Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to talk about transparency, and I want to talk about the need for transparency here in the U.S. Senate more than ever. The House and the Senate are moving with breakneck speed to pass one of the biggest, most reckless spending social bills in U.S. history, over $3\1/2\ trillion--a spending spree that will be the largest in a generation--which will include the largest tax hike that we have seen in peacetime and something that the majority leader himself has called the largest transformation in a generation. Make no mistake. This is trying to transform America--cradle to grave socialism. Don't take my word for it. Here is the way the New York Times described this $3\1/2\ trillion reckless spending bill from the House coming to the Senate. It is legislation that would touch virtually every American's life from conception to age and infirmity, from cradle to grave. That is the New York Times. In other words, the Federal Government will be involved in all facets of every single American life, from birth to death--one of the biggest tax-and-spend programs certainly since President Johnson's Great Society or President Roosevelt's New Deal. With that involvement of our government will come higher taxes, taxes on smaller businesses, taxes on the middle class, and, yes, we believe our Senate colleagues are planning a tax cut for those who live in the big cities, known as the ``Blue State Bailout.'' The chairman of the Budget Committee, who is crafting this bill, Senator Sanders, who has called himself ``a proud socialist,'' is going to have tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires in this legislation. So one would think that a bill of this magnitude, this size, this transformational an impact on every single American, would be a bill that the U.S. Senate, the so-called most deliberative body in the world, would actually hold one hearing on--just one--and would actually hold a markup or two in the different committees. Right now, our Democratic colleagues, with no explanation, are not planning on one hearing or one markup in any committee--none. As, I think, anybody who knows anything about this body knows, that is unprecedented. The House rushed, no doubt. They have already marked up this legislation, way too fast, but, at least, they allowed for amendments. At least, they debated it. When Republicans controlled the Congress in 2017, with regard to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which went through reconciliation, we held numerous hearings in Senate committees. We had markups. We debated amendments. But for this bill--3\1/2\ trillion--right now, our colleagues are not going to do any of that. Of course, the media has given them a free pass. Nothing. The most deliberative body in the world, the transformational bill of a generation, the Green New Deal and all the other socialist ideas, and we are not going to have one hearing, not going to have one markup in one committee. What is going on? Well, I would love it if the majority leader or any other Senate Democrat would come down to the Senate floor and explain to the American people why. Why aren't we doing that? No transparency? So I have a theory, because we are not going to hear from the majority leader or any of my other colleagues. I would love to hear them. Come on down. Explain why we are not having one hearing on the biggest bill in a generation--3\1/2\ trillion. Here is my theory. There are several reasons why they don't want the public to see a hearing or a markup relating to this bill. First and foremost, they don't want to have to defend what is in it. They don't want the public, who is seeing skyrocketing prices at the pump, at the grocery store, seeing all the increases in prices across our country, to see the specifics of a bill that are clearly going to supercharge more inflation. They don't want to have to defend a bill that will have the largest tax increase in American history. They don't want to have to defend a bill or show the American people tax rates on small businesses that will be bigger than anything in the European Union or in communist China, or hundreds of billions to bail out health insurers or $200 million for the Speaker's pet project in the Presidio Park in San Francisco or $5 billion for an environmental justice tax credit for universities, whatever the heck that is. Or how about $100 billion for amnesty for 10 million illegal immigrants, making them eligible for Federal benefits? They don't want to have to defend that. They don't want to have to debate that. These are just a few core elements of the bill as we know it. As I mentioned, there are also the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires in big cities. And they don't want to have to talk about the debt ceiling that my colleagues are trying to raise so they can continue their trillion dollars of reckless spending. The majority leader just mentioned that. He doesn't mention what is in the bill, won't have hearings about what is in the bill, won't have markups for the American people to see. And on the debt ceiling, you know, just last month, 45 of my Senate Republican colleagues and I signed a letter, putting our colleagues on the other side of the aisle on notice that we will not vote to increase the debt limit if they continued down this reckless path. And the reason is simple: My Democratic colleagues are content to go it alone and pass their irresponsible $3\1/2\ trillion socialist spending spree with no hearings, no markup, no nothing, with just Democratic input, which is all we have. Again, when we were going through our budget reconciliation process, we took amendments, we debated them, and we voted on them. They are not doing that. If they are doing this solely by themselves, with no transparency, then our Democratic friends should be solely responsible for raising the debt ceiling to accommodate it. They control all branches of the government. The majority leader clearly knows they could fix that right now. They are creating their own crisis, and they can solve it. So, once again, this $3\1/2\ trillion bill is being rushed. What is another reason? I think they are getting a little nervous that if you had a markup, say, in the Budget Committee, you would see that the author of the bill, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is promoting a socialist agenda that he is proud of because he is actually an avowed socialist. Now, I am not trying to insult anyone. This is what he calls himself. So I think my Democratic colleagues get a little nervous that a bill authored by a socialist in the Senate would have to be defended. But, again, no hearings, no markup, and I know a lot of my Democratic colleagues are uncomfortable with this. They are uncomfortable with the bill. They are uncomfortable with the lack of transparency, but they are not calling for transparency. They are saying: Let's just move this as quickly as possible so nobody in America can see it. So far, they are being successful, but I think we need to put this into context. Here is a piece from the Wall Street Journal from last week, where it talked about putting this rush job on the reckless spending bill from the majority leader and the Speaker of the House in historic context. It said: FDR's New Deal programs were passed incrementally over two Presidential terms with overwhelming Democratic majorities. Democrats created the Great Society over two years, with supermajorities under President Johnson. ObamaCare was hashed out over nine months before Democrats enacted it into law with 56 votes in the Senate. The 2017 GOP tax reform bill-- as I just mentioned-- was debated for months, and its principles for years before Congress voted and marked it up. Now with merely 50 Democrats in the Senate-- fifty-fifty here-- and a five-Member House majority, Democrats are planning to rush through the biggest tax and spending increase in half a century-- With not one hearing in the U.S. Senate, without one markup in any committee. There is no mandate for this, but for most of my colleagues, the quicker the better to move on. Don't look, America. Don't look that the author of this bill is actually a socialist, because it is socialism. Now, this rush job is not good for the American people. So here is a better idea, and it comes from a Senate Democrat, my colleague Senator Manchin. A couple of weeks ago, he very wisely called for a ``strategic pause.'' In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal he said that there is another reason for a strategic pause. Now I am quoting Senator Manchin: We must allow for a complete reporting and analysis of the implications a multitrillion-dollar bill will have for this generation and the next. Such a strategic pause will allow every member of Congress to use the transparent committee process to debate: What should we fund, and what can we simply not afford? That is Senator Manchin. His op-ed also said that amid the inflation that we are seeing, debt and the inevitability of future crises, Congress needs to take a strategic pause on this $3\1/2\ trillion reckless spending spree. So one of my Democratic colleagues is wisely calling for what we all know we need here, which is the precedent of this body, the most deliberative body in the world--a pause, hearings, markups so the American people can see what is actually in this. It sounds like that is not going to happen, and I would love it if any of my Democratic colleagues would come to the floor and tell the American people why. We can and should have debates about our respective visions for our great country. No one should be afraid of looking closely at this $3\1/2\ trillion monstrosity. Let's have a debate about it. Let's debate the massive increases in taxes, the vast expansion of entitlements, the cradle-to- grave socialism that certain Democrats are proposing for every individual American's life. The American people deserve this. My constituents back home in Alaska certainly would welcome such a debate, but the American people deserve this. Why are my colleagues afraid to debate and have hearings and a markup on this massive legislation? It is the American people's money, after all, that will pay for this transformational, socialist bill, and it is their lives that will be impacted and upended if this reckless, rushed bill becomes law. So let's do this. Let's hit a strategic pause, as Senator Manchin asked for. Let's pry this bill open, hold hearings, and lay out our visions for our country. Let's have a debate: More taxes or freedom? Socialism versus market capitalism. Do we want a fundamental transformation, as the majority leader and the budget chairman have asked for, or do we want commonsense legislation that helps working men and women in our country achieve their dreams? I am hopeful that the majority leader will agree with Senator Manchin and do what is right for the American people: Hit a pause, hold hearings, and hold markups before he makes a mockery of the phrase ``the world's most deliberative body,'' which he is now trying to do with this rushed and reckless spending bill.