Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are in a bit of a lull here, so whenever there is a lull in Senate activity, it is one of those moments and times when you think about those who have contributed to those of us who serve here in the Senate--staff who have been with us over a period of time, whether they be here in Washington, DC, or back in our home States. Tonight, I come to the floor to share some long overdue recognition to a long-term member of my team, Michelle Blackwell. We have had kind of a hectic beginning to this Congress. Yet we are back, doing legislative business, and that is good, but it has, I guess, delayed my tribute to, again, an extraordinary Alaskan, a woman who has been a good team member but also a friend of mine. Earlier this year, Michelle retired from my team after 17 years of service--amazing years--to the U.S. Senate, as a member of my staff in Alaska, and to many of my constituents back home. Since 2003, Michelle served as my regional representative for the Southcentral region on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska. The Kenai Peninsula, for those who are not familiar with it, is a pretty significant area. It is equivalent in size to the States of Massachusetts and New Jersey combined, with a population of about 55,000 people. If there are roads that wind around and go up and down and into some pretty extraordinary areas, Michelle has traveled them, and she has represented this region with grace, efficiency, diplomacy--resolving truly thousands of cases for constituents who have experienced problems with Federal Agencies. You name it--whether it is the IRS, whether it is Social Security, whether it is the VA--she has a story to tell there. Helping constituents and serving as a liaison to the community were really the keys to her success in my office. Her commitment to public service and to helping Alaskans has made me a better Senator and certainly a better representative for Alaskans. I have to confess that, as much as we would like to claim her 100 percent for Alaska, Michelle did not get her start in public service in the State of Alaska. Like many who now call Alaska home, Michelle's path was kind of an adventurous one as she worked her way north. She came to me from Wyoming via Washington, DC. She grew up in Wyoming, and then, following college, she went to work for then- Congressman Dick Cheney. This was back in the early eighties. She started out on the front desk, as a good staffer does, and as many successful staffers like Michelle have done, she worked her way up from there. She spent 11 years working for Dick Cheney as one of his key aides, and he was so appreciative of her work that he brought her with him during his first tenure as Secretary of Defense under the 41st President, George H. W. Bush As many of us know, when you find good staffers, you do everything that you can to hang on to them, but Michelle had a very adventurous spirit and a curiosity for foreign policy. She served a year in Switzerland with the State Department. She then returned to work for Mr. Cheney when his time with the first Bush administration had ended and he went to work for a public policy think tank, the American Enterprise Institute. Following this was the time that she then returned to Wyoming and opened the next chapter of her life. In 1997, Michelle found herself in the famous Million Dollar Cowboy Bar in Jackson Hole, WY. I have been there myself--but Michelle met the man who would be her husband. The rest, as they say, is history. Michelle and Jack were married a year later, and their adventurous spirit continued. They moved north. They moved to Sitka, AK, where Jack would serve as the park ranger for the State of Alaska's Department of Natural Resources. They spent 4 years there in Sitka, and Michelle was very active in the community, not surprisingly. She served as the director of the local visitor and tourism bureau--a key industry to our State and certainly to that region. In 2002, Jack was transferred to Kenai, AK, to serve as the district ranger for Alaska State Parks for the region. That is when Michelle found her way to the Alaska congressional delegation, where we found her. Again, I wish that I could take the credit for finding Michelle, but she came to work for the entire Alaska congressional delegation. This was at the time when the late Senator Ted Stevens was our senior Senator, and this was just when I was beginning my time in this office. Back then, the rules of this Chamber allowed us to share district offices and staff, so Michelle served not just me but also Senator Stevens and Congressman Young, who, as we know, is now the dean of the House, so some pretty big political powerhouses between Don Young and Senator Stevens. They are personalities that we have described as being larger than life at times and some personalities that can be interesting to balance, but Michelle did so with patience and poise. All in all, Michelle has 25 years of Federal public service, and I am proud to say that 17 of those years have been as a member of my staff. Of all of her many professional accomplishments, you will not hear her boast, but you will hear her colleagues speak with the highest respect for her ethics and her duty to public service. She is so humble but so, so respected by her staff both on the State side and among the policy team here in DC. I have had a lot of time to be in a car with Michelle as we have driven around the Kenai Peninsula. I have seen her interact with constituents who have serious, challenging, personal, deeply emotional issues, and how she is able to communicate with Alaskans on their level, on their issues, in a way that is respectful and understanding and compassionate is a gift that is extraordinary. Outside of the office, one source of pride--probably the biggest source of pride for Michelle--is very clear: the devotion to her family. When asked by others who worked with her, the first thing that you would hear is of Michelle's dedication to her family, and she has a great family. Her husband, Jack, as I mentioned, is a great guy--a pilot. She was a little worried when he decided that, instead of a family minivan, it was going to be a family--I don't remember whether it was a Cherokee or a Piper or a 175, but the family is flying around and doing a lot of Alaska that we all enjoy. They have two great kids, Jackson and Cameron. I have had the pleasure and the privilege to watch both of these young people grow into talented, kind, and smart young adults who are now pursuing college and postgraduate degrees. Jackson, who was a page here in the U.S. Senate and an intern for me, is a Truman Scholar. Cameron, his younger sister, was also a page here. She is pursuing a premed-health sciences program with the goal of being a doctor. Jackson is working on Arctic issues and climate issues. You just couldn't be prouder of these two young people. I know that Michelle is, and I certainly am. It has been great to be able to watch and be a part of their family. To the family--to Jack, to Jackson, and to Cameron--thank you for sharing your mom with me, with all of my staff, and really with the Senate and our country for so many years. We know that those years were nights and weekends and holidays when we took a lot of her time, and we appreciate that. I recognize that, as we see good, strong, capable, really impactful people move on from our teams, it is just the closing of one chapter and the opening of yet another for Michelle and her family. So, to Michelle, thank you for all of the years that you have given to your public service and as a member of my staff. I wish you all the best in your very well-deserved retirement. Tribute to Admiral Matthew T. Bell, Jr. Mr. President, as I am still on the floor and we are still in a pause, I want to provide some short remarks with regard to an individual who has been not only a leader in the Alaska community for a period of years but a real leader for our U.S. Coast Guard. I rise to offer my commendation to ADM Matthew T. Bell, Jr., who served the Coast Guard for 36 years, most recently as the commander of District 17, D17. He had his retirement ceremony just about 6 weeks or so ago, and I had the opportunity to be out there at his retirement ceremony. It was held in Juneau. We had the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Schultz, who led the delegation, join Senator Sullivan, myself, and Governor Dunleavy. It was pretty significant that you would have a gathering there in Juneau for this retirement ceremony but not unusual because Admiral Bell had led in a way and manner that deserved this public recognition, certainly, at the highest level. D17 is an enormous region that covers the entirety of Alaska, from the Bering Strait to the Aleutian Chain and all of the surrounding waters. Admiral Bell, during his time there as head of D17, led with distinction, but before this he had had some pretty significant and impressive roles. He commanded the Personnel Service Center. He served as chief of staff for the U.S. Coast Guard Pacific Area and as a chemistry and nautical science instructor at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. He served as commander of Task Group 55.6 in Bahrain in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and he earned the highly esteemed ``Cutterman'' designation after more