Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think here in the Senate, so many of us have the privilege to occasionally host military fellows, congressional military fellows, and I would like to take just a minute here to recognize the great work of a former member of my staff, Air Force Lt. Col. Randi Ludington. She spent the last year working in my personal office as part of the U.S. Air Force congressional fellowship program. She just concluded that fellowship program just last week and has moved on to her next assignment, but I think it is important to be able to publicly express my appreciation for the work she did over the last year and really for her service to the Nation overall. For 17 years now, Randi has served in the U.S. Air Force. She was first an enlisted financial technician before she earned her commission and worked her way up to the rank of lieutenant colonel. She had a level of exposure before coming to my office certainly. These experiences of being in different places around the world, leading airmen, advising commanders, really proved invaluable when she came to provide her expertise in my office. Not only has she spearheaded efforts legislatively and prepped me for meetings and hearings, she really became a key member of our team, working with Alaskans, working with counterparts back here, but really serving them just as she would serve her own troops. When we were faced with a very chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, Randi was one of those who was really burning the midnight oil. She was putting in long days and long nights, answering calls from constituents and veterans who were seeking help. She was doing just that. She was there around the clock, sometimes just listening, offering words of support; other times just really helping to synchronize the efforts between people on the ground in Kabul, lining them up with Departments and Agencies here in Washington, doing everything she could to try to help facilitate the needs of so many who were so desperate to get out. In the end, Randi was honored by an Alaska Native Corporation, the Goldbelt Corporation. They had been engaged in an airlift, a significant airlift, and she was recognized by Goldbelt for her dedicated efforts assisting them throughout that whole ordeal. So it was nice to know that she had received not only the recognition and thanks from those here, fellows back in Alaska, but also the broader international recognition. So I take this moment to just express my thanks to Randi. It was a pleasure having her in my office. She has a fabulous family. It was a great pleasure to be able to get to meet her husband Brad, an Air Force veteran himself. They have three super-great little kids: Charlee, Ryan, and Graham. I wish Randi and her family nothing but the best as she moves forward with her military career. I feel very fortunate that we get some of our Nation's best, who are able to take kind of a little bit of a detour through their professional trajectory in the military to come here, work with us, share their level of expertise, and also educate themselves on the internal process we have here. I was very fortunate to have her as part of my team. I think we should all be proud to know that it is leaders like her who comprise our military. So, again, thank you, Randi, for what you have done for our country and what you have done to help Alaska. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Oh, my goodness, my soul. Mr. President, may I strike that erroneous introduction?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as my friend from Connecticut has pointed out, there are----

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Well, thank you. Again, it takes a lot of people, and the years that Senator Ernst has been working this initiative on this side of the aisle is something that, again, we want to build on, and we need to build on it together. It has been years in the making. The last time we had a VAWA reauthorization was VAWA 2013, and so we are high past time to be addressing this very significant matter. No compromise is perfect. I think everyone recognizes that. But what has been developed through this framework is a proposal that will really help to prevent violence, to support our survivors, and to hold perpetrators to account. The effort to be here where we are today on the floor, speaking to this, is one thing, but we all want to get to that next step, which is filing the legislation so we can get it moving through this process, and I look forward to doing that in the new year. I can tell you, as a Senator from Alaska, this is an extraordinarily pressing issue in my State. As the vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, I can affirm that this is a very real need across Native lands, and it is the disproportionate victimization of Native people that I want to focus my comments on today. By now, I would hope that every Senator understands the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. We refer to this as MMIW. That is why we passed Savanna's Act and the Not Invisible Act. I want to acknowledge my colleague, who has been working this issue with us for so long, Senator Cortez Masto. I think we recognize that we have made good progress there, but to fully address the root causes of this crisis--the high rates of domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking, the violent crime in Native communities--we have an awful lot more to do. The rates of violence experienced by Alaska Natives are particularly horrific, and the statistics should shock us all. I repeat them a lot, and they still shock me. According to a report prepared by the Indian Law and Order Commission, Alaska Native women are overrepresented by nearly 250 percent among female domestic violence victims around our country. Putting it in context here, a couple years ago, there was an investigation that was conducted by Anchorage Daily News that determined that one in three Native communities in rural Alaska has no local law enforcement that is physically present, leaving Native women and children at greater risk of violence. Think about what that means for just a minute, to live in a community where there is no one to turn to, no law enforcement presence to turn to. Maybe you are able to share your story with a local health aide there, but that is about as far as you can go. Beyond that, you have many Alaskan Tribes that lack the tools they need to address violence in their communities. A couple years ago, the Attorney General at the time, William Barr, was invited to the State and came up, and we said: We need to get you out to one of these remote villages. He saw firsthand, and he was so dramatically impacted after his just multiple hours on the ground there, he declared a law enforcement emergency--a law enforcement emergency--after hearing directly from those who had suffered due to lack of public safety. He said at the time that it was harder for him to imagine a more vulnerable population than the women and children he saw in rural Alaska. He took that back to DC with him and acted on it. His declaration was based on the fact that Alaska has the highest per capita crime rate in this country, and, of course, we face very unique geographic and jurisdictional landscapes. Then comes COVID-19, and you have a pandemic where you have to be in your social bubbles, you have to be inside, and you have to be where it is safe to be away from the virus, but that safe place was not a safe place for far too many people. Last summer, rural Alaska saw five domestic violence homicides in 10 days. Again, these are small, rural communities--five homicides in a matter of 10 days; domestic violence. In the 5 weeks after the State of Alaska declared a public health disaster due to the coronavirus pandemic, calls to our domestic violence shelter increased by 52 percent. You cannot let this go unaddressed. We have an opportunity here in this Congress to build on our previous work with VAWA 2013, where we have taken steps to resolve jurisdictional complexity when it imperils the safety of people. The jurisdiction issues should not deny justice. It just should not. In the 2013 reauthorization of VAWA, Congress recognized the inherent authority of Tribes to prosecute and punish certain domestic violence crimes committed by non-Indians against Indian people. At the time, that was described as unprecedented, and some Members of Congress and the media as well pushed a narrative that Tribal governments somehow were not going to be fair, that they would not safeguard the rights of non-Indian defendants. We knew that was going to be far from the truth, and nearly 8 years later, despite all of the horror stories that were predicted, the record shows that non-Indian defendants experienced a Tribal justice system that treats them fairly and in some ways with more attention than State or Federal systems. So I think now what we need to focus on, folks, we need to focus on the real horror story, and that horror story is the acts of violence being perpetrated against Native women and children. So I have set out to do that through the Tribal title that will be included in this larger VAWA reauthorization once it is introduced. Chairman Schatz, on the Indian Affairs Committee, and I have worked on this together. We posted our text to the committee website last week. Our title closes loopholes and builds upon the success of the 2013 reauthorization, and we include specific solutions to protect Alaska Native people. The Tribal title will further restore and improve the implementation of the special Tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit violent crimes in Native communities, and it will do so by allowing Tribes that exercise this special jurisdiction to charge defendants with crimes that are adjacent to domestic violence, such as violence against children or assault on law enforcement. I think it is important to know that children were involved in 58 percent of all incidents of domestic violence in these VAWA 2013 cases. This is according to a report by the Federal Government a couple years ago, in 2019. By empowering Tribal courts this way, we can help combat this major public safety issue. American Indians and Alaska Natives are the victims of rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence in numbers far out of proportion to the level these crimes are committed outside of Native communities. This is a moral imperative. It is a wrong that we must make right, and we also need to do it in a way that recognizes the unique situation we have in the State of Alaska. You are going to hear later discussion about ANCSA. Two days from now is the 50th anniversary of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. ANCSA created a new approach to Tribal land tenure that is very, very different from the lower 48 reservation system. While Alaska is home to almost 40 percent of the Tribes in the country, we have only one Indian reservation in the State. After the Supreme Court decision in the Venetie case in which the Court held that ANCSA lands are not ``Indian Country,'' it became the State's duty, largely alone, to provide for public safety and justice for Alaska Natives. The Tribal title that we have developed includes an Alaska solution to a complex jurisdictional situation. It includes an Alaska pilot program which builds on previous legislation that I have introduced and will empower a limited number of Alaskan Tribes to exercise special criminal jurisdiction over certain crimes that occur in villages in Alaska. Similar to how the pilot rolled out for the lower 48 Tribes, Alaskan Tribes will have to meet certain criteria, including having a Tribal justice system that can adequately and appropriately safeguard the rights of defendants. In addition to the provisions essential to bringing justice and safety to Alaska Native people, our critical legislation will ensure that VAWA's tools and resources will better serve the needs of survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. I am proud to have authored text that will help to address this ongoing epidemic that Alaska faces with violence, which has left long- lasting trauma for too many of our women, our children, and our families. Congressman Young on the House side has introduced similar language to help in this. We simply cannot allow survivors and the needs of the most vulnerable to go unmet. Very quickly, I want to just outline a couple different provisions that are contained in this bipartisan framework that recognize some of the matters we have been working on in Alaska. There is a provision named in memory of an Alaskan, Breanna Moore. Bree's Law is what we call it. In 2014, Cindy and Butch Moore experienced a tragedy that no parents should ever have to experience. They received a call that their 20-year-old daughter had been shot by her boyfriend in Anchorage. In the wake of that devastation, they turned their energy to and they put their hearts and their passion into working around the State and now at the Federal level to ensure that education is provided to teens to prevent future tragedies. So Bree's Law drives education initiatives to enable youth, parents, and advocates to recognize, prevent, and mitigate teen dating violence. Another provision addresses support services for victims. We know it is difficult to access the necessary medical forensic services in Alaska. These allow for evidence collection and aid in a survivor's journey to justice. While we have very troubling statistics on sexual assault and domestic violence, Alaskans have also been on the frontlines of innovation, offering solutions. The Alaska Comprehensive Training Forensic Academy, which is a pilot program run through the University of Alaska Anchorage, is making a difference in the lives of Alaskans who have experienced interpersonal violence. Built on the belief that all victims of violence deserve evaluation and care from forensically trained healthcare providers, I have been able to secure some provisions in our VAWA proposal that will allow other universities and States to model the successful program and expand access to trauma-informed care. There is clearly a public safety crisis that we are dealing with in rural Alaska and across Indian Country, but we have an opportunity in this Congress to work together across the aisle to find solutions and to restore justice. I look forward to building strong, bipartisan support for VAWA reauthorization that will make a positive difference in the safety of Native communities and for victims of domestic violence and entire communities in Alaska and, of course, across the country. We must let our women, children, and families who have been affected by devastating violence know that you are heard and that we stand with you. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Please.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor today with my colleagues, both the Senator from Iowa behind me and the Senator from California, because I want to thank them publicly for their leadership as they work to address these issues of domestic violence. They have been leaders in this arena for years, and I appreciate that. I am pleased to have worked with them on this framework that has been discussed by both Senators and to acknowledge the work of Senator Durbin as part of this initiative as well. I think as both of them have spoken, it is recognized that this is a matter of urgency. This is a matter for all of us, on a bipartisan basis. Domestic violence, unfortunately, knows no political bounds, and our response to those who are truly among the most vulnerable of us-- that response--should also be bipartisan. So I want to commend Senator Ernst, Senator Feinstein, Senator Durbin for their work in really coming to find common ground on this very important matter. It has been years----

