Floor Statements

Mr. President, every week I come to the floor to talk about my great State and a person in my State who has made a difference in their communities and in the State and sometimes throughout the entire country. I call this person our Alaskan of the Week, and it is actually one of the best things I get to do each week here in the U.S. Senate.

There is a lot to brag about with regard to Alaska. Frankly, while I love my job here, I wish I were home right now. My wife is there. Although the temperatures are still only in the single digits in some places in Alaska, particularly up north, springtime, which we call breakup in Alaska, has hit much of our State.

I will admit, breakup is not always pretty. The State gets a lot of snow--dirty, melting snow. There is sloshing through the slush and big, huge puddles everywhere. But the sun is now high in the sky and staying up longer and longer every day. Birds are migrating back by the tens of thousands, and the excitement of spring is everywhere. You can feel it and sense it.

The changing of the seasons is no more extreme and no more profound than in Alaska, where the weather, hunting, and passing on of traditions and culture are literally a way of life for many.

Today, what I would like to do is take you to Bethel, AK--a town of about 6,000 people about 400 miles west of Anchorage, which is in the full throws of breakup--in order for the Presiding Officer and everyone watching to meet our Alaskan of the Week, Mr. John Active.

John is an extraordinary Alaskan who has spent decades, season after season, on the radio, telling stories and passing on traditions helping to keep the Yup'ik culture of Alaska alive.

John, who is 70 years old, has lived a storied life, which began in a village outside of Bethel. Unfortunately, after he was born his mother passed away, and his father couldn't care for him, so he was adopted by James and Elsie Active and brought to live in Bethel. His grandmother, Maggie Lind, was a well-known storyteller, and John's childhood was filled with stories about Yup'ik legends, wisdom, and culture. John's experiences as he grew up led him to an incredibly important vocation-- translating his native language into English.

You might ask: Translating? Well, yes, that is actually very important in Alaska. You see, we have about 20 different indigenous languages still spoken by the Native peoples of my great State, and throughout my great State thousands of Alaskans literally speak these languages.

During John's senior year of high school, he worked for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. He was able to travel to different villages translating the Yup'ik language and helping applicants fill out paperwork for housing, which was great training for the rest of his life.

He also became passionate about the news and spreading the news. In the 1970s, KYUK--Bethel's new local public radio and television shows, which are so important to get the word out in these smaller communities--was born, and John was there as one of the very first Yup'ik language broadcasters.

Many people in the area, particularly the elders, still read and speak only in Yup'ik. John was so intent on letting them know what was happening in the world in the early days that he would wait for the cargo plane to arrive from Anchorage to grab the Anchorage Daily News, the daily newspaper, and rush into the radio station to simultaneously translate the news from English into Yup'ik as he read it.

There are very few people in the world who can simultaneously translate English to Yup'ik. Among many other challenges, there simply aren't Yup'ik words for some English words. Take, for example, the word ``computer'' and what a computer does. It can take an entire paragraph in Yup'ik to explain that. When a bank was trying to inform Alaskans in the region about home loans, John found that it could take an entire paragraph to translate the phrase ``home equity'' into Yup'ik. So he had a really hard job, but he did it really, really well.

Over the years, John became known for starting his newscast with a short Yup'ik story. These were stories that he had learned from his grandmother, such as, ``How the Fox Turned Red'' and ``How the Crane Got Its Blue Eyes''--stories that were eventually broadcast around the State. Some of them were even picked up by National Public Radio for the country.

He also became a columnist for the Anchorage Daily News and other papers across Alaska, sharing the stories of his ancestors and his humorous views on the world. It is such a delight to listen to him and to read his stories. He has become a beloved figure throughout Alaska.

But John's work goes way beyond entertainment. His work goal has been to preserve the Yup'ik language, which goes hand in hand with preserving the Yup'ik culture. It is so vitally important in our State where, as I have mentioned, we have 20 indigenous languages. Not a lot of people know that. In the not-so-distant past, unfortunately, Alaska Natives were discouraged, and sometimes even punished, for speaking in their native languages. Now, however, there are more and more efforts, encouraged by people like John Active and by KYUK, to help keep native languages and the cultures that belong to them alive and thriving. For example, my wife Julie is now taking classes in Koyukon, her family's native language.

John also wants to spread not just the culture but the values of the Yup'ik community--in his words, to ``Yup'ify'' Alaska and the world. With the help of KYUK, the amazing station that serves over 22,000 predominantly Yup'ik residents in this region of Alaska, he and his other cohosts have been able to do that.

``There are so many people in this region who can understand what we're saying,'' John said. ``I feel it makes them proud to hear their language being spoken over the airwaves. . . . I am helping to keep the language and culture alive.''

March 30 was John's last show on KYUK. He is now taking a well- deserved retirement, but his legacy and the radio's commitment to their Yup'ik culture continues. KYUK will continue to be a pioneer in bringing 1 hour a day of local news in the Yup'ik language and 5\1/2\ hours a week of Yup'ik public affairs and talk shows, all in the language of the region.

I want to thank KYUK for being a pioneer in bringing bilingual content to Alaskans and public broadcasting, and, of course, I want to thank John for being one of the major conduits for that pioneering work.

Your work, John, has touched so many, and you have certainly done your part to serve your fellow Alaskans while ``Yup'ifying'' the State, the country, and even the world. So thanks, and congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, as we all know, our country is facing a lot of challenges, particularly overseas, and a lot of them are in the news--Iran, Syria, North Korea. When you

look out across the landscape of what the big, long-term, geostrategic challenges are that face our Nation, in my view, there is no doubt that the No. 1 challenge economically and from a national security standpoint is the rise of China as a great power. We need to be thinking about that a lot more because that is going to be the issue our country faces, not just this year or next year but for decades.

I come from the great State of Alaska. We are an Asia-Pacific State. We are always looking to that region--as a matter of fact, we are in that region. My hometown of Anchorage is closer to Tokyo than it is to Washington, DC. What I see as a positive on this issue--having been someone in this body for a little over 3 years, I have come down to the floor and talked a lot about this challenge, the rise of China. It is a little concerning that a couple of years ago nobody was talking about it. Very few people were talking about it, but that is changing, and I think that is positive.

It is changing. This administration is focusing, and it is changing with my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans. Certainly, this is an area where, I think, there is a lot of agreement. I was just presiding for the last hour. The majority whip and the Senator from Oklahoma both were talking about issues dealing with China and trade and strategy, and that is positive.

The administration is talking about it. If you look at the national security strategy of the Trump administration, they are starting to focus on this issue. Front and center is the return of great power rivalries, with China as the leading, pacing threat and challenge, but it is also an opportunity for this great Nation of ours.

When you look at the history of our country, particularly post-World War II, the United States set up the international system--the international trading system and security system. We have been leading them, and so many countries--hundreds of millions of people in the world--benefited from that. The irony, of course, is that the one country that benefited probably more than almost anyone is China.

The rise of China was not only helped, but it was spurred by the American international trading system, the sealanes of commerce that we have kept open for decades. So there was a moment in the last couple of decades where we reached out very much--there was a great speech by our former Deputy Secretary of State in the Bush administration, a gentleman by the name of Bob Zoellick, who went on to become head of the World Bank. He asked in a speech to the Chinese: You need to now become a responsible stakeholder in this system that we created because you have benefited so dramatically. You are big, you are powerful, and now help become a stakeholder in the international order that we set up. Here is the offer to you.

Well, unfortunately, whether it is a Democrat or Republican, in the national security and foreign policy realm, most people are sensing that China has rejected that notion. No, we are not going to be a responsible stakeholder in your system. We are going to set up our own system. As a matter of fact, we might even try to undermine your system--the global system set up by the United States of America by Democrats and Republicans over decades.

You see it everywhere, whether it is decades-long theft of intellectual property, whether it is high tariffs, whether it is any American company coming into China and being forced to transfer their technology. No other countries do this to China, but they are doing it to our companies and have been doing that for decades.

So there is a rethinking right now. Clearly, the Trump administration is thinking about what the new strategy should be. The national security strategy of this administration, which I commend people to read--it is quite a good document, written by the outgoing National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster--focuses a lot on this issue of reciprocity and great power rivalry again.

So as we are thinking about it, I would like to briefly touch on three principles I think will be key as we debate this. As we help formulate this--hopefully, in a bipartisan manner--this issue is going to be with us for decades. There are three key principles.

The first key principle is reciprocity--true reciprocity. The majority whip was just talking about this. The national security strategy of the Trump administration talks a lot about it. The President talks a lot about this. This is just a fairness issue. As I mentioned, there is IPR theft; high tariffs; the forced tech transfer from American companies to China; giant, subsidized, state-owned enterprises and state-backed investment funds buying up companies all over the world. No other country does that to China.

So when you look at the issue of reciprocity, I would like to break it down into a positive and negative. You have negative reciprocity. If we can't do that in your country, you shouldn't be able to do it in our country. It is pretty simple, pretty fair, and everybody understands that.

Then there is positive reciprocity. One thing I have been encouraging the Chinese to do for many years--and I have been over there a lot and spent a lot of time with senior leaders in that country. The United States has been going over and investing in China for decades. Factories have been rebuilt from the ground up and we have employed tens of thousands of Chinese with American capital. Well, you know what, China is getting big enough. They can do that in America. The Japanese did that in the 1980s. We had major trade disputes with them. What did they do? They started coming to our country and investing in our States with their capital, greenfield investments--auto factories, for example--and employing tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Americans. We would welcome that. As a matter of fact, in Alaska, the Chinese are talking about helping us develop a large-scale Alaska natural gas project. Greenfield investment, employing Alaskans would be positive if that is going to happen. So that is the way we need to think about reciprocity.

The second key principle is allies--allies, allies, allies. The United States is an ally-rich nation. Our adversaries and potential adversaries--think about whom that might be: Russia, North Korea, Iran, potentially China. They are ally-poor. No one wants to join the North Korea team or the Iran team--well, maybe Syria--but the United States for decades has had allies because they trust us. We are not a perfect nation, but they trust us. Look all over the world.

So what we need to do with regard to our strategy on China is make sure we remember not only our allies and deepen current relationships with Japan, with Korea, with Australia, but expand them--Vietnam. The Presiding Officer and I went to Vietnam with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, a war hero who spent time in prison in Vietnam, Senator McCain. The Vietnamese are very interested in doing more with us. India, there are incredible opportunities to have a deeper alliance between the oldest democracy in the world, us, and the biggest democracy in the world, them. So allies have to be a key part of our strategy as we look at how we deal with the rise of China for the next two or three or four or five decades because all of these countries-- all of our allies--are having the same challenges.

Finally, the third principle we cannot lose sight of--and for too long this body lost sight of it--is robust American economic growth. Since the founding of our Nation, we have been growing at about 3 or 4 percent GDP growth. I have a chart, and I talk about it all the time down here. Yet, over the last decade, because of policies we inflicted on the American people, we were barely growing at 1-percent GDP growth. What does that mean? Everybody talks about numbers, wonky. That is a proxy for the American dream, and we were not growing. We weren't growing. In Asia, the coin of the realm of power more than anything-- more than military power--is the power of your economy, and we have not had that. We have not shown up, and that matters.

What we are trying to do in this body now--tax reform, regulatory reform, unleashing American energy--is we are going to start growing this economy again, and that is going to help the American people, that is going to reignite the American dream, but that is going to be key with any policy we deal with China.

So as we are thinking through this challenge--and I am going to talk about this a lot, and I know all my colleagues are interested in this. I know my colleague from Michigan is interested in it--we need to continue to focus on these core principles--reciprocity, our allies, and robust economic growth as we all struggle with and put together a long-term strategy to deal with the rise of China, the challenges and the opportunities.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have 14 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Environment and Public Works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 10:15 a.m. to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Kirsten Dawn Madison, of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary (International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs), and Thomas J. Hushek, of Wisconsin, to be Ambassador to the Republic of South Sudan, both of the Department of State.

