November 6, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 177 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S6435-S6443]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of William Joseph Nardini, 
of Connecticut, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second 
Circuit.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, with respect to the Hunsaker nomination, I 
ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1743

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my 
concern and my disappointment over the decision by the President to 
formally withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement.
  Though the President announced this decision over 2 years ago, this 
past Monday marked the first day his administration could send a letter 
to the United Nations formalizing the year-long withdrawal process. Of 
course, we know that they did that.
  American leadership on climate action is being ceded to other 
countries before our very eyes. With this move, the President is 
betraying the trust of the American people and betraying the trust of 
our international allies in the fight against climate change.
  Climate change is a very real and present threat to our environment, 
to our national security, to our economy, to our health, and to our 
very way of life. That is why I introduced the International Climate 
Accountability Act, to prevent the President from using funds to 
withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. This 
bipartisan bill would also require the administration to develop a 
strategic plan for meeting the commitments we made in Paris in 2015.
  We can see on this chart that the House passed legislation over 6 
months ago. It has been 188 days since the House passed their 
legislation, the Climate Action Now Act. Yet in the Senate the majority 
leadership has refused to call up this bill for a vote.
  The administration's withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement and 
the general refusal to bring climate change legislation to the floor is 
out of step with the desires of the American people.
  Approximately two out of every three Americans believe it is the job 
of the Federal Government to combat climate change, according to a 
recent poll from the Associated Press. The same poll found that 64 
percent of Americans disapprove of the President's climate change 
policies.
  Unfortunately, the Senate majority leadership continues to refuse to 
act on climate change. Yet what we hear from our scientists and experts 
is that they tell us that we need to act and act now on climate change 
before it is too late. This poll shows us, as others have, that a 
supermajority of the American public wants us to do just that.
  I have come before this body a number of times in the past to 
highlight the impact of climate change in my home State of New 
Hampshire. We see very directly the effects of climate change. The 
farther north you go, the more you see those impacts. Our fall foliage 
season is shortened. Our maple syrup production season is disrupted. 
Our outdoor recreation industries are hampered. Our ski and our 
snowmobiling industries are hampered. Our lobsters are moving north to 
colder waters. Our moose population is

[[Page S6436]]

down 40 percent, and Lyme disease is on the rise.
  But today what I really want to highlight are the revelations that 
have been made clear in recent weeks by our national security experts. 
A report entitled ``Implications of Climate Change for the U.S. Army,'' 
which was commissioned by the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, GEN Mark Milley reads: ``The Department of Defense is 
precariously unprepared for the national security implications of 
climate change-induced global security challenges.''
  The Pentagon's ``Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the 
Department of Defense'' reads, as we can see right here: ``The effects 
of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential 
impacts to Department of Defense missions, operational plans, and 
installations.''
  When former Secretary of Defense James Mattis was before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearing in 2017, his 
testimony read, in part: ``Climate change is impacting stability in 
areas of the world where our troops are operating today.''
  I had the chance to ask him in that hearing: ``Do you believe climate 
change is a security threat?''
  He responded this way: ``Climate change can be a driver of 
instability, and the Department of Defense must pay attention to 
potential adverse impacts generated by this phenomenon.''
  He went on to say: ``Climate change is a challenge that requires a 
broader, whole-of-government response.''
  I could go on detailing the calamitous conclusions of our national 
security experts, but, instead, I ask unanimous consent that a letter 
addressed to the President from nearly 60 national security and 
military leaders be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        American Security Project,


