Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, we just finished here, on the Senate floor, some very, very important work for the people we represent and have the privilege to serve. It is what we are calling phase 3 of our very important response to this unprecedented pandemic that is hitting our country, the health of our country, and the economic health of our Nation. So we acted. A number of us worked, over the past week, around the clock to put this legislation together, and I think it was a strong showing of bipartisan support. I was on the floor a couple of days ago saying that what we needed to do were four key things: Put cash directly in the hands of hurting families in Alaska and throughout the country; deliver rapid relief to small businesses that are being crushed by this pandemic and having to lay off workers; stabilize key sectors of the economy to avoid more layoffs that are now quickly coming over the horizon and have started happening; and send a surge of new resources to medical professionals who are on the frontlines. We did that. We did that relatively quickly. It could have been faster, but those were our goals, and that is what we achieved here. But here is a fact. This was legislation that was very important. It wasn't perfect, and there is probably a lot of mistakes here. We are going to need to correct them quickly. There are probably Americans who weren't covered in some way, shape, or form by this legislation, who need help, and we are going to need to cover them quickly. There are likely new challenges in this pandemic that seems to be changing every day--new challenges with regard to this crisis that we are going to need to address. The final thing is, when we look at what we just did here, this was focused on the immediate crisis--business interruptions and the health crisis, but what we need to be looking at is when we get through this crisis-- and we will, more resilient and stronger than ever. As I mentioned in my remarks the other day, some Washington Post reporters a couple of days ago questioned the mettle and resiliency of Americans. Maybe we are not as tough and strong as we used to be to get through these crises. They just need to go to Alaska and recognize how wrong they are in that or see some of the marines that I had the privilege of serving with for the last 26 years. They would recognize quickly that they are wrong. Of course, we have the mettle and tenacity to do this. We need to be working on phase 4. Phase 4 is going to be the policies that we implement here in the Congress to turbocharge this economy, so when we are out of this crisis, we can come back fully, more strongly in a way that our economy was just 2 months ago. There is a lot of work that I think we could be doing, and that we are likely going to have to be doing. A number of us are going to begin working on that phase 4 approach to this pandemic to turbocharge this economy once we get out of it. I am glad to start working on that with my colleagues here in the Senate. So, as I said, there is a lot of work to do, but the Senate is getting ready for a recess for almost a month. That is what we are getting ready to do. The country is facing one of the biggest crises in our history, and the Senate is leaving town for a month. I happen to think this is a mistake. I think it sends the wrong signal to the people we serve. I think our duty station should be here, to be ready on a moment's notice to help the citizens that we have the privilege of serving, because if there is one thing about this crisis that we have already seen is that new challenges pop up every day, every minute, every hour, and, yet, we are going to go on recess for almost a month. I don't understand this. I don't agree with it, and I certainly hope if and when our country needs us, if we see some big mistakes in this legislation, if we recognize whole groups of Americans don't get the relief they need and the Congress needs to act, that we are not going to just say: Well, we are on recess for 30 days. Sorry. We will get to you when we come back at the end of April. I think that would be a real mistake because, as we are seeing in this crisis, there are a lot of answers that just can't wait until the end of April. There are a lot of challenges that we need to be addressing daily, and there are going to be more, and, yet, we will not be here to address them. So, at a minimum, I hope that when our country needs us in the next month--and it is likely going to need us--that my colleagues will be ready, on a moment's notice, wherever they are, to come back to this body and get to work to help the people we serve. I think it is very likely that that is going to happen in the next week or two or three, and I hope my colleagues stand ready to do that and not use the excuse that we will see at the end of April to address your problems, America. That is not what we need to be doing in the midst of this very, very serious unprecedented crisis where our citizens need our help. We had a good start tonight--a very good start--but there is going to be a lot more, and I hope this body is ready to act quickly. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I know we are talking about the unprecedented times that we are facing in our Nation, but I want to talk about something that we have in common, something that is pretty remarkable and that I think we all need to remember that we have in common. We represent incredible people, the American people, who are doing so much right now--in Alaska, in Colorado, in Nebraska, in Montana, and in Connecticut--to help each other so much. I frequently tell my constituents, as we are talking about getting through this crisis, that everyone has a role to play--young, old, business leaders, elected leaders, union members--and everybody is playing a role. So I am very proud of my constituents in Alaska, and I know that everybody in this body is proud of what their constituents are doing right now, the best of our Nation is doing right now. We talk a lot about how we are teleworking. I would like to remind folks that there are some Americans, a lot of Alaskans--thousands, millions--who can't telework. Our healthcare professionals who are on the frontlines, our first responders, our truckdrivers, port workers, Alaskans who are stocking the grocery store shelves, picking up our refuse, parents who are teaching their children at home, local restaurants who are working day and night to continue to provide takeout food--so many people are doing such good work. There is an incredible outpouring of generosity from all of our citizens, all Americans, and we are hearing about it, from our small businesses donating their time and services to help people in their communities, to volunteers, and to our nonprofits. That is what Alaskans are doing, and that is what Americans are doing around the country at this very moment, despite this enormous adversity and the challenges we are facing--one of the most unprecedented challenges in our history. These are extraordinary and precarious times right now. People are obviously concerned about their health. People are obviously concerned about their economic health, their jobs, losing jobs, retirement accounts, life savings. People are being told to stay at home. They are hard-working Americans, Alaskans who have worked their whole lives, who don't even know how they are going to pay for their groceries or rent. And they are taking these actions at a difficult time because local and State governments all across the country are making tough decisions, working with their communities to help make sure that the collective whole of our societies, whether in Anchorage or Fairbanks or other places in America, are going to get through this health crisis. The bottom line is that they are coming together in a shared sacrifice. I am so proud of the people I represent, and I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are as well. It is something we have in common. There was an article in the Washington Post just the other day, like 2 days ago. It said something like, you know, America has gotten through a lot of challenges before: World War II, the Civil War. But this article went on to say: But perhaps the American people don't really have the mettle or the resiliency to get through this one. That was kind of the gist of this article--classic, clueless, inside- the-beltway reporting--that we are not the same America that got through other challenges; that we don't have the mettle. Well, I would suggest that these Washington Post reporters need to get out of DC. Maybe they should go to Alaska. Maybe they should go somewhere else in America. Come to my State. I guarantee you, we have the mettle-- Alaskans and other great Americans--to get through this crisis. I always say that my constituents are some of the most resilient people in the world. Let me just give you a couple of examples. Our Alaskan Native communities have been thriving for thousands of years in some of the harshest conditions anywhere on the planet. We are a State full of the ancestors of rugged pioneers who came to Alaska looking for promise and stayed to build a great State. Throughout our history in my State, we have had extreme challenges before. Earthquakes have flattened our buildings. Tsunamis have wiped out cities. Floods have swept away our homes and entire communities. Wildfires have singed our cities. Volcanic eruptions have