Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business being conducted, on the following dates and times, and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until the next pro forma session: Friday, July 15, 11:30 a.m.; Tuesday, July 19, 1 p.m.; Friday, July 22, 1 p.m.; Tuesday, July 26, 10 a.m.; Friday, July 29, 10 a.m.; Tuesday, August 2, 10 a.m.; Friday, August 5, 7:45 a.m.; Tuesday, August 9, 12:55 p.m.; Friday, August 12, 8 a.m.; Tuesday, August 16, 9 a.m.; Friday, August 19, 3 p.m.; Tuesday, August 23, 4 p.m.; Friday, August 26, 10 a.m.; Tuesday, August 30, 9 a.m.; and Friday, September 2, 10 a.m. I further ask that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, September 2, it next convene at 3 p.m., Tuesday, September 6; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. I ask that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2577; finally, that the pending cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, September 6.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 521.

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 previous order.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5588, which was received from the House.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alexandra Bratton, an intern on the Energy Committee, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session of the Senate.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, there is a great deal of discussion this week on very difficult and hard issues. The comments of the Senator from California, which were preceded by the comments of our colleague from South Carolina, remind us that as lawmakers, as policymakers, our jobs are indeed difficult, as we do try to make good on that pledge for a more perfect union because we are clearly not there today. I am on the floor to speak to another type of killer that we face in this country, and that is the killer that comes with drugs, substance abuse, illegal drugs, opioids, heroin--this insidious scourge that has afflicted us as a nation. We are fortunate in that we have an opportunity--hopefully soon--to be voting for the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, CARA. I thank all of my colleagues who have been involved in this effort, very aggressively pushing this bill. Senator Portman from Ohio, Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire are among the many who have stepped forward to really shine a light on an area where we know that we need to work to develop a comprehensive solution, a community-focused solution to so much of what we are dealing with. The CARA act touches on all areas of this issue, from education to awareness, from access to treatment to preventing and treating overdose, from families to veterans to infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome, and even teens who may suffer a sports injury. Opioid and heroin addiction is a serious threat to our Nation's prosperity, and the legislative initiative that we have in front of us is one way to fight back. The rates of opioid abuse have skyrocketed. Drug overdose-related deaths have more than quadrupled since 1999. When an addict can no longer afford to get access to opioids, we find, unfortunately, that they oftentimes turn to heroin, a cheaper alternative with similar effects. The rates of heroin overdose have tripled between 2010 and 2014. In my State of Alaska, we like to think that sometimes we are far enough away geographically that we are isolated or insulated from some of what happens in the lower 48. But in fact we have seen instances of heroin use, opioid abuse, that have resulted in statistics that are shattering. Efforts to prevent those deaths by overdose have resulted in many States, like the State of Alaska, passing legislation which has removed the liability for a family member to administer the lifesaving drug naloxone. CARA does this, as well, through grants that improve access to medically assisted treatment, opening access treatment to overdose treatment, and it provides for first responder training. Over the course of these many months, there have been so many personal horror stories about the impact of opioid and heroin addiction in our respective States. We have witnessed the sense of urgency and desperation as we hear those stories from families who are truly desperately seeking help. Too often those families face a multitude of different challenges from treatment centers that are at capacity, very expensive private options--if you can find them--that put families in a financial bind. In so many cases, there is just no option. In Alaska our options are extraordinarily limited, so what happens is that you have to send your loved one outside of the State to find treatment if you can find it. There are so many of our families that simply lack the tools or the resources to help those they love who are suffering from substance abuse. They don't have the resources, and they really don't know where to turn. They don't even know whom to talk to. Addiction to opioids and heroin does not just harm the individual; it breaks the community. It leaves these communities with a sense of hopelessness amongst the loss. But despite the anguish that we know that addiction brings, I actually have been very inspired by several of the communities in my State that have really come together to fight back and to deal with the levels of addiction that they see in their communities and say: No, we are going to be engaged; we are going to come together to make a difference. In 2014, the community of Juneau lost seven young people--all in their early twenties--to drug overdoses. After they lost their loved ones, what happened was that these families just kind of closed up. It was very difficult, extraordinarily hard, to be able to talk about what had happened because, quite honestly, of the stigma that is attached to drug abuse. By 2015, a year later, that community came together and said: Enough. Our silence is not going to help anyone. So they came together to help support families. They formed a group that provides support, educational tools, and community outreach. This group, which is called Stop Heroin, Start Talking, works proactively with Alaska's young people, goes into the classrooms to talk with the kids early on about drug abuse, and focuses on making kids active participants in the discussion, instead of just kind of preaching the talk to them. In the Matanuska Valley, another group called Fiend 2 Clean runs a Facebook page and reaches out to at-risk teens in the community. They also run a peer-run support system that really empowers these young people by reminding them: Look, you are not alone in this. We are here as a resource, we are here to talk to, and we are here with you. Fiend 2 Clean works with another organization called MyHouse to empower young people and really support them as they are developing job skills, building self-worth, and understanding their role in the community. These peer-focused programs make the difference. They really help make the difference in the day-to-day lives of these young people, their families, and their communities. More importantly, these efforts highlight the importance of making sure that all members of the community are involved in addressing addiction. CARA acknowledges that any successful efforts at combating opioid and heroin addiction must focus on building community-centered and culturally inclusive methods that engage everyone who may be impacted by drug abuse. The grants within CARA will give States and local communities the funding, as well as the tools they need, to build these sorts of relationships and work toward not just treating but really preventing that abuse up front. We have seen rapid rates of prescribing opioids for pain, largely due to a lack of consensus on uniformity or prescribing opioids. While many State legislative bodies in the Department of Health and Human Services have already begun to do their part in addressing prescribing guidelines and establishing prescription drug-monitoring programs, CARA takes this one step further. The task force on pain management will provide more information about pain management practices by supporting evidence-based practices as they examine the trends of opioid prescription nationwide. CARA also offers support for our Nation's veterans by improving opioid prescribing safety measures within the VA system through education and training on pain management for our providers. I think we have all heard far too many stories of concerns from our veterans or from their families where, in an effort to get a vet through the system and with not enough providers or with a backlog, the easiest thing to do is just to provide a prescription for pain medication rather than really trying to work to rebuild that body. In addition, there are provisions to improve patient advocacy, support the integration of care, and enable multiple treatment options--depending on that particular veteran's needs--really moving away from this rush to prescribe opioid medications. CARA provides the support and treatment needed for postpartum mothers and infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome and establishes a pilot program meant to enhance funding flexibility so that States can support the services that will properly benefit women and their children. CARA will also improve the reporting and understanding of addiction related to youth sports injuries. I think we recognize that kids are out playing soccer or basketball, doing things, and they get hurt. Those providers who are treating them need to be included in the discussion of how to treat sports-related youth injuries. Kids shouldn't just be given highly addictive medications, opening them up to possibly future addiction. Again, let's look at comprehensive pain management care that is focused on different treatment options. The families, friends, and communities that are working together to address opioid addiction need to know that they are not alone and that the situations they face are not hopeless. We can provide that hope. We can provide the tools needed to build up these communities so they can really come together to fight back against the addiction that we see. I think that by moving forward and passing CARA, we take the steps to do this. This legislation takes into consideration the diversity and the magnitude of the opioid epidemic and works to address this issue head- on through improved research, pain management practices, community- focused programs, and opening up the dialogue about drug addiction because we know that the more we allow ourselves to talk openly and honestly about this issue, the more that stigma fades. CARA is an encouraging first step. We all know there is much more work to be done, and I certainly remain dedicated to the fight against substance abuse now and well into the future. With that, I yield the floor. (At the request of Mr. Lankford, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record).

