Floor Statements

Madam President, I am pleased to be here today to speak in strong support of David Bernhardt's nomination to be Secretary of the Interior, and I thank all of my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We worked pretty hard together to report Mr. Bernhardt's nomination last week. We moved it out with good bipartisan support. I also thank the majority leader for filing cloture this week so that we can confirm him before we depart for this 2-week work period.

I have several reasons--I have a whole host of different reasons to outline as to why I support Mr. Bernhardt's nomination. I outlined them

before the committee, but I would like to take a couple of minutes here this afternoon to reiterate them on the Senate floor.

First, really, is his background. He understands and is in touch with our public lands. Mr. Bernhardt is from the West where, of course, the vast majority of our public lands are located. He grew up in Rifle, which is a small town in Western Colorado. He spent a lot of his summers in Wyoming. He, to this day, remains an avid sportsman and outdoorsman. He likes hunting and fishing. He is a guy who appreciates the outdoors.

He is really almost unparalleled in terms of the experience that he brings to the job. He has worked at the Department of the Interior now for about 10 years, including two Senate-confirmed posts. Back in 2006, we confirmed him as Solicitor by voice vote, and then in 2017, we confirmed him to be the Deputy Secretary. Again, that vote was a good bipartisan vote. He has now served as Acting Secretary since January of 2019, so we have a situation where, simply put, he has more experience at the Department than any other previous nominee for Secretary, except one. That is a pretty good credential there.

Of equal importance, Mr. Bernhardt has the right perspective to be the Secretary of the Interior. He understands how Federal land management decisions affect our local communities. He has seen how Federal policies impact people's access to and use of public land, and he also recognizes the need to balance conservation and opportunities for economic development.

I think David Bernhardt has really proved his ability to lead the Department. He is well qualified. He is highly competent. He has built strong working relationships with those who are affected by the Department's decisions. I really think there is no question that he is ready for the job. He can handle everything it entails.

I have been asked by several of the reporters who are out there: What do you think David Bernhardt really brings to the table? What I have shared with them is that as I have gotten to know David Bernhardt in his various capacities at Interior, he is a guy who understands and enjoys the policy of these issues. He likes to get down into the fine details. He knows the background. He is not just being given something by staff to read. He is the one who is really engaged in understanding at a level of detail that is greatly appreciated.

When I think about the importance of this position of Secretary of the Interior, I come at it from the perspective of an Alaskan coming from a State that has more Federal acres than any other State. The Department of the Interior controls most of those. We often refer to the Department, and the Secretary specifically, as our landlord. That is not necessarily a title we like. We like to consider ourselves a partner, but I think we truly recognize we need leadership to understand and appreciate the impact their decisions within the Department of the Interior can have on us. I know David Bernhardt understands that. He has been a good partner for Alaskans, but he has also been a good partner for individuals, groups, and States all across the country, and that is why his nomination is supported by a wide range of stakeholder groups from the Alaska Federation of Natives to Ducks Unlimited, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

I think it is also important to note that Mr. Bernhardt moved through our committee process in pretty good order. He answered all of our questions. Again, he demonstrated the depth of his understanding of the issues and his expertise. He really exceeded expectations, which led to a very strong bipartisan vote of 14 to 6 at the business meeting last week.

Now the full Senate has the opportunity to confirm Mr. Bernhardt. Some will continue to make allegations over ethics, but the fact is, as we have reviewed those charges, we have found nothing that should hold him back. I know this has been a subject of discussion on the Senate floor, so I want to lay it out very clearly. There are some news stories that are being printed and have been printed that are filled with old information that has already been reviewed by our committee staff. New stories, old facts--they don't contain anything new or anything disqualifying. There is nothing amiss here, and there is no valid reason to delay this process.

The Office of Government Ethics has certified that Mr. Bernhardt is in good standing; so has Interior's Designated Agency Ethics Official. My committee staff has contacted Interior's Inspector General. It has been confirmed that there are no open investigations into Mr. Bernhardt. I would tell folks that what needs to happen here is that we need to move forward. We need to reject the last-minute rhetoric that is designed to delay. We need to confirm a well-qualified candidate to be our next Secretary of the Interior.

We have a lot to do. Interior has a lot to do to make sure that we are protecting our lands, increasing our energy security, as well as fulfilling all of the missions of the Department, and the sooner we are able to confirm a Secretary to focus on them, the better.

Mr. Bernhardt is very well qualified to be the Secretary of the Interior. He has the right background, the right experience, and the right perspective for the job. He is ready to lead on a permanent basis, and I am glad that very shortly here we are going to be considering his nomination. I strongly encourage every Member in this Chamber to support his confirmation.

Madam President, I come to the floor to speak to the robust support that David Bernhardt has received for his nomination to be Secretary of the Interior.

Last week, those of us on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported Mr. Bernhardt on a strong, bipartisan vote of 14 to 6. He has actually added support from the last time that he was considered in committee, in 2017, and I hope we will see that again when we vote on his nomination later today.

Mr. Bernhardt's support is not limited to the Senate. For example, the Congressional Western Caucus is solidly behind Mr. Bernhardt, with many of its members on record in support of his nomination.

Bear in mind, these are members from Western States, where the vast majority of our public lands are located, whose districts are most impacted by the Department of the Interior. It is a very good sign that Mr. Bernhardt has drawn their strong support.

We have also kept a list of individuals and groups who have submitted letters of support for Mr. Bernhardt. It spans the spectrum of stakeholders, from the Public Lands Council and the Colorado Farm Bureau to the American Exploration and Mining Association and the Corps Network.

Multiple recreation groups have written in urging the Senate to confirm Mr. Bernhardt. The motorized recreation groups, like the American Council of Snowmobile Associations and the Off-Road Business Association, wrote that, ``At a time when many of the senior posts at the agency lack Senate confirmed executives, a person of Mr. Bernhardt's experience is sorely need . . . having [him] at the helm of the Interior Department will strengthen the agency's resolve to make the lands it manages accessible to the recreating public.''

Officials at all levels of government are voicing their support for Mr. Bernhardt's nomination. The Governor of Wyoming, Mark Gordon, offered this statement: [Mr. Bernhardt's] recognition of expertise in the States is refreshing . . . I wish [him] a speedy and easy confirmation process.''

The Mesa County Commissioners in Colorado wrote that ``Mr. Bernhardt's extensive knowledge of public lands and energy issues makes him an avid leader with skill to see issues from multiple perspectives to maintain and improve partnerships among federal, state, and local governments.''

The Harney County Court in Oregon has highlighted Mr. Bernhardt's commitment to balancing the multiple use of public land, writing that, ``[He] has proved himself in the past by exhibiting understanding between the balance that is needed from an ecological standpoint, but also, what is needed from the economic and social aspect of public land use. He will work towards a balanced approach by trying to assess and distinguish between the multiple issues that we are facing with the [bureaus].''

Tribal groups and entities are also supportive of his nomination. In my home State, the Alaska Federation of Natives noted that, ``Mr. Bernhardt has demonstrated a thorough understanding of the legal frameworks of the major laws covering Alaska Native subsistence customary and traditional rights and protections . . . he listens well, is articulate in his responses, and draws reasonable conclusions.''

The Chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council wrote in that, ``the [Tribe] has worked with [Mr. Bernhardt] previously and firmly believes that his knowledge and experience make him a very good fit for the Department . . . we also believe he is committed to building strong working relationships that rely on good faith and respect among all interests at the table.''

