Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, let's go back to the importance--you are seeing some themes here. Navy, certainly. Boy, are we decimating the U.S. Navy. Decimating. Unbelievable. I am just shocked at how many Navy Admirals we are putting on the bench right now. The Chinese are smiling. Whoa, are they smiling. But this is another theme tonight, and, again, we didn't really plan it, Senator Ernst and I; it is just what is happening. We have a big military. Space ops. Cyber and space ops. That is another theme tonight. It is a really, really important area of warfare. The Chinese and Russians are gaining on us. We have the best, though. Here is another one. David N. Miller to be Lieutenant General and Commander, Space Operations Command, U.S. Space Force. That is a really big, important billet. Maj Gen David Miller has an over 30-year career where he has commanded at the squadron group and wing levels, including the 2nd Range Operations Squadron, 21st Operations Group in the 46 Space Unit. Most recently, Maj Gen Miller served as a Special Assistant to the Vice Chief of Space Operations. This is a hugely important billet to protect our entire country. He has incredible background in this area. Space, cyber, missile defense--those have all been brought up tonight, and all were shut down--without explanation, by the way. We are bringing up individual votes. We still haven't heard why we are not going to allow those to move. But anyway, Mr. President, we can confirm this nomination right now by a voice vote. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 351, David N. Miller, Jr., to be Lieutenant General and Commander, Space Operations Command, U.S. Space Force; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I have three more.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, we have three more that we are going to do. That will be 61 tonight. And Senator Ernst and I--and I know a lot of our other colleagues want to join us--we are going to keep coming down here. So let me get through these, and then I will have a few words to conclude. And I want to thank the Presiding Officer for staying late. I know you care about this issue as well. This is Brig. Gen. Robert M. Blake, and he is being considered to be promoted to Major General in the U.S. Air Force--again, incredible, incredible background. He most recently served as the Mobilization Assistant to the Commander Air Force Global Strike Command, Barksdale Air Force Base, LA. He has flown the C-130 H2 Hercules. He has amassed more than 4,500 hours in military aircraft, including combat sorties and tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Brig. Gen. Blake flew 16 total missions, including 12 air refueling sorties supporting C-5s and C-17s in Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. And he flew 10 missions in support of humanitarian relief for operations for Operation Southern Watch and Enduring Freedom. Again, a transport aviation pilot, incredible. Just, I mean, we look at these numbers like oh, no big deal--4,500 flying hours in military aircraft. That is incredible experience for our military. So let's get him confirmed. Let's get him confirmed by voice vote, right here, individual, as our colleague requested. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Brig. Gen. Robert M. Blake to be Major General in the U.S. Air Force under Executive Calendar No. 88; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, another heroic Air Force pilot with incredible experience. Let's just move on to Brig. Gen. Mitchell Hanson. We are trying to get him confirmed to be Major General. By the way, Senator Graham made this point at the beginning: All of these military members went through their promotion board process. As we all know, the military is kind of an up-or-out organization, right? So for Brigadier General Hanson to go from Brigadier General to Major General--a two-star General--that is really hard to do. These guys are the best, right? We just kind of take it for granted. That is all done by the military, in the military selection boards. They are picking their own, but we have to confirm it. So, again, think about the frustration--let me read about his background--that they have done all this, the boards have met, they said these are our top people, and we are going to keep promoting them. Normally, for the last 200 years--by the way, as stated earlier, there are a lot of holds. I have put holds on. No one has ever done a blanket hold on every flag officer promotion for this long in the history of America. Let me repeat that. There has never been one-, two-, three-, four-star Generals and Admirals, a blanket hold on all of them. People have threatened it. They have done it for a couple of weeks, but it has never been done for almost a year in the history of the United States of America. That is a fact. Contemplate that one. So let's look at Brigadier General Hanson's background. He most recently served as Mobilization Assistant to the Director of Operations, Air Combat Command. Brigadier General Hanson has served in numerous positions at the squadron group wing in numbered Air Force. That is getting bigger in each unit. You know that, Mr. Chairman, but some people watching might not know. Brigadier General Hanson has served as a reservist, an individual mobilization augmentee member on the Reserve side of the military. He has flown the A-10 and the F-16 in a variety of operational assignments and as a command pilot, with more than 3,400 hours--again, just enormous experience, flying over 200 combat hours. He has deployed in support of Operations Desert Storm, Southern Watch, Noble Eagle, Willing Spirit, Enduring Freedom. Brigadier General Hanson executed 20 close air support combat missions supporting NATO and international security assistance forces battling Taliban insurgent fighters in Afghanistan. He provided armed overwatch for dismounted infantry patrols--the grunts on the ground looking up: Oh, my God, I got air cover. Thank God. He conducted convoy and helicopter escorts and responded to U.S. infantry platoons on the ground receiving effective fire from an insurgent machinegun team. He employed 160 rounds of 30 mike-mikes against the insurgents and killed them all--killed them all. He saved American grunt lives on the ground. Another hero. Another hero. So we are going to put him on a bench. By the way, it is a great way to say thanks for your service, Brigadier General Hanson. We will just keep you on the icebox. Thanks for your service. Very heroic. But maybe my colleague will relent here. We are down to one more. So maybe, maybe it will work. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Brig. Gen. Mitchell A. Hanson to be Major General, U.S. Air Force, under Executive Calendar No. 88; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President immediately be notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, the final one. It is so ironic. I didn't mean it to be this way, but I am so proud of it. It is a U.S. Marine Colonel--I am a U.S. Marine Colonel; these are my peer groups--to be Brigadier General of the U.S. Marine Corps. Let's read about Col. Richard Joyce to be Assistant Deputy Commandant for Aviation, U.S. Marine Corps--again, another heroic American. Colonel Joyce has deployed numerous times to Iraq and Afghanistan and served as the Commanding Officer of an attack squadron. He is a Cobra pilot. That is an attack helicopter, the AH-1. He was Director of the staff group for Gen. Robert Neller when he was the 37th Commandant of the Marine Corps. Colonel Joyce received the Air Medal with the combat distinguishing device--that means heroism in combat--for heroic achievement while participating in aerial flight as an attack helicopter pilot of an AH- 1--that is a Cobra helicopter--assigned to Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 169, deployed with Marine Air Group 40 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom on 22 May 2009. He was under direct fire from three different directions, with enemy forces effectively engaging his aircraft--incoming from three different directions. He placed precision fires on each of these enemy positions, destroying them and providing direct relief to outnumbered friendly forces on the ground. Not a paper pusher. Not a woke warrior. A real, true American hero right here, and we are going to tell him: Stay on the bench. Maybe not. This is the last one, Mr. President, No. 61 for the night--a Marine Colonel to be promoted to Brigadier General, who has nothing to do with this damn dispute on the floor here--nothing--and, somehow, he is going to get caught up in this. By the way, these are the kinds of guys I am hearing about. These are my peer group. They are saying: You know what? Seven deployments, tough on the wife and kids. I am getting stuck in an issue that I have nothing to do with. I can't--you know what, I am punching out. I am punching out. So we are going to lose guys like this. We are going to lose guys like this. The Chinese, Putin, Xi Jinping--they are going to be like: Oh, my God, I am so scared of a marine like this. He would come over and kick the you know what out of the Chinese and Russians. We are going to drive him out of the Marine Corps--drive him out of the Marine Corps. But maybe not--maybe my colleague will relent on this just last one, just out of good grace. He still hasn't explained why, all that he said about not blocking a single vote if you bring up nominees one at a time. I am all for it. I will probably vote for them. We just brought up 61, one at a time, in regular order. Come on. