Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Absolutely. I want to thank Senator Wicker for his leadership on this issue, and I think what we are seeing here in this colloquy is the strength of the bipartisan support for this bill, not only in the Senate but throughout the country. I appreciate my colleague's words about who is supporting it. It is a very broad-based coalition--fishing vessels, passenger vessels, labor unions, the Navy League of the United States, marine terminals, port authorities. I think both Senator Wicker and Senator Casey made a very strong point: This is going to keep the highest standards on the environment for our waters. This isn't about cutting corners, but it is going to make these standards uniform, which is what our Nation needs. What we also need to do is to make sure we pass the Coast Guard bill as well as this important component of it. The men and women of the Coast Guard are serving our Nation just like the other members of the military, and somehow, by delaying this bill, we are undermining their longer term interests. I think the Senate can do a much better job. I agree with my colleague from Mississippi that we are close. There is clearly bipartisan support across the board for the VIDA Act and the Coast Guard bill, and we are hopeful that within the next few weeks or few months, we are going to get this done, and it is going to benefit literally every State in this great Nation of ours.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Alaska today in honoring Bill Van Ness. Chairman Murkowski has identified some of the significant contributions that Bill made to Alaska and Alaskans. I would like to focus specifically on one of those contributions, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act or ANCSA, and the role that law has played in improving the lives of Alaska's Native people. Through ANCSA, the State of Alaska, the Federal Government, and the Alaska Native community reached a settlement regarding aboriginal claims to lands and resources throughout the State. Alaska Natives set aside those claims in exchange for nearly $1 billion and the right to select approximately 45 million acres of land. Bill's creativity is evident in the manner in which ANCSA addressed the fundamental question of how to ensure that the thousands of individual Alaska Natives received their fair share of the settlement funds and lands. To answer that question, ANCSA authorized the creation of corporations, in which Alaska Natives are the sole shareholders, to receive the funds and hold title to the selected lands. For the most part, this corporate structure has proved to be very beneficial to the Alaska Native shareholders and to the State of Alaska. In this regard, I point to the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, ASRC, which is owned by Alaska Native people who have inhabited the North Slope of Alaska for thousands of years. With strong leadership from its shareholders, officers, and board members, ASRC has grown into a multibillion dollar enterprise that is Alaska's largest domestic company and that provides dividends to its nearly 13,000 Alaska Native shareholder, as well as many jobs to shareholders and other Alaskans. Bill Van Ness's contributions as an author of ANCSA and later as a private attorney representing ASRC were keys to ASRC's success story.

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, every week, I have been coming to the floor, going on 2 years now, to talk about what makes my State, the great State of Alaska, such an amazing place to live--gorgeous, untouched mountains, the glaciers, the wildlife. I have live web cams in my office. For people who want to see the bears, walruses, the salmon spawning, bears scooping up these amazing fish from the choked streams, please come on by. Most of that happens during the spring, summer, and fall. The winter, of course, is the longest season in Alaska. In my opinion, it is one of the best times to experience our State. For those watching on TV or in the Gallery, we want to welcome you to Alaska. Come on by. You will have the trip of a lifetime. I guarantee it. It is truly the people who make my State such a truly special place. What we try to do each week is talk about some of those people in what we have termed our ``Alaskan of the Week'' celebration, to talk about community, to talk about so many Alaskans who are helping not only their State and their community but their country, generous yet tough and competitive people who make up our Wonderful State. Many of them get very excited when the snow starts to fall. They strap on their skis and they fly through the snow. One group of Alaskans who every winter strap on their skis and train--actually train all year round and compete on the hundreds of miles of Anchorage's trail system--is the Alaska Pacific University Nordic Ski Program. Hands down, it is the very best ski team in America. They are our Alaskans of the Week. Let me tell you a little bit about the APU Nordic Ski Program. Led by Coach Erik Flora, Alaska's APU Nordic Ski team year after year produces some of our Nation's finest athletes, who compete in races all across the world, including the upcoming Winter Olympics in Korea. As I mentioned, year after year, APU athletes are simply the best cross- country skiers in the Nation. Their depth of talent was put on display earlier this month at the U.S. Cross Country Championships in Anchorage, where they took 11 out of the 24 podium spots in the senior races and 8 out of the 24 junior podium spots. Think about that. One team dominated the U.S. Cross Country Championships this year. They train year-round. In the summer, the ski team trains on Eagle Glacier, accessible by a 10-minute helicopter ride from Girdwood, AK. As the Anchorage Daily News put it, this unique training area has ``been a springboard to APU's international and domestic success [and dominance]. Flora and his staff have groomed serpentined, undulating trails there that mimic [international] courses'' on a glacier in Alaska in the summer. That is great training. It is year-round. In addition to training and coaching these world-class athletes, the APU Nordic Ski Center also has a popular junior program, which helps develop the next generation of Olympic skiers. I have had the honor to get to know some of these skiers, these wonderful athletes, over the past few years. They certainly would make Alaskans proud, but I think they would make all Americans proud. They are great young men and women who are dedicated, disciplined, humble, hard-working, and very smart. They are students; they are very, very good students. I even had the opportunity to go and train with them occasionally. I am more of a downhill skier than a cross-country skier. I went with them in the fall, when there wasn't any snow on the ground, to do some mountain interval training, running with them up and down the mountains. To witness and train with these world-class athletes was an amazing experience. I must admit, it was a difficult experience for me. I think I was smoked after about 10 minutes with them, and they had about a 2-hour workout session on the mountain. It gave me a sense of how hard they work and what dedicated, world-class athletes we have in my hometown. Next month, several of these APU skiers will travel to Korea to represent the United States of America at the Winter Olympics, the way they have in previous Olympics. They are top skiers for America. Let me name a few. First and I would say foremost, Kikkan Randall, America's most decorated cross-country skier in U.S. history and an Alaskan icon--she will participate in her fifth Winter Olympics. Let me say that again. She will participate in her fifth Winter Olympics. That is an incredible record for any American athlete, winter or summer games. She is also a wonderful person. She is very, very community-oriented. Alongside her will be APU teammates Sadie and Erik Bjornsen--they are brother and sister--Rosie Brennan, and maybe, hopefully, even a few more. Additionally, their APU teammate Jess Yeaton, who was born in Australia but grew up in Alaska, will ski for the Australian cross- country ski team. You are getting the picture. This is a group of people who are going to do very, very well in the Olympics and are going to represent our country and other countries proudly. Cross-country skiing is woven into the fabric of Alaska's winter community. It brings people together, and it helps build community. So many of our skiers, including and especially the APU team, are also generous and kind in helping others learn how to ski and graciously host skiers from all across the country, as was on full display during the recent U.S. Cross Country Championships. On behalf of all Alaskans--really, on behalf of all U.S. Senators--I wish the team good luck in Korea. We will be watching. I know you will make Alaskans and our fellow Americans very proud as you compete on the world stage once again. Once again, thanks for all you do. Thanks for your tremendous hard work and dedication. And to the APU Nordic ski team, thanks again for being our Alaskans of the Week. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, as you can see here, a lot of the Senators are coming down to talk about the government shutdown. We are in a completely avoidable shutdown. There are a lot of speeches, but I think it is important to be clear on one fact. The position of the Democratic leadership on Friday night was this: Unless you agree with our demands on the DACA issue by midnight, we will shut down the Federal Government. I don't think anybody disagrees that is what the position was Friday night. The irony, of course, is there wasn't even a bill to agree on, but that still was their position. The decision was in their hands and they made it and here we are. This was completely avoidable, and we need to get this government of ours up and running again. I have been coming to the floor for the last few days--on the eve of the shutdown and each day during the shutdown--to emphasize one point; that the American people need to be skeptical. They need to be very skeptical as the Members of the Senate Democratic leadership and some of their colleagues trot out newly polished talking points emphasizing their concern for the military readiness, rebuilding our forces, and more spending on defense. You might be hearing this. As a matter of fact, I have heard that argument from the leadership on the other side more in the last 3 days than I have heard in the last 3 years as a Senator in this body. Even the junior Senator from Vermont this morning on CNN was talking about the importance of rebuilding our military. Wow. That is new. So you are seeing these new talking points. I respect and get along well with all these Senators, the Democratic leader, Democratic whip, the junior Senator from Vermont I just mentioned, and the Senator from Wisconsin was just on the floor talking about--again, a big emphasis on the Democratic side on the military. I have respect for them. I know they are all patriotic, and they all love their country, but one thing I think is pretty clear--at least in my 3 years in the Senate--this has not been their area of focus. It hasn't been. Go look at the speeches. There has not been the focus on fully funding and rebuilding our military. That is not where the Democratic leadership has been, but it seems to be now with these new points. Of course, I welcome this. I welcome this change of heart. I welcome this new emphasis on fully rebuilding our military forces. In fact, there are many of us in the Senate who serve on the Armed Services Committee, like the Presiding Officer, led by Senator McCain. We have been focusing on this issue for years. There are a lot of Republicans and some Democrats. I mentioned a few on the floor the other day. This is an issue we have been focusing on literally daily because it is a huge problem right now in the country. It is enormously important for my State, the great State of Alaska. Whether it is our Active-Duty Forces or Reserve Forces, we have thousands not only serving in the military now but who have served. We have more vets per capita than any State in the country and thousands of civilians and family members who support them. These issues of military funding and rebuilding our military are really important to a lot of us. I welcome the Democratic leadership's new focus in the past 72 hours on military readiness, supporting our troops, and rebuilding our forces. But I will admit this--I am skeptical. I am very skeptical. The American people watching this debate at home or in the Gallery should be skeptical too. You should be skeptical when the junior Senator from Vermont goes on CNN and talks about being strong on military funding. You should be a little bit skeptical. Why? What is really going on here? Why is there all this new talk from the Democratic leadership about how important fully funding our troops is? Why weren't they talking about this last year or the year before? I think they might be overcompensating. I think they might be worried. I think they might be feeling a bit defensive. I think they might be trying to preempt arguments that their policies of late have actually been harmful to the military and our troops and their families. The truth is, their policies of late have been harmful to our military forces and our readiness. Here are a few important points. From 2010 to 2016--the second term of the Obama administration--the Department of Defense budget declined by 25 percent. That is not a focus on the buildup of military; that is for sure. There were also dramatic troop cuts. As a matter of fact, when I first started in this body in 2015, the Obama administration announced that they were cutting 40,000 Active Duty Army troops; 5,000 were focused on Alaska. Because of this, we have seen readiness in our Armed Forces plummet. Here are just a few disturbing facts and a few disturbing trends. At least one-third of Marine aviation isn't flying right now. We have had numerous mishaps that have killed marines because of aviation accidents. Only 5 out of 58 Army brigade combat teams are fully ready. We have the smallest Air Force in U.S. history. We have a pilot shortage--really, a crisis--in the Air Force and the Navy with regard to being able to recruit pilots. Training hours for our pilots each month have been cut in half. There are reports right now that Chinese and Russian pilots are getting much more monthly training than our forces. We have had naval mishaps at sea that have killed several sailors in the prime of their lives--the best and the brightest of our country. We all recognize that there is a big problem. As we were cutting forces and cutting spending for the last several years, the national security threats to our country were dramatically increasing. We are cutting forces, we are cutting spending, and ISIS is rising. North Korea is becoming an enormous and immediate threat, as are Iran, China, and Russia. The world isn't any safer, yet we have been cutting our military forces and the funding for our troops. That is why there is starting to be a change right now. We passed the National Defense Authorization Act with a dramatic authorization for an increase in military spending, but it is still not appropriated. When it comes to the Democratic leadership's new talking points, actions speak louder than words. The new talking points don't mean much in the face of actions that have actually undermined our military. Let me provide a few examples. In the past 3 years, every Defense appropriations bill that has passed out of the Appropriations Committee has been filibustered by the Democratic side. Let me say that again. Every single time we have brought a bill, usually a very bipartisan bill, out of the Appropriations Committee for the funding for our troops, it gets filibustered by the Democratic side. That is not supporting our military. A number of us have come down and talked about this. We have encouraged our colleagues: Don't support the filibuster. We have asked: Why are you doing this? Why are you doing this? We all know that our forces have been cut too dramatically. The national security challenges have increased, yet every single time we bring a bill out of the Appropriations Committee to fund our troops, the other side filibusters that bill. If most people back home knew that, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter what State you live in--if you knew that was what was going on here on the Senate floor, you probably wouldn't be happy. But that has happened. That still happens every time.

