Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I came to the floor a half hour ago talking about a very well-qualified candidate for the Assistant Secretary of Interior for Lands and Minerals, Joe Balash, whom I happen to know very well. He was my former chief of staff, and he is the former Commissioner of Natural Resources in Alaska. He is very well qualified. His nomination came out of our committee with only one vote against him. This nomination has been waiting on the floor for several weeks now, but I just had a constructive conversation with Members on the other side of the aisle. What we intend to do is revisit Mr. Balash's nomination in the next 24 hours, and, hopefully, we will free Joe Balash to go serve the people of America and the people of Alaska. I know he will do a very good job. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I also want to express appreciation to a number of my colleagues and, again, Senator Portman is certainly one of them. We had an important night the other night with regard to the critical passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I think it is going to be very important legislation to help grow our economy and, finally, get money in the hands of middle-class families and small businesses so we can finally start growing this economy nationally and, back home in Alaska, get my State out of a deep recession that it is in. There are a lot of Senators who played critical roles. Senators Hatch, Portman, Toomey, Scott, and so many others, but, in particular, I want to thank the majority leader. There is a provision in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which I think is going to be critical for America and certainly critical for my State, which is to help unlock more of the vast energy resources we have in Alaska, particularly on the coastal plain of the North Slope--what we call the 1002 area of Alaska. That pass is part of this bill. It is something in Alaska we have been working through in a bipartisan manner. Over 70 percent of Alaskans want to get this done. We have been working on it in Alaska for over 40 years to get this done. I really want to commend and thank the majority leader, Mitch McConnell. Over a year ago, he and I sat down to talk about doing this. Every step of the way, his commitment to me and to the people of Alaska to make this happen for my State as well as for our great country--he was there for us. So I want to thank the majority leader for that firm commitment to helping on an issue that has been critical to Alaskans for decades. We have never realized it. We have a lot more work to do before we get there, both on the tax bill and the 1002 area provision in it, but we are closer. We are closer, in large measure, because of the leadership of the majority leader, and I thank him. Mr. President, I have been coming to the floor--many of us have been, actually--for the last several weeks to talk about a really important issue for the country; that is, getting administration officials in the Trump administration confirmed by this body. There has been a resistance, a desire to not want to move very qualified people, unfortunately, by my colleagues on the other side. It is just not helping the country. With each new administration, our great Nation sees a peaceful transition of power. It is a remarkable pillar of American democracy. This doesn't include just the transition with regard to the President and Vice President but also the team of officials in the Federal Government at senior levels who are required to run this country. Good people, whether it is a Democratic or a Republican administration-- Republican administration is not always easy to serve--and what we have been trying to do is help this administration find, get nominated by the President, and confirm high-quality American people in these jobs to serve their country. As a Senator from Alaska, I have had particular focus on Alaskans to serve in positions of the Federal Government, and I will say that the Trump administration has been very receptive to a number of these highly qualified Alaskans who want to serve their country, but, unfortunately, what we are seeing on the other side is just obstruction. They don't want to move people. They never explain it. I have come to the floor and given this speech several times, and I have asked for the minority leader to come to the floor to explain why they are delaying all of these very well-qualified Americans who want to serve their government. Come to the floor and explain it. Tell the American people why Assistant Secretaries across Federal agencies who have been waiting months to be confirmed by this body, who have been voted out of committee, with big bipartisan numbers, sit and wait and wait and wait. What good is that doing for the country? Come to the floor and explain it. I have been asking them to come to the floor and explain it, and they never take me up on the offer. So, unfortunately, we know the numbers. At this point, 8 years ago in the Obama Presidency, almost 70 percent--almost 70 percent--of the nominees by President Obama, who won his election, were confirmed by the Senate. Now, I wasn't in the Senate then, but I know my colleagues on this side of the aisle, if they didn't like someone, they could vote against them; they could put a hold on them for a while and get their questions answered. So that is the way it worked. That is normal. Those numbers are about normal. At the same time now, under the Trump administration's Presidency, the Senate has only confirmed 40 percent-- 40 percent. Now, is that helping the country? No. It is not helping the country. Do they ever come to the floor and explain why they are resisting? No. So it is a frustration, and it is not helping the country. We need good people in government. If this trend continues, with the number of people we need to confirm for the remaining Presidential-appointed positions, it will take us more than 11 years. Let me repeat that--more than 11 years. We all know a Presidential term lasts 4 years. This is unprecedented. It is unprecedented; go take a look. Yet the other side doesn't want to explain why they are so focused on obstruction. It is certainly not helping the people. The vast majority of these nominees are really well qualified.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Will the Senator from Ohio yield for a question?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to compliment my good friend from South Carolina who came down here and talked about what this is all about. I couldn't agree with him more. This is about families. This is about American families. He has these poster boards up there showing the American people what this is about. I want to reiterate a couple of points he mentioned. First, the most important thing we are doing here, the bulk of the relief we are providing in this tax bill is to provide middle-class families with more take-home pay, more money in the pockets of American citizens. That is what Senator Scott just talked about, and I couldn't agree more. So, on average, right now, our bill would bring the average American middle-class family about a $200 additional amount of money in their pocket per month--per month. Now, some people watching that might think it may not seem like a lot, but it is over $2,000 per year. Every tax bracket that we have right now in the Senate bill would get a reduction. So I want to echo the words of my good friend from South Carolina. It is confounding to me that our friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle would deny hard-working Americans that extra money in their pockets. You don't hear them say that, but that is what they are doing, and they would spin and twist the facts to make the public believe the middle class is actually getting a tax increase. The public is getting spun by them. This would be a tax cut for these families, a significant amount. That is a plain fact. What is so puzzling about this debate is that those who oppose this bill is trying to deny the Americans who need it--we need it--extra money in their pockets, particularly right now. I want to talk a little bit about an article I read last year in the Atlantic magazine. It still haunts me. The article was titled ``The Secret Shame of the Middle Class.'' Here is a copy of it, ``The Secret Shame of the Middle Class.'' It says: ``Nearly half of all Americans would have trouble finding $400 in a crisis.'' You often talk about families. Forty-seven percent of American families, according to one Federal study, wouldn't be able to come up with $400 in case of an emergency. This is truly the definition of living paycheck to paycheck. The bill that we are debating helps to address this significantly--more money in the pockets of American middle-class families. Let me quote from this article. The author says: It was happening to the soon-to-retire as well as the soon- to-begin. It was happening to college grads as well as high school dropouts. It was happening all across the country, including places where you might least expect to see such problems. I knew that I wouldn't have $400 in an emergency. That is the author. What I hadn't known, couldn't have conceived, was that so many other Americans wouldn't have that kind of money available to them, either. My friend and local butcher, Brian, who is one of the only men I know who talks openly about his financial struggles, once told me, ``if anyone says he's sailing through, he's lying.'' That is from this article. These are our constituents he is writing about. These are the people whom we see when we go home. These are American citizens who need this kind of relief. They tell us they are struggling. They tell us they felt left out of the system and that nobody is listening. This bill is listening. It is about listening to them. It is about giving them a voice through more economic security. The other thing this bill does--the other thing that is so important to do in this Congress and the other thing that we should have no issues with bipartisan support for what this bill does--is finally getting our economy back to traditional levels of economic growth-- growing our economy, which has been stagnant for well over a decade. The next chart I have is one that I have come to the floor and spoken about many times. It is an important chart. It shows the levels of economic growth that have occurred year after year in the United States since the Eisenhower administration. It shows GDP growth. Let me explain it a little bit. It starts with Eisenhower, and then goes to Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush 43, and President Obama. These are the numbers. The green is growth. We have a couple of years of 8, 6, 7 percent growth. But the line I want people to take a look at is this 3 percent GDP growth line--3 percent. Now, that is not a great growth rate. It is not a bad growth rate. The average since World War II is closer to 4 percent, but 3 percent is pretty good. When we look at this chart, and we think about what we are trying to do on the floor here today, it tells a really important story. It is 3 percent every year. Reagan, Bush, Clinton are 4, 5, and 6, and then we get to the Obama years. Actually, we get to the last 10 years we have had, and we never hit it. We had the Bush great recession, and in the entire 8 years of President Obama, we never hit it. Now, GDP sounds like some kind of technical economic term, but it is really a proxy for the health of our economy. It is a proxy for the American dream. It is a proxy for hope. We have had a sick economy. For over a decade, we have had a sick economy. One thing that surprises me is how few of our colleagues talk about this. As we have debated the tax bill, a lot of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have been talking about growth--growth, growth, growth--and how we ought to get back to traditional levels of GDP growth--3 percent or higher. It is a bit of a surprise to me that in my little under 3 years in the Senate, I don't know if I have heard any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle come to the floor to talk