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Patrick Fuchs, of Wisconsin, and Michelle A. Schultz, of Pennsylvania, both to be a Member of the Surface Transportation Board, Department of Transportation, and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, of Maryland, to be a Federal Trade Commissioner.

Committee Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The Committee Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to

meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Opioid Crisis Response Act of 2018.''

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``FEMA: Prioritizing a Culture of Preparedness.''

Committee on Indian Affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's FY2019 budget Request for Indian Programs''.

Committee on Indian Affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing on S. 1250 and S. 2515.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Mark Jeremy Bennett, of Hawaii, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, Nancy E. Brasel, and Eric C. Tostrud, both to be a United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, Robert R. Summerhays, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, and Wendy Vitter, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Committee on Veterans' Affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Paul R. Lawrence, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Benefits, and Joseph L. Falvey, Jr., of Michigan, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Subcommitee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities

The Subcommitee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing.

Subcommitee on Readiness and Management Support

The Subcommitee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing.

Subcommitee on Strategic Forces

The Subcommitee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing.

Subcommitee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness

The Subcommitee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness of the Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Market Access Challenges in China.''

Subcommitee on Crime and Terrorism

The Subcommitee on Crime and Terrorism of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Defeating Fentanyl: Addressing the Deadliest Drugs Fueling the Opioid Crisis.''

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

Mr. President, I wish to add my words to what we saw on the Senate floor here a couple of minutes ago. I had the honor of presiding over much of the ceremony recognizing Senator Thad Cochran's incredible service to Mississippi and to America. You heard a lot. It was really remarkable--45 years in the Congress and four decades as a U.S. Senator. I think Senator Leahy, from Vermont, said it best when he talked about Thad Cochran's integrity--a man who will always keep his word.

As Alaska's Senator, I also want to mention what a great friend he was to our State and to our Senators. Senator Cochran was very close to Senator Ted Stevens--the late Senator Ted Stevens--and to Frank Murkowski. He really supported our State--my State--and I want to thank him for that.

He has this great nickname that I think was given to him in 2006, when Time Magazine said he was one of the best U.S. Senators and called him the ``quiet persuader.'' You heard that term a lot just a few minutes ago. In that article, they said that he had gained the trust of the administration and on Capitol Hill for his quiet, courtly manner, using his experience and mastery of the issues to persuade his colleagues privately rather than making demands of them in public.

It is a great example we can all learn from. I was proud to have been able to serve and learn from Thad Cochran for the last 3 years.

Tribute to Carlos Gomez

Mr. President, one of the things I enjoy doing in my duties in the Senate is to come down each week to recognize somebody special in my State--somebody who has made a difference for their community, somebody who might not get the attention that people get in the press or in other areas but someone who has really made an impact. I like to call that person our Alaskan of the Week.

Right now what has been happening in Alaska is a very special time. Our State, in many ways, is shrouded with myth and mystique. We certainly have, I believe, the most beautiful State in the country. There is a lot of excitement that happens, a lot of special things. Just last week, we had 60 mushers who were being pulled by dog teams, dozens of dogs--these great athletes, as we call them--nearly 1,000 miles through some of the harshest landscapes and some of the harshest climates. We just finished the Iditarod, the last great race. We want to encourage people watching on TV and people in the Galleries to come on up to Alaska. You will love it. It will be the trip of a lifetime. Come see the Iditarod next year, the last great race. We just finished that.

It is a great time to be in Alaska. It is still winter, of course. It is time to ski and for snow machines. It is still cold, and there is lots of snow, but the sun is now coming out high in the sky. Of course, in Alaska, there is hockey. We love hockey. We all know it is a tough and competitive sport, but it certainly fits into the ethos of my State. All across the State, kids and adults play hockey--boys, girls, men, and women, in indoor and outdoor rinks, ponds, and lakes--and skate up and take to the ice.

However, as many parents who are involved in hockey know, gear can be very expensive. Actually, hockey can be very expensive. Many kids and adults can miss out on this great, great sport--a great sport in my State--because of the cost.

I would like to introduce you to Anchorage resident Carlos Gomez, who is our Alaskan of the Week. He has dedicated an extraordinary amount of his time and his life to try to make sure that all kids in my State-- boys and girls from all walks of life--get to play hockey, like so many others do in Alaska, no matter if they can afford it or not.

Let me tell you about Mr. Carlos Gomez, because he is not one to brag about himself. Like most Alaskans of the Week, he is an unsung hero, doing so much for the community. His impact on hockey--particularly, for the youth of Alaska--is remarkable. In many ways, his story is truly a classic story of the American dream.

Carlos was born in California. When he was 10, he and his brother went to live with an aunt in San Diego. His wife Dalia was born in Colombia and then moved to Alaska, also with an aunt, when she was just 7 years old. Carlos received a scholarship from the University of California San Diego but had to drop out and cut his studies short because the strain of both going to school and providing for his family and contributing enough for his family was very difficult.

He ended up in Alaska in 1972 to work as an ironworker, where he helped to build our State. He built the Alaska pipeline during that time. It was a huge and exciting time in the State. He met his wife Dalia, as I mentioned, and they settled down in a modest home in Airport Heights, AK, and began to raise a family.

They had three wonderful kids. His daughters are Monica and Natalie, and his son is Scott. All of them are great, bright kids. One of them, Scott, who we in Alaska simply call Scotty--and I will get to that--had amazing athletic talents. When Scotty was just 4 years old, Carlos took him to his first hockey game. Scotty wanted to try it himself. Soon the young boy was hooked and wanted to play hockey as often as he could, and he was good. The problem was that although they weren't poor as a family, they didn't have the extra money for all the equipment and the expense that hockey requires. The Anchorage Boys & Girls Club had a program that loaned out hockey equipment and hockey gear. They helped to utilize that. As Scotty grew, he needed more equipment, and he stayed focused on hockey. Soon Carlos, our Alaskan of the Week, became so involved in youth hockey and had such a heart for the youth who wanted to play hockey in Alaska but had difficulty affording it that he became this master fundraiser throughout Alaska for the sport, not only for his son but for all the kids in the community who wanted to play hockey across the city.

Fast forward to 1998, and Scotty, his son, a 4-year-old playing hockey on ponds in Anchorage, is selected by the New Jersey Devils as their first-round draft choice--the first Latino ever drafted to be in the first round of the NHL draft. Scotty went on to become an all-star, Stanley Cup winner and a recipient of the Calder Memorial Trophy as the league's rookie of the year--all in his first NHL season. That is not bad for a little kid from Anchorage--all before he turned 21. He went on to win another Stanley Cup and later played for the New York Rangers, the Montreal Canadiens, the San Jose Sharks, the Florida Panthers, and the St. Louis Blues. He even chose to return home to Anchorage during the NHL lockout to play briefly for our very own Alaska Aces.

As you can imagine, Scotty is quite popular and well-known in Anchorage. He is admired by so many, and his father is as well. He could have stopped championing, as he has done for so many years, the sport of hockey at any point along the way, but what he did was that he kept doing this. He kept working. He kept encouraging young kids in Alaska to get on the ice to achieve their goals, just like his son did. So Carlos, Scotty, and the rest of the family set up the Scotty Gomez Foundation, which is devoted to that cause, and Carlos Gomez is still running it today. There are more kids like Scotty out there, Carlos said, and ``we're going to give that kid an opportunity,'' like my son had.

The foundation has done so much for youth hockey in Alaska. Thousands of kids across the State have access to gear and the ability to play this great sport that they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford. Around Anchorage's rinks, you will find the dark blue and gold gear--just like our Alaska flag--with a ram. It is the Gomez ram, and it helps kids, no matter their backgrounds or experience, get on the ice and play this great sport.

The foundation has put money into rehabbing rinks, like the one in East Anchorage, which is the neighborhood outdoor rink where Scotty learned to play hockey. When the Anchorage School District dropped the girls' high school hockey in the spring of 2013, the Scotty Gomez Foundation, under Carlos's leadership, stepped up, picked up the sport for 3 years, and redeveloped it into cooperatives across Anchorage's eight public high schools. Girls' hockey in Anchorage is alive today because of Carlos Gomez and his family. Also, in his never forgetting the generosity given to Scotty in his start in hockey, the foundation sponsors youth hockey events and grants for the Boys & Girls Club of Anchorage. That is really giving back to the community.

One of the Scotty Gomez Foundation's biggest events every year is the Last Frontier Pond Hockey Classic, which is organized by Carlos and his partner, Mike Davenport, in Big Lake. The event took place just two weekends ago, and it was quite an event. More than 600 hockey players showed up--kids, lawyers, doctors, slope workers, former pro and college players--men and women. Counting everybody, more than 1,000 people, from all walks of life, went to the event to raise money for youth hockey in Alaska.

It is amazing what one family can do to touch so many, led by Mr. Carlos Gomez. As Scotty said, ``It was my father's dream to give back. This is all him. He always just wants to help others.''

If you are a kid in Alaska who wants to play hockey, Carlos Gomez will egg you on and make sure nothing, especially the cost of equipment, will stop you.

Scotty said:

When I was growing up, he was like a father to all of the

neighborhood kids who needed one. My dad's a true hero.

I thank Mr. Carlos Gomez for all he has done for Alaska's youth and youth hockey throughout our great State. We are honored to call him our Alaskan of the Week.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to join my bipartisan group of colleagues who have been coming to the floor to talk about the very important bill that we are debating and are going to be voting on here in about an hour; that is, to help protect our children all across this country from the horrible scourge of human trafficking and sex trafficking. The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act that we are debating right now is important for the whole country, and it is certainly important for my State of Alaska.

We have a big problem in Alaska with the challenges of domestic violence and sexual assault at some of the highest rates in the country. We also have a big problem with the challenges of human trafficking and sex trafficking. A lot of people think that doesn't happen in America. It happens in America. It is a horrible issue to talk about, but it happens in our country.

There was a study done last year on young men and women in Alaska receiving services from a homeless shelter for teenagers. My wife Julie actually works at this homeless shelter, and one in four girls and one in five boys who used the services of this teen homeless shelter reported being victims of sex trafficking. This is a horrible number for a very vulnerable society. We need to do more to address this issue.

In this legislation, we are taking the fight to one of the places in this country where human trafficking and sex trafficking are really exploding, and that is the internet. The bipartisan legislation we are debating right now will ensure that websites and other institutions on the internet and the companies related that knowingly--and that is an important word, ``knowingly''--facilitate sex trafficking can be held accountable for their actions. It will also create new Federal crimes related to promoting or facilitating human trafficking over the internet and give more resources to State prosecutors to go after these heinous crimes.

In the remarks from a whole host of Senators this morning, I think we are seeing that we are going to make real progress in the fight against online sex trafficking without threatening the years of progress we have made in creating a free and open internet. Senator Portman, one of the leaders of this effort, along with many others--Senator McCain and his wife Cindy have been real champions and advocates for human trafficking issues throughout America; Senator Blumenthal and so many other Senators have been saying that this is a commonsense, targeted approach to addressing this very big and growing problem.

We are going to vote in about an hour, and I hope all of my colleagues will do the right thing and vote on these amendments that are put out there as helpful amendments, but, to be honest, they are meant to bring down the bill.

We cannot allow our children, whether in Alaska or across the country, to be lured into this kind of Hell--and the more we hear in terms of testimony, the more we recognize that what is going on over the internet in this area is Hell mostly for the youth of America.