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, I will not yield. I will finish, and the Senator can respond to this later. Hopefully my colleague from Hawaii hasn't been one of those who have been filibustering spending for our troops, but it has happened. In the summer of 2015, it happened five times in a row. Next--right now we are having these discussions on the appropriate level of defense spending, but the other side is saying: No, there has to be parity, with ``parity'' meaning that if we increase defense spending, which people are now saying we need to do--and we do--we have to correspondingly increase domestic spending. Well, again, the vast majority of Americans don't agree with that position. That is not a position that is showing strong support for our military, yet that is the position right now. That is one of the reasons we have had difficulty coming to a final topline number. In other words, if you want to increase the budget for the Marines, you need to increase the budget for the EPA or another domestic agency. Well, that is not showing this newfound emphasis and importance with regard to the military. Let me provide just one last point. This government shutdown--we all know that really hurts our troops. We all know that really hurts training. We all know that really hurts planning. Right now, if you are a lance corporal in the Marine Corps fighting in Iraq or somewhere else around the world for our national security, you have just been told that you are not getting paid. Right now, the families of survivors for the military--meaning that your husband, your wife, or your dad was killed in action--get survivors benefits. Guess what happened on Friday night. Those families no longer get survivors benefits. We have all heard it, and I agree that a CR is bad for the military. I fully agree with that. There is one thing that is absolutely worse for the military and our troops right now--shutting down the government. That is worse. That is worse than a CR. When my colleagues on the other side trot out statements from General Mattis and others, that is their view. Shutting down the government is the worst thing we can be doing right now. There was a little bit of news today. This was in the Alaska Dispatch News, or what is now known as the Anchorage Daily News, about what is going on in my State of Alaska. I am going to quote a couple of sentences from this article. It says that LTC Candis Olmstead of the Alaska National Guard ``wrote that the Alaska National Guard also canceled its monthly drill weekend, scheduled for Saturday and Sunday, due to the government shutdown. About 4,000 Guard members''--we have a lot of military in Alaska-- ``throughout the state had planned to attend.'' I guarantee, some were en route, and they were told to go home. Alaska is a big State. Sometimes you can fly 1,000 miles within Alaska to go to a drill weekend. She said: ``Drill weekends are when the bulk of our force--our traditional or part-time Guard members--train alongside our full-time personnel.'' Well, that is not helpful for our military. National Public Radio this morning did a big story on what was going on with the military. Again, they focused on Alaska as well. They said that at least 4,000 people were impacted. The reporter talked about how stressful this is for families. Let's say you are a corporal in the Army. You and your family can go into debt because you are not getting paid. Think about being deployed overseas, and your wife is calling you, saying: I can't pay the rent. That is what we did. That is what my colleagues did on Friday night. These new talking points, saying ``We really support the military,''--be skeptical because actions speak louder than words. It is not just the military members. In Alaska, there are hundreds, probably thousands, of family members in the civilian world--many of whom are veterans--who, according to an NPR story this morning on the radio, are going to go to work on Monday. They are going to be told whether they are essential or not, and they have 4 hours to pack up their stuff and go home. This is clearly, clearly disrupting our military. It is not just Alaska. It is all over the country. To be honest, it is all over the world. Let's talk about the civilian workforce in Virginia. In this same article that I read from earlier, it says: While uniformed personnel are largely shielded from the shutdown effects-- Because they are still working and, by the way, they are not getting paid-- civilian employees whose jobs are not deemed critical to defense operations will be furloughed. There are more than 740,000 Defense Department civilians. Mattis said Friday that about half of them would be furloughed. Again, it is not just military members. It is the families. I mentioned survivors benefits. There is also something called insurance that covers things, for example, like funerals. This article continues: Already on Saturday, other effects were felt across the military. One particularly sensitive one is the temporary suspension of $100,000 payments promised to military families in the event their loved one dies so that they can travel and prepare for funerals. Well, that has now been suspended. It even affects our forces overseas. The article goes on to say: The American Forces Network, which carries television broadcasts of sporting events and other programming, was taken off the air at midnight, leaving deployed U.S. troops without one common way to watch National Football League playoff games this weekend. That might sound like a small thing. It might sound like a small thing, but if you are deployed overseas, serving your country overseas, you want to touch base with America. Watching a football game is a great way to do that. Guess what. Our troops are not even going to have that small privilege. In conclusion, the next time the Democratic leadership or some of my colleagues come to the floor or go on CNN emphasizing their concerns for the troops and rebuilding our forces, knowing that we have to do a lot more, spend on the military, be skeptical. Be skeptical. The talking points are nice. We are hearing them from everyone. It is the actions that count. It is the actions that count, and they speak louder than these newly crafted, slick talking points. This has not been the focus of the Democratic leadership. It hasn't been. I believe some of those giving these new talking points are a little bit concerned or maybe a little bit haunted by the specter of the Democratic Party once again being known, as they were in the 1970s, as the anti-military party. Now, I will say this: The vast majority of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, care about our forces, are patriotic, and care about our veterans. But the way you show that is not through new talking points; the way you show that is through actions and policies that are truly and sincerely focused on supporting our troops and rebuilding our military. We can start that. We can start those kinds of actions by ending this ill-conceived government shutdown with a vote tonight. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, as we all know, right now the government is in a shutdown. It is unfortunate. I certainly don't think it should have happened last night. But I think there is some good news. Watching some of the speeches today, we see a lot of ideas coming to the floor, a lot of bipartisan ideas on a lot of key issues that hopefully our country is going to make some progress on. Let me give a few examples for those who have been watching and those who haven't. The Presiding Officer, my friend from Arizona--I am not trying to embarrass him or anything. I watched his speech a couple hours ago on the way forward and what we can do to break through this unfortunate circumstance we have right now, and he certainly has a lot of good ideas. I commend him and appreciate his leadership on those issues. My good friend, the Senator from Maine, Senator King, was down here talking about continuing resolutions and these huge omnibuses, and I would agree with him completely. As a matter of fact, Senator King and I had a long discussion on the floor last night about how the system is broken. There are a number of Senators--I think some of the newer Senators--who see it that way. This is no way to move forward, to fund our government with these continuing resolutions and huge omnibuses at the end of the year. So a number of us--and I think it is bipartisan-- want to look at reforms to fix this. Senator Perdue of Georgia has been leading efforts. I think it is very important--and I certainly am part of that group--to look at longer term fixes. The Senator from Michigan came down and talked about community health centers. Community health centers are incredibly important for my State of Alaska. Ten percent of all community health centers in the country-- 160--are in my State. So I couldn't agree more about the necessity to move forward on more stable funding. A number of Senators were just down on the floor giving very passionate remarks about the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. Again, it is very important in my State. A lot of people in this country are concerned about the reauthorization of CHIP, and there were some passionate statements on the floor. I would say to my colleagues respectfully, and I respect all of them and welcome the opportunity to work with all of them, they didn't actually address one issue. When they said that a lot of Americans have been worried about this happening for the last 3 months, they didn't actually say why they didn't vote to reauthorize it last night for a 6-year reauthorization. The Senator from Ohio talked about how people were worried and concerned. Well, guess what--last night he had the opportunity to get rid of their worries and concerns. And when they woke up this morning, they were still worried and concerned, and so are my Alaskan constituents, which is why I voted for the bill last night. Had they voted for the bill on CHIP, the worries and concerns would have gone away. So there were a lot of passionate speeches on this issue, but not one of them actually said: But here is why I didn't vote for it last night. It would be good to know what the answer to that is. But I really wanted to come to the floor again to emphasize something I have made a few remarks on in the last couple of days on the floor because it is something that I am concerned about, and it is something I want the American people to recognize, and it is a big issue for me. I think the American people need to be skeptical when they hear on the floor the minority leader and part of his leadership team with their new talking points about their focus on the military and military spending and rebuilding our military. In the run-up to the shutdown, we had started to see the minority leader and some of the leadership team trotting out new talking points. They went like this: With the shutdown approaching, we are really, really concerned about the military and readiness and funding for our troops and their families and rebuilding the military. In fact, in the last 3 days, I think I have heard more from the leadership of the other side on this issue than I have in my 3 years in the Senate. I think the minority leader in the last 3 days is starting to sound like my good friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, this body's true champion of the military and military funding. I actually welcome this change of heart by the minority leader. There is a group of us in the Senate--many who serve on the Armed Services Committee, led by Senator McCain--who have been focused on increasing funding for our troops. A lot of it is Republicans, but it is also some Democrats. I see my good friend from West Virginia is on the floor. He is certainly one of them. He is on that committee. We talk about this issue a lot. Senator King was on the floor again. He is focused on this issue. It is an issue that a lot of us in this body have been focused on daily, whether on the Armed Services or in other committees. The Senator from West Virginia and I also serve on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs together. For me, it is one of the most important issues that we can focus on in this body--the national defense of our country. I have had the honor of serving in the Marine Corps for almost a quarter of a century. For my State--the great State of Alaska--these issues are enormously important to my constituents. We have more veterans per capita than any other State in the country, thousands of Active Duty and Reserve troops, thousands of civilians who support them, and numerous bases in Alaska because of our strategic location. A number of us really care about these issues regarding the military and funding and supporting our troops. As I mentioned, I welcome the Democratic leader's new focus in the last 72 hours on military readiness and full funding as we put forward a national defense authorization bill that really started to rebuild our military and support our troops and their families. But I must admit that I am a little bit skeptical. As a matter of fact, I am very skeptical. I think the American people who are watching these debates and listening--whether on TV or in the Gallery--when you see these new talking points of concern from the Democratic leader about our troops and funding, you should be skeptical too. Why? What is really going on here? Why all this new talk? Again, there has been more in 72 hours than I have seen as a Presiding Officer and watching C-SPAN in 3 years from the Democratic leader on how important it is to fund our troops. I think he might be overcompensating. I think they might be a bit worried. I think they may be feeling a bit defensive. I think they might be trying to preempt arguments that their policies of late are actually really harmful to the military, our troops, and their families. If you look at the record, their policies of late have been really harmful to our military, our troops, and our families. And this is the most important point. Actions on this issue speak louder than words. Policies that are being promoted are a lot more important to look at than newly crafted, slick talking points. Let me provide a few examples. The most recent was last night. We had a government shutdown. We didn't need to have a government shutdown, but we had a government shutdown. It was driven by the Democratic leader. The people who are hurt the most on this, by far, are our troops and the civilians who support them. We all know this. As of today, guess what. The lance corporal in the Marine Corps, who is deployed overseas in Iraq, is not getting paid. A lance corporal doesn't make a lot of money. Well, he is not getting paid. He is risking his life for his country. He is in combat, protecting our national interests, and he doesn't get paid. That happened last night. We talk about how bad a continuing resolution is. Again, the Democratic leader was saying: Hey, a continuing resolution is really bad for our troops. That is why I am so skeptical of it. I want to protect the troops. Wrong. A continuing resolution is really bad for our troops; there is no doubt about it. But what is worse is a government shutdown. Ask any military leader. Ask any military leader what the disruption that happened on the Senate floor last night does to our readiness and our ability to protect this country. I have served in the Reserves and on Active Duty for almost 25 years. I remember, in 2013, getting ready for Reserve duty training. We didn't even know if we were going to train or not--no emails. We had no idea what was going to happen when the government was shut down. It was chaos, just as the Democratic leader predicted it would be. Here is another one--survivor benefits. A survivor benefit goes to a spouse or child of someone who is related to one of our heroes who was killed in the line of duty. It is really important that we, as a government, take care of those families. Guess what happened last night when we shut down the