Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge and thank the majority leader and the minority leader for their cooperation and their help in getting us here and specifically recognize the good work of Senator Cantwell. You do not get to a point in this body with significant legislation if you don't have a willing partner on the other side. We have not taken up energy reform or any real energy legislation in over 8 years now, and in those intervening 8 years, much has happened in the energy space. Our policies as they relate to energy, whether it is LNG exports or renewables, haven't advanced. And the commitment that Senator Cantwell and I made to one another over a year ago to try to move legislation--not just to move messages but to move legislation-- was a commitment that held us through a lot of hearings, a lot of discussion, a lot of debate going back and forth, but to the point where we are today with an agreement to move forward to final passage on a very significant energy bill for the country. So I thank Senator Cantwell, and I would also like to recognize her staff, led by Angela Becker-Dippmann, and my energy team, led by Colin Hayes, who have put in yeoman's work to get us to this point. I would like to think we could kick this whole thing out tonight, but we are not going to be doing that. We do, however, have the glidepath forward, and I thank not only those on our respective teams but also those here on the floor who have helped us with this as well. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``America's Insatiable Demand for Drugs.''

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this morning to discuss an issue that is pretty near and dear to my heart and I think to the hearts of many throughout the State of Alaska, and that is--I will call it an aberration, an aberration in the fish world. What I am talking about is genetically engineered salmon, GE salmon. We just heard from the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Agriculture. I appreciate the work she has done, along with the Senator from Kansas, to try to forge a path forward as it relates to GMO, but when we are talking about genetically engineered salmon, let me make it very clear that we are talking about two very distinct and different issues here. This is separate from the larger GMO debate. Genetically engineered animals are not crops, and GE salmon is a genetically engineered animal. This is something that is entirely new. This is a new species. This is a new species that will potentially be introduced into our markets, into our homes, and quite possibly, contrary to what any environmental analysis claims, enters into our ecosystem. When we are talking about the GMO, the broader GMO debate here on the floor, keep in mind that when I stand up, when the other Senator from Alaska stands up, when Alaskans stand up to talk about genetically engineered salmon, we are talking about an entirely different issue. I get pretty wound up about this issue. I just came from a meeting of about 20 young Alaskans from around the State. I said: I am sorry, I have to leave because I have to go to the floor to speak to this issue that is so important to us in Alaska. Do you all know what genetically engineered salmon is? They said: Yeah. It is kind of that fake fish. It is Frankenfish, is what we call it because it is so unnatural. It is so unnatural that it is something that, as Alaskans, we need to stand up and defend against. I grew up in the State of Alaska. I was born there. I know well that escaping from pens occurs in hatcheries, and it can occur in facilities where fish are grown. I also well know the immense value of our fisheries and the potential for havoc that something like this Frankenfish could wreak upon our wild sustainable stocks. I am standing here this morning saying that I will not be supporting cloture on this bill, as it is an issue which is too important to so many and has not yet been adequately addressed. I have attempted to work with the chairman and the committee to offer sensible and what we believe are reasonable fixes, but there is no solution as of yet. I am standing today demanding, asking that the voices of Alaskans, who have stood with me in solidarity on this issue, be heard because we will not accept that genetically engineered salmon or Frankenfish-- whatever it is you want to call it--we will not accept that it will be allowed to be sold without clear labeling because I don't want to make any mistakes; I don't want to find that what I have served my family is a genetically engineered fish, and I use ``fish'' lightly. We talk about Frankenfish and some people kind of snicker nervously, but it is not a joke to Alaskans. This new species could pose a serious threat to the livelihoods of Alaskan fishermen, and I will stand to support the livelihood of Alaskan fishermen. Alaska's fisheries are world-renowned for their high quality and for their sustainability. The Alaska seafood industry supports more than 63,000 direct jobs and contributes over $4.6 billion to the State's economy. Nearly one in seven Alaskans is employed in the commercial seafood industry. That is how my boys put themselves through college--working in the commercial fishing industry. We know about fish. For generations, my family has been involved in one way, shape, or form with the fishing business. Salmon is a major part of Alaska's seafood economy, and commercial fishermen around the State harvested more than 265 million salmon this past season, including chinook, sockeye, coho, chum, pinks--all wild. As we all know, wild salmon is loaded with all of the good things in it that God has placed there: tremendous health benefits, lean protein, source of omega-3s, B-6, B-12, Niacin--everything good, all in that natural wild package. More than 1.5 million people wrote to the FDA opposing approval of genetically engineered salmon. So you have a groundswell of support around the country--this is not just from Alaskans weighing in. People are saying: No, we don't think this should be approved. The FDA went ahead anyway. Then you have a growing number of grocery stores--Safeway, Kroger, Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, and Target--that have all announced they are not going to sell this. They are not going to sell this genetically engineered species in their stores. Yet, despite this immense opposition, in November of last year, the FDA approved AquaBounty Technologies' application for its genetically engineered AquAdvantage salmon. So for those of you who are not fully informed on what this genetically engineered fish is--how it comes about--GE salmon start from a transgenic Atlantic salmon egg. This is an ocean pout. It is a type of an eel. As you can see, it doesn't look anything like a salmon, even if you don't know your salmon very well. This is a bottom-dwelling ocean pout eel. They take a slice of DNA from this, a slice of DNA from a magnificent Chinook salmon, and splice it into an Atlantic salmon egg. That egg is meant to produce a fish that will grow to full size twice as fast as a normal Atlantic salmon. So this is the push here--to push Mother Nature, which creates a perfectly beautiful fabulous salmon, and to take a slice of DNA here and a slice of DNA there and put it in an Atlantic salmon, which is a farmed fish, and grow it so that it grows twice as fast as a normal fish, but growing it in penned condition, theoretically, so that there is no way for escape. But are we guaranteed that there is no way for escape? I don't know. Show me that. But what we have here, I think, is a fair question as to whether or not this GE salmon can even be called a salmon. So the FDA signed off on this last November. But they made no mandatory labeling requirement. Instead, they said: Labels can be voluntary. So, in other words, if you want to say that this piece of fish that is in front of you in the grocery store is genetically engineered--or not real--you can voluntarily put that on your label. Nobody is going to do that. Nobody is going to voluntarily say this is genetically engineered. So what we have done--what I have done--is to fight to secure a mandatory labeling requirement both before approval of AquaBounty's application and since its approval. So we have been working hard on this issue. We have made some significant headway. But what we are dealing with on the floor right now--this legislation--would wipe that work clean, instead of using legislative tools at our disposal to effectively and precisely amend this legislation in order to address the issue of GE salmon. So what we did is that we got some language in the Omnibus appropriations bill that requires the FDA not to allow the introduction of any food that contains GE salmon until it publishes final labeling guidelines that inform consumers of that content. So what this did is that this kind of forced the FDA to issue an import alert, which effectively bans all imports of genetically engineered salmon for 1 year. But it also directs the FDA to spend funds--significant funds--of no less than $150,000 to develop labeling guidelines and to implement a program to disclose to consumers whether salmon offered for sale to consumers is genetically engineered. Again, what we want to be able to do is to let consumers know whether this fish is genetically engineered or not. So we thought that was a pretty clear labeling mandate to the FDA. But the FDA then later came back to us and said they felt that there was still clarifying legislation that we needed to do. So I have worked with Senator Sullivan, my colleague from Alaska, as well as Senators Cantwell, Merkley, and Heinrich, and we introduced S. 738, which is the Genetically Engineered Salmon Risk Reduction Act. We also introduced a separate piece of legislation to respond to the FDA's November approval. We introduced S. 2640, the Genetically Engineered Salmon Labeling Act. What that bill would do is kind of to build on last year's omnibus provisions and would require labeling of genetically engineered salmon through language that I received through technical assistance working with the FDA on this. Additionally, we would mandate a third-party scientific review of the FDA's environmental assessment of AquAdvantage salmon and the effects that these GE salmon would have on wild stocks and ecosystems, which, in my opinion--and I think, in the opinion of many others--were insufficiently addressed during the FDA's environmental assessment. So we have been working with the FDA on this, to develop this language to mandate labeling. The FDA has been cooperative at this point working on this issue. That really is a significant step forward. But it required me to do something that maybe others are perhaps a little more