Floor Statements

Madam President, it is that time of the week that our pages--when we had them--used to always look forward to. It is the time of the week that I come down on the floor and talk about someone in Alaska who is making a huge impact on my State, a lot of times for the country. These two Alaskans I am going to talk about actually have gotten national news for the great work they are doing, somebody we call our Alaskan of the Week. It is usually about a group of individuals, one, two, maybe a group of people who are helping make Alaska what, in my view, is the greatest State in the country-- resilient, tough, generous, kind, unique.

Like so many States, this pandemic has really hit Alaska hard-- tourism for sure. The oil and gas sector last year was really hit hard with low prices. Unfortunately, this year, with the Biden

administration's attacks on this sector of the United States and Alaska's economy, it is tough; commercial fishing, tough. It has been a tough year economically. But an area of good news during the pandemic, one that I am very proud of for all of my constituents, involves how we in Alaska have responded on the health side. Vaccines, testing, death rates--we have consistently been the top State rated in all of these categories throughout the pandemic, which is kind of amazing given that we are a very, very big State with a very small population.

I know that so many Americans watching right now want to get back out, visit Alaska. Our Governor, Mike Dunleavy, recently tweeted:

With the best vaccination efforts [in the country] & some

of the lowest COVID numbers in the country, Alaska is open

for business . . . safe for travelers!

So come on, America, get back up to Alaska. Love to have you.

So this is all very true. Our vaccination efforts are viewed as the best in the United States of America, and the great lengths that so many in Alaska have gone through to make it so have captured the country's imagination. These efforts just in the last couple of weeks have been featured all across the country--USA TODAY, ``Good Morning America,'' the Washington Post, the New York Times, a great piece by Bloomberg News, and so many others. So big thanks to the press corps, the national press corps, for featuring my State's efforts and importantly the heroic work being done to distribute lifesaving vaccines to a State that is more than 2\1/2\ times the size of Texas. Sorry there, Senator Cornyn, Senator Cruz. It is true.

Most of the geography of Alaska is dotted with small villages without roads in freezing-cold temperatures. I was in Fairbanks last weekend-- just a couple of weeks ago in Fairbanks. It almost hit 40 below. That is cold.

All across Alaska, our healthcare workers are jumping on boats, single-prop airplanes, snow machines, and, yes, in a couple of cases, dog sleds to bring the vaccine and hope to their fellow Alaskans. And it shows.

As of a few days ago, close to 160,000 Alaskans had received at least their first vaccine dose. That is about 21 percent of our State's population.

Now, in Southwest Alaska, what we called the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, or the YK Delta--those are two giant rivers that come together--these efforts have been particularly impressive. That is largely thanks to the amazing people at the YK Health Corporation, or YKHC, which is the YK Delta's Tribal health provider. The whole organization, consisting of just about 90 healthcare professionals, serves around 28,000 people in the YK region, which is about the size of Oregon, so a huge area, not a lot of people.

Prior to the vaccine, the YK Delta had been stricken by COVID-19 with one of the highest infection rates in the country, in a very far-flung place in terms of the dispersal of the population. It is the efforts of two women there in the YK Delta, Drs. Ellen Hodges and Elizabeth Bates, who are our Alaskans of the Week, who have been in charge of getting the vaccine to roughly 50 remote villages in Southwestern Alaska. Spread out over a territory, as I said, about the size of Oregon, the village populations in the YK Delta range from about 1,200 people to as small as 10 in terms of population.

Let's start with Dr. Hodges. She is the chief of staff at YKHC. She grew up in rural Minnesota. After graduating from the University of Minnesota Medical School, Dr. Hodges came to Anchorage as a resident in 2002, eventually making her way to Bethel, which is the hub village. It is a big community, the biggest in the YK Delta. She absolutely fell in love with the area. She said it has everything--very friendly people, authentic. It is beautiful. Soon enough, her patients turned into her family. Also soon enough, she was--according to Tricia Franklin, Alaska's director of the State Office of Rural Health Division--``the go-to person for how things are working in rural communities'' and how to get things done.

She worked in the emergency room tending cuts, bruises, broken bones. She delivered babies. She worked tirelessly to contain a number of tuberculosis outbreaks in the region. And then the virus hit, and as I mentioned, it hit the YK Delta region very hard with some of the highest COVID rates in America.

There are reasons for that: the multigenerational housing, very crowded housing in this region; communal lifestyle; and also--here is a big one, and it should be a shock for every American listening--about 50 percent of the households in this region of America lack running water. Let me say that again. Some of the most patriotic communities in the country, as Alaska Natives serve at higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the country, live in communities that don't have running water or flushed toilets--American citizens.

It is wrong. It is wrong. And we need--we the U.S. Senate, Congress-- to continue to work on this issue. How do you wash your hands five times a day, as the CDC wants you to do during the pandemic, when you don't have running water or flushed toilets? We need to keep working on this. It is a disgrace, to be honest.

So what happened when COVID hit in this region? Because of a lack of sanitation and many other problems, precious lives were being lost. Elders, who are vital to pass on the traditional wisdom of the Native Alaskan culture and heritage, were being lost. Because of a lack of functioning sanitation, even young people, whom this virus doesn't really impact, were starting to have respiratory illnesses and getting sick, and some were even dying. That is horrible. It was terrifying, particularly for an area that is still dealing with the multigenerational trauma of previous pandemics, particularly the Spanish flu of 1918, which in several Alaskan Native communities wiped out entire communities; 60, 70 percent mortally rates from that flu. So we needed to get to work fast, particularly in this region.

Enter another intrepid doctor and our Alaskan of the Week, Dr. Elizabeth Bates. Dr. Bates arrived in Bethel in December of 2018--just a little over 2 years ago--and she found a community that she loved. She had experience working in women's health and infection control and emergency care and disaster relief. She has great experience across the country--really, across the world. As a doctor, she worked with patients during 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and has spent time even in refugee camps in Rwanda.

In Bethel, she was in charge of setting up testing centers for the region. Working hand in glove with Dr. Hodges, she started one of the first drive-through and airport testing sites in rural Alaska, much of it outside in the cold weather under tarps.

But we all know that testing alone, particularly, as I said, when people are living so closely together and don't live in places where you can wash your hands frequently, wasn't nearly enough. They tried everything--public service announcements, reaching out to villagers, helping them use bleach to sanitize. It was a 24/7 effort, but, as I said, it wasn't enough. The virus was spreading rapidly. They were losing. People were dying.