dimmed the Sun. The price of oil and the market have dropped before, as we are seeing now. And now we have another unprecedented challenge, a pandemic facing my beloved State and my beloved country. As I mentioned, we have a lot in common here, and I think a lot of us--all of us--take pride in what our constituents, our fellow Americans, are doing to come together to fight this. And we will fight it. We will emerge stronger and more resilient, and those Washington Post reporters who doubted the will of Americans, maybe in a couple of years, will be writing a story about how wrong they were. Until about a day ago, I was actually proud of the work of this body in responding to this crisis. For the past 3 weeks, we have come together, putting together bold, bipartisan pieces of legislation to address this pandemic in a quick amount of time. There is what we are calling phase 1 just 2 weeks ago, where Congress passed an $8.3-billion package--I will not go into all of the details--to address the healthcare needs that we are starting to see with the spread of this pandemic. That was phase 1. Phase 2--just last week, again, Members of this body came together. It wasn't a perfect bill, that is for sure, that came over from the House that provided Federal funds so that individuals exposed to the virus could get healthy and so that our hospitals have more resources to combat this health crisis. The President passed it the day we passed it here in the Senate. That was just last week. It was bold, bipartisan work. For example, this legislation expanded emergency food assistance, including for children who rely on free and reduced lunch, lunches from school cafeterias where they could no longer access those meals because schools are closing, new paid sick leave--100-percent dollar for dollar--that would be paid and reimbursed by the Federal Government. So we acted. We acted. These weren't perfect pieces of legislation. I didn't like every provision in them, but we got together--Democrats and Republicans--and we acted quickly and boldly. And that is what our constituents want us to do. But we knew we had to do much, much more--much, much more--because every day, there is a new development we are seeing, not just on the health side but on the economic side. So what did we do? Last week, everybody here rolled up their sleeves and worked around the clock. Again, I was proud of the work that we started on. By the way, this was bipartisan work. I was talking to Democratic Senators all weekend. When you listen to the chairman of the Finance Committee, he talked about the task force that we had--Democrats and Republicans--putting together legislation-- big, bold legislation--coming together like we had on phase 1 and phase 2 to really focus in on four key areas: putting cash directly in the hands of hurting families in Alaska and throughout the country, delivering rapid relief to the small businesses that are being crushed by this pandemic and laying off their workers, stabilizing key industries to avoid massive layoffs that are now very quickly coming on the horizon and starting to happen in America, and sending new resources to medical professionals who are on the frontlines. Those were our goals, and we needed to do it in a big way. We completed this, the Senate--Republicans and Democrats--in less than a week. Why? Because all of us knew the people we represent were hurting and are hurting. They need hope, and they are looking to us for that hope. Again, it wasn't perfect. This bill isn't perfect, but it is pretty remarkable work to do in less than a week. This bill represents a huge and massive effort to help the people we represent. Now, a lot of my colleagues have been coming down on the floor talking about what this bill will do for the people we represent. I am not going to go into all of the details, but let me just name a few because some of them were ideas from our Democratic colleagues. Where we had certain amounts in the bill, they came and said: No, we want more. We said: OK, all right, we will work with you, just like we did on phase 1 and phase 2. I will just mention a few. I have been talking to a lot of the elected leaders throughout my State, making a lot of calls and asking: What do you need? What is happening? How can we help? I had a phone conversation just a few days ago with the mayor of Anchorage. That is my hometown. Everybody is working hard. The mayor is. The Governor is doing a good job, a really good job, and his team. We are all working together. The mayor is a Democrat. The Governor is a Republican. I am reaching out to everybody. It doesn't matter the party at this moment, that is for darn sure. What did the mayor say to me? He said: The priority has to be that people need cash, Senator, to pay the rent, to buy food, and to make their car payment. There is so much uncertainty. Can we do that? Yes, we can do that. We did it. It is in the bill. There is $2,400 per couple and $500 per additional child. That is going to help. That is going to help families who need cash. That is one thing. Another thing is we had a massive increase to the unemployment insurance program, a quarter of $1 trillion--$250 billion. Why? Because we are seeing massive layoffs. Now, I am going to give credit to my colleagues. A couple of Democratic colleagues, friends of mine, are on the floor right now. This was a big idea that they wanted to push. It is big number. It is a big number--a quarter of a trillion dollars. This is going to significantly expand the number of individuals who are eligible to receive benefits. This is really important for my State, particularly the self-employed--the fishermen, who have never been covered under the UI programs in the past. And, once more, the bill provides a flat increase in benefits, $600 per week to all State programs in the next few months. So workers who are forced to file unemployment--unfortunately, we are seeing hundreds of thousands across the country--have the financial security to pay their bills and stay afloat. So this is another big element of this bill. Let me provide one more that I think is one of the most important. And I think there is really strong bipartisan agreement on this one. I know it because I talk to my friends who are Democrats. It is a small business rescue package and relief package of about $350 billion to enable small businesses to access credit and have the liquidity to stay afloat and weather this storm, not creating a new bureaucracy but an expansion of the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program so you can do it through local banks in your State. The idea here is to make sure the worker and the employers of our small businesses stay connected. Small businesses can take out a loan of up to $10 million under this program, and if they use that loan to pay for payroll and rent and other fixed costs, this loan is going to be completely forgiven. Whenever I describe this to my fellow Alaskans, they say: This is exactly the kind of thing we need, Senator, right now, as businesses are closing. So that is in. That is in the bill--cash in the hands of small businesses so they can keep workers employed and be ready to get back up and grow and prosper again when we get through this pandemic. That is in the bill. Everybody agrees with that. Finally, another element--and I am just describing some of the elements, but I wanted to highlight some of these things--is getting more resources to the men and women on the frontlines of this pandemic who are, every day, out there in the healthcare industry trying to keep Americans and Alaskans healthy and alive. How much? There is a lot in it, but the number is $100 billion for hospitals, for healthcare providers. Let me say that again: $100 billion. The minority leader was on the floor the other day. I was kind of stunned when he said something along the lines of this partisan bill-- and, by the way, it is not partisan, OK; this was written by Republicans and Democrats, and a lot of these ideas are from both sides--doesn't do anything to help hospitals. We need a Marshall Plan to help them. Well, I think $100 billion is a pretty good start. That is in the bill. So, as I mentioned, I have been proud of the work of this body. I have been proud of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. No one has wisdom on how to fix all this. No one knows what is coming in the future. But I think all of us know that we need to act, and we need to act boldly, and we need to act in a bipartisan way. And we did it. We did it, again, in less than a week. It is not a perfect bill--that is for sure--but it is going to provide help to my fellow Alaskans, to Americans. It is massive. It is bold. It is bipartisan. It is timely. And, as of yesterday, I thought we were going to get another bill out to the American people quickly. Hope--that is what they need. Yes, the Senate is working. Then, for whatever reason--and I am not going to point fingers--the wheels started to come off on this one, the one that we really need. And the bill has been filibustered. That means we can't even get on the floor to debate it. We can't start debating it. Now, look, I have been listening to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. There has been a lot of anger on this floor, a lot of back- and-forth. My good friend from Nebraska just talked about this idea that somehow my colleagues on the other side filibustered this bill that the Senate has