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in just a matter of minutes this afternoon, we will proceed to a motion to go to a formal conference on S. 2012, which is the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016. There is no doubt in my mind that we should agree to go to conference with the House on this broad bipartisan measure. I want to begin my remarks with a reminder of both the process that we followed to reach this point and the many, many good provisions that the process has allowed the Senate to include within our Energy bill. From the very beginning, we have committed to the regular order, committee-oriented process. I want to acknowledge the strong working relationship with my friend and colleague on the committee, the ranking member, Senator Cantwell from Washington. We set out working this together. We set out with a view in mind that we needed to update our country's energy laws. In order to get a good product, we were going to have to work cooperatively and collaboratively and in an open, transparent, and inclusive process. That is what we did. That has been a goal that was worth working toward, and I think the effort that we made as a chair and as a ranking member brought in support from both sides of the aisle and allowed us to come to this place today. Our Energy Policy Modernization Act is the result of listening sessions, legislative hearings, bipartisan negotiations, a multiday markup held last July, and a multimonth floor process earlier this year. That process concluded with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, as 85 Senators voted in favor of the first major Energy bill to pass this Chamber in nearly a decade. After we passed our bill, it went over to the House. They responded with a series of measures that had already passed their Chamber. While what they sent back has been criticized by some, I certainly think the House was restrained in its process. They could have passed a highly partisan package that would have been more difficult to reconcile with our bill, but I think they developed a more measured response and chose by voice vote to ask the Senate to conference with them. Now it is our turn. The very last procedural step is for the Senate to vote to proceed to go to a formal conference. After waiting more than a month--actually, I think we are probably at about 6 weeks now--we will have that vote in the next 10 minutes or so. In looking at all the significant provisions included within our bill, all of which are at stake today, I think this should be a very easy choice for all of us to make. Our bill includes priorities from 80 different Members of the Senate, including 42 members of the Democratic caucus. When we vote to go to conference, it is no exaggeration to say that at least 80 of us within this body will be voting on whether or not to advance our own ideas and our own policy suggestions. Let me give you a couple of examples. Our bill contains a bipartisan provision from Senators Barrasso and Heinrich, as well as 16 others that would streamline the LNG export approval process. The bill contains an entire title on energy efficiency that was written by Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen, as well as 13 other Members. The resources title that I developed with the ranking member is a balanced package of some 30 lands and water bills, including a bipartisan sportsmen's provision that the Senate adopted by a vote of 97 to 0. We made innovation a key priority to promote the developing of promising technologies. We have Senators Alexander, Peters, Capito, Manchin, Wyden, and many others to thank for that. We also focused on grid modernization, cyber security, the National Park Centennial, and conservation policies. These are all bipartisan efforts. All of those are a part of this bill. Now we have to vote to determine whether we will keep going in the last stretch of this legislative process or whether the Senate says: All that work that you did--we are not going to move forward with it. I don't think that is a good option, and I hope it is an option this Chamber will reject. My very strong preference is that we keep going. I think we should agree to conference with the House of Representatives because I know the conference process can produce a worthy bill that becomes law. I think it is fair to say that it will not include everything that is on the table right now, but anyone who has looked at what each Chamber has passed knows there is plenty out there that we can agree on. I have a few assurances from Members who may be a little bit hesitant to move forward this afternoon. First, I will reiterate my personal commitment to a final bill that can pass both Chambers and be signed into law by the President. That doesn't mean we are going to unilaterally disarm ourselves in conference negotiations, but my objective here is to deliver a law. That means it can't be the House product necessarily or the Senate product necessarily. It has to be something the Chambers can both agree on and the President can sign into law. I intend to lead the conference committee the way I led the Senate process--by looking for common ground, by being open, by being fair and inclusive, and by seeking consensus over partisan division. You don't have to take just my word for it. A couple of weeks ago, the two House chairmen who will be most heavily involved in the Energy bill conference also released a joint statement that reinforces how we intend to proceed. Here is what the House Energy and Commerce chair, Fred Upton, as well as the House Natural Resources chairman, Rob Bishop, said on June 20: At the end of the day, our goal is to get something to the President that he will sign into law. From our perspective, a bill that the President will veto is a waste of time and effort and casts aside the hard work we've put in up to this point. We remain committed to working in a bicameral, bipartisan manner and remain hopeful that we can set aside our differences and move ahead with a formal conference between the two chambers. In addition to my approach and the approach the two House chairmen have embraced, there are institutional protections that will help ensure that this process stays on track. If Members are part of the conference committee and decide at the end they don't want to sign the conference report, then they don't have to sign it. As we have seen in recent days, conference reports require 60 votes to end debate on them, meaning our bill will need to remain bipartisan in order to pass. To me, the best argument for going to conference on an energy bill is still the one we started with; that is, it is way past time. It has been almost a decade now. The last time Congress passed a major energy bill was December of 2007. With almost a decade's worth of changes in technologies and markets taking place since then, our policies have simply become outdated. There is a whole list of organizations and individuals that have urged us as a Chamber to get moving with a conference, whether it is the Alliance to Save Energy, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, the American Chemistry Council, the chamber of commerce. They go and on. There is an urgent need to update and reform our Nation's energy policies. We are overdue. Our policies are deficient. We have advanced many, many good ideas, but we need to get this over the finish line. That is exactly what going to conference will allow us to do. The Energy Policy Modernization Act gives us a chance to do all of that. We have a chance now to take that next step forward on this broad bipartisan bill--keep it going, proceed to conference, allow ourselves to write a good final bill that we can then send to the President's desk. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are on the floor this afternoon with the issue of GMO foods--genetically modified organisms--before us. I don't want to talk about GMO foods in that space; I want to talk about a more specific genetically engineered species. I would like to speak this afternoon about genetically engineered salmon. I think it is important to acknowledge that this is separate from the larger GMO debate we have been engaged in on the floor. Genetically engineered animals are not crops. They are not something that grows in a field and stays stationary. A genetically engineered salmon is something that swims. It moves around. It is something entirely new. It is a new species--a new species designed specifically for human consumption. This is the first time the FDA has ever signed off on a genetically engineered new species designed for human consumption--the first time. I happen to think the FDA signoff was wrong, and I am going to continue to object to that because this species that potentially will be introduced into our markets, into our homes, and quite possibly into our ecosystems, contrary to what any environmental assessment may claim, is new. This is unprecedented. When we talk about a genetically engineered salmon--we have dubbed it a Frankenfish in Alaska because it is splicing DNA from one animal, an ocean pout, with DNA from another fish, a farmed fish, and inserting that into a Chinook salmon. We are doing a little bit of a science experiment here that concerns many of us. Having grown up in the State of Alaska, I know fish. I know the significance of a strong, healthy fishery. It is our No. 1 employer throughout the State of Alaska. Not only do we look to the strength of our fisheries for strong economies and good jobs, it is critical and it is integral to those who live a subsistence lifestyle. It is so much a part of who we are as Alaskans. Alaskans identify themselves with their salmon. Right now, people in Alaska are not necessarily talking about what is going on here in Washington, DC. They are wondering when the next run of Pinks is coming in. They are wondering what is happening on the Yukon and the Kuskokwim with the runs up there. When is the red run going to come in in full tilt? When is the dip netting going to be starting? It is all about our fish. We have been assured that if these genetically engineered salmon should be allowed out onto the market, that if this production moves forward, you don't need to worry, Alaska, about any escapement because we are going to make sure these don't get loose. Nice promise, but we know in this State that fish can get out of the pens. They escape from hatcheries. They can be accidentally released from where fish are grown. We take very seriously the issues that present themselves with the introduction of a new species that has the potential to wreak havoc, to do harm to our wild natural stocks. Again, whether it is escapement or the promise of ``Don't worry, these fish are going to be sterile; you are not ever going to have to worry about them interbreeding, breeding with your wild stocks. You are going to be safe, Alaska. You are going to be OK, Alaska,'' the folks I represent back home look at this and say ``No, we don't believe we have the assurances. We don't believe we have the certainty. We don't believe we have the standards that are necessary to provide for the protection of our wild stocks.'' So I have made clear throughout the larger debate on GMOs that I have opposed this bill because contained within this broader debate of GMOs--we do nothing to make it clear that if genetically engineered salmon is to go forward as the FDA has said that it will, there needs to be clear and unequivocal labeling of this GE salmon. Contained within this broader bill, we do not have the clear requirement for labeling of GE salmon, while also preempting Alaska's labeling law. What we have been told is ``Don't worry, if these genetically engineered salmon are out on the market, those who are marketing these salmon can