Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 311.

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 377, S. 1436

Mr. SULLIVAN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1670, which was received from the House.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Friday, April 15, count as the intervening day with respect to the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2028.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 427, S. Res. 428, S. Res. 429, and S. Res. 430.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

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 wish to spend a few minutes talking about our allies across the globe, and I am doing so because they are important to our national security. That seems to be an obvious statement, but our allies seem to be getting a bit of a bipartisan short shrift of late. I come to the floor of the Senate to talk about how important they are to our Nation, to our citizens. It is bipartisan, as I mentioned. As many of us have read, on the campaign trail Presidential candidate Donald Trump has been critical of NATO, has been critical of our Asia- Pacific allies. Meanwhile--and in many ways it hasn't gotten the news it deserves because it is a sitting President--in a recent article in The Atlantic by Jeffrey Goldberg entitled ``The Obama Doctrine,'' President Obama himself is dismissive of many U.S. allies around the world. I thought it was important to talk a little bit about our allies and how important they are to U.S. security and to expanding American influence globally. Let's start with Mr. Trump. He has called NATO--which, by the way, happens to be one of the most successful alliances in the history of the world--an alliance that is ``obsolete'' and ``too expensive.'' About the members of the 28-nation alliance, he said: ``Either they pay up, including for past deficiencies, or they have to get out. And if it breaks up NATO, it breaks up NATO.'' Oh, well. So much for the world's most successful alliance. However, contrary to public perception, the United States does not pay for a majority of NATO's spending. We pay about 22 percent of NATO's common-funded budgets and programs for all of NATO--about 22 percent. The Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, was here last week, and he informed me and many of my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee that most NATO countries have stopped their decline in defense spending and have recommitted to NATO's goal of 2 percent of their GDP toward defense spending. That is important--working on the finances, reversing this trend. But here is the key point: It is not just about finances. Over 1,000 non-U.S. NATO troops have been killed in action in Afghanistan coming to our defense after 9/11, going after the terrorists who killed over 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Over 1,000 of our NATO allies have paid the ultimate price. You can't put a price tag on that. Thousands more have been wounded. Some sacrifices can't be measured in just dollars. Based on his comments, Mr. Trump also does not seem to fully comprehend how the presence of American troops in the Asia-Pacific has been the linchpin of security and prosperity in the region for more than 70 years. Today our allies in the Asia-Pacific are substantially increasing their financial and military commitments in that region. Let me give a few examples. Under Prime Minister Abe's leadership, Japan has amended its Constitution to do much more militarily in terms of being able to work with us and even defend U.S. forces in the region. As we are looking to rebalance and reposition U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific over the next several years, the estimates from Pacific Command are that is going to cost about $37 billion, repositioning U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific. It is a very important part of our strategy. It is a strategy, by the way, that--the President talks about the rebalance, which I think is smart, in the Asia-Pacific. Of that $37 billion for our forces and the military construction that is going to take place with this rebalance, about $30 billion will be paid by Japan and Korea. That is certainly paying their way. Let me give a couple of examples. Camp Humphreys--that is an Army base in Korea--we are moving a lot of forces there, doing a lot of military construction there, and it is going to cost about $11 billion. Ninety-one percent of that is going to be paid by Korea--for U.S. military forces. In Guam--U.S. territory where we are repositioning marines and other critical military assets in the Asia-Pacific--Japan is paying $3 billion for that repositioning on U.S. territory. It is the first time ever. A foreign country is paying for military construction on our territory. The bottom line is that there is no doubt that our allies around the world, particularly in Europe, need to do more in terms of defense spending. Many people have spoken on this. Former Secretary Gates--very well respected--raises this in his recent bio. But it is simply erroneous to suggest that America would be better off without NATO or without our Asia-Pacific allies and alliances. Yes, they need to spend more, but there is a big difference saying we don't need our allies. Let me say that we should all understand that Mr. Trump, Donald Trump--he is a candidate. He is certainly not an expert on national security affairs. And his views certainly reflect the frustrations that many Americans and many Members of Congress have about allies who are not spending as much on defense. Of course we know this often happens during elections. We have seen that. It is an outgrowth of frustrations. But what is unprecedented is for a sitting President to be dismissive and even disdainful of our most important allies in a publication read by millions. To do so is not only unpresidential, it threatens to undermine ongoing U.S. national security interests. I want to talk a little bit about The Atlantic article that I mentioned earlier, written by Jeffrey Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg, who had enormous access to the President for I think well over a year--traveled with him all over on Air Force One, had numerous interviews--in his article, he takes us on a trip across the globe through the eyes of President Obama. I would encourage all of my colleagues in this body to read that article. As I mentioned, Mr. Goldberg has significant access to the President, but the tour across the world leaves us no doubt that the President not only views himself as the smartest man in the room, he is the smartest man in the world. In Mr. Goldberg's words, President Obama ``has found world leadership wanting: global partners who often lack the vision and the will to spend political capital in pursuit of broad, progressive goals, and adversaries who are not, in his mind, as rational as he is.'' The President assesses