Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 715 and do so as a further mark of respect for the late George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st President of the United States.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 715, submitted earlier today.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Senator Sullivan and I have just returned to Washington after an almost surreal 24-hour period up in the State. We went up on Sunday night, Monday morning. We hadn't anticipated being there, but the State of Alaska--and more specifically Southcentral Alaska--experienced a powerful earthquake on Friday. It was certainly an unsettling event, a frightening event to many, and it caused significant damage in the most populated part of our State. Last Friday, at 8:29 in the morning, we had an earthquake that struck the community of Anchorage with a magnitude of 7.0 on the Richter scale. The epicenter was about 7 miles north of Anchorage. It was about 25 miles deep. That shock lasted anywhere, folks were saying, from about 40 seconds to 1 minute; that was the initial hard jolt. Then, movement after that depended on where you were and what kind of ground you were located on, but it was a very significant earthquake by all standards. I heard about the earthquake, not because I got an alert on my phone but because my phone rang when my son called. He lives and works in Anchorage. He had been at his shop, and he called me right after the shaking stopped. My son is a pretty calm young man, but I could tell that something was wrong, something was different. I could hear it in his voice. He was clearly rattled. His comments to me reflected so many of the comments I have heard from so many with whom I have had a chance to visit. As we were speaking on the phone, it was about 7 minutes after the initial jolt that we had another earthquake, a 5.7 that followed. He literally said: You have to hold on, Mom, because we are having another one. These are significant at any time, but to have a 7.0 followed by a 5.7 and then to know that the aftershocks have been continuing--they have continued until today. As of this afternoon, the total number of aftershocks we have had is about 2,500. Think about that. From Friday morning to midafternoon Alaska time, about 2,500 aftershocks, and we have had 14 above 4.5 in magnitude. We have had 14 in that time period that were over 4.5. Now, 4.5 is going to get anybody's attention. Yesterday morning, when I was leaving Alaska to come to Washington, I was getting ready in the bathroom, and there was another shaker then, and that was a 4.8. People have asked me: How are things back home? I said: Well, we had the big jolt on Friday, but it is still rocking and rolling. People are anxious, but the report I would like to share with folks today is that there has been an incredible response at so many different levels. The initial response was pretty intense. After I spoke with my son, I talked to a staff member whose pipes had burst in her home, and she was dealing with flooding. One of the main arterials in Anchorage, Minnesota Drive, is one of the access roads to get to the airport, and parts of that had collapsed. Many people have seen the picture of the vehicle sitting in the middle of a depressed area where the bottom literally has dropped out the overpass of that road. Across Anchorage and in the Mat-Su Valley, school had just started for the middle schools and the upper grades, and kids were doing what the kids have been trained to do for decades now. Since the 1964 earthquake, believe me, every kid in Southcentral Alaska--I think probably every kid in Alaska--knows what the earthquake drill is, to duck and cover. But during this quake, they were ducking and covering as books from the bookshelves were crashing to the floor and as ceiling tiles were coming down. It is extraordinary to think that during all that we saw and all of the damage in the schools, there were two injuries. There are 48,000 kids in the Anchorage School District and about 17,000 or 18,000 in the Mat-Su district--and two injuries. One was somebody cleaning up glass; another was a student who was putting his arm up to shield himself from a ceiling tile that was falling down, and he injured his wrist. It is absolutely extraordinary--nothing short of a miracle--that we suffered no loss of life. It was pretty dramatic. Transformers blew, and much of the city went dark. A tsunami warning was issued for the Kenai Peninsula in the low- lying areas in the Anchorage Bowl, even down past Kodiak. We got a call from friends in Kodiak out on a hunting trip, and they got word that they needed to hike to higher ground. Hike to higher ground. Of course, there is no communication and no way to know whether it is all safe. These stories are coming in from all over the State. What we heard in those first hours, the first reports coming in from our first responders, who truly jumped into action and were responding to calls as they were coming in--the civil engineers were dispatched to go out to check on the highways, the bridges, and the essential infrastructure, such as the hospitals. We had almost immediate updates from the U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--about the earthquake and what was happening with the subsequent tsunami warning, the aftershocks. All of these were in realtime. We kept waiting to hear whether there were any reports of serious injuries or fatalities, but fortunately--amazingly, miraculously--they never came. Meanwhile, the utilities were working to restore power and to test the cities' water systems. ENSTAR, which is our natural gas supplier, received over 700 requests to check on broken gas lines. They went house by house to make sure that they were safe. It was extraordinary in terms of the immediate on-the-ground response by the Alaskans who were there in place, the teams that are at the ready because that is what they are trained to do, and those who were just being good neighbors and knew that when you have something hit, we are all hands on deck. Congressman Young, Senator Sullivan, and I gathered on Friday afternoon. We got updates from the Vice President, who was traveling. We spoke with FEMA Administrator Brock Long and Secretary of Transportation Chao. All of them--all of them--were all in with their promises of help from throughout the Federal Government with resources. President Trump also--his support in promising to spare no expense as we work to recover from this natural disaster went a long way to providing levels of assurance there. Senator Sullivan and I, as I mentioned, flew up on Sunday evening. We waited until the weekend was over to fly back home. We didn't want to get in the way of the immediate recovery efforts. I got in at 1 o'clock in the morning and went to work cleaning up the glass and broken things in my house, as many of my neighbors and fellow Alaskans had been doing all weekend long. Over the course of the day on Monday, we were able to see some of the damage that this earthquake has caused. You think about the words when you are trying to describe something that--the scenes are just so, so different, and it is words like ``gut-wrenching'' and ``astounding'' and then ``remarkable,'' but it was really gut-wrenching being in the school. We went out to Houston Middle School. This is an area out in the Mat- Su Valley. This is one of the schools that will not be opened, at least not this year and perhaps for longer. But you are standing in a building--this is the library there in the middle school, and you see all of the books that have fallen to the floor. You see the guts of the ceiling that have come out. The sprinkler system is activated, so not only do you have the chaos of the books but now you have got the saturation. There is another picture here of the group of us who went in. The ceiling literally disintegrated on top of the library there. When you think about the time that this all happened, there were students in the library. There were students who were passing in the hallway. This school is cinderblock construction, and the actual concrete cinders popped out and crashed to the floor and broke. The metal struts coming out of the ceiling, the panels--this was all happening at 8:29 in the morning. It is dark in Alaska at 8:29 in the morning. The lights had gone out, and they had this crashing all around them. When I use the word ``remarkable'' to describe some of it, how the students and the teachers responded was remarkable, the calm. The kids knew what to do. They got under their desks. They did what they were trained to do. When they got the order that they needed to get out, to evacuate, what they did was exactly what they were trained to do. And no injuries. No injuries. It is absolutely extraordinary. The schools in Anchorage are going to be closed for the entire week. Mat-Su is opening some of theirs this week, but more than 85 of them sustained damage that clearly needs to be cleaned up, needs to be repaired. The schools were one aspect of the damage that we saw, but what many have seen out there has been the damage to the infrastructure. This is a picture of a collapsed road. This is Vine Road, out in the valley. This is kind of a boggy area that runs through here, but it is just as if there were a big suction that came underneath and literally sucked the ground out from underneath that. This is an area that we visited. We took this picture from above, in the air. This is it up close. As you are standing here on these slabs of asphalt, the crevices you are looking down into are extraordinary, and you realize the intensity of the action of the Earth. You see scenes like this, and you say: How are we going to get through all of this? And the work that is ongoing now, whether it is the on-ramps, whether it is the bridges, whether it is roads like this on Vine Road, our department of transportation is working to firm up the roads, to, believe it or not, fill them in, repave them, even restripe them, and get folks back on their way. What we saw in just those first 72 hours is absolutely extraordinarily impressive. The Alaska Railroad is assessing their damage. They are operational. They are going to be going much slower than they would like, and that is going to cause complications, but they are up. The Port of Alaska is undergoing an expansion right now. It has been complicated by this earthquake. That is something that, again, is very critical. As you look to how goods move around our State, 85 percent of them come through that port. So being able to allow for functionality is critical. We look at our assets. We look at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. That was closed down temporarily just for precaution, but it is up and running. You know, when I think about all this, given what happened, the visible damage we saw earlier this week, I find myself thinking that we are so lucky--not that we were hit by this major earthquake but that it could have been so much worse. We talk a lot about resilience--resilience of a people. I think we learned a lot from the 1964 earthquake, the Good Friday earthquake. That registered at 9.2 on the Richter scale and lasted 4\1/2\, almost 5 minutes. Extraordinary. What we have been doing--we are the most seismically active State in the country, so we work to be prepared. Again, I mentioned that last Friday's earthquake was deep, and that mitigated some of the shaking that was associated with it, but the proximity to our State's population center put people and infrastructure at great risk. The depth of the source and the mechanism of the fault helped reduce the damage. That is one part of it. The other part of it is being prepared, and this is where I am so proud of the resilience of Alaskans. Whether it is at the schools that practice these earthquake drills where the students get under the desk, they hold on to the leg of a chair or their desk, and they cover their heads to protect themselves--I know we have one Alaskan as a page. She has gone through this drill. I know you have. So even in the dark, even in the chaos, with all the noise and the crashing, students knew what to do, and they did it not only for themselves, but they did it for other students as well. There are some stories of some very young heroes out there, and I have a young nephew who not only took care of himself but made sure that a fellow student who had severe mobility issues was able to get under a desk. I think about the calmness and the presence that so many exercised. I am going to end by noting again how we have worked as communities in our State to be prepared for disasters when they come. We have some of the most stringent building codes in the world, and for the most part, our buildings held up. Families have earthquake kits in their houses. They have batteries, flashlights, nonperishable food--all of which came in handy as folks kind of hunkered down over the weekend. I will end my remarks by noting how grateful I am for the first responders who took action in the aftermath of the earthquake, even amid all of the ongoing aftershocks, even with their households totally turned upside down--and not only for our first responders but for all those who acted as first responders, the neighbors who came together. It is Alaska at its finest when we all work together. I am very grateful that we had no tsunami. I am very grateful that the damages, at least on the surface, are not worse. And we are certainly grateful that there have been no reports of major injuries or fatalities. I am grateful that we have strong Federal partners who have committed to helping us in any way that they can. I also appreciate the reach-out from so many colleagues here in the Senate who sent me texts and who called and said: Is everything OK in Alaska? Is there anything we can do? Thank you for that. We know we are tough in Alaska. That is the reputation we have. We are kind of proud of that. We know we are hardy and resilient. But knowing that others are going to be with us as we go through this recovery period makes that much better. I thank so many who have been there to help Alaska. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in a few moments, we are going to have an opportunity to vote on moving to proceed to the nominee for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I come to the floor this afternoon to speak in support of that nominee, Mr. Bernard McNamee. Mr. McNamee has been nominated to serve on the FERC--the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--to complete the remainder of the term that runs through June 30, 2020. The FERC is an independent agency within the Department of Energy. For a long period of time, nobody really paid much attention to the FERC or was quite sure what the mission was. The agency itself is one that has a very key and a very critical role within our country in that it regulates the electricity, the hydropower, the natural gas, and the oil pipeline industries. That basically means that FERC plays a critical role in keeping the lights on and ensuring the deliverability of reliable, safe, and affordable energy to American homes and businesses. The FERC really is key to so much of what goes on in the world of commerce and our economy. It is important that we move forward with this vote today. If we confirm Mr. McNamee, FERC will once again have a full complement of five Commissioners on that agency. This is something we have worked hard to restore in this Congress for a period of time. The Commission was down to just three Commissioners. They have a lot of work to do. The responsibilities are hard. Making sure that they are at full speed must be a priority. It is necessary to enable the agency to address a substantial backlog of energy infrastructure project applications and decisions that are pending on a range of important energy matters. Let's talk about the qualifications Mr. McNamee has to serve at the FERC. Over the course of his career, he served in the Federal Government, including here in the Senate and in two State governments. He has also worked in the energy practice group of a major law firm. As a result of his work and his experience, Mr. McNamee has a deep understanding of energy issues, and I think a clear appreciation of FERC's mission. He has made a strong commitment to continue FERC's role as an independent and an impartial regulator, which to me is key. He also knows that it is FERC's duty to keep the lights on and not to carry out policy decisions that are made by other parts of the Federal Government. His mission within the FERC is pretty well defined. There has been some discussion about Mr. McNamee's prior position implementing policy during the brief tenure he had at the Department of Energy. This was at a time when the administration was considering whether it could provide economic relief to coal and nuclear powerplants. That has generated its own level of discussion. Some have suggested that Mr. McNamee's work at the Department raises questions about his independence and have compared him to Ron Binz. Mr. Binz was a former nominee for FERC Chairman back in 2013. I would remind colleagues that there is a difference here. Back in 2013, when the Senate was considering Mr. Binz, in fairness, we didn't actually have him up for consideration on the floor. Mr. Binz voluntarily withdrew his nomination from consideration, and that was based on bipartisan concerns that were raised about substantive comments of his and the approach he took to recruit support for his own nomination. I would rather not rehash history today, but I think there is a clear difference between the two nominees, and I believe the concerns about Mr. McNamee's independence are largely unfounded. First, the Department of Energy's proposal to FERC on coal and nuclear plants was unanimously rejected by FERC just about a year ago. The Commission is currently not considering any other administration proposal to assist coal or nuclear powerplants. I think it is also wrong to suggest that because someone has experience implementing policy somewhere that they should be disqualified from any role as an independent regulator. In fact, in this Congress alone, we have already confirmed two former Senate policy staff members to the Commission. The first one was Neil Chatterjee, an individual many, many of us know. He previously served as the majority leader's energy policy adviser. The second one was Mr. Rich Glick, who served as senior counsel to Senator Cantwell on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Like Chairman Chatterjee and Mr. Glick, Mr. McNamee's decisions as a Commissioner will not be contingent on the implementation of policy decisions in his prior roles. In private meetings and in his nomination hearing last month, Mr. McNamee repeatedly committed to be fair, to be objective, and to be an impartial arbiter in all of the cases that come before the Commission. He repeated this commitment in response to two rounds of questions for the record. I believe Mr. McNamee understands and understands well that FERC is an independent Agency and that it must continue to function as such. I take his commitment to uphold FERC's autonomy and maintain an independent role as a Commissioner at face value. I also expect him to be fuel-neutral and not a champion of one resource over another. As I mentioned, there is a lot of work that must go on at FERC. We need to have all five Commissioners in place to make sure that it happens. With a full set of Commissioners, FERC will be able to reduce or certainly work to reduce its backlog of energy infrastructure projects, including important natural gas pipelines and LNG export terminals. If we are going to remain a prosperous nation with strong growth and affordable energy, we need our interstate pipeline network and our LNG facilities to continue to meet customer demands for our natural gas. This resource serves a variety of critical needs, ranging from keeping us warm to enabling our manufacturing renaissance and, increasingly, to fuel our electric grid. LNG exports also represent a significant opportunity for States like Alaska, scores of communities, and, looking abroad, for America's friends and allies. FERC is also examining other important issues, including its regulations under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act--PURPA-- the integration of energy storage onto the grid, and the impact of State policies on interstate electricity markets. These issues are incredibly complex, and they have widespread implications for our economy. Again, it is key, it is timely, and it is important that we have a full complement on the FERC. Mr. McNamee is well qualified to join the other Commissioners in tackling these issues, and I urge all of my colleagues to support his nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, December 6; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the McNamee nomination, with the time until 12 noon equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XX, all postcloture time on the McNamee nomination expire at 12 noon on Thursday, December 6; further, that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. I further ask that following disposition of the nomination, the Senate resume consideration of the Kraninger nomination and the time be equally divided in the usual form until 1:45 p.m.; further, that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the Kraninger nomination as under the previous order; finally, that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to give special recognition to Lawrence P. Cotter on the occasion of his retirement. Larry is a great friend and dedicated Alaskan whose contributions to our State are significant and lasting, benefiting our State's fisheries and rural communities to this day and into the future. As a resident of Alaska for almost half a century, Larry's work has taken him from fish processing plants to the halls of our State capitol and beyond. After arriving in Alaska in 1974, he spent over 4 years as a seafood processing worker in Juneau and 8 years as a labor organizer and representative for processing workers and longshoremen. Larry shaped critical fisheries policy through his service on the advisory panel to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, of which he was a member for 6 years. This service was followed by an additional 6 years as a voting member on the Council during a critical time in the development of our Nation's domestic fisheries. Larry worked to ensure that foreign fishing in our exclusive economic zone was phased out and that our domestic fishing and processing capabilities were stepping up to replace the foreign fleets. This shift to an all-domestic fleet allowed the United States to finally harvest our fishery resources for the sole benefit of American fishermen and processors. It was also during this period that allocation issues among U.S. fisheries interests were first coming to the forefront. These were challenging and exciting times, during which Larry's leadership thrived. His legacy in Alaska fisheries cannot be overstated. Most recently, until late this year, Larry served as the founding CEO of the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association, or APICDA. As one of six community development quota organizations in western Alaska, APICDA has used the benefits of Bering Sea and Aleutian fishery resources to support its member communities in some of the most rural and remote parts of Alaska. In helping to develop, implement, and sustain the CDQ program, Larry did perhaps his best work, accomplishing goals that will have positive impacts on western Alaskan communities for generations to come. Larry's visionary work on the formation of Alaska's CDQ program has benefited all of the participating communities through workforce, infrastructure, and economic development. Many observers, myself included, have correctly noted that Alaska has the best managed fisheries in the country, and I know we could not have achieved this hard-earned status without Larry's tireless dedication to making our seafood industry truly sustainable. Thank you, Larry, for your tremendous contributions to sustainable fisheries and to the participation of our coastal communities in those fisheries. I wish you a restful retirement and the best of luck in your future endeavors.