Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2015, at 10:15 a.m., in the President's Room of the Capitol.

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 21, 2015, at 9:15 a.m.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I rise today to speak about the importance of additional congressional consideration during the congressional review period of a final negotiated nuclear agreement. The involvement of other committees in examining the issues in their jurisdiction will be important. I think my distinguished colleague would agree with me that extended committee consideration means more American voices in the process, and an agreement of this significance--and the resulting implications of possible violations--call for supplemental review. Senator Corker has reaffirmed the benefits of this process and so I thank him for his support. I appreciate the leadership of my colleague and look forward to working with him to further advance constructive, deliberative consideration of an agreement that has multilateral effects on the security of our nation and its people.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment that I plan to submit. It is amendment No. 1173. It is my intention to work with the managers of the Iran bill to get this amendment filed and voted on soon. What I wanted to do is to talk about this amendment for a little bit. I want to begin by complimenting Senator Corker, Senator Cardin, and others who have worked hard on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. It is a good start to a critically important issue for all of us and for the American people. The amendment that I am proposing and that I am offering today will make that bill stronger, will give leverage to our negotiators, and will make our country more secure. That is our No. 1 priority. That is what this amendment will help us do. The simple question this amendment proposes is this. Should the United States--our government, we, this body--allow sanctions to be lifted on a country that our own State Department has designated a state sponsor of terrorism? It is a simple, straightforward question. In my view, the answer is also simple. The answer is no. Sanctions should not be lifted on a state sponsor of terrorism, especially one with a track record like Iran. My amendment requires the President of the United States to declare that Iran is no longer a sponsor of state terrorism before lifting sanctions and allowing billions of dollars to flood into that country's economy. It is that simple. We should not allow, facilitate or encourage billions of dollars to go to a country that sponsors terrorism, because I fear that we have been inured to the issue of state sponsor of terrorism. I would like to focus on what that means a little bit. Let's first start with the states that are on the list: Yemen, Syria, Sudan, Iran. These countries are all on the list because governments in each state facilitate international terrorism. We are not talking about rogue elements within a country that are killing people within their own borders. We are talking about governments themselves, the bodies in charge of a country, the bodies making and enforcing a country's laws, supporting acts of international terrorism, including against our own citizens. Why is Iran on the list? Since its founding in 1979, the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the government have been sponsoring terrorism. In fact, our State Department has called Iran the world's most active sponsor of terrorism. Since 1979, Iran has been responsible for taking American hostages, for bombing our and our allies' embassies, and for horrible acts of murder across the globe. Here is the key point. It has not stopped. According to the State Department, Iran continues to support terrorism--Palestinian terrorist groups--and is actively fostering instability throughout the Middle East right now, today. Last month, March 2015, a U.S. Federal judge found Iran complicit in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, the deadliest attack on a U.S. Navy vessel since 1987. Let's talk about Iran's involvement in Iraq. I am a Marine Corps Reserve officer. In 2005, I was recalled to Active Duty for a year and a half, serving as a staff officer to the commanding general of the U.S. Central Command, John Abizaid. During that time, I deployed to many parts of the CENTCOM area of responsibility. One of the biggest concerns--perhaps the biggest concern--that we saw in Iraq during that time was the increasing threat to our troops of improvised explosive devices, especially what was referred to as explosively formed projectiles, EFPs, the most deadly and sophisticated IEDs on the battlefield. Almost every time I was in Iraq with General Abizaid, he and his staff were briefed on the details of this threat, showing captured weapons systems, the twisted, charred remains of military vehicles that had been hit by EFPs. Those EFPs killed more American troops per attack than any other roadside bombs. They blasted through tanks, humvees or anything they hit. They were deadly. They killed and maimed thousands of our troops. I still remember the courage and trepidation I saw in the eyes of our brave military members who had to face this threat on a daily basis, even some members of this body. To this day, I deeply distrust the leadership of the regime that was responsible for these EFPs. Make no mistake, that country was Iran. That much was confirmed by our intelligence agencies and the State Department. But Iran has never taken responsibility for these deaths, and it has not said that it will stop this kind of terrorism. Let me provide an example. In 2007, CENTCOM and intelligence officials provided very detailed briefings on the fact that these EFPs were coming from Iran. At the same time, Iran's U.N. Ambassador wrote an op-ed in the New York Times and said that such charges and evidence were being fabricated by the United