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, there have been a lot of discussions on the floor today--and I fully support them--about an important, important role of the U.S. Senate that we need to take on with regard to our oversight responsibility of what the entire country has recently observed as a fiasco, debacle, with regard to foreign policy in Afghanistan that is going to have consequences for years. Like all of us, I was home over August when all of these images on TV were unfolding. And I will tell you, I don't think I have ever seen my constituents madder about a single issue than this. It wasn't just Republicans. It was across-the-board Alaskans. Why? Because they saw our great country humiliated. They witnessed time and time again the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, telling them blatant falsehoods that they knew were falsehoods, and there is yet to be any accountability on this. Now, the hearings have begun. We have had two hearings on the Armed Services Committee, but they continue to insist on keeping them classified. No reason to do that. We need to have these hearings out in the open. The American people want to see them. We had hearings on the Foreign Relations Committee this past week, and we started to see the beginnings of the Biden administration's strategy as it relates to explaining this fiasco, this debacle. What is it? Remarkably, it is to blame Donald Trump--if you watch the Secretary of State testify in front of the Foreign Relations Committee--and then blame the Generals, and then continue to quote the President of the United States that this withdrawal in Afghanistan was ``an extraordinary success.'' Let me repeat that: An ``extraordinary success.'' That is what the President of the United States has called this. And, unfortunately, his Secretary of State, his Under Secretary of Defense-- who testified in front of the Armed Services Committee just a couple of days ago in a hearing that was the height of deniability on any responsibility--all of them continue to cling to this blatant falsehood that every American knows is not the case. This wasn't an extraordinary success, what we witnessed in Afghanistan. The whole country knows that. In fact, the whole world knows that. This is the cover from a few weeks ago of The Economist magazine-- pretty honest, well-respected magazine. Much of the world reads it. And that is what The Economist called it: ``Biden's debacle.'' If you look in the magazine, it goes into several articles about the implications of Biden's debacle. Here are some of the names, titles of the articles in this magazine: ``The fiasco in Afghanistan is a huge and unnecessary blow to America's standing'' in the world. That is not an extraordinary success. How about this one from another article in The Economist: ``Joe Biden blames everyone else.'' That is not accountability. And then perhaps most importantly: ``The big win for China in Afghanistan is seeing America humbled.'' These are articles in an international magazine--a well-respected international magazine--that the whole world is reading, and this is what happened in Afghanistan. It wasn't an extraordinary success; to the contrary, it was a debacle. It was a debacle. Now, some things are becoming increasingly clear. The administration tries to defend this, tries to explain it. As The Economist magazine mentions, this is President Biden's fiasco. Despite attempts by the civilian leadership in the Biden administration to explain this away with regard to blame on Donald Trump or the generals, this was 100 percent President Biden's decision and debacle. It is becoming increasingly clear even in the classified hearings that we have had on the Armed Services Committee that the President's senior military advisers said to the President: Do not do this, sir. Do not go to zero with our troops. Instead, you should keep a small force there. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly clear that the President's military advisers then said to the President: If you do go to zero, if you do get rid of all our troops--especially if they are pulled out before others leave--you are going to see many bad things happen tactically, operationally, strategically for our country. In essence, what Americans witnessed and saw on TV in August--this was predicted. The President was told this. He ignored this advice, so he owns this debacle. What he needs to do now is tell the truth about it. He and his administration need to tell the truth about it. There are many things that are disturbing about what has happened over the last several weeks in Afghanistan, but what has been so disturbing is not only how the President has been blaming everyone but himself; it is that when he talks to the American people about this issue, he has clearly not been telling the truth, and the American people know it. Let's start with the issue I just mentioned: the advice that the President received from his military advisers. President Biden was on a media interview show on August 18 as this whole fiasco was unfolding. He was asked: Your top military advisors warned against withdrawing on this timeline. They wanted you to keep about 2,500 troops. That was the question from George Stephanopoulos. The President of the United States said: No, they didn't. Later, Stephanopoulos pressed: Your military advisers told you not to do this, that ``we should keep 2,500 troops'' in Afghanistan. The President of the United States: No. No one said that to me that I can recall. That is not true. That is not true. During that same interview, George Stephanopoulos said: We've got, like, 10,000 to 15,000 Americans in the country. . . . Are you committed to making sure that [American] troops stay until every American who wants to [leave gets] out? That was the question. The President said: Yes. I am quoting him: If there's American citizens left, we're gonna stay-- The military is going to stay-- [until we] get them all out. That is a quote from the President of the United States. That wasn't true. In a later interview, the President mentioned that al-Qaida is all gone from Afghanistan. That isn't true. We know that. The President also said that our NATO allies: Every one of them knew and agreed with the decision I made to end, jointly end, our involvement in Afghanistan. That is not true. That is not true. Then the President and his advisers--the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy most recently--have been highlighting this incredible, over- the-horizon capability to go after terrorists whom we still have in Afghanistan. That, we know, has been greatly diminished. We have heard that from the military leaders who know these issues. So even on that issue, they are not leveling with the American people. These are not small, marginal misstatements I am talking about; these are dramatic, obvious falsehoods that go to the very heart of the foreign policy fiasco we have all witnessed. These are life-and-death deceptions that the President of the United States told the American people and he told the world. Here is the thing: The American people, the people in Britain, the people in our NATO ally countries, the leaders in countries that are adversaries--everybody knows that these statements were false. One of the many things that are so harmful to come out of this, because of these kinds of statements--when they come from the Commander in Chief, this undermines the credibility and honor of the United States of America in front of the rest of the world. That is one of the major reasons why so many of my fellow Alaskans and our fellow Americans are so upset by this Biden debacle. There are going to be more hearings next week in the Armed Services Committee. We are finally going to have open hearings. What we will need are straight, truthful answers from the witnesses, particularly those in uniform, who are not obligated to cover for the Commander in Chief's unwise decisions or blatant falsehoods. To the contrary, these witnesses will need to tell the truth--will need to tell the truth. Speaking of the truth, Mr. President, here is one truth that, to me, has been clear for months, and I have been talking about it for months, and it is even more relevant and urgent today in light of this foreign policy fiasco in Afghanistan. The Biden administration's budget is dangerous to America. Take a look at it, America. This is a $6 trillion budget--$6 trillion budget--where almost every Federal Agency in the U.S. Government gets a big increase in its budget; some 40 percent, 20 percent; all this green; double digits for most. Two Agencies--two Agencies--in this Biden budget blowout actually get cuts. Adjusted for inflation, they are cuts. Which are they? The Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. If you are looking at the border right now, you know that Homeland Security doesn't need a budget cut, and we certainly, in this time of increasing danger globally, don't need the Department of Defense cut, but that is what this administration is doing right now. Like the President's actions and statements on Afghanistan, this budget is divorced from reality because here is the reality: We have a growing threat from international terrorism once again as Afghanistan once again has become a safe haven for some of the most dangerous, violent, extremist organizations on the planet. We know it. We see it. The Taliban, the Haqqani network, ISIS-K, al-Qaida--they are all celebrating, and they are all coming back to Afghanistan, and guess what they are doing. They are plotting against this great country. It didn't have to be this way, but that is the reality. Here is another reality: After watching this administration's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, our adversaries are going to test Joe Biden's will in other areas of the world. It is going to happen--Russia with regard to Ukraine or the Baltics or Poland; Iran with regard to Israel, which the terrorist leaders in that country continue to say they want to wipe off the face of the Earth; and, of course, communist China, with Taiwan. As some of you may have seen, during the Biden Afghanistan debacle, China started rattling its saber as it relates to Taiwan for this very reason. Let me underscore this again. The weakness and lack of resolve demonstrated by the Biden administration in Afghanistan and this very weak military budget is likely, I think--very likely, unfortunately--to invite aggression by our adversaries in other parts of the world. Here is my message to the President and his team: You better be ready for this. You better be strong. And being strong starts with supporting a Department of Defense budget that is not cutting our readiness, as this one clearly does, and actually matches the realities of the more dangerous world we now find ourselves in because of this President's foreign policy incompetence. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wish today to honor Marcus Earl Gamble, a member of my Senate staff who has departed to explore exciting opportunities in the great State of Wisconsin. Marcus, who is from Eagle River, AK, has been an invaluable member of my Senate staff since May of 2018. Marcus is the son of Tonya and Brad Gamble, who recently left Alaska for sunny Arizona. After attending Chugiak High School, Marcus graduated from the University of Montana in 2018 with bachelor of arts degree in political science. I first met Marcus in the summer of 2016, when he served as an intern in my Washington, DC office. He immediately distinguished himself with his incredible positive attitude and his ever-present smile. He lit up every room he entered and he soon became a staple of the front office and was lauded by many Alaskan visitors for his friendly, informative banter during tours of the U.S. Capitol. Following his graduation from the University of Montana, Marcus joined my Senate staff as a staff assistant. He quickly became a staff favorite, seeming to never have a bad day as he took calls and greeted visitors to the office. Marcus quickly earned additional responsibility, eventually becoming the internship coordinator and systems administrator. The COVID-19 pandemic showed us all how vital Marcus is to my office. In a matter of hours, he had every staff member outfitted with equipment and made sure everyone was connected and ready to work. Thanks to Marcus, my office didn't miss a beat and was able to continue to serve Alaska. In addition to being an effective member of my staff, Marcus is a trusted colleague. His high regard for his fellow Alaskans is evident in the excellent service he has provided to my staff and the public. His can-do, positive attitude and his know-how for all things big and small is greatly missed. My staff and I will miss Marcus greatly, but are sure he will continue to be a brilliant example of Alaska's indomitable spirit. Thank you, Marcus, for your outstanding service and best of luck as you start this new chapter in life.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, my amendment would withhold American taxpayers' support to the United Nations Human Rights Council until the Department of State certifies that no members of the organization are state sponsors of terrorism and the Treasury Department reports on the prevalence of American sanctioned countries within the organization. Right now, Cuba, which is designated by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, serves on the U.N. Human Rights Council alongside authoritarian regimes and human rights abusers, Russia, and Communist China. Recently, the Biden administration asked this very flawed international organization to investigate our own country's record on human rights. This is an outrage, and the Congress should respond by defunding the Human Rights Council until all of its member countries actually respect human rights. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, do I have any time to respond?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I also urge adoption of the Wyden amendment, when he is talking about forced labor. But I want to point out one important issue. The amendment that we just voted on, my amendment, which bans the use of Federal funds on renewable projects, critical minerals from all of China, was opposed by the vast majority of the far-left environmental groups in America. They want to be able to import these products from China, even though we have them and we have the minerals. So there is a difference between the Wyden amendment and the Sullivan amendment. I urge its adoption, but let's not be fooled here. The far-left, green agenda is to import products from China and not allow mining and critical mineral production in America. That is wrong. I am glad my amendment just passed, but I urge adoption of the Wyden amendment as well. Vote on Amendment No. 3805