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Col. Richard D. Joyce to be Brigadier General of the U.S. Marine Corps on Executive Calendar No. 95; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am just going to conclude. I am disappointed. We are done here. We don't have any more for tonight, but I think this has been enlightening. I think this has been enlightening because what we have been able to do--hopefully, some people are watching in our great Nation--is to distill to the people of the country: Look at how blessed we are to have these incredible Americans. Look at how blessed we are, how heroic they are. So my message to our Generals and Admirals who are being held up: Hang in there. Hang in there. Some of us have your back. We have your back. We will be coming here every night to try and get you guys confirmed. I have been very honored to be here with Senator Ernst on the floor. And I will tell you that I think she and I both have a feeling that I think a lot of people have--but people who served, mostly--just the love for our military, military families. I am coming up, just at 30 years in the Marine Corps. The INDOPACOM theater has been the bookends of my career. My first deployment was the INDOPACOM, a Marine amphibious ready group, in the Taiwan Strait. When the Chinese were threatening to invade Taiwan, we sent a Marine amphibious ready group. I was on that as a young infantry officer, in two carrier strike groups. And we went in the Taiwan Strait and looked at the Chinese and said: Not today, guys. Not today. Not today. The U.S. Marine Corps is here. The U.S. Navy is here. Don't even think about it. That was almost 27 year ago, and I am out at the Marine Force's Pacific Command. In between, I have deployed as a staff officer in the Middle East, in Afghanistan. But I think, like Senator Ernst, the biggest honor of my life has been serving and leading marines. I have a lot of good friends in the Senate. I have met a lot of good people in the U.S. Senate. The best people I have ever met in my life by far--not even close--are U.S. marines. They are the best. And I think what is happening right now--you know, the Marine Corps' motto is Semper Fi, always faithful. And this body is not keeping faith with our military right now. It is not, and the military knows it, and they are frustrated. So many of these officers had 30 years or more of experience, thousands of years of experience we are putting on hold. The distinct comparative advantages we have say, for example, in submarine forces in the Indo-Pacific theater that the Chinese fear--they fear it--we are putting that on hold. So I am hopeful that my colleague who left, Senator Tuberville, can work with us. I have been working with him for months. This is just kind of a frustration moment, right? Enough. But I am hopeful we can still work together. I am hopeful we can find a way forward. The idea that I have been pitching to him: Hey, let's lift the hold on the men and women who have nothing to do with this and put a hold on the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, who is in charge of the abortion issue, and he is a civilian. That is the way to use the hold, not to take out a Marine Corps Brigadier General who is a war hero. So I am hopeful that we are going to make progress on that. We are facing a really dangerous period right now, as you know, as Senator Ernst knows, and we are impacting readiness. We are definitely impacting morale, and that is readiness. So, again, to my colleague saying, ``Don't worry; there is no problem, no readiness problems,'' no offense, but that is just ridiculous, and he knows it. We all know it. So we are going to keep working this. I am honored to be on the floor with Senator Ernst. I appreciate, Mr. President, your sticking around. We are not done. If you are a flag officer--one-star, two-star, three-star, or four-star General--we have got your back. We are going to work this. We are going to work it. You deserve it, and our Nation has to have it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am on the floor again with my colleague from Texas, Senator Cruz, trying once again to pass our Pay Our Military Act. I am not going to spend a lot of time explaining what we are trying to do here since 48 hours ago we tried to do the same thing. We are, in our conference, right now trying to get to a compromise, working through things to make sure we don't have a government shutdown. It may or may not happen. It is looking more likely, though. As we get closer to that moment, the idea that we would leave the men and women who protect this country uncertain about whether they are going to get paid even though they are still going to deploy, they are still going to be fighting all over the world, protecting this Nation-- so we are going to leave them out hanging, right? So all we are trying to do is the most commonsense thing you could do if you cared one bit about the troops of the United States, and that is to say: Hey, we know you are worried. We know you are probably deployed. We know your wife or spouse is back home worried about whether you are going to get paid next week. You have a dangerous mission you are going on tonight somewhere in the world. So we are going to take that worry away from you because we care about you. Now, granted, my colleagues might say: Well, what about the IRS worker? What about the Department of the Interior worker? No offense--there is a little bit of a difference, OK. There is a little bit of a difference. We all know it. We should know it. So as we get closer, this is the bipartisan solution that we all need to undertake. Here is the thing: As I said last week, when we had the identical situation in 2013, 10 years ago--identical: a Democrat-controlled Senate, a Republican-controlled House, a Democrat-controlled White House--it was looking like there was going to be a shutdown. What did everybody unanimously agree to? Hey, let's take the troops out of this. Let's make sure the men and women who serve in our military are not worried. Let's unanimously pass the Pay Our Military Act. So, 10 years ago, we did that. I wasn't here, but I applaud everybody who did that. Simple. Identical. Identical. So what has changed? I have no idea what has changed. It looks like my Democratic colleague is going to come down and object and make some gobbledygook argument about appropriations or ``Let's keep trying.'' The government is going to shut down tomorrow evening. We are going to keep trying. But let's take one group of Americans and say: Hey, we know you sacrifice more than anybody. We are going to take that worry away from you. We did it 10 years ago in a bipartisan way, so we are going to do it again. The Presiding Officer knows. I guarantee you the Presiding Officer agrees with this bill, as a veteran of almost 30 years, a naval aviator. The Presiding Officer knows what it is like. There are guys on aircraft carriers right now and women on aircraft carriers flying F-18s, and their spouses back home are going: Hey, honey, guess what. I don't think I am going to have money to buy groceries next week. That guy is getting ready to take off on some carrier in the INDOPACOM region, and he has to worry about that? He has to worry about that? She has to worry about that? We can fix that right now--right now. We have done it before, and I can't imagine my Democratic colleagues are going to come up and object to this bill. I am starting to get mad. We don't want a government shutdown, but we can protect certain people, for goodness' sake. If we are not going to protect our troops and their families, I don't know whom we should protect. So maybe my colleagues are on the floor getting ready to say: You know what, gee, Senator Sullivan, Senator Cruz, we relent. These are good ideas. And you know why we know these are good ideas? Because we all did this 10 years ago. I have no idea why we didn't do it now. I yield the floor and recognize my colleague from Texas.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of S. 2835 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am going to try to keep this short because the issues that we are debating here are not that complicated. I agree with my colleague from Washington State. We are working around the clock. We are in our conference right now trying to get an amendment to bolster border security, that the whole country, by the way, wants--Democrats, Republicans--the whole country wants that. So we are working around the clock too. And my colleague did misstate something. I actually voted to get on this bill. I voted to get on this bill. So her statement about my vote, she needs to check my vote the other day. But be that as it may, once again, she says there is only one serious solution. Well, this body has done this before. The Senator from Washington State has done this before. On the eve of a shutdown in 2013, the Senator from Washington State voted for this bill. Every Senator voted for this bill. So when she keeps saying, ``Let's get real,'' I agree, let's get real. Go look at your vote from 2013. You voted for this on the eve of a shutdown. I will remind my colleague from Washington State, in 2019, when there was a partial government shutdown, focused on the Coast Guard which wasn't getting paid and the Democrats blocked my bill to pay the Coast Guard, she actually stated: It is absolutely unacceptable that our Coast Guard families went without their paychecks during the shutdown. We need to make sure President Trump doesn't put them through this again. Well, I am going to put the Senator from Washington State's words back at her: It is absolutely unacceptable that Coast Guard and other family members went without paychecks during the shutdown. We need to make sure it doesn't happen again. So vote for our bill. Every time they object, the arguments of why they are objecting to something they already agreed to 10 years ago get more tangled up. We are all working to avoid a shutdown, but if it doesn't happen, let's make sure the men and women who are risking their lives for our country and their families know that they are going to get paid. That is all we are asking. That is all we are asking. And everybody in this body 10 years ago did this, including the Senator from Washington State. And it is just beyond comprehension that they are coming up with arguments now to not do this. This isn't about politics. This is about supporting our troops at the moment they really need it. And they are not doing it. I yield the floor to my colleague from Texas.