Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 461 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Are you sure you don't want to hear that? I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, pro-jobs amendment. And I am happy to take this amendment by a voice vote.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, prior to the pandemic over the last several years, our country did something remarkable. We grew our economy, created millions of good-paying energy jobs, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, from 2005 to 2017, the United States reduced greenhouse gas emissions by almost 15 percent--way more than any other country in the world. How did we do that? The dramatic increase in America's production of clean-burning natural gas was largely responsible for all of this. So my amendment is very simple. It calls for the continued expansion of American natural gas production and energy infrastructure to create more jobs, grow our economy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is what President Biden said about this issue just a few years ago--

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to compliment my good friend and colleague Senator Portman, the great Senator from the State of Ohio, who has done so much in this Chamber on so many issues--COVID-19 relief is just one--to help our great Nation. Some of you may have heard the news that Senator Portman--I am still very distraught about it--has announced that he is not going to be running for reelection in 2 years, and I think that is going to be a huge loss, not just to the State of Ohio but to our great Nation. I want to commend Senator Portman for all his phenomenal work. He is proving, again, his leadership and his statesmanship here as we are trying to attack and take on big challenges for our Nation. China Mr. President, I also want to talk about another big challenge for our Nation, something that I have come down on the floor since I was elected 6 years ago to the Senate to talk about, and that is the challenge that we have with regard to the rise of China. As a matter of fact, this is an area I talk frequently about because there is a lot more bipartisan progress on this incredibly important issue--the most important geostrategic challenge facing our Nation right now, probably the challenge that will be facing us for the next 50 to 100 years--that is with us today. But there has been progress. I want to talk about this progress, and I want to talk about something, another development that I think is very important. There has been an awakening. When I started to come down and talk about the rise of China, not a lot of people were talking about it, but there has been huge progress in that now everybody is talking about it--the Biden administration, and the Trump administration had been. I think President Trump and his team, with their national security strategy, their national defense strategy, deserve a lot of credit from reorienting our focus, which was the appropriate focus post-9/11 on violent extremist organizations, like al-Qaida and ISIS, to the new challenge of great power competition with China as the pacing threat that we have with regard to our Nation. Again, this is something that has been very bipartisan. When you look at Members of this body, particularly those who focus on foreign policy and national security, they all agree that this reorientation on this challenge is something that we need to be doing as a country in a bipartisan way--dealing with the rise of China. I think, when we talk about this challenge, we are at a place in history that, in many ways, is analogous to the period right after World War II. I want to talk briefly about that in my remarks In 1946, we had what at the time was a recognition that, post World War II, we had a new challenge--similar to the challenge we are seeing right now, the recognition that we have this challenge with China. In 1946, we started to recognize that we have a challenge with our old World War II ally, the Soviet Union. There was a big focus on this challenge, but not necessarily in organizing foreign policy principles that could help us get through it. Then, in the 1946-1947 period, an American diplomat named George Kennan wrote an article. It was an anonymous article--he signed it the ``X Article''--in Foreign Affairs, and it was called ``The Sources of Soviet Conduct.'' What Kennan did, really, for the country, for elected officials, for the Senate, for the executive branch, is that he laid out what he saw as the challenge that we are facing with regard to the Soviet Union--the internal weaknesses that the Soviets actually had-- with incredible insights in that regard, and, then, what our long-term strategy should be. Here is what he said in this article. He said that American policymakers need to enact a policy of ``firm containment'' with regard to the Soviet Union, a country that always was trying to expand. He said, if we, as a nation, with our allies, try to contain this expansion, it would ``increase enormously the strains under which the Soviet [Union and its] policy must operate . . . and in this way promote tendencies which must eventually find their outlet in either the breakup or the gradual mellowing of Soviet power.'' Think about that. That was the strategy of containment laid out by George Kennan, followed for decades by American administrations, by this body, Republicans and Democrats--the strategy of containment. And we all know what happened. George Kennan's fundamental insights into this policy--that the Soviet Union would either mellow or completely break down and collapse because we were putting containment pressure on them--ended up happening. The Berlin Wall came down just as Kennan predicted. The Soviet Union broke up peacefully, and this was a remarkable triumph of American democracy and strategy that our Nation should be proud of. That is what happened then. A lot of us have been saying that we are at a new point with regard to China. There is an awakening. What should that strategy be? I want to talk about a strategy document that just came out. Kennan's document was called the ``Long Telegram.'' Just this past weekend, the Atlantic Council--which is a think tank here in DC and has been around for decades and is very well respected on the Republican side and the Democrat side--put out a strategy that they called the ``Longer Telegram,'' literally in kind of the analogous situation that George Kennan had done this in 1946 and 1947. This strategy, also, coincidentally, does not identify the author. So it is similar to that ``X Article'' in 1946 and 1947. The author is anonymous and put out a strategy with insights on how we, as a nation, should deal with the rise of China. The Atlantic Council, as I said, has been around for decades. They published this, and they said this is probably the most impressive strategy document that they have ever published. Now, is it perfect? Is this the answer? Is this the containment strategy from 1946 and 1947 that was the triumph of American diplomacy over the last 50 years with the Soviet Union? We shall see. We don't know. But I looked through it, and I do think it is quite a remarkable document, and it is a great important development that we all need to come together on and this new administration--the Biden administration--needs to take a hard look at. The focus of this strategy document says, which we all believe now, that ``the single most important challenge facing the United States in the twenty-first century is the rise of an increasingly authoritarian China under President General Secretary Xi Jinping.'' I think a lot of us know that. A lot of us have been talking about that. That is the awakening that I believe has happened here in the United States and certainly here in the U.S. Senate. But like the Kennan article, this one has some very perceptive insights. One is that it focuses on what it sees as one of the biggest weaknesses in China right now, and that is the fracturing of the Communist Party leadership. I am going to talk about that because it emphasizes--``anonymous'' here emphasizes--that should be our focus. The piece begins by setting the stage of where we are right now. The strategy article published by the Atlantic Council is titled ``The Longer Telegram: Toward a New American China Strategy'' and can be found at https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic- council-strategy-paper-series/the-longer-telegram/. It talks about the scale of the economy of China and its military and the speed of its technical advancement and its radically different world view than that of the United States. It notes that China now profoundly impacts every major U.S. national interest. This is our challenge, one that is gradually emerged over two decades and has accelerated greatly under the leadership of Xi Jinping. How has Xi Jinping ruled during this rise? He has eliminated his political opponents. He has stalled market reforms, used ethno- nationalism to unite his country, and his treatment of ethnic minorities has bordered on genocide. In doing so, he has fostered a quasi-Maoist personality cult and a new form of totalitarian, high-tech police state. Anonymous writes: In what is a fundamental departure from his risk-averse post-Mao predecessors, Xi [Jinping] has demonstrated that he intends to project China's authoritarian system, coercive foreign policy, and military presence well beyond his country's own borders to the world at large. China, under Xi, unlike under Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao-- [three previous Chinese leaders]--is no longer a status quo power. It has become a revisionist power. That is very troubling for the United States, and this is the situation as laid out by the author of the ``Long Telegram.'' What has the U.S. response been so far? It has been good, but it needs to improve. The author gives credit to the Trump administration for sounding the alarm in its national security strategy and national defense strategy with regard to the ``strategic competition,'' the ``central challenge'' to our foreign policy, and great power competition that all have resulted from the rise of China. Anonymous writes that a simple, Kennan-like strategy of containment won't be effective with regard to China because China has studied what happened to the USSR, learned from its mistakes, and understood that the inherent structural weakness with regard to the Soviet model itself was something that caused it to collapse, so China has focused on that. Yet, as I mentioned, the author emphasizes another central vulnerability of the Chinese system, one which he or she, the author, thinks we need to take advantage of. Here is what Anonymous writes: The political reality is that the [Chinese Communist Party] is significantly divided on Xi's leadership and his vast ambitions. Senior party members have been greatly troubled by Xi's policy directions and angered by his endless demands for absolute loyalty. They fear for their own lives and the future livelihoods of their families. Of particular political toxicity in this mix are the reports unearthed by the international media of the wealth amassed by Xi's family and members of his political inner circle, like so many other authoritarians who amass wealth through corruption, despite the vigor with which Xi has conducted his own anti-corruption campaign, which has destroyed many of his rivals. So what do we do with this information? As Anonymous writes here--the author of the ``Long Telegram''--we need to focus on Xi Jinping himself. U.S. strategy must remain laser-focused on Xi, his inner circle, and the Chinese political context in which they rule. Changing their decision-making will require understanding, operating within, and changing their political and strategic paradigm. All U.S. policy aimed at altering China's behavior should revolve around this fact, or it is likely to prove ineffectual. This, Anonymous writes, has been the missing piece of the puzzle for our China strategy so far. While U.S. leaders often differentiate between China's Communist Party government and the Chinese people [correctly], Washington [leaders] must achieve the sophistication necessary to go even further. U.S. leaders also must differentiate between the government and the party elite, as well as between the party elite and Xi [Jinping himself]. That is critical. According to Anonymous, we must work to drive a wedge between these groups and to frustrate Xi's ambitions in order to ``cause China's elite leadership to collectively conclude that it is in the country's best interests to continue operating within the existing U.S.