Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on a couple of important foreign policy issues. I begin by talking about what is going to be happening in Alaska in just a few days. Really, the eyes of the world are going to be on Fairbanks, AK--the Golden Heart City in the middle of Alaska's interior--for a major foreign policy event. The United States will be hosting the Ministerial of the Arctic Council and will be passing the chairmanship of that Council over to Finland. The Arctic Council is an important foreign policy body. It consists of the Arctic countries of the world--the United States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Russia. In just a few days, all of the Foreign Ministers of all of those countries will be in Fairbanks, AK. This is not the first time in recent memory that the Golden Heart City of Fairbanks has been on the world stage in its hosting of a critical foreign policy meeting of world leaders. In fact, almost exactly 33 years ago to this very day in 1984, on May 2, in Fairbanks, AK, Pope John Paul II and President Ronald Reagan met in Fairbanks. It was a great meeting. You could see the chemistry between these two great world leaders. Right now, some historians believe that it was at the Fairbanks meeting of these two great leaders when the Pope and the great President Ronald Reagan laid out their vision and plans to vanquish global communism. America is an Arctic nation because of Alaska, and we have very significant, strategic interests in the Arctic--economic opportunity, transportation routes, sea routes that are now beginning to open because of receding sea ice, responsible natural resource development-- enormous natural resources of all types, including oil and gas-- protecting the environment, and respecting the culture and way of life of the peoples in the Arctic, particularly of the indigenous peoples, including their subsistence hunting rights. After a substantial discussion I had just a couple of days ago with Secretary of State Tillerson about the upcoming ministerial, I am confident this ministerial will focus on these important issues. In going forward, it is important to remember that right now in the Arctic, there are real people with real lives, real families, and real needs who live in this part of the world. They are my constituents. These are the people I represent. They are resilient, tough, hard- working, and very generous. The world is going to see them this week in their hosting of the Ministerial of the Arctic Council in Fairbanks. I thank all of them for their hard work in preparing for this event, and I thank Secretary Tillerson for rallying all of the world's Arctic Foreign Ministers to Alaska in the next few days. I will be there to support this very important event.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, in addition to the Ministerial of the Arctic Council, as I mentioned, the eyes of the world are on this-- clearly on the important issue of U.S.-China relations. We had the recent President Trump and President Xi meeting in Mar-a- Lago, and this week Madam Fu Ying, who is one of the top Chinese Foreign Minister officials, is going to be in Washington to meet with a number of us. It is something I believe this body needs to focus on more, this important issue of U.S.-China relations. Our country faces a lot of significant national security challenges around the world. In my view, however, the most significant long-term, geostrategic challenge we face is not ISIS, not al-Qaida, not Iran, Russia, or even North Korea. Those are very serious and immediate concerns, but the most significant long-term challenge we face as a country is the rise of China and the threat it poses to the post-World War II international order, led by the United States. This has been made clear in a series of writings by the well-known and respected Harvard professor, Graham Allison, beginning 2 years ago in 2015. In an article in The Atlantic magazine, he started to write about what he called the Thucydides Trap. Professor Allison is set to publish a book this month on the same topic. In the book, he writes that the defining question of global order for this generation is whether China and the United States can escape the Thucydides Trap. I have had the privilege over the last few weeks to review the book, and I believe it will be a ``must read'' for those who care about the long-term security and economic interests of the United States. What is he talking about? What is this issue, the Thucydides Trap? Why has Professor Allison been so focused on writing about it and addressing it? Thucydides is the famed Greek historian. Many actually view him as the father of all history, who wrote an epic historical work about the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. In that 30-year war, which devastated both of those Greek city states, the rising power, Athens, challenged the established order of the ruling power, Sparta. The ``Thucydides Trap'' is the term Professor Allison describes when he talks about the strategic dilemma and danger that occurs when a rising power threatens a ruling power in the international system. As his new book explores, in the last 500 years when this has happened-- because it does happen a lot in history, and he reviews the last 500 years--of the 16 times this has happened in the last 500 years, 12 of those times ended up having extensive war between the two countries. That is not good. Those are not great odds. Indeed, in his Atlantic article just 2 years ago, he concludes by saying that because of the seismic shifts and friction that is occurring between China and the United States, war between these two countries is more likely than is recognized at the moment. That is not good news. There is some good news on this because it is not just Harvard professors who are talking about this, such as Professor Allison, who is talking about the Thucydides Trap; so, too, are the Chinese. I, with a number of Senators, had the opportunity a few years ago, when President Xi Jinping visited the Senate, to meet with him. I went down to the Senate floor to talk about some of the issues, some of the ways in which we need to think about the long-term challenges with regard to the United States and China. The article in the Atlantic had just come out, so I talked about it, the Thucydides Trap, and how we need to avoid it. Then I literally walked into a meeting with the President of China and some other U.S. Senators. In his opening remarks, he talked about the Thucydides Trap and how China and the United States need to avoid it. So that is the good news. At least on that issue, we are on the same sheet of paper. There is other good news, and that is that this body--the U.S. Senate--in many ways, is the ideal place where we should be discussing, debating, developing, and, yes, implementing the kind of long-term strategic policies we need to address as a country and develop with regard to the rise of China. In ``The Federalist Papers,'' Madison talks about one of the important roles of the Senate, with its Members having 6-year terms and having significant powers in foreign policy, is to be able to ensure stable and lasting relations between the United States and other nations. Indeed, perhaps more than any other part of the Federal Government, this institution--the U.S. Senate--has the opportunity to act and think and debate and implement policies--strategic policies-- for the long-term interests of our Nation. Contrary to some conventional wisdom, where we only hear about American ``short-termism,'' in terms of long-term foreign policy issues, our country actually has a history of developing long-term strategic frameworks that address significant challenges to America's security and economic interests. Just think of the Monroe Doctrine in the 19th century or George Kennan's strategy of containment in the 20th century, dealing with the threat posed by the rise of the Soviet Union and global communism. These were long-term, successful strategies for the United States in response to significant challenges facing our Nation, in part developed here in the U.S. Senate and implemented here, and we can do it with regard to the challenges we are facing now with China. So as we work with the executive branch on developing an American strategy to address the rise of China and to avoid