the very strengths and weaknesses of our allies. In his view, only German Chancellor Angela Merkel measures up. There is a whole list of leaders from countries that are allies of the United States and are mentioned in this article. The President calls the President of a critical NATO country a ``failure,'' and he is openly disapproving of the leadership role of Britain and France and openly complaining that neither did their part with regard to Libya, where the Obama administration famously, or infamously, announced it was leading from behind. The jabs and the stories in the Goldberg piece at other leaders, such as the leaders of Jordan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, are gratuitous. These might be appropriate for later in the President's memoirs, as he is writing his memoirs talking about world leaders and where they measure up and where they are weak, but not while he is still the President. He still has work to do for our country. The President even trains his fire on American leaders, members of the foreign policy establishment, and even GEN Lloyd Austin, the well- respected and recently retired commander of U.S. Central Command. There is a big section in there about how the President viewed Ronald Reagan's leadership and shortcomings in foreign affairs. Everybody seems to be lacking in the President's eyes. It is not just individuals, it is the way we, as a Nation, supposedly conduct our foreign policy. By the President's own account, he has been a bulwark against American hubris, self-righteousness--his words--in foreign affairs. Let me repeat that. His view is that he has been a bulwark against our hubris and our self-righteousness in foreign affairs. As the Presiding Officer knows, whether it is Alaska or West Virginia, most Americans understand another more historically accurate narrative of our role in foreign affairs throughout the world. It is not one of hubris, but one of sacrifice, commitment, and courage in defending freedom for hundreds of millions of people across the globe. That has been the role of the United States, and for decades, especially since World War II, there has been a bipartisan, long-term effort by truly some of the smartest people in American foreign policy who were ``present at the creation,'' and beyond--as Dean Acheson said in his autobiography--into deepening our relationship with other countries and, as part of doing that, establishing the forward presence of U.S. military power around the world. These were some of America's best minds--Marshall, Acheson, George Schultz. Why did they do this? Because forging these alliances ultimately not only advances the goal of freedom and a more peaceful and prosperous world, but it also helps ensure that American influence and power remain preeminent and, most importantly, that our citizens remain safe. In assessing our significant international challenges right now, one central truth stands out: Many of our enemies and potential adversaries and rivals are ally poor while the United States is ally rich. Think of countries like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and terrorist groups like ISIS. They have very few allies. Very few other countries are running to them right now. Then think about our allies throughout the world. It is time to recognize and double down on this uniquely American comparative advantage in foreign affairs. We are ally rich. Our rivals are ally poor. We need to take advantage of it. Yet the Obama administration seems to have ignored it. Indeed, Secretary of State John Kerry has spent more time wooing adversaries like Iran and Russia than doing the hard work of deepening the bonds of trust with our allies. Coupled with the President's remarks in the Atlantic, his missives directed at friends make it seem as if they are actually repelling allies, not working with them and building up trust. This, of course, is a mistake. Like many in this body, I have had the opportunity to serve my country in different capacities, trying to work to advance the national security of our Nation. I have had the opportunity to see the positive results of the carefully woven fabric of decades of bipartisan American diplomacy, military engagement, and leadership throughout the world. Without American leaders who understand history and the important role our allies play in America's security and prosperity, the fabric of our alliances put together over decades threatens to unravel. If that happens, the world is going to become a much more dangerous place. Our Founding Fathers provided the Senate with significant responsibility in terms of foreign affairs, and I am hopeful that every Member of this body will redouble their efforts to reach out and to work with our allies so we don't continue this trend where leaders currently in the White House, or perhaps potential occupants of the White House, view our allies as a burden when in reality they are a key component of our security and prosperity, and we need to continue to work with them. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill which is before the Senate and which we have been debating over the last week. Ensuring that our great Nation--States such as Colorado and Alaska that have important aviation industries--has a healthy and safe general aviation community and comprehensive aviation infrastructure is exactly the type of issue this Congress needs to be working on and the type that has been a top priority in previous Congresses. In my State, aviation has a very rich history and is an incredibly important driver of our economy but also an important element of connecting the entire State. Many aspects of our lives in Alaska rely on commercial and general aviation. Living in a State of such enormous scale with numerous remote communities gives Alaskans a very deep appreciation for air travel, which in many cases provides the only means for transportation for many residents. One of the things that is very much an honor being in the U.S. Senate is how different Senators come and describe life in their States so all Americans have a better understanding of how the entire country is knitted together, how we work together, but what unique challenges different States have. For more than 100 communities in Alaska--including regional centers such as Bethel, Nome, Barrow, and Kotzebue--aviation is the only means of getting in or out of those communities since there are no roads. Most States don't understand that. There are no roads, no ferry service, so aviation is critical. Alaska is unique in its dependence on aviation, and we have a very busy, what we call highway of the skies. There are more pilots per capita in my State than any other State in the country. So that means everything from mail, to groceries, to baby diapers has to be flown in by plane to many communities. If someone gets sick and needs to see a doctor, oftentimes that can only be done by air. There are over 400 general aviation