been working on to make room for Speaker Pelosi's bill. I really, really, really hope that is not true. I really hope that is not true. I don't think there is one Member of this body, Republican or Democratic, who could defend now what Senator Sasse just read on the floor. Then there started to be talk about, well, the bill that we had, that we are focused on, is all about bailouts. That is a charged term. But you could talk about the 2008-2009 Tart bill--I wasn't a Member of the Senate then, during the financial crisis--as a bailout. I think that is a good description. Why was that a bailout? Because you had people on Wall Street taking risky actions that eventually cratered the financial system--by the way, they made a ton of money doing it--and cratered the economy. Then they had to be bailed out because the banks were going to go under, and it was going to ruin the U.S. economy. That is a bailout. That is a classic bailout. What we are seeing right now is much more like a natural disaster, much more like a war. There is no one to be blamed right now. The airlines shouldn't be blamed for what is happening right now. This is a pandemic. So this term being thrown around of, oh, it is a bailout-- what we are trying to do is help the American worker, help the American family. It is not a perfect bill, but we are dealing with a natural disaster. Something came over from overseas onto our shores, and we are now all trying to deal with it. I am going to conclude by saying: I am on this side of the aisle. I am a Republican with principled views on certain issues. I certainly have strong views about protecting my State. But I have also tried to work, throughout my time in the Senate, with my colleagues on both sides. Some of my closest friends are my Democratic friends. I am proud of that work. That is how you get things done in this body. Some I have been working with all weekend. This issue should not be about partisan politics, so my point was not to come down here on the floor and make this a partisan speech. We are facing one of the most unprecedented challenges in the history of the United States of America. We certainly need to move beyond politics. If you looked at what was going on in the Senate until yesterday, that is exactly what we have been doing for the past 3 weeks. Are there areas of compromise in this bill that hopefully can unlock things? Sure. Two that I have been working on and supporting, again, with my Democratic colleagues, pressing my colleagues on: Could we have more transparency on this Federal facility program? Sure. Absolutely, I would be very supportive of this. Are there ways to help shore up distressed pensions for the great working men and women who build things in America? Yes. But we are running out of time. We are running out of time. We need to pass this bill now. Why do we need to pass this bill now? Because it is going to help the people we represent. It is going to help people in Connecticut and Virginia and Colorado and Montana and Alaska. And they need hope. They need hope right now. Again, this bill isn't perfect. It has got a lot of hope. Once we pass it, then all of us are going to need to do the hard work of making sure that the implementation of this bill goes as effectively and as smoothly as possible. Then, when we see mistakes in it, which there will be, we need to come back here and act to correct this. That is what we need to do. These are exceptional times for our country. We had an influenza outbreak in 1918 that ravaged the world, and it particularly ravaged my State. As Senator Murkowski said earlier today, one of the things that has got a lot of us troubled in Alaska is, 100 years ago when the influenza came through, it did finally get to some of our Alaska Native villages. I have over 200 communities, not connected by roads, with very limited healthcare facilities. During the Spanish influenza, many of these communities were completely wiped out. It is a scary time--a scary time--but we are going to get through it. We are going to get through it stronger, more resilient, and the way we are going to do it is if we are all working together, which we had been until about 24 hours ago. So I think the provisions outlined in this bill, while not perfect, are what the American people are looking for. They can help minimize the damage done by this pandemic. And I certainly hope we come together the way we have been for the last 3 weeks, in a bipartisan way, to get this voted on and passed as quickly as possible because every hour of delay imperils the incredible American people whom we represent I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is Thursday afternoon, and it is the time I love to come down to the floor. It is one of my favorite times of the week because I get to talk about an Alaskan who has done something really, really important for their community, for their State, and for their country. I know the pages like the speech because I talk about stories in Alaska--the great State of Alaska and what is happening in the State right now. Sometimes I call this person the Alaskan of the Week. Usually, it is one person. Sometimes we fudge a little and recognize more than one person. Today we are going to recognize our Alaskans of the Week. In any case, these are people who help their communities, help their country, and oftentimes do something that is unheralded, nobody knows about, very few know about, so I like to come down and tell the country about what they are doing. As you know, Alaska is a big State. It holds a lot of imagination for our Nation--the last frontier, with good reason, because we are filled with resilient people, some who have lived in Alaska for thousands and thousands of years, building communities in some of the most extreme weather environments on the planet, and they are tough, my constituents. They are also kind, and they make it through our tough winters. It is below zero in many, many parts of the State--well below zero. We make it through these winters through toughness, ingenuity, and, importantly, looking out for one another. Last week, I highlighted a heroic Coast Guard rescuer, Evan Grills, in a real epic story for those who listened to it--what this young scout swimmer--rescue swimmer did in his first mission ever in the Coast Guard, something that people should remember for a long, long time. This week, I am going to talk about another rescue mission--an only- in-Alaska mission--and I am going to recognize four extraordinary young Alaskans who stuck together, toughed it out, looked out for one another, and were rescued in another perilous situation. They are Christopher Johnson, age 14; Frank Johnson, age 8; Ethan Camille, age 7; and Trey Camille, 2 years old. All of them are alive and recovering because of their own ingenuity, determination, toughness, and looking out for one another. These four boys are from Nunam Iqua, a Yupik village 495 miles northwest of Anchorage. Home to about 200 people, this village is a close-knit Yupik community on the south fork of the Yukon River. A 2005 mission statement, written by community leaders and elders, describes the village like this: ``a small quiet community of family, relatives, and friends working together [to pursue] our Yupik way of lifestyle with respect to our surrounding land and waters for subsistence.'' Like many places in Alaska, temperatures there can be extreme, as they would be on February 2, when these four boys were rambunctiously playing in the house. Irene, the grandmother of three and mother of one, was watching them that day. It was her birthday. As boys do, they were getting restless. They wanted to get outside. Irene, wanting to have them get some exercise and play, rightly encouraged them to get outside in the great outdoors, but the weather was turning a little bit ugly. Storms were in the forecast. Irene later said: They have to know how to be outside. They are tough Alaskan kids. There's always going to be a storm coming. Besides, their elders and their grandfather taught them to be prepared for the weather. This is teaching from their grandparents and mothers and fathers. So the four boys--Christopher, Frank, Ethan, and Trey--trudged outside to partake in one of the most popular winter hobbies we have in Alaska, snowmachining. Snowmachining is often referred to as snowmobiling by many Americans, but I am going to call it by its proper name, snowmachining. Due to a lack of road systems in our State, it also happens to be a primary mode of transportation during the winter months across dozens and dozens of villages throughout Alaska. After they went riding around the small village, the boys were going to call it a day, when they spotted a fox. They spotted a fox. Like curious young boys do, the irresistible urge to trace this fox began, and they chased it out onto the tundra. Before they knew it, they lost the fox. The snowmachine was now stuck in the snow, and they were lost in a white blizzard. They were lost. Chris, the 14-year-old--the oldest of the group, the leader--was determined to lift the snowmachine free of the snow. He lifted it so hard that it was later discovered he suffered a hernia. This is one tough kid. Eventually, the machine unfortunately ran out of gas, and the young boys were miles and miles away from their village and lost. They began tracking through the deep snow in whiteout conditions in a direction they thought was the way back home. At one point, one