Our children should not be sold online or anywhere else. Unfortunately, it is happening, and it is happening a lot, largely because of the internet. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children reported, from 2010 to 2015, an 846-percent increase in the number of children being trafficked--an over 800-percent increase in America.

A lot of Americans think: Wait, really? That is a problem in Asia, Southeast Asia, or other countries. But it is a growing problem in the United States of America, and we need to address it.

As others have said on this floor, sex trafficking has moved from the street corner to the smartphone, where it is much more difficult to detect and much more difficult to stop, and it is one of the reasons we see this dramatic increase in rates of human trafficking in our country.

In the Commerce Committee, we had a hearing that covered this bill. Some members of the tech industry were opposed, but I think the overwhelming support that came out of that hearing was driven by the real-world tragedies we started to hear from hundreds--thousands-- across the country that have occurred because of really lax laws and immunity on the internet that was not intended for companies or individuals who deal in sex trafficking and human trafficking. What we saw from the report and the investigations that Senator Portman and others did was that actually was what was happening.

For example, Senator Blumenthal earlier today talked about the very tragic, sad, and moving testimony we heard last September in the Commerce Committee from Yvonne Ambrose, whose 16-year-old daughter Desiree Robinson was trafficked online by a pimp on the website, Backpage. She was later raped and murdered by a 32-year-old man who found her on that website. She was an American citizen, a 16-year-old girl. If you had watched her mom's testimony of in front of the Commerce Committee, you would be voting for this bill today.

Her mom ended her riveting and very sad testimony by saying: If there were stricter rules in place for posting on these websites, then my child would still be here with us today. It was a wrenching story and, unfortunately, one that too many American mothers and fathers are telling us.

We are going to vote on this today, and I hope all my colleagues vote for more progress. As the Presiding Officer knows, on this issue, there is actually positive progress that has been going on in the Congress. A lot of times, when they read the news--my constituents back home in Alaska and Americans throughout the country--they are always hearing about conflict and how there is no progress in the Senate. We have some difficult issues; there is no doubt about it. But on a lot of issues there has been bipartisan progress, and in this area of human trafficking, there has been significant bipartisan progress to finally start addressing this growing problem in America--which, again, is remarkable when you think about it--of young men and women trafficked for sex in this country.

In 2017, we passed on a bipartisan basis the Abolish Human Trafficking Act; in 2015, we passed the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. Both were introduced by my friend and colleague, Senator Cornyn of Texas. Senator Thune has been a leader on these issues in the last couple of years in passing the No Human Trafficking on Our Roads Act and Combating Human Trafficking in Commercial Vehicles Act, which focused on the big problem we have seen in terms of the transportation system in America being used for human trafficking. In the Judiciary Committee, we passed Chairman Grassley's bill, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which brought more services to victims of these heinous crimes.

We are making progress, no doubt about it. But--and this is a very important point--despite this strong record of addressing human trafficking, when it comes to these crimes, some of the biggest things we need more of in America to address them, because they are growing, are resources--resources. To put it bluntly, there are too many cases, there is too much of this happening, and there are not enough resources, money, or prosecutors to put the bad individuals who are doing this behind bars.

Many of these cases involving human trafficking are Federal crimes that usually require Federal prosecutors to go after these Federal offenses. As we all know, there are limited numbers of assistant U.S. attorneys and Federal investigators to do this. So what have we done? What have we done in the past few years? What are we doing today in this vote to help address this? We have begun to change this issue of resources to go after the perpetrators of these heinous crimes in a much better way by allowing State attorneys general and State district attorneys to actually prosecute these crimes, even though they are Federal crimes. We are doing something in the law that says: We need more prosecutors, we need more investigators, and we need more resources. Let's unleash those in the States to help us address this growing problem throughout our country.

So we are doing that, and we did it for the first time in the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act in 2015. This

bill, for which Senator Cornyn was the lead, actually incorporated a bill that I had authored and had a lot of cosponsors on called the Mann Act Cooperation amendment. We put that in as part of the broader bill in 2015.

The Mann Act is the Federal law that makes it a criminal offense to transport someone across State lines for the purposes of prostitution and human trafficking. In my experience back home in Alaska, as attorney general, we had challenges in this regard. As a matter of fact, there was a very notorious case of a bad man--a very corrupt man--who a lot of people knew in Alaska, and he was engaged in this kind of activity with young girls from the Native villages in my State. We investigated it and realized that he violated not a State law but a Federal law. It was very clear that it was a human trafficking violation of the Mann Act.

When I was attorney general, my office went to the Feds, and we said: Here you go. Here is the evidence. This guy violated the Mann Act. He is a bad man. He should go to jail. We need to send a signal.

It is a rather long story. It is a sad story. But for whatever reason--I have wondered for years, and I have looked into this for years--the Federal Government wouldn't take the case.

I said to the Feds: Then, let my prosecutors take the case. We will take the case. You just need to cross-designate us. Let the State attorney general's office take these Federal laws and prosecute them against this guy. We will do it.

They still didn't allow us to do it. There were rumors in Alaska: Hey, what was going on here? Was there some kind of deal cut between the Feds and this guy who was a really bad guy and who was in jail for something else?

When I got to the Senate, I said: We are not going to let that kind of injustice happen again.

That was an injustice. A man who violated the Mann Act and clearly committed the crime of human trafficking is a free man right now. That shouldn't be the case.

As part of the Justice for Victims of Human Trafficking Act in 2015, we had a provision. My bill essentially said this: If a State attorney general brings a Mann Act case--a human trafficking violation case, Federal case--to the Attorney General of the United States, saying that we need to be cross-designated to prosecute--maybe the Feds don't have the resources; maybe they don't have the time--then, the Attorney General of the United States shall allow the cross-designation for more State attorneys general to prosecute these cases, unless it would undermine the administration of justice. That is in the law. State attorneys generals right now can go prosecute Mann Act cases. That is more resources, more investigators, and more prosecutors.

That is going to be in the law that we are voting on today. One of the elements--an important element--of the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, which we are voting on and debating now, is to allow State attorneys general the power and the authority to bring actions against those who violate Federal law for internet-based sex trafficking.

We are bringing the resources in these kind of cases. That is an important innovation in the development of the bill that we are voting on today. Just like in the previous legislation, State attorneys general can now bring these cases. If we pass this law today, that will mean more resources, more investigators, and more prosecutors for the perpetrators of these heinous crimes. To all the bad guys out there who are undertaking these crimes, when we vote to pass this legislation today, that is going to be a bad day for you because we are going to have more resources and the ability to put you in jail with this vote today.

As I mentioned, we have a big problem in this country. We have a long way to go in terms of human trafficking, sex trafficking, which is hitting all parts of America. Congress is focused on it, and I am hopeful that we will pass this legislation this afternoon for one more step in the right direction on addressing this issue.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, as many of my colleagues know, one of my favorite parts of the week is coming down to the Senate floor to recognize somebody special in my State, somebody we refer to as our ``Alaskan of the Week.'' It is one of the most fulfilling things I do all week, to get to talk about people who make my State very, very special.

I know many of you--people in the Gallery--have seen Alaska on TV or have read about it in the newspapers, but there is no substitute for being there. We want you all to come. It would be the trip of a lifetime, particularly now.

What is going on in Alaska right now, one of the highlights of the entire year, is the Iditarod--the ``last great race'' in the world-- which is in full throttle. When you visit, Alaska will change your life--the wilderness, the wildlife, the quiet, the sense of unbridled freedom, the liberty, and the majesty. It is all there. It is all there, so come on, come on and visit.

Also, when you visit, you will realize that Alaska is home to some of the most courageous, hard-working, and tenacious people in the world, many of whom have overcome tremendous odds and are determined to inspire others to live a full and healthy life.

Madam President, I would like to take you, take everybody listening, to Nome, AK, and tell you about Carol Seppilu, someone who I believe personifies determination and perseverance and who is an inspiration to us all and is this week's Alaskan of the Week.

Carol lives in Nome--a rugged, unique, and beautiful town in Alaska's northwest, about 500 miles from Anchorage. You might have heard of Nome. The reality show ``Gold Rush Alaska'' was filmed there, and it is also the finish for the Iditarod.

Pretty soon, if you are watching on TV--our best guess is early next week--the mushers and the dozens of dogs--that, by the way, love the race. They love the race--will begin to cross the finish line. People from all over our State, but really people from all over the world, will be there to greet them as they finish this incredible race, to greet them and congratulate them. We call it the ``last great race,'' and it finishes at Nome.

There is no place like Nome, we like to say in Alaska. If you live in Nome, you might have seen Carol running in winter, spring, summer, and fall. Carol runs through the streets and into the mountains surrounding Nome. It is one of the ways that she has found purpose in her life, which in turn she has used to help others, to inspire others.

Like a lot of us, Carol had big dreams when she was growing up. She was interested in science and space. She was actually interested in being an astrophysicist. Then, as sometimes happens to young kids, her life took a bit of a turn. She got in with the wrong crowd and started drinking and using drugs, and her life lost meaning.

This is a difficult subject to talk about on the Senate floor, but we must. We must. Carol wants us to. Alaska has the second highest suicide rate in the country, and it has the highest teen suicide rate in the entire

Nation. The suicide rate among Alaska Native teens is also very, very high--tragically high, horribly high. When it comes to suicide, silence is deadly.

Carol knows all about this. When she was 16, she tried to end her life by shooting herself. After the gun went off, she remembers thinking: Dear God, save me. I don't want to die anymore.

Then she described how, during this awful incident, her ancestors came to her, her elders, telling her that she was going to be OK and that she had a reason to live. She did live. Badly scarred, after having multiple operations on her face, recovery has not been easy for Carol, but she has made it through. She has toughed it out.

What she did was remarkable and incredible. She began to speak about suicide at schools. She was a member of the State's Suicide Prevention Council. Eventually, she got a job at an elders' home, where she is currently the cultural activities specialist. She organizes Alaska Native dances. She cooks traditional Alaska Native food for her elders. Moose and muskox soup is their favorite. I think Senator Murkowski is going to let us enjoy a little muskox stew over lunch today, so Carol will be pleased about that.

But as the years went by, she again experienced depression, which is not uncommon. She didn't feel like getting out of bed. She was unhealthy. But then again, in 2014, more inspiration--again, incredible. A high school friend who was a runner urged Carol to try it. You are not feeling healthy? You are feeling sad? Go out, try to get a run in. At first, when she did it, she could only go a few blocks. Eventually the blocks turned into miles, which is even more challenging for her because of some of her injuries. Nonetheless, she persevered.

We are seeing a theme in her life. She began to get healthy and to feel good about herself again. Again, she found her reason to live. Guess what. She has turned into an amazing athlete. She began to enter races in 2015 when she ran the local 8-mile Dexter Challenge. ``I thought, if I do eight miles, I could do a half marathon,'' she said. And then she did.

Carol didn't stop there. Now she is running ultramarathons across the country--50 miles in Iowa, multiple ultramarathons in Utah, a 50K in Washington State. Early last month, she was running a 50K in Texas when, about 5 miles in, she broke her ankle, but that didn't stop her. She finished even with a broken ankle and is recovering. We are seeing a woman, a young lady of perseverance. Her ultimate goal is to do an ultramarathon in every State in America.

Because of Carol's scars, she wears a mask. In August she decided that it was too cumbersome to wear the mask while running, so during a race in Alaska--the very challenging 50-mile Resurrection Pass ultramarathon--she took it off, and it was liberating for her. Here is the beautiful thing: Everybody--everybody--was so supportive, so she doesn't run with a mask anymore.

It is not only runners who are supportive of Carol; she has gotten people in her hometown, the town of Nome, to start running themselves. Across the State, people approach her wherever she goes, and they tell her they have heard about her, they have heard about her life, and if she has made it through her challenge, they can too. In other words, she is an inspiration. She has become an inspiration throughout Alaska to so many people. She said:

I think I'm helping other people overcome difficulties.

