Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I am honored to be on the Senate floor with my colleague Senator Scott from the great State of Florida. We are here to talk about an issue that really matters to both Alaska and to Florida and, I would say, that actually matters to the whole country. Let me begin by saying that, like all States, my State, the great State of Alaska, struggled through the pandemic. There were a lot of challenges. I am proud to say that, with regard to the health challenges of the pandemic, I am very honored and privileged and proud to represent a great group of Americans, my fellow Alaskans, who came together on the health side despite our huge challenges in terms of its being a giant State with a dispersed population. We worked together, and on so many indicators of health that were directly related to the pandemic, Alaskans did very well. We were the No. 1 per capita in terms of testing throughout almost the entire pandemic. Remarkably, we have been the No. 1 State per capita in terms of vaccine distribution, which is a mini miracle, if you know Alaska, given how big it is. We had vaccines going out of snow machines, dog sleds--you name it. We were getting it out to everybody in a more efficient way than in any other State in the country and, importantly, thank God, with one of the lowest per capita death rates in the country. We are proud of that. Yet our economy--like many but I would say almost uniquely--is getting hammered, and people are suffering economically, first by the pandemic, of course, and now, unfortunately, by our own Federal Government. Let me just give a couple of examples. The energy sector is very important to Alaska and very important to America, and, yes, we still need energy. Oil and gas, we need them. We have some of the greatest workers in the world in my State, but the Biden administration thinks we don't need them. It has been crushing my State with nine Executive orders directed solely at the State of Alaska to shut us down--nine by this administration. There is no State in the country that is getting that kind of attention. We don't want that attention. Regarding commercial fishing, our State has been what I like to call the superpower of seafood. Over 60 percent of all seafood harvested in America comes from Alaska. This has been hurt by the pandemic. The issue that we are here to talk about today is tourism, which is so important to Alaska and so important to Florida, and it is what I want to talk about with my good friend Senator Scott. It is about bringing relief to our fellow Americans--Floridians, Alaskans--and working to immediately pass the CRUISE Act. That is our bill, which would provide relief to coastal communities in our country--in Alaska and in Florida--and would enable a responsible return of cruise ship activities, which are so important to the small business owners in our States, whose livelihoods depend on having a robust tourism sector. Let me just very quickly mention one thing. Alaska is open for tourism--one of the most beautiful places in the world. In fact, America, if you want to come and have a great vacation, come on up to Alaska this summer. Not only will you have an amazing experience, but we just announced 2 days ago that you can get a vaccine. Come on up. If your State is too inefficient for you to get a vaccine, have a great vacation in Alaska, and you will get a vaccine in Alaska as well. You can do both. You can see the most beautiful State in the country. You can fish, see glaciers, wildlife, climb mountains, whale watch. If you do that, it is going to help our economy and help the small businesses--fishing guides, hotels. I know Americans want to help one another. That is what we have been doing for the last year. We want you to come up, stay safe, and get a vaccine. But here is what we need. To enable that to happen in Alaska and in other parts of the country, we need the CDC to better understand its job, its mission, and its role. This particularly relates to the issues of cruise ship passengers and the ability for cruise ship vessels to start to return to America's waters as they are doing throughout the rest of the world. In Asia, Europe, and Latin America, people are cruising safely right now, but the CDC is dragging its feet. It is dithering. I have been meeting and my staff has been meeting with them, certainly, weekly. I have met twice with the CDC's Executive Director, but all we get is foot-dragging. All we get are excuses. All we get is guidance that is muddled, confusing, and simply unworkable. Here is the thing: In my State, communities are dying, and no one seems to care. At the CDC, the bureaucrats there don't seem to give a damn about what Americans are suffering through right now, literally. I don't know how many times we can be on calls with them wherein we get no response. When people lose jobs and lose businesses, that has a health impact too. Here is what our simple bill does, the CRUISE Act. First, it will require the CDC to issue recommendations for how to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 to passengers and crew on board ships. This will be in addition to what the industry has already put forward, and there are over 70 recommendations. Second, our bill will establish an interagency working group that will develop recommendations to facilitate the resumption of passenger cruise ship operations in the United States--in Florida and Alaska. The recommendations will facilitate the resumption of passenger cruise ship operations no later than July 4, 2021. Our bill will require the CDC, on no later than that same day, Independence Day, to revoke the order entitled ``Framework for Conditional Sailing and Initial Phase COVID-19 Testing Requirements for Protection of Crew.'' Our bill, finally, ensures that the HHS and CDC retain all appropriate authorities to make and enforce the regulations necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases on individual cruise ships. This is a commonsense bill. We need the CDC to continue to work with us, certainly, but to recognize that by dragging its feet, tens of thousands of Americans are going to continue to suffer when they don't have to. We can do this responsibly. My State and the State of Florida want to do this responsibly, but we can't wait any longer. Our tourism season in Alaska is very short. Our businesses need to know that they can open again, and our citizens need help. I yield the floor to my colleague from Florida, whose citizens are experiencing some of the same devastating impacts that my fellow Alaskans are.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my friend and colleague Senator Scott from Florida.

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wanted to come down to the Senate floor for a couple reasons, but first I want to talk a little bit about what happened in Alaska last weekend--actually, a really important meeting between the United States and China, our senior diplomats, their senior diplomats. It took place in Anchorage, and let's just say the meeting was as frosty as the Alaska air. It was a tough meeting. The Chinese came out, kind of took a little advantage of being extra verbose in their opening statements, going against the 2-minute, agreed-upon time limit. It was a bit of a tongue-lashing, I think, of the U.S. team, our Secretary of State, Tony Blinken. I think our team pushed back appropriately--the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan; Kurt Campbell, who also works at the National Security Council. But this was the first face-to-face meeting between the United States and Chinese diplomats with the Biden administration. What we saw was a very confident China, a very aggressive China that showed up in Alaska. For example, they were talking about ``Chinese- style democracy.'' We also know that as a dictatorship. Earth to the Chinese Communist Party: There is no democracy in China. You run an authoritarian regime, so don't try to fool anybody. It is a dictatorship, not a democracy. But the bigger issue is this: Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party clearly believe that it is rising, that its rise for this century is unstoppable, and that the United States--and the West but particularly the United States, our country--is declining and there is nothing we can do to stop this. They say this in private. They say it in public. And they believe it. They are confident to the point of being cocky, as we saw in Alaska, to the point of calling their dictatorship a democracy, which, of course, it isn't. Now, my view--and I think it is the view of every Senator here; I certainly hope it is; I think it is--is that it is never a good idea to bet against the United States. Every major power in the world that has done so has lost that bet. That is a fact, but we clearly have work to do. We have a lot of work to do as it relates to this challenge. I have been coming to the Senate floor for the last 6 years talking about this issue, talking about this challenge, talking about some of the things that we need to do to address the biggest U.S. strategic challenge for this century. It is the rise of China. Now we have a new administration in power, and it was clear from the Alaska meeting that the Chinese Communist Party plans to aggressively challenge the Biden administration. Now, I have a lot of disagreements already with the Biden administration, especially the way in which they are treating my State. I have been speaking on the Senat floor--eight Executive orders focused on Alaska, shutting down our economy, killing jobs. And I will fight them hard on this. But, on China, I believe it is imperative that we all work together, not as Democrats and Republicans but as Americans, as we have done when other major powers have threatened the United States. The Communist Party of China clearly sees one of our major weaknesses as our political divisions. They write about it. It is in all the intel. They talk about it. Look, we are a democracy. We are transparent, unlike them. Our political divisions are on full display. You see them tonight. By the way, we have had political divisions since the founding of the Republic. China doesn't share their political divisions with the world, but they have them, no doubt about it. But here is a fact. Here is a fact, and we all need to know this. Every American needs to know this. Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party's worst nightmare is seeing a determined, long-term, bipartisan, strong U.S. strategy to deal with the rise of China, to deal with the rise of China for what they are: our No. 1 geostrategic challenge for this century. That is why we need to work together on this issue. It is something I have been calling for for a long time. And here is the good news: It is something that is starting to happen. It is something that is starting to happen. Now, I had a good opportunity to meet with Secretary Blinken, to meet with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and his top China national security official, Kurt Campbell, when they were in Alaska. I also was able to get a good debrief from Secretary Austin about his visits in Asia, particularly in India. The Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor talk about dealing with China from what they call positions or situations of strength--situations of strength. They actually took that term from former Secretary of State Dean Acheson when he was doing something that they are currently trying to do now: putting together a coalition, a long-term strategy, in 1947, 1948, 1949 to deal with the Soviet Union, and they did it with Democrats and Republicans. NATO, the strategy of containment--these were all things that came together in this body. So I want to talk very briefly about some of these positions of strength that the administration is trying to put together as it relates to China, and I think it is in our interest to help them. First of all, I think it was important and, of course, as an Alaska Senator, I was glad that meeting took place in Anchorage, but it was also a symbol. One of the things that the Chinese Communist Party frequently states--Xi Jinping frequently states it--is that Asia should be for Asians. The subtext of that is, we are trying to kick the United States out of Asia. Well, here is more news for the Chinese, for the Communist Party of China: We are an Asian nation. We have been an Asian nation for centuries. My hometown of Anchorage, where this meeting took place, is closer to Tokyo than it is to this city, Washington, DC. The Aleutian Island chain goes to the other side of the international dateline. We are an Asian nation. We are not leaving. We have been there 200 years; we will be there 200, 300, 500 more. So that is No. 1, and I am glad they held the meeting in Alaska for that reason, on American soil, and they chose to do that purposely. But let me talk about a couple of other positions of strength that I think it is incumbent upon us to try to help this administration with, help our country with. Some are going to be up to the Senate and the House. A lot more are going to be up to the President and his team. Where we can influence it, we should. As I mentioned, politically being unified on issues that relate to China is exactly what the Chinese Communist Party fears the most, and it is starting to happen. Legislation to outcompete China economically--critical, critical. The more that we can do that, the more that we can show we are united, the more important what we do here is going to matter in the long-term competition with regard to China. Let me give another one. Allies. Allies. The United States is an ally-rich nation. China is an ally-poor country. They have very few allies: maybe North Korea; Russia maybe, maybe not. China doesn't really have allies; they have customers. We