voluntarily label them.'' Let me ask you, who do you think is really going to voluntarily place a label on something that says ``This is not the real thing. This is not your wild Alaska salmon; this is a genetically engineered species''? The reality is, we will not see the labeling that I as an Alaskan who is putting fish on the dinner table for my family would require and would want. We have been trying to work through this with the chairman and ranking member of the committee, trying to provide for what we believe are very sensible, reasonable fixes, and yet we are at a place where those accommodations have simply not been made. Let me assure you that Alaskans are very unified on this issue. We will not accept GE salmon or this Frankenfish being sold to us without clear labeling. Again, I for one am not going to feed my boys this fish. I use that term lightly because I am looking at it and this is not even like a fish. You are taking DNA from an ocean pout. What is an ocean pout? It is an eel. I usually am here with a big picture of an ugly eel. I figured you might be tired of looking at that picture by now, but apparently it is not getting through to people. When we talk about Frankenfish, this is no joke to Alaskans. It poses a serious threat to the livelihoods of our fishermen, and that is not something that I am willing to take a risk on, that I am willing to take a gamble on. Our fisheries in the State of Alaska are world-renowned for their high quality and their sustainability. The Alaska seafood industry supports more than 63,000 direct jobs and contributes over $4.6 billion to our State's economy. Nearly one in seven Alaskans is employed in our commercial seafood industry. It is a major part of the seafood economy. Commercial fishermen around the State harvested more than 265 million salmon this past year, including the wild Chinook salmon, Sockeye, Coho, Chums, and Pinks. It is all coming on right here, right now. I was in Naknek on Friday. Everyone is waiting for the Sockeye to hit. It is an incredibly important part of our State's economy, but it is more than just the economic benefit--the dollars that come to our State, the jobs it has created--it is the good, healthy stuff. Wild Alaska salmon has tremendous health benefits. It is a lean protein source of omega-3, B-6, B-12, niacin. It is good stuff. It is naturally good stuff. It is so good that there are over 1.5 million people who wrote in to the FDA and said: We oppose this genetically engineered salmon. They weighed in. What did the FDA do? They basically went the other way. They weren't listening. Many of the grocery stores we frequent have said: You know what, if you are going to allow this out here, we are not going to sell this in our stores. They want to know that there is going to be a label on it. They want to know that they can tell their customers ``This is wild Alaska sustainable, the real thing; and this is not.'' A voluntary label does not cut it. Safeway, Kroger, Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, and Target all announced they are not going to sell it. Despite this immense opposition, in November of last year, the FDA approved AquaBounty Technologies' application for its GE AquAdvantage salmon. I put ``salmon'' or ``fish'' in quotation marks because what we are doing is we are taking a transgenic Atlantic salmon egg, which has genes from this ocean pout, this eel, and combining it with the genes of a Chinook. The egg is meant to produce a fish that grows to full size in half the time as a normal Atlantic salmon. Again, they are ramping this up on steroids, if you will, to cause it to grow twice as fast. Under the FDA application, these eggs will be produced in Canada, so it is not as though we are getting any American jobs there, and then the smolt--although I don't even really want to use the term ``smolt'' because only part of this fish is real salmon--they are then going to ship this to Panama, where they will be raised in pens. Again, there are no U.S. jobs there. The FDA made no mandatory labeling requirement; instead, they made it voluntary. This bill we have in front of us, the larger GMO bill, does not create a clear labeling mandate, either, and that is the concern I have. That is why I fought to secure mandatory labeling requirements both before the approval of AquaBounty's application and since its approval. We have been making good headway on this issue over the time I have been here in Washington, but unfortunately the bill we have in front of us today will wipe out that work instead of using the legislative tools we have at our disposal to effectively and precisely amend this legislation in order to address the issue of GE salmon. I have offered up an amendment. It has been sponsored by Senators Sullivan, Cantwell, Murray, and Merkley. What it would do is require the FDA to create a new market name for GE salmon in order to remedy this flaw in the current bill. In other words, give the certainty to the consumer. If you are shopping in your grocery store, you will know whether what you buy for your family is the real thing or a genetically engineered fish. The amendment is essentially the same language that was adopted by voice vote during the Agriculture appropriations markup earlier this year. It is substantially similar to language that was adopted by voice in each of the previous 2 years. We have had this before us. We have seen it. You have seen it. Yet it is not included right now. For 3 years running, the Appropriations Committee has approved the labeling of GE salmon without debate. I think this amendment shouldn't be very controversial, but for some reason it apparently is. Apparently it has caused all kinds of issues, and I do not see why. I have offered multiple sensible solutions over the course of several months while this bill was working its way through the process, and I am here today to again push for consideration of what I believe is truly sensible and truly reasonable. It has been incorporated and adopted before. It makes sense for a host of different reasons, and it certainly makes sense for the people of Alaska. I am here today, as we talk about the broader GMO debate, to make sure colleagues understand that my opposition here is to anything that would mistakenly allow genetically engineered salmon into anyone's homes mislabeled as salmon. I will continue to demand that the voices of Alaskans and those who care deeply about this are heard. With that, I see other colleagues have joined me on the floor. I thank the Presiding Officer for his attention to this matter, and I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments this afternoon to shed some light and speak about the issue of postpartum depression. As a physician himself, the Presiding Officer is aware of the reality many new, young mothers face when they deal with issues relating to postpartum depression, but I think what is perhaps unknown is the incidence of postpartum depression here in the United States. The fact is that one in seven mothers nationwide will suffer from postpartum depression. In my State of Alaska, the numbers are even more troubling. In Alaska, one in three new mothers will deal with the difficulty of postpartum depression. About a month ago--it has been a little bit more than that by now--I sat down with a local Anchorage reporter who was working on a series looking at the impacts of postpartum depression. I will just call it PPD. She put together a four-part televised series that focused on seven very strong, very passionate women from the Anchorage community who came forward to share their stories. It was an interesting interview because the reporter wanted to ask me about some legislation I have been involved with here in the Senate. But it gave me an opportunity to reflect back on the time when I was a new mother with a beautiful, handsome little boy and the responsibilities of being a mom literally overnight. Coming from a family of six, you figure you know how to deal with children, but until you walk out of that hospital and you have that responsibility, it is not something you come prepared for or with a guidebook for. It is kind of trial by error every day. I recalled the reality of the responsibilities I faced as a new mother. I recalled some of the angst and concern I had about whether I was doing things right. Here I was supposed to be happy and joyous and excited about this beautiful bundle of baby boy I had and instead I was tired and fatigued and stressed. I was stressed. Was I doing everything right? I wasn't sure. While I did not deal or suffer the anxiety that comes with postpartum depression, as a new mother filled with just my own level of concern, I did feel the symptoms that I think many women feel and share. Yet you don't want to talk about it because you are supposed to be excited and happy and not in a state that is described as anything less than joyful. So I think, unfortunately, many women don't share their concerns, don't express their feelings. Instead, they deal with it and sometimes deal with it in ways that can be tragic. So I have been inspired. I have been very encouraged by the stories I have shared with and heard from women and other advocates who are fighting to raise awareness of the issue of PPD. Today I wish to share the story of one woman who lost her daughter to postpartum depression. I met this woman shortly after I had filmed this interview. She works in Anchorage as well as Wasilla as a child and adolescent psychiatrist. She has been absolutely passionate about providing care and support to children and adolescents in an effort to reduce and prevent suicide. So this is her life's work. She began to advocate for PPD after her own daughter, Brittany, suffered and ultimately lost her life to PPD. Brittany was 25 years old. Brittany was a beautiful, passionate, lively, bright young woman. She was born close to here, in Fairfax, VA, in 1989. She excelled in school. She graduated with an International Baccalaureate degree at 16 from Mount Vernon High School. She loved animals. She dreamt of being a sports veterinarian one day. She continued to excel academically while taking preveterinarian courses through the University of Pittsburgh and later online through North Carolina State University. One of Brittany's big goals was to race in the Iditarod, one of my favorite sporting events--certainly my favorite Alaskan event. She owned, she raced, and she showed several Siberian huskies. She worked as a dog handler for Karen Ramstead. She was part of Karen's preparation for the Iditarod. So she was into her dogs. She was into really her life. But as much as she loved the Iditarod, as much as she loved what she was doing, she considered motherhood to be her greatest achievement. But, very sadly, she began to struggle with PPD after the complicated delivery that resulted in her newborn son spending a week in the neonatal intensive care unit. She dealt with some very powerful emotions, some very violent emotions. She sought treatment from her physicians for her PPD, but she was in a situation where her cries were unanswered because she was dealing with physicians who were unable or perhaps ill-equipped to help her. It was about the time of her son's first birthday when Brittany lost her battle with PPD. As sad and as tragic as that was for all in Brittany's family, it was another woman outside the