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today, as the Senate returns from recess, I wanted to speak in loving memory of Barney Gottstein, a patriarch of Alaska's Jewish community, who passed away on October 21 at the age of 91. He was buried in the Anchorage Cemetery on October 22, in accordance with Jewish burial traditions. I suspect that my colleagues might not be aware that Alaska is home to a thriving Jewish community or that the origins of that community preceded statehood by generations. One might be even more surprised to know that Barney was not the first generation of Gottsteins to occupy a leadership role in pre-Statehood Alaska, but the second generation. The Gottstein family is up to four generations of leadership, with a fifth--the great-grandchildren--now in place. The first generation, Barney's father, Jacob B. Gottstein, originally of Des Moines, IA, came to Anchorage in 1915, selling cigars and confections out of the tent city established to construct the Alaska Railroad. Jake, as he was known, then opened a wholesale grocery and dry goods business, known as J.B. Gottstein & Co., which made sales calls by dog sled. You can't get more Alaskan than that. Jake passed away in 1963. Barney was born in Des Moines in 1925, but soon moved to Anchorage, population 2,500, where he was raised. He enlisted in the Army and served in the Army Air Corps. After the war, Barney went to the University of Washington studying to be an aeronautical engineer. That didn't work out so well. He was told by a counselor that anti-Semitism would likely prevent Barney from getting a job in his chosen field, so he switched to business and economics and came home to work in the family business, but he didn't abandon his love for flying. Barney was a licensed private pilot who loved to fly around Alaska and beyond. By the time Barney returned home, the family business was growing as fast as the state. The focus had changed from dry goods to wholesale groceries. Barney took it the next step. One of J.B. Gottstein's customers was the Carr Brothers Grocery. The rest is history. Barney partnered with Larry Carr to grow the retail grocery business and pursue real estate ventures. Carr's Quality Centers sprung up throughout Alaska, along with an associated chain of Eagle markets. By the late 1980s, the Carr-Gottstein group of companies was the largest Alaska-owned business in the State. Barney and Larry sold the grocery side of the business in 1990 but remained in the real estate business. Today, the Carr's name remains on grocery stores in Anchorage, Eagle River, and the Mat-Su Valley. In 1989, Barney was inducted into the Alaska Business Hall of Fame, and in 1991, he was awarded an honorary doctor of laws degree by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Barney's business success in Alaska was deeply respected, but his community engagement even more so. He was chair of the Alaska Board of Education and provided financial assistance that enabled hundreds of Alaska Natives to pursue schooling. He was an inaugural member of the Alaska State Commission on Human Rights as well. Barney was active in Alaska's political life as well. He was chairman of the Alaska Democratic Party, Alaska's Democratic National Committeeman, and an Alaska delegate to the Democratic National Conventions. I mentioned that Barney was one of the patriarchs of Alaska's Jewish community. An early supporter of the State of Israel, he was the face of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, in Alaska for many years. Today, Barney's son, David, leads the AIPAC group in Alaska and in that capacity is a frequent visitor to my office. He provided financial support to enable young Jewish Alaskans to participate in the ``March of the Living,'' so that they might better understand the legacy of the Holocaust. He visited Israel on many occasions and took on the cause of supporting Ethiopian Jews who had made Aliyah to Israel integrate into society and pursue advanced degrees. Barney was not only a father figure to the Alaska Jewish community. He was the patriarch of a large family himself. Barney is survived by Rachel, his second wife, of 32 years, who not surprisingly he met on a trip to Israel. Barney was father to seven children. Some of Barney's children have followed in their father's footsteps to achieve positions of great respect and prominence in Alaska. I am proud to count Robert, David, and Jim among my friends. A fourth generation of the Gottstein family, the grandchildren, are just beginning to make their mark, and there are great-grandchildren behind them. On behalf of my Senate colleagues, I proudly pay my respects to Barney Gottstein and his wonderful family. May his memory be a blessing.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I speak today in memory of a friend and dear Alaskan, Ellen Campbell of Juneau, who passed away on October 16, 2018, at age 96. Ellen was the mother of McKie Campbell, who served as Republican staff director for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee from 2008-2013. On behalf of my Senate colleagues, I take this opportunity to extend condolences to McKie, his siblings and their spouses, and the many grandchildren, great-grandchildren, nieces, and nephews who held Ellen dear. She was a very special person. Ellen was a native of Waynesboro, GA. She grew up wanting to be a stewardess. That is what women who wanted to fly aspired to in Ellen's day, but after college, her career took a decidedly different direction. She went to work helping the war effort. That was during World War II when women were needed to backfill positions held by men who went off to war. She was a link trainer operator at the Atlanta Naval Base and then went on to lecture pilots. That led Ellen to wonder whether she might become one herself. ``It seemed absurd to be lecturing about flying and not have a private pilot's license, so I asked my father for my birthday present if he would give me flying lessons,'' Ellen explained. Shortly after obtaining that license, she applied to serve in the Women's Airforce Service Pilots, the WASP program. The hardest thing about it, Ellen said, was the fear that she would wash out during training. Ellen came darn close but managed to pass the three primary qualification tests. She served in the WASP program from its inception in 1942 to its disbandment on December 20, 1944. Her role was that of an engineering test pilot. Stationed in Jackson, MS, she flew many different kinds of aircraft; her favorite was the B-25 bomber. Ellen was one of 1,074 women who earned their WASP wings. Her service and those of her fellow WASPs was honored with a Congressional Gold Medal authorized by law on July 1, 2009. Ellen traveled to Washington, DC, to receive her medal in March 2010. When asked how she felt about her time in the WASPs by the Juneau Empire, the first word that came to mind was ``service.'' She went on to offer a favorite quote from Marian Wright Edelman, ``Service is the rent we pay for being. It is the very purpose of life, and not something you do in your spare time.'' These were words that Ellen lived by, during her service to our Nation and throughout the remainder of her life. Ellen came to Alaska with her husband Charles, who had been recruited to head the Alaska Department of Corrections. He retired from the department in the 1980s. Ellen threw herself into community service. A person of deep faith, Holy Trinity Episcopal Church in Juneau was her anchor. She ran a weekly Bible study group at Lemon Creek Correctional Center. Inspired by interactions with women who struggled to reenter society after serving their sentences, she founded Haven House, a nonprofit ministry to foster healing and self-sufficiency for women coming out of prison in Southeast Alaska. McKie told the Juneau Empire, ``Without being naive at all, she was convinced that everyone was good and had potential. She always saw the best in people.'' Ellen relocated to northern Virginia in 2009, with Charles, who died in 2012. It was there that she passed away, but Ellen's legacy will long be remembered in Juneau, which celebrated her life in a memorial service at Holy Trinity on Tuesday, November 13. I am honored to pay tribute to Ellen Campbell, a force of nature who helped people find the best in themselves.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, many Alaskans have contributed enormously to the development of the Territory of Alaska through Statehood and beyond with their special life skills, talents, courage, and insights into the world around them. Among that distinguished group was a very special man, Roy H. Madsen of Kodiak, AK. Roy Madsen was known for so many things. Among them, he was the first Alaska Native to serve as a judge of the Alaska Superior Court. On the eve of the Alaska Federation of Natives convention, I proudly honor his remarkable life that spanned 94 years from March 15, 1923 to December 26, 2017. Roy was born in the village of Kanatak, located just across Shelikoff Straits from the Kodiak archipelago near the Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes and Mount Katmai in the Katmai National Monument on the Alaskan Peninsula, an area which, in 1980, was expanded and renamed the Katmai National Park and Preserve. Roy was one of eight children. His father, Charles Madsen, was a Danish immigrant who established a trading post at Kanatak. His mother, Alaska Native Mary (Metrokin) was a homemaker. The Madsens returned to his mother's hometown of Kodiak where, when Roy was only 4 years old, she passed. Roy and his siblings were raised in Kodiak by their dad and their stepmother, Alexandra Churnoff Madsen. Roy's love for his heritage and for the island remained centerpieces throughout his life. A member of the Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak, he lived there for most of his life. Blessed with his mother's rich, Alaska Native Sugpiaq-Koniagmiut- Alutiiq-Russian subsistence culture and fortified by his father's immigrant mindset of courage and ambition, Roy lived his life setting goals and pursuing them, most often with success. After graduating from Kodiak High School in a class of six, he entered Oregon State University in 1941. In 1943, he left college and enlisted in the U.S. Navy and served as a gunner and navigator on Patrol Torpedo Boat PT 190, the ``Jack of Diamonds'' in the South Pacific during World War II. While serving in the Navy in the Philippines and New Guinea, Roy's unit was awarded campaign medals and two battle stars. It was after WWII that Roy and his first wife Katharine (Walters) and family moved back to Kodiak in 1946. To support his growing family, he spent a couple of summers fishing in Bristol Bay on a Columbia River double ender by sail and became a registered Alaska bear guide, working with his father Captain Charles Madsen, guiding clients on Kodiak brown bear hunts. The Madsens then moved to Oregon, where Roy finished his bachelor's degree and entered Northwestern College of Law, today the Lewis & Clark Law School, where he received his juris doctor degree in 1953. He served as assistant district attorney and practiced law in Oregon before, in 1961, returning with his family to Kodiak. Over the years, the Madsen clan grew to include seven children: Elizabeth, Mary Jane, Charles, Charlotte, Jacqueline, Guy--deceased--stepdaughter Shannon, 13 grandchildren, and 4 great-grand children. Roy Madsen immersed himself in Kodiak's thriving civic and cultural life. In the 1960s, he established a law firm, was the Kodiak city attorney, and the Kodiak Island Borough attorney. During this period, his commitment to his heritage grew and became legendary. He helped establish the Kodiak Area Native Association KANA, serving as its first vice president. His niece, Rita Stevens, wife of State Senator Gary Stevens, later furthered the work Roy had begun by helping to lead KANA for nearly two decades. As an attorney and Alaska Native, he contributed his knowledge and experience to efforts within Alaska to achieve a settlement through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of Alaska Native aboriginal land claims that resulted from work by many across the State in the enactment of Public Law 93-203 in 1971. He then helped to establish Koniag, Inc., one of the regional Alaska Native Corporations authorized by ANCSA. It was in 1975 that Roy began service as a Superior Court judge. He served in the State's Third Judicial District, an area of approximately 67,000 square miles, and sat in Kodiak. He served as a judge on that court through 1990. Judge Madsen continued to serve his beloved island through the decades. After his retirement from the bench, he enjoyed participating in Alaska court system's Colors of Justice Program, promoting acceptance of diversity and encouraging minorities to consider pursuing law as a career. He helped found, was chair of the first advisory board, and was a professor at the Kodiak Community College teaching constitutional, criminal, and business law. After his retirement from the bench, he was appointed to the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights and to the Alaska Supreme Court Committee on Fairness and Access to the Courts. Roy was counsel for writing the articles of incorporation for and an original board member of St. Herman's Orthodox Theological Seminary, a board member of the Kodiak Baptist Missions Treatment Center for Troubled Youths, and a member of the advisory board of St. Innocent's Orthodox Academy for Troubled Youths. He also served on the Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative committee which focused on incorporating ``Native Ways of Learning'' into mainstream education delivery in Alaska. That initiative added a great deal to the recognition and usage of this form of wisdom of the Elders and Native culture in learning delivery in the State. A mesmerizing storyteller, with deep and broad knowledge as an elder, Roy was a sought after and frequently featured speaker at any number of local events. Among his many honors was Saint Herman's Cross, bestowed upon him by Bishop Gregory Afonsky. In more recent years, Kodiak's courthouse was rededicated as the Roy H. Madsen Justice Center. Not long before his passing, Roy was named Conservation Elder of the Year by the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge for his long dedication to the refuge's Kodiak brown bear program. In recognition of his lifetime of achievement, the University of Alaska honored him with a doctorate of humanities. The documentary, ``Magnetic North,'' capturing how his life contributed to the history, spirit, and character of Alaska, premiered in Kodiak and aired on Alaska Public Television during 2017 shortly before his passing. Roy was equally comfortable in his robes dispensing justice from the court bench as he was in a flannel shirt and worn corduroys at the helm of his skiff, shuttling family to a cabin on Woody