Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Let me wrap up here by mentioning that, as we already talked about, the Congressional Research Service has called this the most comprehensive ocean cleanup legislation ever to come out of the Congress. As Senator Whitehouse said, 6 years ago, we were starting at nothing. And then we got Save Our Seas 1.0, primarily about cleaning up our own coastlines. There are a lot of funny stories there, but we did have a really interesting--and I thought entertaining--signing ceremony at the White House with the President and Senator Whitehouse. The two hadn't met before. They got along really well, particularly talking about this issue. And it did motivate the Trump administration to start focusing more. You may have seen in the new NAFTA, the USMCA, the first trade agreement has a whole section on ocean cleanup and a whole section on fisheries and sustainable fisheries. This is a really important precedent for the U.S. government, regardless of party. As Senator Menendez mentioned, a lot of focus internationally. I want to thank him again, in terms of the Foreign Relations Committee. Our ability to help other countries--we are certainly not perfect, but the big challenge on a lot of the oceans, in terms of cleanup and what comes onto the shores of the United States, what comes onto the shores of Alaska in terms of plastics and pollution, comes from overseas. We need to help there. As Senator Whitehouse also mentioned, improving our domestic infrastructure to prevent marine debris--so we are setting our own example, not just helping other countries--and then enhancing our own domestic response. Senator Whitehouse mentioned this Marine Debris Foundation. This is a congressionally chartered private organization. There are not many in the country. This is a big deal. Thank the Red Cross. Thank the American Legion. These are congressionally chartered organizations that will give this effort public-private partnership energy to address the problem. That is exactly what we are focused on here, and that is why we thought it was so important to have a Marine Debris Foundation as an enduring element of the U.S. leadership that is now exemplified by Save our Seas 2.0. I will mention one final thing. You know, one of the things that I thought was very important--we are going to keep this together--is we worked hard not to single out one industry or one area: Hey, you are not doing a good job; you need to get your act together. What we said when we put this bill together is we are going to bring in all the stakeholders--Democrats, Republicans, the executive branch, Federal agencies, industry, key environmental groups, ocean conservancy, World Wildlife Foundation--and get everybody together--the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, which is an initiative in the private sector, and say: What can we do together to solve this problem? That is what we did. All the stakeholders came together. Everybody worked closely together, good ideas, pulling on the same oar. And that is how we got this done. You know, one of our finest Senators, Lamar Alexander, gave his farewell speech just last week, and he talked about this idea of a split screen in the Senate. Yes, there is contention. Yes, there are battles. The media loves to play those up. But there is also another element about what we do here where there is strong bipartisan support on really big issues: the CARES Act, the NDAA, the Great American Outdoors Act--probably the biggest conservation bill in 50 years--21st Century Cures; these are all things that we are getting done here that matter to the American people in a bipartisan way. You don't always read about them in the press, but they are still happening. And now we can add to that list the biggest ocean cleanup legislation in the history of the country going to the President's desk for signing here in the next couple of days. It is something our fellow Americans should know about. And as Senator Whitehouse said, we are going to build on that too. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise also to say farewell to a truly great Senator, Senator Pat Roberts. He has been a friend and a mentor of mine in the U.S. Senate. He has been a leader, and there is no doubt--we are hearing it all--about all his accomplishments. He is certainly one of the great State of Kansas's most accomplished Senators ever. But I would be remiss if I didn't mention that he is also a great Senator for another group of proud Americans, and that would be the U.S. Marine Corps. Senator Roberts has taken care of the U.S. Marines during his entire tenure here. If the marines needed something, they knew where to go--the great Senator from Kansas. As you know, most Senators wear their Senate pin here, indicating that they are a Senator. We are proud to wear that. For the years I have known Senator Roberts--he is probably doing it again today--he wears his pin, but sometimes and usually he actually wears the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor, showing--and I think he has one on right now--where so much of his loyalty lies--with the U.S. Marine Corps. So I know that the marines are certainly going to miss Senator Roberts. I am certainly going to miss Senator Roberts. You know, just like in his remarks today, he is a man of great wit, great stories, and I have had the honor to hear so many of these stories, and a lot of these stories, of course, for me, involve Alaska and the late great Senator Ted Stevens, who was also a very close friend of Pat's, in the seat which I am honored to hold here in the U.S. Senate. I have learned so much from these stories that I heard from Senator Roberts. Most importantly, he has been a great example for me and so many other Senators. He is a statesman, a marine, an optimist. You heard it in his remarks today. We need more of that. He is a family man, a dedicated husband for over 50 years to a beautiful, wonderful wife; a leader in the Senate--six chairmanships--who gets things done for his State and for his country; and finally, a man of integrity--of integrity. You know, it is tough duty