family--another woman musher--who really moved forward in working for and advocating for Brittany. It was DeeDee Janrowe who raced the Iditarod in Brittany's honor. She took forward that cause, that crusade. Again, Brittany was a bright, motivated, loving young woman who was struck down early in life because she didn't have access to the treatment she needed. Unfortunately, her story is just one of many. PPD impacts women in every race, every income, and all backgrounds. All too often, women who have PPD feel helpless. They feel overwhelmed. They are certainly confused. They feel like they haven't done something right. They haven't properly bonded with their baby or they are ill-prepared, ill-equipped for parenthood. They just can't understand or figure out what may have gone wrong. The assumption out there is you have this beautiful baby, you should be joyful; why aren't you? And so because that expectation is different than what you are feeling, there is a hesitation to bring it up. There is a hesitation to speak about it. Again, I will repeat our statistics. Across the country, one in seven mothers will suffer from PPD and in Alaska, one in three women, twice the national average. There are some nonprofit organizations that are seeking to raise awareness and to help women connect with treatment for PPD, but often they are located in the populous areas of the State, but think about my State, which is so extraordinarily rural, where most of our communities are not connected by roads. What about the women who are unable to receive a proper screening, diagnosis, or treatment early on? Raising awareness of this issue is something we are trying to do. That is why I have been supporting legislation like the Bringing Postpartum Depression Out of the Shadows Act. I wish to thank the occupant of the chair, Senator Cassidy, along with Senators Alexander, Murray, and Murphy, for including PPD in the Mental Health Reform Act. I cosponsored both pieces of legislation because I think we need to do more to ensure we are ensuring proper screening and treatment for PPD. I want to support the efforts to improve culturally competent programs that will help educate physicians, especially our primary care providers, on the proper detection and treatment. We recognize this will not only benefit the women who are suffering but also improve the health and the well-being of their children and their families as a whole. With so many moms across my State and across the Nation who are facing postpartum depression, I think it is important, it is worthwhile that we do what we can to raise the issue, raise the awareness, put it at the forefront, openly discuss it, educate, and help improve our understanding of this illness. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to raise this issue before the body today. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last week I had the opportunity to pay tribute to a gentleman by the name of Fred Becker. We knew him lovingly and affectionately as ``Bulldog.'' He was a veteran and a veterans activist. He passed away on June 11. This past Friday, Bulldog's remains were interred at Fort Richardson in Anchorage. He occupied a very special place in my heart, so it was important that I be there to attend those services. It was really quite a spectacle. Bulldog was a leader of several veterans motorcycle groups. So there were more than 100 of his fellow veterans--all on bikes--who accompanied the remains to the final resting place there at Fort Richardson Cemetery. But if that were not special enough, in and of itself, there were several hundred airmen and soldiers--some say 400--that were lined up once you went through the gates there on Fort Richardson. About every 10 feet, there was an airman or a soldier for almost 2 miles into where the ceremony was. These individuals were there to pay tribute to a man who every day--every day--worked to show respect to other veterans and worked to ensure that the service and the sacrifice of those veterans would never be forgotten. So at every ceremony--whether it was Veterans Day or Memorial Day or a salute to the military or to the change of command and at every retirement--Bulldog was there. So it was so inspiring to be there and to see the tribute paid to this amazing man. It was Col. Brian Bruckbauer, who is the commander of the 673rd Air Base Wing at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, who organized this extraordinary tribute, and I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to Colonel Bruckbauer, his fellow leaders at JBER, and the soldiers and airmen who came out on Friday afternoon. Celebrating Talkeetna's Centennial Mr. President, coming up this next week, on July 4, the historic community of Talkeetna, AK, which sits just at the base of Denali, will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its founding. Talkeetna sits at the confluence of three glacially fed rivers. Originally settled by the Dena'ina people, it was an important location for fishing and hunting. The name Talkeetna derives from a Dena'ina word which means ``river of plenty.'' The gold rush of 1896 brought prospectors to the area. In 1905, gold was discovered in the Yentna-Cache Creek mining district to the west of town. Sternwheeler riverboats traveling up the Susitna River docked at Talkeetna, establishing the town as a supply center for the local mining districts. Then came the Alaska Railroad. In 1914, President Wilson signed a law enabling the construction of the railroad from Seward to Fairbanks. Talkeetna was then designated as the district headquarters for railroad construction, increasing its population by about 400 people at the outset. Then, that grew to 1,000 people at the peak of construction. In December of 1916, the Talkeetna Post Office was opened, which really established it. By 1923, railroad construction was complete and the population of Talkeetna dropped to only a few dozen people. But the few dozen that stayed were determined to make a go of it. Talkeetna remained a mining supply hub. The railroad deposited a sufficient number of gold miners to support local mining supply businesses. Fast forward to the 1960s. In 1963, astronomers declared Talkeetna the best place in the United States to see the total solar eclipse. That brought about 2,000 people into town. The visitors then boarded the train to see what was then called ``Mt. McKinley.'' In 1964, a spur road was constructed connecting Talkeetna to the newly built Parks Highway, which is the artery connecting Anchorage and Fairbanks to Denali National Park. Suddenly, Talkeetna was open to road access. The State of Alaska then sold land for market value to those who wanted to settle in the area. Those who settled in Talkeetna found a steadily growing visitor industry awaiting them. Talkeetna has become a destination for mountaineers from around the world. Today, 1,100 to 1,250 people attempt to climb the mountain each year. The first stop for adventurers planning to climb is the National Park Service's Talkeetna ranger station. The ranger station is named for Walter Harper, who was an Athabascan Indian, and he was the first person to reach the summit of Denali--20,310 feet up. The second stop is one of the many air taxi services that call Talkeetna home for a ride up to the base camp. While the climbing season may be short--basically late April to early July--the visitor season continues through Labor Day. Talkeetna is a popular stop for cruise tour and independent visitors traveling the Parks Highway en route to Denali National Park. But Talkeetna is no ``glitter gulch,'' as we in Alaska sometimes say. It is a thriving year-round community numbering some 876 people, with an active arts community, its own public radio station, and a quirkiness that is perhaps unique to Talkeetna. There are probably not too many towns that can actually boast that their mayor is a cat--a cat. OK, Stubbs is the honorary mayor of Talkeetna. He is not really and truly the official mayor. He is the honorary mayor. He was elected back in 1997. Stubbs has had that position for all 19 years of his life. He is quite well-known and has quite the notoriety. Stubbs greets visitors at Nagley's Store. Nagley's was founded in 1921. It is one of Talkeetna's original businesses and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is part of a historic district that runs roughly 2 blocks by 3 blocks. Visitors who choose to spend this Independence Day in Talkeetna will be treated to a rich hometown experience amidst the splendor of one of Alaska's most picturesque and interesting places. I am told Talkeetna's centennial celebration will provide visitors an opportunity to enjoy the town as the locals do. I was hoping to make it up to Talkeetna. I am probably not going to be able to do so. But I might be able to make the run from Wasilla, AK, to attend the moose-dropping event at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. It is an annual tradition on the Fourth of July, where we take a collection of moose droppings, drop them, and bet on them. So we have an interesting mayor, and we have interesting festivals, but it is the heart of gold that comes from the people in this beautifully picturesque and, again, amazing place. It is a great honor to celebrate Talkeetna's Centennial today in the Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to shed some light on the impacts of postpartum depression among our Nation's mothers. Just a bit over a month ago, I sat down with a local Anchorage reporter as part of a series addressing the impacts of postpartum depression, PPD. As part of a four-part series, seven brave, strong, passionate women from the Anchorage community came forward and shared their stories. I joined those women in sharing my own account of the difficulties I faced as I transitioned into my new role as a mother. I have been inspired by these women and other advocates that fight so hard to help raise awareness of PPD, and I wanted to share the story of one woman who lost her daughter to PPD. I met this woman shortly after I filmed my interview. She works in Anchorage and Wasilla, AK, as a child and adolescent psychiatrist and has always been passionate about providing care and support to children and adolescents in an effort to reduce and prevent suicide. She began to advocate for PPD after her daughter, Brittany, suffered and ultimately lost her life to PPD. She was only 25 years old. Brittany was a bright, passionate, and lively young woman. She was born in Fairfax, VA in 1989. She excelled in school and graduated with an international baccalaureate degree at age 16 from Mount Vernon High School. Brittany loved animals and dreamt of becoming a sports veterinarian 1 day. She continued to excel academically while taking preveterinarian courses through the University of Pittsburg and later online through North Carolina State University. One of Brittany's main life goals was to race in one of my favorite Alaskan events, the Iditarod. She owned, raced, and showed several Siberian Huskies, but also worked as a dog handler for Karen Ramstead as part of Karen's preparation for the Iditarod. But above all else, Brittany considered motherhood to be her greatest achievement. Sadly, she began to struggle with PPD after a complicated delivery resulting with her newborn son spending a week in the neonatal intensive care unit. Brittany suffered