have a network, and it is one of our most important strategic advantages. We need to build upon that network of allies, deepen it, expand it. And I will give the administration a lot of credit for setting this up in an important way for their first meeting, the leaders of the quad. The quad is the United States, Japan, Australia, and India, started by President George W. Bush, taken to another level by President Trump, and taken to a really high level by President Biden, the leader level. It was a really smart move. The quad can help anchor our alliances in the region in a critical way. Three of the four biggest economies in the world are part of the quad. Some of the best militaries in the world are part of the quad. So to have that meeting, even though it was virtual, with the leaders--the President, Prime Ministers--of the quad was smart and something I think they should be commended on. Then to have the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense go to Korea, go to Japan; continue on, the Secretary of Defense, to India--also very smart. The Chinese know this is a huge weakness of theirs, and it is a huge strength of ours. As Senators, the more that we can do to encourage this on our own, go to these countries, reinforce the importance of these alliances--it is clearly a position of strength that the administration is off to a good start with. Let me give another one, a position of strength. Our military. Our military. This is going to be pretty simple. If we see dramatic cuts to our military--and right now the Biden administration is debating this. There is a real fight going on internally: Where is the budget going to be? We can't see cuts. The second term of the Obama-Biden administration cut defense spending by 25 percent. They gutted readiness. The Chinese and the Russians were applauding that whole period. We have worked hard to build that up under the Trump administration and Republican Senate. They need to keep it going. And here is going to be a test. Last year in the NDAA, we put in the Defense bill a bipartisan piece of legislation called the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. The admiral in charge of the INDOPACOM region testified in front of the Armed Services Committee very recently. His replacement testified yesterday. All of them said we need to fully fund the Pacific Deterrence Initiative--a bipartisan part of the Defense bill last year--and $4.6 billion is what they think we need to reorder the balance, particularly in the area of the Taiwan Strait. That is public. The administration is debating this right now. They need to fund it. This body will approve it. That is going to be a position of strength that is up to them, but people are watching. We are watching, our allies are watching, and, of course, the Chinese Communist Party is watching. Let me give one more, one more that I think is critical: taking advantage of America's resources, critical minerals: Yes, energy; yes, natural gas; yes, oil. Prior to the pandemic, we were the world's energy superpower, largest producer of oil in the world, largest producer of natural gas in the world, largest producer of renewables in the world. This is a good thing for our country. Our allies in the region know it; the Chinese know it. And again, there is a debate within the administration right now on energy. The President has recently told some of our great Union leaders he is ``all in for natural gas.'' We should do that. That is the reason we reduced greenhouse gas emissions over the last 15 years, more than any other country--big country--in the world because of the revolution of natural gas. Our allies need that. They know it is a national security strength that we have. On the other hand, we have other elements in the administration that clearly want to unilaterally give away our energy comparative advantage, restrict production of oil and gas. It makes no sense. So energy, energy is another position of strength that we should be encouraging, and I certainly am encouraging the Biden administration to recognize it as something good for our economy, good for jobs and, yes, really good for our national security and really important in our competition with China. The Biden administration national security team knows this. I think they recognize it. But again, we will be watching. It is important. This is going to be an issue that we are going to be focused on here in the U.S. Senate, in my view, for the next 50 to 100 years, if we are doing it right. If we work together, if we work from positions of strength, as the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor have mentioned, are focused on, the way this is going to end is the way it ended with other major powers that have challenged the United States. I am very confident of that, and I think most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are. We need to get working together on that.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is not Thursday yet, but it is almost Thursday, and that is when I love to come down to the floor of the U.S. Senate to recognize an Alaskan who is doing something great for our State. And as many know here, we call this person our Alaskan of the Week. Now, it is one of my favorite times of the week. I know that a couple of Hill watchers like it too. I want to give a shout-out to Chris Cioffi from Roll Call. He actually did a piece in Roll Call today about the ``Alaskan of the Week'' series. So thank you, Chris. I hope you are watching. It is a little late, and it is not Thursday. But anyway, I appreciate the shout-out in your series today. I am going to get to the punch. Our Alaskan of the Week tonight, this week, is Rod Boyce, a friend of mine, a former longtime editor of one of my favorite--actually, it is my favorite newspaper in Alaska, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. He clearly is deserving of this great, important award. But before I talk about Rod, let me give you a little update about what is going on in the State. First, some good news, something we are all very proud of in Alaska. The economy is hurting; we are not proud of that. But in terms of the pandemic, the health elements, our State continues to be the No. 1 State vaccinated per capita of any State in the country. This is a minimiracle, by the way, because we are a really big State, and we are really spread out, a really small population. And yet, the Federal Government, Tribal healthcare system, VA, State of Alaska, everybody coming together is making it happen. About 3 weeks ago, we announced that anyone over 16 could get a vaccine. And some communities are hitting 60, 70 percent vaccinated already in Alaska. Really important. We are opening up. If you are watching, and you don't live in Alaska, come visit. It is going to be safe, but we are very proud of that accomplishment because it has taken a lot of work. Of course, it is cold in Alaska, but the Sun has been shining. The snow has been amazing. We have had a lot of it recently. The spirits are up. We have an Iditarod winner. Congratulations to Dallas Seavey on your fifth Iditarod win. Incredible, incredible. You know, some may take issue with the claim that Alaska is the most unique State in the Union, but consider this: Every year, teams of mushers and their dogs barrel hundreds of miles across the State toward the city of Nome, in some of the harshest conditions, rugged conditions on the planet Earth. Certainly, these are the kind of events that we think make Alaska unique and a big sense of community. I have said it before: Alaska isn't always the easiest place to live. It is far from the lower 48. The weather can be extreme, very tough. But as a result, the people and communities bond, and they work together, particularly in some of our most remote communities. We are one big community in the great State of Alaska, as my colleague from Nebraska knows. Every community in Alaska, in America, needs to be able to share reliable, credible information. On that topic, of course, there has been a lot of negative attention in the past couple of years paid to some in the national media, particularly in the last few years. But the vital role, the vital role of local journalism and how that role that plays in different communities across our country, in my view, hasn't had nearly enough attention, and it is a positive role, our local reporters. So our Alaskan of the Week, Rod Boyce, who, until just a few weeks ago was the longtime editor of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, spent nearly his entire career, 35 years, ensuring that Alaskans stayed connected through local news. Now, Rod himself hasn't made huge headlines in the State. As a matter of fact, that is one of the reasons for the Alaskan of the Week, to do a shout-out to someone wh has not gotten a lot of recognition. The only time Rod has gotten a lot of headlines was one instance of a mushing mishap. I am going to talk briefly about that. But as an old-school newsman, he liked to stay behind the headlines, behind the scenes. But he has been behind the scenes of so many of those headlines in our State. For years, he worked tirelessly--first at papers across the State and then for 27 years at the News-Miner--to keep the great community of Fairbanks and North Pole, AK, the interior part of our State, connected and informed. So here is a little bit about Rod. Born in London, England--I have known Rod for many years, but I did not know that fact. Born in London, England, his family moved to Southern California in the 1960s. His father designed and engineered refineries. And Rod's father and his wife--Rod's mom--raised both him and his sister. He wasn't sure what he wanted to do in life, but he was inspired by a trip he took to England early in his college career, came back with a camera that he actually found on a bench in the Heathrow Airport. It is an interesting detail. And he found his calling in journalism. He was the editor of the school newspaper at Humboldt State University and did some stints at small papers, landed at the Sacramento Union--the oldest paper in the West, by the way--one that Mark Twain used to write for. It was his first experience with a good old-fashioned newspaper war. The younger, afternoon paper, the Sacramento Bee, decided to take on the establishment Sacramento Union. Eventually, the Bee won. But by then, Rod had made his way to the great State of Alaska to enter another, even bigger newspaper war: the Anchorage Times, the established paper, versus the upstart Anchorage Daily News. Any person in news in Alaska who has been around a while will talk about that newspaper war with something of awe in their voice. Both papers then were fully staffed up, at least 30 reporters each, bureaus all across the State, even bureaus here in DC, pre-social media days, pre-Twitter days. Reporters spent their days on the streets, knocking on doors, stealing each other's scoops. It was called shoe leather reporting, and some great journalism in Alaska emerged. Eventually, the upstart, the young Anchorage Daily News--still around--won the war. So Rod was on the losing team. He began to work for a small chain of six or seven rural papers called Alaska Newspapers, Inc. It was here that Rod got his first glimpse of rural Alaska. He learned about fisheries issues, ate his first piece of muktuk. That is whale blubber. He experienced the beauty and became aware of the heartbreak of rural Alaska, the true spiritual soul of our State, one of the spiritual souls of America, I would argue. After a few years with Alaska newspapers, he took the job that he has been so good at for almost three decades, editor of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, which is my wonderful wife Julie's hometown. It is the first city I lived in with Julie and our brandnew daughter of ours, Meghan, and, of course, I can still consider the News-Miner to be my hometown newspaper. As I mentioned, Rod was an editor for 27 years for this great interior Alaska paper. The News-Miner is small but mighty in Alaska, punching way above its weight, winning numerous journalism awards, breaking important stories on health crises, injustice, scandals, economic opportunities, everyday stories about everyday people, the kind of stories that draw us together as communities. As Rod said, ``It's not just national journalism that matters. Local journalism matters [too].'' To that end, it was his policy, until he just retired a couple of weeks ago, to have at least 95 percent of the front page of the News- Miner devoted to local news. That is a great idea. So many Alaskans have interests, hobbies, lifestyles that many here in the lower 48 just don't understand, Rod included. For many years, he spent his days in the newsroom and his evenings and weekends mushing dogs. And he still mushes. He loves it. It is a family affair. He and his wife Julie used to put their daughter, Edie, in a sled when she was just in diapers. And Edie is still doing it. The most dogs they have ever had now is 27. It is down to 18. This is hard work. It is tons of work. My wife Julie and her family also raised sled dogs. It is really hard work, particularly in the cold, interior Alaska winters. And it is also dangerous, as Rod can attest. In 2000, when competing for the first time in the 200-mile Tustumena 200 Sled Dog Race on the Kenai Peninsula, he took a wrong turn. It was snowing hard. It was difficult to see. The trail got obliterated. And he couldn't figure out how to get back on the trail. So he staked his dogs and hunkered down on a ridge to build camp. He had some candy, Reese's Pieces, dried lamb for the dogs. He had a cooker, thermos, some fuel, some twigs. He had bunny boots, fortunately, but not a parka. He spent his days exploring, going as far as he dared to try to find the trail at night. At night, he could hear the helicopters above, looking for Rod, but they couldn't see him through the cloud cover. What was going on turned out to be one of the largest land search and rescue missions in Alaska history, trying to find Rod Boyce, the intrepid editor of the News-Miner. But he didn't know that. He just knew that his days were ticking away. Rod's wife Julie was worried sick, of course, but kept it together throughout. On the sixth day-- sixth day--almost a week, when the sky cleared, he headed out again and a snow machine came his way. ``I think I am the guy you're looking for,'' he told the driver, Ron Poston. Ron gave him a candy bar and a ride to safety. That night, he and his wife celebrated with a beer and a cheeseburger. His feet were in bad shape, but otherwise he was unharmed. When he made it back to the newsroom, his fellow reporters put up markers that led from his parking space into the building in case he got lost again. He thought it was pretty funny. On January 22, Rod Boyce left the News-Miner to take a job as a science writer and public information officer at the very cool and esteemed Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. He spends his days now writing about Tsunamis and the skies and the heavens. He said: It is a nerd's dream . . . I had a good 35-year run in newspapers and was very fortunate to experience the things that I did and interact with all sorts of public officials and regular folks on the street. I got to see them at their highs and lows, their tragedies and their happiest moments. He still has hopes for local news. ``A local news outlet can tie a local community together and that is super important. I hope that never changes,'' said Rod. Me, too, Rod. Here is to local journalism. Here is to the mighty Fairbanks News-Miner, and here is to Rod Boyce. Thank you for being the guy behind the headlines all these many years. Thank you for keeping our communities and interior connected, and congratulations on perhaps one of the biggest awards you have ever received, our Alaskan of the Week. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is not often I come down to the floor to say I have a lot in common with the Senate majority leader, Senator Schumer from New York. In fact, in my 6 years in the Senate, I don't think I have ever done that. But after reading his remarks prior to the vote that we took yesterday on the Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh, I thought I would come down and make a few points on that nominee, that vote, and some issues I have in common with the majority leader and now-Secretary Walsh and maybe some issues I don't have so much in common with the majority leader but I think I do have with Secretary Walsh, which is why I voted for him. First, as I mentioned, I, too, supported our now-Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh, for some of the reasons that Senator Schumer did. Let me explain. Secretary Walsh started in the Laborers' Union, Local 223, in Boston, age 21, following in his father's footsteps. Now, as many people know, the Laborers are the biggest building construction union in the country. They build things--pipelines, roads, oil wells, bridges. They have made America strong. I am a big fan of Laborers and leaders like Joey Merritt back home and Terry O'Sullivan, whom I am going to talk a little bit about. Secretary Walsh followed his father's example and joined the Laborers in Boston. He is also the son of Irish immigrants, which is something that is near and dear to my heart. And Senator Schumer said he has something very much in common--yesterday, when he spoke about Secretary Walsh-- with Secretary Walsh because his grandfather was an immigrant from Eastern Europe who also, when he came over to America, got very involved with the labor movement. That is really a very common, powerful story of the American dream, common to millions--Senator Schumer's family, Secretary Walsh's family, and it is certainly a story that I have in common with those two. You see, my great-grandfather was from a family of Irish immigrants, and he was also very involved in the labor movement. In fact, he was one of the original cofounders of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the IBEW. He was its first grand marshal. I have something I am quite proud of here. It is a page from the history books of the IBEW, talking about my great-grandfather's great work for the IBEW when it first got off the ground. I look forward to working with Secretary Walsh on helping the men and women in America, certainly in my State, who build things. They have succeeded. They rise up and help others rise up--other working men and women--the way Secretary Walsh's father did, the way Senator Schumer's grandfather did, the way my great-grandfather did. It is a great American story. But I must say that my views and Senator Schumer's diverge on some of the other things he may have been speaking about when he talked about Secretary Walsh's nomination yesterday. One, he was critical of some of the Trump administration's Department of Labor policies as related to the men and women who build things-- these working men and women--despite the fact that prior to the pandemic, with some of the policies that we implemented here, the United States had the strongest economy in decades, the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, wages were finally going up after 2 decades of stagnation. And very importantly for the working men and women of this country, there was a huge expansion and boom in the American energy sector, ``all of the above'' energy: oil, gas, renewables, as important to the Presiding Officer as it is to Alaska. Let me describe one other narrative that I believe certainly is true that I have seen in my professional life in Alaska--in America but certainly back home in my State--and that is the narrative that I am not so sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to highlight. But I am going to highlight it because I think it is really important, particularly now, and it is this: When national Democrats, whether during the Obama administration or now, during the Biden administration, are set up with the choice where they have to choose between the interests of the working men and women in this country who build things versus the interests of the extremists--radical environmental groups who want to kill jobs and shut them down--they almost always sid with these groups who kill jobs, not the working men and women of America, not the working men and women of Alaska. This is true. My colleagues sometimes don't want to admit it, but it is true. Do you know who else has seen it, and do you know who else I believe knows it is true? Secretary Walsh as a laborer. He has seen it. That is another reason why I voted for him. He and his fellow laborers, whether in Boston or Alaska, also know that this issue is true. When there is a choice between the working men and women of America who build things versus the extremists who want to shut things down, way too often, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle go with the extremists, not the men and women who build things in this country. Now, this narrative is not only continuing under the Biden administration; it is accelerating, and it has been bad for Alaska, bad for America, bad for working families, and, to be honest, it is a bit surprising. President Biden came into office talking about his blue collar roots, but right now, the record is anything but supporting the men and women who build things. Here is a snapshot of what is going on in my State. In the first 4 weeks of the Biden administration, there were eight Executive orders focused on Alaska--eight. No other State has had that many Executive orders focused on Alaskan working families. Day one, ANWR--trying to shut that down. We got that done in this body. They also killed the Keystone Pipeline--10,000 jobs, laborers' jobs. Marty Walsh knows a lot about that. It goes on and on and on. There are Executive orders right now that, from my State's perspective, are focused on hurting working men and women. There is another one I will talk about. It is a project we have, a big energy project in Alaska called the Willow project. This has been permitted by Democratic and Republican administrations for 25 years to finally get it going--the Clinton administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, everybody. It is in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, a place set aside by Congress over 70 years ago for oil and gas development and good jobs. It is not controversial at all. The Biden administration has put a hold on that. Here is the estimate. It is a $7 billion project that will produce American energy and an estimated 2,000 direct jobs on the Willow project. This isn't some pie-in-the-sky project that we were starting this winter. There were 2,000 direct jobs, 75 percent of which are union jobs, and they are saying ``We are going to put a hold on it''-- thousands of additional supporting jobs, and they are going to put a hold on that. Why? Well, we know why, because in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, some of the most extreme radical environmental groups in the country sued to stop it, and they were successful. So guess what happened in Alaska this winter during a recession. The 2,000 men and women who were working on this project were given pink slips and told to go home. That is what happened. Mr. President, don't just take my word for it. I want to quote again from Terry O'Sullivan. He is the head of the Laborers, the biggest construction union in the country. This was his reaction after day one of the Biden administration, where there was a choice of working men and women who build things like pipelines or the radical extremist environmental groups who want to shut down and kill American jobs. It is a choice--day one, the radical environmentalists win. Here is what the head of the Laborers--remember, Marty Walsh, Secretary Walsh is a Laborer from Boston. Here is what the head of the Laborers, the great American Terry O'Sullivan, said: The Biden administration's decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline permit on day one of his presidency is both insulting and disappointing to the thousands of hard-working LIUNA members-- Those are the Laborers. --who will lose good-paying, middle class family-supporting jobs. By blocking this 100 percent union project, and pandering to environmental extremists-- Remember, this is Terry O'Sullivan talking, not Senator Sullivan talking. --a thousand union jobs will immediately vanish and 10,000 additional jobs will be foregone. That is Terry O'Sullivan. Remember the choice: Men and women who build things and make our country great versus extremist groups like the Center for Biological Diversity--they go with the extremists. Here is Mark McManus, general president of the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters. They were going to build the Keystone Pipeline, too, just like LIUNA members: In revoking this permit, the Biden Administration has chosen to listen to the voices of fringe activists instead of union members and the American consumer on Day 1 [of the Biden administration]. Let me be . . . clear. This is Mark McManus still talking. When built with union labor by the men and women of the United Association, pipelines like Keystone XL remain the safest and most efficient modes of energy transportation in the world. Sadly, the Biden Administration has now put thousands of union members and workers out of work. This is why the Secretary of Labor we just confirmed--and I was glad to support him because he is a Laborer. He knows how to build things. He knows these politics. This is why it is important to have his voice because the voice of the extremist is much stronger in this administration. It is not just policies of killing union jobs--the men and women who build things for America--but if you listen, it is how the new members of this administration talk about these jobs. Listen. You have to listen, and what you hear is a condescending tone as it relates to these jobs. You may have heard John Kerry and Gina McCarthy, the climate change czars in the White House, who were saying in one of their press conferences that we need to help people make ``better choices'' on their jobs. That is pretty condescending. They are talking about laborers. They are talking about my oil and gas workers in the great State of Alaska or in Colorado. The Secretary of Energy, in her confirmation hearing, talked about how some of the jobs might have to be ``sacrificed.'' Even in the Environment and Public Works Committee--and I am a very bipartisan guy--some of my Senate colleagues on the other side of the aisle were recently talking about: We need to encourage people to get more ``relevant jobs.'' What is more relevant than powering America? Until recently, the men and women who built America--pipelines, oil and gas rigs, roads, bridges, the men and women with dirt under their fingernails--were celebrated, which is as they should be. They built this country. They powered this country. They won wars for this country. By the way, they often fought in wars for this country. Then they came home. They got good jobs in the building trades as laborers, operating engineers, pipefitters, teamsters, IBEWs--the IBEW like my great-grandfather helped start. Not so much anymore. The new Secretary of Energy is now calling them ``fossil workers'' who are from ``fossil communities.'' I am not kidding. Listen to her. I have been trying to give them a little bit of advice: Don't use that term. It is condescending. You are talking to workers as if they are some kind of dinosaur that should be put in a museum. Communities? Fossil communities? Really? Madam Secretary, if you are listening, ditch that language. It drips with