Floor Statements

Mr. President, it has been a few weeks since I have been able to come to the floor and speak about an Alaskan in my State who is making the State a much better place. It is one of my favorite times of the week. I think it is one of the pages' favorite times of the week, by the way. Nearly every week when we are in session, I come down to the floor and bring attention to someone in Alaska who is doing something that may be is recognized by the country, by the State, or maybe by the community, or maybe not recognized at all. We like to celebrate this person. We call that person our Alaskan of the Week.

Alaska can feel a little bit far away from the rest of the country--a little bit like our own country sometimes, given our distance--but it is definitely part of this great Nation.

Although we don't have a major professional sports team--some actually say the professional sport of Alaska is politics--just like the rest of America, we love our sports. Of course, we are big fans of winter sports--hockey, cross-country skiing, snow-machining, dog mushing, ice skating. But we are also pretty big football fans.

Just like Americans throughout the country, last Sunday we were with family and friends tuned into America's most watched sporting event of the year, the Super Bowl. Many Alaskans watched the Super Bowl this year with special interest because we caught sight of one of our own-- our Alaskan of the Week, Camdyn Clancy.

Let me talk a little bit about Camdyn. Last time I was here a couple of weeks ago, I recognized our oldest Alaskan of the Week ever, 100- year-old Urban Rahoi, from Fairbanks, AK. He is a great American and a World War II veteran, and he is from the greatest generation. He is 100 years old.

This week, Camdyn, who is 8 years old, is our youngest Alaskan of the Week to date. We are really proud of him just for that. Camdyn lives in Juneau, our State's capital, with his mother Hannah, who is a medical technician at Bartlett Hospital, and his father Brett, who is a firefighter. Last week, Camdyn experienced the dream of a lifetime for a young boy, which was made possible after he won the NFL PLAY 60 Super Kid contest.

What is that? On Super Bowl Sunday, Camdyn delivered the official game ball to the officiating crew just before kickoff, which is a pretty big deal for an 8-year-old. The days leading up to the game, he acted as the NFL's official kid correspondent, interviewing several Rams and Patriots players. You might have seen some of his interviews on the internet. They have literally gone viral.

What did he do to win the trip? For one, Camdyn loves all sports, but he really loves football. In fact, his parents took him to a Seattle Seahawks game when he was just 4 years old. Like I said, he really loves football, and it showed as he was competing to win this national Super Bowl competition. He showed it during a video that his mom Hannah filmed in front of Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau, AK, where his dedication to the game of football really shone through.

He has played the past 4 seasons in the Juneau Youth Football League, coming off his own championship season, where he was the star quarterback of the team. When he gets home from school, he practices football every single night. He encourages others--the whole neighborhood, in fact--to play, including boys, girls, and anyone who will throw the football around with him.

It is not always easy to play football on your street in Alaska in the winter. By the time school is out, depending where you are in the State--but for most of the State--the sun has already set. It is usually snowy. What does Camdyn do? He wears a headlamp to practice football in the winter in Alaska. That is dedication. His mother said: ``He faces challenges that a lot of kids in the lower 48 don't.'' She said that is probably why he won this huge Super Bowl football contest.

The Super Bowl officials saw this dedicated young man in Alaska who loves football. He also probably knows more football stats than any other kid in Alaska. In the community, he is known as the football ``Rain Man'' with his stats on football.

The Super Bowl players this year got a lot of questions from reporters, and Camdyn was one of them, as the official youth correspondent for the NFL. For example, he got to ask Rams' quarterback Jared Goff what was going through his head when Greg Zuerlein kicked the 57-yard field goal that clinched the NFC Championship Game against the Saints.

``I was nervous,'' Goff told Camdyn. ``I was really nervous. It hit me right then that if he makes this, we are going to the Super Bowl.''

He also got to interview the Patriots' star quarterback, Tom Brady, who smiled at Camdyn and shook his hand when Camdyn approached with a microphone in hand to interview Tom Brady before the game.

Here was his question to quarterback Tom Brady: ``How are you able to focus despite the negative fan base . . . AKA, the haters?''

After a laugh, Tom Brady said: ``We love them. We love them right back. We don't hate back.''

That is a classy answer from one of the game's greatest. Camdyn later called the interview with Tom Brady ``mind blowing.'' He loved it. After he attended media day, we actually reached out to Camdyn and asked him what he learned during the event at the Super Bowl. He said: ``Some of the players get a bad rap, but when you speak to them, they are really nice--like Ndamukong Suh. He was really nice.''

Camdyn said he loves the physical aspect of the game of football. He loves winning, and he loves the competition, but what he and his parents really love is how it can mold a person's character through hard work and perseverance. Being a good person is also key, Camdyn said. ``That really reflects the performance and how much people want to play.''

When asked what he wants to do when he is older, of course, Camdyn mentioned two potential professional paths. One, of course, is to be a pro football quarterback. I think he has a lot of potential to do that. The next would be a firefighter, just like his dad.

Camdyn, thank you for representing Alaska last week at the Super Bowl in Atlanta. We were so proud of you. Thanks for being an inspiration to your community and our State. Thanks to the NFL for inspiring kids like Camdyn, and thanks to Brad and Hannah Clancy for raising such a great kid. Congratulations on winning the NFL PLAY 60 Super Kid contest, and congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week--the youngest Alaskan of the Week ever. Great job, Camdyn.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, a number of us have been coming to the floor for quite some time now, talking about challenges posed by China--the big geostrategic challenges for the United States posed by China.

What has happened over the last couple of years--and I think it is very important--is that this issue went from an issue where not many Senators 2, 3, or 4 years ago were talking about it to now, when Democrats, Republicans--all of us--have recognized that literally for the next 50 to 100 years, the biggest challenges we have in terms of national security and economic security for our Nation are the challenges posed by the rise of China. I think that is an important course correction that we have seen in the Congress and, importantly, from the executive branch.

The Trump administration put out a national security strategy, and that national security strategy said: Yes, we still have very significant challenges with regard to violent, extremist organizations like al-Qaida, like ISIS, but long-term we are shifting to a period in which the most significant economic and national security challenge we face as a nation involves the rise of great powers, particularly China as the pacing threat.

I think the administration deserves a lot of credit for this course correction. It is in the national security strategy of the administration. It is in the national defense strategy of the administration. I believe it is strongly supported by Democrats and Republicans in this body.

You may have seen, for example, that Vice President Pence gave a speech at the Hudson Institute a couple of

months ago. For anyone in America interested in U.S.-China relations, I commend that speech to you. It was an outstanding speech. In my view, it was probably the most important speech on U.S.-China relations since a former Deputy Secretary of State, Bob Zoellick, gave the speech called the Responsible Stakeholder Speech. That was over a decade ago, and Deputy Secretary Zoellick essentially said to China: You have risen in large measure because of the international system that the United States established after World War II, and you benefited from that. What you need to do now is to become a responsible stakeholder in that system. Here is your opportunity. The system that benefited you more than anybody, the system that the United States led--China, you now have the opportunity to become a responsible stakeholder in that system. We are inviting you into it.

Well, I think pretty much everybody--whether Trump administration officials, Obama administration officials, former Bush administration officials--recognizes that China rejected that offer. They are saying: We don't want to be part of the responsible--we do not want to be a member of the system that the United States has led. We are going to do something different.

They rejected it. Again, I think that is not a controversial statement. China experts--Democrats, Republicans, Trump, Obama, Bush-- all pretty much agree that is what has happened. So we need a different approach.

Right now, there are very serious negotiations going on between the Trump administration officials and senior Chinese officials, mostly on economic issues. But this relates to broader challenges we have with China, and I have had a number of discussions with Ambassador Lighthizer, Larry Kudlow, who is the NEC chairman at the White House, Secretary Mnuchin, the Vice President, and the President on this topic. I would say again--because it is important not only for the American people but for the Chinese to know--that there is strong bipartisan backing for what is happening right now in terms of our reorientation of the U.S.-China relationship and what we are finally demanding of them.

Not everything is agreed to. There are some people, I think with good reason, who have some concerns about the use of tariffs, but, overall, I think there is broad bipartisan support in this body--having talked frequently with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--for what the Trump administration is trying to do with regard to China.

As they look to address these issues--and they just had these high- level negotiations just last week--I thought it would be important to lay out a couple of things that I know many Members of the Senate are interested in. Again, this is to show our backing of these negotiations but also to make sure China knows that it isn't just the Trump administration that is focused on these issues. The Congress and Senate of the United States of America also hold similar goals.

Obviously, the most important goal is to have a relationship in terms of economics and trade and investment that focuses on fairness, reciprocity in terms of open investment and a trading relationship with China. Fairness, reciprocity, open trade, and investment with China--we do not have that right now. That is one of the big challenges.