Island or helping ferry pilgrims for the annual St. Herman's Pilgrimage to Monk's Lagoon or simply picking wild berries and mushrooms in the woods. He was in his element with an audience, be it 2 or 200 hundred, sharing his stories of nature and human nature. His deep bass voice could fill a room, and his easy smile and laughter were contagious. Roy was manly enough to shed tears of joy or sorrow without embarrassment, to render steady advice, and to dispense his love, help, and friendship to all in need. When asked for some words of advice, Roy once answered: ``For a good quality of life, I believe it is important to have several things: a positive mind, good family relationships, goals you hope to achieve and to be adaptable. Be open to new relationships, never feel too old to learn and always be yourself. Recognize that you are unique. There is only one you.'' He held his most satisfying accomplishments as: ``Extending justice and judicial services to rural Alaska--exposing rural Alaskans to Alaska's judicial system and making them feel included by traveling to them and delivering services in their own communities.'' Linda, his wife of 36 years prior to his passing, perhaps said it best: Roy had ``the soul of a poet, the vitality of a fisherman and hunter, measured reason and mental retentiveness of a judge, courage and vision of one committed to making life better for others, and the heart and humanity of a loyal friend.'' This is but a brief overview of the life of Roy Madsen who lived such a productive and principled life and who, by his deeds and who he was, represented the apex of what frontier Alaska and America can produce. It is with the greatest respect that I share with my Senate colleagues and with the American people this short biographical sketch of the life of Roy Madsen, a wonderful Alaskan who served his country in war and peace and his fellow citizens in so many exemplary ways. We all are enriched to know about this great man whose life will be remembered and, hopefully, emulated as a ``north star'' for those who were fortunate to know him and those who will learn about his remarkable life.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, just a little bit ago, a few hours ago, we had a matter before the Senate relating to S.J. Res. 63. This was a resolution of disapproval, which would have worked to disapprove of the rule that was issued jointly by the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services regarding these short-term, limited duration insurance plans. I had hoped, actually, to have an opportunity to speak to this prior to the vote but was not able to. I want to take just a couple of minutes this afternoon to weigh in on this issue from an Alaskan perspective. I think there have been some suggestions that with this rule in place, those of us who care about protecting those with preexisting conditions, somehow or another, are taking these protections away. I have weighed this carefully. In fairness, I think some of the arguments that have been made are, perhaps, not quite as clear cut as would be suggested and, perhaps, certainly, in a State like mine, where we still have the highest healthcare costs in the country and some of the highest costs for coverage in the country. I think Members here in the Senate know full well that while I have opposed many aspects of the Affordable Care Act, I have supported and have strongly supported certain parts of it as well. Again, one of those things that I feel very strongly about is the need to ensure that we protect those who have preexisting conditions. That is a debate that, I think, is ongoing in other places as well. Yet I want to make clear that, certainly, my vote this morning is in no way meant to erode or undermine where I am coming from when it comes to preexisting conditions. Back to the situation that we face in Alaska, as I mentioned, we are the highest in terms of the cost of care and the highest in terms of the cost of coverage, and we are still one of those States that has but one insurer on the exchange in Alaska. So our options are, really, pretty limited. As I am speaking to individuals about what they are hoping for when it comes to coverage, they are looking for additional options, but they are looking for affordable options as well. It is true--it is absolutely true--that these short-term plans do not offer as much or, certainly, may not offer as much in the way of coverage as those plans that are offered on the individual exchanges. I understand that, but I have had to come down on this issue on the side of more choice for consumers and more options being a good thing for consumers. In Alaska, our population, as one knows, is relatively small. We have about 720,000 people in the whole State, but we are talking about 18,000 people, give or take, who are enrolled on the individual exchanges each year. The universe here is 18,000 people when we are talking about the exchanges. In the year 2016, which was the most recent year about which the IRS can give us information, there were about 15,000 people who chose to pay the individual mandate penalty rather than to buy the insurance. Think about what that means. They are weighing this, and they are saying: I would rather pay a fine, pay that penalty. It is not that I don't want the insurance, but I cannot afford it. So you had 18,000 people on the individual exchanges, and 15,000 people chose to pay the individual mandate penalty rather than buy the insurance. That is because, if an Alaskan does not get the subsidy--and a pretty heavy subsidy--the exchange plans just aren't affordable. Even though you want to have that coverage--you want that insurance--wanting it doesn't necessarily get it to you if you cannot afford it. The average premium for plan year 2018--this is according to CMS data--is $804 per month. What am I getting from constituents, from folks who are writing in to me and calling me? They are telling me what they are paying for their plans. For a family of four, the premium was over $2,000 a month, with a $7,500 deductible. Think about what that actually means for this family, for folks with those kinds of bills, who, basically, only have catastrophic coverage, as it is. Again, you think about the number of folks on the individual exchanges, and you think about those who choose not to pay the fines. You look at the numbers of those who receive the subsidies in the State of Alaska, which is quite considerable. We also have about 10,000 or so Alaskans--this is according to the State division of insurance--who have enrolled in healthcare sharing ministries. This is yet another option for people out there. A significant number has turned to these healthcare sharing ministries, and these folks have managed to avoid the penalty in prior years. In fairness, some of the ministry plans do not provide much in the way of coverage, but it is an indicator of what people feel they have to do in the face of just very, very high-cost plans. I understand where those who oppose this rule are coming from, and I have had good, long conversations about this. I guess I would ask that they turn to the realities that we are facing in a State like Alaska and just appreciate where people are coming from when you think about the 15,000 Alaskans who have chosen not to buy insurance over these past few years because it has been too expensive, but they want to have something they can afford. These short-term plans, while not ideal--I am not suggesting that they are--are an option for them to consider. What about the people who don't get subsidies and are paying over $50,000 per year before their insurance covers anything? That too is a situation in which they are looking for alternatives. So perhaps these short-term plans could be a viable option. For the 10,000-some-odd people who are currently using a sharing ministry, again, these types of plans could be an alternative. For the people who may choose to drop off the individual exchanges next year, these plans could be a path forward for some having some level of coverage. Again, I am not saying that this is perfect, and I am not saying that this is ideal. I am saying it offers a limited option in a place in which we have very few affordable options to turn to. Another reason these shorter term plans are helpful for us and why I have heard from so many Alaskans on this is that we are a State in which our employment base is very, very seasonal. You have a construction industry, but it is not like it is back here. Construction is, maybe, 6 months out of the year--longer in some parts of the State and shorter in other parts of the State. Yet you have a seasonal job. Our fishing industry is a great example. If you are working in the processing end of fishing, it may be 3 months. If you are working as a crabber, it may be 2\1/2\ months. If you are working on a tender up in Bristol Bay, it may be a very truncated 2 months. Then we have the tourist season. Again, we would like to think that we can entice you all to come up year round, but quite honestly, it too is very, very seasonal. So we need to have some level of flexibility for those many, many Alaskans who move between many of these seasonal employment opportunities. Under the prior rule, a short-term insurance plan could only last for 3 months. That is not going to help out, say, those in the fishing or in the tourism industry or, again, in so many of these areas in which you need longer term coverage but you don't need a full year. So flexibility is something that people have been asking for as well. Where that sweet spot is, I am not sure. I am telling you that, for us, 3 months doesn't make it. Maybe 3 years is too long. Maybe we do need to look at that. I happen to think that we do, but that is an area that is open for review. The last point I would make is that I think we have to have some trust in both our States as regulators and in individuals, the consumers. The rule that we were speaking about this morning really does allow States to have a great deal of leeway in regulating at the local level. We are seeing that among many of the States. I had a long conversation with our director of insurance up in the State of Alaska. We talked about where our State might take this and looked again at, perhaps, the length of these short-term, limited duration plans and how they might be regulated. Also, there is the transparency side of this, and this is something that concerns me. Some of the things we have heard are that people have bought these less expensive plans, these shorter term plans, and then, when they need them the most, they realize the coverage doesn't take care of them. That is also not a place we want anyone to be. Making sure that there is a level of transparency, that there is a level of disclosure that is real and not just the tiny boilerplate that nobody can understand--it has to be, again, transparent in that way. I think this is one of those areas where trusting in our laboratories of democracy, which are our States, to tailor plans that fit a State well should not be an action that we here in the Senate are so unwilling to take. As we look to how we do more in this Congress and how we do more to help those for whom healthcare--the cost of healthcare and access to healthcare--is still their No. 1 issue, still the No. 1 subject of discussion, I have come to speak on this particular issue today because there are maybe 25,000 people in my State who could see some benefit from these types of plans being available and also because I believe that trusting the regulators, certainly in my State, to handle the plans intelligently is an important part of how we move forward as well. I wanted to put that on the record today following the discussion from earlier this morning and the vote at noon.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my friend, the Senator from Montana, Senator Daines who is walking his daughter down the aisle this afternoon, if he were present and voting, he would have voted aye. I have voted no. The pair will not change the outcome of the vote. I therefore withdraw my vote.