from violent and powerful emotions and sought treatment from her physicians for PPD. Her cries for help went unanswered as her physicians were unable or were ill- equipped to help her. Around her son's first birthday Brittany lost her battle with PPD. Shortly thereafter, a successful Iditarod athlete, DeeDee Janrowe, raced the Iditarod in Brittany's honor. As I have said, Brittany was a bright, motivated, loving young woman who was stuck down early in her life because she did not have the access to the treatment she needed. Her story is one of many. PPD impacts women of every race, income, and background. All too often, women who have PPD feel helpless, overwhelmed, and confused. They may feel like they are not properly bonded with their babies or ill-equipped for parenthood and cannot understand what might have gone wrong. Often, we assume that with parenthood comes immediate joy, but in fact, one in seven mothers nationwide will suffer from PPD. In Alaska, our numbers are twice the national average at one in three. There are some nonprofit organization that seek to raise awareness and help women connect with treatment for PPD, but often, they are located in only the most populous parts of a State, but what about the rural communities? What about the women who are unable to receive a proper screening, diagnosis, or treatment early on? That is why I support legislation like the Bringing Postpartum Depression Out of the Shadows Act, and I want to thank Senators Alexander, Murray, Cassidy, and Murphy for including PPD in the Mental Health Reform Act. I have cosponsored both pieces of legislation because I believe we must do more to ensure the proper screening and treatment of PPD. I support efforts to improve culturally competent programs that will help educate physicians, especially primary care providers, on the proper detection and treatment of PPD. This will not only benefit the women suffering from PPD but improve the health and well-being of their children and their families as a whole. With so many mothers across Alaska and the Nation facing PPD, it is essential we put this issue at the forefront and openly discuss, educate, and improve our understanding of this illness. I stand here today in support of women all across the Nation facing PPD, and I will continue to advocate for the services they deserve.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my interns Aziza Shemet Pitcher, Margaret May, Rex Miller, Holly Taylor, Molly O'SCannell, Marissa Olson, David Courtright, Robin Spaulding, Will Pate, and Kevin Allen for the rest of the month, as well as the month of July.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am going to be getting on an airplane tomorrow morning to head home to join with Alaskans who are coming together to celebrate the life of a man I affectionately know as ``Bulldog.'' This is Frederick Charles Becker IV. I think that as Alaskans gather to celebrate the life of a truly extraordinary man who served his country so honorably, we will remember with great fondness a veteran who was passionate about his country, a veteran who was passionate about his State, and a veteran who truly had a love of life that he shared with so many of us. I know I was certainly honored to call him friend, and I believe that Senator Sullivan, who is presiding over the Senate this hour, shared that same affection for truly a great man. There is always a lot of speculation about someone's name. When you have a name like Bulldog, there are a lot of questions. How did he come to be named Bulldog? Was it because his family had a passion for raising and breeding and showing English bulldogs? I didn't even know that. Apparently, they had a lot of English bulldogs. But that is really not why he carries that nickname. He took the moniker of ``Bulldog'' because of his tenacity. Those of us who know him say, yes, of course, that is appropriate. Nobody knows this better than Bulldog's brothers at the Combat Veterans Motorcycle Association Chapter 43-1 and the Alaska Veterans Motorcycle Club, who will be out in force tomorrow to honor one of their own. I had an opportunity this afternoon to meet with a fellow veteran and member of the Alaska Veterans Motorcycle Club who is leaving tonight so that he can get to Anchorage tomorrow, where so many of those who loved Bulldog will be gathering to ride to Fort Richardson for this service. It will truly be a sight to be seen. Bulldog Becker was born in Petersburg, VA, on May 28, 1943. He married his wife Betty on January 12, 1963. He joined the Air Force and relocated to Dover, DE. He served three tours in Vietnam. Ultimately, he was transferred to Elmendorf Air Force Base just outside of Anchorage. Bulldog and Betty moved three kids, as well as three bulldogs and a cat. They all came up the Alaska Highway in a Dodge van. They were towing a trailer that had the infamous sign on the back that said ``Alaska or Bust.'' They were living the dream. Bulldog lived a life that was truly focused around his country. He retired from the military in 1981 as a master sergeant. He then transitioned to a civilian career in retail loss prevention, rising to the position of regional asset protection manager for Sears. If you had a chance to spend any time with Bulldog over these past many years, you know that as a veteran and as a patriot, Bulldog was not shy to talk about how he felt his fellow veterans were treated when they returned home from the Vietnam war. He was a bulldog in his approach, if you will. He was determined that no future veteran would suffer the same treatment. He was so thoroughly devoted to this principle. He was at every ceremony, every recognition. Any time there were opportunities to welcome brothers- and sisters-in-arms as they returned to our bases, as they returned to our community, Bulldog was always there. He was always there. Bulldog was instrumental in organizing the annual Byers Lake Memorial Day motorcycle run. I want to digress a moment from his life to talk about the significance of this event because it is, for me, probably one of the most powerful and meaningful Memorial Day tributes that I have ever been able to participate in, and I go or try to go every year. I missed this year. I say that with a heaviness because I always look forward to being with the Veterans Motorcycle Clubs. Every now and again, I would get the honor of riding on the bikes with them. Bulldog is there front and center every year; he is a participant. This Alaska State Veterans Memorial is located off the Parks Highway at Byers Lake. If you are driving the road between Anchorage and Fairbanks, you might not even notice it because it is 147 miles from Anchorage and it is 214 miles from Fairbanks. You are midway in between on the highway. It sits up on a hilltop in an extraordinarily picturesque spot. As you look out to the memorial itself, the way it is framed, when Denali is out, it is sitting front and center, spectacular as it possibly can be. It will take your breath away. The monument, tucked into the trees, gives you a sense of serenity, of peace, but also extraordinary pride in the men and women who served us there. I give you a little bit of a geography lesson to remind you that this is not an easy place to get to on a Memorial Day. It is in between the two big cities, the two anchors. To make the trip out there, as so many of our veterans do, is truly an opportunity to pay tribute in a way that is meaningful. This is more than just getting up, having a late breakfast, and going to the Memorial Day services on the Anchorage Park Strip or in downtown Fairbanks. This is a special place, led by special Alaskans, led by special veterans, and Bulldog was one of those. The recollection I will have moving forward is, whether it is a Memorial Day gathering at Byers Lake, whether it is the salute to the military, whether it is the Veterans Day ceremonies, whether it is the many parades, whether it is the Forgotten Soldiers ceremony, in my mind, Bulldog is always part of that picture, and he will always be part of that picture for me. As Bulldog joins Betty, his beloved wife of 51 years, in Heaven, he leaves a strong, multigenerational family legacy of children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I am honored to have known this distinguished Alaskan. I am proud to share his story with my Senate colleagues. I will take the love so many of us have for this man and treasured veteran to my grave because he truly is one of the greats. With that, I thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, George Voinovich served in this body as the Senator from Ohio from 1999 until 2010. Senator Voinovich was a friend of mine, and I think our colleagues would agree with me that he was among the most respected members of this body. He was respected for his thoughtfulness, for his humility, for his self-effacing nature. It is sometimes said that the Senate is composed of 100 prospective Presidents of the United States, each of whom is just waiting for the American people to recognize their unappreciated talents. That concept did not apply to George Voinovich. It is not that he was not well prepared to assume the highest office in the land; George Voinovich simply chose to make his contribution in a different way. George Voinovich was one of the most prepared people ever to serve in the Senate. He was responsible for the turnaround of the city of Cleveland; elected as a Republican mayor in a Democratic town. He served as Lieutenant Governor and Governor the State of Ohio. He was elected by his peers first to the role of president of the National League of Cities and subsequently to chair the National Governors Association. In the Senate, he contributed significantly to the work of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, and the Appropriations Committee. This was a ``workhorse'' not a ``show horse.'' For a politician, he was deliberately the ``unpolitician.'' An individual who built a reputation on his efforts and accomplishments and not on his press releases. Approachable and grassroots as they come, which is especially an admirable quality in one who represents a large State. It bears repeating: ``a self-effacing and humble man.'' George Voinovich was one of the most principled people ever to serve in this body. He was profoundly independent in his thinking. He was frugal in both his policy and in his personal lives. He was a family man--in fact, an individual prone to public displays of affection. Completely devoted to his wife, Janet, his children, and his grandchildren. He was a pillar of the Cleveland community, proud of his ethnic heritage and a role model for immigrants. George Voinovich was the children of immigrants, and his career demonstrates how far one can go in this great Nation through hard work and character. He was a profoundly ethical individual, chosen by his Senate colleagues to lead the Senate Ethics Committee. He epitomized the way the Senate should be. Senator Voinovich's loss is not only a loss for Ohio, but a loss to the Nation. For even in retirement, Senator Voinovich had much to contribute to the public discourse. Days before his death, he was out making speeches. He never slowed down. He was expected to serve as a delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention in his beloved Cleveland. So let me take this opportunity on behalf of the people of Alaska to thank Janet for sharing George with the Nation. I express condolences to the entire Voinovich family. The Voinovich family also includes Senator Voinovich's former staff members, some of whom are still part of our Senate family. I would like to personally express condolences to Tara Shaw, who served Senator Voinovich on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. After Senator Voinovich's retirement, Tara came to my office in the role of legislative director and currently serves as legislative director to the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi. Great Senators groom great staff members. And George Voinovich was one great Senator.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns from my office be granted the privilege of the floor for the month of June: Coreanne Bean, Emily Harland, Clara Baldwin, Kea Bekkendahl, Desiree Cleary, Xochitl Martinez, Teresa Wrobel, Karl Lundgren, Robin O'Donoghue, Bernie Franulovich, Andrea Witte, and Noam Levenson; and I also ask unanimous consent that Tyler Schroeber be granted the privilege of the floor for the balance of the day.