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am going to speak about a really important bill that I am hoping we are going to pass right here on the Senate floor. It was passed, by the way, previously. It is called the Pay Our Military Act. It is pretty simple. In the event of a shutdown--and right now, we are all working hard to make sure we avoid it--we need to make sure that the men and women who protect us get paid. That is it, simple-- really, really simple. I know back home in the great State of Alaska, there is a lot of frustration with our government. It seems like every day the Biden administration has another order to shut down Alaska, lock up our lands, put people out of work. There are skyrocketing prices on everything from gas to food. Interest rates are at 40-year highs. Illegal immigration, which is just flooding across the southern border, is a literal invasion happening right now. A lot of people are frustrated with what is happening. The potential of a government shutdown is not going to help any of that, in my view. But this is something that every Member of the Senate should agree on. If there is a shutdown--a lot of us are working hard to avoid that--we need an insurance policy for our military personnel. The brave men and women who are serving on the frontlines right now, at home and abroad--dangerous work to keep us safe--they need nothing less than the unwavering support of the U.S. Senate. For the men and women who protect us, often at great personal sacrifice, the least we can do as their representatives is to ensure that they receive their hard-earned pay, regardless of the political circumstances that may unfold. My Pay Our Military Act is not about partisan politics. It is not about ideological differences. It is about fulfilling the solemn obligation to our troops and their families, and it is about providing them the stability and peace of mind that they need to do their jobs. Regardless of what happens here, they will continue to serve, to deploy, to train. We have seen, in the last couple of weeks, that training can also be very dangerous. We had some marines recently killed down in Australia in an Osprey accident. The last thing these men and women need to worry about is whether or not they are going to get a paycheck next week, whether or not they are going to be able to support their families next week in the event there is a government shutdown. I want to emphasize again that I hope this bill is unnecessary, but the fact remains that this certainly could happen, a government shutdown, and, if it does, we need to pay our military right now. There is precedent--very strong precedent--on this very bill, this commonsense bill that has historically received the strong support from both sides of the aisle and in both Houses. Let me be specific. Facing an imminent government shutdown in 2013, which ended up lasting 16 days, this bill, the Pay Our Military Act, was passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate and unanimously by the U.S. House and signed by the President. Congress recognized then the importance of uninterrupted military pay for our military members and their families. The political makeup, actually, was the same. You had a Democrat in the White House. You had a Democrat-controlled Senate, and a Republican-controlled House. So it is simple. While I urge my colleagues to put aside their differences and come together in a spirit of unity to support this bill, I am a little concerned. My colleague and friend Senator Cruz and I came down to the floor last week to pass another related bill. This would have guaranteed Coast Guard members got paid in a government shutdown. We did that because, in 2019, the only branch of the military services that didn't get paid when there was a government shutdown was the Coast Guard. Everybody else got paid. The Coast Guard didn't. Senator Cruz and I came down here last week and said: Hey, in the event of a shutdown, we have to make sure the Coast Guard gets paid. Well, it was blocked. It was blocked. I still don't know what my colleague from Washington State was talking about when she blocked it-- something about, well, the authority of the Appropriations Committee. What? Nobody cares about that. Do you support our troops or not? This bill is even more simple. Our bill, the Pay Our Military Act, covers all branches, including the Coast Guard and civilians that the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security believe are necessary also to pay. Again, I hope that, like in 2013, this is going to pass unanimously. As I mentioned, last week, my colleague from Washington State objected to the Pay Our Coast Guard bill. It was confounding, particularly because she was a cosponsor of the exact same bill in 2019. As a matter of fact, here is what she wrote in 2019, when there was a government shutdown and we were trying to pay the Coast Guard: It's absolutely unacceptable-- This is the Senator from Washington State-- that our Coast Guard families went without their paychecks during the shutdown. We need to make sure President Trump doesn't put them through this again. Whoa. That was the Senator from Washington State during the last shutdown. I wish she would have said that last week. So I am very hopeful that what happened in 2013--the Senate and the House unanimously came together when there was an imminent shutdown and said: Hey, we might not be able to figure out how to keep the government open, but here is one darn thing we are going to do; we are going to pay our military. I sure hope that we can do that again, and I sure hope people who want to try to use the military as political pawns leading up to a shutdown are not going to be tempted to object to this bipartisan, much needed bill that 10 years ago had the support of everyone. I yield to my colleague from Texas.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of S. 2835 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, as my colleague Senator Cruz just mentioned, every member of the military just heard ``I object,'' and the Senator from Washington State just said, ``Let's be real.'' ``Let's be real.'' There is nothing more real than putting your life on the line for the country you love and nothing more important than defending those who defend us. Let's be real. I am having a hard time with ``Let's be real.'' What she just mentioned had nothing to do with the bill. Again, 10 years ago, when there was an imminent shutdown just like there is today, which I certainly don't want, the Senate and House and White House came together and said: All right. We know there is a risk, but there are some special people who serve in our government--and, mind you, very special people--who deserve to be taken care of; that is, the men and women and their families who are serving right now overseas, all over the country, protecting Americans. It is an outrage. It is an outrage to utter those two words: ``I object.'' It is an outrage. And if it happens next week, as Senator Cruz mentioned that there are young men and women around the world protecting us without getting paid and having to worry where they are going to buy or how they are going to buy groceries, I hope they remember the Senator from Washington State's two words: ``I object.'' That was good, old-fashioned hostage-taking, making a marine lance corporal all of a sudden subject to the political whims of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It didn't happen in 2013. I have no idea, truthfully--no idea--why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not support this Pay Our Military bill. I am going to keep coming down here all week to get this passed, and hopefully they will have a change of heart. 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, I am on the floor for a couple of reasons but No. 1 and most important is to congratulate General Smith, Gen. Eric Smith, to be the new Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. Now, the Presiding Officer may have seen the vote--a pretty impressive vote, 96 to 0. That does not happen a lot in the U.S. Senate. But every Senator on the floor just an hour ago gave Gen. Eric Smith a huge vote of confidence--and with good reason. This is a Marine officer who has a stellar career--stellar career. He has commanded at every level in the Marine Corps: as an infantry officer, Weapons Company, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment. As a general officer, he commanded the U.S. Marine Corps Forces Southern Command, 1st Marine Corps Division, III MEF--Marine Expeditionary Force--and Marine Corps Combat Development Command. That is about as stellar a career as it gets. Additionally, he is a serious combat veteran. As I have noted to my colleagues before, a lot of the flag officers in the military right now were the lieutenants and captains right after 9/11. This is a group of senior military leaders who have seen more combat than certainly almost any other generation since World War II. And General Smith was one of those: wounded in action in Iraq, did not want to go home; frontline commander in combat; served in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, like a lot of commanders during these challenging wars, he had a number of marines and friends killed in action whom he was in command of. So he knows war. He knows the Marine Corps. I look forward to working closely with General Smith on a whole host of issues related to the Marine Corps and now, as a member of the Joint Chiefs, related to the national defense of our country, including Marine Corps force design, including the Navy's requirement that is in law--in law, if you are watching, Secretary of the Navy Del Toro; it is in law--31 amphibs for the Marine Corps. So these and many other issues I look forward to working with General Smith on. But again, 96 to 0. Great job, General. Semper Fi. Mr. President, I also think it is important to just talk a little bit about how we got here, and to be honest, we should have gotten here a lot earlier--weeks, if not months, earlier. I am a pro-life and pro-military Senator, so I have been very involved in these negotiations between leadership and some of our Members on issues of moving forward nominees but also on not agreeing with Secretary Austin's memo as it relates to travel issues. There have been a number of us who have been trying to get to a resolution on some of the holds that are happening here on the Senate floor. By the