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to share my thoughts on what has been an extraordinarily long, difficult, and truly painful process. As we took up the cloture motion on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, the process that led us to this vote today has been, in my view, a horrible process, a gut-wrenching process, where good people--good people--have been needlessly hurt, where a woman who never sought the public spotlight was, I think, cruelly thrust into the brightest of spotlights; a good man--a good man--with sterling academic credentials, an unblemished professional record, both as the professional lawyer and judge that he was and also as a husband and father of two young girls, has been damaged--damaged terribly. As both of these individuals, Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, have been harmed, their families have, too, and we need to, we must, do better by them. We must do better as a legislative branch. We have an obligation, a moral obligation, to do better than this. I have spent more time evaluating and considering the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh than I have any of the previous nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court that I have been privileged to review. I have had the opportunity to vote on five Justices prior to this, and I took my time. I was deliberate; I was thoughtful. Some accused me of being too deliberate, too thoughtful, taking too much time, but this is important to me. It should be important to all of us, and I know it is important to all of us. I studied the record. I sat with Judge Kavanaugh for a lengthy period of time--about an hour and a half--and asked the questions that I had, and then I did more due diligence, reviewed the cases, and did my homework, listened to the concerns that were raised by many in my State on issues that were all over the board, whether it was a woman's right to choose, whether it was the Affordable Care Act, whether it was Executive authority, deference to the agencies, Native issues. I took considerable time. When the hearings came, not being on the Judiciary Committee, I paid attention. I followed the testimony of the judge, the very critical questioning from many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and then at the end of the process--or, seemingly, what we believed to be the end of the process--there were more questions. I went back to Judge Kavanaugh and had a good conversation with him. Then the allegations that we have been discussing and trying to understand more about came forward, and we all moved from focusing on the issues to truly a discussion that none of us ever thought we would be having when it came to a confirmation process for someone to the highest Court in the land. There was more work to be done. I was one who wanted to make sure there was a process going forward, and when there were more questions that were raised after the initial process, I was one who joined in asking that the FBI step in and do further review. I have been engaged in this lengthy and deliberative process for months now, and I was truly leaning toward supporting Judge Kavanaugh in his nomination as I looked to that record. But we know that in our role of advice and consent, it is not just the record itself. There is more that is attached to it. It is why, when in the State of Alaska, nominations for judges go forward, you rate them not only on their professional competence--what they have demonstrated through their record--but also on matters of temperament and demeanor, which are very, very important. So we moved--we shifted--that conversation from so many of the issues that I had been focused on to other areas that are also important in evaluating a nominee for the courts. But I listened very carefully to the remarks, the strong, well-articulated remarks, of my colleague and my friend who sits next to me here, Senator Collins, and I found that I agreed with many of the points that she raised on the floor earlier. I do not think that Judge Kavanaugh will be a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and I also join with her in saying that I do not think that protections for those with preexisting conditions will be at risk. I also do not think that he will be a threat to Alaska Natives. This was an issue that certainly had been raised, but I had an extended conversation with the judge on just these issues, and I believe that he recognizes, as he told me, that Alaska Natives are not in a place identical to Native Hawaiians. Alaskan Tribes are included on the list of federally recognized tribes, and the fact remains that Native Hawaiians are not. This is a distinction; this is a difference. I am one in this body who has said that I would like to see Native Hawaiians there, and I worked with my friend Senator Akaka when he was in this body to help advance that; I supported that. But the fact remains that the constitutional status of Alaska Natives and the Indian Commerce Clause are simply not at play with this nomination. I don't believe that. So the question is fairly asked: Do you think he is going to be there on issues that matter to Alaskans, that you have taken strong positions on? The reason I could not support Judge Kavanaugh in this cloture motion this afternoon is that in my role, in my responsibility as one Senator on this floor, I take this obligation that we have in the role of advice and consent as seriously as anything that I am obligated or privileged to be able to vote on. I have a very high standard. I have a very high bar for any nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Code of Judicial Conduct rule 1.2--this is one that many, many people in this body know--states that a ``judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence and the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.'' I go back, and I look to that. It is pretty high; it is really high: A judge shall act at all times--not just sometimes, when you are wearing your robe, but a judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence--public confidence. Where is the public confidence? So it is high, and even in the face of the worst thing that could happen, a sexual assault allegation, even in the face of an overly and overtly--overtly--political process, politicized process, and even when one side of this Chamber is absolutely dead set on defeating his nomination from the very get-go, before he was even named, even in these situations, the standard is that a judge must act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. After the hearing that we all watched last week, last Thursday, it became clear to me--or was becoming clearer--that the appearance of impropriety has become unavoidable. I have been deliberating, agonizing, about what is fair. Is this too unfair a burden to place on somebody who is dealing with the worst, the most horrific, allegations that go to your integrity, that go to everything you are? I think we all struggle with how we would respond, but I am reminded that there are only nine seats on the Bench of the highest Court in the land, and these seats are occupied by these men and women for their lifetime. So those who seek one of these seats must meet the highest standards in all respects at all times, and that is hard. We are in a time when many in this country have lost faith in the Executive branch, and it is not just with this administration. We saw much of that in the last as well. Here in Congress, many around the country have just given up on us. They have completely said: We have had enough. But I maintain that the public still views--I still view--that there is some small shred of hope that remains with our judiciary, this judiciary that must be perceived as independent, as nonpartisan, as fair and balanced in order for our form of government to function. It is that hope--it is that hope--that I seek to maintain, and I think that is why I have demanded such a high standard to maintain or regain that public confidence because it is so critical that we have that public confidence in at least one of our three branches of government. I think we saw from the vote earlier today and we have seen from the statements of several of our colleagues that it does appear that Judge Kavanaugh will be seated on the Supreme Court without my vote. It is my hope--it is truly my hope--that Judge Kavanaugh will share that same hope of rebuilding, maintaining a level of public confidence, that he will strive for that ideal every day. It is my hope that he will be that neutral arbiter, the umpire who calls only the balls and the strikes, and that he will be that force for stability. I believe that Judge Kavanaugh is a good man. He is a good man. He is clearly a learned judge, but in my conscience--because how I have to vote at the end of the day with my conscience--I could not conclude that he is the right person for the Court at this time. This decision has been agonizing for me. It is as hard a choice, probably as close a call as any that I can ever remember, and I hope--I hope and I pray--that we don't find ourselves in this situation again. But I am worried. I am really worried that this will become the new normal, where we find new and even more creative ways to tear one another down, and good people are just going to say: Forget it. It is not worth it. I am looking at some of the comments and the statements that are being made against me and against my good friend, my dear friend from Maine--the hateful, aggressive, truly, truly awful manner in which so many are acting now. This is not who we are. This is not who we should be. This is not who we raised our children to be. So as we move forward, again, through a very difficult time for this body and for this country, I want to urge us to a place where we are able to engage in that civil discourse that the Senate is supposed to be all about--that we show respect for one another's views and differences and that when a hard vote is taken, there is a level of respect for the decision that each of us makes. There is something else that I do hope. Again, I refer to my friend from Maine. I will note that if there has been a silver lining in these bitter weeks--which, quite honestly, remains to be seen--I do think what we have seen is a recognition by both sides that we must do more to protect and prevent sexual assault and help the victims of these assaults. There has been a national discussion. There has been an outpouring of discussions, conversations, fears, tears, frustration, and rage. There is an emotion that really has been unleashed in these recent weeks, and these are discussions that we need to have as a country. We need to bring these survivors to a place where they feel they can heal, but until they come out of the shadows and do so without shame, it is pretty hard to heal. I have met with so many survivors, and I know that every single one of us has. I have heard from colleagues as they shared with me that they have been truly surprised--many stunned--by what they are learning is the prevalence of this, unfortunately, in our society today. In Alaska and, as the Presiding Officer knows, in his State, the levels of sexual assault we see within our Native American and Alaskan Native communities are incredibly devastating. It is not something that we can say we will get to tomorrow. We heard those voices, and I hope that we have all learned something. We owe it to the victims of sexual assault to do more and to do better and to do it now, with them. I am going to close. I truly hope that we can be at a place where we can move forward in a manner that shows greater respect, greater comity. We owe it to the people of America to return to a less rancorous confirmation process. In the spirit of that comity--and again, while I voted no on cloture today and I will be a no tomorrow--I will in the final tally be asked to be recorded as present, and I do this because a friend, a colleague of ours, is in Montana this evening, and tomorrow, at just about the same hour that we are going to be voting, he is going to be walking his daughter down the aisle, and he will not be present to vote. So I have extended this as a courtesy to my friend. It will not change the outcome of the vote, but I do hope that it reminds us that we can take very small steps to be gracious with one another and maybe those small gracious steps can lead to more. I know that as hard as these matters are that we deal with, we are human and we have families that we love. We don't spend nearly enough time with them. I am sure we can do one small thing to make that family a little bit better. That is a better way for tomorrow. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, there have been many words that have been spoken about our friend, Senator John McCain, and I want to join with the many words and the tributes that have been shared in the recent days since his passing. We all know the background. We all know the bio. John McCain served our Nation for 60 years, starting as an officer in the U.S. Navy, as a prisoner of war in unspeakable conditions, and during his terms in the House of Representatives and in the Senate for some 30 years. That is the biography of the man, but it is just the start of who he was and the mark he made not only on the lives of us in the Senate but on the lives of Americans all over the country. John McCain was a beloved colleague. He was a patriot. He was truly an American hero. He had remarkable intellect. He had an iron will, most certainly. He had unquestionable integrity and courage that was absolutely unwavering. When I think about John and how John approached issues, John was one who did what he thought was right. When he thought he was right, there wasn't much arguing with him--he was right. Even then, we would engage, we would go back and forth, and I think oftentimes it was those arguments that caused us to either gain greater respect or perhaps greater fear, depending on where you were in the process. John was one of those guys who favored straight talk. I don't think he would have any hard feelings about any of us describing our relationship with him over the years. We didn't always agree, and sometimes we didn't even get along, but the truth was, John McCain would always make sure you knew where he stood. John was very clear that you had to earn his respect. Respect was not something that came with the title. The fact that you were a U.S. Senator didn't mean you had earned his respect. And I know because I felt that in my early years here in the Senate. I came through an appointment, and I think John McCain was just going to wait to see if I was able to prove myself, and he ultimately decided, apparently, that I had. He came up to me one day--we were actually walking down the aisle there, and he came up and he said: You know, you are OK, kid. And for that, that was high praise. We all have heard some of the legendary stories of when individuals kind of came head-to-head or toe-to-toe with John McCain, and certainly there were some areas where we disagreed. We had a little bit different view on earmarks. And that was not just my relationship with Senator McCain but previous Alaskan Senators as well. But I think we all agreed that our disagreements were principled in nature. I remember one very interesting and heated exchange over the merits of essential air service, and John was on one side of the issue and I was an advocate for essential air. We were literally nose-to-nose, and I said: Don't you understand that it is called essential air because it is essential because we don't have roads to these places? And he kind of growled at me and: Well, I don't know why we need to have it. There were legendary back-and-forths, and sometimes you won, sometimes John won, but it was always with a great deal of passion that these exchanges moved forward. Then there was the other end of the spectrum--those times when John and I were voting together, sometimes against the majority of our own party. Healthcare and the ACA vote last year is certainly a prime example of that. That was a tough vote. That was a tough vote for our conference. It was a difficult vote, but I will tell you, it was comforting to have some solidarity with my friend John McCain even when it was clear that we may have disagreed with many of our colleagues. But John was one who, when he had made up his mind up, he had made up his mind, and you respected that. John visited Alaska, and it helped validate his view that climate change is real, that it is something we have to deal with, and that we have to take practical steps to address it. And I agree with John. I don't need any convincing on that, and I am going to be proud to help achieve that goal. I valued John's work on campaign finance reform and comprehensive immigration reform. I was never part of the gang on immigration, but my votes clearly marked me as a fellow traveler. We also shared a strong respect for our Native peoples. Both Arizona and Alaska have many Tribes and large concentrations of indigenous Americans, and his decades of work to advance the cause of Native people was legendary. Because John accomplished so much during his time here--we all talk about his time spent on the international front working on defense issues, but I think oftentimes the issues with Native Americans, Indian issues, were overlooked, so let me comment on that for a moment. Back in the 1990s, John joined with Senator Inouye of Hawaii on amendments to the Indian Self-Determination Act providing for Tribal self-governance compacting. That opened up a whole new era of opportunity for Alaska Tribes. It laid the groundwork for Alaska Tribes to take over the delivery of Native healthcare from a failing Federal bureaucracy. Now, around the State, whether you are up in Utqiagvik or down in Ketchikan, they enjoy award-winning, world-class healthcare in a system that the Native people control, and that really would not have been possible without people like John McCain fighting for our Native people. I think that John would have been proud of me on the afternoon that he passed. I was in the village of Savoonga, which is a small community--about 800 people--on St. Lawrence Island, about 40 miles from Russia. It is in the Bering Sea. It is one of the most remote places in Alaska. I was there to conduct a field hearing--the Indian Affairs Committee--focused on poor housing conditions, overcrowded housing, where our Native people are forced to live in extraordinarily difficult homes with difficult sanitation problems in these very remote communities. John was really a champion for ending the Third World living conditions that too many of our Native people still endure. We have a lot of unfinished work on that front, and I plan to attack it with the same vigor John brought to the fight. I mentioned John's love for our military, for our veterans. He will long be remembered for his efforts to bring our military back from years of neglect and the devastating pain of sequestration. The story that we all know--John worked on major defense budgets and was an extraordinary advocate for all of our defense. I think my story and how it intersects with a very, very small group of elderly Alaska warriors demonstrates that this big, strong, gruff guy, who was truly taking on the world, had a very soft spot in his heart, and the kindness he showed to these few elderly Alaska Native Guard veterans is something that is worthy of sharing. After Senator Stevens left the Senate in 2009, the Pentagon had tried to cut off the pensions of two dozen--just two dozen--elderly men who served in the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II. Senator Stevens had worked very hard to get their service counted as military service and to grant them veteran status, and, not unlike the way Ted did things, he took care of it in the appropriations process, so it was an earmark. Over the Christmas holiday, the Pentagon kind of worked to reinterpret that earmark. Needless to say, Ted was gone, and this was an important issue to these 24 elderly veterans, and so I moved an amendment on the Defense appropriations bill to reverse it. I talked to John, and he was pretty skeptical at first because, he said, it was an earmark. But then he asked whether these Native Guardsmen, these Eskimo Scouts, had actually seen war, and I was able to share with him the story of those who had stood lookout on the homeland in the Aleutian Islands, the reminder that in Alaska, we were the only American soil that was occupied by the Japanese in World War II and that it was these Native warriors who were standing guard, standing lookout. So, long story short, John knew that supporting these elderly veterans was the right thing to do. There are so many things we can share about John, but really when I think about his legacy going forward, whether he is ``Project Maverick,'' as my friend from South Carolina has said, or however we choose to remember him, I do hope that history will remember John as an institutionalist in the highest tradition of the Senate. John was committed to thoughtful debate and regular order. He was an effective committee chairman, respecting the interests of members on both sides. He managed his bills on the floor working hand-in-hand with the other side. These were tough bills. The annual Defense authorization bill draws something on the order of 600 amendments. He was always protective of committee prerogatives. He was known to put his foot down when appropriators sought to muscle out the authorizers. He was always looking toward compromise and bipartisanship. John fought for our institution because he never lost sight of the fact that the legislative branch is a coequal branch of government, not subordinate to the White House. He took no guff--we all know--from the administration, no matter who was in charge. That wasn't just because John liked to flex his senatorial muscle; it was because he was a true believer in the Constitution and its checks and balances. He was a true believer in the institutions of government and a true believer in democracy. John certainly made his share of history, and he has earned his place in it. I think we all know how much we will miss him, his passion, his courage. His loss leaves us sad, but at the same time, I think it offers us a beacon of hope here in the Senate as we reflect on his life and his contributions. Senator Graham observed that John will not be replaced by any one Senator. It is going to take all of us working together. It is going to take all of us to really accomplish what John knew we were capable of. By coming together, respecting one another, one another's principles, even when we disagree, and working through these disagreements to compromise--that is how we really honor John's legacy. There are a lot of words, and these words will come and go, but the way to truly honor him is to live out what he believed this Senate is capable of doing. We were reminded that there is a little John McCain in all of us. I think it would be good for us to remind one another of that, to urge the inner John McCain in each of us to present itself in a way that betters our institution. On behalf of the people of the 49th State, the great State of Alaska, I thank you, John McCain. I thank the family for the years that you gave him to us, to his country. We will take it from here, inspired by your service, John McCain, by your intellect, by your integrity, and by your determination to do right. May you rest in peace, John McCain. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I do stand reluctantly and in an unenviable position, as my friend from North Carolina has noted. As the chairman of the authorizing committee, the Energy Committee, I will be objecting at this time. But I want to acknowledge not only the work of the Senator from North Carolina but the passion with which he has put himself into this issue, which is something I think all of us--whether we are from North Carolina or Alaska or points in between, coastal, inland--care about. We care about our Nation's environment. We care about the land that supports us. In our hearts, I think we are all conservationists. When you think about the purposes for which the Land and Water Conservation Fund was established, it is to do just exactly what Senator Burr has outlined. Some of the good work we see in North Carolina; some of the good work we see with stateside LWCF. In my State, and in all of our States, I think we have seen that role. What the Senator has laid out here today I think is, in fairness, very right. It is a very popular program. We have had individuals look at it and see the concrete benefits in the places they love. It does have good support in both bodies. I think that is an absolute, when you look at the cosponsorship, particularly on the House side. Sometimes it is a little bit difficult over there to get those strong numbers. The Senator rightly points out that the language he has used was part of an Energy bill that enjoyed strong, strong support on this floor--85 to 12--a year or so ago, and the language he has utilized in his proposed bill is language that we had included, for the most part, in our bill, with the addition of what he has suggested, with the opportunity every 3 years to revisit this. So it takes a good core of a bill that has already passed and kind of stood the test of fire, if you will. I think it is important to note, with that Energy bill, that LWCF piece was part of a negotiated package that did include other components. I think we would still like to see those other components moving through. I am certainly committed to working to advance them and have told the Senator from North Carolina that is my intention. I also believe Senator Burr when he says that he will continue with this effort--that he will continue to bring this issue to the fore-- because he believes it is the right thing to do. Permanent reauthorization is timely. I will note to colleagues that while this authorization does expire September 30, it is important to remember that the outlays from the LWCF will continue. So the appropriations he has referenced--$450 million for this particular year--still go out. But he raises a very valid point that we have an authorization. As it is coming due at the end of this next month, this is an opportunity for us to act. It seems that we act best when there is a little pressure from behind or with a timeline, and my commitment to him this morning is to continue this work and continue this effort. I appreciate what he has done to address some of the concerns. I think we both know there are still outstanding issues that we have with some colleagues. In an effort to not only move this across the Senate floor but allow it to get to the point at which it is successfully implemented into law--I want to work with him to achieve that. But at this point in time, I reluctantly will object to the request of the Senator from North Carolina.