the Thucydides Trap, how should we be thinking about it? What principles should we be focused on? Let me suggest four that we should be focused on as a nation. First, we must recognize and emphasize that the United States is an Asia-Pacific power; second, we must strengthen, deepen, and expand our comprehensive alliances with the Asia-Pacific region; third, we must engage with, not try to contain, China; and fourth--and perhaps most importantly--we must renew America's strength, particularly the economic power and vitality of this great Nation. I will turn to each of these principles in a bit more detail. As I mentioned first, America is an Asia-Pacific power, and we must push back on narratives or counterstrategies being developed in the region that talk about Asia for Asians, which are veiled attempts to try to exclude the United States from this dynamic region in the future, in the orders being developed in the Asia-Pacific. Just look at this map. Geographically, we clearly are an Asia-Pacific nation. A few of us, about a month and a half ago, had the opportunity, when Prime Minister Abe was visiting, to have breakfast with him, and I reminded the Prime Minister at the breakfast that not only are they a key ally of ours in the Asia-Pacific, but for me, as an Alaskan, they are also a neighbor. Just look at this map. I reminded the Prime Minister that my hometown of Anchorage is actually closer to Tokyo than it is to Washington, DC, and having just gotten off the plane from Anchorage, I can tell you it is a lot closer. When we think of our forces, whether in Alaska or Guam or Hawaii, we look at this map, and on U.S. territory, Alaska forces, based in my great State, are, for the most part, closer to the Korean Peninsula than forces based in Australia. So, clearly, geographically, we are an Asia-Pacific country. Of course, American history has been embedded in the Asia-Pacific for centuries. During World War II, the United States led the effort to win the war in the Pacific after the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the bombing of Alaska, which was bombed, invaded, and occupied by the forces of Imperial Japan. Many Americans are not familiar with that history of the war. It is not just geographic proximity and the battles we fought to win World War II in the Asia-Pacific, just as important, in terms of our heritage as an Asia-Pacific nation, are the policies we implemented after World War II because it is now clear the United States has underwritten the peace, prosperity, and security of this entire region through our continued military presence, our alliances, and our economic engagement and power in the region. No country has done more than the United States to make the Asia- Pacific the world's most dynamic and economically vibrant region, and it has been the policies of our great Nation over 70 years that have led to that. By the way, no country has benefited more from the established order that we put forward and established in this region than China, with the rise of China, in many ways, helped, encouraged, and moved forward by the peace and prosperity we brought to the region. Let me provide just one example of how the U.S. military forces in the region have played the key role in helping keep the relative peace. Our enduring naval presence has helped to keep the sealanes, where all of this transportation and commerce and economic growth has occurred, in the Asia-Pacific. That has been the U.S. Navy, for decades, doing that. As I mentioned, all nations of the region--ours included--have benefited from this order, and from our policies, and our commitment and our sacrifice. All nations--including and particularly true, China has. So we must flatly and completely reject policies being developed in the region or in Washington that forget our geography and our history. The United States is an Asia-Pacific power. The United States is the preeminent Asia-Pacific power, but many of America's core national interests are at stake in the region, and we will be an enduring presence in this part of the world for decades and centuries to come. Second, with regard to how to address the rise of China and the principles we need to think about, we must continue to strengthen, deepen, and expand our comprehensive set of alliances in the Asia- Pacific region that have been built over decades. Now, the United States faces many global challenges, but one of the most critical strategic advantages that we have as a nation, in terms of security, is that we are an ally-rich nation and our adversaries and potential adversaries and competitors are ally-poor. Just think about it. Look at this map. Look through and think through all of the countries that are either treaty allies of the United States or wanting to get closer, and then think of other countries, including China, Russia, North Korea, Iran--all ally-poor. This is particularly the case in Europe and the Asia-Pacific. As I mentioned, these alliance systems have been built over decades by Democratic and Republican administrations, and what we need to emphasize now is we should not squander them. It is also the case--and we are seeing and hearing about it literally almost every day, whether it is countries like Russia or, yes, China that are constantly looking for opportunities to create schisms and tensions between the United States and its longstanding allies. We need to resist that, we need to be aware of that, and we need to focus on our allies. As Winston Churchill famously said, the only thing worse than going to war with allies is doing so without them. With regard to the Asia-Pacific, we have an opportunity to not just deepen existing alliances with critical countries like Japan and Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Philippines, and Thailand, we also have a unique opportunity to expand our alliances in the region of the Asia-Pacific with countries like Vietnam and India. In my first couple of years in the Senate, I have had the opportunity to travel in the region several times--in fact, every time I go home, I travel in the region--and meet with many of the leaders in the Asia- Pacific when they come to Washington or when we are in the region. It is clear to me there is a deep interest in many countries to strengthen their economic and security relationships with the United States. This is driven, in part, by the role we have played over decades as the force in the region that has kept the peace and promoted prosperity, but this is also driven by concerns of almost every country in the region about China's increasingly aggressive actions, particularly in the South China Sea, where, despite pledges from senior Chinese leaders not to militarize that part of the world--not to militarize that critical crossroads of commerce for the entire world--they clearly are doing it. For a country that in many ways is renowned for taking the long view--for having the ability to see around the corners of history--China's actions are having the effect of driving more and more countries into the American sphere. We should seize this opportunity, while recognizing that the productive work, the hard work of maintaining our alliances in the region takes time, takes patience, perseverance, respect, and consistency. To be honest, I was a bit concerned--and I gave some speeches last year about this--that given some of last year's campaign rhetoric, the Trump administration would not emphasize the importance of our allies and not undertake the hard but necessary work of deepening and expanding key strategic relationships, but I think, to the contrary, they are off to a very good start. The Secretary of Defense, General Mattis, in his first trip overseas as the new Secretary of Defense, could have gone anywhere, including NATO, the Middle East, where we have critical strategic interests, but he chose to go to Japan and Korea to cement these critical alliances. The Vice President just got back from a 10-day trip to Japan, to Korea, to Australia, and to Indonesia, with stops in the States representing the Asia-Pacific, including my home State of Alaska and Hawaii, along the way. I had a good discussion with the Vice President recently over dinner. We talked mostly about this and how focused he and the administration were on maintaining and deepening our alliances in the region, but still we can