They tell me I'm inspiring them to keep going. So that's why

I believe I'm here now--to help others.

That is Carol's quote.

So, Carol, for your inspiration to so many in our great State, for all you have done and all you continue to do, we are proud of you and thank you for being our Alaskan of the Week this week, as the Iditarod finishes up in your hometown of Nome, AK.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues Senator Casey and Senator Wicker.

Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues Senator Wicker from Mississippi and Senator Casey from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to talk about legislation that I believe is of vital importance to every State in the country--certainly to mine, the great State of Alaska. Most importantly, it is vitally important legislation to the men and women who serve in the U.S. Coast Guard. I am going to talk about them for a minute. Yet, in addition to the legislation we are talking about here, it is also vitally important to our maritime and fishing communities.

This is very important legislation. Which legislation am I talking about? S. 1129, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2017. It is legislation that has broad bipartisan support, including from Chairman Thune of South Dakota and Ranking Member Nelson of Florida of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee; my colleague from Alaska, Senator Lisa Murkowski; and many, many others, Republicans and Democrats. The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Coast Guard and our fishing fleets and our fisheries, marked up this important legislation back in May of 2017. Unfortunately, due to a lack of an agreement on one particular provision--although we have very strong support, even for this particular provision, of over 60 Senators--the Coast Guard bill overall remains stuck.

We always talk about the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines. I love them to death, but sometimes we forget about our fifth branch of service. These men and women do incredible work every single day for our country.

This bipartisan bill, the Coast Guard Authorization Act, will give the Coast Guard the resources it needs to protect our waterways and coastlines, to block illegal drug traffickers and smugglers, and to more efficiently procure future Coast Guard cutters. It will authorize the Coast Guard in terms of policies and spending through fiscal years 2018 and 2019. Most importantly, it will take care of the men and women who serve in our Coast Guard, who hail from every State in our great Nation. They do so much.

So we are going to be debating the continuing resolution that will have very significant funding for our military but also for natural disasters. Think about the natural disasters that occurred in the United States in Florida, in Texas, in Louisiana, and other places in the last several months. The Coast Guard undertook thousands of rescue operations--men and women risking their lives, literally, to save their fellow Americans. This bill focuses on them.

In constructing this legislation, we worked in a bipartisan manner for months. However, it appears that the Coast Guard authorization bill, unfortunately, remains stuck.

I serve as the chairman of the subcommittee responsible for the Coast Guard. In Alaska we know all about the men and women of the Coast Guard. I would like to say that prior to 9/11, the Coast Guard was probably the only military service among all five branches that had men and women out there risking their lives every single day for Americans. Unfortunately, since 9/11 and the big challenges we have had from a national security perspective, we have had men and women from all branches of services, every single day, risking their lives. But the Coast Guard does it at home and abroad.

What is happening with this bill? Well, this bill, which is bipartisan, not only contains critical needs and authorizations and policies for our Coast Guard and the men and women who serve, but it also contains provisions of vital importance to our maritime industry and fishing communities. Included in this legislation are important elements of another act, the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, which we call VIDA, to address an issue that has been around for years pertaining to the incidental discharges for those in our fishing fleets and maritime fleets.

Currently, vessel owners and operators in the fishing and maritime industry are forced to comply with a patchwork of burdensome State and Federal regulations and laws for vessel ballast water and incidental discharges--the discharges of water that come off the deck of fishing vessels, for example.

Think about it. When thinking about the Constitution and the commerce clause, this is an issue where a fishing vessel moves in different waters in the United States--State waters from one State to another--or a maritime ship goes from one State to another, and it has to comply with a patchwork of different State laws and regulations as it moves through different waters controlled by different States. This creates inefficiencies, adds to business costs, and, particularly in the fishing fleet, inhibits economic prosperity for States and people in the industry, whether in Alaska or other places throughout the country.

So the VIDA provision, which we all worked on and which has very strong bipartisan support, would provide the maritime and fishing industry with a consistent, uniform regulatory structure across the country, restoring efficient and cost-effective commerce while ensuring that environmental protection remains at the highest levels for our ports, waterways, and harbors.

We have been working together for months, and I want to commend my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, as we have tried to accommodate the concerns of many other Senators. We changed this part of the Coast Guard bill numerous times to try to address those concerns. I think we have gotten almost every Senator on board, with the exception of just a few.

Notably, one of the measures that we have strong bipartisan support for in this bill, which would help a number of my constituents-- thousands in the fishing industry--is the provision we have agreed on that provides a permanent exemption on incidental vessel discharges for all fishing vessels and small commercial vessels. Right now, believe it or not, if you have a small commercial vessel and you are gutting fish caught on the vessel and you hose down the guts of those fish back into the water, you need a permit from the EPA. Think about that. Think about a regulation that is going to hurt small businesses.

We are trying to encourage all of our colleagues to help us move forward with the Coast Guard bill. We move the National Defense Authorization Act that covers the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines every year, but we should be moving the Coast Guard bill every year, as well, to make sure we are taking care of the men and women in the Coast Guard and we are not forgetting the fifth branch of the military that does so much for our men and women. We also need solutions to the issue of the vessel incidental discharge challenges, and we need to get this provision of the Coast Guard bill unstuck.

I thank my colleagues again for being on the floor with me. Again, this is a bipartisan issue, and we wanted to call out the importance of this issue so that our colleagues in the Senate can say it is time to act.

It is time to move on the Coast Guard bill. It is time to include this very important VIDA provision, and I am hopeful we can do it soon.

I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey.

Absolutely. I want to thank Senator Wicker for his leadership on this issue, and I think what we are seeing here in this colloquy is the strength of the bipartisan support for this bill, not only in the Senate but throughout the country. I appreciate my colleague's words about who is supporting it. It is a very broad-based coalition--fishing vessels, passenger vessels, labor unions, the Navy League of the United States, marine terminals, port authorities.

I think both Senator Wicker and Senator Casey made a very strong point: This is going to keep the highest standards on the environment for our waters. This isn't about cutting corners, but it is going to make these standards uniform, which is what our Nation needs.

What we also need to do is to make sure we pass the Coast Guard bill as well as this important component of it. The men and women of the Coast Guard are serving our Nation just like the other members of the military, and somehow, by delaying this bill, we are undermining their longer term interests. I think the Senate can do a much better job.

I agree with my colleague from Mississippi that we are close. There is clearly bipartisan support across the board for the VIDA Act and the Coast Guard bill, and we are hopeful that within the next few weeks or few months, we are going to get this done, and it is going to benefit literally every State in this great Nation of ours.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi for his strong leadership on this issue as well.

I think we are seeing here that Democrats and Republicans are pretty much all united on this issue. We are hopeful to move not only the VIDA Act but also the broader Coast Guard bill out of the Senate, get it passed, and get it to the President's desk. That is going to be good for the men and women of the Coast Guard, it is going to be good for our maritime and fishing interests, and it is going to be good for the country.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I have been coming to the floor every week to do what I consider the favorite part of my duties serving here in the Senate, and that is to talk about someone special in my great State. We call that person our Alaskan of the Week.

I have been told by some of my colleagues that they look forward to this, and I know the pages do, learning a little bit about Alaska. I do this because I certainly want my constituents to know about so many people in their State--what they are doing, how they are impacting not only their community or State but sometimes even the whole country.

Much of what the country knows about Alaska is what they have seen on TV--beautiful glaciers, giant salmon, skiing, hiking, kayaking, boating. We want everyone to come visit Alaska. It will be the trip of a lifetime, guaranteed.

The real beauty of my State rests in the people who call it home. It is a State of rugged, generous, patriotic people devoted to service to their country, their State, and their communities. In many ways, this is what this ``Alaskan of the Week'' honor is all about.

When we talk about service to our country, Alaska boasts thousands and thousands of Active Duty members of the military, reservists-- thousands of reservists--and tens of thousands of veterans, in fact, more veterans per capita than any other State in the country. So many of the veterans in my State have not just served their country but have devoted their time and energy in ways that so many veterans do, helping and caring for other veterans and their families.

Many in the military know it is not easy to serve, but what is often forgotten is that service and the sacrifice of service, particularly military service, often hits the families the hardest. When that service results in the loss of life, the ultimate sacrifice, it is devastating for the families, friends, and loved ones all across communities, all across Alaska, and all across the country. When one of our own loses their life in the fight for freedom, we all grieve. We all grieve.

Today I want to introduce a very special Alaskan, Kirk Alkire, who has devoted countless hours to make sure that those we have lost in battle will never be forgotten and that the families of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice receive a fitting tribute to their sacrifice.

Kirk believes that such a fitting tribute lies in a peak in one of Alaska's vast, beautiful, almost endless mountain ranges that we have in my great State. This is a peak that actually exists in the Chugach range between Eagle River and Palmer, AK, overlooking the Knik River.

Kirk has been on a quest to name this peak the ``Gold Star Peak.'' It is actually a mountain that is unnamed right now next to another mountain that is named. That mountain is called Mount POW/MIA, but he wants to name this other mountain for the Gold Star families who have lost loved ones who were killed in action defending America. Kirk is passionate about this peak, just as he was passionate about the men and women he served with during his 23 years in the Army on Active Duty.

Let me tell you a little bit about Kirk. He was born and raised in San Jose, CA. He enlisted in the Army right out of high school in 1986. He married his high school sweetheart, Angie, and they had a son, Matthew.

During his time on Active Duty in the Army, like so many soldiers, particularly over the last couple decades, he had various assignments in both airborne and light infantry units spread across the United States--really with deployments all over the world--and eventually he was stationed in Alaska. His final assignment was as a first sergeant with the Alaska-based 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division, a unit that we in Alaska lovingly know as simply the 425. It is a unit that we all care about--the only airborne brigade combat team in the entire Asia Pacific, mountain-trained and arctic- tough.

I had the opportunity to visit a couple thousand of those troops from the 425 who are actually serving their country in Afghanistan. These are the best of the best, and they are always forward-deployed.

Kirk and the 425 deployed to Iraq for 15 months during the 2006 to 2007 surge. Kirk's brigade, during that tough, tough fighting in Iraq during that time, during the surge--one brigade combat team lost 53 paratroopers over that 15 months. Fifty-three American soldiers were killed in action from one brigade, and that doesn't even touch the numbers that were wounded in action, which were many, many more. That is a devastating number.

Kirk now lives in Eagle River, AK. It is a beautiful community in the mountains overlooking Eagle River near Anchorage. Since his return, he has climbed Mount POW/MIA a few times every year to tend to the flag that exists on that peak, again out of patriotism. It was during one of those hikes that he noticed the beautiful unnamed peak right next to Mount POW/MIA, and then he knew what he needed to do.

Mr. President, it is not easy to name a peak, and in Alaska, we have so many mountains that there are dozens and dozens of mountains that are still not named. It is not easy to name the peak of a mountain. So what did he do? Well, first, he secured support from members of the Eklutna Tribe, whose region in Alaska the mountain occupies, so it was a very respectful action toward our very important Native community in Alaska. He then took letters of support and a petition with over 1,500 signatures from all 50 States, 4 countries, and 1 U.S. territory, to the Alaska Historical Commission. I was

one of the signors of that petition. He presented all of this to the National Geological Survey, which is part of the Department of the Interior, all to get this peak, this mountain, named for the Gold Star families, the Gold Star Peak. So he worked this hard. He worked this very hard.

Today, I have the honor of announcing on the Senate floor that just this morning, the U.S. Board of Geographic Names, which is part of the Department of the Interior, which votes to name mountains, unanimously voted and approved naming that mountain in the Chugach Mountain range ``Gold Star Peak.'' That is great news. That is hard work.

