[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 23, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1732-S1745]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume legislative 
session.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                            Border Security

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, there is a lot going on in the world 
right now: Ukraine; what is happening in China; what is happening with 
the Iran nuclear conversation right now with Russia and the United 
States and China; record inflation here in the United States. There is 
so much going on that I am concerned that we are not also focused on an 
area at our southwest border.
  It is interesting; I have had folks who have caught me and have said: 
Things must be going better at our southwest border because I don't 
hear about it as much.
  Actually, there is just so much other news that it is drowning it 
out.
  So what is actually happening at our southwest border right now, and 
where are we? Let me give you a little bit of context and then to be 
able to talk through some of the issues that are happening.
  Today, on our southwest border, about 6,300 people have already 
illegally crossed. Now, a day that they can manage is about 3,500 
people. So we are still hearing record numbers of people illegally 
crossing the border.
  To set this in context, during the 4 years of the Trump Presidency, 
there were 2.4 million people who were encountered illegally crossing 
the border during the 4 years of the Trump Presidency. During the first 
14 months of the Biden Presidency, we have already exceeded that 
number. We have had more illegal encounters in the first 14 months than 
there were in the previous 4 years.
  In this process of all these individuals crossing the border, it has 
been interesting. There was something that was put in place in January 
of 2020 called title 42 authority. Now, let me explain this briefly. 
Because of the pandemic that was happening, in March of 2020, the Trump 
administration put in place that, for single adult individuals who were 
crossing the border, they would be turned around at the border based on 
the pandemic that was happening. The Biden administration agreed with 
that policy, and when they came in, they kept title 42 in place. In 
fact, last year, 1.1 million people were turned around at the border 
under title 42 authority.
  Title 42 authority was always intended to be temporary. It is not a 
permanent immigration policy; it is during the pandemic, although it is 
ironic that the administration is looking to lift title 42 authority on 
the border at the same time--this month--members of the National Guard 
are being forced to resign if they don't have their vaccine. So if you 
don't take your vaccine and you are in the National Guard, you are 
being forced out, or if you are in the military and you haven't taken 
it, you are being forced to resign the military, but people illegally 
crossing our border can come into the United States.
  At the same month that there is conversation about dropping the title 
42 authority, we are still wearing a mask on our planes, in buses, and 
in trains based on a requirement of the administration on a threat to 
COVID. At the same time that is occurring, the administration is 
looking to lift the title 42 issues at our southern border.
  They have had a year to be able to plan for this. I have been in 
conversation with Ali Mayorkas and with DHS. We have had multiple 
conversations with the leaders. I have been on the border multiple 
times to be able to talk to the leadership there, to say we have all 
known that at some point, title 42 authority is going away, so when 
that occurs, what is the plan to deal with illegal immigration or what 
they call irregular migration? What is the plan at that point?
  Well, we are finally getting bits and pieces of the plan. The plan 
is, apparently, from the notes that we are getting and the 
conversations we have had at the staff level and that I can piece 
together from multiple conversations with multiple leaders, after a 
year of considering what to be able to do about illegal immigration and 
increasing numbers at the border, apparently, within the next couple of 
weeks, they are going to stop title 42 to be able to more rapidly move 
people into the interior of the country faster so the border looks less 
chaotic. The plan is to move people into the country faster so there is 
not a camera shot on people backed up at the border. That is the plan.
  I wish I was kidding on that, but in a briefing with my staff last 
week, DHS

[[Page S1733]]

Office of Intelligence and Analysis told our team that as soon as they 
release title 42, they anticipate tens of thousands of migrants 
crossing the border within hours; that they are literally camped up on 
the south side of the border and that they will flood the border. DHS 
Office of Intelligence anticipates hundreds of thousands of migrants 
crossing within 2 weeks and as many as a million crossing within 6 
weeks of when they lift title 42 authority.
  May I remind us, last summer, when we saw all the chaos on our 
southern border, that was 900,000 for an entire year. They are 
anticipating as many as a million in 6 weeks illegally crossing our 
border, and their plan is not to turn them around; their plan is to bus 
them to towns and cities all over the United States so they would move 
away from the border quickly. That does not feel like a plan to me; 
that feels like a recipe for chaos and frustration from American 
citizens across the country.
  The plan continues to be able to give individuals a piece of paper 
that they would have a court hearing 6 years in the future--6 years. I 
wish I was kidding about this. They will come across the border, be 
given a piece of paper, told they have a hearing 6 years in the future, 
and if they would like to apply for a work status, they can get that 
after they are here 6 months.
  Last year, we had the highest number of illegal crossings in the 
history of our country--last year. The administration is now planning 
for that number to skyrocket this year. Their solution is to give work 
permits, move people faster to the interior of the country, and repeat. 
That is not a plan; that is a formula for disaster. That is individuals 
and families moving into the country who don't have legal status by the 
millions.
  May I remind this body that last year, we had individuals from every 
single country on the planet who were encountered on our border last 
year illegally crossing--every single country. Yes, that includes Iran, 
North Korea, Russia. You name it, every country on the planet illegally 
crossed our border. The plan this year is not to turn them around; the 
plan this year is to expedite them into the interior of the country, 
hand them a form, and say: Show up at court 6 years from now. Oh, by 
the way, while you are waiting, you can have a work permit.
  That is going to just drive even more illegal immigration into our 
country. That is going to drive people from all over the world to be 
able to come here and to cross our border illegally. That is an 
invitation to chaos. And I cannot even believe, even with this 
administration, that after a year of planning, this is the plan for 
what they are going to do for illegal immigration on our southern 
border.

  Last summer, we found out through a series of rumors that ICE was 
planning to put up what they were calling a surge overflow temporary 
processing facility in Western Oklahoma, at a private prison there. I 
contacted DHS, confirmed that they were actually planning this, and 
told them the obvious issues with that. There was no bus station in 
that area. There was no airport in that area. They were literally 
looking to move thousands of people from the border into Western 
Oklahoma, into a small town, and just release them at that point, and 
they can figure out what to do and where to go from there.
  The administration, after 48 hours of our back and forth, of me 
pushing, pulled back their plan and said they weren't going to do it. 
But I have noted their response back to me at the end of that. They 
said that they had decided not to pursue this facility at this time.
  What was threatened in my State a year ago is very likely coming to 
many States that are represented in this room in the weeks ahead, where 
individuals are moved all over the country, into small towns and large 
towns, to be able to move people away from the border--what even DHS 
estimates may be a million people in 6 weeks to every part of the 
country so the border doesn't look chaotic. Can I ask you, is your town 
set up to receive people coming from all over the world to come into 
your town--a million in a 6-week time period?
  Interior processing is a terrible idea. It is a terrible idea. And 
after a year, DHS can do better than this. So what do we need to do 
about this? My Democratic colleagues have a unique relationship with 
this President. You have the opportunity to be able to call the office, 
to sit down with the leadership team, and to say: This looks like a 
particularly bad idea. The American people do not like chaos, and they 
do not like illegal immigration. The American people love legal 
immigration. We cheer at nationality events. We show up in droves and 
watch people pledge allegiance to the flag for the first time as an 
American citizen. But the American people do not like illegal 
immigration, especially one that is unlimited, chaotic, and from every 
country in the world.
  So I made contact with the administration. I am laying this marker 
down. We are going to do everything that we possibly can as a team to 
be able to make it clear that this administration plans to bring chaos 
to the United States in the next several months, and we are going to do 
everything we can to be able to stop that. This is not some random 
threat.
  The President of the United States has a unique responsibility to 
enforce the law. That is what Presidents do. And the people in my State 
are not asking for something odd or peculiar; they are asking simply 
for the President of the United States to enforce the law of the United 
States.
  May I remind this body of a statistic you may or may not remember. 
Last year, ICE deported 57,000 people total in a year. We had 2.3 
million people illegally encountered at the southern border, and ICE 
deported 57,000 total in a year. It was a record-low number of 
deportations and a record-high number of illegal crossings. And now 
they are planning to lift title 42. All 100 of us should be addressing 
this administration and telling them this is a bad idea, and I pray 
they hear us out.
  To the President of the United States: Just enforce the law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Washington.


                               H.R. 4521

  Ms. CANTWELL. I come to the floor to talk about the underlying bill 
that we are trying to get passed. That is the United States Innovation 
and Competition Act that we passed here in the U.S. Senate about 280 
days ago.
  One aspect of that bill is a provision that we just had a hearing on 
in the Commerce Committee today, and that is the funding of what are 
called semiconductors, the key technology enabling so much of the 
technology sectors today--from your phones to your smart devices, to 
automobiles, to the transition we want to make on clean energy, to just 
about everything that we see that is essential to be smarter, more 
connected, and to play off some of the advances in technology that 
allow us to be more efficient.
  But we are here to talk about how chips are also a supply chain 
issue. And the supply chain of this product has definitely been 
impacted over the last few years, both by the fact that there has been 
a higher demand for them and because of what has happened during COVID.
  In fact, 90 percent of the chips that are most advanced today come 
from Taiwan. Today's hearing was about how the United States of America 
needs to do more to produce the next generation of advanced chips for 
artificial intelligence, automation, and advanced manufacturing, here 
in the United States, and that an overreliance on the global supply 
chain--which every American can tell you about the supply chain now 
because there are products that they are not getting because of the 
supply chain or the price has gone up because of the supply chain--but 
we know that this issue of getting this Innovation and Competition Act 
and getting the funding for more production to be done in the United 
States on something as critical as semiconductors is a very key issue. 
So I hope our colleagues will help us get to conference and resolve 
this issue with our colleagues.
  But I would like to talk about a few of those sectors that are really 
impacting and hurting Americans. First of all, in the automotive 
sector, thousands of American workers have endured layoffs due to the 
shortage. The global automobile industry suffered over 200 billion in 
losses, and Ford was forced to halt or cut production at eight plants 
as recently as last month.
  The cost of a used car has gone up 41 percent, and the price of new 
cars 12