always improve, especially in terms of making sure we are coordinating closely with all of our allies on critical decisions and that we keep surprises, especially on sensitive strategic issues, to a minimum with regard to our allies. In this regard, President Trump's recent statement that South Korea would have to pay for the THAAD missile system that we are deploying in South Korea, after the U.S. had previously stated we would pay, was an unforced error that I hope the administration will be learning from. Of course, this body, the U.S. Senate, also has an important role to play, not only in emphasizing and helping maintain our alliances by meeting with leaders around the world and working with them but also in bolstering the capabilities of our partners in the region, economically and militarily. Right now, there are initiatives that are doing just that, coming out of the Armed Services Committee on which I sit. One is the Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative, led by Senator McCain, which would do that-- increase our capabilities with our partners in the region to deepen our alliances. Our alliances clearly matter. They matter in our long-term strategy to address the rise of China. But, of course, so does our relationship with China. That is the third principle I would like to discuss. We must continue to engage with China, not seek to contain it, as some have argued. In fact, when we look at the U.S. relationship with China, ever since Secretary of State Kissinger and President Nixon in the early 1970s began having discussions with China's leadership, America's policy toward China has always been about engaging. It has never been about containing, as our strategy was with regard to the Soviet Union. Of course, it has taken different forms. We had the One China policy, which we are still focused on, and the Taiwan Relations Act, which was developed by this body in the U.S. Senate in the late 1970s. We had recently initiated by President Bush and continued by President Obama the strategic economic dialogue where senior leaders in the United States and China met every 6 months. I had the opportunity to participate in that as an Assistant Secretary of State under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. There are all kinds of different approaches to our engagement. In my view, the most strategic concept since the One China policy was the policy developed during the Bush administration by former Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick, who went on to be the president of the World Bank. What he called the responsible stakeholder model was very well-received initially in 2006. He laid it out in a big speech, then went to China and focused on this. Essentially, the essence of that strategy was that China has greatly benefited from the U.S.-led international order, from the U.S.-led international system; therefore, it is in China's interest to become a responsible stakeholder in that system, to strengthen the international system that has so greatly enabled its own economic success. In the early days of the strategy, when it was launched, there was a lot of promise. I remember having the opportunity to go to China with Secretary Paulson when he was leading the strategic economic dialogue in the Bush administration. We would meet with all the leadership of China, from the President on down. At that time, every leader in these meetings used the term ``responsible stakeholder.'' They talked about it; they talked about this American concept as a framework for our relationship. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working out so well now. Chinese officials no longer talk about being a responsible stakeholder. In fact, on many military and economic issues, they seem focused on undermining the US-led international order. Professor Allison's book mentions this specifically, where he says an increasingly powerful China is unraveling the American-led order, throwing into question the peace that generations in the region have taken for granted. When we look at the long arch of history with regard to China, this notion that maybe they wouldn't accept this idea of becoming a responsible stakeholder in our system that we created--that might not happen. Indeed, this was foretold by one of the wisest men in Asia, Lee Kuan Yew, who was the father of Singapore. Decade after decade as he built that country into an economic powerhouse, American leaders-- military leaders, political leaders, Presidents, Democrats, Republicans--would meet with Lee Kuan Yew to get his advice and wisdom. I had the opportunity as a young National Security Council staffer to be invited to a meeting with Lee Kuan Yew when I was in Singapore--one of the most interesting meetings of my career--with Deputy Secretary Bob Zoellick and our Ambassador. Lee Kuan Yew talked about Asia and about America's role for 2 hours. But in another book about Lee Kuan Yew by Professor Allison, he was asked about whether China would accept this idea of being a responsible stakeholder in the American-led international order. His answer was: Of course not. Why not? How could they aspire not to be No. 1 in Asia and in time No. 1 in the world? When asked about this concept of being a responsible stakeholder in this system which has benefited them, Lee Kuan Yew was complimentary of the concept that the Americans were trying to lay out, but he said: China wants to be China and, as such, not an honorary member of the West and their international system. So even though it is clear that the responsible stakeholder framework is not working with China, we still need to stay engaged at all levels--senior leaders, economic officials, military leaders. I want to compliment the President on how he started the relationship with President Xi Jinping. They seem to be off to a good start. At the same time, we need to continue to look at different concepts, different frameworks of how we continue to engage with China. Let me suggest one idea that I have termed ``true reciprocity.'' As China has rejected the responsible stakeholder model, it is also clear they are increasingly rejecting the idea of a reciprocal relationship with the United States across a number of sectors. Let me give a couple examples. We look at issues like intellectual property theft. The United States has been raising this issue for decades. As a matter of fact, I had the opportunity to sit in a meeting with former President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and senior Chinese officials in the Oval Office. We talked about this issue. The President pounded the table on this issue. The Chinese committed not to steal our intellectual property. Yet that continues unabated, now often through cyber attacks. We look at foreign direct investment, how Chinese companies invest in Europe and the United States, how they are buying companies such as advanced robotics, biotech, media, high-tech companies, internet companies. But if an American company or a Western European company wanted to do the same in China, we know what the answer would be. It would be no. This lack of economic reciprocity extends beyond the trading relationship. I attended a briefing a few weeks ago in the Senate by the Asia Society, which is putting out an important strategy document with regard to China--ideas for the Trump administration, a very thoughtful policy recommendation piece. One thing they noted in terms of diplomacy: Right now in Beijing, our U.S. Ambassador is typically getting only deputy minister-level access, deputy minister-level meetings, while back here we give much higher access to ministers to the Secretary of State. This was essentially confirmed by former President Obama's own Ambassador, former Senator Max Baucus, who, in a remarkable exit interview about his time as Ambassador to China--a job he loved--talked about how, in many ways, in terms of reciprocity, we were too weak, not firm enough, pushed around. These are his quotes. It was an interview that actually didn't make a lot of news but was quite remarkable--how we had no strategy to deal with this, how we needed to draw our own redlines. As we develop a long-term strategy toward China to avoid the Thucydides Trap, we need to institute an engagement policy which looks at true reciprocity. I will be speaking about this more in the coming weeks, and