I am honored to have Kirk sitting up in the Gallery today after his hard work where he was working at the Department of the Interior this morning.

I first met Kirk at a Veterans Day parade in Anchorage, where he told me about his quest to get the mountain peak named. That is where I signed the petition. And then I asked him--I said: Kirk, you served your country. Why are you so motivated and focused and determined to do this?

Do you know what he did, Mr. President? He pulled out 53 dog tags that he had in his pocket with the names of every soldier of the 425 who was lost in Iraq in 2006 to 2007 when he was the first sergeant for that brigade. I held them in my hand. It was powerful and moving, and in some ways it was so horrible to look at because these are the lives and names of the best and brightest we have in America. That is why he did it, and that is why he was motivated.

Because of Kirk and the announcement today, families--whether they are from Alaska or anywhere in America who come visit, families who have lost loved ones who made the ultimate sacrifice serving their Nation will now be able to look up at Gold Star Peak as they drive up the busy Glenn Highway in Alaska, and they will see that 4,000-foot peak soaring into the sky. All of America will know that their loved ones are not forgotten and that the service and sacrifice of the Gold Star families whom we honor are appreciated and honored by a grateful nation.

So thank you, Kirk, for all the work you have put into this. Congratulations on the vote today. I can't wait to get home and see Gold Star Peak, officially named, and maybe, just maybe, get out there and summit it with you someday.

Thank you for being our Alaskan of the Week.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I join my colleague from Alaska today in honoring Bill Van Ness. Chairman Murkowski has identified some of the significant contributions that Bill made to Alaska and Alaskans. I would like to focus specifically on one of those contributions, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act or ANCSA, and the role that law has played in improving the lives of Alaska's Native people. Through ANCSA, the State of Alaska, the Federal Government, and the Alaska Native community reached a settlement regarding aboriginal claims to lands and resources throughout the State. Alaska Natives set aside those claims in exchange for nearly $1 billion and the right to select approximately 45 million acres of land.

Bill's creativity is evident in the manner in which ANCSA addressed the fundamental question of how to ensure that the thousands of individual Alaska Natives received their fair share of the settlement funds and lands. To answer that question, ANCSA authorized the creation of corporations, in which Alaska Natives are the sole shareholders, to receive the funds and hold title to the selected lands. For the most part, this corporate structure has proved to be very beneficial to the Alaska Native shareholders and to the State of Alaska.

In this regard, I point to the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, ASRC, which is owned by Alaska Native people who have inhabited the North Slope of Alaska for thousands of years. With strong leadership from its shareholders, officers, and board members, ASRC has grown into a multibillion dollar enterprise that is Alaska's largest domestic company and that provides dividends to its nearly 13,000 Alaska Native shareholder, as well as many jobs to shareholders and other Alaskans. Bill Van Ness's contributions as an author of ANCSA and later as a private attorney representing ASRC were keys to ASRC's success story.

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

Mr. President, every week, I have been coming to the floor, going on 2 years now, to talk about what makes my State, the great State of Alaska, such an amazing place to live--gorgeous, untouched mountains, the glaciers, the wildlife. I have live web cams in my office. For people who want to see the bears, walruses, the salmon spawning, bears scooping up these amazing fish from the choked streams, please come on by. Most of that happens during the spring, summer, and fall. The winter, of course, is the longest season in Alaska. In my opinion, it is one of the best times to experience our State.

For those watching on TV or in the Gallery, we want to welcome you to Alaska. Come on by. You will have the trip of a lifetime. I guarantee it.

It is truly the people who make my State such a truly special place. What we try to do each week is talk about

some of those people in what we have termed our ``Alaskan of the Week'' celebration, to talk about community, to talk about so many Alaskans who are helping not only their State and their community but their country, generous yet tough and competitive people who make up our Wonderful State.

Many of them get very excited when the snow starts to fall. They strap on their skis and they fly through the snow. One group of Alaskans who every winter strap on their skis and train--actually train all year round and compete on the hundreds of miles of Anchorage's trail system--is the Alaska Pacific University Nordic Ski Program. Hands down, it is the very best ski team in America. They are our Alaskans of the Week.

Let me tell you a little bit about the APU Nordic Ski Program. Led by Coach Erik Flora, Alaska's APU Nordic Ski team year after year produces some of our Nation's finest athletes, who compete in races all across the world, including the upcoming Winter Olympics in Korea. As I mentioned, year after year, APU athletes are simply the best cross- country skiers in the Nation. Their depth of talent was put on display earlier this month at the U.S. Cross Country Championships in Anchorage, where they took 11 out of the 24 podium spots in the senior races and 8 out of the 24 junior podium spots. Think about that. One team dominated the U.S. Cross Country Championships this year.

They train year-round. In the summer, the ski team trains on Eagle Glacier, accessible by a 10-minute helicopter ride from Girdwood, AK. As the Anchorage Daily News put it, this unique training area has ``been a springboard to APU's international and domestic success [and dominance]. Flora and his staff have groomed serpentined, undulating trails there that mimic [international] courses'' on a glacier in Alaska in the summer. That is great training. It is year-round.

In addition to training and coaching these world-class athletes, the APU Nordic Ski Center also has a popular junior program, which helps develop the next generation of Olympic skiers.

I have had the honor to get to know some of these skiers, these wonderful athletes, over the past few years. They certainly would make Alaskans proud, but I think they would make all Americans proud. They are great young men and women who are dedicated, disciplined, humble, hard-working, and very smart. They are students; they are very, very good students. I even had the opportunity to go and train with them occasionally. I am more of a downhill skier than a cross-country skier. I went with them in the fall, when there wasn't any snow on the ground, to do some mountain interval training, running with them up and down the mountains. To witness and train with these world-class athletes was an amazing experience. I must admit, it was a difficult experience for me. I think I was smoked after about 10 minutes with them, and they had about a 2-hour workout session on the mountain. It gave me a sense of how hard they work and what dedicated, world-class athletes we have in my hometown.

Next month, several of these APU skiers will travel to Korea to represent the United States of America at the Winter Olympics, the way they have in previous Olympics. They are top skiers for America. Let me name a few.

First and I would say foremost, Kikkan Randall, America's most decorated cross-country skier in U.S. history and an Alaskan icon--she will participate in her fifth Winter Olympics. Let me say that again. She will participate in her fifth Winter Olympics. That is an incredible record for any American athlete, winter or summer games. She is also a wonderful person. She is very, very community-oriented. Alongside her will be APU teammates Sadie and Erik Bjornsen--they are brother and sister--Rosie Brennan, and maybe, hopefully, even a few more. Additionally, their APU teammate Jess Yeaton, who was born in Australia but grew up in Alaska, will ski for the Australian cross- country ski team. You are getting the picture. This is a group of people who are going to do very, very well in the Olympics and are going to represent our country and other countries proudly.

Cross-country skiing is woven into the fabric of Alaska's winter community. It brings people together, and it helps build community. So many of our skiers, including and especially the APU team, are also generous and kind in helping others learn how to ski and graciously host skiers from all across the country, as was on full display during the recent U.S. Cross Country Championships.

On behalf of all Alaskans--really, on behalf of all U.S. Senators--I wish the team good luck in Korea. We will be watching. I know you will make Alaskans and our fellow Americans very proud as you compete on the world stage once again. Once again, thanks for all you do. Thanks for your tremendous hard work and dedication. And to the APU Nordic ski team, thanks again for being our Alaskans of the Week.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as you can see here, a lot of the Senators are coming down to talk about the government shutdown. We are in a completely avoidable shutdown. There are a lot of speeches, but I think it is important to be clear on one fact. The position of the Democratic leadership on Friday night was this: Unless you agree with our demands on the DACA issue by midnight, we will shut down the Federal Government. I don't think anybody disagrees that is what the position was Friday night. The irony, of course, is there wasn't even a bill to agree on, but that still was their position. The decision was in their hands and they made it and here we are. This was completely avoidable, and we need to get this government of ours up and running again.

I have been coming to the floor for the last few days--on the eve of the shutdown and each day during the shutdown--to emphasize one point; that the American people need to be skeptical. They need to be very skeptical as the Members of the Senate Democratic leadership and some of their colleagues trot out newly polished talking points emphasizing their concern for the military readiness, rebuilding our forces, and more spending on defense.

You might be hearing this. As a matter of fact, I have heard that argument from the leadership on the other side more in the last 3 days than I have heard in the last 3 years as a Senator in this body. Even the junior Senator from Vermont this morning on CNN was talking about the importance of rebuilding our military. Wow. That is new. So you are seeing these new talking points.

I respect and get along well with all these Senators, the Democratic leader, Democratic whip, the junior Senator from Vermont I just mentioned, and the Senator from Wisconsin was just on the floor talking about--again, a big emphasis on the Democratic side on the military. I have respect for them. I know they are all patriotic, and they all love their country, but one thing I think is pretty clear--at least in my 3 years in the Senate--this has not been their area of focus. It hasn't been. Go look at the speeches. There has not been the focus on fully funding and rebuilding our military. That is not where the Democratic leadership has been, but it seems to be now with these new points.

Of course, I welcome this. I welcome this change of heart. I welcome this new emphasis on fully rebuilding our military forces. In fact, there are many of us in the Senate who serve on the Armed Services Committee, like the Presiding Officer, led by Senator McCain. We have been focusing on this issue for years. There are a lot of Republicans and some Democrats. I mentioned a few on the floor the other day. This is an issue we have been focusing on literally daily because it is a huge problem right now in the country. It is enormously important for my State, the great State of Alaska. Whether it is our Active-Duty Forces or Reserve Forces, we have thousands not only serving in the military now but who have served. We have more vets per capita than any State in the country and thousands of civilians and family members who support them.

These issues of military funding and rebuilding our military are really important to a lot of us. I welcome the Democratic leadership's new focus in the past 72 hours on military readiness, supporting our troops, and rebuilding our forces. But I will admit this--I am skeptical. I am very skeptical.

The American people watching this debate at home or in the Gallery should be skeptical too. You should be skeptical when the junior Senator from Vermont goes on CNN and talks about being strong on military funding. You should be a little bit skeptical.

Why? What is really going on here? Why is there all this new talk from the Democratic leadership about how important fully funding our troops is? Why weren't they talking about this last year or the year before?

I think they might be overcompensating. I think they might be worried. I think they might be feeling a bit defensive. I think they might be trying to preempt arguments that their policies of late have actually been harmful to the military and our troops and their families. The truth is, their policies of late have been harmful to our military forces and our readiness.

Here are a few important points. From 2010 to 2016--the second term of the Obama administration--the Department of Defense budget declined by 25 percent. That is not a focus on the buildup of military; that is for sure.

There were also dramatic troop cuts. As a matter of fact, when I first started in this body in 2015, the Obama administration announced that they were cutting 40,000 Active Duty Army

troops; 5,000 were focused on Alaska. Because of this, we have seen readiness in our Armed Forces plummet.

Here are just a few disturbing facts and a few disturbing trends. At least one-third of Marine aviation isn't flying right now. We have had numerous mishaps that have killed marines because of aviation accidents. Only 5 out of 58 Army brigade combat teams are fully ready. We have the smallest Air Force in U.S. history. We have a pilot shortage--really, a crisis--in the Air Force and the Navy with regard to being able to recruit pilots. Training hours for our pilots each month have been cut in half. There are reports right now that Chinese and Russian pilots are getting much more monthly training than our forces. We have had naval mishaps at sea that have killed several sailors in the prime of their lives--the best and the brightest of our country.

We all recognize that there is a big problem. As we were cutting forces and cutting spending for the last several years, the national security threats to our country were dramatically increasing. We are cutting forces, we are cutting spending, and ISIS is rising. North Korea is becoming an enormous and immediate threat, as are Iran, China, and Russia.

