Floor Statements

Madam President, I continue the reading of the letter from Birmingham jail:

You may well ask: ``Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches

and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?'' You are

quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the

very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks

to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a

community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced

to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue

that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of

tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may

sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not

afraid of the word ``tension.'' I have earnestly opposed

violent tension, but there is a type of constructive,

nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Such as

Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in

the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of

myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative

analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for

nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society

that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and

racism to the majestic heights of understanding and

brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to

create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably

open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in

your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland

been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in a monologue

rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the

action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is

untimely. Some have asked: ``Why didn't you give the new city

administration time to act?'' The only answer that I can give

to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must

be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will

act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of

Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to

Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person

than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to

the maintenance of the status quo. I have hoped that Mr.

Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of

massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this

without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I

must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil

rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure.

Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups

seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may

see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust

posture; but as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend

to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never

voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by

the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct

action campaign that was ``well timed'' in the view of those

who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation.

For years now I have heard the word ``Wait!'' It rings in the

ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ``Wait''

has almost always meant ``Never.'' We must come to see, with

one of our distinguished jurists, that ``justice too long

delayed is just denied.''

We have waited for more than 340 years for our

constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and

Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political

independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace

toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it

is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of

segregation to say, ``Wait.'' But when you have seen vicious

mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your

sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled

policeman curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and

sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty

million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of

poverty in the midst of an affluent society . . . when you

take a cross country drive and find it necessary to sleep,

night after night, in the uncomfortable corners of your

automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are

humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading

``white'' and ``colored''; when your first name becomes [an

expletive], your middle named becomes ``boy'' (however old

you are) and your last name becomes ``John,'' and your wife

and mother are never given the respected title ``Mrs.''; when

you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that

you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never

quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner

fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a

degenerating sense of ``nobodiness''--then you will

understand why we find it difficult to wait.

There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and

men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of

despair.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1233 and ask that it be reported by number.

I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate equally divided.

Mr. President, this is the amendment we are waiting for. This is a bipartisan amendment. This is so bipartisan that we have already agreed to a voice vote, so listen carefully. Yes, thank you for that.

Prepandemic, our public schools had identified about 1.5 million kids who experience homelessness. That is 2.7 percent of all public school students. So think about what that means. That was prepandemic. We know that number is higher now.

Our amendment is pretty simple here. We reallocate less than 1 percent of the funding for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund to ensure that homeless youth and kids have the resources they need to get into and succeed in school.

In Alaska and around the country, the COVID-19 pandemic and economic downturn have increased the strain on our families and the need for services. Too many of the kids have left their homes, been pushed out of their homes, sometimes many of them to escape a dangerous situation. They are dealing with the challenges of virtual learning. These kids are worrying about where to sleep at night, how they are going to eat dinner, if they are going to be safe.

This amendment ensures that these kids, no matter the trauma and the challenges they face outside of the classroom, will have a safe place to sleep and access to the wraparound services that they need. We have a responsibility to ensure that this vulnerable population, many of whom will be subject to predation, violence, or trafficking, is not forgotten or left behind.

I would like to yield to my friend and my colleague Senator Manchin.

Mr. President, we are ensuring with this amendment that there will be resources for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse. Senator Shaheen has pointed out that our shelters are very, very much in need of our support.

We urge you all to protect the most vulnerable in their time of need. We ask for your support on this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 834

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 806 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, this one is pretty simple and, hopefully, it can be pretty agreeable and we move quickly.

What I am aiming to do today is to prevent the executive branch from taking actions that increase our country's reliance on foreign sources of oil and gas or hard rock minerals. We are going to keep using oil and gas for a while here. I think we recognize that.

The EIA, Energy Information Administration, forecasts consumption of oil and gas will rise by 5.6 million barrels per day this year and continue rising in the future. So what we are doing--what we are at risk of doing is to limit resource development in this country, put good-paying jobs at risk, including in my State, making States more dependent on fossil and mineral resources from overseas, oftentimes from our foreign adversaries.

