Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to follow my friend and colleague, the Senator from Arizona. And while she is still on the floor, I want to thank her personally for her Herculean efforts that she has made throughout this process. It has not been easy. It has sometimes been challenging, and sometimes it takes somebody who just exudes optimism and enthusiasm and a deep-hearted, deep-seeded belief that what we are doing is good and it is right for all the right reasons.

We have acknowledged here on the floor, each and every one of us, this infrastructure bill is not the perfect bill. But I am waiting--I am waiting--for the day when we here in the U.S. Senate can come to a place where all 100 of us agree that we have the perfect bill.

But what we have for the Senate to consider is a product that is really built around core fundamentals and core principles that a group of Senators, equally divided, came together months ago to work through, knowing that the work was going to be hard.

This is probably one of the most consequential bills that I have been involved with in my Senate career, in the close to 19 years that I have been here. What we are presenting to the Senate is truly historic in its proportions. It is historic in its impact going forward. This is truly legacy infrastructure that we are speaking about.

Yesterday, it was a little frustrating. We have had some frustrating days where colleagues were sitting and waiting, hoping for things to move more rapidly than they were, and that is challenging. We have a process here in the Senate that is hard for those on the outside to understand and oftentimes hard for us on the inside to understand, but it is a process that, after a period of time, yields the results.

So as I was visiting with fellow Senators, I overheard somebody say: I am not really sure how we got here. How did we get to this point?

Well, I tell you, it wasn't magic. It wasn't magic that produced a legislative package that, again, is historic in its funding for roads, rails, bridges, ports, ferries, and waterways. It was certainly not an accident that negotiated this 2,700-page document that works to meet the broadband needs of Americans, particularly in unserved or underserved parts of the country, like my State in Alaska.

It also wasn't inevitable that this infrastructure deal would come together, and yet that is all following what we have learned in this past year and a half dealing with the COVID pandemic and the reality that we have true disparities when it comes to basic infrastructure, like clean water, sanitation facilities, and energy. It was not inevitable that this infrastructure deal would come together.

In an age of cynicism and punditry, we kind of grow accustomed around here to believing that it is hard to get good things done in Washington, DC, and that is not good for any of us. Those of us here in the Senate, we signed up to do a job. We were sent here to do a job. We were sent here to work, and that is it. That is how we came to be where we are: through work, through hard work, and through compromise. So it wasn't magic; it wasn't accidental; it wasn't inevitable. We went to work.

And for a time, I think we really banished the demon of faction that casts his scepter all too often. Alexander Hamilton warned us of this polarizing temptation. And as the champion of infrastructure--or they called it internal improvements in the days of the Founding Fathers--I am hoping that he is looking favorably on us today.

But, again, this has not been an easy road, this infrastructure project. Every morning--those of us who were involved in these negotiations--we would wake up not surprised to read in the paper or see on TV that something had happened outside our control that was designed to kill this package.

And every day, instead of taking in those headlines, we saw our constituents, we heard from them, and we heard from the people across this country urging us to continue--people like Carl Uchytil, Mario Cordero, Chris Conner. They penned an op-ed in one of our Alaska newspapers, and they urged us to advance the bipartisan infrastructure framework because, for them, the emphasis on what it would do to build out our ports and our waterways were significant.

The emails and the phone calls that we received reminded us of the infrastructure and how important it is for industries, for the jobs, for Alaskans, for folks all over the country, for health, the future; and it reminded us that we have an opportunity to do something that actually matters in their lives and in their communities.

And the other thing that I heard is they wanted us to do it together. Figure it out, you guys. Work together. When you look at the survey data that is out there, it is pretty resounding. Several different polls show 87 percent of Americans overwhelmingly support fixing infrastructure. The list of organizations that support it, everyone from the Associated Wire Rope Fabricators to the Institute of Makers of Explosives, to the National Governors Association, to the Steel Manufacturers Association, the TechNet--this bipartisan infrastructure package proves that good things can happen in Washington, DC, but that it takes work.

It takes a majority of those of us in this Chamber deciding that it is better

to get some of what our constituents want rather than none of it. It is better to make progress and actually deliver results to your constituents rather than just delivering a message. We do a lot of messaging around here, and, as my friend, the Senator from West Virginia, reminds us, a message doesn't fix a pothole.