As they are looking to continue these negotiations and possibly come up with an agreement with China, I thought it would be important for the Chinese to hear what a number of Members of the Senate believe is important in my discussions. Let me review some of these.

First, we need to ensure that China commits to structural changes in their economy, not just pledges to increase purchases of U.S. goods. Increasing purchases of U.S. goods--whether they are Nebraska farm products, which I know the Presiding Officer cares a lot about, or clean burning Alaska natural gas, which I certainly care a lot about-- would be positive. But it is certainly not enough. Structural changes to the way in which they run their economy, to the way in which they treat other countries are critical. It was good to see the President last night in the State of the Union say exactly that.

Structural changes--what do we mean by structural changes? First, China, for decades now, has required American companies that invest in China to essentially transfer their technology in exchange for access to their market. No other country in the world does that. China says they don't do it. They do it. They need to stop that. It is against WTO rules.

Secondly, I am going to talk more in detail about how China consistently steals intellectual property from American and other countries' companies around the world.

Third, they heavily subsidize their state-owned enterprises, which gives them an unfair competitive advantage against our companies and impacts negatively our workers and our families.

No. 1, structural changes have to come, and if they don't, we should not accept this kind of deal.

No. 2, China needs to end the ``promise fatigue'' that we have had with China by enabling us, through some kind of trade agreement, to hold them accountable for the commitments they make. What do I mean by that? We need assurances from the Chinese that will ultimately be fulfilled that an agreement that is reached at the end by this administration can be enforced. Why is that so important? As I mentioned, these kinds of negotiations have been going on for years. The Obama administration, Bush administration, Clinton administration, all in good faith, have tried to get China to commit to the promises and commitments they have already made and hold to them, whether through their WTO commitments or all kinds of other commitments.

Here is the problem. The talk, the agreements, the WTO, the strategic economic dialogues with China--they all sound good, but for the most part, China has not kept its commitments.

In the United States, we are suffering from promise fatigue. We get commitments from China. They make promises, and then they don't keep them. Promise fatigue--the American people, the U.S. Congress, this administration, and I believe other administrations are tired of that. Whatever agreement the Trump administration is working on should address this issue of promise fatigue.

Let me give you a couple of examples of promise fatigue. Many years ago, I had the honor of serving on the National Security Council staff at the White House under Condoleezza Rice. We were at a meeting. I was a staffer for Secretary Condoleezza Rice, who, at the time was National Security Advisor, and President George W. Bush was in the Oval Office with a senior administration official from China, Madame Wu Yi. She was the Vice Premier. She was a very important person from that country. In this meeting, the President--as President Obama has done, as President Trump has done, as President Clinton has done--President Bush really pressed Madame Wu Yi on intellectual property theft. This was in the Oval Office. This was in a meeting in 2003, over 15 years ago. Madame Wu Yi looked the President of the United States in the eye and said: Mr. President, we are going to fix this. Protecting intellectual property is very important to my country. We know it hurts your country when we steal it. We are going to fix this. I am in charge.

That was pretty powerful. She said it directly to the President of the United States in the Oval Office. I witnessed this.

Let's fast forward to 15 years later. Have they fixed it? No. Has it actually gotten worse? Yes. Promise fatigue.

Let me give a couple of other examples of promise fatigue. In 2015, in the Rose Garden, President Xi of China was standing next to President Obama, and he made essentially two commitments: We are going to stop the cyber theft of industrial products in the United States; we are going to not steal, through the internet, your intellectual property and other valuable trade secrets from American companies-- whether related to defense, whether related to other issues--and China will not militarize the South China Sea.

This is 2015--less than 4 years ago--standing next to the President of the United States, the President of China made these commitments in the Rose Garden. Has China kept these commitments? No. They have massively militarized the South China Sea, and they continue their industrial-scale cyber

theft. Great countries, particularly in these kind of settings, need to keep their word. China should know this. A key element of any deal that we as a country strike with China needs to take into account this promise fatigue and have real mechanisms to keep their commitments.

Third, we need to make sure China commits to end its global corrupt practices. What do I mean by that? Predatory Chinese infrastructure financing and bribery of foreign officials are trapping countries around the world in debt and marginalizing outside competition by foreign investors.

There was an article recently in the Wall Street Journal that went into very minute detail of how Chinese officials at the highest levels were bribing senior officials from Malaysia to get investment opportunities with regard to infrastructure in that country.

This is essentially official policy in China to bribe and pay off officials in other countries to help their companies, which are often state-owned and compete against other companies. Is this fair? No. Is this good for the international economic system? No. Does China do it on a regular basis? Yes. Do our companies or the U.S. Government engage in this kind of systematic corruption globally? No.

If the U.S. companies do this, their leaders can go to jail for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. China has no such prohibitions. To the contrary, they do it as part of official state policy.

Whatever agreement we have with regard to the Chinese on this issue also needs to include addressing this challenge globally of foreign corrupt practices. This kind of state-sponsored corruption should not be tolerated or overlooked. Again, in my discussions with the administration's senior officials, I have encouraged them to make sure this is part of the negotiations in the agreement.

Finally, an important element of our strategy with regard to China has to involve our allies. All of the issues I just talked about-- promise fatigue, industrial cyber theft, intellectual property theft-- aren't just issues the United States is dealing with. They are issues all of our key allies are dealing with--the Germans, the European Union, Japan, Korea, Canada. Everybody is dealing with these same challenges with regard to China. What does that mean?

The good news is, strategically, the United States is an ally-rich nation, and our adversaries and potential adversaries are ally-poor. We have built a system of alliances. Since World War II, that provides strategic advantage to our Nation. As a matter of fact, one of the most strategic, important advantages we have is our system of alliances, which we need to deepen and broaden. There are many countries in Asia-- many countries in Asia--that want a closer relationship with the United States because of the rise of China. This administration needs to seize that because it makes strategic sense for us, but they also need to coordinate with these countries as we are working on these broader global economic issues as it relates to China. Why? Because if we come to the table, not just the United States but with the Europeans, with the Japanese, with the Koreans, with the Canadians, this provides leverage.

The countries I just named, including ours, constitutes well over two-thirds of the global GDP. If we come together with these demands, we will have much more leverage to get a better deal.

The time is right. I have had the opportunity to talk to senior officials from all of these countries. Every single one of them has challenges like we did with regard to China, and every single one of them wants to work with us.

I commend Ambassador Lighthizer for starting an alliance on trade, as it relates to China, on a regular basis with the EU and Japan. The EU, Japan, and the United States are coordinating on these issues. I think it makes sense for the Ambassador to broaden that coalition--the coalition of the willing on these issues. It does bring significant leverage, and countries are ready for the United States to lean on us. As a matter of fact, the number of countries and Ambassadors whom I have heard who have cited Vice President Pence's speech on how we have to deal with China has been remarkable. They are looking for U.S. leadership. The administration needs to provide it. Using and making sure we are coordinating with our traditional allies on this issue is vital, and that is how we are going to come to a successful conclusion.

There is a lot we need to do with regard to the challenges posed by China. They are not all negative. A lot of them can be positive. If we had Chinese investment, greenfield investment, in our country, that could help with jobs. That could help ease tensions. It is something I have been encouraging Chinese officials to do for a long time. It is in their interests. I think it is in our interests. We need to take seriously these challenges.

It is an issue. You often hear about some of the tensions or some of the conflicts that exist in this body. In my view, a lot of that is overblown. There is a lot of bipartisan work that goes on in the Senate. The vast majority of the work that goes on in the Senate is bipartisan.

One area of bipartisan agreement, I believe, is the need to focus on this very important geostrategic challenge that our country faces with regard to the rise of China. We are off to a good start in that regard. I want to encourage the administration to continue to focus on this issue and focus on these four points I highlighted this morning on the Senate floor.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, let me explain a little bit about what we witnessed on the Senate floor. Actually, it may be a little bit confusing, but it is an important issue.

With regard to the Coast Guard, my colleagues from Louisiana and Mississippi have been working on this issue for a while. It is not going to solve the whole partial government shutdown, but we have been working with a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Right now, this bill for which my friend from Louisiana asked to have unanimous consent has 23 cosponsors, and there might be more. Actually, almost one-quarter of the whole Senate--more Democratic cosponsors than Republican cosponsors--is cosponsoring this bill to pay the Coast Guard.

Again, we are working on the broader issue of getting our government back to the work of paying Federal workers, but as my colleagues mentioned, the Coast Guard is in a rather unique situation because it is the only military service right now that is not getting paid. Those in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are all getting paid. Right now, as we speak, the Coast Guard's men and women are out in my great State of Alaska and are risking their lives for Americans, as they always do. They are also out in other places like the Middle East and in the Persian Gulf. They are literally running patrols in the gulf, side by side, with marines and sailors. The marines and sailors are getting paid. The members of the Coast Guard are not getting paid.

