme Court not once but, as I said, twice. We just got the second case last week, and, boy, was it a big decision for Alaska. That was 12 years ago. He has been fighting this for 12 years. Guess how much it cost John Sturgeon to do this; guess why people don't do this. It took $1.2 million in legal fees to vindicate the rights of the State of Alaska and his fellow Alaskans. Just for that reason, he should be Alaskan of the Week. The final, unanimous decision by the Supreme Court that came down is a historic--historic--decision for the State of Alaska in favor of John Sturgeon and completely against the Park Service and the Federal Government's abuse of power. This decision is celebrated across the great State of Alaska, and it also upheld a very important subsistence provision for Alaska Natives as well. Every argument that the Park Service made in holding up its aggressive use of its authority over John Sturgeon ``ran aground,'' in Justice Kagan's words. She was the author of this very important decision last week. Let's talk a little bit about ANILCA and Justice Kagan's decision. By the way, it was a 9-to-0 decision. We always hear about the Supreme Court being divided. It was 9-zip. This is the second time this went in front of the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court said: This is not hard, Ninth Circuit and Federal agents. It was 9 to 0 in favor of John Sturgeon and the great State of Alaska. As I mentioned, ANILCA passed here in 1980. It is a huge bill, several hundred pages. Few--even the experts--have actually read the text of ANILCA to understand why the provisions in it are so important. But to their credit, the members of the U.S. Supreme Court clearly read this statute. As I mentioned, the decision written by Justice Kagan will serve as a guide on how lands are to be regulated by the Federal Government in Alaska according to Federal law. In the decision, Justice Kagan begins with some history. By the way, I highly recommend that all of my fellow Alaskans read the decision. Pages, you guys should read it too. Anyone watching who cares about Alaska should read this decision. It is quite a big one. Justice Kagan goes through great pains to try to explain a very complicated topic and writes in very plain language. It is quite a good opinion. She begins by talking about some Alaskan history. The Federal Government, as most know, bought Alaska from Russia in 1867--365 million acres of land. That is well over the size of Texas. Sorry, Senator Cruz and Senator Cornyn. I know you guys like to talk about the size of Texas, but we are way, way bigger. For the first 90 years, all of the land was owned and controlled by the Federal Government, which completely neglected the land and the people in it, who were mostly Alaska Natives. Justice Kagan wrote in her opinion: ``By the 1950s, Alaskans hankered for both statehood and land--and Congress decided to give them both.'' Along with statehood came 103 million acres for the State of Alaska to manage in order to create a tax base. The Statehood Act also gave Alaska ``title to an ownership of the lands beneath the navigable waters,'' such as the Nation River, which is where John Sturgeon was hunting. But statehood didn't resolve all of the land disputes at all. The Alaska Native people rightfully demanded jurisdiction over the lands that had been their ancestral lands and that they had lived on for thousands of years. So in 1971, Congress, this body, passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which resulted in the formation of Alaska Native corporations that were able to choose up to 40 million acres of land for the Alaska Native people. That is roughly the size of Pennsylvania. More land claims and disputes came about, given the large size of Alaska and given the different land holdings. All of this takes us to the very large statute, ANILCA, which passed here in 1980, which was at the heart of the lawsuit that we just heard about and that the Supreme Court ruled on last week. In 1980, after a very long and contentious battle--one that resulted in protests all across Alaska, which, as Justice Kagan noted in her opinion, involved a modern-day Paul Revere galloping through crowds in Alaska, shouting ``The Feds are coming! The Feds are coming!''--104 million acres of land were set aside by Congress for preservation in Alaska. Think about that. I say to the Presiding Officer, you are from the great State of Indiana. If the Federal Government, over your objection, came and said, ``We are going to take a huge chunk of Indiana, and we are going to keep it and preserve it,'' you probably wouldn't have voted for that. Our Senators didn't like this, but the Congress overruled them. That happens sometimes when your State is so big. It is something we still have to focus on--when people focus on my State and want to lock it up. So here is what they did: 104 million acres were set aside for preservation. Ten new national parks, monuments, and preserves were created, and three existing ones were expanded. These areas were called conservation units. It is essentially a national park. All of this did not come without challenges because, unlike in the lower 48, these new areas--103 million acres--that is bigger than California. It is huge. These new preservation units, conservation units, had within them private land, Native land, and State land. So it was very complicated. These are what are called inholdings in Alaska--a patchwork of inholdings. Our Senators did a great job of saying that the inholdings can't be regulated by the Federal agencies. They are private lands; they are Alaska Native corporation lands; they are State lands, so the Feds can't regulate them. We believe that was in ANILCA. That was part of the deal, part of the settlement. Part of the reason is that, as one writer put it, while many Americans come to Alaska to view our parks--and we are glad they do; they are beautiful--``many Alaskans think of those same parks as some combination of home, office, grocery store, and source of renewal. They have known these lands intimately, from one year to perhaps ten thousand years.'' As Justice Kagan also noted in her opinion: [R]ivers function as the roads of Alaska. . . . Over three- quarters of Alaska's 300 communities live in regions unconnected to the State's road system. Let me repeat that. We have over 200 communities, villages, that are not connected by roads. We need a lot more infrastructure in Alaska. So you either have to get there by taking an airplane or, in the winter, a snow machine or a boat on a river, if the village is on a river. I am still quoting Justice Kagan. She says: ``Residents of these areas include many of Alaska's poorest citizens, who rely on rivers for access to necessities like food and fuel.'' You are starting to get the picture. Our Senators fought to make sure the Federal Government couldn't regulate these areas because we need them for economic development, to get food, to hunt, and to get fuel. Slowly but surely, the Federal Government, whether Democrats or Republicans, started to say: No, no, no. We control this. We are going to tell you Alaskans how to live your life, despite the fact that we thought ANILCA said they can't. Congress, as I mentioned, particularly Alaska's delegation, understood that this was something they had to balance. Yes, we need to protect the lands, but at the same time--and again I am quoting Justice Kagan here--the law had to ``provide adequate opportunity for satisfaction of the economic and social needs of the State of Alaska and its people.'' You can't just go to a State, over the objections of their own representatives in Congress, and say: We are going to nationalize all of this, and all of you citizens who live there, we are going to tell you what to do with your lives. Now, this body needs to understand this because sometimes, even today, we still have issues where some of my colleagues want to lock up and shut down the great State of Alaska, and they don't take into account the people I actually represent. It is a frustration, but it is something we will continue to guard against. Well, our Senators did a good job of guarding us in the ANILCA Act, but the Federal Government kind of ignored a lot of what was in there, and certainly the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals did. So, as Justice Kagan put it, if you continue to read her opinion, she says: ``So if . . . you see some tension within the [ANILCA] statute, you are not mistaken [when you see that tension]: It arises from Congress's twofold ambitions [when they passed ANILCA in 1980].'' She described it as ``a grand bargain,'' the ``Janus-faced nature in its statement of purpose, reflecting the century-long struggle over federal regulation of Alaska's resources.'' That is her quote. Here is how it was supposed to work, the twofold ambitions. It was supposed to balance the ideas of preservation of Alaska's lands with also allowing the State, not the Federal Government, to regulate those inholdings I am talking about--private land, State of Alaska land, and Native corporation land. That is what this law was reflected to do when it was written. It can be confusing. It is a very big law, particularly for Federal employees who see it as their job to preserve and keep people out of these parks and not to--remember, you have Alaskans who have lived there for thousands of years or who had private property in there prior to this law being passed. As Justice Kagan wrote--and here is a quote from her, which is a really important one for Alaska. She said: If [John] Sturgeon lived in any other State, his [law]suit would not have a prayer of success. . . . Except that Sturgeon lives in Alaska. And as we-- The Supreme Court-- have said before, ``Alaska is often the exception, not the rule'' [when it comes to these kind of Federal laws in Federal parks]. Alaska, as the Justices say over and over in this monumental decision brought down from the Supreme Court last week, is different. John Sturgeon understood this. The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which unfortunately handles all of the Federal appeals from Alaska district courts, does not understand this. They haven't for decades, unfortunately. The first time John Sturgeon took this case up through the courts, he went to the Ninth Circuit, and they, of course, said: No. Sorry. Federal agents win. John Sturgeon, you lose. You now have the right to move your hovercraft on the Nation River because the Federal officials have all the power over that river. The U.S. Supreme Court--this is about 3 years ago--actually said: No, we don't think that is the case. We are going to reverse this and send it back to the Ninth Circuit. So what did the Ninth Circuit do? They held again that Sturgeon is going to lose. The Federal Government wins. They just came up with a different reason. I read that Ninth Circuit opinion. It was one of the most remarkable opinions I have ever read of a court of appeals-- Federal court of appeals ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court. It is breathtaking how they just ignored the U.S. Supreme Court in their second opinion. Now, sometimes the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't like to be ignored. I was a law clerk on the Ninth Circuit. I have seen them do that a lot. What did the Supreme Court do? They essentially said: You can't ignore us. So they took it again. They took it again, and they came out with a 9-to-0 opinion. If you are a Ninth Circuit judge, you have to be embarrassed--embarrassed--because the U.S. Supreme Court took you to task. They essentially said you cannot have Federal agents in Alaska who can do whatever they believe is in their power with ignoring ANILCA. ANILCA says: ``Alaskans have to be able to regulate, to use, and to control areas within these Federal preserves if they are inholdings, private land, State land, or Alaska Native corporation land.'' This is something the Federal agencies have ignored and certainly the Ninth Circuit has ignored. One of our jobs here, as you know, is to confirm judges who have been nominated. Any Ninth Circuit judge who is now coming before this body for confirmation, the first thing I am going to do is hand them this Sturgeon opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court last week and say: Read this. Read it and understand it because the Ninth Circuit has been getting the issues of Federal power over Alaska wrong for decades, and this U.S. Supreme Court decision finally sets them right--finally sets them right. This is a monumentally important decision for my State, and I believe other States, but certainly for my State. So after a 12-year battle and after spending $1.2 million on legal fees, our Alaskan of the Week for today, John Sturgeon, right there in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, made history--made history. A moose hunter said: I am not going to be pushed around by the Federal Government. I think I have the right to do this, and I think my State, not the Feds, controls this area of Alaska. He was right. Despite the Federal district court