Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to my second-session summer interns for the month of July through August 5; that is, Jonathon Ford, Matthew Agron, Isabella Kershaw, Jocelyn Cannon, Devin Moorehead, Nicole Makar, Matthew Park, and Harold Monroe.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, on rollcall vote No. 252, I voted no. It was my intention to vote yea. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 have come to the floor this morning to recognize and commemorate the 45th anniversary of the first oil moving through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. We actually reached that milepost on Monday so I am here to speak this morning about what this 800-mile-long pipeline continues to mean for Alaska, our Nation, and really the world itself. TAPS, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, is truly a modern marvel. It is the backbone of my home State's economy. It supports great jobs for Alaska. It helps generate critical revenues for our State. It ensures that our energy is transported safely, and it really is a vital component of America's energy security. But I think it is kind of nice, as we reflect on decades past, to appreciate some of the history behind the Trans-Alaska Pipeline because, for a period of time, there was a question of whether or not this extraordinary energy infrastructure would be built at all. After oil was discovered in Prudhoe Bay, there was vigorous debate as to how we were going to move this resource, how we were going to transport it. Some wanted to use trucks or tankers; others actually thought that massive jets would be the way to go. There were some who wanted to build an overland pipeline across Canada. That would have been about a 3,200-mile line in length. But, thankfully, it was an all- Alaska pipeline route that prevailed. So when you look at the map of Alaska and where our pipeline sits today, it truly does just bisect the entire State of Alaska. From Prudhoe to Valdez at Tidewater is an 800-mile line. Thankfully, an all- Alaska pipeline route was the one that ultimately prevailed over all of the alternatives that were considered. Congress authorized it in 1973-- an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis of authorization. There is an interesting side story--it is actually not a side story; it is pretty pivotal--in terms of whether or not this Trans-Alaska Pipeline actually came into being. But it was a tie-breaking vote cast by Spiro Agnew that really helped to facilitate the line because it effectively determined that there would be no further litigation about the line moving forward. The preconstruction process for TAPS lasted for about 6 years, mostly concurrent with the final passage of its authorization act; and as part of that, the Federal Task Force on Alaskan Oil Development--this is a group that we should probably be bringing back--completed a six-volume environmental impact statement, so a six-volume EIS. And that EIS, along with Congress's decision to shield TAPS from litigation--again, this tie-breaking vote that I have alluded to-- allowed the construction to begin. So it did. Several companies joined together to form a joint venture, called Alyeska, and they set forth to build and operate the line. And Alyeska ultimately acquired 515 Federal permits, along with more than 832 from the State of Alaska, in order to proceed. Now, at that time, TAPS was the largest private construction project of its kind. It had a pricetag of more than $8 billion. In October of 1975, more than 28,000 people were working to make it a reality, and together they turned over 100,000 pieces of 40- to 60-foot pipe in a 48-inch diameter that runs from, again, Prudhoe to Valdez in the south central part of our State. I have had many opportunities to show visitors our Trans-Alaska Pipeline. If you look at it from the air, it is just this silver ribbon, again, that bisects the State. You look at it from the ground, and, again, it is truly, truly an engineering marvel. Now, I saw an old criticism that TAPS was an ``engineer's nightmare.'' The occupant of the Chair here might be interested in this given your background, but, in reality, it is a testament, truly, to world-class engineering and the genius, the creativity, and the pioneering spirit of all who worked on it. TAPS crosses three mountain ranges, including Atigun Pass in the Brooks Range that has an elevation of 4,739 feet. It reaches a grade of 55 degrees at Thompson Pass in the Chugach Range. It crosses more than 530 streams and rivers. It accommodates some 579 animal crossings. And it operates at temperatures ranging from 95 degrees above zero to 80 degrees below zero, and that is not counting the windchill factor. And when you are talking about Alaska, of course, you have got to account for seismic activity. So TAPS' engineers also had to account for that. You have got mountain ranges. You have got extreme weather. You have got animals, wildlife that you have to accommodate. You have the rivers, the streams, but you also have to accommodate seismic hazard. The pipeline crosses three fault lines, including the Denali Fault. In that area, engineers built the pipeline on slider beams with Teflon shoes. So if you look at these supports here, these vertical support pillars here and the slider beams are on Teflon shoes that allow the pipeline to move laterally up to 20 feet--up to 20 feet laterally--and up to 5 feet vertically. So this pipeline can absorb the give-and-take and the hard shake of a significant earthquake. And it is pretty important that the engineers worked this into this extraordinary infrastructure. We had a magnitude 7.9 earthquake that struck in 2002 right on that Denali Fault. The pipeline handled it well. It remained intact, and it did exactly what the engineers designed it to do: It moved back and forth on these lateral supports. It moved up and down, and it allowed that pipeline, that piece of steel pipeline, to have the flex that it needed to avoid any--any--issues. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was built in just over 3 years. This was between 1974 and 1977. I was a young person growing up in Fairbanks at the time, and that was a time and place of great energy and intensity as we were involved in this extraordinary oil construction boom. And the men and women who were working on the project at that time had this saying: ``They just didn't know that it couldn't be done.'' And they not only met their goal of first oil moving through the pipeline by July 1, 1977; they beat it by 10 days. And the rest, they say, is history. Over the past 45 years, TAPS has not just been a pipeline, not just oil pipeline infrastructure; it has become Alaska's economic lifeline. I say it is like the artery for our State. It has helped us create jobs to the point where our oil and gas industry either employs or supports about one-third of Alaska's workforce. It has generated billions of dollars in revenues for our State--for everything from roads and schools to essential services. TAPS has allowed us to create and now grow our Permanent Fund. This Permanent Fund has really turned our oil resources into an enduring source of prosperity for Alaskans. We not only have a Permanent Fund, but spun off from that Permanent Fund and the investment on those earnings are dividends that are returned to each and every Alaskan in this State. If you lived in Alaska from 1982, when they first started the dividends, until today, you would have received nearly $45,000 in annual dividends that go to offset the high cost of living in a high- cost State like Alaska. This year, Alaskans are set to receive a pretty hefty Permanent Fund dividend: more than $3,000 more. So it has been an economic benefit, most certainly, to Alaskans. It has also enabled us to keep our State tax burden low. We have no income tax in the State. We have no statewide sales tax. We have the lowest gas tax in the country. As the economist Scott Goldsmith has noted, revenues from TAPS also enable us to keep taxes on other industries like our tourism, our fisheries--it allows us to keep those taxes lower than they might otherwise be. But really, from day one, TAPS has strengthened our energy security. And when I talk about energy security, I am referring not just to the security of those of us in Alaska but to our Nation's energy security. It helped tide America over during the 1979 oil crisis. It has insulated us from OPEC and OPEC Plus and lessened our dependence on nations that do not share our interests, and it has dramatically reduced the dollars that go overseas to purchase oil. It has certainly provided reliable and affordable energy for tens of millions of Americans up and down the west coast because it is the west coast where Alaskan oil is primarily directed. But it is hard to imagine Alaska without TAPS, without the Trans- Alaska Pipeline System. It is hard also to imagine the consequences that America would have faced without the 18.4 billion barrels of oil that it has now safely moved over these past 45 years. And I think it is no exaggeration to say that while we built a pipeline, that pipeline has helped us build our State. And in the midst of all this--something that the folks at Alyeska Pipeline are very, very proud of--Alyeska has accrued a remarkable safety record. From 2017 through 2020, the company reported a total of just 5.1 barrels of oil as spilled. Yet over that same time period, from 2017 to 2020, more than 733 million barrels of oil have moved through TAPS. So not 1 in every 1 million gallons, not 1 in every 10 million gallons, not even 1 in every 100 million gallons was spilled during this time period. That is a pretty darn good record. And that is something that Alyeska can be proud of, and I think it speaks to the kind of company that it is. And, at its core, the reason why TAPS has been successful are its people. They focus on safety first. There are more than 700 people who work directly for Alyeska on the North Slope, at the pump stations, at its Anchorage control center, and in Valdez. And you are probably not going to find a more dedicated group. They are just so committed to their mission, and it certainly makes me proud to know that 95 percent of those who work at Alyeska are Alaskans. TAPS is an economic engine for our State. But as we are standing here in 2022 celebrating its 45th anniversary, the fact of the matter is, this pipeline faces a real challenge. TAPS' technical capacity is 2 million barrels per day. We have achieved that years ago. But right now--right now--the pipeline is moving just a quarter of that. They are moving about 500,000 barrels a day. So what that means is that the line is about three-quarters empty, and that can create some difficult operational challenges. We have had many of the briefings about what it means when you have a pipeline that isn't completely full. The throughput moves slower. And when you have hot oil coming out of the ground in an arctic environment, moving 800 miles through a cold piece of steel, if it doesn't move quickly and it is allowed to cool down, it can build up waxy buildup on the inside that needs to be scrubbed and cleaned. We call it pigging. It is just an operational thing. Alyeska deals with it, but it is something that is an issue. When you have less than full throughput, it moves differently. So when you are going up mountain ranges and down the other side, now what happens as you see that pipeline, which is designed to flex, when you don't have your full operational capacity? And Alyeska has been working to work through some of these challenges, and they have been doing a good job. But in fairness, this is not Alyeska's fault here. If you want to know why TAPS is a quarter full, you can probably look to some people in this Chamber, some who have been serving in this Chamber before. You can look down the street to Pennsylvania Avenue at the current administration as well as some who preceded the Biden administration. We have the resources--Alaska has the resources to fill TAPS up. What we have lacked is access to our lands, access to our leases, and access to the permits to help make this a reality. And this is despite various Presidents telling Alaskans that, look, you are going to be able to develop your resources. They say it, and the promises are broken over and over and over again. And it continues to this day. The Biden administration is breaking the law by refusing to carry out the oil and gas program that Congress mandated for the non-wilderness 1002 Area. We did that in the 2017 law. Millions of acres in our National Petroleum Reserve are being taken off the table with this administration through, effectively, administration whim. And with one of the best projects within the Petroleum Reserve right now, we are dealing with some redtape here; but, effectively, the excuse is that more studies need to be done. These are studies that have been done already, and we are being told you have to do them again. With gas prices averaging more than $5 a gallon across the Nation, it sure would be nice to fill up the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. It not only gives us more product domestically; it would certainly help us in Alaska. We would have more jobs in Alaska and more revenue to help us improve the quality of life in every community in our State, help offset the very high fuel costs in our State. We averaged $5 and above a long time before many in the lower 48 here. But we would also be bringing less foreign oil to the West Coast, including California, where imports have risen in almost direct proportion to our production decline. As you are seeing less oil coming out of Alaska to the West Coast, particularly California, they are getting it from somewhere, and they are bringing it in. They are importing that. And whether it is from countries that don't like us and don't really care about their environmental track record or their human rights issues, we get it from there. We would also have an alternative to Russia, which continues to sell its energy and bring in billions of dollars a day to finance its bloody war against Ukraine. And then across the Nation, you could anticipate that prices would be lower at the pump, which would reduce the pain that families and businesses are experiencing. I know that there is not a dial on this extraordinary energy security asset where we can just ramp it up, but this is an important discussion to be having, again, in context of what value the oil resources in Alaska can contribute to our country. And when you have in place policies that say it is not important to keep this thing full--even though in Alaska, you have the resources to keep it full--when you say it is not important and you put in place pressures and obstacles and barriers to increase production, you are going to see that. You are going to see that impact, what happens in this country to our supply. Right now, we are all reading about it. We are all watching the news. There is a lot that President Biden is saying that this is what we are going to do to bring down your gas prices, but I will go on record to suggest that a full TAPS would do a heck of a lot more to reduce gas prices than many of the other suggestions out there like price gouging probes and suspension of the Federal gas tax, the proposal to hand out gas cards. These are temporary--almost momentary--blips that might make somebody feel OK for a month or 2 because maybe I get a few cents more off the price at the pump if we have a 3-month Federal gas tax holiday like President Biden is suggesting. But, you know, it is not right to put in place--I mean, you can call it a gimmick, but are you addressing the fundamentals of supply and demand if you just say for a few months: ``Here, we are going to take the pressure off you so you won't be so mad''? Well, people are going to continue to be so mad if it doesn't help alleviate the problem, if it doesn't help address the pain that American families are feeling. It is pretty simple out here. We need supply. We need supply to keep up with the rising demand and the falling output from around the world. This is where we need to wake up because it is not as if we don't have options. It is not as if we don't have the supply. Alaska has the supply right in the vicinity of a world-class pipeline that has room for an additional 1.5 million barrels per day. It is just beyond me why anyone would contemplate oil from Iran or Venezuela or other members of OPEC+ over a State like Alaska. It is just beyond me; yet that is what we hear. That is what we hear from the President. That is what we hear from the administration that somehow we have to get this resource and it is going to have to come from somewhere, so we are going to go asking. We are going to go asking outside of our country. We are going to go to Iran, Venezuela. The President is going to make a trip to Saudi Arabia, yet they are not asking Alaska to do more. In fact, they are not only not asking, they continue to put up impediments and barriers for us to do more, and that just defies logic. It degrades the environment. It makes the world a more dangerous place every time we look to other countries for resources that we need, knowing full well that we have a better environmental record here. We have the ability to make us less vulnerable, less energy-insecure, and yet we are not taking advantage of that. There is a section on Alyeska's website titled ``Memories and Mileposts,'' with historical information about TAPS, and I would suggest that it is well worth visiting and recognizing what an incredible asset this pipeline has been since first oil was moved through it on June 20, 1977. Forty-five years is a good long time, but even as we thank all who have made TAPS such a resounding success, I would encourage all of you to maybe mark your calendars for June 20, 2027. That will be the 50th anniversary. I would hope that we could all be honest and realistic about our global energy needs in the meantime and ensure significantly greater throughput is running through that pipeline when we reach the next milepost. That would be good for Alaskans; that would be good for the country. I think it would be good and important for the world. And we know the men and women who operate TAPS at Alyeska and their contractors will ensure that every last molecule moves safely through it. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I have come to the floor this afternoon to speak about a measure that I will be introducing this week with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein. We have entitled this bill Bruce's Law in memory of a young Alaskan, Robert ``Bruce'' Snodgrass, who passed away in Anchorage last October. Bruce is the son of Sandy Snodgrass. Sandy is with us here today in the Senate Gallery. Bruce and Sandy lived in California when Bruce was younger before moving back to Alaska. Sandy likes to describe Alaska as Bruce's true home. Bruce was a good kid. He was a good kid, but, like many good kids, he struggled with alcoholism, he struggled with drug addiction, and he and his family were far too familiar with this, as his grandfather and his father died of the same addictions. And despite all of this, Bruce started using drugs as a teenager, and it really sent his life into a downward spiral. But Sandy was always there. Mom was always there providing a safe and a comfortable home, and yet he was arrested repeatedly and ultimately wound up homeless. But then, last summer--last summer, things turned around. Bruce made the choice to get clean. He wanted to get his life on track, and Sandy was right there, ready to help, as any good mom would be. She got Bruce to a detox facility and then into a local inpatient program for treatment. He graduated from it, and he moved back home. He was able to spend his time at outpatient meetings. He was in counseling. He liked to ride his mountain bike. He received this after he had completed the treatment program. But then, one day last October, Bruce went out for a bike ride, and Sandy remembers telling him before he went, she said, ``Be careful out there.'' But Bruce never came back. He never came home. On October 20, Bruce's body was found in a grocery store parking lot, and just like that--just like that--suddenly, heart-wrenchingly, and after trying so hard to overcome his demons, he was gone--just gone forever. And so we grieve with Sandy, who lost her only son that day. No parent-- no parent--should have to bear what she is going through. But the details of Bruce's death are especially tragic because Bruce died from an accidental overdose of fentanyl. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is 50 times more powerful than heroin, 100 times stronger than morphine, and it is relatively cheap, easy to make. It makes it attractive for drug dealers, but it is also just incredibly, incredibly dangerous for those who come into contact with it. Just 2 milligrams, which would fit on the end of a pencil, can cause a fatal overdose. This is how the Justice Department describes it: Fentanyl powder has the power to kill with the ingestion, inhalation, or skin absorption of just two milligrams. By comparison, a sweetener packet found on a restaurant tabletop generally contains 1,000 milligrams per packet. So just to give you an idea of how small a deadly amount can be, a single pill, with just trace amounts of fentanyl, can be fatal to the average person, which has prompted the Drug Enforcement Administration to start a campaign that they call a ``One Pill Can Kill.'' This campaign is designed to raise public awareness here. Now, there is a form of fentanyl that is carefully and precisely manufactured. It is prescribed for medical patients who may be in extreme pain, like those who are suffering from late-stage cancer. And doctors know--they know that they have to be exceedingly judicious with their prescription of this pharmaceutical fentanyl. But it is this other form--the illegal fentanyl--that is being made in underground labs and sold on the streets. Illegal fentanyl is often laced into counterfeit pills that are made to look like Oxycodone or other frequently used and abused opioids. The fake pills are difficult to distinguish from the real thing without specialized tests because they are deliberately made to look like them. According to law enforcement authorities, about 40 percent of those pills--of these counterfeit pills--contain a potentially lethal amount of fentanyl. So you buy a pill, you think it is a frequently abused opioid that you have taken before, but over 40 percent--about 40 percent of these counterfeit pills can contain a potentially lethal amount of fentanyl. Some drug traffickers are also adding fentanyl into heroin, into meth, into cocaine; and it makes these drugs even more deadly, since fentanyl is indistinguishable in its powder form. If you look at a picture of heroin and fentanyl, you cannot tell the difference. But fentanyl's presence might be the difference between life and death. It was an official from New Hampshire who said, a couple years ago: You don't know what you are taking. You are injecting yourself with a loaded gun. Now, most people would avoid fentanyl if they knew what it was capable of doing to them, but oftentimes they don't even know. They don't know. They have never heard of it or they don't know enough about it or, again, they think that they are buying a name-brand prescription pill, not some deadly knock off. It is now fueling a nationwide crisis with terrible, terrible impacts in every State in the country. A few weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal reported that drug overdose deaths likely reached more than 107,000 in America last year, an all- time high and an increase of 15 percent from just 2020. Roughly two- thirds of those deaths were attributable to synthetic opioids, led by fentanyl, with an increase of 23 percent year over year. So we are just seeing this skyrocket. An official with the CDC is quoted in that Wall Street Journal story as saying, ``We've never seen anything like this.'' ``We've never seen anything like this.'' And he is right; we haven't. Nor are we ready to fight it. Fentanyl is flowing into America largely from China and Mexico, and it is coming in at an unprecedented rate--so much so that it recently became the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45, and this was in the midst of the pandemic, when we were seeing deaths in other areas, but it became the leading cause of death for young Americans. And no one--no one--has been spared by this growing epidemic. I wish that I could say in Alaska, we are far enough away, we are remote; but, no. I have shared Bruce's story with you, but he is not the only one. Opioid-related deaths in Alaska, mostly from fentanyl, rose by 71 percent between 2020 and 2021. In my State of Alaska, it rose by 71 percent. It now accounts for about 60 percent of the drug overdose deaths in Alaska. Our law enforcement authorities routinely are intercepting packages with fentanyl. They are finding it in Anchorage, they are finding it in Ketchikan, in other places in the State. In April, the Alaska High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Initiative--this is what we call the HIDTA initiative--had its largest- ever seizure, worth an estimated $356,000. Our Governor's office has estimated that the 1,244 grams of fentanyl seized in January, February, March of this year, 2022, could kill 622,000 Alaskans--622,000 Alaskans. That is about 84 percent of our State's population. Think about that. In 3 months--in 3 months--the amount of fentanyl seized could kill 622,000 Alaskans or about 84 percent of our State's population. This is awful. This is a tragedy at every level. This is also an epidemic of the young, and I am looking to the young people on this floor because I want you to hear how frightening, how deadly, fentanyl is. According to the Alaska Department of Health and Human Services, drug overdose deaths rose by 25 percent among Alaskans aged 15 to 24 last year--so, basically, your age category--and by a staggering 200 percent in young Alaskans between the ages of 25 and 34. It is devastating because behind those numbers are real people, like Sandy's son, like Bruce Snodgrass, who should have celebrated his 23rd birthday just last week. We had beautiful, beautiful weather in Anchorage. I saw Sandy. She reminded me of Bruce's birthday. And you look around and you think about that young man lost, gone--gone. At least six individuals in the Mat-Su Valley who were killed by fentanyl-laced heroin in March made news in the paper--all just in one story. So, so many others killed, gone--gone. In the wake of Bruce's death, Sandy has said that she was in shock for several months, which is entirely understandable. But since then-- since then--she has decided to tell her story, share her heartache, in hopes that other moms won't lose their sons, and so she is an advocate. She is an advocate with every ounce of her being, and it is thanks to her that we are introducing Bruce's law. Bruce's Law starts with education and awareness, requiring the Federal Government to create a nationwide campaign against fentanyl for school-aged children, young adults, parents, first responders, and care providers. The campaign will help illustrate the extreme dangers of pills and street drugs that could be laced with fentanyl; help prevent drug abuse, including through the safe disposal of prescription medications; and help identify the early-warning signs of addiction. Bruce's Law also authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to form an interagency working group on fentanyl contamination of illegal drugs. This group would consist of Federal Agencies, State- level HIDTA directors, parents who have lost loved ones to fentanyl overdose deaths, and those with lived experience and recovery. It would consult with experts at all levels to identify strategies, resources, and supports to address the incidence of drug overdoses with fentanyl- contaminated drugs. It will review current Federal strategies to seek improvements to them, particularly when it comes to educating middle and high school students about the profound danger of these drugs. The final part of Bruce's Law authorizes new community-based coalition enhancement grants to help educate young people about the risks of street drugs laced with fentanyl. This would allow the Drug- Free Communities Coalitions to access new funding focused specifically on fentanyl and to try to curb or eradicate its use. This is a starting point. It is a starting point. And we have to start because we have such a serious problem on our hands. We know we have it in Anchorage, where Bruce Snodgrass likely never knew that he was taking a drug laced with fentanyl; where the officer who met Sandy after Bruce's body was found had just come--he had just come from notifying another family of another death caused by another overdose. We also know that we are not alone. This is a national crisis. We know we must do more--more to prevent fentanyl from coming across our borders; more to prevent fentanyl-laced drugs from being sold on the street; more to educate Americans, especially--especially--young adults, especially youth, about its acute danger; and more to address addiction and to provide support for recovery. As I close, I want to thank Senator Feinstein for being the lead Democratic sponsor of Bruce's Law, as well as Senator Sullivan and Senator Hassan for agreeing to cosponsor it with us. I would encourage every Member of the Senate to sign on to this legislation. We acknowledge in Alaska this is a problem in our State, and we have to acknowledge it in all of our 50 States. I urge others to join us in this effort. Send us your input on how we might be able to strengthen this legislation. Again, I want to thank Sandy. I want to thank Sandy Snodgrass, who is with us today. Joining her are Kim Kovol from the Office of the Governor, as well as Mike Troster, who is the State of Alaska's HIDTA director. Each of them--each of them--they are such important advocates. We recognize that it is going to take all of us doing a lot more than we are doing now to raise awareness of fentanyl and turn back this deadly tide, but we have to. We have to for our communities, for our kids, and for Bruce. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my first session summer interns for the month of June; that is Harold Monroe, Gracelyn Gohr, Charlee Korthuis, Dustin Lozano, Calvin Ureda, Jenna Walker, and Braxton Zink.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise today to bring the Senate's attention to the life and legacy of an Alaskan trailblazer, a woman of enormous heart and energy whose dedication to the young people of Anchorage, AK, was deep and made a positive difference. Etheldra ``Thel'' Sampson Davis was born in Arkansas in 1931, one of eight children. After her family moved to California while she was a child, she graduated from LA City College with an associate of arts degree in 1951 and subsequently earned a bachelor's degree in education from the University of California, Los Angeles. She practiced her profession in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles for 8 years. In 1957, Thel visited her adventurous older brothers in Anchorage, AK, and fell in love with the State. After becoming certified to teach in Alaska, she became the first African-American on-contract teacher in the Anchorage School District in 1959. As a teacher, she contributed to the future of the Anchorage community at five Anchorage elementary schools: Willow Crest, Airport Heights, Government Hill, Mountain View, and Denali. And in 1965, she earned her master's in education degree from the University of Alaska Fairbanks. In 1967, she became the assistant principal at Willow Crest Elementary School. And in 1969--the same year in which she married Joseph Davis--she applied for and was hired to fill the position of principal at Fairview Elementary School. This was yet another trailblazing moment for Thel, as she was the first African-American principal in Anchorage. She later became principal at the new Ptarmigan Elementary and later the John F. Kennedy Elementary School on Fort Richardson near Anchorage. Always seeking additional knowledge and skill, Thel achieved yet another goal by earning her doctorate in education from California's Newport University in 1975. Thel taught and provided leadership for Anchorage area students and her fellow educators for 21 years until her retirement in 1980. A former superintendent of the Anchorage School District has said of Thel's service, ``Etheldra had a true passion and belief that ALL students can succeed if given a rigorous academic program coupled with love and concern.'' The Anchorage School Board, in reviewing the proposal to rename Fairview Elementary School in her honor, noted that her ``passion and commitment to the students entrusted to her care is legendary.'' No better tribute can ever be said of an educator. But throughout her career, Thel was not only a busy teacher and principal. In addition to her school-based contributions to the Anchorage community, Thel was an active member in a variety of community and national organizations, including the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority and National Education Association. She also helped to establish several youth mentoring organizations, including the NAACP Youth Council and the United League of Girls. As a member of the Black Educators Taskforce, she helped to recruit and mentor African-American teachers and administrators for Anchorage's schools. After her retirement, Thel continued to contribute through her role as a crime prevention specialist. Her work in that area resulted in the creation of the Neighborhood Watch program in Anchorage and the Alaska Coalition to Prevent Shoplifting. Thel continues to lift students up. Her lifelong dream came true with the creation of the Dr. Etheldra S. Davis Scholarship in 2019, which is dedicated to helping young people continue their education through whatever path is best for them, be it through the trades and apprenticeship or college. Thel ``gained her heavenly wings'' at the age of 85 on November 25, 2020, due to complications from COVID-19. In recognition of the many contributions Dr. Davis made to Anchorage's youth and the community at large over her many years of service, the Anchorage School Board recently voted to rename the first school in which she served as principal in her honor. Henceforth, this school will be known as Dr. Etheldra Davis Fairview Elementary School. It has been said that seeing Thel's name above the school doorway will ``serve as a beacon for generations of children to come in our neighborhood to show them, in a very diverse neighborhood, what they can accomplish if they apply themselves and they work hard.'' I think we all understand how important it is for children to see adults who look like them and who share cultural history and perspectives as leaders in their lives. I can only imagine how powerful it must have been for Anchorage's African-American students to see an African-American teacher and principal serving them and their school, especially during the culturally fraught era of the 1950s and 1960s. I know that the children who attend Dr. Etheldra Davis Fairview Elementary School will continue to be inspired by her example for many years to come. I am proud to have known Thel and am proud today to come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to honor her and her many contributions to the community of Anchorage, AK, and, indeed, the entire State and Nation.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I call up my motion to instruct conferees, which is at the desk.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, the Senator from Rhode Island and I have offered a motion related to our bipartisan BLUE GLOBE Act. This is legislation that focuses on our oceans. They are a key source of food for us. They produce most of the oxygen we need to breathe. They help us maintain our global climate. But we largely ignore them, unfortunately. We haven't done nearly enough to address overfishing, pollution, and acidification. According to NOAA, we have actually mapped more of the moon than we have our oceans. So BLUE GLOBE will help change that by improving data collection, accelerating ocean-focused innovation, and taking other important steps. It will help strengthen our economy, protect against China's illegal fishing, and bolster our national security along the coasts. It received unanimous consent support from the Commerce Committee. It is a perfect fit for a bill on competitiveness, so I would urge the Senate to support this motion to instruct conferees to include BLUE GLOBE in the final bill. Vote on Motion