By the way, if the members of the Coast Guard say: ``Do you know what? I don't want to deploy to the Middle East right now. I am not getting paid'' or ``I don't want to get on that ship to save an Alaskan crabber whose life is at risk,'' they get court-martialed. So the Coast Guard is in a very unique situation right now.

Here is the process we just witnessed. A number of us--again, it was very bipartisan--went to the President and said: Mr. President, we know it takes the Senate and the House and the White House to pass a bill. People are working on the broader issue. We are all working on the broader issue and on the compromises we need. Hopefully, we can get there this afternoon. In the meantime, let's try to get something to pass as we have almost one-quarter of the Senate in agreement--more Democrats than Republicans--on this bill that Senator Kennedy just mentioned. Would you support this?

A number of us have had ongoing conversations with the President of the United States. I have raised this a number of times with him and his administration over the last 2 weeks. In a meeting I had with him on Wednesday, he said: I am 100 percent behind that bill.

This is really important because, as to some of what the minority leader has said we should be bringing up, the White House has said: We are not going to support. OK. It is difficult to pass a bill when you are not going to get the President to sign it. Yet the President will sign this bill, and almost 25 percent of the Senate has said it is already a cosponsor of it.

So what just happened for everybody watching, particularly the Coast Guard members?

When I learned that the President was supportive last Thursday, we brought this bill to the Senate floor, and we hotlined it, which means we were trying to move it through the Senate very quickly. Every Republican cleared that hotline. Essentially, it means we all voted yes. When we took it to our colleagues on the other side--look, I know my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, care a lot about the Coast Guard--it was stalled.

We kept asking: Come on. Don't you want to support this? You have a bunch of cosponsors. Right now, the men and women of the Coast Guard are very unique in terms of the military's not getting paid, but there was just a delay.

Senator Kennedy said: I am going to ask for a live unanimous consent. Let's just bring it up and pass it. The White House would sign it. We could fix this issue today. I bet most of the House would certainly vote for it.

So he brought it up for unanimous consent, and the minority leader objected.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to talk a lot about hostage-taking with regard to Federal employees. I think they need to think a bit harder about what just happened with the men and women of the Coast Guard. You heard it from the minority

leader. He said he is not going to do anything about the Coast Guard right now even though the President said he would sign it. We could fix this tonight.

Here is the point. We are all working on the broader issue, and we are going to vote on some things. If they fail this afternoon, there are numbers of us who are working on compromises to fix this whole problem. In the meantime, why shouldn't we all be working on the important issue--it might not be with regard to the whole government-- of taking care of the men and women of the Coast Guard? People are literally risking their lives right now for Americans, not just in Alaska or in Texas but all over the world, and they are the only members of the military who are not getting paid. We could fix it tonight--the President will sign it--as we are working on the broader issue.

I don't understand why that is not an acceptable path forward. In talking to the men and women of the Coast Guard--certainly, in my State--they don't understand either. Yes, we have to come to a compromise on this broader issue that ends the partial government shutdown--that gets all of our Federal workers back and that secures our border. We are all working on that. In the meantime, had the minority leader of the U.S. Senate not objected, everybody here--I guarantee you it would have included my Democratic colleagues--would have voted for this bill to pay the Coast Guard. It just doesn't make sense.

I certainly hope my colleagues and my good friend from New York will reconsider their blocking of this bill, because we could fix at least one element of this. We need to fix it all, but in my view this is a very unique element. The men and women who raised their hands to support and defend the Constitution and possibly die for this country are not getting paid. Yet those in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are. Let's fix it tonight. We can fix it tonight. Unfortunately, we just had an objection to doing that. I think it is a mistake, and I am hopeful my colleagues will reconsider.

Madam President, I want to make one other point after the eloquent comments of my good friend from Texas.

We have already done something similar here. We are all breaking for lunch right now. My Democratic colleagues are going to go do their strategy sessions, and we are going to do the same. I implore my Democratic colleagues to go back to their leader and say: Hey, come on. Let's rethink this. Here is why. We have already done something similar.

I was on the floor when two of my Democratic colleagues from Virginia asked for unanimous consent on a bill. Remember, the whole government was partially shut down. There was a partial government shutdown. They asked for unanimous consent on a bill to make sure that when the partial government shutdown was over, everybody would receive backpay. We are actually doing work on smaller but very important issues. I was on the floor when they did that. I certainly voted yes.

By the way, that went to the President. He said he was going to sign it, and he signed it. That became a law just about 2 weeks ago, as we have been debating and trying to find a compromise.

So the notion that we are not doing any work and that we are not passing any laws that are impacting Federal workers until the whole thing is over is actually not true. We have already done it.

This would be analogous to what we did 2 weeks ago, and that was led by the Democrats. The thing about this Coast Guard bill right now is that it is very, very bipartisan.

Yes.

No, it just made it so there was parity between the brave men and women of the Coast Guard and the brave men and women of the Army,

Navy, Air Force, and Marines--all of whom are risking their lives for our country and our citizens.

Right now, the men and women of the Coast Guard are the only ones who are not getting paid.

I think as soon as possible we could get it passed.

I talked to the President on Wednesday. He said he was 100 percent behind this bill, the way he was behind that other bill to provide backpay to everybody else who has been affected by the partial government shutdown.

That is correct.

Mr. President, a couple of days ago I came to the floor to talk about the partial government shutdown, how it is impacting different parts of my State--the Great State of Alaska--and, in particular, how it is impacting the men and women in the U.S. Coast Guard.

I think we all recognize as we are trying to work through this partial government shutdown that a lot of Federal workers are being impacted, but let me talk about the Coast Guard because I think it is a little different than almost any other group of Federal workers.

On Tuesday, these brave men and women did not receive a paycheck. They didn't receive a paycheck, and they are the only branch of the U.S. military right now, out there around the world and around the globe, risking their lives for the American people, who are not getting paid. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines--we love them all. They are working hard. They are getting paid. The men and women of the Coast Guard are not getting paid. That is wrong. That is particularly wrong. They can't leave the Coast Guard. They would get court-martialed. They are working hard, saving lives in my State, certainly--in Alaska--all the time, and they are not getting paid when the other services are getting paid.

So what did we do? A number of us, Democrats and Republicans--almost one-quarter of the Members of the U.S. Senate--cosponsored a bill that says: Let's pay the Coast Guard. Let's pay the Coast Guard right now so they are treated fairly, like the other men and women serving in our military.

That was a good start. I was optimistic then. It has been a bit of a roller coaster ride, but, to be honest, I couldn't imagine that this bill wouldn't sail through. We are not going to be able to fix everything right now, but this is one we can start working on, on these individual issues, and there is a lot of talk of doing it.

Last week, I had the opportunity to raise this with the President and his administration and the Secretary of Homeland Security, and we continued to press this issue all week with the OMB Director, the Chief of Staff of the White House, and the President himself, and he said this week that he was going to support the bill. That is important. Now you have the executive branch, the President of the United States, and he will sign it. He said it. I was in a meeting with him yesterday, and he said he is 100 percent supportive of this bill. It is bipartisan. There are actually more Democrats than Republicans on the bill right now.

What we did, trying to move this quickly, is we said: All right, the President is going to sign it. We have a quarter of the Senate. It is a bipartisan bill. Let's move it.

We moved to hotline it. What does that mean? To try to get this bill to be moved through unanimous consent through the Senate, a hotline means you are going to try to move it real fast and everybody is going to vote on it. That started today. By noon, every Republican Member of the U.S. Senate said: Good to go--cleared, hot. Let's pay the men and women of the Coast Guard.

I had the opportunity to talk to a local public radio program in Kodiak, the largest Coast Guard station in the country. I had the opportunity to say to my fellow Alaskans that I am pretty optimistic. We have moved. We have a lot of cosponsors--25 percent of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans--and the President of the United States. Bingo, Republicans have said we are good to go on it. I have certainly started working with some of my Democratic colleagues who are also optimistic. Why would we block this? Why would we block this? Remember, they are the only men and women in the U.S. military not getting paid right now, and we have a solution.

So I come to the floor, and I hate to admit it because 2 hours ago I was pretty optimistic, but I am getting word that my colleagues--the Democrats and the minority leader--are now saying: Maybe we are just going to block this. I am not sure why. Nobody has come down here to say why. We are running the hotline on the Democratic side. So maybe that is just a rumor. I hope it is just a rumor. Why would you block it? Come on, my colleagues on the other side. Why would you block it? We are not going to fix everything tonight, but we could fix this tonight.

Let me talk a little bit about my State. Some of you have probably seen the ``Deadliest Catch'' and those kind of shows about Alaska. Look at the men and women who are out there keeping our fishermen--American fishermen--safe. On average, every month in the State of Alaska the Coast Guard saves 22 lives--in 1 month, on average, in one State--and it assists 53 people, reports and investigates 25 maritime casualties, conducts close to 20 security boardings and over 20 security patrols. If you are in trouble on the high seas in Alaska, which is a bad place to be, the seas are never too rough or the skies never too dismal for the Coast Guard to come out and rescue you. We have seen it time and again, but it is not just in Alaska. It is all over the country, and it is all over the world.