States. That was the U.N. Ambassador from Iran, Ambassador Zarif. In that op-ed he was telling a lie to the American people. Why is that important? He is now the Foreign Minister of Iran. He is now in charge of negotiating this nuclear deal. He is certainly not a trustworthy man. If sanctions are lifted, billions of dollars are going to flow from companies and banks from around the world to the economy and government of Iran. They are going to invest in businesses. They are going to invest in the oil and gas sector. They are going to invest in banks. What will the Iranian leadership likely do with that money? Do we trust them to invest in schools and infrastructure and health clinics so they can provide their citizens better lives? Let's use history as our guide. Everything about that country's leadership and everything about that country's history tells us that that money--billions--is likely to be used to pump up their terror machine around the world and target American citizens. I know what we have heard from the administration: Do not worry. If there is a violation of this agreement, these sanctions will snap back into place. They will snap back--no problem, piece of cake. After serving on Active Duty for that time I mentioned, I served as a U.S. Assistant Secretary of State. I helped lead the effort in the Bush Administration to isolate economically Iran, to go to our allies and say you have to divest out of the Iranian oil and gas sector, the Iranian financial sector. There was no snap here. This was a slog. It took years to get companies to divest. Yet now this administration is talking that we will snap back. No problem, we will divest in a couple of days. It is a fantasy. The Administration knows it. They should stop using the term ``snapback'' because it is not accurate. It is not accurate. What is the alternative? The alternative is simple. Before lifting sanctions on Iran, Iran needs to take the steps to get off the list of countries that sponsor terrorism around the world. These are not insurmountable steps. These would include having a clear record for 6 months. That is it, 6 months--not decades, not years--6 months of not sponsoring state terrorism. It would also require Iran to renounce terrorism. Simple, don't engage in terrorism. Do not try to kill our citizens or the citizens of our allies. Do not send your forces around the world to blow things up or take hostages. Then we will consider lifting the sanctions. You do not have to be our ally. You do not have to like us. We do not have to like you. You do not have to change even the structure of your government. You just should not target our citizens for murder the way you are doing now as one of the biggest--the biggest--state sponsors of terrorism in the world. It has been said that such a requirement and an amendment such as this would be a poison pill, meaning that if this amendment is added to the Corker-Menendez bill, it will somehow signify the death of the bill. I have thought long and hard about that. Do I want to be a Member of this body who introduces a poison pill? Am I being unreasonable with this amendment? What I came to is this. It is our job--the most important job we have in this body--to do everything we can to keep our citizens safe and to enact good policy. Sometimes that means taking difficult positions, and sometimes it means taking very reasonable positions, even though the political process might make it seem as if this were a complicated and difficult issue. This is not complicated. This is not difficult. This amendment is a simple amendment. It is not difficult. I wish to conclude with the question I began with. Is it good policy for the United States of America to allow or even encourage countries and corporations to do business with a state sponsor of terrorism, particularly one that has a history of targeting and killing our citizens? Is that good policy? I believe the vast majority of the American people--Democrat, Republican, any State in the Union--would say no, that is not good policy. I believe that if the question were posed directly to the American people, they would not consider this some kind of poison pill. They might even consider this some kind of vitamin pill, one that will make us stronger. It is a supplement to strengthen our negotiators' position. Right now there is confusion. It is in the press. The Iranians are saying we have a deal that lifts sanctions immediately. The President has said no, that is not necessarily clear. We have to be creative on how this is going to happen. This amendment will give the President and Secretary Kerry the leverage to solve this critical issue, one that the President and the Secretary of State should use and welcome to strengthen our position in the negotiations and not view it as some kind of poison pill. Again, it is a simple amendment. Before sanctions are lifted, the President and the State Department need to make sure Iran is off the list of states that sponsor terrorism. Iran could take the simple steps to make that possible and the world would be a much safer place. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 279, the Mann Act cooperation amendment. This is a simple amendment with strong bipartisan support. I appreciate the cosponsors, Senators Murkowski, Ayotte, Heitkamp, and Gillibrand. What this amendment will do, it will increase prosecutions of human trafficking without an increase in cost. It allows and encourages Federal prosecutors to work with State officials to prosecute Mann Act violations and increases transparency. The key goal of this amendment is to enable the resources and cooperation between State and Federal prosecutors to ensure all cases of human trafficking are pursued and victims have justice. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