to be the chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee, but the Senate Ethics Committee is much needed here, and to chair that committee for 24 years is a testament of every single Senator here saying how much they believe in this man's integrity. I was honored a couple of years ago when Pat asked me to serve on the Eisenhower Memorial Commission. It was a true honor for me, and I will say I saw again one of the great qualities of Senator Roberts' tenacity. On a rainy night a few months ago, I attended the dedication ceremony of President Eisenhower and watched as America celebrated a great American, a great Kansan, and there is one person who really made that a reality--Senator Pat Roberts. So today we say farewell to another great Kansan and a great American, my good friend Senator Pat Roberts. Thank you, sir, for the example, for the mentorship, for the friendship, and your great service to the Senate, to Kansas, to America, and to the U.S. Marine Corps. Semper Fi. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to echo what the chairman of the Armed Services Committee said with regard to this upcoming vote. It is, actually, a very important vote, and I think that when you look at the leadership of the UAE and what they have done, we are seeing major peace agreements between our traditional Gulf Arab allies and Israel. This is really significant. This is a whole different approach to addressing some of the long-term challenges with regard to the Middle East, and it is starting to work. I think it is imperative that this body, particularly at this time, send a message of support to countries and leaders--the UAE, in particular, given this upcoming vote--that have taken risks. Leadership sometimes requires you to take risks, and we know that the history in the Middle East is sometimes--when you have countries and leaders who take risks with regard to peace with Israel, those leaders can actually have dire consequences. Look what happened in Egypt, after that peace agreement, with their leaders. I think it is very important that we, as a body, in a bipartisan, strong way come down in support not just of the progress that has been made in the region but also the broader strategic realignment that is happening. Why is that happening? Because we all recognize--the United States, Israel, our traditional Gulf Arab allies, our traditional Arab allies in the region--that the biggest challenge, the biggest threat in the region is the terrorist regime in Iran, which is the biggest challenge and biggest threat to peace and security in the region. There has been enormous progress. The President and his team deserve a lot of the credit. Rebuilding our military deserves a lot of credit, which we have all done here. But we need to send a signal that policies that have been tried before, particularly policies that appease the largest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world, don't work. The policies of strength, the policies of standing together--Israel, United States, our traditional Arab allies--that is what is working, and that is what is bringing peace. This vote that is going to happen soon is a lot more than just a vote on weapon sales. It is a vote on this body helping to cement the reorientation in the region toward peace and toward recognizing what the challenge is. The challenge that we all face is the biggest terrorist regime in the world, which threatens the United States, threatens Israel, threatens the UAE, and threatens Saudi Arabia. That is why we need a strong vote in the way the chairman of the Armed Services Committee just talked about. I am fully supportive of where he is, and I am hopeful that this body will vote for continued peace and strength, particularly as it relates to the terrorist regime in Iran, and not send the wrong signal to our friends and allies, particularly when historic progress--yes, it has been historic progress--is being made in the region. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I was in Alaska when Judge Amy Coney Barrett was before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but since then I have been able to catch up on those hearings. I want to commend my colleagues, particularly Senator Graham for conducting those hearings in a way that befitted such an occasion--with respect and good questioning. I think the American people--certainly my constituents-- learned a lot and were very, very impressed with Judge Barrett. As you know, the advice and consent responsibility of the Senate is one of the most important responsibilities we have in the Constitution. The process that I will have gone through and go through with every single judge is to evaluate Judge Barrett's qualifications on her record, the hearings, and, of course, in discussions I have had with her. This has been an extensive evaluation. I have read hundreds of pages of the decisions she has authored. I have listened to and read the views of Alaskans both for and against her nomination. In my meeting with Judge Barrett, we discussed in great depth her viewpoint on a variety of national and Alaska-focused legal issues. She clearly understands the separation of powers and federalism, holds a healthy skepticism regarding the expansive power of Federal Agencies, and is a strong protector and proponent of the Second Amendment--all issues that my constituents care deeply about. Why are these issues so important to Alaska and central to our realizing our potential? Let me give a brief but recent example of an issue that recently made its way to the Ninth Circuit, which often is the bane of our existence in Alaska, to the Supreme Court not once but twice, and was unanimously agreed to by the Supreme Court. It is a case that some of the media here would be familiar with, Sturgeon v. Frost-- a moose hunter, a hovercraft, the wild interior of Alaska. It made for some great headlines. But the issue being litigated in that case was one of control, one of freedom--control of our lands, our waters, our fish, and game. The Federal Government, in essence, told John Sturgeon he couldn't use his hovercraft on Federal waters to go