I am going to be offering legislation with regard to reciprocity in the economic and trade relationship. But I will say, diplomatically speaking, this should be a no-brainer. If our Ambassador in Beijing gets only deputy minister-level access to Chinese officials in China's capital, then that is what we should provide China's Ambassador here. It is simple, easy. The final principle we need to focus on in developing our long-term strategy to address the rise of China is the imperative to renew America's strength, particularly the economic power and vitality of the United States. We have to be strong at home again, and we haven't been. I have a chart here that says it all. Over the last, really, 10 to 15 years, we have a lost decade of economic growth. We have not been able to hit 3 percent GDP growth in almost 15 years. Some have called this the new normal; this is what we should expect. But in many ways, when we look at this chart--Republican, Democratic administrations--the 3-percent line here is not a great number. It is an OK number. The traditional numbers of economic growth are closer to 4 percent for our country. But literally, in almost 15 years, we haven't hit it--not once. President Obama was the first President who never hit 3 percent GDP growth in a year, ever. This is not a healthy economy, and in many ways people are starting to question the American dream, the idea that each generation will be better. We have to get back to a strong economy. I certainly hope the Trump administration will be focusing on this. I know that many Members of this body are focused on this issue. Last quarter we didn't have a good start with the new administration--0.7 percent GDP growth, less than 1 percent growth. Economic growth, even more than military might, in many ways is the coin of the realm in Asia. We must get back to a robust economy. Many experts at home and abroad say we can't do it. They say our demographic challenges are too great, but I disagree. If we look at U.S. history, every time we are dismissed, every time someone talks about the decline of the great American engine of growth, whether in the 1930s or in the 1970s or beginning in the 1980s when Japan was going to overtake us--every time that has happened and the naysayers are out there, the U.S. economy comes roaring back. It is critical that we do this now. We have so many strategic advantages, even relative to China, with regard to our economy. So many of our challenges, in my view, are self- inflicted problems that we can solve. Strong economic growth--at least about 3 percent--will more closely bind our allies to the United States in the Asia-Pacific region. Strong economic growth will help us rebuild our military, which has been drastically cut over the last 8 years. Strong economic growth will be critical to tackling our challenges at home, such as skyrocketing deficits and debt levels and crumbling infrastructure. Perhaps, most importantly, strong economic growth will enable us to view the future, including the rise of China, with confidence and not fear. Our great Nation succeeds when we look to the future with opportunity, not with trepidation. In Professor Allison's upcoming book, currently titled ``Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap,'' he notes that fear was the driving force that propelled Athens and Sparta into the Peloponnesian War. ``What made war inevitable,'' Thucydides tells us, was the rise of Athens and the fear this instilled in Sparta. In the 12 of 16 cases he reviews in his book where a rising power challenged an established power leading to war, fear was a key driving force that often precipitated war. The more our policies at home can renew America's strength, vitality, and confidence, the more likely in my view it is that we will develop clear, long-term foreign policies that can help us avoid the Thucydides Trap. I have had the opportunity in my career to view the U.S.-China relationship over the past two decades from a variety of different lenses and perspectives. Over 20 years ago, I was deployed as a young marine infantry officer as part of an amphibious task force to what later became known as the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, defending U.S. interests in the region and those of our ally Taiwan. Later, I was an NSC staffer and an Assistant Secretary of State under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and I spent a lot of time in China working on these issues. I became a State of Alaska official, traveling for my State as the commissioner of natural resources and energy. I have traveled to China to pursue the promise of better economic relations. China is now the No. 1 market for my very export-oriented State, for Alaska exports. Now, as a U.S. Senator, I am focused on this issue and cochairing the U.S.-China working group with my good friend Senator Daines and getting out to the region as often as possible. I have seen the promise, opportunity, and challenges of the U.S.- China relationship as it has matured over the last 20 years, and I have deep respect for China, its history, and all that it has recently accomplished. I know some of the leaders there and consider them colleagues. This body, the Senate, and our country need to do more to focus on how to make sure that the rise of China is compatible with U.S. economic and national security interests and, most importantly, with the interests of the people we represent. I have laid out some core principles this evening on how we might begin to develop a coherent, long-term strategy and address the challenges and opportunities of China's rise. I hope my colleagues-- Democrats and Republicans--will work together over the years on this incredibly important issue. There is so much at stake and a lot of work to do by many in the governments, the private sector, and the military--both in the United States and in China and in the countries of the region. The gravitational pull of history might be working against us. There is a lot riding on how we address this preeminent geostrategic issue. Let me conclude by reading how Professor Allison, in his book, sums up the challenge. He states: The return to prominence of a 5,000-year-old civilization with 1.4 billion people is not a problem to be fixed. It is a condition--a chronic condition that will have to be managed over a generation. Success will require not just a new slogan, more frequent presidential summits, or additional meetings of departmental working groups. Managing this relationship without war will demand sustained attention, week by week, at the highest levels in both governments. It will require a depth of mutual understanding not seen since the Henry Kissinger-Zhou Enlai conversations that reestablished US-China relations in the 1970s. Most significant, it will mean more radical changes in attitudes and actions by leaders and the public alike than anyone yet has undertaken. To escape Thucydides's Trap, we must be willing to think the unthinkable--and imagine the unimaginable. Avoiding Thucydides's Trap in this case will require nothing less than bending the arc of history. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate. Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, 2017, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing entitled ``Reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program, Part II.'' Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on Thursday, May 4, 2017, at 10 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, 2017, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``International Development: Value Added Through Private Sector Engagement.'' Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, 2017, at 2 p.m., in S-216 of the Capitol, to conduct an executive business meeting. Committee on Intelligence The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building. Committee on Intelligence The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Thursday, May 4, 2017 from 2 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a closed hearing. Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety and Security The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, 2017, at 10:30 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a Subcommittee Hearing on ``Question, Answer, and Perspectives on the Current State of Airline Travel.''