I talked to the Commandant of the Coast Guard just yesterday. I said: Mr. Commandant, Admiral, I think we are close. The President is good to go. I think most of the Senators are good to go. The bill has 25 cosponsors.

He reminded me that he has men and women in the Coast Guard deployed in the Persian Gulf doing anti-piracy operations alongside U.S. Marines and U.S. Navy personnel--right now, in the Persian Gulf, Marines, Coast Guard, and Navy--and guess who is not getting paid. Does anyone think that should be a tolerated situation? The answer is no. The answer is no.

Again, I hope this is a rumor, and that the hotline is happening right now on the Democratic side. We have cleared it--good to go. Every Republican has signed off on this. I hope that this is just a rumor-- that tonight the Democrats will clear this and we will get it to the House. The Coast Guard said they can start cutting checks again within 24 hours. The President will sign this. So there should be no reason not to do this.

The partial government shutdown is negatively impacting Federal workers. The President's request, in my view, for border security is imminently reasonable. I hope the Speaker will view it that way. A lot of her members are. We are all working for this. We are all working for a solution. Senator Johnson put out a bill that I joined as a cosponsor that would immediately pay all workers who are currently working without pay. This would expand the idea of what we are doing with the Coast Guard bill. I think it is a good idea. That is a start, but the Coast Guard bill right now has momentum. It has momentum.

We could get this done in 24 hours. It is not a complete solution, but we have the White House, and it should be the Senate and, hopefully, the House getting ready to find a solution for at least for some of the men and women in the Federal workforce.

But as I like to emphasize, they are not just any Federal workers. All of

them are important--there is no doubt--but when you are the only members of the military not getting paid for risking your lives for your country and we can fix it here tonight in the Senate, that is what we should be doing.

I certainly hope this bill isn't being blocked unreasonably. As I mentioned, it is not a complete solution, but it is the start of a solution. For the life of me, I can't understand why this bill would be blocked.

More importantly, the men and women of the Coast Guard will not understand why this bill is being blocked. Communities that support and depend on the Coast Guard--like Kodiak, AK--will not understand why this bill is being blocked. These young men and women, who love their country and have chosen to serve and protect us, are not going to understand why this bill is being blocked tonight.

I don't want to use the word plead, but I am asking my colleagues on the Democratic side to do the right thing and pass this bill tonight. Every single American who is aware of this situation knows that it is inequitable when the other members of the military--who are out there risking their lives just like the men and women of the Coast Guard--are getting paid and the men and women of the Coast Guard aren't.

We are on the verge of a solution. Passing this bill will take care of at least one issue that we are all trying to resolve. Again, I urge my Democratic colleagues--because all of my Republican colleagues have already passed this bill in the hotline. I urge my colleagues to take up this bill, do the right thing, and support the men and women of the Coast Guard, who are not being treated equal to their brothers and sisters in the other branches of the military.

Until then, I am going to continue to fight for this. I am going to continue to raise the issue. We have made a lot of progress, including getting the White House and the President on board and getting all of our Members here on the Republican side of the Senate on board. I am hopeful, with more advocacy and more reasoning with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that we will also get there, move this to the House quickly, and get the men and women of the Coast Guard the paychecks they are needing.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I want to spend a few minutes talking about the partial government shutdown, which is happening right now, and, more importantly, related to it, the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard who are working today, like every other member of the military, risking their lives here, in my State of Alaska, and overseas in the Middle East, and are not getting paid to do so. They are the only branch of the U.S. military not getting paid to risk their lives for their country. They missed their first paycheck today, but here is the good news. We are offering a solution--a solution that is working through the Federal Government that has a lot of potential.

Before I get to that, I want to talk a little bit about the partial government shutdown itself and make clear that I believe the Trump administration's effort to secure the border should be part of the solution. Every nation has the right and has the responsibility to protect its citizens and to protect its sovereignty. In my view, this is something that should not be controversial. Every nation has the right and responsibility to do this, and that is what the citizens of each country expect. It should not be controversial.

In fact, over the past 25 years, every single President of the United States--Democrat and Republican--has attempted to secure the southern border and has come before the Congress and said: I am going to secure the southern border. They have campaigned on securing the southern border. They have all said this. Even the Members of Congress-- Democrats and Republicans--year after year have come to the floor of both Houses and said: We need to do it.

In a big speech in 2014, President Obama called the situation on the southern border a crisis. That was 4 years ago. He called it a crisis-- the previous President, President Obama. I agreed with his assessment then, and I agree with President Trump's assessment now, which is the same assessment.

That is why the President is asking for $5.7 billion to secure our border. It is not an unreasonable request, particularly, when Members of this body, just last spring, when we were debating immigration reform, voted for dollar amounts that were much greater than that. Again, Democrats and Republicans, last spring, debating on the floor of this body immigration reform and border security, voted way north of $5.7 billion.

This is just one of the many solutions we need to grapple with in order to have a functional immigration system that secures our border, enforces the law, helps to grow our economy, and, importantly, keeps families together. Securing the border is an important goal.

I am hoping that as we all work on this, Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader Schumer, the President, and my Republican colleagues could get to a compromise on this issue soon. We all need to come together.

The good news, as I mentioned, is that we might be on the verge of coming together--those parties that I just mentioned--on one of the issues that relate to securing our border, that relate to this broader challenge on the partial government shutdown involving the U.S. Coast Guard. I am hopeful that this could be a template for getting out of the broader partial government shutdown.

As you know, the partial government shutdown is negatively impacting Federal workers, but none--none--more so than the brave men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard. As I mentioned, they are currently the only members of the U.S. military who are not getting paid during this partial government shutdown. The Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines are all out there risking their lives for our Nation. We greatly appreciate that. And guess what. They are getting paid to do it, as they should be, but the Coast Guard members are also out there risking their lives, especially in my State, the great State of Alaska. They are out on the Bering Seas, some of the roughest and most dangerous oceans in the world, keeping our fishermen safe and doing rescues. They are deployed overseas. They are deployed in the Middle East. They have been in Florida and Texas helping with natural disasters, hurricanes--all heroic service. There have been many shutdowns before in the Federal Government, unfortunately, dating back decades, but this might be the first time ever that you have every branch of the military being paid during the shutdown, with the exception of one.

Let me read a letter from the commandant of the Coast Guard, ADM Karl Schultz, to the men and women of the Coast Guard.

To the Men and Women of the United States Coast Guard,

Today you will not be receiving your regularly scheduled

mid-month paycheck. To the best of my knowledge, this 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.

That is the first paragraph in the Commandant's letter to all the members of the U.S. Coast Guard. It is the first time in the U.S. history we are doing this to members of the military.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Nobody thinks this is a good idea. Nobody thinks this is a good idea. So last week, a number of us in this body, Democrats and Republicans, put forward a bill that simply says we should pay the men and women of the Coast Guard, even if we are in a partial government shutdown, just like paying the men and women of the other branches of the military. They are risking their lives daily. They can't just quit their job. By the way, if they want to just go quit, they are going to be court-martialed. That is different than other Federal service. So that is what we said we were going to do.

When the President came to the Senate last week, I had the opportunity to raise this issue with the President and his team and highlighted the fact that this is very different, and we need to work together. We have a bill. If we get the President's support and signature on it, that would be a good way to move it forward, and I have been in communication with his administration ever since the lunch--working with us.

I am hopeful we are on the verge of a breakthrough because the White House has said the President recognizes this is a rather unique situation--very unique--so he has now said he is going to support this bill. We have Democrats, Republicans, the White House, and the President of the United States all saying, all right, we are not there yet, but this is a good start, and this is an important issue.

What is going on right now in this body is we are trying to UC this. We are trying to get unanimous consent from Democrats and Republicans on this bill. Again, leadership on the Democratic side and on the Republican side have all supported this bill: pay the Coast Guard like the other military servicemembers. The White House is now supportive. Hopefully, tonight we are going to get this cleared, and we are going to get it over to the House; Speaker Pelosi and her team will recognize how dire and important this is--just like Democrats, Republicans, the President, and Secretary Nielsen Secretary of Homeland Security all recognize this--and we get to a solution. It is not going to end everything, but it will be a solution.

I am asking my colleagues tonight, as this bill is being moved through the hotline for unanimous consent--and I thank all the Republicans who have already said they will support it. We get my colleagues on the Democratic side--again, there are a number of Democratic cosponsors on this bill. The President said he would sign it. We get it over to the House, and we start to get solutions as opposed to just roadblocks.