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Madam President.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Senator Sullivan and I are here this afternoon on the Senate floor, and we are here with heavy hearts. We are joined in the Galleries by friends of Alaska because, last Friday, our Congressman, Congressman Don Young--the Congressman for all Alaska and the dean of the House, who served our 49th State ably and faithfully for the last 49 years--passed away as he was flying home to be with the people of Alaska. Seated next to his wife, Anne, he passed peacefully and left this world. There is no doubt--there is no doubt--that Congressman Young lived a large and full life. He was 88 years young, and we always referred to him as ``young,'' not old. He accomplished an incredible amount across the many decades that he served Alaska and served his country, but that doesn't make the loss any less sudden or any less devastating, and it doesn't change the fact that we are now left with a hole the size of Alaska in our congressional delegation. We were a team. We were small but mighty. The Presiding Officer has heard me, on this floor, talk about the Last Great Race, the Iditarod, and that no dog team--no dog team--can make it without the leader. We all know that. You have got the swing dog, and you have got the wheel dog, and we have all kind of taken different points on that team, but it has always been with Don Young. I was home over the weekend. I spent the weekend there, reflecting on Don Young's life and on his legacy. I had the chance to speak with his wife, Anne, over the phone. I talked with his daughters--Joni, whom we know well, and Dawn, her sister. I talked to a lot of friends who shared some stories about our Congressman. Many of those stories are probably not fit to print in the Congressional Record, but there was a lot of reliving of the life and times of Don Young. For those who didn't have the privilege of knowing Congressman Young, as so many Alaskans did, he was really all of the things that have been written about him and all of the things that have been said about him these past several days. He was all that, and he was more. He was larger than life. We keep saying that: ``larger than life.'' He was colorful--as colorful as they come. He could be tough; he could be gruff; he could be very feisty, but he was also warm, engaging. He was charming, but, most of all, he was passionate. He was a passionate man about Alaska and Alaskans--to his very core. And he was loyal. He was loyal and devoted to his family, to his friends, to his staff who served him, and was loyal to the people he loved so dearly. So we think about Don as forever being Alaska, but Don's life didn't begin in Alaska. He grew up in California, working on his family farm. His father would read Jack London to him at night, and that inspired him, later on, to head north. He served in the Army with the 41st Tank Battalion. Then, after graduating from Chico State college, he answered ``The Call of the Wild.'' He eventually made his way north to the village of Fort Yukon, just above the Arctic Circle. He tried his hand at just about everything. He was into construction. He was into mining. He taught at a BIA school in the winter. He was a tugboat captain in the spring and summer. He hunted. He fished. He trapped. He took well to Alaska, and Alaska took well to him. By then, Don had fallen in love with Alaska, and he was also head over heels for his first wife, Lu, who was a bookkeeper from a respected Gwich'in family. They married in 1963. He was elected mayor of Fort Yukon the next year, but he didn't spend much time as mayor. He moved on to the Alaska State House of Representatives and then to our State senate, but where he would really make his mark was at the Federal level, as a Member of the House of Representatives, which he joined in 1973. Initially, it didn't start out so well. He lost the election in 1972 to Nick Begich, only to win it in a special election in March of 1973 after Congressman Begich went missing after an airplane accident. Once in office, Don Young never stopped winning for Alaska. In his first year in office, Congressman Young helped to authorize the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which has been the economic backbone of our State ever since. Not long after, his colleagues chose him as their Freshman Congressman of the Year. There are so many, many legislative accomplishments over the course of the Congressman's life--too many to list here--but I will just highlight a few. In addition to the pipeline authorization, he helped to establish the 200-mile fishing limit and contributed to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which has allowed Alaska to maintain its world-class fisheries. He wrote the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, which guides the use of millions of acres of those lands. Congressman Young passed legislation to open a small part of the non-wilderness 1002 Area in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and he did this a dozen times before we steered it into law in 2017. Believe me, Congressman Young reminded me every time how many times he had actually gotten it across the finish line in the House, but Don never ever gave up. Given the way of the world now, his commitment to energy security should be more appreciated than ever. He enacted important measures as chairman of the Natural Resources Committee and a landmark transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU, as chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He was also a strong, strong champion for Alaska Natives and Native Americans. Don was pretty independent. He was independent in his thinking, and he was not afraid to vote his conscience to help Alaska. Just before he left Washington, DC, this past week, he was involved in the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and helped considerably with the Tribal title in that act. I also credit him--seriously credit him--for garnering enough Republican votes in the House last year to ensure that the bipartisan infrastructure bill could finally move across the finish line. He knew that that measure was good for Alaska, and he said: Not only am I going to give my vote, but I am going to work to make sure that we have the votes over here to sign this into law. There are a lot of stories in this body about our former Senator, Senator Stevens, being legendary and pretty tenacious in his pursuit of Federal dollars to help build Alaska, but just know that Congressman Young was right there, every step of the way, making sure that Alaskans received what we considered to be our fair share. On December 5 of 2017, Alaskans were just filled with pride for Congressman Young when he became the 45th dean of the House--its most senior Member. At the time, I gave him a little gift. It was a star designated in his name. You can actually get a certificate that says, ``This star up there is designated to you,'' but it was given as a sentiment, reflecting his stature as the North Star of our delegation and our northern State. When you think about this remarkable journey that Don Young had--from teaching fifth graders in Alaska, to running dog teams, to guiding barges along the Yukon River, to becoming the longest serving Republican Member of Congress of all time--of all time--and being the most senior Member of the House of Representatives--of all that Congressman Young accomplished and of all that he did for Alaska, you have to know that this was no easy task. This was no easy task. For 49 years, he stood alone in the House of Representatives as the sole voice for Alaska. We only have one Congressman for all of Alaska. Only seven States have just one Congressman. And, of course, Alaska is farther away from Washington, DC, than all of those States, bigger than all of them combined, and our vast amount of Federal acreage means that we have more issues and perhaps more complicated issues that have to be addressed as well, but none of that mattered to Don Young. He took the long trips back home in stride. He would use his time on the plane to meet people, to talk to them, to just have conversation, try to understand their priorities and concerns, but he was making friends. He did the same here in Washington. He worked tirelessly here to build relationships, build alliances that would help him help Alaska, help address our State's challenges. It wasn't as if he was seeking out bipartisan relationships necessarily; Don was just the kind of guy who would make friends. The record shows that Congressman Young was one of the top legislators of our time. He was the primary sponsor of 123 bills that became law. You go over to his office, and you will see pictures on the wall of 10 different Presidents who signed into law different measures that Don had participated in. Again, recall Don Young was one of 435 voting Members of the House and the only one there to represent Alaska, and he was repeatedly named one of his Chamber's most effective Members. Don Young was old school because his relationships really ran on both sides of the aisle, starting with Speaker Pelosi, Leader McCarthy, and spanning the spectrum of all who would work with him. He really did work tirelessly to do what was right for Alaska because, at the end of the day, that is all he cared about, and he was pretty open about that. Being a Congressman for Alaska requires every last bit of you. It requires tremendous sacrifice from you and your family. If you don't trust that, if you doubt that, just ask Anne Walton Young. Since they married in 2015, she has been by his side literally every day, in the office, traveling with him. She knows. She knows the work ethic of this man, she knows the heart of this man, and she knows how hard he worked for all of Alaska. From his first day to his last day, 49 years and 13 days, Don Young gave it his all. As a true man of his people, he was just the right Alaskan to serve in the people's Chamber. Senator Sullivan and I are going to have a lot more to say about our dear friend, our partner, our team leader in the coming days and weeks. We will have a number of occasions to honor his life and legacy, including on March 29, when he will lie in state in Statuary Hall for a well-deserved tribute. For today, however, our reality is that for the first time in 49 years, Alaska does not have a Congressman in the House of Representatives. For the first time in 49 years, Alaska does not have Don Young there to defend, to advocate, and to legislate on our behalf. And I am heartbroken and so are countless Alaskans and individuals across the country whose lives happen to intersect with this legendary legislator. On Saturday morning, I got a text from a former staffer who left years ago, a young man, and in his text, he says: Don Young was the only Congressman for all of Alaska for all of my life. I will miss him. We have lost a giant whom we loved dearly and who held Alaska in his heart always. We thank him for everything he did for us to build our State and fulfill so much of our promise. We owe his family--his wife, Anne; his daughters, Joni, Sister--a debt of gratitude for sharing him with us for so long. Together with them, we mourn for our late Congressman, Alaska's champion, and our dear friend, Don Young. With that, Mr. President, I yield to my fellow Senator from Alaska.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I so appreciate the leadership, the heart of Senator Ernst and the ability to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--Senator Durbin, Senator Feinstein--in this effort towards reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Thanks to the very open, very inclusive, and, really, a very transparent process that we followed, the bipartisan support that was built with this, we were able to include the VAWA reauthorization in the Omnibus appropriations bill that passed the Senate last week with 68 votes. That wasn't necessarily the path that we had set on. But we had work to do, again, with extraordinary leadership from Senator Ernst, Senator Durbin, Senator Feinstein, myself, who have been working on this for years, but trying to build that collaborative effort, that negotiated effort that would result in not a partisan bill but a bill that is designed to help those survivors, designed to help the most vulnerable at their time of need. So there is great thanks that is due this afternoon as we recognize the dedication, the leadership of, again, the cosponsors, the Members that led this, but we all know we are backed by incredible men and women who work very hard to get these initiatives built and across the finish line. Senator Durbin has named many of the staffs and general counsels, our legislative assistants that made this happen. I also want to recognize all those who were named, in addition to those who are working on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to help us with that Tribal title. It was a collaborative effort that was really, really tireless. And I want to acknowledge Senator Ernst particularly. She worked tirelessly over these last 3 years, working to ensure that women and their safety--and, really, all those who are most vulnerable--their safety is put first. But to Senator Feinstein, Senator Durbin--invaluable partners putting the politics aside, saying: We have to figure out how we are going to make this happen, and they did so. But we and our staff can't do near the job that needs to be done without the advocacy and, again, this passionate grassroots advocacy that we have all felt. I want to recognize women like Tami Jerue from the Alaskan Native Women's Resource Center; Michelle Demmert, Brenda Stanfield from the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence. There were so many who urged us along--in fact, so many who have flown 4,000 miles to come from Alaska to be at a ceremony at the White House in recognition of this. So Senator Ernst has said how personal this issue of domestic violence is, and it is for so many. Half the women--half the women--in the State of Alaska have experienced intimate partner, sexual violence, or both. The advocates know, I know, we know how imperative it is for Congress to take action to reauthorize and to modernize this almost three- decades-old law. Again, we don't want to talk about statistics because these are people--these are friends, these are mothers, daughters--but the statistics are just so in your face. Alaska Native women suffer the highest rate of forcible sexual assault and have reported rates of domestic violence up to 10 times higher than the national average. In so many of the Native villages in my State in rural Alaska, they have no law enforcement presence; so trying to prevent violence, trying to protect or ensure justice for survivors is hard. And so I really am very, very thankful for the work that Senator Schatz committed to within the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to put together a strong Tribal title in VAWA that would continue to empower Tribal courts to help combat this major public safety issue affecting Native people and children. We have got a pretty complex jurisdictional landscape as the result of our Native Claims Settlement Act, and the last time that VAWA was reauthorized in 2013, Alaska was effectively left out. But today, we have an Alaska solution to this jurisdictional maze. We call it the Alaska Public Safety Empowerment pilot project that was included in the Tribal title, and it is the product of years of work with Tribal advocates, with the Department of Justice--some pretty smart lawyers out there--and then good, strong work in the committee. And what this pilot program will do is supplement the work that the State of Alaska is doing with regard to public safety. It doesn't create Indian Country in the State, it doesn't take away any jurisdiction, but it will empower a limited number of Alaska Tribes to exercise this special criminal jurisdiction over defendants who commit certain crimes that we outline in the law that occur in Native villages in the State. Tribes selected to participate are going to have to meet specific criteria that are set by the Department of Justice. They will have to include a Tribal justice system that can adequately safeguard the right of all defendants. So I am optimistic. I believe that our Alaska Tribes are up to this job. They are going to be good partners with the State, and they will make a difference. They will make a difference, and they will provide hope to so many in these communities that have felt without hope. We are celebrating, again, passage of this law--the reauthorization, the modernization. But for so many who have shown the bravery, the strength, the resilience in the wake of unspeakable trauma--we know that so many, again, of our friends have endured domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking. Many have survived, but so many have not. These women have endured physical, mental, emotional abuse. The impacts don't necessarily fade away because the calendar moves on; but on their journeys to recovery and healing, many have developed an extraordinary inner strength to stand up and be advocates for themselves and others, and they have spoken about their abuse, they have sought the changes to VAWA to prevent the future tragedies and hold perpetrators accountable, and we have heard them and their pleas to improve access to essential support services, whether healthcare, safe housing for victims--but we have also heard the cries of parents and loved ones who lost those that they love so very much. I am thinking of Butch and Cindy Moore right now. Butch and Cindy are from Wasilla. They have spent--I swear, they have spent every moment of their lives since they lost their beautiful daughter Bree, 20 years old. They have been advocating for prevention efforts to ensure that no parent experiences the loss of their child to teen dating violence. Butch and Cindy have said: As parents who have experienced the devastation of losing our daughter, Bree Moore, to dating violence, we know prevention is the key to keeping future generations safe from interpersonal violence. I know that Butch and Cindy are looking at this day and feeling that, again, there is some hope. There is some hope. This is a legislative win, but I think it is also a victory--a victory for women everywhere--and we mark its passage in memory of both those that we have lost and those that have survived. This is the day where we recognize that this Congress can act in a bipartisan manner to address the crisis of violence in our communities by passing this reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which is now law, now helping to protect women in Alaska and across the country, and we thank all who helped us get here. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am here on the floor today to make what I consider to be a supercool announcement. I think my colleagues know well that I am a fan of the ``Last Great Race,'' the Iditarod. I am shameless in my promotion of not only the exceptional athleticism of the mushers themselves but the canine athletes. I say to the Presiding Officer--and as an athlete yourself--I think you can appreciate the endurance training that it takes to be a qualified and truly an exceptional athlete, and today we are able to celebrate an extraordinary musher and an extraordinary team. It was just a little over a week ago, last Sunday morning--well, actually it was Saturday--that I was in Anchorage for the ceremonial start of the Iditarod. It takes place downtown in Anchorage. We have to truck snow in. We close off all the downtown streets. Not too many cities actually bring the snow in, but we brought the snow in, dumped it around the streets, and closed the streets. Mushers come to town from all over the State, 49 mushers this year. They bring their sled dogs in. Along the sides of the chutes are thousands of Alaskans and thousands of visitors. The people come from around the country and around the world to launch these extraordinary teams down the street. Everybody is all bundled up. It was one of those days that was just picture perfect for the start of an Iditarod. There were big, huge snowflakes coming down, making everything white. The dogs were jumping in their traces, just straight up, just bouncing up with excitement, and the yipping and the howling was just-- it was excitement that was contagious. And to be out there in the chutes, wishing the racers luck, cheering them on before they embark on their 1,000-mile journey to the north, it is an experience that I would encourage for anyone, whether you are a canine lover or not--those of you who understand the value of working dogs and what they mean, and how they love to do what they do. The Iditarod is an experience like none other. This was the 50th anniversary. For 50 years now, the Iditarod has been going from South Central in the Willow area all the way up to Nome. Again, 49 teams entered. These mushers faced some pretty challenging conditions. You are going over terrain that is mountain range and down into gorges. You are on flat glare ice going across Norton Sound, howling winds, driving snow. It is a mental task. It is a physical task and, truly, one of endurance. Keep in mind that most are thinking: Wait. This is Alaska in the wintertime. It is cold. But, in fairness, the teams actually prefer to be running at night, when the temperatures are cool. So they are running truly based on the dogs' schedule, the endurance, but not necessarily in the tamest of conditions. This is not only a race where we celebrate the musher and their team, but we also celebrate the volunteer spirit that comes with this. This is an extraordinary race of over 1,000 miles going through some of the most extreme wilderness that you will encounter. Then, occasionally, along the way, there are small villages that are used as checkpoints or opportunities for the many volunteers to basically gather. There is about 1,500 people who volunteer to put this race on. So for those who set the trail markers, who set out there with their snow machines to mark that trail, it is nothing more than like wood markers that you would get at Home Depot or Lowe's, with a little painted orange on it. That is the sophistication of this. This is what guides the team in a blizzard. The veterinarians are there. Four to five vets cycle through each checkpoint, because each dog needs to be checked every time they go through their checkpoint. All of these folks come from all around the country to volunteer. They pay for their flights up. They take a week off work, and they are there. They are there to support not only the race, but they are there to support gold-standard canine care. And so it is also a celebration about the volunteers. This is such a great part of our State's heritage, our culture. Again, you can tell I get a little enthusiastic about it. Even my necklace is a dog sled with a musher on it. So this is the time of year that I like to celebrate it. So this morning at 5:39 a.m., Alaska standard time--so about 9:30 here in DC--8 days, 14 hours, 38 minutes since beginning a roughly 1,000-mile race, Brent Sass and his team of 11 dogs crossed the finish line. So here is Brent with his two dogs, yellow roses flown in from--I don't know where those yellow roses came from, but they certainly weren't from Nome, AK. But that man has traveled with his team for 8 days now, 14 hours, 38 minutes to win the 50th Iditarod. I had a chance to talk to Brent by phone just about an hour after he went in to Nome. He sounded pretty vibrant, pretty excited, pretty happy. I had talked to him in the starting gate on Saturday, and I said: Brent, I think this is your time. I think this is your time because you have proved yourself year over year in the Iditarod and certainly in the Yukon Quest. Brent lives in Eureka, AK, on a homestead that was established back in the 1970s. He is a pretty seasoned musher. He took part in his first Iditarod back in 2012. He got ``Rookie of the Year'' that year. He is a three-time 1,000-mile Yukon Quest champion. So the Yukon Quest runs a different race, from Canada into Alaska. It is also a 1000-mile race. It is equally arduous and extraordinarily difficult. He took first place in the Yukon Quest in 2015, 2019, 2020, and also first in this year's abbreviated 350-mile Yukon Quest. So a couple little quick stories here, because I know I don't have much time, but this guy is pretty exceptional. He is not only a strong competitor, but the care that he provides his dogs is amazing. One story from 2016: Brent was getting ready to leave the White Mountain checkpoint. It is about 77 miles from the finish line in Nome. He was teed up here to win third place, and depending on where you are in the rank is how much of the purse you will take home. And if he was going to make third, it was going to be about $44,000 in prize money. But he is getting ready to leave the checkpoint and his dogs said: Nope, we are not moving. So think about it. You are that close to $44,000. You are 77 miles from the finish, and your dogs have said: This has been a long trek, and this is where we are stopping to just rest. So Brent Sass didn't push those dogs. He waited as they rested, and when they were ready, he took it slow, he took it steady, he brought them to the finish line, and he ended up placing 20th instead of 3rd. And he did that for his team. And for that, he was recognized twice with the Vet's Choice Award for the care that he shows his dogs. But it is not just his team that Brent is known for taking care of. He is also known for taking care of his competitors along the trail. There was a headline a few years back that said ``Sass to the Rescue . . . Again.'' And time after time, Brent has been highlighted for acts of heroism on the trail. In vicious storms, he has helped mushers and their dog teams reunite after becoming separated on the trail. And keep in mind, there is no rescue team out there. It is you, and if you are lucky enough to have somebody else come upon you--fortunate. But during one race, a fellow musher was at risk for scratching the race, and instead of leaving him behind, as many competitors might have done, Brent helped him scale Eagle Summit so he could stay in the race. But one of the most notable rescues took place in 2011 on the trail of the Yukon Quest. Hans Gatt, a four-time champion, was stalled out. He wasn't able to clear the summit. The weather conditions were awful. So Hans did the only thing that he could do, which is to hunker down into a sleeping bag in these horrible winds, the driving cold snow. Brent's sled comes upon Hans, sees that he is on the verge of hypothermia. He hooks his sled to the back of his own, and he hauls both teams up over the summit. And Brent credits his then-lead dog Silver for guiding them to safety in these awful and harsh conditions. As a result of their teamwork and heroism, the Quest created the Silver Legacy Award in Silver's honor. Brent claims that to be one of the proudest moments of his life. I wish that I could have been there this morning at 5:39 in Nome to watch Brent cross the finish line as a first-time Iditarod champ with his team. But even from afar, we can hear the Alaskans celebrating Brent for his incredible feat. So to Brent Sass, we celebrate you. We thank you for the care that you show your dog team, your character, how you show what it means to be a true competitor and for representing the great State of Alaska so well. And to all the others that are still on the trail, we wish you well and safety and Godspeed. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak in support of the Postal Service Reform Act, which is now pending before the Senate. The mission of the U.S. Postal Service since the Continental Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin as our Nation's first Postmaster General in 1775 has been to ``bind the Nation together.'' So it sounds kind of like a pretty quaint, outdated idea, but it is actually serious; it is actually statutory. And 39 U.S.C. tasks the Postal Service with binding our Nation together by delivering all of our mail to every American promptly, reliably, and efficiently, no matter where we live. The Postal Service Reform Act will improve the Agency's ability to meet that requirement, including in large, geographically remote places, like Alaska, where it certainly has a significant impact on our lives. We count on the Postal Service to deliver not only the letters and the magazines and the bills, but also necessities of life: food, medicine, business inventory, spare parts. Just about anything you could possibly think of for daily life comes to us in Alaska through the mail service. The Postal Service is unique in its universal service obligation and the fact that it delivers both mail and packages to Americans in every community, whether you live in Key West, FL, or Utqiagvik, AK. No other Federal Agency or commercial enterprise does this. But it is becoming more and more difficult for the Postal Service to accomplish the swift completion of their appointed rounds, as we recall. And believe me, I certainly hear about the Postal Service's decreasing ability to provide its services promptly, reliably, and efficiently. I hear about it as soon as I get off the airplane when I get back home. I hear from individuals all over the State, telling me the concerns that they have about mail that is late or perhaps not delivered at all. Our phones ring in our offices around the State because a small post office has been closed for a period of days because the postmaster has left, and there is no replacement available. I hear about the long lines to pick up mail, the long lines to just even buy a stamp in some of our smaller communities that get inundated by tourists in the summer. So we know. We hear the strains on our Postal Service. Despite postal workers' dedication, the fact of the matter is that the Agency is in trouble, and it needs the reforms that are contained in the bill that is pending before us. While many Americans believe the Postal Service is supported by the American taxpayer, that is not the case. Congress only reimburses it for mailing audio books to the blind and ballots to overseas voters. That is it. The Postal Service has to meet its payroll and fund retiree health benefits; maintain its facilities, equipment, and vehicles; deliver the mail to its destination on time with its own revenue from the sale of postage. But their financial instability is making those responsibilities harder and harder to fulfill. So we are debating this legislation on the floor today to give the Postal Service the tools that it needs to be successful and to fulfill its essential mission and to hold the USPS accountable for improved performance because we all want to see that. So this legislation that we will hopefully vote on later today is not without controversy. Reform legislation is never without controversy, but that is why I appreciate the opportunity to outline what I think are some of the positive provisions. Importantly, the bill increases the Postal Service's accountability for on-time delivery and requires greater transparency in achieving the goal. The bill requires that mail delivery not only be prompt and economical but also consistent and reliable and provided in a manner that increases operational efficiency. It requires the USPS to develop a new, searchable public performance dashboard that is updated weekly so both Congress and the public can keep a close eye on whether or not they are living up to our expectations. It also requires new regular reporting to the Postal Regulatory Commission, the PRC, and to Congress on a variety of indicators, including the impacts of price changes and information about reliability, efficiency, and cost effectiveness, Postal workforce recruitment and retention, and how investments in equipment and infrastructure are impacting service. In addition, the PRC and the Postal Service's inspector general must identify why there are inefficiencies in the collection, sorting, transportation, and delivery of large envelopes, newsletters, and magazines. These findings will be reported to Congress and the Postmaster General. USPS would then have 6 months to put in place PRC-approved changes that will fix whatever faults may have been found. The bill will also do what many of us have advocated for, which is reform the cost of healthcare for USPS employees and their retirees. So it provides needed stabilization for the USPS health benefits system, and, hopefully, it will relieve the pressure on their budget and support sustainable benefits for employees and retirees. This is a key provision. The bill also codifies an appropriations rider that has long required the USPS to integrate the delivery of letters and packages for 6-day delivery and includes a fair compromise on the attribution of costs for processing and delivering packages. One of the--I guess--top complaints that I hear from Alaskans is that the cost of shipping via commercial package services is oftentimes more than the price of the item itself. Integrated delivery of mail and packages saves the U.S. Postal Service money by allowing it to be more efficient. And while UPS and FedEx charge most Alaskans extra for delivering their packages, these companies then drop their packages off in Anchorage at that hub and let the Postal Service take care of what we call last mile delivery. Well, in Alaska, that often means the last several hundred miles. Now, some are concerned that USPS subsidizes the cost of packages with revenue derived from delivering letters. But in fact, the law that we passed in 2006, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, forbids the Postal Service from cross-subsidizing revenue to make sure that it is competing fairly with commercial package carriers. Current law also requires that package delivery covers all of its attributable costs, and while the Postal Regulatory Commission and the Federal courts have examined and upheld the cost attribution methodology, the Postal Service Reform Act requires yet another look, which I think is probably a fair compromise. Importantly for Alaskans and for me, this legislation will not result in cost increases for the essential bypass mail program. This is what it says it is. It is essential. It is a program that allows rural Alaskans who live in communities that are not connected by roads--about 80 percent of our communities are in that situation--but allows them to receive pallets of food, whatever necessary mailable matter that comes from stores in Anchorage or Fairbanks, without millions of individual boxes of goods going through Postal facilities. And that benefits the consumer, and it saves the Postal Service tens of millions of dollars a year in