Then on December 18, a few days before winter solstice--the darkest day of the year--hope came to Bethel, AK, because the first vaccines arrived. Thanks to the great work of so many scientists, government workers, private sector workers, Operation Warp Speed, the vaccine arrived on December 18 to the YK Delta. These two intrepid doctors I have been talking about cried. They had seen a lot of death and struggles in the region, and like a Christmas miracle, this vaccine arrived. They hugged each other, and then they got to work.

As I said, there are roughly 50 remote villages in the YK Delta spread out over a territory about the size of many States in our country--as a matter of fact, bigger than most States in our country-- so they traveled on small planes, trucks, on ice roads, snow machines, dog sleds.

Their operation, Project Togo, is named in reference to one of the famous sled dogs that helped carry the diphtheria serum to Nome, which, of course, is the original inspiration for the Iditarod Sled Dog Race. Sometimes it was so cold that they had to keep the syringes filled with COVID serum under their clothes, lest the serum froze.

The operation that they initiated and organized has hit every single village,

all 50 in the YK Delta, bringing the vaccine to pretty much anyone who wants it. In some villages, they have been able to vaccinate as much as half the population. As a result, the numbers of COVID infections and deaths are plummeting in this region, and hope is spreading.

This great team, Drs. Hodges and Bates, as well as all in the community and all working at YKHC, have made a huge difference, and this team has created a special bond that nobody will forget.

Dr. Bates, a relative newcomer to Alaska, says that the experience has made her fall in love with the YK Delta region even more. She bought a home. She intends on staying. She describes the beauty of the region, something that she appreciates even more now, as ``Our sky is huge. . . . We have a front-row seat to the entire universe.''

These two doctors also have a front-row seat in providing a front-row seat to hope during this pandemic.

So I want to thank both of them again, Dr. Hodges and Dr. Bates, and all those across Alaska who are helping distribute the vaccine.

As I mentioned, right now, Alaska is the No. 1 State in the country per capita in terms of vaccine distribution and the No. 1 State per capita in terms of testing and has one of the lowest death rates. This is really amazing, really, when you see how big and widespread and harsh the weather conditions can be in the great State of Alaska.

Our fellow Alaskans are tough, resilient, and innovative, and Dr. Hodges and Dr. Bates are a huge and essential part of this effort. That is why I want to congratulate them and thank them again for being our Alaskans of the Week.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump marked the third time in 1 year that the Senate has had to confront significant constitutional and institutional questions with consequences that will undoubtedly reverberate into the future. As always, I am guided by the Constitution, historical precedent, and ``a deep responsibility to future times,'' as stated by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, our Nation's first great constitutional scholar, two centuries ago. This is what has informed me during last year's impeachment, the electorial college certification in January, and now another impeachment.

This has been a disheartening episode for a divided America. Make no mistake: I condemn the horrific violence that engulfed the Capitol on January 6. All those who undertook violence on that day should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I also condemn former President Trump's poor judgment in calling a rally on that day, and his actions and inactions when it turned into a riot. His blatant disregard for his own Vice President, Mike Pence, who was fulfilling his constitutional duty at the Capitol, infuriates me. I will never forget the brave men and women of law enforcement--some of whom lost their lives and were seriously injured--who carried out their patriotic duty to protect members of Congress that day.

However horrible the violence was--and how angry I have been about it--I believe that it is imperative, for the future of our democracy, to examine closely the totality of the precedents, impeachment proceedings, and evidence, and to be as dispassionate and impartial as possible in this case.

That is why I cast my vote, on February 13, 2021, to acquit former President Trump on the single Article of Impeachment, ``incitement of insurrection.''

The primary purpose of impeachment in our constitutional system is to remove an official from office--to, according to Justice Story, divest an official ``of his political capacity.'' The House's single Article of Impeachment emphasized this need to remove President Trump from office. Regarding this case before the Senate, President Donald Trump had already been removed from office by a vote of the American people this past November. Thus, pursuing impeachment in this case creates a troubling precedent in which former officials--private citizens--can face impeachment and conviction.

Therefore, the fundamental issue in this impeachment trial is not removal from office but whether the Senate has or should accept jurisdiction to try, convict, and disqualify Donald Trump, a private citizen, from any future elected office based on the House's single article of impeachment--incitement of insurrection.

The House and Senate have never before claimed or exercised such impeachment jurisdiction over a former President. I do not believe that the Constitution empowers the Senate to have such impeachment jurisdiction. In his renowned ``Commentaries on the Constitution,'' Justice Story comes to the same conclusion, although to be fair, there are others who do not. I believe that the precedents set in claiming that the Senate can try former Presidents who are private citizens have the very real potential to do significant long-term damage to our constitutional order, individual liberties, and the proper functioning of our Republic in a way that we will come to regret as a nation.

Additionally in this case, the House undertook a ``snap impeachment'' in 48 hours with no hearings, no witnesses, no record, and no defenses presented. When asked about this during the Senate trial, the House managers stated that constitutional due process protections for a defendant in an impeachment are ``discretionary'' or, in other words, not required. This troubling declaration is now a precedent in the House. Combining this ``no Due Process/snap impeachment'' precedent with the additional power of the Senate to try former officials, who are now private citizens, amounts to a massive expansion of Congress' impeachment

power never contemplated by our Founding Fathers. The temptation to use such power as a regular tool of partisan warfare in the future will be great and has the potential to incapacitate our government.

Those in favor of expanding impeachment jurisdiction to include the former President primarily point to the potential for Presidents or other officials to commit impeachable acts near the end of their term or shortly before resigning. The House managers called this a ``January exception'' to impeachment. They argued that this would allow such individuals to escape culpability and would frustrate the purpose of impeachment to hold public officials accountable. This is a legitimate concern. However, there are other remedies available to punish such conduct of a former President through the judicial system, if warranted. The Constitution explicitly provides that former officials can be subject to criminal prosecution for their actions while in office, regardless of impeachment. Moreover, even if such conduct eludes judicial review, the American people are well equipped to judge political conduct and pass their judgement upon it. For that reason, and as I emphasized last year following the previous impeachment trial, I believe it can be left to the wise judgement of the American people on whether or not the former President should be disqualified from future office.

Even if this Senate was empowered by the Constitution to hear this case, I do not believe that the House managers met their burden in proving the critical issue at trial--whether the former President intended there to be violence at the Capitol as a result of his speech at the Ellipse on January 6. Furthermore, the House managers claimed, in arguing their incitement charge, that First Amendment political speeth protections do not apply to elected officials in impeachment proceedings. A conviction based on this breathtaking precedent has the potential to significantly further undermine core constitutional protections for Americans and their ability to undertake political speech in the future.