-led liberal international order rather than build a rival [authoritarian] order [throughout the world], and that it is in the party's best interests . . . not to attempt to expand China's borders or to export its political [authoritarian] model beyond China's shores.'' That is the juxtaposition of the significant challenge we have right now with the current strategy in what Anonymous writes in this document that we should be building on. In building on these insights, the author emphasizes that U.S. strategy should comprise seven integrated components. Many of us have come down to the floor to talk about some of these, but let me touch on a few: rebuilding the economic, military, technological, and human capital underpinnings of long-term U.S. national power, and I think we can all agree on that; agreeing on a set of limited, enforceable policy ``red lines'' that China should be deterred from crossing under any circumstances, such as forcibly invading Taiwan; agreeing on a larger number of ``major national security interests'' which are neither vital nor existential in nature but which require a range of retaliatory actions to inform Chinese strategic behavior; defining those areas where continued strategic cooperation with China remains in U.S. interests; and prosecuting a full-fledged global ideological battle in defense of our political and economic models in contrast with China's authoritarian state capitalist models around the world. Finally, all of this needs to be done in conjunction with and closely coordinating with all of our allies in Europe, in North America, and, of course, in the Asia-Pacific. This last point is critical. Our allies are critical. We need to remember we are an ally-rich nation. China is an ally-poor nation. That is one of our huge comparative advantages in the geostrategic challenge that we have with China over the next decades At the end of the day, as Anonymous writes, ideas matter. Ultimately, this is going to be the contest of ideas--China's authoritarian model, which it wants to promote and export, versus the U.S. Western model of open economies, just societies, and competitive, free political systems. Over the long term, the author writes, the Chinese people may well come to question and challenge the party's century-long proposition that China's great, ancient civilization--thousands of years old--is forever destined to an authoritarian future over which the people have no choice. That decision, however, must come from the Chinese people themselves. We can only provide a model, and we can only show the way. We need to do so with confidence and with our allies. As Anonymous concludes, there is a subtle, yet corrosive, force that has been at work in the United States for some time, raising doubt about our Nation's future, and some who are encouraging a sense that, as a country, America's best days may now be in the past. Well, I, for one, certainly and fully disagree with this, as does the author of the ``Long Telegram.'' We are a young country. We are a resilient country. Our innovation is beyond compare. We are a free country, and as a result of the long twilight struggle with the Soviet Union, we also know what works: maintaining peace through strength, promoting free markets and free people at home, and having the confidence in George Kennan's insights from 1946 and 1947 that the Chinese Communist Party, like the Soviet Communist Party, likely ``bears within it the seeds of its own decay.'' While democracies are resilient, adaptive, and self-renewing, there are many vulnerabilities embedded in China's perceived strengths. One- man rule creates acute political risks, as Anonymous has described, that we need to take advantage of. Historical grievance can breed violent nationalism. State-directed economic growth can produce massive overcapacity and mountains of debt. The gradual and, in some ways, abrupt snuffing out of freedom in places like Hong Kong is creating spontaneous protests of tens of thousands of young people that we have been seeing now for months. China's budding military power and historical view of itself as a nation and culture superior to many others is alarming its neighboring states, inspiring them to step up their security cooperation with the United States. Nearly half of wealthy Chinese want to emigrate, and these are the winners from China's four decades of heavy economic growth. As we have in the past, Americans can prevail in this long-term geopolitical and ideological contest, but doing so will require a new level of strategic initiative, organization, and confidence in who we are and what we stand for. This also means we must redouble our efforts in making the strategic case not just to Americans but to others around the world, particularly our allies. Let me conclude by saying that the ``Long Telegram,'' while not perfect, sets out what I believe is certainly one of the best strategies I have read to date about how the United States needs to address the significant challenge that we will be facing for decades. I hope my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, all have the opportunity to read this and analyze it, for, like Kennan's strategy of containment, our China policy, to be successful, also needs to be very bipartisan and ready to be operationalized for decades. I yield the floor. (Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.)

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, the Senate is focused on one of its constitutional roles right now, which is meeting with and discussing with the new Biden administration's Cabinet--our advice and consent role. The consent role, obviously, is confirmation votes here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, which we are doing a number of these on the floor and in committee. But there is also the advice role, given to us by the Founding Fathers. On the advice, we are providing whether we vote for some of these nominees or not to the Cabinet. It is a big part of the Senate's role. So I am going to take a minute to provide a little bit of advice to some of the new, incoming Biden team. Now, look, we are seeing it particularly in the foreign policy realm. A lot of the Biden team has actually come from the Obama-Biden team-- maybe too many. You worry about stale thinking, because when they were in power 4 years ago, or a little bit over 4 years ago, there are a lot of things that have changed in the world--particularly on foreign policy, a lot that has happened in the world. So you need fresh views, but we are where we are. But an example of this kind of stale thinking that I was shocked to see recently at the White House is the use of the term ``strategic patience'' as a foreign policy concept. Now, this was the phrase the Obama administration used to describe its policy toward North Korea, and I think most people would recognize--Democrats and Republicans-- that that was not a very successful policy, a pretty failed policy. Now, granted, North Korea is difficult. There is no doubt. But the policy that was known as strategic patience was the policy that enabled the North Korea rogue regime to massively build up a nuclear arsenal. So kind of like leading from behind, the Obama administration's term ``strategic patience'' became synonymous with a passive and even weak foreign policy approach as it related to North Korea, certainly. So I was very surprised yesterday to hear the White House Press Secretary trot out this term again, ``strategic patience,'' but this time when talking about the Biden administration's policy with regard to China. Now, this is almost certainly music to China's ears--the leadership of China--because it is kind of a subtle green light to Xi Jinping and the other authoritarians in China of its failure to uphold promise after promise to the United States--something I refer to as ``promise fatigue'' that we have here--or continuing to call itself a developing country, when it is not, or continuing its attempts to dominate the South China Sea with the militarization of that important strategic sea lane, or continuation of intellectual property theft, or all the challenges that we have with China. The idea that we are going to have strategic patience, I think, sends a signal to the Chinese that we don't take these issues urgently, and that is the wrong message. These are urgent issues. In my discussions during the confirmation process and in hearings with now-Secretary of Defense Austin and Secretary of State Blinken, I sensed they had a sense of urgency. As a matter of fact, they both acknowledged that the previous administration--the Trump administration's national security strategy, national defense strategy that says we need to turn to great power competition, with China as the pacing threat for the United States, they agreed with. Even in General Austin's--now-Secretary Austin's--confirmation hearing, one of my colleagues, Senator Blackburn, actually said this term, ``strategic patience,'' doesn't seem to be the right term and pressed him on it. So here is some continued advice. In the Senate's role, in terms of our constitutional role of advice and consent, words matter, especially from the White House podium. We need a strong, bipartisan, and lasting China policy from the United States of America. This is the biggest geostrategic issue we will be facing as a country for the next 50 to 100 years, but it is also a challenge that is here and now, a challenge that needs immediate action. So here is my advice: Ditch the ``strategic patience'' phrase. The vast majority of the Senators in this body, Democrats and Republicans, want to know the Biden administration is focused on this challenge now. It is a serious challenge that China poses to the United States now, and ``strategic patience'' sends the wrong message to the Senate, to the American people, and to China's leadership. So they need to do better. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I am going to be one of the first Senators to congratulate Dr. Yellen, now Secretary Yellen, to be Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. You saw it was a strong vote, and there is no doubt that she has the credentials, the experience, the qualifications to be Secretary of the Treasury--former Chairman of the Fed. I mean, her resume is off the charts. I know her nomination is historic for so many women across the country, including my three daughters. I am mentioning this because I certainly intended to vote for now-Secretary Yellen, and I was a ``no'' vote. I want to explain my ``no'' vote because I had a very good conversation with her just the other day. We covered a whole bunch of topics--everything from Alaska Native corporations to the strength of the dollar, to our debt and deficit--big macroeconomic issues that are important to the country, particularly as we are in a recession. It is important to my State. But we got to the topic of energy. We got to the topic of energy, and, reluctantly, I am saying this now because I was a bit shocked that despite a long, robust discussion, it was very difficult to get her, from my perspective, to commit to being a Secretary of the Treasury, the most important economic player in any Cabinet in any government--in the U.S. Government, besides, of course, the President--to commit to being a strong advocate for a robust, all-of-the-above energy sector for the U.S. economy. This is not a radical proposition. I would argue that every Secretary of the Treasury since Alexander Hamilton has been a robust supporter of resource development in our energy sector--again, all of it-- renewables, oil, gas. And the reason is that it has been such an important driver of economic growth and jobs for pretty much our Nation's entire existence. Now that we are in this recession--deep recession--we need good job growth, and we need a strong recovery. To me, having the Secretary of the Treasury be a strong proponent in the debates about policy for the energy sector, I thought, was a no-brainer. As a matter of fact, I think pretty much every Secretary of the Treasury has been that person. Again, in the 2008-2009 recession--the deep, great recession--the No. 1 driver of economic growth and job growth and capital formation for the U.S. economy was the energy sector, and it was supported. Democrats and Republicans, for decades, have supported a strong energy sector. But despite a long, respectful debate with now Secretary Yellen, with whom I certainly have a good relationship, I could not get that commitment, which I thought was surprising. As a matter of fact, I thought it was shocking, and it is the reason I reluctantly voted no because, again, she is very qualified. What is going on here is we are starting to see policies that I believe need a national debate. We are starting to see policies--yes, we all want renewables, clean energy, but we have a really important, strong energy sector. Prior to the pandemic, we were the world's superpower of energy again. One of the reasons we won World War II was our energy sector. The men and women who have been producing energy--``all of the above'' energy--are