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I have come to this floor to speak on a matter that is very local to Alaska, very important to Alaska. But before I begin my comments, I want to acknowledge a few of the comments of my friend from Minnesota. Clearly, we share some of the same passions about the protections of our democracy, and I would absolutely agree that key and most fundamental is that right to vote. And I have clearly expressed that we, as lawmakers, need to be there to ensure that our elections are free, fair, and accessible to all, that barriers to voting need to be addressed. She has noted that I have joined with others to try to address what I believe are some of those impediments to voting through a measure that has been proposed to the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. It is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, in my view, but I do think that it is something that is worthy of the debate. I was going to call it grand debate on the floor, but as she appropriately points out, there is not a lot of grand debate that goes on. More often than not, it is individuals who are speaking to those who are taking the time out of their day to tune in to C-SPAN. But these are important discussions for us to have. But I also recognize that enduring legislation comes about not because one party is able to make that happen on their own. Enduring legislation, whether it is the Civil Rights Act or whether it was the Voting Rights Act--the enduring legislation that stays with us for generations and decades--is that that is achieved when we have come together. We will never--it is very, very difficult to get entire consent of the body. But when we can achieve that bipartisan support and a recognition that this is good for both parties, good for all areas of America, this is when we do our best, when we come together to address these. And I hear the clear frustration that she has expressed, but I also recognize that how we do what we do is important. And if we peel away the last vestiges of protection for minority rights in the Senate, the Senate becomes a smaller version of the House, where you are able to effectively move things through just by the raw numbers. And so these are hard, these are challenging, these are worthy of our further and additional efforts. But I would remind us that as we are seeking to make these generational differences, as we are seeking to provide for these enduring protections for democracy, that how we get there is also a matter of importance to this body. (The remarks of Ms. Murkowski pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 482 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I mentioned that I came to the floor to speak about a significant matter for Alaska. It is a significant milestone for my State. Just 2 days from now, on December 18, we will mark the 50th anniversary of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act being signed into law by President Nixon back in 1971. For those who are not familiar with Alaska's history, ANCSA, as we call it, is one of the foundational laws for my State. It settled aboriginal land names. It chartered hundreds of Alaska Native corporations to own lands and to empower their Alaska Native shareholders. Now, this structure is very unique. I think most of us think about a corporation and you think about an IBM or a General Electric, but an Alaska Native corporation and the shareholders who are part of them are very, very different from the corporate structure that most know. This approach that was arrived at with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was new. It was a clear, clear departure from the reservation model in the lower 48. It ushered in a new level of economic self-determination through private land ownership. Alaska Native leaders took a look at the reservation system that was throughout other parts of America, and in most of them--not all, but most of them--decided on another path, saying: That is not the route that we would take. They wanted to manage their lands, manage their resources on their own terms, and to have greater economic prosperity and independence. So in Alaska, we have 229 Tribes in the State, and, as someone who comes from a State where you do have many Tribes, I think it always gets people's attention when I say we have about 40 percent of the Tribes in the Nation that are located in Alaska. ANCSA established more than 200 village corporations along with regional and urban corporations. And under this settlement, Congress transferred some 44 million acres of land in Alaska to the private ownership of these newly created corporations. They also appropriated $962 million in compensation. So there was the transfer of ownership, as well as the conveyance of dollars. So as shareholders, the Alaska Native people would then be able to decide for themselves how to use, how to protect, and how to guide development of their lands and their resources. As Marlene Johnson put it, ANCSA meant that Alaska Natives ``were able to surround and put their arms around the land that belonged to their forefathers and will belong to their grandkids,'' and she said, ``That is really important.'' It really is. Today the economic success of ANCSA is as self-evident as it is self- determined. ANCSA has positively impacted not just Alaska Native people but Alaska as a whole. ANCs, as we call them, have become key economic drivers, creating jobs and industry in Alaska but also across the country and even around the globe. ANCs consistently rank as the top 10 Alaska-owned businesses by gross revenue, and many of the largest office buildings and employers in Anchorage and Fairbanks and Juneau are home to ANCs. They also provide important services for their people, like scholarships and cultural stewardship, often through their nonprofit foundations. Because of ANCSA, significant investments have been made in real estate, construction, tourism, workforce development, professional services, and so much more. We have also seen the very clear benefit of resource development. We see this up in the NANA region with the Red Dog Mine. We are hoping that can be replicated at prospects like Donlin Gold in the Calista region. Revenue sharing--very, very unique within ANCSA--revenue sharing with village corporations and leadership in the area of cultural resource protection--we see that down in the southeast region. These are just a few of the examples of where ANCSA really got it right. As we look back at ANCSA, we recognize that there were many, many people who helped to make it happen--not just President Nixon, as I mentioned, the congressional delegation, of course, but more importantly, the many strong Alaska Native leaders, like Emil Notti, Etok Edwardsen, and John Borbridge, among many, many others. We are fortunate that some of the key ANCSA advocates are still with us today, but, sadly, many of the visionary leaders who were so instrumental in the negotiations have passed on, and there are far too many to mention here, but I will share the story of one of them. Don Wright, this individual right here, was born in Nenana back in 1929. He is shown here with Ted Stevens, over to the right. This is Don's wife Carol, and this is the Senator from Vermont, Senator Stafford. Don was known for his charisma and his skill as a negotiator and a political leader. Many Alaska Natives at the time were just very, very personally invested in this effort, and he was one who really led in this. He personally contributed to the advocacy effort, both in time and money. Don led that, along with others. He and others spent nights sleeping on the streets here in Washington, DC, or in the Halls of Congress. They maxed out credit cards to pay for the long trips all the way from Alaska to come here to DC to the Capitol. Don once paid the way for 20 Alaskans to travel with him to lobby for the legislation. He was really all in. He fought tirelessly to secure Native land rights. He was president of the Alaska Federation of Natives when ANCSA actually became law. He was able to meet with President Nixon in 1971 to encourage passage of the bill and was truly a driving force behind the effort. He framed it well by saying that year: The President and the Congress must decide whether this last chapter is to be written in dignity or dishonor. I think, thanks to Don Wright and many other Native leaders, it was written in dignity. I am really very, very humbled by all of the incredible people who helped shape ANCSA, many of whom I am fortunate to know and to call my friends. It is a privilege to be able to honor and thank them here on the Senate floor for their fortitude, their determination, and their perseverance. I remain unwavering in my commitment to help today's leaders as we continue to improve ANCSA and ensure that the Federal Government upholds its promise to Alaska Native people. Now, we say around here all the time that there is no law that we have written and passed that is perfect, and ANCSA is certainly no exception. It is really a living document, if you will, still changing, still evolving. There are gaps; we recognize that. There are shortcomings, and we still have unfinished business, important issues that we have to resolve. One of these is recent, unfortunately, and it does not involve amending ANCSA, but, instead, it calls for flexibility for the unique corporations it created. After the COVID pandemic struck our country, those of us in Congress came together. We were seeking to pass the CARES Act to provide relief across the spectrum. As part of that--and I was really very pleased to be able to be part of that effort that was able to dedicate significant funding for Tribes and Tribal entities. It was $8 billion that was dedicated for Tribes, Tribal entities, including ANCs. But ANCs' eligibility for that funding was quickly challenged despite the very clear intention here in Congress. The case ultimately went to the Supreme Court. It wasn't decided until June 25 of this year, when they ultimately prevailed. As a result of that litigation, ANCs received their allocations under that CARES funding, but they only recently received this. So they got the litigation through, and they received their allocation but very late. But now we have a new problem. The new problem is, that CARES Act money needs to be spent by December 31--a matter of a couple weeks. That is just not right. That is not fair here. It is clearly not long enough to be able to responsibly utilize these very important funds, and it is really not fair as a result of the litigation they faced. So the congressional delegation--Senator Sullivan, Congressman Young, and I--is seeking to extend the deadline through the end of next year. We are basically saying: Look, fair is fair. ANCs should have the time that they need and that others had. While the Senate has agreed to pass a broader bill that includes this extension, it is stalled over on the House side and really has left us with no clear path forward, even at this very late hour. So that is something I am asking my colleagues and the administration for their support on in gaining this flexibility. Another top priority for me is something that was left out of ANCSA all those years ago. Five communities in Southeast Alaska were missing from its text and therefore unable to create what we call urban corporations. Today, this is a 50-year injustice for these five Alaska Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, and Tenakee. I have had the privilege to live in Wrangell and to be born in Ketchikan, so these are communities that are pretty close to my heart. The situation in terms of being left out was challenging enough. It is not made easier by their location in the Tongass National Forest. But I would remind the Senate that they and their ancestors lived in this area. They took care of these lands long before the Federal Government came along and made the designation of a national forest. That nearly all of their region has since been taken and classified as a Federal forest is no reason to refuse to acknowledge and work with us on this. So I have recently reintroduced legislation to allow those five southeast communities to receive their rightful land entitlements under ANCSA. I would urge my colleagues, take a look at this. Recognize that this is a matter of the Federal Government making good on its promise to thousands of Alaska Natives. I would ask that you would join me and Senator Sullivan and Congressman Young as we work to advance this bill into law, as we, again, continue to address unfulfilled promises within ANCSA. A third matter is a provision in ANCSA that, quite honestly, is just outdated, no longer needed. Congress, in trying to do the right thing, required village corporations to take a portion of the lands they received under ANCSA and give them to the State of Alaska to hold in trust for future community needs. Fast-forward some 50 years, and many of these lands are simply being held in trust now even though they are not needed for municipal purposes and quite likely will never be. It is just time to end that requirement and enable the village corporations to receive these lands back if they so choose. We also have to remember that this is a land settlement, but it is not fully implemented. Keep in mind--it has been 50 years now. It is a land settlement that hasn't been implemented fully after 50 years. A total of 5.5 million acres are still under interim conveyance, and another 1.5 million acres remain unconveyed from the original entitlement. We have to provide the resources to the Department of the Interior to complete this very important work. There are at least four more issues that we need to help resolve as well that I will mention. The first here on this list is really concerning to me, and it is actually really very devastating when you think about it. This is the matter of contaminated lands. This problem is not only not going away, it is getting worse. It really pains me to say, but significant lands in Alaska, including formerly used defense sites, were contaminated. The Federal Government knew they were contaminated, but they were still conveyed to the ANCs as contaminated lands, and the government is saying: OK. This is part of your land settlement. We are going to give you these lands, but you can't use these lands because they are contaminated. There are horrible consequences that we are seeing to this. We have clusters of illnesses, cancer. I just had a report that was presented to the Alaska Federation of Natives Convention just this past week. This is causing real suffering, true consequences, death in these communities. It is no fault of the people who live there and received these lands in settlement from the Federal Government. It is a Federal responsibility for us to take care of this, so we have a plan we have-- we have a plan in the sense that we have identified where these contaminated lands are, but what we need is a comprehensive plan in terms of the action, what we are actually going to do to clean up the land and make it right and make it right as soon as possible. Another issue that we need to resolve is the issue of ``afterborns.'' The day that ANCSA became law, December 18, 1971, was kind of an arbitrary deadline, if you will, for Alaska Native people to be included in its benefits. So if a Native person was alive on the date of enactment, December 18, 1971, they were included as an eligible shareholder in the ANCSA corporation that aligned with their traditional Tribal homelands. But if a Native person, even from the same family--same area, same family--if they were born after December 18, 1971, they were not included, and they did not receive shares in any Native corporation. So what you had, you created two distinct classes of Native people. You had original shareholders and nonshareholder descendants--they call them afterborns--who were effectively disenfranchised from the benefits that Congress intended for them. There was a past amendment to ANCSA that dealt directly with this issue but didn't sufficiently solve this problem. This was an effort that we advanced several years ago, a decade or so. Congress has allowed ANCSA corporations to open enrollment to descendants through an affirmative vote of their current shareholders. As a result, what we have seen is that about 5 regional corporations have opened enrollment, and about 5 of the more than 200 village corporations have done the same. Unfortunately, so many of these small village corporations that want to open enrollment simply can't afford this process. It is a relatively complicated process. This is a problem that we are probably going to have to address legislatively--not by directing Alaska Natives on what to do but by providing some support and resources so that they can make that choice at their discretion. One of the more significant promises made to Alaska Native people dealt with the issue of subsistence. In Alaska, subsistence is hunting, it is fishing, and it is gathering. It is inextricably tied to Native culture. It is food security for places where grocery stores simply don't exist, or if they do exist, the food is so expensive that the average family can't afford it. So this is, again, something where we need to find fair solutions for Alaska Native subsistence rights. The last issue I will bring up today is something too significant not to acknowledge. ANCSA was meant to be a fair and just settlement, accomplished rapidly, with certainty and in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Native people without litigation. Congress wrote that into ANCSA itself. Yet, in reality, ANCSA severed Alaska Tribes from the Tribal land base. While many Alaska Native people are owners in Native corporations that manage Native traditional homelands, Alaska Tribal governments were not a consideration in the law. Alaska Tribes, whose collective aboriginal land rights led to the creation of ANCSA, were left without a viable resource stream to effectively govern. They, too, need tools and resources to create opportunities, and that is also an issue that we must consider in going forward. But all of this--all of this--requires education and understanding. That is going to be key, and that has been, unfortunately, lacking-- severely lacking--as we have seen, repeatedly, misguided attacks from Members here in Congress against ANCSA and its corporations. I will tell you, it is hard to express how frustrating that is, how infuriating these attacks truly are. But one additional benefit of this 50th anniversary is the opportunity that it provides us to help Congress, to help the administration, to help, really, the American public understand ANCSA and the promises that were made within that settlement act. Alaska Pacific University and the Wilson Center's Polar Institute have held a series of events that are free for anyone who wants to learn and understand more about ANCSA. The Ted Stevens Foundation is developing a documentary on this. Indian Country Today, First Alaskans magazine, Alaska Public Media, and the Anchorage Daily News, among others, have all published long-form articles, exploring ANCSA's history, its meaning, its impacts, and its future. So I would encourage folks to take a look at that. I think it is also important to remember that, while ANCSA's passage ushered in a period of self-determination and self-governance for Alaska Native communities, it provided opportunities for these communities to really look to the future. In short, ANCSA was designed to address the past by looking to the future. At the annual meeting of the Alaska Federation of Natives, which, I mentioned, just took place earlier this week, I reflected and recognized the generation of Alaska Native leaders who fought for the passage of ANCSA. It was their efforts that helped pave the way for the many Alaska Native youth who may be watching back in Alaska, across the country, and maybe even around the world. I want them to know about the work that was done to pass this historic law and how it is appreciated. As I reflect here today on the passage of this important law, I am hopeful about what ANCSA will represent for our Alaska Native youth in the future. My colleague Senator Sullivan and I have introduced a resolution to ensure that the U.S. Senate recognizes the 50th anniversary of ANCSA. Our resolution acknowledges the incredible accomplishments that Alaska Native people have made through their ANCs over these past 50 years. There are many successes to acknowledge and to celebrate, but in its text, we also reflect on the work that is left ahead and the promises left unfilled--the promises the Federal Government has made to Alaska Native people that must be honored. So I thank Senator Sullivan for standing with me to submit this important resolution, which acknowledges the tenacity of the Alaska Native people and the success of ANCs over the past 50 years. I know that the dean of the House, Congressman Young, joins with us in acknowledging this golden anniversary. I would certainly encourage all of those who have had an opportunity to hear my comments--I know my colleague Senator Sullivan is going to speak later as well--to just take a bit of time to better understand this foundational law for Alaska Natives' self-determination.