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, I move that the Senate disagree to the amendment of the House, agree to the request by the House for a conference, and authorize the Presiding Officer to appoint conferees. Cloture Motion Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague from North Dakota.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an amendment that I have filed to the National Defense Authorization Act. This is amendment No. 4222, and it addresses an issue of great interest to military families not only in my State, where we are proud to host a strong contingent of military that defend our Nation, but this is an issue that really stretches across the country What we propose in amendment No. 4222 is to strike section 604 of the NDAA, which represents a paradigm shift in the way the basic allowance for housing is paid to our Active-Duty members. The Department of Defense and our military families have long believed that BAH is part of a total compensation. Effectively, it is part of your paycheck. It is part of what you earn. It is something that you can count on based on where you are posted, what your rank is, and whether you have any dependents. We have seen the BAH be subject to arbitrary and somewhat unfair reductions in recent years. It has unfortunately become the bill payer for other priorities. BAH is regarded by the Defense Department as a component of a servicemember's total compensation. It is a compensation program. Section 604 turns the BAH into a reimbursement program. So instead of having BAH in your bank account to spend on living expenses as you deem fit, Section 604 essentially requires servicemembers to turn their receipts in to an accounting office and basically plead your entitlement to that reimbursement for the cost of your housing as well as utilities. I suppose alternatively you could take your entitlement and accept the risk that some audit or verification process will require you to pay something back, perhaps a lot back. Section 604 does not explain how this whole verification process will work. Believe me, when I had an opportunity to visit with military spouses at Fort Wainwright just last week about this, they asked me: How does this reimbursement work? How do I get these utilities statements in for reimbursement? Already there are not enough people to process the basic paperwork that goes on for reimbursement of other expenses like permanent change of station moves. Tell me how this is going to be a better system. Our military families are very familiar with deep bureaucracy and endure a fair amount of hassle to get what they are already entitled to. I heard loud and clear from these military spouses the concerns they had about a proposal. They are looking at this as a one-size-fits-all solution; perhaps it is not a well-formed solution and it could have extreme consequences for those who serve in highly rural places, like in Alaska. The BAH doesn't pay only for housing, it pays for the utilities. BAH pays for lights and heat, but keep in mind what it means to be in a very remote, very rural place. In places like Fairbanks, you are limited in terms of your options for energy, for power. Your costs are high. You could be looking at a home heating fuel bill on a monthly basis that could actually exceed the cost of your mortgage. Think about what that means. You may be in the enviable position of having found a home in a community that you think is affordable. The monthly rent is affordable, the mortgage might be affordable, but if it is an older house, if it is not fully weatherized, if you are on home heating fuel, you may be looking at a situation where you are paying more in utilities than for the cost of your housing. Another cost you might use your BAH to pay is snow removal. It is not an option to not have your snow removed, and if your spouse is deployed, you need a way to get out of a long driveway. Who is going to be paying for the snow removal? Oftentimes, BAH pays to pump out the septic system, which has to be done on a somewhat quarterly basis because there are so many homes that are not on water and sewer. By the way, when we talk about water, is the cost of hauling water recoverable under this new reimbursement program? When you are not on a water system, you have to get your water from somewhere. Some military families at Fort Wainwright are paying to have water hauled to their homes either by a truck or they go out to the community tap to fill up their tank, but there is a cost associated with that. These spouses are asking me: How is that going to be accommodated under the new BAH plan? Will this be considered part of these allowable reimbursements? This is all very troubling to me. It was certainly very troubling to the military families I spent time with. It is not like our military families don't have enough to worry about. One military spouse told me of the situation in her family. She is a licensed attorney in another State. She hasn't been able to get waived in to practice in the State of Alaska. Her husband is an E7 soldier and has been in for 19 years, so effectively two professionals. They have three children. She says she spends about $1,500 a month for food, formula, and diapers for the three small children. She pays $38,000 a year for childcare. Childcare in and around the Fort Wainwright area is very expensive, and she is not able to get reimbursement for childcare because she is not working. She is trying to get a job. But recognizing that they have all these other costs on top of it all, this military spouse--two professionals in the household, three children--tells me her family is WIC eligible. The stories I hear about our military families who are accessing our community food banks--our military families are worried. They are worried about what is happening at home, the financial issues they are faced with. This was one concern I heard specifically: If this is a reimbursement system and I have to submit receipts for expenses--expenses that may exceed the cost of housing, exceed the cost of a mortgage, and it takes a long while to get this reimbursement--what happens if I can't pay my bills on time? My job requires a security clearance? And that security clearance requires that your credit record be absolutely impeccable. How is all this going to work? There is so much stress, so much anxiety that I heard from these spouses as we were discussing these issues. When we think about what our military families are worried about, they are focused on the stress that comes with force structure reductions, frequent PCS moves, needing to understand the latest and greatest TRICARE complexity, figuring out whether the old retirement paradigm or the new retirement paradigm is better. And then they have this--yet another layer of complexity with section 604 that just adds to the stress and adds to the anxiety. We have to be honest with one another. We have to be honest with our military families. The bill before us does not afford those who serve a pay increase that is commensurate with the value of their service. Thankfully, we are working on a fix, and I greatly appreciate the leadership of Senator McCain and his willingness to work with so many of us on these issues that are a concern to our families. When we look at what is going on now with BAH, I think we are messing with a very significant component of total compensation. That is simply not an appropriate way to thank families who have already suffered through multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and now they have to contend with a host of uncertainties created by the rise of ISIL, the tensions on the Korean Peninsula, a resurgent Russia, and an ambitious China. This is not right for our military families. The Pentagon has issued a Statement of Administration Policy. They are quite clear about where they are on this. They believe section 604 is damaging to the force, and that is why they oppose section 604. It is burdensome to move from a compensation approach to a reimbursement approach. It is inefficient. It appears to completely eliminate the BAH increment presently paid to families with children. It penalizes dual military couples. It disproportionately impacts female servicemembers. Think about it. About 20 percent of women on Active Duty are in a dual military marriage, compared to about 3.8 percent of Active-Duty men. So women on Active Duty are effectively taking a harder hit. And if we think this is not going to have an impact on recruitment and retention--I think we are going to be looking at some second-order consequences with respect to that and also as it relates to administration of the GI bill education benefit. I mentioned the effective penalty on dual military couples. I know a dual-career military couple. I am very pleased to know that their military career has taken them to some pretty good places and the better news is that they have moved together. One spouse has been selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel 2 years below the zone, which is a very big deal. This week, his wife learned that she, too, has been selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel 1 year below the zone. So we can see that both of these individuals are very high performers, really rock stars when it comes to a competitive promotion environment. They are doing great, but they are looking at the impact section 604 will have on their specific situation as a dual military couple. They estimate that if their next assignment is here in the lower 48, they will lose about $20,000 from their compensation. If we are fortunate that they should both get assigned to Alaska on the next rotation, that hit to them will rise to $29,000--an almost $30,000 reduction in total compensation from what they as a military couple would receive under the current system. That is significant. They are exactly the kinds of people the private sector wants to recruit but our military wants to retain, and I am not the only person who appreciates this fact. When I was in Fort Wainwright, one dual military spouse said: Who I am married to should not affect my BAH entitlement. That summed it up in a pretty neat and tidy way. Over this past week since I have been back here, I have heard from senior military leaders