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 wish to say a few words on the nuclear agreement that is being negotiated with Iran. I will start by commending the members of the Foreign Relations Committee, particularly Senator Corker, the chairman of that committee. They moved the Corker- Menendez bill through the committee a few days ago with a unanimous vote. It was very important work. It is a good start to a critically important topic for the American people. I know it was a struggle. We read about what happened in the press. But it is important to recognize that it was a struggle that should not have been. The Obama administration put tremendous pressure on Members of this body--Democratic Members of this body--not to allow the U.S. Senate to have any say on this issue, one of the most important foreign policy issues facing the country right now. They did not want the American people to have a voice. In fact, last month when the bill was released, the President vowed to veto it. He backed off only when it was clear that members of the committee, Republicans and Democrats, stood firm against the President and with the American people. Then the President knew he would fail and his veto threat would likely be overridden. So the President, under pressure, dispatched Secretary of State John Kerry, a former Member of this body, to give me and my colleagues here in the Senate a closed-door preview of these negotiations in this framework agreement. I sat through the meeting and had some discussions with the Secretary. It was useful, but think about it--it was a closed- door briefing. Why not involve the American people? This is not an issue which is about the Senate or the Congress per se, as we often read in the paper. This is an issue about the American people, who have a voice through us, their representatives in Congress, and should have a say on one of the most critical foreign policy issues facing the United States right now. And, remember, we know this. We were sent here. The people are wise. The citizens of this country are wise. They understand national security. Many of them are in the military. Many of them have sons and daughters in the military. Many of them are veterans. They know what sacrifice is. They know what national security is. They sent us here so their voices could be heard, particularly on issues of national security and on issues of the security of the country they love. Make no mistake, Americans are overwhelmingly interested in making sure that they, through their representatives in Congress, have a say in this important deal. A recent USA TODAY-Suffolk University poll showed that a whopping 72 percent of Americans think Congress should have a role in approving the nuclear negotiations with Iran. What is very interesting about this is that once upon a time, even President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and former Senator Clinton all believed this body should have a role in such important agreements. They said Congress should approve any sweeping deals. In 2007 and 2008, they cosponsored a bill that required congressional approval of any long-term security commitment President Bush made to Iraq. Vice President Biden--then-Senator Biden--put it then: The president cannot make such a sweeping commitment on his own authority. Congress must grant approval. Those were wise words then, and I believe they are wise words today. Why is that? One reason is that when the executive branch and the Congress work together, we are stronger on issues of foreign policy and national security. Think about all of the different times in which this body, through treaties and other agreements, worked with Presidents of both parties--bipartisan--to make sure we were speaking strongly together on critical issues of national security. I served under Condoleezza Rice as an Assistant Secretary of State and worked on these kinds of issues--sanctions on Iran and terrorist finance issues--and I saw that when the executive branch worked with the Congress, we were stronger. As I mentioned, when then-Senator Biden mentioned these words about congressional approval, they were wise words. Yet, now the Vice President, Secretary Kerry, and President Obama--all former Members of this body--are ignoring their own previous advice and previous wisdom, and they are ignoring the American people in the process through their representatives in Congress. Where does that leave us today? My own view is that the President should have reached out to the Congress from the very beginning and said that he wanted to work with us and have our approval on this important agreement so we could be stronger as a country, the executive branch and the Congress working together, unified, to enhance America's national security. The President should have looked to the Congress and the Constitution when considering this potential agreement--whether the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world should get a nuclear weapon and when--and realized this was an important enough national security issue and said: I am going to submit this as a treaty. He should have been willing to make the case to the American people and convince two-thirds of the Senate to vote for this agreement, as required by the Constitution. But he chose another path. He chose the ``go it alone'' path where even just a few weeks ago the administration signaled that it was not going to show the agreement--the key annexes of this agreement--to the Congress and that any attempts to force him to do so would be vetoed. That was a mistake. That is a mistake, and we are starting to change that. In these kinds of matters, the U.S. State Department urges any administration--Republican or Democratic--to use the utmost caution when deciding how to deal with international treaties on key foreign policy issues and the Congress. I have a quote from the State Department guidelines: In determining whether any international agreement should be brought into force as a treaty or as an international agreement other than a treaty, the utmost care is to be exercised