[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 103 (Monday, June 27, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4574-S4577]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Culture of Whaling in Alaska

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, one of the great things about being able 
to come to the floor and preside--as is the Presiding Officer, and it 
is something I have had the opportunity to do a lot--is that when you 
are in the Chair, you get to hear a lot about the home States of other 
Members of the Senate. A lot of Senators like to come to the floor, as 
they should, to talk about their constituents and talk about so many 
things that are happening throughout our country.
  We just heard the Senator from Arkansas talk about some local heroes 
in his State. He came to the floor to talk about them. Presiding, I 
have had the opportunity to hear many great stories: Vietnam veterans 
in North Dakota, great basketball from the Presiding Officer's State of 
Indiana, proud members of our military who live in Texas, and tight-
knit communities in responding to disasters in States across our 
Nation. These are great stories and in many ways they are what make our 
Nation great; it is what makes our Nation strong. Hearing about all the 
wonderful communities we have, I certainly have learned a lot from 
listening to these speeches, and I encourage my colleagues to come and 
talk about their States and do a little bragging. That is what I am 
going to do for the next couple of minutes.
  My State, the great State of Alaska, has certainly captured the 
country's imagination in a lot of ways. It is hard to turn on cable TV 
without seeing a new show on Alaska, and for good reason. There is so 
much about the great State of Alaska that is awe-inspiring and captures 
the imagination of the American people. Our mountain ranges, hundreds 
of them, literally seem to go on for miles and miles--forever, like 
waves in the ocean. The color of our glaciers is unlike anything you 
have ever seen before. Our rivers and streams, particularly this time 
of year, are choked with salmon--millions and millions of salmon. We 
have moose, bear, wolves, caribou, and muskox. But one of the very best 
things about Alaska, one of the things that makes us unique, is our mix 
of cultures and the extraordinary lengths people in Alaska go to keep 
these cultures alive.
  Today I wish to speak specifically about the culture of whaling and 
to honor our Alaska Eskimo whaling captains--heroes in our 
communities--and the communities that support these brave Americans.
  In Alaska, 11 communities in northern Alaska, which we call the North 
Slope, participate in two whaling seasons. Nuiqsut, Kivalina, Barrow, 
Kaktovik, Wainwright, Gambell, Little Diomede, Wales, Point Lay, 
Savoonga, and Point Hope--these are the whaling communities of my 
State.
  There is a spring whaling season and a fall whaling season. Both 
correspond to the migration patterns of the great bowhead whale.
  The spring has ended now, and it is time for celebration. Nalukataq 
season is upon us. This is when with the communities get together to 
celebrate the harvest. It is like a summer picnic on the top of the 
world, but without hot dogs. Families eat whale and muktuk.
  Let me spend a few minutes talking about what it takes to harpoon a 
whale. I have never done it, but a lot of my constituents have. 
Amazingly, today's whaling captains and crews still hunt using handheld 
harpoons, as their ancestors had done for thousands of years. During 
the spring harvest, many of the villages--also as their ancestors had 
done--go into the icy waters of the Arctic in hand-sewn boats that are 
built using wooden frames and hand-sewn walrus or bearded seal skin.
  When a bowhead whale is landed, to spread the good news the people 
exclaim ``Yay, hey, hey'' across the North Slope.
  The VHF radios that sit on kitchen counters and dining room tables 
all

[[Page S4575]]