about this--that this number, below 3 percent is not good for the country. To the contrary, some of them, unfortunately, have bought into what the Obama administration used to tell us: Listen, we can't hit 3 percent. So guess what, America, this is the new normal. We can't expect 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 percent growth. We had years of 7 percent GDP growth during the Reagan era and strong growth during the Clinton era. Don't expect that anymore. The new normal is about 1.5, maybe 2 percent, if we are lucky. I asked one of my Democratic colleagues this morning: Do you believe in the new normal? Do you? Because that is a surrender. That is a surrender of the American dream. There has been a lot of talk over the last year about what makes America great. This is what makes America great--strong economic growth. We haven't had it in over a decade. This tax bill, we believe, is going to spur economic growth. That is another reason why it is so important--families' take-home pay and finally getting back to traditional levels of strong, robust economic growth that has enjoyed bipartisan support from every President since the end of World War II. Yet, somehow, on the other side of the aisle, they don't want to talk about it. Well, to me, it is the most important thing we are doing here. So how do we do it? There is tax reform, certainly, and also energy policies that unleash our opportunities, infrastructure, and regulatory reform. But we have to get out of this lost decade. I want to go back to that ``Atlantic'' article I mentioned. The author talks about the fact that people don't have the money they once did because of this--because we are not growing; because the strongest economy in the world, for the last 10 years, is sick. The author says: ``In the 1950s and '60s, American economic growth democratized prosperity.'' Everybody had opportunity with strong economic growth. That is what he is talking about right here. Then he says: ``But, in the 2010s, we have managed to democratize financial insecurity.'' We went from democratizing prosperity for families to democratizing financial insecurity, where almost half of the American people don't believe they have $400 in an emergency. Yet my colleagues don't want to provide a tax cut for middle-class families who are struggling. What we need to do is to end this democratization of financial insecurity and get back to prosperity and get back to traditional levels of GDP growth through tax reform, through energy, through infrastructure, and through permanent reform. We can do it. Any American watching: Please don't believe this idea of the new normal, that we will never get back to these strong rates, that somehow our future is destined to be below this 3 percent line. Don't believe it. What we need are policies that can get us there. That is why I am hopeful still that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to join us in promoting this tax reform that will do one of the most important things we can do--get the U.S. economy growing again. Families will benefit, middle-class families will benefit, hard-working Americans will benefit, our economy will benefit, and our national security will benefit, but we need to act. We can't accept this. I yield the floor for my colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for Senator Nelson and Senator Baldwin or their designee to each offer a motion to commit, which are at the desk, and that no amendments to the instructions be in order. I further ask consent that following leader remarks on Friday, December 1, there be up to 20 minutes of debate on each motion, equally divided in the usual form, and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the motions with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SULLIVAN. If you don't, how do we get that faster growth?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Do you believe that the new normal is 1.5 percent, like CBO, like the Obama administration said--GDP growth of 1.5 percent for the entire future? Is that what you believe?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Here is the question.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Here is my question. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Here is my question.

Mr. SULLIVAN. As to the issue on economic growth, I have been coming down to the floor in my relatively short time here and talking about growth, growth, growth, growth. I have not in 3 years--3 years--heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that economic growth of 1.5 percent for almost 10 years is good for the country, good for workers in Ohio. Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Rounds, and I appreciate all my colleagues coming down to the floor. A lot of my colleagues are from the class of 2014. Mr. President, there has been a theme in this colloquy. We have been talking about economic growth and about this challenge of what I have been referring to as a lost decade of economic growth. When talking about tax reform, we have to go back through the history and see what is meant by a lost decade. I have been coming down to the floor for a couple of years now with this chart. This chart says a lot. This chart looks at the history of the United States and where we have been with regard to economic growth. It is bipartisan--Democratic and Republican administrations-- showing decade after decade, starting with Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and what this chart states is that right now, something is wrong. When we talk about GDP growth, GDP growth is a proxy for the health of the economy. Unfortunately, we have had a sick economy. GDP growth is a proxy for the American dream, and unfortunately I think that a lot of people over the last 10 years started to worry about whether it was something that can be obtained. Let's look at the chart. Every administration, Democratic or Republican, shows strong levels of growth. My colleagues were talking about at least 3 percent or higher since the Great Depression. Some of these years, during Kennedy and Johnson, right here, the red line is at 3 percent, which is not great, but it is pretty good. Looking at Reagan and Carter, there were years in which we were growing at 4, 5, 6, and 7 percent. The pages are looking at this chart, and they don't even know what that means. They don't know what that means because of what has happened over the last 12 years. Boom. Look at this. Everything is under 3 percent for the entire Obama administration years. It never hit 3 percent GDP growth--not once. We want to talk about what makes America great. If we want to see what makes America great, look at these years of growth. It doesn't matter whether it was Democratic or Republican--3, 4, 5, 8 percent during the Johnson administration. Now look--3 percent. What is surprising to me is that nobody talks about this issue. Nobody talks about this issue of a lost decade of growth. Certainly, unfortunately, my colleagues--I have been here 3 years. I don't think I have heard my colleagues once come down to the Senate floor and say: Holy cow, we have to fix this lost decade of growth, this sick economy. The proxy for the American dream is going away, and nobody talks about it. Former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently wrote a book titled ``What Happened.'' Well, I think what happened is that there has been no growth for over 10 years, and nobody was talking about it. I think a lot of people in this country said: I am not going to throw away the American dream. I believe in the American dream. The American dream means we have to start growing at traditional levels of U.S. economic growth, at least above this depicted red line of 3 percent. I am optimistic because right now, for the first time in a long time, this body is very focused on this issue with policies that will hopefully get us there, including tax reform, regulatory reform, taking advantage of our huge energy opportunities, and many other measures. That is why this discussion and this debate we are having now with regard to tax reform is so critical--tax relief for middle-class families, tax relief for small businesses. And this bill, as we have heard, has many provisions that we think are going to help jump-start this economy and get us back to at least 3 percent growth, at least this number where the red line is that we haven't seen in well over a decade. The kinds of policies that we are pursuing now, that the White House is focused on--tax reform, energy, permitting reform--I would think and hope that every Member of this body views this as probably the most important thing we can do--growing the U.S. economy with policies that have widespread support across the country. They certainly have support in my State of Alaska. I am also optimistic because the Trump administration is off to a good start. This chart goes to the end of the Obama administration, and we can see that we never came even close to 3 percent. But the last two quarters of 2017, we actually hit 3 percent--3.1 percent and 3 percent. We are off to a decent start. But this body must do much more, and I am hopeful that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will come down and talk about how important this is because every American agrees with this. Growing the economy again and tax reform are going to be critical components of getting us there. I say to Senator Rounds, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this important topic. We will be down here again, but growth, growth, growth has to be what we are focused on.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, as you know, I have been coming to the Senate floor pretty much every week for month after month to highlight someone in my State whom we call the Alaskan of the Week. It is someone who does something important, either for their community or the State or the country, and oftentimes they don't get a lot of recognition. The purpose of this is to say: Look at what these people are doing for Alaska, for America, for their community. My State is known for many things: its physical beauty, incredible hunting and fishing, adventuresome spirit, size--you don't want me going there. I have difficult conversations with my colleagues from Texas on occasion about the different sizes of our respective States, but I will not go into detail here. These are all things we have in Alaskan space, but the thing that really makes us a great place to live is our people--strong, resilient, kind people all across our State who look out for each other, often in harsh weather conditions. We are a patriotic State. I know everybody here claims that, and that is great. We all are. Nowhere is the spirit of sacrifice and patriotism more apparent than in our veterans across the State. In Alaska, in Missouri--the Presiding Officer's State--we are all celebrating that, and we are going to celebrate that this weekend, going home for Veterans Day. In Alaska, we like to talk about our veterans. We also like to talk about the fact that we have more veterans per capita than any other State in the country. So it is a very patriotic place--full of service. In every city, village, and every community across Alaska, you will find proud veterans, many of them working tirelessly together to make sure they get the help and support that our veterans need. A lot of times that happens with the older vets--Vietnam-era vets. They come to make sure the new vets get the help they need. To all of them: I salute your service and your sacrifice. Thank you so much for all you have done and continue to do for our country. Happy Veterans Day to all of Alaska's veterans. I can't wait to get home to celebrate in Fairbanks and Anchorage this weekend. It is not just Veterans Day that is approaching in Alaska. This month we are also celebrating Alaska Native Heritage Month, where there is much to celebrate. Almost 20 percent of the population of our great State is Alaska Natives. This is a group of people who, generation after generation, have what I call a special patriotism. What do I mean by that? Well, Alaska Natives