Now, I have been disappointed that we haven't been able to get some of the amendments that we have heard about today. We heard Senator Shelby from Alabama talk about defense infrastructure. We have heard the Senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn, talk about flexibility to the States. We have heard the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, working with Senator Wyden and Senator Lummis, on the cryptocurrency issue.

So, again, is this perfect?

No. But is it a process that has delivered us to a place where we are delivering results to the people who have sent us here.

I was on the floor late last week outlining many of the benefits that Alaskans will see from this measure, but I want to take a few more minutes this afternoon to highlight just a couple of more in perhaps some detail. Because, as I have mentioned, and everyone knows, part of the role or the view that I offered in our bipartisan working group was to make sure that the needs of rural Americans were met. And this bill addresses some of the greatest infrastructure needs that, again, we see in rural America, but also in urban and everyone in between, to connect them in ways that we haven't before.

Southeast Alaska, this is the region of the State that I grew up in. It is an island and archipelago. It is not possible to travel by road from one city in the southeastern part of the State to another, for the most part. Our capital is not accessible by road.

Our reality is that we either travel by airplane or we are traveling on the water. So a strong ferry system, the Alaska Marine Highway System, is absolutely essential to local economic development, to quality of life, to community well-being.

There are 35 different ports along the Alaska Marine Highway System. This spans an area of 35,000 miles.

I am only looking at my colleague from Delaware because we have been working on the ferry initiative, and he is proud of the ferry system that he has there. But I have a lot of water that I have to cover, and it makes it challenging. It makes it challenging. But it is no different than Delaware, in terms of the significance that these small ferries can offer to people as they are moving their families around, as they are moving the basketball team, as they are going to Costco in Juneau and then delivering them to Hoonah.

To those military who are PCSing, going outside of the State, they have to move their families and all their goods and the dogs and the trucks, and they have to get out of town. And they get out by way of the ferry.

It is easy to compare Alaska's ferry to an urban bus or subway system or other form of mass transit that receives operation support. But until now, because Alaska's communities are rural and not urban, our ferry system hasn't been eligible for any meaningful Federal support for its operations. There has been some Federal funding available through allocation formula or grant program to the ferry system for construction and maintenance, but now ferry operators will be able to use funding for construction, maintenance, repairs, and operations costs.

In so many parts of Alaska, the Marine Highway System is the only highway. It is the only highway. So it is truly an essential mode of transportation.

When you come from a State where over 80 percent of your communities are not connected by road, again, you figure it out. It is air. It is on the ocean. It is in the rivers. But, more often than not, our transportation is not roads.

So to make sure that we are addressing this essential sector of transportation, we included language that establishes a program for essential ferry service to support our rural communities. So through this program, the Department of Transportation will be able to provide funds to the States to provide for essential ferry service.

We are also looking forward, as we think about how our ferries move, how our schoolbuses move, how our vehicles move, and we know that this administration has moved very aggressively when it comes to EVs. There is language in this bill that helps to facilitate that.

But, again, when you are thinking about what is on the roads-- electrification of our vehicles, our schoolbuses, or our city buses-- let's not forget what I just referred to, and that is these, effectively, buses that are on the water. So what are we doing to electrify or to look to alternative fuels for our ferries?

This is not a new concept. In the Scandinavian countries, where, again, hydropower is in great abundance, as it is in southeast Alaska, an electric ferry system makes sense. So we are kind of pushing out on this to buildout this notion, this concept, that we can reduce emissions with our ferries by using alternative fuels or onboard energy storage systems, other related charging infrastructure, again, to reduce our emissions or produce zero onboard emissions under normal operations.

So folks in Skagway and Haines are looking at this with great interest because they view that as a real opportunity. Diesel doesn't come cheap up there, and that is what moves these ferries around. These communities, Skagway, are powered by hydro. So let's pull this all together.

I have mentioned the potential for EV and low-emitting ferries, but I am reminded that the United States has and will continue to be a leader in energy production. We certainly know that in my State. And we are going to need to continue being an energy superpower. As we are continuing to advance as a society, we are going to be using more energy, we are going to be using more electricity, and, yes, we are going to need to produce much of it in the good, old-fashion way for a long time to come. But electricity is becoming increasingly important. It is vital to so many facets of modern life, and this bipartisan infrastructure package takes that electrified future into account.