way, holds happen all the time. The way they are resolved 98 percent of the time is through compromise. So that is why I am trying to help my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the administration and the Department of Defense. But in the meantime, there was nothing preventing the majority leader from bringing qualified military members to the floor for a vote--nothing. As a matter of fact, in the Senate, we vote on members of the Joint Chiefs all the time. That is a tradition here--when the Democrats have been in charge, when the Republicans have been in charge--but that has not been the priority here. In the last several months, we have had 76 rollcall votes, everything from the Assistant Administrator of the EPA to district court judges, NLRB judges, Board members for the National Archives, Assistant Secretaries of Education, HHS. You name it, we have been confirming them, with the exception of one group: military officers. A lot of the press is saying: Well, that was the Senator from Alabama. That is not true. That is not true at all. We could be voting on individual members of the Joint Chiefs. That wasn't the priority. That wasn't the priority. Senator Tuberville was going to make a resolution, signed by 17 Senators, to file cloture on General Smith, and all of a sudden, the majority leader thought it was important to start moving forward on Joint Chiefs of Staff nominees. I think that is good. That shows some compromise. And I think even that little bit of compromise is going to help us on the broader issues that we are all trying to address. But I do want to just correct the record. In our Ukraine briefing yesterday, Secretary Austin, Secretary of Defense, said he really appreciated Senator Schumer's leadership on filing cloture on these Joint Chiefs we just voted on. Well, with all due respect to Senator Schumer and Secretary Austin, it wasn't his leadership; it was our side of the aisle that forced his hand to do it. That is a fact. That is a fact. So, Mr. Secretary, I know the Senate procedures can be a little confusing, but you might want to thank this side of the aisle for actually moving forward to make sure that Joint Chiefs are getting confirmed. So I hope we continue to do that and continue to work like a number of us have been on a broader compromise here to move forward on these other military nominees. By the way, I do welcome many of my Democratic colleagues' newfound interest in national security. A number of them have been howling about national security and we are not ready and readiness issues. A lot of them, I have never heard them talk about national security, but they are all talking about it now. That is great. Welcome. By the way, join me in criticizing President Biden for sending to us 3 years in a row three budgets each year that dramatically cut our Department of Defense. President Biden's budget this year shrinks the Army, shrinks the Navy, shrinks the Marine Corps. It is exactly the wrong message to be sending Xi Jingping and Putin during one of the most dangerous times our has Nation faced since the end of World War II. So if you are worried about national security, join me on some of these. It is great. I hear a lot of howling from silent voices on national security from the other side of the aisle, so I welcome you to be caring about these issues. I want to end where I started, and I want to thank and congratulate again General Smith. I also want to congratulate the new soon-to-be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General C.Q. Brown, who is also exceptionally qualified, and the new Chief of Staff of the Army, General George. All three were recently confirmed by the U.S. Senate in overwhelming numbers--overwhelming. That is progress. On both sides of the aisle, that is progress. That is what we needed. I am hopeful that progress will lead to more compromise on these other issues that we all know are important. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. I want to thank my colleague and friend Senator Cruz from Texas, who has presented our bill, the Pay Our Coast Guard Act, which he noted is a bipartisan bill in the Commerce Committee--the chairman, the ranking member. I am the ranking member on the subcommittee in charge of the Coast Guard. The chair of that committee, Senator Baldwin, is also a cosponsor of this bill. Senator Cruz laid it out really well. This is a very simple bill. The men and women who protect our coastline, who protect our country, who are in the military, whom I see working so hard, risking their lives day in and day out in Alaska, where we have some of the most members of the Coast Guard stationed in our great State than in almost any other State--they need to be protected, and they need to know the U.S. Senate has their back. Now, it is kind of hard to believe what Senator Cruz just mentioned, but let me repeat what happened in 2019. When there was a partial government shutdown, every branch of the U.S. military--the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force--they all got paid. They all got paid, with one exception--the Coast Guard. Imagine how you felt if you were in the Coast Guard, watching your brothers and sisters in the other services getting paid and you weren't. There were operations going on in the Persian Gulf where members of the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the Coast Guard were doing joint operations against Iranian aggression and one of those members on those ships and boats wasn't getting paid--the Coast Guard members. So this happened in America. As a matter of fact, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, at the time, ADM Karl Schultz, said: [T]his marks the first time in our Nation's history that servicemembers in a U.S. Armed Force have not been paid during a lapse in government appropriations. So what are we doing on the floor today? We are saying: Let's not let this happen again. In the event of a shutdown, which none of us want, let's make sure that what happened--and Senator Cruz just mentioned it. Coast Guard men and women across the country, including in Alaska, woke up for 34 days and did not know whether they were going to get a paycheck and, essentially, had to rely on donations from the communities in which they served to do their job. Now, look, the communities came together, and that was a wonderful thing. But I have committed to my Coast Guard members in Alaska and throughout the country that this should never happen again. This is a no-brainer, and I certainly hope no Senator is going to come down here and object and say: Well, this is an appropriations issue. Come on. This is a right or wrong issue. Fix it. We are trying to fix it--right now. I was the one who came down during the last government shutdown and tried to get unanimous consent. I talked to the President of the United States. He said he was going to sign our bill to pay the Coast Guard, and the Democratic minority leader, at the time, blocked it. I certainly hope none of our colleagues, Democrat or Republican, are going to block it again. This is a bipartisan bill. It makes sense, and the Coast Guard and their family members are watching. Does the U.S. Senate have their back or not? I strongly encourage my colleagues to work with us to pass our Pay Our Coast Guard Act bill right now.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am shocked, disappointed, and, to be honest, stunned. I didn't think anyone was going to object to this bill. It makes no sense to do so. I didn't understand the Senator from Washington's explanation. Her colleague from Washington is actually the chairman of the Commerce Committee and a cosponsor of this bill. So, again, this is a no-brainer. None of us want a government shutdown, but, if it happens, we can't let what happened in 2019 be repeated. And what happened in 2019 was that every member of the military services was paid, with the exception of the Coast Guard. And I have told them that we won't let that happen again. So I am going to keep coming down to the floor with Senator Cruz, and we are going to get this bill passed. And if you are watching and you are a Coast Guard member and you understand what happened, Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate just blocked this bill--a bipartisan bill to make sure you get treated fairly in the event of a government shutdown. It is the right thing to do. Senator Cruz and I will keep working it to make sure this happens. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, my colleagues and I are down on the floor, talking about national security. It is clear--and this is testimony from admirals and generals and Department of Defense officials over the last few years--that we are certainly in one of the most dangerous times globally anytime since World War II. We have this new era of authoritarian aggression, led by the dictators in Beijing and Moscow, who are very aggressive and paranoid about their neighbors. They are certainly willing to attack them. So we need to be strong as a nation. As a matter of fact, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan often talks about situations of strength. Now, this is actually a phrase that came from Dean Acheson, one of our fabled Secretaries of State. When the Cold War began right after World War II, he talked about confronting the Soviet Union--the strategy of containment--but emphasized situations of American strength. So that is a good framework. It is a good framework. Unfortunately, the Biden administration, especially in a couple of key areas, is not focused on situations of strength at all. Let me give you two, and I really want to focus on one. The first one, of course, is our military. Pretty obvious. It is a dangerous world. The dictators in Beijing and Moscow understand hard power, and hard power is U.S. military power. So what have we seen from the Biden administration since the President came into office? Three budgets for 3 years in a row that are inflation-adjusted cuts to the U.S. military. That is a fact. Next year's budget will actually go below 3 percent of GDP spent on our military. It is probably one of 4 or 5 times in the last 70 years that we have gone that low on investments in