serve at higher rates in the military--just like the lower 48. Native Americans have higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the country. This has been going on for generations--World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Iraq, and Afghanistan. When you think about it, it is special. Let's face it. In the forties, fifties, sixties, and seventies, even sometimes, unfortunately, today, the Federal Government has not always treated Alaska Natives well. Yet, generation after generation, they go off to the front to fight for this country. It is truly a special kind of patriotism and a unique tribute to the Alaska Native heritage we are supporting and celebrating this month. I thought it was fitting today to name as our Alaskan of the Week--to make it a collective tribute for all Alaska Natives who have served their country in the military, and it is thousands, to make them collectively the Alaskans of the Week as we look to celebrate Veterans Day. Mr. President, here is a little bit of history. I know you know this, but a lot of Americans don't. During World War II, Alaska was the only State in the Union to be invaded and occupied by the Japanese, so we had big military battles in the Aleutian Island chain of Alaska to throw off the invaders of our American territory. Thousands of Alaska Natives volunteered to protect their homeland and to defend their country overseas. Across the State, whether they were in the Alaska Territorial Guard, warriors overseas, code talkers who served with the Marines and others--they were as old as 80 and as young as 12. This is a great story. It shows the warrior ethic. Alaska Native women, after the outbreak of World War II, originally enrolled in the Alaska Territorial Guard before they realized that women weren't allowed to enroll. In fact, the best sharpshooter in Alaska's Territorial Guard was a woman named Laura Beltz Wright of Haycock, AK. Here is how the late, great Jerome Trigg--an Alaska Native and a marine--put it in 1968, at the height of the Vietnam war, when he was testifying in front of the U.S. Congress on a very important piece of legislation called the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. He was the president of the Arctic Native Brotherhood and, as I mentioned, a proud marine. In front of a bunch of Senators, he stated as follows: We have showed our patriotism as proudly as any Americans on earth. We have answered the call of duty with pride in serving [our country]. We answered the call in [World War] II 100 percent. Every man in every village--old and young-- volunteered with the Alaska National Guard. Remember, this was in 1968 that he was testifying. Then he said: I have never heard of an Alaska Native burning the draft card or burning our nation's flag. We are patriots. That service, as I mentioned, didn't end after World War II. Alaska Natives have served in every conflict--the Korean war and in droves during the Vietnam war. I was honored to be in Southeast Alaska this past summer in a Native village called Hoonah. It is a beautiful place. There was a documentary I saw recently. It documented the classes in 1968 and 1969 in that small Native village in a film called ``Hunting and Wartime.'' It was about how almost every single male high school student in Hoonah--every one--went to go fight in Vietnam. That is incredible. It is special patriotism. Let me tell you a quick, more up-to-date story. We had the Secretary of Interior, Ryan Zinke--a combat vet, a Navy SEAL, a heroic man himself--come to Alaska this summer. I asked him to meet with a bunch of Alaska Native veterans, particularly our Vietnam veterans, who had an issue that the Department of Interior has been working on for years. I wanted him to hear about it firsthand. It was a very touching meeting. Some in the room talked about what it was like to be in their villages--places they had never left--when they were 17 and 18 and 19. Then, a few days later, they were in a steamy jungle, thousands and thousands of miles away, in Vietnam. Some talked about what it was like coming back and not feeling that they had the support of their country, others talked about the difficulty of readjusting to life back in Alaska after their service in Vietnam and some of the discrimination they received when they came back home, but even though they went through this hardship, even though they went through some of these very difficult times in the late sixties and early seventies, not one of them said they had made a mistake in serving their country. They were proud, patriotic warriors, and to this day that is what they are. Secretary Zinke said, after he left that meeting, he began it as their Secretary of Interior, and he left as a brother in arms. I am so honored to be able to serve these great Alaskans and to celebrate them as our Alaskans of the Week, just like I know everybody in America is going to be proud to go home and celebrate with their veterans. Once again, for our Alaska Native veterans, thank you for all you have done for our country, and thank you for being our Alaskans of the Week.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I have 5 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 Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 9, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in SR-328A to conduct a hearing on S. 2099. Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 9, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in SR-328A to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Glen R. Smith, of Iowa, to be a Member of the Farm Credit Administration Board, and Stephen Alexander Vaden, of Tennessee, to be General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture. Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Robert H. McMahon, of Georgia, to be an Assistant Secretary, R. D. James, of Missouri, and Bruce D. Jette, of Virginia, both to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army, and Shon J. Manasco, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, all of the Department of Defense. 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 Thursday, November 9, 2017, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Kirstjen Nielsen, of Virginia, to be Secretary of Homeland Security, Ernest W. Dubester, of Virginia, Colleen Kiko, of North Dakota, and James Thomas Abbott, of Virginia, each to be a Member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and Jonathan H. Pittman, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 9, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 to conduct a hearing on S. 2070 and the following nominations: Gregory G. Katsas, of Virginia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, Jeffrey Uhlman Beaverstock, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama, Emily Coody Marks, and Brett Joseph Talley, both to be a United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, Holly Lou Teeter, to be United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, and Bobby L. Christine, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia, and David J. Freed, to be United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, both of the Department of Justice.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an appropriate amount of time to finish my remarks.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, one of the privileges of being in the Senate is actually being able to preside, as the Presiding Officer is doing right now--to sit at the Chair and listen and watch my colleagues talk about issues that matter to them, and a lot of times issues that matter to their States. In this amazing country of ours we have so many great States, great stories, and great traditions. When I am presiding, some relate to Texas, where the current Presiding Officer is from, celebrating our unique traditions, while still appreciating that at our best we share values as Americans together--opportunity, liberty, justice, and fairness. It really is one of the things that makes the Senate a great body and what makes us strong as a nation. One of the things I like to do is to come to the Senate floor and talk about some of the traditions in my State--some of the things that I think make Alaska the greatest State in the Nation. I know some of my colleagues will not fully agree with that, but we all get to brag about our State. When I do that, I like to talk about an individual whom we recognize as the Alaskan of the Week. Often, it is somebody who is doing something in a remote part of Alaska whom not a lot of people know about. It is very important to share that with my colleagues in the Senate and other colleagues watching on TV. Today, I would like to recognize a young Alaskan from Gambell, AK, named Chris Apassingok, a young whaler who is helping to keep the tradition that we have in Alaska--Native whaling--alive and well. He is our Alaskan of the Week. This year, Chris was a keynote speaker at the Elders and Youth Conference, which is a precursor to the Alaska Federation of Natives conference held each year in one of our cities. It is the largest annual gathering in the United States of any Native peoples, and there is nothing like it in all the country. AFN, as we call it in Alaska, is certainly a highlight of my year. My wife and I and our kids always try to get there. Let me spend a few minutes talking about why Chris's speech about whaling was so important and what happened after he landed a huge bowhead whale in Alaska and why that was so inspiring for so many in my great State and, really, around the country. Gamble, AK, is where Chris comes from, a Yupik village of about 700 people on St. Lawrence Island, on the northwest edge of Alaska. It is 1 of 11 Alaska communities that participate in two whaling seasons, recognized and authorized by the International Whaling Commission. These are subsistence communities. What does that mean? They are subsistence communities because whale meat is actually a necessity in feeding these communities. I should point out that we have no road systems at all in Northern Alaska. Most of Alaska has no roads connected from community to community, and certainly not in Gambell. The Presiding Officer and I have had the opportunity to travel around Alaska. He has seen our great State. He knows that many communities are only accessible by air or seasonal barge. Some areas can only be reached at certain times of the year because of the weather. These communities need food. They need whales. The annual bowhead whale migration provides the largest subsistence resource available in these remote areas of our great State. Even so, when a whale is taken, the sharing does not stop with the residents of the community. Each whale produces between 6 and 25 tons of food, on average. This meat is shared with other subsistence communities in our State and with family members and elders throughout the State. That is a hugely important part of Alaskan Native culture. This is another example of the resourcefulness of the Alaskan Native peoples, which has enabled them to survive in the Arctic--with some of the toughest weather and conditions anywhere in the world for millennia--and which has shaped the culture of Alaska and the character of our State today. Back to Chris, he is an extraordinary hunter, even by the standards of Gambell, a community of extraordinary hunters. He could aim and shoot a rifle at the age of 5. By 11, he had trained himself to strike whales, as one writer put it, ``standing steady in the front of the skiff with the gun, riding Bering Sea swells like a snowboarder.'' This past April, Chris and his father set out on a boat in the Bering Sea to do what their ancestors have been doing for thousands of years. After they got a bearded seal, they spotted a spouting bowhead. Chris took the first shot, it was accurate, and it was a huge whale, 57 feet 11 inches. It took 2 hours to tow it to shore and 4 days for the community to carve it up. As always, when a whale is landed, it is time for celebration in the community, and this time was no different, but shortly after this, things unfortunately went sour for