airports across Alaska, 250 of which are owned and operated by the State of Alaska, and that doesn't include hundreds of heliports that support mining, timber, the oil and gas industry, and others. General aviation and aviation infrastructure are critical components of our economy and our quality of life in our State, in Alaska. It is fundamental in terms of connecting people and communities and promoting and sustaining economic development. Indeed, estimates show that the general aviation community contributes over $1 billion a year in economic activity to the State of Alaska's economy and supports over 47,000 jobs; that is 1 in 10 jobs in the entire State. This is a very important bill. It is an important bill for the State of Alaska, but it is also an important bill for the United States of America. The FAA reauthorization bill will expire in July, and it is important to avoid the uncertainty of more short-term extensions by passing the authorization bill we have had on the floor of the Senate over the last week. I thank Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson for all the work they have been doing night and day, really for months on this important bipartisan bill. So far the process has been a model of how the Senate should work. Our friends in the media love to write the stories about nothing working in the U.S. Senate. I don't think so. There are a lot of important bills moving--the highway bill, the Education bill, human trafficking. Now we are looking at a bipartisan way to address a very important bill for the country; that is aviation, that is aviation infrastructure, and that is aviation security. Let me talk about some of the substance more broadly for the country and why this bill is so important. One aspect of the bill is the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2. Building off the success of the initial Pilot's Bill of Rights, this provision continues to make essential reforms for pilots--mostly general aviation pilots who are so important to my State--streamlining an overly burdensome medical certification process, increasing transparency and access to additional information for pilots in all the different aspects of their requirements as to being pilots in the general aviation community. There are provisions that also balance and make essential inroads toward rebalancing the relationship between the FAA and general aviation pilots. One thing this Senate bill does not do--there has been a discussion over in the House--is it does not transfer the air traffic control services that are so important to many of our States--particularly rural States--to a private corporation. This bill also, very importantly, strengthens safety for pilots and passengers across the country. You can't pick up the news and not see how important this issue is. From the terror attacks in Brussels, at the airport there, to the Russian flight out of Egypt that went down because of a suspected ISIS attack, to instances of criminal behavior even among U.S. airport employees, events around the world have underscored how important the need for stronger security measures for our Nation's air travel is. What is really important is this is the Senate taking proactive action. This is not a bill on aviation security where we are reacting to some horrible tragedy, God forbid, in terms of aviation security, whether an accident or a terrorist attack at one of our airports. What we have been doing is looking at the challenges in these areas and taking proactive measures so we don't have to react when there is a terrorist attack or an accident. So these are comprehensive airline security reforms that are some of the most important that have occurred and that we have debated in this body for over a decade. Let me list just a few of them. The bill includes several measures for the security of passengers by improving airport employee vetting to ensure that potentially dangerous individuals don't have access to secure areas in our airports, expanding the enrollment in the TSA PreCheck Program so passengers move through security lines into more secure areas more quickly--we saw how important that was in Brussels--and enhancing security for international flights bound for the United States. Overall, this legislation addresses a growing concern in terms of security, including the cyber security threats facing aviation and air navigation systems for our commercial airlines. The bipartisan FAA Reauthorization Act does more for passengers and more for security than any bill, at least in the last decade. It is an important bill, it is a good bill for America, and it is a good bill for Alaska. It will advance measures to keep us safer. That is why I am supporting this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, today is St. Patrick's Day. It is a great day for those of us in this country whose ancestors came here to find a better life. And today, like many of us here, I got up and put on a green tie, but I switched it out for this one, a red one, to highlight support for those who suffer from serious conditions that many Americans don't speak much about or know much about. This March is the first Bleeding Disorders Awareness Month. It also marks the 30th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's one-time declaration of March as Hemophilia Awareness Month. Tens of thousands of Americans have been diagnosed with bleeding disorders, including more than 100 Alaskan families. These families are spread all across my State, in Anchorage and Fairbanks, but also in rural communities like Chevak, Elim, Tuntutuliak, Kodiak, and Klawock. These Alaskans face serious health challenges with strength and grace and form a vibrant tight-knit community, and I want to thank those communities for supporting their fellow Alaskans. Hemophilia is the most expensive chronic condition to treat. There are Alaskan children whose daily dose of medication exceeds $1,800 per day. The good news is there is treatment that continues to improve. I want to highlight the work done by the Alaska Hemophilia Association, a chapter of the National Hemophilia Foundation, which provides services and support for the Alaskan bleeding disorder community. They work to provide access to care and insurance and support our youth by hosting an annual summer camp for Alaskan children with bleeding disorders and their siblings. Camp Frozen Chosen allows these youth to interact with others with similar bleeding disorders. They are also able to learn to manage and take ownership of their condition and their lives, enabling them to be leaders of their generation. The Alaska Hemophilia Association and the Alaska bleeding disorder community are the epitome of Alaskan grit and determination and are part of what makes Alaska such a wonderful place. I would ask that we think of those this month who are suffering from these disorders and that we continue to work together to find solutions and to offer support.