telling him he was wrong and despite the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit telling him he was wrong twice, he was right. He simply wouldn't give up. Because of John Sturgeon, Alaskans will have firm ground to fight on the legal subject that comes before the courts in my State all the time in the Ninth Circuit, which is how much power the Federal Government has to control Alaskans, our economy, and our future. As Justice Kagan wrote, in those areas, like the Nation River, [ANILCA] ``makes clear, Park Service administration does not replace local [and State] control.'' This body said that. Unfortunately, Federal agencies have ignored it and so has the Ninth Circuit, but now the Supreme Court has spoken and has spoken very, very definitively. ``It makes you feel patriotic,'' John Sturgeon said recently when we contacted him. ``One little guy from Alaska--a moose hunter--can be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court [two times]. That just blew me away.'' It does make you feel patriotic. It does make you feel that if one man thinks he is right, he can fight and win in the courts of the United States, although it took 12 years and over a million dollars--and again, he didn't just win. He won 9 to 0--9 to 0. That is as good as it gets in the U.S. Supreme Court. In Alaska, this man is a hero. He doesn't accept the label. He is too modest. He does acknowledge he wouldn't have gotten as far as he did without the help of some excellent attorneys, all of whom I know and have had the opportunity in my life to work with and become friends with: Matt Findley, Ruth Botstein, and Jon Katchen, who wrote an amicus brief in both hearings, including one for the congressional delegation that the U.S. Supreme Court used a lot. He also had an amazing outpouring of support from the community all over the State. People across the State of Alaska, Democrats and Republicans--it didn't matter--they knew what he was fighting for. He also had an amazing of support from the community, groups and individuals who stood with him throughout the years and who, all told, raised all but $100,000 to pay for the legal bills. Justice Kagan said this decision means ``Sturgeon can again rev up his hovercraft in search of moose.'' That is Justice Kagan in her opinion, and he is planning to do just that. He is ready. He has been working on the hovercraft. Again, there it is in the picture. It was in his garage over the past few months. It has a new engine, and he recently fired it up just like Justice Kagan told him to do, and he says it is running fine. He can't wait to get out and moose hunt. But this story, as you probably have gathered, is bigger than one man and his moose. ``Alaska is different,'' John said, and, by the way, that is what the Supreme Court was saying throughout the entire opinion. ``It's special. And it's meant to be that way and should be treated differently by the law. The people of Alaska truly won'' in this very important case. Thank you, John Sturgeon, for never giving up. Thank you for your hard work and your determination, and thank you for being our Alaskan of the Week. I also want to give a big thanks to our nine Justices on the Supreme Court. Justice Kagan, who wrote an exceptional decision, shows that she and the other eight Justices on the Court understand that Alaska is different, as they say probably five times in their opinion. We can love our lands, we can protect them fiercely, and we can live and play and earn a living on them as well. So for her very well-reasoned decision, maybe she should be an honorary Alaskan of the Week as well. I don't think Justice Kagan is from Alaska, though, but for today, all our thanks and praise and gratitude goes to John Sturgeon for really an incredible legal battle that is going to go down in the history books as a super-duper important day for Alaska. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is that time of day on the Senate floor when I get to recognize someone special from my State, someone we refer to as the Alaskan of the Week, someone who makes our great State of Alaska, in my opinion, the best and most unique State in the country. I know it is the pages' favorite speech of the week as well. I don't think you are going to be disappointed with this one, the young men and women here working as pages. Now, some may take issue with the claim of the most unique State in the Union, but consider this: Right now we have teams of mushers and their dogs that are barreling 900 miles across the State of Alaska toward the city of Nome in some of the harshest conditions and some of the most difficult and rugged terrain on the planet Earth. The Iditarod--the ``Last Great Race on Earth''--is still under way in Alaska. Right now, mushers, literally as we speak, are rolling in to Nome today, tomorrow, and in the next few days. We salute all of the mushers and their dogs, the athletes--these dogs are great athletes--for their hard work. We are particularly proud this year. For the first time in history, three women--Page Drobyn, Jessie Royer, and Aliy Zirkle--are among the top ten finishers in the Iditarod. Like all races, there is a winner, and our Alaskan of the Week--we see a great picture of him and his dogs here--is the winner. After 9 days, 12 hours, 39 minutes, and 6 seconds on the trail, at 3:39 a.m., yesterday morning, in Nome, AK, Bethel resident Peter Kaiser crossed the finish line in Nome to win this year's Iditarod. This win is also historic for a number of reasons. Pete is the first person from Bethel, AK, to win the race. He is the fifth Alaska Native to win and the first Alaskan of Yupik descent to take the title. A crowd was there waiting for him. It seemed like half the town of Bethel was there waiting for him. As he crossed the finish line, they were chanting: Way to go, Pete. Way to go, Pete. Alaska Native dancers performed. There were hugs and tears of joy all around. His wife Bethany was there. Their two children, Ari Joseph and daughter Aylee, were also there. This is also exciting because of the race's historic roots. Before I talk more about Pete, for a little bit, let me take you back to a remarkable piece of history that happened in Nome, AK, in 1925, when diphtheria serum was desperately needed in Nome for several very sick children. It was 1925, in Alaska, and the nearest batch of serum was 1,000 miles away in Anchorage. There weren't--and, unfortunately, there still aren't--any roads between Nome and Anchorage. As a matter of fact, Alaska has almost 200 communities that don't have any roads connecting them to other places. There were no commercial airlines back then. The nearest train station to Nome was roughly 700 miles away. So, in the winter, people traveled mostly by dog sled. On the night of January 27, 1925, musher ``Wild Bill'' Shannon tied a 20-pound package of serum wrapped in protective fur around his sled. He and his nine dogs started the hundreds-of-miles journey--the ``Great Race of Mercy'' it was called back then--across the frozen Alaska land. The entire Nation was watching. This was reported in newspapers all across America. Wild Bill went for some time. Miles later, he met up with another racer and another team of dogs, and this relay of dog mushers carrying the serum for the sick kids in Nome continued until the lifesaving serum reached Nome 5 days later--pretty remarkable. The original race, as I mentioned, in 1925, began to be reenacted, with some twists, in 1973. There were no relays and just one musher and his dogs running the whole route. It continues today in honor of that lifesaving mission that happened--and saved the kids, by the way--in Nome almost a century ago. What a race it is. The mushers face frostbite, howling winds, and blizzards. They risk getting lost in the great Alaskan wilderness. In fact, they risk their lives along the way. Entering the race at all requires fierce determination, but winning the race, like Peter Kaiser just did, requires even more than determination. It requires years of grueling training, it requires guts, and it requires an Alaskan-sized heart. That is what Pete Kaiser has. Let me tell you a little about Pete, our Alaskan of the Week and our 2019 Iditarod champ. He is 31 years old. He was born and raised in Bethel, and he traces his mushing roots back to his great-grandfather, who came into the country as a gold miner and made extended trips with his dog team from the interior part of the State to Bristol Bay. His great-grandfather met and married a beautiful Yupik woman who had been raised in an orphanage, and that was his great-grandmother. He grew up with dogs. He and his sister loved mushing. When Pete was in college, he decided he really wanted to know everything about dogs that he could, and that passion turned into dog mushing full time in the great State of Alaska. According to him, that mushing, that determination, and that hard work gave his life focus and purpose. Pete has won another race, Bethel's Kuskokwim 300, four times in a row, and he has run every Iditarod since 2010, placing fifth three different times. This year, he won it all. He took the gold. This was not an easy year on the trail. In 2017, it was one of the coldest Iditarods on record. Most of the trail most of the time out there was 30, 40, or maybe even 50 below zero. It was very cold, very dark. This year, interestingly, was one of the warmest. The lack of snow in some areas presented challenges. One area of the trail--almost 80 miles, on what we call tussocks or rolling tundra--was in many areas without snow. It was like mushing over bowling balls, said Pete after he won. But he kept his cool and ran a strategic, determined race, and, importantly, he knew the area. While other mushers trained in the more urban areas, he stuck with rural Alaska, where the trail really gets rough, and he knew how to handle it. He husbanded his strength and the power of his dogs to maneuver into position on the Bering Sea coast toward the end of the race. It was there, as other teams faltered, that he charged to victory, besting a good friend of his by just minutes, one of the closest finishes in Iditarod history. Yesterday I got to call Pete to congratulate him. He said at the end, dog-tired, that it was all a blur. They don't sleep much--for almost 9 days. Speaking of dogs, he said that his champion dogs were eating a lot right now and getting a well-deserved rest. You can see some of those beautiful dogs, who by the way, love to run. They love to run. In Alaska, our Iditarod winners are like rock stars. They become very famous overnight. Pete will be no different. He will be an inspiration to so many, partly because of his hometown and his humble roots. Myron Angstman, another longtime musher and Pete's hero, said that most local mushers aren't sponsored. He said: ``They're not wealthy and they don't have a family kennel already established.'' But Pete's success will inspire others. Pete agrees. When a reporter asked him what his victory means for his community and for smaller towns in Alaska, he said that it ``shows that somebody'' from out in the rural parts of the State ``can have a dream and put it all together and work hard and things can happen like this.'' Those are inspiring words, and I am sure we will see new generations of mushers heeding Pete's call and jumping into the field as a result of his example and his success. Thank you, Pete, for reminding all of us that with enough hard work, grit, guts, and determination, any kid from any small town or any village can follow their dreams and make them a reality. Congratulations, again, to you and your wonderful, hard-working dogs on being the 2019 Iditarod champ, and congratulations for being our Alaskan of the Week. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, March 14; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed; that the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.J. Res. 46, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that no amendments be in order to the joint resolution.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. I now ask for their second reading, and in order to place the bills on the calendar, I object to my own request, all en bloc.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I understand that there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 108, submitted earlier today.