across this part of Alaska begin to buzz. When a whale is brought to 
shore, the entire community comes out to help pull in the giant 
leviathan. It is such an exciting time for these communities. It is 
exciting because every time it happens, a piece of this important 
culture is reenacted and honored. The whales are honored, and every 
part of the animal is used.
  These are subsistence communities, meaning they use this whale--all 
of it. Whale meat is necessary to feed these communities. On average, a 
whale can produce between 6 tons to 25 tons of food.
  I should point out that we have no road system in northern Alaska, so 
these communities are accessible only by air or seasonal barge 
transport. Some can be reached this way only at certain times of the 
year. In other words, these communities need their food; they need 
these whales.
  The annual bowhead whale migration provides the largest subsistence 
resource available in these remote areas of our great State. Even so, 
when a whale is taken, the sharing does not stop simply with the 
residents of the community. The food is shared with other subsistence 
communities and family members throughout our State. This is yet 
another amazing example of the resourcefulness that has enabled humans 
to survive in the Arctic for a millennia and that shapes the character 
of Alaska to this date.
  Yet, throughout the years, it has sometimes been a struggle for the 
first peoples of Alaska to get their quota of whales. In 1977, the 
International Whaling Commission tried to shut down the subsistence 
harvest for Alaska's native people. It was relying on incorrect 
population estimates provided by Western scientists, and they were 
ignoring what we in Alaska call traditional knowledge. The Alaska 
Eskimo whaling captains organized and started the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 
Commission, which is alive, well, and thriving today.
  Here is a great story. In 1977, when the IWC, the International 
Whaling Commission, attempted to shut down the harvest in Alaska for 
Alaska Natives, our whalers told the Western scientists: You don't know 
how to count the whales because you're looking for them from the air 
during the spring migration, and they're swimming under the spring ice. 
You have to listen for them under the ice.
  When one of the scientists argued that the whales wouldn't swim under 
the ice because it is too dangerous, Harry Brower, Sr., the father of 
some of the prominent whalers today, took the scientist to the ice, put 
an oar in the water, and told the scientist to put his ear to the oar. 
What the scientist heard was an entire world of marine life invisible 
to the eye.
  From that, a research program using both traditional knowledge--
Alaska Native knowledge--and Western science was born and is used 
today, still today, to monitor the size of the western Arctic bowhead 
population.
  This research program, still combining Western science and 
traditional knowledge, is considered the gold standard, the most 
accurate and sophisticated way in which marine biologists measure 
whaling populations.
  The bowhead whale population is healthy and growing. Currently, it is 
estimated that there are about 20,000 bowhead whales, up from about 
10,000 in 2001. Our communities in Alaska do an enormously important 
part in terms of making sure there is conservation of the bowhead 
whale.
  The current catch limit for Alaska natives is no more than 67 whales 
a year, a fraction of a percentage of the total population. That limit 
was set in 2013 and will last until 2018, when the IWC meets to 
establish new catch limits.
  Every time a new catch limit--a new quota--comes up, there is a fight 
between the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and the countries that 
don't respect that tradition and want to stop all subsistence whaling, 
including my constituents.
  What I am hoping for these kinds of talks is that they will make all 
the Members of the Senate understand how important this tradition is 
for Americans, for Alaska Natives, and they can learn more about this 
important tradition.
  I will do everything in my power to work with my colleagues here in 
the Senate to ensure that when the quota comes up in 2018, they have 
their fair share. This is a vital tradition. It is vital for 
subsistence, and it is vital to keep a culture alive and to respect a 
group of great Americans who bring uniqueness and strength not only to 
Alaska but to our country.
  Here is how one of our Alaska Eskimo whaling captains puts it:

       To our people, the bowhead is more than food. It keeps our 
     families together. It keeps our children in school. It allows 
     our elders to pass generational knowledge to our youth. It 
     teaches us patience and perseverance. It teaches us 
     generosity. It strengthens our community. It provides wisdom 
     and insight. It gives us hope. It is our way of life. The 
     spirit of the whale lives within each of us.

  Let me repeat that last line. ``The spirit of the whale lives within 
each of us.''
  These are some of the people of my State. These are my constituents. 
As I have said before, Alaska has bragging rights right now. Our 
whalers and their culture and their traditions are certainly worth 
bragging about.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


 Supreme Court Decisions, Zika Virus Funding, and Judicial Nominations

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this morning the Supreme Court reaffirmed 
in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt that women--women, not 
politicians--should make their own health care choices. This was an 
important decision for women's health and women's constitutional 
rights. But the fight to protect women's health continues. It is going 
to continue tomorrow here in the Senate when we have the first vote on 
the conference report to provide emergency funding to combat the Zika 
virus.
  We are voting on emergency funding. Whether it is flooding in the 
South, wildfires in the West, ice storms in the winters, or hurricanes 
in the summers, Congress has always responded to crises with emergency 
funds. No offsets were required. Now, despite the overwhelming need for 
funding to fight Zika, when the threat of Zika is real and here, when 
the threat is of great risk to pregnant women, when the World Health 
Organization is urging women in Zika-impacted areas to delay pregnancy, 
House and Senate Republicans want to cut other programs to offset 
emergency funding for Zika. House and Senate Republicans decided on a 
conference report that continues their attacks on women's health. The 
report restricts Zika emergency funding for family planning services--
limitations that will prevent some women from seeking health services 
from their own doctors or from primary care clinics that help serve 
women in rural areas, including in Puerto Rico, where there are already 
thousands of Zika cases.
  Just after the Supreme Court reaffirmed a woman's right to make her 
own health care decisions, Republicans in the Senate and the House want 
to take that away. So it should come as no surprise to anyone tomorrow 
when I vote against this needlessly limiting response to what is a 
public health crisis.
  Republicans should stop taking crises and using them to make attacks 
on women. Let's be honest about what we do here in the Senate. We have 
seen this kind of misguided leadership. We saw the Republicans' 
misguided leadership extend to the vacancy on the Supreme Court. The 
high cost of that obstruction was on full display last week when the 
Court's eight Justices deadlocked twice in one day. Since February, the 
Court--diminished by Republican inaction in this body--has been unable 
to issue a final decision on the merits in a total of seven cases. I 
cannot remember a time in my lifetime where that has happened in that 
short period of time.
  The Supreme Court's inability to serve its highest function under the 
Constitution has left millions of families across the country waiting 
for justice, and they are uncertain of what the law is. This is the 
devastating reality for vulnerable immigrant families who are wondering 
whether they are going to be torn apart, whether the parents will be 
taken out and deported, sometimes leaving innocent children behind--
after the Court deadlocked last week in a case concerning enforcement 
of the President's executive action on immigration.
  The immigration case demonstrates the real harm of this Republican 
obstruction. Three years ago today, after

