Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2016, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``International Cybersecurity Strategy: Deterring Foreign Treats and Building Global Cyber Norms.''

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2016, at 4:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing entitled ``Trafficking in Persons: Preparing The 2016 Annual Report.''

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2016, at 10 a.m.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Understanding the Role of Sanctions Under the Iran Deal: Administration Perspectives.''

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice to Chairman McCain's comments a little bit ago about moving forward on the Defense authorization bill. I have the honor of serving with him and Senator Reed, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. It is a huge honor, but as Senator McCain mentioned, we also have an enormous obligation and responsibility. The biggest, most important thing we do here is probably our national defense. The chairman asked a really important and simple question: Why? Why are we not taking up the Defense authorization bill at this time? Why is the minority leader moving forward with a filibuster on this important bill that was voted out of committee almost on a complete bipartisan basis? We have an enormous obligation to our troops and to the national defense of our country, and that is what this bill is all about. We can debate it, but we need to begin that debate. My colleague and friend from Arkansas was on the floor here a little bit ago, expressing his frustration about why we are delaying this legislation. I share that frustration, and I share the chairman's frustration. Why? Why are we filibustering? Why is the minority leader filibustering this important bill? I remind my colleagues on the floor that this is actually a pattern. If you remember, at this time last year the minority leader led a filibuster of the Defense appropriations bill. It funds the bill so we can support our troops who are, by the way, overseas in combat. Despite the fact that the President and others in the White House want to tell the American people they are not in combat, they are in combat. We all know it. We know it is a fiction. Last year the minority leader led a filibuster of the Defense authorization bill--spending for our troops--not once, not twice, but three times on the Senate floor. This pattern of procedural delays clearly undermines our troops. There is no doubt about that. I want to add my voice to my colleague. I believe it is a bipartisan frustration, not just Republicans. Remember, the NDAA came out of committee with huge bipartisan support. One of the most important things we do here is focus on our national defense, focus on having a strong military, and focus on taking care of our veterans. We should be bringing that bill to the floor, not delaying it any longer, and debating its merits and moving forward. I just don't understand why we are not doing that right now. I certainly don't think the American people understand it. The U.S. Economy Mr. President, another important topic that we should be talking about on the Senate floor more often is the state of our economy. In my view, national defense and economic opportunity for Americans are the critical things we need to debate in the Senate. As I have been doing recently, I wanted to come down here and talk about the health of our economy and the importance of getting to a healthy economy because--make no mistake--we have a sick economy right now. We need to bring the U.S. economy, the greatest economic engine of growth the world has ever known, back to life. We need to bring opportunity once again to people who have lost economic hope. Let me be clear. Americans don't easily give up on hope. We are a country of hope, a country of dreams. Progress is in our DNA. We are always moving forward. But Americans are starting to lose hope because they are not seeing opportunity, they are not seeing progress, and they are not seeing a healthy economy. So what is going on? I would like to provide a quote from a recent article in the Atlantic Monthly entitled: ``The Secret Shame of the Middle Class.'' I would recommend this article to my colleagues. The author is talking about Americans from all spectrums who, because of the weak economy and because of no economic opportunity, are living paycheck to paycheck. Millions of Americans, as he describes in this article, are living paycheck to paycheck. He 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. 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.'' Then the author goes on to make a very important statement. He says: ``In the 1950s and '60s, American economic growth democratized prosperity.'' Everybody had opportunity with strong economic growth. But, ``in the 2010s,'' he says, ``we have managed to democratize financial insecurity.'' That is what is happening across the country. In my opinion, a big part of the problem--one that is playing out in our politics right now--is the fact that those who are hurting are not being heard. They see their lives. They know their lives. They know the challenges. Nearly half of Americans would have trouble finding $400 in a crisis, as this article lays out, and yet it doesn't match up with what their leaders are telling them. Let me give you an example. In a recent speech, President Obama actually said: ``We are better off today than we were just seven years ago.'' He said that anybody who tells you differently ``is not telling the truth.'' That is the President. I guarantee you the President is not agreeing with this article. I hate to inform the President, but even former President Bill Clinton recently had this to say about the Obama economy: ``Millions and millions and millions . . . of people look at the pretty picture of America [President Obama] painted, and they cannot find themselves in it . . . '' That is former President Bill Clinton on the current State of the U.S. economy. It is not hard to see why so many can't find themselves in the picture that the President has painted of our current economy. During nearly 8 years of the Obama administration, the number of Americans participating in the labor force shrank to its lowest level since 1978. What does that mean? It means Americans have just quit looking for jobs. In the last 8 years, more Americans have fallen into poverty, family paychecks have declined, and the number of people on food stamps has skyrocketed by 40 percent--all during the last 8 years. The percentage of Americans who own homes, the marker of the American dream--homeownership--is down by over 5 percent. Let me give you another number that, although many Americans aren't familiar with, impacts them deeply. A few weeks ago it was announced by the Commerce Department that the economy essentially stopped growing. Last quarter we grew at 0.5 percent of GDP, or gross domestic product. That is an indicator of progress, an indicator of the health of our economy, of our country, of opportunity. It was stagnant. It didn't grow. Let me put this in perspective. In the past 200 years, American real GDP growth through Democratic or Republican Presidents--it doesn't matter; we have had ups and downs--has been about 4 percent, or 3.7 percent. This is what has made our country great. This is what has fueled the engine of the middle class of America. Under this administration, the average has been an anemic 1.5 percent of GDP growth. We have never had even one quarter of 3 percent of GDP growth. Now the administration doesn't talk about that. In fact, very few do. We need to talk about it more on the Senate floor. But the American people feel it. This article describes it. They see it again and again when one of their neighbors or loved ones loses a job, when they see their paychecks stagnant for 8 years, when they see another small business in their community closing, or when they start wondering how they are going to put their children through college. They see it in the long road ahead of them that shows no promise of a brighter future because of the lack of economic opportunity. They see it, and, as this article describes, they feel the stinging shame. The bottom line is that we have had a lost decade of economic growth and opportunity in the last 10 years. We need to get serious about this problem. We need to focus on this problem almost above any other issue. My colleagues a lot of times come down here and talk about a moral imperative. This is a moral imperative--to create a healthy economy for the entire country--but we are not doing