We have great resources in this country, folks--from natural gas that powers our homes; minerals like graphite and lithium, which we need in our renewable technologies, and we produce them here in this country in a more environmentally responsible manner--

--and with higher labor standards than elsewhere in the world.

I would urge my colleagues to accept, and I would ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak in support of the nomination of Dr. Rita Baranwal to be Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy. Dr. Baranwal was reported from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee without opposition in both the 115th and 116th Congresses, and I am glad we will vote to confirm her today.

Over the past several years, the United States has lost influence in nuclear energy to countries like Russia and China. That is not a positive development, but advanced nuclear technologies have the potential to reposition the United States as a leader in the world market.

To achieve that, we will need strong, experienced, and consistent leadership at the Department of Energy. Dr.

Baranwal's experience as the director of the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, also referred to as GAIN, provides her with an informed perspective to push forward the research, development, and deployment of advanced reactor technologies.

Congress began to demonstrate its strong support for advanced nuclear through the enactment of two bills in the last Congress, the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act and the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. These new laws are intended to facilitate reactor development and streamline the licensing process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

In addition, legislation I have sponsored, the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, has garnered 17 bipartisan cosponsors in this new Congress. Our bill provides for the next steps on advanced nuclear technologies, including the need to ensure high-assay, low-enriched uranium fuel is available for them.

We need a strong leader in the Office of Nuclear Energy, someone who recognizes the potential of these technologies, who will move forward so that we can realize that potential and who will work to restore the United States' leadership in nuclear energy. I appreciate Dr. Baranwal's willingness to serve in this role and urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

Mr. President, I am requesting that these 10-minute votes be true 10-minute votes--in fact, less than 10-minute votes.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak in strong support of the nomination of Ms. Susan Combs, of Texas, to be Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget at the Department of the Interior.

This is one of five Assistant Secretary positions at Interior, and, as the title suggests, it is critical to the Department's ability to function. The individual who holds this position is responsible for overseeing everything from the annual budget request to financial management, procurement, and policy and program analysis.

The President's nominee, Susan Combs, is very well qualified. She has previously served as a State representative, as agriculture commissioner, and as comptroller in her home State of Texas. Over the years, Ms. Combs has worked extensively with the Department of the Interior, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has helped her gain substantive expertise about a range of issues that she will face in her new role.

My only wish is that we could have confirmed Ms. Combs long ago. Instead, due to holds and delays here on the Senate floor, she ultimately had to be reported from the Energy and Natural Resources committee on three separate occasions--in 2017, in 2018, and again this year. She is not controversial. Each time, we reported her with bipartisan support. But she has now been forced to wait for a total of nearly 700 days for confirmation, meaning she will have held up for longer than she will be able to serve, at least in the current term.

I appreciate Ms. Combs' willingness to serve our country. I appreciate her patience over the course of nearly 2 full years, which is testament to just how broken the nominations process had become, and her commitment to see this through. I also thank Leader McConnell for scheduling this vote and encourage every Member of this Chamber to vote in favor of confirmation.

Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues as we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the date Congress sent to the States this question: the ratification of a constitutional amendment granting women the right to vote.

Our ancestors have long sought the promise of a better life for themselves and their children. Many of our forebearers came to this country seeking religious liberty, economic security, or personal freedom.

Since 1788, they were drawn to the promise of these words: ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''

Today, most in this body and across the country would agree that a woman's full participation in the life of her community and Nation are crucial if the promise laid out in our Constitution's preamble is ever to be fully realized.

But in 1788 and for many years thereafter, women could not own property, could not open a bank account on their own, or even control the money that they earned through their own work. They could not control their destiny or, indeed, their own bodies. Justice, tranquility, the general welfare, and the blessings of liberty were, for women, what men said they were.