our military at one of the most dangerous times we have faced since World War II. This year's budget from the Biden administration shrinks the Army, shrinks the Navy dramatically, and shrinks the Marine Corps. Do you think that impresses Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin? It doesn't. So that is the military going in the wrong direction. White House, take note. That is not a situation of strength. That is a situation of weakness. Here is the other one that is quite remarkable, actually. It is America's natural resources and energy, and I am talking everything. We are the envy of the world in terms of oil, gas, renewables, critical minerals--all of the above. We are the envy of the world, and what does this administration do from day one--day one? With this incredible American strength, with this incredible comparative advantage we have relative to China, there is reporting that Xi Jinping looks at American energy dominance and knows how vulnerable they are in terms of importing energy, particularly oil and gas, and they are frightened by it. Frightened by it. Our biggest adversary, the Chinese Communist Party, is scared to death of American energy independence and dominance. So what does the Biden administration do? On day one, they come into office, and they say: We are going to shut down the production of American oil and gas. We are going to go to Wall Street and the investment firms in America and pressure them not to invest in American energy, and we are going to kill and delay key infrastructure that moves energy. Well, of course, the predictable result is the $90 oil that we are seeing right now and working families in America being hit the hardest. That is a fact. What I just stated are facts. That has been the policy of this administration's since day one. Of course, it hurts working families, as I mentioned, but this is a gift to our adversaries, one of the great strengths of the United States of America that administrations--Democrat and Republican--for decades have pursued. Read the history of World War II. A big part of how we won is because we were the dominant energy producer in the world. We have been seeking energy independence for decades. We got it during the Trump administration. The Biden administration comes in and unilaterally surrenders that great competitive advantage. How do I know? I see this every day in the great State of Alaska, my home State. Alaska has been ground zero on the radical, irrational policies of the Biden administration to undermine American energy and natural resource strength. Let me give you two examples. We have an area in Alaska called the Ambler Mining District. It has one of the richest deposits of critical minerals anywhere in the world. There is no road to it. So in Federal law, in 1980, Senator Stevens got a provision in what is called the ANILCA Act to mandate a road to the Ambler Mining District. In most States, if you want to build a road, nobody cares. In my State, if you want to build a road, every lower 48 radical environmental group sues to stop it. It is unbelievable, but it is true. It is sad, but it is true. So during the Obama administration and the Trump administration, the State of Alaska applied for a road. They got an environmental impact statement--it cost about $10 million--a 7-year EIS to build a road to the Ambler Mining District so America could have critical minerals. What happened? That is good news, supported by two different administrations. The day the President of the United States, President Biden, held a critical mineral summit telling the world that we need critical minerals to compete with China and for our renewable energy future, do you know what they did? Do you know what they did, Madam President? I know you have seen it in your State so I know you are frustrated on these issues as well. They reversed the Record of Decision granting Alaska the ability to build this road to the Ambler Mining District. What? Where are we going to get our critical minerals? Where are we going to get our oil and gas? We need these things. Let's get them from America, with the highest standards on the environment in the world. My State has the highest standards on oil and gas development in the world. They said: No. Alaska, go back to ground zero. We will continue to get our critical minerals from China. And as for oil and gas, we will shut it down in America. Where are we going to get it? Well, we have seen this administration. Three months ago, they lifted sanctions on Venezuela so now we are importing 100,000 barrels a day from Venezuela. It is a terrorist country. It doesn't matter. They are still going to import from them. They have the worst environmental standards in the world. They have a greenhouse gas emissions profile 20 times higher than the State of Alaska does in terms of energy production, but we are going to get oil and gas from Venezuela and shut down Alaska. That is No. 1. No. 2, the President was recently, last year, over in Saudi Arabia literally on bended knee begging the Saudis for more oil and gas. But America, Alaska--no, we are going to shut you down. And recently--and I know every Member of this body is like what? We are now going to do a deal with the Iranians, lifting sanctions on their ability to put oil on world markets. The largest state sponsor of terrorism, no environmental standards, but we are going to let the Iranians produce oil and shut it down in America. We just had another attack on my State--55 Executive orders and Executive actions from the Biden administration singularly focused on Alaska to shut my State down. We have so many resources for America, for Alaskans, for the world. They are shutting them down. And what are we going to do? We are going to get them from adversaries like Venezuela, Iran, and other countries. It makes no sense, and it is illegal as well. Last week, the Biden administration announced that the lease sales that this body--the Congress of the United States--mandated for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they just canceled them. The Secretary of the Interior said: Hey, I know Congress said shall put out two lease sales. They said: We didn't like the process by which they were given out so we just canceled them. This is ``banana republicville.'' This is Venezuela. That is what we are doing in terms of energy security. It is national security suicide when we favor our adversaries who have no environmental standards at all and we shut down the production of American energy in Alaska, in America, in the gulf. In August, they took over a million acres of land from the State of Wyoming to produce energy. It makes no sense. It makes no sense. If you care about the environment, you need to produce it from the place with the highest environmental standards, not the lowest. That is my State. If you care about energy security, you should produce from America, not Iran or Venezuela. If you care about American workers--the best workers in the world who get paid a very high wage to work in the oil and gas fields in my State--you should produce in America and Alaska, not Saudi Arabia. None of it makes sense. It is national security suicide, and the vast majority of the American people know it. They know it, and it has got to change. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is my favorite time of the week here in the U.S. Senate. I like to come down on a regular basis and talk about the Alaskan of the Week. The Alaskan of the Week can be someone who is doing something great for their local community, their State, their country. Maybe it is someone who is helping to actually save the world. That is who we have today--someone who literally helped to save the world. Before we begin, I know we have some Alaskans in the Galleries here. Today, the Boys & Girls Club is in town, and we have some of our great, young leaders from my State who are here, and I am really glad to see them. It is appropriate, I think, as some of the Boys & Girls Clubs' awardees can probably be Alaskans of the Week soon, right? But I always like to begin my Alaskan of the Week remarks by just giving a little update of what is going on back home in Alaska. We are having a great summer. It is actually a really cold summer for us. The Sun is high in the sky. People are fishing. Tourists are flocking to our State. By the way, if you are watching on TV, come up to Alaska, and you will have the best vacation of a lifetime, I guarantee it. The midnight Sun is out, and the scenery is spectacular. Of course, we are a place of big skies, big places, a big ocean, big rivers, some of the most resilient, interesting, special people in the world, and some of the most patriotic. We have more veterans per capita than any State in the country. I have the pleasure of frequently speaking about our veterans in Alaska, about our military in Alaska. Many of them have been honored by being Alaskans of the Week. That is going to happen again today with a very special veteran, Elverda Lincoln. So let's talk a little bit about our Alaskan of the Week. She served in the U.S. Navy during the Second World War. And I am going to talk a little bit about a program, the WAVES Program. It is a very famous program, the Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service. That is the acronym, WAVES. Elverda is a World War II vet, an Alaskan pioneer literally. She is an author, a mother, a grandmother, a great-great-grandmother. She has such an amazing story, and here is the deal: She is turning 100 in a couple of days--100--and is still going strong. So let me spend a few minutes talking about this extraordinary woman who is such an inspiration to so many in Alaska and hopefully, after millions of Americans listen to this speech, to so many Americans across the country. Elverda was born in 1923 in Minnesota as the oldest of 14 kids. She was about 6 years old when the Great Depression began. Of course, it was a very tough time for most Americans. In her words, there was no work. Her family literally did not know where the next meal was coming from. They ate a lot of soup, she said, and when there was not enough to go around for the 14 kids her parents had to take care of, they just added water