to avoid any invasion or compromise of the constitutional powers of the President, the Senate, and the Congress as a whole. That is the State Department--``the utmost care.'' But the Obama administration did not take the utmost care in this matter. In fact, their goal has been to shut out the American people on this deal. So what are we doing? The Congress is having to force the President to let the American people be heard. That is what we are doing, and I believe in many ways that is sad. The President is clearly not abiding by the advice he gave when he was a Senator on these kinds of issues, and neither is the Vice President, so the Congress acted. The Corker-Menendez bill that passed the Foreign Relations Committee, which will be debated soon on this floor, at least gives us an up-or- down vote, and it will enable us to actually see some of the classified annexes that are part of this agreement. Again, it is not us, it is the American people. It is the people we represent. I urge my colleagues to practice what the State Department has said is the utmost care on these kinds of issues. We need to look hard at whatever agreement is finalized and brought to this body, and we need to work hard to cut through the clutter and opaque language, unclear language, and conflicting views of this agreement--the way in which this administration is describing this deal right now. I will give one example. Let's take the phrase ``snapped back.'' Right now, the American people are being told that if Iran violates the terms of this agreement, the sanctions, which have been key to this entire agreement and imposed on Iran by this body four different times, can quickly and automatically be snapped back. That is a fantasy. President Obama knows that sanctions--particularly international sanctions--cannot just be snapped back. But it is a great phrase. It sounds good, but it is a fantasy. As I mentioned, as a former Assistant Secretary of State, I worked with the Congress and other members of the executive branch to go around to different countries in the world and strongly encourage them to divest out of Iran, out of the Iranian oil and gas sector. In many ways, we said: If you don't take action and divest out of Iran, it is very likely that the Congress will sanction you. We worked with the Congress. This was executive branch and congressional branch cooperation, making us stronger as a nation because it worked. Many of these companies started to divest. It weakened Iran, but this took years. There was no snap involved. This was a slog, but it was successful. It was successful because this body was very intimately involved. The President knows this. Secretary Kerry knows this. But the fact that they are willing to say ``Don't worry, sanctions will be snapped back in an instant'' should otherwise make us all nervous. The administration needs to explain to the American people how this snapback will work. Think about it. If sanctions are lifted, millions, probably billions of dollars are going to flow from European companies, countries; Asian companies, countries; Russian; Chinese. They are going to flow into Iran. They are going to invest in businesses. They are going to invest in the oil and gas sector. They are going to invest in banks. And then we are going to snap that back if there is a violation, automatically, in a couple of days? It is not going to happen. It is a catchy phrase with no substance. The administration needs to explain it. The American people need to know what is at stake. The Secretary and the President need to be clear with the American people on exactly what is in this agreement. They need to level with the American people. As we move forward, as we think about how we are going to analyze, look at, vote on this agreement, they must tell the American people the truth. We must start to think about some of these issues. Let's start with a couple of things that are very important for the American people to know, and the American people do know them. Let's start by recognizing that Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. Let's recognize that Iran has consistently lied and cheated with regard to its nuclear weapons program, including even recently, during these negotiations. Let's recognize that Iran will not--will not--stand down from its stated goal that many of its leaders still state today, which is that they want to wipe Israel off the map. Let's recognize that Iran is responsible--and this is very important to recognize and understand--for the maiming and killing of likely thousands of U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in Iraq by supplying Shia militias there with the most sophisticated, the most lethal IED on the battlefield, called an EFP, an explosively formed projectile. If a person was in Iraq as a U.S. military member and that person was in a vehicle that hit one of these IEDs, that person was either going to be killed or seriously maimed. This is something I witnessed during my time as a staff officer to the commanding general of the U.S. Central Command when I was in Iraq as a marine. Let's recognize that from what we know right now in terms of this deal, Iran doesn't appear to have given up much at all. They will keep thousands of nuclear centrifuges. They will keep their missile development programs. They will keep their nuclear infrastructure. They will continue to support and sponsor terrorism around the world--the largest state sponsor of terrorism. The American people need to know that if we do lift sanctions--and it is not clear when we are going to lift them; the Iranians are saying we are going to lift them right away--if we do lift sanctions, Iran will very likely use the millions of dollars that will flood into their economy to pump up their terror machine around the world and likely target our citizens. The American people need to understand all of this as we go forward. Maybe the administration disagrees on some of these points. Maybe they don't think these points are the aspects of the deal. And if none of this is true, then let Secretary Kerry and his team come forward to the Congress and make the case in public to the American people that this isn't the case, that this is a deal which will keep us safe, that this is a deal with a regime that is trustworthy. Let them make that case. The Congress needs to be very involved, and we are involved because of the respect for the people we represent. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, today I rise to support the Justice for Trafficking Victims Act, and I want to commend the numerous Senators-- Cornyn, Klobuchar, and so many others--who have worked so hard to move this act forward. I realize there are many of us who are new to this body, and I certainly am still learning my way around the procedural maze here. However, it is easy to see how frustrating this maze can be and how it keeps us from getting good things done for the people who elected us and sent us here. Last year I traveled my State, Alaska, and one of the top concerns I heard from Alaskans is that they were tired of the gridlock, and they want to see a functioning government and an open process in the Senate. So here we are on a bill that is of immense importance to the country and to Alaska--a bill that has very broad bipartisan support. It comes to the floor with a promise of an open amendment process so all Senators can be heard. Yet, a few of my friends on the other side of the aisle are preventing us from moving forward on a bill that will protect some of the Nation's most vulnerable citizens. Evidently a provision in the bill that has been the law of the land for decades has now become an excuse among some not to move the bill forward. That is a shame for the country, and particularly for the victims who have been snared in the heinous world of human trafficking. As a former attorney general of the great State of Alaska, I have seen the horrible pain and suffering that human trafficking and cases of domestic violence and sexual assault can cause among our fellow citizens. I hail from a great State. We are proud Alaskans, proud of many things that are wonderful about our State. But like most States, we have problems. We have some of the highest rates of sexual abuse and exploitation in the country. Human trafficking is a big problem in my State, just as it is throughout the rest of the country. Since the human trafficking bill was placed on the calendar, I have been working closely with all of my colleagues, not only on this bill but on an amendment that I plan on offering with many others, the Mann Act cooperation amendment. This is an amendment that would be a rare thing in Washington today, a truly win-win amendment for the Federal Government, State governments, and most importantly, for victims of human trafficking. Now, human trafficking is a problem that, unfortunately, comes in many forms and in many States--all States, in fact--in all corners of our Nation. In order to best combat human trafficking, we must work toward a seamless Federal and State partnership in order to stop this growing problem. To that end, I have been proud to have worked with many Senators on both sides of the aisle--Senators Heitkamp, Gillibrand, Ayotte, and Murkowski--on a simple yet straightforward amendment that incentivizes State and Federal cooperation on this important issue. The Mann Act cooperation amendment will free Federal resources by allowing State attorneys general and local DAs to prosecute human trafficking cases that would otherwise be assigned to Federal Government prosecutors; or if Federal Government prosecutors do not have the resources to take on such cases, oftentimes they are not going to be pursued. At the same time, this amendment preserves the Federal prosecutor's ability to exercise prosecutorial options while, importantly, increasing transparency about decisions made on human trafficking cases. In human trafficking cases, it is often local investigators and local prosecutors who have the most information on these cases. As Alaska's attorney general, I saw this firsthand. We usually had great cooperation with our partners in the Federal Government. But when the Feds can't take on human trafficking cases due to limited resources, they should be encouraged to allow State officials to take on such cases. That is the key goal of this amendment--to enable the resources and cooperation between State and Federal prosecutors to ensure that all cases of human trafficking are pursued, victims have justice, and perpetrators pay penalties. That is what this amendment will do. That is why I believe it is such a win-win approach to State and Federal prosecutions with regard to human trafficking. This amendment also provides oversight and transparency by assuring there must also be communication between the States and the Federal Government when making human trafficking prosecution decisions. However, as to the broader human trafficking bill that so many Members of this body have been working on--so many on both sides of the aisle--if that bill dies on the Senate floor, so will the numerous amendments that would also advance justice for the victims of human trafficking, including the Mann Act cooperation amendment. This is just one of many amendments on this important topic. We should not allow this to happen. We need to get to work for the victims of human trafficking, who are looking for the Senate's leadership to help stamp out this scourge of human trafficking, which is affecting our country in so many different areas. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2015, at 10 a.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2015, at 9:45 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 February 26, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Medical and Public Health Preparedness and Response: Are We Ready for Future Threats?''