Chris and the community. A radical special interest activist, with a large online following, read the story about Chris and the whale and he began to attack Chris and so did many of his followers, from all across the globe--hundreds of people, most of them adults, cyber bullying and attacking a 16-year- old boy from Gambell, AK, who had, at that point, only left his village once in his life. They were shameful, no respect, no civility, and I mean vicious attacks. I will not repeat them here. It is enough to say they were greatly upset. In the community, Chris, his family, and his mother cried all night. Chris was angry that he and his family were being attacked for partaking in this necessary tradition that his community and his ancestors have been doing for thousands of years--thousands of years. However, this young man, despite the hateful messages from adults, from adults who live a world away, despite the names they were calling him, Chris, now 17, cut through the noise, stood strong, and gave a great speech at AFN, that he will continue to hunt and feed his family and his community the way his ancestors have done for millennia. At his speech last week at AFN, he asked: ``Will you stand with me as I continue my hunting [traditions of my family]?'' The crowd applauded, all of whom rose when he asked this: ``Will you stand with me'' as we continue our subsistence activities that we have undertaken for thousands of years? I hope everyone across the country stands with this extraordinary young man--truly brave and courageous--as he continues his tradition and his right to hunt and feed his community. This afternoon, I will be holding a hearing in the Commerce Committee about whaling in Alaska and how necessary it is for subsistence and the survival of these important cultures. I hope all Americans also stand with so many other proud Alaska whalers, protecting their rights to hunt the way their ancestors have hunted. Thank you, Chris--a young man in Alaska, 17 years old--for standing tall for your people, for all of Alaska. I also want to thank his parents Susan and Daniel for raising such a fine hunter. Congratulations, Chris, for being our Alaskan of the Week.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I wanted to reinforce and underscore some of the comments made by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Lankford, on what is happening in the Senate right now. It is actually really important for the American people to understand what is going on. Maybe we would finally get the press, who sit up there above your chair, Madam President, to write about this topic. Right now, we are debating a very well-qualified district court judge nominee--a Federal district court judge nominee from Oklahoma. Senator Lankford was down here, and he obviously knows the nominee, Scott Palk. He is so qualified that the vote for cloture to move forward on this nominee--who, by the way, was nominated by President Trump for a Federal district court position but was previously nominated by President Obama with fairly bipartisan support--was 79 to 18. That is really strong bipartisan support. It just happened about an hour ago on the Senate floor. So what are we doing? Well, we are still going to be debating for 30 hours. We are not really debating the nominee because he is well qualified. That is what we are doing in the Senate, supposedly. Anyone watching, you know we are not debating him because he is very well qualified, but we are still going to burn 30 hours. Why is this? Well, this raises a much broader issue of the tactics that are happening on the Senate floor right now. The minority leader and his colleagues will not come down and explain what they are up to. I gave a speech on this a couple of weeks ago, and I just asked: Come on down. Let the American people understand why we are spending all this time on nominees who are very well qualified and have enormous bipartisan support. Why are we being required to go an additional 30 hours? Those are the rules, but normally there would be unanimous consent to move forward. What is happening now hasn't been explained, but it definitely hurts the American people, whether you are a Democrat or Republican. What is happening now is, every single nominee from the Trump administration, whether Federal judge or Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Services, is being delayed. Here are the numbers. Eight years ago, President Obama had about 66 percent of his nominees confirmed at this period in the fall of his first term. People were working through them. If you didn't like the nominee, you would just vote against them, but you wouldn't say we are going to burn half the week of the Senate to debate somebody who is not even controversial. This judge, when we finally get through the 30 hours, is going to pass with 80 Senate votes, but we are burning through it anyway. President Obama, 8 years ago, had 66 percent confirmed. The number for President Trump 8 years later is 33 percent. Imagine our friends in the media-- the New York Times--if Republicans were doing this to President Obama during his first few months in office. There would be front-page stories every day. The Republican Party is trying to undermine the new President--delaying, delaying, delaying. You don't hear a peep from our national press. They don't write about it. It is a problem because we have work to do in this country. I have asked the minority leader to just come down and tell the American people why you are doing this. We have had numerous judges, very noncontroversial, very bipartisan, where we essentially spent the whole week ``debating'' them. We are not debating this judge, but we are going to spend 30 hours on him. Why are they doing that? And why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agreeing to it? I asked them to come on down and explain it to the American people, the people watching on TV or in the Gallery. Why are you doing this? Does it help the country? Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, it doesn't help the country. That is the whole point, but nobody wants to come down and explain their delay tactics. The press will not write about it because some of them like it, I think. Here is the truth. When we are spending all this time all week on this judge who will get voted on--and he will pass because he is very well qualified. Senator Lankford laid out his resume. He was previously nominated by President Obama. We are going to vote for him after this 30-hour period, and he will pass with a strong bipartisan vote. What is the challenge? What happens to the other issues we need to address in this country--in this body? We can't get to them, if we wanted to turn to other issues to start moving them. My colleague from New Hampshire was just on the floor. She talked about all the things we have to do. I agree with her 100 percent: tax reform, healthcare, budget--we never do the budget here anymore-- National Defense Authorization Act, growing the economy, as my friend from Missouri talked about, infrastructure, immigration, and the Dreamer issue. We have so much to do, let alone getting Trump administration officials confirmed and judges confirmed. That is a big list, but because we are spending 30 hours on a debate, which really isn't a debate on the judge, and we can't get consent from the other side to actually work on these other issues, this is what we are doing. We are just burning time. The minority leader will not come down and explain it. I don't know if he can explain it, but that is what we are doing. Again, if the shoe were on the other foot, the press would be going crazy. Right now, they just let it happen. My view is, it would be great if one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle would come down and say: Here is why we are wasting all of this time. Just let us know. As Senator Lankford mentioned, this judge was nominated by the President in May. Now we are going to spend most of the week ``debating'' him, when that is not what is going on. It is just a delay tactic. My view is, we should just say: OK. You want to play ball like that? We will stay here 24/7 and keep the Senate open 7 days a week. Let's get to work. Let's stay here until Christmas. See if the minority leader and his team keep doing that, keep delaying. I think we should call their bluff. Right now, the delay tactics--which nobody on the other side wants to explain--in my view, are not defensible, and they are not helping the country. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, you want to seat the government. You want to get good people working for the American people. Right now, that is not happening. I just wish the other side would either explain it or stop doing it. Let's get to work for this Nation. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I know the Presiding Officer and all of our colleagues and those watching today know that we have been focused on the budget resolution. It is a very important document for the country, for the Senate, and for the Congress. There are a lot of big issues that we are all focused on, but there is one I wish to talk about this morning that relates to the budget document. Actually, to be perfectly frank, it relates to a number of the speeches made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They have been coming down to the floor and talking about issues related to energy, which is really important for America, the environment, which is also very important to America, and--a little bit to my surprise, from all of these experts coming to the floor--Alaska, which is my State. I am going to say a little bit more about what some of my colleagues have been talking about--my State. There seems to be a few experts on Alaska from States like Massachusetts and Oregon. I just want to put things in perspective from a Senator who is actually from the State and not these other Senators who, to be honest, don't know much about what they are talking about. The one thing you are seeing is that it is for sure that you know there is kind of an issue in the debate on the floor when you see talking points that are just stale--talking points that, if you took a speech from 30 or 40 years ago, are the same talking points. They are stale talking points from the other side of the aisle that have been used for decades, that haven't been updated or that don't reflect what has really been happening in the country in terms of technological advances, environmental standards, and one of the most important things that has happened in America over the last decade, and that is the American energy renaissance--the American energy renaissance. I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't even like to talk about it. They don't like to acknowledge it: As to energy, we don't produce that in America. Yes, we do. Yes, we do. We are doing it really, really well, and it is benefiting millions and millions and millions of Americans in every State in the country. The budget resolution that we are debating has a provision in it that is really simple. I bet if you polled it with every American--Democrat, Republican, people watching on TV--it probably has a 90-percent approval. There is a simple instruction in the budget resolution that says that Congress needs to look at ways to increase Federal revenues by increasing American energy production. What could be wrong with increasing American energy production? That provision that we are actually debating right now should be very bipartisan. Who is against that? Who could be against that? Why is this so important? Why is the American energy renaissance so important? Well, as the Presiding Officer knows, because his State is certainly involved in it, the energy renaissance that is happening in the United States right now is a win, win, win, win, win on almost every category you can imagine. What do I mean by the energy renaissance? Right now in our great Nation with our resources, we are producing more oil, more natural gas, and more renewables than any other place in the world. That is really good for the country. That is the renaissance. That is really a