We have truly heard from a very wide range of organizations in support of this nomination. The Archery Trade Association wrote to us that ``[Mr. Bernhardt] has demonstrated tremendous commitment to conserving and protecting our nation's natural, historic and cultural resources . . . [his] experience with the Department of the Interior coupled [with his] exemplary history of collaboration, non-partisan views, highly respected demeanor and deeply held passion for conservation and historic preservation make him uniquely qualified for this position.''

One of the reasons that such a diverse group of stakeholders support Mr. Bernhardt's nomination is that they have worked with him during his nearly ten years at Interior, including most recently as Deputy Secretary and then Acting Secretary. He has proven that he can work with groups, he has formed strong relationships with them, and they respect and support him.

For example, the Gila River Indian Community wrote that, ``based on our experience in negotiating and working on complex issues with Mr. Bernhardt we support his position as Secretary of the Department of the Interior. We believe he has an understanding of Tribal sovereignty and the United States' trust responsibility to Tribal nations.''

The Corps Network wrote that ``Mr. Bernhardt has been accessible and responsive to our inquiries, visited several Corps in the field, and joined the Corps Network's Day of Service last summer.''

These groups are reiterating what we already know--that Mr. Bernhardt's experience at Interior and in the West; his willingness to listen, build relationships, be responsive; and his ability to earn people's trust make him more than qualified to lead the Department of the Interior.

I want to wrap up by reading an excerpt from a letter that we received from the Beaver County Commission in Utah: ``In our interactions with Mr. Bernhardt we have found him to act with integrity, be open minded to all points of view, and have a contagious passion for the health of our Nation's lands and people. These qualities, combined with many others, make Mr. Bernhardt an ideal candidate to serve the county by leading the Department of the Interior.''

I couldn't say it any better. Mr. Bernhardt knows the Department and the laws that govern it inside and out. He appreciates and respects the Department's mission. He is the right person for the job--the best person to lead Interior--and I look forward to his confirmation.

He continues:

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need.

Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I

suppose I should have realized that few members of the

oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate

yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the

vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong,

persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however,

that some of our

white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this

social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are

still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality.

Some--such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden,

James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle--have

written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms.

Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the

South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails,

suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them

as ``dirty nigger-lovers.'' Unlike so many of their moderate

brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the

moment and sensed the need for powerful ``action'' antidotes

to combat the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my

other major disappointment. I have been so greatly

disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of

course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful

of the fact that each of you has taken some significant

stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for

your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming

Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I

commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating

Spring Hill College several years ago.

But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly

reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do

not say this as one of those negative critics who can always

find something wrong with the church. I say this as a

minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was

nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its

spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as

the cord of life shall lengthen.

When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the

bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt

we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the

white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be

among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright

opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and

misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been

more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind

the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows. In spite

of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope

that the white religious leadership of this community would

see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern,

would serve as the channel through which our just grievances

could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you

would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish

their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision

because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white

ministers declare: ``Follow this decree because integration

is morally right and because the Negro is your brother.'' In

the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I

have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth

pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the

midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and

economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: ``Those

are social issues, with which the gospel has no real

concern.'' And I have watched many churches commit themselves

to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange,

un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the

sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama,

Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering

summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the

South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing

heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her

massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have

found myself asking: ``What kind of people worship here? Who

is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of

Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and

nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a

clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices

of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided

to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright

hills of creative protest?''

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep

disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But

be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can

be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes,

I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the

rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the

great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the

body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred

that body through social neglect and through fear of being

nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the

time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed

worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the

church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas

and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that

transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early

Christians entered a town, the people in power became

disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians

for being ``disturbers of the peace'' and ``outside

agitators.'' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction

that they were ``a colony of heaven,'' called to obey God

rather than man. Small in number, they were big in

commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be

``astronomically intimidated.'' By their effort and example

they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and

gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the

contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an

uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status

quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church,

the power structure of the average community is consoled by

the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things

as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before.

If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit

of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit

the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant

social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every

day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church

has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized

religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our

nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the

inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the

true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am

thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of

organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing

chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the

struggle for freedom. They have left their secure

congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with

us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous

rides for freedom.

Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Alabama and thank him for his leadership.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues from the Colorado River Basin and with Senator Manchin, the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, regarding the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act.

I am pleased that we are considering this bill so quickly on the Senate floor. We need to act now as the historic drought conditions in the basin are a real threat to the water supply of 40 million people and 5.5 million acres of farmland.

As the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I think it is important that we spend some time clarifying the intent behind this bill. We started last month with an oversight hearing in the Water and Power Subcommittee to examine the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan, which was chaired by my colleague, the Senator from Arizona, Ms. McSally.

We also need to understand what the legislation that we are passing today does and does not do. As I read it, the measure directs the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Drought Contingency Plan agreements upon their execution by the seven basin States. The 2007 final environmental impact statement on Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead enables the Secretary to do so immediately as this document covers all of the Federal actions contemplated in the agreements.

I ask Senator McSally, is that the correct reading of the bill?

I thank all of the Senators for providing their views on the language and for sponsoring this important legislation.

I ask Senator Manchin, has he heard the discussion among the sponsors of this bill? Is what he has heard from them about the intent of the legislation in line with his understanding?

I thank my colleagues for this clarification and explanation of the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act. As we have just explained, the bill sponsors, along with the chair and ranking member of committee of jurisdiction are unified in the expectation that enactment of this bill will lead to immediate action by the Secretary of the Interior, and the DCP will be signed and implemented upon execution by the States.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to recognize a truly exceptional member of the U.S. Senate--not one who has a vote on this floor but certainly one who has wielded great influence and who has generated great appreciation from many of us who have had the privilege and the honor to serve on the Appropriations Committee, as you have.

Today I am here to speak about an individual who has been serving the U.S. Senate on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee now for two decades, and this gentleman is a friend by the name of Leif Fonnesbeck.

Leif started with the Interior Appropriations Committee under the helm of Chairman Slade Gorton from the State of Washington and then also, of course, the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee at that time, my friend and mentor Ted Stevens.

So it is actually a little bit bittersweet for me to be speaking about Leif and recognizing his contributions because after two decades--21 years--Leif is retiring from public service, and I understand, certainly, his desire. Twenty years is a good run. It is a significant amount of effort and truly an admirable career.

Both Leif and I are born and raised Alaskans, and you can never take the home out of your heart. It is something that is a continual tug, and so I can certainly understand his desire to spend more time at home with the incredible Alaskans whom we call friends

and family and to be in our amazing and extraordinary spaces.

As I mentioned, Leif is an Alaskan. He grew up there in Anchorage. Leif's mom was a librarian, and his father was a principal. He and his sisters grew up exploring and experiencing everything that is Alaska-- all things great.

He attended East High School. He left to get his undergraduate degree in finance from here in Washington, DC, at Georgetown University, my alma mater. He then went on to law school and went out to the University of Arizona. Then, shortly after he got his law degree, he returned home to Anchorage, thinking that he was going to practice law there.

So he wasn't there for too very long when then-Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens tapped Leif and said: Look, I would like to have you come back to Washington, DC, and work for me on the Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee. So it was at that time that Leif made the big move, leaving from Anchorage and coming back here to Washington, DC, to work with his mentor and my mentor, Ted Stevens.

There are a lot of stories that go on around here. I have enjoyed getting to know the great Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, who had a great tenure working with Chairman Stevens on the Appropriations Committee, but you learn a lot from leaders like that, and I know that Leif certainly learned a great deal from the leadership of Senator Stevens.

He learned the art of the appropriations process, the art of trying to work with people on oftentimes contentious issues and places, but he really, truly learned the art of looking out for the needs of Alaska and Alaskans while meeting the needs of the Interior bill. He truly, truly served with distinction throughout his tenure on the subcommittee.