great patriotic workers who have been doing it for decades to the benefit of every single American. We need a debate because what I am starting to see with the new administration, unfortunately--and I have had discussions, and, hopefully, they are not going to go down this path--are Executive actions that are going to target certain sectors of the energy sector, the U.S. economy. Natural gas. We can be dominant in natural gas for 100 years. We are going to start targeting workers in the natural gas sector? Oil. I know some people don't like oil, but it is important. We can do all of this, but right now, there seems to be hostility toward the sector and the workers and no debate. We should have that debate. It is an important debate. It is really important in my State, but I think it is really important to America. Every Secretary of the Treasury for the last three, four, five, six, seven decades--since World War II--has always sought the goal of getting America back to energy independence. That is good for jobs. It is good for low-cost manufacturing. It is good to reduce the heating and energy bills of American families. It is good for our national security. It is good for our foreign policy. We are pretty much on the verge of doing this. And now we are going to start to unilaterally disarm? We have gotten to the point where I can't find anyone--and I hope I am wrong--in the Biden administration Cabinet who is going to be a proponent of a strong energy sector. Who is it? I was hoping it was going to be the Secretary of the Treasury. Maybe in our long discussion, I misinterpreted where she is going to be on this issue. Pretty much every previous Secretary--Democratic and Republican--in the history of our great Nation has really, really been an advocate for the men and women who work in the sector and for the economic growth it brings and for the help it brings to families and the good jobs it brings. So that is the rationale behind my vote. Right now, I think we are starting to see, whether with the Keystone Pipeline decision or with the men and women in the building trades, who have built this country through hard work, that they are being laid off by the thousands. We had a big scare back home in my State. All weekend, I was working this issue of these Executive orders from the Biden administration, where it looked like it was going to send hundreds of people home, unemployed--oil and gas workers in my State. Why? I hope that is not the case, especially during a recession. We need a debate on it, and I certainly hope somebody in this administration, in their principals' meetings, talk about how we get good jobs and a strong working class. I have noticed that the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, keeps talking about basing our policies on working-class families. You can't get more blue-collar, strong middle class than these energy sector jobs. I, certainly, want to have a good, constructive relationship with the Secretary of the Treasury and her team, but given the people I represent and what I am starting to see right now, I could not in good conscience vote yes when, on the basic question of ``Are you committed and will you be a strong advocate for a strong energy sector--you name it: renewables, natural gas, wind, solar--all of the above?'' I couldn't get that commitment. I reluctantly voted no on someone who has a background and experience in these other areas that are important for the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, as a lot of our colleagues here know, Senator Whitehouse is not just a distinguished Senator but one of my very good friends here in the U.S. Senate. So I always respect what he has to say, and I appreciate his words. He and I have done a lot of work--some key work, particularly on issues of the environment and cleaning up our oceans--ocean acidification--and I look forward to continuing to work with him. Climate change is also, certainly, happening in my State. We are seeing it. No doubt about it. My point is we have an economy that is in recession, and you have tens of thousands--literally, hundreds of thousands--of people out of work, and you have a sector that is important--critical, actually--the energy sector. There is no doubt about it. I know we can use words like spewing and polluters, but the energy sector has been one of the things that has made this country so strong, with great jobs--middle-class jobs--and people can't deny that. All I am asking for is for the new Secretary of the Treasury to look at that. We are looking at the whole U.S. economy and the strength of our recovery and good-paying jobs. That has to be taken into account. What I worry about is that it is not. We need a debate, and I would welcome it with my good friend on: What is the strategy? The strategy out of the box can't be that we are going to go after these oil and gas jobs and put people out of work. And replace it with what? We had a hearing in the Commerce Committee with the new, incoming Transportation Secretary. A lot of people asked: Well, what are you going to replace it with? What are you telling the 10,000 guys who just lost their jobs on the Keystone Pipeline their new jobs are going to be? They have mortgages and tuitions to pay. They are out of work right now. So we need a strategy. Look, I look forward to working on all of these issues with my good friend from Rhode Island, but it is, I think, a first. If you look back at the great history of this Nation, if you don't have a U.S. Treasury Secretary or other members of the Cabinet who are for a robust, strong energy sector--which, of course, would include renewables--that is new, that is different, and, I think, it is very troubling, particularly as it relates to the jobs that, I think, are going to be sacrificed on a policy and a strategy that I have not seen the meat and bones of yet. I am just seeing the damage, and a lot of the damage is starting to happen to the people I care about, particularly in my State, who work in these sectors and who are great Americans who have helped build this country and build my State. We can't just disregard them and say: Don't worry; you are going to get a green job later. It is tough to tell people that. It is tough to tell people that when they have mortgages and tuitions, and we are relying on them. So I commit to continuing to work on these issues and others with my friend from Rhode Island. I appreciate his coming down here, but I wanted to explain my vote on an issue that I think we need to debate here in the Senate that is important for our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. This is a statement by Terry O'Sullivan: The Biden Administration's decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline permit on day one of his presidency is both insulting and disappointing to the thousands of hard-working LIUNA members who will lose good-paying, middle class family- supporting jobs. By the way, LIUNA is the largest labor union in construction, the largest labor construction union in America--500,000 members. By blocking this 100 percent union project, and pandering to environmental extremists, a thousand union jobs will immediately vanish and 10,000 additional jobs will be foregone. That is day one. This isn't me talking, the Senator from Alaska. This is the head of LIUNA. We support the President's campaign to ``build back better.'' But for union members affected by this decision, there are no renewable energy jobs that come even close to replacing the wages and benefits the Keystone XL project would have provided. Killing good union jobs on day one with nothing to replace them is not building back better. This is, again, Terry O'Sullivan, head of LIUNA. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement by Mark McManus

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SULLIVAN. This is Mark McManus, General President of the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters. They were going to build the Keystone pipeline, too, just like the LIUNA members. In revoking this permit, the Biden Administration has chosen to listen to the voices of fringe activists instead of union members and the American consumer on Day 1. Let me be very clear: When built with union labor by the men and women of the United Association-- Mr. McManus's union-- pipelines like Keystone XL remain the safest and most efficient modes of energy transportation in the world. Sadly, the Biden Administration has now put thousands of union workers out of work. Let me close with this. There are a number of Senators who want to meet directly with the President on this issue. By the way, when they made these announcements about Alaska, no one from the Biden Administration reached out. No one called me. No one called Senator Murkowski. No one called Congressman Young. You would think if they were going to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs in your State, that somebody would have reached out to us. I just spent the last week working hard to make sure the Biden Administration's Secretary of Defense got confirmed. I probably worked harder than any other Senator in this body on that issue. I did that because I think it is going to be good for the military, good for America. But we are trying. We are trying. I haven't heard from one person on the Biden Administration. A number of us tried to request a meeting with the President. The President talks a lot about his blue-collar background. Great, but guess what: The President is killing blue-collar jobs right now by the thousands. A lot of them are in my State. I hope somebody in the new administration is listening to this. I hope he realizes what he is doing. We are in this pandemic. Our economy needs to grow. We have high unemployment. The idea that you would start your administration by targeting the men and women who have built this great Nation, who have good-paying jobs is astounding to me. Mr. President--I am not talking about the President of the Senate, Madam President, I am talking about the President of the United States--you need to listen to us. This is not a good start. You talked in your inauguration about putting yourself in other people's shoes. Well, I hope you put yourself in the shoes of the energy workers in America whom you are crushing right now. Put yourself in their shoes and maybe rethink these crazy, crazy policies that are only harming Americans throughout the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I want to congratulate now-Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on his confirmation to be Secretary of Defense. I spoke yesterday about his confirmation, the two votes that had to happen. I had the honor of introducing this great American at his confirmation hearing at the Armed Services Committee. I served with him in the military many years ago. And I think he is going to be an important addition to President Biden's team. One of the things that we have been working on, over the last several years, is rebuilding our military after drastic cuts by the Obama-Biden administration. Hopefully, we are not going to see that again. One of the reasons I was strongly supporting now-Secretary Austin was because I believe--and I certainly hope this is a correct belief, and I have commitments from him--he won't agree with that, although I am sure some, unfortunately, in this body and others in the Biden administration are going to agree with drastic cuts to the military. It will hurt readiness. So one of the reasons that I think he is going to be a good Secretary is not just his exceptional character, humility, leadership but because he knows what will happen if there are dramatic cuts like there were in the second term of the Obama-Biden administration to our military. Not good. One of the things I had the opportunity to talk to him about--one of the things that has been a huge positive for America over the last decade, for so many reasons, is that we have become the world's energy superpower again--like we were, essentially, during World War II. What do I mean by that? Prior to the pandemic, we were the No. 1 producer of oil. Yes, people still need to use oil. I know some of my colleagues in this body don't believe that, but it is true; the No. 1 producer of natural gas, clean burning natural gas. We are starting to export it all around the world; No. 1 producer of renewables. So all of the above, America is the superpower of energy. This is good. It is great for the national security of our Nation, for a whole host of reasons. General Austin understands that--Secretary Austin understands that. It is great for jobs. In the 2008-2009 recession, the No. 1 sector of the economy that got us out of the great recession was the energy sector, in terms of GDP growth and jobs. It is great for the environment. Why do I say that? Some people tilt their heads. It is great for the environment because in America-- certainly, in my State, Alaska--we have the highest standards on the environment of any place in the world by far. It is not even close. If you need energy, which you do, you should do it, produce it in the place that respects the environment the most--not Russia, not Saudi Arabia--America, Alaska. It is good for energy security. It is good for manufacturing low-cost natural gas throughout the country. Like I said, it is really good for jobs. These are really good jobs. Resource development jobs are really good jobs. They support working families and the middle class. Everybody knows that. That is a good thing that is happening in the United States of America. There are some fringe groups that don't like energy. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues in the Senate don't like hydrocarbons. By the way, as we became the world's energy superpower, our greenhouse gas emissions declined probably more than any other industrialized economy in the world. Why? Because natural gas is clean-burning. So this is a win-win-win-win-win on so many fronts. Here is why I am speaking right now: Because it is all at risk. It is all at risk. The first few days of the new Biden Administration have seen an unprecedented assault on resource development and energy jobs, an attack on the men and women--working men and women with good wages-- who produce really important resources for this great Nation and now for other countries because we export a lot of these resources. It is an assault on good energy jobs, good resource development jobs that have been the bedrock of millions of middle-class Americans for decades. Let me just give you an example, just in my State. Everybody knows about ANWR, right? This body moved in terms of legislation for leases. We did it the right way, with a law passed by the Senate and the House, signed by the President to move forward on leases. The first day on the job, the new President decides he is going to suspend everything with regard to ANWR. OK, that wasn't a surprise, to be honest, but, of course, it was a huge disappointment. I am not sure it is legal. Like I said, we did it the legal way. He is doing it the old-fashioned, ``Obama pen and phone'' way. There are probably a lot of questionable legalities there. That is one. We were expecting that. Here is the other one. We have another part of Alaska called the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, set aside by Congress for oil and gas development. It is not controversial. We have been doing it for decades. It was originally called the Naval Petroleum Reserve for America. This is not controversial. And we have a lot of energy projects in the NPRA that are ongoing. Heck, even the Obama-Biden administration allowed us to drill there because that is what Congress said for decades, and it is good for the country. We need energy. We need energy. So if we need it, shouldn't we get it from America? Shouldn't we get it from American workers? That is better than getting it from Russia. The NPRA is a really important area of America's energy production in my State--the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. It has been that way for decades. So there is a moratorium on any more permits for energy production in the NPRA yesterday. I woke up to text messages from Alaskans saying: Senator, help us. My little company is going to go out of business. I have to lay off a bunch of workers. Workers who are doing what? Producing American energy. Since when was that bad, Mr. President? Since when was that bad? One more thing, they say: Well, it is only a 60-day moratorium. In Alaska, because we have the highest standards in the world on producing energy, exploring for energy, we only do exploration in the winter. It costs more for energy companies. Why do we do that? Because it is the high standards that we have--the highest standards of any place on the planet Earth. What do I mean by that? We build what are called ice roads and ice pads on the tundra when we explore and when we drill. That means we just do it in the winter. You build these ice roads and ice pads that cost a lot of money and when you move equipment across the tundra on ice, you drill for 3 months and when the winter is over, you move it off. The ice melts, and there is not one tiny impact. It is called zero-impact drilling and exploration. I used to be in charge of this in Alaska. I am very familiar with it. We have the highest standards on the planet. So if you put a 60-day moratorium on drilling on the NPRA, guess what. You lose the whole season. You lose the whole season. That is what the Biden Administration did yesterday. I literally have people back home in my great State calling frantically saying hundreds--if not thousands--of jobs are at risk. That was day two of the Biden Administration: Let's crush every single energy job in America. Why? I don't know why. I don't know why. Since when is it bad to produce energy for your fellow Americans? We need it. We have the highest standards in the world. These are great middle-class jobs. But on day one in this administration, they are attacking the men and women who produce energy for this great Nation--shameful. Now, it is not just me who is a little bit upset. You can tell I am a little bit upset. The Keystone pipeline was canceled again--again, no idea why they would do that. There is nothing about climate change. As a matter of fact, that pipeline was going to be all union jobs, and they had it developed and worked on in a way that was going to be emissions neutral. Here is the head of the Laborers' International Union of North America--LIUNA, the laborers. Terry O'Sullivan is a great American. I know him well. His father was a marine. He served in the Chosin Reservoir during the Korean war. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement by Terry O'Sullivan on behalf of the Laborers' International Union of North America

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I also want to talk about another important issue, and that is President Biden's nomination for the very important job of Secretary of Defense, Mr. Lloyd Austin. We are going to be voting on his nomination here on the Senate floor in a couple of hours. I had the honor of introducing Mr. Austin just 2 days ago at his confirmation hearing, and I thought the confirmation hearing went well. So I want to talk a little bit about Mr. Austin before we take what will essentially be two important votes for his confirmation. Now, the last time I was actually on the floor of the U.S. Senate, our Capitol was under siege, and from a foreign policy and national security perspective, America's authoritarian rivals have been gloating over what happened on that day. They have been reveling in our disunity. Democracy brings chaos, they tell their people. It is better to have a strong hand that keeps order. Well, as you know, we do live in an imperfect democracy, no doubt, and the American I was honored to introduce at the Armed Services hearing the other day, Mr. Lloyd Austin, understands our imperfections more than many. Yet, on closer inspection, the world's dictators have little to celebrate. Congress went back to work on January 6, right here on the Senate floor, to count electoral votes, and yesterday there was a peaceful transfer of power at the top of our government, as there has been since our Republic's founding. At some point--maybe sooner than we think--Chinese and Russian citizens are going to ask: Hey, why can't we do that? Why don't we have strong, resilient institutions that ensure the regular elections of new leaders and that invest in self-government and the people? When these citizens ask these questions of authoritarians like Putin or Xi Jinping, they are not going to be gloating anymore because they won't have answers to these questions. So what does this all have to do with Mr. Lloyd Austin? A lot. Mr. Austin has been nominated to lead one of America's most trusted institutions--the Department of Defense. Many of us have worked hard over the last few years to rebuild our military's strength and readiness, but I think we can all agree that there has been too much turmoil at the top at the Pentagon. As its civilian leader, I am confident that Mr. Austin will bring steadiness, leadership, and respect to this indispensable American institution. I got to know Mr. Austin in 2005 and 2006 while serving together in an Army-heavy combatant command as we conducted combat operations throughout the Middle East. We had what might be referred to today as an unequal power relationship. He was a two-star general. I was a major. He had spent years on Active Duty. I was a reservist. He was a soldier. I was a marine. I was just one of hundreds of field-grade infantry officers who had been recalled to Active Duty and deployed in the region during a challenging time for our Nation. Yet, when I asked for his time, Mr. Austin gave it. When I had a problem, he listened. When I asked for help on an important mission, he provided it. A critical hallmark of exceptional leadership, especially for organizations like the Pentagon, is not just how one treats superiors but how one treats subordinates, those down the chain of command. What I saw was respect and integrity and someone who knew how to get things done in a difficult environment. It is clear to me the core principles of Mr. Austin's life have been duty, honor, country. West Point has done its job. Now, that may sound quaint to some, but I think having individuals of impeccable character at the top of our government is more important than ever. Other than integrity, there is no singular requirement for the difficult job of Secretary of Defense, and as the former Director of the Joint Staff and as the former CENTCOM Commander, Mr. Austin certainly has insight on critical issues, such as interagency budget battles, working with allies, and congressional oversight. Mr. Austin is also fully committed to the constitutional principle of civilian control of our military--something that those who serve in uniform typically understand and revere more than those who don't. In that regard, you may recall that, about 10 days ago, we had a hearing in the Committee on Armed Services on this very important topic, but I actually thought some of the witnesses had rather simplistic views of this important issue. They had brought up topics and discussions of so-called ``military logic'' by those who wear the uniform versus ``political logic'' for those who don't wear the uniform. So let me play devil's advocate for those who participated and watched that hearing. The very nature of the confirmation hearing that we had with Mr. Austin just 2 days ago and, indeed, the very nature of the transfer of power that we saw yesterday here at the Capitol are evidence, in my view, that the civilian control of the military is not at risk in America. I actually believe the related but opposite problem should be of more concern today, at this moment, and that problem is no military experience in the top ranks of our government. With the exception of Mr. Austin, no nominee on the incoming Biden administration's national security team has ever served in uniform. With regard to the entire Biden Cabinet, only one other nominee has any military experience at all. This is not wise. If confirmed, I am sure I won't agree with all of Mr. Austin's decisions, but when the inevitable budget battles occur, it will be critical for our Nation's security and, very importantly, the military members and their families who serve to have a Secretary of Defense who understands firsthand the very real morale and readiness problems that result from drastic cuts to our military--something, unfortunately, I think many of my colleagues here in the Senate will be pushing for and even members of the Biden administration will be pushing for. So let me conclude with this. Right now, a number of us are interviewing Cabinet members for confirmation for the incoming Biden administration. I anticipate opposing some, supporting others. Certainly, I anticipate opposing some if I believe they will hurt the working families of my State. But with regard to Mr. Austin, I am fully supporting his nomination. We are living through difficult times--a pandemic, racial tensions, riots, turmoil at the top of the Pentagon, and rising dangers from China, Russia, and Iran. Mr. Austin's confirmation won't solve all of these problems, but it will help. He represents the best of America--a man of integrity, humility, and character, with a wealth of relevant experience. Our allies will take comfort in his confirmation, and our adversaries will take pause. And as America's first African-American Secretary of Defense, he will be an inspiration to millions both in and out of uniform. For all of these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to support Mr. Austin's confirmation and the waiver in Federal law that it requires. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Over 60 Senators in the U.S. Senate--the majority of Republicans and the majority of Democrats--sent this letter to who was then leadership of the Senate, writing, in essence: Don't change the legislative filibuster. A bunch of Democrats and a bunch of Republicans--I was going to read the names, but they know who they are--the majority on both sides in this body, from both parties, in 2017 said: Don't change it. This shouldn't be something the U.S. Senate changes. Part of the reason this was going on was that, at the time, then- President Trump was pressing Senators, particularly Majority Leader McConnell, to change the filibuster. The filibuster requires 60 votes to move legislation in the Senate. It requires compromise. It requires bipartisanship. It is what makes us different from the House. At the time, then-Republican President Trump was saying: Change it. I want legislation to move more quickly. The Republicans and then-Majority Leader McConnell said that it was not a good idea. As a matter of fact, most of us said that it was not a good idea, so we didn't do anything. We didn't change it because we didn't want to change the nature of the U.S. Senate. This is one of the issues being discussed right now, but it shouldn't be a difficult issue because, as I said, the vast majority of Senators in this body, a couple of years ago, said: Don't do it. We don't want the Senate to just become a smaller version of the House, because that is what would happen if you were to get rid of the legislative filibuster. I do want to extend my congratulations to the new majority leader as of yesterday, Senator Schumer, but to the new majority leader: This should not be a difficult issue. This should not be something that we are having a problem with in terms of the negotiations between the Democrats and the Republicans that delays the power-sharing agreement. This should be a piece of cake. Just a couple of years ago, the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans said: Don't change the legislative filibuster. We want to make sure that remains the case. I think, for the new majority leader, this would be an act of statesmanship, an act of compromise, and would certainly make the statement that he is going to keep the Senate the same as it has been for decades, for centuries. Changing the legislative filibuster would change the entire structure, history, and precedent of this very important body in our country, so it shouldn't be hard. The vast majority of the Democrats and Republicans has already agreed to this. To our new majority leader: Do what you know is right--an act of statesmanship and compromise. We have all been talking about it. It should not be a difficult decision, particularly given that so many Senators on both sides of the aisle feel strongly enough to have written Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell just a couple of years ago on this. To all of my colleagues who signed that letter--you know who you are--make sure you are pressing the new majority leader to stick to what you pressed him on just a couple of years ago. It is important.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, there is a lot going on in the Senate, a lot of activity behind the scenes right now. Leadership of both parties is negotiating a 50-50 power-sharing agreement, which is very important for the Senate and very important for our Nation. One issue that is being discussed is the status of what is going to happen, possibly--hopefully, nothing is going to happen--with a really important element of the U.S. Senate: the legislative filibuster-- something that has been a hallmark of this body almost since the founding of the Republic. This shouldn't be a hard issue. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter, led by Senator Collins and Senator Coons, dated April 7, 2017, to the then- majority leader, Senator McConnell, and the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I would like to recognize a critical member of my staff, Mike Anderson--he is known as ``Big Mike''--who left my office in August to pursue a legal career in his hometown of Anchorage, AK--something he has aspired to do since a young age. Mike was my communications director, but it was much more of an appropriate title for Mike because he directed so many things in my office, so much of our communication both internally and externally. You would often find Mike going from staff member to staff member, asking them questions, relaying information from one team to the next. In our office, if you had a question about what anybody was up to, what anybody was doing in Alaska, here in our DC office, in our Alaskan offices, you would ask Mike. That is a special quality. He is an incredibly hard worker, incredibly gifted young man, and we are going to miss that talent in Mike very much. Mike is no stranger to Alaska political offices. Fresh out of college at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, he took a job with Congressman Young and then worked for Senator Murkowski. In 2014, he was looking for a little more adventure on the calm side. I was looking for someone to help with my communications on my campaign. It was my first run for office. I was running against an incumbent with big name recognition in our State. Mike came on board and took a chance on me. It is something I will never forget--loyal, great worker. He had been taking a lot of classes at night at Catholic University of America for the past few years, working in my office, and balancing it all. He was on the clock around the clock and did it with grace, humor, hard work, and excellence. As I mentioned, he was our office communicator, but he was also the office friend, the person you would go to for advice on things big and small, the person you would call on for an assist if you needed to move. It helped that he lived up to his name--6 feet, 8 inches. He is a big guy. Mike always showed up, working together--as we called in our office one team, one fight. We got big things done for our State. Speaking of one team, one fight, my office has a pretty good hoops team. Mike, as you can imagine--UAF varsity basketball player back in Alaska--was the critical member of that team. We have won a lot of games, particularly against the Cruz Texans. In fact, Senator Cruz once gave Mike the nickname ``Denali'' for his size and how he dominates the middle of the key on the hoops court. Mike is going to make a great lawyer in Alaska. As a State, we have so much potential--the biggest fisheries in the country, the largest energy fields, huge military complexes, and fascinating, important Alaskan Native legal issues. More than anything, Alaska needs good leaders with integrity, brilliant lawyers, hard-working people like Mike who love their State and give it all back to their State, and that is what he is going to do. We haven't seen the last of Mike. He has always been part of our team, and I am sure that is what he will do, working continually in the great State of Alaska to make sure our State thrives. Mike, great job. Good luck to you. You are going to be missed. Best wishes on a bright future ahead.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, despite what you might be reading in the press, there are a lot of recent, important, bipartisan achievements happening right here in the Senate. We are going to vote soon on another major COVID relief bill, which is really important. That will be our fourth major COVID relief bill this year--much needed, of course, for the health of Americans and for our economy. I think that when the history of this very challenging year is written, that is what is going to be remembered--four major, bipartisan, important pieces of legislation, not the rancor in the Senate, which has been part of our history, part of the Republic since the founding of the Republic. A number of other major bipartisan accomplishments have also occurred just in the past few months--the National Defense Authorization Act, which passed with over 80 Senators; the Great American Outdoors Act, probably the biggest conservation act in over 50 years; and the Save Our Seas 2.0, a bill I was proud to author, the most comprehensive ocean cleanup legislation ever to come out of the Congress. This is just to name a few. Let me name another important bipartisan accomplishment that is starting to occur in the Congress, and that is dealing with China, the important issue of China and China policy. I know people might be saying: Wait, are you crazy? China? There is bipartisan agreement on what is happening with regard to this relationship, the United States and China? The answer is, yes, we have made significant progress on this issue, too, and it is important. I want to explain that a little bit because I think it is a topic that we need to be focusing on more and more in the U.S. Senate. Like the Presiding Officer, I am honored to be completing my first term as a U.S. Senator and honored, like the Presiding Officer, to have been reelected to continue my service. Six years ago when I started my time here in the U.S. Senate, I started a series of speeches that focused on the U.S.-China relationship and the importance of it. We all have been focused post-9/ 11 certainly on al-Qaida, ISIS, the big issue of violent extremist organizations, which has been the appropriate focus. But as I started my career here 6 years ago, I started to give a series of speeches where I said the biggest challenge that we face long term from a geostrategic standpoint for the United States for decades to come is going to be our relationship with the rising power of China. What I was saying 4 years ago, 5 years ago in this body is that nobody is talking about it. It is really important, and we are not focused on it. You can't say that anymore. Now everybody is talking about China. There has been an American awakening about China. And that is good. That is important. That is progress. And it has been bipartisan. I want to thank President Trump and his team because I think they deserve a lot of the credit. They laid out their national security strategy, their national defense strategy. These are very well-written strategies that, in essence, said that in the United States of America, post 9/11, it was appropriate to focus on al-Qaida, ISIS, violent extremist organizations, getting weapons of mass destruction. That was clearly the main focus of our national security. But what their strategies have been saying is that, yes, we need to continue to focus on that, but now we need to prioritize the great power competition that is upon us with China as the pacing threat. As you know, most Senators--Democrats and Republicans--particularly the ones who focus on national security and foreign policy issues, particularly those on the Armed Services Committee--they agree with us. They agree with this reorientation. Again, this is important. This is progress, bipartisan progress, on what is really going to be one of the most--what is the most important bilateral relationship in the world. What we need to start doing--and I say ``we,'' this body, the Congress, the executive branch--is we need to start putting details and principles into a long-term strategy, a bipartisan strategy that will be enduring to address this challenge, to address the challenge that is the challenge for the next decade--the rise of China and how we, as the United States of America, need to deal with it. As I mentioned, I believe this is going to be the defining national security issue for our Nation for the next 50 to 100 years. What I want to do today is lay out a couple of key principles on what I see are some of the ways in which we can bring a bipartisan approach to addressing this challenge. Last year, I was honored to be invited by the heritage center--the Heritage Foundation--as part of their lead lecture series on the Asia-Pacific to talk about this issue. I gave remarks, an address that I called ``Winning the New Cold War with China and How America Should Respond.'' Some of the principles that I laid out in that address from some of my experiences in the U.S. relationship with China over the last quarter century are what I would like to talk about. Those experiences for me have kind of run the gamut as a U.S. marine; as a National Security Council staffer and Assistant Secretary of State under the exceptional leader, Condoleezza Rice, when she was National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State; as the State of Alaska cabinet official in charge of energy and natural resources--which are so important to my State but also to Asian markets--and as a U.S. Senator. First things first: I believe, as I mentioned, there has been an awakening about the challenge posed by China. As I mentioned, 6 years ago in this body, not a lot of Senators were talking about it. Now everybody is, and that is important. I also think that there is a recognition--whatever you want to call the tensions that have arisen-- that the U.S. and China have entered into a much more strategic competition era--phase--with tensions that I have referred to as a ``new Cold War'' with each other. This state of relations has only been exacerbated by the pandemic, which, of course, started in China and was covered up by the Chinese Communist Party. When I talk about this issue of a new Cold War with China, I want to be clear on one thing. This is not a challenge--or tensions--of our choosing. It is the result of a conscious decision by the Communist Party leadership of China to overturn key elements of the U.S.