                          The Center for Climate and Security,

                                                    March 5, 2019.
       Dear Mr. President: We write to you as former US national 
     security leaders to offer our support to our uniformed 
     military, civilian national security professionals, and 
     members of the scientific community, who across the past four 
     Administrations have found that climate change is a threat to 
     US national security.
       Climate change is real, it is happening now, it is driven 
     by humans, and it is accelerating. The overwhelming majority 
     of scientists agree: less than 0.2% of peer-reviewed climate 
     science papers dispute these facts. In this context, we are 
     deeply concerned by reports that National Security Council 
     officials are considering forming a committee to dispute and 
     undermine military and intelligence judgments on the threat 
     posed by climate change. This includes second-guessing the 
     scientific sources used to assess the threat, such as the 
     rigorously peer-reviewed National Climate Assessment, and 
     applying that to national security policy. Imposing a 
     political test on reports issued by the science agencies, and 
     forcing a blind spot onto the national security assessments 
     that depend on them, will erode our national security.
       It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform 
     to politics. Our officials' job is to ensure that we are 
     prepared for current threats and future contingencies. We 
     cannot do that if the scientific studies that inform our 
     threat assessments are undermined. Our national security 
     community will not remain the best in the world if it cannot 
     make decisions based on the best available evidence.
       When extreme weather hits the United States, it degrades 
     the fighting force. Just last year, Hurricane Florence caused 
     $3.6 billion in damages to Camp Lejeune, home of the Marines' 
     expeditionary units on the East Coast. You called Florence 
     ``One of the biggest to ever hit our country.'' Stronger 
     storms and storm surges have long featured in predictions 
     about a changing climate. Around the world, climate change is 
     a ``threat multiplier''--making other security threats worse. 
     Its effects are even used by our adversaries as a weapon of 
     war; ISIS used water shortages in Iraq, in part driven by a 
     changing climate, to cement their hold on the population 
     during their reign of terror from 2014 to 2017.
       We support the science-driven patriots in our national 
     security community who have rightly seen addressing climate 
     change as a threat reduction issue, not a political one, 
     since 1989. We support the bipartisan finding of the US 
     Congress, which you signed into law on December 2017, stating 
     that ``climate change is a direct threat to the national 
     security of the United States.'' We urge you to trust and 
     heed the analysis of your own national security agencies and 
     the science agencies on which their assessments depend, 
     including the 21 senior defense officials that have 
     identified climate change as a security threat during your 
     Administration. A committee designed to undermine the many 
     years of work they have done will weaken our ability to 
     respond to real threats, putting American lives at risk.
       Our climate will continue to change, and the threats will 
     continue to grow. We spent our careers pledged to protect the 
     United States from all threats, including this one. Let's 
     drop the politics, and allow our national security and 
     science agencies to do their jobs.
           Sincerely,
         Hon. John Kerry, Former Secretary of State; Hon. Ray 
           Mabus, Former Secretary of the Navy; General Gordon R. 
           Sullivan, US Army (Ret), Former Chief of Staff of the 
           US Army; Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, USN (Ret), 
           Former Commander, US Pacific Command; Admiral James 
           Stavridis, USN (Ret), Former Supreme Allied Commander 
           Europe; Nancy Soderberg, Former Deputy Assistant to the 
           President for National Security Affairs; Hon. Sharon 
           Burke, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
           Operational Energy; Hon. David Goldwyn, Former 
           Assistant Secretary of Energy and Special Envoy for 
           International Energy Affairs; Hon. Miranda AA 
           Ballentine, Former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
           (Installations, Environment, and Energy); Leon Fuerth, 
           Former National Security Adviser to the Vice President.
         Dr. Geoffrey Kemp, Former Special Assistant to the 
           President for National Security Affairs; General Paul 
           Kern, USA (Ret.), Former Commanding General, US Army 
           Materiel Command; Lieutenant General John Castellaw, 
           USMC (Ret), Former Chief of Staff, US Central Command; 
           Lieutenant General Arlen D. Jameson, USAF (Ret), Former 
           Deputy Commander, US Strategic Command; Lieutenant 
           General Norm Seip, USAF (Ret), Former Commander, 12th 
           Air Force; Hon. Sherri Goodman, Former Deputy Under 
           Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security); Hon. 
           Chuck Hagel, Former Secretary of Defense; Vice Admiral 
           Richard Truly, USN (Ret), Former Administrator of NASA; 
           Admiral Paul Zukunft, USCG (Ret), Former Commandant of 
           the Coast Guard; General Stanley McChrystal, USA (Ret), 
           Former Commander, US and International Security.
         Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick, USA (Ret), Former 
           Deputy National Security Advisor to the President of 
           the United States; Tom Hicks, Former Acting Under 
           Secretary of the Navy and Deputy Under Secretary of the 
           Navy for Management; Hon. John Conger, Former Principal 
           Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and 
           Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, 
           Installations and Environment; Eric Rosenbach, Former 
           Chief of Staff, Department of Defense, and Assistant 
           Secretary of Defense for Global Security; Vice Admiral 
           Dennis McGinn, USN (Ret), Former Assistant Secretary of 
           the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment; 
           Hon. Alice Hill, Former Special Assistant to the 
           President and Senior Director for Resilience Policy, 
           National Security Council; Major General Randy Manner, 
           USA (Ret), Former Acting Vice Chief, National Guard 
           Bureau; General Ron Keys, USAF (Ret), Former Commander, 
           Air Combat Command; Vice Admiral Philip Cullom, USN 
           (Ret), Former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Fleet 
           Readiness and Logistics.
         Lieutenant General Kenneth E. Eickmann, USAF (Ret), 
           Former Commander, Aeronautical Systems Center, 
           Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command; Vice Admiral 
           Robert C. Parker, USCG (Ret), Commander, Coast Guard 
           Atlantic Area; Greg Treverton, Former Chair, National 
           Intelligence Council; Major General Jerry Harrison, USA 
           (Ret), Former Chief, Office of Legislative Liaison, 
           Army Staff; Rear Admiral Leendert R. Hering USN (Ret), 
           Former Commander, Navy Region Southwest; Major General 
           Jeff Phillips, USA (Ret), Executive Director, Reserve 
           Officers Association; Rear Admiral Michael Smith, USN 
           (Ret), Former Commander, Carrier Strike Group 3; Rear 
           Admiral Jonathan White, USN (Ret), Former Oceanographer 
           & Navigator, US Navy; Captain James C. Goudreau, SC, 
           USN (Ret), Former Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
           the Navy (Energy); Brigadier General Steven Anderson, 
           USA (Ret), Former Director, Operations and Logistics 
           Readiness, Headquarters, Department of the Army.
         Brigadier General Donald Bolduc, USA (Ret), Former 
           Commander, Special Operations Command-Africa; Brigadier 
           General Robert Felderman, USA (Ret), Former Deputy 
           Director of Plans, Policy and Strategy, United States 
           Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense 
           Command; Brigadier General Carlos Martinez, USAF (Ret), 
           Former Mobilization Assistant, Chief of Warfighting 
           Integration and Chief Information Officer, Office of 
           the Secretary of the Air Force; Joan VanDervort, Former 
           Deputy Director, Ranges, Sea, and Airspace, Office of 
           the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness); 
           Commander David

[[Page S6437]]

           Slayton, USN (Ret), Executive Director, the Arctic 
           Security Initiative The Hoover Institution; Hon. 
           Richard Morningstar, Former Ambassador to the European 
           Union; Major General Richard T. Devereaux, USAF (Ret), 
           Former Director, Operational Planning, Policy and 
           Strategy, Headquarters US Air Force; Rear Admiral 
           Sinclair M. Harris, USN (Ret), Former Commander, United 
           States Fourth Fleet; Rear Admiral Michael G. Mathis, 
           USN (Ret), Chief Engineer to the Assistant Secretary of 
           the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition); Rear 
           Admiral Fernandez L. Ponds, USN (Ret), Commander, 
           Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) 3.
         Rear Admiral Kevin Slates, USN (Ret), Former Director of 
           Energy and Environmental Readiness Division, US Navy; 
           Rear Admiral David W. Titley, USN (Ret), Former 
           Oceanographer & Navigator, US Navy; Joe Bryan, Former 
           Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy); 
           Brigadier General John Adams, USA (Ret), Former Deputy 
           United States Military Representative to the North 
           Atlantic Treaty Organization Military Committee; 
           Brigadier General Joseph R. Barnes, USA (Ret), Former 
           Assistant Judge Advocate General of the Army; Brigadier 
           General Stephen Cheney, USMC (Ret), Former Commanding 
           General Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island; 
           Brigadier General Gerald E. Galloway, USA (Ret), Former 
           Dean of the Academic Board, US Military Academy, West 
           Point; Brigadier General Stephen Xenakis, USA (Ret), 
           Former Commanding General, Southeast Regional Medical 
           Command; Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, USA (Ret), 
           Former Chief of Staff to the US Secretary of State.