That all began to change on June 4, 1919, the date when finally, after so many years of struggle and failure, the required number of Senators voted aye for House Joint Resolution 1, ``proposing an amendment to the Constitution extending the right of suffrage to women.'' It was very simple yet intensely powerful, a resolution with just one article that read:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall

not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any

State on account of sex. Congress shall have the power to

enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

That remarkable moment, we know, did not come easily. For decades, women across America sought the promise of our Nation for themselves and their daughters. They were subjected to insults and ridicule and, sometimes, even imprisonment and violence.

In 1906, an editorial in the New York Times defined the word ``suffragette'' as a ``demanding screecher'' and ``a woman who ought to have more sense.'' Walking in parades in support of the right to vote, women had insults and worse hurled at them. Suffragists were physically attacked.

Beginning in June of 1917, it got much worse. Here in Washington, DC, police began arresting women who were picketing the White House in support of suffrage for ``obstructing sidewalk traffic.'' Throughout the summer and into the fall, women who refused to pay the fine were sent to the Women's Workhouse in Lorton, VA, or the district jail, where conditions were deplorable. Rats ran free in the prison. The food was infested with maggots. Alice Paul, a leader of the National Woman's Party, and about 71 other women began a hunger strike while in jail and for months suffered force-feeding of raw eggs in milk through nasal gastric tubes. In November, 33 of the imprisoned suffragists were beaten by guards by order of the prison superintendent. One woman's hands were handcuffed high above her head on the prison door for an entire night. Some were left unconscious.

Sojourner Truth, Lucy Stone, Julia Ward Howe, Ida B. Wells, Mary Church Terrell, Alice Paul, and others are widely known as suffragist leaders. There were millions of others across the country doing what they could in their own families, in their own communities and States, to advance women's rights. They marched, protested, sewed flags and banners, and spoke up at home and in their hometowns.

In the following 100 years since the Senate sent the women's right to vote to the States for ratification, the right to vote gave women the power to change their lives and to impact our Nation in so many positive and profound ways. As a result, our Nation has made incredible strides.

Today, in 2019, it may be difficult for some to imagine an America without women leaders in every conceivable endeavor. Amazing women have contributed to our Nation in countless ways, both large and small. We have moved from the horse and buggy era to putting a man on the moon, but man would not have gotten there and back without women mathematicians and engineers.

While few colleges admitted women a century ago, by 1980 more women than men earned bachelor's degrees. Since 1919, women are able to enter any profession for which they are qualified, keep their own wages, start and run corporations, lead scientific and medical advances, and fly into space. Women have the right to be heard in

the Halls of Congress and in their children's schools. We are allowed to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused and volunteer as poll workers. We can inherit property, run the Iditarod, and become mayors and Governors. And we can not only run for office, but we can vote for ourselves.

Women can do anything we put our minds to, but if it had not been for the right to vote--the basic, legal right to be recognized--would we be where we are today? Would we have women like Sandra Day O'Connor, Condoleezza Rice, Christiane Amanpour, or Sally Ride? Would we have the benefit of the voices of countless American women who share their views with Congress because they know that their opinions--backed up by their votes--matter on issues as varied as childcare, climate change, and national security? Would the young women of today have the faith that they really can do anything they set their minds to? Maybe not.

I rise today to call on all Americans to commemorate this day, to remember all those who made it possible, and to honor them by recognizing that the right to vote, to be heard, and to be valued is a precious right. It has not always been implemented fairly, and it must be guarded and defended.

As we look to honor the past, we must also acknowledge that, like our ancestors, we have more progress to make. Gaining the right to vote was the first step toward full equality. Despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which makes discrimination on the basis of sex illegal, and despite the Equal Pay Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, our Constitution gives us the right to vote but does not protect us from discrimination.

So in the spirit of women who fought for the rights of women who would come after them, I hope the Senate will pass S.J. Res. 6 to remove the deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. That will be something we will bring up at another point in time. But today, I am able to stand with my friends and my colleagues here in the Senate as we recognize and honor those who paved the way and have allowed for this right to vote, that right and value to be heard.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Anthony Spanos and Edith Spear, interns from my office, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of the year.