operating costs and untold millions in facility costs. While the Postal Service Reform Act directs the PRC to engage in another review of attributable costs, I have been assured by both sides of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, by the PRC, and by the Postal Service that this provision will not impact bypass mail, and I certainly intend to hold them to their word. Another concern that I want to address over this bill is allowing USPS to partner with State, local, and Tribal governments to provide nonpostal services. Now, I understand where this comes from, but this legislation specifically requires that any nonpostal services must cover their own costs without any degradation to regular Postal services. So, in my view, if the U.S. Postal Service can help deliver additional services to the American public under these two caveats, then they should be allowed to do so. So H.R. 3076 is a big step forward in helping the Postal Service achieve financial stability. It will enable the Agency to continue to bind the Nation together with efficient and cost-effective universal service and allow postal employees to achieve the swift completion of their appointed rounds. It is supported by a wide array of businesses, both large and small, all who rely on our Postal Service. It is supported by Postal employees, by retired Federal employees, and the Postal Service itself. It has received overwhelming bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. I certainly hope that it will draw the same here in the Senate, and I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, as well as Ranking Member Portman, for the good work that they have done in bringing this bill to us today. (Ms. ROSEN assumed the Chair.) International Women's Day Madam President, now, while I am still here on the floor, I want to take just a moment and acknowledge that today, March 8, marks International Women's Day. This is a day for us to recognize the achievements and the contributions that women are making in communities across the globe, and, as an Alaskan, I am going to start local first, because I have got so many, many phenomenal women in my State who are doing incredible things, and I am exceptionally proud of them. I was home over the weekend. We were celebrating the start of the 50th running of the Iditarod race. This is an extraordinary feat of just strength and grit and determination and resilience. There were 49 mushers that left Willow on Sunday; 17 of those mushers who will make the trek to Nome are women--17 women. So we have got a very, very strong field, but running a race like this, where it is the musher and your team of dogs going through the wilderness of Alaska--we have got deep snow throughout. The moose are not in a very cooperative mood right now. There are dangers along the trail, and who knows what the conditions are going to be like a week from now. And so it takes an extraordinary individual. And to know the strength of women, as they have taken on the Iditarod--when award-winning or world-renowned winner Susan Butcher first won that race--she has won that race four times--but when she ran it about three decades ago, there was a popular bumper sticker that was going around the State at the time. It was, ``Alaska, where men are men and women win the Iditarod.'' We were pretty proud of Susan Butcher. We are hoping that our women do well and all of our mushers do well. But like these female mushers who are racing, women leaders are virtually in every field, from healthcare to resource development, to fishing, to our universities, and everything in between, and many of us are very proud to know that they have become somewhat household names, some of them. This year, we were able to celebrate Emma Broyles, a young woman from Anchorage, 20 years old. She became the first Alaskan and the first Korean American to ever be crowned Miss America in the 100-year history of that event. So we are very proud of her. I was able to celebrate with her this weekend at the Iditarod itself. Another young woman that we have celebrated this past year is Lydia Jacoby. Lydia is from Seward, AK, and at 17, she competed in her first Olympics. She brought home the gold medal for this country, winning the 100-meter breaststroke race. So we were all eyes on Lydia. So proud of her. And there are so many who deserve our thanks and our gratitude. I always like to give a shout-out to an exceptional leader in our State, who has provided critical leadership and guidance throughout the pandemic, Dr. Anne Zink. It is so important to know that it is not necessarily finishing at the end of a race or a crown or a medal. It is just the endurance that goes with the day-to-day completion of your work. I was on the floor just last month to recognize the work of Native civil rights advocate Elizabeth Peratrovich, who pushed the Territory of Alaska, our legislature at the time, to pass the first antidiscrimination act in the Nation. We did this in 1945. We are so proud of how she, as a Native woman leader, made our State and our Nation a more inclusive and more representative democracy. So, today, on International Women's Day, it gives us an opportunity to recognize the impressive feats that women have taken on and have accomplished. It is a day to thank women for their daily contributions--again, both big, where they win the awards and they make the headlines, but also for those day-to-day contributions that they make to raising healthy, strong children, to being the fabric in the family, to being that contributor in the workplace. But this isn't a day that we just look back and recognize those who have made great accomplishments. It is also a day that we look ahead at the work that we have to do to continue to advance equality and justice for all women. Just down the hallway from here in the Rotunda is the Portrait Monument. We all see it; we walk by it; and maybe we don't even notice it anymore but take a look at it next time. We know the pioneering women who are represented on it: Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony. But we need to look at it more carefully, and we need to remember there is a fourth bust that Adelaide Johnson did not sculpt, and the base of the monument is also unfinished. It is a reflection of the unfinished struggle for women's rights and equality. So for all the progress that we have made, and we know it has been considerable, Madam President, as you are sitting in that chair and this woman from Alaska is addressing you--we have made great progress, but the struggle is unfinished. The data documents the gaps in gender equality in our country, and too many women feel it firsthand in their daily lives. So on International Women's Day, I also want to remind the Senate of a couple important ways that we can help further women's rights. And I am pleased that my colleague Senator Cardin is on the floor at this moment because we have been working together. We have been working together to try to do this unfinished business when it comes to ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, to ensure women's equality is expressly recognized in our Constitution. Three-quarters of the States have now ratified that amendment. Alaska did it back in 1972, Virginia most recently in 2020. I am hopeful that its time has come. And to help facilitate that, Senator Cardin and I have introduced a resolution to remove the arbitrary ratification deadline from the ERA so it can finally take effect. I think the Senate needs to take this resolution up and pass it like the House of Representatives did last year. Another step--a critical step--that we must take now is the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act to help ensure that there is a path to justice for survivors of interpersonal violence. I was very proud to introduce the new VAWA bill with Senator Durbin, Senator Ernst, and Senator Feinstein last month. I am pleased--so pleased--that we have 22 total cosponsors, 11 from each party. Our bipartisan bill modernizes the nearly three decades' old Violence Against Women Act, and it reauthorizes important programs that provide services to survivors. It directs resources to prevent further violence and hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. And it takes needed and important steps to address domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. I mentioned dating violence. We have a provision that I have included and we have named after an Alaskan victim of dating violence, and that is Breanna Moore. We focused on improving access to medical forensics for victims of violence, including through training for medical professionals that will allow them to provide evidence-based and trauma-informed care. We have a strong Tribal title in this VAWA bill. It builds on VAWA 2013 by closing the gaps in the law to protect Native people. The Tribal title also includes an Alaska pilot program which provides a targeted solution to help empower Tribes in a way that recognizes the unique and complex jurisdictional landscape that we have in my State. It is a recognition that Tribes are valuable partners. They are critical partners that can play a larger role in providing public safety while reducing the burden on my State. As I have said many times before, there should be nothing--nothing-- partisan about keeping people safe from violence. And our VAWA reauthorization is a result of many years of hard work and negotiations by advocates and stakeholders alike. I hope that we can consider this and pass this very, very soon. I recognize the great work of Senator Ernst on our side and Senator Durbin and Senator Feinstein on the other side of the aisle. It has been an effort that is timely, is needed, and is necessary. So I am happy to be able to recognize, for just a few moments on this International Women's Day--as we celebrate the many, many incredible women in our lives and in our country, we also recognize that our work for true equality remains unfinished, but we have got some good paths forward if we can just try. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this evening to speak in honor and recognition of a woman by the name of Elizabeth Peratrovich. Elizabeth Peratrovich is recognized in my State of Alaska as a champion, a relentless champion, for civil rights for all Alaskans. It is on this day, the 16th of February, that the State of Alaska observes Elizabeth Peratrovich Day. In communities across the State, in schools, cultural centers, you are going to be seeing activities to honor this really remarkable Alaska Native leader. PBS has an award-winning show for children called ``Molly of Denali.'' It is a great TV show, and they recently had an episode highlighting the story of Elizabeth Peratrovich. It was just 2 years ago, now, that her image was placed on a dollar coin issued by the U.S. Mint. So that recognition has gone beyond the State of Alaska, clearly, to the national and the Federal level. So as we are celebrating Elizabeth Peratrovich Day back home, I am going to share a little bit of her story with the Senate because it is a legacy of seeking and realizing a more inclusive society and certainly a more representative democracy. Elizabeth was a Tlingit, a member of the Raven/Sockeye or Lukaax-Adi clan. She was actually born on Independence Day, born in Petersburg, AK, in 1911. And it was just a year after that, 1912, a group of Native people from across the southeastern part of the State mobilized to form an organization called the Alaska Native Brotherhood, ANB. Then, 2 years later, they formed the Alaska Native Sisterhood. ANB, ANS these are considered the oldest indigenous civil rights organizations in the world, started right there in southeastern Alaska. ANB and ANS sought to advance equal opportunities for education, for employment, for housing, and they fought to secure Native civil rights. Elizabeth married Roy Peratrovich, and the two of them became very active in ANB and ANS activities in the 1940s. In 1941, they had moved to Juneau, and they encountered a level of discrimination in that community against Alaska Native peoples that, as we look at the accounts of the time, paralleled the Jim Crow practices in the South, but it strengthened their resolve. It strengthened their commitment to fight back against the discrimination that they saw. Through their work with ANB and ANS, Elizabeth and Roy began advocating for an antidiscrimination bill in the Territorial legislature. If you will recall, we didn't become a State until 1959. This is the early forties, and they are talking about an antidiscrimination bill in our legislature. They pointed out to all who would listen that Alaska Natives were paying taxes for a public school system that excluded their children. They weren't part of that school system. They pointed out that Alaska Native men were fighting in World War II, but then on their return, they were denied rights that other veterans enjoyed. Those fundamental discriminations and many more were what drove their pursuit for equal rights not just for Alaska Natives but for all people in Alaska. So they had gone to Juneau in 1941. That antidiscrimination bill didn't pass immediately. It was reintroduced in 1945. And there is a lot of discussion about the pivotal moment in time when eyes were opened and, really, minds were also opened in awareness. This was the time of debate where this antidiscrimination bill had passed the house, had moved over to the senate, and there was a Territorial senator who denounced these efforts to desegregate, and he stood up on the senate floor, and he said: Who are these people, barely out of savagery, who want to associate with us whites, with 5,000 years of recorded civilization behind us? Pretty inflammatory if you are sitting there in those Senate chambers listening to that, certainly--certainly--to an Alaska Native person. At the end of the debate, the public was offered a chance to express their views in front of the legislature. That is not something that you have happen in most legislatures. We don't have it in our legislature now, but in our Territorial legislature, the public was offered a chance to weigh in here. And Elizabeth Peratrovich stood in the back of this senate gallery, and in her remarks, she said: I would not have expected that I, who am ``barely out of savagery,'' would have to remind the gentleman with 5,000 years of recorded civilization behind them of our Bill of Rights. And when asked if she thought that the bill would eliminate discrimination, she replied: Do your laws against larceny and even murder prevent those crimes? No law will eliminate crimes, but at least you as legislators can assert to the world that you recognize the evil of the present situation and speak your intent to help us overcome discrimination. Imagine this scene. You are part of this legislative body, and from the back of the gallery, a Native woman stands to speak to address this elected body. Following her comments, there was a long period of silence, and then there was applause through the gallery and through the senate floor, including from some who had previously opposed the bill. Alaska's Governor at the time, Ernest Gruening, went on to sign the antidiscrimination act, the Nation's first antidiscrimination act, signed into law on February 16, 1945. This was almost two decades before the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. So it is something that when we in Alaska think about the history of discrimination that we have had, that certainly Alaska Native people have endured--endured far too long--to have led the country in terms of putting into law the first antidiscrimination act in this country a couple decades before the Civil Rights Act advanced through this Congress. During an Indian Affairs Committee hearing on Native voting access last October, the president of the Alaska Federation Natives, Julie Kitka, reminded us that these events are not very old, and sometimes we think of Elizabeth Peratrovich as part of our history, but she, Elizabeth, and her husband Roy, and the impact that they had on Alaska and the way that they strengthened our democracy is our current history as well. So we honor Elizabeth Peratrovich's legacy of standing up for what is right. She is an inspiration because she set the example that when you see something wrong, you speak out and you do something about it. And she also provided a great example for why we need to listen--why we need to listen to all perspectives and voices, especially those who have been left out or left behind, oftentimes intentionally. I think of Stella Martin of Kake, AK, a champion of equal rights herself. She described Elizabeth Peratrovich as ``a fighter with velvet gloves.'' And she was truly a fighter. Elizabeth Peratrovich Day is also a timely reminder for those of us here in the U.S. Senate. We all have an obligation to respond to the calls from our constituents who are seeking protection, including through electoral reforms and improvements for voter access. We all know that we went through a very partisan exercise on voting rights legislation here on the floor earlier this year. Some may say it is hard to see how that advanced the debate on this issue; but it didn't change the underlying fact that we do need to come together to advance good solid policy in this area. I am working with a group of Senators. There are around 16 of us, I think, total. But we are continuing to focus on these issues of election reform. We want to try to determine a bipartisan path forward so that we can actually move important safeguards and clarifications into the law. And it may not be easy to take on some of these complicated issues, particularly when you get the pulls from both sides to not engage to try to come to the middle. But like we did with the infrastructure bill, like we are doing with the Violence Against Women Act, we need to follow a path that allows us to get some things done as opposed to simply sending messages. As Alaska celebrates Elizabeth Peratrovich, I hope the Senate will look to her legacy for inspiration as we seek unity and follow her example of treating our fellow citizens with respect. We have got too much at stake to operate in any other lesser manner. I thank the Presiding Officer for his attention. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I have asked to be recognized this afternoon to speak to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. As we all know, the current situation is that it is pretty tough right now. Russia has amassed more than 100,000 troops on or close to Ukraine's border and may be planning to launch a full-scale invasion within a matter of days. And this follows, of course, their illegal seizure of the Crimean Peninsula back in 2019 and a hybrid war in the Donbas that has been going on now for over 8 years. As a Senator from Alaska--the State that is clearly most proximate to Russia--we are all too familiar with Russia's aggressive tactics. They routinely fly near our airspace. They sail through our waters. They test our defenses and reactions. In August 2020, a flotilla of Russian warships and military aircraft encroached into our EEZ, our exclusive economic zone, there in the Bering Sea. They repeatedly harassed our fishermen, forcing them to leave their waters from which their very livelihood flows. The fishermen were shocked, I mean, just stunned with what they saw, and they literally left millions of dollars of fisheries' assets out on the line. Provocative actions, and we felt that provocation. They are disturbing. They are alarming. But there are also some perhaps smaller, maybe symbolic actions that can also be a little unsettling. It was several years ago now that we were at an Arctic conference, and the Russian delegation gave me a diplomatic gift at a conference that featured maps showing Alaska back as part of their territory. Maybe they thought it was funny; I did not take it as such. What is happening on the Ukrainian border is something else entirely. It is impossible not to be rattled by what we are seeing, worried by where it could lead. But I think we recognize in this body what we need to do, what we need to focus on. We need to turn these concerns into resolve, and that resolve needs to lead to action. I know that there are many in this Chamber working very, very hard--and I thank them for that--working toward a sanctions package. The bipartisan goal is to deter both--to deter Russia from invading Ukraine but also to impose severe sanctions if that happens. And I know that the joint effort has perhaps stalled out right now, but, hopefully, the two sides and the White House will come together to finalize it. I believe it is an imperative that we have a united front on this matter. A united Congress on the matter of sanctions, I think, is a powerful message in and of itself. If we can bring a sanctions package to the floor, I am going to be asking colleagues to consider two additions to that: one, to restrict imports of Russian seafood and a second related to Russian energy. So with respect to seafood, Russia has had an import ban on American seafood since 2014--since 2014. Most Americans don't know that Russia responded to U.S. sanctions imposed after their annexation of Crimea by banning U.S. seafood imports, among other goods, at that time. So that has been in place all these many years. And it is absolutely unfair that Russia has unlimited access to sell its seafood in the United States, while America's fishermen and our seafood processors, particularly those in my State of Alaska, have no access to markets in Russia. So this embargo either needs to end or we need to incorporate reciprocal measures. And when it comes to energy, we simply do not need U.S. dollars to be financing Russia's territorial aggressions, especially--especially-- when we have everything that we need here at home. There is a lot to understand about the crisis in Ukraine: how Russia is undermining the international order and disrupting well-established global norms, how the potential for an invasion threatens not just Ukraine but European and global security, how an invasion could lead to catastrophic escalation and enormous loss of life, and how this situation impacts the United States, whether we want to involve ourselves or not, and how a diplomatic solution still exists if Russia chooses such a path. What I want to focus on today are two aspects of this crisis that have received less attention so far. And the first is how an invasion could destabilize the Arctic as part of a far-reaching wave of secondary impacts. And the second is the role that poor energy policy has played in actually strengthening Russia's hand. Now, I have come to this floor many, many times to talk about the importance of the Arctic. The United States is an Arctic nation because of Alaska. We rely on the region for everything from energy, minerals, seafood, shipping, national defense. And we have always worked--we have always endeavored to keep the High North as a region of peace, an area where geopolitical challenges are often compartmentalized in favor of collaboration and partnership. You need to work hard in remote, isolated, cold, dark places. You need to work together. So my concern today, as we are talking about Russia and Ukraine, is for the ripple effects that an invasion could have in the Arctic. I am worried that it will derail much of what we have been able to accomplish in the region and make it hard or impossible for the United States to trust and work with Russia in the region. I am also worried about what Russia's brinksmanship means for our friends in the Arctic. Certainly, if I were Finland or Sweden, I would be looking over my shoulder right now. This is the type of crisis that could convince them to join NATO. At the same time, however, I certainly respect those nations' rights and discretion to choose their alliances carefully, and discussions about them should include them. I also fear for the health of the Arctic Council, the leading governmental forum promoting cooperation in the Arctic. Last year, I had an opportunity to join Secretary Blinken in representing the United States at the Council's biannual ministerial. It was at that time that Iceland transferred the gavel to Russia, which is chairing the Council through May of 2023. I think it was important that Secretary Blinken attend this event in person to reaffirm the role of the United States in this important governing body, but attending the meeting did more than that. Convening in the Arctic provided an opportunity for Secretary Blinken to meet for the first time with his Russian counterpart. While there, the two diplomats agreed that while our countries have differences, the world would be safer if we worked together where our interests intersect. One of those areas is the Arctic, and we need to be able to continue to work together in that region. It is interesting to note that with all the ongoing diplomatic discussions between the United States and Russia playing out in places like Geneva and Paris, the first time this administration discussed the topic of troop movements on the Ukrainian border with Russia in person was on the sidelines of the Arctic Council ministerial in May. There are very few places in the world that a meeting like this would be politically palatable for either country. Yet, for decades, the Arctic has provided a place for the United States and Russia to convene even when we have our differences. All you need to do is look back to 1986, the Reykjavik Summit between President Reagan and Premier Gorbachev. Inside a small, little house in a small Arctic country, the leaders of the two biggest powers convened and nearly agreed to ban all ballistic missiles. That meeting in Iceland paved the way for nuclear forces treaties and the eventual end of the Cold War. But the situation we face today begs the question, what will become of our relationship with Russia in the Arctic if they move forward with war against Ukraine? Last week, I participated in a virtual meeting of the Arctic Parliamentarians. This is a group composed of members of Parliaments and Congresses of the eight Arctic nations. I have been representing the United States on the Standing Committee for years and years, decades now. These are all of the Arctic countries, including Russia, of course. But the purpose of this body is to promote regional cooperation, and, as was the norm at our meetings, we focused on things that are impacting the people in our region. This past week's meeting was no different. We focused on COVID impacts, mental health, environmental issues, and Arctic infrastructure. While the growing security issue was not raised, it was kind of an unspoken shadow. I throw this out there because I know that while I think about the Arctic every day, I can guarantee you that the Arctic is not top of mind for most on Capitol Hill. It took us nearly a decade to secure funding for a new icebreaker, which won't be put to sea for another 5 years, all while Russia launches a new one every year. I want the Foreign Relations and the Armed Services Committees to pay more attention to the Arctic and to look to the region as both a strategic asset and a diplomatic tool. We often talk about how valuable this region is, but it can only be useful if we use it. I am afraid that sometimes we just overlook or we neglect its importance, and I think it is time that we change that. Now, another aspect of the situation that I mentioned at the onset of my comments here is the issue of energy. It certainly deserves discussion when we look to Europe's energy policies, which have only served to weaken their ability to respond to Russia's aggression. This is a crisis for many countries in Europe, but I think it is also a timely warning for us here in the United States. Europe imports about 40 percent of its natural gas and 27 percent of its oil from Russia. The Nord Stream 2 Pipeline would only add to that total, while sidelining Ukraine as a key transit point, and therein lies the problem. Europe is already heavily dependent on Russia for energy, but they are doubling down. Their needs are particularly acute in the depths of winter, and that has perhaps undermined some European nations' willingness to respond to Russian aggression. I would suggest that the Biden administration is putting us on a similar path when it comes to our oil and gas. If they continue to shut down domestic resource production, we cannot magically shift to renewables and do this overnight. What will happen is, we will become more dependent on others for our supply. We have already seen some signs of this happening--perhaps not directly the fault of the Biden administration but, instead, the thinking that it has embraced. Look at California. California's foreign oil imports--their foreign oil imports--have risen significantly over the past 30 years as production in their State and especially Alaska has declined. For the last 3 years, the United States has actually imported more oil from Russia than we were allowed to produce in Alaska. So why--why--would we choose to forgo the jobs and revenues from domestic energy production to instead send our dollars to Russia and others? It is beyond me, and so are the actions the Biden administration has taken over its first year or so in office, which have been explicitly designed to limit production from States like Alaska even further. They shut down Federal oil and gas leasing for months, with an eye toward making that permanent until the courts intervened. They have refused to implement the law when it comes to the 1002 area of ANWR. They are taking millions of acres out of leasing in our NPR-A. They have stalled projects and rejected pipelines, which, of course, are the safest and cleanest ways to move energy to where it is needed. As energy prices have risen, the Biden administration has gone to OPEC to ask them to just produce more. Just as our allies and partners around the world realize they need and they want our energy, the administration has halted Federal investment that helps facilitate overseas LNG terminals. I have suggested that the President and his team really ought to be thankful that the provisions in Build Back Better that target the domestic oil and gas industry did not go through because they would have only made the situation worse. If there were ever a moment for energy realism, it is right now. The Biden administration and many here in Congress need to recognize the immense benefits of American resource production here at home and for the rest of the world, and they need to see clearly the immense consequences of refusing to allow those activities to proceed. I will just add one further point here. If Russia can leverage Europe on Ukraine over natural gas, China can do the same to the United States on Taiwan over minerals. We are deeply, deeply dependent on China, and they are well aware they can inflict massive economic consequences by cutting off our access to a range of raw materials and components. We have to address this weakness through every option we have available to us. We certainly have opportunities in my State of Alaska for mines and mine access projects to help address this very real situation with our minerals. None of us know exactly what will happen in Ukraine. We pray for deescalation. We take some solace from the continuation of diplomatic talks. But almost no one believes Russia is just going to walk away. All I can think is that we have to find ways to make it not worth it for Russia. Every little bit we can do to make this painful for Russia to prevent the loss of life, to punish this behavior, to call out its unwillingness to be a responsible global actor--all we can do at this point is necessary. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Linda Wilson, who recently retired from the U.S. Department of Education after over 33 years of service to the American people. Linda earned a degree from University of Arizona in 1980 before embarking on a career dedicated to public service. Linda began her service as a congressional staffer for Representative Millicent Fenwick from her home State of New Jersey. She then served the people of Illinois as a legislative aide for Representative Bob Michel. In 1989, Linda began her service at the U.S. Department of Education, engaging with State and local officials and congressional offices in both the Intergovernmental Affairs Office and the Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs, serving 9 of the 12 U.S. Secretaries of Education across political parties. Linda has been an indispensable resource in my work on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee, of which I am a member. She assisted me to solve innumerable problems and concerns important to my constituents. She provided information about various administrations' implementation of important Federal programs, such as the Alaska Native Educational Equity Program, the Native American Language program, the State-Tribal Education Partnership program, and Impact Aid, in addition to providing insight into the Department's budget priorities. In addition to her expertise on these issues, she always approached my questions and concerns with the utmost diligence and attention, providing the support necessary for me to craft legislation that meets the needs of my constituents and the American people. I am grateful for Linda's professionalism and dedication. I thank her and congratulate her on her upcoming retirement and wish her well in the future.