In addition to being an expert--and he really was an expert at his job--he is just a rock-solid guy. He gave solid advice, was willing to be helpful, and had a nature and a generosity that were really key to all those who knew him and who really had the pleasure to work with him.

Oftentimes, you can't say that it is really a pleasure to work with you. Well, it was a pleasure--it is a pleasure--to work with Leif Fonnesbeck.

Since becoming chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I have had the benefit of Leif's experience and knowledge of Alaska and of the appropriations process. I will tell you, when I moved over to Interior to take that on as chair of that subcommittee, it was a little bit daunting at first. It is an expansive portfolio--everything from the EPA to management of our public lands, to the Indian Health Service, to the BIA. It is all over the board, and it is a challenging one, including how we are dealing with wildfires and fire borrowing. We have some significant, significant challenges, but Leif was just that font of knowledge, not only from his experience on the committee but just from his experience in working with so many of these issues and working with so many of the people over the years.

He has been an absolutely excellent partner in navigating the really very difficult, complicated, and complex process that is required to produce funding bills in a manner that is viewed as fair and open and just true to the process. I am just so very, very grateful to his service to me, to the State of Alaska, and, truly, to the U.S. Senate.

For 21 years now, Leif's work on the Interior Subcommittee has impacted the lives of more Alaskans than he will possibly ever realize. His efforts, particularly on behalf of Alaska's Native communities, as well as our vast natural resources, have had and will continue to have a tremendous impact on our State and our people. Because of his work, more communities have access to clean water through new drinking systems. This was something that Leif really concentrated on. He would go out to the villages. He would see firsthand what it meant to the health conditions of families when they don't have access to clean and safe drinking water and when they don't have sanitation facilities, and he worked to address that.

More Alaskans are empowered to build their economy and create healthy communities through investments for new infrastructure and support for programs to address domestic violence, substance abuse, and suicide.

Every year we have been able to help those accounts move forward because the needs were so desperate and the needs were so urgent, and Leif helped to advance those priorities.

Support for rural healthcare clinics enabled more Alaskans to have access to care. There were the efforts that he went through to help facilitate Native hospitals, whether in Barrow or in Nome, and now down in the Bethel region with the joint venture projects, making sure that we have adequate, strong staffing packages. Investments in our public lands have helped to protect Alaska's tourism industry and our outdoor recreation opportunities.

He and I would go back and forth and forth and back as to whether or not the pedestrian walkway to allow visitors in Brooks Camp to view the bears was too Taj Mahal of a bridge or whether it was a bridge that was going to be necessary to protect the tourists from the bears when the bears got disinterested in the salmon that they were munching on.

Leif got down in the weeds. He got into the issues. He knew what was going on.

His efforts for local governments to construct roads and public schools are investments that will make a lasting impact on the State of Alaska and the people who live there. Knowing that this is a lasting impact that this individual, Leif, has made, is just so huge.

So as Leif is preparing to leave this place where he has been for two decades to go back home to spend more time there--whether it is fishing or just enjoying or going back to work--I know that he leaves many, many friends here. He leaves many that have such appreciation for his work, his character, his honesty, and just his professionalism.

I want to thank him for all of his years of dedication, his commitment, his service. I wish him and his dog Leo the best as they go back to Alaska. They will be hiking around, wandering around the shadow of the Chugach Mountains. I know, wherever it is that he goes, though, he will be involved in helping the people of Alaska.

I look forward to continuing to work with Lee in the next chapter of his life. It is indeed an honor to be able to speak about him and his good work today.

I know we are set to wrap up here. It is my colleague from Alaska who usually has the last word on a Thursday evening, and he speaks about the Alaskan of the Week. Senator Sullivan is not here today and will not be giving those comments, but I feel I have kind of filled in with giving him an Alaska of the Week with Leif Fonnesbeck, a gentleman who has served our State honorably over such period of time.

With that, I yield the floor.

(Ms. MURKOWSKI assumed the chair.)

(Mr. WICKER assumed the chair.)

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, April 1; 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, morning business be closed, and the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 268; further, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the cloture motions with respect to H.R. 268 filed during today's session of the Senate ripen at 5:30 p.m., Monday, April 1; finally, that if cloture is not invoked with respect to the motions filed on H.R. 268, the cloture motion with respect to S. Res. 50 ripen at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, April 2.

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

Mr. President, thank you.

I am sorry I didn't hear all of the remarks from my friend from Illinois because at the end, he pointed out that there are some on my side of the aisle who acknowledge that we are dealing with a changing climate and that those impacts are real. Well, this Senator is one of them.

I come from a State where we see it. It is real. It is tangible. It impacts not only the land and the water but also the people. We see that in the Arctic. I am one who is approaching this from the perspective of pragmatism and practical solutions we can move forward with.

While I like aspirations, and we all have to have goals, I want us to make sure we are not setting ourselves up for a situation where the expectations are not realistic.

The Senator mentioned the vote we will have later this afternoon. I have suggested that it is important for us around here to make sure that we don't distract from those pragmatic and practical solutions and that we don't amp up the rhetoric so high that we can't get ourselves to a place where we can work cooperatively and collaboratively to get to these solutions. If we are going to address it in a meaningful way, it must be bipartisan, it must be enduring, it must move from one administration to another, and, again, it has to be something we can work toward with meaningful steps.

I would like to take just a couple of minutes today to speak to some of the things and some of the areas in which I think Congress can actually make some progress as we look to the issue of climate change.

I have refrained from speaking specifically to the Green New Deal as it has been laid down and introduced because I don't see it as a real and viable solution that has been fully considered as a proposal. There certainly is a lot of aspiration to it. There certainly is a lot of aspiration, but I have kind of refrained from piling on, if you will, despite my concerns about the costs of the deal. I think we can go back and forth in terms of how much it really costs individual Americans, what is the cost to society, and what is the cost of not doing something, but I think those are all kind of almost false in a sense because it is not that we are not doing anything. I think we need to establish that. If we were to enact and move forward with every aspect of the proposal as it has been laid out, is it possible? Is it possible?

It is certainly a worthy goal for us in this country to be transitioning to more renewable and cleaner sources of energy. We are doing that. We are certainly seeing that as the cost of solar is coming down and as we are seeing more wind being harnessed. I think we have great potential in more hydropower, more geothermal, and the technologies that could be coming our way when it comes to ocean energy.

Surely we need to be moving in that direction, but is it affordable? Is it possible to transition to 100 percent renewable energy and electric vehicles over the next 10 years? I don't believe it is physically possible for us to do it in 10 years. So are we setting something up so that young people, like the Senate pages who are listening to me, will say: Well, sure, you should be able to do that in 10 years. You say you can. So if you haven't done it, you have failed.

This is not a question of whether we succeeded or failed but whether every step we are taking is moving us in a more positive direction. Shouldn't it be a worthy goal to maximize our energy efficiencies within our buildings and how we access our power? Absolutely. But is it possible? Would we be able to physically retrofit every building in America to maximize energy and water efficiency over the next 10 years? I don't believe we can do that in 10 years.

Aspirations are good, and goals are good, but when you look at what has been specifically laid out in this Green New Deal, it is more than just transitioning to renewables or electric vehicles or greater energy efficiency. It calls for a Federal jobs guarantee. It focuses on healthcare, education, wages, trade, and a lot more. It suggests unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States. That is wonderful. I would love that. But how do we get there? What is the feasible mechanism for accomplishing this goal?