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, last night tens of millions of Americans watched the Super Bowl, a game that has become a national tradition, something of an American holiday--and for good reason. Competition, grit, and hard work can bring out the best in all of us. But not all Americans were watching. Last night, just like every other night of the year, there were young American men and women, humbly and without complaint, shouldering the burden of protecting their follow citizens from harm. Some were doing this overseas, in places both familiar and unfamiliar to us. Others were here in America doing the hard training that is necessary to hone their warrior skills to protect us. I had the privilege of being with thousands of these fine young Americans last night at the Army's National Training Center, the NTC, at Fort Irwin, CA. Just as in the Super Bowl, they were on the field engaged in fierce competition, force-on-force operations, as part of some of the best, most challenging military training anywhere in the world. But unlike the Super Bowl, there were no winners or losers last night--just winners. Among the participants at NTC are 3,000 soldiers from a battle-hardened Army Stryker brigade based in Fairbanks, AK, along with hundreds of paratroopers from other military bases across Alaska. I felt immense pride in watching them train last night. These young men and women, volunteers all, selflessly stand ready to fight and give their lives for our great country. With all due respect to my distinguished colleagues from New England who are deservedly celebrating today, it is very important to keep in mind that America's true patriots were on the field last night in places such as Fort Irwin, Baghdad, and Kabul. We have an important opportunity to honor their service tomorrow as we prepare to vote on a bipartisan bill to make sure the patriots in our military have the resources and care that can help them fight the despair of suicide. Tomorrow we vote on the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act, which I was proud to cosponsor and help pass out of the Veteran's Affairs Committee. This bill is named for a true American hero, a decorated Marine who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and who struggled with despair and ultimately took his own life. This bill will start to bring greater awareness and services to the devastation that too many of our finest fall sway to. I encourage all of my distinguished colleagues to vote for this bill tomorrow so we can get it on the President's desk for his signature as soon as possible. A vote tomorrow will be a vote for Clay Hunt, for his courageous family, and for all the families and their loved ones who have lost someone to the national tragedy of suicide. This will be a vote for my State, Alaska, which proudly boasts the highest number of veterans per capita in the United States but, sadly, has the highest rates of suicide in our country. This is also a personal vote for me. It is a story I do not share often or lightly. As an officer in the Marine Corps, both on Active Duty and in the Reserve, I have personally witnessed the struggles, at times tragic, that some of our service men and women undergo. The suicide of a young Alaskan marine under my command still haunts me. You always wonder: Could I have done more? With the proper awareness and resources this marine might be alive today. That is why we need legislation such as the Clay Hunt bill. When I cast my vote tomorrow, it will be a vote for all of our veterans but particularly for the families who have suffered the unspeakable pain of suicide. This is a good bill. It is a good start. As my distinguished colleague from Connecticut calls it, this bill is a downpayment on our debt to our veterans. It will not solve all the problems they face, including rates of suicide among veterans that are far too high in this country. But it is an important beginning. I ask my colleagues to vote for this bill tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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