Finally, laced throughout the House managers' presentations were subtle and not-sosubtle indictments, not just against the Capitol rioters who fully deserve condemnation but against all supporters of the former President, which of course includes many Alaskans. This sentiment is one that cannot and should not be allowed to be perpetuated. In my view, this will not bring about the kind of unity that our Nation needs now. In contrast to what some of the House managers implied at this trial, the vast majority of Americans and Alaskans who had supported President Trump were appalled by the violence on January 6. Such Alaskans supported this President because of his polices that helped our State. I will continue to work to make sure that these Alaskans' voices are not silenced and that this dispiriting chapter in American history won't deter them from speaking out in defense of their beliefs.

This has been a difficult time for our Nation. My vote on February 13 was not in defense of the former President's conduct on January 6 with which I fully disagreed, particularly his twitter attacks on Vice President Pence, as the Vice President undertook his constitutional duties to preside over the electoral college vote at the Capitol.

At the end of the day, my obligation is to rise above the passions of the moment and to carefully consider the decisions we make today and the ramifications they will have for our country's future. I believe that my vote to acquit fulfills that obligation. I want Alaskans and Americans to know that throughout all of this, my guiding light has been both fidelity to Alaska and to our Constitution.

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

Mr. President, I wanted to talk a little bit about the vote I just took here with regard to our Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Vilsack, who is now the new Secretary or on his way to becoming the new Secretary.

You know, what I have tried to do when looking at nominees is I typically kind of look at three different questions: Do they have experience for the job, the experience necessary for the job, do they have views that I believe will help the country and in particular help my State, and do they care about the people they will be impacting? So that is a bit of a three-part test.

I have tried to work with a lot of the new nominees in the Biden administration. I voted for a number of them, most of them. As a matter of fact, I introduced Secretary Austin at his confirmation hearing. I got to know him many years ago when I was a marine and he was an Army officer, a two-star general.

You know, I will say to my friends, colleagues, constituents back home who say: Hey, Senator, you know, when the Trump administration put forward their nominees, you usually had kind of a party-line vote.

A lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my Democratic friends, would vote no, no, no, no.

Why don't you do that?

Well, I don't think it is good for the country; that is why I don't do that. I am against some but I have been supportive of many, and I am not sure the way in which it worked with the previous administration was best for our Nation.

So certainly Secretary Vilsack passes the first two parts of that test I was talking about. Clearly he has the experience. He was the Secretary of Ag for 8 years under President Obama and Vice President Biden. Certainly he has views particularly with regard to farm country. You saw the strong vote he had there with regard to helping the ag sector. I am sure he is a patriot, of course. He cares about our country. But it was the third question--does he care about the people he will be impacting?--that I have had some serious hesitation on.

Mr. President, I will talk a little bit about, you know, a lot of our different economies throughout the country. Our States have been hit hard by this pandemic. I would say that my State's economy has been hit really hard. When you look at what drives a lot of the Alaska economy: the energy sector, oil, gas, mining, the tourism sector, the fisheries, commercial fishery sector--I like to call Alaska the superpower of seafood. Over 60 percent of all seafood harvested in America comes from the waters of the great State of Alaska, the most sustainable, best managed fishery probably in the world but a huge driver of our economy.

Also, there is the issue of access to our lands. Sixty-six percent of Alaska is Federal land. We need access to help have a strong economy. It is an issue that the Presiding Officer probably doesn't have to worry about, being from Connecticut, but in Alaska, access to land is huge.

In the last administration, we made a lot of progress on these issues for our economy, on oil and gas, ANWR, the NPRA, access to those lands, legislation by the Congress. Our tourism sector had been doing great. Our commercial fishing sector had been doing great. We even made progress on other access issues, like the Tongass, something that for 25 years Democrats and Republicans, whether Senators from Alaska, whether Governors from Alaska, were trying to get access to those lands. It is really important, and we were able to do that.

So there was progress, and then the pandemic that has hurt everybody. It certainly hurt the energy sector. It certainly hurt, crushed the tourism sector. Last year, Alaska was going to have 1.5 million people show up in our State with regard to tourism, a new record just on the cruise ships, but none of them showed up because of the pandemic. The commercial fishing sector also has had a really rough time with this pandemic--markets, international markets, markets domestically.

So I am very concerned about my State's economy, about working families, and about the average Alaskan who is struggling right now. The new policies put forward by this administration have been shockingly negative as it relates to my State. One month in, particularly in the energy sector, every day we are waking up to a new edict saying: Men and women who produce energy in America, who produce energy in Alaska, sorry, you are not favored anymore. You are not viewed in a positive light anymore.

It is a real, real, real concern. Hundreds, if not thousands of jobs in my State during a recession are at risk.

So these are some of the issues that I raised in my discussions with Secretary Vilsack, in particular our commercial fishing sector.

In the previous administration, under the USDA, the Secretary of Agriculture helped implement a new trade

relief program for fishermen. Huge progress. Hugely important. Just the way the farmers were getting this kind of relief with regard to trade and markets that have been destroyed by the pandemic, the Secretary of Agriculture undertook a new program for the farmers of the sea, for the fishermen who are being negatively impacted the same way that our farmers on the land were.

This is an issue that I raised with the Secretary on the importance of moving forward, continuing that, and to be honest, there didn't seem to be a lot of interest. I was kind of shocked, but there didn't seem to be a lot of interest, and I was concerned. I am concerned.

Similarly, this progress we made with regard to the Tongass, access to the largest national forest in the country that is under USDA management--something Alaskans have been working on in a bipartisan way for 25 years. There didn't seem to be a lot of interest from the Secretary on that either.

So these are two issues hugely important to my State, hugely important to my constituents, hugely important to try to get Alaska out of a really deep recession where a lot of families are worried. And I got the sense that the Secretary just wasn't that interested. I really hope I am wrong. I really hope I am wrong.

So I plan on trying to work with him. You know, he had a strong, very strong bipartisan vote, but every now and then, if you really think the people you represent are not going to be given a lot of attention when they need it, it becomes a harder vote. It becomes a harder vote. He obviously has got strong bipartisan support, but I sure hope that when he becomes Secretary of Agriculture, he cares as much about the farmers of the sea, where we have made progress on, as he does about farmers on the land. I didn't see that in my meeting with him and I hope I am wrong and that is why I voted the way I did.