government. Survivor benefits were stopped; they are not being paid. Again, stay skeptical on this idea that ``Hey, we really are--new points, we really are supporting our troops.'' Last night was a case in point where actions speak louder than words--not supporting the troops at all. The civilians--in my State we have hundreds, if not thousands, of patriotic civilian members of the military or civilians who support the military--many of whom are retired military--who are now not going to go to work on Monday, if we are still shut down, at the military bases to support our troops. That is not helping our troops. Let me give another example of where actions speak louder than words. We have been having very difficult discussions, and they are tough. It is one of the reasons we need to fix our budget process as to what level we should be increasing funding for the military. Those on the Armed Services Committee have authorized a significant increase. Again, it was bipartisan on the NDAA bill, but the Democratic leader has been demanding in these negotiations what he calls parity. It sounds simple. What does that mean? Let me give you a little background on that. From 2010 to 2016, we cut our defense spending by 25 percent as national security threats to our country increase. There is nobody who disputes that. ISIS, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea-- these are all challenges facing us right now, and we have been cutting our spending and cutting troops, dramatically cutting troops. I think pretty much everybody in this body is saying: Whoa, bad idea. We shouldn't do that. In the NDAA, we dramatically increased our authorization for the military. That was a good step--very bipartisan. But in these negotiations we have been having over the last several months, the demand from the Democratic leaders was, any increase in the Department of Defense budget has to be met with an equivalent increase in domestic agencies. In other words, if you want to increase the budget for the Marine Corps, increase the budget for the EPA. I think most Americans don't agree with that. It certainly doesn't show some kind of newfound respect for supporting our troops. But that is what is happening right now. Again, actions speak louder than words. Let me provide one final example of actions that certainly don't seem to be supporting our military, speaking louder than words. Unfortunately, the other side is starting to have a practice, a regular practice, of filibustering spending for our troops. Let me explain this. In 2015, a number of us were newly elected, and we said: We need a better budget process. Obviously, we are seeing that it is not working well. Let's go through regular order. Let's get the Appropriations Committee to work really hard and put out 12 appropriations bills, which they debate in the appropriations committee. Then, let's bring them to the floor and vote on them. That is a way to avoid this crazy omnibus, continuing resolution debacle that we find ourselves in today and most of the time. We were really focused on doing that. We tried. As a matter of fact, the Appropriations Committee did a great job. It was a lot of hard work--very bipartisan. They reported out 12 appropriations bills by the spring of 2015. Most of those bills were very bipartisan. What we thought was, all right, that is a good start. Everyone seems to want to do that. Let's bring up the bill that is actually important. In 2015, with the rise of ISIS, our troops are in combat. Let's bring up the Defense appropriations bill, which came out of committee unanimously. Every Senator on the appropriations committee--Democrat and Republican--voted for that. Let's bring that to the floor. We did. Let's have a debate. We are going to fund our military--these new talking points about our supporting our troops. What happened that summer? The Democratic leadership filibustered the spending for our troops. They wouldn't let us vote on the bill. They wouldn't let it come to the floor. They stopped funding for our troops. A number of us were upset. I know some of the Democrats were upset by this because they didn't all support it. You need only 41 to filibuster, as we saw last night. A number of us said: Well, let's keep bringing it up. They can't be serious. Our troops are in combat. Everyone knows we have national security threats. The bill came out of committee unanimously. Let's bring it up again. I guarantee you, if their constituents back home, whatever State they are from, whatever party they are--Democrat, Republican--knew that their Senator was filibustering the spending for their national security, the troops, and their families, they probably wouldn't be very happy. We brought it to the floor again and again and again--five times. Guess what. Every time, the Democratic leadership filibustered spending for our troops. I guarantee you, there was probably 80 percent support in this country, or more: Hey, let's vote on that. It came out of committee unanimously. The troops are protecting us all over the world. Let's vote on that. We never got to vote on it. In conclusion, the next time the minority leader comes to the floor during this debate, emphasizing his concerns about our troops and their funding and the need to rebuild them and their well-being, Shakespeare's insights about protesting a bit too much should come to mind. Be skeptical. Be skeptical. Actions speak louder than words. This has not been a focus of the Democratic leadership. Here is what I believe is happening. Given their actions--including what happened last night, which really harms our military, and everybody knows it--the specter of the Democratic party once again becoming equated with America's anti-military, which occurred in the 1970s, is haunting them. Again, I serve on the Armed Services Committee. I serve with wonderful Senators--Democrats and Republicans--who support the military, who support our veterans being on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I know the vast majority in this body support our troops. But the actions of the leadership on the other side don't show that. Yet they are trotting out new talking points about their newfound focus of rebuilding the military and taking care of our troops and their families. Let me make this final suggestion. The best way to actually show that to the American people, all of whom support it, is not through newly crafted, slick talking points but through actions and policies that truly and sincerely focus on what we all agree we need to do, which is rebuild our military, rebuild readiness, take care of the troops and their families. We can start by ending this ill-conceived government shutdown as soon as possible as one concrete action to actually do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I try to get down on the Senate floor every week and talk about someone in my State who is making or who has made our State a better place for all of us. It is, actually, one of my favorite parts of the whole week. I know the pages really enjoy it. It is what I call our Alaskan of the Week. It is one of the most fulfilling things that I do. No doubt, many here in the Chamber and people watching from home and from up in the Gallery have seen pictures or television shows about Alaska. Hopefully, they have been up there. My State has captured the country's imagination. There are cable shows on Alaska, wonderful shows, and for good reason. There is so much about Alaska that is awe- inspiring--our long expanses of tundra, mountain ranges, glaciers, our salmon-filled streams. To everybody watching back home or listening, we want them to go to Alaska if they haven't already been or to go again. It will be the trip of a lifetime, I guarantee you. Yet a State is different from a community. A State is where people go, and a community is where people live. It takes good, strong, and generous people to build a community. This week, I recognize someone in Alaska who spent his entire adult lifetime building community. His name was George Brown, who, with his wife, Peggy, had run one of the most popular diners--one of the greatest restaurants in Anchorage--since 1955. The Lucky Wishbone is that place that for decades, people from all walks of life have gone-- veterans, politicians, oil workers, hospital employees. You name it, they have gone to the Lucky Wishbone. They have converged on this wonderful establishment in Anchorage for some of the best fried chicken and best strawberry shakes ever. I guarantee it if you go. I know from firsthand experience. Trust me. George Brown was born in rural Wisconsin in 1922. He joined the National Guard at the tender age of 17, and his unit was sent to Alcatraz Island to guard the Golden Gate Bridge. At 21, he had already risen to the rank of master sergeant when he qualified for Officer Candidate School. In 1943, he finished flight school at Luke Field, AZ, as a second lieutenant in the Army Air Corps. In that same year, George met the love of his life, Peggy, and married soon after. After he was married, George received orders to fly B-24s across the Himalayas during World War II--a mission in an area famously known simply as the Hump. George earned the Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal for his bravery and service during World War II. Incidentally, the late, great Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, whose desk I occupy here on the floor, also flew the Hump with the Army Air Corps during World War II, and I know he was a friend of George's. After the war, George and Peggy and their two children made their way to Alaska to forge a new life. Eventually, that life took shape in a building that George built by hand in downtown Anchorage--the Lucky Wishbone. Its doors opened on November 30, 1955, and a kind of living room for the community--where you could also get great food--was born in Anchorage. As you know, most walls don't talk, but the walls of the Lucky Wishbone do talk. They are filled with pictures that chart Anchorage and Alaska's history throughout the decades. These photos tell the story of a hardscrabble territory--Alaska--that fought for self- determination and gained citizenship and statehood in 1959. They tell a story of the town of Anchorage, rebuilt after being hit by the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in North America--9.2 on the Richter scale. It lasted for 5 minutes. The walls of the Lucky Wishbone tell the story of a State brimming with excitement when the largest oilfield in North America, Prudhoe Bay, was discovered on the North Slope, and tens of thousands of jobs were created for Alaskans and Americans. They tell the story of the crash in oil prices in the 1980s and of the hard and long recovery. They tell the story about how, through it all, a community and our citizens in Alaska relied on each other. As all of this history was in the making, George and his wife, Peggy--who by then had four children--went to work every day. They knew their customers by name, and they continued to make the best food in town. Sadly, Peggy died in 2011 after she and George celebrated 67 years together. George continued to go to work every day. I saw him there. He continued to fly his plane until he was 94 years old--a wonderful, gracious, tough, patriotic Alaskan and a great American. George passed away earlier this week--an amazing life. He was 96 years old. He left behind two of his four children--Patricia and Corky--lots of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, nieces, and nephews. The Lucky Wishbone, one of his many legacies, will live on. This great restaurant has now been passed down to his daughter Patricia and two long-term employees. George and Peggy's memory will also live on with them. Mr. President, in a few hours, we are likely going to have a simple choice to make here on the Senate floor--to either pass the House's continuing resolution that passed yesterday so as to continue to fund our government and our military and, importantly, to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, for 6 years or to shut down the Federal Government. Yet, if you are watching the Senate floor debates about all of this from home or in the Gallery, you might be a bit confused. Actually, I was almost confused last night. Particularly, if you were listening to the minority leader and minority whip's new talking points that they were using last night in their remarks and have been using over the past few days, you might really be confused. Let me give you a little background as to why. Like the Presiding Officer--actually, more than the Presiding Officer. He has been around the Senate for quite some time. As someone who is relatively new, I sit in that Presiding Officer's chair a lot-- as a matter of fact, during the 11 a.m. hour on Wednesdays and Thursdays--so I get to listen to the majority and minority leaders and the majority and minority whips give their opening statements. A couple of times a week, I watch it on C-SPAN--like a lot--and you get to hear the different priorities of the different leaders of the parties. Every day, I hear this. I respect everybody, and I respect our Members on the other side of the aisle, as we all have different areas that we focus on. I will tell you this, rebuilding the military, increasing military readiness, increasing defense funding has not been a key area of focus for the minority leader or minority whip. It is just a fact--not bad or good--just a different priority. I also sit on the Armed Services Committee and the Veterans Affairs' Committee, and there is a lot that we focus on in those committees, particularly Armed Services, and a lot of us have been concerned about the dramatic cuts in spending. From 2010 to 2016, the military has been cut by 25 percent, even though we have had a dramatic increase in national security challenges. There is a certain group of Senators, I would say led by the Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. McCain, who focus on military issues, military readiness, increasing funding for the troops, who really care about these issues and focus on them daily. I consider myself one of them--a lot of Republicans, some Democrats. The Members of this body know who they are, and we focus on this a lot. Imagine my surprise yesterday and last night when the minority whip and the minority leader started with new talking points emphasizing that this impasse we are getting ready to see here and the impending possible shutdown is all about their concerns about the military. Their concerns about the military? How the CR was going to hurt the military? Well, with all due respect, that is the first time in 3 years that I have heard the leadership of the other party really emphasize that issue. Again, I have a lot of respect for these men, but they just don't talk about this issue. They don't. That is what they were doing. That is the new talking point. This isn't about something else, it is about our troops. Well, I think the newest talking points are something that is trying to confuse the American people. Don't be confused by this. These are not the Senators who come out every day and battle for more spending for our troops. These are not the Senators who come down and care about readiness. The new talking points are a little bit hard to swallow. What was also surprising last night is that the new talking points-- how little the minority leader talked about actually the real issue-- the real issue, and it is a serious issue. Everybody in this body and everybody in this city knows it is the real issue. Here it is. The other side is saying, unless there is a deal on the DACA issue--which is a serious issue--they will shut down the government. That is the real issue. There is no debating it. It is not about the minority leader's newfound concern about military readiness. That is the issue we are debating. Now, I think it is a serious issue, the Dreamers. I have met with them. We have about 150 in Alaska. I think we need to help those young men and women. They are great Americans--not Americans yet, but they are great young people. We also need to focus on border security and immigration reform. I certainly want to help them. Here is the final point. What was missed last night is this talk about--we heard the minority leader saying the CR is going to be bad for the military. A continuing resolution is bad for the military-- again, a newfound focus on the military. I hope he joins us as part of the number of Senators who really care and focus on military readiness and defense spending every day, not just last night. What is worse for the military beyond the continuing resolution--and a continuing resolution is bad--but what is worse, there is no doubt about it, the Deputy Secretary of Defense said it today, is a shutdown of the government. A shutdown of the government really hurts the military. I want to encourage my colleagues, let's not do that. Let's not do that. We will definitely be hurting the military then. Let's get back to work. Let's fund the government. Let's pass this continuing resolution. Let's pass the reauthorization to CHIP, which a lot of my colleagues, in the last several months, have been saying we need to do. I agree. Let's do it tonight. Let's find a resolution for the border security, DACA, and immigration issues that we can get to a bipartisan agreement on. What we shouldn't be doing here is coming down with new talking points about how much the minority leader cares about military readiness and military funding, when, to be truthful, that is the first I have heard in 3 years an emphasis in that area. Let's fund the military, certainly. Let's fund the government, but let's not shut down the government tonight. That is not going to help anyone, and it certainly--certainly--is not going to help our troops. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I was just in the Presiding Officer's chair and saw my colleague and my friend for whom I have a lot of respect, the Democratic whip, talking about some of the issues we are looking at right now, in particular, military spending and the appropriations we need to fund our military. He mentioned it was a priority. Certainly, it should be a priority. It is probably the most important thing we do here in the Congress. He said they are focused on it. We should all be focused on it. I just thought I would reply a little because I think the facts of what has been going on here on the floor of the Senate the last couple of years would make one skeptical of that claim that it has been a focus of theirs. Let me just give a few examples. I know the Presiding Officer is very familiar with all of these. In the last administration, from 2010 to 2016, military spending for the United States was cut by almost 25 percent. That was led by the previous President, despite the fact that there is no one who doubts that national security threats to our Nation have increased: We are going to cut defense spending by 25 percent-- when there are threats around the world, and we know what they are-- ISIS, Iran, China, and Russia. A lot of people like to talk about Russia, which is definitely a threat, but we are cutting defense spending by 25 percent. That makes no sense, but that is what has been going on. When I got to the Senate, one of the first things that happened was that the previous administration decided that they were going to cut the Army by an additional 50,000 troops--Active-Duty Army troops. The Presiding Officer remembers the spring of 2015 and the big announcement that we were going to cut 50,000 more troops. That made no sense. A number of us were very concerned about the direction the country was going, the Congress was going, and the administration was going with regard to our military. The good news is that there has been a bipartisan recognition that the cuts were way too dramatic and the increases and threats to our Nation have risen so significantly that we have to do something about rebuilding our military, rebuilding readiness, and rebuilding serious funding. In this year's National Defense Authorization Act, led by my good friend from Arizona Senator McCain, we actually authorized increased funding by up to $700 billion. That was very bipartisan. As a matter of fact, there was a unanimous vote to move that out of the Armed Services Committee, on which I have the honor to serve with the Presiding Officer. Then, it was unanimous on the floor of the Senate. It was very bipartisan to authorize increased defense spending, but we haven't appropriated the dollars. So there is a difference there in terms of authorization and appropriations. This has been a bipartisan failure of this body for years. How has it been working? We see how it has been working. We have these giant omnibus spending bills, usually, at the end of the year. If we can't do it, we do a CR, or a continuing resolution. It says that we will keep funding the government as is, and then we will do this giant bill with all of the spending for the year. These CRs are really hurting our military. They hurt all kinds of Federal agencies because there is no predictability, but the one element of our Federal Government that really gets hurt by continuing resolutions--by these omnibus bills--is the men and women in the U.S. military. As the Presiding Officer knows, general after general and civilian leaders in the military, whether Democrats or a Republicans, come to the Congress and to our committee, and they say: These CRs are killing us; they are killing our readiness. We all say: Oh, yes, we know it is important. Then, this body does nothing. So it is not from a lack of effort. I am going to tell a story that I think the other side doesn't want to remember, but I think it is really important to remember, particularly given what the minority whip said earlier today. When a number of us were elected in 2014, it was a big wave election. Twelve new Republican Senators came to this body, and they took control of the Senate. The one thing we said is this: We need to fix this appropriations process, which is clearly broken. We need to do it the way it was intended--not with these smash-up derby, giant bills at the end of the year. We need to have a focused, disciplined approach to funding our government. Everybody knows how it is supposed to work. You have the funding bills, 12 of them, and the Appropriations Committee, a very important and powerful committee, debates those for different sections of the Federal Government. They get voted on out of committee. Then, they come to the floor, and we vote on those 12 appropriations bills. In 2015, a lot of us--particularly, the new Senators, and the Presiding Officer is one of them--said: We need to fix this. Let's do it the right way. And then we did. A lot of people don't remember, but the Appropriations Committee worked really hard under the Chairman, the great Senator from Mississippi, and they produced 12 appropriations bills in the spring of 2015. As you know, most of those bills were bipartisan. Most of those bills came out of committee with really strong bipartisan numbers--so far, so good. We are trying to focus on this. We are trying to be disciplined. The next step is that you bring the appropriations bills, one at a time, down to the floor. You debate them, and then you vote on them. Then, you try to get it over to the President to sign it--not a smash- up derby omnibus that is 5,000 pages, and nobody knows what is in it, but an appropriations bill on a singular subject. That is what we tried to do. It came out of committee. We started bringing all those bills down to the Senate floor. Guess what happened at the next step? The minority leader was Harry Reid back in 2015. He decided that he was going to filibuster every one of those appropriations bills. Why? We said: Certainly, he is not going to filibuster things like the appropriations bill that came out of committee unanimously that funds our military. We have troops in combat. We have threats all over the world. That came out of committee. Let's at least vote on that one. Let's at least vote on the appropriations bill that came out of committee unanimously to fund our troops. So what happened? The other side, led by the previous minority leader, Harry Reid, filibustered funding our troops. Let me repeat that. He filibustered funding our troops on a bill that was already out of committee unanimously--when our troops are at war. So when I hear my colleagues on the other side say that they really care about funding the troops, I get a little skeptical. A number of us were quite upset about that. We went to our leader and said: Let's keep bringing this up. We guarantee you that if the people back home in any district in the country, your constituents--whether you are a Senator who is a Republican or Democrat--knew that they were filibustering funding the troops for no reason, they would get a little upset. We brought that bill to the floor five different times over the course of a couple of months, trying to get the singular appropriations bill to fund our military--which passed out of the Appropriations Committee unanimously--a vote on the Senate floor. Guess what. The other side filibustered it five times. The Presiding Officer and I were on the floor with a bunch of our colleagues making the argument that this is outrageous, and then we asked the other side to come down and tell the American people why they were filibustering the funding for our troops. A lot of people here like to do the process thing, where they don't think people are watching--people in the Gallery, people on C-SPAN--and they never once came down and said: Here is why we filibustered funding for the troops five times in a row. They didn't want their constituents to see it because they knew their constituents--whether Democrats or Republicans--were going to say: You are doing what? You are filibustering the appropriations bill for the men and women who are fighting to defend our Nation? That is what you are doing? Well, that is what they did. Yet they never explained it. Again, when I hear the minority whip saying: We really care about funding the troops, I get a little skeptical. I am still waiting for the answer: Why did you do that? As you know, we have a system right now that is broken. The budget system--the way we fund the government right now--I think, is a bipartisan failure. The normal way we appropriate and authorize is not working. It leads to what we are doing right now: these giant omnibuses, these continuing resolutions. It has happened so long--these year-end, smash-up derbies, where essentially, the leadership in the House and Senate--Democrat and Republican--and the White House go off somewhere, make a deal, and come back with this huge bill. It is not how the system is supposed to work. It is not doing our country justice. Again, the good news is that there are a number of Senators-- particularly some of the newer ones, a bipartisan group, by the way, of Democrats and Republicans--led by my friend and colleague from Georgia, Senator David Perdue, who are looking at a bipartisan way to fix this problem. Right now the way we fund the government is that we have these end- of-the-year smash-up derby, massive, thousand-page omnibuses. When we can't get there, we do another CR, which really impacts our military negatively and a bunch of other elements of the Federal Government. We need to do better. I am going to be working with my colleagues who are focused on this. It is going to be hard. It is not going to be easy. A lot of people like the smash-up derby approach, but it is not worthy of the American people who we are supposed to represent. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I have 12 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Jerome H. Powell, of Maryland, to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Randal Quarles, of Colorado, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Brian D. Montgomery, of Texas, and Robert Hunter Kurtz, of Virginia, both to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and David J. Ryder, of New Jersey, to be Director of the Mint, Department of the Treasury; to be immediately followed by a hearing to examine combating money laundering and other forms of illicit finance, focusing on Administration perspectives on reforming and strengthening Bank Secrecy Act enforcement. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Terrorism and Social Media: Is big Tech Doing Enough?'' Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``America's Water Infrastructure Needs and Challenges: Federal Panel.'' Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on revision to the subcommittee assignments for the 115th Congress and on the following nominations: the Honorable Alex Michael Azar II, of Indiana, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services and Mr. Kevin K. McAleenan, of Hawaii, to be Commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Dennis Shea, of Virginia, to be a Deputy United States Trade Representative (Geneva Office), with the rank of Ambassador, and C. J. Mahoney, of Kansas, to be a Deputy United States Trade Representative (Investment, Services, Labor, Environment, Africa, China, and the Western Hemisphere), with the rank of Ambassador. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Facing 21st Century Public Health Threats: Our Nation's Preparedness and Response Capabilities, Part I.'' Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Unintended Consequences: Medicaid and the Opioid Epidemic.'' Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Breaking New Ground in Agribusiness Opportunities in Indian Country.'' Committee on Veterans' Affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The State of the VA: A Progress Report on Implementing 2017 VA Reform Legislation.'' Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 11:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Michael K. Atkinson, of Maryland, to be Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, and Jason Klitenic, of Maryland, to be General Counsel, both of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, every week, I try to come down to the floor and talk a little bit about my State and do a little bit of bragging in what we call our ``Alaskan of the Week'' series. Now, there is a lot to talk about with regard to Alaska. We would love for the people in the Gallery and the people who are watching to come out and visit our great State. It will be the trip of a lifetime. The scenery, of course, is gorgeous, and the mountains are rugged, but it is really the people who make my State so special--rugged, self-sufficient, kind, and very generous people all across an area that is over two and one- half times the size of Texas. I apologize to my Texas colleagues, as they get a little upset when I talk about that, but it is true. Every week, we have been recognizing a group or a person who has worked to make Alaska a stronger place, a stronger community--a State that, I think, is the best State in our great Nation. I call these individuals our Alaskans of the Week. Today, I take all who are watching to Alaska's interior, to a town called Fairbanks, AK, where about 32,000 of my fellow Alaskans live. It is a beautiful, wonderful place. Fairbanks is hot in the summer. My wife and I were married there many years ago. It was over 90 degrees when we got married in August, but it is really cold in the winter. We spent January 1, 2000--the millennium celebration--in Fairbanks with our kids and our family. It was 50 below zero without the windchill-- cold. It is a place I love, where my wife was born and raised, where we lived, where my in-laws still live, and the place Jeff Cook, our Alaskan of the Week, calls home. Jeff has been in Fairbanks his whole life. His parents moved to Fairbanks in 1938. He went to college in Oregon, and his wife Sue was there, but the couple moved back to Alaska, to Fairbanks, and started a family. He is now 74 years young. He and Sue have four children, two of whom have settled in Fairbanks, and they have five grandchildren. He is the patriarch of not only a great family but of many community organizations throughout Fairbanks and, really, Alaska. Throughout the years, Jeff has had a career in real estate, in business. He has sat on numerous boards--community boards--and been in community groups. Let me just give a couple of examples of his community work, of his sitting on the board of the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce, the University of Alaska Board of Regents, the Rotary Club of Fairbanks, the Greater Fairbanks Community Hospital Foundation board, the board for the State of