Mr. President, I have asked for a few moments on the floor today to speak about an issue I care about deeply. It is a part of the globe, a part of the world that, in my view, is truly evolving and is as dynamic an area as anyplace on planet Earth. This is the Arctic.

The Arctic is growing in prominence around the globe. Countries like China, India, and Germany have taken a keen interest in what happens in the far north.

I have had many colleagues ask me: Why should a Senator from, say, the State of Indiana care about the Arctic?

I guess my rhetorical answer would be this: Well, why should China care about the Arctic? Why should Japan, Germany, and India care about the Arctic? If they are paying attention to it, shouldn't we, as an Arctic nation that actually has territory in the Arctic, be interested and focused on this as well?

To be fair, we have made some good progress this year. I appreciate the administration working with us. I appreciate my colleagues here in the Congress who worked with us to ensure that we were able to advance appropriations for the first polar security cutter. This is significant news for the American Arctic. People have heard me say that we have about 1\1/2\ icebreakers in the United States right now. We have the Polar Star, which breaks ice down in Antarctica, meeting our obligations there. We have the Polar Sea, which is tied up in Washington State and will probably never see service again. We have a medium-strength icebreaker, the Healey, which does a fair amount of research work. But for us, as an Arctic nation, it is important to have a fleet of icebreakers.

That is what we, as an Arctic nation, must be working toward, so a contract for the design and construction of the first polar-class icebreaker to be built in the United States in the past 40 years was awarded just last month. As a nation, we haven't seen work on an icebreaker in four decades now.

A total of $20 million is also being provided for long lead time materials for a second polar security cutter. Hopefully, we will be talking about more than just one polar security cutter and we will one day have what this country, as an Arctic nation, should have, and that is a fleet.

But the Arctic is about more than just icebreakers. It is about the people who live there. It is about the environment. It is about its location on the globe. The Arctic is a living and breathing place. I think some people, in their mind's eye, view the Arctic as a frozen wasteland, or perhaps it is a snow globe that just kind of sits up on a shelf and you don't touch it. But it is not. It is home to some 4 million people in the Arctic region. It is not highly populated, but there are people living, working, raising their families, subsisting, and engaging in commerce. It is an important place.

It is a good thing when officials at the highest levels get together to discuss the issues within the Arctic. That

is what happened earlier this month--actually May 6 and 7--at the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Rovaniemi, Finland. The Foreign Ministers for each of the eight Arctic nations were in attendance. The significance of that is noteworthy. It was only the second time in the council's 30-plus-year history that all of the eight Ministers were gathered together. I was pleased to be a part of the U.S. delegation that was led by our Secretary of State, Secretary Pompeo.

This was actually the fifth Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting that I have attended going back to 2011, when the ministerial was held in Nuuk, Greenland. At that point in time, it was then-Secretary of State Clinton. That marked the first time the U.S. Secretary of State attended such a meeting. So 2011--it wasn't too many years ago that the United States had a Secretary of State attend.

The Arctic Council includes the eight Arctic nations. The eight Arctic nations are Canada, United States, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and Greenland. It also includes six permanent participant groups within the Arctic Council that represent the indigenous populations within the region. Four of those partially reside in Alaska, and those are the Aleut International Association, the Arctic Athabaskan Council, the Gwich'in Council International, and the Inuit Circumpolar Council. While only the Arctic nations have voting rights, the permanent participants have a seat at the table, and they provide valuable input into the council's discussions and deliberations. I think we really saw the impact of the permanent participants at this most recent ministerial.

The council also has 38 observers, including 13 non-Arctic nations-- this goes back to China, as I mentioned earlier--13 intergovernmental and interparliamentary groups, and 12 nongovernmental entities. The number of observers and the number of pending applications to be observers has grown considerably in the past several years. Again, it just goes to demonstrate the rest of the world's interest in the Arctic.