[[Page S1734]]

percent. A lot of this is due to the semiconductor shortage. Let me 
repeat those numbers: The price of a used car has gone up 41 percent; 
the price of a new car over here, 12 percent. And this is the price of 
a 12-percent increase on new equipment.
  Well, if you think about it, right now, for most of those people 
trying to buy the new cars, they might be on a waiting list. But people 
who can easily afford a new car and need one but can't get it due to 
the shortage, they are buying used cars instead, and that is what is 
driving up the price.
  So who feels the pain at the pump? It is not the person who has to 
wait a few extra months for that new car that they wanted. It is the 
person whose radiator blew out last week who just needs anything to 
drive to work--anything to get them to and from their job. But now that 
used car is 41 percent more expensive. That basic used car might have 
cost $5,000 last year, but if you add the 41 percent to that, it is now 
costing $7,000.
  So where is the extra $2,000 coming from? For that American consumer 
who has to delay a family trip or do without things for their children 
or maybe not even be able to pay next month's rent, all of this is due 
to the impacts that we are seeing from this shortage.
  So chips and the semiconductor effort that we are trying to address 
in the underlying bill are really the ultimate supply chain issue; that 
is, that some of the networking equipment that I mentioned here--a 12-
percent increase--sometimes people are selling chips for a hundred 
times their regular price just so that people will compete for them to 
build out the broadband access.
  We also are seeing issues of security, now that the source of the 
chips are so concentrated in Taiwan, that at least 7 different chip 
manufacturers, people have tried to hack them to steal the designs of 
these chips. So these are all the reasons why we, today, here need to 
advance this bill and say to the House: We want to go to conference. We 
want to move forward on this legislation.
  This legislation also supports $2 billion for, specifically, Defense 
Department efforts to secure the supply chain, as well, and to help us 
face this increase in demand.
  I just want to say this to my colleagues. I know some people think: 
Well, this issue will be over. It will be down the road. It is not 
going to be over until we act. Right now, the world needs 1 trillion 
chips per year. You need 1 trillion chips per year. In 2021, that went 
up to 1.2 trillion chips per year. In 2031, it is going to be 2 
trillion chips per year.
  And this is driven by--you can see the demand. So there is a 200-
percent increase in what is going to be needed from the automotive 
sector, a 60-percent increase from the wireless sector, and an 80-
percent increase in the consumer electronics sector.
  So the question is, Are we just going to wait and see what happens in 
Taiwan? Or are we going to make an investment here in the United States 
to jump from that 1.2 trillion a year to 2 trillion a year and make it 
be leading-edge U.S. technology?
  So I am thankful for this underlying bill today, and I thank the 
witnesses who testified at today's hearing.
  One particular industry that was there was PACCAR, a company based in 
Washington that is leading the way on transportation, automotive, and 
driverless trucks, and they explained what this has done to impact 
their business, why we need advanced chips, and why we need to continue 
as a nation to promote them.
  So I definitely hope our colleagues will see forth to move forward on 
this kind of investment, get the underlying R&D bill onto the 
President's desk so we can do what we do best in the United States of 
America and that is invent, make our manufacturers competitive, and 
grow jobs.


                       Ocean Shipping Reform Act

  Madam President, with that, I would like to turn to another issue. I 
have been joined here on the floor by my colleague Senator Klobuchar. 
We very much appreciate her and Senator Thune's efforts on trying to 
tackle some of the supply chain issues that are at the ports.
  Our ports are seeing record amounts of traffic--a 20-some-percent 
increase in the amount of traffic coming into the United States--and 
that congestion has caused lots of problems at our ports.
  Senators Klobuchar and Thune announced legislation that we marked up 
in committee earlier this week that I hope will see action on the 
Senate floor as early as next week. That legislation puts new tools 
into the hands of the Federal Maritime Commission, whose job it is to 
make sure that there aren't unreasonable rates or practices that impact 
negatively shippers in the United States.
  And right now, what is happening is particularly our agricultural 
sector is getting very hard-hit; that is, that literally some of these 
foreign shippers that were at record profits and record millions have 
basically been leaving without the U.S. exports. They literally are 
coming to the United States, dropping product off, leaving less than 
full, and hurrying back to pick up more product and deliver it to the 
United States.
  And our growers haven't been able to get their products onto those 
ships, and the result of that is they are left on the docks, without 
the ability to deliver the product to the customers that they would 
like to see.
  So our farmers need help and solutions on this. One solution by the 
Biden-Harris administration that Secretary Vilsack has implemented is a 
popup space at our ports to help defray the cost of freight that has 
been caused.
  I just want our colleagues to know that more needs to be done with 
the Klobuchar-Thune bill because the container cost has gone from 
$1,300 per container to $11,000 per container. This is part of data 
that has been provided to us.
  And what has happened is not only the costs that they are facing, as 
I said, sometimes they are called, and it is said: If your product 
isn't here, then we are leaving without it. And that is a big problem 
if you are talking about Washington apples, seafood, any of the other 
products that are big from our State.
  One individual who testified--or came to a press event that we had in 
Seattle last week said that the dairy industry and supply chain last 
year and the problems cost U.S. dairy over $1.5 billion. And it means 
that more containers are leaving the port empty.
  We believe that the loss of revenue to the ag sector may be as much 
as 22 percent; that is, that our ag sector isn't being able to get 
their product out.
  So I want to thank the President for his infrastructure package and 
putting more money into ports and port development, as we did in a 
bipartisan way with our colleagues in the Commerce Committee, and also 
for getting this project up and running here at Terminal 46 in Seattle.
  This popup storage helped facilitate and pre-position our 
agricultural products so that they could be ready to get on those ships 
and not face a penalty because of the congestion we are seeing.
  USDA is providing our exporters with $200 to $400 per container to 
help with the storage cost, but it is literally getting them in 
position so that they can be right around the corner and get picked up 
quickly. So I want to thank the Biden administration for that.
  But I also want to encourage our colleagues to move ahead, as I 
mentioned, on the Klobuchar-Thune bill, which is saying to the major 
Federal entity whose day job it is to oversee reasonable rates as it 
relates to shipping in the United States, please, let's get this 
legislation on the Senate floor. If we care about supply chain issues, 
if we care about the prices that are impacting consumers, then let's 
get this legislation on the floor.
  Obviously, the amount of costs that we are seeing per container and 
the amount of increase in those container costs are impacting everyone.
  So if those costs are on every container, whether they are coming in 
or leaving, then we are seeing increased costs to consumers and 
consumer products all across the board.
  So let's get these supply chain issues, like USICA--the United States 
Innovation and Competition Act--let's get that supply chain moving. 
Let's get that supply chain of us making legislation with the House 
moving so we can fix real supply chain problems with our 
semiconductors. And let's get this Federal Maritime Commission bill on 
the

[[Page S1735]]

floor next week so we can address the supply chain problems that are 
costing us more with ag and costing us more with imports.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from 
Washington for her incredible leadership of the Commerce Committee and 
focusing on the issues that matter to businesses, something the 
Presiding Officer, as the former Governor of Colorado and someone who 
knows a little bit about business understands as well. We have to fix 
these supply chain issues, and we have to actually take up the torch.
  We have gotten through the worst of this pandemic; we see the 
lighthouse on the horizon; and it is time to move forward with our 
economy.
  And instead of just diagnosing the problem, we actually have to do 
some things to fix it. And on that list, for my own State, I would say, 
No. 1 is workforce and getting people into the jobs that we have 
available; No. 2, something Senator Cantwell has made so clear, is the 
semiconductors and all of the things we should be making in America; 
No. 3 is infrastructure. We are so proud of the bipartisan 
infrastructure bill that we worked so hard on and the money going to 
improve our ports, including the port in Duluth, the busiest port on 
Lake Superior. And then, finally, something I am going to address 
today, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, a bipartisan bill that I lead 
with Senator Thune, unanimously passed the Commerce Committee 
yesterday, and I want to thank Senators Cantwell and Wicker for their 
leadership and help on the bill.

  Senator Thune and I are both in the middle of the country. In fact, 
we are neighbors in Minnesota and South Dakota, and we know that 
American farmers feed the world and consumers and businesses look to 
them for in-demand ag goods from soybeans to corn, to dairy, to 
poultry, to pork, to beef, to name just a few.
  We also have tons of small and big manufacturers in the middle of the 
country--and it is not just Minnesota or Colorado or South Dakota that 
have been seeing the delays in shipping. It is everywhere in this 
Nation.
  The past 2 years have highlighted significant supply chain 
disruptions and vulnerabilities for U.S. exporters, including many 
families across my home State.
  U.S. companies have only been able to ship 60 percent of their orders 
because they can't access shipping containers during certain parts of 
this pandemic. At the same time, ocean carriers--almost all foreign 
owned--have reported record profits. It is estimated that the mostly 
foreign container shipping industry made a record $190 billion in 
profits in 2021, a sevenfold increase from the previous year.
  Their financial performance certainly isn't the result of improved 
performance, given how many things we have not been able to ship out. 
No, they are fleecing consumers and exporters because they know they 
can get away with it, and this is all while exporters and consumers are 
paying the price, literally, for the supply chain disruptions caused by 
their unreliable service.
  We need to get exports to those who need them. We need to be a 
country that makes stuff, invents things, exports to the world. That is 
why Senator Thune and I put together the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. We 
also want to thank our colleagues in the House who have a very similar 
bill.
  Our bill protects American farmers and manufacturers by making it 
easier for them to ship ready-to-export goods waiting at our ports. It 
levels the playing field for American exporters by updating Federal 
regulations for the global shipping industry. It gives the Federal 
Maritime Commission greater authority to regulate harmful practices by 
big international ocean carriers.
  It directs the Federal Maritime Commission to issue a rule 
prohibiting international ocean carriers from unreasonably declining 
shipping opportunities for U.S. exports.
  Believe it or not, they bring in stuff from other countries, and then 
what do they export back? Air. Air. So many empty containers with 
nothing in them. This would fix that.
  In addition to giving the FMC more authority to investigate bad 
practices, the bill also directs the FMC to set new rules for what the 
international carrier companies can reasonably charge and require ocean 
carriers to certify and ultimately prove that the fees they charge are 
fair. As rates continue to climb, this is more urgent than ever.
  The sheer act of passing this bill will send a major message to the 
foreign-owned ocean shipping industry that it is time to ship our goods 
out of America and to charge our American manufacturers and our 
American farmers and, thus, our consumers a fair rate.
  I want to again thank Chairman Cantwell and Ranking Member Wicker for 
holding a compelling hearing on this bill, all members of the Commerce 
Committee for passing it through, and Senator Thune and I have a 
bipartisan group of 27 cosponsors: Baldwin, Hoeven, Stabenow, Marshall, 
Peters, Moran, Blumenthal, Young, Kelly, Crapo, Tina Smith, Marsha 
Blackburn, Cory Booker, Joni Ernst, Cortez Masto, Braun, Warnock, 
Risch, Bennet, Cramer, Wyden, Blunt, Van Hollen, Boozman, Fischer, 
Padilla, and, yes, the Presiding Officer, Senator Hickenlooper.
  We are excited about the bill, and I am going to end my remarks a 
little quickly because I know Senator Coons has some very important 
remarks himself about a fantastic staff member.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                     Remembering Madeleine Albright

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to offer some brief remarks about a 
dear friend, someone upon whom I have relied as a mentor, someone who 
has served our Nation across many decades, and someone whose passing 
earlier today is a moment of great significance for our Nation and our 
place in the world.
  I happen to have been a Truman scholar; some of my best friends are 
Truman scholars; and the person whose passing we mourn today I first 
met because she was the chair of the Truman Scholarship Foundation 
Board.
  I am speaking of the former Ambassador to the United Nations, the 
former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, whom I first got to know 
decades ago, but whom, in my dozen years here in the Senate, I got to 
know as a mentor and a friend, someone whose lilting humor, whose 
brilliant insights, whose force of personality, and whose charisma were 
unmatched.
  One of the greatest memories I will have in my life was a dinner I 
got to enjoy last year with former Secretary and Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs, Colin Powell, and former Secretary of State and Ambassador to 
the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, and the Ambassador to the 
United Kingdom.
  We sat in her garden and talked for hours about the world, about 
conflict, about Russia and China, about Putin, about the Balkans, about 
a whole range of things, and I learned so much.
  Madeleine never lost her love for this institution, for the Senate. 
It was here that she, as a relatively young staffer, cut her teeth on 
politics and on being engaged in policymaking.
  And one of the things that always amused her was that this desk--the 
desk of Senator Biden and Senator Kennedy--was also the desk of Senator 
Ed Muskie, a Senator from Maine for whom she worked for a number of 
years. She was his chief LA from 1976 until 1978 and then went to work 
for Zbigniew Brzezinski on the National Security Council.
  I will simply say this. Today, we have lost one of our best and one 
of our brightest, one of the most passionate in her dedication to 
democracy.
  As someone who was born overseas in Prague, Czechoslovakia, and who, 
along with her family, fled communism to come to the United States, she 
never stopped offering her insights, her advice, her passionate 
dedication to democracy. In the books that she read, in the pins that 
she wore, in the speeches that she gave, in the students that she 
mentored, Madeleine Albright touched so many lives.
  Yet she on occasion was gracious enough to give me just a few minutes 
of her time. Through her, her daughter Alice and her grandson David 
became great and dear friends. David's service in my office was an 
enormous blessing to me and my team.
  I just wanted to ask for prayers for them, for their family, and for 
all

[[Page S1736]]

whose lives were touched by Madeleine Albright.