There are just two broader issues I want to raise. As I am indicating, this kind of work can be a template to getting to a broader solution with regard to the partial government shutdown--Democrats and Republicans in this body working together, the White House working with us, the Trump administration working with us, and, hopefully, the House will see the wisdom of this when the bill comes over to them, and we will get a bill signed that takes care of almost 50,000 Active-Duty patriots--men and women--risking their lives, right now as we speak, with no pay. I am hopeful that is a template.

Another broader issue that this matter actually raises--that we need to focus on a lot more in the Senate--is a problem I have seen in the last 4 years during my time here; that sometimes the Coast Guard gets short shrift relative to other members of the military. It is wrong, and we need to work on it together.

Why has that happened? Certainly not because they are not as heroic and dedicated and patriotic as the rest of the military. I don't think it is intentional. It is more bureaucratic. The Coast Guard falls under the Commerce Committee. The Coast Guard falls under the Homeland Security Secretary. The Marines, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force are under the Armed Services Committee and under the Pentagon. Sometimes things just happen, whether it is retirement pay, whether it is the example of paying the military, where the Coast Guard gets treated in an unequal manner. They shouldn't. They shouldn't. We need to treat all members of the military, all five branches, the same: pay, retirement, shutdowns. Again, I don't think it is intentional, but it does happen.

I am the chairman of the subcommittee in the Commerce Committee in charge of the Coast Guard. I sit on the Armed Services Committee. I know a lot of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, have recognized this is a problem. The chairman of the Commerce Committee, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee have. I think we are all focused-- again, bipartisan--to address some of these challenges where the Coast Guard is not treated equally among the other services, and that is just wrong. We need to start working on that, and I am going to continue to focus on that issue.

The best way we can start working on that is tonight: Fix this pay problem, which every single American knows is inequitable, knows is not fair to the men and women of the Coast Guard, but we are on the verge of a solution. Let's UC this bill tonight--we have the White House's support--and get it over to the House. At least we will take care of one issue where there is an inequality between the men and women in the other branches of the services and the Coast Guard, and then we will work to fix all the others. I am hopeful we are going to get there tonight and hopefully will solve this problem in the next 24 to 48 hours.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am glad I had the opportunity to vote with my colleagues, the majority leader, and my colleagues from Virginia and Maryland on the bill we just passed here on the Senate floor to ensure the backpay for Federal workers who will be without pay, and I hope we can get to a resolution soon on this partial government shutdown that gets all elements of the government open and fully funds the border and the significant amounts requested by the White House that I think most Americans and most Alaskans need and want.

Tribute to Urban Rahoi

Mr. President, I hope that you and all the pages here--we have some new pages in the staff here--had a great holiday season and that everybody listening back home and watching back home in Alaska around the country also had a wonderful holiday. I certainly did. It is always great to be home in my State--spending time with family and my wife, my daughters, and with friends--which to me is the greatest State in the greatest country in the world.

Winter is a special time in Alaska. The sun may be low or in some places it may not rise above the horizon at all, but there is a certain glow that comes with the snow. With that glow and the Northern Lights dancing in the sky, particularly in the interior--the place I am going to talk about in a minute--it is magical. We want to assure anyone watching to come to Alaska and you are going to have the trip of a lifetime.

As I have said so many times on the floor of the Senate, it is the people who make my State so special--tough, hearty, resilient people who have lived some of the most amazing, meaningful, purposeful lives and who have the wisdom, the character, the toughness, and, yes, even the scars to prove it. Stories of character, stories of lives well- traveled, and stories of lives well-lived abound my State.

Last Saturday, in the great city of Fairbanks, AK, I had the great opportunity and the honor to attend the 100th birthday party--I am looking at the pages, who all just said ``wow''--of a legend in Alaska, a man, certainly, of great stories but also of heart, of patriotism, and of everything that makes Alaska and America great.

As you know, Mr. President, I come to the floor nearly every week, while we are in session, to honor someone that I refer to as the Alaskan of the Week, someone who makes our State and our country very special. I want America right now--if you are watching on C-SPAN, in the Gallery, or the press--to meet Urban Rahoi, our Alaskan of the Week--a husband, a father, a veteran, a pilot, a hunting guide, a developer, and a builder, just to name a few of his defining characteristics.

Urban has lived a dozen lives, all in only one century--100 years old. He helped to save America, and he helped to build Alaska--to save this great Nation of ours and to build one of our greatest States. He is our Alaskan of the Week.

I believe he may even be watching in Fairbanks--I hope you are, Urban--in the pioneer home there, maybe with some of the Laundry House Gang members, maybe even my father-in-law, Bud, and, Craig Compeau. I hope you are all watching right now.

Urban has had such a full life that it is hard to know where to start--100 years. Let me give you some of the highlights.

He was born on January 7, 1919, the day after Teddy Roosevelt died, in Iron Mountain, MI. He grew up during the height of the Depression, but Urban recently told a reporter with the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that the Depression for him and for his family wasn't that bad. His family hunted. They grew their own food. They worked hard. He said: ``We had a garden and we had 100 rabbits.'' In many ways, that is how they got through the Depression.

He began to get interested in airplanes and in flying. When he was just 15 years old, he took his first solo flight--at 15, a solo flight--and he was forever hooked.

He was also hooked on the love of his life, whom he met when he was 21 years old, Vienna--Vi, everyone called her--and they got married in 1940.

In 1943, Urban joined the U.S. military during World War II, in the Army Air Corps, and he flew bombers in North Africa and Italy. ``From Italy, we would fly bombing missions into southern Germany, Austria, Romania, and wherever they needed us''--dozens of bombing combat missions.

And what did he fly? Appropriately, Urban Rahoi flew the B-17s, also known as the ``Flying Fortresses.'' Those airplanes stayed in the air even after some of the toughest battles and some of the most vicious flak--tough as can be, just like Urban. Again, he was a B-17 pilot in World War II, part of the greatest generation, which saved America and saved this institution, among others, the U.S. Senate.

Eventually, as it does with a certain kind of an adventurous person, Urban heard the call of Alaska, and he flew to the State in a PA-12 Cub. He and Vi homesteaded on the Tanana River, near the Richardson Highway, and began to make a life for themselves in Alaska.

What a rich life it was. They began a family, eventually having three children--Rick, Eugene, and Holly. Urban also stayed active in the military, as a member of the Air Force Reserve 449th Fighter Squadron, in Alaska. He commanded the C-47 squadron and copiloted several historic military aircraft, including the North American F-82 Twin Mustang, the Lockheed F-94 Starfire, and the Northrup F-89 Scorpion.

This is a great pilot for America. He began offering private flying services, and he also built two areas in terms of developments. Together, they made up these trailer parks with 172 lots. Urban designed the development of these areas and installed all of the electrical lines, the water lines, and the septic system--all himself.

Think about that. What American can do that today? He also built a lodge in an inholding in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. If that were not enough, he became a big game guide in Alaska, running a successful big game guiding business, and he built Ptarmigan Lake Lodge, an inholding in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve.

When Alaska became a State, guides were required to become registered, and they had registration numbers. Urban Rahoi was issued big game Alaska's State license No. 1--No. 1, the first.

All told, during his career as a pilot, he racked up an incredible 20,000 hours of flying--20,000 hours of flying. That is probably older than some of you pages. He has seen so much, nearly every part of Alaska. ``If someone's there, I've been there,'' he said recently, about all the flights he has taken all over the great State of Alaska.

In 2012, the FAA presented Urban with the Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award. Here is what the FAA wrote:

He has used his skill as an aviator to train airmen, fight

a war [for America], and maintain the safety standard in

commercial aviation. He has rescued people in trouble and

supplied people in . . . Bush [Alaska] with the necessities

of life. He has contributed to the state of Alaska, and

provided many people a chance to see the wild and beautiful

Alaska we all love.

The party for Urban's 100th birthday last Saturday in Fairbanks was so reflective of the impact that he has had on the State, his community in Fairbanks, and, of course, his country. Fairbanks is a tough, tough place. I love Fairbanks. Fairbanks has been experiencing a bit of a cold snap. Last Saturday, at Urban's 100th birthday party, it was 30 below zero in Fairbanks. That is a dangerous temperature for some but not for the people of interior Alaska, who deal with that on a regular basis. Despite 30-below temperatures, hundreds of people from the interior of Alaska and beyond, from all walks of life, were there at the Pioneer Parks' Centennial Center to honor this legend, this great Alaskan, and this great American.

There were family and friends. We even had a special guest--the football fans watching know him very well--former Miami Dolphins football player and Hall of Famer Larry Csonka was there to celebrate Urban's 100th birthday. Csonka had been sheep hunting at Urban's lodge, and the two remained very, very close friends ever since.