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 know today we have been focusing on a really important bill, the CARA bill, which has been led by Senator Portman, Senator Ayotte, and many others. It is a very important bill for our country, for States like Alaska that are seeing this explosion of opioid use, heroin use, and drug addiction that is impacting so many families. I had the opportunity to talk about this, when I was home in Alaska last week down in Juneau, in front of our State legislature. This legislation is showing bipartisan work, which is very important to the country and very important to States like Alaska. I am certainly proud to be a cosponsor of that bill. We are going to continue to try to get that over the goal line. I think it is important to focus on issues not only domestically, of course, but issues beyond our borders as well. What I want to talk about in terms of these kinds of issues this afternoon is the issue of American leadership in the world today. A lot of us in the Senate have experience in foreign policy and national security issues. There have been Members who have served in the State Department, decades in the military--the Presiding Officer has a lot of experience in international business--and so we have a fair amount of experience here. Certainly, it is part of our responsibilities under the Constitution, as Senators, to be very focused on these issues--these important issues of national security, of foreign policy. Attending hearings, codels, and meetings with foreign leaders are all part of our responsibilities. One thing is very clear. Foreign policy and national security issues are almost always messy, complicated, never really have easy solutions, and are often very opaque in terms of what is happening in the world and how it impacts the United States. We recognize that. That is usually the case. But sometimes in the world of foreign policy, sometimes in the world of national security, there are moments of clarity when big issues come into focus. It doesn't happen often. It is rare. But when it happens, you know it. When it happens, you sense it. I was recently part of a bipartisan congressional delegation led by one of the foremost experts on foreign policy and national security in the Senate, Senator John McCain. We all went to the Munich Security Conference in Munich, Germany. For over 50 years, this has been where leaders have come together--Americans, certainly, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers, Defense Ministers, international affairs experts--to discuss national security and foreign policy issues, usually as it relates to the Atlantic partnership--NATO, the EU. My experience there led to one of these clarifying moments, and I think I am speaking for many of the people who were at Munich about 3 weeks ago. Here is the clarifying moment: The United States is withdrawing from its traditional leadership role in the world. Our allies know it, they feel it, and they are desperately worried about it. In meeting after meeting, in speech after speech, if you were in Munich a month ago, listening, paying attention, discussing the state of the world's security with our allies, you heard it. You heard it. Sometimes it was subtle, sometimes it was direct, and, occasionally, it was even pleading--pleading from our allies, pleading for American leadership in the world again. We saw that. One of the meetings we had was with an important leader of an important country in Europe. The Presiding Officer and I were there. At the end of the meeting, this leader was asked: What can the United States do to help your country in terms of security--aid, military cooperation? What can we do? This leader looked at a group of several Senators, bipartisan, and said: The United States has to lead in the world again. You are not leading, and the world is becoming a much more dangerous place because of the lack of American leadership. Whoever the next leader of your great country is, please tell that person that the United States has to lead again. Think about that. That was the message. That was the message from Munich. Our friends are worried. They have certainly lost confidence in us, and our adversaries are taking advantage of the vacuum that we have left all around the world. That was the message of Munich, and anyone who went there heard it. Now, I know some of my colleagues might be thinking: Well, this is a Republican Senator on the floor of the Senate, criticizing the Obama administration. That is probably a partisan criticism. But there were many people at Munich. There were Republicans and Democrats at Munich. Just a perusal of newspaper articles from those who went--and some who weren't there--shows that all are writing about the same issue--that one of the principal foreign policy issues facing the world, facing the United States right now, is what the lack of U.S. leadership globally is doing to the national security of our country and to that of our allies. Let me just provide a few examples. Senator Joe Lieberman, who graced this body with his knowledge and expertise and wisdom for many, many years--a Democrat--was in Munich. Not too long after coming back, he wrote in the Washington Post: The world has never seemed as dangerous and leaderless as it does now. Only the extremists and bullies act badly, and therefore have seized the initiative. It's a moment in history that invokes the haunting words of W.B. Yeats: ``The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.'' That was Senator Lieberman, who was with us in Munich just a couple of weeks ago. Former Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, who has worked for Democrats and Republicans, was also there. I served under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with Under Secretary Burns--a great career foreign service officer. He also stated: ``We are being humiliated. We've lost our strategic foothold''--he is talking about the Middle East--``and we've abdicated our leadership.'' That is not a Republican partisan saying