So looking at the different ways that it enhances the broader energy system by investing in next-generation clean energy production, there are three examples that I will just cite that are pertinent to Alaska

There is funding for advanced nuclear reactors, including ``micro'' reactors. You might not think about Alaska and nuclear or ``micro,'' but it holds great promise for deployment in certain rural and remote areas.

We also provide for funding for hydropower and marine energy research. We have a great Hydrokinetic Energy Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

We provide for renewable energy projects, including geothermal. We have pioneered in this. In fact, we have the Secretary of Energy, who is going to be visiting the State shortly and who will have an opportunity to look specifically at low-temperature geothermal, as well as promising opportunities that we have in the Aleutians.

More energy production from more types of energy means greater resilience, greater affordability, greater access to reduced emissions. So let's consider the ways the bill directly impacts the electric grid and the power sector--three areas, again, that are pertinent to Alaska and to rural areas.

We have included a measure that I had introduced, the PROTECT Act, which authorizes funding to improve our cyber defenses in smaller communities. I think we recognize that we have a big focus on the bigger communities, but your utilities in your smaller communities still have to provide for that cyberprotection.

The bill also sets aside grants for small utilities, like we have in Alaska, to prevent outages, to enhance resilience, for hardening of the grid. This is going to help in preventing wildfires that can be caused by powerlines or other disruptive events. We are talking about weatherization, fire prevention systems, installing equipment underground, maintaining utility poles and powerlines.

We also provide support for rural and remote areas in many communities in the State for the modernization of generation, transmission, and distribution. So this is going to help the cost effectiveness. It is going to help with energy efficiency, microgrids, siting and upgrading, as we shift to cleaner sources of energy.

Again, I think it is important to recognize that we are working to not only address the transmission but distribution, generation, and what we are really looking to do is look toward the future--a future in which we will need more energy production, more electricity, more batteries, and a more secure grid.

And as we are doing this, as we are building this all out, I want to make sure that we do ensure that all Americans are included in this energy and infrastructure transition.

And I speak specifically now to our Alaska Indian, American Indian, and Native people around the country. This bill--this Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--is really a historic achievement for all of us who are concerned with American Indian, Alaskan Native Tribes, and villages.

I am the vice chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and I have worked hard to make sure that Indian Country's voices have been heard.

Let's look at the Indian Health Service. It has a vital sanitation construction program. We are talking about water and wastewater, things that most of us just take for granted. We provide $3.5 billion in funding for American Indian, Alaska Native Tribes and villages to complete all--all--of the identified sanitation projects. These are projects that have been on the books for way, way too long.

I am reminded by my friend Val Davidson of the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. She testified before our Indian Affairs Committee about both the funding needed in Native communities and sanitation's really significant impact on health. She shared a story--her own personal story but also a statistic--that one in three infants in communities from her region without adequate sanitation are hospitalized in their first year simply because they lack basic water and sanitation services. And it is not just a visit to a hospital as an infant that is scary, but so many then develop long-term health problems, which are absolutely unacceptable.

Any infrastructure bill has to live up to our Federal Government's trust obligations to our Tribes. This is vital to allowing Tribes access to water for their health and for their livelihood. So within the bill, we provide $2.5 billion to fund Indian water settlements.

Now, outside the legal world, most people know Indian water settlements by the term ``water rights.'' But the outstanding settlements include the Aamodt, the Crow, Navajo-Gallup, White Mountain Apache, Blackfeet Nation, Navajo Utah, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and the Arizona Water Settlement Act. So this funding is going to complete the balance of each and every one of these settlements.

We also provide $250 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to help build and repair irrigation, power, and sanitation systems, because you have to be able to move clean water from one place to another and keep it clean and be able to use it productively.

We provide grants for Native village firefighting training, resilient transportation infrastructure, a Native Youth Public Land Corps to restore and protect ecosystems, adaptation projects for climate change impacts, and funding for a new program to provide Indian Tribes grants to clean up orphan wells.

There is more included in this. There is a $110 million ``set aside'' for Tribal bridge investments. There is the Tribal Transportation Program and eligibility for grants under advanced energy and battery manufacturing and recycling programs.

