Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield for a question?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one last question?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, to follow the Senator from South Dakota's comments about using the tool that would effectively blow up the Senate, if you will--these are not words that we use freely, but I think it is fair to suggest that utilizing this tool that would eliminate the filibuster, that would eliminate, really, the strongest tool for a minority party, is akin to the nuclear option. We use that term around here in legislative prose. I would agree with much of what you have said. You and I have served on the Appropriations Committee now for years. We have had an opportunity to be engaged in good, substantive debates that have yielded good, substantive, enduring laws. As I think about our role around here, it is not just to engage in the partisan message of the day; it is actually to enact laws. But when we enact laws that are good for just one party, that are wholly partisan, you can kind of predict the direction that will be taken when that minority party that voted against that particular policy then regains power and takes the majority and then attempts to overturn whatever that policy may be. When we think about ways that we can help an economy that is struggling right now, one of the things that I am hearing from businesses is this: The one thing we would really like out of Washington, DC, the one thing we would really like is some level of certainty with policies, that it is not kind of this whiplash, back and forth from one administration to the next. Well, the way you do that is through a level of consensus. As we know, on this floor right now, where it is still pretty quiet, consensus has been harder and harder to achieve on a bipartisan basis. Maybe this is a place in time where we are, and it is just dark. As our friend John McCain would say: It is always darkest before it goes pitch-black. Well, maybe we are getting close to the pitch-black. One can only hope. But I do hear your words that the status quo is not acceptable. I agree with you, my friend. It is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that we are in that place where we can't get votes on amendments that are legitimate and pertinent to the legislation that we have. I am trying to advance an energy bill right now, to get to final passage, and we are going through the procedural hurdles. I will work through those. But we are at a point where, as an institution, I believe we are failing. We are failing the American public. We are failing our constituents. We are failing in our role in governing. I do think that when people look to the anxiety that is at play right now with our national elections, with a Presidential election that is as volatile as we have seen, if there is some level of comfort and security that they might have, they might think that just maybe the Congress, maybe the Senate, can get its act together and be working together. So I hear you. The status quo is not acceptable. I am not one who is going to say we can't change any of the rules, but we have to do better. Whether it is behavioral attitudes that need to change or whether we need to work together to change the rules, that is where we should be, not unilaterally bomb-throwing, not unilaterally making the decision that is going to benefit our party today, and then when we lose the majority, we will deal with it later. We owe it to the Senate and we owe it to the country to do better. I appreciate this back-and-forth today. I would welcome other colleagues to join us. I would hope that we look very, very closely at where we are right now because we are using our own rules to do damage to the institution of the Senate. So let's not take the last tool that holds us in check--this filibuster--and throw it away as well because we will regret it. In the meantime, let's figure out what we can be doing as Democrats and Republicans to do better for the institution of the Senate and do better for the American people. I apologize. That wasn't by way of a question; it was occupying the time of the Senator from Illinois. But I think we have a lot of work to do here, and I hope we are able to do it together. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to just start by saying amen to everything the Senator has said. I listened to his words carefully, and I hear a great deal of caution in his words about actions that the Senate may take as a body that would be in response to perhaps short-term gain or immediate political gain--but a gain that could be finite. Over the course of the years that I have been in the Senate, I, too, have shared the same frustration about legislation that I cared deeply about that I believe had been blocked. Our parliamentarian rules have actually worked to delay things unnecessarily or oftentimes delayed things to the point where they never came to fruition. I have seen the frustration. I also see the benefit of being more methodical, of being that cooling saucer in the process of governance and particularly good governance. But the words that you used are very, very cautionary. It is as if you are suggesting that if we change the filibuster rules, we will, in effect, have changed the institution of the Senate going forward and have changed the institution so that it is, perhaps, just a smaller body than the House but subject to the same rules, where those who have the most votes on one side win. My question to the Senator from South Dakota is, Do you believe that a change in the filibuster rules here in the U.S. Senate would be permanently detrimental to the institution of the Senate going forward?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from South Dakota. I would hope that on a matter as significant as what we are talking about, which is effectively the operational integrity of this institution, there would be good, thorough open discussion and debate on this floor and amongst floor Members. But the concerns we are hearing that there are efforts on the outside of this body that would push us to change our rules and do so in a way that could permanently erode and undercut the ability of the U.S. Senate to operate as intended would be, I believe, a travesty. Thank you.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have listened to the minority whip here. I would say that I agree with him. This bill that we will have an opportunity to vote on later this afternoon does not have everything in it. I think almost--I think every one of us would agree, it doesn't have everything that we would like. It certainly doesn't have everything that I would like. In fact, it has a few things in there that I would have just as soon be jettisoned. What we will have an opportunity to vote on today is a targeted relief measure. It is targeted toward our small business men and women who have been feeling the kick to the gut on a daily basis in my State and certainly in a State like Florida that relies on tourism. It is targeted relief that is designed to help our kids get back into school and teachers to be able to be in a safe environment. It is targeted relief that is designed to help provide additional childcare resources. It is targeted relief to help us advance to a vaccine that is readable and traceable and affordable to all Americans. It is targeted relief that will help us with additional testing. I think we recognize that more testing is going to be better than less testing. There is assistance for the U.S. Postal Service. It is not enough, in my view. I would like to see it increased significantly, but that is not in there. But there is some targeted relief for our Postal Service as well. The minority whip mentions the liability protection that is included within this measure. It has been no secret that that has been a priority not only of the majority leader but of a majority of so many of us who have looked at and heard from those in our communities, our school districts that are concerned about their liability, our small businesses that are concerned about reopening with no liability. This is not a ``get out of jail free'' card. This is designed that if you have followed the protocols, if you have followed the requirements that have been set out there, that you are not going to lose that business. Your school district is not going to be, really in terms of their funding, eroded because of litigation. Again, it does not absolve if you have been negligent in any way here. What I want to reinforce is, we will have an opportunity here to vote on a measure today that is not everything to everybody. We couldn't get there. Negotiations--I think it is fair to say we all wish that there had been greater success with broader bipartisan negotiation. We haven't gotten to this place. We are at a place where we do have an opportunity to put a measure out there that is more directed in its targeted relief; that does leave out certain areas; that, in my view, does include some things that should not be in here, but it is where we are today. We either have an opportunity to do some incremental steps to build on what we put in place with the CARES Act several months ago or to do nothing for an indeterminate period of time. I can tell you that in my State, I have small businesses for whom the PPP was a lifesaver. But I come from a State where we are pretty seasonally focused with our economy, and the relief they were able to get for those few months in the summertime, that allowed them to stay open. When you don't have your tourists come to town and when you really don't have your economy kick into gear during the summer--believe it or not, folks--it doesn't happen in the wintertime in Alaska. We don't have those people coming to visit us. We don't have the cruise ships. We don't have the airplanes that are filled with people willing to come and spend their money. So we have to wait until at least next May. Alaskans, right now, are hoping and praying that they can hold on until May. There are some things in this targeted relief package that directly helps them. There is an opportunity for a second round, an opportunity that is focused on our smaller businesses, an opportunity for an extension of time within which to pay down those CARES Act monies. The thing I have heard more often than anything else is this: Give us more time to spend this because we don't want to spend it on things that we don't need right now because we know that the winter is going to be long and dark and tough. Give us that ability. We didn't get the flexibility that we had asked for. That would have been important. The time extension will be important. The loan forgiveness piece for the smaller loans will be important. The extension of the additional UI will be important. No, it is not a full $600, but it does allow for additional