active on--to place a hold on a nominee. I placed a hold on the FDA Commissioner, Dr. Robert Califf. This is not something that I do lightly. I have not placed a hold on a nominee before. I don't take this action lightly. But it was necessary. It was necessary to bring to the attention of the FDA the significance of this issue and the seriousness of what we were dealing with. So we got FDA to the table. We have been working with them. They have been listening. They have been helpful. We are so close to resolving this. Now we are on the floor with GMO legislation. Again, as I said at the outset, GMO is different than what we are dealing with in this genetically engineered species, a new species designed for human consumption here. My concern is that with the GMO bill before us now, it really does threaten the good progress we have made at this point in time. It is not just the progress that the Alaska delegation made but really the work of so many Alaskans, the bipartisan hard-working efforts of so many around the country who share the same concerns. I think we have offered some pretty sensible solutions. I will continue to offer them. I will continue my efforts to work with the chairman, for whom I have great respect. Know that, while it is not opposition to the overall bill or its underpinnings, where my concern remains is mistakenly allowing genetically engineered salmon into our homes, mislabeled as salmon. This is something that we will continue to raise awareness on and raise the issue until we have finally and fully resolved it. Iditarod Sled Dog Race Mr. President, if I still have a few minutes more this morning, I would like to switch topics and speak about the last great race--the last great race in Alaska and really around the world, which is the Iditarod sled dog race, a 1,049-mile race from south central Alaska to Nome, AK, where man-and-dog teams are up against Mother Nature, improbably one of the most incredible human and animal endeavors that are out there. Yesterday, we saw the conclusion. We greeted the front runner to the 44th Iditarod sled dog race. So for 44 years now, it is an amazing race from Willow to Nome. Again, when you think about man and dog out on the ice, out in the raw wilderness for 1,000 miles, this race has been described as the equivalent of an attempt at Mount Everest. When you think about all that is Alaska and the open spaces, the independent people, and just man against nature or woman against nature, it is really the Iditarod that epitomizes so much of it. It demands not only the most out of our athletes but mental conditioning as well. It requires exceptional endurance, courage, and sound judgment as you navigate these amazing places. But it is not just the men or women who are the physical athletes. It is not just their judgment that guides this race. It is that of the teams--the dogs themselves. When you think about the amazing teamwork that goes on between a musher and his or her animals--the communication and the will to go 1,000-plus miles in extraordinary conditions--it really is something that just stirs the greatest imagination. We have had Iditarods where teams have literally buried into the wind coming at them at 50 miles an hour and 30 below, in the dark, attacked by moose on the trail, losing the trail, with accidents, disasters. I was going to say it is like a reality TV show. Only it is not a reality TV show. It is what Alaskans and many around the world engage in. The mushers themselves are remarkable. I could stand here on the floor and talk all morning about them, but I won't. I will highlight just a few of them. DeeDee Jonrowe, is a longtime friend of mine. She ran her 34th Iditarod this year--talk about bravery and perseverance. This is a woman who the year before last lost her father. This summer she and her husband lost everything they owned in a wildfire out in Willow, AK. The only thing that was saved were her dogs. But she lost her sleds, her harnesses, her home, her everything. Then, just shortly after, she lost her mother. Her comment to me was this: I am going to go back on the trail so that I can just focus. That is one tough woman. Brent Sass is a guy who captured the lead for much of the race. He is one of these guys who came to Alaska to be a homesteader, a wilderness guy. He was champion of the Yukon Quest. He rescued mushers along the way--an amazing guy. He was actually in front position last year and was disqualified because he had an iPod and was listening to music. Along the trail, there are no electronic devices. There are pretty tough rules in the Iditarod. Can you imagine being out on a 1,000-mile trail with nobody else, and no device, no electronics for you? Jeff King is an amazing guy, whose grit and determination has been at the forefront of this race and so many others--a multiple winner. But he was involved with a horribly tragic accident when a snow machiner, a drunk individual, literally attacked his team, killed one of his dogs and injured a couple of others. It was extraordinarily difficult to handle that challenge--the emotion of losing a dog but also just the real tragedy and calamity of an accident like that. Jeff has finished the race in the top 10, which is remarkable. Another remarkable feat, though, is Aly Zirkle, who finished third, and was also subject to an extreme scare by this same snow machiner--a horribly tragic side to this year's Iditarod. But there was the fact that Aly, one tough lady, came in third and persevered all the way, just getting her head into the game. There are so many stories about these amazing men and women, but the winner of this year's Iditarod is a young man named Dallas Seavey, 29 years old. He crossed the finish line into Nome at 9:30 p.m. last night. Dallas finished in 8 days 11 hours 20 minutes 16 seconds. This is his fourth overall win, and his third consecutive win. He is only one victory away from matching the ``king'' of the Iditarod, five-time champion Rick Swenson. Guess who was No. 2 in the Iditarod, trailing Dallas by about 45 minutes. It was his dad. Father and son finished No. 1 and No. 2 in the Iditarod. What other sport can you think of where you have a father and son competing against one another and coming in first and second? You have to go back a ways to come up with an answer to that. It was absolutely an amazing story and Alaskans watched it play out. I had an opportunity to visit with the father of Mitch Seavey and the grandfather of Dallas Seavey. I asked: Dan, who do you predict is going to win the Iditarod this year? His response was: I don't care as long as it is a Seavey. He was right and certainly got his wish. Alaskans are proud of the men and women who take on these extraordinary challenges, capture the attention and the fascination of the world with their feats of physical and mental endurance. The men and women of the 44th Iditarod race are to be commended and congratulated. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am here this afternoon on the floor to join with colleagues as we discuss the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, CARA. I would suggest that from the perspective of families across the country, many would look at this and say this is probably one of the more important pieces of legislation that this Senate could be taking up this year. If we think about this crisis, this epidemic that we are seeing across the country with opioid addiction, it is probably one of the most pressing public health issues facing American families all across the country. As we have heard from colleagues, this is not just one single State's issue. This is not just one region of the country. This is across all 50 States. I always like to think that in Alaska, because we are so far away, we are so remote, perhaps we might be insulated from some of the negative aspects of this modern society. In fact, we cannot isolate, we cannot insulate ourselves from the scourge of the drugs and the drug addiction we are seeing. This addiction does not discriminate. It doesn't discriminate against any demographic, any group. Again, it can't be confined to a single geographic region. It impacts young people. It impacts our older people, the lower income people, the middle-income people, and the higher income levels. Those of us who have served our Nation as our honored veterans, pregnant women, and even newborn babies can suffer from addiction. The stories we hear when we are back home visiting with our constituents, talking with friends, talking with neighbors, and then hearing these stories recounted on the floor--these are heartbreaking stories that come from all over the country, from the east coast, again, all the way to the most remote villages of Alaska. We have seen and we have heard the pain that opioid addiction causes. It is important that we take action and that we address this issue now before it worsens. Unfortunately, as we see the statistics, that is where it is going, that is the trend, and that is the direction. The rates of addiction and hospitalization will only continue to skyrocket unless we can throttle this back, unless we can get our hands around it. This is our opportunity not only to treat but to prevent opioid addiction. Lots of numbers have been discussed on the floor about this epidemic that we are seeing, and the numbers really are horrifying. In Alaska, the mortality rates related to opioid and heroin abuse have more than tripled since 2008. In 2015, we had 33 Alaskans die from heroin overdose--perhaps even more that we just haven't been able to identify. The rates on inpatient hospitalization for heroin and opioid poisoning have nearly doubled since 2008. The cost is over millions of dollars. As we know, it is often our young people who suffer from addiction the most, and certainly the most directly. Between 2008 and 2013, the rate of individuals between 21 and 29 years old being admitted to treatment centers has doubled. Again, we are talking about numbers, and we are talking about statistics. But we are really not. We are talking about our friends, we are talking about family, and we are talking about neighbors. But we can make a difference if we provide the resources and if we provide the education and the outreach, not just to young people but to all, so that they understand the dangers of opioid addiction. Unfortunately, some of what we have seen with this addiction is that somehow or another, opioids are viewed as less a health threat because they are prescription. What CARA does, what this legislation in front of us does, is to help address the educational need, provide States and communities with grant options and resources to ensure that all in the community--the educators, the parents, the doctors, other members of the community--have