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to speak also about the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. This is S. 4. Listening to my friend from Virginia here describe some of the history that he and his family have been through, again, this is an important part of the discussion and debate when we talk about one of the very cornerstones of our identity as an extraordinary nation, this principle of democracy and freedom and fair and open elections. The majority leader filed cloture on the motion to proceed on Monday evening, and despite some very real reservations that I have--and it is fair to talk about those reservations--I will be among those who vote to begin debate on this measure when we have this vote in a few minutes here. I will do so because I strongly support and I believe that Congress should enact a bipartisan reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. We have done that. Congress has done that five times since 1965, typically--typically--by an overwhelming margin here in the Senate. It has been about 15 years now since our last amendment to the Voting Rights Act, and I think it is fair to say that 15 years after passage, it is probably timely and necessary to look at updates. In order to do that, I think that what we have to do is we have to step back from the partisanship. We have to step back from the politicization that is driving this conversation. I think we should be able to agree to meaningful improvements that will help ensure that all of our elections are free, they are fair, and they are accessible to all Americans. Now, those who follow this issue know that it is probably no great surprise that I am involved in this discussion here today. I have been the lead Republican cosponsor of the voting rights reauthorization now for the last 6 years. I have worked with my friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, as well as with Senator Durbin, Senator Manchin, and others to shape a framework that will allow us to make some progress on some very real and legitimate issues. At this point, I feel that we have got a good foundation to help provide access to the ballot that is equal, again, for all Americans and free from any form of discrimination. We should all be able to support legislation to assure just that much--that much--because nothing, as my friend from Virginia has said, is more fundamental than the right to vote. We have all heard that story of Benjamin Franklin being asked at the end of the Constitutional Convention about the type of government that the Framers had designed. His response, at least according to some sources, was, ``A republic if you can keep it.'' I recognize that one of the surest ways to lose our Republic is to allow the public trust in our elections to erode, and I fear that that is where we are--that that trust, that faith, in our own elections is eroding. I have engaged in voting rights legislation because I want us to continue to reduce those barriers to Americans' ability to voting, whether it is geographic, whether it is logistical--and we certainly know about that in Alaska--whether it is partisan or some other form. I think we recognize that we have come a long way from the 1960s--I would, certainly, hope so--but I think we need to acknowledge that we can continue to build on that through reasonable and well-considered legislation. The voting rights legislation that I support is not this sweeping overhaul that would take power away from the States in order to federalize the election process. There was a bill earlier on the floor this year, and I voted against that. I didn't like that very detailed, prescriptive approach that, I felt, was moving us toward a federalization. Instead, the legislation that I support would provide greater transparency for Federal elections so that voters are fully informed, so that they know about the changes in voting procedures. It would protect voters from discrimination in all of its forms and continue to knock down the barriers that we know, in many places, still exist. It would provide protections for voters, for election workers, and polling places to discourage the efforts to interfere, to intimidate, or to physically harm them. It would provide for voting materials in relevant areas to be translated in our Native languages. This is very important for us back home in Alaska. It would require States that have historically been found to discriminate against minority voters to, once again, preclear their changes in their voting laws, and it would uphold the many, many good practices and procedures that we have in States like Alaska, rather than burdening them with new mandates that aren't designed for a place, again, like Alaska where, geographically, logistically, it just might simply not work. That is the kind of legislation that I can support, but I need to be clear here. That is not the description of S. 4, the bill that is being brought up for debate. I don't support S. 4 as it was written and as it was introduced. What I can support in its place and as a starting point is the substitute amendment that the majority has agreed to lay down should the Senate agree to begin debate. That substitute amendment contains more than a dozen significant changes that my team and I have been working with others to negotiate. So the question, I think, needs to be asked: Is that enough? And I say: No, it is not enough. Even with those changes, I still have concerns, and I know that many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have concerns. Substantive changes will be needed before this measure is ready to pass the Senate. So, if this procedural vote fails today, where do I think we go next? We have to go back. We have to consider this legislation through regular order, through the committee process. In the meantime, I mentioned just the politicization, the partisanship that we have seen with these issues. I think: Let's stop the show votes. Let's give ourselves the space to work cooperatively across the aisle to reach the level of consensus that I think is important. It is important for this issue, and it is important for this country. The goal here should be to avoid a partisan bill, not to take failing votes over and over for political gain. It really doesn't get us anywhere. It gets us on record. It allows you to weaponize, if you will, a critically important issue. It doesn't go anywhere. It doesn't serve anyone. It, ultimately, accomplishes nothing. Our only real option here is to figure out how we are working together on this. Our goal should be to match what we did in 2006 when the last reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act passed the Senate 98 to 0. Wouldn't that be a goal for us all? Wouldn't that send a signal to people across this country--from Alaska to Maine--to have faith in our electoral process, in our elections? Now, some may be wondering why, as a Republican, I am willing to put my name next to this legislation, pretty publicly, and acknowledge that it is not where I want the bill to be right now. But at this point, I think, if we can step back from the political exercise, I think we can do good. I think we need to do good. I believe that those of us who want to find common ground need to be part of the process. We need to be willing to get in, mix it up, and work it out, instead of sitting back on the sidelines and saying: I just don't like your product, and I am not going to offer anything else. I just don't like your product. So let's get in the arena. Given my role as vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, I believe that I have an obligation to help resolve some of the longstanding issues that face our Native peoples in Alaska and around the country. Finally, I believe it is simply dangerous to let voting rights become a wholly partisan issue, where our divisions just fester and take root in an area that is so central to our system of government. So the vote in front of us today is procedural in nature on whether to open debate. It is not on final passage or anything close to it. There are even things in the substitute text that I, frankly, don't support and others that I have not been able to fully evaluate. But I also recognize that the framework within the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is the most viable that we have, and it is the best starting point at which to legislate. So I will vote to begin this debate in the hopes that this is a step forward, not a step backward, as we are seeking a bipartisan accord. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to recognize an Alaskan who I have come to know over the years through his compelling correspondence. Bill Stokes is an artist, a man of deep thought and many talents. Among his many traits and skills, he does incredible woodworking and water systems, and he is an author and a poet. In honor of Veterans Day, Bill has asked me to submit two of his poems to the Congressional Record. The first poem is entitled ``Tears.'' I have pondered long and hard for more than fifty years. And it is my belief that the two most important gifts you will ever know are life and freedom because the price of both is a Mother's tears. Both require an entire lifetime of hard hard work. And you cannot, dare not, avoid and shirk. Birth is the hardest work a mother will ever do. And freedom also requires an excruciatingly painful birth with unending protection from both me and you. Make no mistake that freedom comes at great cost of life. Because tyrants are as thieves that are totally committed to stealing your freedom with a bloody knife. The description is exactly real. Because if you don't aggressively protect your freedom, the knife you will feel. Freedom absolutely requires an honest government with a standing army of those unafraid to die. To ensure that every future generation has the ability to follow its dreams to the far edge of the sky. Falling in battle is clearly the Soldier's lot. But that is how the freedom you enjoy is bought. Those fallen in battle cannot ever become nameless and lost. And regardless of culture or clime, a national day of remembrance, ensures that every warrior's name is with honor, remembered, that they paid for your freedom's cost. I have pondered long and hard for more than fifty years. And it is my belief that the two most important gifts you will ever know are life and freedom because the price of both is a Mother's tears. The second poem is called ``Son.'' As I walked by a young man was standing in front of his home wearing his desert camouflage waiting for his ride and as I walked up to him he cradled his gun. And I couldn't help myself from asking ``What's your name son?'' I did not understand why he stood there alone when I heard his mother's wails of despair as she cried. And his father's voice cracking as he tried to comfort her from the house somewhere inside. His eyes were red from his own tears as he to his family he had said his goodbye. And everyone knowing full well that this might be the last time they see him alive from fighting in a war he did not contrive. I told him that as a father and a vet. How proud I was and his name was indelible in my mind and I would never forget. As I only came this way every month or so I would look and see. That upon his return if he tied a bright red ribbon on a branch of the front yard tree. Before I left I came to full attention and saluted him with all the honor he was due. And with a calm determination looking straight into my eyes, he returned the salute understanding exactly what we both already knew. I made many trips walking by that house looking for a ribbon to let me know he was back. And just about a year later there was a ribbon tied to the tree but it wasn't red, it was black. As I walked by a young man standing in front of his home wearing his desert camouflage waiting for his ride and as I walked up to him he cradled his gun. And I couldn't help myself from asking ``What's your name son?'' Thank you, Bill, for your incredible tribute to our veterans, just as we prepare to mark Veterans Day in 2021 and honor the sacrifices they make on our behalf.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this afternoon I come to the floor to recognize the life and the contributions of a friend, an Alaskan, a gentleman: Chuck Bundrant. He was the founder and the majority owner of Trident Seafoods and a fisherman who really forever changed the seafood industry in Alaska. Employing thousands of people across Alaska and the country and processing hundreds of millions of pounds of finished seafood products each year, Trident is the largest vertically integrated seafood harvesting and processing company in North America today. The company--and, really, by extension, Chuck Bundrant--has been critical in giving the rest of the United States and the world a taste of Alaska's delicious and, of course, sustainably managed wild seafood. Chuck has a pretty interesting story. He didn't grow up in Alaska. He didn't even grow up near the ocean. He was born in Tennessee. He was raised there and in Indiana. He had initially hoped to pursue veterinary medicine and enrolled in a pre-veterinary program at Middle Tennessee State University. But by the winter of 1961--19 years old; he has $80 in his pocket--he and a few friends drove from Tennessee to Seattle with the thought that they would make it up to Alaska. At that point in time, he didn't have any experience, any exposure to the State. Apparently, he had watched the John Wayne movie called ``North to Alaska,'' and that kind of spurred him. But he had heard that there were some pretty lucrative opportunities within the fishing industry, but he also knew that finding a job wasn't going to be an easy task. So, apparently, his buddies reconsidered the merits of the trip, but Chuck doubled down and continued on his way to the dream of working in The Last Frontier. So, according to legend, he spent his first summer in the State working wherever he could in the Bristol Bay fishing industry, even sleeping under a boat on the docks. He eventually got a job busting freezers--which, for colleagues, means literally banging metal pans to knock loose the blocks of frozen shelled crab--and he was out on a floating processor anchored near Adak out in the Aleutians. Like so many who have the chance to come and visit Alaska, Chuck wasn't satisfied with just one quick stint in the State. He turned his journey north into a 12-year learning experience--and, really, a lifelong business. By 1965, he had worked his way up from the freezer hold to buying his first crab fishing boat. As Chuck gained more experience in and understanding of the crab fishery, he noticed that there was an inefficiency in the way that the industry operated. After bringing in the harvest, most fishermen would then head back to shore to hand it off to the shoreside processing outfits, where the crab meat would be removed from the shells and then sent to market. And just a lot of back and forth here meant that the fisherman loses valuable time at sea. And this is where Chuck's ingenuity really struck. In the early 1970s, he and two other crab fishermen, Kaare Ness and Mike Jacobson, used whatever collective earnings they had at that point in time and they built the Billikin, which was a 135-foot boat with both crab cookers and freezing equipment that allowed for immediate onboard processing. So this was new. This was novel at the time. Chuck pushed on. He kept fishing and processing on the Billikin. There were protests from other Bering Sea crab fishermen who were in the middle of a strike to secure better prices from processors. Around this same time, he, Kaare, and Mike partnered with another individual, Edd Perry and his Bellingham-based company San Juan Seafoods. And this was, really, the beginning of Trident Seafoods in 1973. Trident's early years coincided with a phaseout of foreign fleets from the North Pacific harvest due to the enactment in 1976 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act--we know it as the MSA--and, also, a burgeoning Japanese market for Alaska frozen fish, salmon, and herring. So Chuck and his colleagues took advantage of this opening. They built a fleet of mobile processing vessels that, really, very quickly made their mark on Alaska fisheries. Chuck's competitive, resourceful mentality, again, proved useful as king crab numbers and harvest started to decline in the early 1980s. In the seventies, he had watched giant Japanese, Korean, and Norwegian trawling vessels rake in billions of pounds of pollock from the Bering Sea. And then with the enactment of the MSA in 1976, it extended U.S. fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles offshore, giving American fishermen priority access to stocks of abundant fish, like pollock, that inhabited Alaska's coastal waters. There was a significant market opportunity for pollock in Japan, but in America at the time, pollock was kind of considered a junk fish, a trash fish. And what is more, American boats and processors did not have the equipment to harvest pollock, to extract its roe that was very popular in Japan, and to transform its flesh into commonly consumed surimi paste and fillets. But Chuck saw things with a vision. He saw this as an opportunity and not pollock as a trash or poor investment. He studied Japanese methods for catching and processing pollock. He strategized about how Trident could enter this market and, in 1981, he took a pretty bold move. He built a plant on a very remote Aleutian island, Akutan, for onshore processing of crab; salmon; and, of course, pollock. So Chuck really took a risk there. He, after years of trying to convince food wholesalers and restaurant owners to take a chance on pollock, was able to secure a pretty pivotal deal between Trident and Long John Silver's. This was the first major contract to bring the fish to U.S. market. And this deal didn't take place in some fancy restaurant in some major city. This deal took place out in Akutan--the Akutan processing facility that he had taken this chance on back in 1981. So companies like McDonald's, Burger King soon followed Long John Silver's in replacing cod and whiting with very tasty, and now cheaper, pollock. And these companies have grown to become some of Trident's biggest customers. Odds are that if you have tried their fish and chips or fish sandwiches, you have probably tried Trident product. Today, Seattle-based Trident operates a fleet of 40 vessels, including catcher processors, trawlers, crab boats, tenders and freighters; 11 processing plants in Alaska--so good jobs in Alaska--5 processing plants in Washington State, Georgia, and Minnesota. It offers a host of frozen, canned, smoked, and ready-to-eat seafood products; and its harvest-and-business model means they know exactly where its products come from. That is important to us. But as Trident has grown and propelled the industry forward, Chuck remains steadfast in his commitment that Trident remain a family business that supports its employees and the independent fishermen that it partners with. Chuck's son Joe now serves as the company's CEO. He has continued his dad's efforts to seek out new value-added products that can be created from Alaska fish. It is always a good story, I think, to know of these very successful businesses that keep grounded with the base from which they began; and with Chuck, it was really important that his family continued to be part of this success story. I am told that Chuck had some pretty strict rules, that if any of his grandkids--and I think he has about 13 of them--if any of them decide that they want to work for the family business, you first have to earn a college degree, which Chuck did not have; but they also had to spend at least 4 years working someplace else other than Trident; and they had to have cut their teeth and fished at least two summers in Alaska. So he wanted to make sure that you weren't just going to get the job just because you were a member of the family. You worked for it; you knew what this was all about. It really is difficult to overstate the impact that Chuck has had on his fellow fishermen. Beyond the industry innovation that he drove, he always sought to pay it forward, to offer younger fishermen the same mentorship and support that allowed him to get his start in the 1960s and the seventies and to make Trident the company that it is today. And this dovetails, really, with Chuck Bundrant's commitment to charitable giving. He was generous in so many, many different ways. He raised and donated money for the victims of the Tohoku earthquake, the tsunami in Japan, Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, and contributed to multiple cancer research foundations. I have certainly seen his generosity as he has shared in ways that demonstrate his compassion, his care. His influence on the fishing community is really clear from the outpouring of love and support that he has received since he was diagnosed with an atypical form of Parkinson's. In September of 2019, four of the captains from the TV show the ``Deadliest Catch''--all of whom considered Chuck a mentor, a friend, and, really, an inspiration--co-hosted what they called Captains for a CURE fundraiser. It was an auction for the northwest chapter of the American Parkinson's Disease Association. They raised nearly $380,000 at the event, and this money goes towards a Parkinson's disease research grant in Chuck's honor--again, trying to shine a light on the specific form of disease that Chuck lived with. I received a note from Joe Bundrant on Sunday, when Chuck Bundrant passed from this Earth, and I wanted to share just a couple sentences from a personal email. He says: Dying is not easy, but Chuck was up to the task and faced death on this earth as he faced rogue waves in Alaska: head- on with dignity, determination and with the faith that he would be safe in God's hands. He goes on further to say that ``he lived each day fully, driven by the values of integrity, loyalty, hard work and most importantly faith.'' And so as I have reflected on the life of, really, an extraordinary man, it strikes me that, at the end of the day, this individual, Chuck Bundrant, was a family man, cared for his family deeply; but he, at the base of it, was a fisherman. And he lived his life in a way that really speaks to the values of integrity; loyalty; hard work; and, most importantly, faith. To his family, to his wife Diane: Know that our hearts are with you. We thank you for sharing a truly honorable man with so many of us. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this afternoon, unexpectedly. I had anticipated that I was going to be taking the long trek home, for even a short weekend, going back to Alaska. That is not the case this weekend, unfortunately. Our COVID numbers are at alltime highs, and most of the events and meetings that I would have had back home canceled. They are on Zoom. So life is just a little bit different. You roll with it. And it means that I am here in Washington, DC, on this Friday afternoon. But I opened up the paper this morning, the Anchorage Daily News, our largest statewide newspaper, to, again, headlines that have just kind of unfolded over these past weeks with more just grim and difficult news. The headline today is: ``Alaska infection rate remains high with over 1,200 new COVID cases.'' We are leading--we are leading the Nation right now in our COVID rates, and it is interesting. Alaska has--we are separated enough geographically, but through the advantages of air travel and road travel, we mix, we mingle, we get around, and the virus knows no bounds, as we all know. But as we are seeing, thankfully, the case counts beginning to decline here in the lower 48, Alaska is doing just the opposite. I am quoting here from our paper: On average, the U.S. saw a 26% decrease in cases over the last two weeks while Alaska recorded an 84% increase. They go on to say: If Alaska were a country, it would be the nation with the world's highest per capita case rate, according to data from the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University. The article proceeds to state that: Alaska's 171 average daily cases per 100,000 over the last seven days is nearly double the rate seen in West Virginia, which . . . [is currently] second in the [Nation]. Bermuda and Serbia, at the top of the global list, have a case rate of 99. So we are at 171 average daily cases per 100,000. It has been challenging. We are a State that has limited capacity. We have got a smaller population, obviously. But that also means that we have fewer hospitals. We have more limited means, in terms of our ability to care for those who have become very, very sick, and it is straining--it is really maxing out our hospitals to levels that we really just could not have even anticipated could happen. As our hospitals are maxed out, it is not just the capacity, the number of people that you can put into your ICU; it is those who are daily doing the work of caring for those who are coming into our hospitals, coming in sicker and staying longer. We have maxed out our hospitals, and when I say ``maxing out,'' in the Alaska vernacular, basically that means there is no room at the hospital. Our largest hospital is Providence, Alaska Regional, Mat-Su, Alaska Native Medical Center, Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, Bartlett--they are at capacity within their ICUs, and let me share with you what it means to be at capacity in your ICU. I will share. I was at Alaska Regional just a weekend ago--actually, now two weekends ago--and I was told that their ICU, which is a 16-bed ICU, had been expanded to 20; and 100 percent of the beds, when I was there on that Saturday, were occupied by COVID patients with no room for anyone else to come to that particular medical facility. I had been at Fairbanks Memorial Hospital--actually there on an emergency, not myself but with another individual. We go to the emergency room, and as we were waiting for the doctors to come and address this non-COVID-related medical emergency, I was advised by the evening supervisor that Fairbanks Memorial Hospital was at capacity within their ICU. And what that meant was that Fairbanks Memorial was at capacity and, as of that evening, all of the other hospitals in Alaska that could care in an ICU capacity were filled. So I was told that my loved one may be in a situation, if he needed to be in the ICU, that I needed to prepare myself and others that he may be sent to Seattle or Portland that night. For those of you that don't know your geography there, that is a 3, 3\1/2\-hour flight by jet. It would have been a medevac. It is thousands of miles away. That is what is happening in Alaska right now. When your hospitals are full, you just can't put them in an ambulance and take them to another town. We are taking these folks to another State. And, again, keep in mind, the reason that I was there that evening with this individual was not COVID-related, but that is the squeeze. That is the pressure that it puts on the rest of your system. Just this week, the State is dealing with crisis standards of care guidelines as it relates to how individuals may receive monoclonal antibody treatments because the supplies are scarce out there. So it is tough right now. It is tough. Beds are hard to find, and the extraordinary men and women who every day are going in and doing as best they can to provide for the level of care that is needed are doing so, but they are tired. They are tired. They can't get enough help. You have those who are exposed. You have to quarantine. It puts pressure on everybody else. People are running themselves to the ground. But we have good news that is happening. Our Governor has been working to bring additional health workers in, and we are starting to see, just this week, as many as--we were hoping 500 but maybe a little bit less than that--nurses, respiratory therapists are starting to come to the State as part of a Federal contract. So you have got State- contracted healthcare workers. The Alaska Native Medical Center is going to be receiving additional support from a disaster medical assistance team. Again, we are at a point where you just can't take it on anymore. And our numbers have not yet peaked. I don't share these statistics and I don't share the front page of the Daily News just to bring people up to speed as to what is happening in Alaska. That wasn't necessarily my purpose here. My purpose this afternoon is, in the midst of this, in the midst of this real crisis in my State, when it comes to the availability of healthcare and responding to this virus that is killing--killing-- Alaskans, killing Americans, killing people around the world, that we show a little kindness because right now that seems to be in as limited capacity as some of the hospitals that we have in Alaska. It is kindness and respect for where people are. Your healthcare workers are giving every ounce of what they have to be there, to leave their families. They are worried about everybody. But they are there for us, and they are doing the best job possible. And some of what we see in return is not the best of America. It is not the best that Alaskans have to offer. We have had some just horrible, horrible confrontations in our public meetings in Anchorage. The top of the fold in the Anchorage paper is about an assembly meeting where individuals wore yellow Stars of David to protest the mask ordinance that the Anchorage assembly was taking up, comparing the mask mandate to the Holocaust. It is shocking. At some of the assembly meetings--and it is not just in Anchorage, we are seeing it in other communities as well--it is neighbor against neighbor. We have had providers go to provide testimony before in these public meetings, and not only have they been ridiculed and mocked, but we hear the stories, we read the stories that they have been spit upon. This is not how we show appreciation for those who are trying their absolute best to be there for us. And they will literally turn the other cheek and make sure that the care that they are providing in that ICU, in that ER, is without discrimination as to whether or not you have been vaccinated or not. They are going to be there to take care of you. So, please, can we please show some kindness to one another at these times of stress and of anxiety to families? We in Alaska are pretty hardy. We are independent. We can handle things on our own, but we are better because we are also good neighbors to one another, more often than not. When somebody's car breaks down by the side of the road, and it is cold and it is dark, we stop. We help them. We are there for them. When somebody is sick, we deliver the food. We are good neighbors. So we, in Alaska, need to remember to be that good neighbor to one another. We can have disagreements. We can have differing points of view. We can express them without degrading one another, without denigrating one another, without humiliating, and mocking one another. So I know that we will be beyond COVID. It is not coming soon enough for any of us. But I just ask that as we go through this, in this State and around this country and around the world, that we remember that we are all better when we care for one another and we show a little kindness. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, there has been a lot of impassioned words about a nominee that we will have before us in just a matter of less than an hour, Tracy Stone-Manning. Know that I join my colleagues in the concerns that they have expressed, as we look to those individuals that we asked to take the helm of some of these very important Agencies--Agencies, as my colleague from Alaska has pointed out--that have extraordinary impact on the activities and the actions that go on in our State. We need to have only the highest caliber of men and women. And in what we have seen, the background that we have seen with this particular nominee, I would hope, would shock us all. And so as we move forward with this nomination process and consider the impact to, again, not just an Agency, not just to a department, but the impact that then comes to our communities, our States, the people who we work for, it is only appropriate and fitting that we speak to the issues that we have learned of; we speak to the truth of the matter; and the truth of the matter is that this nominee is not an individual who should be in this position.