and senior enlisted advisers to those leaders, all of one voice. They are saying that this brings down the morale in the volunteer force. I will relay to my colleagues the comments from one of the commanders in Fort Wainwright when I was there last week. He had been sitting in the back of the room listening to all of the military spouses weigh in and voice their concerns and their anxiety about what was going on. He said to me: This is a clear reminder of how morale affects the overall mission. I have been on assignment. I have been deployed to Afghanistan. I have broken down doors. I have been on patrol looking for IEDs. When you are on these missions, your head has to be 100 percent in the game. You can't be thinking about what is happening at home. You cannot be thinking about whether or not there are financial struggles that your spouse is dealing with. You cannot be distracted from where you are in the here and now. We are not just talking about ``quality of life'' issues; we are talking about ``matter of life and death'' issues. He said: If my head is not 100 percent in the game, then somebody's life potentially is on the line. It was a clear reminder to me of how morale affects the mission and how we need to ensure that our men and women whom we have tasked to take on the most difficult of tasks are able to focus on where they are right then. And making sure all is well at home is a responsibility we also have. There has been a lot of discussion about the BAH over the years. Some of us think that it is in need of reform or that perhaps right-sizing the BAH will mean more money for readiness and modernization. I certainly get that argument. I may not agree with all of that, but I do know there are some very hard choices that have to be made in a difficult budget environment. I respect the work the chairman has done, along with the ranking member, in trying to deal with all of that. But I do feel very certain about one thing: Those who believe that BAH should be reformed need to make that case openly and directly and transparently to our military families. I think putting a game-changing provision like section 604 in the NDAA without that consultation misses the mark. The changes we are considering in BAH would not be effective until 2018. We have some time here, and we can get this right. My amendment, which is a bipartisan amendment, simply says: Take a timeout. Let's take a step back. To those who think the BAH is in need of reform, make the case to military families if you choose, but let's not rush this through. This is not what we should be doing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from the Military Officers Association of America as well as the Air Force Sergeants Association in support of my amendment.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, there are 2 days every year when this Nation focuses special attention on those who served--Memorial Day and Veterans Day. I plan to approach this Memorial Day by expressing gratitude to those who have served and honoring the memory of those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom. When you serve in the military, supporting your buddy is everything. So as we honor the memory of those lost in action, we know they would want us also to care for their buddies who came home. Advances in military medicine since the Vietnam war have made it possible for many to survive the wounds of war that they would not have otherwise been able to do in earlier conflicts. But these veterans still do not return as they left, and many more return to the scourge of post-traumatic stress disorders. I will see a lot of veterans this Memorial Day weekend. I would like to be able to tell the veterans of Alaska that their Federal Government is doing right by them, but when it comes to the matter of health care, and particularly the failings we see with the Choice Program, I can't in good conscience tell them things are better in Alaska. It has been a while since I have been to the floor to speak in relatively bleak terms about the care our veterans receive in Alaska because for some while things had been improving. They had been improving for much of the last 8 years, but now it seems as if this pendulum is swinging the other way. When I came to the Senate 13 years ago, Alaska veterans who lived someplace other than the metropolitan area of Anchorage or Fairbanks or the Kenai Peninsula really didn't think about the VA health care. Those who lived in those three communities were able to gain their care at the local VA clinic, and it worked for them. But if they didn't live in a community where the VA was located and if they weren't eligible for beneficiary travel, the VA just didn't mean much to them. That was the status quo, and it really didn't show much sign of changing. Alaskans really began to challenge the status quo during the second gulf war. Operation Iraqi Freedom resulted in a large-scale deployment of Alaska National Guard members from throughout the State. At one point, 89 different Alaska communities were represented in the Middle East, and it was fully apparent that when these heroes returned home and were released from Active Duty, the VA was not prepared to meet their needs. When then-VA Secretary Nicholson visited Anchorage in 2006, he heard the message loud and clear from Alaska's veterans service organization, and that created a groundswell to turn the Alaska VA in a more veteran- centric direction. It wasn't easy. The familiar slogan that ``it doesn't matter who wins an election; the bureaucracy always wins'' was a way of life in the Alaska VA health care system, but we developed a pretty strong ally when Secretary Shinseki came on board. During his tenure as Secretary, we saw three significant changes from the status quo. The first thing that happened was that the VA began contracting with Alaska's tribal health care providers to care for both our Native and non-Native veterans who lived outside the reach of any VA facilities. If you are a veteran living in Bethel, it didn't make any difference if you were Native or non-Native--you could receive care through the tribal health care provider, and they were compensated by the VA at the same encounter rate the Indian Health Service paid them. The second thing we saw with Secretary Shinseki--I had commissioned an inspector general's inquiry into allegations that the VA was sending our Alaska vets to Seattle and other points even farther than Seattle for care that could be purchased from community providers in Alaska. There were situations where a veteran dealing with cancer and needing radiation or chemotherapy treatment would be sent to Seattle for a series of treatments when that same treatment could be provided in Anchorage or Fairbanks. Secretary Shinseki brought an end to that practice. Third, the VA hired a creative executive with deep experience in the Alaska health care market to lead the Alaska VA health care system. Even better, the VA senior leadership actually empowered her to do the right things for Alaskan veterans. So when that director began to see waiting lists forming for primary care and behavioral health services in Anchorage, she took the initiative and she enlisted non-VA providers to come in and work with them to solve the problems. We were in a pretty unique situation. We didn't suffer the wait list that veterans in the lower 48 saw because we had somebody who was at the helm, saw the problem, and said: We can be creative; we just need a little bit of flexibility so we can address our veterans' needs. The model was pretty simple. If a veteran needed to see someone outside the VA, they were placed with that outside provider by VA staff. And those VA staffers who matched the veteran with a local provider actually lived in Alaska. They knew Alaska's geography. They knew it wasn't possible to drive from Bethel to Anchorage. They knew the breadth and limitations on services available within our State. Also, the bills for services were sent to the VA; they were not sent to the veteran. If for some reason a provider wasn't paid on time, the veterans were insulated. They were protected from collection agency calls. It wasn't a perfect system and it wasn't without complaints, but on balance this was the best Alaskan veterans were ever treated. Then came the Phoenix scandal. We hoped that what had happened there--the spotlight that was shown on the VA as a result of a horrible scandal--would not affect the good things we were doing in Alaska. Two years later, I can tell you that things have changed profoundly and unfortunately, not for the better. The Choice Act seems to have been the catalyst for unraveling the VA reforms in our little corner of the world. Let me explain why. When we were presented with the Choice Act, I looked at it as having another tool that the VA could use to help expedite care to veterans who couldn't get their care in a timely fashion. If this is another tool in the toolbox, this is going to be good for our vets. But the VA didn't view the Choice Act simply as another tool; they viewed the Choice Act as the single right answer to care outside the VA. To this day, the VA seems to almost resent the fact that a variety of other purchase care programs coexist with the Choice Act, and they worked to undermine them through a hierarchy of care policies that make it impossible for our local VA officials to use community providers with whom they have built these relationships. That whole unraveling was enough to send our creative, innovative Alaska VA director into retirement, and unfortunately that position has been vacant ever since. By the way, when veterans asked ``What happened here? We had a good system. It was working. What has happened?'' the VA talking points said ``Blame the Congress. They gave us the Choice Act, and there is nothing we can do about it.'' That is an entirely disingenuous response given that all of the purchased care authorities that were on the books before the Choice Act remained on the books after the Choice Act became law. The VA had the flexibility before the Choice Act to craft local solutions, and they had the same flexibility to do so after the Choice Act. The decision not to support local flexibility was a deliberate choice, and it was a choice of the bureaucracy, not a choice that was mandated by the Congress. How has the Choice Act been working out in the State of Alaska? I spend a lot of time back home. I spend a lot of time visiting with our veterans, and I am listening hard. Every now and again, I do hear a veteran say: Yeah, I think things are OK. I think I am getting the care I want. But more often than not, what I am hearing from our vets is that instead of calling it the Choice Act, it is called the ``bad Choice Act'' or ``no choice at all.'' For a while, it seemed that the Native partnerships would be subsumed in Choice, and we pushed back on that and we won. But for the veterans who needed specialty care, the Choice Act has been a tough road to hoe, and I have a couple of examples. There was an elderly Tlingit Indian gentleman from southeast Alaska. He was sent to Seattle for a form of cancer therapy that was not available in Alaska. In the middle of his episode of care, he was told: You will have to return to Alaska. It was only after days on the phone with the VA and the Choice contractor--each whom was pointing the finger at the other--and