Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to encourage my colleagues to rescind a recently promulgated regulation by the Obama administration and to support the corresponding resolution of disapproval that the majority leader just brought up and that we unanimously moved forward to debate, H.J. Res. 69.

There are few, if any, people in the world who love their lands and wildlife more than Alaskans. In Alaska, our land is the lifeblood that sustains us, that feeds our bodies, our families, and our souls. It is a deep and enduring part of our culture.

Our hunting traditions are very much alive in Alaska. Alaskans hunt for food for cultural reasons and even for survival. There are people in my State whose families have called our beautiful and rugged lands home for thousands of years, living side-by-side with more recent arrivals. Alaska has also the well-earned reputation of having one of the best managed, most sustainable fish and game populations anywhere in America or anywhere in the world, for that matter. We have an abundance of wildlife that most States and most countries can only dream of. We do this year after year, generation after generation, through rigorous scientific processes that allow and encourage public participation through our Board of Game, Board of Fisheries, and our Fish and Game Department to make sure we manage our fish and game for sustainability, as required by the Alaska constitution, and that we take into account the needs of our citizens--the needs of Alaskans. It is not an easy process. It can be contentious, but all Alaskans take this very seriously.

In Alaska, we respect the land and everything in it. That special connection and our ability to manage our own lands and resources was explicitly recognized in Federal law when Alaska became a State. The Alaska Statehood Act passed in this body in 1958, specifically granting Alaska the authority to manage fish and wildlife on not only State lands but on Federal lands, unless Congress passes a law to the contrary. By the way, that is the same authority granted to all States. It is granted to Ohio, New Mexico--all States in America have this authority.

Further, in 1980, this body, the Congress of the United States, passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, designating 100 million acres of land, in my great State, as Federal conservation units, including over 70 million acres--I believe larger than the State of New Mexico--as wildlife refuges in one State.

Many Alaskans didn't like this bill. Several saw this as a massive Federal usurpation of our land, but our congressional delegation fought to include explicit provisions in this Federal law that made it abundantly clear that the State of Alaska still had primacy in managing fish and game throughout the entire State--State lands and Federal lands.

When that act was passed, it explicitly stated: ``Nothing in this act is intended to enlarge or diminish the responsibility and authority of the State of Alaska for the management of fish and wildlife on public lands. . . .''

That is pretty clear language, and it is very important language to Alaskans. ANILCA is the statute we are talking about, and that is what we call it in Alaska. That Federal law that passed in 1980 made numerous other commitments to Alaskans about how the Federal Government would not usurp the power of the State or our citizens to live the life we have in Alaska. How quickly the Feds forget. How quickly the Feds forget what this law requires.

On August 5, 2016, the Obama administration's Fish and Wildlife Service finalized a rule that, No. 1, restricted certain State-approved fish and game management practices; No. 2, limited public input in the wildlife management process; and, No. 3, expanded closure procedures on refuges in Alaska, making it easier to keep people shut out of these Federal lands in our State.

This rule is not based on sound science. Thousands of Alaskans and other Americans opposed it, tried to work with the Feds to get them to moderate it or rescind it, to no avail. It is not based on established wildlife management principles, and it is certainly not based on Federal law. The Fish and Wildlife Service didn't take this action because Alaska's sustainable and abundant populations of fish and game or their habitats were being threatened; it took this action because it wanted to control Alaska's fish and wildlife and because it subjectively disapproved of the way Alaska's game was being managed by our Department of Fish and Game and by the Alaska Board of Game, but the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service does not have this authority.

To make this clear, we are proceeding today with this resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, H.J. Res. 69, to rescind that August 5 Obama Fish and Wildlife Service rule.

The House has already passed this measure under Congressman Don Young's leadership. So I want to encourage all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote in favor of this resolution. It is backed by the force of law, the principles of federalism, and respect for the Alaskan Native people who have been hunting and fishing, subsisting off the land in Alaska for generations. It is also supported by millions of Americans across the country and wildlife professionals in every State in the Union who are committed to the conservation of the abundant species of wildlife in my home State and in theirs.

Why should my colleagues support rescinding this Fish and Wildlife Service regulation? Well, first and foremost, as I have already mentioned, it clearly usurps power from the States

and it ignores Federal law. Unfortunately, faced with a Federal law it disagreed with, the Fish and Wildlife Service took the route other Federal agencies have been taking over the years by simply writing a reg to bypass the will of Congress and the American people, by simply moving forward with their preferred policy preference via regulation and ignoring the law. That is an issue every Member of this body, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, should be concerned about and vigilant to reverse.