than 12 years of sea service. Three times--three times--he was the commanding officer and his commands included the Coast Guard Cutter Point Divide, Coast Guard Cutter Alex Haley, and Coast Guard Cutter Douglas Munro. The Alex Haley and Munro were each stationed in Kodiak when Admiral Bell served as their commander. In fact, we had the retirement ceremony for Admiral Bell, and then the following day we flew out to Kodiak to attend the decommissioning of the Munro after 40 years of service-- pretty admirable run. But I can imagine that these tours helped sow the seeds of home for Admiral Bell and his family. So I mentioned I had the opportunity to be there when Admiral Bell passed on the roles and responsibility of the D17 command. It was April 21. He was honorably awarded and recognized for his outstanding service and retirement. But, again, I think it is noteworthy. This was not your average retirement ceremony. We had COVID-19 protocols that were still in place. Senator Sullivan and I were in the front row. It was a pretty limited gathering. I think they were limited to 30 people, joined by the Governor of Alaska. Over 300 people watched by live feed, but behind us--so in the speaker's view and behind us--was this exceptionally distracting view, the beauty of Mendenhall Glacier that was behind us. And every one of the speakers noted that it was quite extraordinary to be in this setting. But I was honored to be invited and humbled to represent the Alaskans who have all deeply appreciated the Coast Guard's work in our State, and especially while Admiral Bell was at the helm. I want to take just note of the fact and thank Admiral Bell and all of the really invaluable, heroic work that D17 does in the State. In a given month in the State of Alaska, D17 rescues 22 souls, assists 53 people, saves over $1.65 million in property across 3,853,500 square miles and over 47,300 miles of shoreline--a lot of space, lot of territory to cover. Alaska is tough. It is rugged. It is big. But these missions are carried out in the toughest, most challenging environment. And as I heard Admiral Bell mention during his retirement ceremony, he said: ``If you can do the Coast Guard's mission in Alaska, you can do the job anywhere [else].'' And he is right. It is the best that we will see. Not only are Coast Guard men and women in Alaska mastering their craft and saving lives and property, they are also integral members of our communities. Those members and their families are our neighbors. They are our classmates. They are our friends. And I deeply appreciate the connection and fond relationship shared by the Coast Guard and Alaska, and that is why it is so important, I think, to just take the time to honor and to thank incredible leaders like Admiral Bell. So on behalf of Alaska, I thank you for everything you have done to continue the longstanding legacy of lifesaving, environmental protection, and maritime safety in our great State. But beyond that, thank you for representing and nurturing the connections between the Coast Guard and our State as the D17 commander and neighbor. And I want to end my comments tonight with just a comment about Matt Bell as the neighbor. Matt and his wife Nancy have raised three sons, and like most Coast Guard families, they moved numerous times. They have accepted the assignments and adventure with the kind of a matter- of-factness that comes with military service. But wherever they have been stationed, they have become part of the community. They have made that community just a little bit better. And when Matt and Nancy came to Alaska, they knew they were home. They said it. Absolutely, they knew they were home. In fact, it was somewhat interesting. Nancy was not at the retirement ceremony there in Juno because she had already moved all of their household goods to Kodiak. I think it was her first week of work there. She was working at the Coast Guard base there. So, you know, she is a true Coast Guard family for life. But for a small little side note and an anecdote, at the conclusion of the decommissioning of the Munro, I had to fly back to Anchorage, and as it turned out, the same airplane that was going to be taking me back to Anchorage from Kodiak was the same airplane that was delivering just recently retired Admiral Bell to Kodiak to come home to his wife and help, basically, move in. Long story short, weather comes in and there are no airplanes to Kodiak. So he is not coming in and I am not going out. As it was, I was supposed to be in Anchorage at a family dinner, and I knew that they had a place set for me, and while I was at the airport trying to rearrange reservations and trying to find accommodations for the evening, Nancy Bell was at the airport waiting for her husband. And she said: What can I do to make sure that you have a place to stay? And I said: Well, it's not just about me. I have a whole volleyball team from Palmer and a soccer team from the valley. What are we going to do with 50-some-odd kids when there is no airplane until tomorrow? And Nancy Bell sprung into action, as a good community member, to see what it was that she could do to get not only me and a couple of staff people but to get a couple teams of kids situated for the evening And I said: You know, Nancy, you are taking care of me. Matt needs to go to my family dinner in Anchorage and take my place. And so he did. He had a great evening with my family, and I had a great opportunity to spend a little bit more time with his wife in Kodiak. But it just speaks to the neighborliness that goes on. You have a significant leader in our U.S. Coast Guard--a man who he and his family have given so much, 36 years in service. And they are now going to give that to their community--their Alaska community--that they have adopted, and we have embraced them. We honor them, and we wish the best for them and their family in their retirement. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Murkowski amendment at the desk be agreed to and the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 593 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I know of no further debate on the bill, as amended.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we are at a much better place at this moment in time for the people of the State of Alaska, who have been anxious. We have all been anxious throughout this time of COVID, but we have been particularly anxious as we have watched our tourist sector just be decimated. And when I say ``decimated,'' I mean in the sense that when you have such a significant portion of one economic sector, the tourist sector, come to your State by one means, by one mode--and for us, in the State of Alaska, that is cruise ship. We have had an extraordinarily robust tourist economy, growing over the years. People want to come and see the beauty and the splendor, and for many, they want to be on the comfort of a ship and watch the views go by, see the glaciers, see the whales come on up. It is a great place to visit. But for the past year, ships have not been sailing to Alaska. This is due to not only the CDC and the no-sail orders the CDC has imposed but also because of the limitations that have been put in place by Canada in terms of no sailing through the Canadian waters. So there has been an effort to, as we try to regain our footing, rebuild a tourist sector, but you can't just flip a switch here. You just can't get an industry back on its feet this quickly without everybody pulling together, and this has been a struggle to get everyone pulling together. But I think we are at a place where there is a glimmer of hope for Alaska's tourism industry. We were here on this floor just a couple weeks ago, Senator Sullivan and myself, talking about how significant cruising is as an element to Alaska's economy. At the time, I shared a chart with colleagues that showed that in 2019 we had 1.3 million visitors come to Alaska on a cruise ship, and in 2020 we had 48 come to Alaska on a cruise ship. I said at the time: That is 48 passengers, not 48,000. You can just guess what that did to our economy--the statewide unemployment rate rising from 6.2 to 11 percent; municipal and State revenues dropping significantly; and every day that passes, more lost revenues, more lost salaries, more economic distress. So the effort that we have made to, again, try to get ships back in the water, try to get them heading north, has been considerable. We have heard from so many in not only our coastal communities but, really, communities around the State about the economic impact and the hit they have taken. In the Indian Affairs Committee, we had a hearing just yesterday about the impact on Native tourism due to COVID, and we had the CEO of Huna Totem Corporation, Russell Dick, describe to the committee the profound ``disruption of our local economy, as 80 percent of our local tax base comes from tourism,'' he said. Consequently, ``leadership from the city of Hoonah, the community, and Icy Strait Point are all eager for cruise ships to return.'' Consider that. Eighty percent of your local tax base comes from tourism, and if you don't have passengers coming in, if you don't have visitors coming in, you basically have nothing. So we needed to address this. We needed to fix this. We have been working aggressively, not only the Alaska delegation here working with Congressmen but