to the soup. They were tough times, but she and her family survived. She said, ``We,'' like so many other Americans, ``were all in the same boat.'' After graduating from high school, Elverda worked for some time in Washington State, from working in a fruit cannery to waitressing, but none of these jobs gave her a sense of fulfillment or adventure or satisfaction. Then December 7, 1941, happened, and our great Nation was at war. So what did this young woman do? She said she noticed a huge sign in her local post office. You know what the sign was--one of the most famous recruiting posters ever. It was Uncle Sam literally pointing at her. Every day, she said she walked past that sign that said: ``I WANT YOU.'' She was a patriot, so eventually Elverda heeded Uncle Sam's call, and she joined the Navy--like I said, the WAVES Program. She was soon on a train to New York and on a journey then that took her across the country--a 5-day train ride. The WAVES Program was set up in 1942 by President Roosevelt to free up positions primarily stateside but very important positions. You are going to hear about what Elverda actually did for her country and the Navy so that male sailors could deploy overseas. So she got on a plane with eight other women who had also joined WAVES. They had to take turns sleeping on the floor of the lavatory for 5 days because there were no assigned seats on this train going across our great Nation. There were 4 weeks of boot camp--tough duty--from 4:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. every day for 4 weeks straight. When she completed boot camp, Elverda was filled with a sense of accomplishment and patriotism. She had done something hard, something fulfilling, something worthwhile. Beyond that, she felt connected with her fellow WAVES. These were sailors in the U.S. Navy, women sailors. Then, of course, she was connected with probably one of the most important causes our country has ever undertaken--to win World War II and free the world from tyranny and oppression. Her confidence soared, she said, when she received her Navy uniform and her $50-per-month paycheck--a lot of money back then. She was first stationed in Seattle. Get this: Her job was to keep track of the exact locations of U.S. ships and enemy ships and planes throughout the Pacific. She then was transferred to Tongue Point Naval Air Station in Astoria, OR. At this point, of course, the Pacific theatre--the war in the Pacific--was in full force. She aided in modifying, updating, and correcting naval communications manuals. She helped to code a great deal of radio signals and manuals that were used in battles like the Battle of Iwo Jima and were also used in the invasion of the Aleutian Islands by Japan. A lot of people don't know that Alaska was actually invaded by the forces of Imperial Japan and occupied in the Aleutian Islands. Our military had to go fight brutal battles in the Aleutian Islands to kick out the Japanese on American territory, our great State. It was only after the war that Elverda realized the great importance of what she had done. Like I said, she is an Alaskan of the Week who helped save the world--literally helped save the world. She saw her time in the Navy as a great transition in her life, where she found out what hard work and dedication and patriotism were all about. And, importantly, she also met her husband, Bob Lincoln, a U.S. marine--so we know Elverda has very good taste by marrying a U.S. marine--while he was stationed in Oregon. Both Elverda and Bob wanted to live a continued life of adventure and travel, so after the war in 1950, with one child already born and another one on the way, they packed up their car, and they drove north to the great State of Alaska. Now, it wasn't a State back then. It was still a territory, but you get the picture. They wanted an Alaskan adventure, and they got it. They settled in the Matanuska Valley in the town of Wasilla on a homestead. Elverda and her husband Bob added to Wasilla's population, which, back then, was 100 people. It is much bigger today. They felled trees. They built a cabin. They built a life. They raised three wonderful kids. Bob did everything from dairy farming to putting up telephone lines to being a butcher. And, of course, they fell in love with Alaska. ``It's like one big family,'' Elverda said. ``Our friends range from the preachers to the alcoholics and everybody in between.'' Eventually, Elverda began to write about her life in Alaska--some funny and some very serious stories about life on the homestead in the Last Frontier. She has written four books so far; and talking to her, you have no doubt that she has at least four more in her. Unfortunately, her husband, Bob, passed away. But before he did, he and Elverda traveled the world, something that she continued to do until recently. Elverda now lives in the senior center in Wasilla, and she stays busy. She walks every day. She quilts for charities, including Quilts of Valor and quilts for Children's Place. During COVID, she made masks. She has 5 grandchildren, 19 great-grandchildren, and 2 great-great- grandchildren. In her hundred years of life--hundred years of wisdom-- Elverda attributes her longevity to the following--and this is a great lesson for everybody: living healthy, staying active, being positive, and staying out of other people's business. ``I've loved every minute of my life,'' Elverda recently said. And what a life it has been. So, Elverda, thank you for your service to our country. Thank you for your service in the U.S. Navy in WAVES, to the great State of Alaska, and to Wasilla. Thank you for being such a positive inspiration for so many. Happy hundredth birthday from the U.S. Senate. And, of course, congratulations on the great honor of being our Alaskan of the Week. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. To my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, I will gladly pass along your birthday greetings to Elverda. Thank you very much.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, the Alaska Railroad Corporation-- ARRC--is a renowned institution in my State, and I would like to first congratulate the Alaska Railroad on its 100-year birthday and take a few minutes to discuss the immense impact the railroad has had not only within Alaska, but also across our Nation. The Alaska Railroad, its builders, operators, and leaders have been foundational to Alaska's development for a century. Throughout its storied history, the railroad has supported war efforts, transported passengers between Alaska's largest cities, helped build the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, invested in real estate, and facilitated tourism and commerce across miles of my State's remote and wild landscapes. It took decades of twists and turns before the Alaska Railroad Corporation charged forth. What would later become the ARRC laid the first track in Alaska in 1903, starting in Seward and extending 50 miles north. In 1914, the U.S. Congress, acknowledging the national importance of expanding the railroad, funded construction and operations from Seward to Fairbanks at an estimated construction cost of $35 million. On July 15, 1923, President Warren G. Harding drove a golden spike into the ground at Nenana, uniting the track and marking the completion of the Alaska Railroad. During World War II, from 1940-1943, the railroad played a key role in moving military and civilian supplies that were essential in supporting the war efforts. In 1943, two tunnels were built through the Chugach Mountains to allow rail access to Whittier, a military port and fuel depot essential to the Nation's defense. This important partnership with the U.S. military continues to this day. In 1962, the railroad established its first car-barge service in Whittier, followed by train-ship service, revolutionizing Alaska by enabling rail cars from the lower 48 to be shipped to any point along the Alaska Railroad. In the early to mid-1970s, the railroad supported construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline; shipping and storing pipeline between Valdez, Seward, and Fairbanks, from where it was then trucked to the North Slope. In 1981, the railroad entered into agreements with Fairbanks and Anchorage school district career centers for a tour guide program that trained high school students to serve as hosts onboard summer passenger trains. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the authorization of the transfer of the Alaska Railroad to the State of Alaska. Shortly thereafter, the Alaska Railroad Corporation was born. By 1996, the ARRC showed a profit of $8.0 million and passenger ridership had grown to 512,000. Former Governor Bill Sheffield became CEO in 1997. In the early 2000s, the Alaska Railroad Corporation's real estate operations exceeded $11 million in profits for the first time and a web-based passenger reservation system was implemented. Simultaneously, the Alaska Railroad began a program to reduce diesel emissions and noise. 2003 was the railroad's most profitable and safe year in its history up until that point. In 2013, the Railroad's own Bill O'Leary was named CEO, becoming the first lifelong Alaskan to lead the railroad. Today, the ARRC operates a regularly scheduled public transportation service connecting Alaskans and visitors to communities from Seward to Fairbanks. Passengers gain access to wonderfully remote regions and areas off the road system including Alaska's Chugach National Forest and Denali National Park, which are visited by hundreds of thousands of people annually. Like Alaska itself, the Alaska Railroad's story is full of peaks and valleys. Every mile of this legendary railroad was earned through grit, bravery, skill and sweat. Alaska Railroad Corporation trains are iconic symbols, in Alaska and around the world, of the ``can do'' spirit of Alaskans. The railroad's irreplaceable team, as much as the iron and steel of the locomotives, have served as foundational infrastructure driving economic development in The Last Frontier. I respectfully urge my fellow Members of the 118th Congress to join the proud Members of the Alaska Delegation in congratulating and thanking the Alaska Railroad Corporation for 100 years of service to our State and to our Nation.