the knowledge and have the tools they need to guide and support young people and the community at large. But it is just so hard; it has been so hard to see families and friends lose their loved ones to addiction. Over the past several months in the community of Juneau, our State capital, there have been a series of newspaper articles that have chronicled how that community has been impacted by the loss of young people due to heroin. Six young people, all under the age of 30, were lost last year. In September, a young man who was a softball player lost his life due to heroin overdose. Two weeks after that, another family lost a son who was going to film school. You read the stories, you read the details about the lives of these young people, who could be like any of us until something happens. And what that something is is an exposure to opioids and an addiction that, again, cuts a life short. Those parents of these young people, as parents in States all across the Nation, grieve for the loss of their children and wonder what they could have done to perhaps help save their child's life. Again, the community of Juneau is recounting that, but it is all over our communities. This drug addiction knows no boundaries. It seeps into and corrodes Alaska's most remote and rural communities. These are communities, I will remind you, where it is not like there is easy access to them. These are communities--80 percent of the communities in the State of Alaska are not connected by road. In order to get to them, particularly this time of year, the only way to get in is to fly in. It is expensive to fly in. In the summer, there are water options, but that too is expensive. So while it is difficult for people to move in and out, somehow or another the drugs are coming in and out. The heroin and the opioid addiction have found their way into these remote communities, leaving families and loved ones scrambling and desperate as they try to help those whom they love. Unfortunately, the resources we have in terms of any form of treatment centers are so incredibly limited. In one of the communities that is on the road system, the community of Palmer, just north of Anchorage, our largest city, I was at an event this summer. Lots of people wanted to talk to me at this picnic. There was a woman with her daughter who was in her early twenties, and that woman waited patiently, patiently, patiently to be able to speak with me alone. She asked to go off into a corner of the outdoor area that we were in so that she could speak to me about her daughter's situation. Her daughter was an addict. She had been in and out of jail. She had been in and out of treatment. Nothing had worked, and this mother had no place else to go, no place else for her daughter to go. So she, as one mom who cared, was trying to help raise awareness of the lack of facilities, the lack of treatment, and the lack of options for so many in her situation. You listen to stories like that, and you realize that we must attempt to do all we can. Granted, we are sitting here in Washington, DC. The Federal Government doesn't always know what is best. We know that for a fact, but how is it that we can help these families, these communities, as they deal with, again, this scourge that has afflicted so many? We have had some good news in the State of Alaska. Just this week, the Alaska State House of Representatives passed a bill that will remove civil liabilities for providing or administering the drug naloxone to treat opioid and heroin overdose. It was actually the representative from Juneau, Representative Munoz, who spoke to the need for reform and helped lead this important measure. That is on its way to the Governor's desk. Again, I think it is an important option for lifesaving treatment. As we work together--those of us who have cosponsored the CARA bill and all who have expressed their concern--we know we need to keep the pressure on. We need to keep the momentum up to address this, not only in Alaska but around the country, to fight back, to deal with this addiction we are seeing, and to really attack the issue from every degree. From mental health to criminal justice reform, community programs, educational resources, tools for veterans and pregnant women, addressing this widespread issue with a widespread response is important. I thank my colleagues who have led on this issue, and the Presiding Officer here today has clearly done just that. I thank the Presiding Officer for his leadership on this. As I have spoken this afternoon on opioid addiction, and perhaps more specifically to heroin addiction, I always feel compelled to mention that in my State, and particularly in Anchorage, we have seen a spike of ``spice'' abuse. This is a synthetic marijuana. More and more, we are seeing individuals who are being sent to the hospital. It is our firefighters who seemingly are responding to more spice and more heroin incidents than they are responding to fire calls. Recognizing that it is not just heroin, but it is other drugs that are truly wreaking havoc on our families and our communities, we need to unite together to make a difference. So I think what we are doing here in this body is a first step. Passing this legislation is an important response, and through what we are doing, we can work to change the direction in which, unfortunately, we have been going. With that, I yield the floor. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.) vote explanation

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on January 16, 2016, the people of Taiwan went to the polls and elected Dr. Tsai Ing-wen as the next President of Taiwan, with 56.2 percent of the vote. The 2016 Presidential election marked the sixth direct election of the President and Vice President of Taiwan, and the first time a woman has been elected as head of Taiwan's Government. Dr. Tsai's party, the Democratic Progressive Party, also won 68 seats of the 113-member Legislative Yuan for an outright majority in that body. I congratulate Dr. Tsai and her party for their victories and new responsibilities. This election represents a significant change in Taiwan's political landscape, with important implications for the U.S.-Taiwan relationship. I urge the administration to express its clear support for Taiwan and its vibrant democracy. As part of the 2016 Taiwan Presidential and legislative elections, an international election observation mission made up of 18 observers from 10 countries visited Taiwan at the invitation of the Taiwan Nation Alliance and the International Committee for a Democratic Taiwan. After the elections, the mission submitted its final report on the elections, concluding that they were free and fair. I ask unanimous consent that the summary of that report be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Maria Cantwell and Senator Mazie Hirono to introduce legislation to approve the 2010 Agreement between the Governments of the United States and the Republic of Palau following the Compact of Free Association Section 432 Review. Palau's history with the United States dates back to the Battle of Peleliu, fought between United States and Japanese forces for over two months with the highest casualty rate of any battle in the Pacific Theater. Following World War II, Palau became a district of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands under the auspices of the United Nations, but administered by the United States. Palau was the last district of the Trust Territory to choose its political future, when in 1994, it became a self-governing, sovereign state and entered into a fifty-year Compact of Free Association with the United States similar to that of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia. Under the Compact, the United States, through the Department of the Interior, provides economic and financial assistance, defends Palau's territorial integrity, and allows Palauan citizens the opportunity to enter the United States as non-immigrants. In return, the United States receives exclusive and unlimited access to Palau's land and waterways for strategic purposes. U.S. assistance is intended to help Palau develop its infrastructure and economy so that it has a sustainable government and economy capable of functioning without the United States' support. Section 432 of the Compact provides that after the fifteenth, thirtieth, and fortieth anniversaries of the Compact, the United States and Palau shall formally review the terms of the Compact and shall consider the overall nature and development of their relationship, including Palau's operating requirements and its progress in meeting development objectives. The United States can count on Palau to vote with us on a broad range of issues, including some that are controversial and where we need reliable allies. On a number of important resolutions that have come before the United Nations' General Assembly, Palau stood by us and provided critical votes. For example, in 2014, Palau voted with the United States on 97 percent of votes before the U.N. General Assembly, and Palau voted with the U.S. 90 percent of the time in important votes. From 2011-2013, Palau voted with the United States 100 percent of the time in important votes. Palau has been a steadfast ally of the United States in international forums and we should be mindful of and grateful for their support. It is also important to recognize that Palau has consistently demonstrated a commitment to the U.S.-Palau partnership under the Compact. Palauan nationals serve in U.S. coalition missions, participate in U.S.-led combat operations, and have given their lives for the safety of our nation. Approximately 500 Palauan men and women serve as volunteers in our military today, out of a population of about 21,000. Palau is indeed a strong partner who punches well above its weight. We are grateful for their sacrifices and dedication to promoting peace and fighting terrorism. After reviewing the progress achieved by Palau in the first 15 years of the Compact, and with the 13th anniversary coming upon us, the administration is recommending continued assistance, but at lower levels. This agreement, reached in 2010, has been before Congress in prior years and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has held hearings on the matter. To the best of my knowledge, there is no objection within Congress on the policy of continuing to provide financial assistance to Palau under the Compact of Free Association. The hang-up has been finding a viable offset to pay for that assistance. I would note that since 2010 Congress has provided just over $13 million in annual discretionary funding to the Government of Palau in lieu of the Agreement's enactment--a total of over $90 million in that timeframe. At the same time, the administration has failed to identify an acceptable offset for a cost that is now just under $150 million over 10 years. For such a steadfast ally, partner, and friend, whose citizens serve in our Armed Forces for the protection of our nation, and whose government supports the United States' position on critical issues in international forums, we should be able to come up with a viable funding solution. I call upon the administration to work with Congress on this matter, find an offset, and enact the 2010 Agreement between the United States and Palau. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Maria Cantwell and Senator Mazie Hirono to introduce legislation to approve the 2010 Agreement between the Governments of the United States and the Republic of Palau following the Compact of Free Association Section 432 Review. Palau's history with the United States dates back to the Battle of Peleliu, fought between United States and Japanese forces for over two months with the highest casualty rate of any battle in the Pacific Theater. Following World War II, Palau became a district of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands under the auspices of the United Nations, but administered by the United States. Palau was the last district of the Trust Territory to choose its political future, when in 1994, it became a self-governing, sovereign state and entered into a fifty-year Compact of Free Association with the United States similar to that of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia. Under the Compact, the United States, through the Department of the Interior, provides economic and financial assistance, defends Palau's territorial integrity, and allows Palauan citizens the opportunity to enter the United States as non-immigrants. In return, the United States receives exclusive and unlimited access to Palau's land and waterways for strategic purposes. U.S. assistance is intended to help Palau develop its infrastructure and economy so that it has a sustainable government and economy capable of functioning without the United States' support. Section 432 of the Compact provides that after the fifteenth, thirtieth, and fortieth anniversaries of the Compact, the United States and Palau shall formally review the terms of the Compact and shall consider the overall nature and development of their relationship, including Palau's operating requirements and its progress in meeting development objectives. The United States can count on Palau to vote with us on a broad range of issues, including some that are controversial and where we need reliable allies. On a number of important resolutions that have come before the United Nations' General Assembly, Palau stood by us and provided critical votes. For example, in 2014, Palau voted with the United States on 97 percent of votes before the U.N. General Assembly, and Palau voted with the U.S. 90 percent of the time in important votes. From 2011-2013, Palau voted with the United States 100 percent of the time in important votes. Palau has been a steadfast ally of the United States in international forums and we should be mindful of and grateful for their support. It is also important to recognize that Palau has consistently demonstrated a commitment to the U.S.-Palau partnership under the Compact. Palauan nationals serve in U.S. coalition missions, participate in U.S.-led combat operations, and have given their lives for the safety of our nation. Approximately 500 Palauan men and women serve as volunteers in our military today, out of a population of about 21,000. Palau is indeed a strong partner who punches well above its weight. We are grateful for their sacrifices and dedication to promoting peace and fighting terrorism. After reviewing the progress achieved by Palau in the first 15 years of the Compact, and with the 13th anniversary coming upon us, the administration is recommending continued assistance, but at lower levels. This agreement, reached in 2010, has been before Congress in prior years and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has held hearings on the matter. To the best of my knowledge, there is no objection within Congress on the policy of continuing to provide financial assistance to Palau under the Compact of Free Association. The hang-up has been finding a viable offset to pay for that assistance. I would note that since 2010 Congress has provided just over $13 million in annual discretionary funding to the Government of Palau in lieu of the Agreement's enactment--a total of over $90 million in that timeframe. At the same time, the administration has failed to identify an acceptable offset for a cost that is now just under $150 million over 10 years. For such a steadfast ally, partner, and friend, whose citizens serve in our Armed Forces for the protection of our nation, and whose government supports the United States' position on critical issues in international forums, we should be able to come up with a viable funding solution. I call upon the administration to work with Congress on this matter, find an offset, and enact the 2010 Agreement between the United States and Palau. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Maj. Matthew Schroeder, a defense fellow in my office, and LCDR Amy McElroy, a Coast Guard fellow in my office, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of the 114th Congress.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I wish to comment on the statements that have been made by my colleague and friend from North Dakota, who has been an amazing leader, a very strong leader here in the Senate since she came, trying to shine a spotlight on issues particularly surrounding our Native American and Alaska Native children. We are working together on a mission that really does help to drill down--to find those best supports that we possibly can for these children who in so many instances have been left behind. The Senator from North Dakota spoke about our tribal institutions and our tribal colleges as that next step to launch our young people successfully, while recognizing that we have opportunities to grow and do better by our tribal colleges. I had an opportunity just yesterday to be visited by some students from Ilisagvik College, a small facility located in Barrow, AK. I had a chance to meet with two students, Olive and Jillian, from a very small village called Atqasuk. One described what it was like as a young student who wants that education--but just the idea that one would go hundreds of miles away to the big city in Fairbanks or Anchorage to pursue an education was simply not possible-- and how these students have been given opportunities in ways that perhaps they and their families never dreamed possible. So I stand with my colleague, as we have stood shoulder to shoulder on so many of these issues that impact our Native children, our young people, their futures, and their opportunities, and recognizing that education can be that key to a better life and a better path forward.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Certainly.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I certainly appreciate the value of our partnership, and I know that we have a great deal of work ahead of us. Madam President, I come to the floor today to express my support for the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act and the substitute that we will be voting on later this afternoon. It is fair to say that the people of Alaska take great interest in this legislation, and it is not simply an intellectual interest. It stems from our geography, quite simply. At its closest point, Alaska is 3,100 miles from North Korea. Let me put that in context with where we are here. The distance between Washington, DC, and my hometown of Anchorage is 3,370 miles. So Alaska is actually closer to North Korea than I am to my home when I am working here in Washington, DC. We are talking about the main population center in Anchorage and in the Mat-Su Valley area in south central Alaska, which is about 3,600 miles from Pyongyang. Perhaps it is a little longer than a North Korean missile can travel today or even in the near future, but it seems to me that North Korea is committed to advancing its nuclear capabilities. Its covert nuclear tests and the so-called satellite launch that we saw over the weekend appear to be purposeful steps in that direction. Just to give a little vignette about how Alaskans pay attention to North Korea--we all go around and visit schools around our respective States--I was at a middle school and I had an eighth grader ask me a question. When asked what was on anybody's mind, what do you want me to know about, and how can I be a better representative for you back in Washington, DC, the first eighth grader that raised his hand said to me: Senator Murkowski, what are you doing in Washington about this Kim Jong Un guy? This is an eighth grader. I am not going to suggest to you that perhaps Alaskan eighth graders are more attuned to politics around the world. The reason I raise this is because around the dinner tables back home, people are talking about North Korea because our geography puts us within that range of sight, if you will. I use that term loosely, but when looking at the maps and understanding where Alaska is and where North Korea is and reading the news about what is happening with North Korea's nuclear intentions, it causes Alaskans to be worried enough to be discussing it at the dinner table, and eighth graders are saying: What is going on? It is real for us. North Korea's actions demand decisive action here in Washington, DC, in Beijing, and at the United Nations. The Washington Post editorial just yesterday noted that the Obama doctrine of strategic patience is no longer an option. Mr. Kim seems to view that as a sign of weakness. He seems to fancy playing Washington off against Beijing, and neither capital can afford him that luxury, lest North Korea make fools of both. China has a major role to play in showing Mr. Kim the light. Mr. Kim wants the world to believe that he is smarter than all of us, and I would suggest that it is not in Beijing's interest to offer him a porous border. The United States and our allies have been patient enough with the carrot. We talk a lot about the carrot and stick when it comes to engagement. But this Senator suggests that we have been patient enough with the carrot, and now it is time to try the stick. The sanctions bill that we are considering today is intended as a serious wake-up call to Mr. Kim's government. The sanctions are severe and they are targeted at those who enable Mr. Kim's regime to conduct business abroad. They are also intended as a wake-up call to Mr. Kim's advisers, who enjoy a