Much of what we have seen reported after the ministerial that was held in Rovaniemi focused not on what happened but on what didn't happen at the ministerial, which was that, for the first time, there was not a signed ministerial declaration.

I was not part of any of the Minister-level discussions that went on either prior to their convening in Rovaniemi or directly prior to the day of the ministerial itself, but the crux of the impasse there was language regarding climate change and how much of the declaration would actually reference it.

This has all been reported very widely in the media, but what has not been reported nearly as broadly are the areas of agreement that were highlighted at the ministerial. All eight nations signed a joint ministerial statement--not a declaration but a statement--which reaffirmed their commitment to maintain peace, stability, and cooperation in the Arctic. That is kind of a given. That is what we want to work for with each ministerial. But the joint statement recognized the diversity of the inhabitants of the region and the rights of the Arctic indigenous people. It also reaffirmed the commitment to sustainable development and the protection of the Arctic environment.

In addition to that very short statement, there was a statement by the chair of the ministerial meeting--the Foreign Minister of Finland-- that encompassed what would have been in a declaration had one been signed and noted many of the areas of agreement amongst all the Arctic nations. These were items such as the importance of the role of scientific research, along with traditional and local knowledge, the significance of the Arctic Environment Ministers' Meeting, the Arctic Climate Change Update 2019 report, the outcomes from the Arctic Resilience Forum, the convening of the Second Arctic Science Ministerial. It encourages further work in adapting to climate change impacts, such as permafrost thaw, and responding to weather extremes, including the increased risk of wildfires.

Looking at the Foreign Minister's statement, it was clear that there were many areas and many provisions on which there was cooperation and agreement within the Arctic Council and many areas of agreement on environmental issues as well.

Another topic reported in the news was comments by Secretary Pompeo the day before the ministerial that were pretty direct. They were pretty directed and were directed to Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic. The Secretary's remarks pointed to a reality, plain and simple. They pointed to a growing reality that today's Arctic is not the Arctic we have known in generations past.

We all still want--I certainly want, as one who works hard on Arctic issues every day--we want those buzz words that are synonymous with the region to continue to apply today and well into the future, words like ``cooperation,'' ``collaboration,'' and calling the Arctic the ``zone of peace.''

Greater accessibility to the region and its resources, as we are seeing the ice that is receding from the shore--with greater opportunities for commercial transit, you have greater accessibility-- is also bringing increased international awareness. You have seen not only a level of interest, but you have seen a level of investment activity and clearly competing interests that are presenting.

Some of this is great news. Fiber optic cable and satellite coverage are bringing a level of connectivity to small, remote, and isolated communities, which is something the communities embrace. With these advancements, we see impacts on the culture and on the values of the indigenous populations.

We are seeing opportunities for tourism. Cruise ships with thousands of passengers are pulling into small coastal communities, which certainly boost their economy, but think about the impact when you have 1,000 people who may want to disembark into a community that doesn't have the infrastructure. It dwarfs the local population and impacts the existing infrastructure there.

Then, of course, whether we like it or not, national security interests are now at the forefront of many of the discussions about the High North. Secretary Pompeo--again, his words were pretty direct. He said:

The region has become an arena for power and for

competition. And the eight Arctic States must adapt to this

new future.

He also said that the Arctic Council no longer has the luxury to focus exclusively on scientific collaboration, cultural matters, and environmental research. He suggests that there is a new age of strategic engagement in the Arctic.

I don't disagree with the Secretary that military and national security issues are much, much, much more prevalent now than they were only 10 years ago, and it kind of begs the question as to whether the Arctic Council should expand its portfolio and take on these issues. That was the discussion I participated in later that day in Helsinki at the Munich Security Conference that was focused on Arctic security.