then my office that the problem was resolved. Meanwhile, this veteran was telling his family to prepare for a funeral. It was that dire. Then there was the veteran who was scheduled for neurosurgery. This veteran was told that her referral from the Anchorage VA was rescinded and she would need to go to the Choice Program for another one. She called the Choice contractor's hotline and was referred not to neurosurgeons but to behavioral health providers. Evidently, the individual on the other end of the line didn't know what neurosurgery was. When the particular problem was resolved, the neurosurgeon was no longer available and the veteran was stuck on painkillers until her surgery could be rescheduled. That is not a good outcome. Another example is when a veteran living in Juneau, our capital city, was under the ongoing care of an ophthalmologist, but that doctor didn't take Choice. The veteran called the 800 number for Choice to get another referral. He was told that he could drive to Sitka and see someone there. If you lived in Alaska, you would be laughing because you would know there is no road from Juneau to Sitka. They are both islands. Another reason you might raise an eyebrow is because not only can you not drive there, but the Choice participant was an optometrist. Think about how this veteran feels after calling the 800 number and then being told to just drive down to the next town. You can't drive there, and oh, by the way, that specialist doesn't exist there. The VA and the Choice contractor claim to have fixed these problems, but for every problem that is fixed, there is still a veteran with a new one, a veteran who has lost faith with the Choice Program or a provider who no longer wants the hassle of taking Choice. One provider told me that the amount of time his staff has to spend on the phone with the Choice Program is disruptive to his practice. He said it is unfair to the other patients who aren't getting the attention they need from the office staff. I don't want to stand here and complain without offering solutions. There is a solution to Choice's problems in the State of Alaska, and that solution is to go back to the way we had it, with the local VA partnering local providers with local patients. The Senate Appropriations Committee has urged the VA to reinstate this model in Alaska through language that is included in the fiscal year 2017 report, but I am really not sure where it is going, given the current VA leadership. The rapport, unfortunately, is just not there. Toward the end of Secretary Shinseki's tenure, members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the other body berated the VA for its poor congressional relations. I will say that when I needed to talk to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs or, for that matter, Secretary Shinseki, they were right there. And even if the results didn't come as quickly as I would have liked them to, that team was clearly delivering for our folks in Alaska, but I cannot say the same for the current team. Through the fiscal year 2016 VA appropriations bill, I demanded a report on how the VA would serve Alaskan vets under the consolidated Choice Program that told the VA to formulate last summer, and we still haven't seen that report. During the recent appropriations hearings, I raised concerns about how personnel vacancies and management issues in the Alaska VA were affecting performance, and Dr. Shulkin took issue with that characterization. He offered to show me some metrics. We are still waiting. Last week he sent a young doctor from Philadelphia, whom he has charged with running purchased care, up to Alaska. The report back is that he was tone-deaf to criticisms of Choice lodged by our veterans and providers, and he suggested that the rate being paid to the Native health system to do work that the VA should be doing themselves was unjustifiably high. This is very troubling. So we learn that VA is hiring a bunch of new executives to help this individual manage a nationwide community care program out of the VA central office. I remain very concerned. Long before the Phoenix scandal, the VA was purchasing community care using a decentralized model. Now it seems to be moving abruptly to a centralized model. I don't know how well centralized models work in other parts of the West or rural communities in other regions, but I can state that they just do not work in a place such as Alaska. One-size-fits-all is not the model that best serves our veterans, but this seems to be the direction we are moving toward. To make matters worse, we are not even debating what we want community care in the VA to look like. We have 100 Members who have a stake in the outcome, but only a few seem to be involved in that discussion. The votes always seem to be pretty much straight up or down, with no opportunity for amendments. We have done that now twice-- in the first instance with the Choice Act itself and then again last year when we had to bail the VA out because its health care programs would have gone insolvent during the August break if we hadn't done so. We need to address this. We can't keep writing a blank check to the VA. We have to have reform, and that reform needs to work. Last week the Senator from Arizona proposed a 3-year extension of the Choice Program, but the amendment included some changes in the way the VA pays providers in the purchased care arena. There was some problematic language, so I wasn't able to support his amendment at that time. Since then, he has worked with us, which I greatly appreciate, and the leaders of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee worked with us to resolve those problems. So I can now support the 3-year extension in the Choice Program that he proposes which I expect will include the language changes we discussed. But even if we approve that 3 year extension that's not the end of our interest in the Choice program or VA purchased care. I think it is important to take the time; let's get this right. I think we need to come to terms with what we want care outside of the VA to look like. I think there are still some huge problems in the implementation of the Choice Program that we need to address, and, unfortunately, these problems are profound in the smaller and harder to get places like Alaska. I think it is high time that we give the VA clear direction about the value we place on access to veterans' health care in those smaller and hard to get places. In many cases we know the dynamics of the local health care markets better than the folks in a central VA office. Fixing purchased care begins with directing the VA to collaborate with Members of this body to get it right--not allowing the VA to play members off one another so that, once again, the bureaucracy wins. We can't sit quietly by while the VA blames us for failings that they need to own--failures that might have been avoided through collaboration with those who know their localities best. I appreciate the opportunity to spend a few minutes on the floor this evening talking about how we make things right for who have served us. Memorial Day is but once a year. Veterans Day is but once a year. But every day--every day we need to be honoring and thanking those who serve us, and when we say thank you for their service, let's show them that we mean it. Holding the VA's feet to the fire on results is one way to do that. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we are about to begin the Memorial Day state work period and many of us will be traveling in our home states next week. I am blessed because I am going home to Alaska. Tomorrow I will be in Haines. This is a magnificent community in truly a magnificent State. But when I arrive in Haines, something will be missing, and that is the absence of two of Haines' most prominent citizens--John and Erma Schnabel. John Schnabel passed in March at the age of 96 years old, and Erma, his wife of 65 years, passed shortly thereafter at the age of 87. John was regarded by his family and the people of Haines as a living legend. If you don't believe that is true, or if you say all of us have living legends in our community, no less of an authority than People Magazine referred to John as a ``living legend'' in an article which noted his passing. He was not just a local legend. He was known the world over as ``Grandpa.'' He was the patriarch of the Discovery Channel series ``Gold Rush: Alaska.'' But to us Alaskans, he was simply one of the many exceptional people who populate our exceptional State. John was born in Kansas in 1920. He was the son of a wheat farmer. His father first moved to Alaska to seek a better life away from the Depression. He served in the military during World War II. He was a proud member of the American Legion. He married Erma in 1950 and they raised five kids. Returning to Haines, John entered the timber business. He owned a lumber mill in town. He was one of the region's first industrialists. He was involved in everything. He operated a hotel, a lumberyard, a hardware store. He built four downtown commercial buildings. He was one of Haines' largest landowners. But changing political attitudes toward timber harvest in Southeast Alaska and the regulations that followed put John out of the timber business. Those powerful forces, however, did not put John down. He placer mined for fun and invested in small businesses. He was the mayor of Haines. He was an outstanding bridge player. He was an avid reader. I understand that David McCullough's biography of Harry Truman was one of his favorites, even though he was a loyal Republican. It was only after John was recuperating from heart surgery that he entered the mining business in a big way. Think about it, most people rehabilitate from a heart surgery by doing more walking or going to the gym. John Schnabel decided he was going to work a mine. He worked the mine to remain active. He said it was doctor's orders. He did this until 2 years ago. Effectively, until the time he was 94, he was working the mine. The Discovery Channel folks wandered by and found John Schnabel an interesting man. By 2010, Grandpa was a global celebrity--a reluctant celebrity but a celebrity nonetheless; the star of a reality TV show that ran for six seasons before he passed away. John and Erma were friends of mine. I respected John's business acumen and his political leadership, but I really respected the relationship he had with Erma. The last time I visited with John and Erma was 2 years ago in August. I was there at the Haines Assisted Living Center. I came in and visited with John. John was talking politics with me and with anybody else who was listening, chatting around the room. Then, he left to go sit in the corner of the dining area, sat next to Erma. He didn't say anything for probably half an hour, 45 minutes. He just sat quietly with her, holding her hand. That really moved me when I saw them. Sixty plus years of marriage and still holding hands. John had always been the builder. Erma was known as the carer. She took care of the family. She took care of the community. Legend has it that there wasn't a person in Haines who had not dined at her table at one time or another. They are both gone from Haines, but they are certainly together in Heaven. Alaska is clearly better for their contributions, and I know I will certainly be thinking of them when I visit Haines tomorrow.