  This letter very directly rebukes the attempt by the President to 
create a committee within the National Security Council that would 
undermine military and intelligence judgments on the threats that are 
posed by climate change. So instead of recognizing those and developing 
a plan to address them, what the President has been trying to do is to 
figure out how to undermine those very judgments.
  At this time, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that 
the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 1743 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and 
passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I am reserving the right to object.
  With all due respect to my good friend and colleague from New 
Hampshire, we both served on the Foreign Relations Committee. The 
Foreign Relations Committee is, as it has been noted, the committee of 
jurisdiction on this matter. We are talking about the Paris climate 
agreement. What Senator Shaheen is attempting to do with this--and, 
again, with all due respect, I understand where she is coming from on 
it--is to stop the President from withdrawing from the Paris climate 
agreement that was made by his predecessor, President Obama.
  Let me say, first of all, that the Senator is right that the changes 
we are experiencing are great. They have large effects. They are of 
great magnitude. Just as importantly, the changes we make attempting to 
address this are going to have great magnitude. In a great magnitude, 
they are going to affect the American people both financially and in 
the quality of life and the lifestyle they enjoy.
  We can't do anything about the changes that are occurring right now, 
but what we can do is to do something about the way we attack this, the 
way we make changes to our lifestyle and what we will give up and what 
people are willing to give up in order to address this.
  The way this is done is nations get together to talk about this--the 
200 nations get together. They did, and they came up with the Paris 
climate agreement. Under article II of the U.S. Constitution, section 
2, the President is given the power to make treaties with other 
countries, and that is what President Obama attempted to do with this. 
However, section 2 goes on to say that the President can make these 
treaties provided two-thirds of the Senate present concur. So that is a 
treaty, and that is how ordinarily agreements are made between nations.
  Obviously, we can do things ourselves without having a two-thirds 
vote--with a 60-percent vote in the Senate and a simple majority vote 
in the House. We can do that amongst ourselves if we want to change 
U.S. law as to how we are going to change the way we do industry and 
the way we lead our lives. We can do that with that kind of a vote. If 
we are going to agree with other countries, on the other hand, it takes 
a two-thirds vote.
  Now, at the time this was negotiated, I disagreed with President 
Obama, and I disagree with the accord at this time. The reason I do is 
I really believe this is a bad deal for the people of the United 
States. I really believe we can get a better deal. I think what we need 
to do, if we are going to do that, is we need to do it on a bipartisan 
basis. There is not going to be a two-thirds vote without a bipartisan 
agreement on this issue.
  I would like to see this addressed. I would like to see us, as the 
Foreign Relations Committee, and us, as the first branch of government, 
constitutionally protected as such, be a part of this and not just the 
second branch negotiating and then entering into the agreement.
  The President has, No. 1, every right to withdraw from this 
agreement, just as President Obama had the right to enter into this 
executive agreement. I, for one, agree that he should withdraw from the 
Paris accord. In fact, I encouraged him to do so personally when he was 
running and then when he was elected and continuously since then. That 
doesn't mean we should walk away from this by any stretch of the 
imagination. I think what we should do is do what the U.S. Constitution 
envisions; that is, you have a negotiation between us, the United 
States, and other countries, and then the matter is submitted to the 
U.S. Senate for a vote to see if two-thirds of us can agree that this 
is the way to do this.
  So based on that, with all due respect to my good friend from New 
Hampshire, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am not surprised by my colleague's 
objection. I am, however, disappointed, and I have to disagree, to some 
extent, with the rationale because in fact this was not a treaty. It 
was a voluntary, nonbinding agreement that the United States entered 
into voluntarily.
  I am not saying President Trump doesn't have the authority to 
withdraw from the agreement. I am saying he is wrong to withdraw 
because it is not in the U.S. national interest to withdraw from this 
agreement.
  There is an international race to develop clean energy technologies 
and practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and this race 
exists, in large part, because of the goals that were established in 
the Paris climate agreement.
  Instead of leading the pack in this race, which the United States 
should be doing, the President has chosen to put us on the sidelines. 
We are going to watch our allies and our adversaries clamor to fill the 
void he has created. After decades of American leadership in clean 
energy technology innovations, other countries are now poised to 
develop new low-carbon technologies to help countries throughout the 
world meet their Paris commitments. Those could be American 
technologies. Those could be American jobs. Instead of being developed 
in the United States, too many of these new technologies and the jobs 
that go with them will be developed outside of our shores. This is a 
missed opportunity for the United States. It is a setback for the 
American economy and for American workers.
  The scientists are in agreement worldwide. Climate change is the 
single greatest environmental public health and economic challenge our 
world has ever faced. Right now, watching this President withdraw the 
United States from the Paris Agreement, sitting idly by, this Congress 
is surrendering American leadership in the fight against climate 
change.
  I hope that as time goes by, the President and our Republican 
colleagues will rethink the position and acknowledge the need to do 
something to address the climate challenge we are facing and to make 
sure the United States is in line for those jobs and the new energy 
economy that is being created.
  With that, I yield the floor.

[[Page S6438]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, first of all, I don't question the 
sincerity whatsoever of my good friend from New Hampshire. Indeed, she 
is quite correct that the United States has been a leader as far as 
developing methods by which we clean up the air and clean up the water.
  There is nothing that is happening here today, at this moment, that 
is going to affect that at all. American companies are going to 
continue to be on the front edge of this, on a very innovative basis, 
and I have every confidence that American businesses will rise to the 
occasion and will continue to actually be the world leader in this 
regard.
  What I object to is making an agreement with other countries that 
truly binds U.S. citizens by doing it without going through the 
constitutional process of submitting the agreement that is between our 
country and others, as is specifically--very specifically provided in 
article II, section 2.
  I think if we did that, I think we would wind up with a better 
agreement. I think we would wind up with a bipartisan agreement. We all 
know that when we have a bipartisan agreement, we do substantially 
better as far as rising to the occasion and all getting behind the 
effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, yesterday a bipartisan group met with 
seven Fortune 500 companies. They were all on the cutting edge of new 
energy technologies, and everyone around the table said what they need 
is to see policies at the Federal level that encouraged the development 
of new energy technologies and what we can do to address climate 
change.
  I like what my colleague said about being able to work together to 
address this. I hope we can do that, and I am ready to sit down anytime 
he is to look at things we might be able to agree on that will help us 
move forward to address climate change. I appreciate his willingness to 
work in a bipartisan way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                              Veterans Day