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to follow my friend and colleague, the Senator from Arizona. And while she is still on the floor, I want to thank her personally for her Herculean efforts that she has made throughout this process. It has not been easy. It has sometimes been challenging, and sometimes it takes somebody who just exudes optimism and enthusiasm and a deep-hearted, deep-seeded belief that what we are doing is good and it is right for all the right reasons. We have acknowledged here on the floor, each and every one of us, this infrastructure bill is not the perfect bill. But I am waiting--I am waiting--for the day when we here in the U.S. Senate can come to a place where all 100 of us agree that we have the perfect bill. But what we have for the Senate to consider is a product that is really built around core fundamentals and core principles that a group of Senators, equally divided, came together months ago to work through, knowing that the work was going to be hard. This is probably one of the most consequential bills that I have been involved with in my Senate career, in the close to 19 years that I have been here. What we are presenting to the Senate is truly historic in its proportions. It is historic in its impact going forward. This is truly legacy infrastructure that we are speaking about. Yesterday, it was a little frustrating. We have had some frustrating days where colleagues were sitting and waiting, hoping for things to move more rapidly than they were, and that is challenging. We have a process here in the Senate that is hard for those on the outside to understand and oftentimes hard for us on the inside to understand, but it is a process that, after a period of time, yields the results. So as I was visiting with fellow Senators, I overheard somebody say: I am not really sure how we got here. How did we get to this point? Well, I tell you, it wasn't magic. It wasn't magic that produced a legislative package that, again, is historic in its funding for roads, rails, bridges, ports, ferries, and waterways. It was certainly not an accident that negotiated this 2,700-page document that works to meet the broadband needs of Americans, particularly in unserved or underserved parts of the country, like my State in Alaska. It also wasn't inevitable that this infrastructure deal would come together, and yet that is all following what we have learned in this past year and a half dealing with the COVID pandemic and the reality that we have true disparities when it comes to basic infrastructure, like clean water, sanitation facilities, and energy. It was not inevitable that this infrastructure deal would come together. In an age of cynicism and punditry, we kind of grow accustomed around here to believing that it is hard to get good things done in Washington, DC, and that is not good for any of us. Those of us here in the Senate, we signed up to do a job. We were sent here to do a job. We were sent here to work, and that is it. That is how we came to be where we are: through work, through hard work, and through compromise. So it wasn't magic; it wasn't accidental; it wasn't inevitable. We went to work. And for a time, I think we really banished the demon of faction that casts his scepter all too often. Alexander Hamilton warned us of this polarizing temptation. And as the champion of infrastructure--or they called it internal improvements in the days of the Founding Fathers--I am hoping that he is looking favorably on us today. But, again, this has not been an easy road, this infrastructure project. Every morning--those of us who were involved in these negotiations--we would wake up not surprised to read in the paper or see on TV that something had happened outside our control that was designed to kill this package. And every day, instead of taking in those headlines, we saw our constituents, we heard from them, and we heard from the people across this country urging us to continue--people like Carl Uchytil, Mario Cordero, Chris Conner. They penned an op-ed in one of our Alaska newspapers, and they urged us to advance the bipartisan infrastructure framework because, for them, the emphasis on what it would do to build out our ports and our waterways were significant. The emails and the phone calls that we received reminded us of the infrastructure and how important it is for industries, for the jobs, for Alaskans, for folks all over the country, for health, the future; and it reminded us that we have an opportunity to do something that actually matters in their lives and in their communities. And the other thing that I heard is they wanted us to do it together. Figure it out, you guys. Work together. When you look at the survey data that is out there, it is pretty resounding. Several different polls show 87 percent of Americans overwhelmingly support fixing infrastructure. The list of organizations that support it, everyone from the Associated Wire Rope Fabricators to the Institute of Makers of Explosives, to the National Governors Association, to the Steel Manufacturers Association, the TechNet--this bipartisan infrastructure package proves that good things can happen in Washington, DC, but that it takes work. It takes a majority of those of us in this Chamber deciding that it is better to get some of what our constituents want rather than none of it. It is better to make progress and actually deliver results to your constituents rather than just delivering a message. We do a lot of messaging around here, and, as my friend, the Senator from West Virginia, reminds us, a message doesn't fix a pothole. Now, I have been disappointed that we haven't been able to get some of the amendments that we have heard about today. We heard Senator Shelby from Alabama talk about defense infrastructure. We have heard the Senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn, talk about flexibility to the States. We have heard the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, working with Senator Wyden and Senator Lummis, on the cryptocurrency issue. So, again, is this perfect? No. But is it a process that has delivered us to a place where we are delivering results to the people who have sent us here. I was on the floor late last week outlining many of the benefits that Alaskans will see from this measure, but I want to take a few more minutes this afternoon to highlight just a couple of more in perhaps some detail. Because, as I have mentioned, and everyone knows, part of the role or the view that I offered in our bipartisan working group was to make sure that the needs of rural Americans were met. And this bill addresses some of the greatest infrastructure needs that, again, we see in rural America, but also in urban and everyone in between, to connect them in ways that we haven't before. Southeast Alaska, this is the region of the State that I grew up in. It is an island and archipelago. It is not possible to travel by road from one city in the southeastern part of the State to another, for the most part. Our capital is not accessible by road. Our reality is that we either travel by airplane or we are traveling on the water. So a strong ferry system, the Alaska Marine Highway System, is absolutely essential to local economic development, to quality of life, to community well-being. There are 35 different ports along the Alaska Marine Highway System. This spans an area of 35,000 miles. I am only looking at my colleague from Delaware because we have been working on the ferry initiative, and he is proud of the ferry system that he has there. But I have a lot of water that I have to cover, and it makes it challenging. It makes it challenging. But it is no different than Delaware, in terms of the significance that these small ferries can offer to people as they are moving their families around, as they are moving the basketball team, as they are going to Costco in Juneau and then delivering them to Hoonah. To those military who are PCSing, going outside of the State, they have to move their families and all their goods and the dogs and the trucks, and they have to get out of town. And they get out by way of the ferry. It is easy to compare Alaska's ferry to an urban bus or subway system or other form of mass transit that receives operation support. But until now, because Alaska's communities are rural and not urban, our ferry system hasn't been eligible for any meaningful Federal support for its operations. There has been some Federal funding available through allocation formula or grant program to the ferry system for construction and maintenance, but now ferry operators will be able to use funding for construction, maintenance, repairs, and operations costs. In so many parts of Alaska, the Marine Highway System is the only highway. It is the only highway. So it is truly an essential mode of transportation. When you come from a State where over 80 percent of your communities are not connected by road, again, you figure it out. It is air. It is on the ocean. It is in the rivers. But, more often than not, our transportation is not roads. So to make sure that we are addressing this essential sector of transportation, we included language that establishes a program for essential ferry service to support our rural communities. So through this program, the Department of Transportation will be able to provide funds to the States to provide for essential ferry service. We are also looking forward, as we think about how our ferries move, how our schoolbuses move, how our vehicles move, and we know that this administration has moved very aggressively when it comes to EVs. There is language in this bill that helps to facilitate that. But, again, when you are thinking about what is on the roads-- electrification of our vehicles, our schoolbuses, or our city buses-- let's not forget what I just referred to, and that is these, effectively, buses that are on the water. So what are we doing to electrify or to look to alternative fuels for our ferries? This is not a new concept. In the Scandinavian countries, where, again, hydropower is in great abundance, as it is in southeast Alaska, an electric ferry system makes sense. So we are kind of pushing out on this to buildout this notion, this concept, that we can reduce emissions with our ferries by using alternative fuels or onboard energy storage systems, other related charging infrastructure, again, to reduce our emissions or produce zero onboard emissions under normal operations. So folks in Skagway and Haines are looking at this with great interest because they view that as a real opportunity. Diesel doesn't come cheap up there, and that is what moves these ferries around. These communities, Skagway, are powered by hydro. So let's pull this all together. I have mentioned the potential for EV and low-emitting ferries, but I am reminded that the United States has and will continue to be a leader in energy production. We certainly know that in my State. And we are going to need to continue being an energy superpower. As we are continuing to advance as a society, we are going to be using more energy, we are going to be using more electricity, and, yes, we are going to need to produce much of it in the good, old-fashion way for a long time to come. But electricity is becoming increasingly important. It is vital to so many facets of modern life, and this bipartisan infrastructure package takes that electrified future into account. So looking at the different ways that it enhances the broader energy system by investing in next-generation clean energy production, there are three examples that I will just cite that are pertinent to Alaska There is funding for advanced nuclear reactors, including ``micro'' reactors. You might not think about Alaska and nuclear or ``micro,'' but it holds great promise for deployment in certain rural and remote areas. We also provide for funding for hydropower and marine energy research. We have a great Hydrokinetic Energy Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. We provide for renewable energy projects, including geothermal. We have pioneered in this. In fact, we have the Secretary of Energy, who is going to be visiting the State shortly and who will have an opportunity to look specifically at low-temperature geothermal, as well as promising opportunities that we have in the Aleutians. More energy production from more types of energy means greater resilience, greater affordability, greater access to reduced emissions. So let's consider the ways the bill directly impacts the electric grid and the power sector--three areas, again, that are pertinent to Alaska and to rural areas. We have included a measure that I had introduced, the PROTECT Act, which authorizes funding to improve our cyber defenses in smaller communities. I think we recognize that we have a big focus on the bigger communities, but your utilities in your smaller communities still have to provide for that cyberprotection. The bill also sets aside grants for small utilities, like we have in Alaska, to prevent outages, to enhance resilience, for hardening of the grid. This is going to help in preventing wildfires that can be caused by powerlines or other disruptive events. We are talking about weatherization, fire prevention systems, installing equipment underground, maintaining utility poles and powerlines. We also provide support for rural and remote areas in many communities in the State for the modernization of generation, transmission, and distribution. So this is going to help the cost effectiveness. It is going to help with energy efficiency, microgrids, siting and upgrading, as we shift to cleaner sources of energy. Again, I think it is important to recognize that we are working to not only address the transmission but distribution, generation, and what we are really looking to do is look toward the future--a future in which we will need more energy production, more electricity, more batteries, and a more secure grid. And as we are doing this, as we are building this all out, I want to make sure that we do ensure that all Americans are included in this energy and infrastructure transition. And I speak specifically now to our Alaska Indian, American Indian, and Native people around the country. This bill--this Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--is really a historic achievement for all of us who are concerned with American Indian, Alaskan Native Tribes, and villages. I am the vice chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and I have worked hard to make sure that Indian Country's voices have been heard. Let's look at the Indian Health Service. It has a vital sanitation construction program. We are talking about water and wastewater, things that most of us just take for granted. We provide $3.5 billion in funding for American Indian, Alaska Native Tribes and villages to complete all--all--of the identified sanitation projects. These are projects that have been on the books for way, way too long. I am reminded by my friend Val Davidson of the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. She testified before our Indian Affairs Committee about both the funding needed in Native communities and sanitation's really significant impact on health. She shared a story--her own personal story but also a statistic--that one in three infants in communities from her region without adequate sanitation are hospitalized in their first year simply because they lack basic water and sanitation services. And it is not just a visit to a hospital as an infant that is scary, but so many then develop long-term health problems, which are absolutely unacceptable. Any infrastructure bill has to live up to our Federal Government's trust obligations to our Tribes. This is vital to allowing Tribes access to water for their health and for their livelihood. So within the bill, we provide $2.5 billion to fund Indian water settlements. Now, outside the legal world, most people know Indian water settlements by the term ``water rights.'' But the outstanding settlements include the Aamodt, the Crow, Navajo-Gallup, White Mountain Apache, Blackfeet Nation, Navajo Utah, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and the Arizona Water Settlement Act. So this funding is going to complete the balance of each and every one of these settlements. We also provide $250 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to help build and repair irrigation, power, and sanitation systems, because you have to be able to move clean water from one place to another and keep it clean and be able to use it productively. We provide grants for Native village firefighting training, resilient transportation infrastructure, a Native Youth Public Land Corps to restore and protect ecosystems, adaptation projects for climate change impacts, and funding for a new program to provide Indian Tribes grants to clean up orphan wells. There is more included in this. There is a $110 million ``set aside'' for Tribal bridge investments. There is the Tribal Transportation Program and eligibility for grants under advanced energy and battery manufacturing and recycling programs. We are really looking to ensure that we are prioritizing infrastructure needs in Tribal areas. I haven't mentioned broadband, but it is absolutely significant. We know that broadband deployment on Tribal lands has lagged far behind the rest of the Nation. So to address this, the bill includes an additional $2 billion for Tribal broadband connectivity grants. We have heard it on this floor by all of us, Republicans and Democrats, urban and rural. We know that broadband is vital to education, healthcare, economic development, self-governance. It applies absolutely across the board as we think of the needs in Indian Country. I think we know that the Federal financing provisions, the dollars going forward, are significant. But we also know that it is not just about the funding. It is about making these programs work better. So we do things like requiring expedited environmental review for Tribal transportation safety projects. We streamline categorical exclusions by empowering the Tribes in relation to the Federal Government. Within the middle mile grants, there is consultation with Tribes on a process to designate tribally unserved and underserved areas. So there is so much that we have really focused on in ensuring that Alaska Natives, American Indians, and our Native people around the country are included in these many provisions as they relate to infrastructure, including grid infrastructure, resilience, and reliability. So I have spoken for a while now on three specific areas that I have chosen to highlight: certainly, within marine transportation, the benefits that places like Alaska will see; the significance of energy production and what this infrastructure bill will provide there; and benefits to our Native peoples around the country. I want to conclude my comments by ending with where I began, which is to acknowledge the efforts of so many who have really gotten us here today, not through a miracle, not through an accident, not through an inevitability but just through hard work. I am very pleased to have been part of this group, really honored to work with such hard-working people and their teams, led by Senator Sinema, who just spoke, and Senator Portman. Their leadership has been, in my view, really extraordinary. The work that they have put behind managing us all to this point deserves the recognition. I also want to acknowledge the good work of the chairman and the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Carper and Senator Capito, who really laid the base for so much of this bill. So to the G-10 and the broader G-22, all those who have contributed so much, I convey my thanks. I also want to acknowledge colleagues on the other side of the Capitol here, those who are known as the Problem Solvers over there. They really have jumped in, rolled up their sleeves, and helped us in solving problems when it comes to this infrastructure package. And I am looking forward to being able to move this legislation, this package, from this body tomorrow, to send it over to the House so that they can then pick up those efforts. But I am pleased that we have come to this place, after a long process, after a tough process but one where we were really able to focus on common goals that we identified at the outset, and we really held true to; that we were going to be dealing with core infrastructure, core infrastructure. We agreed that we were not going to impose new taxes. We agreed that we needed to ensure that the spending pay-fors were true and legitimate. We agreed that long-term spending on infrastructure needed to improve our Nation's efficiency, our productivity, our GDP, and our revenue and not increase inflation. And we have achieved that. We set out these parameters, and we achieved it. But we did it with a lot of give and a lot of take. So while the end product is not something that any one of us individually would have written, I am very proud to be able to support what we have worked to bring to this body, again, with the help and hard work and collaboration of so, so many Members. I am disappointed that immediately after we advance this bill tomorrow, the infrastructure package, that we will turn to a wholly partisan exercise, one that, in my view, taxes and spends without limit, a wish list that really knows no limit. But, for now, let's move to this infrastructure bill. Let's get it to the House. Let's do what people in Alaska, what people in Illinois, what people around the country have asked us to do, and that is to address our Nation's competitiveness, our Nation's efficiency, and our Nation's advantages by securing and ensuring that we are able to move, to connect, and to provide for our country's needs. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am on the floor this afternoon as we are waiting to learn when we might be able to proceed to a series of amendments as they relate to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This is a significant measure, one that I have been very proud to be involved with for a period of time, working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in our working groups--G-10, G-22--working with the committee chairman and ranking member, working with other Members to get where we are today, which is a long-awaited--really, a long-away-- investment in our Nation's infrastructure. I know that Members are looking through the significant legislation that is in front of us. You don't need to take my word for it. You can look at the number of inches of the document in front of me. It is significant. Mr. President, I would suggest to you the need in this country is significant when it comes to investments in our Nation's infrastructure--our core infrastructure--what we define to be our roads, our rails, our bridges, our ports, our water and sewer, our broadband. I think we recognize that we talk a lot in this Chamber and perhaps on the other side, as well, and Presidents have come and gone and all talked about the need for more investment in our infrastructure. But truth be told, we really haven't done a real wholesale effort toward that goal until this year. We saw significant work come out of committees this year. I want to commend the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Carper, my friend from Delaware. His committee worked hard, not only on the surface transportation measure but also the water infrastructure measure that had passed through. We have seen other good work in other areas of infrastructure. I am on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. That committee was able to move out a significant--what we call the power infrastructure--piece that became one of the anchor tenets, if you will, within this measure. There has been good, collaborative work through the committees. Then that has been built on by Members, again, across the aisle over these past months to get us to where we are today. I ask Members, as they are going through the bill itself, the language that we had hoped we would get a little bit earlier for colleagues to go through--but in fairness, we really needed to take the time to make sure that we had gotten it right. It really does matter. So it did cause some delay that we wish we could have avoided, but we are where we are. It is Monday afternoon, and what I am hearing from colleagues is that they want an opportunity to engage in this process. Many in this body have not been part of the working groups. Perhaps, they weren't part of the committees that had advanced some of these pieces of legislation that we have incorporated. They want to be participants, and rightly so. This is the time to do just that. I think it is everyone's intention that we have a robust amendment process moving forward. I am actually looking forward to this. I have had the opportunity on this floor several times now to be able to manage energy bills, natural resources bills, bills that have been significant, bills on which we have actually been able to have a pretty decent amendment process. Sometimes, in fairness--sometimes--that amendment process caused things to derail for a period of time. We don't want to do that in this instance, not at all. But it is not very often that we really do have a true and a meaningful amendment process. We are going to have an opportunity for that with the budget resolution coming forward. But I think, for the most part, most of us know that there is a lot of messaging that goes on. This is not about messaging. This is about delivering results for the American people. This is about creating jobs as we build out legacy infrastructure that is needed around the country. Highways. We all know--we all know--that our highways are in need of help and support. The provisions that we have included in this measure for roads and bridges will be significant as we attend to the many damaged bridges that we see around the country, that really do present a threat to public safety. Let's get on them. We know our highways, in so many areas, are in serious disrepair, and in certain areas, we need to be doing more to help build out that highway infrastructure to ease the congestion to allow for greater efficiency, to allow us, as Americans, to do more of the things that we want to do, whether it is to spend more time with your family, be more productive at your work, but let's have an efficient system. We have a little over 14,000 miles of public roads in Alaska. I can tell you that, as we look to my State's roads and the condition and the shape that they are in, I know that we need investments in this space, but I also know that it is not just about roads and bridges. We also allow for things like replacements of culverts for the community-- actually, the community that I was born in--in Ketchikan. I just met with the community leaders, and they shared with me that some of these culvert replacement projects are as key and critical to them as anything else that they have going on. And so recognizing that what we are doing is allowing for greater safety, greater access through our support for highways, for bridges, for things like culverts, for pedestrian safety initiatives, I think we all want to do more in that area. Alaskans probably fly more than we drive. Our reality is some 80 percent of our communities are not connected by road, and the geography, the expanse that we deal with, is that we are just not going to be connected that way. But we don't need to be connected that way when we can be connected by the air and when we can be connected over the water. And so this legislation is, again, very important to those who fly. And when I talk about flying, you know, sometimes these are small bush carriers, moving mail and groceries and people to medical appointments. But the fact that we have $15 billion in formula funding for the FAA Airport Improvement Program, this is going to be key. This helps with everything from runway lighting to navigation, taxiway initiatives. These are ways that the 400 public airports in Alaska are going to be able to move out on a more efficient basis, if you will, some of the necessary safety upgrades that they have in front of them. And, again, us, it is not just about the land-based airports; we also have the sea-based areas that we worry about. We have some 114 sea- based airports that we refer to. So recognizing that not every airport is like a Dulles or a DCA here, what we are able to do for our small hub airports, our nonhub airports, our nonprimary airports--communities of all sizes, because, again, whether you are in Bethel or Utqiagvik or wherever you may be throughout the State, all sizes are not the same here. So making sure that we are able to accommodate that is going to be important. I have mentioned that we are also connected on land, air, but also by sea, and for those of us who are in coastal States--the Senator from Delaware has a coastline, has ferries--people move around by ferries. We rely on our Alaska Marine Highway System. There are some 30, 35 different communities where that really is their connector. That is how the kids move the high school basketball team. That is how the church groups move. That is how you pick up the groceries at Costco in Juneau, and you put them on the ferry to go over to Angoon. It is how people shop. It is how they--it is their road. It is the Alaska Marine Highway System, and so recognizing the support that we can provide for our ferry systems, whether it is in Alaska or Delaware or places in between, is, again, an important opportunity for us. We recognize that as we provide support for those technologies that will allow us to move people more efficiently and more cleanly, there is a lot of emphasis from this administration, particularly, with focus on EVs. Well, in this measure, we not only have provisions as they relate to clean schoolbuses but also to alternative fuel ferries. Recognizing that we have some opportunities, whether it is an EV ferry that might run from Haines to Skagway or an alternative fuel, we want to be thinking forward into the future. One of the pieces of this measure--this very significant infrastructure bill--that a lot of work has gone into is the water and wastewater title. This is significant. This is significant. We saw, not too many years ago, the situation in Flint, MI, with lead pipes. We have been working to address many of those issues for a period of time, and rightly so. We provide significant funding--more than $180 million over 5 years--for the water and wastewater projects in Alaska through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs. These are significant for us. In so many parts of the State, we are either faced with unserved communities, when it comes to water and wastewater, or vastly underserved. And when I say unserved, we kind of know what it means in the broadband sense, but let me explain to you what it means in the water and sewer place. It means that you don't have running water in your home; you don't have a toilet that flushes. You have a community well where people go, and they fill up their cherry jugs and haul it back. It means that for sanitation, for using the bathroom, the bathroom is effectively a Home Depot bucket. If you are fancy, you have a toilet seat on it. But it is the responsibility of somebody in the family to haul that bucket out and dump it. I have shared pictures on the floor here of what that really means in a community to have no water--no water, no sewer system. Thirty-two out of a hundred ninety rural Alaska villages are currently in this situation. I received a voice mail, over the weekend, from one of Alaska's mayors from a smaller community--on the road system, though. And she shared with me--and I owe her a call back--but she shared with me--she said: You know, there are so many people in my community who don't have running water. And, again, this is a community that is on the road system between Anchorage and Fairbanks. And so how we can help address what most would say is pretty basic infrastructure, is pretty basic healthcare needs when it comes to water and sanitation, there is significant funding in this measure for Indian Health Service's sanitation facilities. I am the ranking member on the Indian Affairs Committee. I have been on this committee since I came to the Senate 19 years ago. I have seen, over the years, the efforts that we have made to try to address the water and sanitation needs in Indian Country in Alaska with our Native villages. Our reality that we face is we are still in an extreme deficit when it comes to our Tribal communities. The reality is that we have left them behind when it comes to something like modern-day water and the wastewater systems. And so the unprecedented investment in sanitation infrastructure is one that, I think, is significant and incredibly important because we are seeking to clear all the known project needs. Now, people will say that is aggressive, but let me tell you, when you go to some of these communities and you hear the concerns from the people in the village about how they are supposed to keep their families from contracting this virus, when this first simple step is to wash your hands, and they say: Water is pretty precious around here because we don't have a sink to wash our hands in. And so the effort here to catch up--and I don't even like to use those words in that sense. We have to do right by our Native people, and the effort here, I think, is key and critically important. Another area that I am pleased that working with the committee of jurisdiction, led by Senator Carper, that there has been a focus on-- and this is something that Ranking Member Capito has been keenly focused on, as well--and this is the PFOS contamination through our clean water and our drinking water programs. I also recognize that there is a focus on small and disadvantaged communities. I have one small community down in southeast Alaska, Gustavus. It is the community that is right next to the Glacier Bay National Monument area, and the PFOS in their little community, near the airport area, is something that is a major and significant concern for that tiny, small, little community. So making sure that, again, these programs--the funding that we are helping to advance--is good, whether you are an urban area with 100-year-old pipes that need replacement or you are a community that has lacked the original infrastructure in the first place, how we are able to ensure that the needs of our small communities are met as well is significant, and I think it is an important part of this legislation. I mentioned broadband as being that other connector. We connect by way of transportation systems. We get that. But, nowadays, if you are not connected--if you are not connected by the broadband availability, the ability to communicate elsewhere--your economies are limited; you are limited. I mentioned the fact that so many of the communities in my State are not connected by a road and probably will not be in my lifetime. And they are not seeking that as an answer, but they do want to be connected to the rest of the world. They want to know that for the crafts that they are able to make at home, they have the ability to, perhaps, sell them to a broader audience. Maybe it is on your own little website, selling to folks in the lower 48 or globally. But you can't do that. You can't do that if you don't have the connection. And so the recognition that the grants for the deployment--the broadband deployment--with minimum allocation to each State are important, but also recognizing a focus on these high-cost areas for deployment. I am just saying, if you are looking for a high-cost area for deployment, look no further than Alaska. It is not something that we are proud of; it is a reality. But part of the tragedy that we see is that, in many communities, broadband has arrived. The internet is there, but people can't afford to use it. We have heard in the height of the pandemic last year a reality that families could not--could not connect because the cost to do so was just prohibitive, which meant that children weren't gaining that full access to the information. It meant that if you were trying to work from home, that you couldn't do that. And so it is a reality that it is not just about access, but access has to mean some level of affordability. So the focus in this broadband piece, I think, is critically important as we look to the provisions in the Middle Mile Infrastructure grants; as we look to the support, again, for Tribal broadband, recognizing, again, that this is an area that has been chronically underfunded in the past. There is so much that--when you think about how solid infrastructure allows you to have an economy. In Anchorage, we host what we call Alaska's port. And it is a significant port. Obviously the largest one in the State. But it is through the Port of Alaska that over 85 percent of the goods, the commodities come into the State, and then they are distributed either by truck or by rail, air, but they are moved out from there. And we know what an economic driver that port is to not only Anchorage, but to the State as well. But it is not just big ports; it is also the smaller ports. We have got more coastline than any State in the country. And, again, if you don't have the roads, how are you getting in? You are maybe flying in by small airplane, but more likely your materials are barged up during the summer months. That is how you get the lumber. That is how you get the snow machine or the four-wheeler to go out and do your hunting. Our reality is that our ports have to work in every size community, and so knowing that there will be additional support for remote and subsistence harbor construction is going to be so key--so key--to these small, small, little communities for whom, if they didn't have this, they have got nothing. You can't move fish out, you can't move fish in; you can't move goods in, you can't move goods out. Everything, then, is flown in; and think about what that means if everything is flown in. It is crazy, wicked expensive. And you are talking about