When the Arctic Council was established in 1996, military and national security interests were specifically excluded from Council activities. They chose to focus on economic development and resilience, the environment, research, the cultures, and left off of the mission requirements, if you will, the issues of national security and military interest. I think that is probably why we have been able to see such cooperation and collaboration coming out of the Arctic Council for these many years.

Yet, as was mentioned by the Foreign Minister from Finland in a follow-on discussion about the ministerial, it is not as if we can just place a ``Do Not Disturb'' sign on the Arctic--we as Arctic nations. It has changed. It is changing. Investment is happening. The activity is already occurring. So whether we are ready for it, whether we want it, whether we want to put out that ``Do Not Disturb'' sign or not, it is happening.

Russia is modernizing, and they are expanding their security posture in the region. Some say it is in a provocative manner; we can argue about that. But it is certainly a manner that suggests that they recognize the value of the region to their national interests, as well as the growing non-Arctic nation attention and access to the region.

China is also quite interested. During the same week as the Arctic Council

Ministerial, the Arctic Circle Assembly held a forum in Shanghai. So think about it. We were having an Arctic Circle Assembly in Shanghai. Think about how far Shanghai is from the Arctic. It highlighted China's interest and their investment in the Arctic. So, again, the geography can say that this is not an Arctic nation, not even a near-Arctic nation, but from scientific research to economic interest in the Arctic's natural resources, China has made it very clear that it has no intention of reducing its interests in a Polar Silk Road.

What Secretary Pompeo made very clear is, look, if there is going to be investment in the region, we all need to be operating by the same rules, and the rules require transparency--transparency when it comes to investment in the region, regardless of who is making it. I would add to that notion that those who live in the region should benefit from any investment in the Arctic, as they are the ones who bear the greatest risk in any economic activity, whether it is on the shore or in the waters.

We recognize there are plenty of opportunities in the Arctic, as we are seeing the impacts of climate change and what that means to an area that is becoming more exposed, but with those opportunities come very real challenges, and we have to address those as well. That includes environmental effects that come with climate change as we see a reduced sea ice cover and the need to develop rules of the road to provide transparency for the growing amount of investment in the Far North by both Arctic and non-Arctic actors alike.

One of the underreported events of the Rovaniemi Ministerial was the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Arctic Council and the Arctic Economic Council. This new agreement will provide a framework to enhance responsible economic development and build partnerships for issues of common interest and capacity building of Arctic inhabitants. Perhaps this is the first step in developing a framework for transparent Arctic investment and a new age of strategic engagement in the Arctic.

I was very honored to attend both the Arctic Council Ministerial in Finland, as well as the Arctic Circle Assembly in Shanghai. I continue to believe it is critical for us--for those in the administration, for us here in Congress--to actively engage in the Arctic. We have a lot at stake here. The region has a lot at stake, and we need to establish sound policy that will take advantage of all of our opportunities and address our challenges while ensuring that we are working to the benefit of the local residents.

I think it is so important to reinforce that we cannot assume that if we are not stepping it up in the Arctic, that means nobody else is. That is absolutely and positively not the case. There is a level of engagement and there is a level of interest that is global. We are one of the eight Arctic nations. We have a place; we have a people in the Arctic. We have an obligation, as an Arctic nation, to behave as one.

Alaskans are more than happy to lead whenever and wherever possible, but this is not an Alaska-specific issue. This is not just Alaska. This is all of us as a country. We also need that recognition at the Federal level.

I encourage Members of this Chamber to recognize the importance of the Arctic, to pay greater attention to what is happening there, to make the region a priority in our policymaking efforts, and to help ensure that America, which is an Arctic nation by virtue of Alaska-- that we, as an Arctic nation, catch up to all of the others that are looking with great interest, whether making investments or truly making an impression on the Arctic.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the month of May is nationally designated Military Appreciation Month, so named because, in the month of May, we also observe Memorial Day, Military Spouse Appreciation Day, and Armed Forces Day. Last week, my friend from the State of Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, organized a floor event around National Military Appreciation Month. I would like to take a moment to lend my voice to this significant commemoration.