                       Tribute to Tom Mancinelli

  Mr. President, I rise today to make some comments about a truly 
bittersweet moment in my career of service.
  I have been an elected official for 22 years. I have had the 
opportunity to work alongside dozens--actually hundreds of dedicated, 
capable, and hard-working staff. None have earned my trust and my 
confidence, driven my agenda, set my priorities, and been so central to 
my service and my life like my national security adviser, Tom 
Mancinelli.
  Like me, a Truman scholar, Tom is someone who decided early on to set 
his sights towards a life in public service. In the 7 years he has been 
a member of my team, he has been an incredible mentor, a great leader, 
and someone upon whose advice I have always been able to rely.
  I hired him from service at the Department of State, where he was 
chief of staff of the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. He was a 
Presidential Management Fellow before that, but most importantly, he is 
a Naval Academy graduate and was an officer in the Marine Corps. I note 
that brings a smile to his face even now.
  As I had a chance just last week to say to the Commandant, I have 
seen, through Tom's service in my office, a gentleman, an officer who 
has lived the values of the Corps with honor and courage and 
commitment; someone who has lived his life with an uncompromising code 
of integrity, respect for human dignity, respect for others, and an 
intense commitment to his service and a joyful and whimsical spirit.
  As a result of our years together traveling around the world and our 
time here in the United States, a number of phrases and terms have 
become a part of my lexicon that I did not know before:
  ``Once a Marine, always a Marine.''
  ``Every Marine a rifleman.''
  ``No plan survives contact with the enemy.''
  ``Officers eat last.''
  Tom has been an exemplar of the sort of servant leadership embodied 
in the phrase ``Officers eat last.'' It means you take care of your 
team, of your squad, of the men and women entrusted to you. In his two 
tours in Iraq and in his 7 years with me, Tom has shown that exemplary.
  I have celebrated the Marine Corps' birthday with him. I have heard 
him talk about Tun Tavern. I have seen him brighten the days of 
countless marines deployed as parts of security detachments at 
Embassies around the world with a hearty ``Semper Fi.'' He has always 
made sure that we respected and paid attention to the lives and the 
service of the men and women of our Armed Forces.
  Although it is with great regret that I congratulate him on this, I 
congratulate him today on his next tour, which will be at the 
Department of Defense.
  Through our time together, we have traveled to 54 countries. That is 
nearly a third of the countries on Earth. We have pressed dictators and 
autocrats for democratic progress and human rights. We have visited 
refugee camps in some of the toughest places on Earth to hear those 
fleeing persecution and civil war. We trekked to see mountain gorillas 
in Virunga National Park in Rwanda, and I have watched him with, just 
over the rise, an elephant in the near distance. We carried out a 
Presidential mission to go to Ethiopia in the middle of a civil war, 
and we helped deliver vaccines to our partners, from Guatemala to 
Taiwan. We visited American troops stationed abroad more times than I 
can count.
  Tom has helped me write and introduce and get marked up and pass 
bills that would invest in our strategic competition with China, 
advance electrification across Africa, combat wildlife trafficking, 
address the root causes of violence and extremism--the Global Fragility 
Act--and support young Palestinian entrepreneurs. There is a long, long 
list. But the one of which I am proudest for him and I hope something 
of which he is proud as well is the huge amount of effort he dedicated 
to leading the BUILD Act, signed into law in 2018, to establish the new 
U.S. Development Finance Corporation--$60 billion in capability 
deployed to do everything from vaccine manufacturing to sustainable 
agriculture, from women's empowerment to deploying solar energy in the 
developing world. The DFC will have a remarkable impact for a very long 
time to come.
  As I have said, it is not just the hard work of policymaking but the 
inside-the-room work of mentoring and guiding fellows and staff 
members, becoming the sort of person upon whom I can rely to execute a 
flawless congressional delegation trip overseas, or codel.
  Frankly, I think one of our most recent trips, among the most 
memorable, was also among his most successful. We crisscrossed the 
world with a constantly shifting constellation of Members of the House 
and Senate, leaving from Andrews Air Force Base, flying overnight to 
Brussels for visits with the EU, NATO, and Belgium, and then continued 
that same day on to Scotland. We spent time at both the COP26 global 
conference on climate change and in Edinburgh, looking at new means of 
generating electricity and power, and capped off that day with a 
celebration with the Scottish Government at Edinburgh Castle.

  We then loaded back on the plane and went all the way to Qatar, had 
dinner with the Emir, breakfast with the Foreign Minister, and visited 
Afghan refugees and an Air Force base at which Americans were deployed.
  We went on from there to Jerusalem, to Tel Aviv, to Ramallah, to meet 
with the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and Defense Minister of 
Israel and the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority.
  Not yet done, we got on a plane and went to Berlin to meet with the 
now-Chancellor central to our response to Russia's aggression in 
Ukraine and members of the Bundestag before flying home.
  All of this was in 1 week--no mess, no fuss, flawless, excellently 
executed, perfectly planned.
  Tom takes the time in the course of a codel like that, rather than 
being frenetic or self-important, to make sure that the other staffers 
on the trip are learning about how they will lead future codels, that 
all the Members are attended to and supported, and that it is a 
purposeful investment of the time and resources of the American people, 
all while taking a little bit of time to go celebrate with the marines 
who helped execute that fantastic codel.
  Most impressively to me, Tom has found a way to excel at his career 
in my office while still being a great father to his children George 
and Ruth and a husband to his accomplished wife Sarah. On a few 
occasions, I have had to chase him out and say: Don't miss that. Often, 
he has already gone to a parent-teacher conference, to a baseball game, 
understanding that is his first mission and something to which he is 
tirelessly dedicated.
  He will continue his record of public service as the Principal Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs, and I have 
warned him, dealing with Congress is a really miserable duty. But there 
is no one--no one--they could have hired who would carry this duty out 
better or more thoroughly, with more character and competence, than Tom 
Mancinelli.
  Hiring Tom was one of the best choices I have ever made. For as many 
years as he will return my calls, I will continue to call on him for 
advice and counsel. I very much look forward to his next chapter in 
public service.
  As I was talking with my own children just this weekend, my youngest 
said to me that of all the people she has gotten to know in my office, 
he most exemplified to her what it means to be an American, a patriot, 
and public servant. I can offer no greater compliment than that--well 
deserved, well performed, well served.
  To my favorite marine, thank you.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today marks 1 month since the illegal and 
unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine began. Since that time, 
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has proven himself a courageous and 
inspiring leader, the Ukrainian military has performed heroically in 
the face of overwhelming violence, and the Ukrainian people have shown 
the world what true courage looks like.
  There is one person who is responsible for so much suffering and 
catastrophe: Vladimir Putin. Faced with this senseless attack, Ukraine 
and the

[[Page S1737]]

international community have rallied together to stand up to Putin with 
a unified front. It is stunning, therefore, that many of my Republican 
colleagues now seem intent upon suggesting that Russia invaded Ukraine 
because of something the Biden administration did or failed to do.
  There is no polite way to put this: This attempt to score political 
points by blaming the Biden administration for Putin's invasion is 
unacceptable and inappropriate.

  I think it is important to remind my colleagues of some important 
facts they are ignoring.
  To be clear, the Biden administration has done more than any previous 
administration when it comes to support for Ukraine. In the roughly 14 
months since taking office, the administration has provided more than 
$2 billion in security assistance to Ukraine, including weapons like 
Stingers and Javelins that are proving so effective today. This is far 
more than any previous administration, and I applaud those 17 
Republican Senators who voted for this military and humanitarian aid 
for Ukraine.
  Further, since last fall, the Biden administration has worked 
tirelessly to build a coalition of nations committed to supporting 
Ukraine. So when the time came to stand up to Putin's illegal invasion 
of Ukraine on February 24, the United States stood with more than 30 
countries from across the globe to condemn the violence, to execute the 
largest sanctions and export controls in history, and to support the 
Ukrainian people by surging humanitarian and security aid into the 
country. This overwhelming international response would not have 
happened without President Biden's leadership.
  We also should not forget a major reason Vladimir Putin felt so 
emboldened to invade Ukraine and challenge NATO. For 4 years, President 
Trump treated our allies like adversaries and pandered to dictators and 
despots--especially Putin. Mr. Trump's animosity toward NATO created 
lingering doubt about the United States' reliability and the cohesion 
of the alliance, jeopardizing our greatest advantage against Russia.
  The Trump administration's failure to hold Russia accountable for 
numerous violations of international norms served only to embolden 
Putin in challenging U.S. leadership and the rules-based international 
order.
  Most disturbing, of course, was the offense that led to Mr. Trump's 
first impeachment: his efforts to extort Ukraine's security for 
political favors at home. That an American President would abuse his 
office to pressure a foreign government to interfere in our democracy 
as part of a reelection bid remains deeply troubling.
  Mr. Trump's actions damaged NATO, weakened Ukraine, and ceded 
political leverage to Putin. Now, the Ukrainian people are paying the 
price. Fortunately, at this critical time, the United States and our 
allies are no longer hamstrung by Mr. Trump's erratic leadership--a 
fact Vladimir Putin must understand very well at this stage.
  If Putin thought his actions over the past month would drive a wedge 
between NATO members and within the international community, he has 
found himself badly mistaken. Led by President Biden, the international 
community has united in a way not seen in generations, and Russia is 
already straining under the immense costs we have levied against it and 
the courageous actions of the Ukrainian people.
  With that in mind, I would like to take a few moments to correct the 
record on a few debates about our ongoing support for Ukraine.
  First, on the issue of arms transfers, the United States has led the 
international effort to identify capabilities the Ukrainian military 
can put to immediate use, and I think we have to emphasize ``immediate 
use.'' Transferring equipment that cannot be used effectively because 
of the combat conditions in the area or because we need to train or 
refit the equipment is not going to give the Ukrainian forces immediate 
assistance, and that is the kind of assistance they need.
  In fact, over the past few months, the State Department has worked 
with incredible speed to facilitate the transfer of U.S.-origin 
equipment from partner nations to Ukraine. However, all of these 
transports, whether it be former Soviet-era air defense systems or 
former Soviet aircraft, occur on a bilateral basis, and ultimately, it 
is a decision for each partner nation to make within their own internal 
channels.
  With regard to a no-fly zone, the United States has enjoyed air 
superiority for the past 20 years of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
so it is, perhaps, understandable that some of my colleagues think such 
endeavors are easily achieved and without risk. However, establishing 
and enforcing a no-fly zone against a near-peer competitor like Russia 
is far more complex. To do so would almost certainly drag the United 
States and the entire NATO alliance into a direct armed conflict with 
Russia. It would also put the women and men tasked with flying such 
missions at great risk. President Biden has rightly said that the 
United States will not seek direct conflict with Russia, and 
establishing a no-fly zone would almost certainly defy that aim.
  So, to my colleagues both on this side of the aisle and on the other 
side of the aisle, enough with trying to blame the Biden administration 
at every step in this conflict. This crisis demands unity and strength, 
and I call upon my colleagues, particularly my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, to join me in condemning the one person who bears 
responsibility for the horrific violence against the people of Ukraine: 
Vladimir Putin.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am here today with my great friend, 
the senior Senator from Missouri, to talk about an issue we both care 
passionately about and that we have partnered on now for a number of 
years.
  I ask unanimous consent to proceed in a colloquy with Senator Blunt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Excellence in Mental Health Act