support for those who are suffering most. Again, what we are trying to do is to target the relief and not put it all out there in areas where some didn't need it, some did, and hope we get it right. Again, this is a measure that many will say is a half measure, but I am talking to folks back home who are saying: Give us something. We need to have something now because otherwise we don't know how long we can hold on. This is something that I am going to be supporting later this afternoon, despite what I point to as the flaws in it. I am not going to spend my time here today to talk about why I disagree with some of the school choice provisions that are in here. I think my position on that is relatively well known. But I am going to vote for this regardless of the fact that those provisions are in there because there are provisions that are going to help our fishermen, that are going to help our small businesses, that are going to help our schools, and that are going to help us help those who need this additional unemployment insurance. There is a measure in this bill, though, that has evoked an interesting bit of controversy. It is in an area that I offered. This comes from the text of my American Mineral Security Act. This is a bill that we reported from the Energy Committee last year. The portion of the bill that is in controversy right now, according to my friends on the other side of the aisle, is actually text from a bipartisan bill that my friend and the ranking member on the Energy Committee inserted himself. I cosponsored it. It would effectively authorize the Department of Energy to conduct research to develop advanced processes to help recover rare earth elements from coal and coal byproducts. It authorizes. It doesn't appropriate. It authorizes $23 million a year for 7 fiscal years. We saw that this was a particularly worthy provision to advance. We know that we import almost all of our rare earths from abroad, primarily from China. We know the supply is precarious. China has already demonstrated its willingness to cut off another country when it feels like it. And we know we need this, whether it is for iPhones, flat screens, jet engines, satellites. It is all about supply chain. I was a little bit bemused, I guess, when I saw that this particular provision was the object of partisan scorn. It was actually the Obama administration that helped fund the research to examine the potential of these technologies. NETL, the National Energy Technology Lab, has been working on this, as have a number of universities. When you think about what we are doing here, we are seeking to recover rare earths from coal waste. It is a little bit like turning your trash into treasure. It is the ultimate in recycling. You have already disturbed the earth. That has already happened. What we are doing now is we are going through that and trying to determine if we can't utilize some of that waste for something of great value--rare earths. It could ironically add to our domestic supplies without necessitating new mines. You would think that those on the other side of the aisle who don't like mining would agree that recycling that waste is a strong and a positive thing to do. Some have said: Why is this American Mineral Security Act or any of the provisions in this bill at all? I think one of the things we learned from this pandemic is that supply chains really matter, whether it is supply chains in the pharmaceutical end or supply chains when it comes to these minerals. They are so essential to everything that we do. There have been some interesting attacks on this bipartisan provision. One of my Democratic colleagues declared that it could ``fast-track coal mines.'' One said it is ``targeted to corporate donors.'' Another said on Twitter that this amounts to ``corporate welfare to the coal industry during a climate emergency.'' It is so wrong on so many levels that you don't know where to begin to rebut that. Let me just cite a couple. For a starting point, the Department of Energy has a research mission. DOE does not permit coal mines. So there is no fast-tracking under the provision because there is no authority within the DOE to do so. It doesn't exist. We are not putting labs in charge of the review process. You are not going to see one of your National Labs now become a permitting office. I have also been surprised to hear that research grants from the Department of Energy are somehow or another corporate welfare now. I have a great deal of respect for the work that goes on within DOE. I think that they are the ultimate engine for innovation, leading to good jobs, economic growth, cleaner air, cleaner water. These grants are not just directed to industry. Many of our universities will be among the likely recipients. It is important, I think, to recognize that what we are establishing within this measure is something that would benefit our economy, benefit jobs, and benefit the environment. I mentioned that this provision is an authorization of appropriations. It doesn't allocate any taxpayer dollars. It simply creates a new option for those of us who serve as appropriators to choose as part of our normal budgeting process. We have seen a lot of accusations--misleading attacks over different things that are in this bill or perhaps some things that are not in the measure. I think, again, what we have in front of us is an opportunity to provide targeted relief to Americans at a time when they are in need. What we do today, how we do it today, I think, is important. I think it is unfortunate that we will likely see this as a wholly partisan exercise. I would like to think that we would have a different outcome. I would like to think that each of us can look at these provisions and say: Well, it might not be as much as I would like for my constituents in Florida or Alaska, but it does allow us to advance one step further. My hope is that we will continue aggressive negotiations because I continue to hear from people in my State who are still reeling from the impacts of this pandemic. They do not see the upcoming months giving them notable relief from an economic perspective. They want to know that their Federal Government will be a partner with them in aiding them in the recovery. We will have an opportunity to vote on this later. I would certainly hope all Members look at where we are today with the offering that is in front of us. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague, Senator Blunt, and the effort he has made to really focus in on how we can ensure there are appropriate levels of testing as we respond to this COVID pandemic. We recognize that the technologies, treatments, and vaccines are what will get us there. In the meantime, there are many men and women across the country who are doing extraordinary work responding on the healthcare side, as well as responding as we deal with the economic impact and the economic fallout due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There are a lot of challenges--incredible challenges, all over the country--challenges to the health sector, to our economy, and to our everyday life. I think it is fair to say that the last 6 months have been emotionally exhausting for people. We have heard this before. We are all ready for COVID-19 to be over, but the virus is not ready to be over with us. We are adjusting to a new normal, and as we deal with it, I think it is important to acknowledge the individuals--really, the heroes--in so many of our communities who have saved lives and really provided a level of care and compassion throughout it all. Like all States in the Nation, Alaska has been severely impacted by this pandemic. Last week was a pretty rough week for us. We were included among the States with the fastest growing numbers in terms of rates of transmission. Fortunately, that seems to be tapering a little bit right now but only with very aggressive measures. In my hometown of Anchorage, our mayor has resumed the hunker-down mode for us in terms of restaurants and bars being closed to indoor dining or a recognition that many of the advances we had been able to move forward on are now being ratcheted back. There are also additional travel restrictions. For us, it is a time of year when our communities all over the State would be welcoming droves of tourists, all coming to enjoy the best of Alaska, but this year, our season is all but eliminated, almost nonexistent. Certainly, when it comes to recognizing the volume of tourists the cruise industry provides to Alaska, those have all been canceled. The flights that people would make to the State have been made more difficult by mandatory quarantine for our travelers. It has not impacted just the tourism sector; it has impacted the oil industry, the service industry, and our fisheries. As I mentioned, as difficult as these economic times are, the most important thing we all need to be focused on is the health and safety of our people. I have tremendous appreciation and gratitude for all the healthcare workers and the individuals who work to protect Alaskans on a daily basis. In Alaska, we are extremely fortunate to have our COVID-19 health response led by Dr. Anne Zink. She is our State's chief medical officer. She, along with her team at the Division of Public Health, has been doing a great job under Governor Dunleavy's leadership to implement and communicate clear public health guidelines from the beginning of this unpredictable event. I think if you have an opportunity to meet Dr. Zink, she just projects calm. She projects confidence. She projects assurance. She has absolutely earned the trust of Alaskans throughout this difficult time. She has done so not only because of her demeanor but really how she leads. She leads by example in modeling the behavior that she is encouraging all Alaskans to follow. She has probably taken social distancing and teleworking to a new level, as she teleworks from a yurt outside of her family home in Palmer. She was able to take a small group of Alaskans to some villages--more remote villages in this State with Dr. Eastman from Health and Social Services when he came to Alaska. It was at a time when most of these communities were very, very reticent--as many still are--to allow anyone in from the outside for fear of transmitting the virus. She not only led this trip very safely, but then, when she returned to her home, she led the example of self-quarantining for 14 days to ensure that anything she might have been exposed to was not going to be shared with those whom she loved. Her priority has been and continues to be flattening the curve, slowing the spread. We know in our State that we are just a little more isolated. We are more separate. We are more remote. But we know that we are not immune from any disease of this type. That is surely evidenced by our history. In 1918, when the Spanish flu--the last global