working with all members of the administration. We have the Secretary of Homeland Security, who is literally on speed dial, the Director of the CDC, who really doesn't want to hear from us anymore because I think we have been so constant. We have been engaging with the Secretary of Commerce. We have taken this to the head of the Canadian Government as well, with letters to Prime Minister Trudeau and to his Cabinet, to his Parliament. So the effort that has been underway has been considerable. We had an opportunity on the floor a couple weeks ago to discuss this very issue. We heard concerns raised by Senator Blumenthal about some consumer protection provisions. We heard concerns from Senator Lee about the Passenger Vessel Services Act, the PVSA. We weren't able to come to a resolution at the time, but I think what was good at that time was a commitment to keep working on this. We kept working on this, and we are now to the point where we have successfully passed this temporary PVSA fix through the Senate. I want to state, though, that this is not a fix for the cruise companies, if you will. This is help, this is a fix, if you will, for the communities in Southeastern Alaska, the communities around Alaska for whom opening up some semblance of a cruise season this summer is literally going to determine their future--not just whether they are able to open this year but whether they are able to open at all going forward. To tell people that they have to hold on through 2022, hold on for yet another 14 months--that is just not possible because it has already been 19 months that these communities have been so severely and so significantly impacted. So the timing of this is key. It is critical. It is literally every day counting, every day that matters, so that our communities can get the folks back in the little store, get your teams hired up to take the tourists out on the attractions, get us back to a place where again we can be more stable from an economic perspective and with regards to the benefit to Alaskans and the employment. We are ready to go back to work. We have been working hard on the vaccine. We have advertised ourselves as a State to be coming to if you are looking for your travel adventure and do so in a safe place. But we have been tied--our hands have been tied--in our ability to get the season back up and running and in a way that is going to provide for a level of safety for all. We are continuing to make progress with CDC. I think that is an important part to add to because that has been an impediment to us. The CDC has been slow--torturously slow--in laying down their guidance, but I am optimistic that we are very close. Hopefully--hopefully--we are going to have the necessary certainty for cruise companies to ramp up their operations to again prepare to cruise to Alaska. With the CDC paving the way over there and the PVSA issue, we are very hopeful--very, very hopeful--that we will be able to advance over in the House, working with our colleagues over there, to be able to provide this certainty for a very short season that will allow Alaskans to have some glimmer of hope here. But I want to end with a comment and a statement that came from Mr. Russell Dick, again, the CEO of Huna Totem Corporation. Mr. Dick is indigenous from the Hoonah region. Hoonah was his community, his village that he grew up in. And he reminded us of the situation that Canada has really placed us in. The reality is, he has a community where they may have literally no economy this summer if you can't get cruise ships in. Eighty percent of the employees that work at Icy Strait there are local and native hire. But his comment was that we are dealing with this because Congress, in his words, hasn't dealt with the PVSA. And he says: This is not Canada's fault; this is the Federal Government's fault. And he says: Let me be clear. The PVSA right now is preventing us from hiring Americans in an American community that desperately needs those jobs. The U.S. Congress is responsible for this problem. I think Russell made it very, very clear to us that we have to address this. We have to address this. What we have done just now is we have shown that when Canada is going to make some tough decisions, we are not going to stand by. We are not just going to say ``pretty please,'' withering on the vine here until another country--until Canada--catches up with our level of readiness. It should be up to us to be able to restore our economy, and we will take the first steps to do just that. So I want to thank Senator Sullivan, absolutely, for his leadership throughout all of this, but I also want to recognize Senator Lee, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Cantwell, and Senator Wicker and their teams for helping us get to this place today where we can be in a spot where we can tell Alaskans the light is coming on. With that, I will yield to my friend and colleague Senator Sullivan

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 593 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the Murkowski amendment at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we talked a lot about the pandemic and all that it has brought. I would like to take just a few moments here, at the outset, before I ask for full consideration, to share with colleagues, very briefly, what we have faced in the State of Alaska with regard to our State's economy. We have probably taken a greater hit than any State in the country. We saw a 32-percent drop in revenue last year, 10 percent higher than any other State in the Nation. We are starting to see a light at the end of the tunnel, and that is good, but we are also facing the prospect of another devastating tourist season. Back home, right now, people are not talking about the season for 2021 coming up. The motto is ``Get through to `22.'' That is an awful way to be approaching our situation so they have asked for help. They realize that anything that we can do to try to salvage even a few weeks of the tourist season is going to be important to us. So Senator Sullivan and I have been working on behalf of hundreds of small businesses that rely on this essential income just so they can scrape by for another year. A lot of people don't think about cruise ships as being an essential activity during a pandemic but, let me tell you, in our State, where so much of our economy is based on tourism, it is an imperative. It is jobs; it is livelihoods; and it really is what allows our small communities to keep their doors open. In 2019, before the pandemic was upon us, we were looking at 1.33 million tourists who came to the State of Alaska by way of cruise ship. That is pretty significant. In 2020, there were 48 passengers. That is 48 passengers. That is not 48,000. So, in other words, you had an economy that was looking pretty strong and pretty good, and it absolutely went into a free fall. Normally, the tourism industry generates more than $214 million in State and municipal revenue, more than $1.4 billion in payroll, $2.2 billion in visitor spending, and the prospect was doing nothing but going up until we were hit in 2020. The vastly diminished cruise season contributed to statewide unemployment rising from 6.2 percent to 11 percent. Southeast Alaska had greater unemployment, which increased from 4.7 to 11.3--17 percent of all jobs in the region impacted. This kind of unemployment and this kind of stress is an extraordinary challenge. So Alaskans are trying to figure out is there a way to salvage there, and there are two points here. We are ready to welcome visitors back in the State. We are leading the country in vaccination rates. Half of all Alaskans have had their first dose. So 43 percent are fully vaccinated, but we have got two issues that we are facing here; first is, the Centers for Disease Control has their no sail order for the cruise industry in place. We actually got some very encouraging news just last evening. CDC has acknowledged these changing circumstances with regard to vaccination. They updated their guidance for how to safely resume cruising, so that is good. That is a positive. But we have got a second issue, and that second issue is that Canada has a ban on allowing passenger vessels to depart from or transit through their waters. We are dealing with a law that is controlling so much of this because, in the United States, we only allow domestically built, owned, and crewed vessels to operate on solely domestic trips. This is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, the PVSA. So we have got a situation that without a stop in Canada, a cruise to Alaska is a domestic ship. Canada has effectively been available to cruise companies that offer voyages to Alaska--not built in the United States, not crewed by U.S. citizens, not permitted to sail in Alaska without making a stop in a foreign country because otherwise this violates the PVSA. So what we are trying to do, we are trying to work with the Canadians to resolve this issue. It has been tough making headway because Canada is in a different spot when it comes to their vaccines. We have turned to a legislative fix, a temporary legislative fix. There are a lot of different opinions on PVSA and the Jones Act. I am not here to debate them today, but what I am trying to offer, along with Senator Sullivan, is a temporary fix that will allow the cruise ships to