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, on October 31, 2013, Senator Blunt and I 
stood here on the Senate floor to mark a very important anniversary. It 
was 50 years to the day after President Kennedy signed into law the 
Community Mental Health Act. It was the last piece of legislation he 
was ever able to sign.
  As we know, his life was tragically cut short, and one important part 
of his life's work, that of providing full funding for comprehensive 
mental health services in the community, never came to happen. Instead, 
behavioral health is funded far too often through grants, and while 
these grants are important, they are just not enough.
  You would never say to somebody who needed heart bypass surgery, 
``Yep, you need surgery, but so sorry; the grant ran out,'' which is 
what happens to someone with a mental health crisis or an addiction all 
the time. You wouldn't say to somebody with bipolar disorder or 
substance abuse--well, we actually would say, ``So sorry; the grant ran 
out,'' and we should not be saying that.
  Why should healthcare above the neck be funded differently than 
healthcare below the neck?
  This is something that Senator Blunt and I started to work on. We 
know that that should not be true. Healthcare is healthcare. President 
Kennedy understood this, and so does my friend Senator Blunt.
  Right, Senator Blunt?
  Mr. BLUNT. Exactly.
  I am so glad to be here with you, Senator Stabenow. We have been 
friends for a long time and have worked together on a number of issues 
both in the House, to which we came at the same time, and in the 
Senate, when I got to the Senate.

  Clearly, this is one of the things of which, I think, we both have a 
strong sense that we have really made a difference in not only how we 
look at mental health but in also the way we talk about mental health.
  To Senator Stabenow's point of treating mental health like all other 
health and ``what happens when you do that?'' we got an award last 
month when I was home and Senator Stabenow was virtually in Jefferson 
City, MO, for a few minutes with the Missouri Behavioral Health 
Council, and we received the Excellence in Mental Health award. Brent 
McGinty, the head of that council, gave a talk about what they were 
doing and what they were seeing from what they were doing.

[[Page S1738]]

Also, we talked about the partnership with community health centers, 
another thing we have worked together on.
  Joe Pierle and Brent McGinty are actually both here today, 
coincidentally, as we are talking about this issue that is so important 
to both of them.
  I have often thought about the same type of discussion we had in 2013 
as Senator Stabenow just pointed out. We went through the Community 
Mental Health Act from 1963, and it became apparent that many of the 
things that probably should have been closed but were serving a need, 
did get closed, but then the support system didn't come in, in the way 
that anybody would have envisioned when that came together. I can 
remember it in Missouri when some of our mental health facilities or 
hospitals were closed, and that was a fine thing if you had what the 
bill that President Kennedy signed had in mind and, I think, what we 
have had in mind.
  One of the things we have looked at is--we have looked at 41 States 
now that have some efforts, some unit, of excellence in mental health--
the Certified Community Behavioral Health Centers--in their States. 
Maybe it is a big county. Maybe it is a city that was able to qualify 
with the 365-days-a-year, 24/7 standards and with the kind of staff 
available that you have to have to meet that criteria first. We now 
have eight States, including Michigan and Missouri, in this process.
  One of the things that is happening in all of those units is keeping 
track of the person's other healthcare challenges when you are dealing 
with their mental healthcare challenges. The NIH says about one in five 
adult Americans has a diagnosable and almost always treatable 
behavioral health issue, and one in five adult Americans probably has 
other health issues as well. In fact, obviously, they would have.
  One of the things we have been trying to keep track of is what 
happens in the real, confined healthcare world when you deal with 
people's mental health problems like they were any other health 
problems. Do they start showing up at appointments more frequently? Do 
they take the medicine that they are supposed to take for either 
behavioral health issues or other health issues? Are they eating better 
or sleeping better or feeling better about themselves? I think it is 
pretty clear and totally logical that that would be exactly what 
happens.
  Another thing we have seen, after the 50 years of whatever happened 
in mental health between October 1963 and the day we were on the floor 
in 2013, is that, in so many ways, the police department, law 
enforcement, and the emergency room became the de facto mental health 
system for the country.
  We have had people come and be part of the press conferences with us, 
Senator Stabenow, when we are talking about fewer people being taken to 
the emergency rooms and the importance of having a contact that you can 
make or have, maybe, a place that is not only a place to spend the 
night but also a place for you and your family so you know that you are 
going to have an ongoing opportunity to have a relationship to deal 
with your mental health problem just like you would if you had to be 
taken to the hospital with other problems.
  We have seen some things there, Senator Stabenow, that you may want 
to talk about a little bit--everything from the iPad that law 
enforcement officers and the crisis intervention team uses in 
Springfield, MO, and other places in our State to where they can 
immediately link the person they are dealing with up on the screen on 
the iPad with the behavioral health counselor who is there any time of 
the day--fully manned, 24/7--and see what begins to happen when a 
professional is dealing with a person in crisis.

  I have seen that happen, and I am sure I was there with, probably, 
the best crisis intervention center person the police department had. 
You can tell the difference when they start looking at that screen and 
talking to somebody who is always a behavioral health specialist but 
also who is just a little bit removed and is totally prepared to enter 
into that discussion. We have had lots of people talk about the impact 
on departments and emergency rooms, Senator Stabenow.
  Ms. STABENOW. Senator Blunt, I couldn't agree with you more.
  I don't know about you, but when we first started and knew this was 
going to be a step-by-step process, we weren't able to go nationwide. 
We had to prove the concept would work with, really, providing 
comprehensive services, not just what is done in most States, like in 
Michigan, where there was Medicaid funding for people who were 
seriously mentally ill, but if you weren't seriously mentally ill, 
there was no support for anybody else.
  So doing a concept like federally qualified health centers, which I 
have been so proud to be your partner on--where you say, ``OK. If you 
meet high standards, we will fully fund your capacity then to provide 
services if you meet high standards''--is what the whole point is. 
After only 2 years of doing that with the eight States' demonstration 
project, I was really blown away, and I think you were, too, in that, 
after only 2 years, the kind of results that they were able to get were 
so meaningful. HHS--by the way, both Democratic and Republican 
Presidents have embraced this and supported this, which has been 
wonderful. But, after only 2 years, they found 63 percent fewer 
emergency room visits.
  I remember being in one of the press conferences we did with a police 
chief from Oklahoma, who was talking about how it was so difficult if 
they had someone who needed care. They would drive hours and go sit in 
the emergency room with them, and an officer would be off of their 
regular duties all day, sitting with somebody in the emergency room.
  So, with a 63-percent reduction in the number of folks sitting in the 
emergency room because they couldn't get help and then to have a 60-
percent reduction in the amount of time in jail, I am not surprised 
that sheriffs and police chiefs and law enforcement officials across 
the country are our biggest supporters in terms of having comprehensive 
community behavioral health clinics. They want people to get help. They 
don't want them going to jail, just sitting in jail.
  The other thing that was so important, I thought, was that there was 
about a 41-percent decrease in homelessness. Oftentimes, with the iPad 
that you are talking about, there may be someone on the ground, on the 
street, and an officer will be asked to respond. The fact that they can 
put someone--a social worker or a psychologist or someone--on the iPad, 
on FaceTime, basically, to talk to someone and get an initial diagnosis 
of what is going on, what kind of help they need, where they should go, 
and so on has been so effective and I know, for law enforcement, such a 
relief in that they have tools that they can use, and we are seeing 
that over and over again.
  One of the things we require, of course, is to be able to get this 
full funding as healthcare so that you have a 24-hour psychiatric 
crisis operation, which I think has been one of the most important 
pieces of it.
  I don't know about you, but the results, to me, have been amazing, 
and we now have 10 States in the demonstration projects, and we are 
ready to offer this opportunity to States across the country.
  Mr. BLUNT. Well, we are.
  As to what you were talking about with getting people into the 
healthcare system instead of the criminal justice system, it is, 
obviously, one of the goals we should have.
  Missouri's really got started in January 2017, and in the first 4 
years in these certified centers, they served more than 150,000 
Missourians and more than 3,500 veterans. That was a 41-percent 
increase over the 4 years of not being in the program to being in the 
program. Not only is it able to serve people, but because of the way 
this is set up, you are able to serve people so much more quickly. You 
are able to have the staff that you can have because you know you have 
got the funding you need to have the staff--largely, this is an 
increase of the Medicaid coverage, but the other Medicaid costs go down 
more than the behavioral health costs add to the system.