an attitude of being condescending toward these great Americans. Well, I was just home in my State with a bunch of these so-called ``fossil workers'' this past weekend. These are some of the best, most patriotic Americans anywhere. They are tough; they are hard-working; they love their country, but I will tell you they are concerned. They are concerned. Why? Because they know that exactly what I have been talking about here is happening--the radical, extremist environmental groups want to kill and are killing jobs. By the way, as for that lawsuit I talked about on the Willow Project, 200 Alaskans were sent home during a recession. Men and women who have to pay mortgages and pay tuitions were sent home. So my workers in the great State of Alaska are concerned. They know that these groups they are sending have a beeline into the White House and that they want to kill jobs--energy jobs--in my State and in America. They are worried that the majority now, the Senate majority, has similar views, so they are nervous. Yet I am hopeful on one thing. Given his background and his heritage--now I am talking about the Secretary of Labor, Secretary Walsh. I believe that, when the decisions are made--and I hope when the decisions are being made in the Biden administration to kill more good- paying energy jobs that built this country--and when they are coming before the Biden administration, the new Secretary of Labor is going to stand up for the working men and women, stand up for the laborers in Boston whom he knows so well or the laborers in Alaska whom he knows so well and look at the other Cabinet members and say: Not on my watch. We are not going to kill any more of these jobs. That is what I am hopeful for. That is what he committed to me to do, and that is why I voted for Secretary Walsh as the new Secretary of Labor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I have one more topic I would like to talk about today. It is another important one, and it is one that many have been talking about here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Many have spoken very eloquently about this topic, and depending on when they have spoken about it--this year, this week, last year, a decade ago, a century ago--it is a topic that is really fundamental to this institution, and it looks as if Members in this institution are trying to change the institution forever. Now, I am talking about the filibuster. As you know, there has been much talk recently about the possibility of getting rid of the filibuster. This is an action that will fundamentally transform this institution, certainly, but I believe, frankly, it will transform our country. I don't think this is a wise move at all. The irony is--and I am going to talk about it--until very recently, the vast majority of my colleagues, Republican and Democratic, were in agreement on this topic in that getting rid of the legislative filibuster was not a wise move for the Senate and not a wise move for America. Now, this might seem like an insular issue--something that people in Washington, DC, get incensed about, wound up about, and the people back home might not necessarily care because it might not impact them--but I don't think that this is the case at all. This rule, the filibuster, is at the very heart of what keeps extreme legislation, pushed by a small minority of the public, from passing. It is a rule that, in the Senate, certainly encourages, if not demands, compromise and bipartisan work both when one's party is in or out of power. Now, look, our instincts as Senators--all of our instincts--are to get things done for our States, for our country, but what is good for Alaska isn't always good for Colorado, and what is good for Colorado isn't always good for New York. What is good for the majority isn't alway good for the minority and vice versa and isn't always good for the Nation. That is the heart of federalism. It is also why the majority can't wield unfettered power in the U.S. Senate. With the exception of a few laws, what is required here is typically 60 votes on legislation. It is what separates this body, the Senate, from the House. For the good of the country, if you look at our history, we must work together, find compromise, find consensus, find solutions, particularly on major legislation, to get a broad-based buy-in from all Americans or most Americans. This is what the filibuster has required. Remember, the Framers understood that, here in the Senate, we would be different from the House. We would be the bulwark against what James Madison called an anchor, a necessary fence, against the fickleness and passions that pervade the House. No offense to our Members of the House of Representatives, but as George Washington is said to have told Thomas Jefferson, the Framers created the Senate to cool House legislation. It was the cooling saucer you had with regard to the tea in the cup. Indeed, the Senate--often referred to as the ``world's greatest deliberative body'' in its earliest days--was founded on the right of unlimited debate. That is what the filibuster is. Even in the first session of the Senate in 1789, Senators used this right to debate and debate and debate in order to delay consideration of legislation. It wasn't until the mid-1800s that this tactic was coined the ``filibuster.'' The point is that this procedural rule in the Senate has been here, in one form or another, since the founding of the Republic, and when you hear my colleagues talk about it as some new, recent procedure, it is just not factually accurate. Before the 1900s, there was no formal procedure to even end debate if a Senator chose to talk a bill to death. It wasn't until 1917, during a debate about arming Merchant Marine vessels during World War I, that the Senate established the cloture tool, giving the body the ability to end debate by a certain margin of Senators. Now, as some of my colleagues have been debating recently and have mentioned throughout its history, we have seen the filibuster, cloture used for good. We have used it to stop legislation, and it has also been used for ill--to delay much needed, historic reforms like civil rights legislation during the fifties and sixties, legislation which was filibustered by Democratic Senators until the filibuster was finally broken in the sixties. It has also been used for many other purposes, but Members on both sides have used it for centuries. In fact, one scholar's account was that the very first Senate filibuster was over a bridge across the Potomac River. I am not sure why, but I guess it was an important issue back then. So slowing things down, cooling passions, that is what this body was designed to do, and that is what this procedure has done for decades. That is why my friends on the other side, who are undertaking a push to get rid of this, need to think. They need to stop. They need to think. The American people need to understand the consequences, and our good friends in the media who are covering the Senate need to write some real history about this. As my friends on the other side of the aisle know, this is one of these issues that, when the shoe was on the other foot, we did not take action. What am I talking about? Recently, the Republicans held the majority in the Senate, and, recently, with President Trump, we had a Republican in the White House. There was frustration, and they wanted to move things quicker, and the President, President Trump, was pressuring many Senators: Let's get rid of the filibuster. We didn't. We didn't. We told the President: It is not a good idea for the Senate, and it is not a good idea for the country. That is what we did when the shoe was on the other foot. We said no. It is not good for this body, and it is not good for the country. The Republican President was pushing: We need to get things done. We need to get rid of it. No. Let me just read a few of the things that were said recently about the necessity of keeping the filibuster. My friend from Delaware, in 2018, said: I am committed to never voting to change the legislative filibuster. Now, he said that when a Republican President was in the White House. My friend from New Jersey, in 2009, said: My colleagues and I--everybody I have talked to--believes the legislative filibuster should stay here, and I will personally resist any efforts to get rid of it. My Democratic friend from Montana said just a little over a year ago: I am a ``no'' on changing the filibuster. The move to make the Senate like the House, I think, is a mistake. I could go on. I don't want the Senate to become like the House. The consequences of getting rid of the filibuster are too great. These are all words spoken very recently by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Even more impressive, just a few years ago, we had 61 Senators--33 Republicans, 25 of whom are still here, and 30 Democrats, 27 of whom are still in the Senate today--who sent a letter. I have it right here. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter sent to the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, saying we have to maintain the 60-vote threshold for filibusters involving legislation.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, this was sent in April 2017. Now, what was going on in April 2017? Republicans had the majority, and President Trump was pressuring us to get rid of the filibuster. We said no. This is what the letter said: Regardless of our past disagreements on that issue, we are united-- Remember, 61 Senators, 27 Democratic Senators, who are still here, just 3 years ago said this-- we are united in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor. We are mindful of the unique role the Senate plays in the legislative process, and we are steadfastly committed to ensuring this great American institution-- The U.S. Senate-- continues to serve as the world's greatest deliberative body. Therefore, we are asking you to join us in opposing any effort to curtail the existing rights and prerogatives of Senators to engage in full, robust, and extended debate as we consider legislation before this body in the future. That is the letter. Twenty-seven of my Democratic friends said ``Don't get rid of the filibuster'' 3 years ago. Where are they now? Why is it that when this topic comes up, Senators Manchin and Sinema are the only ones the media focuses on? How come they are not asking the questions of the other 25--one-quarter of the entire body--who wrote this letter? What happened? Where is their conviction? When the shoe was on the other foot, we said we are not doing it, but they now want to do it. Nobody is asking them. I think the media should take a look at every Senator who signed this letter 3 years ago and say: Hey. Why did you change your opinion so quickly? Three years ago, you were adamantly against the filibuster, getting rid of it. What happened? Could it be that you now have power and you--but we didn't do that when we had the power, when we had the White House. It is a really important question. Actually, it is so important, I would welcome any of my colleagues who signed the letter, Democrat or Republican, to come on down and explain to your constituents, explain to the American people why you switched so quickly and what you think it is going to do to the structure of the U.S. Senate and literally to our country. What strikes many of us is how, on so many issues, people change their side--it happens on both sides--when people are holding power from different perspectives. Let me provide another example that even hits our media friends. In 2004, when George W. Bush was President and Republicans had the majority, they were evidently considering getting rid of the filibuster, and they didn't. The New York Times wrote the following: The Republicans see the filibuster as an annoying obstacle, but it is actually one of the checks and balances that the founders, who worried greatly about the concentration of power, built into our system. It is the New York Times saying the Founders built the filibuster into our system. People who call themselves conservatives should find a way of achieving their goals without declaring war on one of the oldest traditions in American democracy. The filibuster. That is the New York Times. So Republicans heeded the advice of the New York Times. It doesn't happen a lot, but it did. So let's see where the New York Times was on this one just about a month ago. The filibuster is a centuries-old parliamentary tool that has been transformed into a weapon for strangling functional government. The filibuster must go. Well, so much for the New York Times's convictions. I wonder why they are changing their tune. I wonder why they are changing their tune. Probably the same reason that some of my Democratic colleagues are changing their tune after signing this letter. So I will end with one final quote. This is from a politician we all know well, all very familiar with him. It is from a speech on the Senate floor by U.S. Senator--in 2005, U.S. Senator Barack Obama. He spoke about how the American people expect their politicians to work to create a more perfect union. What they do not expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat-- This is former Senator, former President Obama speaking right here on the floor-- to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. Sounds a little bit like what is going on with this filibuster debate. I understand that Republicans are getting a lot of pressure to do this-- ``This'' meaning get rid of the filibuster-- from factions outside the [Senate] Chamber, but we need to rise above the ``ends justify the means'' mentality because we are here to answer the people--all of the people, not just the ones who are wearing our particular party label. That was Senator Obama--former Senator Obama, former President Obama saying in 2005: Don't do it, Republicans. You have the power. You have the Presidency. You have the Senate. Don't get rid of the filibuster. Well, I couldn't agree more with our former President. Again, when we had the ability to do this just 3 years ago, we said no. I hope our friends in the media will write about this. Don't hold your breath. But here is one instance when the shoe was on the other foot. Because it was so important to America, so important to this institution, we declined to make the power move. It would be really good--whether it is President Obama, who has spoken out about this now; or the New York Times, who has changed their tune; or all 25 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who signed this letter 3 years ago saying ``Don't do it''--come on down, speak to the American people. Tell them why you have had such a drastic change of heart. But I will tell you this: If we do do it, you are going to regret it; we are going to regret it; the American people are going to regret it. And do you know what? In my discussions with some of my Democratic colleagues, and I am not going to name names, they know that. They know that. They are getting a lot of pressure. Majority Leader Schumer is getting a lot of pressure from the far left. Don't let the far left ruin this institution. Don't let the far left bludgeon you guys into changing America, because I think deep down in your heart of hearts, especially all of you who signed this letter 3 years ago know what the right thing to do for the U.S. Senate is and the right thing to do for the United States of America is, and it is to continue to keep what the Founding Fathers devised for this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, we just voted on Secretary Michael Regan to be the new EPA Administrator. I want to congratulate him on his vote. He is now the new EPA Administrator. I sit on the Committee on Environment and Public Works. So we had hearings for Mr. Regan--Administrator Regan, I guess we want to call him now--and I have had a number of conversations with him. I actually voted for him to move out of committee to come to the floor for this vote that we took today. I like to come down to the floor to explain my votes because sometimes I support the Biden administration's Cabinet officials. I introduced Secretary of Defense Austin at his confirmation hearing. I served with him many years ago when I was a marine and he was a four- star general in the Army. I have a lot of respect for the Secretary of Defense. Then there are other times when I am a ``no.'' What I typically like to do is come and explain the noes but not always. On this one, for Secretary Regan, for Administrator Regan and his team, I want to explain it because I will say that I was impressed with him. I think he is qualified. He was essentially the EPA administrator for North Carolina. Both of his Republican Senators introduced him at his hearing and voted for him, I believe, today, and I have had good conversations with him as well. Here is the thing: I was trying to get commitments from him. Now, this is very normal in the confirmation process. You work with the nominees and try to get commitments. Sometimes they give them, and sometimes they don't, but that is what we do--give advice and consent. We have been doing this since the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution on what the Senate should be doing in these confirmation processes that we are going through right now with the Biden administration. So I wasn't asking for a lot in terms of commitments from this administration for the great State of Alaska, but it was important to me. Why was it important to me? Unfortunately, the Biden administration has launched a war on working families in Alaska. Now, that sounds like a pretty dramatic statement, ``a war on working families in Alaska.'' What I am looking for is a ceasefire. My State, like a lot of States, is hurting economically. We are doing very well and I am very proud of Alaska on the health side. We are No. 1 in terms of vaccinations per capita in the country, which is remarkable, if you have been to my State, as it is so huge and the populations are so spread out, but we are working together, all of us, and we are achieving really remarkable results. We have been No. 1 in testing per capita throughout the whole pandemic, and we have had some of the lowest per capita death rates throughout the whole pandemic. But we are being really hit hard economically in the energy sector, the tourism sector, and the commercial fishing sector. So why am I looking for a ceasefire? In the first 2 months of the Biden administration, there have been eight Executive orders, if you include the recent statement by the President and the Prime Minister of Canada, which had a focus on Alaska, which have been focused on my State. Usually, it will be on economic development projects and usually on access to Federal lands. Eight. There is no State in the country that is getting that kind of attention from this administration, and we are hurting. It is not even close. Show me any other State represented in the U.S. Senate Chamber that has eight Executive orders directed at your State. It won't exist. Trust me--my constituents don't like all the attention. So I want to ask the President--not the Presiding Officer but the President: Mr. President, Mr. President Biden, sir, you were a U.S. Senator for three decades. Let me just ask you this question: If a Republican administration came into office and focused its attention on shutting down Delaware with eight Executive orders inside of 2 months, you would be on the floor every day like me, talking about it, asking for some relief. That is all we are asking for--a ceasefire on the hard-working families of Alaska. This is what I asked Secretary Regan. A commitment on these is not a big issue. I told him, if I could get a commitment on these things, I would come down to the floor and give a speech in favor of his confirmation. One was of a very big energy project in my State that has been permitted for almost 25 years. It started with the Clinton administration, in a place called the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, and was set aside by Congress for oil and gas development. That is what the NPR-A is. We do it responsibly, better than any place in the world, but this is a project that was started by the Clinton administration and moved forward by the Bush administration. There was a big NEPA environmental impact statement by the Obama administration, called the Integrated Activity Plan for NPR-A, which was approved. It was completely noncontroversial because that is what this part of Alaska is set aside for. Then the Trump administration finalized a very large but responsibly developed energy project. We started it this winter with no controversy. It has estimates of 2,000 direct jobs, with thousands more indirect jobs. All we wanted was a commitment to keep it going. That is it--simple, status quo. Couldn't get it. Couldn't get it. There is litigation with regard to this project right now. About 200 people--almost 200 workers--have been sent home with pink slips during a recession. Those were great jobs by the way. We tried to get a commitment on this. We couldn't get it. By the way, 75 percent of those 2,000 jobs were union jobs and high-paying--building trades, laborers, operating engineers, teamsters. They are great Americans, by the way. Seventy-five percent. Noncontroversial. Twenty-five years of permits. No one has been against this. So I just wanted a commitment on it. No. Like I said, it is a war on working families. Here is another one. Here is something that a lot of people don't know about Alaska: 60 percent of the country's wetlands, of America's wetlands, are in my State--six zero. Now, we have the most beautiful State. We love our wilderness. We love the outdoors. We care about the Alaskan environment more than anyone else and--trust me--more than anyone else in the EPA. That is for sure. We have 175 million acres of wetlands. So this creates challenges. Unlike most of the lower 48, we have not dredged and filled these areas in the past. If you look at the east coast, at its environments-- no offense to some of my colleagues whose States are up the corridor here--holy cow. And you wonder about my environment? Geez Louise. But it is hard to do compensation for projects where you haven't had dredge and fill before, because we have so many wetlands. So, in 2018, the Corps of Engineers and the EPA had an MOU to address some of these mitigation challenges. It wasn't controversial; it was creative. I thought Secretary Regan thought it was creative when I talked to him about it. So we just asked for a continuation of this. These are really simple commitments, good ideas--couldn't get it from the Secretary. Now, look, here's my own view. I think Mr. Regan wanted to--I explained these to him. I think he was reasonable, someone who has done this in his State and knows each State is unique. He cares about jobs. He cares about environmental justice. That is a big issue in my State when a lot of these communities that are getting targeted are actually Alaska Native communities. They are killing jobs in those communities. That is environmental justice; that is for sure. So my instinct was he wanted to make these commitments, but I think he was told no. I don't know that, but I'm pretty--well, I can't say. But I think he was told no by the White House. This raises a much bigger concern about this nominee. My good friend, the esteemed Senator from West Virginia, Senator Capito, was on the floor earlier. She also sits on the EPW Committee. She is the ranking member on the committee. She gave a really important speech on why she also voted no for Mr. Regan. And I think she had the same feeling I did. He knows the issues, is qualified, cares about different States' challenges. But she raised a concern that I want to reiterate because I think it is going to be a really big concern, and I think it is going to come to a head here soon, and that is this: There is concern, not just among Republican Senators--it is all over the press, and she cited it--that Mr. Regan, who is now the EPA Administrator might not be the person in charge of the EPA. Now he's Senate-confirmed. He is the one who has to come before the Congress for hearings, for oversight, but what are we talking about here? Well, the former EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, is in the White House. She is out talking to the press all the time. She's an unaccountable czar on these issues, working behind the scenes--and, actually, not even behind the scenes. She was recently quoting about herself, saying she's the orchestra leader of all of these issues. Wait, what about the EPA Administrator? I thought he was the Senate- confirmed person nominated by the President. The big, big concern is that he is not going to have the authority or the decision-making capacity and is going to be told what to do by a shadow EPA working out of the White House run by Gina McCarthy. That is not just me. That is not just Senator Capito. That is all over the press. Read it. Inside EPA--she was quoting from that, Senator Capito was. No transparency there? All these previous Obama administration EPA alumnae in the White House running it. By the way, if I am the new EPA Administrator, Mr. Regan, I wouldn't want that notion out there. But with all due respect, sir--and, again, congratulations--it is out there, and you need to tamp this down because it is going to come to a head. Look, my State did not fare well under the Gina McCarthy EPA. There is a long list: the waters of the United States--I won't get into the details of the disrespect to my constituents. Armed EPA officials with body armor, rifles, were going after gold miners and placer miners in Alaska because they thought they were violating the Clean Water Act. No kidding. Read about it. Chicken, AK--go Google that. We were not big fans. So I believe Mr. Regan wants to work with Alaskans. I believe he understands the concept of cooperative federalism on these environmental issues. I don't believe he would authorize armed guards to terrify small placer miners in the interior of Alaska the way the previous Administrator McCarthy did and talk to the press in a blatantly disrespectful way to my fellow Alaskans. It was shameful, in my view. But this issue is going to come to a head. Who is in charge? Regardless of whether you are a Democrat or Republican, if you voted for the EPA Administrator or you didn't, we want him in charge because he is the Senate-confirmed official nominated by the President, not an unelected official in the White House who I guarantee wouldn't have been able to get confirmed. So it is going to be a challenge. And it is not just Gina McCarthy. We had an EPW hearing today, and I raised the issue of the other czar--John Kerry, the former Senator. But he is not confirmed. He hasn't been appointed to a Senate-confirmed job. He and the President are at loggerheads on a really big issue. President Biden, the President of the United States, recently in a meeting reported by the press with labor leaders, said: I am all in on natural gas. That is important. That is a huge issue for our environment and our workers. The President of the United States said ``I am all in on natural gas'' to the men and women who build pipelines. He told them that recently in a White House meeting. He is the President of the United States. Now John Kerry--I think some people think he is President of the world. He is flying around on his airplane right now, and he is telling people he is not for natural gas. Well, I wonder who is going to win that debate. But this goes to this issue: These are going to come to a head. Who is in charge here--the President of the United States or the President of the world--on natural gas? I hope it is the President of the United States because natural gas is going to be key for our workers, for our environment, for our national security. And at the EPA level, who is in charge? Mr. Regan? I hope so. Or Gina McCarthy? It is looking more and more like she is in charge. So that is why a number of us, despite being impressed, wanting to work with the new EPA Administrator voted no, and I certainly hope that the unaccountable team of McCarthy and Kerry in the White House are not going to be running the policy, but it is going to be the people who were actually confirmed by the U.S. Senate because that is the way our system of government is supposed to work. So, Mr. President, for those reasons, although I again want to congratulate Mr. Regan, I respectfully declined to support his nomination, and we will see. We will see who is going to be ultimately in charge. I want to work with him and his team. These issues are so important to my State. I want him to help convince others in the Biden White House for the ceasefire that my constituents need. We need to get to work, and I am hoping he is going to be a constructive partner in that regard