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 127.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, 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.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, 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 immediate consideration of S. Res. 146, submitted earlier today.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 132.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, 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.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I further 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 immediate consideration of S. Res. 145, submitted earlier today.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 14, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, every week I have been coming down to the floor for months now to recognize someone in my State who has made a difference, someone who has devoted time and energy to making Alaska a better place to live for the community and for others. We call these individuals our Alaskan of the week. It covers Alaskans from all over the State. As I have said repeatedly in every one of my ``Alaskan of the Week'' speeches, I believe Alaska is the most beautiful State in the country-- I would argue, in the world. I urge everybody in the room--the pages, the Presiding Officer, and the folks watching on TV--to come see for yourself. It will be a trip of a lifetime, I guarantee it. But it is the people who truly make Alaska unique, people who are helping each other, people who face tough odds and conquer them, strong-willed, warm-hearted, tenacious people who have carved generous lives and sometimes in very extreme conditions. Today, our Alaskan of the week is going to be a twofer. We are going to do two today. So I would like to recognize two Alaskans, Madison Englund of Fairbanks and Jennifer Troutman of Anchorage, as our Alaskans of the week. These are two special athletes who have made all of us in Alaska very proud. Last month, Madison and Jennifer returned to Alaska with a slew of medals from the 2017 Special Olympics World Winter Games in Austria. First, these young women did everything in their power, including training their hearts out, to qualify for these world Olympic games, and when they got there, they excelled. Madison won a Gold Medal in the advanced super-G snowboard race and added a Silver Medal in the advanced giant slalom. Jennifer claimed a Silver Medal in Monday's advanced super-G ski race, as well. Jennifer has been an athlete with Special Olympics for 11 years. During her freshman year of high school, she participated in bowling, track and field, and floor hockey through the Partners Club. During her junior year, she found a passion for skiing and has been excelling on the slopes ever since, as you can see from these incredible medals from the Special Olympics. She also works at Petco during her free time. Madison has been part of Special Olympics for 7 years. Aside from sports, she enjoys other hobbies, to include playing the cello, camping, fishing, and caring for animals. She is proud of her dogs, and she has three of them. She also loves to make jewelry. She said it is her favorite hobby. In addition to all this, she has also won the Good Citizens Award from the Daughters of the American Revolution. Since its founding nearly 50 years ago and subsequent growth to all corners of the globe, the Special Olympics has brought hope and joy and self-esteem to countless children and adults with intellectual disabilities and, of course, to their families and friends and their supporters like me. Special Olympics has shown what can happen when a group of people get together and sweat it out and work hard in the name of fair competition, camaraderie, and perseverance. These Special Olympians--all Special Olympians, really--make us in Alaska proud. I want to thank Jim Balamaci, who has been the Special Olympics Alaska head for many years, and his whole team for giving so many Alaskans the opportunity to get out to the field or the slopes and experience the fulfillment of sports for all. In Alaska, we love our Special Olympics athletes. They are an inspiration to all of us, whether it is when they are competing or even participating in the Polar Plunge in the icy waters of Alaska every winter to raise money for Special Olympics. Congratulations again to Jennifer and Madison on your hard work and incredible achievements and representing Alaska so well. Congratulations. You have earned it, being our Alaskans of the week. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 35, which was received from the House.

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 36, which was received from the House.