  We have always known that this was the right thing to do--right thing 
to do in the long run, right thing to do for police officers, right 
thing to do for the emergency room, right thing to do for the prison 
system, right thing to do for the people being at work.
  I think what we are showing here is, not only is it the right thing 
to do and

[[Page S1739]]

saves money over time, but it is the right thing to do and largely pays 
for itself and maybe more than pays for itself within the immediate 
context of healthcare; and that is one of the things we are looking at.
  What we saw in the last 2 years with COVID was the real crisis that 
became part of that healthcare crisis with a mental health crisis, of 
isolation, of people who developed some kind of dependency. If you 
don't have a mental health problem before you become dependent on 
opioids or something else, you have one as soon as you become dependent 
on those. The suicide numbers went up.
  Having a structure in place ready to reach out and man the suicide 
hotline to get people to where they need to get--there is no waiting 
list for somebody who is thinking about doing harm to themselves or 
others. We need to have a society where we understand that is an 
immediate problem; it has to be dealt with immediately; and it is a 
societal--not only a societal goal, but, actually, it should be one of 
our primary responsibilities in this society. And I think that is what 
we are seeing here over and over again, Senator Stabenow.
  Ms. STABENOW. I agree.
  You know, when I think about COVID and all the increased stress on 
children and young people and, as you said, the increase in number of 
suicides--all the pressure is on everyone, from those on the frontlines 
who are taking care of patients in the hospitals and the stress of 
families and so on.
  We know that it is even more important that we eliminate the stigma 
of what it means to ask for help--mental health help--or if you have an 
addiction to be able to ask for help.
  It is not enough just to eliminate the stigma; you have to have the 
service. You have to have the service in the community. It has to be 
quality services. It has to be funded in a structural way where you are 
supporting the staff and, again, modeling this after community health 
centers, which are widely supported--every community in the country, 
strong bipartisan support.
  By our picking up that model and basically saying, We need to do that 
for mental health and addiction as well as physical health, we are just 
extending something that has shown such success in the community. And 
now, because of what has happened and all the pressures of COVID and so 
on, it is even more important that folks who need help can be able to 
get that.
  You know I think of someone who has struggled with addiction their 
whole life and they finally get the courage up; they are going to ask 
for help. The ability to walk into a clinic and say, ``I need help'' 
and to have somebody say, ``Come on in''----
  Mr. BLUNT. I think in almost--in all of the States, once they get 
this fully running the way they hope it will, that everybody who needs 
to be seen the first day is seen the first day.
  Ms. STABENOW. Right.
  Mr. BLUNT. There may be an occasional evaluation where you talk to 
somebody and realize this is something that you don't have to put at 
the very front of that day's line; but if you need to be at the front 
of the line, you get to go to the front of the line. If you need to be 
seen the first day, you get to be seen the first day. No more 7-day 
waiting period for a crisis moment.
  Ms. STABENOW. Right.
  Mr. BLUNT. People still may have to occasionally wait and come back 
tomorrow or come back Wednesday or whatever the schedule might be--and 
I think that is critically important.
  Now, Senator Stabenow, what you and I are trying to do is to further 
expand the opportunity. You know, the President said in his State of 
the Union message:

       Let's get all Americans the mental health services they 
     need.

  That is a quote: ``Let's get all Americans the mental health services 
they need.'' That was a goal in the President's State of the Union 
message; it should be a significant goal for the country.
  What we would like to see happen in this Congress is the expansion of 
excellence in mental health to every State that wants to do it. 
Initially, we had 24 States apply to be part of the 8 pilot States. 
Nineteen of them went all the way through that entire process.
  You know, all 50 States may not apply, but we would like to create an 
environment where all 50 States could apply.
  Frankly, every time we get a score on this bill, the score is a 
little lower than it was before because I think the facts are beginning 
to persuade even the Congressional Budget Office that this makes 
economic sense to do. And there may be some startup costs, but the 
long-term costs may be actually long-term savings. If you do the right 
thing and save money while you are doing it, Mr. President, that is a 
pretty good place to be in for a society or a government or a country; 
and that is what we are trying to get done, Senator Stabenow, in this 
Congress.
  Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely.
  And we invite all of our colleagues to join us. We have a great 
bipartisan effort going on with our Excellence in Mental Health and 
Addiction Treatment legislation of 2021 that would open the door for 
all States. We know that many, many States and certainly local 
communities are very interested. We can do this. We can actually get 
this done.
  When I heard the President speaking about this, I know I had a big 
smile on my face--and I think you as well, Senator Blunt. We were like, 
All right, this is the next step.
  Mr. BLUNT. Right. Right.
  Ms. STABENOW. I am so excited to see the President agreeing with this 
and speaking about it in his State of the Union. I am looking forward 
to his including this in his budget, which will be coming out very 
soon, and his supporting and embracing a nationwide program.
  I am just so very, very pleased that this is a model that, frankly, 
has survived both Democratic and Republican Presidents, Republicans, 
Democrats, House Members, Senate Members, local communities, Governors 
because it works. Everybody is looking at this. Everybody is looking at 
this.
  Mr. BLUNT. You can have a community behavioral health center working 
with a primary care center or you could have an independent provider 
working with their other healthcare provider or vice versa. It is very 
interchangeable.
  The one criteria for the certified community behavioral health 
centers is the level of staffing--24/7, 365 days a year, always 
available to be that critically important partner that people with a 
mental health challenge need. And, frankly, their families and people 
who care about them need it as well.
  Ms. STABENOW. Yes.
  Mr. BLUNT. This is a big challenge for the individual that has a 
behavioral health problem, but it can be an equally big challenge for 
people who care about them.
  Ms. STABENOW. It really is about families.
  So, Mr. President, I just want to close by saying I am so grateful 
for the partnership that Senator Blunt and I have had. He thinks he is 
retiring at the end of the year. I am actually going to put him in a 
closet and not let him leave because he has been such a champion both 
in his role on appropriations as well as partnering for long-term 
funding. This is important; this is something real and tangible and 
meaningful that we can all do together; and I am excited and hopeful we 
are going to take the next step this year together.
  Mr. BLUNT. We are, too.
  Mr. President, we look forward to you joining us in this effort.
  Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                                 USICA

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we have begun the long-awaited process of 
moving forward on legislation that will bolster our domestic 
semiconductor manufacturing and confront the growing threats posed by 
China.
  This legislation has had many different names over the last year or 
so. We started with the Endless Frontier Act in the Senate. Then, 
miraculously, it became the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, 
affectionately known as USICA. And then it became the Make it in 
America Act. But now it has a new name, the Bipartisan Innovation Act.
  Well, regardless of what you call it, it is absolutely critical that 
we get a strong version of this legislation to the President's desk as 
soon as we can. The Senate passed the original legislation

[[Page S1740]]

last summer with significant bipartisan support. We urged our 
colleagues in the House to treat this legislation with the sense of 
urgency that it deserved, but they wasted months with no action. To be 
charitable, I guess they were preoccupied with other matters.
  But it wasn't until last month, just ahead of the President's State 
of the Union, that they finally leapt into action. The President, of 
course, wanted to talk about this legislation in his speech. So House 
Democrats had to cobble together a bill in short order. Unfortunately, 
it was a highly partisan one. Their bill passed almost entirely along 
party lines, and now, the two Chambers--the House and the Senate--have 
a critical task ahead of us to reconcile those two versions. We need to 
begin the formal conference committee process, dive into negotiations, 
and get that strong bill to the President's desk.
  The cornerstone of this effort, as far as I am concerned, is 
bolstering our domestic semiconductor manufacturing. Even more 
concerning is that 92 percent of the world's most advanced 
semiconductors come from one place, and that is Asia. Sixty-three 
percent come from Taiwan alone. If that supply chain were cut off, it 
would lead to very serious consequences. And, unfortunately, that 
potential is not just a doomsday scenario that is farfetched by any 
means.
  A few months ago, I led a congressional delegation to Asia to learn 
more about the need to confront China in a variety of ways in that 
region. One of the leaders we met with was the head of the Indo-Pacific 
Command, the regional command that covers that part of the globe, and 
he described the current power dynamic rather succinctly. He said it is 
not a question of if China invades Taiwan but when.
  Well, we have one rough idea of when that could potentially happen. 
President Xi Jinping himself said he wants to be ready to unify the 
People's Republic of China with Taiwan by 2027, just 5 years from now. 
But, truth be told, we don't have any idea when President Xi will call 
that play. We won't have any more notice for that than we did for 
Putin's invading Ukraine.
  It is tough to overestimate the impact this would have on the United 
States and our allies. And, even absent some military action by the 
People's Republic of China seeking to swallow up and absorb Taiwan with 
its manufacturing capacity for the semiconductors, if we had another 
pandemic, if we had another natural disaster, any one of those three 
things could disrupt that critical supply chain, much to our detriment 
and that of the rest the world.
  We learned one thing in COVID-19, and that is that these supply 
chains are very vulnerable. I still remember the first call I had with 
my Governor when COVID broke out, and I said: Well, what do you need? 
What can we do to help?
  He said: I need two things. I need testing, and I need PPE, personal 
protective equipment.
  Those are gowns and masks used by healthcare professionals and others 
to protect themselves when treating people with COVID-19, and the fact 
of the matter is, almost all of it is made in China.
  This notion of globalization of the economy has led us to believe 
that the only thing to think about when it comes to manufacturing a 
product is where can it be made the cheapest, but, obviously, there is 
more at stake than just who can make it the cheapest. We learned that 
in COVID-19--thus the need to bolster our critical supply chains across 
a whole range of products, including semiconductors.
  Semiconductors are something that most of us don't know a lot about. 
I have had to learn a lot myself about it, and I still don't consider 
myself an expert. But I asked my staff: Please tell me; how important 
is this?
  And they said: Well, Senator, everything with an off-and-on switch 
involves semiconductors.
  And if you think about how technological our lives are and how much 
we depend on everything from the sensors in our car to the backup 
camera when we back our car out of a parking place, to the laptop 
computers that our kids were using during COVID-19 to study virtually--
and then there is farming equipment, communications equipment, and 
medical equipment--all of these rely on semiconductors. And 90 percent 
of them come from one region of the world, and that is Asia.
  The shortages we have experienced recently would seem insignificant 
compared to the complete chaos that would ensue if this supply chain 
were disrupted. This gets downright dangerous when you think about how 
a global chip shortage would impact our national security and, more 
broadly, global security.
  Russia's attack and invasion of Ukraine is a wake-up call for the 
United States and our allies to examine our defense posture across the 
planet. One of the bright spots of this, if you can call it that, is 
that countries in Europe, including countries like Germany that were 
reluctant to contribute 2 percent of their gross domestic product to 
the joint collective defense effort of NATO, have turned around and 
stepped up. That is a welcomed development. But the fact of the matter 
is, our military and our national security depend on access to these 
semiconductors because, increasingly, our military depends on 
technology to perform their mission.
  One advantage that the United States has typically had against our 
adversaries around the world is our advanced technology and our 
capacity to innovate and to solve problems using that technology. But 
here is the bottom line: That technology cannot function without 
semiconductors. It is that simple, whether you are talking about 
advanced fighters like the fifth-generation fighter, the F-35, or you 
are talking about missile defense systems like Iron Dome, which was 
used by Israel to defeat the rockets that were raining in on it in 
recent months. A single interceptor used by the Iron Dome missile 
defense system--rocket defense system--contains more than 750 
semiconductors, just a single one.
  So semiconductors are our key to confront threats by any adversary, 
not just China, and are essential to our economy here in the United 
States.
  Earlier this week, two national security and foreign policy experts 
at the University of Texas wrote an op-ed piece in The Hill magazine--
or newspaper--and they made the national security case for CHIPS 
funding. They noted this is not the first time that semiconductor 
supply chains were regarded as a matter of national security. Back in 
the 1980s, President Reagan pushed to maintain our competitive edge in 
these chips, thereby helping us lead in the advanced weapons and 
aircraft that they enabled.
  As they said, Reagan didn't just outspend the Soviets; we also out-
innovated the Soviets, winning that arms race. And that is what we need 
to do again today. We can't just rely on our ability to spend more than 
Russia or China or any other adversary. We need to out-innovate them as 
well.
  Considering the fact that China is the No. 1 master thief of 
intellectual property, it is all that much more important. Now, there 
are some critics of the CHIPS Program that has been introduced by the 
Senator from Virginia Mr. Warner and myself. Both of us serve on the 
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. It is one reason why, because 
of the briefings we get, this became a matter of grave concern to both 
of us. But the good news is that concern is shared by a broad 
bipartisan majority in the Senate. There are some, though, who said 
that this initiative is just a bailout for domestic energy. But that is 
not the case at all. This is not a handout. It is, frankly, one of the 
tools we have to reshore--to bring back onshore--this essential 
manufacturing capacity, as well as incentivize domestic industry to 
build out our capacity here at home.