of the boys briefly took off his glove, which the wind promptly took away in the storm. Yet they continued walking and walking into winds as high as 60 miles per hour and wind chills way, way below zero. After fighting the deep snow and whiteout conditions for 4 miles, Chris decided it was time to try to build a snow cave for shelter. That is a smart young man, knowing how to survive. They did it. They built a shelter out of snow--a hole for them to crawl into and escape some of these most brutal wind gusts. Now, a snow cave is only used as a last resort, but this was the last resort, and these young boys knew it. So they crawled in, and they huddled, and they waited for a rescue. Back in the village, as you can imagine, the boys' family was getting frantic. They called out to the community to help search for them, and that is what people did. All throughout the community, they couldn't be found. And then, as often happens in our State, the Coast Guard, the National Guard, and local search and rescue groups from neighboring villages were all activated--Alaskans throughout the State going to look for these four boys. It was all hands on deck. Irene and Karen, one of the mothers, of three of them, were heartsick. Hours and hours went by. The whole State was holding its breath. It had been over 24 hours. The cold night fell. Around 2 a.m., the search and rescue was called off. In the snow cave, however, these young, tough Alaskan boys continued to protect each other. Almost 20 miles away from home, they huddled. They tried to keep each other warm to keep each other alive. Ethan didn't have a glove. Christopher was only wearing sweatpants, and they were particularly concerned for the 2-year-old, Trey. First, one of them crawled on top of Trey, but they were afraid that might be too much for him, so they created a kind of crisscross barrier to keep this young 2-year-old alive and warm as best they could. The 8-year-old, Frank, refused to close his eyes throughout the night for fear of falling asleep and really never waking up. So he continuously stayed awake and poked the other boys throughout the night to keep them awake, which was successful. The next morning, the storm had cleared, the sun started to come up, and the search throughout the State, with all of these other Alaskans looking for these four boys, continued. For hours and hours, the search team kept their eyes peeled for anything unusual on the tundra. About 1 hour before the sun was going to go down again the next day, the search party from Scammon Bay--about 50 miles south--saw something. They knew how to read the tundra. They knew what a snow drift would look like, and this one looked different. Then they saw movement. The search party investigated and came upon the four missing boys huddled and bundled together. Because it looked like one big mass, at first they didn't think any of the boys were alive, and then they realized what was going on. They were protecting the baby. One of the rescuers, Herschel Sundown, told a reporter they were protecting Trey. The rescue team immediately got to work warming the boys up, and within 15 minutes, a Coast Guard helicopter--our brave men and women of the Coast Guard, always on the scene--quickly transported these boys, after picking them up, to a local hospital. Ethan, the 7-year-old, is now recovering from severe frostbite on his hands, but all the kids are back at school and doing well. The rescuer, Herschel Sundown said: [Honestly], I don't know how they survived. The will to survive in these young boys is amazing. I have never seen anything like [it]. Irene, the grandmother of the three and mother of one, is so very proud of them. She said: If I were to get lost in Alaska in the wilderness, I would want to be with these four boys. So would I. She also asked for the prayers of the country for Ethan and for his hand to heal. And that is starting to happen. These are the kind of young men and boys in Alaska who make us so unique, tough, and resourceful. They uplift us, and they make us proud. They are the protectors of their lands, their homes, and, importantly, each other. To the rescue crews, thank you again for your hard work and perseverance and for risking your own lives for these young boys. To Christopher, Frank, Ethan, and little 2-year-old Trey, thank you for your inspiration, for your ingenuity, for your toughness, and for being able to survive in the elements and looking out for each other. Thank you for staying alive and staying safe, and congratulations on being our Alaskans of the Week. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. Secure U.S. Bases Act

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kyle Wood, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the month.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote on the rollcall vote earlier today. The vote was No. 65. I voted no. It was my intention to vote aye. It will not affect the outcome.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, as expected, it is time for our ``Alaskan of the Week'' speech. One of the most fulfilling things I get to do as Alaska's U.S. Senator is to come down to the floor of the Senate and talk about the people in my State who are making a difference in their communities, in the State, and in the country. It is a great opportunity in which to do that. I always encourage people who are watching and listening to come to the great State of Alaska for a visit. You will love it. It will be the best trip you ever take. I guarantee it. I know the pages enjoy this speech each week because it is a story of what real people are doing and, in many cases, of humble heroes. Usually, these are happy stories that I get to talk about, but sometimes they aren't happy. The story I am going to tell today is, in fact, a very, very tragic one, but it contains the kind of heroism and selflessness that can spring from a tragedy and literally inspire a State or a nation. If you are listening, I think you are going to be inspired. I have said on the floor before that we are a State--an enormous State, a big State in the country, by far--but that we are also a family and that, when something happens to members of our families, we all grieve. This is particularly true of the town of Kodiak, AK, and of the fishing community, both of which suffered a tremendous loss on New Year's Eve in the Gulf of Alaska when a crabbing boat, the Scandies Rose, sank into the freezing waters, taking with it five fishermen. Of the five fishermen--including Seth Rousseau-Gano, Brock Rainey, and Arthur Ganacias--Captain Gary Cobban, Jr., and David, his son, were both from Kodiak and perished with the crew. Blessedly and remarkably, there were two survivors--John Lawler, of Anchorage, and Dean Gribble, of Washington State. I mention that almost as a miracle. They were saved because of the bravery and the heroism of our Coast Guard rescuers, who flew through gale force winds and 30-foot-high swells to rescue these survivors. Credit goes to all of the Coast Guard members throughout the country but particularly to those in Kodiak and specifically to those who were on the flight--the pilot, LT Christopher Clark, the copilot, LT Jonathan Ardan, and the mechanic, Jacob Dillon. As I said, they are all heroes in this story, but I want to specifically highlight the role of the rescue swimmer that evening of New Year's Eve--25-year-old PO Evan Grills. Now, Evan is a relative newcomer to the great State of Alaska, but his heroism in saving two lives more than qualifies him to be our Alaskan of the Week. Before I get into the story of this perilous mission, let me tell you a little bit about the fishing community in Alaska and why our Coast Guard is so very valuable. Alaska's seas are the most productive in the world and, by the way, the most sustainably managed in the world. More than 60 percent of all seafood harvested in the United States of America comes from Alaska's waters--6-0. I like to refer to our State as the superpower of seafood, which we clearly are, and our fishermen are probably the hardest working small business men and women around the world. They work hard. They take huge risks. And they produce a product that is second to none anywhere on the planet. They face brutal conditions at sea and sometimes very tough conditions in the market, but they love their work. They love the vital role they play in supplying the best tasting, most sustainable wild fish products to America and the globe-- literally, the best. The industry used to be incredibly dangerous, and it is still the Nation's second-most dangerous profession. I am sure a lot of the viewers have seen the show the ``Deadliest Catch,'' but unlike in previous decades, the culture has trended more toward safety. Most Alaskan fishermen you will meet, though, will have a harrowing story of a time at sea, and, of course, they will have harrowing stories of rescues. Kodiak, AK, where the Scandies Rose is home-ported, is at the center of our fishing community. Kodiak is one of the largest fishing ports in the entire United States, both in terms of value and in terms of quantity. For those who have never been there, they have to go to Kodiak, AK. It is a magical, beautiful place. It is an island--one of the biggest islands in America. It is about the size of New Jersey-- with beautiful, wonderful people, with tough people. By the way, the biggest brown bears on the planet all reside in Kodiak. The