[[Page S4576]]

an extensive process in the Judiciary Committee where hundreds of 
amendments were debated, the Democratic-led Senate, backed by a number 
of Republicans, passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill on a 
vote of 68 to 32. Even though a majority of the House of 
Representatives would have passed that bill into law, the Republican 
Speaker of the House blocked the bill from even receiving a vote. 
Apparently, it would violate what they considered the revered Dennis 
Hastert rule. There were some Republicans who opposed it, even though 
it passed overwhelmingly. They had to show their reverence to the 
Dennis Hastert rule, so we did not get an immigration bill.
  Because the Speaker refused to act and because they would not allow 
it to come to a vote, the President--who would not have had an 
Executive action if it had been voted on--was forced to use Executive 
action. His Executive action deferred the deportation of parents and 
children to prioritize the deportation of dangerous criminals. Before 
that Executive action could be implemented, however, a Republican-
appointed district court judge in Texas issued a nationwide 
injunction--not just for Texas but for the whole Nation--blocking the 
order.

  It was the inaction of Republicans in Congress that led the President 
to take sensible action to improve our broken immigration system. After 
blocking immigration reform, Republican obstruction continued in the 
Senate with the unprecedented refusal to consider the nomination of 
Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. This left a hobbled 
Court of eight to consider this crucial immigration case.
  So from legislation, to Executive action, to the hobbled Court, 
Republicans are responsible for creating these crises points. Why can't 
we go back to the days with responsible Republican leaders, like one of 
the greatest I served with, Howard Baker, or Bob Dole, or others, who 
would say we should at least do our job?
  Now that the Supreme Court has finished its term, we can see the full 
scope of the damage caused by Republican obstruction. In addition to 
the nondecision in the immigration case, there have been six other 
cases where the Court could not reach a final decision on the merits. 
We still do not know whether lenders can discriminate against married 
women; whether consumers can sue companies for misuse of private 
information; whether employers can deny women employees access to 
contraception coverage; whether public-sector unions can recover fair-
share costs for collective bargaining; whether a person can sue another 
State; or whether tribal courts can hold nontribal wrongdoers on tribal 
lands civilly liable. These are important questions, and the American 
people should have definitive answers. Our Constitution ensures equal 
justice for all; not a patchwork of different rights in different parts 
of the country. This is the result of Senate Republicans' refusal to do 
their job and provide a hearing and a vote for Chief Judge Garland.
  Chief Judge Garland is an outstanding nominee for the Supreme Court, 
and Americans overwhelmingly want him to receive a public hearing. The 
American Bar Association formally weighed in last week announcing that 
it had reviewed Chief Judge Garland's nomination and unanimously 
awarded him its highest rating of ``Well-Qualified.'' To reach that 
rating, lawyers from across the country assessed his integrity, 
professional competence, and temperament. One said, ``Garland is the 
best that there is. He is the finest judge I have ever met.'' Another 
said, ``He is a judge's judge, with a very high standard and legal 
craftsmanship, a fine sense of fairness to all parties, a measured and 
dignified judicial temperament, and the highest respect for law and 
reasoned argument.'' One even said that Chief Judge Garland ``may be 
the perfect human being.''
  Instead of scheduling a hearing for this impeccably qualified 
nominee, Republicans are holding Chief Judge Garland's nomination 
hostage in the hope that the Republican Party will nominate Donald 
Trump and they can then have Donald Trump make a different nomination. 
Of course, their nominee is the same candidate who has accused a 
sitting Federal judge of bias simply because his parents were Mexican-
born. Come on.
  It is unfathomable to me that Senate Republicans would prefer to 
diminish the Supreme Court for two terms rather than give Chief Judge 
Garland a fair and public hearing, but that is exactly what they are 
doing. No leadership in this Senate--Republican leadership or 
Democratic leadership--has ever done this. In fact, the last time we 
had a vacancy in the last year of a President's term, it was President 
Reagan, and the Democrats controlled the Senate. We voted unanimously 