Let's be honest with where we are and recognize the potential cost of this Green New Deal. Whether you want to peg it in the price range of $50 trillion to $90 trillion over the next 10 years--I am not going to get caught up in those numbers because that is not going to happen. It is not going to happen.

What I really hope doesn't happen is that this discussion about the Green New Deal or whatever you want to tag it--that we are not distracted from the necessary and important conversation we must have about climate change and the practical steps we can take to address it. Let's talk about that.

I mentioned to my friend from Illinois that we see it in Alaska. We say that we are ground zero for climate change. The Arctic is warming two to three times the rate of the rest of the world. We are seeing glaciers retreat. Permafrost is thawing. We are seeing sea levels rise. Wildlife migration patterns are changing. We are seeing different invasive species. With the water temperature, we are seeing ocean acidification. Villages are being threatened by coastal erosion and in need of relocation. For us, this is real. Climate change is real.

If you don't want to use the words ``climate change,'' you don't have to use the words ``climate change,'' but just come up and take a look, because something is happening. We are seeing it.

Engaging in rhetoric that is either fantasy or denial really doesn't help those who are facing this. I think there are some policies that both parties can support that I think can make a real difference in real time.

I want to first start off by acknowledging that we are not in a situation and a place where we are doing nothing. That is not the case. We are. We are working on policies, and over the course of years, we have put policies in place that are making a difference and will make a difference moving forward. It is not as though we are starting from scratch. Just look at where we were last year. We expanded the tax credit for carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration, CCUS. We increased funding for the Department of Energy to research and develop cleaner technologies. We passed legislation to promote basic science, nuclear energy, hydropower, and more. Many of us support the production, use, and export of clean burning natural gas, which can substantially help reduce global emissions. That was just last year in terms of the policies we put in place that are moving us forward in the right direction.

You don't always hear about it, but we have a pretty decent story to tell here in this country. We are leading the world in greenhouse gas reductions. Despite an uptick we saw last year, in 2018, our emissions have fallen significantly over the past decade.

We have made progress, but we need to be making more progress and, in my view, more accelerated progress. What more can we do? That is a conversation we are having in the Energy Committee. I have been working with my ranking member, Senator Manchin from West Virginia. It is a conversation we have been having on both sides of the aisle. We had a hearing on the impact on the electric sector due to climate change. We had that hearing about 10 days or so ago. We are planning on having others. We are talking

with other colleagues who are not part of our committee about what more can be done.

Two or three weeks ago, I was in Houston attending the big oil and gas conference, the big global conference. It is kind of like the Davos of oil and gas. It was notable that throughout that week's conference with oil and gas producers, predominantly, the focus and the attention was on climate change and what we are doing with those technologies that will help us to reduce methane leakage, what we are doing to help share some of these environmental technologies, and what more we are doing to help facilitate these clean, lower carbon technologies. This is coming from an industry that is recognizing that innovation must happen.

It was fascinating. I sat down with a group of about 20 folks who were pretty high up within their sectors. I was thinking we were going to be talking about some of the latest technologies in oil and gas development. But about two-thirds of the people around the table were not from oil and gas companies; they were from high-tech companies. They were there because they see that the real difference in making a difference is going to come from these technologies, and they want to be a part of that conversation. That is a good conversation to have.

Within the Energy Committee, what we are doing is we are going to revive and refresh the bipartisan Energy bill that we moved out of committee and off this floor a couple of years ago with the help of Senator Cantwell. We moved it out with the support of 85 Members. It may be that we have to move some smaller bills instead of everything all at once, but we have to update our policies.

We haven't updated an energy policy for 11 years now. Senator Cantwell knows, when you think about where the industry has gone, where the energy sector has gone, and the fact that our policies have lagged, that is a drag. We need to address that.

I think there are areas where we can reach a bipartisan agreement on policies that support the innovation, break down the barriers, promote efficiency, and keep the markets well-supplied. There is a lot more we can be doing on nuclear energy. I am going to be introducing a bipartisan bill this week to promote advanced reactors. There is more we can be doing on carbon capture utilization and sequestration. This is a big priority of Senator Manchin's. We know that unlocking the key is going to be with storage and energy storage. We have to be advancing that. There is so much more room within hydropower, microgrids, to lower costs for energy in rural areas, to lower the cost of all renewables and make them more competitive, to ensure we are producing the minerals and materials we need for the technologies. I mentioned sharing environmental technologies.

It is not just the Energy Committee that is going to be working on this. All committees will have their own contribution to make, and I welcome that, but we have to have rational discussions.

I have said: Come to the Energy Committee, where there is a safe space if you want to talk about climate. If you are a Republican on this side who says I don't know that I want to go there, a Democrat on that side, let's sit down and have a rational conversation about how we are going to be working together across the aisle to agree on policies that will deliver cleaner and lower carbon technologies. They have to be pragmatic, they have to be durable, and they have to be bipartisan.

Senator Manchin and I had an op-ed that ran in the Washington Post a few weeks ago. It wasn't great, earthshaking, brandnew, novel ideas on how to address climate change. What we said is, we have to join hands on this. We have to come together. We are both from producing States with very vulnerable populations. Take a look at the two of us and work with us to help advance some of these things.

We have gotten more shout-outs not for highlighting some new technology but the fact that we were talking together as Republicans and Democrats. That is going to be an important part of how we move forward.

I mentioned, I am from a producing State. You all know that. What many don't know is how Alaska is leading the way in what is possible for some of the innovation, the proving ground, for technologies. We have about every resource you can think of in great abundance, including sunshine. You don't think about solar for us, but we are putting it to good use. We have been pioneering when it comes to microgrids and these smaller scaled technologies. We have wind turbines out in St. Michael. We have energy-efficient refrigeration on Saint Paul Island. This is a little, tiny island out in the middle of the ocean. We have clean power generation in Kodiak. About 99 percent of that significant fishing community is renewable. We have an in-river system being installed in Igiugig. We have innovation happening all over the place, and it is happening because we are driven by necessity. It costs too much. It is not sustainable.

I don't want to be from a State where most of my off-road communities are powered by diesel. It is not good for them. It is not good for anybody. How do we get off that? Allow us to move forward and free up-- some are going to be critical of me. They are going to say: You know what, Lisa, you are talking about baby steps. You are talking wind turbines in St. Michael; you are talking about energy efficiency in St. Paul. Do you know what? When you are paying $7, $8, $9 a gallon to keep the lights on, to keep something refrigerated--close to 80 cents a kilowatt hour--that is not sustainable. So for these communities, it is making a difference. You say: Well, we have a big globe out there. We do have a big globe out there, and we all have a responsibility there, but we have to start.

I want to share a quote from my friend, the former Secretary of Energy, Ernie Moniz. He was talking about some of the practical, pragmatic solutions. He said some are going to argue it is not enough. Some would argue, well, that will not get us there as fast as we need to go. I would argue that would get us there as fast as we can go.

We must--we must--move. We recognize that, but we have to know the only way we are going to be moving is if we move together. That is what we have to do in Congress. We have to take these policies that can keep us moving to lower emissions, to address the reality of climate change, to do so all the while recognizing we have an economy we need to keep strong, we have vulnerable people whom we need to protect, and we have an environment we all care about--Republicans and Democrats--and it is not just the environment in our States or our country, but it is our global environment.

So, moving forward, how we are working together on that is a priority, or should be a priority, for us all. My hope is, we get beyond the rhetoric, the high-fired rhetoric, and we get to practical, pragmatic, bipartisan solutions.

Mr. President, I will yield.

I thank my colleague for that.