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wanted to come down here and participate in this debate. It is the second one we have had in a couple of months on the floor of the U.S. Senate regarding this resolution with regard to U.S. policies and participation in helping Saudi Arabia--a difficult ally but nevertheless a longstanding ally of the United States--in its conflict with regard to Yemen. There have been a number of speeches, as there were last time we debated this issue a few months ago on the Senate floor. I do want to call out my Senate colleague from the great State of Utah, Senator Lee, who has been down here passionately arguing the issue of constitutional authority that the President may or may not have with regard to our U.S. military activities with regard to the conflict in Yemen. Senator Lee is a great constitutional scholar. He is someone who cares deeply about this issue, as do I. He is one of the leaders in the Senate on this issue. That is where he has been focused. That is why I believe he is part of this resolution that we are going to be voting on here in a few minutes on the Senate floor. I happen to disagree with him that under the War Powers Act, the United States of America doing air refueling of Saudi aircraft--not above Yemen, not above our conflict zone, but above Saudi Arabia--would constitute hostilities. I think that is too limiting a view of that statutory prohibition in the War Powers Act. I know Senator Lee comes at this very honestly; I just happen to respectfully disagree with him. I say to the Presiding Officer, as you have been watching this debate, the vast majority of my colleagues, all of whom I have deep respect for--Senator Durbin, Senator Sanders, Senator Murphy, and Senator Menendez--have all been on the floor the last hour or so making the case that if we, the United States, limit our involvement in this war in Yemen, somehow it is going to get better. We all want the humanitarian crisis in Yemen to end. We all want that. I think all 100 U.S. Senators want that. The arguments that have been made--and by the way, they were made a couple of months ago. We debated this for a week. Nearly every U.S. Senator came down here on the floor. They have just done it again. They said: The Saudis are involved in this war in Yemen, a civil war--they are--and the involvement of the United States is actually increasing the humanitarian crisis. These are the arguments. I have been listening. By the way, they were the arguments a couple of months ago. Senator after Senator after Senator made that argument. Well, I just wanted to provide a counter- argument. I am hoping my colleagues are listening because we should not pass this resolution. We should not pass this resolution. One thing that all of these debates--and I listened and I watched. Certainly, we debated this a couple of months ago for almost a whole week. Do you know what word never came up from my colleagues in these debates--almost never? The word ``Iran.'' Why is that important? As the Presiding Officer probably knows, the Houthis are actually backed by the Iranians. The Iranians are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Right now, we are having this debate all about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, which we want to stop--we want to stop-- but this resolution would say: OK, one of the best ways to stop it is we, the U.S. Senate, are going to tell the U.S. military that in terms of military assistance regarding Yemen, they can't work at all anymore. We are not going to allow that. Somehow our lack of involvement is going to, A, help end the war, and B, help end the humanitarian crisis. That is the argument. That is what we are voting on right now. I happen to think that argument is wrong. I think that, but I am going to talk about some people who have testified on this very issue in the last couple of weeks who have a lot of knowledge on this issue. I am going to replay a little bit of what they said because I think it is important for other Senators to hear this. Yes, we have a lot of experts, but I am going to talk about some of the people who have talked about this recently, who I think have a little more expertise on this issue than the vast majority--I would say actually every Member of this body, with all due respect. Let me go back to this point. Right now, as the Ayatollahs in Tehran watch this debate, they are very pleased. They are very pleased. Why? Because nobody is talking about them. Nobody is talking about them. Well, I am going to talk about them. First of all, with regard to what started as a humanitarian crisis-- which has been going on for a long time, but this war really kicked in when Iranian-backed Houthi rebels seized power in 2015. There is not a lot of discussion about how this began, but that is how it began. Tehran has been trying to establish a Hezbollah-like entity on the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, increasing capabilities to target cities in Saudi Arabia with ballistic missiles supplied by Iran. This is all part of Iran's broader strategy in the region to encircle our traditional allies--Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab States, and, of course, Israel-- with proxy fighters in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Yet nobody is talking about Iran. Let's talk about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. U.S. humanitarian aid has totaled almost $697 million in the last 14 months. Yes, the Saudis could do a much better job, but they have invested over $1 billion in trying to end the suffering. Iran--the country that started this war, the country that nobody on the Senate floor is even talking about--has not spent a dime to relieve the suffering. Now, of course, they have supplied weapons and ballistic missiles in the tens of millions of dollars but nothing to relieve the suffering. (Mrs. BLACKBURN assumed the Chair.) There is something else here that I wanted to reemphasize on the floor of the Senate. The horrible death of Mr. Khashoggi is something we have all condemned. It is very important that we do that. It is very important that we get to the bottom of it. Again, there has been a lot of discussion on that death, and any death is a problem, but let's talk about some other deaths, again, caused by the Iranians--a country we are not even talking about in this debate. In 2005, 2006, and 2007, they started supplying Iraqi Shia militias with very sophisticated, improvised explosive devices that killed and wounded over 2,000 American soldiers--2,000 American soldiers. Where is the outrage on that? How come no one is talking about that issue? Where are the editorials about that issue--killing our servicemembers? The whole concept in which we have to view this issue is through the lens of the Iranian efforts to spread terrorism and to push their malign interests, including in Yemen. Yet, once again, it is all about the Saudis, and no one is talking about Iran. No one is talking about Iran. What has happened in the last couple of days since we debated this issue 2 months ago? Well, we had an Armed Services Committee hearing. It was classified, but I am going to talk about things that I asked some of the witnesses--all of the witnesses with regard to operations in Yemen and Saudi Arabia--and the answers are clearly not classified. I asked: Will stopping U.S. support to help the Saudis end the conflict in Yemen? No. Would it prevent more civilian casualties? No. Would it give leverage to our negotiators and speed up the peace process? No. Would it support Israel's interests in the region? No. Would it support the U.S. interests in the region? No. Would it help embolden Iran with its regional malign goals? Yes. These are the experts in the U.S. intelligence community and the Pentagon giving these answers. This is about 3 or 4 weeks ago. They are questions that I was asking. Let me give you another group of experts. Just last week, we had a hearing. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee had a hearing for the nominations of our new Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, General John Abizaid, and our new Ambassador to Iraq, a career Ambassador, Ambassador Tueller, a career Foreign Service officer. That Ambassador had just spent the last several years as Ambassador to Yemen. I had the honor of introducing General Abizaid at his confirmation hearing just last week. He was the U.S. Central Command commander. By the way, he was the U.S. CENTCOM commander when this spread of these IEDs killing American soldiers started and began. I happen to have been a Marine Corps major, a staff officer to General Abizaid for 1\1/2\ years during this time. I had the honor of introducing him. This is an individual who is a great American, by the way, who spent his life in the Middle East. He retired as a four-star general, speaks Arabic, has a master's degree from Harvard on Middle East studies, and was an Olmsted scholar at the University of Amman in Jordan. He knows a lot about this issue that we are debating, as does Ambassador Tueller, who had just spent the last several years as the U.S. Ambassador in Yemen. He is a career Foreign Service officer who is getting ready to go to Iraq as our Ambassador. We have a lot of expertise here, but, with all due respect to my Senate colleagues, these gentlemen have spent their lives in the region. I am just going to quote from a couple of the questions and answers that came from General Abizaid and Ambassador Tueller on what is going on in the region. Here is an important one. Ambassador Tueller was asked about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Remember, this is the current Ambassador to Yemen--a very, very knowledgeable career political officer, a career Foreign Service officer. He said: But almost 100 percent of the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen has been caused by the Iranian-backed Houthis that overthrew the Yemeni Government, destroyed the institutions of state, and caused approximately a 40-percent decline in the GDP of the country. Let me say that again. This is the current Ambassador to Yemen, who is getting ready to be Ambassador to Iraq. He was asked who was responsible. Right now, if you listen to the Members of the Senate, it is all the Saudis, and the Iranians have nothing to do with it. Here is a guy who knows more than anybody, with all due respect to the people in this body, on Yemen: One of the things I often feel badly about is because we have a relationship with Saudi Arabia, and understandably, hold them to a higher account. We do focus on the consequences of Saudi actions. That is what is going on in this debate right now. But almost 100 percent of the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen has been caused by the Iranian-backed Houthis that overthrew the government in 2015, destroyed the institutions of state, and caused approximately a 40-percent decline in the GDP of the country. He continued: I see very, very little reporting, for example, of the millions and millions of mines that the Houthis have planted around the country, that in fact have caused more civilian casualties and continue to cause civilian casualties going into the future. That is a great concern, and I think the American people need to be concerned about the humanitarian issues caused by the Iranian-backed Houthis. This is last week in the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Now, you wouldn't know it in this debate because everybody is saying the whole problem is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a problem. They are an ally. They are a difficult ally. They are a complicated ally. But one of the experts in our country on this issue says that almost 100 percent of this is the Iranian-backed Houthis who caused the humanitarian crisis. Let me just make a couple of more points. This is General Abizaid. I see the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is on the floor, and I hope he will talk to this because this was in front of his committee. Iran and its proxies want us out of the region. By the way, that is what this resolution would help us do. This is General Abizaid last week: They see that their agenda is served by having the United States disengaged and out to not counter their malign influence. I think it is very important that we work to ensure that the relationship with Saudi Arabia allows us to continue our influence in the region. I think, as we continue to apply pressure to them, what I hope is that we can create conditions with some of the elements to begin to abandon sort of the Houthi ideological project, a project that because it is an Iranian project really in Yemen will never bring stability to Yemen. Again, what is going on here is that the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen are causing the humanitarian crisis. The Iranian regime wants us out of the region, including in Yemen, and the U.S. Senate is getting ready to vote on a resolution that does just that. Again, the Ayatollahs are watching this debate, and they are very pleased. They are very pleased with what is happening. Let's hear one more final thing that General Abizaid said, again, in this hearing just last week--a man who understands so much more about what is going on in the region than my colleagues here on the Senate floor: One thing we can't afford in Yemen, we can't afford to withdraw U.S. expertise to the coalition about how to fight. He is talking about the Saudis. He continued: Does anyone think that if we leave and take our assistance with regard to the Saudis, that is going to help the humanitarian situation in Yemen? The question almost answers itself, and here is General Abizaid, the former CENTCOM commander, at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just last week, saying that is not a good idea: If we want them, the