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, most mornings I get up kind of early, and I go for a run on the Mall, run by the Capitol, this beautiful building, the Senate, the House, the people's house, which recently was open for all of us to enjoy. And now, as most Americans know, it is ringed with gates and razor wire and troops. It looks a little bit like the Green Zone in Baghdad, not the U.S. Capitol. Here's the thing. When I go running--I do this most mornings; I did it this morning--you see these wonderful National Guard men and women who are serving their country still here behind the fence, behind the razor wire. And they are literally about every 50 yards, sometimes closer, standing post all night--all night--hundreds of them, American soldiers. They are doing their duty, and we all appreciate it. I talk to them. I just say: Hey, how you guys doing? How is morale? You want to be here? You think it is time to go home? I think it is time for you to go home, and I am going to try and help you with that. Now, look, most are stoic. They are tough. They are soldiers doing their job. But make no mistake, they want to go home. They are standing their post all night, 1, 2, 3 in the morning, every 50 yards, for what? For what? I don't think they know what for, and neither do I. Now the assault that took place on our democracy on January 6 was a dark day for our country, no doubt. I will remember that for the rest of my life. But the Members of Congress did something really important that same day. We reconvened right here in the U.S. Senate, even amid some of the broken glass and smashed doors in the House. We finished our constitutional duty to count the electoral college votes. The rioters that day--who should be prosecuted--did not win. That was important. But that was 3 months ago, and our Nation's Capitol is still decked in layer upon layer of barbed wire and metal fencing. More than 5,000 troops still roam the Capitol instead of being where they know they should be: home with their families, back to their jobs--these are National Guard members, so their work is obviously being disrupted--and back to their States and their communities. The cost of keeping them here since January at this juncture is over a half billion dollars. But here's the thing: I pay close attention to these issues. I keep asking: OK, I understand this; they were here after the 6th, and they were here for the inauguration, but what is the threat now? Give me an intel threat--a credible intel threat--that requires 5,000 troops and razor wire all across the U.S. Capitol, the people's house. What is the credible intel? I have not gotten any credible intel that I am aware of. We learned yesterday that the Secretary of Defense approved the request for these soldiers to be here for another 60 days. Here is what you didn't hear about in those reports. I have a lot of respect for the Secretary of Defense. As a matter of fact, as I mentioned in my remarks earlier, I introduced him at his confirmation hearing. But this decision on whether there should be troops here or not is actually not his decision. It is our decision. It is the Members of Congress's decision. That is the threshold issue: Should we still have the troops here? It is the majority leader's decision. It is the Speaker of the House's decision. So why do we still have troops here? Why is the Capitol still in high security lockdown? I think it would be really important for the majority leader to come to the floor and not only tell us but tell the troops, tell the American people what is going on. Remember, this is not our House. This is not our building. This belongs to the people of America. We are privileged to be here, certainly, but we need answers. And I will tell you who else needs answers. The troops need answers. My own view is we need to get these troops home. We need to tear down the wall. We need to open the gate. And this is not just my view; this is a widely held view. Democrats and Republicans all agree. Just look around the Capitol Hill neighborhoods. These signs are everywhere. So are other signs. ``Free the People's House.'' ``Don't Fence the Capitol.'' What is happening right now--we all love our military. Our military normally is a symbol of strength for America. But right now, the military here is not a symbol of strength. We are telling the world, through razor wire, that American democracy is fragile and that it is afraid. American democracy is not fragile, and it is not afraid. So these troops are a symbol not just to Americans but to the rest of the world that the Capitol lives in fear or weakness. There was evidently some kind of vague--it wasn't credible--threat on March 4 from some nutjob group, QAnon--however the heck you pronounce it--and we had the entire House on the other side of this great building call it quits, went home, and said: We are not going to do any work. That is exactly the wrong answer. That is not what we did on January 6. So what we need is we need our leaders in the House and in the Senate to come down here and tell us why we are still in an armed camp. One can't help but wonder if there is something else going on here. Why do the leaders of the House and Senate still want thousands of troops and razor wire around the Capitol? I hope they don't fear the people they represent. I don't fear my constituents. Is there intel that they have that we don't know about? How long can we expect this green zone in our Nation's Capital to continue? The American people need answers. But here is the key issue. At the end of the day, this is a law enforcement problem. It is not a military problem. To make it a military problem is dangerous. If the Capitol Police need more officers, then let's have that discussion, but we are a citizen- controlled government, and our military, whom I respect so much, should not be used for an extended period of time here on the Capitol grounds to handle a law enforcement issue, especially at the most important symbol of democracy in America, probably the most important symbol of democracy in the world. So here is what we need to do. It is time to tear these walls down, open these gates, and send our brave National Guard troops home. 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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, it is that time of the week that our pages--when we had them--used to always look forward to. It is the time of the week that I come down on the floor and talk about someone in Alaska who is making a huge impact on my State, a lot of times for the country. These two Alaskans I am going to talk about actually have gotten national news for the great work they are doing, somebody we call our Alaskan of the Week. It is usually about a group of individuals, one, two, maybe a group of people who are helping make Alaska what, in my view, is the greatest State in the country-- resilient, tough, generous, kind, unique. Like so many States, this pandemic has really hit Alaska hard-- tourism for sure. The oil and gas sector last year was really hit hard with low prices. Unfortunately, this year, with the Biden administration's attacks on this sector of the United States and Alaska's economy, it is tough; commercial fishing, tough. It has been a tough year economically. But an area of good news during the pandemic, one that I am very proud of for all of my constituents, involves how we in Alaska have responded on the health side. Vaccines, testing, death rates--we have consistently been the top State rated in all of these categories throughout the pandemic, which is kind of amazing given that we are a very, very big State with a very small population. I know that so many Americans watching right now want to get back out, visit Alaska. Our Governor, Mike Dunleavy, recently tweeted: With the best vaccination efforts [in the country] & some of the lowest COVID numbers in the country, Alaska is open for business . . . safe for travelers! So come on, America, get back up to Alaska. Love to have you. So this is all very true. Our vaccination efforts are viewed as the best in the United States of America, and the great lengths that so many in Alaska have gone through to make it so have captured the country's imagination. These efforts just in the last couple of weeks have been featured all across the country--USA TODAY, ``Good Morning America,'' the Washington Post, the New York Times, a great piece by Bloomberg News, and so many others. So big thanks to the press corps, the national press corps, for featuring my State's efforts and importantly the heroic work being done to distribute lifesaving vaccines to a State that is more than 2\1/2\ times the size of Texas. Sorry there, Senator Cornyn, Senator Cruz. It is true. Most of the geography of Alaska is dotted with small villages without roads in freezing-cold temperatures. I was in Fairbanks last weekend-- just a couple of weeks ago in Fairbanks. It almost hit 40 below. That is cold. All across Alaska, our healthcare workers are jumping on boats, single-prop airplanes, snow machines, and, yes, in a couple of cases, dog sleds to bring the vaccine and hope to their fellow Alaskans. And it shows. As of a few days ago, close to 160,000 Alaskans had received at least their first vaccine dose. That is about 21 percent of our State's population. Now, in Southwest Alaska, what we called the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, or the YK Delta--those are two giant rivers that come together--these efforts have been particularly impressive. That is largely thanks to the amazing people at the YK Health Corporation, or YKHC, which is the YK Delta's Tribal health provider. The whole organization, consisting of just about 90 healthcare professionals, serves around 28,000 people in the YK region, which is about the size of Oregon, so a huge area, not a lot of people. Prior to the vaccine, the YK Delta had been stricken by COVID-19 with one of the highest infection rates in the country, in a very far-flung place in terms of the dispersal of the population. It is the efforts of two women there in the YK Delta, Drs. Ellen Hodges and Elizabeth Bates, who are our Alaskans of the Week, who have been in charge of getting the vaccine to roughly 50 remote villages in Southwestern Alaska. Spread out over a territory, as I said, about the size of Oregon, the village populations in the YK Delta range from about 1,200 people to as small as 10 in terms of population. Let's start with Dr. Hodges. She is the chief of staff at YKHC. She grew up in rural Minnesota. After graduating from the University of Minnesota Medical School, Dr. Hodges came to Anchorage as a resident in 2002, eventually making her way to Bethel, which is the hub village. It is a big community, the biggest in the YK Delta. She absolutely fell in love with the area. She said it has everything--very friendly people, authentic. It is beautiful. Soon enough, her patients turned into her family. Also soon enough, she was--according to Tricia Franklin, Alaska's director of the State Office of Rural Health Division--``the go-to person for how things are working in rural communities'' and how to get things done. She worked in the emergency room tending cuts, bruises, broken bones. She delivered babies. She worked tirelessly to contain a number of tuberculosis outbreaks in the region. And then the virus hit, and as I mentioned, it hit the YK Delta region very hard with some of the highest COVID rates in America. There are reasons for that: the multigenerational housing, very crowded housing in this region; communal lifestyle; and also--here is a big one, and it should be a shock for every American listening--about 50 percent of the households in this region of America lack running water. Let me say that again. Some of the most patriotic communities in the country, as Alaska Natives serve at higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the country, live in communities that don't have running water or flushed toilets--American citizens. It is wrong. It is wrong. And we need--we the U.S. Senate, Congress-- to continue to work on this issue. How do you wash your hands five times a day, as the CDC wants you to do during the pandemic, when you don't have running water or flushed toilets? We need to keep working on this. It is a disgrace, to be honest. So what happened when COVID hit in this region? Because of a lack of sanitation and many other problems, precious lives were being lost. Elders, who are vital to pass on the traditional wisdom of the Native Alaskan culture and heritage, were being lost. Because of a lack of functioning sanitation, even young people, whom this virus doesn't