It is not a partisan issue. It is a federalism issue. It is a States' rights issue. That is why my State of Alaska, led by a Governor who is an Independent and a Lieutenant Governor who is a Democrat, sued to overturn the Obama administration's litigation. This litigation that my State brought against the Federal Government cites Federal laws like ANILCA, which declares that the State of Alaska ``has jurisdiction over the management of fish and wildlife on public lands throughout the State.'' That is the Federal law.

The law is clear, and of course it makes sense from a management perspective. Alaska is a patch of many different ownerships of our land--State, Federal, and Native lands. The moose and bear in our great State don't know these borders. One agency needs to be in charge, and that is the State agency.

While it might be true that this Obama administration regulation, as written, only applies and impacts Alaska, it is a precedent that should trouble every Member of this body and every State in the Union because if it can be done in Alaska, it can be done anywhere. That is why the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, State agencies charged with managing wildlife in all 50 States and territories from California, New Mexico, to New Jersey all support this resolution. They all support overturning the Obama administration's Fish and Wildlife reg. All 50 States, the people who know these issues, support what we are doing on the Senate floor right now.

A second and related reason for the broad bipartisan support not only in Alaska but across the country for rescinding this Fish and Wildlife regulation is because it significantly reduces the public participation in managing lands and wildlife in Alaska. Before this rule came out, the harvest of fish and wildlife on Alaska refuges was governed by Alaska's Board of Game and Board of Fish, and the process was highly sensible. I have been to Board of Game meetings. It is open to the public and responsive to the public, but this new regulation gives the Federal Government a veto over State regulations issued by the boards, with no public process and no public input.

The rule also makes closures of Federal lands subject more to the whims of Federal officials than to the input of the people they serve. It shuts down the public process, which is critical to the successful stable management of fish and game in my State.

This Federal regulation also undermines subsistence. In Alaska, ``subsistence'' isn't just a word, a catch phrase, or a slogan. It is not what people do for the benefit of tourism. It is critical. The public participation element is critical to the healthy management of fish and game, and it also enables the professionals to learn from the people--particularly the Native people in my State--what we call traditional knowledge in Alaska. As I mentioned, ``subsistence'' in my State isn't just a catch phrase or a slogan. Subsistence encompasses the customary and traditional use of fish, wildlife, plant resources, preserving cultural traditions, supplying basic necessities such as food, firewood, and clothing. It provides for barter, trade, and income for subsistence in the cash-based rural economy. It is serious business in my State. Subsistence in Alaska is life, literally, and it has been so for thousands of years. In so many of my State's villages, there is no grocery store, there is no Costco, there is no Whole Foods market. If one doesn't get a moose in the fall or have enough salmon in the summer that someone catches, they might have trouble surviving in the winter. This is serious business.

In other places in Alaska, where we do have small grocery stores, the costs are often more than twice to four times the national average for basic necessities. President Obama, when he visited Alaska in 2015, went out to the rural communities, and once he saw it, he understood this. When he came to Alaska, he said, ``You're looking at prices that are double, in some cases, or even higher for basic necessities like milk, like orange juice, like other produce. . . . That's part of the reason why the subsistence economy [in Alaska] is so important.''

This is the former President of the United States making this comment.

One wonders why this Fish and Wildlife Service then issued a reg that attacked subsistence. But to be honest, most Americans and certainly most Senators do not fully understand this. Again, due to the tenacity of Alaska's congressional delegation--former Senators, such as Ted Stevens, and current Members, such as Don Young in the House--Federal law recognizes the importance of subsistence in Alaska.

The protection of subsistence rights in ANILCA and other Federal legislation is listed throughout our Federal laws. Specifically, ANILCA states:

The opportunity for rural residents engaged in a

subsistence way of life must continue to be so.

It further goes on to state that the Federal Government's actions in Alaska should have ``the least adverse impact possible on rural residents who depend on subsistence uses of the resources of such lands.''

This issue of subsistence is important to thousands of my constituents. It is not a theoretical issue, it is critical, but it is now more important to the Alaska Native populations in my State, which is close to 20 percent of my State.

In 2014, the Alaska Federation of Natives ratified a resolution that criticized a proposal from the Federal Government that was similar to the one we are debating today, and they stated the following in their resolution:

Alaska Natives have served as the stewards of their

traditional lands and resources, maintaining healthy and

productive ecosystems for thousands of years, and maintain

the belief that human beings are an integral part of

naturally functioning ecosystems, not separate from them.