travel between Washington State and Alaska because what we are trying to do here--I am not trying to save the cruise companies; I am trying to save communities that are so dependent on these vessels that bring these passengers up. For them, it is critical. If we can't get some level of relief, and we can't get folks north, they are not going to--they have been on hold now since last year. So 14 months until we get into 2022, on top of what we have already seen, these businesses won't be there. What we are doing is we temporarily deemed that a voyage to Alaska from Washington State without a stop in Canada is, by law, a foreign voyage. So PVSA is not going to hold us back. I have worked with Senator Cantwell, and I have worked with Senator Blumenthal to address some of the issues that they have raised, and I thank them both for their efforts to work with me. We have incorporated, in this amendment, three simple requirements-- two of which the industry already adheres to--requiring defibrillators on ships, making sure that the passengers' bill of rights is publicly available, and we asked the Secretary to consider a rulemaking on how to safely return human remains in the tragic event that someone passes away on a cruise. These are simple, commonsense changes that ensure cruises are safe for passengers and the crew. Along with Senator Sullivan and Congressman Young, I would ask the Senate to consider and pass the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act so that cruises can gain some semblance--some semblance--of opportunity in Alaska, as they have for so long. So, again, I will restate my motion here asking unanimous consent that Murkowski amendment No. 593 be called up and agreed to.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, to just wrap up this discussion, I really appreciate the comments from my colleague Senator Sullivan because I think you have really keyed in on where we are today. The Alaska Tourism Restoration Act is such a narrowly defined in scope initiative to, again, create this very brief period of time to allow for what is left or what will remain of a tourist season to proceed. But we are faced with bigger issues, and these issues clearly evoke great passion and debate, whether it is consumer protection or to Senator Lee's concerns that he has raised overall about Jones Act and PVSA. So those are significant issues that will be debated in committees as we move forward and further debated on the floor. But I think, at this point in time, the recognition from our colleagues from Connecticut and from Utah that this effort that we are trying to make in Alaska to redeem a small segment of our tourist season--those who come to us by cruise ship--that just perhaps the strength of cooperation you see here today will be that level of encouragement for the ships to start coming north in anticipation of clearer and more beneficial guidance, working with CDC. It has been a lot of pieces to knit together. It hasn't been particularly easy or pretty, but I would like to think that the folks in southeastern Alaska and throughout the State will see the benefits of this in the weeks and months ahead. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I came to the floor today to talk about something that has been top of my mind for a period of time, and I wanted to bring it to Members' attention today because of some recent articles of late as it relates to national security and global competitiveness, particularly as they relate to domestic resource development. In recent months, since the beginning of this administration, I have spoken out in concern at the direction that I have seen the new administration take with regard to energy security and how that relates to Alaska. I have spoken out at length about my opposition to several of these Executive orders that were very early on relating to leasing and permitting moratoria in my State. In fact, there were eight specific orders that were directed to one State and to one State only. That is a pretty hard hit for Alaska. In other areas, I don't believe that additional Federal lands and waters in Alaska should be placed off-limits. We already as a State hold more public lands than any other State, and by considerable degree. I don't believe our public land order removal process should be paused. This was an announcement that just came out of the Department of the Interior last week. They say they are pausing it, but effectively, it could be delayed or abandoned not just for these next 2 years going forward but permanently. What this effectively does is it creates almost de facto wilderness, if you will, because you have placed land in a limbo, in a purgatory for decades. Nobody can do anything with it as these PLOs, these public land orders remain in place. I note--no great secret around here--like most Alaskans, I strongly support our resource development industry and the men and the women who work within it. They are my friends. They are my neighbors. I fish with them. I recognize the importance and the value of what they do. I have worked hard here in the Senate and for a long time to ensure that the industry's continued centrality is allowed to prosper, not only because of them, the people I know, but because of what it means for our country, for our economy, our State's budget, our prosperity, and also for our environment. After years of lagging behind, the United States has come to a better place on energy in recent years. We have seen domestic production rising. We have seen our emissions falling. We have created jobs. We have generated revenues. We have changed the world geopolitically even as we have lessened our impact on the climate. But these kinds of gains can't be taken for granted. They can't be actively ignored. They certainly should not be discarded. We have to acknowledge that this energy renewal has not been even across the country. It has taken place largely on State and private lands. We have very limited private land in Alaska. And instate activity--we have been proudly producing for a while. But we also have, again, much land that is federally held, and we have only seen help arrive with any kind of activity and production on Federal land in the past few years. I would suggest that we cannot afford that forward progress to be reversed, but unfortunately that is the way it feels right now. The threat is that this administration is going to take an approach that is going to take us backwards. So the question, I think, is a fair one for us to ask, to discuss here. It is an important question. What happens if we just decide we are going to turn our backs on this, our American energy? What happens if we really do move in this direction of just keeping it in the ground? What happens if we really do close our eyes to our domestic energy sources, these assets, if we close our eyes to the contributions that they provide? I will suggest to you that there are a few warning signs that we have up on the horizon. Oil prices are back up above $60 a barrel. This actually helps my State; I will be honest there. We will accept that for budgetary purposes. But we all talk about what happens typically around Memorial Day. We have driving season coming on. We are still in the midst of a pandemic. But if the United States artificially restricts its supplies and demand rebounds rapidly, where does this put us? I mentioned that there have been some articles of late that just really kind of struck me. It is interesting because I thought they were pretty significant, but it seems they are relatively unnoticed here in Washington. According to Bloomberg, Russia has now supplanted Saudi Arabia to become the third largest supplier of crude oil in the United States. Canada is our No. 1. But there has been a series of circumstances. As our domestic production is falling, the Saudis have also reduced theirs, and it has been Venezuela. Venezuela is subject to sanctions. Their production has pretty much gone offline to the United States. Part of what we are seeing, though, is the refusal on the Federal Government's side to approve cross-border pipeline infrastructure. Canada, again, is our largest--we import more from Canada than anywhere else, and they have greater capacity to help us out here so that we don't have to take it from Russia. But, instead, we haven't been able to take more from Canada to fill in that gap because of pipeline capacity. So what happens is, we are sending more of our money to Russia at a time when we are not on very good terms with Russia. Need we say elections? Need we say SolarWinds? Need we say what we are seeing from Putin? This is what is happening: We are sending more of our dollars to Russia, and they are sending us more of the resources that we could produce here at home or perhaps at least import them from some friendlier nations. U.S. crude oil production fell from an average high of 12.2 million barrels per day in 2019 to an average of 11.3 million in 2020. According to the Energy Information Administration, this loss in domestic production will return the United States to being a net petroleum importer in 2021 and 2022. By all accounts, a sizable chunk of this will come from Russia. What is going to happen is, we are going to move from this position where we have been in these past few years where we have had some real energy security here because we have