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

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, too, wish to spend some time talking about the confirmation and upcoming vote on Judge Neil Gorsuch. As many of my colleagues have noted, this is certainly one of the most important responsibilities we have in this body--to confirm the next Supreme Court Justice. As the Presiding Officer noted in remarks made a few days ago about Judge Gorsuch, he is an exceptionally well-qualified candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court. I will go briefly into his bio. First of all, he has a sterling academic reputation and credentials. He graduated from Columbia, Harvard, and Oxford. He clerked for two Supreme Court Justices. He worked at the Justice Department. Very importantly--and we are not hearing a lot about it from our colleagues on the other side--he was unanimously confirmed for a U.S. court of appeals job for the Tenth Circuit in 2006. Senators such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden all voted for him, as well as many of my colleagues in this body on the other side of the aisle who are still serving. He is a westerner. We know that right now the U.S. Supreme Court, with the possible exception of Justice Kennedy, has no westerners. Geographical diversity on the Court is very important. This morning, my colleague Senator Murkowski talked about how the current Supreme Court is occupied by Justices who have spent almost their entire lives in the Boston, New York, DC corridor. That is not America. That doesn't represent the whole country. Judges in Western States focus on issues like Native-American law, lands issues, oil and gas issues. It is very important, certainly for my State of Alaska, to have a judge with that kind of background. But it is more than facts on a page that make Judge Gorsuch such a strong candidate for the High Court. During Senate Judiciary Committee hearings last week, his temperament was also tested and his judicial philosophy was articulated. It was clear during those hearings that Judge Gorsuch will bring a commitment to following the rule of law and that he believes no one, including the President of the United States, should be above the law. He reveres the separation of powers and the fundamental principle that it is the Congress of the United States, not the judiciary, that makes our laws. He performed exceptionally well. He answered question after question with consistency and displayed a legal philosophy well within the mainstream of judicial thought within the United States. As the Presiding Officer knows, it is not just Members of this body who are talking about Judge Gorsuch and how well qualified he is; commentators across the country have focused on how qualified Judge Gorsuch is to be our next Supreme Court Justice. Let me highlight just a few of their quotes. This is from an editorial from the Chicago Tribune: Here is a judge who knows the law and knows the role of the judiciary: He isn't on the bench to make law, he's there to interpret it faithfully. Neil Gorsuch should be confirmed. The Detroit News: After two days of often hostile hearings, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is proving himself an even-tempered, deeply knowledgeable nominee who should be confirmed by the United States Senate. The Denver Post said: [Judge Gorsuch] possesses the fairness, independence and open-mindedness necessary to make him a marvelous addition to the Supreme Court. USA TODAY's editorial board declared: Gorsuch merits confirmation. This Supreme Court nominee is qualified within the broad judicial mainstream of America. In fact, we looked to see if there was any major paper across the country or commentator who is opposed to Judge Gorsuch's nomination. It was hard to find any. It was hard to find any in any part of the country. Two former chief justices of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals--both appointed by different Presidents of different parties-- stated that Judge Gorsuch ``represents the best of the judicial tradition in our country.'' Even one board member of the liberal American Constitutional Society who said he supports Democratic candidates and progressive causes declared: ``There is no principled reason to vote no on Judge Gorsuch's confirmation.'' He received the highest rating from the American Bar Association. And it is not just the ABA, there is a long list of different groups across the country, many representing minority groups in America, who have supported Judge Gorsuch--the National Congress of American Indians, the Native American Rights Fund, the Hispanic Leadership Fund, the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Tribes in Alaska. The list goes on and on and on. Given the broad-based support--from the left, from the right, from the center--why would my colleagues on the other side of the aisle threaten the traditions of this institution and not even allow an up- or-down vote on Judge Gorsuch? Well, I have been listening. I have been listening to the speeches to see what they are saying. It seems that some of my colleagues are focused on this vague notion of vagueness-- literally, vagueness. If we listen to their comments, they talk about Judge Gorsuch's supposed ambiguity, his vagueness, his evasiveness, that he won't answer questions on how he would rule on specific cases, so they are going to oppose him because of this. Well, these are curious and, to be frank, unconvincing reasons to oppose Judge Gorsuch. First, as we know, a nominee is typically not expected to say how he or she would rule on future cases. Judicial nominees, whether appointed by Democratic or Republican Presidents, have said this repeatedly. I will provide a quote from a prior nomination hearing by one of our current Supreme Court Justices. She stated: Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or to preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would be acting injudiciously. That was what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993. She continued during her confirmation hearing: A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process. Many have called this the Ginsberg standard, one that Justices have followed in front of the Judiciary Committee during their confirmation hearings and one that Judge Gorsuch also followed. Indeed, during his hearing, Judge Gorsuch stated that if the President or others had asked such a specific question on how he would rule on a particular case, ``I would have walked out'' of the room. So my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can't have it both ways. They say they want an independent voice on the Court, but they are also opposing Judge Gorsuch because he won't tell them how he would rule on certain cases. This is a new standard and an impossible standard to meet. The second reason the vagueness standard of many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in their opposition to Judge Gorsuch is unconvincing is that it ignores the fact that this is a judge with a record. They say: He is vague. We are not sure what his views are. Judge Gorsuch has decided roughly 2,700 cases, over 800 of which he authored. There is nothing vague about that. In 97 percent of the time in those cases, he reached a unanimous decision with the other panelists on the Tenth Circuit. These are not vague decisions. His judicial philosophy and temperament are on full display in literally tens of thousands of pages of decisions in his own words. There is nothing vague about them. My colleagues can challenge him on his mountain of legal opinions, but please, with all due respect, let's drop the facade of opposing him because of vagueness, and that they don't know what the issues are is not an argument that has much merit. So despite widespread acclaim from groups across the country, representing a broad spectrum of liberals and conservatives, and despite a tenured, concrete record as a judge on the U.S. court of appeals, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle appear to want to engage in