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I call up my amendment 3626 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, my amendment would ensure that Federal funds used toward the technology and materials we need to advance our renewable energy sector is made and mined in the United States and by our allies, not by the Chinese Communists. We are currently dangerously reliant on China for roughly 80 percent of materials and minerals vital to the U.S. renewable energy sector and to our national security. It is not only dangerous to our national security to be so reliant on China, but it is also inhumane. China is using Uyghur forced labor to source many of America's alternative energy imports. We have these resources right here in the United States, and by developing our national supply chains, we can create thousands of good- paying jobs, protect our national interests, and deny support to the Chinese Communist Party. However, far too often, extreme environmental groups seek to block domestic critical mineral production right here at home.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3627 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. SULLIVAN. We need to produce these materials here, not in China, and I ask my colleagues to vote yes for this amendment.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Portman for his outstanding work, all the great work that he is doing on this bill with Senator Sinema and others, and I am hopeful that we can get some of these amendments--bipartisan amendments--on the infrastructure bill onto the floor. I know my colleague Senator Hagerty is going to work on that here in a minute. I support what he is trying to do. I have an amendment, for example, that is very bipartisan and would help all the Tribes in America--Alaska Native Tribes, lower 48 Tribes-- to simply get the authority to extend the spending of their original CARES Act money that they got in March of 2020. They just got authority to actually start spending it. All we want to do is extend the deadline. No additional money for anybody. I think every Senator here supports it. These are some of the bipartisan amendments that we are debating, and, hopefully, we are going to get votes on these because whether you are going to be for the bill or against the bill, I think most of us would agree they are going to improve the bill. My amendment would. But I know a bunch of amendments--Senator Cornyn has one that I am supportive of and cosponsoring. So there are a number of amendments that we hope we can get and debate here on the floor. But, as you know, the Senate has a lot of other work besides just this, and I just want to talk a little bit about that work that is going on. Right now, we are going to turn to the Senate majority leader, Senator Schumer. After this debate, he is going to want to turn to a completely different bill, and that is the $3.5-trillion partisan tax-and-spend spree that is just completely inappropriate right now for our country, especially after the Democrats finished up a partisan bill in February of $2 trillion. This is a reckless amount of spending that they are looking at doing, and I am pretty sure some of my colleagues know that. But part of what is going on here is a hijacking of the Democratic Party by the far left. You have seen that in a whole host of areas. Nominations Let me give one other area that is really important, from the Senate's perspective, where that is starting to happen, and that is on nominees. I have been coming down to the floor to talk about nominees, where we have an advice and consent role as U.S. Senators. One in particular is being put up for a position for the Bureau of Land Management, which has enormous power over my State and my constituents--enormous. And yet, somehow, the President of the United States has decided to put forward someone who is not just an extremist but a violent extremist, a former ecoterrorist, named Tracy Stone- Manning, to be the head of the Bureau of Land Management. I have been coming down to the floor and speaking out against this. This nominee clearly undertook activities as part of a group called Earth First!--tree spiking, they call it, that is actually meant to harm Americans who are legally harvesting logs and timber. This is unbelievable that we are actually even debating this nominee. Now, some of my colleagues said: Well, that was a while ago; she is sorry about that. But then she came before the Senate and didn't tell the truth to Senators. That should be No. 2--strike two, you are out. But here is strike three, and this just happened. Her husband, in a Harper's Magazine--I guess he is some sort of far-left radical, too-- said that firefighters who are trying to put out fires in national forests should just let the homes built there burn to the ground--burn to the ground. Ten months ago, she applauded her husband's views on that. The person who looks like they are going to be BLM manager is saying that if there is a fire in, say, a national forest in Alaska and you have a cabin there: ``Let the fire burn the cabin down.'' I mean, this is outrageous. It was just 10 months ago. It is disturbing. And, again, I ask that the President pull that nominee. I would also request that another nominee--here we go again--who has been put forward by the Biden administration should also be withdrawn. And I think some of even my Democratic colleagues have concerns about Mr. David Chipman to head up the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF. He is another extreme activist, this time against the Second Amendment and Second Amendment rights. He will be in charge of an Agency, if confirmed, that is actually in charge of law enforcement with regard to firearms. As the senior Senator from Iowa so aptly put it, many see putting a committed gun control proponent like David Chipman in charge of the ATF like putting a tobacco executive in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services, or Antifa in charge of the Portland police department. Well said, Senator Grassley. I agree 100 percent with you. Count me in and the vast majority of my constituents in Alaska for feeling the same way. I want to talk briefly about why I feel so strongly about this nominee and am coming down to speak out against this nominee as well. The Second Amendment is not some lower class constitutional right. It is the Second Amendment to the Constitution. In my office, I actually have the Bill of Rights emblazoned on the wall of my office--every word of it--to remind me, and others who come there, just how important this is for our country. If my colleagues believed that the Second Amendment was as important as other amendments--freedom of speech, the right to a jury trial, protections against search and seizures--they wouldn't be supporting Mr. Chipman as head of ATF, the law enforcement Agency tasked with enforcing our Nation's firearm laws. They just wouldn't. Let me talk a little bit about his background. I respect Mr. Chipman's 25 years as an ATF agent, but when he left government, he has spent his time working as a gun control advocate and is well-known for his views--extreme views--on restricting the Second Amendment. For instance, on an online site in 2019, he said the following, which is remarkable: While at ATF I conducted studies involving people who failed background checks to determine how many later committed crimes with a gun--many did. I am still quoting him. This is a perfect opportunity to arrest people before committing crimes rather than responding after the fact. Let that one sink in. Has anyone here seen the movie ``Minority Report,'' with Tom Cruise? That is actually what that movie was about: Let's arrest people before they commit a crime. He has actually advocated arresting people who failed background checks. This is extreme, to say the least. And it is, apparently, not only the Second Amendment that he wants to do away with. In his recent confirmation hearing, he appeared to want to ban all rifles larger than a .22-caliber rifle. He couldn't define what constitutes a so-called assault rifle. But good luck protecting yourself in the Alaska wilderness with a .22. He also called for more burdensome regulations on popular sporting rifles under the National Firearms Control Act. And in his work restricting the Second Amendment, he has lobbied Congress for universal background checks and instituting age-based gun bans, which would definitely not work in my State, and wanting to establish a national firearms transfer delay period. Not only is he hostile to Second Amendment rights, but, remarkably, the person they want to put in charge of firearms is condescending to the people in America who actually own them, as so many on the far left are, especially first-time gun owners. In an interview in April 2020, during the height of the pandemic, when it started, he mocked first-time gun owners who were purchasing firearms. Remember, this was a rather uncertain troubling time during the country. And he talked about these people putting themselves and their families in danger because they are going to go buy a firearm. He said: First-time gun owners should put their guns away in their cabinets behind their ``beef jerky and cans of tuna'' that they had presumably been saving for the apocalypse and only take out the weapons when ``the zombies start to appear.'' This is the guy the President has put forward to be in charge of firearm laws. I guess he thought he was being clever in the same way that former President Obama thought he was being wise when he spoke on high about people in rural States clinging to their guns and their religion. But most of us don't find this funny, especially my constituents. In Alaska, we take our gun rights very seriously. We need firearms to put food on the table, to defend ourselves in the wild--rural, urban, Native, non-Native, all races, all income levels. Responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of my State; so is valuing our constitutional right, especially our Second Amendment. We understand these rights form the foundation of our democracy, and when these rights begin to erode, when people in power pick and choose at will which rights of our Bill of Rights they want to protect and enforce, our democracy erodes with it. My constituents in Alaska do not think Mr. Chipman is remotely qualified. And, by the way, I am starting to hear that it is not just Republicans who have this view, but some of my Democratic colleagues have this view. And I hope that is true. Further, several former ATF career officers with whom Mr. Chipman served, sent a letter recently to the Senate saying: His strong personal belief on firearm issues will create serious long-lasting problems for the Bureau in the effective execution of its law enforcement mission. The Biden administration should withdraw his nomination, just like it should withdraw Tracy Stone-Manning's. Our country doesn't need radical officials in charge of very important Agencies, particularly important for my State, who do not view the law and the Constitution in the way they should. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle work to defeat these nominees if and when they come for a vote in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, it is Thursday. It is my favorite time of the week. I get to come down on the Senate floor and talk about someone who has made an impact on their community, maybe the State, maybe the country, and, occasionally--occasionally--the world. That is what I call our Alaskan of the Week. Now, this is going to be a little bit of a historic ``Alaskan of the Week.'' I have been doing this, gosh, going on 6 years almost, and while this is a historic moment, because we have never made someone an Alaskan of the Week twice--it has never happened. We are making Senate history right now. But you might know that we had a historic week in the Olympics because our Alaskan of the Week a month ago, whom we talked about here on the Senate floor, Lydia Jacoby, when she made the Olympic team, she won Gold. And for anyone who saw that race, that 100- meter breaststroke race a couple of nights ago, you will probably never forget it. We certainly are not going to forget it. And I guarantee you, Lydia's hometown of Seward, AK--a beautiful, incredible town of 3,000 people, wonderful people--they are not going to forget it. So history is right here on the Senate floor. Lydia Jacoby, gold medalist--as the Washington Post called it in a headline, ``an Alaskan Stunner''--is our Alaskan of the Week for the second time. You know, I always talk a little bit about Alaska before I do my ``Alaskan of the Week'' speech. A lot of people, particularly at this point in the summer, when they are visiting, are curious about the light: if the Sun ever sets in the summer, when it rises. So what I always try to do is tell people: Come on up and see for yourself. We would love to have you. We are having a beautiful summer. I will give you a hint. Right now in Seward, AK--that is the home of our Gold medal Olympian athlete, Lydia--the Sun will rise today at 5:32 a.m. and set around 10:35. We lost about 5 minutes from yesterday. But if you are still thinking about coming up to Alaska for a summer trip, come on and do it. There is still lots of Sun. There is tons of excitement across my State, and there is tons of excitement across Alaska, in Seward and everywhere else, because of this incredible young 17-year-old. And if you saw it on TV, Seward, AK, Monday night was probably the site of the best Olympic watch party ever--I hope people saw that--ever. So I talked about Lydia about a month ago when she cinched her spot on the team, and she did that by actually swimming the second fastest time in the world in the women's 100-meter breaststroke finals in the Olympic trials for the United States. So we, in Alaska, knew she was something. I will mention this again: Alaskans, we punch above our weight in the Winter Olympics. We do really well in the Winter Olympics, for reasons that most people probably understand, and we have done pretty well in the Summer Olympics, particularly in trapshooting, riflery. We have an Olympic veteran rugby player right now. Alev Kelter from Eagle River is also competing. Her team made the Olympic quarterfinals. She might be on the field later tonight, so good luck to her. We are going to be rooting for her as well. But Alaska has never sent a swimmer to the Olympics, ever, let alone won a gold. As the NBC announcer said after the race, Alaska ``is not exactly your hotbed of swimming in America.'' Someone else pointed out that Alaska is dead last in the United States in terms of swimming pools per mile by far. We don't have a lot of swimming pools. And, as a matter of fact, Lydia's story is even more impressive because there is only one Olympic-sized pool in the whole State of Alaska, and that is in Anchorage, a 2\1/2\-hour drive from Seward, her hometown. So I will just reiterate a little bit more about this remarkable young woman and her dedicated mom and dad who raised her. Her parents, Leslie and Richard, are both boat captains. Leslie is the educational coordinator for the Marine Science Explorer Program at Kenai Fjords Tours, and Rich is a maritime instructor at the Alaska Vocational Technical Center--AVTEC, as we call it--and he also is a guide for Arctic and Antarctic trips. They raised their daughter Lydia in Seward, signed her up for swim classes when she was a toddler. Good job, Mom and Dad. She joined the swim club when she was just 6 years old. When she was 10, she was selected for the Alaska Swimming Zone Team. State qualifying meets allowed her to go on trips. In between all of this, she was and continues to be a musician, learning to play the guitar and upright bass. She sings. She plays at folk festivals. Her band is the Snow River String Band. She was also in theater and in track. She likes to write, take pictures, and explore tidal basins. This is just a good, all-American teenager in Alaska. And, of course, she excelled in swimming. Her parents continued to be, in their words, surprised and amazed and, of course, so proud. One of her coaches, Solomon D'Amico, described her as ``kind, quiet, and yet confident'' and said that Lydia had an ``intense fire,'' one that you might not see immediately in her. But neither her parents nor her coach pushed her too hard. They wanted the drive to come from her, and it certainly did. On Monday night, when this historic race started, the NBC announcers were focused mostly on the reigning Olympic champion and world record holder, American Lilly King, as well as the newly minted Olympic record holder, Tatjana Schoenmaker of South Africa. In the announcers' minds, that is where the competition was. But we knew better, especially in Seward, AK, where about 400 people gathered for the race. All eyes were on Lydia. They knew all along she could do it. In Tokyo, the NBC announcers started to notice the underdog. And if you haven't watched the race, go to YouTube. It is so exciting. And they saw her starting to pull ahead in the final seconds. You could hear the announcers getting excited. They said: Then you've got Jacoby, lane 3, challenging Schoenmaker. Watch Jacoby. Lydia Jacoby, the 17-year-old from Alaska, is putting on the surge of her career. Watch it. It is so exciting. And, of course, she did. Now, there is a video of everybody watching in Seward, which quickly went viral, of Lydia's friends and classmates and neighbors jumping up and down, stomping the floor, when the announcer yelled, ``Alaska has an Olympic Gold Medalist. Oh, my gosh.'' The place went nuts. Anyone watching, if you want to get Olympic joy, go on the website and look at the Twitter video that the Olympics put up. It is a split- screen shot of the race at the top and the great fans in Seward, AK, cheering. And when she wins, watch what happens. It is priceless. It is Olympic joy at its best. Lydia's parents, Rich and Leslie, were in Florida, where NBC and the Olympic Committee had set up a watch party for families of the athletes. They, too, knew that she had it in her to win the gold. Her dad said: ``When she hit the wall at the turn, we knew she was right in there. She likes to run [people down]'' in her races. On television, the joy and the pride of her parents was also priceless. They are still filled with excitement and pride and, let's face it, a little bit of shellshock. And they are so grateful for the outpouring of support from Alaskans and, let's face it, Americans across the country. ``It's true,'' Rich said, ``about Alaska being the biggest small town in the world.'' Rich said that Lydia is doing great; she is happy, tired, a bit overwhelmed. We don't know yet. She might be competing in an upcoming relay race, which she is super excited about. We will see if that happens. As for what is next, her dad said Lydia is going to continue her life of being a normal teenager; participate in high school sports, no doubt, continue to play music; and she is still planning on attending the University of Texas in the fall, a normal teenager but who has touched so many lives across Alaska, particularly Seward, but across the country--really, across the globe. As one Washington Post columnist put it on Lydia's win, ``There are moments at [the] Olympics that redefine a town. And there are moments at [the] Olympics that make you say: `That's why I watch [the Olympics]. That's why I came. That's what [the Olympics is] all about.''' And I think we all saw that when we watched this race. We saw that, including the two other competitors who won the silver and bronze, Lilly King and Tatjana Schoenmaker, who came over to Lydia and were so gracious, hugging her, joyful. So I want to thank them. I want to thank Lydia's coaches, including Solomon, who put so much training and dedicated so much time and effort to her skills; and, of course, to her mom and dad for their very hard work, early morning practices, raising an exceptional daughter; to the competitors; really, everybody. And, of course, to Lydia: Great job on your hard work, dedication, grit, determination. Throughout the years, so many people--throughout the decades, so many people have dreamed of finding gold in Alaska, and you are an Alaskan who found gold in a way that has inspired and overjoyed not just your community of Seward, not just our State, but literally our country and the world. So, Lydia, congrats on the gold medal; congratulations on your win; and congratulations, for the first time in Senate history, on being the only person ever to be our Alaskan of the Week two times. Great job I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Barrasso, for leading the effort to do what is the obvious thing to do on the U.S. Senate floor. Here, in a couple minutes, we are going to vote on one of the most extreme nominees I have ever seen to be nominated for anything requiring the confirmation of the U.S. Senate. To be honest, I can't believe we are even really having this debate. I can't believe that the Senate is going to put forward and vote on an ecoterrorist. I can't believe the President of the United States, after maybe not recognizing who he put forward, didn't withdraw the nomination. And yet here we are. We know this administration supports far-left groups and certainly has nominated some far-left nominees for Senate confirmation to important positions in the Federal Government. But what hasn't happened yet is--they have knowingly put forward a far-left nominee who has clearly lied to the Senate, as Senator Barrasso just showed clearly, who is not just a far-left extremist, she is a violent extremist. So, normally, you would think in America that would disqualify you from a position that requires Senate confirmation--a position, by the way, that is one of the most important positions to my State, the great State of Alaska. And yet here we are. Here we are. We are going to vote for her. And it looks like all my Senate Democrat colleagues are going to vote aye. Shocking. I hope America is watching because this is a bigger vote than just for the BLM Director. This is a symbol of how crazy and far left this administration has gone and, to be honest, how fearful some of my colleagues are of that. So I was here on the Senate floor a little over 1 month ago, and I called on the President to withdraw his nomination to lead the Bureau of Land Management, Tracy Stone-Manning. It was the first time in my Senate career I have called on a nominee to be withdrawn before they had gone through their vote on the Senate floor and vote out of committee. I have never done that before. Usually, the President certainly gets to put forward who he or she wants for positions to fill out his Cabinet and his Federal Government. That is normal. I have never done this before, but I have a reason, just like Senator Barrasso has been coming down on the Senate floor to talk about this, to actually call for this withdrawal, because we have not confronted someone with Tracy Stone-Manning's past, which involves being a member of part of an extreme, radical, violent group