that. GEN John Abizaid--in my view one of the premier military leaders our country has seen in a generation, whom I had the honor of serving with as a marine major--recently stated: ``Without American leadership, we're not going to move in a direction that's going to produce effective results.'' There was another recent article in the Washington Post by another observer, an expert on foreign policy issues, Fred Hiatt, who wrote about what he saw at Munich. What he stated was that the endless negotiation by our Secretary of State ``that perpetually, and falsely, holds out the prospect of imminent progress'' on so many different issues ends up ``providing cover'' and ``is an excuse for inaction,'' an ``anesthetic,'' he said, where the Congress and the American people don't even have to feel about focusing on these issues, what is going on in the Middle East or the South China Sea or North Korea or the Korean Peninsula because we have endless diplomacy that covers it. Finally, another participant in Munich, former Senator Bill Cohen, who worked as the Secretary of Defense for President Clinton, stated: ``We no longer seem to know what our role should be in the new century.'' He was interviewed on the radio a couple of weeks ago right after Munich: Are we going to lead from behind? The truth is that President Putin has been bombing and the United States has been dithering. That is former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, former U.S. Senator Bill Cohen. It is very clear, whether you are Democratic or Republican, that anyone who spent time at the Munich security conference a few weeks ago came away with a similar conclusion: Our allies are extremely worried about what is clearly happening--the withdrawal of U.S. leadership from the world. They are seeing it, and we are seeing it in almost every region of the world. It is leaving a vacuum. Other countries that don't share our interests and don't share our values are filling that vacuum. We know the list. We have been debating it on this floor. Russia, certainly. Whether it is in the Middle East, Syria, Ukraine, the Arctic, Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism--our diplomats and Secretary of State seem to spend more time with their diplomats and their Foreign Minister than almost any other country in the world--China and the South China Sea. In the face of these challenges, we are also starting to see something that is truly alarming. The postwar structure, the national security structure of the world that the United States was instrumental in building, is beginning to crumble in different parts of the world. So what should we do? What can we do? I think there is a lot we can do. We can certainly bolster the American-led order that was established after World War II. It certainly does not have to crumble. This is what our colleague Senator McCain laid out in his outstanding speech in Munich. He talked about how this is one of our most important inheritances, this world order, this American-led order, and how we need to focus on it--not with speeches but with action. What else can we do? We can look at the changing landscape of the world and see if we need to devise new political structures that address new challenges in places such as the Middle East, where borders seem to be being erased on a daily basis by terrorist groups like ISIS. This is something General Abizaid has written about recently. Both of these alternatives require American leadership. They are not going to happen without the United States in the lead. If you went to Munich, you realize their allies want us to lead. What can we do in the Senate? Well, we can certainly press for a more assertive and leading role for the United States of America from this body. The Constitution gives the U.S. Senate significant power in national security matters and foreign affairs, and we should be using that. We are using that. Under the new leadership of the Senate, we have been moving forward in many areas of foreign policy and national security. There are the North Korea sanctions that were passed by this body 2 weeks ago, and now the world is following our lead on that. Senators Gardner and Corker did an outstanding job in that regard. There is the bipartisan approach to Ukraine that we see on the Armed Services Committee. Every Member of that body, Democratic and Republican, thinks we should be doing more to help the Ukrainians defend themselves against Russian aggression. Afghanistan, the same thing--bolstering the need for troops there to guard America's security. The President has seemingly wanted to take all our troops out of there, as he wanted to do in Iraq, but again a bipartisan group of Senators have been questioning that strategy on a daily basis. In the South China Sea, we have been encouraging the administration to do what we have been doing for 70 years--conducting freedom of navigation operations to keep the sea- lanes of the world open. These are all things the Senate has been doing--in essence, trying to give this administration backbone, to assert the leadership we know is so important to our security and the security of the world. But there is another thing, another option that might be out there. We can ignore the problem of what is happening in the world. I hate to say this, but if you saw Secretary of State Kerry's speech in Munich, certainly compared to Senator McCain's keynote address, what the Secretary of State seemed to be doing was that fourth option. He seemed to be saying: Hey, things aren't going that badly. Things in Syria aren't that bad. He cautioned against pessimism and said that we have good reasons to be optimistic about what is happening. He talked about how fewer people are dying in conflict today than ever before. You literally heard a gasp in the audience in Munich when that was stated. That is not true. What this does when you have the Secretary of State making these kinds of statements at important security conferences with all our allies, it further undermines the credibility of the United