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have had an opportunity to listen closely to my friend Senator Kaine, who asked the important question about voting rights, about when--when are we going to act? And that is a question that is something that we, each of us, need to ask ourselves is ``when.'' But I think we also need to keep in mind the ``how'' we act because I think how we act is important--because I think we recognize that when we act unilaterally as a party on issues that are of great weight and great political debate in this country, that solutions to these difficult problems come best when we are able to be working together. I know that we are very fractured in this body, and it has made it hard, but hard does not mean it is impossible. It is only impossible if we give up, and we say it can't be done. To my friend from Montana--and I appreciate the commonsense words of a man of the earth, a good farmer--amen to what you said about this body and our dysfunctionality. We are not the same Senate that I came to close to 20 years ago. I beat you by about 5 years, 6 years. We are not that same body. We are not operating in the manner with which I think we really were designed to be--that tempering body, that deliberative body. We are supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body, and we don't demonstrate that on any single day out there. But I question whether or not changing the rules actually works to change the attitude because that is what I think we have going on here. The rules have been in place for a long while. It is just how we have chosen to utilize them to our advantage and to the disadvantage of the other side, and that is unfortunate. I don't know how--it is much easier, I think, to change the rules than it is to change attitude. It is much easier to try to do things alone than to try to build consensus. Just ask any one of the 10 of us who worked tirelessly last year to advance a bipartisan infrastructure bill. There were so many points along the way where any one of us or any half of the group could have said: We are done. This is just too hard. We are never going to make progress. But just because it is hard doesn't mean it is impossible. The Senator from Montana urged us all to read the measure before us, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, now pending before the Senate. It has a few new things that have been added in, but much of it is what we saw previously with the Freedom to Vote Act. I voted against that motion for cloture when it came before us because I looked at that as being a bill that was overly prescriptive. In my view, it really did work toward nationalizing elections. I come from a State where things are just a little bit different there. You hear me talk about it all the time. Part of it is dictated by the geography. Part of it is dictated by an indigenous population where the language that is on the ballot doesn't align with what they speak at home and how we address matters like that. What has happened with this measure in front of us is it has been combined with the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which I have worked on in good faith with good colleagues whom I respect enormously, and I appreciate that we have been able to sit down. In fairness, much of the good work goes to our respective staffs who sat down and said: All right, can we do a little bit over here? What do we need to do over here? And we made some progress. We made enough progress that I was certainly willing to vote to advance debate here on the Senate floor on that measure. I recognize that not everybody sees the value and the benefits of preclearance. I recognize what the courts did in Shelby, but I also heard, as Senator Kaine said, the courts saying: All right, legislative branch, do something about it now. So I have been willing to be part of that discussion, not only this Congress but in previous Congresses, where I have joined with Chairman Leahy to try to advance that conversation. We haven't been as successful as I would have liked, but I certainly think we made good progress with the John Lewis voting rights bill. We had a substitute. As I look through this bill, it looks like much of that substitute has been incorporated, including the Native American Voting Rights Act, which I worked hard on in the Indian Affairs Committee with Chairman Schatz to try to make that as robust as we possibly can. I have done all this because I do believe--I do believe-- that this Senate should pass a reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, but I also believe that it must be a bipartisan effort. It has been 16 years since we last addressed the Voting Rights Act. We need to do more than just talk about it; we need to ensure that the ballot is equal for all Americans and free from any discrimination. It is pretty simple for me in that regard. And wherever you have uncertainty, wherever you have ambiguity in the laws that govern our Federal elections, we need to clarify these. We need to clarify these so that there aren't these open questions or perhaps cynical interpretations that would go with them. So how do you do it? Because this is all hard stuff. We acknowledge that. We acknowledge that. You really do have to do it coming together to try to hear the objections. As I look at the measure that we have before us, I am not convinced that we are there yet. I am not convinced that we are there yet with the product that we have. I will absolutely agree that there are some good--I think there are some important provisions in the measure that we have in front of us. But what we are faced with today, or later today, is going to be a take-it-or-leave-it vote and then an effort to change how we approach hard issues. Before I get into my comments in that vein, I do want to look at and highlight what I think are some of the positives that we have in place because--I think of a collaborative effort, but because we have shared observations, we have shared views on what some of these solutions may be, and I think that these can help us in anchoring a more broadly supported bill. The measure features transparency provisions that require public notice of changes to State voting rules for Federal elections. I think we would all say: Yes, this is important. This is common sense. It has changes to electoral district boundaries for elections at all levels, information about precincts and polling places for Federal elections. These are things that I think there is consensus here. We have stronger protections, necessary protections for voters during registration and voting as well as protections for election workers, polling places, election infrastructure. The measure emphasizes the security of voting systems. I think we recognize, again, this is imperative. It has to be a priority. If we are going to thwart any malign actors out there, maintain confidence in election results, we have to have this. Important to me, it extends the bilingual election requirements of the Voting Rights Act for 5 years. It also includes the Native American Voting Rights Act, again, that we worked on in the Indian Affairs Committee to address, unfortunately, very longstanding obstacles to voting for American Indians and Alaska Natives. So there is good stuff, if you will, good measures that are contained within the bill in front of us. But we also have some negatives. I think you have heard my colleagues detail many of them--not only negatives within the text but in terms of this partisan effort that we have in front of us. We have a measure that is 753 pages long. We can move through that. We are not going to say just because it is big doesn't mean that we can't do it again. But it has come over to us through a shell vehicle. It is now directly on the legislative calendar. You have, again, this combination of two bills, plus a few add-ons. But, unfortunately, neither of these--even with my support of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act--neither one of these had sufficient support to pass cloture. Since then, we haven't done anything. I shouldn't say ``anything'' because there were a few additional provisions that were included. I don't want to dismiss that. But not much has been done to build support cooperatively in this body for the two combined measures, other than to build pressure to, not change the legislation, not to modify it, not to gain compromise--but to change the rules to take it up. This is a big bill, but one of the things that we don't have contained in it that many of us have been talking about now for a period of time is we don't address the Electoral Count Act, which I think most of us would look at this and say that this is something that needs to be revised. We do not need a repeat of 2020 when, by all accounts, our last President, having lost the election, sought to change the results of that election by demanding that his Vice President exploit vague statutory language that was written decades ago. We need to address this. The bill before us has some gaps, but at the same time that it has gaps, it is also pretty prescriptive in many areas. Some of the previous objections that I had made to the Freedom to Vote Act remain. I share with my colleagues that I want us to protect voting rights. I think we should all want to protect voting rights. But my concern is that, as we look at this measure, is that it is going to make any kind of a change--any kind of a change that States would make to their election laws for any reason--extremely difficult to do without being directly challenged in court. And maybe--maybe--that is the goal here. But what it does do, in my view, is deprives States of the flexibility to design and implement their own laws as the Constitution provides. Again, I look to my State for some of those very specific examples where, if I have a small remote village with perhaps 100 voters and I have a prescription in Federal law that says a polling place must be open and available for a period of a week to 10 days with 2 weekends--if you are out in a village and you are living a sustenance lifestyle, Saturday or Sunday don't mean anything to you. It is winter. When are the animals moving? When are the fish moving? Let's not put limits on our States so that they can't enhance opportunities for all voters. So federalization is not the right answer here, and, again, whether we are talking voting rights or other issues, typically in my State a one-size-fits-all approach is not the right effort. So we have got to find an appropriate balance that doesn't result in a takeover of States' ability to run their own elections, and how we are able to achieve that balance is important. So as I talk about my views on the legislation that we have before us, I am very, very well aware that the results of this effort to push voting rights was, unfortunately, determined before we began this debate. We are going to come to a vote on a motion to invoke cloture. We know what is going to happen. It is going to fail due to a lack of sufficient support. And then we are going to face some kind of a vote to change the Senate's rules and weaken the legislative filibuster, which we also understand will fail. And I guess the point here is to get folks on record, and that will happen. But what have we accomplished? What have we accomplished for the people that we serve? Instead of allowing us as a body to say, ``OK, what are we going to do to address this,'' we have brought cross-party relationships to yet another low--perhaps, an unprecedented low. I was part of a very troubling conversation last evening, and it was shared that, you know, depending on which side you are on in this body today on this issue, you are either a racist or a hypocrite. Really? Really? Is that where we are? I find that so, so hard and so troubling, because when it becomes that deep and that divided where we cannot have the debate that my friend from Montana says we need--and I agree we need--but if we are so, so divided, this is not right. This is not good for the health of the body. But what has happened here is we have devolved into a debate over voting rights versus voting rules, and you have got part of the country that thinks this bill is about protecting the right to vote. Another part believes that this bill will do nothing but undermine it. And so we are both sitting in a situation, I think, where both sides are now set to cast doubt on elections if they don't win. And that takes us to a very troubling place, because when people doubt whether their vote matters, when they doubt whether that individual who is sitting in the White House was freely and fairly elected, they will doubt all decisions. They will doubt what we do here, and they will doubt their own democracy. And that is troubling for our Nation. So I refuse to believe that this is the best that we can do right now. As I said, this is hard, but hard is not impossible. I think that we can, if we are operating in good faith, as there are so many in this body who do that on a daily basis--it doesn't get noted because, quite honestly, it is far more interesting to write about the fur that flies around here, rather than us actually making things happen together. But the effort to change our rules, to pass legislation on a party- line basis is not going to help us here. It is not going to help us here. I think we need to do everything that we possibly can to avoid further polarizing voting rights and election reforms. It may be too late. I don't know. It may be just too late, but I think we have to try. I think that we have to try. And I think that there is an effort to try to do just that. There is a good handful of people in this body on both sides of the aisle who have been talking this, through kind of following the model of what we did with the bipartisan infrastructure group. You know, when we first started that effort, nobody believed that we would be successful with that. Probably, most listening to the debate that is going on now and will go on later all throughout the afternoon don't believe that we can do anything. But let's prove them wrong. Let's prove them wrong. Let's sit down with those who have made that commitment--we have heard it here on the floor--made that commitment to work through some of these issues, some of these areas of common ground that I think we can build a base from, and work to build a foundation that will be enduring for this country when it comes to election reform and voting rights, because I fear greatly that if we are to advance measures that are solely, strictly party line--and that is what eliminating the legislative filibuster will allow us to do--we will take the easy way out. Senator Tester suggested that maybe we are getting a little legislatively lazy around here. We will get even lazier, because we don't have to do the hard work of trying to find consensus. Elections and voting rights are so important. We understand that. Let's commit to resolving the issues that divide us, that will not only help bring this Congress closer together, but that just possibly, just hopefully--and maybe I, too, am naive, Senator Kaine--but that just possibly can help heal this country, because that is what we need right now. I yield the floor.

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, there has been a lot of discussion on the floor, certainly today and the days leading up to this, as we talk about the importance of protecting minority rights here in the Senate and the consequences of weakening the legislative filibuster to a 50- vote, majority-serving threshold. There is a lot to say, and there has been a lot said already. I was here listening to the comments from my friend from Utah and have had an opportunity to hear much of what has been said throughout the course of the day. But I am here perhaps as the sole Senate Republican who will vote to begin debate on the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act because I happen to believe that it is important that we focus on improving our election laws, but I also believe very, very strongly that the way to do that is through the regular order process. It might sound kind of boring, but that is actually how you get the good work, the enduring legislation done. I am also here, I guess, as a senior Member of the Chamber now. I have been around for almost 20 years. I have spent time in both the majority and the minority. But I am also here because I care--I really care--about legislating. I understand what it takes to work across the aisle to bring good policy into law. One of the things that I can tell you from firsthand experience is, it is hard. It is hard work. It is hard work to bring people together, particularly on some of these challenging and difficult issues that we have. When the problems are hard, that means usually the solutions are equally hard. But that is our job as legislators--to bring sides together, to find that common ground. That is what legislating is all about. And so with all of that in mind, I tell you I believe that weakening the current 60-vote threshold would be a major mistake, a damaging mistake, especially in light of the already deep division that we have within our country today and within the divisions that we have represented in this body today. So the nuclear option is reportedly coming our way to change the threshold for cloture on legislation--on legislation to 50 votes and to do this with just 50 votes. But I would suggest to you that this will do nothing to cure what actually ails the Senate, and, therefore, we should reject it. I mentioned that the job that we have as legislators is to come together to knit the good ideas from one side to the other, to really build that consensus that will allow for enduring policy and enduring laws. Gutting the filibuster is not going to do anything to bring both sides together. It will not help bring the parties together. It will, unfortunately, just serve to push them further apart, split us further apart. It would not lead to better or consensus legislation. It effectively allows the majority to do what it wants to do, when it wants to do it, how it wants to do it without the minority. It effectively allows you to ignore the views from the minority. This rule change would not restore us as the world's greatest deliberative body. I know that there are those who would suggest that we are far, far from that, but I would suggest that if we do this, it really obliterates that reputation forever. There has been a lot of talk about the differences between the House and the Senate. We are different. We were designed different. The Framers designed the Senate as an institution where the rights of individual Senators as well as minority groups of Senators are protected. They are highly protected. That is what our rules reflect. And that is why--why we can hold forth, why an individual--one person--can register objections, why we can place holds and offer motions and filibuster legislation when we deem it necessary. And I know we don't like it when it is being used against us--we don't-- because it slows things down. It is frustrating. But it is part of what has been built into our institution. And some may say, well, it is obviously not working, it is obviously not functioning because I can't get my priority through. Perhaps we need to focus on how we are bringing people together to advance that priority. This body, the Senate, was never meant to be the House of Representatives. Senator Robert Byrd, who served both as the majority and the minority leader--so I think he had pretty good perspective on things--he also reminded us about the saucer and the role that the House plays--excuse me, that the Senate plays. The Senate is the proverbial saucer intended to cool the cup of coffee from the House. Nobody likes it, particularly the guys in the House. They don't like it when they say: Oh, you are so slow over here. But we were meant to be deliberative. The more we become like the House, the less relevant, in my view, we are as an institution and the further we will have strayed from that balance, that careful balance that the Constitution envisions for our branch of government. So we have been here before. As I was walking over, I was thinking this is like deja vu all