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 beginning to wrap up the appropriations package, which includes the fiscal year 2019 bills for the Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies; Financial Services and General Government; Agriculture, Rural Government, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies; as well as Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, or T-HUD. This is really quite an accomplishment this morning. It is perhaps not necessarily noted in the trade press out there, but the fact is, we are doing our business here. We are doing the business of lawmakers and legislators when it comes to our annual spending bills. The fact that this is August 1 and we will be wrapping up in a matter of an hour or so, a couple of hours, 4 appropriations bills on top of the 3 that we have previously done--so 7 out of the 12 appropriations bills--is good progress. This is important progress. Some might say it is historic progress. I say it is progress that is long overdue. I believe it is because of the leadership of Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy. They came together to basically lay down a path forward for the Appropriations Committee, urging us, as chairmen of our respective subcommittees, to go back to a process that was a working and functioning process where we do the work of appropriators--not as authorizers but as appropriators--in advancing these multiple spending bills. In my view, where we are today is the result of good leadership at the committee, good leadership that says that committee work matters. To be able to lead the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee has been a very distinct privilege and an honor for me. These are areas that are clearly of interest to my home State. When we talk about our Nation's public lands, when we talk about support for our indigenous people and the agencies that support them--whether it is the BIA or the IHS--when we think about the arts and the contribution of the arts to our Nation, the issues that are within this subcommittee's jurisdiction are good, are important, and it is necessary that on an annual basis we work to advance these priorities. We haven't been able to really advance them, not only not here on the full floor but actually through the full committee. It has been many years--actually, since fiscal year 2010 that we have had an interior bill before the full Senate for full consideration. So, again, this is truly a milestone. As I mentioned, I want to thank Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy for their leadership on this. I also want to acknowledge and thank Leader McConnell for placing a priority on the appropriations process. He urged us to advance, without delay, this multitude of spending bills to return us back to regular order. He set forth a pretty aggressive schedule for us. In fairness, there were a lot of folks out there who said: The Senate is not going to do this one. There were a lot of skeptics who said: They can't get their act together on this one. Well, it is kind of nice to be able to demonstrate that, in fact, we can, and we have, and we continue to do this good work. We are on track to meet our goal of avoiding what we have come to just accept as the regular course of business around here--that there is going to be a large omnibus package at the end of the year. Instead, we have allowed for a process on this floor where all Members of the Senate, not just those of us who serve on the Appropriations Committee but all of us, have an opportunity to weigh in, to dig in, and to review these measures that have come through the committee, offer up amendments, and have the ability to debate and amend them. Granted, we haven't had as many amendments on the floor as I think some of us might have wanted. We haven't had the hours-long debate on some of the, perhaps, more contentious matters, but what we have done is we have really focused on outlining the spending priorities and ensuring that we can find consensus. Finding consensus around here is the hard part of the responsibility because it means I have to stand down on some of my priorities, and others have to stand down on some of their priorities, in order for any of us to be able to advance the broader priorities. So we are here with a process that has been delayed over the years, but I feel good, I feel optimistic that we have pushed the reset button when it comes to the Appropriations Committee and how we will be able to move forward. We know there is more than just one body in the Congress, and we are going to have to deal with our colleagues on the other side, the House of Representatives, as we move into conference, but we can't get to conference until we have taken the first step, and we will be able to take the first step with these four appropriations bills that are part of this package this morning. I want to highlight just some of the provisions in the Interior bill that our committee worked so hard on. As I mentioned, this is a subcommittee that has oversight in so many different areas. It is not only our Nation's public lands, it is matters relating to our Native people. It includes environmental issues with the EPA. It is arts and culture. So we have a broad array of responsibilities. Some of the highlights here--folks are always very interested in what we have done to meet our responsibility when it comes to payments to those communities, those counties, those bureaus, and municipalities through the PILT Program, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. We fully fund the PILT Program at $500 million. This is going to be important to so many of our communities out there. Another issue that has generated its level of support and some opposition in terms of wanting to see some additional reforms is the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program. We fund LWCF at the current level of $425 million to ensure that the important work that is advanced for conservation is able to proceed. There is a lot of focus on what is happening with the devastating forest fires that we are seeing right now in the West, particularly in California. We provide robust levels for firefighting funding to ensure that both the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service have the resources they need at the time they need them. When you have a fire underway, they don't want us to be arguing about whether we have the resources. The resources are there, and we will be there to help. I mentioned the matters that relate to our first people, American Indians, Alaska Natives. We do right by Indian Country within this bill. For the two main agencies that deliver services for the Indian community, both the BIA--the Bureau of Indian Affairs--and the Indian Health Service, we have restored the cuts that were proposed of over $1 billion in critical program funding. The bill increases funding for the IHS facilities program, for construction, maintenance, and sanitation facilities improvements. We hear, time after time, in Indian Affairs as well as in the Appropriations Committee about the dire situation with so many of our facilities within not only our Indian hospitals around the country but also within the schools, truly leaving these children behind. So we do provide substantial funding for the BIA to help with construction of Indian schools. Also, we include irrigation systems and public safety facilities, so truly the full picture there. For both accounts, we provide the fully estimated level of contract support costs for healthcare. This is very significant in ensuring that we are being honest by these accounts. We are not forcing IHS to effectively dip into other pots of funding to fund another, so it is important that we fully fund contract support. In IHS, we also provided $10 million in critical new funding to provide grants to Tribes for combating the opioid crisis. So, again, we all know, all throughout the country, the issues we are facing with opioids. It is almost even more accentuated on our reservations and in many places where our Native peoples are facing this terrible scourge. When it comes to public lands, how we did right by public lands-- whether it is our Forest Service, the BLM, the National Park Service-- is we worked to address contaminated land matters. We worked to provide support for construction and deferred maintenance not only within our National Park System but within our other public lands. We focused on areas of hazards. Most people didn't give a lot of thought to what was going on with volcanoes until the situation we are seeing on the Big Island of Hawaii, and now there is a lot of attention. So we are making sure we are doing right in understanding some of our natural hazards, whether they are volcanoes or earthquakes. On mapping, which is so critical for us--USDS does such a great job on that--we need to be doing more. We have also made responsible investments in the EPA that will lead to cleaner air and water. So within our bill, we provide additional funding to States that have delegated responsibility for environmental programs. We provide an increase above last year's level for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. This builds on critical water infrastructure in communities across the country. I think we all recognize, when it comes to that role, the mission of EPA--clean air, clean water. What are we doing to make sure they are able to fulfill that mission? These accounts truly do make a difference. We also continue to provide the highest funding level ever for the WIFIA Program. This leverages Federal funds for water infrastructure projects, and these programs have a direct impact on improving water quality in communities around the country. Then, another small category that is not small for the arts and the cultural communities--but, again, we do right by our Smithsonians here in our Nation's Capital, helping to ensure that the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities receive the level of support that I believe is important. Again, those are some of the greatest hits coming out of the Interior appropriations bill this morning. We have heard similar comments from my colleagues in the other three Departments, whether it is Financial Services, Agriculture, or Transportation and Housing. Again, I look forward to working with colleagues as we advance these measures through the full process not only here in the Senate but in the conference with the House later. I would like to close by again expressing my appreciation to my friend and the ranking member of the committee, Senator Udall, who is here this morning. He and his staff have been excellent to work with, and I appreciate his efforts and those of his staff as we have worked to shape this bill so it reflects the priorities of Members on both sides of the aisle. I think we have worked very hard to do that. I know I am pleased with where we are right now with this measure. I look forward to the passage of this bill, again, in working with him and my other colleagues, as we move through the conference process. With that, I yield the floor and await the comments of my friend and ranking member, Senator Udall.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we are working through the remaining issues as they relate to the various appropriations bills before us, I wanted to take just a few moments this afternoon to speak about a friend of mine, a friend of Alaska's, a gentleman, and a leader, Alaska's LTG Michael H. Shields, who is retiring from the U.S. Army after 35 years of service. I thank Mike on behalf of my Senate colleagues and the people of Alaska for his outstanding service as he retires from Active Duty. Mike received his commission through the Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps at Norwich University in 1983. Like so many of Alaska's best and finest citizens, we kind of adopted him. He came to Alaska to serve. He came to love our State, and we just loved him right back. I first came to know Mike as Colonel Shields when he was commanding the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team--known as the Arctic Wolves--at Fort Wainwright, AK, just outside of Fairbanks. He led the brigade during the height of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was a very difficult command, probably one of the more difficult commands any colonel could imagine. The Arctic Wolves had executed their planned 2005 to 2006 deployment in northern Iraq. They had done an exceptional job, and they were ready to come home. They had been there for a full deployment. The plans were laid. The families had all been told. This very successful, yearlong deployment was coming to an end during the early summer of 2006. Again, there was a great deal of excitement about the end of that deployment. The problem, though, was that it was not coming to an end. The unit had performed very well in northern Iraq, and the Pentagon basically said: We need more help. We need you to help out in the vicinity around Baghdad. As it is with the military, the Pentagon didn't exactly ask the soldiers if they wanted to extend their deployment; they told the soldiers that the deployment was going to be extended. That is not unusual. This is the military. You go where you are told to go and when you are told to go. Unfortunately, this