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise this evening to pay tribute to 
all the men and women who have worn our Nation's uniform in defense of 
our freedom. Veterans Day is a deeply meaningful day for our Nation. 
Our country sets this day aside to honor her servicemembers.
  In Nebraska, we remember the sacrifices of our own heroes. We admire 
the courage required to leave your home in Nebraska and serve America 
in her hour of need. It was over 100 years ago, at the 11th hour, on 
the 11th day, during the 11th month of the year that the roars of 
battle in World War I fell silent. Since then, Nebraskans and all 
Americans have come together every year to renew our appreciation for 
our Nation's heroes. We pledge that no matter how much time has passed, 
we will never forget their valor, their service, and their 
selflessness.
  In June, it was one of the greatest honors of my life to gather at 
freedom's altar in Normandy, France, to commemorate the 75th 
anniversary of D-day. I was overwhelmed with both gratitude and pride 
for our men and women who ensure that our freedom lives on, and evil is 
vanquished.
  Now, 75 years earlier, minutes from where I was standing, Omaha's own 
CPL Ed Morrissette arrived at the beaches of Normandy with the 6th 
Infantry Regiment. As the Omaha World Herald reports, ``He leaped over 
the side of the landing craft into shoulder-deep water, carrying a roll 
of communications wire.''
  Morrissette recalled holding the wire and his rifle above the water 
as he waded through, dodging an onslaught of enemy artillery fire. By 
the grace of God, he completed his mission, and he survived the 
Normandy invasion.
  Corporal Morrissette continued fighting for our Nation in France and 
Germany. Following the war, his career as a civilian engineer 
eventually led him to Offutt Air Force Base. Recently, his courage and 
his dedication were recognized.
  At the age of 96, the Government of France awarded Corporal 
Morrissette the highest military or civilian medal--the French Legion 
of Honor. Corporal Morrissette's story inspires all of us to remember 
that our duty to honor our Nation's heroes is never finished. The 
responsibility falls to all of us to listen to their stories and to 
carry them on. Not only do we honor our troops with our words, we 
salute them with our actions.
  Nebraskans have always taken this to heart. It is why you read 
stories like that of Chuck Ogle from Kearney. He was a pilot in the 
498th U.S. Army Medical Corps air ambulance company during the Tet 
Offensive in Vietnam. Every single day, he carries with him a list of 
his 14 fellow servicemembers who were killed in action. It is why you 
see stories of hero flights for Nebraska veterans to visit Washington, 
DC.
  Last October, a plane carried 80 Korean veterans from Hall County to 
our Nation's Capital to visit the monuments dedicated to their service. 
This marked the 10th flight for the county's veterans to Washington. 
Now, every living veteran in Hall County has been given the opportunity 
to make this trip. It is why over the last few years business leaders 
and members of the Omaha community rallied around the goal of building 
a new ambulatory clinic at the Omaha VA hospital.

  In response to delays to update the aging Omaha VA facility, I 
introduced and President Obama signed into law the CHIP IN for Vets Act 
in 2016. The bill allows control of VA projects to be placed where it 
should be--back in the hands of local communities. It allows 
communities like Omaha to take the lead on new projects by permitting 
the VA to accept private contributions to ensure VA projects are 
finished both on time and on budget. Omaha's community and business 
leaders came up with this idea in the first place, and they have 
delivered.
  Construction began on a new ambulatory center on the Omaha VA campus 
in May of 2018. After the original cost estimate of $120 million, the 
Government Accountability Office released a preliminary report that 
found that the implementation of the CHIP IN for Vets Act would reduce 
the total estimated cost to $86 million. The report projected that the 
new facility is now $34 million under budget and it is 4\1/2\ months 
ahead of schedule.
  In the same report, a VA official stated that because of the agency's 
current major construction backlog, the CHIP IN approach allowed work 
on the Omaha project to begin at least 5 years sooner than it would 
have under a normal process. Now Nebraska's veterans may get the 
quality of care they need and deserve earlier than expected. The 
success of this project is a testament to the deep respect and 
admiration Nebraskans have for our veterans.
  Scripture encourages us to pay our dues wherever they may be. If 
someone is due respect, show them respect. If honor is due, honor them. 
The amount of honor and respect our State and Nation owe our veterans 
is something we can never fully repay. Our country could not live on 
without their service and sacrifice.
  I want to sincerely thank our veterans for their service when our 
country needed it the most.
  Whether it was in the trenches of Europe while liberating a continent 
from evil or in the Pacific theater during World War II or stopping the 
threat of communism in Korea or Vietnam or defending our Nation against 
terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rescue of human freedom began 
with you. I can promise you that America will never forget your 
incredible courage and patriotism, and we will continue to strive to be 
worthy of the freedom that burns brighter today because of your 
service. On behalf of all Nebraskans and a grateful country, thank you.
  May God bless our Nation's veterans and their families, and may God 
bless the United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
as in morning business for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. You know, we don't hear that very often. I just heard the 
term from the Senator from Nebraska ``under budget and ahead of 
schedule.''

[[Page S6439]]