In the State of Alaska we like to think of military appreciation month as every month, military appreciation day as every day. Alaska is proud to host more than 19,000 Active-Duty servicemembers, more than 4,600 members of the Reserve Component, and about 5,000 appropriated funds civilians across all of the services. That number will grow significantly as the Air Force begins the beddown of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, at Eielson Air Force Base, its first F-35 operating base in the Pacific Area of Responsibility.

At first blush, Alaska is a difficult place to serve. It is dark in the winter, light all night in the summer, prone to temperature extremes, and geographically distant from family. Some military families who receive orders to Alaska are apprehensive at first, but when they speak with other military families that have served in Alaska, they come to understand that Alaskans treat our military families like no other people, and the opportunity to live in Alaska, while serving, is a once in a lifetime wonderful experience.

I could offer many examples of the ways in which Alaskans make life wonderful for those who serve here. The one that is freshest is my mind is the annual Military Appreciation Banquet in Fairbanks. It is one of two that Alaskans put on each year. The Fairbanks banquet tends to occur in May; the other major banquet is Salute to the Military in Anchorage each February. Both attract senior military leaders as keynote speakers. During each, the services honor outstanding members from within their ranks and thank the community for its extraordinary support.

I would like to speak to the history of the Fairbanks banquet for a moment. It began 51 years ago--1968 to be exact--when Jim and Rosemary Messer started small dinner in the home parties for friends in the military; 1968 was a pretty controversial year in the Nation's history with the country torn over our participation in the Vietnam conflict, but the Messers were determined to show those who came from around the country to serve in Alaska some love and home-cooking.

The idea quickly outgrew the confines of the Messer home, and the Fairbanks Military Appreciation Banquet is its successor. The banquet is held in the Carlson Center, which is the convention center for Fairbanks. Capacity is about 600 people, and the banquet sells out every year. Following in the Messer legacy, each community member buys two tickets, one for themselves and another for a servicemember to host at their table.

In addition to recognizing exemplary servicemembers, the Fairbanks community recognizes one local individual each year who has done the most to promote civilian-military relations with an award. That award is named the Messer Award, in honor of the couple that inspired the annual banquet.

This year, the keynote speaker was VADM Michael J. Dumont, U.S. Navy, Deputy Commander of U.S. Northern Command. I am told he was a big hit. Last year, for the 50th anniversary, we had Gen. Joseph Lengyel, U.S. Air Force, Chief of the National Guard Bureau. We are grateful that our senior leaders travel a great distance to celebrate the military presence in Alaska's Interior, and I know that the participants are as well.

This is an example of what we view as the golden contract between the community and the military. Each year, Alaskans go out of their way in big ways and small ones to make life for our servicemembers and their families extremely comfortable. Each year, in the presence of a distinguished senior leader, we break bread together to renew these bonds.

I am proud of those who serve in Alaska and the Alaskans who serve them, and I am proud that we observe military appreciation month every month of the year.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the countless men and women in Alaska and across the Nation who have dedicated their talents to ensuring that young children and their parents have the tools they need to succeed. I speak of all those involved in their local Head Start and Early Head Start programs, the program directors, teachers, aides, and parent leaders.

This week marks the 54th anniversary of Head Start and the 25th anniversary of Early Head Start. Since 1964, more than 36 million children have participated in Head Start, a program that research has shown reduces intergenerational poverty by helping parents to gain parenting, work, and leadership skills and which gives young children at risk the academic, health, and nutritional services they need to build a foundation for success.

Children who attend Head Start begin school with better literacy,

numeracy, cognitive, and behavioral skills than they otherwise would have had. They are more likely to graduate and complete college. They are more likely to live healthy, productive lives as adults. Today, Head Start alumni are strong, resilient individuals who make positive contributions to their communities as doctors, nurses, athletes, parents, entrepreneurs, teachers, police officers, CEOs, authors, artists, and more.