hunting. ``Yes, I can,'' said Sturgeon. He knew the law. Then there was litigation. It is one that comes up time and again in Alaska--the issue of Federal overreach, agency creep. In Alaska, we have a front row to this problem. We have seen it happen to us consistently by the courts-- particularly, as I mentioned, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. When they interpret statutes involving my State--and they are many--Federal statutes can only relate to Alaska in a way that fits with their ideas and policy notions about the way the Federal lands in Alaska should be managed. In essence, they typically think that less control by the people and more control by the government is what is needed. But that often is not what Congress wrote and what Congress intended. It is the absolute opposite of judicial humility, failing to read the statutes as we, in this body, wrote them. It is failing to exhibit the kind of textualism that Judge Barrett ascribes to and was so on display during our hearings. So why is this important? When the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit twice in 3 years, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her opinion for the majority in Sturgeon v. Frost that the Federal laws that govern land management in Alaska are often ``different'' from the laws governing land management in any other part of the country. These laws are often carefully crafted by this body and the House, and they are essential for Alaskans, both culturally and economically. And when judges misinterpret these laws--as they often do, and this is what I talked to Judge Barrett about--they often directly impact the lives of my constituents, usually in a negative way. Just ask John Sturgeon and countless other Alaskans who, over the decades, have seen their rights to legally enjoy our lands--and it is our lands--that they call home whittled away, decision by decision, by Federal agencies. Over the years, various Federal agencies have acted as if Federal laws governing Alaska didn't exist. Commercial use permits weren't being issued. People couldn't partake in their traditional activities. They couldn't harvest their traditional foods. Alaskans couldn't make a living on the land. I don't know how Judge Barrett would vote on these specific issues, but I trust her temperament, on great display during the hearings, her stated skepticism about Federal overreach, her strong belief that the Second Amendment ``confers an individual right, intimately connected with the natural right of self-defense.'' I trust what others have said about her on both sides of the aisle: ``brilliant,'' ``humble,'' ``a woman of unassailable integrity,'' and ``a role model for generations to come.'' All of this was on display during her hearing and in my meeting with her, and I trust that all of this will come to play when these kinds of cases--the Alaska-specific cases--make their way up to the High Court, which they inevitably do. I don't believe that it is an overstatement to say that the future of my constituents depends on these kinds of issues. It is for these reasons, and others, that I will vote to confirm Judge Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, and I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same for this exceptional jurist who is very qualified for this position. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is Thursday, and as you know, it is one of my favorite times of the week. The Presiding Officer has the good fortune of listening to a number of the ``Alaskan of the Week'' speeches when I get to come down to the floor--typically every Thursday--to talk about a person or group of people who are doing great things for my State. As I said, so many of my colleagues here--even some of the reporters--know this is the person we call our Alaskan of the Week, but sometimes we call them our Alaskans of the Week. This week, we are going plural in a big way. This week, we are recognizing an entire community for how this community--the whole community--banded together to literally help save a young child who was sick and needed medical attention. Before I get into the story, let me say that, in Alaska, community is everything. Living in one of the most magnificent places in the world is not without its challenges. We depend on each other. Communities often come together to help each other. Typically, in our rural communities, traditional knowledge is critical and so is hard-won ingenuity and determination to overcome many of the challenges in living in the great State of Alaska. I would like to transport you to one of those communities. It is the village of Igiugig in Southwest Alaska. Rich in Native traditions, Igiugig is home to around 70 year-round residents, growing to over 200 in the summer months. The name ``Igiugig'' originated from a Yupik word meaning ``like a throat that swallows water,'' referring to the village's location where the Kvichak River meets Iliamna. Going all the way back to the purchase of Alaska from Russia over 150 years ago, Igiugig has maintained a commercial fishing and subsistence- based economy. They have been incredibly innovative with alternative energy there--wind and hydro--and most importantly, this community has maintained a strong sense of connection with each other, which is so important for communities like this. This is evidenced by what happened just a few weeks ago when a young girl needed to be airlifted out of the community to Anchorage--some 250 miles away--for medical help, and nearly every member of the community pitched in to help. What happened? Here is what happened. On the night of August 28--so about 3 or 4 weeks ago--around 11:30 a.m., the Tribal administrator and village council vice president Karl Hill was sitting at home when he saw the LifeMed Alaska flight, which he knew was coming in to help this young girl, circling above the small runway. Over 200 of our communities aren't connected by roads. They aren't connected by roads, so a lot of them have very small airports and landing strips. Karl got this phone call when the pilot was above circling. There was a problem with the