over again. How many times have we had these battles over the filibuster? Should we exercise the nuclear option? Should we pull this trigger? Well, back in 2017, I signed a letter, along with 60 other Members of this Chamber. There were 28 Republicans, 32 Democrats, 1 Independent. We came together as a pretty representative group of lawmakers, and we urged both Republican and Democratic leaders to preserve the 60-vote threshold for legislation--for legislation--because we knew where we had come from. The Republicans had used the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees after the Democrats used it in 2013 for eliminating the filibuster for confirmation of the lower court and executive branch. So it is kind of one of these where they did it, so it is OK for us to do it. Far be it for me to suggest that sometimes the analogies are like what we have when we have got the kids in the back of the car and somebody says: Well, he started it. And the other one says: No, well, then I get to do it. And my response is: Knock it off both of you. Maybe we just need to have a detente here on whether or not we blow up the filibuster. Maybe we need to just step back from this and realize what it means to all of us because those of us who are in the minority today will one day be in the majority, and those who are in the majority today will one day be in the minority. And so making sure that there is a balance, that it works, that minority rights are respected--this is why we are here today. I know that there are several Senators who signed that letter back in 2017 who are now seeing their words repeated against them. That has got to feel pretty uncomfortable. I don't want to be one of those who feels like I have to eat my words; that what was good for me when I was in the minority is no longer good for me when I am in the majority or vice versa. It has to work both ways. So when as Republicans in the majority we were urged mightily by former President Trump to get rid of the filibuster, I was one of those who said: No. No. We should not do that. And that is why my advice today to the majority is be careful, be careful what you wish for because you may look at this and say this may help advance the immediate legislative agenda--what they are talking about now is voting rights. You may be able to advance the immediate legislative agenda there, but the long-term effects might look pretty different. And I think we have seen a little bit of a suggestion of what that could look like when you don't have the protections in order for the minority. So I think it is good for us to be having this open discussion. I think it is important that we be thinking about the practical effects of weakening the filibuster. What will happen if it no longer protects the minority and instead only serves to benefit the majority? A 50-vote threshold would allow the majority to push through, to rush through legislation without consideration of the minority views. And keep in mind that we may be in the minority now, a 50-50 minority--pretty skinny minority--but a minority that is elected with support from major portions of the country. Removing the filibuster would reduce the need for the parties to work together to reach the broad consensus on policy, again, that can endure across elections. And I think that is important for us to just stop and take account of because when you don't have legislation that is enduring, when you move legislation that is wholly partisan, what happens when the tables are turned? The new majority spends all of its time trying to undo what the old majority got passed on a wholly partisan basis. Now we are not giving certainty to the Nation. We are not helping the economy move along. It is a whipsaw. It is policy whiplash. Who is going to be investing in policies if they just think that what was just passed into law is going to be undone in the next Congress? We owe it to our constituents, we owe it to the country to give them some certainty with policy, and that comes about when you are working to build consensus. Eliminating the filibuster would make primary elections into fealty tests, even more, even more than they already are, as each party sets its sights on candidates who are probably unlikely to act independently once in office. I mean, why bother? But, again, it would whipsaw-- whipsaw--the country on policy. And as I think about the state of our economy right now, where we need to be investing in--we have got a great infrastructure bill that we are all poised to try to advance, lots of good things coming for that--we don't want to be undermining investment in our ability to address major challenges if we are looking at a situation where, again, the new majority coming in, they just work to reverse the work of their predecessors. These aren't good outcomes for a divided nation, and they only take us further from what should be our goal. We have got to be focused. We have got to be focused on finding more ways to work together. And we have got good examples. We had an energy bill that we advanced in 2020, a good bill. We had been working on that for a long time, but it was a very bipartisan product. I mentioned our bipartisan infrastructure bill. We have the CARES Act as another example. So many measures have shown us that this is absolutely possible. As part of that, when we consider changing the rules, we need to focus on incentivizing bipartisanship, pushing Members to reach across the aisle, not making it less of a priority. Let's think about how we do that in a positive sense, how we are pushing one another to work to build things rather than dividing one another and just throwing things at one another. I will vote against any motion to weaken the filibuster or create carve-outs within it. Legislation and legislating in and of itself, as I mentioned at the outset, it is not supposed to be easy. We don't have that red ``easy'' button on our desk here. It is deliberately hard. But as I learned from somebody a couple weeks ago, I don't want to come to talk about the problems without offering up some solutions at the same time. I do have some suggestions for how we could perhaps move forward on voting rights legislation, potential changes to our rules. So for voting rights, the Senate doesn't need to change its rules here; the majority needs to change its approach. You have me--basically me alone at this point--willing to debate one of the measures that was written. It was written on a partisan basis, but I did my homework. I looked at it. I weighed in. I worked with colleagues on the other side of the aisle and made some good, solid suggestions. I think we have had some good dialogue there. I think it is important. I want to reach a compromise on it. I think that that would be important, but I have acknowledged that there needs to be some changes that would need to be made to that, and I have worked to suggest it. But what that does for right here right now is it makes it abundantly clear that we don't have agreement right now on voting rights legislation, so it is no wonder that the legislation is being blocked. Partisan bills don't suddenly become bipartisan just because they have hit the floor. So instead of looking for ways around consensus, we have got to go back; we have got to actually start building it. So let's take this back. Let's take it to the committee process. Let's look for areas of agreement, like some suggestion has been out in the past couple weeks here, reforming the Electoral Count Act. I don't know how far that can take us, but when something like this is put on the table, let's take a look at this. Let's work through some of these proposals rather than just summarily dismissing it out of hand. Let's take that time, put in the effort, build a product that can pass and hopefully by more than just the smallest of margins. We did that before with Voting Rights Act historically. We have demonstrated that it can be done. As far as rule changes, I agree we should be having the debate. But how we do the debate, I think, is also important. We want to have a thoughtful discussion. Both sides need to be involved. Any Member who wants to participate should be doing so. But these discussions need to focus on the problem, and the problem is that there is not enough consensus building across parties. That is what we need to be focusing on, rather than focusing on eliminating the need for it altogether. So instead of targeting the filibuster, one of the things that I have suggested to several folks is the development of a consensus calendar. Now, I am not saying it is going to solve everything, but if you have strong, bipartisan bills that have made it through the process, they have demonstrated that good, strong show of support, there ought to be a way that we can move things through on an expedited process, an expedited consideration. There has also been a lot of talk about eliminating the filibuster on the motion to proceed. So these are areas where, again, I think you have had thoughtful people willing to sit down and say: Can we reform our processes around here? Can we be more efficient? Can we still be that cooling saucer, that deliberative body, but be more efficient? I would argue that no rules changes should take effect this year. Whatever we can agree to, let's set the effective date of January of 2023. Make these decisions based on what any majority in any year should have to govern. We need to make sure that if we are changing the rules, we do it for the right reason. We do it because it is the right thing to do for the Senate, no matter who is in charge. And I think that is just a matter of fairness there. We all know that filibusters can be so very, very frustrating, and those in the majority feel it directly. I know of which I speak. I have been there. It can be agonizing. It is like you are up against a brick wall. As I mentioned, when we were advancing my energy bill several years back, I can't tell you how many times I felt like I had the rug pulled out from underneath us. But it was a good legislative product, and so we didn't give up. We kept working at it. And, in fairness, I think we actually worked to improve the legislation. As difficult as it might have been, it was through that process that we were able to come to some terms on HFCs, probably as significant an effort that we have made when it comes to reducing emissions, and that came about as a result of that very deliberative process that you wanted to pull your hair out over, but it actually worked to advance that legislation. But I think what happens is this forces us, as Members, to work together and to remember we can overcome these. And in these partisan times, they prevent the majority from simply running over the minority, which only serves to worsen our political divide. The 60-vote threshold for legislation requires consensus to be part of the legislative strategy. Changing it to 50 votes to serve the narrowest possible majority will lose that essential benefit; it will have lasting consequences for the Senate and for the people that we serve. So I absolutely think that we can do better than this, better approaches for both voting rights legislation and rules changes. They are available to us. We just have to work. Neither side is going to get everything that it wants out of them, but I absolutely believe that we will be better served, our country will be better served if we have a bipartisan path working together. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Maya Becker, a fellow with my staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank my dear friend from Delaware--always Delaware--but truly a friend; a friend on many different issues, but a man whom I have come to know is motivated not by the politics of what goes on in this body but by the passion and his interest in doing good, doing good policy and doing good things for people. And what we are speaking to today, recognizing the significant passage of the ACT for ALS Act that happened last evening unanimously, as he has pointed out, that this is not only good for the body, if you will, to say we were able to move good legislation forward, good policy legislation forward, but this is a gift. This is a gift of hope for those who live with ALS, for those families who are part of that journey of those who live with ALS. ALS, as Senator Coons has noted, is an awful, awful disease. Some would suggest, and I certainly would, that it is probably the worst disease to be afflicted with, when your body literally closes in on you while your mind is still active and vibrant. I have a very personal connection to ALS. I think many of us have very personal connections to ALS. I wish that we didn't have these personal connections to this hideous disease, but we do, and that connection allows us to learn and understand a little bit more about it. And I think the most heartbreaking thing that I realized, when my family member was diagnosed with ALS, my cousin's husband, was that there was no treatment. There was no hope. There was no hope. I am not suggesting that the ACT for ALS is the end-all be-all. I wish that we could stand here and say that. It is not, but what it is, is a glimmer of hope. I want to read just a couple sentences from an email that I received last evening when I was able to share this good news that this bill was passing unanimously through this body, and my cousin Jen says: The passage of this bill will bring real, tangible hope to people living with ALS and those to be diagnosed. In this ALS world, right now, there are no effective treatments. All we have is hope. This bill changes everything. It will bring real, tangible hope and treatments to people living with ALS. We have never had that in this disease. We haven't found the cure, we haven't found the treatment, but what we are providing today is that first step forward, a tangible step forward to the hope, because every day--every day--those who are living with ALS and their loved ones, who live through this disease with them, have to hope and pray every single day that today is going to be the day. Today is going to be the day that we can slow this, that we can halt this. There are some extraordinary heroes that have been involved with this fight over the years. They are everyday people. They got into it not because they were paid lobbyists. Most of them got into it because they had lived through ALS. They had lost a loved one to this disease, and rather than to give up and give in and be too tired to carry on, they said: I am going to commit so that no other families have to feel this helplessness. And so you have got some amazing people. You have got a group out there, the I AM ALS team--extraordinary, extraordinary advocates. Senator Coons has mentioned Brian Wallach and Dan Tate. The two of them lead I AM ALS. You have got Megan Miller, Deb Paust, Sandy Morris, Christa Thompson, Nicole Cimbura, Becky Mourey, Michael Lecker, Shelly Hoover, Michelle Lorenz, Mayuri and Mayank Saxena--so many, so many more who were part of that effort. The I AM ALS organization, working with the ALS Association, working with the Muscular Dystrophy Association and so many others were so critical in moving this forward. Think about what happened. This was introduced over here in the Senate. We looked this up. It was May 25. May 25. And to get over 60 cosponsors in the U.S. Senate on any kind of a measure--I wish that the Senator from Delaware and I could say that we single-handedly got every single one of those cosponsors, but it was these advocates. It was these grassroots individuals. It was everybody that I just named--Dan and Megan and Jenny and Deb and Sandy, who made these calls, who were relentless. And when the politics did intervene, they were unleashed and passionate in their advocacy. And I think this is a good lesson to us, that when those who are intimately and passionately involved, that you can make a difference, you can move legislation. You can move mountains. The last thing I want to say before I turn back to my colleague here is that there are a lot of people who are not part of an organization but who have just felt compelled to speak up. We heard voices from around my State: Marcel from Sitka; Douglas from Anchorage; a gentleman by the name of Mike, also from Anchorage. The calls, the letters, the emails that we got--I know all of our colleagues received the same as well. So this, again, was an effort that was so personal to so many, but the leadership that I think we saw come together with Brian Wallach, his wife Sandra-- they were the founders there of I AM ALS. Brian was only 37 years old when he was diagnosed with ALS--37--so super young. And he was told 6 months: You have got 6 months to live. He is a father to two little girls, and he just said: Got to keep fighting. We have got to keep fighting for a cure--a cure that will allow him to raise his daughters with his wife. And I think it is fair to say that, 4 years later now, Brian is just as determined, just as tireless an advocate for ALS and the ALS community. So, again, I think about people like Brian and Dan, my cousin Jenny, who lost Pat to this awful disease in 2013. He lived with ALS for 8 years. Our family lived with ALS for those 8 years. And so the advocacy continues because of the passion for so many who have lived through a life that is almost difficult for us to imagine. And as they have come out of losing a loved one to a disease like this, to know that they are willing to carry that flag, that they are willing to commit their time, their resources, and everything that they have so that others don't go through this, we honor them. We honor that commitment. I am so pleased to be able to work with my partner on this and to know that this was a good success, but we are going to need to be doing more, and I will be doing it with him. I yield to my friend from Delaware.

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