message was delivered in a messy and very chaotic way. It was very sudden, and it was without warning to their families. Some of the elements of the 172nd had already returned to Fort Wainwright, and ultimately they had to redeploy. They had to go back to Iraq. Other elements were actually in the air on the way home when their planes were turned around. I was in Fairbanks, at Fort Wainwright, at the time, and I can recall going through the gates, and there were areas where there were chain link fences. Kids had taken papier-mache and stuffed it in the chain link to spell out the words ``Welcome Home Daddy'' and hearts. The messages of love and excitement about their dad or their husband coming home were everywhere. But when the plug is pulled and they are told they are not going to be coming home, it is extraordinarily disappointing not only for those who have been deployed for this yearlong period but also for those families who are literally waiting, who knew exactly what they were going to be wearing when their dad stepped off that airplane, to be told ``He is not coming home now, and we don't know when he is coming home.'' It was very difficult when these families were told to wait. The families were angry. They were upset. They were very angry. They felt they had been misled and with good cause. Fortunately, the Army and the Fairbanks community just kind of stepped up to wrap their arms around the families during this now- extended deployment, and things calmed down. These are military families. They are tough. They have gone through these separations, and as hard as that had been, they had kind of set their heads right and said: No. We are going to get through this. That may have been the easy part. Mike, on the other hand, our colonel, had to deal with these problems from a distance. Baghdad is 5,620 miles and 11 time zones away from Fairbanks. So not only did Mike have to manage the challenges of the battlefield in Iraq but also the challenges of maintaining troop morale and focus across all of this time and distance. Part of the problem--and making matters worse--was that nobody really knew how long this extension would be. When you think about all that goes on in a tense situation like that, only the most outstanding of leaders can really pull something like this off, and Mike proved himself to be the best of the best. He reminded his troops, they needed to stick together in order to survive. He said: ``The strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack.'' That is the motto of the Arctic Wolves. Then-Colonel Shields went on to say: It means no wolf pack is stronger than its individual hunter, and no hunter is more important than the pack. Individually, we accomplish little. As a team, we accomplish much. The troops endured what turned out to be a 4-month extension on top of their initial deployment. The unit returned home by Christmas. The American Forces Press Service reported on December 15 of 2006 that the Arctic Wolves earned distinction in Iraq as they took on what then-Army Secretary Francis Harvey called ``the toughest challenge of any unit in Iraq.'' Again, there are many reasons to be very proud of all they have done under the command of Colonel Shields. Mike moved on to other challenges. He was twice promoted following that deployment. He then went back to Alaska. I was thrilled when Mike returned as a major general to command U.S. Army Alaska, which was headquartered at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage. He returned to Alaska in 2013 to command U.S. Army Alaska. He branded U.S. Army Alaska as the Army's experts in high-altitude, cold-weather ground operations. One of our really great--I mean truly great--training assets is the Northern Warfare Training Center in Black Rapids, AK. Mike ensured that his troops were trained at Black Rapids for missions that would demand their unique skill sets. He then opened Black Rapids to the allied troops who required those skills. He was really an effective evangelist for the Army's cold-weather mission--a mission of increasing importance as the Arctic has become more strategic. He has told me numerous times of some of the challenges of training some of these young soldiers how to ski in extremely cold conditions with very interesting Army-issued skis and equipment. One of these days, he will challenge me to a race, but I don't know. In knowing the skills of General Shields, I think I am going to pass on that. Prior to departing Alaska for his next assignment in 2015, Mike was required to host visiting Army officials who were studying a major downsizing that potentially involved the consolidation of brigades. Both the 172nd, which was then rebranded the 1st of the 25th, and the Airborne Brigade at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson were potentially on the chopping block. Big Army was looking at a variety of scenarios across its enterprise, and that brought evaluation teams to both Anchorage and Fairbanks. He showed the evaluation teams our remarkable training assets. Even more importantly, he prepared the teams for what they would hear at the community meetings. What they heard was that Alaska was a very special place for our military families and that Alaska communities went above and beyond what was expected in their support of military communities. Whatever else one may say about Alaska's military value, it is a great place for military families. The evaluation teams left with favorable impressions of what Alaska had to offer. The Stryker Brigade survived this process. Yes, we fought to retain our Airborne Brigade at JBER, but Mike laid very solid groundwork for our ultimate success, and we are very grateful to him for his support of the Alaska mission. Throughout, Mike distinguished himself through exceptionally meritorious service and achievement in a multitude of assignments of increasing responsibility, culminating as the Director of the Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Organization, and he has proven to be an exceptional and inspiring leader there. His selfless service, dedication to duty, and unyielding devotion to soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coalition partners are in keeping with the finest traditions of military service. The distinctive accomplishments of Lieutenant General Shields bring great credit upon himself, the U.S. Army, and the Department of Defense. It is with great pride that I reflect upon his outstanding career before the U.S. Senate today. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to reluctantly reserve the right to object. I will object to amendment No. 3424, which would permanently authorize the revenue collection and deposit functions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I thank my colleague from North Carolina, and I thank my colleague from Colorado. I, too, know, hear, and understand the passion that they have expressed not only at this time but that they have expressed for quite some time in their support for this important conservation program. It is something about which we, as Americans, have much to be proud. I have expressed some of my concerns about how, historically, certain aspects of the Land and Water Conservation Fund have shifted from there being less for stateside acquisition and more for Federal acquisition. I would like to see some of that reallocated and rebalanced. In concept, what we have designed with the LWCF is something that has brought strong and good benefit to our States and, really, to conservation efforts throughout the country. When the Senators speak about the merits of the program, I find nothing that I can disagree with in terms of the benefits that we see. Why I rise to express my objection in advancing the amendment is that the issue they have raised is to permanently seek to authorize this program. The collection and deposit provisions within LWCF are currently authorized, and, as they have pointed out, they are authorized through September 30 of this year. The measure they bring before us would be to permanently authorize those expiring provisions. It is, in its very nature, authorizing on an appropriations bill. We have an annual spending bill that basically directs that spending for 1 year. This measure would be significant in the extent of its authorization. We have sought to advance the 12 appropriations bills through to the floor in a manner that we have not seen in years. I mentioned, when we started this debate on Monday night, that we haven't had an Interior appropriations bill on the Senate floor since 2010. That is not the Senators' fault. That is a failure of our process. One can assign a lot of blame, and one can point a lot of fingers. The fact of the matter is that we had moved from that responsibility of ``What are the annual spending priorities that the appropriating committees are tasked to do every year?'' to, effectively, bringing in a lot of the authorizing that the authorizing committees themselves needed to do, and it was not working. We stalled ourselves out. We had big omnibus bills that nobody liked. So we are trying to get back to a process that we can stand behind, that really defines what the appropriations process is designed to do. At the direction of Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy, we have agreed to really try to come together to work to restore what we fondly refer to as ``regular order'' and what some don't even know to be regular order because they have never really experienced it. Because we made that commitment, we were actually able to move an Interior Appropriations Subcommittee bill through the full committee by 31 to 0--unanimous. I don't know if there has ever been a unanimous vote on an Interior appropriations bill out of the subcommittee, much less being able to bring it to the floor. So much of this objection is due to the fact that the Senator's amendment would seek to permanently authorize on an appropriation's 1- year annual spending bill. I think it is also important to point out to colleagues that while the current authorization does extend through September 30, the authority to collect and deposit revenues in the funds is what expires on September 30. The ability and the authority to appropriate money continues indefinitely. For those who may be concerned that if we fail to authorize this before September 30 the sky is going to fall on the LWCF and that all the good that is in the works will stop, that is not accurate. Within this year's spending bill, we have authorized the LWCF to the 2018 level of $425 million. Within this amount, the stateside assistance programs are about 50 percent of the funding. There was $124 million in 2015 for NPS stateside and also additional funding for the American Battlefield Protection Program--an increase this year to the highest level ever within this account. I want to make sure that my colleagues do know that my commitment here and the commitment of many in this body is to work with our colleagues--to work with the Senator from North Carolina, to work with the Senator from Colorado, and with the many others who care deeply and rightly about the future of the Land and Water Conservation Fund--to ensure that it is able to continue the good work that it does. I remind my friends that it was just about a year and a half ago when we moved an energy bill out of the authorizing committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Included as part of that measure was a permanent authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is something that the Senator from Colorado had worked on with us, and Senator Cantwell, the ranking member on the committee, made sure that it was a priority. Now, that measure has not seen floor time this year. We were able to move it out in the last Congress. We were able to move that bill out by 85 to 12. When the Senator from North Carolina says that there is good support for the LWCF within this body, we have demonstrated it. We have demonstrated it through votes on the floor, and we have demonstrated it through the support in the authorizing committee. I do think there is a path forward, but I ask my colleagues to honor the commitment we have made to try to advance our appropriations bills in an order that respects the authority that we have as appropriators, which is to appropriate these dollars to the designated priorities and to stand down when it comes to authorizing on these appropriating bills. The Senators have my commitment, most certainly, to continue to work on a positive path forward--a path that is not months in delay. I absolutely believe that the Senator from North Carolina is very serious in his commitment and his resolve that we will see this issue before us on every vehicle out there. It is in my best interest--I think it is in our best interests--to figure out how we are able to come to an agreement to support a program that most of us can get behind, to do so in a manner that allows us to do our legislative business, and to do so with the level of comity and civility that this process demands. With that, again, I reluctantly and respectfully object.