States in terms of foreign policy and national security. We need to lead again. Our allies want us to. Most importantly, I believe the American people want us to. Why? Why shouldn't we just withdraw from the world and let everything catch on fire? Bring the troops home and have the two oceans protect us--the Atlantic and Pacific. We need to lead, and I believe the American people want the United States to lead because they know that when the United States leads in the world, it is a safer place abroad and it is a safer place at home. They know what Senator Lieberman said recently in his op-ed after Munich: ``The absence of American leadership has certainly not caused all the instability, but it has encouraged and exacerbated it.'' The American people also know that when there is a lack of U.S. leadership in the world, it not only turns to undermining our national security interests, but it turns to humiliation for our own citizens. Just think of the photos that we saw recently of U.S. sailors on their knees at Iranian gunpoint with their hands raised in surrender and what that does in terms of how Americans are thinking about our role in the world, the security of the world, and what is happening with regard to U.S. leadership. We have to change these policies of leading from behind. I will conclude by mentioning in terms of this lack of U.S. leadership what I fear the most. I started by saying that we were at a conference where our allies directly, indirectly were asking for American leadership once again. But what I fear the most is the day that a group of bipartisan Senators goes to another conference like Munich or the Shangri-la Dialogue and we don't hear from our allies, we don't hear them asking for us to lead once again, because such silence will truly be dangerous indeed because that is when we will know that our traditional allies have given up on the United States; that is when we will know that our traditional allies have lost faith in America and have begun the process of making accommodations with our adversaries. We in the Senate must do all in our power to make sure that situation where we lose our allies, where they don't ask for our leadership, does not happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the immense contributions of the African-American community to my State of Alaska and to our great Nation. I want to highlight in particular a contingent of troops, members of the African-American Army Engineers, who were stationed in Alaska during World War II, hundreds of men who served our Nation at a time when their basic human rights were being denied, some 6 years before the military was desegregated. In spite of that despicable injustice, they exhibited a great love for this country, even a willingness to die for this country. These soldiers were stationed in Alaska among several regiments assigned to build the ALCAN--Alaska-Canada--Highway. For a State as big and diverse as Alaska, infrastructure is critically important to the well-being of our communities. And in the 1940s, infrastructure assets--roads, bridges, ports--were few and far between. In fact, there was no road linking the contiguous United States to Alaska through Canada. We were isolated. We think of construction projects today, the many tools and machines our hard-working crews have at their disposal. But back then, many of those technologies and advancements didn't exist, making this enormous undertaking all the more daunting. Worse still, the machinery that was available was often given to the all-White units, leaving the African- American servicemembers ill-equipped. Nonetheless, the men of the African-American Army Engineers labored on under extreme weather conditions, creating a roughly 1,700 mile cross-continental corridor in a mere 8 months. The project, too, came at a time when our Nation was under imminent threat in the Pacific, just 2 months after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Our country needed to get supplies and soldiers to the furthest stretches of U.S. territory. Without the ALCAN, Alaska would not be the cornerstone of our national defense in the Pacific and the Arctic, nor the prosperous land of opportunity we see today. For these enormous contributions and for their selfless service to our country, we thank the thousands of African-American servicemembers who for too long were dismissed and overlooked.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, as the final piece of the robust trade package that we completed last year, the Customs report that accompanies the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act allows authorities to aggressively enforce U.S. trade laws and provides enhanced authorities to protect obligations gained under international trade agreements and rights under U.S. intellectual property laws. In my home State of Alaska, trade currently supports more than 90,000 jobs, which is more than one in five of all jobs in the State. Per capita, Alaska is one of the top exporters in the country. We are the top exporter of fish and seafood products in the Nation. I worked hard to secure a provision in the Customs package that, for the first time, establishes a principal negotiating objective on fisheries that reduces or eliminates tariffs and nontariff barriers, eliminates subsidies that distort trade, and opens new markets for American fish, seafood, and shellfish products around the globe. With the global marketplace becoming more competitive and increasingly challenging, it is vital that the United States focus its efforts on maximizing our ability to export our goods and services abroad in order to create more opportunity and good-paying jobs for all Americans.