  Here are the numbers. Over the last three decades, the United States 
has gone from producing 37 percent of the global chip supply to just 12 
percent today--12 percent here in America. The rest of it is in Asia 
and in other places around the world. Now, that is a big flashing red 
light when it comes to our national security.
  Without some Federal incentives, companies cannot afford to invest 
the enormous amount of time and capital needed to stand up new chip 
fabs or expand existing ones, and that is because it costs about 30 
percent more to build these fabs here in America than it does overseas.
  But, again, going to the low-cost producer is not the only 
consideration

[[Page S1741]]

when it comes to these vulnerable supply chains that are so important 
to our economy and our national security. That is why it is absolutely 
critical for us to bring this semiconductor manufacturing back home, 
and full funding for the CHIPS Program is the best way for us to see 
results.
  We began to establish this program more than a year ago in the 
National Defense Authorization Act, and the only thing missing now is--
well, you guessed it. It is money. We need the appropriations in order 
to fund this CHIPS Program that we began to embrace over a year ago in 
the National Defense Authorization Act.
  That is why it is absolutely critical that we begin the conference 
committee process for the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act or 
whatever it is called today. I will have to refresh my memory--the 
Bipartisan Innovation Act--since it has had so many different names. 
But we need to get this done, and we need to get this done now, and we 
need to get it done right.
  Now, I expect the final bipartisan conference committee report to 
look a whole lot like the Senate version. That is because, as I 
mentioned a moment ago, the House decided to take the low road and pass 
purely a partisan bill. The Senate bill was the product of intense 
bipartisan negotiations and represented a good-faith compromise by all 
sides.
  I think that is the best place for us to begin once the formal 
conference committee process is underway. I hope we can work quickly to 
reach a final agreement and one that will serve the interests of the 
American people, our economy, and, most importantly, our national 
security.
  I urge all of our colleagues to wade into this process so we can 
begin that conference committee and reach a bipartisan resolution 
promptly.
  This is not a time for us to dawdle or to play politics. It is a time 
for us to get the strongest possible bill we can to the President's 
desk, and that begins with passing this appropriations portion of this 
bill to bring that manufacturing capacity back to America.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           North Platte Canteen Congressional Gold Medal Act

  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I would like to tell you a story about 
North Platte, NE.
  During World War II, this small, West Central Nebraska town was one 
of the most famous cities in America, and it was the epitome of 
homefront patriotism. From Christmas Day 1941 to April 1946, North 
Platte was the site of one of the many community-based canteens that 
offered hospitality to soldiers on their way to join the fight or on 
their way back home.
  There were nearly 120 of these canteens across the United States, 
mostly along railways, like the Union Pacific line that still runs 
through Nebraska. Of these 120 canteens, North Platte was by far the 
biggest. It served more than 6 million servicemembers over the 4\1/2\ 
years it was open. The country's second busiest canteen in Ohio served 
well under half that many soldiers over its lifetime.
  As many as 24 different troop trains, carrying up to 8,000 uniformed 
personnel overall, rolled through North Platte on any given day.
  Here is a quote from a local newspaper about what the residents of 
just two Nebraska towns, Merna and Anselmo, donated to the North Platte 
Canteen on a single day in 1944: 53 birthdays cakes, 127 fried 
chickens, 58 dozen homemade cookies, 32 dozen cupcakes, 73 pounds of 
coffee, 163 dozen eggs, 68 dozen doughnuts, 41 quarts of pickles, 3 
crates of oranges, 9 pounds of ham, 160 loaves of bread, 40 popcorn 
balls, and 50 pounds of sandwich meat.
  It took 22 cars and 3 pickup trucks to drive all those donations 70 
miles west to the train station in North Platte.
  Members of the community organized regular benefit dances, scrap 
metal drives, and other events to support the canteen's operations. In 
all, volunteers raised more than $137,000--worth more than $2 million 
today--to support the canteen, and they did it all on their own.
  As you might imagine, the soldiers who were fortunate enough to stop 
at the North Platte Canteen didn't soon forget the hospitality that 
they received.
  Russ Fay, a Wisconsinite who was barely old enough to be drafted when 
he was shipped off to basic training in California, was one of those 
lucky soldiers. More than 60 years after his 10-minute stop in North 
Platte, he told journalist Bob Greene, who wrote a book about the North 
Platte Canteen called ``Once Upon a Tow'':

       I can still taste it. I would say that a majority of the 
     men on the battlefield know exactly what North Platte was. . 
     . . They would talk about it like it was a dream. Out of 
     nowhere, [other soldiers would say]: How'd you like to have 
     some of that food from the North Platte Canteen right about 
     now?

  The thought of the North Platte Canteen kept our soldiers going 
during one of the darkest periods in world history. And more than 
55,000 people, nearly all of them women from 125 different communities, 
chipped in to help run it at one point or another. Most were 
Nebraskans, but many were from our neighboring States of Colorado and 
Kansas.
  One of those Nebraska women was my mother, Florence Strobel. She 
moved from Lincoln to teach kindergarten in North Platte in the fall of 
1944, and she was proud to be among the volunteers at the canteen.
  To honor everyone who helped give our soldiers a good memory to hold 
onto while they were away from home, I recently introduced the North 
Platte Canteen Congressional Gold Medal Act.
  This bill would award a collective Congressional Gold Medal to all of 
the individuals and communities that volunteered or donated food and 
other items to the North Platte Canteen. This is the highest honor 
Congress can give civilians, and the tens of thousands of people who 
made America's busiest World War II canteen a success are certainly 
deserving of it.
  Under my bill, after the Treasury Department strikes this 
Congressional Gold Medal, it would be on display at the Lincoln County 
Historical Museum in North Platte, which has an outstanding exhibit 
about the canteen.
  This wouldn't be the first time that Congress has given the 
volunteers at the North Platte Canteen the recognition they deserve. 
Almost 20 years ago, the 108th Congress acknowledged their efforts with 
a resolution introduced by Nebraska Representative Tom Osborne. I hope 
the 117th Congress will do so, as well, by passing this bill.
  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. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Remembering Madeleine Albright

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, today we lost a towering figure in 
American and world history. Madeleine Albright was one of the smartest, 
strongest diplomats that we have ever had. She came to America as a 
refugee and helped move the country closer to the promise that it was 
founded upon. She made the world a better place.
  Madeleine Albright was born in the former Czechoslovakia in 1937. 
When the Nazis took power, her family was forced into exile, ending up 
in London, where they survived the Blitz. After World War II, they 
returned to Czechoslovakia but were again forced to seek refuge, this 
time from communism.
  As an 11-year-old, she arrived with her family at Ellis Island. She 
became a U.S. citizen, graduated college on a full scholarship, and 
went on to earn a Ph.D. while raising her three daughters, Alice, 
Katie, and Anne.
  She worked here in the U.S. Senate on the Foreign Relations Committee 
under Edmund Muskie, then at the White House National Security Council, 
before becoming a renowned professor at Georgetown University. In 1993, 
President Clinton nominated her as U.S. Ambassador to the United 
Nations. She was the second woman to hold that position.
  In 1997, she became the first woman in our Nation's history to serve 
as a

[[Page S1742]]

Secretary of State. As Secretary, she was a strong supporter of NATO, 
encouraging the alliance to add new members and to protect vulnerable 
populations. She urged military intervention to save lives in Kosovo. 
She worked to prevent rogue States from getting nuclear material and 
supported the Kyoto Protocol. And she strengthened American alliances 
across the planet.
  But Madeleine Albright is not the sum of her accomplishments. 
Madeleine Albright is something more. She embodied the ideals of our 
country. She was a constant light in the struggle between freedom and 
oppression, relentlessly advocating for people to have rights that she 
knew didn't exist under authoritarian regimes. She broke the highest 
glass ceiling in her field and then spent the rest of her career 
fighting for opportunities for other women. We will remember her as a 
diplomat and a trailblazer.
  But I will also remember her as something else: family. My oldest 
brother Jake is married to her daughter, Katie. When I first became a 
U.S. Senator, she was thrilled to have a politician in the family and 
wanted to be helpful without casting a long shadow, so she discreetly 
called Barbara Mikulski and told her to look out for me.
  We were fast friends--not acquaintances, not friends in the political 
sense, but actual friends.
  She was a tireless and sharp political strategist. She was the kind 
of person who would watch C-SPAN for fun and was endlessly fascinated 
with politics at all levels, from municipal elections, State elections, 
Hawaiian politics, the United Nations--she loved this stuff.
  She was also a trusted confidante. We had long talks about everything 
but mostly about our two shared loves: family and politics. And it was 
always over a meal, which she would occasionally let me pay for.
  But most of all, I will remember her as Grandma Maddie, someone who 
was kind and curious with my kids. She was one of the most decent human 
beings whom I have ever known. May her memory be a blessing.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.