pandemic--hit our State, more people died per capita in Alaska than almost anywhere else in the world. In many of our small and Native villages, 70 percent, 80 percent of the population was wiped out literally in a few-day period. It is hard not to think about that when we face this current pandemic. In fact, Alaska was one of the very first States in the country to put together a coordinated response to the challenges presented by COVID. This was back in January. On January 28, there was a chartered plane carrying U.S. consulate personnel and citizens from an area of China that had been at the center of the outbreak. That plane landed in Anchorage. The passengers had to debark the plane in order to refuel. They were moving to California. We had a situation where there was a pretty quick scramble. Dr. Zink led her team, and they were able to mobilize very quickly and very efficiently to ensure a safe operation that was successful in ensuring the protection and the health and safety of all who were involved. They opened up a terminal there at Ted Stevens International Airport. They created a quarantine unit that delivered not one but two health screenings to over 200 passengers and crew members. It was a pretty extraordinary event that they were able to put together in very, very short order. Those who were part of that said Dr. Zink's comments on this effort really reflect her strong leadership. Dr. Zink noted: It is easy to stay focused on all that we had to do in a short period of time to prepare and respond, but at the end of the day, this mission was about people. It was about American citizens, some of whom were working to serve our country. It was about families, and it was about helping each other in a time of need. Dr. Zink has been doing extraordinary work as we have dealt with challenging issues as they relate to quarantine after travel, travel restrictions around the States that have been extraordinarily limiting. She has worked with her team to put together plans of operation and protocols so that our fisheries can be successfully prosecuted, and they have been a mark of success in terms of being able to identify and then isolate and then keep the virus from transmitting. She is now very, very focused on how we safely return our kids back to school. I had a long conversation with her a few days back. She says that this is the ultimate challenge in that it is not just how we reopen schools but how we keep our schools open after that. That is our challenge. She shared with me--she said: I thought that putting together the plans and the protocols for the seafood processors was going to be challenging and difficult in these very remote communities where they have limited healthcare in the event that you have the virus spread. That was difficult, but getting our schools open and keeping them open safely--this is the biggest challenge. She said that schools are now her new seafood processors. So she is taking up the challenge aggressively. Dr. Zink reminds us that at the end of the day, what we have to stay focused on is keeping people safe, keeping our families and our workers safe. This is a moment about all of us and how we respond during this great time of need. I am extraordinarily thankful for Dr. Zink's leadership, both out in front and behind the scenes as she works with the many extraordinary Alaskans who are seeking to make a difference as we take on the daily challenges and battles that face us with the COVID-19 response 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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this afternoon to encourage Senators to support the nomination that is now pending before us. This is for Mark Menezes to be the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy. I have had plenty of opportunity to be working with Mr. Menezes, as he has been with the Department of Energy for quite some time. He originally hails from Louisiana. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees at Louisiana State University. He has, as I mentioned, considerable experience in the energy sector and here on Capitol Hill. He previously served as chief counsel for energy and environment on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. So he has been around for a fair period of time. But more recently, for the past 3 years now, Mr. Menezes has served as the Department's Under Secretary of Energy, and in that role, he has been responsible for many programs that help drive the innovation within the Department, including for renewable energy, as well as nuclear energy. Mr. Menezes also helped create the Department's cybersecurity office, which is dedicated to protecting our energy infrastructure from what has become very sophisticated and near-constant threats. As Members may recall, the Senate confirmed Mr. Menezes to his current role by voice vote. I believe he has excelled as the Under Secretary of Energy. He has helped to set the policy direction of the Department. He has worked with many of us on issues that are important to our States and to the country as a whole. I am also confident that Mr. Menezes will be a great second-in- command for Secretary Brouillette. We held Mr. Menezes's nomination hearing back on May 20. This was our first hearing that we had held after several months lost due to the pandemic. Mr. Menezes did, not surprisingly, very, very well. He demonstrated his knowledge of the issues; he showed us that he understands what it takes to help lead the Department; and that enabled us to report his nomination to the full Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. So we are sitting here now--it has been nearly a 2-month delay--and I am very pleased that we are about to vote on Mr. Menezes's nomination. It is really key. It is very important that Secretary Brouillette has his leadership team in place, and Mr. Menezes has demonstrated that he has the knowledge and the experience needed to succeed as Deputy Secretary. So I appreciate, and I have shared this with Mr. Menezes, his willingness to serve our country in a new and a higher capacity, particularly as we seek to harness the Department's capabilities to overcome and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. I thank the majority leader for bringing up his nomination. I would urge every Member to vote in favor of it on cloture today and on confirmation tomorrow.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am awaiting my colleague, the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to come. We are going to engage in a short colloquy about our energy bill. But before we do that and before he arrives, I would like to comment on a matter that my friend and also fellow traveler on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Cantwell, raised on the floor just about an hour ago, and this is with regards to a provision within the National Defense Authorization Act. This is section 3111, related to the review of the adequacy of the nuclear weapons budget at DOE. She has raised the concerns and articulated them extraordinarily well. Know that, as the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I joined with my friend and colleague, the ranking member, in sending a letter to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, as well as the ranking member, outlining the concerns that we had with this provision and really very, very clearly alarmed about the lack of the Energy Committee's involvement in drafting this section 3111. But as Senator Cantwell had outlined, what this provision would do is effectively empower sub-Cabinet level officials, primarily from DOD, to make potentially sweeping decisions about DOE's budget, going against what we think is good governance, in contravention of the Department of Energy Organization Act, and, as she outlined, it could put you in a situation where the priorities from the Department of Energy through the Secretary of Energy, whether it is cleanup of legacy defense waste, cyber security, funding for energy innovation, all of these priorities could basically be put at the wayside. We have significant, significant concerns about this. I ask unanimous consent that the copy of the letter that Senator Manchin and I sent to Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed, outlining the concerns that we have, be printed in the Record

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I have come to the floor this afternoon to be with my good friend, the Senator from West Virginia, to talk about our American Energy Innovation Act. I talked on the floor and we talked on the floor for a long while now, talking about the process that we used. We spent more than a year working with members of our Energy Committee and many other Members of this Chamber to put together an overwhelming bipartisan package. We focused on a range of promising technologies, including energy storage, renewable energy, carbon capture, advanced nuclear, cleaner vehicles, and energy efficiency. We worked to improve cyber security. It would help modernize the electric grid. It addresses known weaknesses in our mineral security and our supply chains. It focuses on boosting the workforce development and job creation. It renews a range of popular programs, from ARPA-E to Weatherization Assistance. It is a significant bill, and as you may recall, we were on this bill earlier in the year in February, and an unrelated matter stalled that measure out. It is stalled, but it is not dead, and I tell you that I remain 100 percent committed to advancing our bill into law before the end of the year. I know that this is something that Senator Manchin and I agree on very, very strongly, that we continue our work to advance the energy bill into law.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Senator Manchin, the thought of having to start over-- as you say, to start from scratch--is absolutely the wrong way to address our energy policies and the reforms that are needed. I completely and fully agree with you. It would be a mistake. It would be a significant mistake for Congress to simply give up on energy policy for yet another year. As you have indicated, Congress last enacted a major energy bill in 2007. That is more than 12\1/2\ years ago. That is unacceptable. That is the thing that is holding us back then, but even despite the fact that we have not been able to update our energy laws, we have even an oil-and-gas renaissance. The cost of renewables has declined sharply. New technologies have begun to emerge. We have new challenges and opportunities to address, but what is missing here is the U.S. Congress coming together to modernize our Nation's energy policy. I think it would be a mistake to decide that this is just too hard; that there is not enough time left. We have been down that road before. Ladies and gentlemen, we are so far along in this process that we just need to keep pushing and keep moving. We are so far along, but that thinking would push us back to a reset or a restart. It is just not where we want to be. Senator Manchin, I will just ask one final question; that is, whether you agree that there will be no giving up at any point from either one of us on this very important American Energy Innovation Act.