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, today the Senate will vote on the North Korean Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act, a bill I am proud to cosponsor with my colleague from Colorado, Senator Cory Gardner. This legislation mandates new sanctions on North Korea's ballistic missile and nuclear program, targets cyber criminals and officials involved in censorship, and addresses the regime's long history of human rights abuses. The recent rocket launch and the fourth nuclear test by North Korea last month is a stark reminder that it is a rogue state, under unstable leadership that will stop at nothing until it fully realizes its nuclear ambitions. The current policy of ``strategic patience'' has yielded nothing more than a flagrant testing of American resolve around the globe and a weakening of our Nation's credibility. North Korea's recent provocations have acknowledged that reality. Congress must act and do so loudly. Now, more than ever, we need to send a message to North Korea that reassures our allies, forewarns our adversaries, and puts the world on notice. This legislation accomplishes that.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. I appreciate my colleague's efforts as well. We will continue to be focused on this. I will end by mentioning--my colleague mentioned the Sesame Street adage ``One of these things is not like the other.'' But one other area where this is the case, as I mentioned before, is in the en banc procedures. That is when the courts of appeal--every one of them in the country with the exception of one--when they have difficult issues, they sit together. All the active judges sit together. This provides uniformity and predictability in these courts. But one of these courts is not like the others. The Ninth Circuit cannot do this. It is too big. So they have developed what is called a limited en banc review, which by definition is incorrect and an oxymoron because ``en banc'' means the whole court. So that is why you have so many opinions in this court that are not uniform, that are problematic, and that undermine the administration of justice for the one in five Americans who is subject to this court's jurisdiction. I look forward to working on this with my good friend the Senator from Montana and Members on both sides of the aisle. This should be a bipartisan issue for every Member of this body who wants to make sure their citizens have equal justice under the law. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a very important issue for our Nation's judicial system and two bills that I and my colleague from Montana have introduced. The bills' primary focus is what all of us in the Senate want, and that is equal justice under the law. One of the bills would split the dysfunctional and unwieldy U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The other bill would form a commission to evaluate the court and make recommendations based on its findings. Like a lot of us here, when I am in Washington I like to get out and try to get a run in in the morning and look at the beautiful monuments, memorials. Oftentimes I run past the U.S. Supreme Court, and I often look at the inscription etched on the beautiful Court there that says simply ``Equal justice under law.'' I think of Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell's famous quote restated: Equal justice under the law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building, it is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society. It is one of the ends for which our entire legal system exists. . . . I also think of the thousands of lawyers and judges and clerks, past and present, who have lived their lives attempting to fulfill its important ideal and how our democratic system of government is dependent on striving for this ideal. We should do everything in this body to make sure that simple concept--equal justice under the law--is a reality for all Americans. All Americans should feel assured that when we seek justice, the burdens we encounter, the time we encounter to achieve justice won't be smaller or greater depending on the part of the country in which we live. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Unfortunately, if you are a citizen of the United States and you live in one of the States over which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over your legal issues in the administration of justice, one in five Americans do not get equal justice under the law. What our bills are focused on doing is righting that wrong because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is simply too large, its scope is too wide, and it has long passed its ability to provide equal justice and to contribute as a functional court system in the U.S. court of appeals Federal court system in our country. This is no surprise. We have known this for decades. Dividing the Ninth Circuit is not a new idea. In fact, not doing it is radical. If you look at the history of the United States, when Federal courts of appeals have grown in terms of population, what has happened every time for decades, for well over 100 years, is that when the court grows too big and the administration of justice grinds to a halt, the court is split so that you have that justice. That is the usual course of American history. What is not usual is the refusal to do this. To give a few examples, in 1973 a congressionally chartered Commission recommended to this body that for the administration of justice for American citizens, the Ninth Circuit should be split. It actually recommended that the Fifth and Ninth Circuit should be split. The Fifth Circuit was eventually split, but according to the Commission, the Ninth Circuit, which it said had serious difficulties with backlog, delay, and justice for Americans, was not split, and it has only gotten worse. To give a few facts, there are 65 million people living within the boundaries of the Ninth Circuit. That represents 20 percent of the total population of the United States--one in five Americans. That is almost two times as many people as there are in the next biggest circuit in the U.S. court of appeals system, and it is almost three times the average population of all the other circuits combined. It is not only just the size of the court. The caseload is what is inhibiting justice for Americans in the Ninth Circuit. At the end of