One of Urban's goals is to be the first 100-year-old to participate in a snowmachine race in Fairbanks--a race that Urban rides in every year. Larry Csonka gave him an autographed Miami Dolphins football helmet to wear as the helmet when Urban participates in this race this year.

There was a life-sized cake with 100 candles, a slide show of pictures of Urban and Vi at different phases of their lives--so many different adventures, World War II, Alaska as a State, so much love, so much life, so many people celebrating this great American.

I had the opportunity to talk a little bit about Urban at the birthday party last Saturday in Fairbanks, and I mentioned that here was a man who had so many qualities--patriotism, service, sacrifice, perseverance, and, yes, even tougher than Larry Csonka. The football fans watching know there are not many people in America who are tougher than Csonka. Urban is, and Csonka acknowledged this.

The one person missing from this great celebration was his beloved wife, who passed in Urban's arms on January 3, 2010, 3 days before their 70th wedding anniversary.

She was 92 years old. Vi's memory lives on in their 3 children, 7 grandchildren, 16 great-grandchildren, and 1 great-great-grandchild, and her memory lives on in Urban's heart.

At the ceremony, my good friend who put it together, Craig Compeau, was the emcee of this wonderful birthday party, and he interviewed Urban. Toward the end of it, he asked him what the secret for such a long life was--100 years old.

Urban said it could be summed up in two words: My wife.

Now, isn't that beautiful, America? Isn't that beautiful?

What a great man. What a great life.

So, Urban, here is to flying free, living well. Here is to the State and the country we all--you--love so much. Here is to being part of the ``greatest generation'' that saved America and built Alaska, and here is to the example you have set for all of us, whether U.S. Senators, whether pages, 100 years old, service to your country, dedication to your wife. Thanks for all you have done. Thanks for all you have done to protect and defend this great Nation, to build our great State, and thank you, Urban, for being our Alaskan of the Week from the floor of the U.S. Senate. Happy 100th birthday.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 108, S. 512.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; that the Barrasso substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1733 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3800, introduced earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent 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. President, congratulations on that bill. It is very appropriate that you should be the one passing it, since it is named after you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to voice my concern over the passage of the FIRST STEP Act, a bill that would reduce prison sentences for some Federal offenders, and to explain to the public why I did not vote for the bill.

First, I want to say that I agree with some of the provisions of the act.

For too long, we have been putting low-level drug offenders behind bars for exorbitant periods of time, without a focus on rehabilitation. This has ruined lives, irrevocably damaged our communities, and cost the taxpayer dearly.

I support data-driven antirecidivism programs. I support helping people who have served their time to lead productive lives. I support using our prisons as a place to punish violent perpetrators and serious drug offenders.

But this bill simply goes too far for the people of my State. What is happening currently in Alaska should serve as an example of the negative consequences resulting from a far-reaching criminal justice reform bill.

Let me spend a few minutes talking about Alaska's experience with criminal justice reform.

In 2016, then Governor Walker signed into a law a criminal reform bill, known in Alaska as SB91. The bill was similar to many similar bills passed in 30 States across the country.

It was more sweeping than the Federal bill we are debating today, but it has served as a model for this Federal bill in front of us.

Its main focus was on antirecidivism measures and reserving prison space for the truly dangerous criminals while showing leniency for certain ``low-risk offenders,'' just as the FIRST STEP Act does.

In some States, it has worked well, and I hope that the FIRST STEP Act works as those who supported it believe it will, but I am not convinced because, in my State, it hasn't.

Our criminal reform law hit Alaska right as we were going through a recession caused by low oil prices and the fact that the Obama administration locked up Alaska lands which hurt thousands of working men and women and their families.

It was also during this time that the opioid and drug crisis hit our State. Like many States across our country, my State has been hit hard, and we have been laser focused on it here in this body.

This trifecta--the passage of the State's criminal reform bill, a persistent recession, and the drug crisis--have resulted in mayhem in some of our communities in Alaska.

In Alaska, all crime is up 6 percent from last year and up 26 percent from 5 years ago. Let me give you some troubling statistics from Alaska's Uniform Crime Report: violent crime; up 6 percent from last year and up 35 percent from 5 years ago; property crime; up 5 percent from last year and up 23 percent from 5 years ago; and vehicle theft up 39 percent from 2016 to 2017.

According Kyle Hopkins from the Anchorage Daily News, who has done a great job reporting on this; car thieves, burglars, and shoplifters stole a staggering $45.3 million worth of property across Anchorage in 2017. Remember, Anchorage is a city of a population of less than 300,000--the number of cars stolen in Anchorage: 3,104 in 2017; the number of vehicle break-ins: 3,837 in 2017.

Much of this crime is fueled by the drug epidemic.

Like many States across the country, Alaska has been reeling from the opioid crisis and drug epidemic. Tragically, lives are being lost because of this epidemic. Opioid-related deaths doubled in Alaska in 2017. Fentanyl related deaths rose by 450 percent.

The amount of heroin seized in Alaska more than doubled in 2017, while the number of arrests actually decreased.

Law enforcement has been tracking lower 48 traffickers who continue to import increasing amounts of these drugs to take advantage of our unique enforcement challenges, especially in our rural communities.

Given the crime wave in my State, in many cases fueled by addictions, and our high rates of sexual assault and domestic violence, many of the provisions in this bill are deeply troublesome.

In the FIRST STEP Act, certain sexual and drug criminals could be eligible for expanded good time credits, meaning that they can get out of prison early. Criminals who are serving prison time for trafficking cocaine, heroin, or meth could get out early, so could those who assaulted a law enforcement officer and those who have committed certain violent assaults.

Perhaps most troubling, this bill would reduce enhanced sentencing for repeat drug offenders, including for methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanyl, three drugs that are more prevalent in my State.

The recent statistics in Alaska on drug seizures paint a grim picture about our drug crisis in my State. I cannot risk allowing these perpetrators, some of whom might make their way to Alaska, such leniency.

As I have said, we have been laser-focused on this drug issue here in the Senate. We have passed numerous bills to bring more resources to our States, billions of dollars of resources.

Back home, I have held numerous summits relating to this issue.

In August 2016, I convened the Alaska Wellness Summit: Conquering the Opioid Crisis, an important gathering of Federal, State, and local community leaders dedicated to tackling the many challenges associated with the growing opioid and heroin epidemic. That summit, which largely focused on issues of addiction, recovery, and community, was very productive, with hundreds of Alaskans gathering to listen, gain inspiration, learn and exchange ideas. Federal officials from several different agencies attended to hear the many obstacles Alaskans face when in recovery, as well as witness the indomitable spirit of Alaskans who have overcome those obstacles.

In August 2018, I held another wellness summit, this time focused not only on Alaska's addiction epidemic, but on drug trafficking and the associated crime wave that is victimizing so many Alaskans. The summit once again feature a prominent group of Federal, State, and local leaders and stakeholders to build public awareness, identify opportunities for coordination and cooperation, and highlight Alaska's unique public safety challenges with Federal officials.

We have grassroots, peer-to-peer networks across the State that are really beginning to make a difference.

We also have very active community members who are banding together to try to fight crime in their neighborhoods.

But we need a strong criminal justice system that continues to mete out punishments that fit the crime. We need, fair, strong deterrence.

We need the full strength of both the Federal and the State governments, working in tandem, to get drug dealers off the streets and punish violent reoffenders who are wreaking havoc in our communities.

Although I respect that motives of my colleagues--and I do believe that some reform is necessary--this bill goes too far.

When evaluating this bill, I could not ignore the realities of my State's current situation: spiking crime rates and an ongoing opioid and drug crisis. Voting to lessen prison time for any contributing offenders could compound the problem. I could not take that risk.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that my office says goodbye to Kerry Garland, who has been such an asset to my team this past year.

Kerry has lived in Alaska for 18 years. She went to high school at Bartlett High School in Anchorage and graduated from the University of Alaska in Anchorage with communication and a second degree, a bachelor's of science in nutrition.

After graduating, she worked for the University of Alaska Anchorage. Then we got her. She started as an intern. Her title now is a constituent relations representative, but truly she runs the place. She manages mail. She coordinates the interns. She does so much, and she always does it with the utmost professionalism.

Kerry is headed off to better things. In a few weeks, she will be one of the few and the proud. She is headed off to Quantico, VA, to for the rigorous and very competitive marine officer candidate school and then to the Basic School.

Kerry says that pursuing a career as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, the hardest branch of the military for women to make a career out of, especially as an officer, has been a long-held dream. The child of marine parents, she decided that she was going to go into the Marines when she was 6 years old. It was ``Bring Your Mother to School'' day, and Kerry's mother showed up in uniform. She thought then, ``I want to be like her.'' There is no doubt in my mind that she will be.

She plans on becoming a public affairs officer, where she will work to build understanding, credibility and trust. She will also work her hardest to protect the image of the Marine Corps both at home and abroad.