  You did something right. Good for you.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. President, I have been asked several times in the last couple, 3 
days where we are with regard to what I consider to be the most 
significant bill of the year every year, which is the Defense 
authorization bill, and I have been having to give the same answer for 
the last 3 or 4 days, and it is unfortunate, but I think it is going to 
ultimately happen.
  Last week, I came down here and I talked about why we needed to pass 
the National Defense Authorization Act and why a full-year continuing 
resolution is totally unacceptable and would be devastating to us. I am 
back here again because in the last week, nothing has changed. That is 
not OK. The reason it has not changed is because many of the Members of 
the House are off someplace. I think they are in Afghanistan or 
someplace on a trip when we are in the middle of negotiating.
  Let me just make sure we all understand what I am talking about. For 
58 consecutive years, we passed the national defense authorization 
bill, so we will ultimately pass it. We did that. And I have to say 
that this is not a partisan statement I am making about this because 
the House and Senate Democrats and Republicans did a good job.
  I particularly want to thank Jack Reed. Jack Reed and I--I am the 
chairman of the committee, and he is the ranking member--did our bill 
in record time. We set a record, actually, a year ago. We did this in a 
shorter period of time than has been done in 40 years, and we were 
anticipating doing that again. We did our bill in the Senate, and 
everything came out fine. We ended up passing it with only two votes in 
opposition to it. So there is no reason we are not doing it right now.
  The reason this is critical is that if for some reason we didn't get 
this done until December, our kids over there would not be funded. I am 
talking about payroll and everything else. Our military would stop in 
its tracks. That is not going to happen. One reason we know it is not 
going to happen is because we introduced the short version of the bill 
that upset everyone. That was taking everything out of the bill that 
had nothing to do with defense and just doing it. That is getting kind 
of in the weeds, and it is complicated. Nevertheless, we need to get to 
it just in a matter of days now, as soon as the members of the 
committee in the House are back in town.
  What kind of a message do my Democratic colleagues think they are 
sending our troops who lay their lives on the line every day if we 
don't prioritize their pay, their housing, and their programs to care 
for their families while they are away? What kind of a message do our 
Democratic colleagues think we are sending our allies and our partners, 
those who depend on us? What kind of a message are we sending those who 
are not our allies?
  This is the problem we are having. I say to the Democrats in the 
House--because it is not the Republicans in the House, and it is not 
the Democrats in the Senate. This is just the Democrats in the House. 
We passed our bill in a bipartisan way here in the Senate, and we just 
need to get this finished. It is the most important bill of the year.
  Now they claim we are not supporting our partners in Syria, and then 
they turn around on a dime and refuse to authorize the very funds that 
keep our partners safe and effective in the fight against ISIS.
  I am concerned about the kind of message our colleagues are sending 
to our adversaries. Our adversaries enjoy this dysfunction. They want 
defense funding mired in partisan debate. They don't want us to catch 
up.
  If we don't take action now, partisan bickering over supporting our 
troops and investing in national defense will be our Achilles' heel.
  At the end of the day, these challenges won't go away because we want 
them to go away. They are out there. To meet these challenges, our 
troops need equipment, training, and weapons.
  Everything is outlined in this blueprint. This is the blueprint that 
is the National Defense Strategy of the Nation. This was put together 
by an equal number of Democrats and Republicans well over a year ago as 
to how we want to handle our national defense and what our strategy is 
going to be. The President adopted this, it is a good strategy, and we 
have been following this in our committee to the letter.
  We have this National Defense Strategy Commission report. There is a 
quote from GEN Creighton Abrams, a military leader from World War II on 
through Vietnam. His name may sound familiar because the Abrams tank 
was named after him. He talked about how after World War II the United 
States failed to properly modernize and train our military. And who 
paid for it? Our soldiers, airmen, Marines, and sailors. They paid for 
it with their lives. He said: ``The monuments we raise to their heroism 
and sacrifice are really surrogates for the monuments we owe ourselves 
for our blindness to reality . . . for our unsubstantiated wishful 
thinking about how war could not come.''
  That is exactly what happened. It was true then, and it is true now. 
So to say that these things can wait while the House goes on another 
recess or to use them as a bargaining chip or to forgo them to instead 
wage war on our own President is at best a waste of time and resources 
and at worse a dangerous abdication of our constitutional duty.
  Unfortunately, the truth is, if we kick the can down the road on 
these defense policy and funding bills, we are just adding another 
challenge to our defense.
  We were off to a great start last year. Defense appropriations were 
enacted on time for the first time in a decade, and, as I said, we 
passed the NDAA over here faster than we had ever done in 40 years.
  All of the service leaders who came before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee said that having on-time appropriations and authorization is 
critical to rebuilding the force. We have the National Defense Strategy 
and the commission report as a roadmap. We have a budget deal. There is 
no reason we can't get this done. There is no good reason our 
Democratic colleagues are dragging their feet. Our senior military 
leaders said that a continuing resolution is absolutely the worst thing 
we can do.
  By the way, a lot of people don't know what a continuing resolution 
is. If you pass a continuing resolution because you can't get 
appropriations bills passed, then you are continuing what you did the 
previous year. That doesn't work when you are carrying on a military 
because the needs we have in the coming year are not the same needs. We 
could have those programs already complete. Yet we would still have 
funding for them under a continuing resolution. It is a separate issue, 
but it is one that is critically important today and is being 
considered today.
  So I am surprised that the Democrats in the House--not the Senate. 
The Senate Democrats and Republicans worked very well together. I am 
surprised that the Democrats in the House are willing to resort to a 
full-year CR. It is throwing in the towel. It is quitting when our 
troops need us the most.
  My Republican colleagues in the House, led by House Armed Services 
Ranking Member Thornberry, put out this document that talks about how 
America's military will be damaged under a full-year CR. No one has 
talked about this before. I am glad he came out with it. I will mention 
five examples that he mentioned.
  It would extend the pilot shortage in our Air Force--extend, because 
we are still climbing out of the current shortage. We have a problem. 
We have a problem in the Air Force, and we have a problem everywhere we 
are using flying equipment, whether it is fixed wing or otherwise. This 
is a problem, and it is a serious problem. If we were to somehow have 
to do a full-year CR, that problem wouldn't be solved.
  It would prevent the military from managing its personnel, including 
necessary efforts to grow the force, pay for military moves, and lock 
in bonuses for our troops. That won't happen if we end up with a full-
year CR.
  It would force the Navy to cancel ship maintenance and training. 
Repairs for 14 ships would be canceled.
  It would worsen the existing munitions shortage by preventing DOD 
from buying more than 6,000 weapons.
  Finally, we would fall even further behind our competitors on 
hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence, and next-generation 
equipment that we need to face all the challenges I just talked about.

[[Page S6440]]