Alaska Chamber of Commerce, the Rasmuson Foundation board, and the boards for Alaska Airlines and Wells Fargo Bank. This is an individual--a leader--who has been involved in his community for decades. He is a perfect example of the community-minded individual whom we call our Alaskan of the Week. We could be done right here. It is a pretty amazing career--a great example of someone who is dedicated to his State, to his country, to his community. Yet Jeff has done a lot more. He recently used all of his energy, all of his experience, all of his community involvement to embark on what really has become an extraordinary fundraising campaign to raise money for cancer research--so important for our Nation, so important for Alaska. This became a personal issue for Jeff. Let me tell you this story. Last March, he and Sue received, really, a devastating phone call from their youngest daughter Chrissy, who is 34 and lives in Las Vegas with her husband and 2-year-old daughter. She called to tell them the bad news--really, the horrible news that millions of American families hear every year--that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer and that she had a positive match for the BRCA2 gene, which increases one's risk of developing breast cancer or ovarian cancer. Jeff and Sue felt powerless against this disease when they heard this. He said: ``When you're a parent, it doesn't matter how old your children are; you're supposed to slay the dragons and conquer the monsters'' and protect your kids. If that were not devastating enough, weeks later, he and his wife made sure that everyone in the Cook family got tested. Unfortunately, five other members of the family tested positive for this gene. They are all being monitored now. Here is what Jeff said: ``We couldn't conquer the cancer, but we just had to do something.'' He said he had heard about the American Cancer Society's ``Real Men Wear Pink'' campaign--a fundraising program that is held in October. October, as everybody knows, is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. About 3,000 men from across the country participated in the program this year, the ``Real Men Wear Pink'' campaign. So Jeff started. He started with the pretty impressive goal of raising $5,000 for cancer research and an email list of about 70 people, most of whom were in Fairbanks. Within 90 seconds after sending his first email, he had raised $1,000. Pretty good. Then what happened? The community of Fairbanks, of Alaska--really of the whole country-- started opening up to his plea. Donations kept coming in. The more donations he received, the more Jeff worked at raising funds. Many of the people he knew were donating, but what happened? Strangers from across Alaska and from across the country started to send money for this very worthy cause of breast cancer research--often with heartfelt stories of their loved ones, of their own struggles with cancer, or of those of their kids. Someone from a small town in New York State sent him $250. As the weeks passed, he began to pay attention to how he was stacking up against others across the country. Jeff is a competitive guy. He is very successful. When he reached No. 10 in the country in terms of fundraising for this very important matter, he told one of his friends there was no way he could beat the No. 1 person ahead of him who had raised $30,000--no way. That was a high number. Now, Fairbanks is not a very big city, and the other people on the list above him were from much bigger cities from across the country and had what he thought were larger connections and larger networks. Yet his friend told him: ``Don't underestimate yourself, Jeff.'' After he read that, he said: ``Okay. I'm going for broke.'' This is what he did. He was all in. He started fundraising everywhere. When it was all said and done, on this campaign, Jeff Cook, from Fairbanks, AK--a town of a little over 30,000 people in Alaska's interior--was the No. 1 fundraiser in America for breast cancer research this year--No. 1. In terms of the American Cancer Society's ``Real Men Wear Pink'' campaign, Jeff Cook raised over $120,000. If my colleagues were down here, I would ask them for a round of applause. That was for the entire country. Think about that. We come down to this floor a lot and debate cancer research, medical research--very important. Here is one individual in America who raised over $120,000 through his own energy and passion and for the love of his daughter. This is a testament to Jeff's perseverance, but it is also about the good people in Fairbanks, throughout Alaska, and really throughout the country. As Jeff said, ``It says so much about our community. There was such an outpouring of love, goodness and generosity. That was the most touching part of [this entire experience].'' What else did Jeff learn? He learned that his daughter Chrissy, who underwent chemotherapy and a double mastectomy, is stronger than he ever imagined. She is recovering well, but she is still in recovery. I am going to humbly ask my colleagues and those who are watching here and those who are watching on TV to put a prayer in for Chrissy and other cancer victims like Senator Hirono, who was just on the floor. Put them on your prayer lists as they are in recovery--all of them. I want to end with a big thanks to everybody in Alaska and across the country who are part of the ``Real Men Wear Pink'' campaign who are literally raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for breast cancer research. I thank Jeff, of course, for not underestimating himself but for another--another--mission well done as a community leader in Fairbanks and throughout Alaska. Congratulations for being our Alaskan of the Week. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, for the past year or so, I have been coming to the floor nearly every week, and I know the Presiding Officer looks at this as possibly his favorite time of the week because he gets to hear a lot of these ``Alaskan of the Week'' speeches. I know the pages love them. I come to the floor to talk about my State, really brag about my State, and recognize an Alaskan who has made a difference--made a difference in their community, whether it is a small community or a big community in the State, in the country. I have repeatedly stated--I am sure not all my colleagues agree, but maybe some of them do--that Alaskans live in the greatest State in the greatest country in the world. We certainly have the most beautiful landscapes and all the seasons. I was in Fairbanks and Anchorage over the holidays. It was wonderful. Winter is such a great time in the great State of Alaska. For those who love snow, Alaska is the place to be, so we want everyone to come visit. But it is truly the people and strong communities throughout Alaska that make our State so great--such a welcoming place. For those of us who live in Alaska, sustainable community is everything. Living in one of the most magnificent places on Earth, also, certainly has its challenges. We depend on each other. Our traditional knowledge, our ingenuity, our warm-hearted nature, and our determination to overcome these challenges is what makes our State great and is often the theme of our ``Alaskan of the Week'' speeches. Today I wish to transport you to the village of Tuntutuliak--a village of about 400 people, southwest of Bethel, AK, on the 700-mile long, mighty Kuskokwim River--and introduce you to a truly amazing elder who, for 77 years, has worked tirelessly for his community and for our State. This is James Charles, who is our Alaskan of the Week. Over the past decades, when there has been a meeting on the Kuskokwim concerning fish or wildlife or subsistence, James has been there helping to create and shape a fishing and hunting community and regulations, not only for the region but for the entire State of Alaska. James was born in 1940 in a fish camp below Helmick Point on the Kuskokwim River. During that time, Alaska was being devastated by a tuberculosis epidemic. In fact, in the mid-20th century, Alaska Native people experienced the highest incidence of tuberculosis of any population ever. This is one of the many challenges we talk about. Sadly, the epidemic took James's father, his uncle, and both grandparents, leaving his mother and the community to care for her three children. The community--like many still, unfortunately, in Alaska--didn't have hospitals or clinics. They didn't have medicine. The Federal Government basically turned a blind eye to the havoc that this disease was wreaking over all of Alaska, particularly in our small villages. What the community did have was each other. They had food, and they had the bounty of the land. They had elders to help teach the young people in the village the true meaning of subsistence living. James's mother, Emma, hunted and fished to feed the family, and she and James's uncle taught James how to be a conservationist, only taking enough fish and wild game to survive and ensuring enough was left for other villagers--lessons he has passed on to the younger generations of Alaskans, year after year. James met his wife Nancy 50 years ago. She lived in another village. He met her when he was out trapping for food. He said: I walked 52 miles and found my wife at the end of my trapline. It was my best catch [ever]. James's accomplishments are legion. He spent 22 years in the Alaska National Guard, like so many Alaskan Natives who serve at higher rates in the U.S. military than any other ethnic group in the country. He has served on the Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council, the Fish and Game Advisory Council, and the Kuskokwim River Salmon Management Working Group. James travels all around our great State, attending different meetings and testifying at the Board of Fish and Game. He has dedicated his life to fish and wildlife conservation so he can set an example for Alaskans today and future generations, including his own family. He has 5 children, 15 grandchildren, and 12 great-grandchildren. He is so committed to keeping the culture and tradition alive that none of his kids or great grandkids are allowed into his house unless they are able to speak Yupik, the traditional language of his people. For all his work to help continue a vital tradition of subsistence and conservation in Alaska, James was awarded the conservationist of the year award by the Fish and Wildlife Service this past summer, which he accepted at this year's Alaska Federation of Natives Convention. For his work, James is our Alaskan of the Week. Thank you, James, for all you have done for the great State of Alaska.

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, as we all know, more and more brave women are speaking out about the abuse that has been reported in the papers--abuse by the powerful, in many cases. I want to say at the outset that the country applauds these women for their courage and for setting an example for others. Some of the stories we have heard about involve sexual harassment, but some of the other stories also appear to involve even more serious crimes, including domestic violence and sexual assault, which is an incredibly important issue that often gets underreported all across the country. As a result of these news stories, I am certainly hopeful these kinds of problems--the domestic violence problems we have in America--are going to start to receive the attention they need and deserve. Just as we are seeing more men fired from jobs because of sexual harassment and assault, we also need to see more get the punishment they deserve, in a court of law, for violent abuse. We also need to make sure victims are protected and that they have an advocate--a lawyer--who is on their side in these cases. Unfortunately, many who are suffering from domestic abuse and sexual assault can't afford attorneys to file charges or, importantly, to even protect themselves and their families, their kids. Here is the big irony: When someone is charged with a crime--say a sexual assault crime, say an accused rapist--that person gets a Sixth Amendment right to counsel under the U.S. Constitution. So the perpetrator gets the right to a lawyer. What does the victim get? The victim gets nothing-- no attorney, no right to an attorney. Think about that. An accused rapist gets a lawyer under the Constitution and the victim gets nothing. In fact, what they often get, in terms of crimes, are prosecutors, if it is a criminal case. Prosecutors do a good job, but they are often looking to score a win rather than looking out for the victim and the survivor. If it is a civil case, survivors usually go without attorneys. I believe this is wrong. Fortunately, we have been working on this in this body. We have a bill to change that. Senator Heitkamp and I introduced a bill in the Senate that was passed unanimously by this body several months ago--and actually passed it last Congress as well-- called the Pro bono Work to Empower and Represent Act, known as the POWER Act. Congressman Joe Kennedy in the House has introduced a companion bill where it likewise has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Some of the most conservative Republicans and some of the most liberal Democrats are showing a broad array of support in the House just as it has enjoyed in the Senate. When it passes through both Chambers, the bill will be a robust first step in making more lawyers available, working on a pro bono basis for victims and survivors who can't afford representation. There are thousands--tens of thousands--who fall into that category, unfortunately. So what is the problem we are trying to solve? Domestic violence and sexual assault happens every hour, every day, in every part of our country. According to a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control, roughly 25 percent of American women will be victims of domestic assault in their lifetimes--one in four--25 percent. That is a horrendous statistic. Every day in the United States, on average, three women are killed by a current or former intimate partner, according to the National Network to End Domestic Violence. That is also a shocking, horrendous statistic. No place is immune. This kind of violence happens in small towns, in big cities, on college campuses, and in suburban homes. This violence transcends political affiliation, race, and socioeconomic status. I know a number of my colleagues have watched as I like to come to the Senate floor and talk about my State--the great State of Alaska--and I like to talk about how many things are so wonderful about Alaska. One thing that isn't wonderful about Alaska is, we have the highest rates of domestic violence and sexual assault in the country. So this is certainly happening in my State, and it is one of the reasons I care so much about this issue. It is happening in every State--every State represented in the U.S. Senate. There are no simple solutions to combat this issue of nationwide domestic violence, but experts do agree that securing a lawyer for victims is one of the best ways, if not the best way, to get victims and survivors out of their difficult situation--out of what often is a cycle of violence--to get them shelter, housing, and medical care, and protective orders. Studies have shown that when an abused victim is represented by an attorney, their ability to break out of the cycle of violence increases dramatically. One study found that 83 percent of victims represented by a lawyer were able to obtain a protective order compared to just 32 percent in domestic violence situations when they weren't represented by an attorney. Not only would more legal representation help victims and survivors of abuse, but it would also help protect children. In these situations, children are often abused as well. Paige Hodson from Anchorage is a survivor herself. She has been working for years with thousands of women as an advocate for women who are trying to get out of abusive relationships and women who are also trying to protect their children. These are complicated and often difficult issues and cases, but Paige has said it is critical for both the safety of the mom and the kids to make sure they are represented by an attorney. So what does the POWER Act do? Every area of our country--every part of America--is represented by a judicial district that is represented by a U.S. attorney. Under