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to bring forward, once again, my bill--the United States-Russian Federation Seafood Reciprocity Act. This is a really important bill for our fishermen throughout America. This is a really important bill as it relates to sanctions against Russia. It is a really important bill as it relates to not letting Russia and China evade sanctions that the President of the United States has put on them--the Russians, in particular. It should be a bipartisan bill with regard to unanimous consent. I tried to move it last year. It had an objection. We worked through the objection and amended the bill to address the objection, in working with the Biden administration, to try to fix this from an administrative standpoint, but we were not getting anywhere. Once I explain what is happening, I think every person watching-- every American watching--and every Alaskan, certainly, is going to go: What the heck? Why on Earth are we not passing Senator Sullivan's bill? What is the background? Well, here it is. You know, I often brag about the great State of Alaska as being the superpower of seafood as over 60 percent of all of the seafood harvested in America comes from Alaska's waters. We have the most sustainable fisheries and the best managed fisheries literally in the world. They feed Americans. They feed the whole world. So this bill is about that, certainly. But it is about all fishermen, including in Massachusetts. I guess my colleague from Massachusetts is going to come and object, which is a real disappointment. But this bill is also very much about geopolitics and going after the Russians, which is all what we think, collectively, we should be doing after their brutal invasion of Ukraine. So what is the background? Let me start with some explanation. In 2014, when Russia invaded and annexed the Crimean Peninsula, the United States imposed sanctions on Russia in a whole host of different areas. The Russians retaliated with their own sanctions, and one of those sanctions was that Russia banned the import of all American seafood into Russia. It is a big market. It is certainly a big market for my fishermen. But what was crazy about that is that the Russians had banned the importation of America's seafood into Russia in 2014. So what is that--8 years ago? 9 years ago? Yet we have kept our market open to Russian seafood. If you want to talk about an unlevel playing field, Russian seafood pours into the United States pretty much duty free, and American seafood--Alaskan seafood--going into Russia is banned. So that is just wrong. That is just wrong. Russian seafood imports into the United States have increased by close to 200 percent--200 percent. Russian seafood companies are largely owned by Russian oligarchs, who are supporting this war--Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine--and, of course, they have been stealing market share from American fishermen, undermining the markets for our U.S. fishermen that we have worked hard on in our own country. Does anyone in America think this makes sense? It doesn't. It doesn't. Much of this cash, the Russian imports--we are talking hundreds of millions, up 200 percent--go back to the Russian oligarchs, the Russian Government to help drive their war machine. So since I came to the Senate 8 years ago, I have been trying with every administration to stop this unlevel playing field. Again, Russia imports hundreds of millions of dollars of seafood into our market almost duty-free, going after American fishermen, and we can't export one fish to Russia. Who thinks that is fair? So I tried with President Obama--he wouldn't help; President Trump--he wouldn't help; and President Biden. Well, it took a war--literally, it took a war--to get some administration to try and fix this. President Biden--to his credit and at my urging--when he issued his Executive order targeting the Russians with sanctions, part of that order included a prohibition of Russian seafood coming into America. Great. That is what we needed. That is only fair. It goes after the Russian war-machine oligarchs. That was welcome news, intended to isolate the Russian economy. However--however--the Biden Executive order--which, again, we appreciated very much. It is about time. It took only 8 years for our own government to say: Wow. Look at this unlevel playing field between Russia and America with regard to our fishermen and our seafood. But the Biden Executive order has a loophole. It has got a massive loophole that, of course, the Russians are taking advantage of. The vast majority of Russian seafood is harvested and frozen in simple product forms and then--guess what--it is shipped to which country? That other great dictatorship in the world--I am joking when I say ``great''; it is a brutal dictatorship--China. So Russian fishermen now send all their fish to China to get it reprocessed--laundered, essentially. They fill it with phosphates. And guess where they ship it to. The United States. Hundreds of millions of dollars of Russian seafood now gets sent to China--another dictatorship--and they send it back to the United States almost duty-free. That is a giant loophole. It is happening every day. It is an outrage. By the way, it is really bad seafood. It turns Americans off from eating seafood. They fill it with phosphates, plump it up, nasty, and they send it back to the United States. So now Russia and China are colluding to avoid the Biden Executive order. It is hurting American fishermen, once again, and it is strengthening Russia: the oligarchs, the government, the Putin war machine. I have been working patiently--patiently--for a year with this administration. The Deputy Secretary of the Treasury is supposed to call me back today. You better call me, Mr. Secretary. The Secretary of Homeland Security, let's close this loophole. Let's close this loophole. It is only benefiting Russia and China, for goodness' sake, and it is hurting our fishermen. So I am not sure why this isn't happening. Again, I have been talking to the administration. The Secretary of Homeland Security said: Senator, we will take care of this. You are right. This is a loophole we can't abide by. CBP will enforce this. The Deputy Secretary of the Treasury: Senator, we will work with OFAC to close this loophole. That has been a year, and we are still waiting. And the Russian war machine benefits from this. The Chinese, of course, benefit from this. And American fishermen are getting screwed. Why isn't our government helping? Come on, Mr. Secretary. Come on, Mr. Deputy Secretary, call me today. Let's fix this. But we are not waiting. We are not waiting. What I am trying to do now with my legislation is close the loophole. It is going to broaden the application of the President's Executive order to encompass seafood products harvested in Russian waters or by Russian vessels. That is it. That is what my bill does. Who in America, who in the Senate would be against that? This will capture Russian-origin products, including those being laundered in China. That is it. That is all I want to do. With the U.S.-Russian Federation Seafood Reciprocity Act, every Republican is cleared on it. Pretty much every Democrat has cleared on it. And who wouldn't want to? Because if you are against this bill, you are for Russian oligarchs who are still avoiding sanctions on seafood. You are against the American fishermen, whether in Alaska or Massachusetts, because they are getting screwed by this uneven trade relationship, and you are helping the Chinese. I can't imagine anyone being against this. I am frustrated, as you can tell. My fishermen have been hurt by this. The Russian war machine keeps giving revenues. The Russian oligarchs who control these companies are getting richer. The Chinese are getting richer, and the American fishermen are getting poorer. By the way, American consumers are getting a pretty gross product from China, filled with Chinese additives and phosphates. So I told the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury: Hey, I have had enough. Come on, you guys have got to fix this. It is not hard. We do Russian origins--we do origins of seafood. Buyers know where this is coming from. I see my good friend--and he is my good friend--Senator Markey is on the floor and probably is going to object, which would be really disappointing. But even that, a year ago, when Senator Markey objected to this, I said: Well, let's work together, so we did. And one of the things we put in my bill is in this bill now; it has got a 90-day provision to enforce it. So if you are an American seafood company still importing Russian seafood--and you know it, by the way, so shame on you, shame on you--but you are like: Hey, boy, I know. I am kind of addicted to this Russian seafood that goes through China. I am going to need some time to get other seafood markets for my seafood processors in Massachusetts or New Hampshire. This bill says: OK. We will give you 90 days. By the way, I have talked to Alaska fishermen. They say like, hey, you need fish? Get it from us. Get it from America. Get it from Alaska. Why are you getting it from the Russians and the Chinese? For goodness' sake. Who the hell is for that? Who can be for that? Our importers know how to trace, so that is not a good excuse. This isn't about lost jobs. Like I said, we can supply the seafood from Americans--great Alaskan and Massachusetts fishermen. I am down here frustrated. The Biden administration won't close a loophole that they promised me they would. It is not that hard. Come on, guys. Really? You are OK with a loophole and the President's own sanctions that provide hundreds of millions of dollars to the Russian Government and oligarchs because you are cheating and going through China? You don't want to close that loophole? I doubt if someone told President Biden about this; he would want to close that loophole. I am here on the floor, and I am going to ask unanimous consent for my U.S.