Head Start and Early Head Start are more important now than they ever have been, helping families across the country so tragically hurt by the opioid crisis. Head Start and Early Head Start directors, teachers, aides, and parent leaders are on the frontlines, helping our most at- risk children survive and thrive in the face of the adverse childhood experiences caused by homelessness, neglect, and abuse. They are there in times of natural disaster, community violence, and personal crisis. They are helping parents and grandparents provide stable and nurturing environments. In Native communities, they are helping to revitalize languages and strengthen traditional ways of knowing and living. Our communities and the Nation as a whole are stronger because Head Start and Early Head Start programs help millions of families find their way to strength and resilience.

Head Start staff in Alaska and across the country are dedicated, innovative, caring, and motivated people who work hard each and every day to ensure that the children and families they serve have the tools they need to achieve their full potential. Beyond the voluminous research showing the positive impact of these programs, I know what they do makes a lasting difference. When I visit elementary schools across my State, principals tell me that the students who have participated in Head Start are better prepared in every way for school.

So I take this opportunity to wish every Head Start and Early Head Start staff member and participant. Happy anniversary. As a longtime supporter, I recommit to doing all I can to ensure that our Head Start and Early Head Start programs continue to make a positive difference for many more years to come.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Bill Williams of Saxman, AK, a businessman, community leader, an Alaska statesman, and my friend, who died on Sunday, May 12, just short of his 76th birthday.

Bill's story exemplifies how far one can go in Alaska if one works hard and exhibits a devotion for community service. Bill was lifelong Alaskan and a graduate of Ketchikan High School. He was a longshoreman, a proud member of the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Union. He was a business leader, serving as president of the Cape Fox Corporation, his ANCSA village corporation. He was a fisherman. He served on the Saxman City Council and was mayor of Saxman. Bill was a leader in the Alaska Native Brotherhood and Tlingit and Haida.

In 1993, Bill was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives, serving until 2004. A strong advocate for development of Alaska's natural resources and preservation of the traditional subsistence way of life, Bill distinguished himself in the Alaska Legislature. He rose to cochair the finance committee of the Alaska House of Representatives, one of the most powerful positions in the State of Alaska. Bill knew how to make deals, and because his word was his bond, he knew how to keep a deal. I proudly served alongside Bill throughout my tenure in the Alaska Legislature. He was both a friend and a mentor to me.

Tributes are pouring in from those who knew and loved Bill Williams. State Senator Bert Stedman, who is cochair of the senate finance committee in the current legislative session, had this to say about Bill: ``He understood that political differences don't need to divide Alaskans. In the Capitol, he was known for keeping his words and putting Alaska's interests above politics. He took the lead on both subsistence and development issues. He was known for working with our federal delegation and governors to keep jobs in the Tongass. He was a strong voice on Alaska Native issues.''

The Ketchikan Daily News, in an editorial, remembered Bill as an honorable man who represented the community and the region with quiet, steadfast dignity: ``Those who met Williams would not likely forget him. He was quiet and humble, possessing eyes of both twinkling good humor and the glint of iron resolve. Others in public life learned quickly not to underestimate the good representative from Saxman.''

Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy has also reflected on the loss of Bill Williams this week. Governor Dunleavy said, ``Real leaders do not come along very often, so it is especially tough when we lose one with the ability and character of Bill Williams. He worked both hard and smart for the constituents and communities he represented.'' Governor Dunleavy has ordered flags to be lowered to half-staff this week in Bill's memory.

From the central council of Tlingit and Haida Tribes, ``Gunalcheesh, Haw'aa to Bill for his lifelong dedication to Southeast Alaska and its people.''

On behalf of my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate, I extend my condolences to Bill's wife Caryl, his family, the Saxman community, and all who hold this very special Alaskan dear in their hearts. It is a privilege to honor the late Bill Williams, an outstanding Alaskan, in the U.S. Senate today.

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