a--you are talking about a sheet of sheetrock, the fact is that if you are--if you are flying in your materials, it is almost impossible to be able to afford any of it. There is so much, again, when I think about ways that we help to build our communities, help build our economies, help create jobs through infrastructure. And I spent a lot of time focused on energy initiatives, and I am pleased with the work that came out of the Energy Committee that is focused in these various areas that drive the level of innovation that we will need as we are working to be more efficient, to have cleaner energy sources, and to really be more competitive. We effectively took the Energy Act that we passed last--at the end of last Congress and we helped to build out many of the provisions that were contained in that act, whether it is the advanced reactor demonstration project; more on hydropower and marine energy research; funding for geothermal, wind, solar energy; the energy storage demonstration projects--so much, again, that is focused on what do we need to do to really be not only forward-leaning and innovative, but efficient to allow for a more competitive role globally. When you think about our Nation's grid infrastructure and resiliency, you don't need to close your eyes and imagine what can happen when your grid fails. Unfortunately, as we are seeing--as we are seeing, whether they are wildfires, whether we are seeing brownouts with the extreme heat, our reality is that our grid infrastructure needs support. We need to have that resiliency that we all talk about. And, again, I am going to stand up for the small grids, the smaller utilities who face the same pressures that you might have in an integrated grid back here, in fact, even maybe more so. If you are a small, stand-alone community, you are your own grid. You need to have a level of resilience and the ability to make sure that people are not literally freezing in the dark. And so the effort that we have included with regards to our set-aside for small utilities, these are--these are significant initiatives. I have mentioned resilience a couple different times. I think sometimes people think that that is a word that is overused, but I will tell you, we can't be doing enough when it comes to resilience. We have included in this measure a provision that we entitled ``Tribal Climate Resilience.'' This is funding that is included to really help with those threatened communities. Many we see in my State, but certainly I hear from colleagues in other States who are seeing the same concerns as communities are more threatened due to--whether it is erosion, as we are seeing in Alaska, or flooding, but support to assist with climate resilience, adaptation projects, as well as community relocation. I will wrap up by just a little bit more commentary on the resilience piece. We are seeing in the West incredible drought right now. We are seeing the extent of these forest fires from Oregon going east. But I think it is important for colleagues to know that, again, when we are taking about infrastructure and resilience, we also are acknowledging natural resource-related infrastructure and what more we might be doing with wildfire management, ecosystem restoration. And so to make sure that there is support for things like mechanical thinning, fuel breaks, other activities to reduce the risk of wildfire, whether it is on our Forest Service lands or any of our public lands, but also the concerns, then, when the fire knows no boundary as to whose lands they are Certainly in Alaska we saw the benefit of fuel breaks as they were implemented on the Kenai. We had a pretty significant fire several years back, the Funny River Fire, and we saw full well what that fuel break really did to help protect property and life. The bill also includes precommercial thinning, which, again, is important in a host of different areas, not the least of which in my State on the Tongass. But I think we do a good job to make sure that when we are talking about infrastructure, we are recognizing the core infrastructure of-- whether it is legacy projects, like roads, rails, bridges, but also recognizing that infrastructure has impact to our lands and how we ensure that there is greater resilience, again, greater protections, and ensuring that it is addressed perhaps more broadly. So there is much good in this bill. There is not everything that I would have wanted, most certainly. There are a lot of things in it that, in fairness, I wish weren't in it. There are some pieces that I look at and I say ``way over the top,'' but I have to acknowledge I come from a State where infrastructure is just a little bit different. We don't have a big public transit system, so I look at the transit dollars, and my immediate jump is: Way too much. Don't need this. But I recognize that in a collaborative process, in a negotiated process, you have got to hear the views back and forth of all of your colleagues, and you take some things and you leave some things behind in a give-and-take process. And so just as my colleagues have listened to me convey the urgency of need for more support for the Tribal programs when it comes to infrastructure, whether it is on water and sanitation or broadband, they heard the urgency there; whether it was recognizing that not all infrastructure projects are big in terms of their size, but they are big for that small community; to know that the fishing community of Craig is going to be able to build out that little harbor there. And so I have asked my colleagues to listen to the concerns of a very rural State like Alaska, a State where our infrastructure is very unique, and they have had an open mind and a view towards not only recognizing how unique Alaska is, but recognizing the unique needs of rural America. So we have a compromise product in front of us, and it is a significant product, and we are now at a place where we want colleagues to join us in this product, weigh in with your good ideas. Let's move some good amendments. But I would suggest that the sooner we start moving with these amendments, the better it will be for us and this process here, but also for the American public. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is indeed a pleasure to be on the floor, even though it is a little bit late on a Sunday evening, but to be here with colleagues that we have spent probably more time with one another than we have with our families, our spouses, our roommates, and what have you. But we have been working to build a product not only that we are proud to stand behind but a product that I believe the American public will be proud of the work that we have put into this-- work not just of this group but, again, the broader group of 22. And also we recognize the very solid work that comes from our committees. We recognize all that was built at the committee level to help kick-start in so many different--in so many different--areas, but also to build the base of much of this infrastructure bill that we have in front of us today. My friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--when we started to sit down and focus on what we were going to do with infrastructure, the necessity for a power piece was important. It was critical to what we were building. And so the committee went to work, put together, I think, a good product that moved out of the committee on a bipartisan basis, and that served as really the base for the title that is part of this measure, building on the energy act that we moved out of this body last year. So the work that has gone into it has been a collaborative process throughout the way--very much an iterative process, as I might add, as well. But I think we recognize that the good, solid work that has been put into this to date is just really the beginning of bringing in more of the efforts and input from our colleagues from this body from around the country. You know, when you think about infrastructure, infrastructure connects us. Infrastructure brings us together. And so whether you are from a rural State, like mine, or from an urban State, like the occupant of the Chair, when we are able to move safely and efficiently, when we are able to communicate affordably and quickly and efficiently, when we are able to ensure that our systems are all working together, this is what makes us the strong, competitive Nation that we are. So there is extraordinary policy in this product, but the process that has gotten us here this evening is one that, while hard and arduous, as the Senator from Arizona has noted, this is what we come here to do. We have come here to do the hard work, to do the necessary work. And tonight we are at that place where we can begin to take up the infrastructure product that we have been working on for months now and what the country is waiting for deserves. With that, I turn to my friend and colleague from West Virginia.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wanted to just literally pop into the discussion here this morning. There is a great deal going on here in the Capitol. The discussions on the bipartisan infrastructure bill are continuing in a good, productive way, and we are hopeful we will be able to move to that great deal of work that has gone on by folks on both sides working in extraordinary good faith. And to be able to proceed on this matter, I think, will be an important policy initiative but also good for our process in this body

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I don't come here this morning to speak to that at this moment but to just give a strong Alaska ``attagirl'' shout-out to Lydia Jacoby. A few days ago, most people outside of the State of Alaska had probably never heard of Lydia, 17 years old, from Seward, AK. Seward is a pretty small community in the south central part of the State. It is a coastal community. It is a fishing community. It is a hard-working community. Lydia is a typical high school student at Seward High School, except she is a swimmer, and is she an extraordinary swimmer. To see the news the other night of her gold, of her unexpected and spectacular win, was a moment of pride for all Alaskans, a moment of pride for Americans that just makes your heart swell. So I wanted to come to the floor and share that. I actually was able to start my morning off early, but in a good way, by being able to call Lydia--she is over in Japan, obviously--and to speak with her directly and offer my congratulations. Mr. President, you can tell when people are grinning ear to ear, even though you are separated by thousands of miles and you are talking over a telephone. This morning, Lydia Jacoby was grinning ear to ear as I was sharing my words of congratulations and she, just her exuberance and delight for being able to represent the United States at these Olympics in this way. We are extraordinarily proud. Lydia has put Seward and certainly Seward High School on the map. Folks are coming up to me saying: Gosh, I didn't realize you didn't have Olympic-meter swimming pools in most of your communities. Well, that is true. Lydia did some training that I think most would say: It is going to be a long, hard slog to get to any Olympics. I think the dedication of this young woman has certainly played out. The support that she has received from her parents over the years, the support she has received from her community, is an example of just good, strong Alaska roots: everybody working hard and just doing your best on a daily basis. Lydia Jacoby has absolutely done her best. She set the gold standard, and we are just extraordinarily proud of this young Alaskan woman.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, just about a month ago, I was on the floor. Senator Durbin from Illinois was here. We were on the floor at that time to ask for unanimous consent to pass legislation to fix a technical issue with the VOCA deposit. As my colleagues will remember, VOCA is designed to help sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act, or that is the legislation that we had introduced at that time. Just to refresh memories, I would like to reiterate why this fix to the victims fund is so essential. Effectively, what we are talking about here is stability; sustainability; and, really, certainty. I had an opportunity in late June to host a roundtable with members from the victim services groups from around the State. We were focused on the impact of the VOCA deposit issue specific to Alaska and what it meant for those who provide the services for victims, whether these are the child advocacy centers, whether these are the domestic violence shelters and the centers, abused women networks. But I was really blown away by the testimony from so many in these organizations. They were facing a 36-percent cut to the VOCA funds in just this past fiscal year. When you think about what the impact of cuts at 36 percent means to any organization, it is, obviously, very, very limiting. But for some of these organizations, we are talking about a quarter of their budget. A quarter of their annual budget could be lost just like that. What they shared with me was that this was everything for them. This was the difference of being able to answer the phone from somebody who has been abused; is in an awful, tragic situation; doesn't know where to go, and they phone that number and there is nobody to take that call, nobody to respond, nobody to save those lives. It is a matter of not just having the individual there to answer the phone, but, again, when we think about the types of services that are provided by these victim services organizations, they are there for, truly, the most vulnerable at an exceptionally vulnerable moment in their lives. I was able to hear from those who were gathered at this roundtable, to hear firsthand on the increases in victimization that we have seen in my home State of Alaska during this past year, as we have seen this impact from COVID. But the impacts of this increase on our providers have really been astounding. Alaska CARES, for example, saw a 173-percent increase in children hospitalized in the pediatric ICU for serious physical abuse and fatal neglect. Think about that. They had a 173-percent increase in these kids who are being hospitalized, and they have said they were seeing significant brain trauma, significant brain injury. I heard about unprecedented increases that we are seeing in child torture, which our child advocacy centers are witnessing firsthand. Really, when you think about that, it has to just haunt you to the core. The Alaska chapter of Volunteers of America, which receives VOCA funds to provide at-risk youth and children with vital mental health services, shared a story. They introduced me to Alice. Alice is a teen who experienced numerous traumatic events in her young life, including child sexual assault and neglect. By receiving services through VOCA, she is pulling her life together. She is learning coping skills, learning to make those positive choices. So when we think about the role that these victim services play, these providers who, again, are there for truly the most vulnerable at the most vulnerable times that they may face, it should make us want to do everything we can to ensure that they have the resources available for them. The longer Congress delays this inevitable fix, the larger cuts victim services in Alaska and in every State in our Nation are going to face. I think we all recognize this has been a difficult time, but for those who are trying to serve victims through a global pandemic, it has really been so much harder. It has been 10 times harder. Our providers are exhausted. They are burned out. And now they are faced with massive cuts. Now, my colleague from Pennsylvania has some legitimate budget concerns that he hopes to address through an amendment we will take up later today. His concerns with changes in mandatory spending are valid, and I respect that, but this VOCA fix legislation is not the mechanism to address these concerns. I fear that if his amendment should pass, it will delay and perhaps derail this much needed fix. Again, we are hearing from victims. We are hearing from survivors. We are hearing from victim service organizations. They are asking us--they are asking us--they are begging us for a fix now to the VOCA deposit. I am not hearing too many of them ask for CHIMP reform. The use of CHIMPs is controversial. Our legislation, which would fix the VOCA deposit, is not. We cannot fail the many who dedicate their lives to serving victims and survivors. There was an Alaska organization at the VOCA roundtable who said it very neatly. She said: It is a representation of our values as a society how we help those who are most vulnerable. We have the ability today to do what is right, so I would urge my colleagues to vote aye on the VOCA Fix Act. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, this afternoon, we will have before us, as Members of the Senate, legislation that is entitled the For the People Act. Before I speak to the For the People Act, S. 1, I want to make clear to colleagues that I have been keenly focused, interested in ensuring that when we have elections in this country, that they are free, they are fair and they are accessible to all, that barriers to voting should be placed on the sidelines. For the past three sessions of Congress now, I have been the only Republican cosponsor of the Voting Rights Advancement Act. This was a measure that in prior Congresses was led by Senator Leahy, and I was pleased to be able to join him as a cosponsor. That measure has now been introduced on the House side as the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, a measure to basically reestablish the preclearance system, which was in place until 2013, and then it was pretty much upended with the Supreme Court ruling in Shelby. I certainly and absolutely intend to cosponsor that measure again under its new name, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. I will work with Senator Leahy, I will work with Senator Manchin--I will work with anybody on this initiative to help update this formula to ensure that we do have just exactly that, access to voting that is equal, that is fair, that is free from discrimination. I note at the outset of my comments this morning the support for that legislation so that, again, folks understand that I fully understand that access to the ballot in this country is not perfect and, again, that I have stood behind legislation to ensure that our elections are fair. We have come a long way. We have come a long way, but I think we all recognize that there is a long path ahead of us. So let me turn to S. 1, the For the People Act. My fear is that this measure does not move us further down the path. If you look at the bill, it is wholly partisan. Unlike the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which is very narrowly focused on voting rights, S. 1 has been described as sprawling. It has been described as ambitious, which is fair. Ambitious is not a bad thing, but it is clearly, clearly very broad, and it certainly contains some noteworthy goals, but I fear that there are provisions contained within S. 1 that take it too far or that I think are bad policy or that I simply think are beyond the power of Congress to regulate. My concern, and I shared this with many, is that the bill that we have in front of us is not so much about voting rights as it is a Federal takeover of the election system--and a partisan Federal takeover of the election system. The way the bill is being advertised--that somehow or another, we can't count on States to do elections right or fairly--is a premise that I have a problem with. I come from a State where we were under preclearance for a long period of time. We recognize that. We had a history that was not one that I think we were proud of in terms of ensuring that there was fair and open, equal access to all. But what we have seen in the State and how we have worked through that process that was in place some years back is that we have come to this place where we can--we have demonstrated that we can run a proper and an honest election. We have proven this time and again. Much of my concern about what we have in front of us is that when you nationalize something, when you have kind of a Federal overall oversight, it ends up being a one-size-fits-all mandate coming out of Washington, DC, and in many cases doesn't work in a place like Alaska. There are certain aspects of S. 1 that I absolutely do support. Early voting. We shouldn't be limited to just the day of the election. I think we recognize that. What we can do to ensure that early voting is there I think is important to us. I come from a State where, if you want to vote absentee, there is no excuse required. You can just vote absentee because it is more convenient to you. I will tell you, I was really surprised to find out how many States do not allow for that. I think that is something we need to address. I am in support of that. I think we need to be doing more when it comes to ease of voter registration. Again, in the State of Alaska, we have put in place ways to make it easier for folks to register. But, again, I am looking at what we have done in Alaska, proud of some of the measures we have put in place, but I recognize that we did this without DC prescriptives or mandates of uniformity. So in walking through some of the concerns that I have--I mentioned making voter registration easier. Well, the For the People Act mandates automatic voter registration. OK. Maybe a good idea. In Alaska, what we have put in place is that Alaskans are automatically registered--unless they specifically opt out, they are automatically registered to vote when they sign up for their Permanent Fund dividend. This is obviously very exclusive and unique to one State and one State alone. But under this measure that we have in front of us, it would require State election officials to automatically register any eligible unregistered citizens. So I am looking at that and I am saying: All right, well, if we allow for automatic registration on the PFD--there are a lot of Alaskans, believe it or not, who do not sign up for the PFD or are not eligible for the PFD. So is the State going to have to have two different systems here in terms of how we meet this mandate? I am looking at it and saying: Well, that is a fair amount of Federal micromanagement here. If the State wants to implement an automatic system, it should do so, as Alaska did, but without the threat of the Federal Government looming behind them, making sure the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed in precisely the way the Election Assistance Commission thinks they should be. I don't think we want to make the administration of elections involve even more burdensome efforts or more cost. It is something that you look at and say: Let's make sure we can allow for easier registration, but let's not impose burdensome mandates. Early voting requirements is another issue. The bill requires at least 15 days of early voting. This is something, again, in Alaska that we already do. It works great, but it also requires that each polling place must be open for at least 10 hours a day. So we are basically back here in Washington, DC, telling us in Alaska that you have to have your polling place open for 10 hours a day. Think about this in the context of a small community. I will take a super small community, Arctic Village. About 150 people total live there in the village--not 150 voters but 150 people total. It wouldn't make sense. It wouldn't make sense for the State to maintain poll workers for at least 10 hours per day, for at least 15 days, in a community like Arctic Village. The whole town can practically vote in an hour. But that is not the point here. The point is, you are imposing a Federal mandate in a one-size-fits-all approach that just might not fit well there. One provision in the bill that I have some significant concerns about is requiring same-day voter registration across the country. Again, in Alaska, we think we have been doing a pretty fair job as to how we run our elections. I think it is reasonable that we be allowed to establish voter registration deadlines that work for the administrators in their respective States. I know some people are surprised, but the fact is, we don't know everything best back here in terms of how to implement or how States should be implementing. States should have the latitude to implement a registration system that works with the State's geography, with their IT infrastructure, and with their election funding and other limitations they may have. Forcing States to allow ballot harvesting--this is another area I have a problem with. This practice involves paid campaign operatives going out, collecting ballots, and returning them to be counted. I don't know. I look at this one and see so many ways in which this can be abused and exploited. If a State wants to permit this practice with certain parameters that the State thinks would prevent abuses, that is fine, but not all States should be forced to do so by the Federal Government and be made subject to DC's idea of what actually works here. Maintaining voter rolls. I think we all want to make sure that voting rolls are current or accurate, but the provisions in S. 1 really go very far. The bill would require States to secure ``objective and reliable evidence.'' This is a term that is not actually defined in the bill, and they have to be able to establish that before removing a voter. What is not considered objective and reliable is a failure to vote or the failure of a voter to respond to a notice sent by the State informing the voter that they have been removed. So you are going to have a situation here where this undefined term will result in people who have long since left the jurisdiction actually remaining on the voter rolls. Then there is the issue of restructuring the Federal Election Commission. From its very inception, this was designed to be--this was meant to be a body that was bipartisan to specifically ensure that no political party would grant its candidates an unfair advantage in elections. So you have got a restructuring that is proposed here that I think presents a flaw. It would reduce the number of seats on the FEC from six to five, two members each from the two major political parties and one ostensibly Independent. So what this could mean is that a President could simply find someone who would vote in his or her favor each time but who never registered as a member of a particular political party. This newly partisan FEC would also be given the responsibility of handing out loads of cash from the public coffers. I take issue with this, and I think that you have a fair amount of folks in my State and across the country who do take issue with that as well in terms of public funding. S. 1 creates a new structure of public financing of campaigns that matches small dollar donations on a 6-to-1 basis. So I look at that, and, again, I have concerns about why anyone thinks it is a good idea to have even more money in politics. But it is easy to me to see how this could be exploited by a partisan board holding the purse strings here. So, again, I look at that as a particular example of, what are we doing with this in this voting rights bill? I mentioned in my introduction here that I feel that you have many provisions in this measure that are likely unconstitutional. To start, while Congress has broad authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of congressional elections, our powers are much more limited in how a State chooses to appoint electors to the electoral college. There, we may only determine the time of choosing electors and the day on which they should give their vote. So every provision that purportedly changes State laws regarding how a State chooses its electors could face significant and I think justified challenges in court. There are numerous provisions that try to criminalize speech that is almost certainly protected. Even the ACLU opposed several parts of this bill on the grounds that it would unconstitutionally limit the speech of citizens as well as compel speech, neither of which is acceptable. Just 2 years ago, the Fourth Circuit invalidated a law that was nearly identical to a provision that is contained in this bill. Another issue is the issue of tax returns and whether or not Congress can mandate candidates for President to release their tax returns. I think it is only reasonable that they should do so, but the concern that I have is, the Constitution is really pretty clear in outlining the requirements to be President, and releasing tax documents is not one of those. So it just kind of presents a challenge there. Can we direct that? There is an issue. Requiring States to create redistricting commissions may also be unconstitutional since Congress cannot coerce or commandeer the mechanisms of State government. Congress also likely doesn't have the authority to require States to permit convicted felons to vote or the ability to impose an ethics code on the Justices of the Supreme Court. So while these may be good ideas, is the constitutional authority there? I think there is a real question to that. So my concern--and I am coming to the end of my comments here--my concern about this measure is that while the title is strong, ``For the People,'' I am not certain that this measure will do what those who have hoped that it would do will do--it will make administering elections more difficult, more expensive, and subject to Federal micromanagement. Again, I mentioned the issue of questions of constitutionality and whether aspects of it will be thrown out. Passing this into law could result in messy litigation that leaves the state of election law uncertain for years to come. I mentioned my concern about one-size-fits-all. That is challenging. We are a pretty amazing 50 States, but we are all a little bit unique. But how States have leeway or latitude in determining what works I think is important. So I recognize that we are at a place and a time when credibility and faith in our institutions are at a really weak moment, a very weak moment, and so when we think about the things that are core to our institutions, one of those fundamentals is the fairness of our elections and also ensuring that we are taking an approach in this Nation where all people feel that the election process is for them as equal and fair as it is for their neighbor down the street or their fellow American all the way across the country. How we are able to deliver on this promise is something that we need to continue to strive toward. So I am going to continue to work on voting rights reform. I am going to be doing that through the template of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Americans need to have faith in our institutions. They need to know that our elections are fair; that they are easy and accessible for all; and we can't instill that trust with a wholly partisan effort. We have got some work to do. We have got a lot of work to do, and it is important work. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge and thank my colleague and friend from Illinois for his leadership on this issue. He has outlined well the situation in front of us with regard to the status of the Crime Victims Fund. Again, this is a nontaxpayer source of funding, which is designed to help the millions of victims of crimes--those who have been violated, those who are extraordinarily vulnerable. And we are at a place where, as he has indicated, we have a proposal here that could help address how this fund is replenished to, again, ensure that those who have been made victims can receive some level of compensation. We are kind of stuck here this morning, which is extraordinarily unfortunate. Folks back home in Alaska are just starting their day, and they are looking with anticipation and hope and, quite honestly, prayers that today might be the day that they get good news on this. Right now, I have about 30 organizations in Alaska, including our domestic violence shelters, our child advocacy centers, our victim advocacy organizations--they have all been notified that they are going to expect a 35-percent cut to their funding, effective the 1st of July, so just in a couple of weeks here. And because of this broken VOCA deposit issue, this cut is set to affect their funds for not only this year but for next year going forward. So think about it. You are the shelter in Kodiak, where I was just 6, 8 weeks or so ago. When you are told you have a 35-percent cut to your budget coming and you have a small community, where are you going to find those resources? Because, believe you, me, the individuals who still require those services are not staying at home and saying: Well, I guess we didn't have the services here on this big island of Kodiak; so I am just going to stay put. The need is still there. In fact, the need is more enhanced or exacerbated than ever before. We have seen this as a follow-on from COVID. We have seen those aftereffects, that aftershock, when you have been in an isolated situation where you have been forced to kind of shelter in place, if you will, but your home is not a safe shelter. It is not a shelter in that sense of the word. But you don't have services. And so where do you go? You stay with your abuser. You stay in the situation that is unsound, unsafe, because you don't have anyplace to turn. So the need out there is considerable. We had a situation last summer of devastating loss, with five village residents in different villages who had died in domestic violence murders over a course of 10 days. These are small villages where everybody knows everybody, and the loss of one person--an elder, a child, or a victim--is extraordinary. And so we looked at that, and we said: Well, that is exacerbated by COVID and what has happened. But, no, this has been a situation for us long prior to COVID, in terms of, unfortunately, the levels that we see of domestic violence, sexual assault, the victimization that we see--so being there to provide funding for services to help prevent these deaths, the trauma that children experience when they are in the room, the murders that affect families for generations. There is a story in the news just today--a domestic situation, the husband and the wife. The husband took the wife's life and then took his own, and it was a 6-year-old with an iPad who notified the authorities. I think about the reality of what a 35-percent cut means, what it means when you say your service providers are faced with $6 million less in funding for victims services. The shelters are calling out to us for help. One domestic violence shelter in the State is facing the reality of laying off six full-time jobs within their organization. This is unacceptable. I understand that there are concerns. Senator Toomey is going to speak to them. But this legislation doesn't change how Federal tax money is spent. It provides a technical fix by directing additional nontaxpayer dollars from criminal monetary penalties into this fund. So we are sitting at a point where the longer that Congress delays this fix, the larger the cuts that victims services in my State and all around the country will face. This has been a hard time for us, and I think we recognize it, but for those who are trying to serve victims, for those who are trying to serve the most vulnerable at an exceptionally vulnerable time in their lives, it makes it 10 times harder. Our providers are exhausted, they are burned out, and now they are faced with massive cuts. We simply cannot fail them. I would urge us to look past the politics on this. This is what these victims' advocates are saying: Please don't use us as the political lever here. So I join not only with Senator Durbin but with the many in this body who would urge that we pass this technical fix to VOCA.