runway lights; they weren't working. He ran out to the airport to try to turn the lights on manually. That didn't work, so he got into his plane--he was one of only two pilots in the village with a plane. He got on the plane just to talk to the pilot, who was circling above, over the headset. That pilot who was on the medevac flight told him he was getting low on fuel. He wouldn't be able to circle much longer, and he couldn't land. But this young girl needed help as soon as possible. In so many of our Native communities and rural communities, there is no hospital. There is barely even a medical clinic sometimes. So she needed to be medevacked. While Karl communicated with the pilot over his headset, other community members began calling people in the community asking for help. Ida Nelson made calls and jumped on her four-wheeler and headed to the airport. Community leader Christina Salmon, whose sister is Alexanna Salmon--who was our Alaskan of the Week in 2017, by the way-- made around 32 phone calls. Health aide Amanda Bybee, Jeff Bringhurst, and so many others started calling and rallying this community, and they all came out. They all came out in any kind of vehicle with lights that they had--trucks, cars, ATVs, kids on four-wheelers, many still in their pajamas. This was in the middle of the night. They arrived to provide enough light on the runway for the pilot to see the landing strip. They staggered the vehicles facing east and running the whole length of the runway, lighting the medevac pilot's way. They waited intensely. Ida Nelson told a reporter: I was anxious and nervous. . . . I was like, ``so what if that was my baby (waiting for that) plane?'' What if it was my young girl who needed lifesaving help? They waited for the plane to touch down, for the girl to be transferred, and for the plane to take off again. All of this happened with the lights provided by the community in a makeshift lighting of the runway. By this time, it was around a little past 1:30, closer to 2 o'clock, but when the plane took off, the community, of course, was in a celebratory mood. ``We were pumped up,'' Karl Hill said. ``It was really an amazing feat that we were able to pull together so quickly'' in the middle of the night. He added, ``It was really a nice evening.'' That young girl who needed to be medevacked and airlifted in Anchorage is now back in the community, and she has recovered, thank God. LifeMed Alaska, which provided the medevac, posted a photo on social media with the following caption: ``What appears to be a blurry, dark photo is actually a view of what an amazing community can do with a lot of determination,'' lighting a runway, saving a life. Indeed. We are so proud to be a State full of such tight-knit communities that work together every day to make Alaska so special. We are particularly proud as we recount the events of August 28 in Igiugig and so grateful to everyone in the community who came out in the middle of the night, some in their pajamas, to make sure that young girl could get the medical help she needed. Thank you to Igiugig for being such an amazing community with great determination, great heart, and great innovation. Congratulations to all of you for being our Alaskans of the Week. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I am going to be talking about a bill of mine that is, I think, very appropriate and very timely, the Protect Our Heroes Act, which will federalize certain violent crimes against public safety officers across the country, like the police and first responders, in order to deter these kinds of crimes and show the men and women in our law enforcement community that we have their backs. Before I get into the details of my bill, I want to talk a little bit about a very moving event. I was back home last week in Alaska. I was at the American Legion Post No. 15 in Palmer, AK, and it was on the commemoration of September 11. It was a wonderful remembrance dinner. There were tons of veterans, patriots. My State is blessed with more vets per capita than any State in the country. But it was focused on law enforcement. We had the Palmer police chief there. We had members of the police department from Anchorage there because we were focused on so many things that came out of that day--9/ 11. But honoring our first responders is something that I think America learned--that we need to respect the men and women epitomized by the police and firemen who went up the Tower. Many of them knew they were going to die, and they did that. They did that to protect us, and there was this newfound respect for our first responders that came out of the tragedy of 9/11. Now, in my remarks to my fellow veterans in Palmer at the American Legion post last Friday, I did mention that one of the elements of what is happening in our country, unfortunately, is that these memories are fading. They are fading, and in some ways the respect for the police is not just fading. It is being reversed. You see these movements, these national movements of defunding our police--a horrible idea, in my view. My State needs more law enforcement, not less. We have seen on our TV screens and our social media channels that there are people--criminals--who are focused on harming the police, killing the police, attacking the police, and even taking glee in the killing and the violence against law enforcement. So we have all seen in the past few years a dramatic increase in killings, in ambushes. In Iowa, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Georgia this has been happening. It certainly hit home in my State. In Anchorage, in 2016, we had a brave police officer, Arn Salao, who was the victim of a cowardly ambush in 2016. Thankfully, he survived, barely. What was the result of the arrest of the individual who tried to kill him? He ended up being a serial killer, killing five others in Anchorage. But this brave police officer found him, stopped him, and almost lost his life. Unfortunately, another officer in a shooting in Alaska the same year, 2016, in Fairbanks, wasn't so fortunate. On October 16, 2016, Sergeant Allen Brandt, an 11-year veteran of the