heart of Kodiak beats fish, and when one of its own perishes at sea, the whole community mourns, as it is still doing for Gary, Jr., and David Cobban--two hard-working, fine fishermen from a great family. Kodiak is also home to the largest Coast Guard base in the United States--the 17th District. By the way, we are making that base bigger, with more assets and more aircraft coming to Alaska, because we need it. As the chairman of the subcommittee in charge of the Coast Guard, I am going to continue to make that happen, for sure. In an average month in Alaska--get this--the Coast Guard saves 22 lives, performs 53 assists, and conducts 13 security boardings and 22 security patrols. This is in 1 month. Think about that. That is daily heroism for Alaska and for America. They do this all in the largest geographic area of any Coast Guard district in the country--nearly 4 million square miles--in some of the most challenging weather environments on the planet. That is what the men and women of the Coast Guard do in my great State every single day. Now, being a rescue swimmer in the Coast Guard is an elite assignment. Being a rescuer in the Coast Guard station in Alaska is, according to our Alaskan of the Week, PO Evan Grills, the ``tip of the spear'' of this elite assignment. So let me tell you a little bit about Evan. Raised in Stuart, FL--the home of our Presiding Officer, Florida--the military had always appealed to Evan. His grandparents and uncles were marines. As a Marine colonel myself, I say ``Semper Fi'' to them. Some of his older friends and mentors went on to the academies, but going overseas didn't really appeal to Evan. Serving in the United States and saving American citizens at home did, as did the tough training required to be a Coast Guard rescue swimmer. ``It's the most elite [assignment],'' he said, ``and that's what appealed to me, [so I joined].'' Evan had been in Alaska for less than a year when, on New Year's Eve--just 2 months ago--the call came in that a boat that was about 170 miles southwest of Kodiak was in trouble. Having trained mostly in swimming pools, this rescue--the one he was being called upon--was going to be his first. Think about that. Your first rescue--and I am going to describe conditions that would terrify anyone. Nothing prepared him for what he would soon be undertaking. Mr. President, let me transport you now to this crabbing boat, the Scandies Rose, in the Gulf of Alaska on New Year's Eve. The winds are 40 knots. The seas are 30 feet. The boast is listing to the starboard side. It is 10 degrees out. Everything is freezing. It is nighttime. It is very dark. It was clear the boat was going down, but the captain, heroically, with minutes to spare, was able to get off a mayday call and in doing so let the Coast Guard know exactly where to find them and, as a result of the captain's heroic actions, save two lives. The two survivors, Dean Gribble, Jr., and John Lawler, managed to get into their survival suits and a life raft and waited to be rescued in these heavy, rough seas. It was a 4-hour wait. It was very, very cold. They were covered in ice. The seas were pitching their raft. They were hypothermic, it was pitch black, and they had no idea if anyone was coming. Gribble told a reporter that during the wait, he talked to John. We're not going to die today, John. This isn't our time. We're not dying today. Even though, in his head, he knew they would die if a rescue didn't come soon. Then they saw the lights from the helicopter, with Evan Grills aboard, hovering above like an angel coming to save them. But it wasn't a given that in those conditions, they could even conduct a rescue; that it would be safe for the rescuer to jump in 30-foot swells to save them. To even try in these huge waves, in 40-knot winds, in icy conditions, was a danger to the crew and the pilots. The flight from Kodiak in those conditions had taken 2 hours, and the helicopter was short on fuel. They only had minutes left to make the decision whether to try to rescue them or turn around and go back to Kodiak. That, combined with the extreme winds and seas and freezing temperatures, made any attempt at deploying a rescue swimmer very, very risky. The pilots conferred with our Alaskan of the week, Evan. They were nervous for his safety. They were hovering. They had to hover high because they didn't want to be hit by waves. ``Are you good with the plan?'' they asked. ``I guess so,'' Evan said. This was the first rescue of his career. I don't think there was much of an option not to do it. A thousand different thoughts went through Evan's head when he leapt into the frigid waters in a gale-force storm in pitch darkness, risking his life to save others. When he reached the first survivor, he said: I knew exactly what to do and how to do it. It was almost second nature. His training kicked in. His great Coast Guard training kicked in. He explained the hoist he had come down with--that came down from the helicopter to the first survivor and how it worked to be hoisted up into the helicopter. And then to the second survivor, he said, ``We're going to go up in this hoist together. Relax. I've got you covered.'' Calm. Courage. Heroic. And he did. He had them covered. These are the actions of a hero, a true American hero, a true Alaskan hero. These are actions that need to be celebrated and known in our country. How many Americans or Alaskans, even, read about what this young man did to save lives on New Year's Eve when the rest of America was celebrating and having fun? Well, now they know. But there are five, as I mentioned, who tragically couldn't be saved. We know their memories live on. And in Kodiak, the community, the family, and the loved ones of the Cobbans are beginning the long, slow process of healing. As for Evan, our Alaskan of the week, he thinks a lot about those who were lost, wishing he could have done more, but he is grateful he was able to save two lives. He is also grateful for his training and what the Coast Guard does and how what he had trained for as a rescue swimmer worked. So he knows and now has the confidence that he can save others when they are in trouble. ``That's the core of it,'' Evan said. ``Obviously, we don't ever want anybody to get in trouble on the seas''--particularly the rough seas of Alaska--``but they do. And I'm happy I have the skills and training to save them.'' Spoken like a true, humble hero, which this young man is. We are also glad you have the skills and training to save others, Evan, and we want to thank you. Petty Officer Grills. Semper Paratus. Thanks for all you are doing. Thanks for your courage, your example, your inspiration, and thank you for being our Alaskan of the week. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Roberts, a Coast Guard fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President. The Senator from Alaska.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, no one wants war with Iran, but while I respect Senator Kaine and my other colleagues who are supporting the broader AUMF, it has fatal flaws. First, it says the United States should cease its hostilities against Iran. This is completely backward. The United States is not actively conducting hostilities against Iran, but Iran has been actively conducting hostilities against us and our troops for decades. Just look at the long, bloody list: thousands of Americans dead and wounded, Marine barracks in Lebanon, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, Soleimani, and deadly IEDs in Iraq. Second, the broader AUMF of Senator Kaine dramatically limits our ability to protect these very forces from future attacks, which we know the Iranians are planning. Close to half of the forces in Iraq right now are Alaska-based military forces, our friends and neighbors in Alaska. I want to make sure they are protected.

Mr. SULLIVAN. My amendment does that by making sure the President has clear authority to protect our troops.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I rise today in support of the vote that the Senate is going to take on here in a few minutes on Joshua Kindred to be Alaska's next Federal district court judge, and I commend this body, particularly Leader McConnell, for prioritizing putting good, solid, young Federal judges in seats in districts and circuit courts all across the country--188 so far since the Trump administration took office, and now it is Alaska's turn. That Federal judge seat that we are looking at filling here in a couple of minutes has been empty for almost 4 years, and in our State, in the great State of Alaska, we don't have too many opportunities for Federal judges. For example, Alaska only has 1 active judge on the entire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals out of 29 active judges. So this is an important vote, certainly, for my State. I want to talk a little bit about Josh Kindred. I have known Josh since he was a young assistant district attorney for the State of Alaska when I was attorney general. We talked about how we were going to work together to make Alaska's judicial process more efficient and more effective for Alaskans during his confirmation process. I certainly was impressed then, but I was impressed when I first met Josh many years ago and continue to be impressed with his fierce commitment to upholding the law, the concept of equal access to justice for all, and his keen awareness of Alaska's unique legal