                         Remembering  Don Young

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Senator Sullivan and I are here this 
afternoon on the Senate floor, and we are here with heavy hearts. We 
are joined in the Galleries by friends of Alaska because, last Friday, 
our Congressman, Congressman Don Young--the Congressman for all Alaska 
and the dean of the House, who served our 49th State ably and 
faithfully for the last 49 years--passed away as he was flying home to 
be with the people of Alaska. Seated next to his wife, Anne, he passed 
peacefully and left this world.
  There is no doubt--there is no doubt--that Congressman Young lived a 
large and full life. He was 88 years young, and we always referred to 
him as ``young,'' not old. He accomplished an incredible amount across 
the many decades that he served Alaska and served his country, but that 
doesn't make the loss any less sudden or any less devastating, and it 
doesn't change the fact that we are now left with a hole the size of 
Alaska in our congressional delegation.
  We were a team. We were small but mighty. The Presiding Officer has 
heard me, on this floor, talk about the Last Great Race, the Iditarod, 
and that no dog team--no dog team--can make it without the leader. We 
all know that. You have got the swing dog, and you have got the wheel 
dog, and we have all kind of taken different points on that team, but 
it has always been with Don Young.
  I was home over the weekend. I spent the weekend there, reflecting on 
Don Young's life and on his legacy. I had the chance to speak with his 
wife, Anne, over the phone. I talked with his daughters--Joni, whom we 
know well, and Dawn, her sister. I talked to a lot of friends who 
shared some stories about our Congressman. Many of those stories are 
probably not fit to print in the Congressional Record, but there was a 
lot of reliving of the life and times of Don Young.
  For those who didn't have the privilege of knowing Congressman Young, 
as so many Alaskans did, he was really all of the things that have been 
written about him and all of the things that have been said about him 
these past several days. He was all that, and he was more. He was 
larger than life. We keep saying that: ``larger than life.''
  He was colorful--as colorful as they come. He could be tough; he 
could be gruff; he could be very feisty, but he was also warm, 
engaging. He was charming, but, most of all, he was passionate. He was 
a passionate man about Alaska and Alaskans--to his very core. And he 
was loyal. He was loyal and devoted to his family, to his friends, to 
his staff who served him, and was loyal to the people he loved so 
dearly.
  So we think about Don as forever being Alaska, but Don's life didn't 
begin in Alaska. He grew up in California, working on his family farm. 
His father would read Jack London to him at night, and that inspired 
him, later on, to head north. He served in the Army with the 41st Tank 
Battalion. Then, after graduating from Chico State college, he answered 
``The Call of the Wild.''
  He eventually made his way north to the village of Fort Yukon, just 
above the Arctic Circle. He tried his hand at just about everything. He 
was into construction. He was into mining. He taught at a BIA school in 
the winter. He was a tugboat captain in the spring and summer. He 
hunted. He fished. He trapped. He took well to Alaska, and Alaska took 
well to him.
  By then, Don had fallen in love with Alaska, and he was also head 
over heels for his first wife, Lu, who was a bookkeeper from a 
respected Gwich'in family. They married in 1963.
  He was elected mayor of Fort Yukon the next year, but he didn't spend 
much time as mayor. He moved on to the Alaska State House of 
Representatives and then to our State senate, but where he would really 
make his mark was at the Federal level, as a Member of the House of 
Representatives, which he joined in 1973.

  Initially, it didn't start out so well. He lost the election in 1972 
to Nick Begich, only to win it in a special election in March of 1973 
after Congressman Begich went missing after an airplane accident. Once 
in office, Don Young never stopped winning for Alaska.
  In his first year in office, Congressman Young helped to authorize 
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which has been the economic backbone of our 
State ever since. Not long after, his colleagues chose him as their 
Freshman Congressman of the Year. There are so many, many legislative 
accomplishments over the course of the Congressman's life--too many to 
list here--but I will just highlight a few.
  In addition to the pipeline authorization, he helped to establish the 
200-mile fishing limit and contributed to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
which has allowed Alaska to maintain its world-class fisheries. He 
wrote the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, which guides 
the use of millions of acres of those lands. Congressman Young passed 
legislation to open a small part of the non-wilderness 1002 Area in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and he did this a dozen times before 
we steered it into law in 2017.
  Believe me, Congressman Young reminded me every time how many times 
he had actually gotten it across the finish line in the House, but Don 
never ever gave up. Given the way of the world now, his commitment to 
energy security should be more appreciated than ever.
  He enacted important measures as chairman of the Natural Resources 
Committee and a landmark transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU, as chairman 
of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He was also a 
strong, strong champion for Alaska Natives and Native Americans.
  Don was pretty independent. He was independent in his thinking, and 
he was not afraid to vote his conscience to help Alaska.
  Just before he left Washington, DC, this past week, he was involved 
in the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and helped 
considerably with the Tribal title in that act.
  I also credit him--seriously credit him--for garnering enough 
Republican votes in the House last year to ensure that the bipartisan 
infrastructure bill could finally move across the finish line. He knew 
that that measure was good for Alaska, and he said: Not only am I going 
to give my vote, but I am

[[Page S1743]]

going to work to make sure that we have the votes over here to sign 
this into law.
  There are a lot of stories in this body about our former Senator, 
Senator Stevens, being legendary and pretty tenacious in his pursuit of 
Federal dollars to help build Alaska, but just know that Congressman 
Young was right there, every step of the way, making sure that Alaskans 
received what we considered to be our fair share.
  On December 5 of 2017, Alaskans were just filled with pride for 
Congressman Young when he became the 45th dean of the House--its most 
senior Member. At the time, I gave him a little gift. It was a star 
designated in his name. You can actually get a certificate that says, 
``This star up there is designated to you,'' but it was given as a 
sentiment, reflecting his stature as the North Star of our delegation 
and our northern State.
  When you think about this remarkable journey that Don Young had--from 
teaching fifth graders in Alaska, to running dog teams, to guiding 
barges along the Yukon River, to becoming the longest serving 
Republican Member of Congress of all time--of all time--and being the 
most senior Member of the House of Representatives--of all that 
Congressman Young accomplished and of all that he did for Alaska, you 
have to know that this was no easy task. This was no easy task. For 49 
years, he stood alone in the House of Representatives as the sole voice 
for Alaska. We only have one Congressman for all of Alaska. Only seven 
States have just one Congressman.

  And, of course, Alaska is farther away from Washington, DC, than all 
of those States, bigger than all of them combined, and our vast amount 
of Federal acreage means that we have more issues and perhaps more 
complicated issues that have to be addressed as well, but none of that 
mattered to Don Young.
  He took the long trips back home in stride. He would use his time on 
the plane to meet people, to talk to them, to just have conversation, 
try to understand their priorities and concerns, but he was making 
friends.
  He did the same here in Washington. He worked tirelessly here to 
build relationships, build alliances that would help him help Alaska, 
help address our State's challenges. It wasn't as if he was seeking out 
bipartisan relationships necessarily; Don was just the kind of guy who 
would make friends.
  The record shows that Congressman Young was one of the top 
legislators of our time. He was the primary sponsor of 123 bills that 
became law. You go over to his office, and you will see pictures on the 
wall of 10 different Presidents who signed into law different measures 
that Don had participated in. Again, recall Don Young was one of 435 
voting Members of the House and the only one there to represent Alaska, 
and he was repeatedly named one of his Chamber's most effective 
Members. Don Young was old school because his relationships really ran 
on both sides of the aisle, starting with Speaker Pelosi, Leader 
McCarthy, and spanning the spectrum of all who would work with him. He 
really did work tirelessly to do what was right for Alaska because, at 
the end of the day, that is all he cared about, and he was pretty open 
about that.
  Being a Congressman for Alaska requires every last bit of you. It 
requires tremendous sacrifice from you and your family. If you don't 
trust that, if you doubt that, just ask Anne Walton Young. Since they 
married in 2015, she has been by his side literally every day, in the 
office, traveling with him. She knows. She knows the work ethic of this 
man, she knows the heart of this man, and she knows how hard he worked 
for all of Alaska.
  From his first day to his last day, 49 years and 13 days, Don Young 
gave it his all. As a true man of his people, he was just the right 
Alaskan to serve in the people's Chamber.
  Senator Sullivan and I are going to have a lot more to say about our 
dear friend, our partner, our team leader in the coming days and weeks. 
We will have a number of occasions to honor his life and legacy, 
including on March 29, when he will lie in state in Statuary Hall for a 
well-deserved tribute.
  For today, however, our reality is that for the first time in 49 
years, Alaska does not have a Congressman in the House of 
Representatives. For the first time in 49 years, Alaska does not have 
Don Young there to defend, to advocate, and to legislate on our behalf. 
And I am heartbroken and so are countless Alaskans and individuals 
across the country whose lives happen to intersect with this legendary 
legislator.
  On Saturday morning, I got a text from a former staffer who left 
years ago, a young man, and in his text, he says:

       Don Young was the only Congressman for all of Alaska for 
     all of my life. I will miss him.

  We have lost a giant whom we loved dearly and who held Alaska in his 
heart always. We thank him for everything he did for us to build our 
State and fulfill so much of our promise. We owe his family--his wife, 
Anne; his daughters, Joni, Sister--a debt of gratitude for sharing him 
with us for so long. Together with them, we mourn for our late 
Congressman, Alaska's champion, and our dear friend, Don Young.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield to my fellow Senator from Alaska.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, like my good friend and colleague 
Senator Murkowski, I rise today to recognize a giant, a larger than 
life man, certainly a legend in our State, and certainly a legend in 
the House of Representatives, Congressman for all Alaska, Donald Edwin 
Young.

  As Senator Murkowski mentioned, we lost this great Alaskan, this 
great American, while flying home with his beloved wife, Anne, by his 
side just this weekend. He was flying back home to Alaska, the State he 
loved so much and served so well. It is a State that loved him back and 
showed him that love by electing him to office every 2 years since 
1973. Think about that. Unbelievable. He was the longest serving 
politician in Alaska's history, the longest serving Republican Member 
of the House in U.S. history, our North Star, Don Young. As Senator 
Murkowski mentioned, he was 88 years young.
  I just want to say, like all Alaskans, my wife Julie and I, when we 
heard the news, we were saddened, shocked, devastated by the sudden 
passing of Congressman Don Young. And we heard this from so many people 
over the weekend: his spirit, authentic, tenacious, indomitable, a man 
of the people--a true man of the people--epitomized our State to such a 
degree that there was this sense that he would always be there, that he 
would live forever. There was this sense, and the shock back home is so 
palpable because of that. Think about, almost three-quarters of our 
State's history, Don Young was our Congressman.
  So I, too, want to spend a little bit of time talking about this 
incredible man, this life in full, as Senator Murkowski mentioned.
  A lot of stories about being raised on a small ranch in Central 
California, where he began the hard work of ranching as a young, young 
boy. Don Young once said: My dad was a good man, but he believed when 
you turned 7, you became a hired man. So he was working at the age of 
7, Sun up to Sun down. It was hot, riddled with snakes and poison ivy. 
Evidently, Don Young did not like snakes or hot weather because he 
mentioned often about his father reading him Jack London's ``The Call 
of the Wild,'' a book about a dog, a man, the harsh conditions of the 
Yukon, and loyalty.
  Senator Murkowski already mentioned that one of the things--and I 
love this man so much--but one of the things about him that you always 
knew was loyal, loyal, loyal. What a great quality. What a great 
quality.
  Then, of course, Alaska captured his imagination--no snakes, no 
poison ivy, snow. Those of us, all of us who saw Don Young over the 
years carry around that battery-powered portable fan, we knew that, 
well, Don Young ran hot with that fan.
  So, as Senator Murkowski mentioned, he got his associate's degree 
from Yuba Junior College in 1952. He served in the Army--I always loved 
to give him a little grief about his Army service as a marine--Chico 
State, and then at an Elks Club in Chico, he heard then-Alaska 
Territorial Governor Mike Stepovich give a speech about Alaska, talking 
about the wonders of Alaska, and Don Young was hooked. In 1959, the 
year we became a State, he heeded the

[[Page S1744]]

call of the wild, headed up the Alcan--much of it still unpaved--in a 
brandnew Plymouth Fury, and the great State of Alaska would never be 
the same.
  According to Don Young, in Alaska, you could ``do anything you wanted 
to,'' so he did. As Senator Murkowski mentioned, he fought forest 
fires. He owned a skating rink for a short time. I would have loved to 
have seen that, by the way. He owned a movie theater, tried his hand at 
commercial fishing, trapping, prospecting for gold. Of course, he was a 
tugboat captain, teacher at a BIA school, importantly, in Fort Yukon, 
and that is where he always called home. In fact, he still has a home 
there. He used to joke he is the only Congressman who, when he goes 
home, uses an outhouse when he goes home.
  He eventually met Lu, his wife--incredible Lu, who stayed by his side 
for 46 years until she passed in 2009. Since that time, Don found 
another wonderful partner in Anne. So, Anne, thank you and the family 
for sharing him with us.