I want to acknowledge the support and partnership I have had with Senator Cantwell. She and I come from differing views on certain issues, but throughout our time as the chair and the ranking on the committee, we really did work to try to advance some of these solutions, where--I think we would both agree--there is common ground. Again, advancing that is important. It is important for the progress we are making. It is making a difference. It is helping to reduce the emissions. It is helping to move us toward greater efficiency.

So let's not pooh-pooh the small things. Let's acknowledge that building things together, you do elevate yourself--but we have to start. If we keep dividing ourselves, then we are not going to come together to build these bridges.

I thank my friend from Washington State who has worked hard on the committee to advance this and continues to do so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am here on the Senate floor today to talk about a sporting event--an event that captures the attention of people not only in my State of Alaska but around the country and around the globe. I am talking about the ``Last Great Race on Earth.'' It is a pretty fancy, big, and impressive title for what really happens--the ultimate challenge with man, woman, and dogs--a 1,100-mile sled dog race from Anchorage to Nome, up north.

I will share with you all a picture that was taken at 3:39 a.m. on Wednesday morning, March 13. Obviously, it is the middle of the night. I know everybody thinks that it is always dark in Alaska this time of year, but it is not. This is at 3:39 a.m. on Wednesday, March 13. It is pitch dark. You can't really see it in this picture, but the snow is coming down. The wind is blowing. It is pretty dang cold. Temperatures are down in the teens, but you have some wind blowing. So it gets your attention.

What you are seeing here is Front Street in Nome, AK. At 3:30 in the morning, the street is packed. It is lined with hundreds of people who are cheering loudly. These are people from all over the country--fans, friends, and family who have come from across Alaska and flown into Nome. Some of them chartered an aircraft coming out of the YK Delta. They flew into Nome, a community of about 4,000 people, to witness this moment--to witness the moment that Pete Kaiser, born and raised in Bethel, AK, came into town with eight dogs in harness and came down the street to cross the finish line and claim victory as the 2019 Iditarod champion. He was just 12 minutes ahead of the defending champion, Joar Leifseth Ulsom, who is originally from Norway but who now lives with us in Alaska. This is probably one of the closest Iditarod races we have in some time.

Jessie Royer, of Fairbanks, a friend of my family and a great lady, came in at third place.

When you talk about the ``Last Great Race'' of 1,100 miles across extraordinary terrain, Pete Kaiser took 9 days, 12 hours, and 38 minutes to complete this--9 days, 12 hours, and 38 minutes.

Think about how you cover 1,100 miles on the back of a dog sled. Typically, with dogs, when you are moving

really fast, you are moving along at about 10 miles an hour, but you are going over some incredible terrain, and you are doing this not just between 8 and 5, but you are running the trail over the course of days and weeks.

Here is Pete Kaiser. He has just crossed the finish line. He has his hands thrown up in the air in celebration. He hugged his family. He wiped the tears from his face. It is one of those moments that he will always, always remember. The feeling is probably hard to fathom, but for Pete, a young man who grew up in Western Alaska, somebody who is often referred to as an encyclopedia of racing knowledge, somebody who is known in his community for his hard work and dedication, somebody who has now won the Kuskokwim 300 four times in a row--a race qualifier for the Iditarod--and for his family and his extended family who supported him, who cheered him along the way, and for so many in the community of Bethel who joined together, who chartered an aircraft to get there in time to see him finish and celebrate this achievement, this truly is a victory that is an accomplishment and an extraordinary highlight to a remarkable career.

So the excitement that comes when you are finishing a grueling race like this and when you and your team come across the line is something that you really have to experience to understand. There is fatigue, but there is great excitement with the accomplishment.

It is not just the accomplishment of the musher, because the musher would still be sitting back in Willow were it not for these extraordinary animals, which truly, truly live to run. They live to do this race and others like it.

Nothing beats the finish here. I don't have very many opportunities where I can actually be at the finish because you never quite know when it will be. Usually, race winners come in between 8, 9, or 10 days. So if you are starting on a Sunday, usually we finish during the week when we are back here working. So I haven't had the opportunity to be on that end, but I have had multiple opportunities--in fact, this is an opportunity that I do not miss--to be at the front end and to be at the start of the Iditarod.

So just 9 days prior, this is me and Pete Kaiser at the start of the Iditarod. He is looking pretty fresh in this picture. He probably didn't look quite so fresh after 9 days on the trail.

We gathered in downtown Anchorage with 52 mushers--that is how many mushers ran this year--and all of their teams. With the rules change this year, there were 14 dogs to a team at the start. But you are in downtown Anchorage, and you not only have your teams who are going to be moving you through the first day of the ceremonial start but you have your other dogs. So you have dogs, you have mushers, you have people, and you have kids. It is like a carnival atmosphere.

This year I had an opportunity to do something I have never done before, and that was to drive the tag sled of one of our four-time champions, Jeff King.

During the ceremonial start, you go from Anchorage to Campbell Creek Airstrip. It is an 11-mile portion of the trail. I can say that I did 1 percent of the Iditarod by driving on the back of this tag sled. I didn't have the dogs directly in front of me, but I still had to operate the brake on the sled. I still had to lean into the curves and still had the opportunity to experience just the majesty of the dogs in front of you and the way the mushers communicate with their team.

The Iditarod is a race like none other, and it is perhaps made so because of the challenge of the terrain that this race goes through. The journey that led the mushers through these valleys and across these mountain ranges is hard. It is challenging. The weather is not unlike the terrain. It was up, and it was down. We had areas along the trail where it was raining, and then we had areas where we had freezing temperatures. You had wind. You had snow. You had ice. So when you think about how much work it is to get through the burled arch, it is really a tremendous accomplishment to be able to say that you have completed this race.

As we speak, there are still dozens more mushers and their teams that are out along that trail working to complete it.

You might think that this is something where there is a significant prize, and that is what motivates people. Well, if you are successful and you finish the Iditarod, you will be able to claim $1,149. Your dogs are going to eat up that money pretty quickly. Most of this is so much for the love of mushing and the love of the animals.

People always ask: Well, how hard is it? What kind of challenges do the mushers encounter along the way?

It is everything from encounters with animals, whether it is a moose along the trail--and we have seen some bad outcomes from that--to just physical obstructions along the trail.

Richie Diehl of Aniak ran smack into a tree--literally, smack into a tree. He hit his face on the trail near Nikolai. He said he was kind of cruising along and he had his head turned. It was still dark. He looked forward and, bam, he ran into a tree.

He probably could have ducked if he noticed it, but he didn't, and then he was kind of knocked off. He did an all-out sprint to chase his team down and dove to catch his sled. He lined up the dog team, again got everybody organized, grabbed some toilet paper, some wet wipes, and started mushing down the trail as he wiped the bleeding off his skin. You are just not stopping. You are not stopping for yourself. For your dogs, if your dogs are injured, you absolutely stop.

Anja Radano of Talkeetna fell in a large hole in the ice crossing the infamous Dalzell ice hole. While she is making her way across the frozen river, her sled slipped into the hole. She falls into the water, and she injured her ribs and her legs. She had been having a little bit of a struggle along the trail, but she said she would not have been able to get out of the waterhole there without the help of her dog team.

Then there is Linwood Fiedler, who was on his way to Nikolai, and his entire dog team got separated from the sled when his biner broke, but, fortunately for him, there was a fellow musher coming up, Mats Pettersson, who shows up on the trail shortly after. He helped him get his whole team, and potentially--potentially--saved the lives of these dogs.

You have trail conditions that are hard this year, and part of the trail, quite honestly, because of the warmer weather we have seen, they were what we call tusset, which is just mounds of hard, matted grass in just kind of a bumper strip all the way going through. It is very hard on sleds. There were a couple of mushers who took 30 hours to go through this one stretch, and they ultimately decided enough and scratched.