that performed violent acts in the name of getting attention, a violent group engaging in overt ecoterrorism. Her past association with ecoterrorism is so heinous that even the Director of BLM from the Obama-Biden administration said that her actions should preclude her from consideration, and her nomination should be withdrawn by the President. You would think that would have been it. The last Democrat nominee for that job said she wasn't qualified because of her ecoterrorism past. That was Mr. Bob Abbey. I want to talk about BLM for a minute and why I am on the floor again talking about this issue. This is an incredibly important and powerful Federal agency, particularly as it relates to my State. The Alaska BLM manages more surface and subsurface acres in my State than in any other State in the country, by far. In fact, I haven't done the math completely, but I believe they manage more acreage in Alaska than they do in the rest of the lower 48 combined. That is how important this is. Let me give you some of the numbers. This includes over 70 million surface acres of land and 220 million subsurface acres of land in Alaska. That is the land equivalent to about one-fifth of the entire lower 48 States. Most States can't even comprehend that size. That is why this is such an important nominee. This, of course, is a huge amount of land, and it is a huge amount of power over my constituents for access to land for our economy, for our environment, for our Native culture. It is imperative the Director of this Agency--and I am not going to always agree with the Director of this Agency--but the Director of the BLM, with so much power and so much control over Alaska and its future and our working families, be someone who is, at minimum, trustworthy, honest, fair-minded, beyond reproach, and certainly--certainly--not involved with an organization whose mission was to perpetuate violence against their fellow Americans. Is that so hard a standard? This nominee is none of these things. As Senator Barrasso so ably has presented, and as I mentioned, she was once a member of an ecoterrorist organization. Now, maybe she can go work for President Biden in some other position, but to get Senate-confirmed, given what she has done, and have U.S. Senators look the other way--it is OK. She was part of a group that was perpetuating acts of violence against their fellow Americans to get attention, and we are OK with that? U.S. Senators are OK with that? My goodness, this is a low bar. Tracy Stone-Manning was a member of Earth First!--a radical, far-left group who has engaged repeatedly in what is defined as ecoterrorism. She wasn't just a member of Earth First!; she was complicit, as Senator Barrasso just mentioned, putting big metal spikes, thick ones, in trees that were meant to either threaten to hurt or actually gravely injure Americans, working families who were harvesting trees in our country legally and who were putting trees in sawmills legally. This was a common technique--tree spiking, as it was called--deployed by such ecoterrorist groups in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and it is extremely dangerous. Let me briefly talk about the group Tracy Stone-Manning was a member of. Again, we know that this administration is putting forth far-left nominees with affiliations with certain groups but not violent groups. That should be a redline that every Senator agrees with. Earth First! began in 1980 by disaffected environmentalists who thought the movement wasn't radical enough. They thought the environmental movement in America wasn't getting enough attention, so they thought, hmm, let's get more attention by perpetrating violence and destruction. The group's slogan is this: ``No Compromise in Defense of Mother Earth.'' In their view, ``no compromise'' meant destroying property, putting steel spikes in trees that could kill someone trying to harvest a tree, and they even celebrated and encouraged such actions. The group put out a manual--yes, a manual--on their ecoterrorist tactics detailing tree spiking and instructions on how to cause other sabotage: Cut down power lines. Flatten tires of vehicles for timber harvesters. Burn machinery. Again, these are all American citizens who were trying to do something legally. We harvest trees legally in Alaska. We have loggers who have been doing this for generations from hard-working American families. So many other States in this Senate--represented here in the Senate. I certainly hope a Senator from one of those States is not going to vote yes in a couple of minutes here on this vote. David Foreman was the founder of Earth First! He talked about these activities, and he said: ``This is where the ecoteur can have fun.'' That is a quote from the founder of Earth First! This is what he called fun. This is how an article in the Washington Post from this time described such an incident of tree spiking that severely hurt one of our fellow American citizens, and I am going to quote from this article: George Alexander, a third-generation mill worker, was just starting his shift at the Louisiana-Pacific lumber mill in Cloverdale, Calif., when the log that would alter his life rolled down his conveyor belt toward a high-speed saw he was working on. Now, we have these saws and these mills in Alaska. These saws are huge, the size of people. They spin at incredibly fast speeds with huge teeth. They are dangerous to work on normally, but when you think about hitting a tree going through a mill with a spike in it, you can imagine, it is an explosion. Let me continue this article: It was May 1987, and [George] Alexander was 23 [years old]. His job was to split logs. He was nearly three feet away when the log [he was working on] hit his saw and the saw [this giant saw] exploded. One half of the blade stuck in the log. The other half hit Alexander in the head [again, these are giant saws] tearing through his safety helmet and [tearing through his] face shield. His face was slashed from eye to chin. His teeth were smashed and his jaw was cut in half. Good job, Earth First! Good job trying to kill a fellow American. This is what Earth First! did. I was up on the Yukon River over the Fourth of July at our fish camp cleaning brush, trees, working a chain saw, and I honestly was thinking about this. I was thinking, man, I have this saw, a little saw, not one of these huge things. Think about if you hit a spike But these were the kind of tactics that Tracy Stone-Manning, the Biden administration's choice to lead the BLM, once conspired in. Does that disturb you, America? Does that disturb you, national media? Does that disturb you, my fellow Senators? It sure the heck disturbs me. Every U.S. Senator on the floor here should be very, very disturbed about this. So what did she specifically do? Again, Senator Barrasso has highlighted this. She hasn't been truthful to the Senate, by the way. That is a crime in and of itself. Here is what she did. In 1989, she did a fellow friend, an Earth First! friend--really a comrade; it is more of a socialist Communist organization--a fellow comrade a favor. She rewrote word-for-word a profane, anonymous letter--you saw it here from Senator Barrasso a couple of minutes ago--from this Earth First! member about the 500 pounds of tree spikes that they had hammered into trees in an Idaho forest--by Earth First!, 500 pounds. That is a lot. She rewrote the letter on a rented typewriter because, she later told a reporter, ``her fingerprints were all over it,'' so she didn't want to get caught. So she knew she was obviously doing something criminal. She didn't just handwrite it; she typed it and then sent the letter to the FBI. And you saw it is a very disturbing, profane letter where she threatens people who are going to get hurt. So she is all in. She is all in. She kept quiet on this for years, and that was 1989, until she came forward in 1993, received immunity, obviously had been investigated-- lied about that--for her part in this tree spiking in Idaho. She has since then portrayed herself as a victim. But a former criminal investigator for USDA Forest Service--again, Senator Barrasso laid this out--wrote a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and here is what he said: Ms. Stone-Manning was not an innocent bystander, nor was she a victim in this case. . . . Ms. Stone-Manning was not only a member of Earth First!, but she played an active role in the Earth First! hierarchy. He described her as vulgar, antagonistic, and extremely anti- government. He said she was uncooperative and refused to provide hair, handwriting samples, and fingerprints as ordered by the Federal grand jury. Come on, U.S. Senate, really? You are going to confirm her? It was only after she knew that she might get in trouble that she began to cooperate. ``Let me be clear,'' Special Agent Michael Merkley wrote very recently. ``Ms. Stone-Manning only came forward after her attorney struck the immunity deal, and not before she was caught.'' In testimony submitted to the Senate, she claimed that the tree spiking was ``alleged'' but never investigated. That is untrue. None of this is true. But here is what is true: She was a member of an ecoterrorist group who had as its goal to threaten or actually hurt Americans. Americans were hurt by this, hard-working Americans doing something legally. She is clearly dishonest, and she has no business heading up the BLM, a Federal Agency with enormous power, especially over my State. So this is a really important issue for me, which is why I have been on the floor talking about it. As I said, the President should have withdrawn her nomination, and I certainly hope my Senate colleagues will not vote to confirm her. I don't think any Republican is going to. But any of my fellow Democrats who live in places where men and women harvest logs, hard-working American families, it is going to be really interesting to see how you write those families after you vote yes, if you do. So I hope we defeat her vote here today, but I think there is something else to talk about. As I mentioned, it is one thing to put forward far-left individuals for these Senate-confirmed jobs. It is quite another to put forward someone who is far left and violent, with a record of trying to hurt your fellow Americans. I think this is a symbol. We know the Biden administration has a lot of allies in some of these groups, but the fact that the President of the United States, with all this evidence that has come out--maybe they overlooked it, but now it is all out--lying, violence. He is still standing behind her, and it looks like all my colleagues are going to vote for her. This is a travesty. I hope all Americans watching ask the proper question. Dishonest, lying ecoterrorist took action to hurt people, who is now going to have one of the most important positions of power in America over my constituents. We need to do better here, folks. If she passes, this is going to show just how far left the Biden administration is. Again, I try to be bipartisan here. I have a lot of friends on both sides of the aisle. But how compliant or scared my Senate Democratic colleagues are of these radical groups. Do the right thing, vote no on this nominee, and get the President to put forward someone else without a violent past who has been honest. We might disagree with them. But to my Senate Democratic colleagues today, do the right thing. You know what the right thing is. Do the right thing. Vote to reject this very radical, unqualified, dishonest nominee. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is Thursday. It is that time of week that I like to come down to the Senate floor and recognize someone special, someone we call our Alaskan of the Week. And it is--well, it is part of my, like I said, favorite time during the week. I think some of our press like it because it signifies that most people are leaving. When we had pages, they loved it. But the reason is because you get to learn a little bit about Alaska, some great stories, some great individuals who are usually doing something really great for their community, their State, sometimes the country, sometimes the world. A lot of times, it is people who maybe don't want any recognition but deserve it. So I am going to talk about our Alaskan of the week, who is 85-year-old Chad Resari. And it is a real amazing story. First, I want to talk a little about what is going on in Alaska right now. In Anchorage, where our Alaskan of the week lives, the sun rose at 5:08 a.m. and will set tonight at 11:01 p.m. Now, that is a lot of sunlight, a lot of energy, even though we lost 4 minutes and 41 seconds since yesterday. So we are losing a lot of daylight, but we still have a lot. So my message to everybody is: You still have time to come up to Alaska, bask in the midnight sun--or at least midnight twilight, depending on where you are. And if you have to wait until next year, we would love to have you. I would tell you, if you come to Alaska next year, one of the many things you should try to see, or even participate in if you are brave enough, is the annual Mount Marathon Race on July 4 in Seward, AK. It is a race that Chad Resari has run 25 times. At 85 years old this year, he was officially the oldest person to have ever finished this race. So competing and finishing any race at the age of 85 is impressive. But let me tell you why finishing this race at that age is truly extraordinary, an inspiration to everybody who is watching--and trust me, he has inspired tens of thousands of Alaskans for his feat. First, the history: The race dates back to 1915 when legend has it two of what we call ``sourdoughs'' were in a bar in Seward. By the way, a lot of legends begin in bars in Alaska. So they were wagering how long it would take to get up and down the 3,022-foot peak in Seward, AK--by the way, a very steep mountain. One insisted that it could be done in less than an hour. The other said, in effect, ``No way.'' The loser was to buy the house a round of drinks. Somewhere in there, some entrepreneur decided to make it a real race, to make it on the Fourth of July. And so every year, the Mount Marathon Race has happened for over 100 years now. The fastest runner in that first race--the race where there was a challenge in the bar, in 1915--did it in over an hour; the legend is one hour and 2 minutes. So he lost the bet. He had to buy rounds. But the race has lived on. Now, the record holder is David Norris--he is from Anchorage--who ran the 2016 Mount Marathon in 41 minutes and 26 seconds. David has since won the race two more times. Now, here is the important thing about the race itself. It is more than a mile, and half of it is straight up a mountain and then back down a mountain, which is more precarious, 1\1/2\ miles. Outside magazine calls it ``the toughest 5K on the planet'' Earth. Others use less polite words to describe it. But everyone who knows about the race will agree that anyone who takes to the mountain and completes it is a rock star. This, again, is from Outside magazine. If you are watching or you are interested, Google Mount Marathon race in Seward, AK. You will get a sense from the pictures. Here is what Outside magazine said--just a taste of what this race is like. I am quoting here: That descent from Mount Marathon is sort of a controlled dive . . . a hectic sliding rush along loose, soft rock-- Oftentimes there is still snow up there-- . . . it's part running, part skiing, part falling, and it often leaves finishers dripping with blood or with gravel shrapnel embedded in their butts and legs. And knees. This is the most pure mountain race I can think of. It's straight up and straight down--no messing around. One of this year's runners, who is one of the few professional runners who come from all over the world to run this race, he said: Alaska doesn't mess around. So that is the race. That is the race 85-year-old Chad Resari ran 3 weeks ago. Thousands of people come out to watch it. It is a huge event in Seward. Runners from around the world and our 85-year-old Alaskan just completed it. Who is this tough, now-fabled person in my State? Chad was born in Hawaii. His parents are Filipino. He spent most of his younger years with his parents on a sugar plantation in Maui. He was an active kid. He ran with his high school running team and, on his off time, sometimes ran up mountains. Good training for Mount Marathon later in his life. After high school, he spent 7 years in the seminary. He is a deeply religious man. At the end of his time, he and his mentor decided that he should serve God, not as a priest, but as a layperson. And as a longtime member of our Lady of Guadalupe parish in Anchorage, he has stayed faithful to his mission since. In fact, my team was talking to him yesterday and he was on his way to mass, which he does very, very, very regularly. After the seminary, Chad was open to a new experience. Someone told him that the wages in Alaska were high, $2.50 an hour at the time compared to about 90 cents an hour where he was. Also, he had a brother in the Army stationed in Anchorage, so he said it ``might be a good idea. Who knows, I might even be able to find some gold''--in Alaska--``too.'' Also, he read in Reader's Digest he could grow strawberries in Alaska, which is true. So he was intrigued. He arrived in Anchorage on March 12, 1962. It was 15 degrees below zero. Chad said: The weather was cool. I'll probably like it here. He didn't really like the heat and humidity in Hawaii. He initially worked as a custodian at Catholic Junior High, then began to get interested in coaching students. As a pastor at the school took note of his interest in teaching, he helped send him to then Alaska Methodist University, now Alaska Pacific University, to get his teaching degree. Until 1966, when Chad retired, he taught PE, first at Central Junior High, then at Mears Junior High. He taught basketball, hockey, soccer, softball, track and field--you name it. Great coach, and he loved working with students and teachers and the other coaches. Throughout those years, and obviously later, he practiced what he preached. Not only did he continue running, he lifted weights, winning first place in his weight class in a power-lifting competition in 1973. Although he continued to run and stay in shape, he ran the fabled Mount Marathon race just twice, in 1963 and in 1964, but then he took a long break because the training for the race is very rigorous and time- consuming. He was married then to Edna--49 years now--teaching, coaching, raising three daughters. He just didn't have time to train for this race. But in 1996, after he retired, he started to train and run Mount Marathon again. He began in earnest from that time. He has only missed this race twice. Once when smoke from forest fires made it too dangerous and again last year, when the race was canceled due to COVID. So he really hasn't missed it at all. What is his secret? ``I'm not sure I have any secret,'' he said. ``My wife is a nurse and she makes sure I have my fruits and vegetables,'' and like a lot of Alaskans, ``I eat a lot of fish,'' he said. They go to mass daily. They always say their evening and morning prayers. When they travel, they pray for their own safety and the safety for everybody on the road or on the airplane with them. ``That's what the Lord would want us to do: keep others in mind.'' You can see Chad is a good man, a spiritual man. He credits God for giving him the strength and stamina to do what he just did, make it up a 3,000-foot mountain, 1\1/2\ miles straight up. This race, when he was officially the oldest person to ever have run it and complete it, was very challenging. But it was also particularly special for him. All across the trail, the people watching--and when you go to Seward, you will see thousands of people--the people running the race, the officials, everybody in Alaska seemed like they were cheering Chad on, 85-year-old Chad running one of the toughest 5Ks on the planet Earth. One of his former students, now in his 70s, was also there cheering him on. This year, his youngest daughter Trina also ran the race. Tough family. When the finish line was in sight, he could see her and his other daughters, Joanna, Sheila, and their children, who all ran up to urge him to finish strong, get to the finish line. His wife, his niece and her husband, his friends were all there cheering for him when he crossed the finish line of Mount Marathon; 2 hours, 29 minutes, 23 seconds up and down a steep mountain in Alaska at the tender age of 85 years old. It was challenging, he said. And after, he was definitely tired. But here is the thing. He plans to do it next year and the year after that and the year after that. He says, as long as he can do it, he is going to continue to do it. ``For some reason, I just enjoy running that race,'' he said. So Chad, thank you for being such a great inspiration. Thank you for praying for everybody, keeping your fellow Alaskans and Americans in your prayers. Congratulations on being the oldest person ever to run the fabled Mount Marathon race. And, importantly, congratulations for being our Alaskan of the Week. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I just want to again compliment my colleague from New York, who has worked this issue hard. It is an emotional issue. I think we all have good intentions on this issue. We all want to get to the right answer for men and women in the military as it relates to these crimes and still have a force. As she said, it is the best military fighting force in the world. I think we are going to have a good debate on this tomorrow, and I am certainly committed to continuing to work with Senator Gillibrand on these issues as they relate to the military and as they relate to the civilian world. They are enormously important, and I take them very seriously. Again, I want to applaud her for her passion, her focus, her commitment. We wouldn't be this far in this debate at all if it weren't for her, and I have a lot of respect for that. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I first want to begin by complimenting my friend and colleague Senator Gillibrand of New York, who has been working diligently--and we all know it--for 10 years, a decade, on this issue, particularly the issue of sexual assault and the related crimes in our military. There is nobody who has been more focused on it, and I applaud her for her relentless efforts--relentless. And I have a lot of respect for her. She has been coming to the floor every night here for the last 3 or 4 weeks and trying to move her bill. I am going to talk about her bill a little bit more and why I and others, in a bipartisan way--the chairman of the Armed Services, the ranking member of the Armed Services, and others--have been coming to the floor to object. But I also want to say that I care deeply--deeply--about this issue for two very important reasons. No. 1, the issue of sexual assault, domestic violence, is an enormous problem in America but is a huge problem in my State, the great State of Alaska. And since my time as attorney general and now my time as a U.S. Senator, I have been very focused on these issues. And I think, again, Senator Gillibrand has done an outstanding job, not just on the military ones but on a whole broad-based number of these kinds of bills that focus on the issues of domestic violence and sexual assault. And I have been proud to work with her on a number of them--my bills, her bills--some of which have become law So as Alaska's Senator, I have been 100-percent focused on this issue for American society, certainly for Alaska, which is a big, big problem that continues to impact millions of Americans and tens of thousands of my constituents. So we need to do something about it. I agree, not just for the military but for the country. And I am committed to continuing the work; for example, my ``Choose Respect'' series of bills that we have here in the U.S. Senate that I am working on with Senator Gillibrand. The other reason I care about this issue--and there is no monopoly, by the way, on people who care about the troops--is that I have a 28- year career in the U.S. Marine Corps and still serving. I have been a commander, and I care deeply about every single member in the military, the challenges of sexual assault that we have, which are very real, which, again, Senator Gillibrand has done such a good job to highlight and to have good order and discipline in our military, which is part of the UCMJ, which is one of the reasons why this issue