to confirm President Reagan's Republican nominee to the Senate. The 
Democrats moved that nomination.
  Senate Republicans are also failing to fulfill their constitutional 
responsibility to our district and circuit courts. In the 18 months 
that Senate Republicans have had a majority, they have allowed just 20 
votes on judicial nominations--to disastrous results on our Federal 
courts as judicial vacancies have skyrocketed. Contrast this record to 
the last 2 years of George W. Bush's administration, when Democrats 
were in control. During that time, Democrats confirmed 68 of President 
Bush's judicial nominees and reduced the number of judicial vacancies 
to 34. Today, however, Senate Republicans' obstruction has caused 
judicial vacancies to nearly double from 43 to 83. Of these, 30 have 
been designated as judicial emergencies where caseloads are 
unmanageably high and the administration of justice is strained. When 
you look at the facts, Senate Republicans' claim that they have treated 
the President's judicial nominees fairly is not supported by the 
evidence. But more importantly, their persistent and unprecedented 
obstruction is harmful to the American people who are finding justice 
delayed in our Federal courts.
  The nominee the Senate will finally vote on today, Robert Rossiter, 
is just one example of Republican obstruction. He was nominated over a 
year ago to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District 
Court for the District of Nebraska. Despite his nomination being voice 
voted out by the Judiciary Committee last October, Mr. Rossiter has 
been awaiting a floor vote for almost 250 days. Robert Rossiter has 
been in private practice in Nebraska for over 30 years. He has tried 
more than 70 cases to verdict. I will vote to support his nomination.
  Even after today's vote, there will be 25 judicial nominations 
languishing on the Senate floor. Two of them were reported at the same 
time as Robert Rossiter and have also been awaiting a vote for 8 
months. While there is an agreement to vote on the nomination of Judge 
Brian Martinotti to fill a vacancy in New Jersey, that vote will not 
happen until next month. And we do not have an agreement to vote on the 
nomination of Edward Stanton to the Western District of Tennessee. In 
2010, the Senate voted unanimously to confirm Mr. Stanton as the U.S. 
attorney for that district, and his current nomination is supported by 
his two Republican home State Senators, as well as by every Republican 
on the Judiciary Committee. Only because of the efforts of Senator 
Fischer is Mr. Rossiter's nomination receiving a vote today. I hope the 
Republican Senators of Tennessee will be able to persuade the majority 
leader to schedule a vote for Mr. Stanton's nomination before we leave 
for the July recess.
  Instead of voting on these nominees and instead of holding a hearing 
on Chief Judge Garland's nomination, Senate Republicans are already 
talking about shutting down the confirmation process for judicial 
nominees next month. This is wrong. Hard-working Americans put in long 
hours to get their jobs done, and they deserve a Senate that does the 
same. But Senate Republicans have ignored their constitutional 
responsibilities and continued, as their party's standard bearer has 
said, to ``delay, delay, delay.''
  It is the Senate's duty to ensure that an independent judiciary can 
function. But based on the deadlocks and delays we have seen, it is 
clear that, unlike when Democrats controlled this body and we made it 
possible for President Reagan to move his nominees, today's Senate 
Republicans will not act responsibly.
  I would say these Senate Republicans should act on Chief Judge 
Garland's nomination, as well as the 25 judicial nominations that have 
been passed out by voice vote from the Judiciary Committee. They are 
languishing on the Senate floor day after day after day.

[[Page S4577]]

These are men and women who are prepared to do their job if we will 
give them a vote. They can't understand and the American public can't 
understand why the Senate Republican leadership won't let us do our 
job. After all, we are paid to do it.
  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. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COTTON. I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Rossiter 
nomination?
  Mr. COTTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the 
Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Louisiana 
(Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 111 Ex.]

                                YEAS--90

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Blunt
     Boxer
     Capito
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Sanders
     Vitter
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________