You have the terrain. You also have the fact that you are going all out for days on end, and limited sleep has its effect. We heard some comments from Lance Mackey, who is a four-time Iditarod champ. He was talking about how he was imagining things on the trail, a little bit of a hallucination, seeing and hearing things that aren't there, thinking he was hearing people say, ``Go, Lance,'' as he was making the run between Rohn and Nikolai. You have to do all you can to keep yourself awake because you are in the back of a sled.

Remember, you are not sitting down. This is not all comfy and cozy for 1,100 miles. You are standing on the back of the sled. Oftentimes, you are running along or walking along behind. You are helping your dogs move through. You have to constantly replenish yourself and your dogs, and that means taking trail snacks and drinking nonstop.

There is always a question about what everybody eats. Aliy Zirkle, who has come in fourth, attributes her diet to rolled oat bars made out of peanut butter, banana, sesame seeds, and other things because they are easy, and they don't get frozen. You have to think about things like how do I eat while I am still moving and things don't get frozen.

They do have an opportunity to get some good meals. They get wined and dined, if you will, when they get to a checkpoint. When you are in a village, you have the kids come out, and everybody is looking for autographs. They want to say hello to them. They want to find out what position everybody is in, but they also, oftentimes, get a warm meal like a stew, but before the humans eat--before the mushers eat, the dogs have to eat. The dogs have to

be cared for. The dogs have to be taken care of first because life on the trail is taking care of the dogs. They are making sure they have a warm and a comfortable place to rest, are fed, and they are watered. They are checked out by the veterinarians.

This is one thing that is pretty interesting. People think, well, you are just going into a town. A lot of these places, it is not a town. It is not like you can just go to a tap and fill up your dog bowls for water for your dogs. Now, your dogs have been on the trail for several hours. They are thirsty. They have been eating snow along the way, but they are thirsty. They need to be hydrated.

If you are out on the trail and you have 14 or 15 dogs, what do you do? You melt snow or you melt ice. Where is the stove? Well, you have your little camp stove that you have in the back of your sled. Think about it. You are sleep-deprived, you are hungry, you are tired, but you have to take care of your dogs first. You put your straw down to bed them down. You check their feet, and you put dry booties on them. You melt the water. You have to then heat up the dog food that has been dropped along the way in places where you know your team is going to be stopping. You could be working with your dogs for a good hour before you can even start thinking about yourself and how you satisfy your hunger, your thirst, your sleep.

It is a pretty amazing race. Again, I am just in awe of the animals. I am in awe of the mushers. I am also in awe of the many, many, many, many people who come to be volunteers for it, this race. Most people have no idea what it takes to pull off a race like this, but I am told there are more volunteers who help us at this race than any other organized race like this in the country.

What we have is a volunteer Air Force, if you will. Those stashes of food I talked about, those don't get there by accident. There is no road to drive them by, so you have pilots who will volunteer to take whatever it is, straw for bedding or big coolers and containers of food, to the various checkpoints. They will drop them off so they are pre-positioned out there, but those guys, they are all volunteers.

At the banquet in Nome, at the end of this week, the people who put on the banquet are volunteers not necessarily from Nome but from all over the country. The last time I was up there, I went back in the kitchen to say thank you to the men and women who were working there. They all had their little nametags, and they say where they are from. There is a whole group who was from a little town in Florida. They had all taken a week's vacation from their work to come up and just be there for the Iditarod, to welcome the mushers coming in.

I asked: What do you do here as a volunteer? They said: We are in charge of rolls and butter. Ok. But this is how much of a commitment they have made to this race. They have been doing it for years. They are a group who just comes up from Florida, they cash in their miles, they take leave from work, and this is where they take their vacation because they realize this is such an extraordinary happening. You have volunteers from all over the country, from Canada, and the communities along the trails.

The veterinarians. There are 50 veterinarians along the trail because at the checkpoints, the dogs must be checked by the vets. We are going to take care of those animals and make sure--so you have veterinarians; you have dog handlers; and you have vet techs who come from across the Nation. They are there volunteering their time to be at this extraordinary event.

Again, the pilots who fly to drop the supplies are volunteers. They act as race judges. They aid in the event of an injury or a lost dog. The list goes on and on and on in terms of those who volunteer. Ultimately, it simply could not happen were it not for the volunteers who put the extra mile in to make it happen.

So today we are celebrating and acknowledging the efforts of all those who pitched in to help, the fans who cheered on the teams throughout the race, the communities that served as hosts along the way, and all the mushers and all their teams who put their hearts and put their souls into this really tough but incredible expedition.

We, in Alaska, are all congratulating Pete Kaiser on his win. He is the only musher from the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta since the inaugural Iditarod back in 1973. He is the first Yup'ik Iditarod champion in the history of the Iditarod race. He is an incredibly humble man. He is a great role model. He is an inspiration to his community, and I know they are all exceptionally proud.

After he won, Pete said he hoped his victory would be celebrated not just by the Yup'ik people within his region but by all Native people throughout Alaska.

So, Pete, I think, we are here to tell you that today, Alaskans in the western part of the State, all over the State, including as far away as Washington, DC, are all celebrating and recognizing you and your extraordinary canine athletes.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I speak in memory of an Alaska pioneer, a pillar of the community of Nenana, signer of the Alaska Constitution, legendary Alaska legislator and our 6th Lieutenant Governor, Jack Coghill, who died in February at the age of 93.

Long before statehood, the name Coghill was synonymous with the town of Nenana. Jack's father, William A. Coghill, Sr., emigrated from Scotland to Canada and then to Alaska in March 1907. He landed in Valdez, hiked to the interior over the course of 10 days, and went to work delivering the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.

In 1916, Bill relocated about 60 miles down the road to Nenana, which was at the time a boom town. It was home to the Alaska Engineering Commission, which was building the railroad, a bridge, and a large dock. Along with a partner, Bill converted an existing business into Coghill's Store, which continues to exist today.

In the 1930s, Jack and his brothers, Bill, Jr., and Bob, began learning the business from the ground up. They were hauling freight, stocking shelves, assisting customers, and delivering the groceries. Jack served in the Army in World War II. He was a staff sergeant in the U.S. Army Alaska Command, fighting in the Aleutians. Following the war, Jack moved home to Nenana. When Bill, Sr., died in 1947, Jack and his brother Bob, along with their mother, took over the store. Later the business included a movie theatre, fuel distribution, and a roadhouse.

Public service was an important part of Jack Coghill's life since the late 1940s. He served on the Nenana School Board, and he was mayor of Nenana for 23 years. He was elected to the Alaska Territorial Legislature in 1952 and reelected in 1956. At age 30, he was selected as one of 55 delegates to the Alaska Constitutional Convention. Jack participated in the drafting of the Alaska Constitution in 1956 and was the third individual to sign it. Post-statehood, he served in the Alaska House of Representatives and the Alaska Senate. In 1990, he was elected Lieutenant Governor on a ticket with Wally Hickel. Unable to stay away from service, Jack returned to the Nenana City Council when his term as Lieutenant Governor concluded. Until his death, Alaskans of all generations looked to Jack for advice.

Jack and his wife Frances were parents to six children. Next to family, Jack characterized his service on the Alaska Constitutional Convention as his greatest achievement. Of course, that was far from Jack's only recognition. He held an honorary doctorate from the University of Alaska and was elected to Junior Achievement's Small Business Hall of Fame.

One of Jack's six children is John Coghill, a friend whom I served with in the Alaska Legislature and who serves as a member of the Alaska State Senate today. John remembers his father as ``a firm believer in utilizing Alaska's natural resources to build a strong economy and provide good paying jobs for Alaska . . . He had the same passion for Alaska, even at 93.''