Fairbanks Police Department, pulled over a suspect to question him, and he was shot five times. He eventually succumbed to the complications related to his injuries. I went to the memorial service. There were hundreds of Alaskans. He had a young family, a young wife. It was brutal to watch this. These are selfless men and women in my State, who are every day getting up to risk their lives and to wear the uniform in the line of duty. All of this inspired me to put together my Protect Our Heroes Act, which will enhance Federal penalties for the killing or assaulting of public safety officers and first responders, especially increasing penalties for criminals who ambush or lure law enforcement officers for the purpose of committing crimes against them--dramatically enhancing penalties. This is something that I think the vast majority of us in the Senate agree with. Now, I take the opportunity to go running most days, whether I am here or back home. And when I go running on Capitol Hill, what I see every morning--and I saw it this morning--are police officers. No matter the time of day, Capitol Police are sitting in their vehicles or on patrol. Their sole purpose is to protect this institution and the Members. This morning, as I usually do when I run past them sitting in their car, I just gave them a thumbs-up. Thank you. Thank you. We respect you, and we certainly have your back. So that is why I am offering this legislation today. I hope my Senate colleagues can come together to support this. I think it would be inconceivable to vote against this bill, especially now when we are seeing these kinds of heinous activities like we saw in Compton, CA. But we also want to send a message to our first responders and law enforcement: We are watching. We are going to pass laws to disincentivize this kind of heinous action against you, and we have your back and the back of your family members, who are probably worried when you go out on your duty every day. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1135 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the Sullivan substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. I know he and I both share a passion on this issue. I think the vast majority of the Senators share a passion on this issue-- that we should be standing here in the U.S. Senate to make sure our law enforcement knows that we have their backs. As Senator Toomey just mentioned, this is happening all across the country. The men and women who put on the uniform to protect us are being targeted simply because they wear the uniform to protect us. If this is not an issue that cries out for some kind of action, some kind of discussion to prevent this and tell these brave men and women, whether in Alaska or Pennsylvania or New Mexico, that we have their backs, I don't know what that topic is--I don't know what that issue is. Unfortunately, Senator Toomey tried to move his legislation the last couple of days, and it was thwarted. Now my legislation to send the message that we are not going to let criminals get away with these kinds of heinous crimes, that the Senate is watching, and that we have the backs of law enforcement and their families--that is a really important message to send right now. I am disappointed in my colleague for objecting. We will continue to work on this issue and, as Senator Toomey mentioned, the violence issue, which is a hugely important issue in my State for my constituents. But right now, I think we should be acting on the issue we are seeing, and that issue is, there is a movement across the country that is really focused on perpetrating violence against the men and women who are sworn to protect us. I can't believe anyone here thinks that is a good movement, but it is happening in America right now. We need to send a message that it is unacceptable and that we are going to do everything in our power to stop it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Ohio for his great leadership on this and so many other issues. I see my colleague from Oregon is on the floor as well. I want to talk about an issue that Senator Portman just touched on, but it is really the key to what is going on here, and that it is good faith. Are negotiations happening in good faith? Or are they not? Sometimes, it is hard to tell. Sometimes, there is posturing, but, last week at this time, Senator Portman, Senator McSally, and myself were on the floor with regard to discussing Senator McSally's very simple unanimous consent resolution which said as we negotiate-- hopefully, in good faith--the difference between what we have put forward--the HEALS Act--and the Speaker Pelosi bill from early May--a bit of a stale $4 trillion bill, one-third of which has nothing to do with the pandemic--but as we are trying to negotiate in good faith, let's move forward with an extension of unemployment so people who are hurting can continue to rely on it. That happens all the time in the Senate. So what happened? The minority leader came down to the Senate floor and blocked it. He blocked it, and his response was: I am going to block this 1-week extension unless the Republicans take the entire $4- trillion Heroes Act. That is what he said. If you are watching or paying attention, that is the definition of not negotiating in good faith, and every Senator knows it. All 100 of us know it. That was not a good faith maneuver. What I predicted was the minority leader of the U.S. Senate, despite that maneuver which is going to hurt millions of Americans, did it because he thinks the national media will give him a pass, that no one in the national media will say: Boy, oh boy, the minority leader just blocked a reasonable request for an extension to help people. But he thinks, and I think with good reason, that the national media won't blame him for what he just did, so he did it with no explanation. That is not good faith. By definition, coming down saying, Take my $4 trillion package or you won't get a 1-week extension of unemployment, that is not good faith. Let me mention one other point which Senator Portman mentioned. Now, on this tough issue of unemployment