  With regard to hypersonic weapons, as an example, I saw the other day 
for the first time--in fact, I used this picture down on the Senate 
floor. A hypersonic weapon is kind of the weapon of the future. It is 
one that works at 5 times the speed of sound. It is a type of 
artillery. It is a type of munition.
  Prior to the last administration, the Obama administration, we were 
ahead of our peer competitors, which are China and Russia. Now we are 
actually behind China and Russia. That is how serious this is.
  I talk to people in the real world. When I go back to Oklahoma, I 
talk to people, and they assume that we in the United States have the 
very best of everything. We don't. We have allowed other countries--
primarily China and Russia--to catch up with us and actually put us 
behind in some areas, not to mention the waste of taxpayer dollars.
  A CR wastes billions of dollars by creating repetitive work, 
injecting uncertainty into the contracting process, and forcing rushed 
work at year's end. It is something that is totally unnecessary and is 
something that should not be happening.
  I have been meeting with my fellow conferees regularly--more than we 
ever have before NDAA negotiations. I am making sure we have a backup 
plan if we can't reach an agreement on the NDAA, but time is running 
out.
  Here is the reality. We only have 20 legislative days left in the 
Senate. The House has even less than that because of the recess week 
they took. If the House sends us articles of impeachment, that would 
eat up all the time in December and could spill into January. That 
would mean we go beyond the deadline our troops need to be funded, and 
that is a reality we never had to face before.
  We don't have time left. We need to make these bills a priority the 
way we always have done before. The NDAA has passed for the last 58 
years. It is the most important thing we do each year.
  In June, the Senate bill passed 86 to 8. That is a landslide, and 
that was not down party lines; that was on a bipartisan basis. I am 
grateful to the Senate Democrats for their partnership and their work 
in creating and passing this bipartisan bill. Jack Reed is my 
counterpart over there. He is the ranking member in the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. We worked hand in glove throughout this process and 
even set records. We did our job, and it has to be completed in the 
House. This happened in line with the best traditions of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee--a tradition that spans almost six decades.
  Usually, this is a bipartisan process; both sides give and take. So 
it concerns me to see partisan politics being inserted into this must-
pass bill when we go to conference between the House and the Senate. It 
concerns me to see Democrats filibustering Defense appropriations to 
prove a political point. It concerns me to see them prioritizing their 
misguided attempts to undo the results of the 2016 election through 
impeachment, instead of taking care of our troops with the NDAA. If we 
can't keep Defense authorizations free of partisan gridlock, what kind 
of message does that send to Americans who rely on our troops for 
protection and our allies who rely on us?
  I said before: The world is watching. We are sending a message. We 
need to make that a successful message.
  Let me say one more thing about the skinny bill. This is now a 
reality. When I filed this, we thought the chances we would have to use 
that were very remote. If they should go through with this thing they 
are threatening to do over on the House side--an impeachment process--
people don't realize that if you want to impeach somebody, it not a 
simple vote of the majority. It is the second step that is significant. 
If they impeach, they don't have to have any evidence, any 
documentation, any problem at all if they just want to get the majority 
of people and say: Let's impeach the President, they can say: We will 
impeach the President.
  The problem there is, then it comes over to the Senate, and the 
Senate has to go through this long process, and that is what we would 
be competing with when we are not getting the Defense authorization 
bill done. The skinny bill is important. It is now filed. It is ready 
to pass, if we should have to do that. Nobody wants to do it, but we 
may end up having to do it. That is the good news and the bad news. 
This is the most important bill of the year. We need to get it passed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee for his bipartisan work with my senior Senator, Jack 
Reed, year after year on the National Defense authorizations.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. President, this 257th ``Time to Wake Up'' speech reports on my 
trip to Colorado to see how climate change is affecting the Centennial 
State and to learn more about the remarkable action that Coloradans are 
taking to confront climate change.
  Colorado is the 18th State I have visited on my climate road trips. 
Typically, these trips land me in States where people fighting for 
climate action need some bucking up. Often, I remind those people that 
there is hope, even if their State legislature may be captured by 
fossil fuel interests, even if climate change is a dirty word in local 
hangouts. That was not the case in Colorado. In fact, it is a State on 
a major climate change winning streak.
  Coloradans were the ones bucking me up. I saw that right off the bat 
at the Alliance Center in downtown Denver. The center's chief operating 
officer, Jason Page, took me around this LEED-certified space, which is 
part business incubator, part rallying point for an array of 
organizations fighting for climate action in Colorado and throughout 
the country. Jason and his colleagues hosted me and local environmental 
leaders to discuss the work they have done, and they have done a lot.
  Just in the last year, Colorado passed and signed into law seven 
important climate and clean energy bills. They include legislation to 
set targets for cutting the State's climate pollution relative to 2005 
levels by at least 90 percent by 2050. The legislature passed four 
measures to boost the adoption of electric vehicles, and it passed 
bills to help move to new energy-efficient home appliances, to ease the 
transition to renewable energy for Xcel, Colorado's largest utility, 
and to collect long-term climate data so the State can craft even more 
smart legislation to combat climate change and build resiliency to 
climate consequences.
  To hear how Colorado is going to hit its renewable targets, I met 
with Xcel, State public utility commissioners, and Gov. Jared Polis. 
Their message to me was simple: It is a challenge, and we are going to 
do it. They certainly aren't backing away from the challenge. On top of 
the State's renewable goal, Xcel has committed to an 80-percent cut in 
carbon emissions across its portfolio by 2030 and to reach 100 percent 
carbon-free energy by 2050. Xcel, supported by the Colorado Public 
Utilities Commission, is now incorporating the social cost of carbon--a 
key measure of the long-term damage done by carbon pollution--into its 
planning process.
  On top of forward-looking policy, Colorado is fortunate to be a 
leader in developing clean energy technology. For that, I visited 
Panasonic's Pena Station NEXT project, they call it. It is a 
collaboration between the city of Denver, the utility Xcel, the Denver 
International Airport, the State Department of Transportation, and 
Panasonic. The project is designed to show what a smart city powered by 
renewable energy looks like. It includes two megawatts of solar, a 
massive battery storage system, which I am looking at right here, a 
facility to test autonomous vehicles, and an operation center that can 
integrate all that technology for better efficiency.
  At the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, I saw some of 
the most advanced wind, solar, and other renewable energy technologies 
in the world. This National Lab is testing the next generation of wind 
turbines, hydrogen fuel cells, autonomous vehicles, solar panels, smart 
grid technology, and more. NREL's job isn't just to develop these 
technologies but also to help private industry adopt them, bringing 
clean energy to scale and creating jobs in the process.
  This is me at NREL. I am painting a solar-activated fluid that they 
have come up with onto a plate and instantly generating energy from the

[[Page S6441]]

lamp coming above. As I painted it, you could see the dials come up as 
energy was generated off that freshly painted plate. It was like 
putting nail polish down on a surface. They are doing some pretty 
amazing stuff. At NREL, I could not help but notice a familiar logo, 
TPI Composites, a company that makes top-of-the-line composite 
materials in Rhode Island. Naturally, because NREL needs the best, they 
work with this company with a Rhode Island footprint to develop next-
generation materials. I am proud to report that our Composites Alliance 
of Rhode Island includes TPI. They have a big role in building wind 
turbine blades and other technologies.
  Colorado feels this urgency because the Mountain West is feeling the 
effects of climate change more and more every day. I met with leading 
climate scientists for a briefing at the National Center for 
Atmospheric Research in Boulder, overlooking the Flatirons at the feet 
of the Rocky Mountains. NCAR's Doctors James Done, Laura Reed, Daniel 
Swain, Jackie Schuman, and Bill Mahoney told me about their important 
research into climate change's effects in the West; how vegetation is 
withering; how wildfires grow more frequent, have longer duration and 
are more intense; how hydrology changes as weather patterns shift and 
temperatures rise throughout the region; and how extreme weather events 
like sudden downpours and prolonged droughts are becoming a new 
unfortunate normal.
  In Fort Collins, I met with truly dedicated public servants from 
across the Federal Government who specialize in land management and 
climate adaptation and have gotten together to coordinate their 
efforts. These exceptional public servants spent their careers 
protecting our public lands. They are witnessing firsthand the 
devastation wrought on our public lands by climate change. They 
described to me their battles to safeguard stands of old-growth 
sequoias--a national treasure--and to rebuild beaches and dunes in the 
face of rising seas and stronger oceanic storms and even to cover 
melting glaciers with sheeting to try to help prevent them from melting 
quite so quickly.
  They love these lands. They work all their lives to help and save and 
protect these lands. They do everything in their power to honor and 
serve these lands. The fact that they battle on in spite of the 
heartbreaking pace and severity of the destruction climate change is 
causing is a human inspiration.
  Speaking of inspiration, I closed out my trip with an event organized 
by the group POW--Protect Our Winters--to hear what climate change 
means to the winter sports and outdoor industry. Skiers, snowboarders, 
and industry executives told me about the climate threat to the 
multibillion-dollar winter sports industry in Colorado, which relies on 
plenty of snow and cold weather to thrive. Professional skier Cody 
Cirillo told me:

       I fear there will be no more snow by the end of the 
     century. I fear a whole ski culture will cease to exist. I 
     fear economic impacts on Summit County and all other mountain 
     towns. I fear the loss of an industry that has given me so 
     much. . . . I fear the kids will not get the opportunity to 
     see a first snow, to feel winter's inaugural bite on the 
     nose, and to miss out on so many wonderful lessons.