a partisan filibuster of Judge Gorsuch's nomination. What exactly does this mean? The language, I admit, can be confusing--cloture, filibuster, 60-vote threshold. In plain English, what is really going on? It means that the minority leader right now wants to prevent the Senate from having an up-or-down vote on the merits of this Supreme Court nominee. In other words, no vote ever on the qualifications of Judge Gorsuch. We will just filibuster. I have been watching a number of my colleagues come to the floor and talk about what they are planning on doing. The minority leader has essentially been saying: We all do this. We are all guilty. Nothing new here. This is just a little bit of payback. This is how this place operates. In many ways, these arguments are almost cavalier in what they are about to do. But we shouldn't buy that. I have been in the Senate only 2 years--a mere blink of an eye compared to others--and I missed a lot of the other nominations and debates in 2013, the Gang of 14 many years ago. But I like to read a lot of history, and here are some facts that are important to understand as we debate the Gorsuch confirmation: First, there has never been a partisan filibuster of a new President's nominee for the Supreme Court--never. Second, it has been the custom, always, of the U.S. Senate to give a new President's nominee an up-or-down vote. For example, Republicans gave this courtesy to President Clinton when he nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and Stephen Breyer in 1994 and President Obama with his first-term nominees, Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Elana Kagan in 2010. They all got up-or-down votes. Third, there has never been a 60-vote requirement for any Justice on the Supreme Court during the confirmation process in the U.S. Senate-- never. Let me go through the votes of the current Supreme Court Justices: Justice Kennedy, 97 to 0; Justice Thomas, 52 to 48; Justice Ginsburg, 96 to 3; Justice Breyer, 87 to 9; Chief Justice Roberts, 78 to 22; Justice Alito, 58 to 42; Justice Sotomayor, 68 to 31; Justice Kagan, 63 to 37. Incidentally, Justice Scalia, whom Judge Gorsuch would be replacing, passed the vote in the U.S. Senate 98 to 0. Note that two of the current members of the Supreme Court were confirmed by fewer than 60 votes. Bottom line: There has never been a 60-vote requirement in the U.S. Senate or a partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee during a President's first term--never. Here is another fact equally as relevant to Judge Gorsuch's confirmation: More than any other President, more than any other Presidential election in recent memory, the one last year was clearly about the U.S. Supreme Court. Republicans in the Senate and Candidate and now President Trump told the American people: There is an open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. This is an important issue. Let the people decide. And they did. Polls show that millions of Americans ended up voting for President Trump and against Hillary Clinton based, at least in part, on which candidate they believed should nominate our next Supreme Court Justice and whether they wanted the Court to act as a superlegislature, interpreting a living Constitution, or whether they wanted a Justice in the mold of Justice Scalia, with a more modest view of how the Court should view its station in our constitutional order. The American people, including my constituents, spoke loudly in November on this issue of the U.S. Supreme Court by voting against Hillary Clinton and for Donald Trump. And to his credit, President Trump kept his word on this important issue by putting forward an extremely well-qualified candidate who will be a worthy successor to Justice Scalia. Despite all this--an extremely well-qualified nominee and a national election that focused on who should fill the vacancy of the Supreme Court--it appears that the minority leader of the Senate is going to ignore the will of the American people and set a precedent dating back to our Nation's founding by leading a filibuster against Judge Neil Gorsuch. We shouldn't allow this to happen, and we won't. I hope my colleagues who are contemplating this will change their minds because in going forward with this filibuster, who are they really punishing? They are punishing the American people, as well as undermining the traditions of this body--a body with rules crafted carefully over the last two centuries. As I mentioned, we need to work together in this body. In my 2 years in the Senate, I have tried hard to work with my colleagues on bipartisan issues. I have also tried hard to show all my colleagues the respect they deserve as duly elected Senators of this important body. Whatever the outcome of this vote on Judge Gorsuch, I certainly want to make clear that we need to continue respectfully working across the aisle for the sake of our Nation, and we need to rebuild trust in the Senate. But at the same time, I believe strongly that Judge Gorsuch deserves to get an up-or-down vote. I certainly encourage my colleagues to bring that vote forward and to confirm this exceptionally well- qualified candidate to be our next Supreme Court Justice. And the American people deserve as much, as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, for months, I have been coming down to the floor every week to recognize someone in my State who has made a difference to our communities in Alaska, someone who has devoted time and energy to making my State a better place to live. I call these individuals our Alaskan of the Week. As I have said repeatedly to all of my colleagues and to those watching on TV, I am a little biased here, but I believe my State is the most beautiful in the country and, I would argue, in the world. I urge everybody in this room, everybody watching on TV, to come to see for yourself. Take a trip to Alaska. It will be the trip of a lifetime. I guarantee you. It is the people who truly make my State unique, people who are helping each other, strong-willed, warmhearted, tenacious people who have worked tirelessly for years for all of those who live in Alaska. This week I would like to honor Dan Fauske, one of the strongest willed, warmest hearted people I have ever known. All he has done for us has made Alaska a better place for literally thousands of people throughout our State. Dan came to Alaska in 1974 after serving in the Army, as so many Alaskans do. Like so many Alaskans, he arrived with a glint of steel in his eye and a mission to help build our State. Alaska is full of natural wonders, but our manmade wonders are also marvels, and Dan wanted to be part of building more of those marvels for our State and for our country. He first arrived in the North Slope Borough--the top of the world--to help the community build up their infrastructure and strengthen the Alaskan Native villages in the area. It was a time of enormous change for all of Alaska, particularly the North Slope. Oil from the North Slope Prudhoe Bay, the largest oilfield in North America, had recently begun to flow down the Trans-Alaska System for 800 miles. The largest land claims act in U.S. history, the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act, had recently passed, and the governments in rural Alaska were being formed and reformed to take advantage of these opportunities. After Dan went back to school to receive a master's degree in business administration from Gonzaga, he made his way back to Alaska again to serve as chief financial officer and chief administrative officer for Alaska's North Slope Borough, where he launched an ambitious and ultimately successful capital plan to provide basic necessities that so many Americans take for granted, like running water and sewer, those kinds of services, to the villages throughout the North Slope Borough, again, on the top of the world. According to Bill Tracey, Sr., from Point Lay, which is one of the villages there, who was a coworker at the time, ``Dan's excellent work ethic and skills earned him the respect of the North Slope leaders. . . . His