pretty comfortable status quo, thanks to their leadership positions. But life is going to be a little bit tougher under our sanctions regime, if we advance this--no more luxury goods, no more creature comforts, and, if we are successful, no more access to hard currency--no exceptions. This is an important shift for our government with regards to North Korea. As I mentioned, out of geographic necessity I follow developments in North Korea very closely, and I have since I came to the Senate. I have had the opportunity over the years to spend time with U.S. officials who have assumed the very difficult role of trying to conduct diplomacy with North Korea. Almost without exception, they have advised, when talking about North Korea, to choose respectful language, to avoid threats, to find ways to allow one's words and one's sincerity to penetrate. We are now at that point where some are saying quite strongly that this respectful approach hasn't really gotten us anywhere with this regime. This Senator would suggest that we can be and must be very firm while at the same time respectful. Let me share a couple examples of some things that many of my colleagues may not have been aware of. I had an opportunity this past September to travel with a couple of my Senate colleagues to Svalbard, Norway. Svalbard is where one of the world's global seed vaults is located. The seed vault is intended to preserve a wide variety of plant seeds from around the world in the event there might be some kind of widespread regional or worldwide crisis that would wipe out local crops and seed. It is nicknamed ``the doomsday vault.'' I had an opportunity to go into this vault and just observe what various nations have sent to the top of the world up there. In that vault we saw one of the few instances of North Korean international cooperation. We saw boxes of seeds from North Korea. There was a box that came in with over 5,700 plant crop seeds from that hermit kingdom. Just last month, North Korea signed the Svalbard Treaty, giving North Korea access to the Svalbard Islands. We have also heard that North Korea has made use of the Northern Sea Route to assist with shipments to Russia. I put this out there because whatever reason there may be that North Korea signed on to this Svalbard Treaty and whatever the reason may be for its newfound interest in the Arctic, the point is that when the regime in North Korea sees that it is in its best interests to cooperate internationally, there is a willingness to engage. But to this point, they have not shown a willingness to engage when it comes to their nuclear and ballistic missile programs--at least not to any reasonable level of engagement where the terms are not dictated by the North Korean regime. Here we are today. We have a bill on the floor directed to North Korean economic sanctions. It is not about an invasion or the use of offensive weapons against the people of North Korea. It is about bringing about peaceful change, firmly and respectfully. In that vein, let me acknowledge that the people of North Korea are a proud, nationalistic people. Like all of the world's peoples, they wish to be respected by others. Yet they are governed by an intolerant and a very perplexing regime that tolerates hunger and poverty when it is clear that there are other choices. If the people of North Korea were allowed to look across the border they would see an example of prosperity. They would see a strong commitment to traditional values. They would see family members with whom someday they would hope to reunify. None of the world's nations are out to deny North Korea the opportunities for that prosperity, traditional values, and the reuniting of families. But we do rightly demand--and it is legitimate that we demand--that North Korea be a part of the community of nations. That means that Mr. Kim must abandon these nuclear ambitions. I believe that it is important that our Nation be prepared for anything that may come our way. My home State of Alaska is host to our Nation's ground-based missile defense capabilities. I was pleased to read in yesterday's budget announcement plans to make a $1 billion investment in the ground-based missile defense system. Significant investments are also made in the Long Range Discrimination Radar, or LRDR, which is slated for completion at Clear Air Force Station by the year 2020. That radar is exactly what the words imply--a radar that will enable our missile defenders to take a really good long look and better discriminate between threats and junk. I am also pleased to know that the United States is working through the placement of missile defense batteries in South Korea. These investments provide an increment of protection, but the truth is that they are second-best to a change in attitude coming out of Pyongyang. That is truly what I hope we will achieve through this sanctions vote today. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate those comments, and I appreciate the support of the majority leader. I had an opportunity to speak with the minority leader earlier today, and he reiterated the priority of this Energy bill. To my colleagues and those who have been urging us to carry on and continue, know that we are doing exactly that and that I remain committed to not only the Energy Policy Modernization Act, but I am committed to finding a path forward as we deal with the important issue that relates to Flint and also relates to the rest of the Nation when it comes to the security and safety of our water supply. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was in the cloakroom listening to my colleague from Rhode Island talk about the issue he is clearly very passionate about relating to our climate and recognizing that in that space, as we think about energy and our energy needs as a nation, our economic security, our energy security, our national security, how that is all tangled and intertwined, I can't help but think we have colleagues from very different perspectives who have stood on this floor over the course of the past couple of weeks, and it seems that one thing we have found some level of consensus on is that it is time to update our energy policies. It has been over 8 years now since we have seen any energy policies that do anything to move us forward as a nation, that work to help us be more energy efficient, be more energy independent, move toward a cleaner energy future, embrace the technologies we have available to us. There is a recognition we need to act together to update our energy policies. I have come to the floor this evening to speak to where we are in this process of successfully moving an energy modernization bill across the floor of the Senate. We took this up some 2 weeks ago now. I wanted to comment on some of the comments that were actually made on the floor this morning. There was a comment that was made that as Republicans we need to ``get to yes'' on assistance for Flint. I have stood on the floor and have made clear there is no doubt in my mind that Flint is the site of a tragedy that should have been, could have been avoided. There is no doubt in my mind that Federal assistance could be provided to help with the city's ongoing crisis, but there is also no doubt in my mind but that this is something where we need to get to yes on a number to help Flint out. We need to get to yes, and we need to figure out what that right amount is. It sounds easy, and those of us who are committed to not only addressing the situation, the urgent situation we see in Flint, there is a recognition that there is a broader problem at play when we think about our Nation's infrastructure and our water infrastructures. I wanted to take a few minutes this evening to speak to that and where we are in this process and why this ``getting to yes'' has perhaps been more problematic than most had hoped. I remind my colleagues that what we have been debating on the floor is an energy bill. It is a bill that was written by myself as the chairman of the Energy Committee, along with Senator Cantwell from Washington as my ranking member. It included the Presiding Officer as a member of the committee, along with dozens of other members who serve on the Energy Committee. It has been the result of more than a year of regular process, regular order, within the committee, where we worked to consider ideas from all over the board. We undertook an effort that some would say you just don't see around here anymore. We started with an agreement, an agreement between the chairman, myself, and the ranking member, and asked: Do we want to send a message this year about what we need to do with energy and our energy policies or do we want to bring about some change? Is it time to update our energy policies after 8 years? The two of us agreed we wanted to make that change. We recognized that in order to do that, in order to get it through the committee with a good bipartisan vote, in order to get it to the floor, we were going to have to work together. We made that commitment, our staffs made that commitment, and we not only said we were going to do it, we did it. We started off with a series of oversight hearings that we had in Washington, DC, and around the country, bringing people in, soliciting their ideas. After the oversight hearings, we had six legislative hearings before the committee, going through a host of different initiatives. There were 114 bills, separate bills--some from members of the committee, some from Members who were not serving on the Energy Committee but who had good ideas, and we reviewed them all, considered them as part of the bill we were building, and then we had our markup. We went into 3 days of markup before the Energy Committee. We considered over 50 different measures, 50 different measures from folks within the committee and outside the committee, Republicans and Democrats, urban and rural. In the committee process, it was full-on. It was an open exchange. It was any good idea, any amendment that you have, if you think you have the votes, let's run it. If you think you don't and you still want to run it anyway, let's work it. We worked that committee process. We considered 59 amendments within the committee. It was a good process, and because it was good process and it was so inclusive, we got a bill that moved out of the committee 18 to 4. The four dissenting votes were interesting. We had two Republicans who dissented and two Democrats. Even the opposition was bipartisan. I say this by laying the groundwork for what we have built because I want colleagues to appreciate the substance of the measure we have before us with the Energy Policy Modernization Act. We then came to the floor the first of the year, the first big bill to come to the floor and take up