That is what all Alaskans believe. Yet, despite Federal laws that emphasize the importance of subsistence to all Alaskans and pleas and letters from hundreds of Alaska Natives who ask the Federal Government not to negatively impact their subsistence way of life and opportunities with this new Fish and Wildlife Service regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service persisted. They promulgated this regulation in the face of opposing voices in Alaska and Federal law that says they do not have the authority to do this.

You know it is targeted for subsistence because in the Fish and Wildlife Service's initial rule, that rule stated that the law and the policy had to ``take into consideration the fact that humans are dependent on wildlife refuge subsistence resources.'' That was the original draft rule. Subsistence matters. That was in there, a nod to Federal law. Guess what happened with the final rule? That entire section on subsistence was removed by the Federal Government, which showed that this law is an anti-subsistence law, which violates Federal law. They did not want Alaskans to subsist off their lands as required by Federal law.

Alaska's attorney general, Jahna Lindemuth, who was appointed by an Independent Governor from my State, said:

These federal regulations are not about . . . protecting

the State's wildlife numbers. These regulations are about the

federal government trying to control Alaskans' way of life.

Hunting is a way of life in Alaska. The Presiding Officer is a hunter and understands that it is cultural and that it provides subsistence and even protection for our citizens.

Let's be clear. The Fish and Wildlife regulation at issue today, which we are debating, is an anti-hunting rule, pure and simple. That this is the case became very clear when the former Fish and Wildlife Service Director, Dan Ashe, who promulgated this regulation, questioned the ethics of our hunters in Alaska in a Huffington Post column. He said that some of Alaska's practices are ``wholly at odds with America's long tradition of ethical, sportsmanlike, fair-chase hunting.'' That is from the former Fish and Wildlife Service Director. One knows where he is coming from on this.

Along these lines, I anticipate some of my colleagues on the other side of

the aisle--I see one of them down here already--are going to come down and start touting this parade of horribles, spurred on by anti-hunting groups to convince our colleagues to vote against this resolution of disapproval--what we want to have passed. You might hear phrases from them like Alaska's practices constitute a ``war on wolves'' or a ``black eye for ethical hunters,'' with the implication that my constituents are not ethical hunters. One might even see my colleagues repeat the false and misleading claims that have been run on TV by certain groups about alleged unethical hunting and game management practices in Alaska. I would like to make a suggestion or two to my colleagues who are coming down here to speak against this resolution of disapproval.

First, please let them try to do so with a sense of humility and a sense of history. Yes, one or two of them may have been accomplished hunters in their own right or are still accomplished hunters in their own right. I respect that. I love to hunt. But that does not mean one has as much or any knowledge or understanding of my State's long history and distinguished record of fish and game management. One might prefer his meat wrapped in cellophane at the grocery store. That is fine, but I ask that one doesn't criticize the thousands of Alaskans who have to hunt for their food and who value hunting as a deep part of their culture.

I would also caution one from making claims that Alaska's wildlife officials allow for unethical hunting and management practices that require the Federal Government to intervene in my State's long history of distinguished fish and game management. Such an argument would be at odds with the consistent and numerous awards the State of Alaska has received for its outstanding management of fish and game year after year after year--American Fishery Society awards, awards from the Department of the Interior, the Wildlife Society, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Those who manage wildlife in Alaska are the best in their field. It is not just Alaskans who take issue or who will take issue with such statements that I am sure we are going to hear on the floor.

Let me read a list of hunting and conservation groups that support this resolution of disapproval, groups that, in other words, support the overturning of the Fish and Wildlife rule at issue today. It is a very long list, and it is actually longer than this: Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, Pheasants Forever, Quail Forever, Boone and Crockett Club, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Alaska Outdoor Council, Alaska Professional Hunters Association, American Outfitter and Guide Association, Territorial Sportsmen, National Rifle Association, Safari Club International. The list goes on and on.

These groups represent millions of hunters, conservationists, wildlife enthusiasts, and wildlife scientists who represent millions of Americans who are focused on the model of conservation that we all are supportive of, and they are the backbone of habitat and species conservation in our country. These groups--every one of them--are supportive of what we are trying to do on the Senate floor today. These groups certainly do not consider themselves unethical hunters. To the contrary, they care deeply about conservation and abundant wildlife populations not only for themselves but for the generations of Americans to come, and they have dedicated their lives to this. They represent Americans from across the 50 States--Montana, West Virginia, New Mexico, New Jersey. Their values, like the values held by Alaskans with regard to conservation and hunting, should not be doubted and I certainly hope are not going to be attacked on the Senate floor.