Saudis, to fight right, we need to continue to give them that expertise. That is exactly the opposite of what this Senate resolution is getting ready to do. He continued: As far as competence in military operations conducted by the Saudi coalition, I think they have much work to do. We all agree with that. It is very important for us to continue to talk to them about the targeting system--we all agree with that--and about the way that they go about hitting the various targets, and about the professionalization of their forces, and when mistakes are made, that they do like what we do, which is to convene a board of officers, talk about the mistakes, and then take corrective action necessary to gain better and better expertise. This is still General Abizaid, just last week: I am hopeful that there is a way to move forward with regard to easing humanitarian problems in Yemen, and that it will continue. And if I am confirmed-- which we all hope he will be very soon--will tell the Saudi Government they need to do that. But the former commander of U.S. Central Command--and I spent 1\1/2\ years with him in the region, seeing him in action every day-- emphatically stated that if we don't work with the Saudis in terms of military assistance, it is going to get worse. The current Ambassador to Yemen testified last week that almost 100 percent of the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is caused by the Houthi rebels backed by the Iranians. Yet, if you listen to the debate today and if you listen to the debate 3 months ago on the floor of the Senate, almost nobody even talks about Iran. So given that the experts believe this strongly, given that they have more knowledge--and they are not political; one is a career four-star general, and one is a career Foreign Service officer--and given that they think this is a really bad idea to vote for this resolution, I am not sure how it advances American interests. I am not sure how it advances humanitarian interests in Yemen, which we all want to advance. It certainly will not advance the peace process, which we all want to move forward. The only entity in the Middle East that will be cheering a resolution in support of American withdrawal with regard to the Saudis is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the region, and that is Iran. That is not just me saying it. That is literally some of the most prominent experts in the country who have spent their lives focused on these issues. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution that we are going to take up here very soon. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. I yield my time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I believe I still have the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, first, I want to thank my colleagues for coming down here and having this important discussion. I want to thank my Democratic colleagues, for whom I have a lot of respect, for being here and having this debate. I am sure it is not going to be the first time that we are going to be doing this on the Green New Deal or other elements of proposals coming from the House or the Senate. This is a big issue happening in the House and what is going to happen over here with some of our colleagues. I think, in many ways, it is an issue that focuses on the future and where the country is going. As the majority leader recently said in an interview, ``I can pretty safely say this is the first time in my political career that the essence of America is being debated . . . of socialism and democratic capitalism.'' OK. Let's have that debate. We are having that debate. What is the essence of America? I believe it is freedom and liberty. That is what we are founded on, and that is what I think proposals like the Green New Deal would undermine. To be clear, some people are joking about it--like banning hamburgers or airplanes or returning to the horse and buggy, but I actually think there are many people who are looking at this very seriously, and so we should. Some of these kinds of ideas can be funny until they are not funny. What we are trying to do here is to talk about this proposal in a serious manner. In my State, the great State of Alaska, this is a deadly serious matter. There is so much that is in this idea, the Green New Deal--government takeover, healthcare, free housing, and free food, and the list goes on and on. The costs, as have been pointed out, are very high. Today what I want to do is to talk about one aspect that would be particularly detrimental to my State and to many other States--my colleagues from West Virginia and North Dakota are here on the floor--and that is this proposal to ban hydrocarbons produced in America within a decade. This is not a joke. There are many Members in this body--some are on the floor right now, and some are in the House--who think this is a serious proposal and would like to do it. I want to talk about that. I want to stipulate that I am certainly somebody who is in favor of ``all of the above'' energy. The fact that America is now producing more oil, more gas, and more renewables than any other country in the world is good for all of us, Democrats and Republicans. My colleague from Rhode Island is here. He and I have worked on a whole host of issues together involving oceans. I think the technological advances with regard to hundreds of years of supplies of natural gas with technology and with renewables provide huge opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to work together to bring down greenhouse gas emissions. This is enormous. We are just scratching the surface. I look forward to working with him and the Senator from Massachusetts on these kinds of ideas because I think they are exciting, and I think, when you are burning natural gas at very high temperatures, you almost have very little greenhouse gas emissions. Combine that with technology and renewables. We have hundreds of years of these supplies. It is a great opportunity, and it is exciting. I want to work with them. Let me get back to the proposal on the Green New Deal on natural resources. In my opinion, we do not spend enough time on this floor talking about the positive societal benefits of natural resource development in America--oil, gas, renewables, fisheries. These industries don't just fuel our power generation and transportation and electricity for our homes; these industries literally lift people out of poverty. They lengthen life expectancy. They literally save lives. There is a strong correlation between poverty, the lack of economic opportunity, and the health of our citizens. I am going to show a few charts here. This correlation is strong in my State, particularly with our Alaska Native population. In 1954, the Interior Department, with the help of the University of Pittsburgh, conducted a study of the health of Alaska Natives. Here is a quote from 1954: ``The indigenous people of Native Alaska are the victims of sickness, crippling conditions and premature death to a degree exceeded in very few parts of the world.'' Some of the poorest people on the planet were my constituents in Alaska--in America--in 1954. More than 10 years later, in 1969--just 50 years ago--the situation was still dire. Here is what Emil Notti, the president of the Alaska Federation of Natives, told Congress 50 years ago, in 1969: The native people in rural Alaska live in the most miserable homes in the United States. The life expectancy of the average Native Alaskan is 34 years old compared to 69 years old for the rest of the country. So what happened after that? We had a big change. We are not there yet, but we had a big change, and I want to explain. This was a chart that was studied just last year in the Journal of Internal Medicine. It is a study that was published in 2018 about the life expectancies of Americans. Where you see blue and purple is where Americans' life expectancy increased the most. The State with the greatest change in the entire country was in my State. By the way, that is a pretty important statistic--life expectancy. It doesn't get more important than that. Are you living longer? Look what happened in Alaska. The North Slope of Alaska, the Aleutian Islands chain, and the southeast all experienced huge increases in life expectancy from these very low levels, some of the lowest in the world. Why did that happen? On the North Slope of Alaska, this Congress passed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act to develop Prudhoe Bay, to develop oil and gas--some of the biggest fields in the world. At the same time, we also had a very large zinc mine that came into production. Because of this body's Magnuson-Stevens Act, we also had a huge increase in our fisheries. The bottom line is that natural resource development happened in Alaska, in America, and people's lives increased. That is a remarkable thing, and we don't talk about it enough. The average life expectancy increase in Alaska was almost between 8 and 13 years. That is a measure of success because we were developing our resources of oil and gas. That is why I am taking this Green New Deal literally deadly seriously because what we have done in our State and in our country by producing resources is we have created the ability for people to actually live longer, and I challenge my colleagues to come up with a better statistic and a more important statistic than that. I am going to end with a quote from a gentleman who came down here and testified in front of the Senate, Matthew Rexford--a proud Alaska Native leader from Kaktovik, AK, which is in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He testified that Congress should give his small community the opportunity to develop the resources near his village. We did that in 2017 after a 40-year debate. He spoke firsthand about his knowledge as to what resource development did for America, for Alaska, and for his community: The oil and gas industry supports our communities by providing jobs, business opportunities, infrastructure investment. It has built our schools, hospitals. It has moved our people from Third World living conditions to what we expect in America. We refuse to go backward in time. That is what he said. I believe the Green New Deal--certainly, its ban on hydrocarbon production--would take us back in time. For the sake of Matthew and all of these Alaskans who have done so well by responsibly developing our resources, we are not going to allow that to happen. I yield the floor to my colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is Alaskan of the Week time on the Senate floor, my favorite time of the week to talk about someone who has made a difference in my State. As you know, and as all the pages know, I try to come down to the floor every week to talk about someone who is in Alaska doing a great job for America, for their community, for the State, and what I believe is the best State in the country. I know we can all debate that. Some of you might take issue a little bit with the characterization of the best State, but we certainly have some bragging rights on some elements that make us the most unique State in America. For example, right now, the Iditarod, the Last Great Race, is underway, with 52 mushers and their dog teams--up to 14 dogs--barreling for well over 900 miles across the State of Alaska toward Nome in some of the most harsh, difficult, and rugged terrain in the world. That is just one of the many things that makes us unique. We have the Iditarod, the Northern Lights that dance in the sky, communities that still hunt whales to feed their villages, which they have been doing for centuries. We have the most fish and the longest coastline. As a matter of fact, our coastline is longer than the rest of the lower 48's coastline combined. We have the tallest mountain in the world, and we have a mountain of a Congressman named Don Young. Usually, Alaskans of the Week are reserved for people who aren't so visible, who aren't legends, who maybe are doing something in their community that not a lot of people are noticing. Today, March 6, 2019, I couldn't resist because Don Young, the Dean of the House, has officially become the longest continuously serving Republican in the Congress in U.S. history. Let me repeat that. Today, Don Young has become the longest, continually serving Republican in the Congress-- Senate or House--in the history of the United States of America. He was already here when every single Member of Congress was sworn in. Think about that. For every Member who has been sworn in, in the Senate or in the House, Don Young was here. In fact, according to Roll Call, there are at least 75 Members of the House who were not even born when Don Young came to Washington. That is an amazing achievement. He has served Alaska and our country so well for 46 years that it was only right to feature him as the Alaskan of the Week and to make a special Alaskan of the Week poster with the young Don Young and President Ford and many others and Don in uniform. We just love Don Young in Alaska. Congrats to Don. Where do we begin to talk about Congressman Young and the