the authority of the Justice Department, some States have several U.S. attorney districts. Alaska has only one. Utilizing this national framework of all of our different U.S. attorneys throughout America, the POWER Act sets out a way to increase connections between lawyers and victims, between advocates and survivors. The bill, which has already passed the Senate, directs each U.S. attorney to hold at least one annual event, inviting lawyers and legal service representatives who want to provide their legal services and pro bono time to empower victims by representing them. It also requires U.S. attorneys to plan and hold events with a focus on addressing these kinds of crimes--domestic violence and sexual assault--in Indian Country and among Alaska Native populations, where some of the abuse in the lower 40 and in my State is very, very high. Another important point about the POWER Act is that it would not add a dime--not one penny--to the Federal debt. But here is what it would do: It would create an army of lawyers--thousands of lawyers--to defend survivors of abuse. Think about that positive vision. Think about that positive vision and goal. What a great way for Americans, especially attorneys, to rise up in a positive and constructive way in response to all the bad news we are reading almost daily about these issues and show the better angles, the better side of our country. The model for this bill came from my State of Alaska. As I mentioned, we have the highest rates of domestic violence and sexual assault in the country--something that no Alaskan is proud of. When I was attorney general, working closely with our legislature, our Governor, and many of the victims advocacy groups, we launched a strategy called the Choose Respect Campaign. The Choose Respect Campaign highlighted this problem in our great State. We did public service announcements about how real Alaskan men choose respect; we changed the laws to make the penalties for perpetrators much harder; and we provided increased services for victims. One way we did that was to hold what were called pro bono legal summits. I hosted those summits. We brought together lawyers and victims advocacy groups, legal services groups, and this actually worked. It worked. By 2014, over 100 cases in our State were handled by volunteer attorneys providing thousands and thousands of hours of volunteer legal assistance to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Think about that. Alaska has a little over 700,000 people, and we had over 100 attorneys come out--thousands of hours, just in our State, with a small population. If we could take this model to 300 million Americans, we literally would have an army of lawyers helping survivors with volunteer time and helping meet this significant unmet need throughout our country. As I mentioned, the POWER Act passed unanimously in the Senate, but, unfortunately, it is being held up in the House. Ironically, it is stuck in the Judiciary Committee--the committee focused on bringing justice to Americans. It is stuck there. Remember, this is not going to cost a dime, yet it has been stuck for months in the Judiciary Committee. It is kind of ironic. These victims need help, and this bill will do that. It is not only my bill to help victims and survivors of sexual assault that is stuck in the Judiciary Committee. My colleague, the majority whip from Texas, Senator Cornyn, has a very important bill that he came to the floor of the Senate just last week to talk about. It is called the SAFER Act and will help States ease the nationwide backlog of thousands of untested rape kits that currently sit untested in labs and on police storage shelves across the country. There are thousands. Ending this backlog could take perpetrators off the streets and provide victims and survivors the justice they deserve. We know this would work. We know that would help. The SAFER Act passed the Senate under the leadership of Senator Cornyn. Let me talk about how important that bill is to the country. In my State, there are 3,484 untested rape kits, more per capita than any State in the country. Anchorage, my hometown, has one untested kit for every 164 residents. In Juneau, AK, it is one for every 160 residents. The backlogs are all across the country. As Senator Cornyn pointed out in his speech, there are 2,000 kits that remain untested in his State, the State of Texas. In Virginia, where the State legislature has made this kind of testing a priority, there are also more than 2,000 kits sitting on police shelves. The Detroit Free Press recently reported on how, in 2009, officials stumbled onto more than 11,000 untested rape kits. After they raised enough money to test them, 817 serial rapists were identified. That is why this is so important. Once these kits are processed, they often give us the evidence to go after the abusers, the criminals. It is remarkable to me that both of these bills--the SAFER Act that Senator Cornyn has championed and the POWER Act that Senator Heitkamp and I have championed--are sitting in the House Judiciary Committee. Victims are not getting justice right now with these bills sitting there. Why on Earth would such bipartisan legislation, which would literally end up helping thousands of survivors and probably bring to justice hundreds of criminals who commit these heinous crimes of sexual assault and domestic violence--why on Earth would we have bills, which have bipartisan support and little to no impact on the Federal Treasury, stuck in the House Judiciary Committee? It is beyond comprehension. To my colleagues in the House, let's move this. Let's move these bills before the holidays. Let's start focusing on bringing justice to people who really need it. Helping victims and survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault is not a Republican issue, it is not a Democratic issue, it is not a women's issue, and it is not a men's issue. It is an issue that affects all of us. Working together--as Senators, as Members of the House, as Americans--we should clearly unite in this cause, which transcends politics or ideologies, because we can start changing the culture of abuse. That is what we have been trying to do in Alaska. It is going to take a long time. It is going to take a long time, but we need to act. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the House--my colleagues particularly in the Judiciary Committee--recognize the urgency of these kinds of situations and will move the SAFER Act and the POWER Act out of committee and get it on the floor for a vote as soon as possible. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about someone in Alaska who has been very important in my State. Joseph Darnell, who we know as Joe, is the Alaska Regional Solicitor for the Department of the Interior, in Anchorage, AL. He has been in that office since 1992, was made acting regional solicitor in 2010, and was appointed to his current position in 2013. He will be retiring from his job at the end of this year. The Department of the Interior is Alaska's largest landlord, managing 61 percent of Alaska's lands. The way the Department of the Interior manages its lands and resources is critical for Alaska's economy and for the well-being of our citizens. I know that I often talk about Federal overreach, and while it is true that, under certain administrations, Alaska has bared the brunt of much of that overreach, but it was people like Joe who made sure that rules and regulations were followed, that the people had a voice, and worked to see that good policy prevailed. A former staff member for the late great Senator Ted Stevens, Joe learned from the best. During his tenure, Joe worked on numerous land management and land conveyance issues for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Refuge System, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service. Among the more notable was the land exchange between the United States and the Aleut Corporation, which resulted in the Aleut Corporation acquiring ownership of the closed Adak Naval Air Facility on Adak Island in the Aleutian Islands. Joe was born in Seward and raised in Juneau, Kenai, and Fairbanks. According to his wife, Joan, they enjoy cross-country skiing, riding bicycles together, and spending time in their cabin outside of McCarthy. One of his great passions is small airplanes. After the first of the year, they will both be spending a lot of time in their Cessna 175, flying across the great State of Alaska, and watching their daughter Anna ski for the ski for the Nanooks at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Through his decades of dedication, Joe acquired and maintained a peerless understanding of how both national and Alaska-specific laws operate on our Federal public lands in Alaska. He has advised on and navigated a great many challenges for our State during his time in public service, and his knowledge and contribution will be dearly missed. Best of luck to him and to his family and thanks for all he has done for all of us.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I would like to spend a few moments talking about why my colleagues and why the American people should be supportive of this very important legislation, historic legislation, that we are debating on the Senate floor. It is particularly historic for my State, the great State of Alaska. There has been a lot of misinformation on this bill, and we are seeing a robust debate, which is fine. I don't need to repeat all the arguments on both sides, but I will say that my colleagues on the other side have seemed to focus on one particular point. They are coming here and making this point again and again; that is, the point that this bill will supposedly raise taxes on the middle class. We are hearing it, and everyone is saying it. The problem with that argument is, it is fundamentally untrue. The truth will be in the paychecks of the American people, which they will see in a few months. Let me talk about some of the provisions that are in the bill. The bill will be a middle-class tax cut for the vast majority of Americans. Here are some of the provisions. These are in the bill. These are the facts. The bill doubles the standard deduction. For an individual, the standard deduction goes from $6,300 to $12,000. For married couples, it goes from $12,700 to $24,000. That is in the bill. That is important for middle-class families. It doubles the child tax credit. The child tax credit is doubled from the current $1,000 to $2,000, so more parents can claim it. It is in the bill. That is a fact. And it lowers rates. In fact, it not only lowers rates for middle-income Americans, it lowers rates on every single income bracket in the IRS code. That is a fact. Bottom line, an average family of four making $75,000 a year will have about 200 more dollars per month in take-home pay under this bill--$2,400 a year. A single parent making $41,000 a year will see their tax bill decrease by $1,300. That is a 73-percent decrease. That is a fact. It is in the bill. Let me mention one other critical way in which this tax bill will bring middle-class and working-class tax relief. It will get rid of the very regressive and unfair individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act. About 20,000 hard-working Alaskans and over 6 million Americans have to pay a tax, a penalty to the IRS for not buying something-- health insurance--that they cannot afford. Let me repeat that. They are penalized for not buying something that they can't afford. Think about the absurdity of that. Here is why this is such an important middle-class tax cut. When we get rid of that penalty, close to 80 percent of the 6 million Americans who pay the ObamaCare individual mandate tax--close to 80 percent of them--make $50,000 or less. Think about that. Tonight, we are getting rid of that tax, that unfair penalty, and that will undoubtedly bring tax relief for the middle class. This bill also decreases taxes on small businesses and companies so that they can reinvest at home in our great Nation, hire American workers, give pay raises, and help grow our economy. Many of these ideas, doing these kinds of things, have been bipartisan policy ideas for years when we have talked about tax reform. Let me give you one. In 2012, President Obama said that our current business tax structure hurt American business and inhibited growth. He said that the tax system ``provides tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas and hits companies that choose to stay in America with one of the highest tax rates in the world.'' That is from President Obama. It was true then, and it is true today. Something has to be done, and we are doing it tonight. The bill will also give small businesses and large companies a chance to help grow our economy. You have heard Senator after Senator come to the Senate floor. My colleague from South Carolina has talked about this eloquently for years. It is an issue I care deeply about. But here is the issue. We have had a lost decade of economic growth. For over 10 years, we have not hit 3 percent GDP growth once in a year. It is an issue I care deeply about. As a matter of fact, I come to the floor and I talk about it a lot. One thing I have noticed in my 3 short years in the Senate is that I am not sure I have seen my colleagues from the other side ever come here and talk about the need to rev up the economy or about the fact that 1\1/2\, 2 percent growth, which is what we have had for almost the last 13 years, is not good for the country. I think, unfortunately, a lot of them believe in this idea of the new normal--that America hitting at 1\1/2\, 2-percent GDP growth is America hitting on all cylinders. Don't believe it. We talk about GDP growth. What is that? It is really a proxy for the health of the U.S. economy. It is a proxy for the American dream. In the last 10 years, that economy has been sick. For millions of Americans, the American dream, which is based on a strong American economy, has been a mirage. We have to change this. This should be a bipartisan issue. Getting back to traditional levels of 3 percent or higher GDP growth should be something 100 Senators agree on. This bill is going to help us do that. Finally, I would like to talk about something in the tax bill that will greatly benefit my State and our country; that is, opening the 1002 section of the nonwilderness Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for American energy development. A lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about this, but I am going to tell you this. I can't begin to describe the elation that will be felt by many--so many--in my State when this passes. The vast majority of Alaskans support this provision and have supported it for decades. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Alaskans have worked tirelessly to get it passed since the 1002 area was set aside by this body in 1980 for possible energy development. Don't believe all the rhetoric about ``Oh, that area is off-limits.'' That area is actually on-limits. In 1980, the Congress said: We know there is a lot of energy there, and we should look at the opportunity to explore it. Congress, come back and make the call someday. Hundreds, thousands of my constituents, my fellow Alaskans--and I know some are in the Gallery right now, right above me--have been working on this for decades, and I want to thank all of them. But we have been stopped. We have been repeatedly stopped. You are seeing some of the arguments, many of which are truth-challenged. So I am being polite to all of my colleagues. Year after year, we have tried. The last time that we made a big effort in this, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle killed this provision in 2005. It was a crushing evening in 2005 when this provision did not pass. It was a crushing evening for the late, great Senator Ted Stevens, particularly when then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said that killing the ANWR provision and beating Ted Stevens was ``one of the joys of my life.'' That is from the former Senate minority and majority leader. Voting for the provision to unlock ANWR tonight will be one of the joys of my life, and I am certain that Ted Stevens will be joyfully watching from above, smiling. Last month, a group of Alaskans came to DC to testify before Senator Murkowski's Energy and Natural Resources Committee about the importance to America, to Alaska, and to our communities of the energy provision in this bill. Matthew Rexford, who lives in Kaktovik, AK, which is a village that is actually in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, provided riveting testimony. Let me quote from that testimony: My fellow Inupiat and I firmly believe that attempts to permanently block development in the 100--an area intentionally NOT designated as wilderness because of its oil and gas potential--is a slap in the face to our region and its people. It's exactly the same thing as saying ``It's okay for everyone else in this country to have a THRIVING economy, but you can't have one at all.'' To you people living on the North Slope and you people living in Kaktovik: Sorry, you can't do it. Matthew went on to talk about how responsible oil and gas development supports local communities by providing jobs, business opportunities, and infrastructure investments, like schools and hospitals and clinics--things that most communities in America have in abundance. We don't have those in abundance in my great State. He said that the industry ``has moved our people away from third- world living conditions--we refuse to go backward in time. It has provided other basic services most Americans may take for granted'' that communities like his don't have. Increasing domestic energy production will not only be good for my State and for communities like Kaktovik, but it will also boost our country's economy, and--this is a very important point--it will strengthen America's national security. My colleague from Maryland, for whom I have a lot of respect, just talked about how this is going to hurt our national security. I couldn't disagree with him more. Producing more energy responsibly-- oil, natural gas, renewables--and making the United States the world's energy superpower once again will dramatically increase our Nation's national security. This is something that we should all agree on. I have served in the Marines for over two decades, and I have served as a U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, whose portfolio included global energy issues. I have seen how energy can be used as a tool for good, productive diplomacy and for troublesome power grabs by our Nation's foes. When we don't have to import energy from countries that don't like us or when we have the opportunity to actually export energy-- American energy--to our allies, this dramatically strengthens our Nation's national security. The Presiding Officer and I both sit on the Armed Services Committee. We have heard for years from the Department of Defense's military and civilian leaders. Whether he be Secretary Carter, a Democrat, or Secretary Mattis, a great Marine general, they have all consistently emphasized this point: Making America the world's energy superpower will help with jobs, will help with our economy, and it will dramatically help our Nation's national security. Let me conclude by telling a story that really emphasizes this point. Last year, I attended the Halifax International Security Forum. National security leaders throughout the world attended. I was in a meeting with a great national security leader of this body, Senator John McCain, and we were meeting with a senior-level Russian dissident. We asked him at the end of the meeting: What more can we do in our country to help push back against the Putin regime and the activities that it is undertaking to undermine U.S. interests around the world and in our own country? What more can we do? He looked at us and said: The No. 1 thing that you can do is to produce more American energy. Let me repeat that. In terms of national security, the No. 1 thing that we can do is to produce more American energy. We do it more responsibly and with the highest environmental standards of any place in the world. Opening the 1002 area in using those high standards--the world's highest standards--with the most advanced technology, will produce more American energy for the betterment of my State, my constituents, and for the whole country. We are on the cusp of passing a bill that will put more money in the hands of the middle class, grow our economy, and fulfill a 40-year-long dream for Alaska. The might of America has always been and will always be in the ingenuity of our people--the ability of Americans to make decisions for themselves, to live their lives as they see fit, to build, to grow, and to make a better tomorrow for the next generation. The American dream does not have a price tag, but it can be stymied. It can be stymied and stunted by an overbearing Federal Government that wants to hinder the freedom of the individual and an overbearing Federal Government that crushes economic hope and opportunity through overtaxation or overregulation. It does this by telling someone like Matthew Rexford, who is from a small village more than 5,000 miles from here, that he and his people cannot make better lives for themselves and for their children by developing resources on their own land. That is going to end tonight. At long last, that is going to change, and the vast majority of Alaskans--Democrats and Republicans, Native and non-Native--are going to celebrate. I believe, when the American people realize and experience the positive benefits of this bill through stronger economic growth, better jobs, and more take-home pay, that they are going to celebrate too. I urge my colleagues to vote for this historic legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, once a week when we are in session, I come to the floor to recognize a person or group of people in my great State of Alaska who make it very special. We call them our Alaskan of the Week. Alaska is beautiful, it is big, and it is special. Right now, much of the State is gearing up for the skiing season. Snow is out, and there is nothing more beautiful and invigorating than taking to the slopes of Alaska. It is also a great time to see the Northern Lights dancing in the sky. So I urge everybody to come out to Alaska. Winter or summer, it will be the trip of a lifetime. Of course, it is much more than snow and beautiful dancing lights; our people are what make us so special--rugged, independent, generous, and giving to their families, their communities, our State, and our country. Alaska is a patriotic State--I would argue, the most patriotic State in our great Nation. For one, we have the most veterans per capita of any State in America. We have the very best military forces, and we have a lot of them. Let me name just a few. We have the Army's 1st Stryker Brigade, based at Fort Wainwright. Chike Springer, one of my staffers helping me out here, served there in the 1st Stryker Brigade's Aviation Task Force. We have the Northern Warfare Training Center; the 59th Signal Battalion; the 17th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion; the Air Force's Third Wing, 11th Air Force; the 176th Wing; the 673rd Air Base Wing; the Air Force reservists of the 477th Fighter Group; the 354th at Eielson; and the 213th Space Warning Squadron at Clear Air Force Station. You get the picture--some of the best military forces. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion, the cornerstone of America's missile defense, protecting the entire Nation, is right there at Fort Greely. These are the thousands of men and women in the Reserves and on Active Duty who are stationed in our great State. We are proud of them, and we owe them and their families a huge debt of gratitude for their service, especially now that we are approaching the holiday season. Today, I want to particularly recognize the men and women who make up the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division--the only airborne brigade combat team in the Pacific theater and in the Arctic. As my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee know, they are referred to in Alaska and throughout the Army as the 4-25. This unit, over 3,000 men and women strong, is our Alaskans of the Week. I want to talk a little bit about the 4-25. It has a very strong lineage and heritage. Although it was created relatively recently--in 2004--and was the first new U.S. airborne unit created since the end of World War II, its heritage springs from the 25th Infantry Division, which was first activated in 1941 and played a seminal role in World War II and all of our country's conflicts since. Just like the 25th Infantry Division, the 4-25 has played a major role in our country's conflicts since its inception. Members of the 4- 25 have deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, and just last September, a couple months ago, they were again deployed to Afghanistan to train and advise Afghan security forces. As part of a larger drawdown of our military and the Army--a misguided drawdown by the previous administration, announced in 2015-- the 4-25 was part of 40,000 Active-Duty Army soldiers to be cut, just gotten rid of. This would have been an enormous strategic mistake for the Army and for America's national security, especially as it related to the 4-25, the only mountain, cold weather, airborne BCT in the entire Arctic and Asia Pacific. They are also a critical reserve force for any contingency on the Korean Peninsula given how close we in Alaska are to Korea. So what happened? Alaskans circled the wagons. Rallies with hundreds, if not thousands, of my fellow Alaskans came out in our great State, urging the Department of Defense and the U.S. Army: Don't make this mistake. Don't cut this unit. Keep it intact. Here in Washington, we did our work. I had a heart-to-heart with a number of senior Army and DOD officials with one simple goal in mind: to get them to personally visit this unit, to come see them train, to see how capable they were, and to understand their strategic value to America's national security. And that happened. Many senior Army officials--the Army Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Army--went to Alaska, went to JRTC, and watched the 4-25 in action. I remember standing on the second floor of a building in a mock Middle Eastern town watching members of the 4-25 jump into an LZ at JRTC in the middle of the night for a nighttime airfield seizure operation. There is something awe-inspiring about watching 1,000 airborne paratroopers silently fall out of the night sky to seize terrain--something that probably sends chills up the spine of our Nation's enemies. Fast-forward to today. Of the 40,000 soldiers slated to be cut from the U.S. Army, only one unit was spared--one--and it was the 4-25. Why did this happen? It happened because they made it happen. This great unit saved themselves. When the Army's top brass went to Alaska, went to Fort Polk and watched them train at JRTC, they saw what a great unit this was and realized they were making a big mistake. When General Milley, Chief of Staff of the Army, made the final decision to reverse the previous decision of the Army and retain the 4-25, he said it was ``one of the most trained and ready units in the entire United States Army.'' That was the Chief of Staff of the Army. The 4-25 didn't rest. They are deployed, back in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, while deployed, just a few days ago, on December 11, Alaska lost a son and the 4-25 lost one of its own as part of this mission. It is heartbreaking for the families and for the unit. These brave young men and women are willing to sacrifice and have already sacrificed, and our prayers are with them during these holidays. They are our Alaskans of the Week. I plan on visiting them overseas during the holidays. My wife Julie will also be attending an event this weekend in Anchorage for the families of those who are deployed, showing our support and our respect for the men and women in this unit and their families, because, as many know, when a family is deployed, it is not just the young man and woman in the unit who sacrifice, it is the entire family. To the families, we say thank you, from the bottom of our hearts, for your service and sacrifice. To the men and women who make up the 4-25, we also say thank you for all you are doing for us--for serving us, for keeping us safe, for protecting this country, when Americans are enjoying the holidays. I look forward to seeing you in theater. Please be assured that all Members of this body--Senators, Democrats, Republicans--know your record of service and wish all of you Godspeed this holiday season. Thank you for being our Alaskans of the Week. Army Strong. Arctic Tough. Sparta Lives.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend this body. My colleagues, every single Senator, voted in unanimous consent to move forward on the National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed into law just this week by President Trump. In particular, I want to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John McCain, who did so much to shepherd this important piece of legislation through this body and to the President's desk. I thank Senator McCain for all his service and sacrifice to America for decades. The NDAA, as we all know, is an important, critical piece of legislation, boosting our national security, rebuilding our military readiness, and protecting the men and women in uniform who serve our Nation. It has been a piece of legislation that for 56 consecutive years on a bipartisan basis has moved through the Senate and the House to be signed by the President. Many times you hear there is not a lot of bipartisanship that is going on in Washington. On issues like this, there is. This bill, which authorizes almost $700 billion for our troops who need it, passed the Senate unanimously. Not all the members of the military had their bill, which authorized spending and funding for what they are doing, moved through the Congress. Unfortunately, our men and women in the U.S. Coast Guard--our Nation's fifth branch of service--have been, once again, left behind. The NDAA covers the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines. The Coast Guard Authorization Act focuses on the heroic men and women in the Coast Guard. This year, we worked hard on that bill, S. 1129, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2017. I sponsored this bill with Chairman John Thune, the chairman of the Commerce Committee; Ranking Member Bill Nelson; and Senator Lisa Murkowski. This bipartisan bill-- and it is very bipartisan--will give the Coast Guard the resources it needs to protect our waterways and coastlines, block illegal traffickers and smugglers of drugs, and more efficiently procure future Coast Guard cutters, which our country, and my State, desperately need. It is a very, very important bill. In constructing this legislation, we worked in a bipartisan manner for months. However, despite broad support from both Republicans and Democrats, it appears the Coast Guard Authorization Act--a critical bill for homeland security, for the safety of our mariners and fishermen, and for showing support to the thousands of men and women who serve in the Coast Guard--has become stuck. As chairman of the committee responsible for the U.S. Coast Guard, I must speak up for the men and women of this important service and the critical services they provide. This bill should have been moving months ago. Not only does this bill contain critical needs and authorizations and funding authorizations for the Coast Guard, it also contains provisions of vital importance to our maritime and fishing communities. Included in this legislation is important language to permanently fix an issue that has been around for years--one that pertains to incidental discharges for those in our fishing fleets. It is also known as the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, or VIDA, as part of the Coast Guard bill. Currently, vessel owners and operators are forced to comply with a patchwork of burdensome Federal and State regulations for vessel ballast water and incidental discharges. This creates inefficiency, adds costs, and inhibits economic prosperity for my State and for the country, while not providing a uniform standard to protect the environment, which is also critical. This fix that is in the Coast Guard bill would provide the maritime industry, the fishing industry, with