  Don, with Lu's prompting, caught the political bug. He served in the 
State house in Alaska and the State senate. Now, he discovered that he 
didn't like the senate much. ``All they did was stand around with hands 
behind their back and talk''--that is what he said about the Alaska 
State Senate.
  Well, guess what. His attitude about the U.S. Senate wasn't that much 
different. ``You Senators are always late,'' he would often growl at me 
and Lisa--and we were when we had our frequent Alaska delegation 
meetings. But even as Senators, we always knew our place with 
Congressman Don Young, dean of the House. All those Alaska 
congressional meetings were over in his office--were over in his 
office.
  One of my favorite things I did with Don Young, as dean of the House, 
wherever I saw him--particularly in public in Alaska--the first time I 
would see him at an event or something, I would say, ``It's the dean of 
the House.'' I would grab his hand, take a knee, and kiss his ring. 
Now, he always said, ``Stop that. I hate it when you do that.'' But do 
you know what? I think he actually kind of liked it. I actually think 
he kind of liked it.
  So he didn't like the Senate; he liked the House, the place where 
bills move fast, where elections are right around the corner no matter 
what--think about that, 25 elections. Jeez Louise. I could never think 
about that--and where the action was. Mostly, he was a man of the 
people, and he belonged in the people's House.
  Along the way, he had two wonderful daughters, Joni and Sister, whom 
he loved fiercely. He always said the most important thing in his life 
were those two daughters.
  Lu was nothing if not persuasive. She was no doubt the boss in the 
family, and so when she told him he needed to run for Congress, he did. 
And with the help of many people--and I would like to say my wife's 
grandmother, her Sitsoo, was an avid Don Young supporter, flew all over 
interior Alaska during those early campaigns to help him introduce 
himself to a wider audience.
  So when Don was appointed to his seat in 1973, the original knock 
against him, he said back then, was that he didn't know anything about 
DC. People said: You don't know anything about DC; it is going to take 
you 2 years until you can find the bathroom in your office building.
  I am sure some of you heard the story that the first day in office, 
he combed the Rayburn Building looking for the bathroom, when someone 
finally said, ``Congressman, why don't you use the one in your 
office?'' which I don't think he had noticed. So he was learning.
  But on a more serious note--and I love this story. The day after he 
was sworn in, there was a hearing on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
Authorization Act.
  After being held up for years by litigation and studies--imagine 
that; sound familiar, America?--Don successfully pushed through an 
amendment--to me, one of the most brilliant amendments ever conceived 
in the Halls of Congress--that said: No more studies and no more 
litigation. We are done. We are building the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
System now.
  He said:

       It was a hard fight. Half of my side was [initially] 
     fighting against me.

  But when the vote was called, he prevailed. His amendment prevailed 
by four votes, and Alaska's history was changed forever. America's 
history was changed forever.
  And, by the way, what a great idea: Stop endless litigation. Stop 
studying things. Build infrastructure. The country and the State of 
Alaska need energy. Practical, commonsense, get it done--this is why 
Alaskans loved Don Young so much.
  The day of that vote, when it was successful, 1973--remember--Ralph 
Nader stood outside the hall and declared Don Young the most powerful 
Member of Congress--brandnew, baby freshman from Alaska, Don Young. 
Now, you can say a lot of things about Ralph Nader, but he knew power 
when he saw it, and Don Young had it, kept it. He went on to win every 
election after that.
  And, as Senator Murkowski mentioned, more than 90 bills that he 
sponsored became law, thousands more that he cosponsored--mostly to 
help Alaska but to help our whole country. And he became a fierce 
advocate for helping people--thousands and thousands of Alaskans and 
Americans.
  Every 2 years since 1973, Alaskans could count on Don Young, during 1 
of his 24 elections, standing on a corner with his supporters--many 
here today--waving signs in the cold in November back home, wearing his 
old winter coat. And if you didn't know it then--and few Alaskans 
didn't know--you wouldn't guess that the man in those clothes had so 
much power and had done so much to help his fellow Alaskans and fellow 
Americans. Nearly everything--and I mean everything--that has advanced 
to benefit our State in the Congress has Don Young's fingerprints on 
it. The Alaska we know today is only possible because of Don Young.
  As I mentioned, there is, of course, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
System, which transformed our State and our Nation, as well as many of 
the victories that Senator Murkowski just mentioned.
  I always like to talk about the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which, of 
course, transformed America's fishing industry. Among others things, it 
created a 200-mile limit to keep foreign fishermen from plundering our 
fish and sustained our fisheries. It used to be just 3 miles. Now, we 
all know it is the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but, of course, Don Young 
moved it in the House with Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts. 
So I used to like to say, in events with Don Young: Magnuson-Stevens, 
or maybe a better name would have been the ``Young-Studds Act,'' which, 
of course, he loved that idea. So I kind of liked calling it the 
``Young-Studds Act.''
  But here is the thing, the story that is such a great story that a 
lot of people don't know: The executive branch wasn't thrilled about 
this bill, wasn't thrilled about it at all, to such a degree that 
President Ford was considering vetoing it. Why? Because he had a really 
smart, clever Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, who thought it would 
raise tensions with our allies--the Koreans and the Japanese in 
particular--who loved fishing off the coast of Alaska, taking our fish. 
Two hundred miles off, they were going to lose out. They were mad. So 
he was encouraging a veto.
  Whether it was on the racquetball court, in the Halls of the Capitol, 
or a potlatch in rural Alaska, Don Young knew where to be to get things 
done for Alaska. And he knew that the President and Kissinger were 
heading to Asia, stopping over in Alaska. So Don and his two daughters 
and Lu got a ride on Air Force One. A few martinis later, Don Young, 
the new Congressman from Alaska, was debating one of the most brilliant 
men in America--the Secretary of State, former Harvard professor Dr. 
Henry Kissinger--on Air Force One in front of President Ford: Veto the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act or not.
  Well, guess who won that debate: the Harvard professor or the tugboat 
captain? It was the tugboat captain. Now, Don jokingly credits the 
martinis, but we all know that he was the one who got that done. And, 
again, our State and our country's history wouldn't be the same. And, 
by the way, Henry Kissinger and Don Young were great friends ever 
since.

[[Page S1745]]

  Mr. President, that is just one example of many, as Senator Murkowski 
mentioned. Don Young served with 10 Presidents, and he knew them all. 
President George H.W. Bush called him ``Moose.'' They played 
racquetball often. He had Dungeness crab flown in to eat with President 
George W. Bush.
  He and President Clinton were at the White House together one night 
when the vote was called. They were having so much fun that President 
Clinton said: I don't want you to leave, Don.
  Don said: Well, Mr. President, I will need a hall pass.
  So he got a handwritten note from President Clinton, writing to the 
Speaker of the House: Dear Mr. Speaker. Please excuse Don Young from 
voting tonight. We are having cigars at the White House.
  And when Don Young went to the White House to sign the ANWR 
legislation that we had been working on and that he had been working on 
for over 40 years and were able to pass--again, our small and mighty 
team working together, 2017, with President Trump--he turned to 
President Trump and said: So you are the other Don in this town.
  So Don Young has been great friends with Presidents, world leaders, 
but what really motivated and moved him was helping people, especially 
Alaskans. It didn't matter their title, their political affiliation. He 
just wanted to help people.
  He said: As long as you respect the other person and their beliefs, 
you can be successful. Whether in the majority or the minority, I try 
to work with people to solve problems. My job is to listen to what they 
want and how I can then help them get it done.
  Like I said, commonsense, practical--no wonder so many Alaskans loved 
Don Young. And we all know he could tell a story, holding court.
  As we know, in the House there isn't assigned seating, but there was 
one seat in the House that nobody sat in: Don Young's. And, by the way, 
if you did, you may be taking your life into your own hands.
  He sat, and Members gathered around him, listening to his stories. 
The story of the oosik might come up, how he used that in debates, how 
he sat during a committee hearing with his fingers caught in a bear 
trap to make a point, and his legendary office Christmas parties. Young 
staffers and Members from all over the Congress stood in a long line 
that snaked into the hallway just to have a few minutes to hear him 
holding court.
  But his true love was always Alaska. He could have done anything, 
been anything, but he chose to stay and work for the people up until 
the last moment of his life.
  You can make all the money in the world. But if you aren't happy, it 
doesn't count for anything.
  And Don Young was a happy man.
  When we lost Don Young, we lost a piece of Alaska, a piece of 
ourselves, a piece of his indomitable, irascible spirit. But it will 
live on forever, and I know that he has an army of loyalists he has 
amassed through the years in the Gallery, in addition to family, his 
wonderful family.
  Dozens of staffers are here to pay tribute. Some of them now work for 
my office. In fact, early on in my Senate career, I learned something 
very smart. I frequently stole Don Young's staff to come work for me: 
well-trained, smart. I still do it. And he never minded. As a matter of 
fact, he always said: I just want what is best for my people.
  Larry Burton, Erik Elam, Chad Padgett, Liz Banicki, Scott Leathard--
so many are still here with me. So many cut their teeth at Don Young's 
office. And like so many who know Don Young, they are intensely loyal 
to this great Alaskan.
  His spirit will live on in the House of Representatives and the 
people's House, and his spirit will live on in everything he has done 
for our State and every Alaskan from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, to the 
Ketchikan shipping yard, to the many, many land exchanges, the health 
clinics dotting our State, the state-of-the-art Alaska Native Medical 
Center in Anchorage.
  And his spirit will live in his wonderful family: Joni and Sister, 
his 13 grandchildren, Anne, and so many others. Don was a dear friend 
and mentor to me, to Senator Murkowski, to my wife Julie, and so many 
others. He was truly a man of the people, a great man of the people.
  We miss you, Don. Rest in peace.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). The Senator from Wisconsin.

                          ____________________