enormous impact he has had on Alaska and America? Let me start in Central California, where he was raised on a small ranch. He began the hard work of ranching young. ``My dad was a good man,'' Don said, ``but he believed that when you turned 7, you became a hired man.'' So he worked sunup to sundown. It was hot, riddled with snakes, and poison ivy. When he was still young, his dad read him the book ``The Call of the Wild'' by Jack London. Alaska sounded really good to Don Young. It was cold, not hot, and there were lots of dogs. He loved dogs. There were no snakes and no poison ivy. After he got out of the Army in 1959, the year Alaska became a State, he heeded the call of the wild and headed up the Alcan--much of it was still unpaved--in a brandnew Plymouth Fury. Alaska would never be the same. He fought forest fires. He owned a skating rink for a short time, but the BIA school needed a teacher in Fort Yukon, way up in the Interior on the Yukon River--a place he still, to this day, calls home and has a home there. In fact, he jokes that he is the only Congressman who uses an outhouse when he goes home. Anyway, he went to coach and teach fifth grade. He became a trapper, a gold miner, and a tugboat captain. Eventually, he met Lou, his wife, who stayed by his side for 46 years until she passed in 2009. Now he has found another partner in Ann. Thank you, Ann, for continuing to share him with all of us. Don, with Lou's prompting, caught the political bug. He served in the State House in Alaska. He served in the State Senate in Alaska. He learned some good lessons there; namely, that his time in the State Senate taught him that he was more of a House guy, where bills move fast, where elections are right around the corner no matter what, and where the action is. Along the way, they had two wonderful daughters, which to Don are still the most important things in his life. Then Lou talked him into running for Congress, and with the help of people like my wife's grandmother who was an avid Don Young supporter, he began to introduce himself to a wider audience. Due to a tragic airplane accident that took the life of then- Congressman Nick Begich, Don Young was appointed to his seat in 1973. He won the next special election, and because he has been so effective for our State--he passed more than 90 bills, mostly to help Alaska--and because he knows so many of our fellow Alaskans by name because he is fiercely loyal, and because he has helped hundreds of his fellow Alaskans since 1973, he has been reelected every year since. I can't count how many elections that is, but it is a lot. He is consistently ranked among the Congress's most effective legislators. He was just recently ranked the most effective legislator, No. 1 in the House, by the nonpartisan group the Center for Effective Lawmaking. Heck, even in his freshman year, Ralph Nader said he was the most powerful Congressman in the Congress. I imagine that he came to that conclusion with some trepidation. You will not hear Don Young talk about these things because he doesn't like to brag. He is a humble man, so let me do a little bragging on his behalf. Nearly everything, and I mean everything, that has advanced Alaska legislatively has Don Young's fingerprints on them, from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to the Ketchikan Shipyard, to the many land exchanges--kind of like what we just did recently on the Senate floor under Senator Murkowski's leadership--to the health clinics dotting our State, to the state-of-the-art Alaska Native Medical Center in Anchorage, Don Young has played a critical part in all of this. He is tenacious. Just last Congress, Don Young in the House, and Senator Murkowski and I in the Senate, finally, after 40 years, got ANWR opened in terms of the ability for responsible resource development in the 1002 area of our State. One of his biggest victories was the role he played in the Magnuson- Stevens Act, which transformed the American fishing industry. Among other things, the act created a 200-mile limit to keep foreign fishermen from plundering our fish and to sustain our fisheries. It wasn't easy to get that bill passed through Congress. Congressman Young worked it on the House side, and Ted Stevens, of course, worked it in the Senate. After it passed the Congress, he still wasn't finished. President Ford was considering vetoing this legislation. His Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, thought it would raise tensions with key allies, especially Japan and Korea because they fished 3 miles right off the shores of Alaska, and we pushed them out to 200 miles with this legislation. So on Air Force One in 1974, I believe, with a stopover at Alaska, Don Young, the new Congressman, debated one of the smartest guys in Washington, Henry Kissinger, in front of President Ford on whether the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which would transform our fisheries, should be vetoed. Kissinger argued it should; Don Young argued it should not. Well, guess who won that debate on Air Force One. Legend has it that at the end, Henry Kissinger and Don Young met for a martini after the debate Don Young won. They are still good friends today. That is just another example. Don Young has been good friends with Presidents and has discussed the issues of the day with some of the most important people in the world, but through it all, he has never lost his fundamental goodness, sense of fair play, honor, and his willingness to reach across the aisle to help another Member. He has never forgotten who he works for. He works for the people of Alaska, and he has remained a man of the people since he was elected. He has never, not for a second, lost his love for our great State. He could have done anything, and he chose to stay, year after year, decade after decade, to serve the people of our State and the people of America. He recently said: Every day I try to do something for somebody in some group. And every day I try to learn something new. We all go into the ground the same way. The only thing we can leave behind [here on this Earth] are our accomplishments. Well, he has notched numerous accomplishments, and he is far from finished. If I had my guess, I would also say he is far from finished with some of his famous theatrics too: brandishing walrus parts and steel traps on the floor of the House, maybe an altercation or two with colleagues that may or may not involve a sharp weapon, and campaign commercials that border on the humorous. Don Young is not finished speaking his mind and giving us Alaskans his heart. It has been an honor to serve our great State next to this historic figure. So Congressman Young, for your service, for your mentorship, and friendship with me, thank you for all you have done for all of us in Alaska and in America. Congratulations on being the longest serving Republican in the Congress in U.S. history today, and even more important, thank you and congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week. I yield the floor.

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, as you know, I try to come down to the floor every week to talk about someone in my State who is making a big difference in Alaska, a big difference in their country, and a big difference in what I believe is the best State in this country. That is just my opinion. I am sure the Presiding Officer thinks his State is the best in the country, but that is why we are all here in the Senate. Of course, Alaska is beautiful, particularly now as the snow is on the ground and the Sun is out. It is back out and high in the sky. It is also nearly time for the Iditarod--the last great race--something, I am sure, Senator Murkowski and I will be talking about on the floor in the coming weeks. It kicks off this weekend. We know it is a beautiful and amazing State, but what really makes Alaska such a great place are the people--the people who work tirelessly for causes they believe in. Many people don't know this, but Alaska is also incredibly diverse. In fact, Anchorage--my hometown and the State's largest city--is home to the country's three most diverse census tracks, racially and in terms of nationalities. By the way, the fourth is Queens, NY. I will just give you an example. Last week, we had this great event called Bridge Builders. It was in Anchorage. There were all of these different ethnic communities in Anchorage coming together. I spent a lot of time there on Saturday. We are very proud of our diversity. We are proud that more than 100 languages are spoken in our schools. Think about that if you want to talk about diversity. We are proud of the foods and the cultural events. We are proud of the unique tapestry that makes up Alaska. We are very proud of our history, and we are also blessed to have people who work diligently for all of us to keep history alive. I can think of no better way to cap off Black History Month than to recognize someone who, for years, has been fiercely determined to unearth a very important part of Alaska's history--actually, a very important part of America's history--one that transpired in my State but that greatly influenced our Nation during a very critical time. I want to introduce you to Ms. Jean Pollard. She is our Alaskan of the Week. Jean has brought back the story of the African-American Army Engineers of the 93rd, 95th, and 97th regiments who were in the U.S. Army during World War II and stationed in Alaska during World War II. More than 3,000 of these brave soldiers were integral in Alaska in building what we call the Alcan Highway--the Alaska-Canada Highway--one of the 20th century's greatest engineering feats. Let me tell you about Ms. Pollard. Now a retired schoolteacher, she grew up in Georgia. When she was a teenager, her father, who was in the Army, got transferred to Alaska. Like all Alaskan students--like our good students, our pages in the Senate--she took a class on her State's history--Alaska history--in high school. During the class, she learned about how the Army built the Alcan Highway in 1942 to help defend Alaska and America from invasion by Japan. A lot of people don't know this. Yes, Alaska was invaded and occupied by the Japanese military during World War II in the Aleutian Islands. I am going to talk about that a little bit more. She learned about this in high school. It was a good story, but the most important element she was taught in high school was actually left out. The highway was only able to be finished because of the more than 3,000 African-American soldiers who built it. So after getting a master's degree in education and a minor in history and after being a teacher for decades, Ms. Pollard only learned the entire story herself when she was sitting home one Friday night watching a PBS documentary about the building of this incredible highway. What did she learn? Again, let's go back in time. It is March 1942, 3 months after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. As the war effort was heating up, construction began on a 1,700-mile-long vital link connecting the great State of Alaska--it wasn't a State then; it was a territory--to the lower 48 for the war effort. Soon a massive mobilization followed--about 10,000 Army troops. Huge trucks, civil engineers, food, tents, you name it, were deployed to start building this road. Then, in June 1942, the Japanese invaded Attu and Kiska Islands in the Aleutian Islands chain of Alaska, adding a new sense of urgency to the completion of the road. These soldiers worked day and night--200 bridges, 800 culverts, through some of the most rugged terrain on planet Earth, mountains, rivers, no rest, hard, backbreaking work--and they were able to complete this 1,700-mile road that still exists today--some of you may have driven it--in less than a year. When the road was being built, the military was still segregated, and African Americans in the Army--much like in the rest of the country-- were treated as second-class citizens. They were assigned to the toughest jobs on this project, using the worst equipment. In the summer, it was full of mosquitoes, black flies, mud, and swamps. Winter comes early in Alaska. According to the historian, Lael Morgan, the winter of 1942 was considered one of the worst winters on record since 1906 in terms of how cold it was--and, trust me, it gets cold in Alaska--and how much snow there was. The Black troops were required to build winter barracks for the White soldiers, while the African-American troops lived in tents. When the snow fell, they couldn't get supplies, and some nearly starved to death, Lael wrote. It is reported that some even succumbed to injuries due to the cold--fatalities due to the cold. They did so much of the hard work. However, the contribution of these great African-American soldiers and heroes were completely almost scrubbed from all of the history books. Nobody that Ms. Pollard spoke to--social studies teachers or history professors--knew anything about this history. In Ms. Pollard's words: ``They stole that history.'' The history books wouldn't write it. It was wrong, and she knew she had to make it right