a 12-month period last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had almost 14,000 pending appeals; the next largest court of appeals had about 4,700. Justice delayed is justice denied. In previous hearings in the Senate, we found that it takes, on average, for the Ninth Circuit, almost 40 percent longer to dispose of an appeal than in any other circuit in the country. This is simply a function of a court that is too big and too unwieldy. Because of the size and inefficiency of the court, the court has started to come up with creative shortcuts--questionable procedural shortcuts which I believe are shortchanging justice for tens of thousands of Americans every year in this court of appeals. Let me give you a few examples. Every court in the U.S. Federal system, in order to have uniformity of law, when they have difficult issues, they meet as a court in what they call an en banc meeting. This provides uniformity in all the courts. There is only one court that doesn't do that. Because it has 29 judges--much more than any other court--the Ninth Circuit does not meet as a whole court; therefore, limiting its ability to address intracircuit conflicts, with no uniformity in the law in the Ninth Circuit, and it is seen again and again and again. Further, and perhaps most alarming--again because of its size--the Ninth Circuit is the only court of Federal appeals where a nonelected, nonappointed, nonarticle II judge called an appellate commissioner rules on matters by the thousands that should be handled by article III life-tenured judges--not an appellate commissioner who is none of those things. In a 2005 congressional hearing, one of the Ninth Circuit judges testified ``that the appellate commissioner resolved 4,600 motions that would otherwise have been heard by judges.'' This is fast-food justice for one in five Americans who are part of the Ninth Circuit. This Senator plans to come down to the floor over the next several weeks and speak to my experience on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I had the opportunity--the honor--to be a judicial law clerk for one of the most esteemed judges, Judge Kleinfeld of Fairbanks, AK, many years ago, but I did see firsthand how the unwieldy size of this court of appeals limits justice, not just for Alaskans but for any citizen who is under the jurisdiction of this court. Chief Justice Warren Burger warned in 1970 that ``a sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people.'' He cautioned that inefficiency and delay in our courts of appeals could destroy that confidence. Unfortunately, as it is currently constituted, the Ninth Circuit is inefficient, it delays, and therefore denies justice for millions of Americans, and we cannot allow the confidence in our system of justice to be undermined by continuing a court of appeals that is so large and so unwieldy. That is why the Senator from Montana and I intend with our bills to bring equal justice for all Americans. I turn to my colleague from Montana for his views on this very important issue.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I thank my colleague from Montana and for his point in particular. The charts make a very compelling case, but I think his point in particular about constraints--when things get too large, they become an organization that cannot function. I think when you look at the debate that has occurred previously about the Ninth Circuit, somehow we have gotten to the point where it is some kind of radical idea to split the Ninth Circuit. But if you look at the history of our country, the radical idea is actually not splitting the Ninth Circuit. The outlier position is not to take a court either that has this many cases pending or that controls this much of the population and not do something about it. The history of this body, starting with the Judiciary Act of 1789 that created three circuit courts: Eastern, Middle, and Southern--only a few years later, Congress acted again--in 1802, a mere 13 years later--and Congress doubled the number of circuit courts to six. What we have seen throughout our history is when this kind of situation exists where one court has an enormously oversized population, Congress--as my colleague from Montana mentioned--acts in a bipartisan manner, and they act for the sole reason to make sure all Americans are getting effective administration of justice. When your citizens wait longer than any other Americans and have delays more than any other Americans and when your court that you are subject to the jurisdiction of starts to create procedural shortcuts, not a lot of which are known--and we are going to talk about some of those over the next several weeks--and no other court does that, you start to see that one in five Americans is burdened by this and burdened by the lack of what the Supreme Court says: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' I again thank my colleague from Montana. I know he has some views on what would happen again if this doesn't happen in his State or in my State. But this isn't just about the West; this is about all Americans. We all deserve the same justice. Just by looking at these two posters, cases pending, as I talked about earlier, and the time it takes to get appeals completed and the enormous population of just one circuit, what is clear to me is that the Congress needs to act. I am honored to be working with my good friend from Montana where we are offering Congress a variety of different ways to approach this--a commission, a bill to split the circuit. But I want to emphasize that this is not a radical idea; the radical idea that is out of step with American history is to not do something about this. Every time in America's history since the Judiciary Act of 1789 when this type of situation has occurred, Congress has acted, and they acted because they knew equal justice under the law was at stake.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the junior Senator from Montana for 20 minutes.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.