The world isn't any safer, yet we have been cutting our military forces and the funding for our troops. That is why there is starting to be a change right now. We passed the National Defense Authorization Act with a dramatic authorization for an increase in military spending, but it is still not appropriated.

When it comes to the Democratic leadership's new talking points, actions speak louder than words. The new talking points don't mean much in the face of actions that have actually undermined our military.

Let me provide a few examples. In the past 3 years, every Defense appropriations bill that has passed out of the Appropriations Committee has been filibustered by the Democratic side. Let me say that again. Every single time we have brought a bill, usually a very bipartisan bill, out of the Appropriations Committee for the funding for our troops, it gets filibustered by the Democratic side. That is not supporting our military.

A number of us have come down and talked about this. We have encouraged our colleagues: Don't support the filibuster. We have asked: Why are you doing this? Why are you doing this?

We all know that our forces have been cut too dramatically. The national security challenges have increased, yet every single time we bring a bill out of the Appropriations Committee to fund our troops, the other side filibusters that bill.

If most people back home knew that, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter what State you live in--if you knew that was what was going on here on the Senate floor, you probably wouldn't be happy. But that has happened. That still happens every time.

No, I will not yield. I will finish, and the Senator can respond to this later.

Hopefully my colleague from Hawaii hasn't been one of those who have been filibustering spending for our troops, but it has happened. In the summer of 2015, it happened five times in a row.

Next--right now we are having these discussions on the appropriate level of defense spending, but the other side is saying: No, there has to be parity, with ``parity'' meaning that if we increase defense spending, which people are now saying we need to do--and we do--we have to correspondingly increase domestic spending.

Well, again, the vast majority of Americans don't agree with that position. That is not a position that is showing strong support for our military, yet that is the position right now. That is one of the reasons we have had difficulty coming to a final topline number.

In other words, if you want to increase the budget for the Marines, you need to increase the budget for the EPA or another domestic agency. Well, that is not showing this newfound emphasis and importance with regard to the military.

Let me provide just one last point. This government shutdown--we all know that really hurts our troops. We all know that really hurts training. We all know that really hurts planning. Right now, if you are a lance corporal in the Marine Corps fighting in Iraq or somewhere else around the world for our national security, you have just been told that you are not getting paid. Right now, the families of survivors for the military--meaning that your husband, your wife, or your dad was killed in action--get survivors benefits. Guess what happened on Friday night. Those families no longer get survivors benefits.

We have all heard it, and I agree that a CR is bad for the military. I fully agree with that. There is one thing that is absolutely worse for the military and our troops right now--shutting down the government. That is worse. That is worse than a CR.

When my colleagues on the other side trot out statements from General Mattis and others, that is their view. Shutting down the government is the worst thing we can be doing right now.

There was a little bit of news today. This was in the Alaska Dispatch News, or what is now known as the Anchorage Daily News, about what is going on in my State of Alaska. I am going to quote a couple of sentences from this article.

It says that LTC Candis Olmstead of the Alaska National Guard ``wrote that the Alaska National Guard also canceled its monthly drill weekend, scheduled for Saturday and Sunday, due to the government shutdown. About 4,000 Guard members''--we have a lot of military in Alaska-- ``throughout the state had planned to attend.''

I guarantee, some were en route, and they were told to go home. Alaska is a big State. Sometimes you can fly 1,000 miles within Alaska to go to a drill weekend.

She said: ``Drill weekends are when the bulk of our force--our traditional or part-time Guard members--train alongside our full-time personnel.'' Well, that is not helpful for our military.

National Public Radio this morning did a big story on what was going on with the military. Again, they focused on Alaska as well. They said that at least 4,000 people were impacted.

The reporter talked about how stressful this is for families. Let's say you are a corporal in the Army. You and your family can go into debt because you are not getting paid. Think about being deployed overseas, and your wife is calling you, saying: I can't pay the rent. That is what we did. That is what my colleagues did on Friday night.

These new talking points, saying ``We really support the military,''--be skeptical because actions speak louder than words.

It is not just the military members. In Alaska, there are hundreds, probably thousands, of family members in the civilian world--many of whom are veterans--who, according to an NPR story this morning on the radio, are going to go to work on Monday. They are going to be told whether they are essential or not, and they have 4 hours to pack up their stuff and go home.

This is clearly, clearly disrupting our military. It is not just Alaska. It is all over the country. To be honest, it is all over the world.

Let's talk about the civilian workforce in Virginia. In this same article that I read from earlier, it says:

While uniformed personnel are largely shielded from the

shutdown effects--

Because they are still working and, by the way, they are not getting paid--

civilian employees whose jobs are not deemed critical to

defense operations will be furloughed.

There are more than 740,000 Defense Department civilians.

Mattis said Friday that about half of them would be

furloughed.

Again, it is not just military members. It is the families. I mentioned survivors benefits. There is also something called insurance that covers things, for example, like funerals.

This article continues:

Already on Saturday, other effects were felt across the

military. One particularly sensitive one is the temporary

suspension of $100,000 payments promised to military families

in the event their loved one dies so that they can travel and

prepare for funerals.

Well, that has now been suspended. It even affects our forces overseas.

The article goes on to say:

The American Forces Network, which carries television

broadcasts of sporting events and other programming, was

taken off the

air at midnight, leaving deployed U.S. troops without one

common way to watch National Football League playoff games

this weekend.

That might sound like a small thing. It might sound like a small thing, but if you are deployed overseas, serving your country overseas, you want to touch base with America. Watching a football game is a great way to do that. Guess what. Our troops are not even going to have that small privilege.

In conclusion, the next time the Democratic leadership or some of my colleagues come to the floor or go on CNN emphasizing their concerns for the troops and rebuilding our forces, knowing that we have to do a lot more, spend on the military, be skeptical. Be skeptical.

The talking points are nice. We are hearing them from everyone. It is the actions that count. It is the actions that count, and they speak louder than these newly crafted, slick talking points.

This has not been the focus of the Democratic leadership. It hasn't been. I believe some of those giving these new talking points are a little bit concerned or maybe a little bit haunted by the specter of the Democratic Party once again being known, as they were in the 1970s, as the anti-military party.

Now, I will say this: The vast majority of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, care about our forces, are patriotic, and care about our veterans. But the way you show that is not through new talking points; the way you show that is through actions and policies that are truly and sincerely focused on supporting our troops and rebuilding our military.

We can start that. We can start those kinds of actions by ending this ill-conceived government shutdown with a vote tonight.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as we all know, right now the government is in a shutdown. It is unfortunate. I certainly don't think it should have happened last night.

But I think there is some good news. Watching some of the speeches today, we see a lot of ideas coming to the floor, a lot of bipartisan ideas on a lot of key issues that hopefully our country is going to make some progress on. Let me give a few examples for those who have been watching and those who haven't.

The Presiding Officer, my friend from Arizona--I am not trying to embarrass him or anything. I watched his speech a couple hours ago on the way forward and what we can do to break through this unfortunate circumstance we have right now, and he certainly has a lot of good ideas. I commend him and appreciate his leadership on those issues.

My good friend, the Senator from Maine, Senator King, was down here talking about continuing resolutions and these huge omnibuses, and I would agree with him completely. As a matter of fact, Senator King and I had a long discussion on the floor last night about how the system is broken. There are a number of Senators--I think some of the newer Senators--who see it that way. This is no way to move forward, to fund our government with these continuing resolutions and huge omnibuses at the end of the year. So a number of us--and I think it is bipartisan-- want to look at reforms to fix this. Senator Perdue of Georgia has been leading efforts. I think it is very important--and I certainly am part of that group--to look at longer term fixes.

The Senator from Michigan came down and talked about community health centers. Community health centers are incredibly important for my State of Alaska. Ten percent of all community health centers in the country-- 160--are in my State. So I couldn't agree more about the necessity to move forward on more stable funding.

A number of Senators were just down on the floor giving very passionate remarks about the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. Again, it is very important in my State. A lot of people in this country are concerned about the reauthorization of CHIP, and there were some passionate statements on the floor. I would say to my colleagues respectfully, and I respect all of them and welcome the opportunity to work with all of them, they didn't actually address one issue. When they said that a lot of Americans have been worried about this happening for the last 3 months, they didn't actually say why they didn't vote to reauthorize it last night for a 6-year reauthorization.

The Senator from Ohio talked about how people were worried and concerned. Well, guess what--last night he had the opportunity to get rid of their worries and concerns. And when they woke up this morning, they were still worried and concerned, and so are my Alaskan constituents, which is why I voted for the bill last night. Had they voted for the bill on CHIP, the worries and concerns would have gone away.

So there were a lot of passionate speeches on this issue, but not one of them actually said: But here is why I didn't vote for it last night. It would be good to know what the answer to that is.

But I really wanted to come to the floor again to emphasize something I have made a few remarks on in the last couple of days on the floor because it is something that I am concerned about, and it is something I want the American people to recognize, and it is a big issue for me.

I think the American people need to be skeptical when they hear on the floor the minority leader and part of his leadership team with their new talking points about their focus on the military and military spending and rebuilding our military.

In the run-up to the shutdown, we had started to see the minority leader and some of the leadership team trotting out new talking points. They went like this: With the shutdown approaching, we are really, really concerned about the military and readiness and funding for our troops and their families and rebuilding the military.

In fact, in the last 3 days, I think I have heard more from the leadership of the other side on this issue than I have in my 3 years in the Senate. I think the minority leader in the last 3 days is starting to sound like my good friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, this body's true champion of the military and military funding.

I actually welcome this change of heart by the minority leader. There is a group of us in the Senate--many who serve on the Armed Services Committee, led by Senator McCain--who have been focused on increasing funding for our troops. A lot of it is Republicans, but it is also some Democrats. I see my good friend from West Virginia is on the floor. He is certainly one of them. He is on that committee. We talk about this issue a lot. Senator King was on the floor again. He is focused on this issue. It is an issue that a lot of us in this body have been focused on daily, whether on the Armed Services or in other committees. The Senator from West Virginia and I also serve on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs together. For me, it is one of the most important issues that we can focus on in this body--the national defense of our country.

I have had the honor of serving in the Marine Corps for almost a quarter of a century. For my State--the great State of Alaska--these issues are enormously important to my constituents. We have more veterans per capita than any other State in the country, thousands of Active Duty and Reserve troops, thousands of civilians who support them, and numerous bases in Alaska because of our strategic location. A number of us really care about these issues regarding the military and funding and supporting our troops.

As I mentioned, I welcome the Democratic leader's new focus in the last 72 hours on military readiness and full funding as we put forward a national defense authorization bill that really started to rebuild our military and support our troops and their families. But I must admit that I am a little bit skeptical. As a matter of fact, I am very skeptical. I think the American people who are watching these debates and listening--whether on TV or in the Gallery--when you see these new talking points of concern from the Democratic leader about our troops and funding, you should be skeptical too. Why? What is really going on here? Why all this new talk?

Again, there has been more in 72 hours than I have seen as a Presiding Officer and watching C-SPAN in 3 years from the Democratic leader on how important it is to fund our troops. I think he might be overcompensating. I think they might be a bit worried. I think they may be feeling a bit defensive. I think they might be trying to preempt arguments that their policies of late are actually really harmful to the military, our troops, and their families.

If you look at the record, their policies of late have been really harmful to our military, our troops, and our families. And this is the most important point. Actions on this issue speak louder than words. Policies that are being promoted are a lot more important to look at than newly crafted, slick talking points.

Let me provide a few examples. The most recent was last night. We had a government shutdown. We didn't need to have a government shutdown, but we had a government shutdown. It was driven by the Democratic leader. The people who are hurt the most on this, by far, are our troops and the civilians who support them. We all know this.

