[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.
____________________