  These fears are driving Cody and other world-class athletes to speak 
out. He and his fellow POW members aren't giving in; they are speaking 
up.
  There are many reasons Coloradans are acting on climate and 
transitioning their energy mix away from fossil fuels. Colorado has the 
benefit of fossil fuels, but Coloradans want to protect their 
beautiful, natural landscape. They want to sustain their winter sports 
and hospitality industries. They want a healthy, prosperous future for 
their children, and they understand the risks of developing and using 
those fossil fuels. They also recognize that there are strong forces 
coming in the energy market--forces that will shift away from fracked 
natural gas and coal to carbon-free wind and solar. Coloradans know it 
is better to lead that shift than to wait until the bottom drops out.
  We have known for a while that coal is facing big problems. Murray 
Energy, which is a major coal company with cozy ties to the Trump 
administration, just filed for bankruptcy last week. Alarms are going 
off about natural gas, which is a type of fuel that the fossil fuel 
industry touts as less dirty.
  In Boulder, Paul Bodnar, the managing director of the Rocky Mountain 
Institute, highlighted a report RMI issued in September showing just 
how quickly this shift, this cost reduction across the renewable 
spectrum, is going to make the economics of natural gas untenable.
  RMI's report foretells of ``a turning point for the relative 
economics of clean energy resources (including wind, solar, storage; 
energy efficiency; and demand flexibility) versus new gas-fired 
generation.''
  The report continues: ``For the first time, the rapidly falling costs 
of renewables and batteries are allowing optimized combinations of 
these resources . . . to systematically outcompete gas-fired generation 
on a cost basis while providing all the same grid services.'' The 
``same grid services'' means the same reliability and the same 
availability but at a lower cost.
  Here is a graph showing how fast clean energy will overtake gas 
plants.
  This has been the falling cost of clean energy. This is the cost of 
building and operating a new gas plant. This is the cost of operating 
an existing gas plant. So we are now at the crossover point where it is 
cheaper to use renewables--clean energy power--than it is to build new 
natural gas plants.
  Setting aside the pollution and the other extraneous costs, all of 
which economists would call externalities that come with burning 
natural gas, which is the methane leakage, the CO2 from the 
burn--all of it--on even just the heavily subsidized existing natural 
gas pricing, clean energy still beats them right now. They are 
projecting that it is going to go ahead, and by about 2035, it will be 
cheaper to build a new clean energy power facility than it will be to 
continue to feed natural gas into your existing, already built, 
depreciated natural gas facilities. Just on price is where we are 
going. So somebody building natural gas facilities into this projected 
future has a real problem on his hands.
  RMI has found that clean energy resources beat on price alone--on 
price--over 80 percent of proposed gas-fired powerplant capacity, and 
that clean energy will render 70 percent of proposed gas plants 
``uneconomic''--can't compete--just on price by 2035. In other words, 
it will not make sense even to run, let alone build, those uneconomic 
natural gas plants. They will be shuttered, stranded assets, which will 
deal a financial blow to the company or the investors who own them, and 
if the utilities can shove that cost through to their consumers, it 
will leave consumers in the lurch. If over half of your fleet is 
stranded, that is catastrophic for a utility company just on the 
economics.
  It actually gets worse for natural gas in a new investigation by the 
watchdog group Unearthed, based on data from a very respected fossil 
fuel industry firm, the expert consulting firm Rystad. Based on 
Rystad's data, the new report finds that the big oil companies' 
promises to curb the methane emissions from natural gas extraction 
appear to be completely bogus. The report found that the biggest 
industry players, including ExxonMobil and BP, were among the worst 
when it comes to wasting and burning off methane.
  Natural gas is facing a double whammy. First, natural gas is 
worsening our climate crisis faster than we knew, and some of our 
biggest fossil fuel companies are driving the problem.
  Now, while we are finding out how the fossil fuel industry has misled 
us about its methane emissions and about how much leakage and burning 
off there is, we are being treated to the spectacle of one of the 
biggest fossil fuel industry trade groups--the American Petroleum 
Institute--in its launching of a seven-figure ad campaign to convince 
America that ``we're are on it.'' We are America's natural gas 
industry, and we are on it when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.
  Well, it is on it not so much, apparently.
  This ad campaign looks like just more fossil fuel industry 
disinformation. It is an industry that just can't seem to help itself 
from saying things that aren't true.
  Anyway, if you pair natural gas's rapidly becoming ``uneconomic'' 
against renewables with emerging data

[[Page S6442]]

showing a much bigger methane problem for the industry, that pairing--
that combined result--is very gloomy for natural gas investors. That is 
why, in getting back to Colorado, it is such a smart move to unhitch 
your energy market from those fuels while you can.
  A savvy move, Colorado.
  Across this country, Americans are already acting on climate. In the 
face of the President's extraordinarily ill-advised decision to pursue 
a departure from the Paris Agreement, States, municipalities, and major 
corporations are all standing up and saying: Nope, we are still in.
  They get the problem that we face, and they get how important it is. 
It is time for us in the Senate to join them in waking up and coming up 
with a solution to this evident problem.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


  Tribute to Joshua Hall, Jennifer Childress, Dawn Wilcox, and Angie 
                                 Wright