It is young people like Kerry--people with drive, discipline and a servant's heart--that made me so optimistic for our country's future, and the future of my beloved Marine Corps.

She is one of those people who everyone truly likes and who everyone who has ever worked with her trusts her to get the job done and to get it done right.

Kerry, we will truly miss you. You will always have a place in our hearts and will always be part of the Sullivan team.

Semper Fi.

Mr. President, it is coming up on the end of the week, time when I get to do one of the things I love to do best here on the Senate floor: recognizing an Alaskan or a group of Alaskans who help make my State so special. I call them our Alaskan of the Week.

Last time I spoke, I recognized all Alaskans who were impacted by the massive earthquake, a 7.0-magnitude earthquake centered about 7 miles north of Anchorage, that we experienced on Friday, November 30.

The earthquake was the second largest that Alaska had experienced. The extent of the damage is still being evaluated, but the best guess is that it caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to homes, schools, roads--infrastructure throughout the area.

Aftershocks continue, at least 4,000 of them, and at least two dozen have been larger than 4.0. magnitude.

Residents of Anchorage and the Mat-Su--Southcentral we call the area--are still rattled, but Alaskans are generous, strong, and resilient, and they are skilled. They know what to do during an emergency.

Today I want to recognize a group of Alaskans who, under immense pressure, did their jobs and served our State with cool heads, smart minds, and the upmost courage: the air traffic controllers who were on duty in both the Anchorage International Airport and at Merrill Field at the time the earthquake hit.

Before I talk about the extraordinary actions they performed to keep air traffic running smoothly through the earthquake and the lengths they went through to make sure passengers were safe, let me spend a few minutes talking about how important aviation is and air traffic controllers are to my State.

So you know that my State is the biggest State in the country, more than twice the size of Texas. If you want to get a sense of how big it is, come up to my office where I have a map in the front room and cutouts of all the other States, to scale.

Many of those States that make up our great country are basically dots on the map.

We are big, but most of Alaska is only accessible by air. In fact, 82 percent of our communities--251--are not accessible by road. You have to fly to get there.

The airspace serves as our highways. Alaska's people travel by air eight times more often per capita than those in rural areas of the Lower 48 and ship 39 times more freight per capita, nearly one ton per person per year.

Not only that, Anchorage is the crossroads to the Asia Pacific--we have one of the world's best cargo hubs--and the air traffic controllers working the towers guide passengers and goods to the Far East, Iceland, and across the globe.

All of that air traffic demands the best air traffic controllers, about 180 in the Anchorage area alone, working day and night to guide the planes in and guide them out. They are highly trained, skilled, and know what to do in case of an emergency.

When the earth shook in Anchorage, it was an emergency, and our air traffic controllers both at Merrill Field, a general aviation airport, and at the busier Ted Stevens International Airport, acted fast.

Let me first talk about what happened at the Ted Stevens International Airport during the earthquake.

According to a reporter, when the earthquake hit, one of the managers said the tower that they were in swayed 3 or 4 feet and described watching transformers blow out around town from the tower.

A FedEx plane was coming in, and they got on their radios. ``FedEx, go around, FedEx, go around!'' they told the plane, averting a potential accident.

Once they realized how severe the earthquake was, the controllers evacuated, carrying their radios.

So they chose another option: The three guided the airplanes in from the cab of a pickup truck.

They had what they needed--radios, phones, and a window--and they had the support of dozens of FAA employees at other locations.

This is what is amazing; Because of their quick thinking, the airport's three runways were closed for less than 10 minutes after a 7- magnitude earthquake struck.

On the other side of town, at Merrill Field control tower, a similar story was unfolding.

Again, the controllers and all on the team evacuated, and again, the controllers took their private vehicles out to the ramp and powered up FAA portable radios.

The initial lull in general aviation and flight school traffic was quickly replaced by public safety helicopter and Medevac flights, Civil Air Patrol aircraft on disaster relief and reconnaissance missions, and airborne observers checking critical pipeline and roadway infrastructure.

I am so proud of how everyone in Southcentral reacted to the earthquake. Kids immediately dove under desks. Our first responders jumped into action. Neighbors helped neighbors. And they are still doing so.

Not one person died as a result of the earthquake.

I am so proud of our air traffic controllers who, under immense pressure, improvised and did what needed to be done to keep everyone safe and make sure that flights weren't disrupted.

Thank you for all you did during that very frightening time, and thank you for all you do for all of us every day. Congratulations for being our Alaskans of the Week.

Madam President, I just had the honor of presiding over Senator Hatch's farewell address to the Senate and to the country. I think for everybody who saw this--whether it is our colleagues on the Senate floor or, hopefully, millions of Americans--in his speech, they saw and heard, not only in his remarks but in the remarks that have followed from Democrats and Republicans who have served with him for many years, why he is so revered in this body as a statesman and as an example for all of the Senate. You just heard the accolades: civility, class, competence, effectiveness, patriot, kind, statesman. We could go on and on here.

I want to thank him for his example. As an Alaska Senator, I also want to thank him for being such a great friend to Alaska, my State. In my 4 years in the Senate, as so many others have said, he was always encouraging me but always asking me: What can I do to help, Dan? What can I do to help Alaska?

Orrin, I want to thank you so much for that encouragement, for your exceptional example to all of us, for your exceptional example to America, for your exceptional service not only to the people of Utah but to the entire Nation. It has been a great honor to serve with you, sir.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have been debating for quite some time on the Senate floor the Yemen war powers resolution introduced by my colleagues Senator Sanders and Senator Lee, which would cut off support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen--support that began under President Obama.

Surrounding this vote today, many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed extreme frustration with the Saudi Crown Prince, Muhammad bin Salman, especially regarding the death of Jamal Khashoggi, an American-based Saudi journalist murdered in Turkey. I have a lot of respect for the Senators weighing in, making their arguments all day today, including Senators Young, Lee, Corker, Paul, Graham, Murphy, Menendez, and Cardin--many. We do need to understand what happened, what our intelligence and our government have surrounding this death. I am glad the CIA Director came to the Hill to brief Members. But this debate has taken something of a much more complex turn.

Certainly, the heinous murderers need to be held accountable. There is no doubt about that. But what we have been discussing, and what is really being implicated here on the floor--which hasn't really been talked about too much--is the broader issue of U.S. or American presence in the region, not just regarding the current conflict in Yemen but also our broader strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia and our national security interests in the region.

My colleagues are justified in their frustration--no doubt I share it as well--with the Saudis, with what is happening, but removing American leadership and oversight from this conflict through this resolution is not the way we should go about addressing this issue. We are trying to execute a policy that both reflects America's values and our national security interests. That is what is being debated here today. We need to send a strong message to the Saudis, but that message cannot undercut our own national security or those of our allies. The message cannot strengthen what clearly is the biggest threat in the region; that is, Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism, which almost nobody on the Senate floor has been talking about over the last several weeks. I intend to.

Today's vote has meant different things to different Senators. I have watched and listened to floor speeches. I have participated in debates with my colleagues within the Republican Conference and when all the Senators have met when we were briefed by administration officials.

I thought I would try to unpack a little bit of some of these different arguments as I have seen them and provide my views.

Generally, this debate is focused in three different areas: One, about the constitutional authority--the War Powers Act--that we have actually been undertaking these kind of operations with the Saudis in Yemen. The other is limiting and ending U.S. assistance to Saudi operations--U.S. military assistance--in Yemen. Finally, some Senators have been focused on downgrading the U.S. relationship with the Saudis because of what has been happening both in Yemen and with the Khashoggi murder.

First, let me talk about the constitutional arguments on the War Powers Act; that the Trump administration needs congressional authority, either pursuant to the War Powers Act or, more important, pursuant to article II of the U.S. Constitution, to conduct military operations in support of Saudi Arabia's military goals in Yemen.

Senator Lee has done a great job of pressing this issue. There are many issues on which I agree with Senator Lee of Utah. He is clearly one of this body's most knowledgeable and passionate Members in safeguarding constitutional prerogatives, but in this case, I simply disagree with him and the other Senators whose views I view as way too restrictive on the Commander in Chief's ability to utilize our military.

If we set the precedent that even an operation such as the refueling of aircraft of allied countries, not even occurring in a war zone, needs congressional authority either through the War Powers Act or article II, we would severely limit the executive branch's ability to direct international crises and safeguard our global national security interests. I believe the notion that refueling allied aircraft constitutes hostilities would be an unworkable precedent and is a stretch of the term.

I have also been skeptical of Senate attempts to vote to remove Presidential authority on our military operations once those operations have begun. For example, we had a debate on military operations and the authority of our military to operate in Afghanistan, which I believe sends the wrong message to our troops. It is a precedent that once hostilities begin, we don't have the backs of our forces. I think that is also a dangerous precedent.