revolution in energy production. It is something that you would think on the Senate floor should be completely bipartisan. Unfortunately, it isn't. Let me talk a little bit about how this energy renaissance and what is in the budget resolution will produce more energy for America by Americans, which is good for the country. Let's count the ways. When I said win, win, win, win, win, I wasn't joking. The wins are all on the board. First, there is energy security. For our Nation, it is lower cost energy. With the increase in natural gas, we are seeing the drop in the prices of natural gas for homes and manufacturers and increasing manufacturing. These are enormously important for our Nation. There is economic growth and jobs. In the energy sector, these are good jobs. The Presiding Officer has a lot of these jobs in his State. I have a lot of these jobs in my State. These are really important jobs. When you look at the weak economic growth in the United States over the last 10 years, the one sector that is actually driving growth has been the energy sector. How about the trade deficit? It is a big problem. Everybody has talked about it. The President is very focused on it. We are now starting to export oil and export natural gas. My State has been exporting natural gas for over four decades. That helps our trade deficit. Then, when you look at the Federal budget deficit, energy is a huge positive impact on the Federal budget deficit. That is what the budget resolution asks Congress to do in terms of policy: Let's produce more energy so we can produce more revenue for the Federal Government. That is a good idea. Nobody should be opposed to that. Mr. President, as you know, when we are the world's energy superpower, as we are, that really helps our national security. It really helps our foreign policy. A lot of Americans have been concerned for decades that we have troops in the Middle East, that we have troops in areas where energy is really important. Well, let's produce it here. I was in a meeting last year at the Munich Security Conference with the great Senator from Arizona and many of my colleagues. It was bipartisan. Senator McCain led that codel to the Munich Security Conference in Germany. We met with a very prominent Russian dissident who has been fighting and battling with Vladimir Putin. At the very end of the meeting, we asked a simple question: What more can we do in the United States to help somebody like you, who is battling against a dictator who doesn't have our interest at heart? Do you know what this very smart Russian official, a courageous man, said? He said: America needs to produce more energy. That is how you take down the leadership in the Kremlin--more energy. This is national security. Let me say one more thing that doesn't get talked about a lot. It is not just helpful in all of these areas. When the United States of America is producing energy, it helps the global environment. Some people say: Well, wait a minute. A lot of the colleagues on the other side of the aisle come to the floor and kind of insinuate that when our country produces energy, it actually hurts the environment. That is not the case. When the United States produces energy, it actually helps the global environment. Why is that the case? Let me just pause for a minute because, like I said, a lot of my colleagues are coming to the floor and talking about Alaska, energy, and the environment. Again, it is not with a lot of knowledge. They are stale talking points, yes. They have been using them for 40 years. Literally, I think one of my colleagues has been in the Congress plus or minus 40 years and has been using the same talking points on this. As somebody who came to the Senate previously from a job as attorney general and a commissioner of natural resources and energy in Alaska, I know a little bit about this topic. I can tell you two important points. My colleagues talk a little bit about Alaska, the environment, and energy. First, Senator Murkowski and I care a lot more about the environment, the wildlife, the pristine wilderness in our great, amazing State than any other Member in this body. I don't need Senators coming down from places like Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Rhode Island talking about Alaska's environment. OK? Thanks. I don't need it. I care way more than any of them. With all due respect, I know a heck of a lot more about it than any of them. I also know this. In my State--and, I believe, in most of the country, but particularly in Alaska--Democrats, Republicans, Alaskan Natives, and non-Natives certainly support the highest standards on the environment, but we also support responsible resource development. Here is the key issue: We know we can do both. You can protect the pristine, amazing Alaskan environment, and you can responsibly develop our resources. Let's talk about how we do this. Let's talk about how this applies to Alaska and how this applies to the rest of the country in general. As I mentioned, this is a really important point. We have the highest standards on developing our resources and our energy than anywhere in the world, and we have some of the most technologically advanced and sustainable ways to develop resources in the energy sector. That allows us to do what I just mentioned, which is to protect the environment and to develop our resources. Here is a really important point that a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle miss. They come down here, and this is what they talk about--by the way, they were in alliance with the last administration: How do we shut down energy development? How do we make it harder? How do we delay it? As I mentioned, I was attorney general and the DNR commissioner in Alaska for almost 6 years of the Obama administration. It was all about how to shut it down in Alaska, how to delay it in Alaska, and how to shut it down in America. This is not what the country wants. This is not what the country needs, and, certainly, it is one issue that is often overlooked. This doesn't help the global environment, as they claim. It doesn't. Why is that? Because when you chase away investment in places like Alaska, with the highest standards on the environment in the world, what does that do? That drives capital and that drives investment to places like Russia, Iran, and Brazil, whose standards are so much lower than ours. Russians on the tundra in the Arctic don't care anything about their environment. In my State and in the rest of America, we do. I don't need to remind people that Russia and Iran right now are certainly our adversaries. Yet the policies that some of my colleagues like to promote, and certainly the last administration promoted, are to drive away investment, drive away energy production in America, with the highest standards in the world, so the Russians and the Iranians can take the capital and produce energy. They do not have high standards on the environment, and they are our adversaries. It makes no sense--no sense. So how do we do this in Alaska? What are the environmental standards that almost no other place in the world--maybe Norway, maybe, to some degree, Canada--uses? What is the technology that enables us to produce American energy, with American jobs, with the American people, with the highest standards in the world? Let me provide a few examples. First, what I want everybody here to be aware of is, do not believe these doomsday scenarios. Don't believe the misinformed commentary. When my Democratic colleagues come to the floor, with very little knowledge about what is really happening in this sector, don't believe it. When they come to the floor and talk about a State like mine--Alaska--about which they know next to nothing, don't believe it. Let me give one infamous example. In the 1970s, we were debating in the Senate--and I think one of my colleagues was maybe here then, probably using the same talking points--the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, one of the greatest energy infrastructure projects in the history of the world: 800 miles, 16 billion barrels of oil; at one point, 2 million barrels a day, from Americans, in America. The people who were against it came to the floor and said: Oh, no. The Central Arctic caribou herd is going to be decimated if you do this--these beautiful animals that we care so much about in Alaska. Those were the arguments right on this floor. So what happened to the Central Arctic caribou? Again, we care about these animals way more than anybody else does in this body. In 1975, we had about 5,000 caribou; today, 66,000. I don't think the herd was decimated. We haven't heard that from anybody because they don't know, but that is the kind of doomsday scenario we heard from people with no knowledge, and then, when it doesn't happen, we don't hear them on the Senate floor saying: Oh, we were wrong about that. Let me talk just briefly about some of what we do to make sure we do this in the most responsible way in the world. First, in the energy business, one thing we do is we explore. Again, in Alaska we have the highest standards in the world. A lot of other places in the United States have these standards. In the Arctic, we have what is called no impact exploration. What does that mean? It means we literally do everything to make sure there is no impact on these great species like the polar bear. Again, we care a lot more about our animals than my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. What does no impact exploration mean? Well, we undertake exploration required by State standards--these are not Federal standards--where we essentially have what are called ice roads and ice pads. Let me show my colleagues what that means. We only allow for exploration in the winter on the tundra. When an exploration crew comes out, they have to build an ice road--it is a road made of ice--over the tundra. This photograph is an example of an ice road. Then they do exploration on an ice pad. They have drills, and they do all this work on the ice, on the tundra. They have about 4 months to do it and then they are done and then they leave. What does the tundra look like after that exploration on ice? Right here. This is just one capped exploration well. It is as though nobody was even there--literally zero impact. These are Alaska standards, the highest in the world. They are expensive, yes, but we do it because we care so much about the environment. That is the exploration phase. How about the production phase? What has happened in the production phase? The innovations in technology, many of which have occurred in my State, have made it so the surface footprint--when we actually put together a production pad--has shrunk dramatically. When we look at this chart, we see Prudhoe Bay in the 1970s. The other developments in Alaska include Kuparuk, Alpine, and Liberty. What happens is, the surface footprint has shrunk dramatically to 11, 12 acres now. Yet the ability to horizontally drill extends the reach of these wells underneath the ground, where we can reach resources in an incredibly vast manner without impacting the environment at all. If a rig was placed right here on the Capitol Building, in terms of horizontal drilling, it could extend out to Andrews Air Force Base in Southeast, Silver Spring, MD, to the north, and well into Fairfax County--miles and miles and miles. Yet the surface footprint--the impact on the environment--is minimal. That is what we do. We don't hear about it from the other side of the aisle, but it is really important, as we debate these issues, that all Americans know this. More energy for the country is really positive. In conclusion, tonight the budget resolution is not just going to be a vehicle for tax reform, but there is also, as I mentioned, going to be an instruction for increased revenues for the country for more American energy production. It is a simple instruction. As I mentioned, this should be very noncontroversial. What could be wrong with more energy production, particularly in a State like mine, where the standards are the highest in the world, and the technology is the most advanced in the world. What could be controversial about more energy production? More energy production means more American jobs, more American economic growth, more American national security, more American energy security, decreased Federal budgets and trade deficits, and a more sustainable global environment because no one in the world produces energy more responsibly than Americans, especially Alaskans. Nevertheless, some of my Democratic colleagues will be putting forth an amendment that does just the opposite. Think about that, an amendment that says let's kill energy production, thereby undermining American job growth, good jobs, American economic growth, American national security and energy security, while increasing our budget and trade deficits and harming the global environment. That is a lose-lose- lose scenario to me, but that is what is at stake tonight. Later this afternoon, when we debate that amendment--and I certainly ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject any attempts to not take advantage of this incredible opportunity in America--the American energy renaissance that we need to continue--and this afternoon we are going to have an opportunity to do that. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, nearly every week I have been coming down to the Senate floor to recognize someone in my State who has made a difference for Alaska and really has made a difference for all Americans. It is my favorite part of the week to actually come down and talk about Alaska to my colleagues in the Senate, to the folks in the Gallery, to the press, and to the American people watching. It is what I refer to as our time to talk about the Alaskan of the Week. Many watching and on the floor and those who have visited our great State know that Alaskans think it is the most beautiful place in the world. There are natural wonders everywhere. We had a beautiful summer. We have resilient, warm-hearted, fiercely independent but accepting people. We have challenges in Alaska just like the rest of the country, but at the heart of our State are kind, generous people full of different cultures and backgrounds that we celebrate. Most people don't know this about Anchorage, AK: My hometown is probably the most culturally and ethnically diverse city in the country. We have places of worship all over the city and the State that reflect that great diversity of Alaska and America. One of the stalwarts of our faith community for the past 47 years has been Pastor Alonzo Patterson of the Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church, and he is our Alaskan of the week. Every Sunday he fills his church with spirit, joy, and gospel music punctuated by ``amens'' that float through the church, down the street, and work their way into our community and into our hearts. That is what he has been doing for 47 years. For decades, those sermons have inspired countless Alaskans to help feed the hungry, provide homes for those without, and strive to create a more just country, State, and society, and a more just community. Let me tell you a little bit about Pastor Patterson. He was born in Wilson, LA, and raised in New Orleans. Like a lot of Alaskans, thousands of Alaskans, he joined the military and made his way up to Fairbanks, AK, in the 1960s, where he founded the Corinthian Baptist Church, and he ministered to the congregation there. Then, in 1970, he was called to Shiloh, one of the few African-American churches in Anchorage. He designed and rebuilt Shiloh at its current location, and under his leadership, Shiloh's membership, its facilities, and its energy took off. He has conducted thousands of marriages and baptisms. He has given thousands of eulogies, celebrated graduations and anniversaries, counseled countless couples, people who are grieving, people who are rejoicing, people who are suffering, and he has helped turn that into action--not just for the African-American community but for all people and all races in our community and in our State. Pastor Patterson told a reporter: The church was and always has been a sanctuary in the Black community. It is the meeting place, the community center, the focus for support and help, the place you come to be important, the psychologist for your particular problem, the time to shout out your frustrations and the only place to be significant. He continued: You could be a Deacon or something in the church where in the rest of the community you were just another Black person. The church was for us a panacea for many of the social ills that existed then and still have relevance. That is what he talked about. That is his heart and soul, how he saw his church and congregation. Thanks to Pastor Patterson and Shiloh, the city is a more inclusive place for all. He has helped heal those social ills for thousands of our fellow Alaskans. One of his friends, Celeste Hodge Growden, a member of the church, said: He and the church have led the way for a lot of things that have been accomplished here [in Anchorage]. Pastor Patterson always says, ``leaders lead.'' That is the way he has lived his life. He is not in the background. During election time, Pastor Patterson organizes a huge ``get out the vote'' campaign. He was instrumental in getting a Martin Luther King memorial in Anchorage--a 10-year-long endeavor. She also talked about the groups he chaired, founded, and led beyond his congregation, including Bridge Builders of Anchorage, the March of Dimes Foundation, the Martin Luther King Jr. Foundation of Alaska, and the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance of Anchorage. You know, with leaders like this, the list goes on and on. In addition to Corinthian Baptist Church in Fairbanks and Shiloh in Anchorage, Pastor Patterson also planted Eagle River Missionary Baptist Church and Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church of Palmer. I have been uplifted to the core when my wife Julie and I have gone to Shiloh and listened to Pastor Patterson preach and listened to the beautiful--and I mean beautiful--Shiloh choir sing. It is a spiritual and energizing experience like no other. I love attending services at Shiloh. On November 5, 2017, Pastor Patterson's 80th birthday, he will be giving his last sermon as pastor of Shiloh, and I certainly plan on being there. He is stepping down for Pastor Undra Parker, who will be the new and dynamic leader of Shiloh--another great Alaskan, another veteran--and I know he is going to do a great job. But of course it is a bittersweet time for Shiloh's parishioners because of the foundation Pastor Patterson built. The church, the singing, and the amens will continue on Earth and the church in Anchorage, AK, as it is in Heaven. God bless Pastor Patterson, his wife of 61 years, First Lady Shirley Patterson, and the congregation of Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church for all they have done and continue to do for our community. Congratulations to Pastor Patterson for being our Alaskan of the Week. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about my Members on the other side of the aisle who are doing something that is just not helping the United States of America right now; that is, obstructing progress with regard to the new administration. I understand that right now my party is in the majority, and to be honest, I have been someone who thinks we should spend a lot more time here in the Senate, working in the Senate and getting things done. We have a lot of work to do. But I see that people back home can get frustrated with some of the lack of progress, and some of that we can address by spending more time in this body. Some of the questions that are coming out are about why things aren't getting done. It is a good question. Answers can be complicated, but what it mostly boils down to is that a lot of issues in this body-- a lot--rely on consensus. The rules were carefully constructed so that the minority has a say in the legislative process. For the most part, I believe that is a good thing. As a former President once pointed out, we are not a red or blue America; we are the United States of America. With that said, the people did elect us to come here and start getting things done. Implicit in their votes for a new President and a new administration was to be able to put people in the Federal Government to work, to focus on growing the economy, and to focus on rebuilding the military after a 25-percent cut over the last 8 years, to focus on better jobs and higher wages. Throughout history, whether it has been Republicans or Democrats, the minority party has understood this. When a new administration gets elected, they start to put nominees in place, and the Senate takes action. We hold hearings and we have votes to put Senate-confirmed officials in the Federal Government to work. If you don't like the person, you can ask them tough questions in hearings and you can vote against them on the floor of the Senate or in committees. But what we are seeing right now is pure obstruction. On every single nominee, the maximum amount of time is required before there is even a vote. This is something new. This is something different. In fact, the current minority leader said the following words in 2013: Who in America doesn't think a President, Democrat or Republican, deserves his or her picks for who should run the Federal Government agencies? Nobody. That was the minority leader in 2013. They were wise words then, but apparently he and his Members have forgotten those words. I have some facts here on the board. At this point in time, 10 months into President Obama's Presidency in 2009, the Senate had allowed more than 318 nominees to be cast by a simple vote. The Senate only asked for a procedure known as cloture five times. Essentially, President Obama got elected, and the Senate Democrats and Republicans worked to get his team put in place. Yes, the Republicans did that. Certainly, I wasn't here then. They voted against some of these nominees, and that is fine. But what they did was they let them come to the floor for a vote. In contrast to what I mentioned about President Obama's first year in office, only 100 of President Trump's nominees have been confirmed through voice vote. That is less than one-third of the courtesy given to President Obama 8 years ago. Cloture votes for Trump's nominees have been required for 100 nominees. Remember, I just said there were five for Obama's nominees 8 years ago. There have been 100 for Trump's nominees, and only 63 have been allowed by simple voice vote. What does that mean? It means that each vote requires a 2-day waiting period and then another 30 hours of debate. That is what it means. The press won't write about it. My friends in the press sitting up here in the Gallery won't write about this. The contrast between the Trump treatment by the Senate and the Obama treatment by the Senate is incredible, and we don't hear a word out of the press on this. And this isn't partisan; this is just hurting the American people. There was an election, and now we need to fill the government with people who can run agencies. With all due respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle, they are not doing it. They are not allowing it. We had a vote on an Eighth Circuit judge last week. It had to go through cloture. We essentially spent the whole week on this--2 days and 30 hours. The judge passed the Senate by a 95-to-1 vote. It was a 95-to-1 vote. He wasn't controversial at all so what was the point? The point was simply to delay. Again, here is the difference. Nominations sent to the Senate are about the same. President Obama had more 8 years ago but not too many more. There were 520 versus 443 for President Trump confirmed. At this time during the Obama administration, there were 342. Trump has 163. So that is 66 percent for the Obama nominees 8 years ago and 37 percent for the Trump nominees. The press will not write about it, but this is a disservice to Americans, whether you are a Democrat or Republican. I will just mention a few. We have had nominees, such as the Assistant Secretary for Health in Health and Human Services. It came out of committee several