With the passing of Jack Coghill, only one of the signers of the Alaska Constitution, Victor Fischer, remains alive today. While it is sad to part with a pillar of Alaska's history, an individual who was instrumental in Alaska's growth from its frontier, territorial days to today's modern State, we were blessed to have his leadership for so many years.

It is an honor to share just a brief glimpse of the story of Jack Coghill with my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, she was a mentor, communicator, historian, volunteer, role model, and a friend with an incredible memory of Alaska history, a journalist, public servant, a Republican, a woman who had strong opinions and was not afraid to express them, a pillar of the community, a legend.

This weekend, the Pioneers of Alaska Fairbanks Igloo will remember Kathleen ``Mike'' Dalton who passed in January at the age of 93. I rise today to speak in memory of my friend, this woman named Mike, an oracle of Alaska history and at the same time a fixture of Alaska's political history.

So how does a girl get the name Mike? Mike was born to an Irish father who anticipated that he would have two children. One named Patricia, the other named Mike. Problem is that Mike's father had little control of the gender of his children. Mike's sister, the first of the children, was named Patricia. The second, who turned out to be a girl as well, was named Kathleen, but that stubborn Irish father would have nothing of it. Kathleen was ``Mike'' from the very beginning.

Mike grew up in Arizona. Her father worked on the Navajo Reservation as a carpenter and construction worker. She moved to Tucson to attend Catholic school at age 10 and graduated with a degree in English from Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. She followed a friend and schoolmate to Alaska, and as they say, the rest is history.

Mike acclimated well to the north and was quickly introduced to the sport of dog mushing. She met Jim Dalton, the son of a pioneer and Klondike gold rush legend and married him in 1950. Jim was an engineer who played a major role in development of the naval petroleum reserve on Alaska's North Slope. Jim and Mike lived in Barrow, now the community known as Utqiagvik, and had two children. They bought 30 acres in Fairbanks and built a loghouse. Jim continued to work on the North Slope. Mike stayed in Fairbanks to raise the children, but ever ingenious, she found ways to hitch a ride to see Jim. She made 12 trips above the Arctic Circle during the winter of 1968-1969.

Mike chose to live a full life in Fairbanks. She was a reporter for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, writing the first draft of Alaska's post-Statehood history. She covered all of the big events: the 1964 earthquake, the 1967 Fairbanks flood, the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay, and the construction of a 500-mile haul road that made oil production possible. That road is today known as the Dalton Highway, in acknowledgment of Jim Dalton's pioneering work on the North Slope. Jim died in 1977.

While Mike's writing endeared her to Alaskans, her greater contribution may be her decision to rescue all of the News-Miner's World War II era photo archives from a dumpster, after an editor new to Alaska, determined that they lacked historic value. Waiting until dark, she dove in, dusted the photos off, and preserved them.

She was recruited to stuff envelopes and lick stamps for Republican candidates, the stepping stone to a half century's leadership in the Fairbanks Republican Women's Club. Her email list was envied by all.

In 1964, the Fairbanks North Star Borough, a regional government for interior Alaska, was formed. Mike ran for a seat on the borough assembly, which is the borough's legislative body. She was the top vote getter. Turning to a career in government, Mike managed Senator Ted Stevens' interior Alaska field office from 1971-1978. She worked for another legend, who recently passed, Alaska State Senator Jack Coghill, and during the administration of Governor Jay Hammond, she relocated to Washington, DC, to manage Alaska's Washington office.

Returning to Alaska, she devoted her life to community service. In 1991, she worked for the city of Unalaska and helped organize the 50th commemoration of the Japanese occupation of the Aleutians. She helped organize the first American delegation visit to the Russian Far East and the Kamchatka Peninsula, hoping to improve ties between Russia and Alaska as the USSR came apart. Active in the Pioneers of Alaska, Mike recorded oral histories of Alaska's pioneers for the University of Alaska archives. She repatriated 24 paintings by Alaska's most famous artist, Sydney Laurence, back to Alaska. She was active in the campaign to settle Alaska Native land claims and was one of the first non- Natives to be honored by the Fairbanks Native Association.

Mike was about service to others, not glory to herself. She would drive 50 miles out of town to give a ride to a sourdough who needed it, deliver her prized oatmeal cookies to the seniors, chase after a dog gone astray. She went out to fix the culverts that collapsed under the weight of Alaska winter to prevent spring floods, and she raised money for the hospital. She was generous to newcomers who experienced difficulties in acclimating and a mentor to young women.

Upon Mike's induction to the Alaska Women's Hall of Fame in 2016, it was

remembered that Mike refused to attend an event honoring her 90th birthday because she was so adamantly opposed to self-aggrandizement.

The Alaska Women's Hall of Fame recognized Mike as a ``seemingly tireless activist whose efforts have made waves since her arrival in Alaska from Arizona in 1949 . . . As for Fairbanks, her home base for more than half a century Mike played a major part in shaping its social, political and economic future, as well as the state, while preserving a valuable part of our history.''

I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to share a brief glimpse into the extraordinary life of Mike Dalton in the U.S. Senate today.

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

Madam President, last week, I announced my intention to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 46. This is a resolution expressing disapproval of the President's February 15 proclamation of a national emergency. At that same time, I joined with my colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, along with the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen, in the introduction of the Senate companion, S.J. Res. 10.

I want to take just a few moments this afternoon and speak to my rationale not only for my statements but for my support for terminating the national emergency. It is, certainly, not based on disagreement over the issue of border security on our southern border. I recognize full well, along with, I believe, all of our colleagues here, the situation on the border and the humanitarian issues that face us. The issue that faces us with the level of those coming across our borders is not a sustainable situation, and, certainly, the influx of drugs that we are seeing in this community must be addressed.

Rather, my concern is, really, about the institution of the Congress and the constitutional balance of powers that, I think, are just fundamental to our democracy. In my view, it really comes down to article I of the Constitution. Article I, section 7, clause 8 reads: ``No

Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of Appropriation.''

This provision and the necessary and proper clause of article I, section 8, clause 18 and the taxing and spending clauses--article VIII, clause 1--are just generally regarded as the basis for the notion that the power to spend resides in the Congress. We say it around here--that the power of the purse rests with the Congress.

Of all of these three clauses that I have just articulated, the admonition that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriation is probably the clearest expression of the Framers' view that the executive has no power to spend money in a manner that is inconsistent with the intentions of the Congress.

Justice Story, in his 1883 Commentaries on the Constitution, characterized that clause as an important means of self-protection for the legislative department.

He went on to write:

The [legislature] has, and must have, a controlling

influence over the executive power, since it holds at its

command all of the resources by which the executive could

make himself formidable. It possesses the power of the purse

of the nation and the property of the people.

Again, he just very clearly articulates where these lanes of authority--these lanes of jurisdiction--reside.

This past weekend, on Sunday, a local newspaper, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, published an editorial. In that editorial, it was argued that our colleagues here in the Senate should vote for the resolution of disapproval. The editorial is entitled: ``A dangerous course: Congress shouldn't cede power to president in border funding dispute.''

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

Madam President, in support of the argument outlined in that headline, the News-Miner's editorial board wrote the following:

Encroachment by one branch on another and the consolidating

of power in one branch worried some of the Founders as they

crafted our system of independent yet interlocking government

branches. The Federalist Papers . . . contain references to

that concern.

The editorial board goes on to refer to Federalist No. 51, which reads:

The great security against a gradual concentration of the

several powers in the same department, consists in giving to

those who administer each department the necessary

constitutional means and personal motives to resist

encroachments of others. . . . Ambition must be made to

counteract ambition.