I also voted the way I did as it relates to this issue of access to the Tongass. Again, it is a huge issue to my State, a very bipartisan issue for my State. And, again, I hope that the Secretary and his team look at it as something that can help the economy of Alaska while protecting our environment, which, of course, we care about.

But these are the reasons that I voted the way I did, and I hope that my concerns are going to be proved to be unfounded. I am going to continue to advocate for my constituents in the way that I think is going to be very important as we try and get through these challenging times, particularly the Alaska Tongass.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. Mr. Sullivan.

Just a point of inquiry. There is a little confusion here. Was that a vote on one witness or many witnesses?

It is not debate. It is a point of inquiry on what we just voted on.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I send a question to the desk for the former President's counsel.

Mr. President.

Thank you, sir.

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

Madam President, as many of us know, our country is mourning the loss of a great man, a man who I believe was one of the greatest of the Greatest Generation.

Yesterday, we all received the sad news that George Shultz, Secretary Shultz, died in his home in California yesterday. He was 100 years old. He just celebrated his 100th birthday in December.

He was a man of great intelligence, of courage, of integrity. He exemplified service, what is great about this Nation, and hope for our country--not just for our country but countries around the world. Democracy itself was something that this great American promoted.

He leaves behind his wife Charlotte, 3 daughters, 2 sons, 11 grandchildren, and 9 great-grandchildren. Of course, our prayers for his family are going out to all of them during this difficult time.

There are people who have lived history, and there are people who have made history. Secretary Shultz made history. He lived a life in full, and he was always giving back to his country, to his fellow Americans.

He was one of only two, I believe, American citizens who held four different Cabinet posts in the U.S. Government. He was OMB Director, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of the Treasury, and, most importantly, Secretary of State for almost the entire two terms of President Reagan's tenure during some very perilous times in our country's history.

As Secretary of State, there is no doubt that Secretary Shultz, along with President Reagan, did so much to win the Cold War, to bring down the Berlin Wall eventually, to successfully not just defeat in the Cold War the Soviet Union but to foster the infrastructure of democracy around the globe. If you read about his exploits, if you read his autobiography, you will see so much of what George Shultz did for our country, which was so important.

It is not an exaggeration to say we are living in a more peaceful and prosperous world--there is no doubt we have challenges--because of men like Secretary Shultz.

One of the great honors of my lifetime was to get to know Secretary Shultz over the last several years. I had the opportunity to meet with him many, many times and to listen and learn--and his mind was so sharp--from the stories that he would tell. This, to me, is another great example of leadership--people who, even in the end years of their life, are still mentoring others, whether Senators or students.

He would regularly teach classes at Stanford as part of the Hoover Institution out there. He kept writing books until his 100th birthday.

I had the opportunity to wish him a happy birthday in December and was even on a Zoom call with him. I will say, in my experience with him, certain things kept coming out, themes of a life: service, of course, patriotism, integrity, trust, and also the U.S. Marine Corps.

You know, when it comes to the issue of integrity, you look at Secretary Shultz's career, his life, and he always had integrity as the highest principle, and he talked about that, not just integrity to do the right thing, which meant sometimes saying no, but he did this throughout his career. And, then, at the very twilight of his career, he talked about not just integrity but trust--trust as the coin of the realm of a good life, of service.

As he was turning 100 in December, he put out a little pamphlet. It is right here. I read the whole thing. I encourage my colleagues to read it:

Life and Learning after One Hundred Years. Trust Is the

Coin of the Realm. Reflections on Trust and Effective

Relationships across a New Hinge of History. George P.

Shultz, December 13, 2020.

Who does that when they are 100--put out a pamphlet on trust? Well, George Shultz did that

In the pamphlet, Secretary Shultz wrote that one lesson he learned as a child and retained over and over again was the importance of trust. As he says in this pamphlet:

When trust was in the room, whatever room that was--the

family room, the schoolroom, the coach's room, the office

room, the government room, or the military room--good things

happen. When trust was not in the room, good things did not

happen.

I think, certainly, we can learn that here in the U.S. Senate, where trust is the coin of the realm here. There is no doubt about that.

This idea of trust is a lesson that stayed with him throughout his career and a concept that he believed--when you read all his writings and talked to him the way so many of us have had the opportunity to-- helped lead to the end of the Cold War--trust. President Reagan, General Secretary Gorbachev together eliminated intermediate-range nuclear weapons, which laid down the foundation for the peaceful end of the Cold War in which the United States was victorious.

This pamphlet by Secretary Shultz on trust can be found online at https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/ shultz_finalfile_web-ready.pdf.

Even to the end of his days, he was still looking at providing guidance to the Senate. I had a talk with him, as I mentioned, just about 5 weeks ago about his coming to testify in front of the Armed Services Committee, a tradition started by another great American, John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Every January, we would start with some statesmen with a lot of knowledge and history, and George Shultz was always part of that, testifying in front of the Armed Services Committee at 98, 99 years old, with Henry Kissinger, the junior man in the room, who was just a year or two younger.

Senator Reed and I were just talking recently about bringing Secretary Shultz back to, once again, testify in front of the Armed Services Committee, and I am sad to say we have lost this great American before he can do that again.

Let me conclude with this: The other thing I loved about George Shultz is that he was, first and foremost, a U.S. marine. Until the end of his life, he spoke about the pride he gained from serving in combat in World War II as a Marine Corps officer and the many, many lessons he learned throughout his life from his service in the Marines.

The first time I ever met the Secretary, I went into his office. I thought there would be a bunch of pictures with famous people--there were some of those--but there were Marine Corps recruiting posters everywhere.

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, another great American, recounted in her excellent op-ed about the legacy of Secretary Shultz just yesterday in the Washington Post. He told her that being Secretary of State was ``the best job in government.''

When she got nominated to be Secretary of State, he called her to give her some advice. They were very good friends. He was a mentor of hers as well. He said it is the best job in government, the Secretary of State. And then he corrected himself: It is the best job except for when I was a Marine Corps captain.

That is what he told Condi, so he was first and foremost a marine.

For all of these reasons, I will be calling up a resolution, a bipartisan resolution, to honor the life, achievements, and legacy of the Honorable George P. Shultz, who has done so much for our great Nation. We are working on this. Hopefully, we will get it passed in the Senate here soon. It is very bipartisan already. I was hoping to get it done tonight.