valuable floor time, and I am pleased we were able to come to the floor early. In the time that we have been to the floor, we have dispensed with 38 amendments. Most of those have gone by voice, not because it has been a take-this-or-leave-it approach. A voice vote means it comes by unanimous consent. You have to get consent to get these before the body. We worked through a host of different issues, all over the board--whether it related to advanced nuclear or whether it related to coal research or whether it related to issues as they relate to our public lands. We have been working this throughout this process. In fact, I think it is important to recognize that even during this time period where it has been quiet on the floor, we haven't heard people talking much about where we are with the Energy bill. Our staffs on the majority side and the minority side have been working together to clear even more amendments that have that support that we could move by voice, almost 30 additional amendments on top of what we have already done. We are not letting the moss collect and gather as we are trying to deal with the situation that has detracted and distracted this Energy bill, and that is the nature of the Flint issue. I don't want people to think the basis of the bill which brought us here, a bill that would modernize our energy policies, a bill that would help America produce more energy, a bill that would help Americans save money, a bill that would help our Nation with our national security, our energy security, and our economic security, a bill that would help to cement our status as a global energy superpower--it is important we remember why we are here. Others are remembering that when we left the floor on Thursday with an indeterminate path forward into how we were going to advance the Energy bill, those groups that have been interested in following this debate come to us with concern saying: Wait. Don't stop that forward movement. The Bipartisan Policy Center has sent out a letter urging us to move forward with this Energy Policy Modernization Act. ClearPath has urged us: Please, this is important to us from a clean energy perspective. Bill Gates has put out a letter on his blog post urging us: Please don't forget that as we are talking about how to resolve this situation for Flint, MI, that we don't forget the importance of the underlying bill we are debating, which is the Energy Policy Modernization Act. The progress we have made on this bill is critically important. Again, we are working with the ranking member to keep plugging along on all of those issues we have outstanding. We believe we have a path forward for a bipartisan bill, a bill that so many Members of this body have come to the floor and said that this is good, this is important, this is something we need to do. We are not going to forget that, but in the meantime, what we are dealing with is this plea for assistance, Federal assistance by the people of Flint, MI. As I said last week, I don't fault that request. Coming from a State like Alaska, which has considerable needs of its own when it comes to water infrastructure, in far too many of my communities it is not a situation of aging infrastructure. It is a situation of no infrastructure, no clean water, no safe drinking water. I understand, but I am increasingly frustrated by where we are now and how the decisions that have been made to date are effectively stopping all activity on an energy bill, even as it becomes perhaps increasingly obvious or clear that the issue related to Flint, the urgency of Flint's situation--the bigger issue we see looming when it comes to our Nation's water infrastructure, that is a problem that demands a level of scrutiny and attention that we as a Congress should give--but is the Energy Policy Modernization Act the right vehicle for what is being sought right now? I want to make sure that not only colleagues know but people who have been following this issue know that we have been working in good faith toward a solution that will help address the situation in Flint. Many of my Republican colleagues are working with the Senators from Michigan to try to find a good-faith solution. I have been engaged in this from the very get-go. I have been working on this issue, as have many Republican members. We found some programs out there that make sense for providing assistance. The State revolving fund is one we have looked to and have, along with our staffs, spent considerable hours debating the merits of different approaches and drafting language for them in the hope of being able to resolve scoring issues and generally trying to seek a path forward. While others were enjoying the Super Bowl on Sunday, my staff was not. Actually, the Senator from Washington and I happened to be on the same airplane when we were coming back from the west coast so we could be here to work on this bill, and we missed the game as well. Our staffs were going back and forth with CBO to determine if the solutions that we had laid down were going to work. Were they going to meet the scoring issues? Were they going to avoid the blue slip issues? Was it going to be a viable path forward? We have been doing this since day one. I think it is important to outline these issues to people so that when someone suggests that somehow or other we just need to ``get to yes'' quickly, they know that there is a range of factors that have complicated our efforts. It doesn't help that the Energy bill that has drawn widespread acclaim for having a very open process has to now try and deal with the situation in Flint, so there hasn't been an open process. In fact, there hasn't been a process. I think that is part of what is complicating this situation. This is a big issue. There is an urgency to address Flint's situation, which is maybe more specific, but again, this is bigger than Flint. We heard from colleagues on both sides of the aisle about the issues around their respective States and around our country which we are going to have to be dealing with. We have an amazing, complete process with the Energy bill that we have methodically and consistently--almost over the top--gone through a process, and now we have something that is kind of been airdropped in, to use an expression around here, that is not as easy as people would suggest. It is not something where you can say: Just throw some money at it. We are not helped by attempts to federalize the process, regardless of the Federal Government's share of the responsibility in it. I believe there is a proportionate share where we have to be there to help. We are not helped by the President's decision not to issue a disaster declaration but instead to grant a much more limited emergency declaration, and then we are not necessarily helped by the President's budget that he laid down today. He didn't request funding for Flint in this massive budget proposal. In fact, the level of funds that we have been looking at that could help Flint--the State revolving funds--have not increased. What we have actually seen is a decrease in the Clean Water Fund. That is not going to help us because we recognize that we have to address those issues as well. Also, we are not helped when they ask for far more Federal dollars than the city of Flint may be capable of spending over the next year. We have been trying to identify and discern what would help. I had a conversation with the Governor of Michigan to try to discern it. I have talked to the Senators from Michigan, and I have talked to the House Members from Michigan. We have at least four Flint-related amendments that are pending to the Energy bill from the Michigan delegation alone, but again, in terms of the extent of the repairs that need to be made, does it include all of the pipes in Flint? Are they trying to get a corrosion control system in place? Is that it? Do we have a final estimate for what those repairs will cost and the plan of action that will be required? I appreciate the response of the Senator from Michigan when there was a little bit of back and forth with the Senator from Texas, saying that in her bill there is a requirement to detail how the money will be spent. I truly appreciate that part of it. We are being put in a situation where we are trying to define the right amount here, and it is important that we get that right. As important as it is for us to get to yes and figure out what we can do to help Flint in a way that is fair to Flint and fair overall, we have to get it right as well. Again, I was reading some newsclips last night. The New York Times had an article about how all around the country we are seeing other States that are setting up an alarm in terms of situations within their communities--from Pennsylvania to Ohio to California--where there is a need to not only improve the current infrastructure, but there are issues in these communities that have raised a level of concern that we should all be concerned and care about. So how we approach this issue and how we make sure that--in an effort to kind of rush money out the door to Flint alone--we don't put ourselves in a place where we commit to a course of action where the Federal Government pays for all of the costs for local water systems. We can't legislate crisis by crisis, community by community, or pretend that the Federal Government is not already $19 trillion in debt. We have to do right by this. We want to address the urgency--I want to address the urgency--for the people in Flint, but I also want to make sure we do it right. I think most Members recognize that our solution is going to have to be national in scope because there are other communities in other States that may also need help. Most Members know that our answers must be responsible in light of our already difficult fiscal situation, and most Members are at least willing to consider the legislation that provides assistance so long as it doesn't violate our Senate rules, the Constitution, or add to the Federal deficit. Again, that is why we are kind of sitting here today, Tuesday evening. There are a couple of plans that have been viewed as viable because they meet that criteria. They meet the criteria in terms of not adding to the Federal deficit, not violating the rules of the Senate, and not violating our Constitution, and it is interesting that both of those measures are actually measures that come from this side of the aisle. I note that the majority leader is on the floor, and I will defer to him at his convenience; otherwise, I will continue with my comments. I laid down an offer last week. The offer would make $550 million available, $50 million would be made available through State-revolving grants. This money could help the people of Flint and other communities that have contaminated