that. Now, what are the solutions? Well, we ask the experts: How do you grow the economy? How can we create articles that talk about opportunity and not the shame of the middle class? One idea certainly is that we have to reform a Federal Government that tries to overregulate every aspect of our economy, especially the small businesses. When asking the experts or politicians, they all agree. A number of us had an opportunity to talk to former Chairman of the Fed Alan Greenspan yesterday. This clearly is one of the issues where he thinks we need to ignite traditional levels of economic growth-- regulatory reform. Again, Bill Clinton, in a Newsweek cover article in 2011 said that the No. 1 thing we need to do is to move forward on regulatory reform to get projects moving, to build this country again. Even President Obama, in his State of the Union Address this year, said we have to cut redtape and we have to lessen the regulatory burden on Americans. So there seems to be widespread agreement, but it is all talk. When we actually try to act, when we actually try to do just minimal reforms to this explosion in the growth of Federal rules and regulations over the last several decades--when we try to do just a little of this--we are stopped, stymied, and caught up in politics. Let me give you just two recent examples. I introduced a bill called the RED Tape Act, a very simple bill debated on the Senate floor that essentially would put a cap on Federal regulations--a ``one in, one out'' rule. If a Federal agency is putting more regs on the U.S. economy, then we have to look at our big portfolio of regulations and sunset the equivalent economic burden in terms of regs. It is a very simple idea. It is a 4-page bill. The UK is doing this, Canada is doing this, and it is working. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle certainly thought it was a good idea, but when we brought it to the floor--the simple idea that would help our economy--there was a party-line vote. It goes down. Just last week, as we were debating the Transportation appropriations bill, we wanted to move on another simple reg idea. The idea is simple. If there is a bridge in a neighborhood and it is structurally deficient--and by the way, the United States has 61,000 structurally deficient bridges--and the bridge is not going to be expanded but is just going to receive maintenance or be reconstructed, the permit can be expedited so that it doesn't take 5 years to build or reconstruct the bridge. Again, it was a very simple amendment that used common sense on regs. We were told: No, the other side viewed it as a poison pill. We even heard that the White House was thinking about threatening to veto the bill if that amendment was attached to it. These are simple, commonsense ideas that the American people fully support to keep them safe and to grow our economy. We need to grow our economy. We need to take action on the Senate floor to help grow our economy. We need to bring this sick economy back to health, but we are not doing it right now. Instead, we see articles such as the one I just mentioned about middle-class Americans living paycheck to paycheck because they don't have opportunity. What we need to do, in addition to focusing on the defense of our Nation and taking care of our troops, is to get this anemic economy-- this lost decade of economic growth that we have seen over the last 10 years--roaring again, to provide opportunity and hope for Americans. That is what we should be focused on. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, May 23; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 4:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 p.m., Monday, May 23, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 422, S. 2613, and that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided in the usual form. I further ask that the Grassley amendment be agreed to, the committee-reported substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of S. 2613, as amended, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 476, S. Res. 469.

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I have been coming to the Senate floor and talking about a very important issue for our country that we should be spending much more time focusing on, and that is the importance of growing our economy. With the exception of national defense, I believe there is no more important moral imperative for this body and the Federal Government to focus on than this issue, but unfortunately, as we have seen, the administration doesn't focus on it. They don't want to talk about the importance of growing the economy because the record they have of economic growth for Americans, particularly middle-class Americans, has been dismal. I have been trying to get my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to focus on this chart over the last several weeks because this chart says a lot. If you look at the different records of different administrations, both Democratic and Republican, the Obama years have been a lost decade of economic growth. This red line shows 3 percent GDP growth. That is decent growth but not great. We can see that Reagan, Clinton, and Kennedy all had better numbers. This is the worst recovery over a 7-year period. That is a fact. They don't want to talk about it. We should talk about it a lot more. I clearly think it is one of the most important things we should be doing in this body, and one way we can reignite the American dream and our economic growth, especially for the next generation--like for our pages--is to reduce burdensome and unnecessary regulations. Everybody agrees with that, including the Presiding Officer and all of my colleagues here. We need to reduce burdensome and unnecessary Federal regulations and build infrastructure for America. That is exactly what my amendment No. 3912 to the Transportation appropriations bill--which is so ably managed by my colleagues from Maine and Rhode Island--would do, and that is what I will talk about for a minute. My amendment would give States and communities throughout this Nation the ability to expedite permitting for the maintenance, reconstruction, or construction of structurally deficient bridges. It is pretty simple. The amendment is very narrowly tailored. It says: If you are going to do maintenance, construction, or reconstruction on a bridge that is structurally deficient and the Federal Government won't be burdened, we will expedite the permitting by waiving many of the permitting requirements. That is it. It is very simple. As a matter of fact, this amendment only has two paragraphs. It is a win-win for the country. Investing in our infrastructure will help boost our economy and economic growth, and importantly, it will keep American families safe. It is a commonsense approach that I am hoping my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support. Recently, President Obama was asked about the economy and our crumbling infrastructure. He talked about the need for infrastructure investment, which I completely agree with; however, he laid the blame for a lack of investment in infrastructure on Republicans, who he said were unwilling to spend on our infrastructure. Well, I think with the highway bill, the WRDA bill, and this appropriations bill, we are doing it. Again, it is very bipartisan. I don't think what the President said is true. We are certainly willing to invest in infrastructure, which is so important to our economy, but we need to do it wisely, and we need to make sure our taxpayer money does not go to unintended uses. In fact, I believe, as do many of my colleagues, that there is perhaps nothing more central to growing our economy and competing globally than sound infrastructure for America, but throwing money at projects that aren't ready for development because of the burdensome permitting and regulatory requirements that we often see from the Federal Government is not a sound use of taxpayer dollars. A recent column in the Wall Street Journal points out that of the $800 billion of taxpayer money that was passed several years ago as part of the President's stimulus package, only $30 billion was spent on transportation infrastructure. That is remarkable. Out of the $800 billion, only $30 billion was spent on infrastructure. Why? One of the big reasons is because these infrastructure projects were not shovel- ready because of the onerous permitting requirements and environmental reviews. Consider this: The average time for an environmental review for a major transportation project in the United States has increased to a staggering 8 years. In 2011, it took 8 years to get a