When great Americans leave us, it is really important that we reflect and look on the life of service, commitment, patriotism, honor, courage, and learn from that. Even though he is gone after 100 years, I know I am going to be learning from George Shultz for a long, long time. I sure hope and I expect and I certainly believe that my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate and our fellow Americans will be as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 461 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, prior to the pandemic over the last several years, our country did something remarkable. We grew our economy, created millions of good-paying energy jobs, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

In fact, from 2005 to 2017, the United States reduced greenhouse gas emissions by almost 15 percent--way more than any other country in the world. How did we do that? The dramatic increase in America's production of clean-burning natural gas was largely responsible for all of this.

So my amendment is very simple. It calls for the continued expansion of American natural gas production and energy infrastructure to create more jobs, grow our economy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This is what President Biden said about this issue just a few years ago--

Are you sure you don't want to hear that?

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, pro-jobs amendment. And I am happy to take this amendment by a voice vote.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, along with Senator Murkowski and Alaska Congressman Don Young, we rise to congratulate and pay special tribute to a great, hard-working, and inspiring Alaskan, the Honorable Bill Sheffield, former Governor of Alaska, upon the occasion of his receiving an honorary doctorate of humane letters from the University of Alaska. On Sunday, December 13, 2020, the University of Alaska Anchorage awarded Governor Bill Sheffield this special degree at its fall commencement ceremonies.

Born in Spokane, WA, and raised in the Seattle area, Governor Sheffield served in the U.S. Air Force, worked as a sales and service rep for Sears Roebuck, and was transferred by Sears to Alaska in 1953. He went into the hospitality business, establishing the Anchorage Inn. Bill bought out his business partner, expanded his hotel holdings, and grew his hotel empire to 19 properties in Alaska and the Yukon.

He was elected the fifth Governor of our State in 1982. During his tenure, he oversaw massive infrastructure projects, including roads and water systems. He pushed through a bill that consolidated the State's four time zones into two and is responsible for creating Alaska Standard and Alaska Daylight Time. Governor Bill was instrumental in the purchase of the Alaska Railroad by the State from the Federal Government and commissioned the construction of Spring Creek Correctional Facility in Seward. His accomplishments are many and his love of Alaska and his kindness, warmth, and generosity to its people are widely known.

The Governor is 92 and going strong. Governor Sheffield's story in Alaska embodies what many of us love about our great State. It doesn't matter where you come from or your social status. In Alaska, if you have grit, tenacity, determination, and a servant's heart, nothing can hold you back. As the 117th Congress begins, we want to say Congratulations, Governor Sheffield, upon the occasion of your much- deserved honorary doctorate.

Mr. President, I want to compliment my good friend and colleague Senator Portman, the great Senator from the State of Ohio, who has done so much in this Chamber on so many issues--COVID-19 relief is just one--to help our great Nation.

Some of you may have heard the news that Senator Portman--I am still very distraught about it--has announced that he is not going to be running for reelection in 2 years, and I think that is going to be a huge loss, not just to the State of Ohio but to our great Nation.

I want to commend Senator Portman for all his phenomenal work. He is proving, again, his leadership and his statesmanship here as we are trying to attack and take on big challenges for our Nation.

China

Mr. President, I also want to talk about another big challenge for our Nation, something that I have come down on the floor since I was elected 6 years ago to the Senate to talk about, and that is the challenge that we have with regard to the rise of China. As a matter of fact, this is an area I talk frequently about because there is a lot more bipartisan progress on this incredibly important issue--the most important geostrategic challenge facing our Nation right now, probably the challenge that will be facing us for the next 50 to 100 years--that is with us today.

But there has been progress. I want to talk about this progress, and I want to talk about something, another development that I think is very important.

There has been an awakening. When I started to come down and talk about the rise of China, not a lot of people were talking about it, but there has been huge progress in that now everybody is talking about it--the Biden administration, and the Trump administration had been. I think President Trump and his team, with their national security strategy, their national defense strategy, deserve a lot of credit from reorienting our focus, which was the appropriate focus post-9/11 on violent extremist organizations, like al-Qaida and ISIS, to the new challenge of great power competition with China as the pacing threat that we have with regard to our Nation.

Again, this is something that has been very bipartisan. When you look at Members of this body, particularly those who focus on foreign policy and national security, they all agree that this reorientation on this challenge is something that we need to be doing as a country in a bipartisan way--dealing with the rise of China.

I think, when we talk about this challenge, we are at a place in history that, in many ways, is analogous to the period right after World War II. I want to talk briefly about that in my remarks

In 1946, we had what at the time was a recognition that, post World War II, we had a new challenge--similar to the

challenge we are seeing right now, the recognition that we have this challenge with China. In 1946, we started to recognize that we have a challenge with our old World War II ally, the Soviet Union. There was a big focus on this challenge, but not necessarily in organizing foreign policy principles that could help us get through it.

Then, in the 1946-1947 period, an American diplomat named George Kennan wrote an article. It was an anonymous article--he signed it the ``X Article''--in Foreign Affairs, and it was called ``The Sources of Soviet Conduct.'' What Kennan did, really, for the country, for elected officials, for the Senate, for the executive branch, is that he laid out what he saw as the challenge that we are facing with regard to the Soviet Union--the internal weaknesses that the Soviets actually had-- with incredible insights in that regard, and, then, what our long-term strategy should be.

Here is what he said in this article. He said that American policymakers need to enact a policy of ``firm containment'' with regard to the Soviet Union, a country that always was trying to expand. He said, if we, as a nation, with our allies, try to contain this expansion, it would ``increase enormously the strains under which the Soviet [Union and its] policy must operate . . . and in this way promote tendencies which must eventually find their outlet in either the breakup or the gradual mellowing of Soviet power.''

Think about that. That was the strategy of containment laid out by George Kennan, followed for decades by American administrations, by this body, Republicans and Democrats--the strategy of containment. And we all know what happened.

George Kennan's fundamental insights into this policy--that the Soviet Union would either mellow or completely break down and collapse because we were putting containment pressure on them--ended up happening. The Berlin Wall came down just as Kennan predicted. The Soviet Union broke up peacefully, and this was a remarkable triumph of American democracy and strategy that our Nation should be proud of. That is what happened then.

A lot of us have been saying that we are at a new point with regard to China. There is an awakening. What should that strategy be? I want to talk about a strategy document that just came out.

Kennan's document was called the ``Long Telegram.'' Just this past weekend, the Atlantic Council--which is a think tank here in DC and has been around for decades and is very well respected on the Republican side and the Democrat side--put out a strategy that they called the ``Longer Telegram,'' literally in kind of the analogous situation that George Kennan had done this in 1946 and 1947.