been producing, and we have been producing to the point that we have been able to even supply to our friends and allies. But now, with policies that are taking us in a different direction and still knowing that we need the resource, we are turning to Russia. This is what really galls me so much: In 2020, the United States imported 538,000 barrels of oil per day from Russia. In Alaska--we recognize Alaska is a great producing State. Despite our immense potential and desire to bring it to market, in 2020, we were producing an average of 448,000 barrels per day. It just begs the question: Is this what we really want? Is this what we really want, for Russia to account for more of America's energy supply than Alaska? We both have similar environments, both big, but oil production goes on in areas that are tough to produce in. I will hold Alaska's environmental record over that of Russia any day--in fact, over most countries and even most States any day. One article put it this way. They said: ``America's increasing reliance on Russian oil is at odds with U.S. energy diplomacy.'' Let's kind of put it in context. The position that we have taken with Nord Stream 2--basically what we have said is that we are asking those in Europe who need Russia's gas--we are saying we need to be tough on this. We need to break Russia's hold here. For all the years--it has been 7 years since Russia annexed Crimea and demonstrated to the world that they are not afraid to flex their muscles when it comes to energy exports in order to achieve their geopolitical goals. So we have been saying on Nord Stream 2: Europe, you guys, don't go there. Yet we have to look at ourselves here because we are telling Europe ``Limit your reliance on Russia for gas,'' but over here, we are happy to step up our imports from Russia on oil. The President has just recently imposed tougher sanctions on Russia, as he absolutely should, but I think we need to be eyes wide open here, folks, in terms of what it means when we need that resource. I do recognize that much of this discussion on Russia and how Russia has supplemented Venezuelan crude--I recognize that most of the oil that is being imported is heavy and that this is a situation with our gulf coast refineries that are specifically geared for that. I do recognize that they have fewer options right now, but I do think this is a conversation that we need to be talking about. We just can't sit back and say: Well, this is just the way it is. Congress and the administration need to be taking the steps necessary to ensure that we in this country have a strong, stable supply of domestic energy to meet our current demand, our future demand, and, to the greatest extent possible, the demand from our allies. Russia is positioning itself to capitalize on all of that. They produce from wherever they want, and they are going to sell to wherever they can. The least that we can do here at home is to support our own responsible production from States like Alaska, so that we have our supply--our own supply--and can provide a diversified commercial alternative. Moving from oil and gas briefly here, Alaska is also ready to help in another increasingly crucial area and that is with mineral development. Our history of tectonic events has created a geological environment that fosters deposits of a wide variety of minerals that are critical to both our current and our future economies. Back in 2018, the Department of the Interior designated 35 ``critical'' minerals based on their importance to our economy and security, as well as their susceptibility to supply and disruption. These minerals are essential for everything. They help us with our advanced missile systems, solar panels, batteries for electric vehicles, your cell phones--everything. Our military is certainly aware of this. They recognize the vulnerable position that we are in. Our manufacturers recognize the vulnerability. These are products that we use on a daily basis. Right now, the United States is import-reliant on 31 of the 35 minerals designated as ``critical.'' We have relatively no domestic production. We rely completely on imports to meet our demand for 14 of these. And, of course, most of where we are importing these materials are from China. That is not OK. That shouldn't be acceptable to us. I think we all should agree on the need to rebuild our domestic mineral supply chains. There has been good, positive conversation about what we can do. I feel this is one of those areas that is a growing vulnerability. It used to be that we would talk about our vulnerability on the Middle East for our oil, and then policies changed and we reduced our reliance on that. That is why I am anxious. I am concerned about what I am seeing translate going forward. But I think we need to be, again, with eyes wide open when it comes to our mineral dependence and our reliance on these important materials for what we need to be a strong nation. I think this is a pressing and long-term security threat that we face in this country. We have seen it play out in light of the COVID pandemic. We have seen the vulnerability of international supply chains. I thought it was great. It was so important that the administration really focused in on this. The new administration is focusing on this in a good way, and I appreciate that. When President Biden released the first part of his infrastructure proposal, focusing on international domestic supply chains, he has one section there about electric vehicles. In the White House fact sheet, it says the plan ``will enable automakers to spur domestic supply chains from raw materials to parts, retool factories to compete globally, and support American workers to make batteries and EVs.'' This is the type of policy that we should all want to get behind, broadened out to every industry, not just to a select few. But the question here, though, is whether the administration is willing to accept what is going to be necessary in order to achieve this goal to have these secure supply chains, especially when it comes to expanding our domestic supply of raw materials. It is going to require approval of mining projects, and that has been a challenge for us. That has been a challenge for us. This is where I go to another article that came up a few weeks back. This is from Reuters. It appears to me that rather than looking within our own borders, the administration is looking beyond. In this article from Reuters, it states that the United States looks to Canada for minerals to build electric vehicles. It provides: The U.S. Government is working to help American miners and battery makers expand into Canada, part of a strategy to boost regional production of minerals used to make electric vehicles and counter Chinese competitors. It goes on further to talk about the different ways that the Department of Commerce is discussing with many how we can boost Canadian production of EV materials. It goes on further to say: But Washington is increasingly viewing Canada as a kind of ``51st State'' for mineral supply purposes. I am a big fan of Canada. They are our neighbor, but if we are going to be adding Canada as a 51st State to help us with our minerals and access to minerals, let's not forget the 49th State, because Alaska has good, strong resources. Where we seem to have problems is in gaining access, whether it is in the permitting process or just the ability to move forward with some of our mineral potential. Again, I am not suggesting that we shouldn't be looking to our friends to build these alliances, particularly with our neighbors directly to the north and to the south. This is good. I am not suggesting: Let's not be talking to Canada. That is an important part of how we really work to build these secure supply chains. All I am suggesting is that we here in America need to also look to the strength of our resource assets. There are some--again, the issue of mining in this country sometimes can be a controversial one. I am going to suggest to folks that if we really want to do more to build out not only our national security but if we want to build out our clean, diverse energy infrastructure, moving toward the President's vision of greater renewable opportunities, which I want to do, let's acknowledge that we are going to need these minerals. We don't really have a choice here. The World Bank recently released a report looking at ``The Mineral Intensity of the Clean Energy Transition.'' They found that ``large relative increases in demand of up to nearly 500 percent are estimated for certain minerals, especially those concentrated in energy storage technologies, such as lithium, graphite, and cobalt.'' The report also found that ``even with large increases in recycling--including scenarios where 100 percent end of life recycling is achieved--there is still likely to be strong demand for primary minerals.'' We know we are going to need it. People like Elon Musk last year said: ``Please mine more nickel.'' He promised: ``Tesla will give you a giant contract for a long period of time if you mine nickel efficiently and in an environmentally sensitive way.'' I am with you on that. Look at the analysis from Goldman Sachs, which found that increasing demand for electric car batteries is causing automakers to brace for a surge in prices in lithium, cobalt, and nickel. In order for us to get there from here, in