transportation project approved in terms of Federal permitting, and that is up from 3\1/2\ years in the year 2000. We have more than doubled the time in less than 7 years because of the Federal permitting requirements. The average environmental impact statement was about 22 pages when NEPA, which requires EIS's--and that is important. When that bill initially passed, the average EIS was 22 pages. Today's highway projects often have EIS's that are well above 1,000 pages. On average, it takes over 5 years to permit a bridge in the United States. Nobody wants this. As a matter of fact, former President Bill Clinton highlighted the need for reform in this area in a well-known Newsweek article. In 2011 he was on the front cover of Newsweek. His article talked about how to get Americans back to work. One of his top recommendations was to make sure that when we have infrastructure projects, the permitting requirements don't take forever. He said that we need to ``keep the full review process when there are real environmental concerns, but when there aren't, the federal government should be able to give a waiver to the states to speed up start times on construction projects.'' That was former President Bill Clinton's recommendation. Well, that is exactly what my amendment does. Again, if you are going to repair or build a bridge and keep it in the same capacity--a two- lane bridge stays a two-lane bridge, not a four-lane bridge--and in the same place and the same size, then the permitting process should be expedited. Let me spend a few minutes on why this is so important for our economy and the safety of our citizens. I think most people in this body know our bridges are in poor condition. About 1 in 10 of America's roughly 607,000 bridges is termed and classified as ``structurally deficient.'' Let me repeat that in a different way. In the United States, there are more than 61,000 bridges in need of repair. The average age of our bridges is 42 years old. Americans cross these structurally deficient bridges 215 million times a day. Here is a chart that shows where they are located. If you look here, this classifies different bridges. The red category shows the most bridges--over 25 percent--that are structurally deficient. The lighter red represents 20 to 25 percent, and the lightest shade of red represents 15 to 20 percent. As we can see, every State has structurally deficient bridges that Americans are crossing 215 million times a day. Let me be clear. It is not just about the economy, where truckers and commerce are crossing these bridges every day; it is about the safety of our children when they ride on schoolbuses and parents when they come home from work. Every State in the Union is impacted by this. Let me give a few quick examples of some structurally deficient bridges across the country. This is the Magnolia Bridge in Seattle, WA. It was built in 1929. This bridge carries over 18,000 cars per day and has been declared structurally deficient. The Greenfield Bridge in Pittsburgh, PA--Pennsylvania has the most structurally deficient bridges in the country, and this chart shows one of them. It was built in 1921. It carries almost 8,000 cars per day. In 2003 a 10-inch chunk of concrete went through a car windshield, injuring the driver. This structurally deficient bridge has been crumbling for decades. I have one more example, which the Presiding Officer will find of significant interest. This is the Russell Street Bridge in Missoula, MN. Transportation for America rates the deck of the Russell Street Bridge a 4 out of 10 in terms of structural soundness. It was built in 1957 and carries over 22,000 cars a day. I think we would all agree that we need to fix these 61,000 structurally deficient bridges. There is no doubt about it. I don't think there is any Member of this body or anyone in the Federal Government who would disagree about that, but what happens when we try to do that? In fact, the efforts, especially in the local communities, are strangled by bureaucratic redtape. The Wall Street Journal recently had an article titled ``The Highway to Bureaucratic Hell,'' and it talked about this very issue of what happens when communities try to fix their structurally deficient bridges. They gave a number of examples, but I wanted to read one that impacts Americans in the New Jersey-New York area of the country. The Wall Street Journal article stated: Another illustration of what happens is the Bayonne Bridge that connects New Jersey to Staten Island and at 150 feet tall blocks large cargo ships. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey plans to raise the bridge from 150 feet to 215 feet. They wanted to do that to allow cargo ships to go under it. They planned to keep the bridge the same size; they just wanted to raise it so they wouldn't have to spend over $3 billion to build a tunnel. The article goes on to say that their reward for thinking rationally was that it took 6 months to have the lead agency identified for an environmental review--an environmental review that dragged on for more than 5 years and spanned 20,000 pages. That is not good for New Jersey, that is not good for New York, and that is not good for America. Again, what my amendment would do would fix this issue. It is very narrowly tailored, and it would simply make sure that when we are trying to fix the 61,000 structurally deficient bridges in the United States, we can do it in an expedited manner, not in the way in which this Wall Street Journal article described--5 years and 20,000 pages. This amendment is a win-win-win. It will help spur economic growth, help us with the safety of our citizens, and help our workers get back to work so we can do the maintenance and reconstruction on these bridges. Everybody here talks about regulatory reform and how we need it. Even the President, in his State of the Union speech, talked about the need to cut redtape in order to grow this economy. But we rarely act on it. We talk about it, but we don't act on it. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--my colleagues particularly from older States, where this amendment will help them more than the rest of the country--to vote on this amendment which will keep our families and kids safe, help grow our economy, and put workers back to work. It is a commonsense thing to do for our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I compliment my good friend from South Dakota, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, for coming down and leading the discussion on a very important topic that, to be honest, we are not talking about nearly enough in the Senate--and certainly the Obama administration is not talking about nearly enough--and that is the importance of our economy. I was on the floor a couple weeks ago and I made a prediction. I said there is going to be big economic news coming out, and my prediction was that nobody in the administration was going to talk about it and none of our friends in the media were going to talk about it. Unfortunately, my prediction came true. The big news, as Chairman Thune said, is that last quarter we grew at 0.5 percent GDP growth. We essentially didn't grow. We didn't grow. The great American economy, the thing that has made us great as a country for 200-plus years, just stalled--and nobody talked. The Obama administration didn't talk about it. The media didn't talk about it. When we talk about gross domestic product, this is essentially the health of the economy. It is the measure of opportunity in America. Unfortunately, what we saw last quarter was additional proof that the Obama administration on this critical issue--economic growth for our citizens--is one of the worst in U.S. history. It is not just me saying that. People should take a look at these numbers. These numbers are actually from the administration and other administrations. This looks at recent economic growth for the last 50 years, starting with President Kennedy's administration, but as my colleague from South Dakota said, the average growth for the United States in our 200-plus- year history has been about 3.7 percent GDP growth. We look at this chart--and this is very bipartisan, of course--almost 4 percent GDP growth average for the country. This is what has made us great, strong. We look at this chart, and it shows the ups and downs. This red line is 3 percent GDP growth, which is considered pretty good. It is not great but pretty good. We certainly should be targeting that. Look at the Obama administration right here in the corner. It has never even hit 3 percent GDP growth--not once, not even in one quarter--ever. What we are seeing right here, in the almost 