This strategy, also, coincidentally, does not identify the author. So it is similar to that ``X Article'' in 1946 and 1947. The author is anonymous and put out a strategy with insights on how we, as a nation, should deal with the rise of China. The Atlantic Council, as I said, has been around for decades. They published this, and they said this is probably the most impressive strategy document that they have ever published.

Now, is it perfect? Is this the answer? Is this the containment strategy from 1946 and 1947 that was the triumph of American diplomacy over the last 50 years with the Soviet Union?

We shall see. We don't know. But I looked through it, and I do think it is quite a remarkable document, and it is a great important development that we all need to come together on and this new administration--the Biden administration--needs to take a hard look at.

The focus of this strategy document says, which we all believe now, that ``the single most important challenge facing the United States in the twenty-first century is the rise of an increasingly authoritarian China under President General Secretary Xi Jinping.''

I think a lot of us know that. A lot of us have been talking about that. That is the awakening that I believe has happened here in the United States and certainly here in the U.S. Senate.

But like the Kennan article, this one has some very perceptive insights. One is that it focuses on what it sees as one of the biggest weaknesses in China right now, and that is the fracturing of the Communist Party leadership. I am going to talk about that because it emphasizes--``anonymous'' here emphasizes--that should be our focus.

The piece begins by setting the stage of where we are right now.

The strategy article published by the Atlantic Council is titled ``The Longer Telegram: Toward a New American China Strategy'' and can be found at https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic- council-strategy-paper-series/the-longer-telegram/.

It talks about the scale of the economy of China and its military and the speed of its technical advancement and its radically different world view than that of the United States. It notes that China now profoundly impacts every major U.S. national interest. This is our challenge, one that is gradually emerged over two decades and has accelerated greatly under the leadership of Xi Jinping.

How has Xi Jinping ruled during this rise? He has eliminated his political opponents. He has stalled market reforms, used ethno- nationalism to unite his country, and his treatment of ethnic minorities has bordered on genocide. In doing so, he has fostered a quasi-Maoist personality cult and a new form of totalitarian, high-tech police state.

Anonymous writes:

In what is a fundamental departure from his risk-averse

post-Mao predecessors, Xi [Jinping] has demonstrated that he

intends to project China's authoritarian system, coercive

foreign policy, and military presence well beyond his

country's own borders to the world at large. China, under Xi,

unlike under Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao--

[three previous Chinese leaders]--is no longer a status quo

power. It has become a revisionist power.

That is very troubling for the United States, and this is the situation as laid out by the author of the ``Long Telegram.''

What has the U.S. response been so far? It has been good, but it needs to improve.

The author gives credit to the Trump administration for sounding the alarm in its national security strategy and national defense strategy with regard to the ``strategic competition,'' the ``central challenge'' to our foreign policy, and great power competition that all have resulted from the rise of China.

Anonymous writes that a simple, Kennan-like strategy of containment won't be effective with regard to China because China has studied what happened to the USSR, learned from its mistakes, and understood that the inherent structural weakness with regard to the Soviet model itself was something that caused it to collapse, so China has focused on that.

Yet, as I mentioned, the author emphasizes another central vulnerability of the Chinese system, one which he or she, the author, thinks we need to take advantage of.

Here is what Anonymous writes:

The political reality is that the [Chinese Communist Party]

is significantly divided on Xi's leadership and his vast

ambitions. Senior party members have been greatly troubled by

Xi's policy directions and angered by his endless demands for

absolute loyalty. They fear for their own lives and the

future livelihoods of their families.

Of particular political toxicity in this mix are the reports unearthed by the international media of the wealth amassed by Xi's family and members of his political inner circle, like so many other authoritarians who amass wealth through corruption, despite the vigor with which Xi has conducted his own anti-corruption campaign, which has destroyed many of his rivals.

So what do we do with this information? As Anonymous writes here--the author of the ``Long Telegram''--we need to focus on Xi Jinping himself.

U.S. strategy must remain laser-focused on Xi, his inner

circle, and the Chinese political context in which they rule.

Changing their decision-making will require understanding,

operating within, and changing their political and strategic

paradigm. All U.S. policy aimed at altering China's behavior

should revolve around this fact, or it is likely to prove

ineffectual.

This, Anonymous writes, has been the missing piece of the puzzle for our China strategy so far.

While U.S. leaders often differentiate between China's

Communist Party government and the Chinese people

[correctly], Washington [leaders] must achieve the

sophistication necessary to go even further. U.S. leaders

also must differentiate between the government and the party

elite, as well as between the party elite and Xi [Jinping

himself].

That is critical.

According to Anonymous, we must work to drive a wedge between these groups and to frustrate Xi's ambitions in order to ``cause China's elite leadership to collectively conclude that it is in the country's best interests to continue operating within the existing U.S.-led liberal international order rather than build a rival [authoritarian] order [throughout the world], and that it is in the party's best interests . . . not to attempt to expand China's borders or to export its political [authoritarian] model beyond China's shores.''

That is the juxtaposition of the significant challenge we have right now with the current strategy in what Anonymous writes in this document that we should be building on.

In building on these insights, the author emphasizes that U.S. strategy should comprise seven integrated components. Many of us have come down to the floor to talk about some of these, but let me touch on a few: rebuilding the economic, military, technological, and human capital underpinnings of long-term U.S. national power, and I think we can all agree on that; agreeing on a set of limited, enforceable policy ``red lines'' that China should be deterred from crossing under any circumstances, such as forcibly invading Taiwan; agreeing on a larger number of ``major national security interests'' which are neither vital nor existential in nature but which require a range of retaliatory actions to inform Chinese strategic behavior; defining those areas where continued strategic cooperation with China remains in U.S. interests; and prosecuting a full-fledged global ideological battle in defense of our political and economic models in contrast with China's authoritarian state capitalist models around the world. Finally, all of this needs to be done in conjunction with and closely coordinating with all of our allies in Europe, in North America, and, of course, in the Asia-Pacific.

This last point is critical. Our allies are critical. We need to remember we are an ally-rich nation. China is an ally-poor nation. That is one of our huge comparative advantages in the geostrategic challenge that we have with China over the next decades

At the end of the day, as Anonymous writes, ideas matter. Ultimately, this is going to be the contest of ideas--China's authoritarian model, which it wants to promote and export, versus the U.S. Western model of open economies, just societies, and competitive, free political systems.

Over the long term, the author writes, the Chinese people may well come to question and challenge the party's century-long proposition that China's great, ancient civilization--thousands of years old--is forever destined to an authoritarian future over which the people have no choice. That decision, however, must come from the Chinese people themselves. We can only provide a model, and we can only show the way. We need to do so with confidence and with our allies.