so she went to work. As a teacher herself and a lifelong learner, she knew that bringing the story to the school system was key to keeping our history alive-- accurate history. Eventually, she called the historian I spoke about, Lael Morgan--a former Alaskan who was then living in Maine and happened to be featured in that documentary that Ms. Pollard watched on that Friday evening. Lael decided to help in a big way. Incredibly, a year later, she sold her house in Maine and headed up the Alcan Highway to Alaska. Together, and with the help of a team of others Ms. Pollard recruited, they amassed enough material to give to the school system to set the history right. Now schools across Alaska are putting this story--this real story-- into their curriculum, and now she is trying to get it required as part of a course that the university students in Alaska who are studying education have to take. She and her team put calls out across the internet for anyone who was involved in or had a relative involved in building the highway. She was able to track down three members of the African-American Army Engineers who were still alive. She flew to interview one of the soldiers who was 100 years old. Another one, who lives in Louisiana, traveled to Alaska in 2017 for the 75th anniversary of the highway's completion. Recently, Ms. Pollard mentioned the names of the soldiers she spoke to back then. There was a soldier from Virginia, SGT Reginald Beverly, who, unfortunately, has now passed away. The soldier in Louisiana who came to Alaska in 2017 is Private Leonard Larkins. He has 10 children. The Alaska Highway Project will be bringing him and his three sons back to Alaska on August 3 to help him celebrate his 99th birthday. I am in the process of drafting a Senate resolution to recognize all of the members of the African-American Army Engineers who helped build the Alcan Highway, which was so critical to protecting our Nation and Alaska. Ms. Pollard describes herself as feisty. Others might describe her as fiercely determined. When the Alaska State Legislature, at her urging, passed a resolution commemorating these African-American soldiers who built one of the greatest engineering highways in the world, she was sitting behind some of the State legislators. She heard one whisper to another: Have you met this Jean Pollard? The other said: Yes, she calls me several times a day about this bill. Julie and I were just with Ms. Pollard this past weekend, as I mentioned, at the Bridge Builder event in Anchorage--my wife Julie and I. She is very passionate, very persuasive, and we are very proud of her. Ms. Pollard and the team that created the Alaska Highway Memorial Project are on another mission to erect a memorial in a park in Anchorage. They have the design, and they certainly have the will with her driving it, and I have no doubt they will get it done to memorialize this great engineering feat by American heroes who were not treated well by their country. Like the story of how Ms. Pollard brought important history back to our State, the story of building the Alcan and of the civil rights in the military also has an uplifting message. On October 25, 1942, less than 8 months after they started, two soldiers, one African American and one White, shook hands after completing this highway. Six years later, President Harry S. Truman ordered the Army desegregated, 16 years before the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Many historians now cite the work and the experience on this Alcan Highway project, and the African-American soldiers and White soldiers working together on a really difficult challenge, as also helping make that possible--civil rights, 16 years later. The Federal Highway Administration calls the Alcan Highway the road to civil rights. Isn't that a great depiction? So, Ms. Pollard, thank you and your team for bringing that history back to us. I am proud to have talked a little bit about that important history for Alaska and America on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Congratulations for being our Alaskan of the Week. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues here on the Senate floor know, tomorrow is Valentine's Day, and yesterday, my colleague and my good friend, for whom I have so much respect, Senator Ernst from Iowa, was asking Members of this body to come down to the floor and talk about love. Some of you may have seen that. Now, I have to admit that I am very close to Senator Ernst. I think she is one of the best Senators in the whole body. But I was a little bit leery. To be honest, talking about love on the Senate floor is really not my thing. I am not sure I have done that in 4 years here. As a matter of fact, I know I haven't done that in 4 years. Then, I thought, well, you know, it is Valentine's Day. I thought, of course, immediately about my family and my beautiful wife Julie, the love of my life. I thought I could talk about that. I thought I could talk about my three daughters, all young Alaskan women, strong. They make me proud each and every day. That was easy, thinking about Valentine's Day and love that way-- Julie, Meghan, Isabella, and Laurel, who, by the way, celebrated her 18th birthday yesterday. They are the loves of my life. But then my staff told me: Wait a minute. This isn't that kind of speech. What Senator Ernst wanted us to do was to speak about the love of your State and how we all love our State. Now, that is easy for everybody here because we all do love our State. Then, I realized, well, you know what, Senator Ernst wanted that. It is Valentine's Day, and, of course, it is toward the end of the week, and I typically do my ``Alaskan of the Week'' speech every Thursday or Wednesday. This is a little bit of a jazzed up Valentine's Day version of Alaskan of the Week, with the Ernst hashtag ``homestatelove,'' which is what she put out, and I think some other Senators did. I thought this would be a combination this evening of a little bit of a love story to Alaska, my constituents, combined with the Alaskan of the Week, and, of course, to support what Senator Ernst wanted a bunch of us to do. I certainly love coming down to the floor every week to talk about the Alaskans of the Week. It is one of my favorite things to do. So, today, I just want to say a little bit about some of those Alaskans of the Week, not really one or two but just kind of a combo--literally, dozens and dozens of Alaskans, since I started here in the Senate 4 years ago, where I have had the opportunity to come down and talk about them. They are as old as 100 and as young as 8. Last week we had an 8-year- old. Boy, was he really a fine young man from Juneau. They come from the Far North, the Arctic, and the misty temperate southeast of Alaska. They live surrounded by tundra, by the churning seas, by mountains, by rainforests. These are all those who have earned the title Alaskan of the Week. They come from what we call urban Alaska and from some of the 200 small communities and villages that dot my State, which are not connected by roads. It is a big challenge we have in Alaska. They are librarians, artists, former Governors, reporters, healthcare workers, whalers, counselors, pastors, lawyers, athletes, students, teachers, and nearly every profession imaginable. Some of them have retired. Some of them are just starting school and aren't even of working age. They are a diverse group of people, as you can imagine, but they all have one thing in common. They love Alaska. They love their country. They have the fire, the drive, and the heart to use whatever skills they have, whatever experiences they have to help others. Isn't that what Valentine's Day is all about, what the hashtag ``homestatelove'' is all about, and, certainly, what the Alaskan of the Week is all about? Now, when I talk about the Alaskan of the Week, sometimes these people have seen and gotten and deserve a lot of attention in Alaska and even nationally. Other times, they are less well known but no less impactful. Let me give you a couple of examples: someone who has been picking up trash on the side of the road for years, just doing it every day; helping people to find a pet to love; making meals for the sick; starting and contributing to nonprofits; writing beautiful prose; helping people overcome addictions; establishing iconic businesses; working their whole lives to do what they think is right for their community, for their State, and the communities they love. Of course, they are all inspiring to us, and what I try to do once a week is to come down and not just inspire the pages, who, I know, look forward to this speech, but anyone in America who is listening. By the way, you have to come up to Alaska and you, too, will love, and I mean ``love'' Alaska when you come up to visit. Now, they are inspiring to all of us in Alaska, but, as I mentioned, all around the country last year. For example, I got to talk about the Alaska Pacific University's ski team--world renowned, gold medalists, Olympic medalists--inspiring young people all across the globe to race faster and race better. Last year, I had the opportunity to talk about a young teenager from Gambell, Chris Apassingok. He made national headlines for his insistence, despite tremendous backlash from some extreme groups outside of Alaska, to continue his cultural heritage of hunting whales to feed his community through subsistence. Here is another example that will go straight to the heart of my colleague, Senator Ernst from Iowa. In December, Carol Seppilu from Nome, who has overcome tremendous difficulties and disabilities and pain in her life, ran 85 miles of a 100-mile race in Council Bluffs, IA, and she is training for another race. That kind of training isn't easy in Nome, where she has to walk through blizzards just to get on a treadmill. Carol has the racing community--the long racing community, 100-mile races--in Alaska and Iowa and, literally, around the country in awe of her, if you know her story, and rooting for her. Sometimes we have a lot of negative news here in DC. I always say there is a lot more going on bipartisan that our friends in the media, who sit above the Presiding Officer's desk there, don't often report, but it can be negative. I think sometimes it can be easy to forget that we live in the greatest country in the world--no doubt about it--the greatest country in the history of the world, in my view, filled with good people who wake up every morning determined to do what is right, to give back to their communities, whether in Alaska or North Dakota, like the Presiding Officer. I want to thank Senator Ernst for bringing us down to the floor yesterday and even today to talk a little bit about love--good initiative there for Valentine's Day. I thank all of the people of my State. This is a love story, not just of my wife and daughters but of all these great Alaskans of the Week who have been doing such a great job for Alaska and their country. So, to all of them, Happy Valentine's Day. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it has been a few weeks since I have been able to come to the floor and speak about an Alaskan in my State who is making the State a much better place. It is one of my favorite times of the week. I think it is one of the pages' favorite times of the week, by the way. Nearly every week when we are in session, I come down to the floor and bring attention to someone in Alaska who is doing something that may be is recognized by the country, by the State, or maybe by the community, or maybe not recognized at all. We like to celebrate this person. We call that person our Alaskan of the Week. Alaska can feel a little bit far away from the rest of the country--a little bit like our own country sometimes, given our distance--but it is definitely part of this great Nation. Although we don't have a major professional sports team--some actually say the professional sport of Alaska is politics--just like the rest of America, we love our sports. Of course, we are big fans of winter sports--hockey, cross-country skiing, snow-machining, dog mushing, ice skating. But we are also pretty big football fans. Just like Americans throughout the country, last Sunday we were with family and friends tuned into America's most watched sporting event of the year, the Super Bowl. Many Alaskans watched the Super Bowl this year with special interest because we caught sight of one of our own-- our Alaskan of the Week, Camdyn Clancy. Let me talk a little bit about Camdyn. Last time I was here a couple of weeks ago, I recognized our oldest Alaskan of the Week ever, 100- year-old Urban Rahoi, from Fairbanks, AK. He is a great American and a World War II veteran, and he is from the greatest generation. He is 100 years old. This week, Camdyn, who is 8 years old, is our youngest Alaskan of the Week to date. We are really proud of him just for that. Camdyn lives in Juneau, our State's capital, with his mother Hannah, who is a medical technician at Bartlett Hospital, and his father Brett, who is a firefighter. Last week, Camdyn experienced the dream of a lifetime for a young boy, which was