insurance--and Senator Portman has been a leader on this--I was talking to some of my Democratic colleagues about them today. By the way, most of them don't believe that $600 until January is a good idea for the reasons Senator Portman mentioned. Again, to have the minority leader of the U.S. Senate and Speaker Pelosi just say: 600 bucks, take it or leave it? Colleagues, you all know--we all know--that is not good faith. That is not good faith. It is starting to feel like the minority leader and the Speaker are not negotiating in good faith right now. I hope they are--I know a lot of my Democratic colleagues are--but people have to remember, regardless of what party you are in, Americans are hurting. They need help. We have one foot in the recovery, one foot still in the pandemic. But what we need as we negotiate this package is good faith. So I want to thank my colleague from Ohio again for his strong leadership on this and so many other issues. I am certainly going to be supportive of unanimous consent requests which we made at this time just last week to help people--not controversial, a week extension as we negotiate. It happens all the time here in the Senate. I certainly hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not going to say, No, take my whatever, or we are not going to do it, because it doesn't look or feel like good faith. Do you know who is hurting by that? Do you know who is being hurt by that? The American people, who are suffering

Mr. SULLIVAN. Will my colleague from Ohio yield?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator Portman. I have a lot of respect for my colleague from Oregon, who unfortunately just left the Senate floor, but there they go again. On the Senate floor, the Senator from Oregon just said ``Republicans cut off unemployment insurance for millions of families'' when, in reality, what we have just witnessed--if you are watching--on the Senate floor is that the Senator from Oregon objected to restoring unemployment benefits for millions of Americans. That is a fact. That is just what happened. So he says one thing--and again, I think they get a little bit careless because they think the national media will just report what he says. But he said, ``I object.'' When he said ``I object,'' here is what he meant: I object to restoring unemployment benefits for millions of Americans. That is what the Senator from Oregon just did. There is no denying that. And right before he did it, he said that Republicans cut off unemployment for millions of Americans. That is just not true-- not true. He just objected to restoring unemployment benefits for a week--$600 for millions of Americans--just like the Democratic leader from New York did last week. Then he said: ``Short-term extensions are not enough.'' That is another quote from the Senator from Oregon, but he didn't finish the sentence by saying: And because I objected, they are going to get zero. So think about that one. Short-term extensions are not enough--sounds good--so he objects so there are no extensions. Again, that is just what happened on the floor. He didn't say one thing about this issue that Senator Portman and I have been discussing, which is good-faith negotiations. There is not one Senator in this body who believes that when the Democratic leader comes to the floor of the Senate and says ``take the $4 trillion Speaker Pelosi bill passed in early May or nothing,'' that that is good faith. It is almost, by definition, bad faith. So I think our colleagues, who are trying to negotiate in good faith but are getting locked down by their leadership, are having a bit of a problem because they know this isn't good faith, and they know people are suffering. That is why we have got to work together to get to an agreement, but what we cannot do and what I fear the other side is starting to do is use people who are suffering as leverage in negotiations. That is not what we should be doing. We should be working in good faith to try to get to an agreement, and we should be making statements on the Senate floor that are actually factual. What just happened here was that the Senator from Oregon objected to American citizens getting their unemployment benefits restored. That is a fact. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to thank my good friend and colleague from Texas for laying out the choice before us and highlighting, again, this issue of good-faith negotiations, which hopefully we are starting to see, but last week we didn't see; and he talked about the so-called Heroes Act passed in May--so quite stale. I will say one other element of that that was shocking and has been shocking to me is, there is a whole section on clawing back CARES Act money that went to Alaska Natives. The Heroes Act, the Pelosi $4 trillion bill, has a section that targets expressly about 20 percent of the population of my State--and my State only. By the way, they are amazing, patriotic people who have been through pandemics before and have suffered horrendously during these pandemics. The Heroes Act targets them and says any money that Native Alaskan organizations have received--by the way, organizations, regional and village corporations set up by Congress--any money they have received will be clawed back in the Heroes Act. Of course, I am never going to let that bill pass-- ever--on this floor. It is an outrage. They need to get more serious about these negotiations, and the ``take it or leave it'' on the $4 trillion Pelosi bill that specifically targets some of the most patriotic Americans in the country, who happen to be my constituents--Alaska Natives--is never going to fly. Never