As Anonymous concludes, there is a subtle, yet corrosive, force that has been at work in the United States for some time, raising doubt about our Nation's future, and some who are encouraging a sense that, as a country, America's best days may now be in the past. Well, I, for one, certainly and fully disagree with this, as does the author of the ``Long Telegram.'' We are a young country. We are a resilient country. Our innovation is beyond compare. We are a free country, and as a result of the long twilight struggle with the Soviet Union, we also know what works: maintaining peace through strength, promoting free markets and free people at home, and having the confidence in George Kennan's insights from 1946 and 1947 that the Chinese Communist Party, like the Soviet Communist Party, likely ``bears within it the seeds of its own decay.''

While democracies are resilient, adaptive, and self-renewing, there are many vulnerabilities embedded in China's perceived strengths. One- man rule creates acute political risks, as Anonymous has described, that we need to take advantage of. Historical grievance can breed violent nationalism. State-directed economic growth can produce massive overcapacity and mountains of debt.

The gradual and, in some ways, abrupt snuffing out of freedom in places like Hong Kong is creating spontaneous protests of tens of thousands of young people that we have been seeing now for months. China's budding military power and historical view of itself as a nation and culture superior to many others is alarming its neighboring states, inspiring them to step up their security cooperation with the United States. Nearly half of wealthy Chinese want to emigrate, and these are the winners from China's four decades of heavy economic growth.

As we have in the past, Americans can prevail in this long-term geopolitical and ideological contest, but doing so will require a new level of strategic initiative, organization, and confidence in who we are and what we stand for. This also means we must redouble our efforts in making the strategic case not just to Americans but to others around the world, particularly our allies.

Let me conclude by saying that the ``Long Telegram,'' while not perfect, sets out what I believe is certainly one of the best strategies I have read to date about how the United States needs to address the significant challenge that we will be facing for decades.

I hope my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, all have the opportunity to read this and analyze it, for, like Kennan's strategy of containment, our China policy, to be successful, also needs to be very bipartisan and ready to be operationalized for decades.

I yield the floor.

(Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.)

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

Madam President, the Senate is focused on one of its constitutional roles right now, which is meeting with and discussing with the new Biden administration's Cabinet--our advice and consent role. The consent role, obviously, is confirmation votes here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, which we are doing a number of these on the floor and in committee. But there is also the advice role, given to us by the Founding Fathers. On the advice, we are providing whether we vote for some of these nominees or not to the Cabinet. It is a big part of the Senate's role. So I am going to take a minute to provide a little bit of advice to some of the new, incoming Biden team.

Now, look, we are seeing it particularly in the foreign policy realm. A lot of the Biden team has actually come from the Obama-Biden team-- maybe too many. You worry about stale thinking, because when they were in power 4 years ago, or a little bit over 4 years ago, there are a lot of things that have changed in the world--particularly on foreign policy, a lot that has happened in the world. So you need fresh views, but we are where we are.

But an example of this kind of stale thinking that I was shocked to see recently at the White House is the use of the term ``strategic patience'' as a foreign policy concept. Now, this was the phrase the Obama administration used to describe its policy toward North Korea, and I think most people would recognize--Democrats and Republicans-- that that was not a very successful policy, a pretty failed policy.

Now, granted, North Korea is difficult. There is no doubt. But the policy that was known as strategic patience was the policy that enabled the North Korea rogue regime to massively build up a nuclear arsenal. So kind of like leading from behind, the Obama administration's term ``strategic patience'' became synonymous with a passive and even weak foreign policy approach as it related to North Korea, certainly.

So I was very surprised yesterday to hear the White House Press Secretary trot out this term again, ``strategic patience,'' but this time when talking about the Biden administration's policy with regard to China.

Now, this is almost certainly music to China's ears--the leadership of China--because it is kind of a subtle green light to Xi Jinping and the other authoritarians in China of its failure to uphold promise after promise to the United States--something I refer to as

``promise fatigue'' that we have here--or continuing to call itself a developing country, when it is not, or continuing its attempts to dominate the South China Sea with the militarization of that important strategic sea lane, or continuation of intellectual property theft, or all the challenges that we have with China. The idea that we are going to have strategic patience, I think, sends a signal to the Chinese that we don't take these issues urgently, and that is the wrong message. These are urgent issues.

In my discussions during the confirmation process and in hearings with now-Secretary of Defense Austin and Secretary of State Blinken, I sensed they had a sense of urgency. As a matter of fact, they both acknowledged that the previous administration--the Trump administration's national security strategy, national defense strategy that says we need to turn to great power competition, with China as the pacing threat for the United States, they agreed with.

Even in General Austin's--now-Secretary Austin's--confirmation hearing, one of my colleagues, Senator Blackburn, actually said this term, ``strategic patience,'' doesn't seem to be the right term and pressed him on it.

So here is some continued advice. In the Senate's role, in terms of our constitutional role of advice and consent, words matter, especially from the White House podium. We need a strong, bipartisan, and lasting China policy from the United States of America. This is the biggest geostrategic issue we will be facing as a country for the next 50 to 100 years, but it is also a challenge that is here and now, a challenge that needs immediate action. So here is my advice: Ditch the ``strategic patience'' phrase.

The vast majority of the Senators in this body, Democrats and Republicans, want to know the Biden administration is focused on this challenge now. It is a serious challenge that China poses to the United States now, and ``strategic patience'' sends the wrong message to the Senate, to the American people, and to China's leadership. So they need to do better.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am going to be one of the first Senators to congratulate Dr. Yellen, now Secretary Yellen, to be Secretary of the Treasury of the United States.

You saw it was a strong vote, and there is no doubt that she has the credentials, the experience, the qualifications to be Secretary of the Treasury--former Chairman of the Fed. I mean, her resume is off the charts.

I know her nomination is historic for so many women across the country, including my three daughters. I am mentioning this because I certainly intended to vote for now-Secretary Yellen, and I was a ``no'' vote.

I want to explain my ``no'' vote because I had a very good conversation with her just the other day. We covered a whole bunch of topics--everything from Alaska Native corporations to the strength of the dollar, to our debt and deficit--big macroeconomic issues that are important to the country, particularly as we are in a recession. It is important to my State.