10 years of President Obama, relative to any other administration, Democratic or Republican-- Johnson, Nixon, even Carter, Reagan, Clinton, real strong growth there--clearly, the Obama administration has been, by any measure, a lost decade of economic growth. Unfortunately, you don't hear the administration talking about it at all. You can understand why. It is an abysmal record. But the truth is, if you look back in history and that news came out--whether it was a Democratic or Republican administration--the Secretary of the Treasury would have said: Don't worry America, we know you are hurting; we have a plan. The Secretary of Commerce would have said: We have ideas on growing the economy; we know that 0.5 percent GDP growth--essentially flat growth, no growth-- is not the historical tradition of America. Historically, Cabinet members in any administration would have told us: We know it is a problem, and here is how we are going to fix it. When this news came out 2 weeks ago, we heard nothing from this administration--nothing. When they do talk about the economy, there are typically three types of responses: One is, as my colleague from South Dakota mentioned, there is this talk in Washington about the ``new normal.'' In my view, it is one of the most dangerous phrases being bantered about in DC. The new normal says that we know America has been growing at this robust rate, almost 4 percent GDP growth for most of our history, but there are new factors, and we should not expect that anymore. We shouldn't even expect 3 percent. Let's just dumb down our expectations. They talk about the new normal. The new normal should be about 1.5, 2 percent GDP growth, maybe. The people in Washington are telling the rest of the country: You guys should be satisfied with that. We shouldn't be. That is a surrender of the American dream. So that is one response--the new normal. The second thing the President has done for a while, but he can't do it anymore, unfortunately. He has looked around the world and said: Well, at least we are growing better than Europe or Japan or Brazil. Really, the only measure that actually matters is not another country; it is how do we stack up against America? He does not want to talk about that, so he talks about Europe. He can't talk about Europe anymore because we are growing at 0.5 percent GDP growth, and last quarter Europe grew at 2.2 percent. It is not great, but it is certainly better than ours. Obviously, they have to get rid of that talking point. The third thing they do is come out and try to tell us: Hey, you know what, you are actually doing better. I know you are feeling horrible and your wages haven't gone up, but you are doing better, trust me. In a New York Times article, the President recently lamented that, looking back, he didn't sell all the great stuff he was doing on the economy. He didn't sell it better. I don't think he needs to sell it. Most people feel it, and it is not great. He even said: Anybody who says we are not absolutely better off today than we were just seven years ago, they're not leveling with you. They're not telling the truth. By almost every economic measure, we are significantly better off. I think it is astounding that the President of the United States is saying that kind of stuff to the American people because it is simply not true. Let me provide some facts. The story they tell is of a country that by almost every economic measure is actually worse off than we were when the Obama administration started. In the past 8 years, the labor force participation rate has slid to its lowest measure since the mid- 1970s. Essentially, that is people who have quit looking for a job because they can't find one. According to the most recent census data, the percentage of Americans below the poverty line in the last 8 years has grown. It is up almost 4 percent. Real median household incomes in the last 8 years have declined from $54,900 to $53,600. Since the President took office, food stamp participation has actually soared. It is up by almost 40 percent. The percentage of Americans who own homes--a marker of the promise of the American dream--is down 5 percent. This is all in the 8 years, 7\1/ 2\ years, since President Obama has been in office. The late Vice President Hubert Humphrey once said: Propaganda, to be effective, must be believed. To be believed, it must be credible. To be credible, it must be true. No matter how much this administration uses soaring speeches or articles from media sources that have been favorably disposed toward them or clever tweets insisting that the economy is doing well, it simply is not. These are the facts, and Americans know it. Americans know it. We are spending more on housing and food. Wages are stagnant. As I have mentioned, many have given up looking for good jobs. Some are questioning the ability to put their kids through college. What is interesting is that Washington, DC, is doing fine. When you grow the government the way we have in the last 8 years, this part of the country actually never had a recession. It is not one of the richest places in America, right here in Washington, and that is why so many in the DC press corps weren't writing about this. The President says the economy is doing well, so it must be doing well. I think the good news is that even now the media is starting to pick up on this because the problem is so pervasive. In this election season, this is what we are hearing Americans talk about. Here is a heading from a recent Atlantic article: ``The lonely poverty of America's white working class.'' Here is another one from the same publication: ``The Resurrection of America's Slums.'' Here is one from another publication: ``Poverty in America: the Deepening Crisis.'' Recently, there have been numerous articles about how poverty leads to addictions and to higher mortality rates. The New Yorker had an article entitled ``Life-Expectancy Inequality Grows in America.'' The Washington Post is now starting to do some heartbreaking stories about poverty, death, and economic despair in our great country. Talking about the recent West Virginia primary election, the Washington Post stated: ``But many poorer, less-educated folks who have been left behind in the 21st century--the ones who have seen their wages stagnate, their opportunities for upward mobility disappear and their life expectancies shorten--are looking to disrupt a status quo that has not worked for them.'' What does this mean for our great country, our citizens? One indication is, in poll after poll, Americans are telling us they are running out of hope. Sixty-five percent of Americans now believe the country is on the wrong track. That is not surprising. We never hit 3 percent GDP growth in the last decade. The vast majority of Americans don't believe their kids are going to be better off than they are. They are telling us that the quality that has made America great, the quality that is in the DNA of the United States, and that is progress, is losing out to this idea of the new normal. It is a new normal where our children are not going to be better off than we are, where we can't grow the economy. The American dream is all about progress. We need to remember that. We can't settle for another lost decade of economic growth. We can't settle for stagnation. A number of my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, come to the Senate floor--and I have respect for everybody in this great body--and they talk about the moral imperatives they believe are important, moral imperative on this topic, moral imperative on another topic, but they rarely talk about the moral imperative of growth and opportunity. To me, that is the biggest moral imperative we have, with the exception of national defense in this body. It is a moral imperative to recognize that we have experienced a lost decade of economic growth. We have a moral imperative to talk about the pervasive poverty, what that does to our citizens, how it creates holes in the social fabric that holds us together, and how, when our own citizens fall through those holes, a piece of all of us goes with them because although we are individuals, we are all Americans together. We have a moral imperative to tell our fellow citizens that working together we don't have to accept this, the new normal. We have the moral imperative to lift up American workers with policies that actually help them. Like most Americans, I was shocked when Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said that under her administration she would put coal miners out of work. Here is the quote: ``We are going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.'' That