As of today, guess what. The lance corporal in the Marine Corps, who is deployed overseas in Iraq, is not getting paid. A lance corporal doesn't make a lot of money. Well, he is not getting paid. He is risking his life for his country. He is in combat, protecting our national interests, and he doesn't get paid. That happened last night.

We talk about how bad a continuing resolution is. Again, the Democratic leader was saying: Hey, a continuing resolution is really bad for our troops. That is why I am so skeptical of it. I want to protect the troops.

Wrong. A continuing resolution is really bad for our troops; there is no doubt about it. But what is worse is a government shutdown. Ask any military leader. Ask any military leader what the disruption that happened on the Senate floor last night does to our readiness and our ability to protect this country.

I have served in the Reserves and on Active Duty for almost 25 years. I remember, in 2013, getting ready for Reserve duty training. We didn't even know if we were going to train or not--no emails. We had no idea what was going to happen when the government was shut down. It was chaos, just as the Democratic leader predicted it would be.

Here is another one--survivor benefits. A survivor benefit goes to a spouse or child of someone who is related to one of our heroes who was killed in the line of duty. It is really important that we, as a government, take care of those families. Guess what happened last night when we shut down the government. Survivor benefits were stopped; they are not being paid.

Again, stay skeptical on this idea that ``Hey, we really are--new points, we really are supporting our troops.'' Last night was a case in point where actions speak louder than words--not supporting the troops at all.

The civilians--in my State we have hundreds, if not thousands, of patriotic civilian members of the military or civilians who support the military--many of whom are retired military--who are now not going to go to work on Monday, if we are still shut down, at the military bases to support our troops. That is not helping our troops.

Let me give another example of where actions speak louder than words. We have been having very difficult discussions, and they are tough. It is one of the reasons we need to fix our budget process as to what level we should be increasing funding for the military. Those on the Armed Services Committee have authorized a significant increase. Again, it was bipartisan on the NDAA bill, but the Democratic leader has been demanding in these negotiations what he calls parity.

It sounds simple. What does that mean? Let me give you a little background on that. From 2010 to 2016, we cut our defense spending by 25 percent as national security threats to our country increase. There is nobody who disputes that. ISIS, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea-- these are all challenges facing us right now, and we have been cutting our spending and cutting troops, dramatically cutting troops.

I think pretty much everybody in this body is saying: Whoa, bad idea. We shouldn't do that.

In the NDAA, we dramatically increased our authorization for the military. That was a good step--very bipartisan. But in these negotiations we have been having over the last several months, the demand from the Democratic leaders was, any increase in the Department of Defense budget has to be met with an equivalent increase in domestic agencies. In other words, if you want to increase the budget for the Marine Corps, increase the budget for the EPA.

I think most Americans don't agree with that. It certainly doesn't show some kind of newfound respect for supporting our troops. But that is what is happening right now. Again, actions speak louder than words.

Let me provide one final example of actions that certainly don't seem to be supporting our military, speaking louder than words. Unfortunately, the other side is starting to have a practice, a regular practice, of filibustering spending for our troops. Let me explain this. In 2015, a number of us were newly elected, and we said: We need a better budget process. Obviously, we are seeing that it is not working well. Let's go through regular order. Let's get the Appropriations Committee to work really hard and put out 12 appropriations bills, which they debate in the appropriations committee. Then, let's bring them to the floor and vote on them. That is a way to avoid this crazy omnibus, continuing resolution debacle that we find ourselves in today and most of the time. We were really focused on doing that. We tried.

As a matter of fact, the Appropriations Committee did a great job. It was a lot of hard work--very bipartisan. They reported out 12 appropriations bills by the spring of 2015. Most of those bills were very bipartisan.

What we thought was, all right, that is a good start. Everyone seems to want to do that. Let's bring up the bill that is actually important. In 2015, with the rise of ISIS, our troops are in combat. Let's bring up the Defense appropriations bill, which came out of committee unanimously. Every Senator on the appropriations committee--Democrat and Republican--voted for that.

Let's bring that to the floor. We did.

Let's have a debate. We are going to fund our military--these new talking points about our supporting our troops.

What happened that summer? The Democratic leadership filibustered the spending for our troops. They wouldn't let us vote on the bill. They wouldn't let it come to the floor. They stopped funding for our troops.

A number of us were upset. I know some of the Democrats were upset by this because they didn't all support it. You need only 41 to filibuster, as we saw last night.

A number of us said: Well, let's keep bringing it up. They can't be serious. Our troops are in combat. Everyone knows we have national security threats.

The bill came out of committee unanimously. Let's bring it up again. I guarantee you, if their constituents back home, whatever State they are from, whatever party they are--Democrat, Republican--knew that their Senator was filibustering the spending for their national security, the troops, and their families, they probably wouldn't be very happy.

We brought it to the floor again and again and again--five times. Guess what. Every time, the Democratic leadership filibustered spending for our troops.

I guarantee you, there was probably 80 percent support in this country, or more: Hey, let's vote on that. It came out of committee unanimously. The troops are protecting us all over the world. Let's vote on that.

We never got to vote on it.

In conclusion, the next time the minority leader comes to the floor during this debate, emphasizing his concerns about our troops and their funding and the need to rebuild them and their well-being, Shakespeare's insights about protesting a bit too much should come to mind. Be skeptical. Be skeptical. Actions speak louder than words. This has not been a focus of the Democratic leadership.

Here is what I believe is happening. Given their actions--including what happened last night, which really harms our military, and everybody knows it--the specter of the Democratic party once again becoming equated with America's anti-military, which occurred in the 1970s, is haunting them.

Again, I serve on the Armed Services Committee. I serve with wonderful Senators--Democrats and Republicans--who support the military, who support our veterans being on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I know the vast majority in this body support our troops. But the actions of the leadership on the other side don't show that. Yet they are trotting out new talking points about their newfound focus of rebuilding the military and taking care of our troops and their families.

Let me make this final suggestion. The best way to actually show that to the American people, all of whom support it, is not through newly crafted, slick talking points but through actions and policies that truly and sincerely focus on what we all agree we need to do, which is rebuild our military, rebuild readiness, take care of the troops and their families. We can start by ending this ill-conceived government shutdown as soon as possible as one concrete action to actually do that.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I try to get down on the Senate floor every week and talk about someone in my State who is making or who has made our State a better place for all of us. It is, actually, one of my favorite parts of the whole week. I know the pages really enjoy it. It is what I call our Alaskan of the Week. It is one of the most fulfilling things that I do.

No doubt, many here in the Chamber and people watching from home and from up in the Gallery have seen pictures or television shows about Alaska. Hopefully, they have been up there. My State has captured the country's imagination. There are cable shows on Alaska, wonderful shows, and for good reason. There is so much about Alaska that is awe- inspiring--our long expanses of tundra, mountain ranges, glaciers, our salmon-filled streams. To everybody watching back home or listening, we want them to go to Alaska if they haven't already been or to go again. It will be the trip of a lifetime, I guarantee you. Yet a State is different from a community. A State is where people go, and a community is where people live. It takes good, strong, and generous people to build a community.

This week, I recognize someone in Alaska who spent his entire adult lifetime building community. His name was George Brown, who, with his wife, Peggy, had run one of the most popular diners--one of the greatest restaurants in Anchorage--since 1955. The Lucky Wishbone is that place that for decades, people from all walks of life have gone-- veterans, politicians, oil workers, hospital employees. You name it, they have gone to the Lucky Wishbone. They have converged on this wonderful establishment in Anchorage for some of the best fried chicken and best strawberry shakes ever. I guarantee it if you go. I know from firsthand experience. Trust me.

George Brown was born in rural Wisconsin in 1922. He joined the National Guard at the tender age of 17, and his unit was sent to Alcatraz Island to guard the Golden Gate Bridge. At 21, he had already risen to the rank of master sergeant when he qualified for Officer Candidate School. In 1943, he finished flight school at Luke Field, AZ, as a second lieutenant in the Army Air Corps. In that same year, George met the love of his life, Peggy, and married soon after.

After he was married, George received orders to fly B-24s across the Himalayas during World War II--a mission in an area famously known simply as the Hump. George earned the Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal for his bravery and service during World War II.

Incidentally, the late, great Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, whose desk I occupy here on the floor, also flew the Hump with the Army Air Corps during World War II, and I know he was a friend of George's.

After the war, George and Peggy and their two children made their way to Alaska to forge a new life. Eventually, that life took shape in a building that George built by hand in downtown Anchorage--the Lucky Wishbone. Its doors opened on November 30, 1955, and a kind of living room for the community--where you could also get great food--was born in Anchorage.

As you know, most walls don't talk, but the walls of the Lucky Wishbone do talk. They are filled with pictures that chart Anchorage and Alaska's history throughout the decades. These photos tell the story of a hardscrabble territory--Alaska--that fought for self- determination and gained citizenship and statehood in 1959. They tell a story of the town of Anchorage, rebuilt after being hit by the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in North America--9.2 on the Richter scale. It lasted for 5 minutes. The walls of the Lucky Wishbone tell the story of a State brimming with excitement when the largest oilfield in North America, Prudhoe Bay, was discovered on the North Slope, and tens of thousands of jobs were created for Alaskans and Americans. They tell the story of the crash in oil prices in the 1980s and of the hard and long recovery. They tell the story about how, through it all, a community and our citizens in Alaska relied on each other.

As all of this history was in the making, George and his wife, Peggy--who by then had four children--went to work every day. They knew their customers by name, and they continued to make the best food in town.

Sadly, Peggy died in 2011 after she and George celebrated 67 years together. George continued to go to work every day. I saw him there. He continued to fly his plane until he was 94 years old--a wonderful, gracious, tough, patriotic Alaskan and a great American.

George passed away earlier this week--an amazing life. He was 96 years old. He left behind two of his four children--Patricia and Corky--lots of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, nieces, and nephews.

The Lucky Wishbone, one of his many legacies, will live on. This great restaurant has now been passed down to his daughter Patricia and two long-term employees. George and Peggy's memory will also live on with them.

Mr. President, in a few hours, we are likely going to have a simple choice to make here on the Senate floor--to either pass the House's continuing resolution that passed yesterday so as to continue to fund our government and our military and, importantly, to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, for 6 years or to shut down the Federal Government. Yet, if you are watching the Senate floor debates about all of this from home or in the Gallery, you might be a bit confused. Actually, I was almost confused last night. Particularly, if you were listening to the minority leader and minority whip's new talking points that they were using last night in their remarks and have been using over the past few days, you might really be confused. Let me give you a little background as to why.

Like the Presiding Officer--actually, more than the Presiding Officer. He has been around the Senate for quite some time. As someone who is relatively new, I sit in that Presiding Officer's chair a lot-- as a matter of fact, during the 11 a.m. hour on Wednesdays and Thursdays--so I get to listen to the majority and minority leaders and the majority and minority whips give their opening statements. A couple of times a week, I watch it on C-SPAN--like a lot--and you get to hear the different priorities of the different leaders of the parties. Every day, I hear this. I respect everybody, and I respect our Members on the other side of the aisle, as we all have different areas that we focus on. I will tell you this, rebuilding the military, increasing military readiness, increasing defense funding has not been a key area of focus for the minority leader or minority whip. It is just a fact--not bad or good--just a different priority.

I also sit on the Armed Services Committee and the Veterans Affairs' Committee, and there is a lot that we focus on in those committees, particularly Armed Services, and a lot of us have been concerned about the dramatic cuts in spending. From 2010 to 2016, the military has been cut by 25 percent, even though we have had a dramatic increase in national security challenges.