made possible after he won the NFL PLAY 60 Super Kid contest. What is that? On Super Bowl Sunday, Camdyn delivered the official game ball to the officiating crew just before kickoff, which is a pretty big deal for an 8-year-old. The days leading up to the game, he acted as the NFL's official kid correspondent, interviewing several Rams and Patriots players. You might have seen some of his interviews on the internet. They have literally gone viral. What did he do to win the trip? For one, Camdyn loves all sports, but he really loves football. In fact, his parents took him to a Seattle Seahawks game when he was just 4 years old. Like I said, he really loves football, and it showed as he was competing to win this national Super Bowl competition. He showed it during a video that his mom Hannah filmed in front of Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau, AK, where his dedication to the game of football really shone through. He has played the past 4 seasons in the Juneau Youth Football League, coming off his own championship season, where he was the star quarterback of the team. When he gets home from school, he practices football every single night. He encourages others--the whole neighborhood, in fact--to play, including boys, girls, and anyone who will throw the football around with him. It is not always easy to play football on your street in Alaska in the winter. By the time school is out, depending where you are in the State--but for most of the State--the sun has already set. It is usually snowy. What does Camdyn do? He wears a headlamp to practice football in the winter in Alaska. That is dedication. His mother said: ``He faces challenges that a lot of kids in the lower 48 don't.'' She said that is probably why he won this huge Super Bowl football contest. The Super Bowl officials saw this dedicated young man in Alaska who loves football. He also probably knows more football stats than any other kid in Alaska. In the community, he is known as the football ``Rain Man'' with his stats on football. The Super Bowl players this year got a lot of questions from reporters, and Camdyn was one of them, as the official youth correspondent for the NFL. For example, he got to ask Rams' quarterback Jared Goff what was going through his head when Greg Zuerlein kicked the 57-yard field goal that clinched the NFC Championship Game against the Saints. ``I was nervous,'' Goff told Camdyn. ``I was really nervous. It hit me right then that if he makes this, we are going to the Super Bowl.'' He also got to interview the Patriots' star quarterback, Tom Brady, who smiled at Camdyn and shook his hand when Camdyn approached with a microphone in hand to interview Tom Brady before the game. Here was his question to quarterback Tom Brady: ``How are you able to focus despite the negative fan base . . . AKA, the haters?'' After a laugh, Tom Brady said: ``We love them. We love them right back. We don't hate back.'' That is a classy answer from one of the game's greatest. Camdyn later called the interview with Tom Brady ``mind blowing.'' He loved it. After he attended media day, we actually reached out to Camdyn and asked him what he learned during the event at the Super Bowl. He said: ``Some of the players get a bad rap, but when you speak to them, they are really nice--like Ndamukong Suh. He was really nice.'' Camdyn said he loves the physical aspect of the game of football. He loves winning, and he loves the competition, but what he and his parents really love is how it can mold a person's character through hard work and perseverance. Being a good person is also key, Camdyn said. ``That really reflects the performance and how much people want to play.'' When asked what he wants to do when he is older, of course, Camdyn mentioned two potential professional paths. One, of course, is to be a pro football quarterback. I think he has a lot of potential to do that. The next would be a firefighter, just like his dad. Camdyn, thank you for representing Alaska last week at the Super Bowl in Atlanta. We were so proud of you. Thanks for being an inspiration to your community and our State. Thanks to the NFL for inspiring kids like Camdyn, and thanks to Brad and Hannah Clancy for raising such a great kid. Congratulations on winning the NFL PLAY 60 Super Kid contest, and congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week--the youngest Alaskan of the Week ever. Great job, Camdyn. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, a number of us have been coming to the floor for quite some time now, talking about challenges posed by China--the big geostrategic challenges for the United States posed by China. What has happened over the last couple of years--and I think it is very important--is that this issue went from an issue where not many Senators 2, 3, or 4 years ago were talking about it to now, when Democrats, Republicans--all of us--have recognized that literally for the next 50 to 100 years, the biggest challenges we have in terms of national security and economic security for our Nation are the challenges posed by the rise of China. I think that is an important course correction that we have seen in the Congress and, importantly, from the executive branch. The Trump administration put out a national security strategy, and that national security strategy said: Yes, we still have very significant challenges with regard to violent, extremist organizations like al-Qaida, like ISIS, but long-term we are shifting to a period in which the most significant economic and national security challenge we face as a nation involves the rise of great powers, particularly China as the pacing threat. I think the administration deserves a lot of credit for this course correction. It is in the national security strategy of the administration. It is in the national defense strategy of the administration. I believe it is strongly supported by Democrats and Republicans in this body. You may have seen, for example, that Vice President Pence gave a speech at the Hudson Institute a couple of months ago. For anyone in America interested in U.S.-China relations, I commend that speech to you. It was an outstanding speech. In my view, it was probably the most important speech on U.S.-China relations since a former Deputy Secretary of State, Bob Zoellick, gave the speech called the Responsible Stakeholder Speech. That was over a decade ago, and Deputy Secretary Zoellick essentially said to China: You have risen in large measure because of the international system that the United States established after World War II, and you benefited from that. What you need to do now is to become a responsible stakeholder in that system. Here is your opportunity. The system that benefited you more than anybody, the system that the United States led--China, you now have the opportunity to become a responsible stakeholder in that system. We are inviting you into it. Well, I think pretty much everybody--whether Trump administration officials, Obama administration officials, former Bush administration officials--recognizes that China rejected that offer. They are saying: We don't want to be part of the responsible--we do not want to be a member of the system that the United States has led. We are going to do something different. They rejected it. Again, I think that is not a controversial statement. China experts--Democrats, Republicans, Trump, Obama, Bush-- all pretty much agree that is what has happened. So we need a different approach. Right now, there are very serious negotiations going on between the Trump administration officials and senior Chinese officials, mostly on economic issues. But this relates to broader challenges we have with China, and I have had a number of discussions with Ambassador Lighthizer, Larry Kudlow, who is the NEC chairman at the White House, Secretary Mnuchin, the Vice President, and the President on this topic. I would say again--because it is important not only for the American people but for the Chinese to know--that there is strong bipartisan backing for what is happening right now in terms of our reorientation of the U.S.-China relationship and what we are finally demanding of them. Not everything is agreed to. There are some people, I think with good reason, who have some concerns about the use of tariffs, but, overall, I think there is broad bipartisan support in this body--having talked frequently with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--for what the Trump administration is trying to do with regard to China. As they look to address these issues--and they just had these high- level negotiations just last week--I thought it would be important to lay out a couple of things that I know many Members of the Senate are interested in. Again, this is to show our backing of these negotiations but also to make sure China knows that it isn't just the Trump administration that is focused on these issues. The Congress and Senate of the United States of America also hold similar goals. Obviously, the most important goal is to have a relationship in terms of economics and trade and investment that focuses on fairness, reciprocity in terms of open investment and a trading relationship with China. Fairness, reciprocity, open trade, and investment with China--we do not have that right now. That is one of the big challenges. As they are looking to continue these negotiations and possibly come up with an agreement with China, I thought it would be important for the Chinese to hear what a number of Members of the Senate believe is important in my discussions. Let me review some of these. First, we need to ensure that China commits to structural changes in their economy, not just pledges to increase purchases of U.S. goods. Increasing purchases of U.S. goods--whether they are Nebraska farm products, which I know the Presiding Officer cares a lot about, or clean burning Alaska natural gas, which I certainly care a lot about-- would be positive. But it is certainly not enough. Structural changes to the way in which they run their economy, to the way in which they treat other countries are critical. It was good to see the President last night in the State of the Union say exactly that. Structural changes--what do we mean by structural changes? First, China, for decades now, has required American companies that invest in China to essentially transfer their technology in exchange for access to their market. No other country in the world does that. China says they don't do it. They do it. They need to stop that. It is against WTO rules. Secondly, I am going to talk more in detail about how China consistently steals intellectual property from American and other countries' companies around the world. Third, they heavily subsidize their state-owned enterprises, which gives them an unfair competitive advantage against our companies and impacts negatively our workers and our families. No. 1, structural changes have to come, and if they don't, we should not accept this kind of deal. No. 2, China needs to end the ``promise fatigue'' that we have had with China by enabling us, through some kind of trade agreement, to hold them accountable for the commitments they make. What do I mean by that? We need assurances from the Chinese that will ultimately be fulfilled that an agreement that is reached at the end by this administration can be enforced. Why is that so important? As I mentioned, these kinds of negotiations have been going on for years. The Obama administration, Bush administration, Clinton administration, all in good faith, have tried to get China to commit to the promises and commitments they have already made and hold to them, whether through their WTO commitments or all kinds of other commitments. Here is the problem. The talk, the agreements, the WTO, the strategic economic dialogues with China--they all sound good, but for the most part, China has not kept its commitments. In the United States, we are suffering from promise fatigue. We get commitments from China. They make promises, and then they don't keep them. Promise fatigue--the American people, the U.S. Congress, this administration, and I believe other administrations are tired of that. Whatever agreement the Trump administration is working on should address this issue of promise fatigue. Let me give you a couple of examples of promise fatigue. Many years ago, I had the honor of serving on the National Security Council staff at the White House under Condoleezza Rice. We were at a meeting. I was a staffer for Secretary Condoleezza Rice, who, at the time was National Security Advisor, and President George W. Bush was in the Oval Office with a senior administration official from China, Madame Wu Yi. She was the Vice Premier. She was a very important person from that country. In this meeting, the President--as President Obama has done, as President Trump has done, as President Clinton has done--President Bush really pressed Madame Wu Yi on intellectual property theft. This was in the Oval Office. This was in a meeting in 2003, over 15 years ago. Madame Wu Yi looked the President of the United States in the eye and said: Mr. President, we