really impact, were starting to have respiratory illnesses and getting sick, and some were even dying. That is horrible. It was terrifying, particularly for an area that is still dealing with the multigenerational trauma of previous pandemics, particularly the Spanish flu of 1918, which in several Alaskan Native communities wiped out entire communities; 60, 70 percent mortally rates from that flu. So we needed to get to work fast, particularly in this region. Enter another intrepid doctor and our Alaskan of the Week, Dr. Elizabeth Bates. Dr. Bates arrived in Bethel in December of 2018--just a little over 2 years ago--and she found a community that she loved. She had experience working in women's health and infection control and emergency care and disaster relief. She has great experience across the country--really, across the world. As a doctor, she worked with patients during 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and has spent time even in refugee camps in Rwanda. In Bethel, she was in charge of setting up testing centers for the region. Working hand in glove with Dr. Hodges, she started one of the first drive-through and airport testing sites in rural Alaska, much of it outside in the cold weather under tarps. But we all know that testing alone, particularly, as I said, when people are living so closely together and don't live in places where you can wash your hands frequently, wasn't nearly enough. They tried everything--public service announcements, reaching out to villagers, helping them use bleach to sanitize. It was a 24/7 effort, but, as I said, it wasn't enough. The virus was spreading rapidly. They were losing. People were dying. Then on December 18, a few days before winter solstice--the darkest day of the year--hope came to Bethel, AK, because the first vaccines arrived. Thanks to the great work of so many scientists, government workers, private sector workers, Operation Warp Speed, the vaccine arrived on December 18 to the YK Delta. These two intrepid doctors I have been talking about cried. They had seen a lot of death and struggles in the region, and like a Christmas miracle, this vaccine arrived. They hugged each other, and then they got to work. As I said, there are roughly 50 remote villages in the YK Delta spread out over a territory about the size of many States in our country--as a matter of fact, bigger than most States in our country-- so they traveled on small planes, trucks, on ice roads, snow machines, dog sleds. Their operation, Project Togo, is named in reference to one of the famous sled dogs that helped carry the diphtheria serum to Nome, which, of course, is the original inspiration for the Iditarod Sled Dog Race. Sometimes it was so cold that they had to keep the syringes filled with COVID serum under their clothes, lest the serum froze. The operation that they initiated and organized has hit every single village, all 50 in the YK Delta, bringing the vaccine to pretty much anyone who wants it. In some villages, they have been able to vaccinate as much as half the population. As a result, the numbers of COVID infections and deaths are plummeting in this region, and hope is spreading. This great team, Drs. Hodges and Bates, as well as all in the community and all working at YKHC, have made a huge difference, and this team has created a special bond that nobody will forget. Dr. Bates, a relative newcomer to Alaska, says that the experience has made her fall in love with the YK Delta region even more. She bought a home. She intends on staying. She describes the beauty of the region, something that she appreciates even more now, as ``Our sky is huge. . . . We have a front-row seat to the entire universe.'' These two doctors also have a front-row seat in providing a front-row seat to hope during this pandemic. So I want to thank both of them again, Dr. Hodges and Dr. Bates, and all those across Alaska who are helping distribute the vaccine. As I mentioned, right now, Alaska is the No. 1 State in the country per capita in terms of vaccine distribution and the No. 1 State per capita in terms of testing and has one of the lowest death rates. This is really amazing, really, when you see how big and widespread and harsh the weather conditions can be in the great State of Alaska. Our fellow Alaskans are tough, resilient, and innovative, and Dr. Hodges and Dr. Bates are a huge and essential part of this effort. That is why I want to congratulate them and thank them again for being our Alaskans of the Week. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump marked the third time in 1 year that the Senate has had to confront significant constitutional and institutional questions with consequences that will undoubtedly reverberate into the future. As always, I am guided by the Constitution, historical precedent, and ``a deep responsibility to future times,'' as stated by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, our Nation's first great constitutional scholar, two centuries ago. This is what has informed me during last year's impeachment, the electorial college certification in January, and now another impeachment. This has been a disheartening episode for a divided America. Make no mistake: I condemn the horrific violence that engulfed the Capitol on January 6. All those who undertook violence on that day should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I also condemn former President Trump's poor judgment in calling a rally on that day, and his actions and inactions when it turned into a riot. His blatant disregard for his own Vice President, Mike Pence, who was fulfilling his constitutional duty at the Capitol, infuriates me. I will never forget the brave men and women of law enforcement--some of whom lost their lives and were seriously injured--who carried out their patriotic duty to protect members of Congress that day. However horrible the violence was--and how angry I have been about it--I believe that it is imperative, for the future of our democracy, to examine closely the totality of the precedents, impeachment proceedings, and evidence, and to be as dispassionate and impartial as possible in this case. That is why I cast my vote, on February 13, 2021, to acquit former President Trump on the single Article of Impeachment, ``incitement of insurrection.'' The primary purpose of impeachment in our constitutional system is to remove an official from office--to, according to Justice Story, divest an official ``of his political capacity.'' The House's single Article of Impeachment emphasized this need to remove President Trump from office. Regarding this case before the Senate, President Donald Trump had already been removed from office by a vote of the American people this past November. Thus, pursuing impeachment in this case creates a troubling precedent in which former officials--private citizens--can face impeachment and conviction. Therefore, the fundamental issue in this impeachment trial is not removal from office but whether the Senate has or should accept jurisdiction to try, convict, and disqualify Donald Trump, a private citizen, from any future elected office based on the House's single article of impeachment--incitement of insurrection. The House and Senate have never before claimed or exercised such impeachment jurisdiction over a former President. I do not believe that the Constitution empowers the Senate to have such impeachment jurisdiction. In his renowned ``Commentaries on the Constitution,'' Justice Story comes to the same conclusion, although to be fair, there are others who do not. I believe that the precedents set in claiming that the Senate can try former Presidents who are private citizens have the very real potential to do significant long-term damage to our constitutional order, individual liberties, and the proper functioning of our Republic in a way that we will come to regret as a nation. Additionally in this case, the House undertook a ``snap impeachment'' in 48 hours with no hearings, no witnesses, no record, and no defenses presented. When asked about this during the Senate trial, the House managers stated that constitutional due process protections for a defendant in an impeachment are ``discretionary'' or, in other words, not required. This troubling declaration is now a precedent in the House. Combining this ``no Due Process/snap impeachment'' precedent with the additional power of the Senate to try former officials, who are now private citizens, amounts to a massive expansion of Congress' impeachment power never contemplated by our Founding Fathers. The temptation to use such power as a regular tool of partisan warfare in the future will be great and has the potential to incapacitate our government. Those in favor of expanding impeachment jurisdiction to include the former President primarily point to the potential for Presidents or other officials to commit impeachable acts near the end of their term or shortly before resigning. The House managers called this a ``January exception'' to impeachment. They argued that this would allow such individuals to escape culpability and would frustrate the purpose of impeachment to hold public officials accountable. This is a legitimate concern. However, there are other remedies available to punish such conduct of a former President through the judicial system, if warranted. The Constitution explicitly provides that former officials can be subject to criminal prosecution for their actions while in office, regardless of impeachment. Moreover, even if such conduct eludes judicial review, the American people are well equipped to judge political conduct and pass their judgement upon it. For that reason, and as I emphasized last year following the previous impeachment trial, I believe it can be left to the wise judgement of the American people on whether or not the former President should be disqualified from future office. Even if this Senate was empowered by the Constitution to hear this case, I do not believe that the House managers met their burden in proving the critical issue at trial--whether the former President intended there to be violence at the Capitol as a result of his speech at the Ellipse on January 6. Furthermore, the House managers claimed, in arguing their incitement charge, that First Amendment political speeth protections do not apply to elected officials in impeachment proceedings. A conviction based on this breathtaking precedent has the potential to significantly further undermine core constitutional protections for Americans and their ability to undertake political speech in the future. Finally, laced throughout the House managers' presentations were subtle and not-sosubtle indictments, not just against the Capitol rioters who fully deserve condemnation but against all supporters of the former President, which of course includes many Alaskans. This sentiment is one that cannot and should not be allowed to be perpetuated. In my view, this will not bring about the kind of unity that our Nation needs now. In contrast to what some of the House managers implied at this trial, the vast majority of Americans and Alaskans who had supported President Trump were appalled by the violence on January 6. Such Alaskans supported this President because of his polices that helped our State. I will continue to work to make sure that these Alaskans' voices are not silenced and that this dispiriting chapter in American history won't deter them from speaking out in defense of their beliefs. This has been a difficult time for our Nation. My vote on February 13 was not in defense of the former President's conduct on January 6 with which I fully disagreed, particularly his twitter attacks on Vice President Pence, as the Vice President undertook his constitutional duties to preside over the electoral college vote at the Capitol. At the end of the day, my obligation is to rise above the passions of the moment and to carefully consider the decisions we make today and the ramifications they will have for our country's future. I believe that my vote to acquit fulfills that obligation. I want Alaskans and Americans to know that throughout all of this, my guiding light has been both fidelity to Alaska and to our Constitution.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wanted to talk a little bit about the vote I just took here with regard to our Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Vilsack, who is now the new Secretary or on his way to becoming the new Secretary. You know, what I have tried to do when looking at nominees is I typically kind of look at three different questions: Do they have experience for the job, the experience necessary for the job, do they have views that I believe will help the country and in particular help my State, and do they care about the people they will be impacting? So that is a bit of a three-part test. I have tried to work with a lot of the new nominees in the Biden administration. I voted for a number of them, most of them. As a matter of fact, I introduced Secretary Austin at his confirmation hearing. I got to know him many years ago when I was a marine and he was an Army officer, a two-star general. You know, I will say to my friends, colleagues, constituents back home who say: Hey, Senator, you know, when the Trump administration put forward their nominees, you usually had kind of a party-line vote. A lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my Democratic friends, would vote no, no, no, no. Why don't you do that? Well, I don't think it is good for the country; that is why I don't do that. I am against some but I have been supportive of many, and I am not sure the way in which it worked with the previous administration was best for our Nation. So certainly Secretary Vilsack passes the first two parts of that test I was talking about. Clearly he has the experience. He was the Secretary of Ag for 8 years under President Obama and Vice President Biden. Certainly he has views particularly with regard to farm country. You saw the strong vote he had there with regard to helping the ag sector. I am sure he is a patriot, of course. He cares about our country. But it was the third question--does he care about the people he will be impacting?