In closing, I believe in respectful and informed debate. Sometimes it certainly requires reaching beyond one's own experience to listen to others with opposing views. I took the opportunity to do that just the other day. I had a conversation with the president and CEO of the Humane Society about the issue and resolutions we are discussing today. I know that he and others are leading the opposition to this, but we had a very respectful conversation. We heard each other's views, and although we likely will not agree on this issue, I hope he felt that I talked to him with respect and listened to him because that is what I did.

Perhaps my colleagues who are going to speak against this resolution today should do the same. I would hope that those who come down to the floor to oppose overturning this rule would have picked up the phone and maybe called Alaska's Department of Fish and Game, or talked to a biologist there, or maybe talked to the chairman of the Board of Game and asked if he is an ethical hunter, or maybe called a store in remote Alaska to ask about food prices, or made some inquiries about the lack of stores in dozens of villages that rely on subsistence, or called an Alaska Native leader to see how important subsistence is to his life and his culture.

Maybe my colleagues would have called one of my constituents who wrote in opposing this rule. He is an Alaska Native who lives in rural Alaska and whose grandfather taught him to hunt and fish. Here is what he wrote to us:

Please do not pass these types of regulations that will

change my future. These lands are dear to Alaska Natives, and

I feel that some of the Fish and Wildlife workers are biased

as well as listening to the wrong people. By the ``wrong

people,'' I mean Fish and Wildlife officials who do not

understand my subsistence rights, who do not work in the

villages, who want to take away my right to hunt.

This is about the rule of law, primacy, federalism, and it is about much more than that; it is about real people--people like my constituents.

I urge my colleagues to support our resolution of disapproval and rescind this regulation that violates the law, undermines subsistence in Alaska, and will do harm to my State and other States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in spite of what my good friend from New Mexico has been saying about this resolution, I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the resolution.

I came down here predicting that he was going to come down with a parade of horribles, none of which have happened in Alaska--that is a fact--none of which happened in Alaska.

The resolution we have before us is backed by the force of law. The Fish and Wildlife Service did not have the authority to do what they did by passing this regulation, and not one of my colleagues tried to defend this on the basis of legal authority by the Feds because it doesn't exist. So I think that is the starting point.

The principle of federalism. We have had a lot of discussion here by colleagues from New Jersey and New Mexico telling Alaskans, who have a tremendous record on the management of fish and game--they are going to tell Alaskans how to do that, Senators from States that don't know anything about my State. That is the whole principle of federalism, and that is another reason we need to support this resolution.

This rule is about subsistence. Thousands of Alaskans, particularly Alaskan Natives, rely on subsistence. Again, my colleagues on the other side come down here and say that it is not about subsistence. Come up to Alaska. Ask the people who have to live off the land, who need the food to survive in the winter. Tell them it is not about subsistence.

Finally, it is important to recognize just how many other Americans care about what we are doing right now. As I mentioned, literally millions of Americans from every State of the country, represented by groups as diverse as Ducks Unlimited, Boone and

Crockett, and the National Rifle Association, are all supportive of this resolution, as are every Fish and Wildlife Service State agency, including from New Mexico, including from New Jersey. They are all supportive of our resolution.

To have our colleagues come down here and say ``Those Alaskans don't know what they are doing'' when we have the record of well-managed fish and game, awards every year from the Department of the Interior and others--to have them come down here with very little knowledge of my State is not the humility that I think is needed in this body.

So I ask all my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution. It is backed by law. It is backed by millions of Americans in every State. It is very important to the people of Alaska, particularly those who live a subsistence lifestyle.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield back the time.

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

Mr. President, I want to mention that I am very gratified by my colleagues--by the way, on both sides of the aisle. It was a bipartisan vote. H.J. Res. 69, as the Presiding Officer just mentioned, has passed the Senate and will soon be going to the White House for a signature by President Trump. That is a resolution--now a law--that will be heading to the White House. It is not just important for Alaska, but, as the Presiding Officer and I were talking about, for any American who believes in federalism, State control over our land, and the Tenth Amendment. That is what was at stake.

For my State a lot more was at stake--subsistence rights, the ability to continue to hunt in the ways that we have been doing for generations in Alaska. So I just want to thank all the Alaskans--hundreds-- including the State of Alaska Board of Game, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, our Governor and his attorney general, who filed suit against the Federal Government over this issue. Obviously, it is all going to be resolved right now, right here, because of this vote.