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, while I am disappointed, these are two good friends of mine on the Senate floor right now, whom I have worked with on numerous pieces of legislation. They both represent their States very well, but this is a missed opportunity for the fishermen of America--America, not just Alaska but for the whole country, New York, North Carolina. And I am certainly hopeful that my good friend from New York and North Carolina can work this out. I will certainly lend my efforts, my staff's efforts, because we shouldn't have a regional fight blocking what will benefit everybody, particularly when fishermen right now are really hurting. They are one of the sectors of the U.S. economy that have been hammered by this pandemic. This kind of legislation, although it is not going to solve all their problems, shows that we are working for them. We will live to fight another day here soon. I hope that we are able to pass my legislation, commonsense legislation--the American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act--which will help every fisherman in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wanted to come down and speak today about a very important sector of the economy for Alaska and for America--that is, our fishermen--and some important, very bipartisan legislation that I am trying to move right now that I am hopeful everybody can agree to. The Senate has agreed to it previously, and I am really hopeful that we can do it again right now. I talk about the great State of Alaska being the superpower of seafood. Over 60 percent of all seafood--commercial, recreational-- harvested in America comes from my great State. Sixty percent. So this is a vital industry in my State but also a vital industry in the country. As my colleagues know, our fishermen are some of the hardest working Americans. They are also some of the Americans who have been hit the hardest by this pandemic. The Saltonstall-Kennedy Act helps these hard- working men and women across the country by providing consistent funding for fisheries research and development and related programs, grant programs--very popular. Decades ago, Congress authorized a group of experts from all around the country--Alaska, the east coast--and vessel owners, fishermen, and distributors to advise the Secretary of Commerce on how to distribute these funds. It makes sense. They are the closest to the action. Over time, unfortunately, this group was disbanded. Nobody thought that was a good idea--abolishing this advisory committee. Then you had the National Marine Fisheries essentially determine how all of these Saltonstall-Kennedy funds would be distributed to fishermen. So, with all due respect to the DC bureaucrats, they are the ones making the decisions. So we have a bill--my bill--which, by the way, passed the Senate previously, unanimously, that members in the fishing community from all over the country be chosen to determine how to get these funds out to our fishermen, whether in New York or North Carolina or Alaska, and everybody thinks that makes sense. Our fishermen need support right now; there is no doubt. They are being hammered by this pandemic. So the legislation that I am hopefully going to be able to pass in the Senate here in a couple of minutes has cosponsors across a broad political spectrum in the Senate: Senators Cantwell, Markey, Warren, Murkowski, and myself. I am aware of no policy objections to this important piece of legislation. To the contrary, it has already passed the Senate unanimously. I am, however, aware of an unrelated dispute between the Democratic leader and some of my Senate colleagues from the east coast regarding an entirely different bill. I respect disagreements over regional issues, and I certainly hope my colleagues can work them out, but this issue is thousands of miles away from Alaska and my constituents, the people I represent, who are hurting. Moreover, the bill I am getting ready to introduce, S. 494, helps all fishermen nationwide--New York, North Carolina, Alaska. The American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act, S. 494, should not be collateral damage or hostage taken in an unrelated fight. If my colleagues want to try and work together, I will certainly help them work out their differences, but I don't think it is constructive to hold hostage this important legislation for a fight that is thousands of miles away from Alaska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 179, S. 494; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is Thursday, and it is a time that I get to come to the Senate floor and recognize an Alaskan who has made a difference in my State and, in this case, someone who has made a difference literally around the globe. This is someone I refer to as the ``Alaskan of the Week.'' I love to do it. I know some of our reporters listening enjoy this. Kristin, I know you love bears, so this week you will be particularly interested. Before I get into the bears and the story and the individual we are going to honor today, let me tell you a little bit about what is happening in Alaska. Like other places in our great Nation, our State is certainly facing challenges--like the rest of America, one foot in our economic recovery, one foot still in this pandemic. It is a challenging time, but Alaskans are tough--certainly some of the toughest people in America. As I say, tough times don't last, but tough people do. We will get through this as a State, as a nation, and I think that certainly applies to Alaska. It is summer. The Sun is high. The salmon are running thick. The bears are digging them out of the streams. By the way, a word to the wise: When you have salmon, you almost always have bears, so be careful. In Alaska, we love our bears and so does our Alaskan of the Week, Julia Bevins, who recently moved from Anchorage to the gorgeous town of Homer--Homer, AK. For those of you who have been there, you know what I am talking about. For those who haven't, you have to get out to Homer. It is the halibut capital of the world but a magnificently beautiful place. Just the drive from Anchorage to Homer is breathtaking. There is no other place in the world like it. It is from Homer that Julia keeps going the now world-renowned foundation, the international Bear Conservation Fund, which is part of the International Association of Bear Research and Management, or IBA, that she and her late husband, wildlife biologist John Bevins, founded. Why the foundation and why the bears? Let me tell you about a tragic and beautiful story relating to Julia and her late husband John. Julia