There is a certain group of Senators, I would say led by the Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. McCain, who focus on military issues, military readiness, increasing funding for the troops, who really care about these issues and focus on them daily. I consider myself one of them--a lot of Republicans, some Democrats. The Members of this body know who they are, and we focus on this a lot. Imagine my surprise yesterday and last night when the minority whip and the minority leader started with new talking points emphasizing that this impasse we are

getting ready to see here and the impending possible shutdown is all about their concerns about the military. Their concerns about the military? How the CR was going to hurt the military? Well, with all due respect, that is the first time in 3 years that I have heard the leadership of the other party really emphasize that issue. Again, I have a lot of respect for these men, but they just don't talk about this issue. They don't. That is what they were doing. That is the new talking point. This isn't about something else, it is about our troops.

Well, I think the newest talking points are something that is trying to confuse the American people. Don't be confused by this. These are not the Senators who come out every day and battle for more spending for our troops. These are not the Senators who come down and care about readiness. The new talking points are a little bit hard to swallow.

What was also surprising last night is that the new talking points-- how little the minority leader talked about actually the real issue-- the real issue, and it is a serious issue. Everybody in this body and everybody in this city knows it is the real issue. Here it is. The other side is saying, unless there is a deal on the DACA issue--which is a serious issue--they will shut down the government. That is the real issue. There is no debating it. It is not about the minority leader's newfound concern about military readiness. That is the issue we are debating.

Now, I think it is a serious issue, the Dreamers. I have met with them. We have about 150 in Alaska. I think we need to help those young men and women. They are great Americans--not Americans yet, but they are great young people. We also need to focus on border security and immigration reform. I certainly want to help them.

Here is the final point. What was missed last night is this talk about--we heard the minority leader saying the CR is going to be bad for the military. A continuing resolution is bad for the military-- again, a newfound focus on the military. I hope he joins us as part of the number of Senators who really care and focus on military readiness and defense spending every day, not just last night. What is worse for the military beyond the continuing resolution--and a continuing resolution is bad--but what is worse, there is no doubt about it, the Deputy Secretary of Defense said it today, is a shutdown of the government.

A shutdown of the government really hurts the military. I want to encourage my colleagues, let's not do that. Let's not do that. We will definitely be hurting the military then. Let's get back to work. Let's fund the government. Let's pass this continuing resolution. Let's pass the reauthorization to CHIP, which a lot of my colleagues, in the last several months, have been saying we need to do. I agree. Let's do it tonight. Let's find a resolution for the border security, DACA, and immigration issues that we can get to a bipartisan agreement on.

What we shouldn't be doing here is coming down with new talking points about how much the minority leader cares about military readiness and military funding, when, to be truthful, that is the first I have heard in 3 years an emphasis in that area. Let's fund the military, certainly. Let's fund the government, but let's not shut down the government tonight. That is not going to help anyone, and it certainly--certainly--is not going to help our troops.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I was just in the Presiding Officer's chair and saw my colleague and my friend for whom I have a lot of respect, the Democratic whip, talking about some of the issues we are looking at right now, in particular, military spending and the appropriations we need to fund our military. He mentioned it was a priority. Certainly, it should be a priority. It is probably the most important thing we do here in the Congress. He said they are focused on it. We should all be focused on it.

I just thought I would reply a little because I think the facts of what has been going on here on the floor of the Senate the last couple of years would make one skeptical of that claim that it has been a focus of theirs.

Let me just give a few examples. I know the Presiding Officer is very familiar with all of these. In the last administration, from 2010 to 2016, military spending for the United States was cut by almost 25 percent. That was led by the previous President, despite the fact that there is no one who doubts that national security threats to our Nation have increased: We are going to cut defense spending by 25 percent-- when there are threats around the world, and we know what they are-- ISIS, Iran, China, and Russia. A lot of people like to talk about Russia, which is definitely a threat, but we are cutting defense spending by 25 percent. That makes no sense, but that is what has been going on.

When I got to the Senate, one of the first things that happened was that the previous administration decided that they were going to cut the Army by an additional 50,000 troops--Active-Duty Army troops. The Presiding Officer remembers the spring of 2015 and the big announcement that we were going to cut 50,000 more troops. That made no sense.

A number of us were very concerned about the direction the country was going, the Congress was going, and the administration was going with regard to our military. The good news is that there has been a bipartisan recognition that the cuts were way too dramatic and the increases and threats to our Nation have risen so significantly that we have to do something about rebuilding our military, rebuilding readiness, and rebuilding serious funding.

In this year's National Defense Authorization Act, led by my good friend from Arizona Senator McCain, we actually authorized increased funding by up to $700 billion. That was very bipartisan. As a matter of fact, there was a unanimous vote to move that out of the Armed Services Committee, on which I have the honor to serve with the Presiding Officer. Then, it was unanimous on the floor of the Senate. It was very bipartisan to authorize increased defense spending, but we haven't appropriated the dollars. So there is a difference there in terms of authorization and appropriations.

This has been a bipartisan failure of this body for years. How has it been working? We see how it has been working. We have these giant omnibus spending bills, usually, at the end of the year. If we can't do it, we do a CR, or a continuing resolution. It says that we will keep funding the government as is, and then we will do this giant bill with all of the spending for the year.

These CRs are really hurting our military. They hurt all kinds of Federal agencies because there is no predictability, but the one element of our Federal Government that really gets hurt by continuing resolutions--by these omnibus bills--is the men and women in the U.S. military.

As the Presiding Officer knows, general after general and civilian leaders in the military, whether Democrats or a Republicans, come to the Congress and to our committee, and they say: These CRs are killing us; they are killing our readiness. We all say: Oh, yes, we know it is important. Then, this body does nothing. So it is not from a lack of effort.

I am going to tell a story that I think the other side doesn't want to remember, but I think it is really important to remember, particularly given what the minority whip said earlier today. When a number of us were elected in 2014, it was a big wave election. Twelve new Republican Senators came to this body, and they took control of the Senate. The one thing we said is this: We need to fix this appropriations process, which is clearly broken. We need to do

it the way it was intended--not with these smash-up derby, giant bills at the end of the year. We need to have a focused, disciplined approach to funding our government.

Everybody knows how it is supposed to work. You have the funding bills, 12 of them, and the Appropriations Committee, a very important and powerful committee, debates those for different sections of the Federal Government. They get voted on out of committee. Then, they come to the floor, and we vote on those 12 appropriations bills.

In 2015, a lot of us--particularly, the new Senators, and the Presiding Officer is one of them--said: We need to fix this. Let's do it the right way. And then we did. A lot of people don't remember, but the Appropriations Committee worked really hard under the Chairman, the great Senator from Mississippi, and they produced 12 appropriations bills in the spring of 2015.

As you know, most of those bills were bipartisan. Most of those bills came out of committee with really strong bipartisan numbers--so far, so good. We are trying to focus on this. We are trying to be disciplined.

The next step is that you bring the appropriations bills, one at a time, down to the floor. You debate them, and then you vote on them. Then, you try to get it over to the President to sign it--not a smash- up derby omnibus that is 5,000 pages, and nobody knows what is in it, but an appropriations bill on a singular subject.

That is what we tried to do. It came out of committee. We started bringing all those bills down to the Senate floor. Guess what happened at the next step? The minority leader was Harry Reid back in 2015. He decided that he was going to filibuster every one of those appropriations bills. Why? We said: Certainly, he is not going to filibuster things like the appropriations bill that came out of committee unanimously that funds our military. We have troops in combat. We have threats all over the world. That came out of committee. Let's at least vote on that one. Let's at least vote on the appropriations bill that came out of committee unanimously to fund our troops.

So what happened? The other side, led by the previous minority leader, Harry Reid, filibustered funding our troops. Let me repeat that. He filibustered funding our troops on a bill that was already out of committee unanimously--when our troops are at war.

So when I hear my colleagues on the other side say that they really care about funding the troops, I get a little skeptical. A number of us were quite upset about that. We went to our leader and said: Let's keep bringing this up. We guarantee you that if the people back home in any district in the country, your constituents--whether you are a Senator who is a Republican or Democrat--knew that they were filibustering funding the troops for no reason, they would get a little upset.

We brought that bill to the floor five different times over the course of a couple of months, trying to get the singular appropriations bill to fund our military--which passed out of the Appropriations Committee unanimously--a vote on the Senate floor. Guess what. The other side filibustered it five times.

The Presiding Officer and I were on the floor with a bunch of our colleagues making the argument that this is outrageous, and then we asked the other side to come down and tell the American people why they were filibustering the funding for our troops. A lot of people here like to do the process thing, where they don't think people are watching--people in the Gallery, people on C-SPAN--and they never once came down and said: Here is why we filibustered funding for the troops five times in a row. They didn't want their constituents to see it because they knew their constituents--whether Democrats or Republicans--were going to say: You are doing what? You are filibustering the appropriations bill for the men and women who are fighting to defend our Nation? That is what you are doing?

Well, that is what they did. Yet they never explained it.

Again, when I hear the minority whip saying: We really care about funding the troops, I get a little skeptical. I am still waiting for the answer: Why did you do that?

As you know, we have a system right now that is broken. The budget system--the way we fund the government right now--I think, is a bipartisan failure. The normal way we appropriate and authorize is not working. It leads to what we are doing right now: these giant omnibuses, these continuing resolutions. It has happened so long--these year-end, smash-up derbies, where essentially, the leadership in the House and Senate--Democrat and Republican--and the White House go off somewhere, make a deal, and come back with this huge bill. It is not how the system is supposed to work. It is not doing our country justice.

Again, the good news is that there are a number of Senators-- particularly some of the newer ones, a bipartisan group, by the way, of Democrats and Republicans--led by my friend and colleague from Georgia, Senator David Perdue, who are looking at a bipartisan way to fix this problem.

Right now the way we fund the government is that we have these end- of-the-year smash-up derby, massive, thousand-page omnibuses. When we can't get there, we do another CR, which really impacts our military negatively and a bunch of other elements of the Federal Government. We need to do better.

I am going to be working with my colleagues who are focused on this. It is going to be hard. It is not going to be easy. A lot of people like the smash-up derby approach, but it is not worthy of the American people who we are supposed to represent.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have 12 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Jerome H. Powell, of Maryland, to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Randal Quarles, of Colorado, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Brian D. Montgomery, of Texas, and Robert Hunter Kurtz, of Virginia, both to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and David J. Ryder, of New Jersey, to be Director of the Mint, Department of the Treasury; to be immediately followed by a hearing to examine combating money laundering and other forms of illicit finance, focusing on Administration perspectives on reforming and strengthening Bank Secrecy Act enforcement.

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Terrorism and Social Media: Is big Tech Doing Enough?''

Committee on Environment and Public Works

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``America's Water Infrastructure Needs and Challenges: Federal Panel.''

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on revision to the subcommittee assignments for the 115th Congress and on the following nominations: the Honorable Alex Michael Azar II, of Indiana, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services and Mr. Kevin K. McAleenan, of Hawaii, to be Commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Dennis Shea, of Virginia, to be a Deputy United States Trade Representative (Geneva Office), with the rank of Ambassador, and C. J. Mahoney, of Kansas, to be a Deputy United States Trade Representative (Investment, Services, Labor, Environment, Africa, China, and the Western Hemisphere), with the rank of Ambassador.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Facing 21st Century Public Health Threats: Our Nation's Preparedness and Response Capabilities, Part I.''

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Unintended Consequences: Medicaid and the Opioid Epidemic.''

Committee on Indian Affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Breaking New Ground in Agribusiness Opportunities in Indian Country.''

Committee on Veterans' Affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The State of the VA: A Progress Report on Implementing 2017 VA Reform Legislation.''

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 11:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Michael K. Atkinson, of Maryland, to be Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, and Jason Klitenic, of Maryland, to be General Counsel, both of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.