landscape. Josh was unanimously rated as ``qualified'' by the ABA and is a lifelong Alaskan with a broad and impressive legal background. As I mentioned, after clerking on the Oregon Supreme Court, he came back home to Alaska and was promoted to violent crimes supervisor after a number of years working in the Anchorage District Attorney's Office, where he worked to punish perpetrators of crimes and with victims of some of the heinous crimes, unfortunately, that we have in too high numbers in Alaska, particularly as it relates to sexual assault and domestic violence. In his career, he has been committed not only to prosecuting those kinds of crimes but to doing pro bono work to stem this very significant crisis that my State has with these heinous crimes of sexual abuse. Rounding out his legal experience, Josh served as the environmental counsel for the Alaska Oil and Gas Association and, most recently, as the regional solicitor for Alaska for the U.S. Department of the Interior. Now, when the Federal Government controls over 60 percent of the lands in Alaska, the solicitor for the U.S. Department of the Interior position in Alaska is actually a really important one and is incredibly important in terms of qualifications for a Federal judge. This wide-ranging experience will be incredibly valuable as a district court judge in Alaska because he is familiar--very familiar-- with the numerous Alaska-specific laws that this body passes year after year, decade after decade: the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act. This is an important point because very few States have such large, complex Federal laws that are focused solely on their State, and Federal courts often misinterpret these laws and don't understand these laws, to the detriment of the people I represent. Let me just give you a recent example. There was a Federal case under the law I mentioned recently, ANILCA, as we call it in Alaska. It involved a moose hunter named John Sturgeon who had a hovercraft and wanted to go moose hunting, and overbearing Federal Government agents told him he couldn't use his hovercraft in certain areas considered Federal waters. John Sturgeon knew better. He challenged the Federal Government. There were 12 years of litigation, twice up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Federal judges at the district and certainly the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals level getting this case wrong every single time. Finally, last year, in a unanimous 9-to-0 opinion, Justice Elena Kagan summed it up very succinctly when she ruled against all of these Federal judges in the Ninth Circuit and for Mr. Sturgeon. She said: ``If Sturgeon lived in any other State, his suit would not have a prayer of success.'' She went on: ``Except that Sturgeon lives in Alaska. And as we have said before, `Alaska is often the exception, not the rule,' '' under Federal law. So the Supreme Court gets it, and Josh Kindred will get it. He understands Alaska's unique legal jurisprudence. He is committed to honoring the commitments this body has made to Alaska's first peoples and others in my great State, and he is committed to justice. I believe he will serve with honor and integrity on the Federal court, and I urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the confirmation vote on the Kindred nomination begin following my remarks.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the impeachment of Donald J. Trump. The Democratic House managers, who are prosecuting the case against the President, emphasized that history is watching. That is true. Every action taken by the House and the Senate during this impeachment sets a precedent for our country and our institutions of government, whether good or bad. For that reason, it is our job as Senators to look at the entire record of this proceeding--from what happened in the House to final arguments made here in the Senate. It is also our duty to look at the whole picture, the flawed process in the House, the purely partisan nature of the articles of impeachment, the President's actions that led to his impeachment, and the impact of all of this on our constitutional norms. Most importantly, we must weigh the impact on our Nation and on the legitimacy of our institutions of government, if the Senate were to agree with the House managers' demands to overturn the 2016 election and remove the President from the 2020 ballot. This has never happened in our country's 243-year history. It is also our job as Senators during an impeachment trial to be guided by ``a deep responsibility to future times.'' This is a quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, two centuries ago, but it couldn't be more relevant today. With this grave constitutional responsibility in mind, and considering the important factors listed above, I will vote to acquit the President on both charges brought against him. It may surprise some, but if you listened to all the witnesses in this trial and you examine the sweep of American history, one strong bipartisan point of consensus has emerged: Purely partisan impeachments are not in the country's best interest. In fact, they are a danger which the Framers of the Constitution clearly feared. Alexander Hamilton's warning from Federalist No. 65 bears repeating: ``In many cases [impeachment] will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will inlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt . . . Yet it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men.'' The reason for this ``greatest danger'' is obvious: the weaponization of impeachment as a regular tool of partisan warfare will incapacitate our government, undermine the legitimacy of our institutions, and tear the country apart. Until this impeachment, our country's representatives largely understood this. During the Clinton impeachment--Democrats, including Minority Leader Schumer and House Managers Lofgren and Nadler, argued that a purely partisan impeachment would be ``divisive,'' ``lack the legitimacy of a national consensus,'' and ``call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.'' Less than a year ago, Speaker Pelosi said: ``Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country.'' Yet here we are. Against the weight of bipartisan consensus and the wisdom of the Framers, the House still took this dramatic and consequential step, the first purely partisan impeachment in U.S. history. Only Democrats in the House voted to impeach the President, while a bipartisan group of House members opposed. This was done through rushed House proceedings that lacked the most basic due process procedures afforded Presidents Clinton and Nixon during their impeachment investigations. A significant portion of the House proceedings last fall took place in secret, where the President was not afforded counsel, the ability to call his own witnesses, or cross-examine those of the House Democrats. Certain testimonies from these secret hearings were then selectively leaked to a pro-impeachment press. This happened in America. In my view, it sounds like something more worthy of the Soviet Union, not the world's greatest constitutional republic. Yet here we are. A new precedent has been set in the House. When asked several times if these precedents and the partisan nature of this impeachment should concern us, the House managers dodged the questions, and my Senate colleagues, who in 1999 were so strongly and correctly and vocally against the dangers of purely partisan impeachments, have all gone silent. Perhaps it is too late. Perhaps the genie is now out of the bottle. Perhaps the danger that Hamilton so astutely predicted 232 years ago is upon us for good. I hope not. No one thinks that partisan impeachments every few years would be good for our great Nation. The Senate does not have to validate this House precedent, and a Senate focused on ``deep responsibility to future times'' shouldn't do so. In addition to unleashing the danger of purely partisan impeachments, the House's impeachment action and their arguments before the Senate, if ratified, have the potential to undermine other critical constitutional norms, such as the separation of powers and the independence of our judiciary. These traditions exist to implement the will of the people we represent and to protect their liberty. And yet so much of what has already been done in the House and what has now been argued in the Senate has little or no precedent in U.S. history, thereby threatening many of the constitutional safeguards that have served our country so well for over two centuries. Take, for example, the debate we recently had on whether to have the Senate seek additional evidence for this impeachment trial. The House Managers claim that, by not doing so, we are undermining a ``fair trial'' in the Senate. The irony of such a claim should not be lost on the American people. Throughout this trial, and in their briefs, the House managers have claimed dozens of times that they have ``overwhelming evidence'' on the current record to impeach the President, thereby undermining their own rationale for more evidence. And in terms of fairness, it is well documented that the Democratic leadership in the House just conducted the most rushed, partisan, and fundamentally unfair House impeachment proceedings in U.S. history. A Senate vote to pursue additional evidence and witnesses would have turned the article I constitutional impeachment