order to achieve a transition to renewable and cleaner technologies, we have to acknowledge that there is going to be a mineral footprint. It will be impossible to establish a robust domestic supply chain for EVs and batteries if we continue to import the raw materials from other nations, including some that continue to dramatically outcompete us in these areas every year. I think we need a rational, clear-headed, eyes-wide-open approach to energy and mineral development. We don't want to go backward on energy, and we can't be caught flatfooted on minerals. We have the resources. We have the highest labor standards in the world and the highest environmental standards in the world. Our energy workers and our miners will hold themselves to those standards. Instead of importing more from places like Russia and China, we need to free ourselves from them to the extent that we can establish ourselves as this global alternative. I have kind of taken that--actually, it is not something new. In the beginning of the 116th Congress, I prepared a white paper. We called it ``The American and Global''--well, what we called it was a pretty cool title. It is a great little publication that should have gotten more notice, but like a good wine, it comes with time: ``'With Powers So Disposed,' America and the Global Strategic Energy Competition.'' I outline in this a strategic energy initiative designed to sharpen and direct our tools of energy related to economic statecraft and to enhance the geopolitical position of the country. From that or as a jump-off from that, I am introducing my Strategic Energy and Minerals Initiative Act, which we call the SEMI Act. This legislation will enable U.S. companies to better compete in global markets, and it promotes the responsible domestic production of our oil, gas, and minerals. I think these are initiatives that are good for us to be looking critically at, again, as we move forward with this administration's priorities on not only how we can build infrastructure--build it better, build it cleaner, build it with a renewable future--but we have to recognize that when we build things, we need base elements. Know that Alaska is ready, willing, and able to play a role on all of these fronts. We have tremendous stores of resources, but equal to those tremendous stores of resources is the responsibility that I believe Alaskans feel to be good stewards as we access those resources to allow for a level of sustainability, whether it is with our fisheries or whether it is with the subsistence, the livelihoods of those who rely on the food and animals on the land. We believe that we can contribute to our national security and our global competitiveness, while at the same time working to protect the environment, but what we need is a chance to be able to do that. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I didn't come to the floor to speak to the nominee who is before us this afternoon, but following the very impassioned comments by my colleagues, in fairness, on both sides of the aisle and recognizing the vote that I just took about an hour ago to advance Vanita Gupta to this position, I will take just a moment to explain where I am coming from and why I will be supporting her final confirmation in just an hour. I have looked at her record. I have had an extensive sitdown with her. I am impressed with not only her professional credentials but really the level of experience, but more to the comments that we just heard on the floor, the passion that she carries with her in the work that she performs. I think it is fair to say we will all agree her confirmation has been very challenged. She has had significant back-and-forth in committee. She has been elevated with very strong rhetorical words in favor and, equally, words of condemnation. I asked her point blank: Why do you want this? Is this worth it? Because this has been, clearly, very hard on her as a nominee. She paused and reflected a moment and just spoke to how she feels called to serve in a very personal way that I thought was impactful. We had a long discussion about some of the issues that I care deeply about in my State as they relate to justice, access to justice, public safety, and the real tragedy that we face when it comes to women, primarily our Native women, who experience rates of domestic violence and sexual assault that are shocking, disturbing, and wrong. Despite all that we have as a State, the resources we have, the opportunities we have, we have not been able to turn the corner as we have needed to in confronting what I believe is a true scourge. It is going to take more than resources. Jurisdictionally, it is very complicated in Alaska. We don't have reservations. We don't have similar law enforcement presence in many parts of the State that you might have in the lower 48. We have a great deal of work to do as a State. But as we discussed these issues, I felt that I was speaking to a woman who had not only committed a professional life to try to get to the base of these injustices, to try to not just direct a little bit of money, put a program in place, walk away, and call it a day, but to truly try to make a difference. So there are some statements that she has made in some other areas that, in fairness, I find troubling and concerning, and part of my job will be to ensure that she understands clearly how this translates into issues in my State and with our particular issues. But I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to a woman who I believe has demonstrated through her professional career to be deeply, deeply committed to matters of justice. So I will be casting my vote in support of her in about an hour here.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, before I begin my comments, I ask unanimous consent that Cristina Nelson, my Coast Guard fellow, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of her fellowship.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I continue the reading of the letter from Birmingham jail: You may well ask: ``Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?'' You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word ``tension.'' I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Such as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in a monologue rather than dialogue. One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: ``Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?'' The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to the maintenance of the status quo. I have hoped that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals. We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was ``well timed'' in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word ``Wait!'' It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ``Wait'' has almost always meant ``Never.'' We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that ``justice too long delayed is just denied.'' We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, ``Wait.'' But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policeman curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society . . . when you take a cross country drive and find it necessary to sleep, night after night, in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading ``white'' and ``colored''; when your first name becomes [an expletive], your middle named becomes ``boy'' (however old you are) and your last name becomes ``John,'' and your wife and mother are never given the respected title ``Mrs.''; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of ``nobodiness''--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1233 and ask that it be reported by number.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate equally divided.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is the amendment we are waiting for. This is a bipartisan amendment. This is so bipartisan that we have already agreed to a voice vote, so listen carefully. Yes, thank you for that. Prepandemic, our public schools had identified about 1.5 million kids who experience homelessness. That is 2.7 percent of all public school students. So think about what that means. That was prepandemic. We know that number is higher now. Our amendment is pretty simple here. We reallocate less than 1 percent of the funding for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund to ensure that homeless youth and kids have the resources they need to get into and succeed in school. In Alaska and around the country, the COVID-19 pandemic and economic downturn have increased the strain on our families and the need for services. Too many of the kids have left their homes, been pushed out of their homes, sometimes many of them to escape a dangerous situation. They are dealing with the challenges of virtual learning. These kids are worrying about where to sleep at night, how they are going to eat dinner, if they are going to be safe. This amendment ensures that these kids, no matter the trauma and the challenges they face outside of the classroom, will have a safe place to sleep and access to the wraparound services that they need. We have a responsibility to ensure that this vulnerable population, many of whom will be subject to predation, violence, or trafficking, is not forgotten or left behind. I would like to yield to my friend and my colleague Senator Manchin.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 806 and ask that it be reported by number.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this one is pretty simple and, hopefully, it can be pretty agreeable and we move quickly. What I am aiming to do today is to prevent the executive branch from taking actions that increase our country's reliance on foreign sources of oil and gas or hard rock minerals. We are going to keep using oil and gas for a while here. I think we recognize that. The EIA, Energy Information Administration, forecasts consumption of oil and gas will rise by 5.6 million barrels per day this year and continue rising in the future. So what we are doing--what we are at risk of doing is to limit resource development in this country, put good-paying jobs at risk, including in my State, making States more dependent on fossil and mineral resources from overseas, oftentimes from our foreign adversaries. We have great resources in this country, folks--from natural gas that powers our homes; minerals like graphite and lithium, which we need in our renewable technologies, and we produce them here in this country in a more environmentally responsible manner--