drinking water. It gives access to $500 million in loans. It is fully paid for. It is one of the few viable offsets that we have found within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee where I am the chairman, and I think that is part of the issue that we need to be discussing here. It is so important to make sure--as we look to these pay-fors--we can make an agreement on the pay-fors, and I believe this one is viable because I believe it is one we can agree on. Last week I asked unanimous consent to have this amendment pending for a vote, but that was rejected. The second proposal was one made by Chairman Inhofe, who is the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction, and last week he also introduced an amendment that was fully paid for. He used funds that are available from an all-but-dormant loan program at the Department of Energy which is used to subsidize the auto industry. We can go back and forth about the merits of that fund, but the fact remains that it would have been a viable pay-for for the measure that Senator Inhofe laid down. It, too, was rejected even though it was effectively an offer to prioritize assistance for the families and the children in Flint over some of the major corporations, and we were told no. That is kind of where we are right now. If you want to know why the negotiations aren't proceeding as quickly and as smoothly as they had hoped, I think that is one of the reasons we are where we are. The fact is, many of us are willing and trying valiantly, and in many cases desperately, to get to yes, but we can't get to yes on just anything. We cannot accept something that is not paid for. Quite honestly, we can't do something that would jeopardize and doom the underlying Energy bill, and I think we can't get to yes on something that provides more funding than could reasonably be used in the short term or ignores the problems that we are facing in other parts of the country. We have looked at how we can separate this and how we can work it out as a stand-alone measure. I think it needs to be made a priority. I think Chairman Inhofe, who is on the EPW, has made it one, but I think it needs to be separate and apart from what we are doing on this bipartisan Energy bill which already includes priorities from over 62 Members of the Senate. I don't think it is too much to ask that our Energy bill be allowed to move forward in the meantime. If we had been able to move forward as we had planned, we would have tucked this legislation away last Thursday, and we would have had a full week to buckle down and figure out a path forward for Flint and for the Nation. Instead, here we are on a Tuesday, we have a recess coming up at the end of the week, and we haven't had an opportunity to approve these almost 30 amendments that could go by voice. We are kind of at a stall spot.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I will.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Yes.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. It is my understanding that there is an assessment and analysis that is due out, I believe, toward the end of next week. The State has been working aggressively to determine the costs, as well as how they would move forward with an action plan. That is my understanding.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Certainly.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from my colleagues raising attention to the issue in Flint, MI. I think we have had good, constructive discussions, not only very intensely yesterday, but working with the two Senators from Michigan on this issue for several months right now. As the Senator said, the discussions are still ongoing, and I want to speak to where we are in that process. I would like to start my comments this morning by recognizing that we are very close to the time that has been set for this first cloture vote on this broad bipartisan bill. As we approach it, I want to follow on the majority leader's comments in terms of reminding Members of what we have incorporated within this measure, to reiterate the strong bipartisan support that our bill has drawn, and to lay out what I believe is our best path to final passage. This Energy Policy Modernization Act, as I have mentioned, is more than a year's worth of hard work by those of us who serve on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it has been the result of Member-to- Member conversations, listening sessions, legislative hearings, bipartisan negotiations, and then we had a marathon 3-day markup in July. At the end of that markup, we moved it out by a vote of 18-to-4. It was pretty strong support--10 Republicans and 8 Democrats in favor. The reason the bill passed out of the committee on such a strong bipartisan basis was not just because of our commitment to good process. We matched that with an equal commitment to good policy. I think that is important to recognize. It was processed, but it was also policy. We worked together to include the priorities from Members of both sides of the aisle as well as from within the committee and outside of the committee. We agreed to include a bill to streamline LNG exports that was written by Senator Barrasso and 17 other bipartisan Members. We agreed to include a major efficiency bill headed up by Senators Portman and Shaheen and 13 other bipartisan Members. We agreed to improve our mineral security, an effort that I have led with Senators Risch, Heller and Crapo. We agreed to promote the use of hydropower, a clean renewable resource that is favored by almost everybody in this Chamber. We agreed to expedite the permitting of natural gas pipelines without sacrificing any environmental review or public participation. This was an effort that was led by Senator Capito. We agreed to a new oil and gas permitting pilot program, one of several ideas that Senator Hoeven contributed. We took up a proposal from Senator Collins to boost the efficiency of schools. We agreed to approve our Nation's cyber security based on legislation from Senator Risch and Senator Heinrich. We also made innovation a key priority to promote the development of new technologies. As part of that, we agreed to reauthorize many of the energy-related portions of the America COMPETES Act, thanks to the leadership of Senator Alexander. We agreed to take commonsense steps to promote geothermal energy, which is a key issue to Senator Wyden, certainly myself, and so many others. We agreed to promote vehicle innovation based on a bipartisan measure from Senator Alexander and our friends from Michigan, Senator Peters, Senator Stabenow. We agreed to reauthorize the coal R&D program at the Department of Energy based on yet another bipartisan proposal from Senators Manchin, Capito, and Portman. In the context of our broader bill--and only in the context of the broader bill--we also agreed to reauthorize and reform the Land and Water Conservation Fund. What we came away with was a good, timely bipartisan measure that has a very real chance of being the first Energy bill to be signed into law in over 8 years. It is a measure that will help America produce more energy. It will help Americans save money, and it will help ensure that the energy can be transported from where it is produced to where it is needed. It will bolster our Nation's status as the best innovator in the world, something we should all aim to support. It will boost our economy, especially our manufacturers, and it will cement our status as a global energy superpower. As I said, it does all of this without raising taxes, without imposing any new mandates, and without adding to the Federal deficit. I think because of all of that, that is why you have seen the good, strong support for this measure. That was our base bill. That was where we started. When we came to the floor, it got better. Our starting point at the Senate floor was good and strong. Since we have taken up the debate for a week now, we have continued to work in a very open, very bipartisan, sometimes a little bit lengthy and tedious process, but it works. We committed to an open amendment process and most Members have held back on, whether you call them gotchas or gimmes or poison pills, but there has been a great deal of cooperation. We voted on 38 amendments now. We have accepted 32 of the 38. We have added even more good ideas from even more Members to an already bipartisan bill. I will recount a few of the things we have done with that. We agreed to boost our Nation's efforts to develop advanced nuclear technologies. This was a great amendment led by Senators Crapo, Whitehouse, Risch, Booker, Hatch, Kirk, and Durbin. We voiced our strong support for carbon capture and utilization storage technologies thanks to an idea from Senators Heitkamp, Capito, Booker, Whitehouse, Manchin, Blunt, and Franken. We have reaffirmed the need for consistent Federal policies that recognize the carbon neutrality of forest biomass. This was an effort that was championed by Senators Collins, Klobuchar, Ayotte, King, Franken, Daines, Crapo, and Risch. You do not often see these large groups of Senators coming together in a way that we have seen on this bill. Some would look at the names I read off and say: I did not know that they had anything to work on. But these issues have brought them together. This truly has been a team effort, with Members reaching out to one another, lining up behind each other's ideas, working with Senator Cantwell and me to ensure their adoption. The best proof of that is simple review of our bill. Right now the Energy Policy Modernization Act includes priorities sponsored or cosponsored by at least 62 Members of the Senate. When was the last time we saw that level of cooperation and collaboration? Think about it. More than three-fifths of the Senate has contributed something to this Energy bill, and we are not done processing amendments yet. My staff and the staff of Senator Cantwell have been comparing notes about the feedback we have been getting outside the Chamber. What we found is that from the very time we started working through the committee process to our time on the Senate floor, a very wide range of individuals, businesses, groups have come out and supported the bill or certainly pieces of it. We have had provisions endorsed by major associations whose membership account for hundreds of companies and millions of American workers. This includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Chemistry Council, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the Alliance of Automobile. We have also heard from labor groups--North America's Building Trades Union, the United Autoworkers, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. They have all weighed in with support for ideas