-led, rules-based international order, despite that order enabling China to emerge prosperous and strong from its so-called century of humiliation. This new Cold War is not an inevitable consequence of China's rise or our status as an established power. Rather, I believe, it stems from China's rejection of becoming a ``responsible stakeholder'' in the international system that the United States has led since the end of World War II--a system from which China probably, more than any other country in the world, has benefited from. But recognizing that we have this new tension, that we have a new Cold War with China, does not mean that the nature of the global challenge is identical to that posed by the Soviet Union or that our response should be the same. However, it does mean that the United States and our allies need to recognize this challenge, address it, counter it in ways that avoid major conflict but in ways that also avoid compromising our core values and interests and principles in liberty. Let me talk a little bit about what I call America's awakening. Since President Nixon initiated the opening of relationships with China, many hoped that the country's political and economic system would open as the country developed and joined this broader, Western- led international system. Others believed that even if the Chinese Communist Party remained in control, its external behavior and relationship with the United States would not be affected. When the United States supported Chinese entry into the World Trade Organization, President Bill Clinton remarked that American workers and consumers would be the greatest beneficiaries--American workers. Ultimately, this has proven not to be true. Equally misguided was the hope that as China grew economically, it would liberalize politically. The expectation was that China would lower its trade barriers and follow WTO practices, respecting intellectual property rights, promoting basic safety standards for exports, curbing subsidies of its main industries, and not subjecting imports--our imports--to illegal, nontariff barriers. None of that has turned out to be true. China did not meet most of its commitments under the WTO and still hasn't. Rather, it has employed its new access to Western markets--American markets--to pursue large-scale theft of technology, exploiting the openness of the American economy without allowing American companies reciprocal access to its markets as it is required to do. Let me give one example of this that I have seen in my experience. In 2003, over 17 years ago, I was in an Oval Office meeting as a National Security Council staffer with President George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and the Vice Premier of China, Madam Wu Yi, at the time. The President, President Bush, strongly believed in the protection of intellectual property rights, and he raised this issue with Madam Wu Yi right there in the office--very aggressively, leaning over in his chair. Madam Wu Yi looked at the President of the United States and said: Mr. President, I am in charge of this. We are going to fix this. We are working on it. You have my commitment, Mr. President. That was in the Oval Office, 17 years ago. Where are we on intellectual property theft from China? It is worse today than when Madam Wu Yi made that commitment in the Oval Office. As a matter of fact, the U.S. Trade Representative Office estimates that Chinese theft of American intellectual property costs the U.S. economy an estimated $600 billion annually, not to mention the thousands of jobs lost. President Obama also tried to stem these blatantly unfair, nonreciprocal practices, but Beijing did not honor the common understanding reached by President Obama and Xi Jinping in 2015, curbing cyber hacking of government and corporate data for economic gain. Such theft continues unabated today. These episodes raise an even bigger problem between the United States and China. It is the problem that I call ``promise fatigue'' with China. Think about it. Broken promises extend well beyond the economic sphere, like intellectual property. Here is another example. Standing next to President Obama in the Rose Garden in 2015, President Xi Jinping promised the President of the United States not to militarize the South China Sea. The commitment was broken within months, when China took a very aggressive policy of militarizing many of the islands and built up islands in the South China Sea to the consternation of every single country in the region. After enduring this promise fatigue with the Chinese for decades, we, the Congress, the executive branch of the U.S. Government, are finally getting wise. Everybody thinks trade should be a win-win, but Chinese leaders appear to view it much more as a zero-sum game. Ironically, this promise fatigue and China's predatory, nonreciprocal trade practices have brought about--and did bring about--the new, much tougher, and, in my view, much needed approach from the Trump administration that we had prior to the pandemic. We have this situation where we are not trusting our relationship with China with promises that have been made but have not been kept across a whole host of spheres, where the tensions in the South China Sea are growing. But this current state of affairs was not preordained. In 2005, then Deputy Secretary of State and future World Bank President Robert Zoellick encouraged China in a very well-regarded speech to become a ``responsible stakeholder'' in the international system, which had done so much to enable China's rise in prosperity. Zoellick's speech challenged China to change its behavior, to support and promote and, certainly, not undermine the U.S.-led economic order that had brought peace and prosperity to China and so many other countries in the Indo- Pacific. For a time, it appeared that China's leadership was contemplating this American offer to be a responsible stakeholder in this global system--the one that we had set up after World War II. In my trips as an Assistant Secretary of State to China, I heard China's leadership in many meetings--including in meetings with Hu Jintao, the President, and other senior leaders--where they talked about being a responsible stakeholder, where this invitation on working through the system we had developed was clearly something they were contemplating. But over time, it has become increasingly clear that the Chinese Communist Party has rejected this concept, this idea to be a partner with us in bolstering the international order that has benefited China so significantly. In fact, the opposite has happened. China is now working to systemically build an illiberal sphere of influence that threatens to exclude America and erode our alliances in the region that have kept the peace in the region for decades. The challenge we face today is rooted in the attempt by the Communist Party of China to popularize its authoritarian model abroad to ensure China's rise as a great power under the Communist Party's leadership. President Xi made this clear at the 19th Party Congress, where he championed China's model as a new option for other countries and nations that want to speed up their development. We must always remember, the Chinese Communist Party's primary goal in domestic and foreign policy is to ensure the survival and preeminence of the party. The key driver of U.S.-China competition and tension today is China's ambition to project its authoritarian model abroad. China's development under a Leninist political model serves as an inspiration for many illiberal actors and aspiring autocrats around the world. It uses its economic influence as a means of exerting political pressure. Additionally, Chinese companies and state-owned and state-subsidized industries are not bound by the anti-corruption laws that American and Western companies must adhere to. Chinese indifference to establishing standards of transparency, which we have certainly seen now with the pandemic, and project implementation through its Belt and Road Initiative result in elite deals that concede corruption abroad, weaken prospects for long-term prosperity, and undermine the sovereignty of weaker nations. China is seeking to undermine democracy and human rights and the rule of law and international institutions--from pushing its norms for controlling cyber space to silencing critics of its human rights record, including critics in the United States, to pushing for the enforcement of the Belt and Road Initiative at the United Nations. China is using its growing voice on the global stage to legitimize an approach at home and abroad that undermines American interests. A recent Hoover Institution study argues that China is looking to gain influence in the United States to shape attitudes and, ultimately, American policy toward China. And although we have not experienced the same level of political interference as, say, some of our allies, like Australia, where politicians and donors linked to the Chinese Communist Party try to sway the country's policies on sensitive issues, China is clearly engaged in what the National Endowment for Democracy calls a significant, sharp-powered campaign to influence American policy here at home. This recent spy scandal with a Congressman from California is just a recent example of this. Fortunately, the Trump administration and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have awakened to the long-term challenge that China poses to America's national security and economic security interests. As I noted, the Trump administration's more realistic approach on China, laid out in its national security strategy and national defense strategy, offers a clear-eyed view of Chinese ambitions and our need to counter them. At a time when there is not enough bipartisan agreement-- although, I think there is more than, certainly, we get credit for-- there is broad, bipartisan focus and support within the U.S. Government and, I believe, in the U.S. Senate on the strategic challenges posed by China. So we have had an important American awakening and a good beginning with the recent U.S. national security and national defense strategies, and I believe it is strongly in America's interest for the incoming Biden-Harris administration to continue these strategies that have strong bipartisan support here. In fact, in my recent meeting with Secretary of Defense nominee GEN Lloyd Austin, I encouraged such an approach on national security issues, particularly as it related to China. Yet these strategic documents that we are talking about need more meat on the bones. What are more details and principles that we can add to the national security strategy of our Nation that can ensure bipartisan support for a longer term U.S.-China strategy? Let me recommend five core elements that, I think, should be key in moving forward with regard to our relationship with China. First, we need to demand reciprocity in all major spheres of the U.S.