When you translate that into just plain old English, it basically means Congress is a coequal branch of government, and, as such, Congress should stand up for itself. That really is the reason--the root--of why I have announced my support for this resolution of disapproval. I think it is fair to say that we all have disagreements around here about all sorts of things that are part of the appropriations process, and, certainly, the issue of border funding or just border security is no exception.

Even if the fiscal year 2019 appropriations process had run smoothly, which it certainly did not, think about how we got to where we are right now. The President submitted his budget last year. He requested money for barriers on the border and other aspects of border security. The request went through the appropriations process. I serve on that subcommittee. In the Senate subcommittee, we advanced out of the committee the President's request. After 3 months of continuing resolutions, we ended up in a stalemate with the other body last year, calendar year 2018. In January, control of the other body changed. The stalemate continued until the lengthy negotiations concluded, which allowed both bodies to pass and for the President to agree to sign an appropriations package just several weeks ago in February.

Again, that appropriations package was, I think it is probably fair to say, the result of a great deal of back-and-forth between the House, the Senate, and the White House, but it was clearly something that did help to advance the priorities that the President had outlined with regard to the southern border.

I am quoting from a White House fact sheet here, which reads: ``Secured a number of significant legislative victories that further the President's effort to secure the Southern Border and protect our country.'' Chief among those victories was ``the bill provides $1.375 billion for approximately 55 miles of border barrier in highly dangerous and drug smuggling areas in the Rio Grande Valley, where it is desperately needed.''

So we are where we were on February 15 when the administration recognized that significant gains had been made, but I think we all know that the President believes very, very strongly that there is more that should be done, that must be done, and that will be done to address that.

Clearly, there was a disagreement between the Congress and the President about how much could be spent on border security in 2019. I think, in fairness, sticking up for Congress's power of the purse doesn't necessarily mean that it comes at the expense of border security. I believe very strongly we can

address the President's concerns--the very, very real and legitimate concerns that need to be addressed--but that we don't have to do it at the expense of ceding that authority, of ceding that power of the purse, of ceding that article I power that we have here.

There are ways that the President can advance his issues, and he has done so. He, certainly, has the prerogative to ask for supplemental appropriations. He has identified additional funding that is outside of the national emergency designation, or declaration, if you will.

He has identified additional funding--close to $3 billion--from other statutory authorities. These are the authorities under 10 U.S.C. 284(b), which is the counterdrug account, counterdrug funds. That will require a level of reprogramming through the appropriating committees, but that can be done outside of the national emergency. The other source of funding is the Treasury Forfeiture Fund through the Secretary of the Treasury under 31 U.S.C. 9705. So I think it is clear that there are avenues to enhance the funding opportunities to address the situation at the border.

The concern that many of us have raised is the designation in this third account--the designation of a national emergency--that would tap into funds that have already been designated for military construction projects, important construction projects that have been designated around the country. We certainly have many in my State of Alaska. We haven't seen the list that would perhaps outline with greater articulation where the Secretary of Defense might think it would be appropriate to delay some of these projects. But, again, I would just remind--these are projects that have perhaps already been delayed because of the Budget Control Act that has been in place for several years, so I think further delay for many of these projects would cause most concern.

So I come to the National Emergencies Act. I think there is a recognition that when this was adopted, was put into law, it was initially intended to rein in the President's ability to declare emergencies. But at the same time it authorized the President to declare national emergencies, it didn't ever clearly define the extent of that power. So that is an issue that I think we are dealing with right now. Implicit in this grant is the trust that the power will be used sparingly. I think that if you look back over the history, the 59 previous times these powers have been utilized, you can say they have been used sparingly. But also explicit is the authority for the Congress to terminate an emergency if the Congress believes it was imprudently declared, and that is basically where we are today.

Because Congress did not explicitly constrain the President's power to declare an emergency, many of the constitutional scholars--those who are trying to game this out--believe the President will ultimately prevail in the litigation that we are entirely certain will be seen in the courts.

The question for us to consider in this body is not whether the President could have declared an emergency but whether he should have and, again, the question relating to the redirection of military construction funds from our bases around the country to the southern border. These are the questions we are currently debating. But in the final analysis, I look at the issue we have in front of us, and this is really a very challenging place for us as a Congress, to be debating the constitutional powers of the Congress against a legislative agenda--a strong legislative agenda and an important one that the President has. But I have come to be quite concerned about where we are when it comes to precedent and the precedent that we may see unleashed. In many ways, I view this as an expansion of Executive powers by legislative acquiescence.

If we fail to weigh in, if we fail to acknowledge that this designation has gone beyond that which has previously been considered, if we go around, effectively, the will of Congress, where will it take us next? I think we need to think about that because it is so easy to get focused on where we are in the here and now and the situation we are dealing with today, but when we are pushing out those lanes of congressional authority, I think we need to be thinking clearly about what that may mean for future administrations and for future Congresses.

As the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my focus is very often on the energy sector, on the energy space, and so I have asked, if we were in a situation with a new President, what could be invoked if a new President should decide to exercise his or her emergency authorities as they relate to energy? It is entirely possible that a future President could declare a national emergency related to global climate change, speaking to a humanitarian crisis and what it might mean for national security. In fact, one of our colleagues from Massachusetts has already said as much--that a national emergency could be declared as relates to global climate change.

You have to ask the question. What would stop a future President from declaring an emergency and then directing the military to spend billions of dollars on renewable projects or refugee assistance? What is to stop a future President from targeting the Nation's oil and gas supply by cutting off exports and shutting down production on the Outer Continental Shelf?

I think we would all say: Well, we don't need to worry about that happening with our current President; he is not going to do any of those things. But the authorities technically would exist for all of them, and so it is concerning. It is concerning to me that a future President could use that to drive their agenda--again, without the consent of the Congress.

So I repeat--I am concerned that, as a Congress, as a legislative body, we would stand back and we would acquiesce in the use of a national emergency to resolve a disagreement between the executive and the legislative branches over the appropriate level of funding for a situation that likely exceeds what can be spent in our current fiscal year.

I know there will be continued discussion not only here in the Senate, in the Congress, but certainly around the country about these matters. I know some of my colleagues are interested in revisiting the scope of the National Emergencies Act, and that is clearly worth considering. But I firmly believe that one can be strongly for border security and at the same time question whether the administration has overreached in using the National Emergencies Act in the way that it has, and I find myself in that camp. That is why it is with great resolve that I support the adoption of the resolutions of disapproval.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, before I wrap for the end of the day at the request of the leader, I want to share my thanks, my appreciation--truly, my appreciation--for an action that the House just took up.

It was just about an hour or so ago that the House took up the bill that we had passed out of the Senate here, our lands and water conservation bill, which was a very significant measure of about 120 different conservation, lands, waters, and sportsmen's bills--all rolled into one package--that passed out of here by 92 to 8. It just passed out of the House by a significant, significant margin.

It is, I think, a real testament not only to the work that has been done within this body on a very strong bipartisan basis but, really, to the work that we have done with the House, in our working with the other body in a bipartisan, bicameral way. I think it goes a long way to showing that we really can come together as a Congress on issues that are important to each of us individually.

I give my thanks and my appreciation to Chairman Grijalva, to Mr. Bishop, who was the former chairman of that committee and who worked on this with us last year, and to all of their teams, as well as to the House leadership, which has helped to advance this to this moment in time.

We look forward to the President's signing that very, very shortly, and I know that it will come as a real positive moment for so many. I thank all who helped us with this.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the Miller nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.