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Well, Senator Manchin, I think we both would agree that we were more than ready to pass the bipartisan bill before the pandemic hit, and, as you point out, I think it is even more important, and I am certainly more ready than ever to pass that. As you mentioned, the U.S. economy, our quality of life, and our health all depend on stable, secure, and an innovative energy industry. What we do within this bill--and, again, it is a very, very bipartisan bill--is we ensure that we remain a global energy leader while strengthening our security, making timely investments in clean technologies, and rebuilding our supply chains. And we have been talking a lot about the imperative to focus on the vulnerability of our supply chains. But it also helps us capture the industries of the future and all the jobs and the benefits that are associated with them. So, as I mentioned before, it will help to improve our cyber security and foster innovation. When you think about the economic growth that we have seen in this country since World War II, it is that innovation that helps spur that economic recovery. So, again, I feel pretty strongly that this bill was important before the pandemic, and it is even more important now as we try to focus on our Nation's recovery. I think that is where we can also help. Wouldn't you agree, Senator Manchin?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. It is absolutely the best path forward. When you take the good committee work that we have engaged in and you then bring that to the floor, as we have, we had substantive process. We are so close to getting this measure actually through the Senate, but I think we recognize that, as we do that, that ideal package is not before us right yet. As the chairman and the ranking member on the committee, we have received requests from Members who have items in our energy bill who are seeking to include them as potential amendments on the NDAA, which is currently on the floor. I have actually filed two amendments to NDAA. One is the text of our Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, and the other is our American Mineral Security Act. Effectively, this provides a second pathway in case we remain blocked on our energy bill. I want to say that this is not the preferred path at all. That is not where we want to go with this bill. My clear, clear, clear, and undeniable preference is that we enact all of these measures as part of the energy package. So to my colleagues who might think, ``Well, wait, I see a few energy-related provisions; what is going on?'' we are not taking our foot off the gas of our American Energy Innovation Act. I know, Senator Manchin, you have been working with us on some of these amendments that we are dealing with within NDAA, but I know you also greatly prefer to pass them as part of our broader energy bill.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in the short history of Alaska as a State in our Union, there have been a handful of people--Bill Egan, Elizabeth Peratrovich, Jay Hammond, Wally Hickel, Ted Stevens--whose lives formed the fibers that wove Alaskans together. Another of those leaders passed recently. Byron Mallott stands among the best of us. Born in the small town of Yakutat, AL, to the Kwaash Ke Kwaan clan of the Tlingit, in 1943 when Alaska was still a territory, he went on to an amazing life and career. His father was the long-time mayor of Yakutat, and when he died unexpectedly, Byron returned home from college, campaigned to take over the job, and won the election in 1965 at the age of 22. He then went on to serve the State's first Governor, Bill Egan, as the commissioner of the Department of Community and Regional Affairs. When Egan lost his reelection campaign, Byron went back home to Yakutat and served on the city council. In 1968, he ran for a seat in the State house, losing by only 23 votes. In 1969, U.S. Senator Mike Gravel hired Byron to work on his staff in Washington, DC, where he had a hand in drafting the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the foundational legislation that continues to define our State and the relationship with Alaska Natives. After ANCSA was signed into law, Byron spent 20 years working for Sealaska Corporation, 1 of 12 Native corporations which was created by the law. Sealaska is based in Juneau, and its shareholders are primarily Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian. Over the course of his tenure with Sealaska, Byron was a director, chairman, and then spent a decade as president and CEO of the corporation. He helped fulfill the vision of ANCSA by supporting not just the economic vitality of the Native people in the region, but a cultural renaissance as well. His additional business experience was extensive. Byron was a director of several commercial banking institutions, including 6 years on the Seattle Branch Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, multiple years as a director of the Alaska Air Group, and on the board of the National Alliance for Business. He also served as president of the Alaska Federation of Native, a brief stint as the mayor of the city and borough of Juneau, and executive director of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. But Byron was far more than a summation of his resume, impressive though it was. He was a good man and a good friend. When I made the decision to run as a write-in candidate in 2010, I called to ask him to be the cochair of that campaign. His response was instant, ``Yes, absolutely.'' When I said I was making the announcement in an hour, he said, ``I'll be there.'' There was no hesitation, no concern that he was a lifelong Democrat, supporting a long-shot Republican candidate. He exemplified in the best way Ted Stevens' philosophy: To hell with politics, do what is right for Alaska. With Byron's help, I was able to make history by winning the second write-in campaign for U.S. Senate in the country's history. I don't know if I would have been successful without him. In 2014, Byron made history himself when he won the Democratic nomination for Governor of Alaska, then sacrificed his own ambition by joining with the Independent candidate for Governor to create a Unity Ticket. Byron agreed to serve as the candidate for Lieutenant Governor, with Bill Walker leading the ticket. Again, we did what he felt was right for Alaska, rather than his person political gain. The Unity Ticket won the 2014 election, but faced some serious challenges, with low oil prices and a tough deficit situation. The fiscal crisis unfortunately dominated the 4 years of the Walker-Mallott administration and created rough political seas for them to weather, necessitating some hard decisions. Through it all, Byron continued to do what he had always done, work for Alaska and Alaskans. In the end, Byron held himself strictly accountable, which is something few people do, especially in politics. A friend of mine, Dr. Rosita Worl, says that the Tlingit mourn the passing of a leader by noting, ``In our forest, a great tree has fallen.'' That is a fitting metaphor for Byron, who stood strong for decades, serving as both shelter and a guide for people in Alaska. Byron was a strong and proud man, not in a boastful way, but as a true leader whose passion allowed him to put all Alaskans first. His heart was Alaska, and mine is stronger for having been blessed to call him my friend. I will miss him. Alaska will miss him.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the legacy of a friend and one of Alaska's truly unique individuals, the mayor of Nome, Richard Beneville. We lost the mayor last month when he succumbed to pneumonia in the town he called home for more than 32 years. Richard's life story was colorful. He left New York City as a young man struggling with alcoholism and searching for a new life. Alaska was as far away as he could go, and he often said Alaska saved him. He spent a few years in Barrow before moving to Nome in 1988, and I think it is fair to say that the town has never been the same since. His career began on Broadway, and Richard channeled his creative energy to inspire youth and adults in Nome through the Nome Arts Council. He directed more than three dozen plays, including ``The Sound of Music,'' ``Music Man,'' and ``Fiddler on the Roof,'' and inspired generations in the community to appreciate the stage. Ever the showman, Richard was a tireless ambassador for Nome and Arctic tourism. He founded Nome Discovery Tours in 1994, and he never missed an opportunity to promote Nome and the surrounding region and its rich history. Watching him entertain a tour group with tales of Nome's early gold mining days, while he demonstrated how to pan for gold, audience captivated, was a real treasure. For the past 4\1/2\ years, he served as mayor of Nome, and there was no better cheerleader for this remote community. Some of my colleagues may recall running into him in the halls of the Hart and Dirksen Buildings, wearing his signature ``Hello Central' knit hat, a Port of Nome, vest and always sporting his I love Nome! button. Never shy, Richard would greet Senators, staff, and visitors alike, quickly asking them how their day was and what they were up to as he worked the halls and made new friends. His friendly banter and genuine interest in people was refreshing in an environment all too often filled with hustle and tension. For those of you who have never had the fortune to visit Nome, there are only three ways to get there from Anchorage--airplane, boat, and dog sled. Nome is 2000 miles closer to the North Pole than to New York City, and in 2016 when the Crystal Serenity called on the Port of Nome during its maiden voyage from Seward to Manhattan, the mayor was there to greet these intrepid Arctic adventurers. I had the privilege to travel with Richard to many Arctic conferences, and it was a joy to watch as he shared his vision for Arctic tourism and a positive future for this fascinating and challenging part of the world. The mayor was a passionate champion of the Iditarod and I last saw him on Saturday, March 7, in Anchorage at the ceremonial start of the race. He had just been released from the hospital, having persuaded his doctors and nurses that the ``show must go on'' to be there for the festivities. He loved people, the arts, flowers, and above all, Nome to the end. His passing is a true loss for my State. I will miss his boundless enthusiasm and his trademark greeting to all he ran into, ``Hello Central!''