Ms. MURKOWSKI.--and with higher labor standards than elsewhere in the world. I would urge my colleagues to accept, and I would ask for a voice vote.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are ensuring with this amendment that there will be resources for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse. Senator Shaheen has pointed out that our shelters are very, very much in need of our support. We urge you all to protect the most vulnerable in their time of need. We ask for your support on this amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 834

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is the time of year when we all look forward to wrapping things up, as they say. Many around the country, when they think about wrapping things up, think about presents that they are going to put under the tree for their family. We think about it as closing up business for the balance of the year, and that is really where we are. Hopefully, in a couple hours here, the House will proceed in taking up the omnibus bill, along with the COVID relief package, along with a host of other matters that the Congress has been working to address in this past year. I would like to speak this evening for a few moments on the significance of where we are, but I want to start with just a story that I just now received from one of my staff people back in Alaska, and she got a video from the medical staff at the Sub-Regional Clinic there at St. Mary's. St. Mary's is a small community up on the Yukon River, and probably, I would say, 500 people, maybe more, in St. Mary's. But it is just a reminder to me that, regardless of where you are, hope is coming with the vaccine. The comment that she shared is this video, a pictorial of the health aides, the PA--the physician's assistant--and personnel getting their COVID shots. It was 13 degrees out. And the mobile office where the vaccine was administered was inside a chartered Cessna 208 Caravan sitting on the airport tarmac there in St. Mary's. After the shot, she and her staff hung out in their heated trucks for about a half an hour to see if they had any allergic reactions. When none showed signs, the Caravan took off to the next village airport. It is just an example that no matter where you are, how remote you may be, the logistics that may be required to provide for this hope that comes by way of the vaccine. People around the country are hopeful. Our job now, as we wrap up, is to make sure that we deliver this relief quickly. I mention the COVID relief. I have been fortunate to be teaming with a bipartisan, bicameral group of lawmakers for the past 5 or 6 weeks to see if we couldn't come up with a proposal that could kick-start the COVID talks. We have had an opportunity for many of us to come to the floor to speak to not only how that came to be but the ultimate result, which was a multihundred-page document, legislation, that totaled $908 billion. But it addressed everything from vaccine development and distribution to what we are going to do to assist our small businesses with additional rounds of PPP, to extensions to unemployment insurance, to what we can do with food assistance, nutrition assistance, and what more might be done to help with rental assistance. It was truly responsive to the need. Where we are today is having moved that conversation and that debate forward, I think, in a constructive, in a positive way. We are here with a proposal that looks different than what we had produced, but that is the nature of what happens in a body where you have to come together to sort out the issues. And what we will have is legislation that, again, like the CARES Act, is likely going to be proven imperfect, but we have to respond to the situation on the ground, whether it is in Alaska or whether it is in Arkansas, and we cannot do it too soon. So this is going to be key, and it is going to be critical. I am very pleased that legislation that I had introduced that would extend the coronavirus relief funding--the opportunity for States and localities and Tribal governments to be able to spend those funds down. Running up against the deadline here of the end of this year was a real concern for so many, and so that has been included as part of this bigger package, in addition to so much that is good. The carrier for all of this is the Omnibus appropriations bill. I have been really pleased to be a member of the Appropriations Committee. For some years now, I have been chairing the Appropriations Interior Subcommittee. This is significant, certainly, for our State, with oversight of our public lands, and also of Native affairs, including the EPA. It is a pretty broad portfolio. We have been working on this dutifully as a subcommittee all year-- all year. I certainly wish that I had had the opportunity to be able to bring my bill--our bill--to the floor for full debate by all Members, and then we could move to the Ag bill, to the T-HUD bill, to the Defense bill--do them all separately. But for a host of different reasons--most of them all come back to politics--unfortunately, we have not been able to do that. That is something that I regret. That is something that I would hope that we, as Members of the Senate, can say: We can do better. We pledge to do it better every year. We put our colleagues in a heck of a spot. Not all of us are on the Appropriations Committee. Not all of us have the privilege to be a chairman or a ranking member and know the guts and the insides of each aspect of these bills. But we come here with a process like this at a late hour, and we say: This is one where you need to know that we have been working it hard. We have taken into account all the priorities and considerations on both sides. We worked it back and forth. We worked it with the House, and here we are. But this is not a good process. We can and we must do better with that. Now, having said that, I am very proud of the Interior bill that we have built. I am proud of my staff. We were a little bit leaner this year in terms of our staffing, but with good leadership, led by Emy Lesofski and Nona, as well as Lucas on the team, we were able to do the work that we needed to do and in a way that I am proud of and proud of their efforts. There is so much that is wrapped up in this bigger, broader bill, and I think it is going to almost be gaspworthy when you see the 5,000- some-odd pages I am told that we will have. It is not only the appropriations. It is the COVID bills. It is the water resources development bill, the WRDA bill--very, very significant. There are good bills from the Indian Affairs Committee that I have participated in, water bills that we have been working on. But the one that I want to speak to a little more in detail this evening--and I was hoping that my ranking member, Senator Manchin, might be here on the floor, but not yet--but I wanted to speak about title Z in the omnibus bill. Z, I just imagine that they put it at the end because they figured it was the best or maybe because they knew that the process that the Energy Act had gone through had probably been more rigorous and lengthy than just about anything out there. But Z we are at. I begin my comments with regard to this Energy Act that is contained in this bill by acknowledging that I am probably speaking on the floor for the last time as the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee because I have hit my limit, if you will. I have had the honor and the privilege to be both the chairman and the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee now for a total of 12 years, which is pretty good. It is pretty good to be in a position to be able to advance legislative policy. I have been very, very fortunate to work with great members. Senator Bingaman was the chairman when I was his ranking and, of course, I was with Senator Wyden as the ranking member when he was chairman. I have had the great privilege to work with Senator Cantwell when I was the chairman and now Senator Manchin. I think about these past 2 years and what we have been able to accomplish and just kind of the recap of where we have been and how productive we have been as a panel. We