-Russian Seafood Reciprocity Act. It is the right thing to do. Everybody knows it. Everybody knows it. I hope my colleague Senator Markey is down here on the floor to say: I support this bill because it is the right thing to do for fishermen in Alaska and Massachusetts, and it is certainly the right thing to do to keep the screws tightened on the Russian war machine. So, Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2011 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I certainly will continue to work with my friend from Massachusetts--and he is my friend, and I have a lot of respect for him. He and I work together on a number of things, but with all due respect, that was a bit of a rope-a-dope tapdance you just witnessed here on the Senate floor because he pretty much made the same arguments 16 months ago--16 months ago; the same arguments, right here, the two of us. Let me address a couple of these. The issue of this tough on CBP to do this, it is not that tough. I have talked to the head of CBP. Heck, I have talked to the Secretary of Homeland Security. They can do this. The U.S. market demands a high level of scrutiny on seafood supply chains. We already have certification systems in place that require the kind of information needed to enforce my legislation. Any seafood supplier who is serious about their job knows that they have this information. By the way, most seafood suppliers are getting off Russian seafood because they know what is happening. They don't want to support this Russian war machine. Unfortunately, we are seeing some certification efforts, such as the Marine Stewardship Council--shame on them--allowing themselves to be pulled into a profit-driven mindset that is focused on one thing: money and benefiting Russia. What do I mean by that? You can hardly believe it. When I heard the MSC--supposedly, an organization with a good reputation--the Marine Stewardship Council has recently certified Russian fisheries as sustainable, this is a joke. It is ridiculous. Shame on you, MSC, helping fund the Putin war machine. Regardless, I am 100-percent certain that any companies in America now laundering Russian product--and you know who you are--companies which, unfortunately, I worry my colleague from Massachusetts is defending--they absolutely have the ability to trace and certify exactly where the products are coming from. That is a fact. So this argument, which was made 16 months ago, still doesn't work. On the job loss issue, we put into this bill a 90-day provision to prevent the disruption. U.S. harvests of seafood are largely from U.S. citizens, including thousands of independent owners and operators of fishing vessels and small businesses in coastal communities in Alaska, in Massachusetts, and all over this great country. And they are being hurt by this. There are Massachusetts fishermen right now who want my bill to be passed--100 percent. We know that. Certainly, thousands of Alaskan fishermen. But if you want to compare jobs, let's go. Commercial fishing is the top employer in terms of jobs in my State, and it is a big employer in Massachusetts. So to my colleague from Massachusetts, what I offered last year I still offer now. Let Alaskan fishermen send their fish to you guys. Or, heck, Massachusetts fishermen, don't rely on Russian fishermen laundered through the communist Chinese economy to go to a few processors in Massachusetts. That is why you are blocking this. No offense, but that is why you are blocking this. So, look, I know you are vigorously supporting Ukraine and so am I, but this is a chink in the armor here. On this issue, you are not. And we can solve this right now if you change your vote, my colleague, and say: You know what, I am not going to object. Senator Sullivan is right. My fishermen need this. Alaskan fishermen need this. Let's clamp down on the Russian war machine. Sixteen months ago my colleague from Massachusetts made these same arguments--16 months ago. It is outrageous. I will continue to work with him, but the rope-a-dope tap dance isn't convincing. We need to move on this, Mr. President. How you could be down on the floor of the U.S. Senate defending this laundering and undermining of President Biden's Russian sanctions is beyond me. I will keep working it. Maybe the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, or maybe the White House--Jake Sullivan, you should care about this. But for goodness' sake, let's not come on the Senate floor and make the same arguments that were made 16 months ago that we addressed in the bill that I just brought to the floor. The only benefit, right now, of this objection--the only benefit--is the Putin--the Russian war machine, the oligarchs who own the Russian fishing industry, and the Chinese Communist Party leaders who are part of the laundering process in China. Every American fisherman loses right now. So I am going to keep working this. And I am disappointed in my colleague, who made these same arguments 16 months ago and is still not convinced. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I will take my colleague and friend from Massachusetts up on his offer. Round 1; 16 months later, round 2. That is a lot of people hurting, including Massachusetts fishermen, by this unfair trading that we have with Russia--completely unfair. Again, they can import all they want into the United States now through China. We can't import at all there. So I will work with him. The new provisions, by the way, are meant to enhance the ability to trace the Russian seafood being laundered. So that helps. It still has the 90 days to help Gorton's of Gloucester and others to address this. But at least my colleague is being honest, right? This is about Gorton's of Gloucester. That is kind of what we knew. By the way, to Gorton's of Gloucester, here is my message to you: Continuing to import Russian seafood is a bad business idea. It is a bad business idea. Funding the Putin war machine is a bad business idea. Most American business companies have realized that. So, Gorton's of Gloucester, here is my idea for you: Buy more Alaskan seafood. Buy more Massachusetts seafood. Get off your addiction to Russian war-machine seafood that is laundered through China. It is an unsustainable business model, and at some point, even your U.S. Senator is not going to be able to defend you. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise to join the other Members of Alaska's Federal delegation--Senator Lisa Murkowski and Representative Mary Peltola--in honoring our dear friend Dr. Reverend Anna Frank. For decades, Reverend Frank has been a force for good in Interior Alaska and across our State. As the first female Alaska Native Episcopalian priest, she has given thousands of sermons and has officiated over countless weddings, funerals, and baptisms. She has served as a counselor for those in need, has been at the bedside for those souls passing on to heaven, and has provided much needed solace to those here on earth. Reverend Frank was born in 1939 in Old Minto, 1 of 14 children. Growing up in a village of less than 200 people, all living a subsistence lifestyle, everyone in the village had to play their part to survive and thrive. Her mother taught her how to trap muskrats and set fish traps. She also had many other women in her life--her aunties, who mentored her, as she has since mentored hundreds of other young women. After moving to Fairbanks, she married Richard Frank, a World War II veteran and respected Athabaskan leader who was also from Minto--and with whom she enjoyed a 57-year-long marriage. Together, Anna and Richard Frank raised four children. During this time, Reverend Frank earned her high school diploma. Her ability to persevere through adverse conditions instilled in her the idea that, ``You have to do things for yourself: don't live off people.'' Reverend Frank became a health aide and midwife in Minto--her grandmother and aunt were midwives who had passed their knowledge on to her--and again, she demonstrated her strength, compassion, and skill. She was hired by Tanana Chiefs Conference to create their first health education department in 1975. Reverend Frank's job was to travel to the villages in the Interior and to talk to Alaska Natives about modern health and medicine. It was in this environment where Reverend Frank's experiences--the lessons she had learned from her elders and knowledge that she had gained from her western education--all came together. She found a way to reach out and get the help they needed, in a way that worked for them. Soon after, she was recruited to be a counselor, a position at which she excelled. In preparation for Easter one year, Reverend Frank decided that instead of giving something up for Lent, she would volunteer at the village church. After that, she became a deacon. Nearly 10 years later, she was ordained as an Episcopalian priest, the first Alaska Native woman to be ordained. She worked for the diocese for over 12 years and traveled internationally on behalf of the church. For her work, Dr. Reverend Anna Frank was awarded an honorary doctorate of law by the University of Alaska-Fairbanks in 2019. Reverend Franks spent the majority of her life doing what needed to be done. The countless problems she encountered, she tackled head on. Reverend Frank traveled around Alaska, to numerous Native villages, and held church services for anybody of any faith, who wanted to be ministered to. ``I understood two roads: our Native ways and the other world,'' she once said. She was, and still is, a bridge between the old and the new. She has served on numerous boards, including the Denakkanaaga Elders group, the Alaska Commission on Aging, as well as the Fairbanks Native Association. She continues her journey in ensuring that Alaska Natives are seen and heard. She prays with them and for them. Reverend Frank has given her all to enrich and enliven the lives of those around her. She spoke to a reporter a few years ago about her lifelong journey. ``As long as you're breathing it's never too late,'' she said. ``So that's what I did in my life, I changed me, and I grew, and I tried to help others. From where I came from, I have moved mountains.'' We thank her for the mountains she has moved, her faith, her tireless service to our State and to her community and for all the many blessings she has bestowed on so many. ``Ana Baasee','' Reverend Anna.