is shocking. Think about that. I come from a State where there is a lot of mining. These are great jobs. These are important jobs. These are important for the national economy of America. To have a candidate say that she intends to put coal miners out of work is part of the problem. As Senator Thune mentioned, the other part of the problem is that Washington is no longer a partner in opportunity for coal miners, for workers, for growing the economy, but it has become an obstacle. We have to do a lot to get this economy moving. My colleague from South Dakota mentioned a number of ideas. We are going to be on the floor talking about them--the moral imperative to provide economic opportunity and hope for Americans. One thing for certain we have to do is get control of the Federal Government that wants to regulate every single aspect of our lives and economy. This is a chart that shows how Federal rules from this town go straight up. Every year there are more. As a matter of fact, the Obama administration is going to be the first in U.S. history to have proposed in a single year 80,000 pages of new Federal regs. If you think that is going to help the coal miners or other Americans or working-class families with hope and opportunity, that is not the right solution. What we need is less government and more economic freedom and the truth about what is going on with this great economy of ours in our great country. That is what we are going to continue to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, we all know that the Obama administration's 8 years in office is beginning to wind down. As it does, as is natural for a President ending his time in office, the President and the members of his team are starting to focus on their legacy and on how they want to be remembered. Now with regard to this administration's policies in the Middle East, unfortunately for them, the legacy and narrative that is beginning to take hold is one of not leveling with the American people--not one of honesty. That should concern all of us--all of us in this body, whether Democrats or Republicans. When the President of the United States is in open disagreement with the Secretary of Defense and with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on one of the most critical issues our Nation faces--whether to send our sons and daughters into combat--it should be cause for significant concern for all of us in this body and across the country. President Obama has repeatedly told the American people that U.S. troops in the Middle East are not in combat. In 2010, he announced that we were ``ending our combat mission in Iraq,'' and in 2014, he used the same words to talk about Afghanistan. More recently, he said that our mission in Syria ``will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.'' Yet, just less than 2 weeks ago, in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, when Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford, were asked if our troops in the Middle East, Syria, and Iraq are engaged in combat, these two senior U.S. officials unequivocally said: Yes, they are. To the members of our military serving overseas, particularly in the Middle East, Secretary Carter and General Dunford were stating the obvious. Indeed, there have been recent news reports in the Washington Post and in the Military Times that describe up to 200 Marines at a place called Fire Base Bell in northern Iraq, firing artillery missions on a daily basis in support of Iraqi troops in order to kill ISIS terrorists. Our soldiers serving in the Middle East as part of the Joint Special Operations Command conduct regular counterterrorism missions to kill and capture terrorists in the Middle East. Of course, we see on a daily basis our brave pilots from all the different services, who have dropped approximately 40,000 bombs in Iraq and Syria in close air support missions, focused on destroying and killing ISIS members and their infrastructure and their logistics bases. Since 2014, almost 1,200 bombs and close air support missions have been conducted in Afghanistan. Just yesterday, we were informed of a successful strike--again, a coalition strike with fighter aircraft-- that killed three ISIS leaders. These missions have entailed risk. Some of the members of our military have been killed and others have been wounded, but there is no doubt that all of what I have just described is the very definition of combat. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have both stated this. Indeed, in a lead editorial in the Military Times on Friday entitled ``It's a combat mission, Mr. President,'' the editorial concluded by saying: When U.S. and allied troops are on Islamic State turf with the mission of wiping it from existence, they are on a combat mission. Calling it anything else is wrong. To Secretary Carter's credit, at a hearing last week, he agreed and stated unequivocally that ``these [members of our military] are in combat . . . and I think we need to say that clearly.'' This is the Secretary of Defense. Well, apparently the White House didn't get the memo. Last week, when asked about a very brave Navy SEAL who unfortunately was killed in a fierce firefight involving U.S. Special Operations forces, Kurdish commandos, and Islamic State fighters, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters that ``the relatively small number of U.S. servicemembers that are involved in these operations are not in combat but are in a dangerous place.'' That is the White House--``relatively small'' and ``not in combat.'' Why does President Obama and his White House continue to peddle the fiction that U.S. forces are not engaged in combat? That is a really important question that we need to be asking. Why? The whole world knows that we are. Why are they peddling this fiction to the American people? Perhaps the Commander in Chief is truly unaware that our military forces are in combat, and there are hundreds of them that are. If that is the case, that would be very troubling indeed. What is more likely is that the President has told the American people repeatedly that he will end wars and won't send combat troops to the Middle East, and so the word contortions coming from the White House are part of the twisted attempt to salvage and protect the President's legacy. But by spinning the truth for political purposes, the President is coming perilously close to leaving a legacy of dishonesty when it comes to our military involvement in the Middle East. Much more worrisome, this dishonesty comes with a cost. First and foremost, it diminishes the service and sacrifice of our troops and their families. Again, in the Military Times editorial on this very topic, on Friday it stated: Calling it a training mission [in the Middle East] is cold comfort to the parents, spouses and children of the deployed troops. . . . The more the White House insists these troops are not part of a combat mission, the more distrust it breeds in the ranks [of our military] and among the public. It's viewed as the sort of condescending semantics Washington plays to deny the obvious. That can only serve to erode support for the [important] mission. Americans serving in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan know that they are in combat. The Commander in Chief needs to acknowledge this fact and the bravery it entails and not disguise the true nature of their duty. Second, the costs that come with this dishonesty is that it further undermines the administration's very tenuous foreign policy credibility regarding its stated goal of degrading and destroying ISIS. While this is the correct goal, a series of missteps in the Middle East, including the President's failure to enforce his own redline when it was crossed by Bashar al-Assad in Syria has brought us to the point where our adversaries and our allies question U.S. credibility and resolve. Islamic State terrorists know that they are in combat against American forces. They see it every day. But when the President says otherwise, it signals a lack of conviction, making it harder for us to defeat these terrorists. Third, this dishonesty about the role of our troops allows Presidential candidates to duck a tough issue. For example, Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has repeatedly said-- unchallenged by anyone, including in the media--that she would continue the President's policies of not sending combat troops to Syria and Iraq. But the President is sending combat troops to Syria and Iraq. Finally, and more broadly, by playing fast and loose with the facts about our policies in the Middle East, the Obama administration is making