Dan Sullivan

Absolutely, Senator. I think we are seeing them on a daily basis.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order. There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:07 p.m., adjourned until Monday, December 5, 2016, at 3 p.m.

I just want to echo the point that Senator Tillis made about over-regulation.

In my experience, it's because of the convenience, but also because our servicemen and women want to better themselves.

I'm very worried about, if there is an ulterior motive to just ban ivory. And we have to really fight back against that; all of us.

We need to take a hard look at the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the restrictions that Act has on the transportation or importation of marine mammals for Alaska Natives.

Thank you, again, for your testimony. Sorry this has run a little long, but it's very important.

States like California and now New Jersey... have gone well beyond the Federal standard

While perhaps well-intentioned, these State bans have had the unintended consequences of limiting the ability to trade authentic articles of Natives handicraft.

What more can the Federal Government--what more can Secretary Jewell--what more can Dan Ash--it's one thing to put out a notice in the code of Federal regulations and nobody reads it.

I think it's great. Actually, it's unusual in the EPW hearing like this where all the witnesses agree.

We can't let this get to the point where the ulterior motive of some--and I'm sure it's out there--banning all ivory, which would actually hurt conservation, by the way.

This ban does not apply to walrus ivory, and recognize the importance that this is having on the Alaska Native community.

It sounds like the President Obama statement makes it sound like he might have a goal of banning all ivory or something along those lines, which I think would be very disappointing.

Let me followup on that.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act explicitly allows Alaska Natives to harvest walrus for subsistence purposes

These regulations have, in turn, unfortunately, and from our perspective, misguidedly spawned several State laws that broadly expand the types of banned ivories allowed in different states.

It's actually a really--it's a really important question. We need to know this, right?

So it wasn't a mistake?

I don't think anyone here has opposed the elephant ivory poaching issue.

I do know that you're committed to ensuring that the Alaska Native voice is heard at the national level.

Our rural Alaska is the poster child for challenging economic environments. We need to support employment opportunities that support and sustain our traditional way of life and protects us from the social consequences of a weak economy.

As a lead--as leaders in the Senate, both Chairman Sullivan and Senator Murkowski, I believe it is your responsibility to help us draw the distinction between banned elephant ivory and domestic lawfully harvested walrus ivory.

I want to take a moment and recognize an important issue for this country, for the world, and that is that elephant poaching and the resulting illegal ivory trade in poached species, is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

I would agree with that.