accomplishments were remarkable.'' With his beautiful and spirited wife Elaine always by his side, Dan then moved his family to Anchorage to head up the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. For 18 years, he managed HFC's nearly $5 billion in assets. It is not an overstatement to say that he revolutionized that agency, doing remarkable things, including and most importantly helping thousands of Alaskans--thousands of our constituents, our fellow Alaskans--pursue their dream of buying an affordable home. There is nothing more important than that. The Alaska Legislature just passed a bill to name the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation the Daniel R. Fauske Building, and the dedication ceremony will take place in Anchorage on Saturday. As his bio indicates, there is no doubt that for decades Dan Fauske served Alaska with his hands, his heart, and with his head. But a bio on paper can only tell you so much about a person; to really appreciate him, you would have to have been with him and watched the energy and can-do spirit radiate from Dan Fauske. You had to watch him talk to people with respect and humor and understanding and a very keen intelligence. He had a big laugh--a very big laugh--and he told great stories. He also had that rare ability to genuinely connect with everybody he met, it didn't matter who. He was able to speak the language of a businessman, a builder, a veteran, a public servant. He spoke the language of a father, a husband, a friend, and a true Alaskan. In doing so, he gained the respect of everybody, and I mean everybody, in my State--politicians, State workers, military members, people from all across Alaska, people from all across the political spectrum. If you wanted something done and if you wanted it done right in Alaska, you asked Dan Fauske to help you do it. People trusted him. I trusted him. Most importantly, Dan was a great father to three great boys, D.J., Scott, and Brad, and two daughters, Marcy and Kathy, and he was a great husband to his incredible, vivacious, and very strong wife Elaine. Mr. President, Dan Fauske passed away this afternoon with his family and friends by his side. Our prayers and the prayers of so many Alaskans go out to all of them during this very difficult time. For anyone watching, I humbly ask that you say a prayer too. For all he has done for all of us, all his memory will continue to do for all of us, Dan Fauske is our Alaskan of the Week. He was also my very good friend. My wife Julie and I will miss him greatly. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, today, March 30, marks that 150th anniversary of the date when President Andrew Johnson signed the treaty with Russia for the purchase of Alaska. It is a big day for my State, and for the past few months, I have been diving into the archives and doing some research about the treaty and about the first few years of challenges following the signing. As you can imagine, building a State out of a frontier, particularly one so far away from the rest of the country and in such an extreme climate, was challenging, to say the least. It demanded, and still does, a certain kind of person with a certain kind of toughness, vision, and a determination to work for the good of all. Let me give you an example of what it has required. Some members of the first territorial legislature in 1913--46 years after the purchase--who lived in far flung places faced a challenge. Specifically how to get to Juneau to begin to hash out creating the rules of a new territory. Of course, there were no commercial airlines in those days--no snow machines, so four members from Nome--lawyers, miners, and businessmen-- hitched up their dog teams, headed to Valdez, and took a steamship to Juneau. It took them nearly 2 months to get there. When they did arrive, the first order of business was this: granting women the right to vote, 7 years before Congress ratified the 19th Amendment. That is the heritage of every one in Alaska, and that is the same spirit, of traveling far against the odds, to do what is right, that still animates my great State. It animates people who haven't even been to Alaska. My State is more than a place with set geographic boundaries. My State is also an idea, a dream; it goes beyond borders and represents so much about America that we hold dear: beauty, freedom, self-sufficiency. It has been this way even before Alaska became a territory--when a group of people, led by former Secretary of State William Seward, pushed the country to buy Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million. As has been proven, that was a good deal. Every week, I have been coming down to recognize an Alaskan of the Week, a special person who gives their time, energy, and talents to making our State the best in the country. Today I want to speak about someone who I will call an honorary Alaskan. Today I would like to name Senator Charles Sumner our posthumous Alaskan of the Week. Senator Sumner never set foot in my State, but he knew Alaska well. We are a State because of him, and others, including Secretary of State William Seward, who had vision and tenacity. Senator Sumner was born on January 6, 1811, in Boston, MA. He was a lawyer, a professor, and then a politician. He was a man of purpose, principle, and many, many words and opinions. In fact, he was nearly caned to death while working in the Senate Chambers, by one of his colleagues--a congressman from the South--for expressing his opinions on the horrors of slavery. It was a deplorable act, and it cast a pall of shame over this body for years. Senator Sumner never really recovered, but after a long convalescence, he set his sights on the Alaska Purchase. He was skeptical, at first, until Secretary of State Seward got his ear, and he immersed himself into the accounts of the promise of this new territory, which turned him into an ardent supporter. On April, 8, 1867, Senator Sumner, using only notecards, gave a 3-hour speech on the Senate floor about our State. He spoke of Alaska's abundant resources. He saw the Pacific as the ocean of the future and argued that Alaska is the key to that future. He spoke of the treasures--the gold in our land, the veins of coal, our huge mineral deposits, and the treasures below the Arctic Ocean. He talked about the ``multitudes of fish,'' the thousands of acres of timber, and the opening of new trade routes. He and others saw in Alaska the ``Eden of the North''--a future which would entail up to 1 million self-sufficient Americans supported by the resources of the land. Owning Alaska would give us greater control of the next ``great theater of action'' in the Arctic and Asia-Pacific, for both national security and economic reason. In the new territory of Alaska, ``Commerce will find new arms; the country new defenders, the national flag new hands to bear it aloft,'' Senator Sumner argued. A ``boundless and glorious future,'' awaits, he and other supporters argued. Senator Sumner ended his epic 1867 speech by arguing that the whole territory, not just the peninsula, should be given the name by the people who lived here. ``It should be indigenous, original, coming from the soil,'' he said. ``Alaska,'' he concluded, ``the great land.'' The day after Sumner's Senate speech, the once-skeptical U.S. Senate approved the purchase by a vote of 37 to 2. One hundred and fifty years later, Alaska has made good on that early promise. We have contributed enormous resources to our country. We are vital to our country's national defense, our national pride, and our economic growth. We still have the vision of Secretary of State Seward and Senator Sumner driving us toward a brighter future. Thanks to Senator Sumner and to the people of Massachusetts who gave us such a brave leader--our honorary Alaskan of the Week.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I yield back all Republican time in relation to H.J. Res. 43.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, 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 the order for the quorum call be rescinded.