that are included within the bill. We have a huge coalition from the Alliance to Save Energy to Seattle City Light that has welcomed the work we are doing on efficiency. I have gotten good, strong support from Alaskans from our Department of Natural Resources, the Alaska Power Association, the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, Cordova Electric Cooperative, and a whole lot more. As you might expect, we have also received great encouragement from the people who keep the lights on, who keep our fuel affordable, who help produce the materials that make modern life that much more enjoyable--whether it is the National Mining Association, American Exploration & Mining, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, American Public Power Association, Edison Electric, and others. The reality is, those who have weighed in, in support of this measure are too many to name this morning, but that is a good problem to have when you are legislating that you have run out of time in outlining the coalitions that have come together in support. So that I do not get into any trouble this morning, I want to be clear that many of the groups and the entities I have listed have endorsed parts of the bill, not all of it. I am not suggesting that everyone who likes our work to streamline LNG Exports is automatically supportive of what we are doing to clean up the U.S. Code. That is entirely fair. Not everything in this is going to appeal to everyone. In a lot of ways, that is how things work in a place like the Senate. Not everyone likes every provision of this bill. I do not like every provision of this bill. Not everyone is getting everything they want. It is pretty tough to find a situation where you get 100 percent of everything you would want. This is not the bill I would have written on my own, but it is the bill we have written together first as a committee of 22 and now as a Senate working together. Our work has produced a good bill, a good bill worth debating, worth advancing, and worth passing. That brings us to the point where we are with the cloture vote we will soon take. This vote is on the first of two cloture motions we will need to approve before we can move to final passage. There are two votes. There is one on the substitute amendment, and there is one on the underlying bill. This means this vote we will see very shortly is a means to advance debate, not to conclude it, on our Energy Policy Modernization Energy Act. It is also a choice. I think it is important to lay out clearly to Members where we are, what we are voting on this morning. By voting for cloture, Members will be ensuring that we remain on this bill for at least another 30 hours of legislative activity. You will be voting to continue this process, to continue this debate, and to continue processing amendments whether by voice, as we have done so many of them, or by rollcall vote that we hope to set up. You will also be giving us the time we need to focus on matters that are simply not settled yet. As we have heard from our colleagues from Michigan, there are some matters they wish to have resolved that are not yet settled, but this allows us that time to do that but to do this in a way that is going to be acceptable to the majority of our Members. The reality is, if you are not comfortable with where we are 30 hours from now, you can still vote against the next cloture motion that comes up. That is one choice, and that is going to be my choice. Here is the other: If you vote against cloture, you will be effectively voting not to prolong debate but to move us off this bipartisan bill. You will be voting to effectively be giving up on so much of what we have done, a year of process, agreement on almost 50 Energy bills that we have incorporated into this base bill, and the strong approval of 32 separate amendments and counting that we have advanced through the floor. I believe you will be voting to give up our best opportunity-- certainly our most immediate opportunity--to address the issue to help the people of Flint, MI, and in other parts of the country that may have similar issues. Every time I leave the Senate floor--at least this past week--I am swarmed by reporters who want to know what is going on, what is the latest discussion. What is going to happen with Flint? Is Flint going to bring this bill down? This morning I want to speak directly to this to let Members know what has gone on because we were not out here on the floor all day yesterday hashing things back and forth. We have been discussing very earnestly, and I believe very constructively, what our options are, how we can find a path forward that will yield a result, not just send a message but yield a result to help the people in Flint, MI. The first thing I will say is that I share the concern, the heartbreak for what the people of Flint, MI, have faced and are facing. It is a crisis. It is a tragedy. It is heartbreakingly avoidable. Unfortunately, we look at how we got here, and it is a failure of local, State, and Federal Governments to regulate and monitor that city's water supply. What has happened in Flint has hurt people. It is hurting children. It has damaged property. It has left families in a horrible predicament, through no fault of their own, where they cannot drink their tapwater, they cannot bathe their children. There is plenty of blame to go around here. I know my colleagues from Michigan would agree with me, but our job in the U.S. Senate is not to play this blame game. It is to own up to what that Federal role is because I believe there is that Federal role, and then on that basis do what we can to help and make sure that our response is proportionate to that role. So why then consider all of this in the context of an energy bill, you might ask, and it is a fair and legitimate question. Well, it is because this is the first piece of legislation that is on the floor since the extent of the crisis in Flint became clear to us. Senator Stabenow and I began discussions about the situation in Flint in very early December as we were trying to move through an omnibus bill to see if there was not something we might be able to address through the appropriations bill. Since that time, again, more has been learned, and we are here today with legislation that gives us an opportunity to consider it. I did not shy away from this discussion, as hard it was. I did not say: Hey, that is going to be a poison pill. I cannot deal with it. I said: Let us try to figure this out because if we do not address the situation, it is not going to go away. We have a role here. Let us figure out what that responsibility is, and let us engage in this conversation. Senator Cantwell and I have been fully engaged, most directly with the Senators in Michigan, trying to find a responsible path forward. The negotiations have been earnest, in good faith, and ongoing, but I think that there has been a little bit of confusion about the status of the negotiations. I want to outline where I believe we are right now. We have made headway on Federal assistance--something that we know cannot be borne by our Energy bill alone. We have found programs that could be good fits to provide aid. We also recognize that this is not Flint's burden alone, but there are other communities in other States, including my State, that face similar crises as a result of government failures. We hear about them as Members and talk about these situations. I believe the Senator from Maryland used the phrase ``We are all Flint.'' I think we all have situations--maybe not to the crisis proportion that they have in Michigan right now, where they needed a Presidential declaration, but we all recognize that we all have issues that are troubling us a great deal when it comes to how we provide safe drinking water for our families. Our problem is not about whether we should offset the cost of this assistance; it is how we do so in a manner that does not destroy the underlying Energy bill and does not violate the Constitution or the rules we have here in the Senate. I made myself very clear when we began, at the outset of the debate on this measure, that we have to make sure we do not have scoring issues with CBO, and we have to make sure there are no blue slip issues because that would kill the bill, and then where would we be? Then nobody would win in that scenario. In that scenario we would end up with no energy bill and nothing to address the situation in Flint. This morning I filed a second-degree amendment to provide support for the people of Flint. My amendment will make up to $550 million available, including $50 million which will be made immediately available for the people of Flint. What we are seeking to do here is bridge the gap between what has been proposed and what I believe the Senate can agree to. It requires that 90 percent of the money we provide be paid back over time. Its cost is fully offset with a pay-for that we have been working on back and forth with CBO and are confident that they will accept. It includes provisions--and we have been working with the Senators from Michigan on this issue--as they relate to EPA notification and a loan forgiveness, language that I think has been in different iterations of measures that have been going forward. I am told that the House is looking at that as well. That is where we are at this time as we are going into a cloture motion. I believe we have made progress. We are working constructively to help the people of Flint, and what this second-degree amendment would do is make $550 million available to them. It has been challenging. We have done a lot of hard work to get to this point, but I think we owe it to every American, whether you are in Flint or somewhere else, to do that work and overcome that challenge. We have gotten to where we are in the discussion. Again, we have the cloture motion going forward. We have been trying to make good progress. We have been trying to conduct an open and fair amendment process. We want to process more amendments this morning so that we can move to complete the bill. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up the following amendments and make them pending, and that is Stabenow amendment No. 3129; Murkowski second-degree on Flint, amendment No. 3282; Cantwell amendment No. 3242; Flake amendment No. 3055; Flake amendment No. 3050; Murkowski-Cantwell amendment No. 3234; Isakson amendment No. 3202; Markey amendment No. 3232; and Cassidy amendment No. 3192.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2016, at 10:30 a.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a Subcommittee hearing entitled ``Ensuring Intermodal USF Support for Rural America.''

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 4, 2016, at 10 a.m.