I want to thank all the Alaskans who played such an important role, the groups that I talked about in my remarks outside of Alaska that represent millions of Americans--the conservationists, the people who love the outdoors, and hunters who also weighed in and in a very powerful way to make sure that this resolution passed. So I want to thank them all.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1228, which was received from the House.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 244 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Blunt amendment at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 81 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 22; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

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

Madam President, every week for the past few months, I have been coming down to the Senate floor to recognize a special Alaskan, someone who makes my State--what we believe is the most beautiful and unique State in our country--a better place for all of us. I call this person our Alaskan of the Week.

Last week, I had the opportunity to recognize Glen Hanson, who volunteers his time by flying in what we refer to as the Iditarod Air Force--members of the Alaska volunteer community pilots who fly supplies in for the Last Great Race.

I know the pages are really interested in the Last Great Race. So, just as a quick update, we had a winner. It is still going on, but one musher, Mitch Seavey, crossed the finish line in Nome, AK, in record time. I congratulate Mitch and all of the members of the Iditarod Air Force who are still out there, flying, when it is 30, 40, below zero. It is a tough race, a real tough race. Iowans, I am sure, could do well in it but not a lot of other Americans.

Today, I want to take my colleagues and viewers to a very different place in Alaska--about 1,300 miles southeast of Nome, where all the Iditarod action is going on, really almost a world away--to a beautiful city called Ketchikan, AK.

Ketchikan is the first port city that people will visit when they take the Alaska Marine Highway's Inside Passage up to Alaska. It is a trip that I encourage everybody to take. It is beautiful. Flanked by the towering Tongass National Forest, it is a place full of life and spirit, mountains, forests, lots of rain, lots of salmon, and lots of jaw-dropping scenery.

Yet, like most places across our country, it has its challenges, and it has a challenge with homelessness, like many communities in America and Alaska. Luckily, for all of us, Ketchikan is also home to a very caring community that has set its sights on helping its fellow Alaskans. One of these people is Pastor Evelyn Erbele, our Alaskan of the Week, who has dedicated her life to helping others.

Evelyn is the copastor with her husband Terry of the First United Methodist Church of Ketchikan. There is a day shelter in the church's social hall, which provides a hot meal, shower, clean clothes, and a place for the community's homeless to go every day of the week.

Oftentimes when we think of homelessness, we think of people not having a place to sleep, but it is also important to remember that being homeless means having no place to go during the day. First City Homeless Services--Day Shelter gives people a place to go during the day. Pastor Evelyn oversees that day shelter. According to the manager of the shelter, Chris Alvarado, who himself has been homeless, she does so with commitment and with kindness and with compassion.

``She has a heart of gold and gives 100 percent,'' said one resident of Ketchikan about Evelyn.

Evelyn met her husband Terry in Seward, AK, where she was a nurse in 1976. From Seward, they set out on a journey to help people around the world--Nigeria, Lithuania, Russia.

In 2009, Evelyn--now with a Ph.D. in theology and ordained by the Methodist Church--went up the Alaskan

Highway from Bellingham to Ketchikan with her husband. She didn't know when she accepted the job at the Methodist Church in Ketchikan as copastor that she would be overseeing the day shelter. At first, according to her, the work was a bit unsettling. ``I never intentionally walked side by side with people who are homeless,'' she said. She continued: ``Initially, I may have been biased. I was using the word `them' when I would describe the people I was working with. One day, the Lord said to me, Evelyn, you are them. You are my child no less or no more than they are.'' She said that after hearing that voice, she realized she wasn't working with ``them'' anymore. ``I was working with men and women who were in a place that I easily could have been.''

In her years working to help the homeless in her community in Ketchikan, she realized that not everybody who is homeless fits neatly into ``one basket.'' There are lots of reasons for homelessness, she said, and the homeless may have many, many faces: men, women, children, families, the old, and the young.

As the Presiding Officer knows, homelessness is a big challenge across our Nation. On any given day, tens of thousands of Americans-- hundreds of thousands--don't have a permanent place to call home. Of course, the best way to address this is to have a strong economy and job opportunities, and that is what we need to be focusing on here in the Senate. But we also need people like Pastor Evelyn not only in Alaska but across the country, who are tireless advocates for helping the homeless. I thank all of them. I especially thank her, and I thank her for being our Alaskan of the Week.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 10 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:

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2017, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Assessing U.S. Sanctions on Russia: Next Steps.''

Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 15, 2017, at 10 a.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Environment and Public Works Committee

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 15, 2017, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 15, 2017, at 11 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Six Years of War in Syria: The Human Toll.''

Homeland Security Committee

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 15, 2017, at 10 a.m.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Vows for Visas: Investigating K-1 Fiance Fraud.''

Veterans' Affairs Committee

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 15, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. in SR- 418, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``GAO's High Risk List and the Veterans Health Administration.''

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, March 15, 2017, from 1:30 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building.

Subcommittee on Airland

The Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 15, 2017, at 3:30 p.m.

Committee on the Judiciary

Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism

The Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I have been coming down to the floor for the past several months recognizing Alaskans who make our State great and our country better for all of us. I really enjoy doing this because it gives me an opportunity to share the excellent work my citizens are doing in their communities. It also gives me a few minutes to highlight to all my colleagues here in the Senate--and to some of those Americans who might be watching at home--to talk a little bit more about the unique place I call home and am honored to serve and represent in the Senate.

This week, I would like to honor pilot Glen Hanson, who is right now somewhere flying above racing sled dogs in the far north in Alaska, literally as we speak.

Before I get to how he is helping Alaskans and how he is this week's Alaskan of the Week, let me take you back through a remarkable bit of history that happened in Nome, AK, in 1925, when a diphtheria serum was desperately needed for the children in Nome. The nearest batch of serum was 1,000 miles away in Anchorage, AK. There weren't--and still aren't--any roads that connect Nome to Anchorage. There was very challenging winter weather during this time, so no airplanes could fly. In fact, the nearest train station was over 700 miles away from Nome, so people traveled mostly by dog sled.

On the night of January 27, 1925, musher ``Wild Bill'' Shannon tied a 20-pound package of serum wrapped in protective fur around his sled. He and his nine dogs started the journey called then the ``Great Race of Mercy'' across the frozen Alaska land. Miles later, he met up with another racer and another team of dogs, and the relay continued all across Alaska, over 1,000 miles--20 mushers and 150 sled dogs--through some of the world's most rugged terrain and some of the world's most brutal weather. In fact, right now in parts of Alaska where the Iditarod is happening, it is 40 to 50 below zero.

That original race, the Great Race of Mercy, began to be reenacted, with some twists, in 1973 and continues today. In fact, it is going on right now, the Iditarod, the Last Great Race, in my great State. People from all across the world come to participate in it and come to watch it. It is the quintessential Alaskan event that involves the work of hundreds of Alaskans, lodge owners, veterinarians, dogs, dog handlers, volunteers, pilots--hundreds, thousands.

Alaska, as you might know, is home to more veterans per capita than any other State, but we are also home to more pilots per capita than any other State. Our pilots are a vital part of our economy and transportation, and they are a vital part of the Iditarod. In fact, the race couldn't exist without them.

Every year, more than a dozen volunteer pilots load their planes for the Iditarod race with more than 100,000 pounds of dog food, hundreds of bales of hay, and lumber for tents. They fly the veterinarians, the judges, the dog handlers, and so many of the volunteers out to the checkpoints hundreds of miles away. We call them the Iditarod Air Force, and every one of them deserves recognition.

That gets me back to Anchorage resident Glen Hanson, who is our Alaskan of the Week. Glen, along with his brother Bert, is tied among this year's pilots as the longest serving volunteer in the Iditarod Air Force. He began volunteering for the Last Great Race--the Iditarod Air Force--in 1984. Glen has since put in roughly 1,500 hours of volunteer time, making sure that the Last Great Race continues and that the dogs and the mushers are taken care of--taken care of right now in 40 to 50 below zero, as this race is going on.

This year, Glen won the Alaska Air Carriers Association Iditarod Humanitarian Service Award. Upon receiving it, the Air Carriers Association wrote to Glen:

You are obviously an accomplished pilot held in high regard

by your peers. While there are many volunteers working to

make the race possible, you consistently go above and beyond

the call of duty. You are always quietly willing to take

every assignment, no matter how unglamorous or uncomfortable.

You step up time after time to fly in the challenging air

strips to ensure that the musher supplies and race personnel

are available to keep the race safe.

Thank you, Glen, for all you do to keep our great Alaska history alive. And thanks to all the pilots in the Iditarod Air Force this year and so many of the other volunteers who keep everybody safe--and are doing it right now during this year's Iditarod. And to all the mushers and these great dogs, good luck. Everyone involved makes this truly the last great race in America.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 86.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.