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on Tuesday, just a few days ago, I convened a hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and we were focused on the impacts of COVID-19 and how this pandemic has impacted our Nation's energy industry. We had a lot of discussions about the impact of COVID on the Nation, on our economy, and I think it is probably fair to say that every facet of our society has been impacted, but it is certainly clear to me as a Senator for the State of Alaska and as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the energy sector has suffered perhaps uniquely and I think acutely. We have seen limits on business and travel and social activities, and we think about those limitations, the far-reaching consequences they have on our Nation's energy producers, whether it is those who produce oil and gas, coal, renewables, advanced technology such as nuclear power, and all those who help us produce our energy and use our energy more efficiently, all aspects have been impacted. At the hearing, we had some pretty good testimony that our witnesses were able to explain and quantify some of those impacts. We heard that U.S. oil production has declined by almost 2 million barrels per day. Spot prices for liquefied natural gas have effectively collapsed, creating challenges for export projects. Domestic electricity consumption is projected to decline by 5.7 percent this year, largely due to the closure of businesses and, of course, the shelter-in-place orders. It is not just the oil and gas sector. The renewable energy sector has also faced substantial supply chain disruptions. The efficiency sector has faced health and safety restrictions in homes and buildings. Overall, we were told that the energy industry has lost an estimated 1.3 million jobs since early March, including more than 600,000 jobs associated with clean energy. It is a good reminder in terms of where we have seen this direct impact and the impact on jobs, but our hearing was also a reminder that the energy industry can be a key leader, be a sector that can really help lead our Nation's economic recovery. When you think about energy itself, this is a finished product. It is a feedstock. It is a raw material. It is an input. It is an output. It is value added, a natural resource, tradeable commodity, a precious asset. It is clearly critical infrastructure and emergency reserves. It is financial, collateral, and competitive exports. It is a source of high-paying and high-skilled jobs in its own right. I think we recognize that current low prices are good for us. We are seeing our families pay less and, thus, they can devote to other priorities. The underlying message here is the energy industry is an important component to how we move to this phase of economic recovery. What can we do to help this industry and, thus, the broader economy recovery? It was interesting because we had a panel of five witnesses before us. Several of those witnesses all pointed to the same piece of legislation as one of the answers as to how we can help the economy recover, and that is a bill that those of us on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee developed throughout last year. We called it the American Energy Innovation Act. We refer to it as our energy bill. It will ensure that the United States remains a global energy leader while strengthening our national security, investing in clean technologies, and securing our Nation's supply chain. It is a pretty wide-ranging bill. It covers everything from energy efficiency to renewables. We have a strong focus on carbon capture. The big anchor piece is energy storage. Advanced nuclear plays a key role and also vehicle technologies. We focused on mineral security and recognizing the key aspects of secure supply chains, grid and cyber security, workforce modernization. Really, it is all areas that will work to help our economy, boost our international competitiveness, and protect human health and the global environment. At the hearing on Tuesday, one of our witnesses described this energy bill, our American Energy Innovation Act, as ``foundational.'' I really think it is foundational. Where are we with this foundational energy bill that has been the work of such a good, strong collaborative committee process? It was clearly timely for the Senate to be considering this in this year-- certainly before the pandemic--and it is even more critical, more timely that we consider it now. When we had an opportunity to bring this to the floor earlier, there was a desire and an interest in making sure that we were focusing on our clean and renewable energy sector. We do that within that bill. It has been interesting because in the past several weeks, we have heard calls from Members of this body to prioritize a robust clean energy recovery plan. There was a letter from 24 Members of the Senate who urged Senate leadership to ``prioritize a robust clean energy recovery plan.'' In their letter, they call for investments in renewable energy, energy storage, energy efficiency, clean vehicles, clean and efficient infrastructure, clean fuels, and workforce development. That sounds pretty much like what we included within our American Energy Innovation Act. I sent many of them just a quick letter detailing how our bill really does accomplish just that, including the specifics that focus on each of these priorities, and encourage them to help me pass it. As you may recall, we had the American Energy Innovation Act on the Senate floor at the end of February just before the pandemic took hold. Again, I mentioned the collaborative process that went into building that bill. We spent a lot of time in the Energy Committee working through a lot of the issues that had some conflict and to reduce that conflict so we could get a good, strong bipartisan product. As a consequence, we have a bill that contains the priorities for more than 70 Senators. It is supported by more than 200 organizations. We incorporated 18 amendments on the floor working through that process. The Senate ultimately denied cloture on March 9. This was just before the shelter in place and the work from home orders began. We hit a wall there. The unfortunate reality is we hit that wall. We were derailed with this important legislative effort not because of an impasse that we had with the contents of our bill, but it was an unrelated dispute from another committee. It was not something that, as chairman, I could have anticipated. There was no warning that it was going to be an issue for our bill. In fairness, we didn't have any power as the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to work it out for this other committee. We were hamstrung by it. Effectively, what happened then was a year of good, strong committee work by the Energy Committee is now being held hostage in a fight in another committee. I have been patient with this, but I would remind colleagues that we are not getting any more extra legislative days being added. The clock is ticking here. This is a matter that, again, when this came before us while we were on this floor trying to work out the last of the amendments, this came up at the last minute, and we were promised a resolution at that time. We will have this fixed in a month. Well, it has been over 3 months now since this became an issue. Again, we have lost valuable time. This issue from the EPW Committee is holding back a strong, bipartisan bill that would allow us to modernize our Nation's energy policies for the first time in more than a dozen years. In a week where I have certainly been reminded about the importance of energy and, again, heard good, strong support for our energy bill, I would tell my colleagues that we need to redouble our efforts on this to advance this bill. We need to unlock this energy bill, which is a good bill that is ready to go, from the complications that have been created within another committee. I like to pride myself on being a pretty good team player around here. I want to give people space to work their issues out, but I think it is time, again, for those who are able to hold the key to this to help us unlock this so we can move a significant priority--not just for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee but a significant priority for every Member in this Chamber because it doesn't make any difference if you are a Republican or a Democrat, if you come from an urban area or a rural area, when it comes to the strength of our Nation's economy, the foundational interest here, the foundations rest solidly on energy. So an opportunity to update and modernize our energy policies in a way that benefits us all is something that I would hope we can all agree to. I want to get this bill moving. We had a win this week that originated in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee when it comes to some of our land and conservation measures. The Great American Outdoors Act passed by a strong margin. It was the work of a lot of good people, but both measures, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as the Restore Our Parks Act, began with the good work of a committee working together to move those pieces of legislation through the committee process. It is not perfect, in my view, but I knew these were good policies that many Members across both sides of the aisle wanted to place a priority on. Let's figure out how we can make something like that happen. I am proud of the fact that we can move good initiatives through this committee. I will just remind you we have another good initiative that we are ready to go on

Mrs. MURKOWSKI