has taken so long and has been a challenge. Now, the issue that Senator Gillibrand is talking about right now, we will be debating in the full committee in the Armed Services starting tomorrow. Actually, we are starting today, as she mentioned, in the Personnel Subcommittee today. This, again, a lot of the credit--most of the credit--I give to Senator Gillibrand on this issue. We will have a fulsome debate, probably all day, on this issue tomorrow. And if her bill, which is often understood as removing these issues of sexual assault and violent crimes relating to sexual crimes, was the bill that will be passed tomorrow, I will be supportive, removing that out of the chain of command. That is what many, many Senators--and I have had discussions with them--believe that the primary focus of her legislation is and has been. She has convinced now the Secretary of Defense and the President of the United States and the members of the Joint Chiefs. And if that is what the bill was, she would have very, very broad-based support. And I applaud her for that. That victory would be hers more than anyone's. In terms of legislation, of course, I think it will help our troops. Will it ultimately solve this problem, which is a problem in our country and in our military, a huge problem? I think it will help. My view, as someone who understands the military well, is that it is not going to be solved until we have leaders who take this issue very seriously. That is what we need more than anything, and I think our leadership in the military is starting to do this, but more needs to happen. So that would be what most of us think has been the focus of her legislation for 10 years and what would be the result likely to come out of committee as early as tomorrow, carving out these issues, not creating pink courts but creating a professional class of prosecutors and defense attorneys who know these issues, which are often challenging. Senator Gillibrand knows this. ``He said, she said'' kinds of accusations often are at the heart of these horrible crimes. And to have that for men and women--so there is no pink court there, by the way--to have that class of cases removed from the chain of command for all of the reasons she and others have been arguing, if that is the result tomorrow, I think it is going to get strong bipartisan support and support from the administration. Unfortunately, that is not where the bill is. As she is now indicating, this bill would remove all crimes, all felonies--1 year in jail, anything; a bar fight, anything. In terms of the commander's ability to have good order and discipline, all of that under this legislation would be covered--1-year felony. And in many people's view--in my view, certainly--and in the chairman of the committee's view, and the ranking member's view, and many others, this is a hugely broad reworking of the UCMJ, probably one of the most dramatic reworkings of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ever. Now, why are Senator Gillibrand and others making the argument? What she has been doing--she didn't come down here today, but I have been reading her speeches. She has been essentially saying we need this broad carve-out for every crime, every felony in the chain of command because of racial problems in the military. This is a new argument. She and I have talked about it. This is a dramatic argument. This is essentially saying what she said in a recent speech: It is ``necessary''--1 year more--``because the current military justice system is simply not delivering justice, especially not to servicemembers of color.'' This is a big claim. What Senator Gillibrand has been doing with her previous legislation--8 to 10 years of data to back it up on the sexual assault issues. Again, I applaud her on that. She has been dogged. She has gotten data. She has searched for data herself. But this new argument basing this whole broad-based revamping of the whole UCMJ based on the fact that she is now claiming the military justice system of the United States cannot serve minority members has not been backed up by data-- has not been backed up by data. She cites three studies, recent studies. Again, this is a new argument. A lot of my colleagues say: Whoa. I didn't sign up for that bill thinking it was based on some kind of broad-based systemic racism in the military. But that is the new argument. We need to get that right before we claim that every member of the military, every commander, is somehow a racist. Even the studies that she has now focused on are saying that disparity is not proof of racial discrimination. The U.S. Air Force--one of the studies that she has talked about says: While the presence of disparity alone is not evidence of racism, discrimination, or disparate treatment, it presents a concern that requires more in-depth analysis. I fully agree with that. Last year, when we were debating the NDAA, there was an issue that came to my attention about how we had very senior military members, four-star generals, who were not making the rank. We have a Service Chief right now, General Brown, who is the first African-American Service Secretary, Indian Services. When I talked to him, that was disturbing to me. I put forward legislation saying: Why is that? What is going on with our military? Let's figure that out. What I am saying to Senator Gillibrand is and what the Air Force is saying is, if this is a problem, let's figure that out. The GAO study that she cites says this: These findings show an association for disparities at particular stages of the military justice process, but are inconclusive regarding other stages. However, GAO's findings of racial disparities, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred, as that is a legal determination that would involve other corroborating information and supporting statistics. Again, is there a challenging disparity right now that Senator Gillibrand has been highlighting? I believe so. Is it proof that the UCMJ is somehow systemically racist and needs this broad-based change? That is what she has been arguing on the Senate floor. Unlike her other argument on sexual assault and the crimes that we have seen over the years where there is 8 to 10 years of data that we have all been looking at--again, a lot to her credit--this is something that needs much, much more data before we make broad-based claims. For example, some of those who are supporting her bill sent out this supporting blog post that they said was supporting the legislation, the broad-based legislation. This was from the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. This has been put out by staff to support her broad-based legislation. It says: Almost all military disciplinary action occurs at the discretion of military officers, and with over 75% of the officer corps [being] white, systemic bias is not just a function of military justice, it's a foregone conclusion. That is a pretty broad statement. That is a pretty broad statement. Where is the data to back that up? In essence, because you are a White commander, you are not going to give justice to minorities? I find that offensive as a commander who has commanded all kinds of Alaska Natives, African Americans, Hispanics, Whites. So we can't base this broad-based legislation--all felonies--on this relatively new claim that does not have data supporting it that somehow we need to revamp the entire UCMJ because White commanders are racist. I don't think we should do it. I want to work with Senator Gillibrand on these and other issues tomorrow. It will be an important debate. I am hopeful that the years of her hard work and data on this issue are going to result in a carve- out for sexual assault and related crimes of violence that will be bipartisan. It will be supported by the Secretary of Defense, the Service Secretaries. Again, I think Senator Gillibrand will deserve an enormous amount of credit for her determination over a decade to make that happen. But with regard to the broader legislation that she has asked for unanimous consent on, for the reasons I just discussed, I object.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, as my colleague from Oklahoma Senator Lankford just gave a wonderful speech on the Fourth of July, we are all focused on heading home for the Fourth of July, celebrating freedom, celebrating our independence, celebrating liberty. And we all know that that freedom is not free. There is a saying at the Korean War Memorial, etched in stone, that says those very words: ``Freedom is not free.'' The sacrifices of our military are something that all of us are going to be thinking about over the course of the Fourth of July week, weekend, as we celebrate and commemorate American liberty, American independence, and American freedom. Our military has helped us provide that, both here at home but also, importantly, abroad. I had the opportunity to go on a congressional delegation--Senate delegation with two of my Senate colleagues, Senator Coons and Senator Duckworth, a couple weeks ago to Korea--South Korea and Taiwan. And it doesn't matter where you are from in America, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, when you go overseas and you go to countries like that, countries and places that literally exist because of the sacrifice of the American military, it makes you humble, and it makes you proud. South Korea and Taiwan--vibrant economics, vibrant democracies. And if you know the history, those two places wouldn't be that way if it weren't for the sacrifice, literally, of tens of thousands of Americans. It is no exaggeration to say--whether it is in those places or in places at home or in Europe or in Asia--that the United States has been one of the most powerful forces for liberating humankind from oppression and tyranny than any other force in the world. Think about it. Hundreds of millions of people across the world and in our own country, over the decades, have been liberated by men and women wearing the uniform of the United States. As we contemplate the Fourth of July week, weekend, that is something every American can take pride in and should take pride in. But as we all know, freedom is not free. Many of us think that defending our Nation should be our priority No. 1 as part of our job in the U.S. Senate. Budgets are a reflection of an administration's values and priorities. And if you look at this budget--this is the $6 trillion blowout budget of the Biden administration, where up here you have every single Federal Agency with double-digit--20-percent increases, 40-percent increases, 15-percent increases across the board. The two Agencies charged with the national security of our Nation, the Department of Defense and Homeland Security, in terms of priorities for this administration, are dead last. Actually, if you adjust the budgets for inflation, these are cuts-- almost 3 percent cut in our military budgets and probably close to 4 to 5 percent for Homeland Security. Budgets reflect values of administrations and priorities, and this administration, right now, is prioritizing our military and our national defense dead last. We had the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in front of the Armed Services Committee last week, and I showed them this chart, and I asked them: How can you tell the troops that you lead that this administration prioritizes our military and national defense over other missions of the Federal Government? They couldn't give a really good answer because there is no good answer. If you look at this chart, if you look at the Biden administration's budget, they are prioritized at the bottom. This is a battle of ideas, and when we come back from the Fourth of July recess, we are going to have this battle. I know I have colleagues, Democrats and Republicans--I have spoken to many on both sides of the aisle--who fundamentally disagree with this--fundamentally disagree with this. You might remember last summer we had a debate when Senator Sanders brought forth his defund the Pentagon amendment. That is what he called it. At the height of defunding the police, we had Senators saying we are going to now defund the Pentagon--15 percent across-the-board cuts to the military. That is what Senator Sanders wanted. By the way, Senator Schumer was a