it harder to gain congressional support for its policy. I strongly believe that when the executive branch and the legislative branch on national security and foreign policy issues are in agreement and working together, that is when we are strongest as a country. I have been critical of this administration's policies in certain areas and supportive in others. If Congress feels like the administration is being played and the American public is not getting the courtesy of the truth, support in this body for these important policies will crumble. We saw an extreme example of this over the weekend in a remarkable New York Times Magazine piece about the President's Deputy National Security Advisor, who is credited with selling the Iran nuclear deal to Congress and the American people. We see line after line in a very lengthy article about not leveling with the American people on that deal, which we debated here on the Senate floor. Let me give you a couple of quotes from that article. One is just how they sold the deal. Now I am quoting the article. The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented--that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about in 2013 because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country--was largely manufactured [by the White House] for the purpose of selling the deal. So here we have White House officials saying they manufactured a story to sell the nuclear deal to the Congress and the American people. Another quote talked about a speech the President gave on the deal--a very important speech--and it says: While the President's statement and speech was technically accurate-- This is about the timing of the negotiations-- it was also actively misleading. So again a top White House official is pretty much admitting that he was fabricating a narrative to get the American people and the Congress of the United States to ``sell'' and ``buy off'' on the Iran deal. You know, reading this article, one gets the sense that to some of the people in the White House, this is all a game. Facts don't matter, but cleverness does. The quotes in the article from young White House officials are almost gleeful when they recount how they sold the nuclear deal to ``clueless reporters''--any of the press listening, I hope you like that adjective--and Members of Congress and how the White House created an ``echo chamber'' and were the puppet masters, literally putting words in the mouths of Members of Congress and reporters to sell this deal. My colleagues should read this article. Again, it is like a game. But, of course, this is not a game. All of this--American troops in combat, whether the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism should obtain a nuclear weapon--this is not a game. This is a deadly serious reality. I was reminded of this serious reality this past week when I spent much of my recess with the assessment and selection team of the Marine Corps' Special Operations Command. It wasn't clever 30-somethings with fine arts degrees out in the field, working on little sleep, but 20- somethings of all backgrounds, from every corner of America, going through some of the most rigorous military training possible. Some of these young marines will make the cut for Special Operations Command and others won't, but all are striving for the honor of defending their Nation during challenging times. No doubt in due time many will be heading to the Middle East and other parts of the world, doing their duty to keep us safe. The Obama administration owes these brave young Americans the truth, not spin. The Obama administration owes Congress the truth, not spin. The Obama administration certainly owes the American people the truth, not spin. The sooner the President and his White House start leveling with the American people about our roles and our policies in the Middle East, the better it will be for all of us. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of my staff: Dave Deptula, during the remainder of today's session.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am glad to see that my good friend from Indiana was on the floor talking about an important issue that the administration certainly won't talk about. To be honest, not many Members of this body talk about it nearly enough. As my colleague from Indiana mentioned this morning, the U.S. Commerce Department came out with some big news. They said that the U.S. economy grew at 0.5 percent GDP growth the first quarter of 2016. That is one-half of 1 percent. That is a horrible number. I am going to make a prediction. I don't think anybody in the media, if they are still up there, is going to talk about this issue. Nobody talks about this issue. In the old days, it didn't matter if there was a Republican or a Democratic administration. If the U.S. economy was growing at 0.5 percent GDP--which essentially means it is not growing but has instead stopped--then almost certainly the Secretary of the Treasury would come out and say: Don't worry, America. We have this; we have a plan. We know that 0.5 percent GDP growth is horrible for everybody, especially working-class families. At the very least the Secretary of Commerce would have come out and said: We know you are hurting, America, but don't worry. We have a plan. In previous administrations, that is what would have happened, and it wouldn't matter if the President was a Democrat or a Republican. But I don't think we heard a peep out of this administration this morning. We have not heard from the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Commerce Secretary. Nobody came out and spoke, and don't count on it. I don't think they will be talking about this number. They even seem to be satisfied with this number--0.5 percent GDP growth. They certainly don't want the American people talking about it because this is not a good number. This is a really important issue for our country. This is an important issue for every single American, and yet we have an administration that doesn't want to talk about this issue because it is a big problem for them. It is a big problem for all of us. We can't grow the U.S. economy. Some of my colleagues have come down to the Senate floor often to talk about what they view as moral imperatives. I respect everybody in this body, but there is a lot of talk about moral imperatives and nobody talks about this issue as a moral imperative. In my view, growing the economy and providing opportunities for Americans has to be the No. 1 moral imperative of this body and of the Federal Government. We should be talking about it, but we are not, and one of the reasons we are not talking about it is because there is no doubt that the Federal Government--the Obama administration--is failing the American people in this regard by any serious measure. This is not a debatable topic. The Obama administration's record on economic growth has been one of the worst in U.S. history. Let's take a look at this chart. Is it any wonder why the President or Secretary of the Treasury didn't come out and talk about these numbers this morning? The numbers are abysmal, and they are their numbers. Remarkably, when the President does talk about the economy, he has taken to bragging about the U.S. economy because we are doing better than Europe. Look at the press. When the President talks about the economy, he talks about how we are doing better than Europe. After today's news, he won't even be able to brag about that because 0.5 percent GDP growth is not better than Europe. If the President is actually comparing his record to another country, he needs to remember that the only country that matters is America. That is the only measure he should be looking at--not Europe, not Japan, and not Brazil. He should be looking at our country. How has he done historically relative to every other President-- Democrat or Republican? If we take a look at this chart, we can see the answer. These are facts. We are not debating anything. These are just the numbers. Real GDP growth, as I mentioned, is 0.5 percent growth this quarter. But if you look at some history here, from 1790 to 2014, the average real GDP growth for the United States has averaged about 3.7 percent. That includes Democrats and Republicans over 200-plus years. That is what made us great. Historically, we have had almost 4 percent GDP growth. That is what made the United States great. I keep talking about GDP growth, but in essence, gross domestic product is an indicator of the economic health of our economy and how it is growing. It is an indicator that measures the opportunities that exist in the United States. Like I said, we had almost 4 