are going to fix this. Protecting intellectual property is very important to my country. We know it hurts your country when we steal it. We are going to fix this. I am in charge. That was pretty powerful. She said it directly to the President of the United States in the Oval Office. I witnessed this. Let's fast forward to 15 years later. Have they fixed it? No. Has it actually gotten worse? Yes. Promise fatigue. Let me give a couple of other examples of promise fatigue. In 2015, in the Rose Garden, President Xi of China was standing next to President Obama, and he made essentially two commitments: We are going to stop the cyber theft of industrial products in the United States; we are going to not steal, through the internet, your intellectual property and other valuable trade secrets from American companies-- whether related to defense, whether related to other issues--and China will not militarize the South China Sea. This is 2015--less than 4 years ago--standing next to the President of the United States, the President of China made these commitments in the Rose Garden. Has China kept these commitments? No. They have massively militarized the South China Sea, and they continue their industrial-scale cyber theft. Great countries, particularly in these kind of settings, need to keep their word. China should know this. A key element of any deal that we as a country strike with China needs to take into account this promise fatigue and have real mechanisms to keep their commitments. Third, we need to make sure China commits to end its global corrupt practices. What do I mean by that? Predatory Chinese infrastructure financing and bribery of foreign officials are trapping countries around the world in debt and marginalizing outside competition by foreign investors. There was an article recently in the Wall Street Journal that went into very minute detail of how Chinese officials at the highest levels were bribing senior officials from Malaysia to get investment opportunities with regard to infrastructure in that country. This is essentially official policy in China to bribe and pay off officials in other countries to help their companies, which are often state-owned and compete against other companies. Is this fair? No. Is this good for the international economic system? No. Does China do it on a regular basis? Yes. Do our companies or the U.S. Government engage in this kind of systematic corruption globally? No. If the U.S. companies do this, their leaders can go to jail for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. China has no such prohibitions. To the contrary, they do it as part of official state policy. Whatever agreement we have with regard to the Chinese on this issue also needs to include addressing this challenge globally of foreign corrupt practices. This kind of state-sponsored corruption should not be tolerated or overlooked. Again, in my discussions with the administration's senior officials, I have encouraged them to make sure this is part of the negotiations in the agreement. Finally, an important element of our strategy with regard to China has to involve our allies. All of the issues I just talked about-- promise fatigue, industrial cyber theft, intellectual property theft-- aren't just issues the United States is dealing with. They are issues all of our key allies are dealing with--the Germans, the European Union, Japan, Korea, Canada. Everybody is dealing with these same challenges with regard to China. What does that mean? The good news is, strategically, the United States is an ally-rich nation, and our adversaries and potential adversaries are ally-poor. We have built a system of alliances. Since World War II, that provides strategic advantage to our Nation. As a matter of fact, one of the most strategic, important advantages we have is our system of alliances, which we need to deepen and broaden. There are many countries in Asia-- many countries in Asia--that want a closer relationship with the United States because of the rise of China. This administration needs to seize that because it makes strategic sense for us, but they also need to coordinate with these countries as we are working on these broader global economic issues as it relates to China. Why? Because if we come to the table, not just the United States but with the Europeans, with the Japanese, with the Koreans, with the Canadians, this provides leverage. The countries I just named, including ours, constitutes well over two-thirds of the global GDP. If we come together with these demands, we will have much more leverage to get a better deal. The time is right. I have had the opportunity to talk to senior officials from all of these countries. Every single one of them has challenges like we did with regard to China, and every single one of them wants to work with us. I commend Ambassador Lighthizer for starting an alliance on trade, as it relates to China, on a regular basis with the EU and Japan. The EU, Japan, and the United States are coordinating on these issues. I think it makes sense for the Ambassador to broaden that coalition--the coalition of the willing on these issues. It does bring significant leverage, and countries are ready for the United States to lean on us. As a matter of fact, the number of countries and Ambassadors whom I have heard who have cited Vice President Pence's speech on how we have to deal with China has been remarkable. They are looking for U.S. leadership. The administration needs to provide it. Using and making sure we are coordinating with our traditional allies on this issue is vital, and that is how we are going to come to a successful conclusion. There is a lot we need to do with regard to the challenges posed by China. They are not all negative. A lot of them can be positive. If we had Chinese investment, greenfield investment, in our country, that could help with jobs. That could help ease tensions. It is something I have been encouraging Chinese officials to do for a long time. It is in their interests. I think it is in our interests. We need to take seriously these challenges. It is an issue. You often hear about some of the tensions or some of the conflicts that exist in this body. In my view, a lot of that is overblown. There is a lot of bipartisan work that goes on in the Senate. The vast majority of the work that goes on in the Senate is bipartisan. One area of bipartisan agreement, I believe, is the need to focus on this very important geostrategic challenge that our country faces with regard to the rise of China. We are off to a good start in that regard. I want to encourage the administration to continue to focus on this issue and focus on these four points I highlighted this morning on the Senate floor. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, let me explain a little bit about what we witnessed on the Senate floor. Actually, it may be a little bit confusing, but it is an important issue. With regard to the Coast Guard, my colleagues from Louisiana and Mississippi have been working on this issue for a while. It is not going to solve the whole partial government shutdown, but we have been working with a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Right now, this bill for which my friend from Louisiana asked to have unanimous consent has 23 cosponsors, and there might be more. Actually, almost one-quarter of the whole Senate--more Democratic cosponsors than Republican cosponsors--is cosponsoring this bill to pay the Coast Guard. Again, we are working on the broader issue of getting our government back to the work of paying Federal workers, but as my colleagues mentioned, the Coast Guard is in a rather unique situation because it is the only military service right now that is not getting paid. Those in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are all getting paid. Right now, as we speak, the Coast Guard's men and women are out in my great State of Alaska and are risking their lives for Americans, as they always do. They are also out in other places like the Middle East and in the Persian Gulf. They are literally running patrols in the gulf, side by side, with marines and sailors. The marines and sailors are getting paid. The members of the Coast Guard are not getting paid. By the way, if the members of the Coast Guard say: ``Do you know what? I don't want to deploy to the Middle East right now. I am not getting paid'' or ``I don't want to get on that ship to save an Alaskan crabber whose life is at risk,'' they get court-martialed. So the Coast Guard is in a very unique situation right now. Here is the process we just witnessed. A number of us--again, it was very bipartisan--went to the President and said: Mr. President, we know it takes the Senate and the House and the White House to pass a bill. People are working on the broader issue. We are all working on the broader issue and on the compromises we need. Hopefully, we can get there this afternoon. In the meantime, let's try to get something to pass as we have almost one-quarter of the Senate in agreement--more Democrats than Republicans--on this bill that Senator Kennedy just mentioned. Would you support this? A number of us have had ongoing conversations with the President of the United States. I have raised this a number of times with him and his administration over the last 2 weeks. In a meeting I had with him on Wednesday, he said: I am 100 percent behind that bill. This is really important because, as to some of what the minority leader has said we should be bringing up, the White House has said: We are not going to support. OK. It is difficult to pass a bill when you are not going to get the President to sign it. Yet the President will sign this bill, and almost 25 percent of the Senate has said it is already a cosponsor of it. So what just happened for everybody watching, particularly the Coast Guard members? When I learned that the President was supportive last Thursday, we brought this bill to the Senate floor, and we hotlined it, which means we were trying to move it through the Senate very quickly. Every Republican cleared that hotline. Essentially, it means we all voted yes. When we took it to our colleagues on the other side--look, I know my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, care a lot about the Coast Guard--it was stalled. We kept asking: Come on. Don't you want to support this? You have a bunch of cosponsors. Right now, the men and women of the Coast Guard are very unique in terms of the military's not getting paid, but there was just a delay. Senator Kennedy said: I am going to ask for a live unanimous consent. Let's just bring it up and pass it. The White House would sign it. We could fix this issue today. I bet most of the House would certainly vote for it. So he brought it up for unanimous consent, and the minority leader objected. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to talk a lot about hostage-taking with regard to Federal employees. I think they need to think a bit harder about what just happened with the men and women of the Coast Guard. You heard it from the minority leader. He said he is not going to do anything about the Coast Guard right now even though the President said he would sign it. We could fix this tonight. Here is the point. We are all working on the broader issue, and we are going to vote on some things. If they fail this afternoon, there are numbers of us who are working on compromises to fix this whole problem. In the meantime, why shouldn't we all be working on the important issue--it might not be with regard to the whole government-- of taking care of the men and women of the Coast Guard? People are literally risking their lives right now for Americans, not just in Alaska or in Texas but all over the world, and they are the only members of the military who are not getting paid. We could fix it tonight--the President will sign it--as we are working on the broader issue. I don't understand why that is not an acceptable path forward. In talking to the men and women of the Coast Guard--certainly, in my State--they don't understand either. Yes, we have to come to a compromise on this broader issue that ends the partial government shutdown--that gets all of our Federal workers back and that secures our border. We are all working on that. In the meantime, had the minority leader of the U.S. Senate not objected, everybody here--I guarantee you it would have included my Democratic colleagues--would have voted for this bill to pay the Coast Guard. It just doesn't make sense. I certainly hope my colleagues and my good friend from New York will reconsider their blocking of this bill, because we could fix at least one element of this. We need to fix it all, but in my view this is a very unique element. The men and women who raised their hands to support and defend the Constitution and possibly die for this country are not getting paid. Yet those in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are. Let's fix it tonight. We can fix it tonight. Unfortunately, we just had an objection to doing that. I think it is a mistake, and I am hopeful my colleagues will reconsider.