--that I have had some serious hesitation on. Mr. President, I will talk a little bit about, you know, a lot of our different economies throughout the country. Our States have been hit hard by this pandemic. I would say that my State's economy has been hit really hard. When you look at what drives a lot of the Alaska economy: the energy sector, oil, gas, mining, the tourism sector, the fisheries, commercial fishery sector--I like to call Alaska the superpower of seafood. Over 60 percent of all seafood harvested in America comes from the waters of the great State of Alaska, the most sustainable, best managed fishery probably in the world but a huge driver of our economy. Also, there is the issue of access to our lands. Sixty-six percent of Alaska is Federal land. We need access to help have a strong economy. It is an issue that the Presiding Officer probably doesn't have to worry about, being from Connecticut, but in Alaska, access to land is huge. In the last administration, we made a lot of progress on these issues for our economy, on oil and gas, ANWR, the NPRA, access to those lands, legislation by the Congress. Our tourism sector had been doing great. Our commercial fishing sector had been doing great. We even made progress on other access issues, like the Tongass, something that for 25 years Democrats and Republicans, whether Senators from Alaska, whether Governors from Alaska, were trying to get access to those lands. It is really important, and we were able to do that. So there was progress, and then the pandemic that has hurt everybody. It certainly hurt the energy sector. It certainly hurt, crushed the tourism sector. Last year, Alaska was going to have 1.5 million people show up in our State with regard to tourism, a new record just on the cruise ships, but none of them showed up because of the pandemic. The commercial fishing sector also has had a really rough time with this pandemic--markets, international markets, markets domestically. So I am very concerned about my State's economy, about working families, and about the average Alaskan who is struggling right now. The new policies put forward by this administration have been shockingly negative as it relates to my State. One month in, particularly in the energy sector, every day we are waking up to a new edict saying: Men and women who produce energy in America, who produce energy in Alaska, sorry, you are not favored anymore. You are not viewed in a positive light anymore. It is a real, real, real concern. Hundreds, if not thousands of jobs in my State during a recession are at risk. So these are some of the issues that I raised in my discussions with Secretary Vilsack, in particular our commercial fishing sector. In the previous administration, under the USDA, the Secretary of Agriculture helped implement a new trade relief program for fishermen. Huge progress. Hugely important. Just the way the farmers were getting this kind of relief with regard to trade and markets that have been destroyed by the pandemic, the Secretary of Agriculture undertook a new program for the farmers of the sea, for the fishermen who are being negatively impacted the same way that our farmers on the land were. This is an issue that I raised with the Secretary on the importance of moving forward, continuing that, and to be honest, there didn't seem to be a lot of interest. I was kind of shocked, but there didn't seem to be a lot of interest, and I was concerned. I am concerned. Similarly, this progress we made with regard to the Tongass, access to the largest national forest in the country that is under USDA management--something Alaskans have been working on in a bipartisan way for 25 years. There didn't seem to be a lot of interest from the Secretary on that either. So these are two issues hugely important to my State, hugely important to my constituents, hugely important to try to get Alaska out of a really deep recession where a lot of families are worried. And I got the sense that the Secretary just wasn't that interested. I really hope I am wrong. I really hope I am wrong. So I plan on trying to work with him. You know, he had a strong, very strong bipartisan vote, but every now and then, if you really think the people you represent are not going to be given a lot of attention when they need it, it becomes a harder vote. It becomes a harder vote. He obviously has got strong bipartisan support, but I sure hope that when he becomes Secretary of Agriculture, he cares as much about the farmers of the sea, where we have made progress on, as he does about farmers on the land. I didn't see that in my meeting with him and I hope I am wrong and that is why I voted the way I did. I also voted the way I did as it relates to this issue of access to the Tongass. Again, it is a huge issue to my State, a very bipartisan issue for my State. And, again, I hope that the Secretary and his team look at it as something that can help the economy of Alaska while protecting our environment, which, of course, we care about. But these are the reasons that I voted the way I did, and I hope that my concerns are going to be proved to be unfounded. I am going to continue to advocate for my constituents in the way that I think is going to be very important as we try and get through these challenging times, particularly the Alaska Tongass. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is not debate. It is a point of inquiry on what we just voted on.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Just a point of inquiry. There is a little confusion here. Was that a vote on one witness or many witnesses?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I send a question to the desk for the former President's counsel.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, as many of us know, our country is mourning the loss of a great man, a man who I believe was one of the greatest of the Greatest Generation. Yesterday, we all received the sad news that George Shultz, Secretary Shultz, died in his home in California yesterday. He was 100 years old. He just celebrated his 100th birthday in December. He was a man of great intelligence, of courage, of integrity. He exemplified service, what is great about this Nation, and hope for our country--not just for our country but countries around the world. Democracy itself was something that this great American promoted. He leaves behind his wife Charlotte, 3 daughters, 2 sons, 11 grandchildren, and 9 great-grandchildren. Of course, our prayers for his family are going out to all of them during this difficult time. There are people who have lived history, and there are people who have made history. Secretary Shultz made history. He lived a life in full, and he was always giving back to his country, to his fellow Americans. He was one of only two, I believe, American citizens who held four different Cabinet posts in the U.S. Government. He was OMB Director, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of the Treasury, and, most importantly, Secretary of State for almost the entire two terms of President Reagan's tenure during some very perilous times in our country's history. As Secretary of State, there is no doubt that Secretary Shultz, along with President Reagan, did so much to win the Cold War, to bring down the Berlin Wall eventually, to successfully not just defeat in the Cold War the Soviet Union but to foster the infrastructure of democracy around the globe. If you read about his exploits, if you read his autobiography, you will see so much of what George Shultz did for our country, which was so important. It is not an exaggeration to say we are living in a more peaceful and prosperous world--there is no doubt we have challenges--because of men like Secretary Shultz. One of the great honors of my lifetime was to get to know Secretary Shultz over the last several years. I had the opportunity to meet with him many, many times and to listen and learn--and his mind was so sharp--from the stories that he would tell. This, to me, is another great example of leadership--people who, even in the end years of their life, are still mentoring others, whether Senators or students. He would regularly teach classes at Stanford as part of the Hoover Institution out there. He kept writing books until his 100th birthday. I had the opportunity to wish him a happy birthday in December and was even on a Zoom call with him. I will say, in my experience with him, certain things kept coming out, themes of a life: service, of course, patriotism, integrity, trust, and also the U.S. Marine Corps. You know, when it comes to the issue of integrity, you look at Secretary Shultz's career, his life, and he always had integrity as the highest principle, and he talked about that, not just integrity to do the right thing, which meant sometimes saying no, but he did this throughout his career. And, then, at the very twilight of his career, he talked about not just integrity but trust--trust as the coin of the realm of a good life, of service. As he was turning 100 in December, he put out a little pamphlet. It is right here. I read the whole thing. I encourage my colleagues to read it: Life and Learning after One Hundred Years. Trust Is the Coin of the Realm. Reflections on Trust and Effective Relationships across a New Hinge of History. George P. Shultz, December 13, 2020. Who does that when they are 100--put out a pamphlet on trust? Well, George Shultz did that In the pamphlet, Secretary Shultz wrote that one lesson he learned as a child and retained over and over again was the importance of trust. As he says in this pamphlet: When trust was in the room, whatever room that was--the family room, the schoolroom, the coach's room, the office room, the government room, or the military room--good things happen. When trust was not in the room, good things did not happen. I think, certainly, we can learn that here in the U.S. Senate, where trust is the coin of the realm here. There is no doubt about that. This idea of trust is a lesson that stayed with him throughout his career and a concept that he believed--when you read all his writings and talked to him the way so many of us have had the opportunity to-- helped lead to the end of the Cold War--trust. President Reagan, General Secretary Gorbachev together eliminated intermediate-range nuclear weapons, which laid down the foundation for the peaceful end of the Cold War in which the United States was victorious. This pamphlet by Secretary Shultz on trust can be found online at https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/ shultz_finalfile_web-ready.pdf. Even to the end of his days, he was still looking at providing guidance to the Senate. I had a talk with him, as I mentioned, just about 5 weeks ago about his coming to testify in front of the Armed Services Committee, a tradition started by another great American, John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Every January, we would start with some statesmen with a lot of knowledge and history, and George Shultz was always part of that, testifying in front of the Armed Services Committee at 98, 99 years old, with Henry Kissinger, the junior man in the room, who was just a year or two younger. Senator Reed and I were just talking recently about bringing Secretary Shultz back to, once again, testify in front of the Armed Services Committee, and I am sad to say we have lost this great American before he can do that again. Let me conclude with this: The other thing I loved about George Shultz is that he was, first and foremost, a U.S. marine. Until the end of his life, he spoke about the pride he gained from serving in combat in World War II as a Marine Corps officer and the many, many lessons he learned throughout his life from his service in the Marines. The first time I ever met the Secretary, I went into his office. I thought there would be a bunch of pictures with famous people--there were some of those--but there were Marine Corps recruiting posters everywhere. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, another great American, recounted in her excellent op-ed about the legacy of Secretary Shultz just yesterday in the Washington Post. He told her that being Secretary of State was ``the best job in government.'' When she got nominated to be Secretary of State, he called her to give her some advice. They were very good friends. He was a mentor of hers as well. He said it is the best job in government, the Secretary of State. And then he corrected himself: It is the best job except for when I was a Marine Corps captain. That is what he told Condi, so he was first and foremost a marine. For all of these reasons, I will be calling up a resolution, a bipartisan resolution, to honor the life, achievements, and legacy of the Honorable George P. Shultz, who has done so much for our great Nation. We are working on this. Hopefully, we will get it passed in the Senate here soon. It is very bipartisan already. I was hoping to get it done tonight. When great Americans leave us, it is really important that we reflect and look on the life of service, commitment, patriotism, honor, courage, and learn from that. Even though he is gone after 100 years, I know I am going to be learning from George Shultz for a long, long time. I sure hope and I expect and I certainly believe that my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate and our fellow Americans will be as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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