Mrs. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to end my few moments on the floor with an acknowledgement of where we are going to be next week. It has been made clear that we are going to have an opportunity to bring up for discussion legislation that has been drafted by Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina, along with a group of fellow colleagues over here, focused on matters relating to policing reforms. My hope--it is more than a hope; it is really a prayer. My prayer is that we will come to this floor next week as colleagues and as individuals who want to bring to bear good policy for a country at a time that is so desperate for leadership that is responsive, leadership that has demonstrated a willingness to listen to the raw emotion of what we have seen expressed across this country in the few weeks since the terrible death and killing of George Floyd but recognizing that it is far more than the horrible death of one individual. It is a history that in many parts of our country is raw and open and needs to be addressed. My prayer is that we can come to this floor not here to debate through a partisan lens but here to debate those issues that are so important and so imperative for the American public to hear; that the response is not a Republican effort versus a Democratic effort, but that these are matters that we must address, whether it is how we ensure that there is full and fair accountability, whether it relates to safe policing practices, whether it is how we address the concerns with modern policing when there are issues before our law enforcement officers that span the scope of how we address mental health issues-- those with addictions--and how we respond from a broader view and lens but do so with our hearts rather than trying to project through our political alignment. I even hesitate to say because some would ask: Well, exactly what do you mean by that? I guess what I am asking for us to do is to come here and debate honestly about where we are as a nation, and that comes to ensuring that when we speak of justice, that we speak of justice for all in a way that is inclusive, that is fair, that is equal, and that is compassionate; that we recognize that the men and women who get up every morning or stay out late every evening to protect and defend, that we are there with them and for them as they serve us. I am asking for us to come into our work next week with open hearts and open minds, having listened well. If we do that, I can only suspect that the outcome will be good. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, last night, I had the opportunity to join probably more than 80 of my colleagues in voting for a motion to proceed to S. 3422, the Great American Outdoors Act. This bill is sponsored by a strong group of Senators here--Senator Gardner of Colorado, Senator Daines of Montana, and Senator Manchin have been working very hard on the LWCF piece. Senator Alexander, Senator Portman, and Senator Warner are working on the parks' deferred maintenance aspect of this measure. There has been lot of work from a lot of Members and a lot of good thought that has gone into it and some good policy behind it, but I would like to share with colleagues some of the reservations I have, albeit this is good policy, solid policy in so many areas. As with much of everything that we can do on the Senate floor, we can always seek to improve. With some of my colleagues, I think we have some ideas in areas where we can improve our Great American Outdoors Act. I come from a State where we know a little bit about our great outdoors. I know we all like to advertise our scenery, the wildlife that we have, but back in Alaska we have some pretty unrivaled scenery. We have the mountains. We have got the glaciers. We have some of our State's most important natural features that have been conserved in some world-famous national parks, from Katmai and Denali to the Kenai Fjords, Wrangell-St. Elias, Glacier Bay--names that so many Americans know and have visited or hope to one day visit before they die. We actually had an advertising campaign: See these majestic landscapes before you die. Americans recognize the importance of preserving our very best lands and making the most of our ability to experience their natural splendor. We are not welcoming visitors this year in a very different time, as we are dealing with COVID, but we have no doubt that the tourism industry will be back. It will be back better than ever before. In fact, in yet another advertising campaign, we remind people that Alaska waits for you, and we would welcome you at any time. We have more than 223 million acres of Federal lands in total. Included within that are more than 76 million acres that are managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more than 71 million acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, more than 52 million acres managed by the National Park Service, and more than 22 million acres managed by the Forest Service. So we have a lot. We have a lot of Federal land, and that means that the Federal Government has a major responsibility to help us maintain it and preserve it, just like in every State. So I would like to take a few minutes to discuss how the policy that we will be considering can help us do just that. The Great American Outdoors Act combines two bills, again, that we reported from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last year. The first one is S. 500, the Restore Our Parks Act, as I mentioned, led by Senators Portman, Alexander, Warner, and King, which aims to tackle the Park Service's $12 billion deferred maintenance backlog. The second one is S. 1081, from Senators Manchin, Gardner, and Daines, to provide full and mandatory funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. To tackle deferred maintenance needs, the Great American Outdoors Act establishes a new National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund. That fund will provide up to $1.9 billion per year for 5 years to relevant Federal land management agencies. The Great American Outdoors Act also expands the list of agencies that can receive funding beyond the Park Service to include the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, and the Bureau of Indian Education, which also has significant maintenance needs. This was something we recognized within the Energy Committee as we were looking at the status and situation on the maintenance of national parks. It begs the question, What about our other public lands? In Alaska, our forest lands are great sources of recreation and opportunity, but they, too, have seen a maintenance backlog just continue to accumulate. When you visit Denali, the Grand Canyon, or Yosemite, you may not necessarily notice immediately the deferred maintenance issues. Likewise, as you drive into Washington, DC, you might not even realize that the George Washington Parkway is part of our National Park System, let alone a major contributor to the agency's maintenance backlog. The reality is that the Park Service, in particular, has carried substantial backlogs for a long time. As chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, this is something we have been working to try to get on top of, but it is like getting on top of this wave. If you can't get on top of it, it is just going to bury you. That is what has happened when you think about the $12 billion backlog. These deferred maintenance needs just aren't possible to resolve through the annual appropriations process despite the considerable best efforts we have made. The longer they last, the more they jeopardize the visitors' ability to safely enjoy our national treasures. In Alaska, the National Park Service has $106 million in deferred maintenance. When you think about what I just outlined to you in terms of the number of acres we have in Federal land and parks and BLM refuge, $106 million out of $12 billion doesn't seem like that much. It is a lot to us back home, and $33 million of that is considered critical. Within Denali National Park we have a pretty significant visitor center, the Eielson Visitor Center, and the roof and the furnaces in various buildings need to be replaced there. We have a water treatment center at the Wrangell-St. Elias headquarters that need to be replaced. I think it is important for people to realize because those are not things you are going to notice. You are not going to notice that the road is in disrepair or you don't have restroom facilities, but when you are going into the park toward the end of the summer--in early September--and there is no heat in the visitor center, you are probably going to notice that. I think it is important to recognize that the current list of deferred maintenance does not account for some of the very major challenges we are facing in Alaska, such as the situation with the Denali route. It is the only route in and out of the park. It needs substantial improvements due to ongoing subsidence. The estimates are all over the map, but, in fairness, we are talking tens of millions, perhaps in excess of $100 million, to help repair or to perhaps even reroute that access. When thinking about deferred maintenance in Alaska in the parks, we can account for only a fraction of that system. Recreation is the biggest user of our national forest system lands, but our forestlands, trails, and campgrounds need about $5 billion in repairs. In Alaska, we have about $105 million in backlog up there. BLM manages nearly 50,000 buildings and structures--bridges, trails, and roads mostly in Western States, but they also have a growing backlog. In total in the Department of the Interior, we have about $17.3 billion in deferred maintenance in fiscal year 2019. When combining that with the Forest Service, their maintenance backlog is $22.5 billion in our Federal land management agencies. The Great American Outdoors Act is attempting to remedy the issue by providing a downpayment to upgrade and to improve the aging infrastructure on our public lands. I kind of outlined the need for why we are here today. I indicated that I support funding to address the maintenance backlogs, making sure visitors are able to enjoy our landscapes and have the safest, most enjoyable experience as they see America's beauty. That is important. I think it is also important that we are cognizant about how we pay for this maintenance, how we address that. As I mentioned, I am on the Appropriations Committee. We are trying to get ahead of this by making sure we are not seeking to add more to the account without making sure we are caring for the lands already under our jurisdiction. The second part of the Great American Outdoors Act focuses on the Land and Water Conservation Fund. LWCF provides for both Federal and land acquisition and financial assistance for States' recreation development. You will hear me talk a lot about LWCF stateside programs because I think it recognizes the role that States play in facilitating recreational access and leverages funds to build out those opportunities. We have certainly seen the benefits in Alaska. Providing a few local examples, the State of Alaska has used LWCF matching funds to build ballfields in Utqiagvik, an accessible urban playground in Anchorage, and a ski area in Cordova. I do think it is important for us to remember how LWCF was established, the core purpose of why it came about in the first place. Congress established this program in 1965 to build a national recreation system primarily in the East. To accomplish that, the Federal Government determined that it needed the ability to acquire this private land. So our predecessors provided LWCF with the authority and financial means to do so through revenues from offshore oil and gas. We had a lot of discussion in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I was a proud sponsor of last year's lands package, which made permanent the collection and deposit provisions in the LWCF and put an end to years of uncertainty and lapses in those deposits. I was pleased to be able to help offer a series of commonsense reforms, which included a requirement that at least 40 percent of the funding go to stateside programs every year. I also believe that LWCF's ability to acquire new Federal lands should be focused on the eastern States where the proportion is dramatically lowered. I also believe