was born in New Mexico and raised in Australia. She has a degree in veterinary science from the University of Queensland in Australia. She came to Alaska in 1984 to get a Ph.D. in wildlife biology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Her focus was on reindeer herd health and disease control. She met John in 1985, and the two were married in Fairbanks in July, 1990. They were both in love with Alaska and with each other. It was the love of a lifetime, Julia said. Indeed, it was a great match. She was a veterinarian focusing on reindeer. He was a wildlife biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, working on polar bear research--the best wildlife biologist job you could ever have, polar bear research in Alaska. Then, unfortunately, tragedy struck. Three months after they were married, on October 11, John and his colleague George Menkens, and their pilot, Clifford Minch, got into a twin engine aero commander at Deadhorse. They were headed north to do a low-altitude aerial survey of female polar bears with cubs who prowl the ice hunting for food. They were believed to have traveled as far as 250 miles northwest of Barrow, now known as Utqiaqvik--the northernmost point of North America. That is where people believe the plane they were traveling on vanished. No one really knows where. The search, at least initially, was extensive. In the first few days, members of the U.S. Coast Guard flew C-130s, as well as civilians in their aircraft, and spanned the area, flying hundreds of thousands of square miles looking for any signs of the aircraft. After a week, they decided the search was over. Julia was desperate. She knew that her late husband and the two others had 2 weeks of provisions and adequate survival gear. What if they had survived? What if they were on an icefloe? What if they were still out there and the searchers happened to miss them in that huge expanse? This idea was overwhelming to her. She called everyone she knew to help in keeping the search going. And eventually, like so many Alaskans did, she called the late great Senator Ted Stevens, who--as he was known to do--got to work for his fellow Alaskan. ``He did an amazing thing,'' Julia said. He arranged for the Canadians to send a military radar plane that could detect metal above sea ice--anything bigger than a 4-foot square. The plane could cover an area the size of Manitoba in 1 night. So they did it. It was that search that finally gave Julia peace of mind. She said: After the military plane came and left, I felt like we had done everything we could have possibly done to find my husband. I knew my husband was gone, and there was a peace of mind going forward Senator Ted Stevens gave me a life, she said. He gave me a life free from self-recrimination and free of doubt. She also credits Senator Stevens for giving her enough peace to work to honor her husband's memory in a way that was unique to him. She took the proceeds she received from the insurance, and she began the bear foundation. It started off small in 1993. The first year it was up and running, the foundation gave away $5,000 in grant money. That money, which was invested well, began to grow and so did the amount of the grants awarded. One year, the foundation was able to give out $50,000 in grant money. The average size of individual grants is now $8,000. All told, they are able to give about $100,000 a year, including donations that they get from individuals and organizations. It is not just about the money that has grown, so has the prestige of this foundation. The IBA now has 550 members from over 60 countries. Because of Julia Bevins, in Homer, AK, all across the globe, researchers are working with other biologists. They are tracking bears. They are assisting in management of these great animals. They are writing papers and sharing information. They are doing what they love for the ecosystem. Julia said: When people love bears, they love them with their whole heart and soul. It's a very profound thing. Julia talked about how the IBA funded a researcher to search for a rumored small brown bear--the Gobi bear--in Mongolia, the only bear to exist in this extreme desert habitat. There had been sightings throughout the year, but no scientist had ever been able to prove its existence. The IBA funded a scientist, Harry Reynolds--an Alaska from Fairbanks--to travel through Mongolia and find the Gobi bear. And he found them. Now the Mongolian Government is committed to its protection. Scientists funded by the IBA worked with other scientists in Iran to document not only bears, but they were able to find 16 new wildlife species. From the dangerous border between India and Pakistan to the equally dangerous forests of Colombia, bear researchers, helped with IBA money, are working with local citizens and governments and other scientists, forming true alliances to help save bears. Science ties the world together, Julia said. When you have a collective of like-minded people working for a common goal, all things are possible. When you have someone with a mission like Julia Bevins, all things are possible too. Thank you to Julia for your commitment to this great cause, for your work in helping keep John's memory alive, and for your amazing work on bears in Alaska and bears in the world. Congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 423, S. 2336.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, August 3; further that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Menezes nomination; finally, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on the Menezes nomination occur at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 664, submitted earlier today.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. I ask unanimous consent that the Wicker substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 318, S. 914.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Executive Calendar Nos. 776 through 791 and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Space Force; that the nominations be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and the Senate then resume legislative session.