cosponsor of that. And now they are in charge here, the majority leader, the chairman of the Budget Committee, and in many ways they are getting what they wanted--almost 3 percent cut to our military. I guarantee it is not what the American people want; it is not what my constituents want; and I don't think it is what the vast majority of U.S. Senators want. So we are going to battle this. We are going to battle this, and I am going to ask my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with me to reject this. We need to reject this. We shouldn't prioritize our military dead last, which is what the Biden administration and, unfortunately, some of my colleagues here are doing. I would like to end by just noting that tomorrow is actually another anniversary. We were talking about the Fourth of July, but June 25 is the 71st anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean war, which was June 25, 1950. Unfortunately, not enough Americans, in my view, have a lot of knowledge of the Korean war. It is even called the forgotten war. I don't think it should be called the forgotten war. It should be called the noble war because Americans went to a place they didn't even know to defend freedom, which they did after a hard, difficult, violent struggle. But in the summer of 1950, we lost thousands and thousands of young Americans, young American soldiers, young American servicemen. Why? Because they were not prepared to fight. We went from 1945, having probably the most formidable military in the history of the world, to 5 years later--because of defense cuts, because of lack of leadership by civilian and military leaders in the United States--a military that could not fight, a military where we lost thousands of young American soldiers because they weren't ready because budgets had been gutted. We can never allow that to happen again, and as we head into the Fourth of July weekend to celebrate the Fourth of July and our hard- fought freedoms and liberty, we need to look at this budget, come back here and say to the President and others: We are not--we are not going to prioritize the national security of our Nation last. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, it is Thursday, and it is my favorite time of the week. I get to come down to the Senate floor typically every Thursday and talk about Alaskans who are doing something amazing for their communities, their State, maybe even their country. Heck, this one is kind of doing something for the world, whom I refer to as the Alaskan of the Week. I love doing it. We have a really special Alaskan of the Week this week whom I am going to talk about, Lydia Jacoby--a very special 17-year-old who is from Seward, AK. We are so excited about this. Those of you who have been following our Alaskan of the Week speeches might notice that this is the first new poster board we have had ever. So this is the poster board of the Alaskan of the Week for Lydia because we are so excited about her. Before I talk about Lydia, I always like to say a little bit about what is going on in Alaska. A lot of people always ask about the light. They are curious about the light in the summer, particularly as we just had our summer solstice. If you want to come up and really see it, come on up. We are open. We would love to have you--a trip of a lifetime. If you are thinking about coming to Alaska, come to see it yourself this summer. Every American should come on up, but I will give you a hint. On the light that is happening right now, if you were in Seward, AK, where Lydia is from, the Sun will rise at 4:33 a.m. and set at 11:26 p.m., with a loss of just 36 seconds from the summer solstice, which occurred a few days ago. That is a lot of sunlight, and it doesn't really even get dark when the Sun goes down. It does just for a little bit. So it is a great time to be in the State. Come on up. It is a great time to be in Alaska, and I can't wait to get home for the recess, our Fourth of July--lots of Sun, lots of excitement. There is particularly a lot of excitement around this young, intrepid Alaskan, Lydia, who on Tuesday, in Omaha, NE, swam the second fastest time in the world in the women's 100-meter breaststroke finals in the Olympic trials. She is the second fastest breaststroker in the world, and she is only 17. This cinched her spot to represent the United States in the Summer Olympics in Tokyo. This is an incredible and--I will admit it--a rather unlikely story that we are all so proud of in Alaska. With regard to the Olympics, Alaskans typically punch way above our weight. In the Winter Olympics, we really, really punch above our weight, with many, many Alaskans making the Olympic team for the Winter Olympics every 4 years. We have done well in the Summer Olympics as well. Olympic veteran, rugby player Alev Kelter, from Eagle River, will be competing this year. Shortly, will we will be learning if Allie Ostrander, who is a really amazing young woman, steeplechase champion and another incredible athlete, will be in the Olympics this year. We will learn soon. But we have never sent a swimmer to the Olympics. You don't always equate Alaska and swimming. She will be the first, and Alaskans across the State are cheering on Lydia. So let me tell you a little bit about this remarkable young woman. Her parents, Leslie and Richard, are both boat camp captains. Leslie is the educational coordinator for the Marine Science Explorer Program at the Kenai Fjords Tours. Rich is a maritime instructor at the Alaska Vocational Technical Center, what we call AVTEC. By the way, a little aside: AVTEC does great work. I have really enjoyed my visits there. So, Rich, keep up the great job there. He is also a guy for Arctic and Antarctic trips. So that is Mom and Dad. They moved to Alaska when Lydia was 9 years old. Richard came to the State in 1992 when he was fresh out of college, and like so many, they fell in love with the State and stayed. They raised their daughter, as I mentioned, in the town of Seward, AK. There are a little under 3,000 people there, and it is just an hour south of Anchorage. It is nestled between Resurrection Bay and soaring mountains. Its motto is ``Alaska starts here.'' I love Seward, AK. I get there as much as I can. I am going to be there in a couple of weeks, actually. It is known for stunning landscapes, a strong, generous community, and amazing people. So if you are visiting Alaska, you have to go to Seward. Leslie and Richard signed Lydia up for swim classes when she was just a toddler. She joined the swim club when she was 6 years old. When she was 10, she was selected for the Alaska Swim Zone Team. State qualifying meets allowed her to go on trips. In between all of this, she was a musician, learning to play the guitar. She played at folk festivals. She was also in theater and in track--an all-around great athlete and an all-around great young woman. As she excelled at swimming, her parents continued to be, in their words, ``surprised and amazed.'' Obviously, she has a deeply competitive streak, but you would not know it when you meet her. Her parents were surprised. ``In the right setting, that streak can really be turned on,'' Rich said. When she has a lousy race, she just shrugs it off. Her dad remembered one of her first swim meets when, halfway across the pool, she inhaled some water. She jumped out and didn't want to get back in. Well, she is back in. As her dad said, she has come a long way. One of her coaches, Solomon D'Amico, describes her as ``kind, quiet, confident.'' He says she has an ``intense fire,'' and when she sets her mind to something, like the Olympics, she goes for it. Now, neither of her parents pushed her too hard--they wanted the drive to come from her, not them--but it certainly did come from her. Solomon, her coach, is a former marine and athlete. Alaska is full of intense runs--marathons, ultra-marathons--but one of the most challenging is in Seward, AK. It is called the annual Mount Marathon Race, the Fourth of July, in Seward, a grueling 1.5-mile climb almost straight up and straight back down Mount Marathon. He has run this 24 years in a row. That is tough--Solomon, her coach. Solomon really didn't know much about swimming when he started coaching the small Seward swim team. In fact, Seward, AK, doesn't even have an Olympic-size swimming pool, but they all worked hard. He encouraged them to be the best that they could be--to enjoy life but to also lift weights. Strength, Solomon said, is needed to excel in swimming, particularly at the breaststroke. Lydia took to the weight rooms. She swims between 5 to 7 days a week, 1-hour to 90-minute sessions. She lifts weights about 3 hours a week. And as Solomon has said, ``You want . . . athletes to be more process than outcome driven.'' Lydia fell in love with all the hard work. No one was ever going to give her a hard time if she missed a practice or a session, but every single opportunity she had to swim, she would be there. Well, on Sunday, Lydia will head to Hawaii to train with Team USA. Then, a few weeks later, she will head to Tokyo. Now, because of COVID restrictions, unfortunately, her parents won't be there to watch in person. Her father said: ``It's a [bit of a] weird thing to send your kid across the world. But she's an experienced traveler and there are great people involved with USA swimming.'' ``We are over the moon proud of her,'' her dad said. So are we. We are so proud of you, Lydia. You are a role model for so many aspiring swimmers, not just across Alaska but across the country. So thank you for representing Alaska and our Nation so well. Good luck in the Olympics. Congratulations on your success and congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I would like recognize an important member of my staff, my former director of national security policy, Jason Suslavich. I, along with the rest of my team was saddened to have Jason leave our office this February. While born in Winchester, MA, Jason was quick to embrace the Alaskan spirit. Up north, Jason traded his beach walks for hikes and his golf clubs for a fishing rod. Like a true Alaskan, he loved his wild Alaska seafood and overall good cooking and could talk for hours about his favorite dishes at his favorite restaurants throughout the State. One of his favorites was the osso bucco at Orso--and could speak tirelessly about it. And did. In high school, Jason was the all-State wrestling champion and was inducted into the National Wrestling Hall of Fame. His dedication and tenacity expanded beyond the wrestling mat into his academics. At John Hopkins University, Jason majored in international studies, which he has applied throughout his career. Jason's work in Alaska politics began over a decade ago in Congressman Don Young's office. As the Congressman's legislative assistant, Jason laid the foundation for his career in the Senate, building productive coalitions and facilitating bipartisan collaboration. One year into my first term. Jason joined our office. At this time, I was still learning the ropes in the Senate. His work ethic, experience, and dependability made my life a lot easier and made him an irreplaceable asset to my team. Jason was good-natured, a team player, and a legendary prankster. From day-to-day tricks to years-long plots, Jason was committed to the craft of mischief--just ask his nemesis, Mike Anderson. Jason's contributions to our office--and to the State of Alaska, particularly building on our three pillars of military might--were enormous. His leadership lives on with Team Sullivan. He is greatly missed. If this past year has taught us anything, it is the importance of trusting our intuition. After 13 years working for Alaska s delegation, Jason has decided to chart a new journey--working in the aerospace sector. He has loved space since he was a child. In this next chapter, Jason can dedicate time to his great passions: space exploration, the strength of our Nation, the Boston Red Sox, and most importantly, his beautiful and brilliant wife Sarah. Jason may not be working in my office, but he will always have a home in the Last Frontier. His dedication to the State has forever solidified him as a welcome friend and honorary Alaskan. Please join me in wishing Jason much success and happiness in the future.