that it is better--much better--to decide LWCF's funding in the appropriations process each year in the context of the rest of our Nation's conservation and budgetary priorities, as opposed to mandatory funding. I have stated that we should have an opportunity to discuss these priorities related to our obligations to our parks and to our conservation efforts. Again, I believe it is only fair and honest, as we debate this subject, that we recognize there are areas where we can improve this bill. I come to this debate from a very constructive place. I think I have some very commonsense ideas to expand the bill to include conservation- related priorities that make sense for Alaska and our States across the country, priorities such as offshore revenue, which I am going to be speaking to in just a moment. There are some pretty simple, commonsense things; for example, if we are going to allow for deferred maintenance to be addressed within the LWCF account, why would we not want to make sure that our States have a similar flexibility? In States like Alaska, where we have significant Federal lands already, it is not that we need to be buying up additional lands into the Federal account in Alaska, but what we do need is to help preserve those lands we have now but that are subject to aggressive erosion. To be able to use funds from the LWCF account to deal with a coastal resilience initiative is something my colleague from Louisiana and my colleague from Rhode Island--we have been talking about how we can help improve that. I think these discussions are not only timely but smart policy. I think it would be unfortunate if the Senate chooses not to allow good ideas to be incorporated. We have a measure in front of us that has strong bipartisan support. We recognize that, and that is good at a time when we are trying to come together as a Congress and as a nation. I take great pride in the fact that, once again, leadership turns to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for good ideas that have come out of our committee. The opportunity to include strong measures that will enhance this bill is something I think we need to be focusing on. I would like to address the amendment that my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Cassidy, has filed and that I am cosponsoring. This is an initiative that he has worked on, and he has explained that it is a matter of equity. It is a matter of equity and fairness as to how revenues are shared with the coastal States that enable offshore energy development. Adding key portions of the COASTAL Act, S. 2418--which I am proud to cosponsor and was reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--to the measure we have in front of us, I think, makes sense. Senator Cassidy has spoken to how this would expand offshore revenue sharing for States along the Gulf of Mexico, which post and support some of the most impressive and expensive coastal facilities anywhere in the world. If any of our colleagues have not had the opportunity to view what happens in the offshore areas of Louisiana, it is a trip that should be a priority. Senator Cassidy has spoken to the Gulf of Mexico piece of it. I want to speak to what the amendment would do for Alaska because it includes provisions that have been written by myself and by Senator Sullivan to establish a revenue-sharing program specific to our State, which has prolific offshore resources that we hope, one day, to be able to safely produce for the good of the Nation. But we are in a very, very different position than they are in the Gulf. We need investment to improve our coastal infrastructure, particularly in the Arctic. We have some different conservation priorities from some noncoastal States, which are enshrined in the purposes of the language in the amendment. These principles of equity and fairness that we talk about as they relate to the Gulf of Mexico are the same principles here. Just like from onshore Federal development, local governments and communities need to share in the revenues from offshore development. We are the ones that host it, we bear the impacts, and the benefits the entire country derives from it simply wouldn't be possible were it not for these host States. I think that this bill, this Great American Outdoors Act, is the right place to address offshore revenue sharing because everything within it relies on oil and gas revenues and LWCF, the fund that will help with our deferred maintenance. Everything relies on oil and gas revenues. So, for as much vitriol as there may be out there, and criticism, as the industry takes, I think this might be a good time to recognize that oil and gas production generates Federal revenues, and it is these Federal revenues that fund these conservation priorities for dozens and dozens of Members on this floor and for hundreds of stakeholder groups. Again, that is what has been happening within the LWCF, and it is about to be true for the deferred maintenance backlog, that where you are getting this funding source is from the oil and gas revenues. Those funds wouldn't come were it not for places like Louisiana, the Gulf Coast States, and again, hopefully, one day, Alaska. When it comes to offshore revenue sharing, Alaska faces a disparity not only with onshore rates but with other coastal producers. So you have got the four Gulf States--Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas--that currently have a limited revenue sharing program established by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. Alaska, however, receives no revenue sharing, zero revenue sharing beyond the near-shore areas that all coastal States receive under section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. If Alaska is granted offshore revenue sharing, know that we will put it to productive use for conservation and environmental purposes. I think it is instructive because I think there is so much rhetoric and concern that we can't be doing further development in Alaska. It just shouldn't happen. Well, let me share with you, again, we are seeing coastal impact. We are seeing levels of erosion. We would like to be able to address the expenses that are associated with it. So within the amendment that Senator Cassidy has filed, in the Alaska provision, we looked specifically to authorize purposes--coastal protection, conservation, restoration, and assistance, including relocation for communities that are directly affected by coastal erosion, melting permafrost, and climate change related lawsuits. Another authorized use is mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, and natural resources. Adaptation planning, vulnerability assessments, emergency preparedness to build healthy and resilient communities, and the installation and operation of energy systems to reduce energy costs and greenhouse emissions, and then programs at institutions of higher education, these are the primary prescriptions that Alaska would use its shared revenues for. If you support the Great American Outdoors Act, you will be able to support offshore revenue sharing and the significant environmental benefits that it would provide to the Gulf of Mexico and to the State of Alaska, but we can only get there if we have an opportunity for the good ideas--substantive ideas--that Senator Cassidy is leading with his COASTAL Act that I have introduced with regards to concerns that I briefly outlined and that I know that other Members have raised and shared as well. I appreciate the support that we have received for offshore revenue sharing within the committee process itself. We are now asking for the full Senate to support the coastal States in equitable sharing of revenues. I think this is a key step, and I would urge that we have an opportunity to adopt that as we move forward. With that, I yield to my friend, the Senator from Louisiana. I thank him for his leadership on this initiative. I have been so impressed not only by his advocacy when it comes to addressing the fairness and the equity issues that are associated with revenue sharing and what we need to do to lift the cap, but also to his commitment to ensure that his State and other coastal States that are seeing impact from climate change and seeing impact from erosion, that the conservation purposes that we have spoken to will have an opportunity to be addressed. I am thankful to be able to work with him and to follow his lead on this. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, before my colleagues exit the Chamber, I want to acknowledge their words. I want to say thank you. The passion, the emotion, the true rawness in your words are words that I think all of us, as Members of the Senate, should hear, reflect, and respect. I just want you to know I am thankful I was on the floor to personally hear. Because we can read words, but it is when we have the ability to hear and to feel those words that their true meaning comes out, so I appreciate and I thank you for that

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me turn to the fight--the century fight for women's suffrage, the right to vote, the right to be treated equally, the right to be heard. It is a history that is long and interesting, sometimes very colorful. I have had an opportunity these past couple of weeks to be reading a collection of stories about how women in the West worked to really be the vanguards, if you will, on the suffrage movement. You don't necessarily hear them spoken to with great frequency, but, in fairness, it is many of those Western States--it was Wyoming that was the first mover. So reading some of their stories was a good reminder--a good reminder--of the role that many in Alaska have also played. We have been relatively progressive when it comes to women's rights--so progressive that many Alaskan women received equal voting rights with men in 1913. This was 7 years before the 19th Amendment was ratified. Alaska was still a territory and was still going to be a territory for a long time going forward. The sorry and the sad part of that history, though, was that not all Alaskan women were given that right to vote. Alaskan Native women were excluded. They were excluded based on citizenship and civility assessment as well as literacy tests that prevented Alaska Natives--not just the women but some Native men--from voting for several more decades. We recognize through a State day of observation and recognition the work of Elizabeth Peratrovich, an Alaska Native woman from Southeastern Alaska, who was the driving force behind our first antidiscrimination law. This was back in 1945, nearly 20 years before Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. This year, on the 75th anniversary of the bill's passage, the U.S. Mint has actually created a gold coin in her honor. As you look at that coin and reflect on her role, on the significance of that proud, strong, fierce Native woman leader, you can't help but be proud of her. The fight for women's suffrage was waged, as we know, for decades and