responsibilities of the House and Senate on their heads. It would have required the Senate to do the House's impeachment investigatory work, even when the House affirmatively declined to seek additional evidence last fall, such as subpoenaing Ambassador John Bolton, because of Speaker Pelosi's artificial deadline to impeach the President by Christmas. A vote by the Senate to pursue additional evidence that the House consciously chose not to obtain would incentivize less thorough and more frequent partisan impeachments in the future, a danger that should concern us all. Another example of the House's attempt to erode long-standing constitutional norms is found in its second Article of Impeachment, obstruction of Congress. This article claims that the President committed an impeachable offence by resisting House subpoenas for witnesses and documents, even though the House didn't attempt to negotiate, accommodate, or litigate the President's asserted defenses, such as executive privilege and immunity, to provide such evidence. These defenses have been utilized by administrations, Democrat and Republican, for decades and go to the heart of the separation of powers within the article I and article II branches of the Federal Government and even implicate a defendant's right to vigorously defend oneself in court. Indeed, the Supreme Court acknowledged in United States v. Nixon that the President has the right to assert executive privilege. Nevertheless, the House managers argued that the mere assertion of these constitutional rights is an impeachable offense, in essence claiming the unilateral power to define the limits and scope of executive privilege, while simultaneously usurping that power from the courts, where it has existed for centuries. Indeed, the House managers even argued that merely asserting these defenses is evidence of guilt itself. This is a dangerous argument that demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic constitutional norms. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis stated in his famous dissent in Myers v. United States, ``The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.'' If allowed to stand by the Senate, the implications of these House precedents for our Nation and the individual liberties of the people we represent are difficult to discern, but would be profound and likely very negative. Similarly concerning were the attempts, both subtle and not so subtle, to inject Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court into this trial. The smooth siren song of House Manager Schiff, casually inviting the Senate and Chief Justice into a constitutional labyrinth for which there may have been no exit, was a recurring theme of this trial. ``We have a perfectly good judge here,'' Schiff said over and over again, ``whom you all trust and have confidence in.'' Let him quickly decide all the weighty legal and constitutional issues before the Senate, the relevance of witnesses, claims of immunity and executive privilege, what House Manager Nadler described on day 1 of the trial as ``executive privilege, and other nonsense.'' Moreover, the Chief Justice could do this all within a week, Schiff told us. It all seemed so simple, rational, and efficient. But our Constitution doesn't work this way. The Chief Justice, in an impeachment of the President, sits as the Presiding Officer over the Senate, not as an article III judge. And while the Senate can delegate certain trial powers to him, it cannot delegate matters, such as a President's claims of executive privilege, over which the Senate itself does not have constitutional authority. The quick and efficient fix Schiff was tempting the Senate with might have ended up as a form of constitutional demolition. And as the trial proceeded, it became apparent that it was more than just claims of efficiency behind the invitation to draw the Chief Justice fully into the trial. There was something else afoot, a subtle and not so subtle attempt by some to attack the credibility and independence of the Chief Justice and the Court he leads. The junior Senator from Massachusetts' question for the House managers, which drew an audible gasp from those watching in the Senate after the Chief Justice read it, made this clear, when she asked about ``the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution,'' so too did Minority Leader Schumer's parliamentary inquiry about the precedent from the impeachment of President Johnson 150 years ago, on the role of the Chief Justice in breaking ties on 50-50 votes in the Senate during Presidential impeachments. Chief Justice Roberts' cogent, historically accurate, and constitutionally, based answer to this inquiry will set an important precedent on this impeachment issue for generations to come. Perhaps it is all a coincidence, but as these attempts to diminish the Chief Justice's credibility by more fully dragging him into this impeachment trial were ongoing, much more harsh political ads directly attacking him in this regard were being launched across the country. Members of the Senate noticed, and we were not impressed. The independence of the Federal judiciary as established in our Constitution is a gift to our Nation that has taken centuries to develop. The overreach of the House managers and certain Democratic Senators seeking to undermine this essential constitutional norm was a disappointing and even dangerous aspect of this impeachment trial. When historians someday write about this divisive period of American history, they would do well to focus on these subtle and not so subtle attacks on the Chief Justice's credibility--and by extension the credibility of the Supreme Court--for it was clearly one of the important reasons why the Senate voted last week, 51 to 49, to no longer prolong the trial phase of this impeachment. The impeachment articles do not charge the President with a crime. Although there was much debate in the trial on whether this is required, it is undisputed that in all previous presidential impeachments--Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton--the President was charged with having violated a criminal statute. And there was little dispute that these charges were accurate. Lowering the bar to non-criminal offenses has set a new precedent. However, whether a crime is required is still debatable. Instead, the House impeachment charged the President with an abuse of power based on speculative interpretation of his intent. So what about the President's actions that were the primary focus of this impeachment trial and the basis of the House's first Article of Impeachment claim that he abused his power? The House managers argued that the President abused his power by taking actions that on their face appeared valid--withholding aid to a foreign country and investigating corruption--but were motivated by ``corrupt intent.'' One significant problem with this argument is that it is vague and hinges on deciphering the President's intent and motives, a difficult feat because it is subjective and could be--and was indeed in this case--defined by a partisan House. Further, the House managers argue essentially that there could be no legitimate national interest in pursuing investigations into interference of the U.S. 2016 elections by Ukraine and corruption involving Burisma. I believe all Presidents have the right to investigate interference in U.S. elections and credible claims of corruption and conflicts of interest, particularly in countries where America sends significant amounts of foreign aid, like Ukraine, and where corruption is endemic, like Ukraine. Were the President's actions perfect? No. For example, despite having the authority to investigate corruption in Ukraine and with Burisma, I believe he should have requested such an investigation through more official and robust channels, such as pursuing cooperation through the U.S. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with Ukraine, with the Department of Justice in the lead. I also believe that the role of Mr. Giuliani has caused confusion and may have undermined the Trump administration's broader foreign policy goals with regard to Ukraine. But none of this even remotely rises to the level of an offense that merits removing the President from office. It is difficult to imagine a situation requiring a higher burden of proof. The radical and dangerous step that the House Democrats are proposing seems to have been lost in all of the noise. What they are asking the Senate to do is not just overturn the results of the 2016 election--nullifying the votes of millions of Americans--but to remove the President from the 2020 ballot, even as primary voting has begun across the country. Such a step, if ever realized, would do infinitely more damage to the legitimacy of our constitutional republic and political system than any mistake or error of judgment President Trump may have made. An impeachment trial is supposed to be the last resort to protect the American people against the highest crimes that undermine and threaten the foundations of our Republic, not to get rid of a President because a faction of one political party disagrees with the way he governs. That is what elections are for. I trust the Alaskan and American people, not House Democrats, with the monumental decision of choosing who should lead our Nation. And soon, they will decide, again, who should lead our Nation. In churches, libraries, and school cafeterias, the