started this Congress with passage of the John D. Dingell, Jr., Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act. This is a bipartisan package of more than 120 different measures focused on public lands, natural resources, and water. We had worked on a lands package throughout the last several months of 2018. I want to give former Ranking Member Cantwell a real big shout-out here because her leadership was very key in that process. We weren't able to get it across the finish line at the end of the last Congress, but we reintroduced it in January of 2019. We passed it through the Senate in February, and the President signed it into law in March. That was a pretty good start--120 bipartisan bills. These were bills, when you think about it, that related to national parks, to forests, to sportsmen's access. We delivered on the Federal Government's promises to Alaska Natives who served during the Vietnam war. We permanently reauthorized the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and we provided new authorities to help protect from natural hazards such as volcanic eruptions. I will note that the Kilauea just erupted on the Big Island of Hawaii. I believe it was yesterday or the day before. So it is important to be addressing our natural hazards. We did that at the beginning of the Congress. Then Senator Manchin and I set our sights on something that hadn't been done in a long time, and that was modernization of our Nation's energy policies to make real reforms and bring them in line with our current challenges and our opportunities. So we started with some very broad--very broad-based-- hearings and then took a very specific and deep dive into some of the issues and the technologies. Then we started moving bills. We were negotiating and we were reporting dozens of bills as part of our regular order committee process. Knowing how things work around here, we knew we weren't going to be able to move them each individually as stand-alone bills, so we wrapped them up into a broader bill. We called it the American Energy Innovation Act. We brought that bill to the floor in February. We were going just great. We were working through, and it was kind of nice, again, to be the first bill on the floor when we began our legislative business. And we stalled out. We were interrupted. We were taken off the track by an unrelated dispute over a measure that is jurisdictional to another committee, and this was just at the start of the global coronavirus pandemic. But I said: We are not done. We are not stopping just because we hit a roadblock here. We are going to keep working. We kept working. We kept working, and we kept looking for a way to pass the first major Energy bill since 2007--and 2007 is a long time that we hadn't updated and reworked our energy policy, so it was worth working on. I kept saying: Don't count us out. Don't write us off. Over the past few months, we found that opening. We worked with really good partners over on the House side over at Energy and Commerce and the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and we wrote what we have called simply the Energy Act of 2020--pretty simple, pretty beautiful, in my opinion. But our Energy Act is included now as division Z in the year-end omnibus. It provides for reforms and new authorities related to a range of emerging technologies, including advanced nuclear; carbon capture, utilization, and storage; carbon removal; renewables; and energy storage. It reauthorizes programs that many of us are supportive of and want to advance: Weatherization Assistance and ARPA-E. It features the bulk of my language related to critical minerals and materials to help us rebuild our domestic supply chains, which we know are so critical. It reflects our strong commitment to cleaner energy to help us address climate change without raising the cost of energy or imposing divisive mandates. So I would suggest to the Presiding Officer that this Energy bill is just the perfect bookend for this Congress. What started as a major lands package is now going to end with a major energy package. Again, as I mentioned, it has been since 2007. It is the first Energy bill-- the energy side of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--the first Energy bill in almost 13 years. It was President George W. Bush who signed the last one on December 19, 2007. So I want to thank Ranking Member Manchin for his leadership on the energy package, as well as all of the committee members who contributed to it. We had great help within our committee. We had great help within this body. At last count we were looking at input and contributions from some 70 different Members. I also want to acknowledge the extraordinary work of the staffs. I had the opportunity to give a tribute to my staff director, Brian Hughes, who is leaving after many years on the committee. He did a fabulous job of advancing this, as did Spencer Nelson, Pat McCormick, Annie Hoefler, Lucy Murfitt. There were so many others. That team was extraordinary. But they were joined by an extraordinary team that Senator Manchin had, led by his staff director, Renae Black, and other individuals there who really helped us advance this--Sam Fowler and so many. We can't thank them enough. I also want to really give sincere thanks to our House partners because they were this ``six corner'' working group here: Frank Pallone, the chairman at Energy and Commerce and the ranking member, Greg Walden; the Science chairwoman, Bernice Johnson, and the ranking member, Frank Lucas. We could not have reached an agreement without their leadership and their willingness to work together. I also want to acknowledge and thank Leader McConnell and Senator Schumer for agreeing to work with us and help us secure this opening and this commitment. I can't remember how many times Leader McConnell had said: You know, Lisa, you are probably going to figure out a way to pull a rabbit out of the hat here. And I don't know if this is a rabbit out of the hat, but I think persistence certainly has paid off. So I want to thank the teams who really helped to make this happen. In addition to a good energy bill, the year-end omnibus also includes the bipartisan water package featuring nine provisions that are important to Western States, such as Colorado, Montana, and Arizona. Lane Dickson on my Energy Committee staff was fabulous there. We added a few more lands bills into the final package. Lucy and Annie helped us on that. We really have worked to advance so much out of the committee. All of these accomplishments--our lands package, our energy package, our water package, the lands bills that we tried to add to everything that moved and occasionally passed by UC, and measures I haven't spoken to, including the Great American Outdoors Act--these are all the hallmarks of a highly productive Congress and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I am pleased to have been able to shepherd these measures into law. But what I am proud of--more than any piece of legislation, more than anything out there in the time that I have been able to lead this committee, what I am most proud of is the bipartisan way in which this committee has operated. Our commitment to bipartisanship has produced continually good results for our country. What I found as ranking member and now as chairman is that there is simply no substitute for working together and across party lines to find agreement wherever it is possible. So I thank Senator Manchin for following that same approach, to our committee colleagues for their own bipartisanship and collegiality, to our House colleagues who have helped us with that. I see that my friend from the great State of Washington and Pacific Northwest is here, and I want Senator Cantwell to know that as I have spoken of the accomplishments of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I am very thankful and appreciative of her leadership and what she has provided over the years. Working together with her team, we have accomplished good things for the right reasons. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to address equitable treatment in Native healthcare. When the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs considered S. 3650, the companion bill to H.R. 6535, I noted the strong history of Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians working together to ensure that there is parity in Federal policy for all Native peoples. Enactment of H.R. 6535 will address the lack of parity in Federal urban Indian health programs, and by sending this bill to the President, the Senate is making a necessary correction that will support delivery of healthcare to Native communities across the country. But, as we pass this measure, we must not forget that a lack of parity continues to persist for the Native Hawaiian healthcare Systems funded through the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act. I am therefore committed to standing with Senator Schatz to ensure that Native Hawaiian healthcare systems are not left behind and will work with him to address the inequitable access to Federal Tort Claims Act coverage among Native health systems in the next Congress. Together, we will continue to fight for the trust and treaty rights and access to benefits for all of our country's Native peoples.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.