a consistent, uniform regulatory structure, restoring cost- effective commerce while also ensuring environmental protection of our Nation's ports, waterways, and fisheries. Notably, for a large number of my constituents, this provision--the VIDA provision in the Coast Guard bill--provides a permanent exemption on incidental vessel discharge for all fishing vessels and small commercial boats. It is very important because previous legislation required even small fishing vessels to get a discharge permit from the EPA to simply hose down their decks. These fishing vessels and small vessels are facing potential noncompliance if we fail to pass the Coast Guard bill soon. They should not be penalized for the refusal of some of my colleagues-- very few of my colleagues--who are opponents of this important fix to allow for what we think is a bipartisan, negotiated solution to move forward. The fix in this bill on VIDA is supported by all segments of the maritime industry, with U.S. and international vessel owners and operators, fishing vessels--both large and small--passenger vessels, charter boat operators, labor unions, the Navy League of the United States, marine terminals, and port authorities throughout the country, just to name a few, all in support. There is broad bipartisan support and agreement by Democrats and Republicans that this bill--with the VIDA provision in the Coast Guard Authorization Act--should move forward. I was going to come here this evening and ask unanimous consent that we pass the bill now. Out of respect for some of my colleagues who are still working in good faith on this issue, I have decided to refrain from that, but we are losing patience. There have been numerous suggested compromises to help get a few Senators to yes on this. We have accepted almost every single one of them. We are negotiating in good faith. We even held a big meeting this afternoon with many staff on another suggestion, which the EPA said was an unworkable idea. I believe we are now down to one single issue on this important piece of legislation. Out of respect for my colleagues--one of whom I just got off the phone with, the Senator from Michigan, whom I have a very close working relationship on the committee that oversees the Coast Guard because he is my ranking member--we are going to try to work through the weekend and resolve this. I hope that the remaining Senators act in good faith. What we don't want to see, as we accept every single compromise put forward, is the goalpost continuously being moved. The deadline is fast approaching for our fishermen and maritime fleet. We must get this done. The deadline has long past to show that we respect, care for, and want to do all we can to support the men and women in the Coast Guard the way we support the other military services, as we saw this week when President Trump passed a very bipartisan NDAA. I call on all of my colleagues to work through the weekend so that we can get to yes on this very important bill--the Coast Guard bill--and so that we can support them the way we are supporting the other men and women in our military. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, today I am gratified to be finally debating and voting on the nomination of Joe Balash to be the U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Lands and Minerals. I have been coming to the floor, as have a lot of my colleagues, making the case about how it has taken too long to get good people into the Federal Government. I am sure I will have to give that speech maybe a few more times--I hope not--to finally get people who want to serve, who have been nominated by the President, to be confirmed by the Senate, to move them. It doesn't help the American people that we just delay well-qualified Americans who want to serve their country just for the sake of delay. It is happening, but I am not going to focus on that today. I actually want to thank the Democratic Whip, Senator Durbin, who was actually very helpful in trying to move this nomination, which has been stalled on the Senate floor for many weeks now. Joe Balash was nominated by the President in July. I appreciate the cooperative spirit from my colleague from Illinois, and I thank him again for that. This is a very important position in the U.S. Government. The Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management entails supervision and overseeing the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. It is very important for the entire country. It is particularly important for my State, the great State of Alaska, and for so many others where Federal lands make up an enormous part of the State. Yesterday, my colleague and friend, Senator Lee from Utah, talked to a number of us about how much Federal lands constitute different States in terms of the overall percentage. A lot of Americans don't know this. Usually, if you live on the east coast, you don't have Federal land as a big part of your State, but in Alaska, it is 61 percent; Idaho, 61 percent; Utah, 63 percent; Nevada, almost 80 percent. These positions in the Department of the Interior are enormously important. This is a very important job, and I am glad to see we are finally getting to vote on it because it is important to help manage resources that we have in abundance but also protect the environment. We all love our environment. Alaska has the most pristine, beautiful environment in the world, and we know how to protect it. We also have enormous opportunities for jobs in energy on public land. What is in all the Federal statutes that Joe is going to be in charge of implementing is that you can do both. You can do both. You can protect the environment of this great Nation, and you can also utilize these incredible resources that we have on public lands. In essence, that is what his job is going to be all about. I encourage my colleagues to look at Joe Balash's confirmation hearing and his background because he is probably one of the most qualified people to hold this job in the entire country--in the entire country. Joe Balash comes from a long, distinguished career of public service in Alaska. He was the commissioner of natural resources in Alaska, and he was the deputy commissioner of natural resources in Alaska, which manages one of the largest portfolios of land, water, minerals, oil, gas, and timber of anyplace in the world--not just in the country, in the world. Very few countries have more resources than we do in Alaska, and for years, Joe Balash was in charge of managing those. That makes him super well qualified for this job. As DNR commissioner, he oversaw 100 million acres of uplands, State land in Alaska--this is obviously bigger than most States in America; 40 to 60 million acres of submerged lands and tidelands; and resources that included managing over half a million barrels of oil production a day. Joe oversaw a workforce of over 1,100 people as the commissioner of natural resources and a budget of $170 million a year. Joe understands how to build consensus, how to navigate State and Federal lands issues and interests, and, importantly, how to work to responsibly develop our resources and grow our economy, while always understanding that our lands sustain us and that stringent environmental safeguards are absolutely necessary for all Americans. Let me say one other thing about Joe Balash. You can look at the bio, you can look at the experience, but you also need to know the man. When I was the commissioner of the department of natural resources, Joe Balash worked for me as my deputy, and for the past almost 3 years, he has worked as my chief of staff here in the Senate. Perhaps more than any other issue--experience, a super hard worker-- he is a man of integrity, a man of character, and a man who cares deeply about his country and wants the best for Americans and for Alaskans. I can't think of anyone more qualified--experience, character, integrity, knows the issues, cares about the environment--so I am strongly encouraging my colleagues to vote for Joe. He was voted out of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee in September with the support of every Senator in that committee, with the exception of one. When the committee looked at his experience and background and they heard about his integrity and character, there was enormous bipartisan support for Joe. I am hoping we will see that here in a few minutes when we come to vote. I understand that one of my colleagues, unfortunately, is going to come down to the floor soon and encourage a vote against Joe. I am still not sure why. Maybe it is something related to a recusal issue between State and Federal lands in Alaska. I will be interested to hear what the recusal issue is. Most recusal issues, by the way, as we look at confirmations in the Senate, relate to people who have interests in the private sector, and perhaps those private sector interests impact policy decisions. But when you have someone who has worked on lands issues in a State, the idea of being recused because you have expertise in policy from your State job when you go into a Federal job, to me, seems, well, outrageous. We will see what that argument is. I do know that Joe Balash will follow the rules and regulations as they relate to ethics and conflicts in a steadfast way because I know who he is. So I again encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this extremely well-qualified nominee who has the character, knowledge, expertise, and experience for a very important job for the country and someone who is going to do a great job for Secretary Zinke and President Trump. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Balash nomination, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 167, as under the previous order.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 7, 2017, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 7, 2017, at 2 p.m. in SD-215 to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Kevin K. McAleenan, of Hawaii, to be Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pension The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 7, 2017, at 10 a.m. in room SD-430 to conduct a hearing entitled ``Implementation of the 21'' Century Cures Act: Progress and the Path Forward for Medical Innovation''. Committee on Judiciary The Committee on Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 7, 2017, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Leonard Steven Grasz, of Nebraska, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, James C. Ho, of Texas, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, Don R. Willett, of Texas, to be a Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Terry A. Doughty, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, Terry Fitzgerald Moorer, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama, Mark Saalfield Norris, Sr., to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, Claria Horn Boom, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky, John W. Broomes, to be United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, Rebecca Grady Jennings, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky, and Robert Earl Wier, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 7, 2017, at 2 p.m. in room SH-219 to conduct a closed hearing.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, every week I have been coming down to the floor to talk a little bit about my great State, about the wonders of its natural landscape--a land that everybody should see for themselves--and we talk about special people. I know the Presiding Officer looks at this as one of the favorite times in his long week. We talk about the people who have made a difference in Alaska, our Alaskan of the Week. It is one of the best things I get to do here as Alaska's Senator because I get to talk about Alaska's beauty; the people who make my State so special; the kind, generous people full of rugged determination, full of patriotism, full of drive, full of life. Living in the North in some of the most difficult terrain and extreme conditions of the world breeds competition in the best ways possible. It also sparks creativity all across the State. When creativity meets competition, great things can happen. You saw great things happen on the basketball court late last month when University of Alaska Anchorage's women's basketball team, who are our Alaskans of the Week, won the championship at the Great Alaska Shootout in Anchorage, the seminal sports event of the year that for four decades has corresponded with Thanksgiving weekend. Let me talk for a few minutes about the Great Alaska Shootout. In the late 1970s, a coach from the University of Alaska Anchorage's basketball team had a vision to put the fledgeling UAA basketball program on the map. How would he do that? He would create a preseason college basketball tournament, and he would make sure that participation in any tournament outside the contiguous lower 48 States didn't count against the limits for how many games a team was allowed to play. And so was born the Great Alaska Shootout. For the past 40 years, tens of thousands of Alaskans from all over the State--and I would say Americans from all over the country--many who had never been to a professional game or even a college game, traveled to Anchorage to watch some of the best basketball in the country. In Anchorage, people opened their homes to the teams from the lower 48 to enjoy a home-cooked Thanksgiving dinner. The teams and the players who came to Alaska over the last 40 years are legion--Patrick Ewing, Glenn Robinson, Sam Perkins, Ray Allen, Dwayne Wade, and Alaska's own Trajan Langdon, just to name a few. All the great college basketball coaches at one time or another came to our State--Coach K, Jim Valvano, Bobby Knight, Denny Crum, Roy Williams, Tom Izzo, Pat Summitt, and so many others. As one reporter put it, ``It was an annual Thanksgiving week staple for ESPN and it made Anchorage the center of the college basketball world for one bright, shining week.'' Time and again, the UAA Seawolves--both the men and women's teams-- Division 2 programs, who were up against some of the biggest Division 1 powerhouses in the country, showed the world what basketball in Alaska looked like, and it looked strong. The Great Alaska Shootout was a gift to the world, to America, and to all of Alaska. Times have changed, and so have college basketball tournaments. More choices are available. Other States have begun to compete with Alaska. So this past Thanksgiving, sadly, was the Shootout's last tournament. But, again, UAA's basketball teams made us proud. All told, the men's teams won 39 games in 40 Shootouts. This past Thanksgiving Day, the UAA women, which has become a Division 2 powerhouse under the leadership of Coach Ryan McCarthy, claimed the women's championship in the final Shootout, beating the Division 1 University of Tulsa Golden Hurricanes 59 to 52 in a thriller. It was their seventh title in tournament history. Everyone involved--the businesses that sponsored the Shootout over the years, the many avid fans who haven't missed a game, and all those who played in the Great Alaska Shootout over four decades--is deserving of recognition. But at this year's final Great Alaska Shootout, the UAA women's team showed us all the true meaning of grit and determination. So here is to the Seawolves, our Alaskans of the Week. Here is to the history of the Great Alaska Shootout. It is a great day to be a Seawolf. Thanks for all the great games, the great memories, and a truly great Alaskan and American basketball tournament. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wish to first compliment my colleague from Ohio, Senator Portman, on his leadership on so many different fronts in the U.S. Senate. His leadership is nowhere more important than what he has been doing on the opioid epidemic that is raging through Ohio, Alaska, and almost every State in the country. The STOP Act he just talked about is legislation I have cosponsored, and he is leading on it. It is one of the many things we need to do to really get a handle on this. This should be a bipartisan issue. The opioid epidemic is ravaging through States, families, and communities. There has been no better leader in the Senate than Senator Portman on these issues so I just want to thank him for that.