weeks ago. It is sitting on the floor. The Assistant Secretary of Health, it is not a controversial position for the company, but it is an important position. I bet that person is going to finally get passage from the Senate at some point by a big supermajority, but we are delaying it. We are delaying it. I really would love it if the minority leader would come down, look at the American people, and just say: Here is why we are delaying. Here is why we are delaying. Explain it. They love to do this kind of stuff, procedural ``dark arts,'' thinking people aren't watching. People understand this. The head of a leading Democratic think tank told the press they intend to hold up and tie up floor time on every single Trump administration nominee. Now, if that happens, if they take the time for every nominee--there are over 1,000 who need Senate confirmation--and they take the entire amount of time they are allowed with cloture and other votes, if they don't extend the courtesy that was extended to President Obama when he was trying to put his team in place, the Trump administration will never have a team in place. It will literally be 4 years. I hope today the press starts writing about this because the difference here in 8 years is quite remarkable and yet nobody is talking about it; that being that the minority leader and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stop obstructing what every other administration has had in terms of a courtesy, which is, if you win the election, whether you liked it or not, you work with the other side in the U.S. Senate to get your people in place--Department of Defense officials, Department of Transportation officials, Department of Health officials, Environmental Protection Agency officials. We have to get the country moving again, and the obstruction, which is unprecedented, by the minority leader and unfortunately many of my colleagues on the other side is only harming the American people. It is only harming the progress that the vast majority of Americans want, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. I am hopeful they are finally going to change and start moving forward nominations and letting us vote on them so we have an opportunity to actually get this country moving again. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, every week, I have been coming to the floor to talk about my State and what I think makes it the greatest State in the country and in the world. We like to celebrate and recognize somebody in Alaska who is making a difference for their community, for the State, and for the country, and we like to call these extraordinary Alaskan individuals our Alaskan of the Week. Like many of us here in the Senate, I spent a lot of time recently in August traveling throughout my home State, and wherever I went, I met strong, generous, versatile Alaskans, many of whom survive in some of the harshest conditions on the planet but still have time for their communities and their families and their neighbors. But, like in many places around the country, I also saw the scourge of addiction that is tearing apart communities and tearing apart families. We have all heard how addiction is often passed down through generations. There are many in Alaska and many throughout the country who are determined to break this intergenerational cycle of addiction and many who are succeeding. We don't always hear about them, but there are many. So this afternoon I wish to introduce my colleagues to 81- year-old Rozann Kimpton, our Alaskan of the Week, who is doing that and a lot more. Rozann and her husband moved to Alaska from Washington State in 1958, and they immediately settled in. They ran businesses together, including a small retail store, and then they got into construction and contracting. They raised two children. They were a team. About 10 years ago, they moved to a large plot of land in Wasilla, AK--over 50 acres-- to spend time in retirement, and they made plans: gardening, traveling around the world. But it didn't take long for Rozann to recognize that something was wrong--very wrong--in her family, particularly with what was happening to two of her great-grandchildren, Luke and Amanda. They were living in a situation that was harmful to them and they needed help. At this point, Rozann's husband was also suffering from his own illness--cancer--but the two of them took Luke and Amanda in and adopted them. ``It was the only way to make sure they were safe,'' Rozann said. ``And when a kid needs to be taken care of, and when a mommy and daddy can't, you do it,'' she said. ``I couldn't live with myself knowing that they were in danger and I did nothing.'' This is Rozann talking about her two great-grandkids. That was 10 years ago. Rozann, now a widow, lives with Amanda and Luke on that big plot of land in Wasilla. Amanda is a senior in high school, and Luke is an eighth grader. They are great kids. As a matter of fact, I just had the opportunity to visit with them in my office yesterday. Amanda loves geometry. She plays a violin with the Wasilla Youth Orchestra and drums and dances with the Intertribal Drum Group in Anchorage. Luke's big dream is to join the Navy, which I think is great. The three of them volunteer in their community, helping foster kids. Amanda makes blankets for the foster kids. Every Sunday, they drive over 100 miles to attend Emanuel Presbyterian Church in Anchorage, which is like a second home to all of them. In addition to all of this, Rozann is the area volunteer coordinator for Volunteers of America Grandfamilies, a grandparents support group. Once a month, she has a picnic for her fellow grandparents and other parents who have adopted kids. The kids play games, eat hamburgers and hot dogs, and adults sit around the campfire, share stories, and encourage one another in all the work they are doing. She is in constant contact with about 25 families, and whenever she spots someone she thinks might need help with their kids, their grandkids, or their great-grandkids, she gives them her card. ``I am not a shy person,'' she said. ``I will talk to anyone who looks like they are struggling, and I am particularly good at spotting grandparents who are raising kids''--grandparents who are raising kids throughout our great Nation. As the opioid crisis is hitting Alaska, just like it is hitting so many other States, she is seeing more and more grandparents stepping in. ``It is a plague,'' she said, ``but the most important thing is to help the children as early as possible, and to do what we can to make sure they don't carry on that plague.'' Rozann Kimpton is here right now in Washington, DC. As I mentioned, I had a great meeting with her yesterday. She is here to attend a banquet where her efforts will be recognized. She is the 2017 recipient of the Alaska Angels in Adoption Award and will be recognized by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption. Rozann, thank you for your warmth and for all your hard work for Alaska. Congratulations on your award, and congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, this week, we are debating the National Defense Authorization Act of 2018. It is very important, and Members of both sides have contributed to this very important legislation we pass every year. It funds our military and authorizes its spending and training. It is really one of the most important things we do in the Senate. As have many others, I thank the members of the Armed Services Committee. I have the privilege of serving on that committee. I thank Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for the hard work they and all of the members of the committee have put into this and for how seriously we take this responsibility. You have heard the discussions. This bill is needed now more than ever. We are seeing accidents, in terms of training, that are killing the lives of young men and women who are serving in the military, and a lot of it is due to readiness. In fact, in the past 8 years, the U.S. military has seen its budget decline by almost 25 percent. It is a huge decrease--just pick up the paper and see what is going on in the world--when we know that the national security threats to the United States have dramatically increased. We have decreasing budgets and increasing national security challenges, and this NDAA begins the much needed process of changing that. I would like to focus on one such threat that we need to address right now that is at the doorstep of our great Nation and what the NDAA is doing specifically about that threat. The threat is North Korea's nuclear intercontinental ballistic activity and capability. As the Presiding Officer knows, that has now literally become a threat to every city in the United States, not just to frontline States like mine, which is the great State of Alaska, or Hawaii, as they are closer to Asia than is any other place in the United States. This threat is now on the doorstep of every American city. For years, a lot of the ``experts'' and intel officials were saying: Hey, don't worry about this. They are trying, but this threat is a long way off into the future. Some of us were skeptical of those estimates, and now we know those estimates were wrong. It is no longer a matter of ``if'' but ``when'' the North Korean regime will have the capability of launching a nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile that will be aimed at the United States of America. Recently, there was a disturbing article written in the Washington Post, the lead paragraph of which reads: North Korea will be able to field a reliable, nuclear- capable intercontinental ballistic missile as early as next year, U.S. officials have concluded in a confidential assessment, that dramatically shrinks the timeline for when Pyongyang could strike North American cities with atomic weapons. This assessment was leaked by someone within the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, and it shaves almost 2 full years off of what we thought North Korea's capability was. Right now, the threat is here. Think about this threat with regard to who is leading North Korea--an unstable dictator who has shown that he is not rational. Let me go into a little bit more of the threat here. When you look at the different regimes--Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and Kim Jong Un, who is the current dictator of North Korea--in just the 5 years since he has come to power, he has conducted more than 80 missile tests and over twice as many nuclear tests as both his father and grandfather did in their 60 years of ruling North Korea. Look at this chart. It shows missile tests, nuclear tests--5 years--way more than his father and grandfather ever did. And while several of these missile tests have been failures, we have obviously seen clear successes. In fact, while many Americans were celebrating the Fourth of July holiday--our patriotism, our liberty, our military--Kim Jong Un launched a successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile. On the nuclear side, we have seen activity even more recently, allegedly a test of a hydrogen bomb with an estimated yield of 120 kilotons--their third nuclear test since January 2016. It was eight times more powerful than their last test. The bottom line with regard to this threat from a very unstable regime is they are making very significant progress. So that is the threat. It is very real--on our shores--led by an unstable dictator who has threatened to use these weapons. What are we doing about it? Well, we have the capability to defend against this threat, and that capability is through much more enhanced missile defense for the homeland of the United States--for our cities. That is what this National Defense Authorization Act does. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Government has not taken homeland missile defense very seriously. One study recently found that in its history, our homeland missile defense has been characterized by a ``trend of high ambition followed by increasing modesty.'' The ``high ambition'' has been largely driven by the threats to our Nation, but the modesty component has been largely a function of decreasing budgets for the Missile Defense Agency. In fact, from 2006 to 2016, the Missile Defense Agency's budget has declined nearly 25 percent. Homeland missile defense testing has declined by nearly 83 percent. So when our adversaries are testing and advancing, we have been going in the opposite direction. I am glad to say that this year's NDAA reverses this long-term trend of homeland missile defense neglect. Earlier this year, with a number of my colleagues in this body, we introduced the Advancing America's Missile Defense Act of 2017. This is a bill that we worked on for months, with experts in missile defense, the military experts, the civilian experts, to say: What do we need to better protect the United States of America? What are the key elements? We put this together in a bill that we introduced several months ago, focusing on the following key areas: First, the Advancing America's Missile Defense Act would dramatically increase our capacity for what are called our ground-based missile interceptors--up to 28 more interceptors--and require our military to look at fielding 100 more--up to 100 missile interceptors--to fully protect the United States. Second, our bill would advance the technology to not only have more ground-based missile interceptors but the kill vehicles on top of those missiles--the bullets from which the missiles could shoot additional warheads. This is technology that is advancing, but it needs to advance much more quickly. Third, our bill looks at integrating the different missile defense systems throughout the world. So in theater, for example, in South Korea, we have the THAAD system, and we have that on Guam. We have Aegis systems with our Navy ships, and then we have our ground-based system back home, in the homeland of the United States. Our bill looks at integrating these systems with a space-based sensor, to have an unblinking eye, in terms of the technology, that can track and shoot down missiles coming to the United States and integrate with regional defenses and our homeland defenses. Fourth, our bill focuses on more testing for missile defense. As I mentioned, the decline of the testing has inhibited the development of these systems. It focuses on the testing but also doing the testing with our allies that are also advancing missile defense in different areas of the world. As I mentioned, we worked on this bill for months. One of the key elements I am most proud of in this bill is the strong bipartisan support it has received in the Senate and in the House. Importantly, when we introduced it as part of the NDAA markup, we had over one- quarter of all of the Members of the U.S. Senate who were already cosponsors--Democrats and Republicans from literally every region of the United States. This is a first and important development in a long time with regard to missile defense. Unfortunately, for years, that has been viewed as a partisan issue, not a bipartisan issue. And what we were trying to do as we developed this bill was to say this shouldn't be partisan. This is a threat that every city in America is going to have to deal with. Let's work together and get a bipartisan bill together. I was proud when the Wall Street Journal editorial wrote about this bill and emphasized that bipartisan nature. A few months ago they wrote: [The Advancing America's Missile Defense Act] has united conservatives such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and liberal Democrats such as Gary Peters and Brian Schatz, no small feat in the Trump era. . . . Mr. Sullivan's missile-defense amendment would be a down payment on a safer America in an ever more dangerous world. Why did they write this? Because they understand the importance of having bipartisan support for missile defense but also the importance of making sure that Congress leads on this important issue. Thankfully, that is what the NDAA does this year--both versions--the Senate version and the House version. The vast majority of our bill that we introduced we debated in the markup for the NDAA this year. Again, I thank Senators McCain and Reed and other members of the committee for the way in which the broader NDAA came together. But we debated this bill, and the vast majority of our bill on advancing America's missile defense is now in this NDAA-- one of the many reasons I am encouraging all of my colleagues in the Senate to vote to pass it. Something else that I think is important for my constituents to know but also for all Americans to know is the role that Alaska plays in America's missile defense. For those of my colleagues who sit on the Armed Services Committee, they have heard me say this many, many times. There is a famous quote in congressional testimony back in the 1930s by the father of the Air Force, Gen. Billy Mitchell. His quote in front of Congress was: Alaska is the most strategic place in the world because of its location on the top of the world. Whoever owns Alaska literally controls the world. Fortunately, the United States owns Alaska. So we are, because of that strategic location, the cornerstone of our Nation's missile defense. If there were a missile launched from North Korea or Iran or anywhere else in the world, the trajectory would take it over Alaska. It would be tracked by radars in Alaska. It would be shot down by missiles based in Alaska. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion located at Fort Greely, AK, is a National Guard unit. They have a fantastic motto: 300 protecting the 300 million--young men and women serving in the Guard on duty 24/7, protecting the entire country--300 of them protecting the entire United States. That is a worthy mission that we are glad is done so well by the members of the Alaska National Guard. So this bill does a lot. The NDAA this year, which we are debating on the floor now, finally takes seriously this important mission of missile defense. As I have noted, it does a lot to advance it. We have a couple of additional amendments that we are working on and hopefully are going to get passed out of the managers' package that would make even more advances to missile defense. We are going to continue to work those, and, hopefully, we will continue to have the bipartisan support that we did when this bill was marked up. I remain hopeful that we are finally starting to reverse the trend in missile defense that, as I noted earlier, was one of high ambition followed by increasing modesty. Today we need ambition, and we need action. The threat warrants it. The American people demand it. The Congress must step up and deliver it. That is what is happening in this NDAA, along with many other important and critical provisions for our Nation's military. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of passage of this important bill. Tribute to Micah McKinnis Madam President, Micah McKinnis began working for me 2 years ago as my military legislative correspondent. He is actually sitting with me right now, and today is his last day in my office. It is a sad day for everyone in my office, but Micah is going on to do bigger and better things with that unit I just talked about, the Alaska National Guard. While in my office he has done amazing work, including championing my India policy and fighting for more resources for our combat rescue squadrons and playing an important role in helping us develop this missile defense bill. I am genuinely happy for him and his wife, and I look forward to seeing them up in Alaska, as he is getting ready to go join the military himself. He is going to head out for training. He is looking to be a pararescue member of the military. It is some of the toughest training we have in the U.S. military, but I know he is going to do very well. So Micah, thanks for all you have done, all the things you have done for Alaska. You will always be part of our family. Good luck to you and your family. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, I come to the floor every week to talk about my great State and to talk about the people of my great State--the people who make it a better place for all of us. We call these people the Alaskan of the Week. It is one of the most fulfilling parts of my job to come here and talk about people who make a difference, people who don't get a lot of press, people who don't get a lot of attention, but people who are doing the right thing for their country and for their community. Right now in Alaska, we have tourists, people coming from all over, and one of the things happening in Alaska is salmon season. The biggest runs in the world--the bounty of our great State--are happening right now, and the fish are running. If you or anyone listening has ever had the opportunity to catch or eat wild Alaskan salmon, of course, it is the memory of a lifetime. There is nothing better; there is no better fish in the world. There is great salmon fishing all across Alaska, but one of the most heavily fished areas in Alaska and the world is on Alaska's Kenai Peninsula, about 45 minutes from Anchorage. Millions of salmon run up the rivers of the Kenai, drawing tens of thousands of Alaska sports, personal use, and commercial fishermen, as well as visitors from all over the country, all over the world to fish the amazing Kenai River. The area can continue to support a lot of traffic, but when you have that many people on the Kenai, sometimes it does cause congestion. So let me talk about someone who works on these issues for Alaska--Kathy Heindl. Kathy is an engineer with Homer Electric Association on the Kenai. Ten years ago, she visited Alaska as a tourist. She saw the Northern Lights dancing in the winter, the snow-covered mountains, and she knew she was home. She loves the Kenai. There is a sense of freedom there and all across Alaska. It is a place where there is room to pave your own path but support others and the community around you, and, of course, there are the salmon. Since Kathy moved to Alaska, she has been working to give back to the community that she loves so much. She is an active member and past president of her local Rotary Club. She is a member of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Community Emergency Response Team. She is also a member of a group that operates ham radios in order to help if there is a disaster and shuts down cell service or other communication devices. During the summer, right now, she spends much of her free time as a Kenai Peninsula Stream Watch volunteer with the Kenai Watershed Forum, helping to make sure that she will have a sustainable fishery--that we will have a sustainable fishery in the Kenai and throughout the State for generations to come. A few times a week, for as many as 6 hours at a time, she roams the fishing spots, picking up trash, helping others, speaking with anglers. She talks to them about how to protect themselves. She carries around safety goggles--you never want a hook in the eye. She talks about what happens when you run into a bear, which happens a lot in our great State, and the best way to avoid them, and importantly, she educates anglers on how to protect the vegetated banks on this great river to maintain the health of the river and the amazing salmon in it. The vast majority of the people in Alaska and from out of State who fish the Kenai are responsible and want to help in any way they can, and they love Kathy's help, but, still, all the activity in the area has created erosion problems, which has the potential to hurt the fish. The Kachemak Heritage Land Trust, a land stewardship and conservation trust based in Homer, recently recognized Kathy's efforts and presented her with the King Maker Award. ``It is your selfless actions that help protect the vital habitat needed for salmon to live and thrive,'' the land trust wrote to her. ``Great role models such as yourself can inspire others in our communities to take action by following your lead'' and your example. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Kathy for all the work she is doing, especially in this busy summer in Alaska, and for being our Alaskan of the Week. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.