-China relationship. Second, we need to reinvigorate American competitiveness so we can outcompete and outinnovate China. Third, we need to continue to rebuild our military's strength and capability. Fourth, we need to deepen and expand our global network of alliances. Finally, we need to remember that employing our democratic values is a huge, critical, comparative advantage in countering China's global authoritarian influence around the world. So let me briefly touch on each of these. First, we need to demand reciprocity. The United States must insist that the relationship with China be defined by reciprocity and fairness. For too long, the United States has ignored the promise fatigue--that I have talked about--with China and accepted unfulfilled Chinese promises across so many spheres of the bilateral relationship. You have seen it. When you raise the issue of reciprocity with senior Chinese officials, whether that be in Beijing or with the Ambassador, and they finally acknowledge that, yes, the relationship isn't reciprocal, they say it is because ``China is still a developing country.'' I would respectfully tell senior Chinese officials: Don't use that argument anymore. It is an insult to the intelligence of American officials. We need a reciprocal relationship because every American understands and agrees with this--that it is about fairness, basic fairness. I posed an important question of reciprocity to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing a couple of years ago, and he acknowledged that, to have an important, sustainable, great-power relationship between two of the most important countries in the world, reciprocity was critical. The citizens of our country need to feel that the relationship is fair and that a general policy of reciprocity is important and critical in that regard, but we all know it hasn't been that way. The Trump administration has made significant progress on pressing for more reciprocal relationships in our trading relationships, which is very important, but we all know that the reciprocal relationship doesn't exist. Chinese companies and government-backed investment funds can come to the United States and buy companies, but we would have no opportunity to do the same. Yet it needs to go much further than economics. Let me give you an example. We need reciprocity in the free exchange of ideas. American journalists are not allowed to travel freely in China, and if they are not, then, why should Chinese journalists be allowed to travel freely in the United States? Similarly--and this body is focused on this--there are over 100 Confucius Institutes, established by the Chinese Communist Party, at American universities. When I was in Beijing a couple of years ago and met with senior Chinese officials, I mentioned this. I said: I was recently with the Ambassador, and he said that just to go on the campus of Beijing University you need to be accompanied by a Chinese official. So if there were real reciprocity in the relationship, if you can have Confucius Institutes at American universities, how about we get James Madison Institutes of freedom and liberty at Chinese universities? Of course, the Chinese wouldn't accept that. They said: Well, Senator, Confucius Institutes only teach culture and language, and a James Madison Institute of freedom and liberty and democracy in China would be teaching propaganda. That is what they said. This is just one of many examples wherein we must have a reciprocal relationship between the United States and China going forward. Second, we must reinvigorate American competitiveness. The United States is no stranger to global military and economic cooperation, as we have known throughout the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Our comparative advantages globally remain significant, but we can and should do more to bolster other areas at home. We should bolster STEM education, double down on basic research, and support Federal agencies like the National Science Foundation. We need to be able to outcompete and outinnovate China, and, importantly, better understand China, its culture, its language, its history, and its strategy with the new generations of Americans who are focused on these issues, just as Russian and Soviet studies were emphasized during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Many of our most significant challenges--our national debt, infrastructure projects that take years to permit, an education system that leaves too many Americans behind, a dysfunctional immigration system--are all self- inflicted wounds. I believe that the real challenges posed by China, as they become more broadly apparent throughout our country, will start to spur the bipartisan motivation that will be needed to address these significant but solvable American challenges in order to make us stronger. Third, we must continue to rebuild our military. From 2010 to 2016, the Department of Defense's budget was slashed by 25 percent. Readiness plummeted, and at the same time, the Chinese undertook a massive building of its military and the modernization of its forces while it also made concrete moves to militarize the South China Sea. History shows, particularly with regard to America's authoritarian rival, that American military weakness encourages authoritarian provocations globally. We must make sure that, as we continue to engage China, a strong U.S. military provides a hedge against Beijing's contemplating risky and destabilizing military actions as its military strength and capabilities continue to grow. China has a long history of using its military to achieve strategic ends when countries are not ready, and we must be ready. As the Presiding Officer knows, I have mentioned that, gosh, almost 25 years ago, I was a young marine infantry officer who was deployed as part of an amphibious task force to the Taiwan Strait, which included two carrier battle groups as part of the U.S. response to Chinese provocations on the eve of the Presidential elections in Taiwan. It was a long time ago, but it was certainly an example of the American commitment and resolve of one of our allies during a period of heightened tensions in the Taiwan Strait that we need to remember and be able to react to with a strong military. Fourth, we need to expand and deepen our alliances. The recalibration of our relationship with China should be done in partnership with our allies. The cultivation and nurturing of these relationships must be a foundational pillar of any American strategy as it deals with China. Our greatest strategic advantage in dealing with China is this: We are now a rich nation with longstanding historical ties that have been reinforced by decades of diplomatic, military, and economic cooperation based on shared values with our friends and allies in the region. By contrast, China is an ally-poor nation, with North Korea as its closest friend and ally. The unity of the West and our Asian allies is essential to maintaining high global standards and transparency, accountability, anti-corruption, a peaceful resolution of conflict, and the importance of international law, particularly in the global areas of sea, space, and cyber space. Finally, we must employ America's democratic values as a critical comparative advantage. We should never forget that our democratic values were critical in our successful victory over the Soviet Union during the last Cold War. In President Reagan's famous Westminster speech before the British Parliament in 1982, in which he launched the National Endowment for Democracy, he argued that America would win the Cold War not through hard power alone but through the power of our ideals. As he reminded our audience and our close allies in Britain, ``Any system is inherently unstable that has no peaceful means of legitimizing its leaders.'' China's unelected leaders, like all authoritarians, ultimately fear their own people. Our leaders do not. It is fear that has driven China to develop an Orwellian social credit score to rank its people, while detaining as many as 1 million Chinese workers in concentration camps. Why else does the Chinese Communist Party invest so heavily in facial and gait recognition technology to monitor their own citizens? Why comprehensively censor the internet to preclude even the most glancing criticism of the Communist Party and its leaders? Why do China's internal security services employ more people than the People's Liberation Army, the world's largest military? The answer lies in fear, and the goal, above all else, to make sure the Communist Party remains in power. President Reagan saw the power and promise of our democratic ideals as a potent critical instrument to challenge America's global rival, then the Soviet Union, because the aspiration of freedom is universal and remains the core commonality that underpins the strongest partnerships of the United States with other nations. The belief that liberty, democracy, and free markets reflect and strengthen the size of our alliance system is something that is fundamental to the United States and our allies during the Cold War with the Soviet Union and now during our challenges with China. Helping countries protect their sovereignty so they can be responsive to their citizens and effective partners of our Nation is imperative at a time when Chinese influence risks pulling nations into a new ``Sinosphere'' hostile to American interests and our democratic ideals. Let me conclude by predicting that the new challenges I describe with China are going to be with us for decades. We must face this fact with confidence and strategic resolve and bipartisan work in the U.S. Senate. America has extraordinary advantages relative to China: our global network of alliances, our military power and economic leadership, our innovative society, our abundant energy supplies--we are now the No. 1 producer of oil, natural gas, and renewables in the world--our world- class universities, the world's most productive workforce, and a democratic value system that makes countries far more comfortable as American partners than subservient members of a new ``Middle Kingdom'' led by China. As a result of the long twilight struggle with the Soviet Union, we also know what works--maintaining peace through strength, promoting free markets and free people at home, and having the confidence in George Kennan's insight that the Chinese Communist Party, like the Soviet Communist Party, likely bears within it the seeds of its own decay. While democracies are resilient, adaptive, and self-renewing, there are many vulnerabilities embedded in China's perceived strengths. One-man rule creates acute political risks. Historical grievance can breed violent nationalism. State-directed economic growth can produce massive overcapacity and mountains of debt. The gradual snuffing out of freedom in places like Hong Kong creates spontaneous protests of tens of thousands and huge global backlashes across the world. China's budding military power and historical view of itself as a nation and culture superior to others is beginning to alarm neighboring states, inspiring them to step up security cooperation with our Nation. Nearly half of all wealthy Chinese want to emigrate--and these are the winners from China's four decades of heady economic growth. As we have in the past, Americans can prevail in this geopolitical and ideological contest, but doing so will require a new level of strategic initiative, organization, and confidence in who we are and what we stand for. This also means that we must redouble our efforts in making this strategic case to others around the world, particularly our allies, and we must continue to work on bipartisan solutions that have enduring support in this body for decades to come as it relates to our challenges with China. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President. I would like recognize a critical member of my staff, Mike Anderson, who left my office in August to pursue a legal career his hometown of Anchorage, AK, something he has aspired to do since a young age. Communications director was a more than appropriate title for Mike. He directed so much of our communication, both internally and externally. You would often find Mike going from staff member to staff member, asking them questions, relaying information from one team to the next. In our office, if you had a question about what anybody was up to, you would ask Mike. That is a special quality. We miss it very much. Mike is no stranger to Alaska political offices. Fresh out of college at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, he took a job with Congressman Don Young, and then worked for Senator Lisa Murkowski. In 2014, I was looking for someone to help with communications on my campaign. It was the first time I had run for office, and I was running against an incumbent with big name recognition. Mike came on board. He took a chance on me--it is something I will never forget. He had been taking law classes at night at the Catholic University of America for the past few years working in my office. He balanced it all, was on the clock around the clock, and did it with grace and humor. He was our office communicator, but he was also the office friend--the person you would go to for advice on things big and small, the person you would call on for an assist if you needed to move. It helped that he is a short 6'8". Mike always showed up. Working together--as one team, one fight--we got big things done for our State. Mike is going to make a great lawyer in Alaska. As a State, we have so much potential: the biggest fisheries in the country, the largest energy fields, an array of military complexes, and fascinating Alaska Native legal issues. More than anything, Alaska needs good leaders with integrity--hard-working people like Mike, who love their State and give it their all. We haven't seen the last of Mike. He will always be a part of our team. And I am sure that we will always work together to make sure Alaska thrives. So good luck to you, Mike. You left a mark and a hole. Best wishes on a bright future ahead.