percent growth throughout American history. The President's numbers in the last 7\1/2\ years: 1.36 percent GDP growth. Here we see it on the chart. This is Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and President Obama. The red line is important. That is 3 percent GDP growth. That is considered pretty good--not great but pretty good. Take a look. President Obama has never hit that. He has never actually hit that in one quarter, ever. By any measure, these numbers are abysmal. So what are we looking at? The Obama era has been a lost decade of growth. Again, compared to any other period, even the Great Depression period, these numbers represent lost opportunity, stagnant wages, and middle-class families struggling. Yet the administration never talks about it. If we can't grow our economy, who is hurt the most? It is the most vulnerable. It is the working poor. It is the elderly. It is the young people. It is our pages right here who want a positive future. These are the people who are hurt. Yet if we grow our economy--if we got to Reagan levels or Clinton levels or Johnson levels of 4, 4.5, 6--we could take care of so many of the challenges our country faces. So what has happened is--and we know the media certainly helps the administration deal with this--we don't talk about it. The President might compare our economy to Europe. That is pretty weak. Instead, we define the problem down. Many people may have heard this term, ``the new normal.'' That is a term they are now using in Washington, ``the new normal.'' So what does that mean? It means we can't grow at 3 percent anymore. Look at the chart. We have never hit 3 percent, ever. So let's just define it now. We are not going to shoot for traditional levels of robust American growth like 4 percent. Again, the historic average is 3.7 percent, for 200 years, Democrats and Republicans. We are just going to say: Well, it is a new time in the history of our country--secular stagnation. This is the new normal. If Americans believe this or accept this or our young people do, we are in big trouble. So we talk about the new normal or we are silent, like what happened today. No one came out--not one person from the Obama administration explained how we are going to get out of this rut. They are silent because there is no way to sell 0.5 percent GDP growth--to anybody. The American people are smart, and they know they are being sold a clunker. The economy is a clunker right now, and it has been one for almost 8 years. Again, it is important to understand just how bad this record is, in terms of U.S. history. Let me give a few more statistics. In 85 years, for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated the annual change in real GDP, there is only one 10-year stretch, and it is right here--the entire Obama administration--when the annual GDP growth never hit 3 percent. Even during the Great Depression, it was only a 4-year stretch. So 10 years, starting with the Bush-era recession. The President talks about the recession, but that was almost 8 years ago. We need to get over that and grow this economy. During the last 10 years, real annual growth of GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent. It has never been that high again. In the 25 quarters since the recession ended, real GDP growth has totaled just 14.3 percent. So that is what we grew our economy by--the total growth of our economy. In comparison, other recoveries--again, Democrat, Republican--since 1960, that lasted much more than a year, real GDP growth for the whole economy grew on average of 27 percent. So we have 14 percent Obama, 27 percent over the comparable period for the average--Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan. If real GDP growth in the Obama years had grown at that average, our GDP would be $1.8 trillion higher. Think about that--$1.8 trillion, almost $2 trillion higher. Think about what families could do with that kind of money if we divided that by American families. In the Reagan recovery, real GDP growth grew a total of 34 percent. The economy expanded by 34 percent. So, again, Obama, 14 percent; average, 27 percent; Reagan, 34 percent. He grew it at an average rate, and the economy grew at about 4.8 percent, so almost 5 percent GDP growth. Look at the comparison here. If the 8 years of President Obama grew at the rate that President Reagan's recovery took place, we would be seeing almost $3 trillion more in terms of the size of our economy, higher annual aftertax income of almost $5,000 per American, and of course millions and millions of more jobs. The President talks about the unemployment rate going down, but what he doesn't talk about is the reason it is going down is because people are leaving the workforce. We have the highest rate since the mid-1970s of workforce participation. Why? Because we are not growing the economy. I know I am throwing a lot of numbers out, but what this chart reveals is something much more important than numbers. This chart goes to what the American dream is all about; that is, progress. That is progress. When you are an American, you expect progress. You expect growth. You don't expect this. This is not progress. We are hearing it and we are seeing it. The American dream was founded on progress. There is opportunity. You have the opportunity to take advantage and move up the ladder. A recent poll came out and said 13 percent of Americans--13 percent-- think their kids are going to have a better economic future than they had. That is the death of the American dream, and this chart explains why. The young people right here, through hard work--only 13 percent of Americans think you are going to have a better future than we had. That is the essence of the American dream. We all used to think our kids would have a better future. Now 13 percent do. It shows that people are losing faith in the American dream because of these numbers. It gets worse in terms of the unequal growth. I was talking about 1.36 percent is the average growth rate for the Obama administration. In actuality, about 20 percent of the population in regions of the country--mostly on the east and west coasts--are doing pretty good. Twenty percent are growing at about 5 percent GDP growth. Eighty percent of America--the rest of the country--is not growing at all--zero growth. I believe this is a surrender. I believe this body is not talking about it enough. The White House wants to ignore it. It is a surrender of America's greatness. It is a surrender of our future. It is a surrender of our kids' future. We need to do something about it. If we stay at these levels of growth, issues like infrastructure, issues like military spending, issues like social spending, even social cohesion are going to be much harder to address, but if we grow--back to traditional levels of American growth--the future is going to be bright again like it has been for 200-plus years in the United States. We don't have to continue down this path. We can make decisions in this body--the right decisions--in order to right this sinking ship of an economy, but the first step is to admit we have a problem. The first step is to recognize we have a big problem. The President and his Cabinet will not do this. As a matter of fact, there was a recent New York Times article where the President was talking about how this is actually pretty good growth--again, dumbing down expectations, the new normal. Did they say anything today? No. But the American people know we have a huge problem. We see it reflected in polling and our politics with people losing work, stagnant wages, historic levels of failed businesses. More small businesses are failing now.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, we need to realize that what we are doing here is part of the problem. Look at this chart. We are overregulating every aspect of our economy. What we need to do is start focusing on ways that Washington can be a partner in opportunity, not the center of regulations that focus on small businesses. Let me conclude by saying, although I have highlighted the challenges we have right now and the lack of focus by the administration, this is something all of us in this body--Democrats and Republicans--should be working on together. Nobody wants 1.36 percent GDP growth. Nobody wants 0.5 percent GDP growth. We need leadership now to tackle these challenges and to get America back on track. We have to grow this economy. We have to continue progress. We must do better for our children and restore the American dream, but first we need a White House that recognizes the problem. Unfortunately, today we saw that is not the case. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a distinguished member of my staff, my legislative director, Peter Henry. I am sad to say that Peter will be leaving my office, as well as Washington, DC, for a new chapter in his life. His last day is April 29, 2016. He and his beautiful wife Libby, his two-and-a-half-year-old daughter Winnie, and his daughter-to-be will soon move back to his hometown of Kansas City. Peter has taken a job working in the private sector, where I know he will excel and succeed as he has during his time with my office. Peter was one of the first staff members I hired after I became Senator, but Peter's time in Washington began back in 2005 when he came to our Nation's capital straight out of college. Prior to joining my team, Peter made a name for himself as a sharp and capable Hill staffer, rising quickly through the ranks in three different Senators' offices before moving to the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, where he had a lead role in surface transportation issues. Given his breadth of experience and the deep respect he fostered with his colleagues, Peter no doubt had his choice of offices to work for, but he chose to work for me. For that, I am immensely grateful. Being a freshman Senator is not easy, and being staff to a freshman senator is certainly a challenge. Peter rose to the challenge. He put together the best legislative team I could have imagined. He handled stress under fire, taught us about complex Senate procedures, and adeptly helped me navigate the minefields that can be Washington politics. His intelligence, integrity, strong work ethic, sense of fair play, and his good nature will be sorely missed in my office. Peter is also a patriot and made sure to set us on the right track to serve the great people of Alaska and the rest of the country. I can't thank Peter enough for all the work he has done for me and for the rest of my staff. He leaves a hole, but I am comforted to know that his future is bright and that he will continue to contribute to our great country by working hard at his new endeavor and, most importantly, raising a wonderful family.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize six veterans from Alaska who are in Washington this week as part of the Alaska Mission 6 Honor Flight. These veterans are here to witness and experience our Nation's most hallowed memorials--built to honor their service and sacrifice and that of their brothers and sisters in arms. On behalf of Alaska's congressional delegation, our State, and our country, I welcome these heroes to Washington and extend to them my sincere gratitude for their service. Participating in the Alaska Mission 6 Honor Flight are John J. Boulette and William K. Zimmer, U.S. Navy veterans of the Korean war; Alexander Crockett Blanchard and Alfred Dawkins, U.S. Army veterans of the Vietnam war; Neal Henry Dallman, a U.S. Navy veteran of the Vietnam war; and Arnold Patrick McDonald, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran of the Vietnam war. Without the sacrifices of these six men and so many others, defending peace and liberty in some of the most dangerous corners of the world during harrowing and dark times, we would not be able to enjoy the prosperity and freedom that are hallmarks of our great Nation to this day. Since 2005, more than 170,000 veterans have participated in Honor Flights to Washington. Giving veterans the opportunity to make this trip is a small endeavor in comparison to the gravity of the challenges they faced, but it is an important gesture to let them know that their fellow Americans have not forgotten the hardships they endured on our behalf, nor the many men and women in uniform who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. Honor Flights are made possible principally thanks to the generous donations of patriotic Americans who want to give veterans the honor they deserve. On behalf of all Alaskans, I wish to extend my sincerest thanks to the Alaska Mission 6 veterans, for the selfless dedication they have shown to our country, the often unheralded sacrifices of their families, and the enduring example they have given to future generations. May God bless these veterans, the great State of Alaska, and the United States of America.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about something that is very important to many of us in North Carolina and to the people who come to the North Carolina coast to enjoy our beautiful beaches and a group of wild horses at Corolla. They are called the Corolla wild horses. They are a piece of American heritage. They have been there since ships have been wrecked in what we call the graveyard of the Atlantic. These horses of Spanish origin ended up finding their way to shore, and they set up a habitat on the East Coast that is actually an attraction to tourists and something that brings a smile to your face when you are out on the water and you see them coming to the shore. They have been there for almost 400 years, and they are roaming over about 7,500 acres of land right now. The problem we have, though, is that with development over time their habitat has shrunk. As a result of that, we only have about 80 horses out in Corolla now. To have a healthy population, we have to figure out a way to provide them with genetic diversity or they are going to become extinct in a very brief period of time. The entire herd is in grave danger as a result. The solution to the problem is to try to figure out a way to produce genetic diversity, which is why the senior Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr, has offered an amendment that I hope we can get support for. The horses roam mostly on private land, but there are some public lands they roam freely on that are managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife. The county and private philanthropic organizations are managing the horses. No taxpayer dollars are being used to manage these horse populations, but they do need some help and relief from the amendment Senator Burr has put forward. To give an idea of what we are dealing with, I want to tell a story of a typical example of what is happening in Corolla. This is a heartbreaking story. It was shared with me by Karen McCalpin, the executive director of the Corolla Wild Horse Fund, who manages the horses now with no taxpayer dollars: When Cordero was first seen, the tides were too high to bring a trailer up the beach so we had to wait until the next day at low tide to bring panels and a trailer. We looked for him every day for 4 days after that. We went through wooded areas and marsh with no success. We finally found his harem on July 20, 2013. It was a difficult capture and the poor thing was trying to run to keep up with his mother. We had to capture her as well. Due to his young age and poor condition, he needed his mother's milk as well as her company to help relieve some of the stress of captivity. Unfortunately, that became an exercise in futility. Cordero, because of his health problems, had to be euthanized. We want a solution to this problem. It is a great solution that only requires a minimum amount of influence from us to get this done-- largely done by private and local entities. What we need to do is put an amendment forward that requires the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the State of North Carolina, and Currituck County--the State of North Carolina and Currituck County want to do this--working with the Corolla Wild Horse Fund to establish a management plan that would allow for the transfer of horses from a related herd located at Shackleford Banks. This would allow the herd size to grow and will provide more genetic diversity to prevent situations that poor Cordero experienced. Our amendment asks for no money. The amendment is supported by the Humane Society, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Welfare Institute, the Corolla Wild Horse Fund, and other key animal welfare organizations. Contrary to what some people have said who may oppose this amendment, it doesn't change the mission of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services. It doesn't require any taxpayer dollars. All it simply does is allow local government to solve this problem. I hope that later today or tomorrow, when we can get on these amendments, we can convince our Members that this is a very important asset not only for North Carolina but for the Nation, and a simple gesture on our part can solve a very difficult problem on the part of the Corolla wild horses. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, April 18; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 636.