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is one of my favorite times during 
the week, when I get to come to the Senate floor--I know it is the 
pages' favorite time--to talk a little bit about Alaska and talk about 
my State and present what we weekly call the ``Alaskan of the Week.''
  It is the opportunity to talk about someone in the community who has 
done something great for their community, for the State, maybe for 
America, and I would like to recognize this great variety of wonderful 
Alaskans, great Americans, whom we have in my State and talk about 
them.
  By the way, I always like to give a little update on what is going on 
in Alaska and to talk to people who are in the Gallery and who are 
watching on TV and encourage them--now is the time to plan your next 
trip to Alaska if you are going to come next summer. But, also, you 
should know that winter, which is coming--it has pretty much come to 
Alaska--is a great time to visit too. It is a winter wonderland. You 
can ski, snowboard, and at end of the day, sit back and drink something 
warm and watch the northern lights dance in the sky. You can't do that 
in many States in our great Nation. So come on up for the trip of a 
lifetime. We want you to come whether it is summer, winter, fall, 
spring; it doesn't matter. You will not be disappointed if you come 
visit us in the great State of Alaska.
  I am going to break the rules a little bit on the Alaskan of the Week 
because I usually recognize one, but today I am going to recognize four 
extraordinary Alaskans. They are four teachers in my State who are the 
recent recipients of the Presidential Award for Excellence in 
Mathematics and Science Teaching. Joshua Hall is a math teacher at 
Dimond High School in Anchorage and the chair of the math program 
there. Jennifer Childress is also a teacher at Dimond, teaching science 
and engineering courses. She currently teaches 11th and 12th grade 
physics and Advanced Placement physics. Dawn Wilcox teaches second 
grade at Campbell Elementary School in Anchorage, and Angie Wright 
teaches 4th and 5th grade math at Auke Bay Elementary in Juneau, AK.
  We are very, very proud of them. This is a great achievement for all 
four of these wonderful teachers.
  This award is the highest honor bestowed by the U.S. Government 
specifically for K-12 science, technology, engineering, mathematics, 
and computer science teaching--something we need more of, not just in 
Alaska but in America. And we need great teachers who can do this, and 
that is what this award recognizes.
  As any State has--Alaska, North Dakota--we have thousands of teachers 
in my State who do such great work day in and day out to make sure our 
next generation is not only educated on the facts but who also 
understand, in the words of the great leader Nelson Mandela, 
``Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the 
world.'' Nelson Mandela said that.
  These four teachers have been working hard every day for years so 
that their students will go out and do just that--change the world; 
make Alaska, America, the world a better place.
  They, as well as our teachers all across the country, all across 
Alaska, certainly have one of the most important and most difficult 
jobs, so we salute all of them, but I want to salute these four 
teachers in a little bit more detail. They have chosen not only to 
master these science, engineering, physics subjects, but to teach it to 
the next generation.
  Despite a slight improvement in the STEM skills of Americans over the 
last 20 years, it is widely recognized that the United States is still 
being outpaced by countries all over the world in these critical 
subject matters.
  Now, more than ever, our country desperately needs skilled Americans, 
skilled professionals, who can innovate for our Nation, who can improve 
our Nation's infrastructure, advance our healthcare system, build the 
tools that defend our country, and ensure our Nation's prosperity and a 
strong economy. We need STEM education.
  There is so much to say about all four of these teachers, but let me 
give you a brief example of how they are teaching the youth of Alaska 
in these critical areas.
  Mr. Hall is a math teacher at Dimond High School who, by the way, has 
former students and fans in my office. This is a bit of a theme. A lot 
of these teachers have taught a lot of my staff right now, including 
Jesse here. Mr. Hall has been an educator for more than 20 years. He 
has been teaching math for the past 14 years at Dimond High, and as the 
department chair, he decided that the school needed an event where math 
students could show and take pride in the skills they are learning.
  He worked with another math teacher to design and organize a 
schoolwide math competition. They just had their fourth annual event, 
and 175 students participated. The audience cheered; students were 
excited. It was a huge deal. Studying math is really cool. It is great. 
Gosh, there were 175 students. So that is Mr. Hall.
  Mrs. Childress is also at Dimond High and also has a big fan base in 
my office of former students, including Jesse, I believe. She has 
taught for over 20 years, 14 of which have been teaching science and 
engineering courses at Dimond.
  She helped found the Engineering Academy at Dimond, and she and 
another teacher developed and ran a program called Smart Girls Rock! 
Smart Girls Rock! exposes freshman and sophomore girls to female 
engineers from Anchorage and encourages young women to pursue STEM 
careers. As a father of three daughters, I know just how important it 
is to do that.
  Here is a fun fact: Mrs. Childress and Mr. Hall have been married for 
23 years, which makes this award all the more special for both of them. 
I would call them a true power couple in Alaska STEM education.
  Miss Wilcox, a teacher from Campbell Elementary, has had a 20-year 
career and has been teaching at Campbell for the past 3 years. Working 
with her colleagues, she created a STEM school at Campbell--the first 
STEM elementary school in Anchorage.
  Again, these are innovators. You can tell these teachers are 
innovators.
  Also, as a project for the Iditarod Teacher in Every Classroom, which 
is a science program based on our famous sled dog race, the Iditarod, 
she worked with another colleague to get their classroom to adopt and 
improve a local park.
  Miss Wilcox's second graders appeared before the school board, the 
community council, and the parks commission to advocate for their idea. 
So not only are they learning STEM, but they are learning civics. For 
their efforts, they were awarded a $20,000 Anchorage Parks Foundation 
matching grant, and the park now has outdoor learning labs, paths, 
signs, and is a joy to visit. So all of you visitors who are going to 
come to Alaska have to make sure you check out this great new 
innovation in our parks.
  Finally, let me talk about Ms. Wright. Ms. Wright has been an 
educator for over 16 years. She began her career teaching in rural 
Alaska, which I view as the heart and soul of our State. For the last 7 
years she taught at Auke Bay in Juneau, where she was born and raised.

[[Page S6443]]

  She is passionate about incorporating place-based knowledge into the 
classroom. She says that every year her students participate in place-
based learning. They pick berries, a traditional part of the Alaska 
Native subsistence lifestyle, in order to gather the data and more 
detailed information about our incredible environments throughout the 
State.
  ``Students in my classroom learn a lot of Alaskan Native languages 
and participate in a Tlingit dance group, performing around southeast 
Alaska.'' She also takes her fourth and fifth grade students on a field 
trip to the muskeg ecosystem to learn how animals adapt to survive in 
different environments.
  ``Teaching in Alaska is a gift and taking advantage of it is 
something I value very much,'' Ms. Wright said. It was, in fact, Mr. 
President, a sentiment expressed by all four of these teachers who won 
this very prestigious award.
  Henry Adams once wrote, ``A teacher affects eternity; he or she can 
never tell where their influence actually stops.'' Think about that. A 
teacher impacts eternity.
  The influence that these teachers have over the lives of so many 
young Alaskans will really never stop. As I mentioned, many staff 
members of my office are direct recipients of this influence, which 
will continue help to grow the next generation of leaders, of workers, 
of thinkers, of doers, and I am sure the next generation of teachers, 
through their example. I see students who, in turn, will continue to 
make our State and our country the great places that they are. We 
cannot thank these teachers enough for what they have done.
  So I want to congratulate Mr. Hall, Ms. Childress, Ms. Wilcox, and 
Ms. Wright for all they have done for this great award, for all they 
continue to do, for your dedication to your profession, for your 
passion for math and science, and for your commitment to Alaska's next 
generation.
  And, of course, I want to congratulate them on being this week's 
Alaskans of the Week.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. SULLIVAN. For the information of Senators, tomorrow the Senate 
will vote on the confirmation of the Rudofsky and Wilson nominations at 
11:45 a.m. and the confirmation of the Nardini nomination at 1:45 p.m.

                          ____________________