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 notwithstanding rule XXII, that the postcloture time on the Atchley nomination expire at 11:30 a.m., Thursday, December 17; further, if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is getting toward the end of the week here. We still have got a lot of work to do in the U.S. Senate, particularly on a relief package and end-of-the-year appropriations. So we are working hard on that. But I also want to take the opportunity, given it is the end of the week, to do what I consider one of my favorite activities of the entire week each week in the Senate, and that is talking about someone in my State who is making a difference, helping out our communities and making Alaska one of the best States--the best State, in my view--in the country. This is the individual we call the Alaskan of the Week. So I want to do an acknowledgment to some of our Hill reporters who have taken an interest in the ``Alaskan of the Week'' each week. I think sometimes because they recognize it is finishing up the week. We are not yet done yet, though. We have a lot of work to do. But I also appreciate them reporting on it because it is just good to see stories about people who are doing good work for their State and their community. What we try to do with this series, which we have been doing now for a number of years, is to talk about people who don't always get the recognition that they deserve, people who are making a big difference. You know, Alaska, like really every other State in the country, is experiencing serious challenges right now as a result of COVID-19, but I am confident, just like the rest of the country, we will get through this more resilient than ever. We have a saying. I certainly love this saying: Tough times don't last, but tough people do. Americans, Alaskans, North Dakotans are tough, and we are going to get through this. I would like to introduce our Alaskan of the Week, Linda Behnken, from the gorgeous city of Sitka, AK, in Southeast Alaska. The ``Paris of the Pacific,'' it is called, Sitka. A fun fact about Sitka, it is the largest city in the United States by land area, encompassing over 4,800 square miles, including water. That is big. The population is fairly big for our State. It is beautiful. If you haven't been to Sitka, you have got to go. It is gorgeous. Now, Linda--boy, talk about Linda. Linda is innovative, caring, and she has a deep and abiding commitment to our great State, her community, and to the profession that she has devoted her life to, one that is revered and so important in Alaska, and that is commercial fishing. For more than 30 years now, Linda has been on a boat catching fish out of Alaska's waters. It is the best seafood, mind you, in the world. No doubt about that one--wild Alaskan seafood. Not only is she a successful fisherman, which is, of course, a full-time job, she has also worked to ensure that Alaska continues to have sustainable fisheries. We are what I call the superpower of seafood. Over 60 percent of all fish caught in the United States is harvested in Alaska's waters--6-0. That is huge. But we need to make sure we have oceans that are clean and sustainable and that the profession is safe and small fishermen can thrive and the young fishermen can enter the profession. That is what Linda has been focused on for her entire career in Alaska. So for this work and so much more, including a huge role in helping needy families, particularly during this pandemic, Linda was recently awarded the prestigious Heinz Award for the Environment, named after the late U.S. Senator John Heinz. It is a very prestigious award. Here is the thing. Linda didn't even apply for it. She didn't seek it. She was sought out and I believe shocked when she found out she received this very prestigious award that comes with a $250,000 cash prize. Now, that is a big deal. I will say more about that cash prize in a minute. Let me tell you a bit about Linda's story and how she came to be such a passionate steward of our fisheries, of our sea, and of our ocean. Born and raised in Connecticut, Linda headed to Alaska in 1982 during a summer break from college. She wanted to make some money. She heard that one of the ways she could do it was to fish in the great State of Alaska. She took a ferry from Bellingham, WA, to Sitka, and she immediately fell in love with this gorgeous--and I mean gorgeous--community the minute she got off the boat. It took her about a month pounding the docks to find a deckhand job. There weren't a lot of women in this business then. She did eventually find not just a job but a wonderful community. ``The fishing community,'' she said, ``is full of independent and resourceful people who are really there for each other'' in their times of need. She also described how, when the fishing was done or when it was bad weather, people would gather around the docks. Some would light up the grill. Some would bring pie, a loaf of bread. Instruments would come out. Stories were told. Kids played. Linda said: ``I found a sense of community that I really hadn't [found]'' anywhere else. So she loved it. She went back to the lower 48 to finish her undergraduate degree, but Alaska was always with her. She knew that she had found a home and a mission to help create more sustainable fisheries in the great State of Alaska. To that end, she enrolled in a master's degree program in resource development at Yale and then came back to Alaska. ``What I saw going on in the ocean drove me to . . . graduate school.'' During that time, in the 1980s, she said that the way the fishing was managed wasn't working well for the smaller fishermen, nor was there much of an emphasis back then on sustainability. When she came back to Alaska, she began to fish again, eventually buying her own small commercial fishing boat, which she now fishes with her husband and two sons who have themselves been fishing since a very, very young age. I have always said that the Alaskan fisherman is the quintessential small business man and small business woman. It is often family businesses. They take huge risks. They create a great product. They work hard as can be. They are the quintessential small business men and women in America, and Linda proves the point. She became the executive director of the Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association, which is an alliance of small-boat commercial fishermen committed to sustainable and safe fisheries. Let me talk about safety on our waters in Alaska. Fishing, particularly in Alaska's waters, is one of the most dangerous jobs out there. Linda has had many harrowing stories--caught out fishing in the frigid waters for hours in the center of storms, man overboard, challenges, wind whisking away equipment. But all in all, it is much safer now than it used to be when Linda first started to fish. Then, when a certain fishery opened, everyone rushed out at once to get as much fish as possible regardless of the conditions. That has changed. Now fishing is a safer--but still dangerous--business in my great State. Linda was also involved in limiting bigger commercial vessels from operating in the waters of Southeast Alaska and worked for more stringent environmental regulations on the cruise ship industry. Among other things related to fisheries, she served 9 years on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and is a founding member of the Alaska Sustainable Fisheries Trust, which promotes Alaska seafood, helps younger men and women enter the field, and helps feed the hungry from the bounty of the sea--all of which contributed to her winning the Heinz Award. This pandemic that we are experiencing has negatively impacted so many lives, but it has also brought out some of the best in us in Alaska and in America, people across the country, reaching out to their neighbors, volunteering their time to do as much as they can. This includes Linda. When she read early on in the pandemic that a grocery store in her area stopped accepting checks, she got to work. Working with her groups, the Alaska Sustainable Fisheries Trust and the Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association, they began delivering food-- fish--to people's doors, locally caught and processed seafood to those who were in need. So far--get this--with their partners, they have provided over 400,000 pounds of delicious Alaska seafood. They brought in 400,000 pounds--wow--to children's programs, food pantries, women's shelters, Tribal organizations, and military organizations. You get the picture. She is working hard. They have done amazing work. And I want to thank her and so many who worked with her for this great effort. Something else that Linda did, a decision she made for her community. Earlier, I spoke about that cash prize that came with the Heinz Award-- $250,000. She took $100,000 of that money, which was her prize money, and donated it back to the organization that she helped found, the Alaska Sustainable Fisheries Trust, to work on sustainable fisheries, combating climate change, and to help young fishermen enter the profession so we have sustainable fisheries going forward. I am sure Linda probably heard the good news: Our legislation, my legislation, the Save Our Seas 2.0 legislation to clean up our oceans passed the Senate recently and is on its way to the President's desk for his signature. More good news. As she said: ``We won't have jobs if we don't take care of our fisheries.'' Keep them sustainable ``and get young people into the profession.'' People like Linda--committed, organized, generous of spirit, hard-working, in love with what she does in her State and her community--will get us through this pandemic. These are the people in Alaska, in America. And it is people like her that will also ensure that Alaska remains the superpower of seafood, not just for America but for the world. So, Linda, for all that you do, for all that you are going to continue to do, thank you, thank you, thank you. Great work, and congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I want to talk today with my colleagues Senator Menendez and Senator Whitehouse on a really important piece of legislation that is heading to the President's desk, and this is Save Our Seas 2.0. It is the follow-on to the Save Our Seas Act that we passed in the Congress last Congress, and that was an important one mostly about ocean cleanup, but we thought we could do more. We thought, working with different groups--so many groups--and the executive branch, the Trump administration, that we could do a lot more. So we got to work. I want to thank my colleagues on the floor today--Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Senator Menendez of New Jersey--for their work, their leadership, their cooperation. Senator Whitehouse in particular I really want to single out as probably the Member of the U.S. Senate who is focused on our oceans. He and I started collaborating on these issues about 6 years ago, right after I first came to the U.S. Senate, and I have learned a lot from Senator Whitehouse on these issues. We have kind of been an odd couple. We don't always agree on everything politically, but on these issues and a lot of other issues we not only agree but our teams work together, we work together, and, importantly, we are getting a lot--a lot--done. There have been a lot of folks who have really helped us in this regard and, again, in a bipartisan way. This bill is an important bill. This bill had three committees of the U.S. Senate and eight committees in the House. So Members--whether it was Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper of the EPW Committee, as I mentioned; on Foreign Relations, Chairman Risch; and, of course, Senator Menendez as the ranking member on the Commerce Committee; Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell; on the House side, I just got off the phone with the dean of the House, Congressman Don Young, a great, great Congressman; Representative Bonamici. She also has been a great advocate. We all were aware of the challenge. This is a huge challenge: ocean debris, plastics. It is a gigantic challenge for my State. Now, I brag about Alaska a lot. Here is a little bit more bragging: We have more coastline than the rest of the country combined, in terms of their coastline. So we see the garbage. We see the trash. We see it, unfortunately, washing up on the shores of Alaska, and that impacts negatively not just the environment but the economy, our fishing industry, our fishing communities, our coastal communities. You may have heard about this World Economic Forum study that said if we don't do anything about the pollution challenge that relates to plastics, by 2050 there could be more weight in terms of plastics in the ocean than there are fish. Think about that. That is a challenge. So we got to work, and here is the thing that I think is so exciting: This is a solvable issue. Estimates are that up to 80 percent of all plastics in the ocean around the globe come from 10 rivers in Asia and Africa. So, of course, it has a huge international component to it. But I just want to thank both Senators Whitehouse and Menendez. I am going to turn the floor over to Senator Menendez to say a few words on this, particularly the international side, which is so important. I will talk a little bit more about what is in the legislation, but this is an example--and it happens a lot; we don't always read about it--of this body coming together on big issues and making a big impact. So Save Our Seas 2.0 is heading to the President's desk. I do want to compliment the President and his team. They had a lot to do with this. They have been very motivated on these issues as well. This is everybody coming together to address a problem that we know is a problem but that we can solve, and we are putting American leadership out front, which will be good for Alaska, good for Rhode Island, good for New Jersey, good for America, and good for the world. Senator Menendez.