decades. But again, the women in the West led the way. As I was reading the recount of the Alaska suffrage initiative, it was reflected that the women in Alaska didn't really have to work that hard to get it; that it was just ``provided'' to them. I think there is more to that history than that, but a newspaper publication at the time, The Daily Alaskan, in 1904, argued that while women's suffrage might be disfavored as a general proposition, the merits were different in Alaska. And he says the women there ``are brave and noble helpers in the development of a frontier country'' and ``not the pampered dolls of society.'' So today it still probably holds true that we have some pretty strong women in Alaska. We own and operate fishing vessels. We work as oil rig operators, diesel mechanics. We have some extraordinary Alaskan women, industry leaders leading our Alaska Native corporations, leading our oil companies. We are leaders in education and advocates for children and seniors and victims of domestic violence. They truly have helped not only our State but our country. The 100th Anniversary of Women's Suffrage is a reminder of the progress that we have made as a nation. But we know that we have more to do and that inequities remain whether in the workforce or pay equality. Continuing that work is a matter that we have not relaxed on. That work includes getting the Equal Rights Amendment signed into law. The Equal Rights Amendment was first written and introduced by Alice Paul at a conference commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Seneca Falls Convention in 1923. But it wasn't until 1972 that the ERA passed through Congress and was sent to the States with a 7-year deadline for ratification that was eventually extended until 1982. It is a pretty simple amendment. It is pretty short. ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.'' That is the Equal Rights Amendment, in addition to the implementing provisions following that. But that is the context. In Alaska, I am proud to say that we were one of the early adopters, having ratified the Equal Rights Amendment on April 5, 1972. More recently, Virginia became the 38th State to have ratified the amendment, which brings us to the three-fourths threshold needed for ratification. Unfortunately, this milestone was reached after the deadline for ratification. It had already expired, so Senator Cardin and I have introduced a resolution, S.J. Res. 6, which would remove the time limit from the joint resolution that passed the Congress in 1972. I have asserted time and again--and Senator Cardin, so many--we have said that you cannot put a time limit on women's equality. It has been 100 years since women were granted the equal right of voting. Women's equality is fundamental to the American way of life, and it is far past time to be expressly recognized in the Constitution. I thank Senator Cardin for his leadership in working on this resolution with me and all the Members of Congress who fought with us in support of the ERA. I thank the advocates who continue to call their Senators, call their Congressmen, who lift their voices to support this important cause. We have work to do. We will continue that work. I want to note that my colleague Senator Cardin was here on the floor, was planning to speak on this matter today, but our time schedules got compressed, so his statement has been included as part of the Record. I want to acknowledge the good work and the partnership that we have on this. With this, I yield the floor

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I had asked to come and speak on the floor of the Senate on this day, June 4. I have been actually looking forward to it and planning speaking time for months now. June 4 is a significant day in the fight for women's suffrage. It was on June 4 of 1919 that Congress approved the amendment and sent it to the States for ratification, and then it was in 1920 that the 19th Amendment was ratified by the States. So this was to be a time of celebration, of recognition, of women's suffrage, this centennial event. Since that time that I first looked to schedule this, my, how the world has changed. We have been in the midst of a pandemic--over 100,000 American lives lost to the COVID-19 virus. We are in the midst of an economic crisis the likes of which we haven't seen in decades and decades. And, just a week ago now, we witnessed the killing of George Floyd on our streets, in broad daylight. And today, June 4, is not only a recognition of women's suffrage, but it is the funeral of George Floyd. So before I speak to the matter I intended to speak on today, I want to just briefly comment on where I believe we are as a nation right now. I was walking into work this morning, and in my neighbor's yard is a placard, a yard sign. It has been there for some years, actually, now. It is a partial quote of Martin Luther King that states: ``We can't be silent about the things that matter.'' You think about those things that matter: equality, justice, the fundamental truth that all human beings are created equal and endowed by God with certain rights. And when those rights are denied, when they are violated, it is our responsibility to address the injustice. It is not our responsibility as elected Members of the U.S. Senate; it is our responsibility as fellow humans, as Americans who believe in these principles of justice and equality. President Bush had some words this week that I found very direct, very comforting at a difficult time when it is hard to be comforted, when our spirits are so discomforted and agitated right now. But he reminded us that achieving justice for all is the duty of all. It is the duty of all. And we are hurting now as a nation. We have wounds from racism that have never been allowed to heal--and those words were just shared here on this floor moments ago--wounds that have never been allowed to heal, wounds that are still so open and raw. And healing can't take place until the hurt and the anger and the anguish that so many in this country still feel, so many African Americans, so many--so many who feel that the system is meant for somebody but not them; that there is not equal justice under the law; that it must be the law for somebody else. This has been hard--hard on all of us, as we have seen the protests, many of them peaceful. In my home State, Alaskans are coming together with a shared sense of duty and responsibility to speak up about things that matter and doing so in a way that brings us together rather than divides. We must condemn the violence we see on the street with the looting, but stopping the looting is not going to close this wound. We heal when we acknowledge our weaknesses, when we acknowledge our failures, and when we vow to address the things that matter, like equality and justice. What we say and how we say it truly matters. I have been challenged by some. I have been chastised by some very close friends who have said: You are silent, Lisa. Why are you silent? Why haven't you--you-- fixed what we are seeing? And I have struggled. I have struggled with the right words. As a White woman born and raised in Alaska with a family who was privileged, I can't feel that openness and rawness that I just heard expressed by my friends Cory and Kamala. I haven't lived their life. But I can listen, and I can educate myself. And I can try to be a healer at a time when we need to be healed. That is my commitment and my pledge going forward to those I serve in Alaska and to those I serve in this country. This is challenging for us. We know this, but we are an extraordinary country. We are an extraordinary people with extraordinary resilience.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I have the honor to serve as the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which does have jurisdiction over S. 849, the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans Act, but in that capacity as chairman, I now have the unenviable position of having to rise to register an objection at this moment. I want it to be clear to my colleague from North Dakota, my colleague from New Hampshire, my colleague from New York, and all of those for whom this is a measure on which they are seeking this legislative endorsement--know that I have the absolute highest regard for the men and women who serve our country and the sacrifices they have made for all of us. As the Senator from New Hampshire just mentioned, as we approach Memorial Day, I think what we seek to do is to try to find ways to honor more of those who have served our great Nation and a recognition that those who lost their lives on the Frank E. Evans deserve a form of recognition--a recognition of all those who lost their lives in Vietnam. The story that has been relayed by colleagues here of the USS Frank E. Evans is truly one of the most tragic that occurred during the Vietnam war. I am absolutely sympathetic. I have had these discussions with my colleague Senator Cramer. I appreciate the efforts that he is making now and that he has made prior to his time here in the Senate to recognize these sailors who gave their lives in the incident. The reality that we face in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--again, we are the committee of jurisdiction, as we have the oversight of the National Park Service. But it is not the National Park Service that determines what or who is eligible for inscription on the wall. It is the Department of Defense that is responsible for determining whether members' names are eligible for inscription. This is based on very specific criteria that is set not by those of us here in Congress, not by those of us on the Energy Committee; it is set specifically by the Department of Defense. As has been raised here on the floor, the criteria do not allow or accommodate the timing. The Evans sailors do not meet the eligibility criteria the DOD has set out because it was not in the defined combat zone of Vietnam at the time of the 1969 mishap. I agree with my colleagues that it is indeed unfortunate that we have this designation, this eligibility criteria that has left the honor that is due these sailors open and unaddressed. It is unfortunate that we are here today and that I stand left in a position to object despite the efforts that my staff on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and I have made to work with Senator Cramer, work with his team, work with DOD to find an approach that we should all be able to agree on to memorialize these sailors. As we are looking for that path, I do stand to object to discharging this bill from the committee, but I will make this commitment: This is a matter that must be addressed. It is long overdue. We will find a way to honor these sailors. But at this juncture, there remain practical, legal, and technical considerations we have to resolve with the text with regard to the effort that my colleague from North Dakota is offering today. At this time, I would like to note my objection.