That is not to say this is not an important debate. It is certainly an important debate. Other Members such as Senator Kaine have talked about the importance of the issue of military authority, but with regard to this discussion, I think it is too limiting.

Let me talk about the second major issue involved that most Senators have been focused on: whether to vote to affirmatively end U.S. military assistance to Saudi Arabia and their actions in Yemen and whether and how, in doing so, it will help end the humanitarian disaster going on there.

I compliment Senator Young and Senator Murphy, who have been making the case passionately on this topic with much expertise. Clearly, they and this body have been focused on two goals: We all want a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Yemen, and we all want an end to the humanitarian disaster in Yemen.

The reason I voted against the resolution today is because I do not believe that either of these goals will be made easier or advanced by less American involvement in the conflict. To the contrary, if the United States no longer has the ability to help guide the Saudis militarily in Yemen, I believe these

two important goals--ending the humanitarian crisis and bringing a peaceful resolution--will actually be harder to reach.

That is not just my view; that was the view of Secretary Mattis and Secretary Pompeo when they came to brief all 100 Senators 2 weeks ago. In particular, Secretary Mattis knows the region and certainly knows about how hostilities end and begin in the region.

The basis of their arguments--with which I agree--was, first, there is no doubt the Saudis have prosecuted the war badly, but both the Obama administration's Department of Defense and the Trump administration's Department of Defense have worked hard to minimize casualties.

Does anyone actually believe the situation in Yemen will improve without U.S. assistance and guidance? The question almost answers itself. Having our military involved has helped the Saudis improve their coordination and improve their targeting to minimize civilian casualties. Having our military involved has helped the Saudis manage disagreements between them and their Gulf coalition partners. These partners also play an important role in helping to bring an end to this war.

Having our military involved has also helped provide critical leverage as we move into the hopeful peace negotiations underway in Sweden as we speak. Yemen's Government and the Houthi rebels have evidently agreed to a prisoner swap, which could include thousands of prisoners and could be the beginning of a diplomatic breakthrough.

I had the opportunity to talk with Secretaries Mattis and Pompeo this weekend. Both said this would be exactly the wrong time, at a key diplomatic moment, to have the United States limit and end its military assistance to Saudi Arabia.

I know sometimes people don't like to think this way, but military strength and leverage is often critical--critical to successful diplomatic negotiations. For the first time, there is promise--promise in negotiations in Sweden. All of us want that to succeed. However, I believe we undermine our chances of success in these diplomatic efforts if Congress forces the United States to end military assistance to the Saudis.

We also have an even more direct and real national security interest in the region. Yemen is an important front in the war on terror: It is the home to al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, AQAP. They have attempted multiple times to directly attack our homeland. They were responsible for the attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 sailors and severely wounded 39 others, and they were responsible for the 2015 massacre at Charlie Hebdo's offices in Paris. Limiting our military involvement in Yemen could pose significant risk with regard to AQAP that I believe would be unacceptable for the American people.

The third line of argument we have seen on the floor and many have been discussing goes much broader than just the relationship between our military involvement in Yemen and really implicates the entire U.S.-Saudi strategic relationship. It is the desire of a number of my colleagues to use this debate and the despicable Khashoggi murder as an opportunity to fully downgrade this decades-old strategic relationship.

The Saudis are difficult partners, no doubt. They have been for decades. Last week, when I was presiding, Senator Rubio gave an excellent speech saying that he believed the Saudis are testing the limits of their relationship with the United States and that we should look to draw some hard lines and recalibrate elements of our relationship while demanding improvements in other areas. I agreed with much of Senator Rubio's speech, including his conclusion, like mine, that we should not be cutting off our military assistance to the Saudis in Yemen because it would do much more harm than good.

Nevertheless, some Senators have argued for much more downgrading of the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia. In fact, so much of this has been exclusively focused on the Saudis, with no other reference to any other country in the Middle East, that it seems this debate on the floor has been in a vacuum, but as we know, there are a lot more countries in the region, including the world's biggest sponsor of state terrorism, Iran, which nobody is talking about. We should be talking about them because, in fact, the war in Yemen began when Tehran-backed Houthi rebels seized power in 2015. Again, there is not a lot of discussion about how it began.

Tehran is trying to establish a Hezbollah-like entity on the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, including increased capabilities to target cities in Saudi Arabia with ballistic missiles supplied by Iran. This is all part of Iran's broader strategy in the region to encircle our traditional allies--whether Saudi Arabia, Gulf Arab States, and of course Israel--with proxy fighters throughout Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and close relationships in Iraq. Yet no one in this debate seems to want to talk about Iran. I thought I would do so for a minute.

Let's talk about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. U.S. humanitarian aid has totaled almost $697 million in the past 14 months. Yes, Saudi Arabia could do a much better job, but they have invested well over $1 billion to try to end the suffering. Iran--the country which started the war, the country nobody on the Senate floor is talking about--not a dime to relieve the suffering. Sure, they have supplied weapons and ballistic missiles in the tens of millions of dollars but nothing to relieve the suffering.

If we cut off U.S. military assistance to Riyadh and Yemen, you had better believe the one capital in the Middle East that will be cheering the loudest is Tehran--again, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. Such an action would further embolden Iran and no doubt embolden its proxies, while at the same time our allies, including Israel, would feel less secure.

As this debate has carried on in the Senate, with no one talking about the largest state sponsor of terrorism, I have found it very troubling because the lens through which we need to view security in the Middle East is through Iran. Although we have dissatisfaction and frustration with some of our allies, we must remember the most significant and serious threat in the Middle East continues to be Iran.

There has been a lot of focus on the horrible death of Mr. Khashoggi. Any death is horrible, but let me talk about some other deaths.

In the Middle East, in Iraq, we have had over 500 American military members killed and almost 2,000 wounded by improvised explosive devices supplied to Iraqi Shia militias by the Iranians. Let me say that again: Over 2,000 Americans killed and wounded by the largest state sponsor of terrorism. Yet nobody seems to talk about that. Yes, one death of an American journalist is horrible. Over 2,000 American dead and wounded is really horrible. Where was the outrage about those deaths? Where was the outrage about those murders? Where were the editorials about those murders of American citizens? The previous administration wasn't focused on those because they were focused on the Iran nuclear deal.

All I am saying is, in this debate, nobody is talking about the real enemy of the United States--the Iranians, who are watching this debate and smiling because no one is talking about them. So I thought it was important to come down and say: Some of us are. Some of us know you are behind the war in Yemen. Some of us know you continually say you want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Some of us know the Iran deal only emboldened you.

What we need to keep in mind is, yes, we have difficult partners. No doubt the Saudis are difficult. They are not perfect by any sense of the word.

But this is a difficult region, and these are difficult issues, and if we think we can debate Yemen and our help there without talking about the Saudis and the Iranians, who started the war and are trying to circle our different allies, including Israel, and think somehow that this debate is not emboldening them more, I think we are misguided.

I voted against this resolution because I still think it is important to keep in mind that the lens through which we need to assess our security interests and those of our allies in the Middle East is through what helps or undermines Iran. I am concerned that this resolution can help them, and that is not good for the United States, it is not good for the war in Yemen, it is not good for the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, and it is certainly not good for all allies like Israel.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks.

Mr. President, I want to echo what my colleague from New Mexico said about our friend and colleague Senator Heitkamp. I can say that everything he just said--there is strong bipartisan agreement on that front. I want to emphasize a couple of points he mentioned about Senator Heitkamp. Certainly, she is one of the most well-liked Senators, optimistic and upbeat.

As Senator Udall just mentioned, I think there is a certain element in the Senate--whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, if you are a former attorney general, you come to this job with a little bit of the same viewpoint, the same experiences.

I want to emphasize what Senator Heitkamp mentioned in her remarks and Senator Udall mentioned in his remarks, which is her strong dedication to two issues that I think really matter--certainly, they matter to my constituents, and they matter to most Americans--and that is her relentless advocacy and fight with regard to combating the big problem we have in America with sexual assault and domestic violence-- it is a very big, difficult problem in my State, and I know it is a problem in many other States--

and her commitment to the Native peoples of our country.

One example is a bill that Senator Heitkamp and I worked on together called the POWER Act. The whole focus is to get more legal representation for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. When we were working on this bill together, she was obviously a huge advocate, but she came back to me and said: We need to make this especially focused on the Native communities. That was her idea. That was in the bill. The bill was passed in the Congress and signed into law 2 months ago. I have no doubt that bill, for which she was the strongest advocate, is going to make lives better for women throughout our country who have gone through horrible experiences, particularly in the Native communities, whether in North Dakota or Alaska or New Mexico, and that was because of her hard work.

So I want to echo what so many others have said. In those areas and so many others, it has been my honor to serve with Senator Heitkamp. I know she is going to continue to serve her community, State, and country in important ways. My best to her.

I yield the floor.