But we got to the topic of energy. We got to the topic of energy, and, reluctantly, I am saying this now because I was a bit shocked that despite a long, robust discussion, it was very difficult to get her, from my perspective, to commit to being a Secretary of the Treasury, the most important economic player in any Cabinet in any government--in the U.S. Government, besides, of course, the President--to commit to being a strong advocate for a robust, all-of-the-above energy sector for the U.S. economy.

This is not a radical proposition. I would argue that every Secretary of the Treasury since Alexander Hamilton has been a robust supporter of resource development in our energy sector--again, all of it-- renewables, oil, gas. And the reason is that it has been such an important driver of economic growth and jobs for pretty much our Nation's entire existence.

Now that we are in this recession--deep recession--we need good job growth, and we need a strong recovery. To me, having the Secretary of the Treasury be a strong proponent in the debates about policy for the energy sector, I thought, was a no-brainer. As a matter of fact, I think pretty much every Secretary of the Treasury has been that person. Again, in the 2008-2009 recession--the deep, great recession--the No. 1 driver of economic growth and job growth and capital formation for the U.S. economy was the energy sector, and it was supported. Democrats and Republicans, for decades, have supported a strong energy sector.

But despite a long, respectful debate with now Secretary Yellen, with whom I certainly have a good relationship, I could not get that commitment, which I thought was surprising. As a matter of fact, I thought it was shocking, and it is the reason I reluctantly voted no because, again, she is very qualified.

What is going on here is we are starting to see policies that I believe need a national debate. We are starting to see policies--yes, we all want renewables, clean energy, but we have a really important, strong energy sector.

Prior to the pandemic, we were the world's superpower of energy again. One of the reasons we won World War II was our energy sector. The men and women who have been producing energy--``all of the above'' energy--are great patriotic workers who have been doing it for decades to the benefit of every single American.

We need a debate because what I am starting to see with the new administration, unfortunately--and I have had discussions, and, hopefully, they are not going to go down this path--are Executive actions that are going to target certain sectors of the energy sector, the U.S. economy.

Natural gas. We can be dominant in natural gas for 100 years. We are going to start targeting workers in the natural gas sector?

Oil. I know some people don't like oil, but it is important.

We can do all of this, but right now, there seems to be hostility toward the sector and the workers and no debate. We should have that debate. It is an important debate. It is really important in my State, but I think it is really important to America.

Every Secretary of the Treasury for the last three, four, five, six, seven decades--since World War II--has always sought the goal of getting America back to energy independence. That is good for jobs. It is good for low-cost manufacturing. It is good to reduce the heating and energy bills of American families. It is good for our national security. It is good for our foreign policy. We are pretty much on the verge of doing this. And now we are going to start to unilaterally disarm?

We have gotten to the point where I can't find anyone--and I hope I am wrong--in the Biden administration Cabinet who is going to be a proponent of a strong energy sector. Who is it? I was hoping it was going to be the Secretary of the Treasury. Maybe in our long discussion, I misinterpreted where she is going to be on this issue. Pretty much every previous Secretary--Democratic and Republican--in the history of our great Nation has really, really been an advocate for the men and women who work in the sector and for the economic growth it brings and for the help it brings to families and the good jobs it brings. So that is the rationale behind my vote.

Right now, I think we are starting to see, whether with the Keystone Pipeline decision or with the men and women in the building trades, who have built this country through hard work, that they are being laid off by the thousands. We had a big scare back home in my State. All weekend, I was working this issue of these Executive orders from the Biden administration, where it looked like it was going to send hundreds of people home, unemployed--oil and gas workers in my State. Why? I hope that is not the case, especially during a recession.

We need a debate on it, and I certainly hope somebody in this administration, in their principals' meetings, talk about how we get good jobs and a strong working class. I have noticed that the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, keeps talking about basing our policies on working-class families. You can't get more blue-collar, strong middle class than these energy sector jobs.

I, certainly, want to have a good, constructive relationship with the Secretary of the Treasury and her team, but given the people I represent and what I am starting to see right now, I could not in good conscience vote yes when, on the basic question of ``Are you committed and will you be a strong advocate for a strong energy sector--you name it: renewables, natural gas, wind, solar--all of the above?'' I couldn't get that commitment. I reluctantly voted no on someone who has a background and experience in these other areas that are important for the country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, as a lot of our colleagues here know, Senator Whitehouse is not just a distinguished Senator but one of my very good friends here in the U.S. Senate. So I always respect what he has to say, and I appreciate his words. He and I have done a lot of work--some key work, particularly on issues of the environment and cleaning up our oceans--ocean acidification--and I look forward to continuing to work with him. Climate change is also, certainly, happening in my State. We are seeing it. No doubt about it.

My point is we have an economy that is in recession, and you have tens of thousands--literally, hundreds of thousands--of people out of work, and you have a sector that is important--critical, actually--the energy sector. There is no doubt about it. I know we can use words like spewing and polluters, but the energy sector has been one of the things that has made this country so strong, with great jobs--middle-class jobs--and people can't deny that. All I am asking for is for the new Secretary of the Treasury to look at that.

We are looking at the whole U.S. economy and the strength of our recovery and good-paying jobs. That has to be taken into account. What I worry about is that it is not. We need a debate, and I would welcome it with my good friend on: What is the strategy? The strategy out of the box can't be that we are going to go after these oil and gas jobs and put people out of work. And replace it with what?

We had a hearing in the Commerce Committee with the new, incoming Transportation Secretary. A lot of people asked: Well, what are you going to replace it with? What are you telling the 10,000 guys who just lost their jobs on the Keystone Pipeline their new jobs are going to be? They have mortgages and tuitions to pay. They are out of work right now. So we need a strategy.

Look, I look forward to working on all of these issues with my good friend from Rhode Island, but it is, I think, a first. If you look back at the great history of this Nation, if you don't have a U.S. Treasury Secretary or other members of the Cabinet who are for a robust, strong energy sector--which, of course, would include renewables--that is new, that is different, and, I think, it is very troubling, particularly as it relates to the jobs that, I think, are going to be sacrificed on a policy and a strategy that I have not seen the meat and bones of yet. I am just seeing the damage, and a lot of the damage is starting to happen to the people I care about, particularly in my State, who work in these sectors and who are great Americans who have helped build this country and build my State. We can't just disregard them and say: Don't worry; you are going to get a green job later.

It is tough to tell people that. It is tough to tell people that when they have mortgages and tuitions, and we are relying on them.

So I commit to continuing to work on these issues and others with my friend from Rhode Island. I appreciate his coming down here, but I wanted to explain my vote on an issue that I think we need to debate here in the Senate that is important for our Nation.

I yield the floor.