people all across the country will vote for who they want to represent them. And I am convinced that the American people will make their choices wisely. Let me conclude by saying a few words about where we should go from here. Right before this impeachment trial began, I was at an event in Wasilla, AK, where many of Alaska's military veterans attended. A proud veteran approached me with a simple but fervent request. ``Senator Sullivan,'' he said, ``Protect our Constitution.'' So many of us, including me, have heard similar pleas over the past few months from the people we represent, but there was something about the way he said it, something in his eyes that truly got my attention. I realized that something was fear. That man, a brave Alaskan who had served in the military to protect our constitutional freedoms, was afraid that the country he knows and he loves was at risk. And I have to admit that I have had similar fears these past weeks. But I look around me, on this floor, and I continue to see hope for our Nation. I see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--my friends--who are willing to work with me on so many issues to find solutions sorely needed for the country. And back home, I see my fellow Alaskans, some of them fearful, but also so hungry to do their part to help heal the divides. We should end this chapter, and we should take our cues from them, the people whose spirit and character guides this great Nation. They want us to protect our Constitution. They need us to work together to do that and address America's challenges. It's time to get back to the work Alaskans want the Congress to focus on: growing our economy, improving our infrastructure, rebuilding our military, cleaning up our oceans, lowering healthcare costs and drug prices, opening markets for our fishermen, and taking care of our most vulnerable in society like survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence and those struggling with addiction. That is what I am committed to do.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself, Senators Risch, Blunt, Kennedy, Johnson, and Capito for the President's counsel.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Lankford for the President's counsel.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Menendez and Senator Whitehouse again for their leadership on this. We have all seen the pictures and the news stories. The issue, though, is a severe one. The World Economic Forum has estimated that if we don't do anything about this big crisis of ocean debris, but particularly the issue of plastics in the ocean, there are estimates that by 2050 there will be more plastics by weight in the world's ocean than there are fish. We can't let that happen. So what we have done is we have put together this bill. As already mentioned, there were three different committees. There is an element on the domestic innovation side that creates a Marine Debris Foundation. That is a congressionally chartered private organization. Think of groups that matter to Americans. There are dozens of these kinds of foundations, but they are important. They send a signal that the Congress of the United States cares about these things. Think about the Red Cross, the American Legion, and the National Parks Foundation. These are all congressionally chartered organizations. The new Marine Debris Foundation will be one of them. The American Government is focused on this. It is an opportunity for the private sector, and we have seen some industries step up. There is a group called the Alliance to End Plastic Waste that has pledged $1.5 billion to start addressing this problem. That is not small change. It is going to need that kind of money. Perhaps some of that can go into this foundation. There is an innovation prize. A lot of focus in our bill is on innovation so that we can solve some of the big challenges in chemistry--a plastic bottle that could fully biodegrade. We don't have that yet, but these are some of the things that the bill looks at doing. Of course, Senator Menendez talked about the very substantial foreign relations component because so much of the plastic waste in the oceans comes from countries in Asia and Africa and 10 rivers, estimating almost 80 to 90 percent of all of the plastic waste in all of the oceans. So, again, it is solvable because it is definable. Then, the third component is improving domestic infrastructure to prevent marine debris through new grants and foreign studies for waste management mitigation. So this covers a lot of different areas-- innovation, our domestic side, the international side. We have momentum. We had a great group of bipartisan Senators-- Democrats and Republicans from all over the country and from all political persuasions--showing that momentum. We have the Trump administration fully behind this. In many ways, some of their Federal agencies weighed in significantly to help us design this legislation, and now we need to get it over to the House and move it in the House soon and get it to the President's desk. So this is a good day for the oceans and a good day for bipartisan success in the U.S. Senate on an issue that people care about. People really care about making sure that we have clean oceans and we are making progress. So I just want to leave it at that, and I will ask my colleague from Rhode Island, who has been the real leader on this issue, to wrap it up.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am sure all of my colleagues are going to want to listen to this speech. I am on the floor with my colleagues Senator Whitehouse and Senator Menendez to talk about some very important legislation for our country, legislation that passed the Senate last week. It is the Save Our Seas 2.0 legislation. I begin by thanking Senator Whitehouse and Senator Menendez for their leadership on this bill. We are going to talk a little bit about the importance of it, why it matters to Alaska, to New Jersey, to Rhode Island, and to the whole country. This is a significant piece of legislation. It is, really, the most comprehensive piece of legislation to pass the Congress--to pass the Senate--that has dealt with ocean debris and ocean pollution--ever. That sounds like a pretty hyperbolic phrase, but it is true. We checked with the CRS. There has been nothing more comprehensive than this piece of legislation that tackles an issue we all care about--clean oceans. As a matter of fact, on Thursday night, 100 Senators passed this after there having been a lot of work on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, on the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and on the Committee on Foreign Relations. After about a year of work on this, we finally got it passed. A number of Senators--Democrats and Republicans--were cosponsors. I really want to thank the two Senators who are on the floor right now. In particular, Senator Whitehouse has been a real leader on these issues that deal with oceans. This is an environmental issue that we can solve. Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, the Trump administration in the White House, and environmental and industry groups are all pulling on the same oar, and we had a good start last Thursday on what this does. I want to turn it over to my colleague from Rhode Island because, in many ways, he has been the real leader, the driver, and is the founder of the Oceans Caucus. Bit by bit, legislation by legislation, he and I cosponsored the first Save Our Seas Act in the last Congress. To much fanfare in the Oval Office, the President signed it, and now you are starting to see people work on this. There is a whole section in the USMCA on cleaning up our oceans. We have gone from Save Our Seas 1.0, which has already passed into law, to Save Our Seas 2.0. I think it is exciting, and I think the American people don't always hear about the bipartisan work that is actually getting done on big issues that matter to our Nation. There is a lot. Cleaning up our oceans is one that matters to everybody and, certainly, to my State, with its having more coastline than the rest of the lower 48 combined. You don't even have to live in a coastal State to care about this issue. Some of our cosponsors on this bill--on both sides of the aisle--are from States that don't even have any coastline. That is how important it is. I want to turn it over to Senator Whitehouse. I thank him for his and Senator Menendez' leadership. We will talk a little bit about what is in it and what we are going to do next. This is a good day for the environment in America. It is a good day for the oceans not just in our country, not just in Alaska, not just in Rhode Island but in the world. As a nation, if we are leading on this, which this legislation does, then we are going to be able to help clean up our oceans all over the world. We had a good start here on Thursday night in the U.S. Senate when we passed this bill legislatively unanimously. Again, to my colleague from Rhode Island, the floor is his.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I look forward to another White House signing of this with all of our colleagues. I am sure that the administration is interested in it. You and I had a very eventful one over at the White House a couple years ago. So, again, the momentum is there. We are just going to keep building on it.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues from Rhode Island and New Jersey.