We are really looking to ensure that we are prioritizing infrastructure needs in Tribal areas.

I haven't mentioned broadband, but it is absolutely significant. We know that broadband deployment on Tribal lands has lagged far behind the rest of the Nation. So to address this, the bill includes an additional $2 billion for Tribal broadband connectivity grants.

We have heard it on this floor by all of us, Republicans and Democrats, urban and rural. We know that broadband is vital to education, healthcare, economic development, self-governance. It applies absolutely across the board as we think of the needs in Indian Country.

I think we know that the Federal financing provisions, the dollars going forward, are significant. But we also know that it is not just about the funding. It is about making these programs work better. So we do things like requiring expedited environmental review for Tribal transportation safety projects. We streamline categorical exclusions by empowering the Tribes in relation to the Federal Government.

Within the middle mile grants, there is consultation with Tribes on a process to designate tribally unserved and underserved areas.

So there is so much that we have really focused on in ensuring that Alaska Natives, American Indians, and our Native people around the country are included in these many provisions as they relate to infrastructure, including grid infrastructure, resilience, and reliability.

So I have spoken for a while now on three specific areas that I have chosen to highlight: certainly, within marine transportation, the benefits that places like Alaska will see; the significance of energy production and what this infrastructure bill will provide there; and benefits to our Native peoples around the country.

I want to conclude my comments by ending with where I began, which is to acknowledge the efforts of so many who have really gotten us here today, not through a miracle, not through an accident, not through an inevitability but just through hard work.

I am very pleased to have been part of this group, really honored to work with such hard-working people and their teams, led by Senator Sinema, who just spoke, and Senator Portman. Their leadership has been, in my view, really extraordinary. The work that they have put behind managing us all to this point deserves the recognition.

I also want to acknowledge the good work of the chairman and the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Carper and Senator Capito, who really laid the base for so much of this bill. So to the G-10 and the broader G-22, all those who have contributed so much, I convey my thanks.

I also want to acknowledge colleagues on the other side of the Capitol here, those who are known as the Problem Solvers over there. They really have jumped in, rolled up their sleeves, and helped us in solving problems when it comes to this infrastructure package.

And I am looking forward to being able to move this legislation, this package, from this body tomorrow, to send it over to the House so that they can then pick up those efforts.

But I am pleased that we have come to this place, after a long process, after a tough process but one where we were really able to focus on common goals that we identified at the outset, and we really held true to; that we were going to be dealing with core infrastructure, core infrastructure.

We agreed that we were not going to impose new taxes. We agreed that we needed to ensure that the spending pay-fors were true and legitimate. We agreed that long-term spending on infrastructure needed to improve our Nation's efficiency, our productivity, our GDP, and our revenue and not increase inflation.

And we have achieved that. We set out these parameters, and we achieved it. But we did it with a lot of give and a lot of take.

So while the end product is not something that any one of us individually would have written, I am very proud to be able to support what we have worked to bring to this body, again, with the help and hard work and collaboration of so, so many Members.

I am disappointed that immediately after we advance this bill tomorrow, the infrastructure package, that we will turn to a wholly partisan exercise, one that, in my view, taxes and spends without limit, a wish list that really knows no limit.

But, for now, let's move to this infrastructure bill. Let's get it to the House. Let's do what people in Alaska, what people in Illinois, what people around the country have asked us to do, and that is to address our Nation's competitiveness, our Nation's efficiency, and our Nation's advantages by securing and ensuring that we are able to move, to connect, and to provide for our country's needs.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am on the floor this afternoon as we are waiting to learn when we might be able to proceed to a series of amendments as they relate to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

This is a significant measure, one that I have been very proud to be involved with for a period of time, working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in our working groups--G-10, G-22--working with the committee chairman and ranking member, working with other Members to get where we are today, which is a long-awaited--really, a long-away-- investment in our Nation's infrastructure.

I know that Members are looking through the significant legislation that is in front of us. You don't need to take my word for it. You can look at the number of inches of the document in front of me. It is significant.

Mr. President, I would suggest to you the need in this country is significant when it comes to investments in our Nation's infrastructure--our core infrastructure--what we define to be our roads, our rails, our bridges, our ports, our water and sewer, our broadband. I think we recognize that we talk a lot in this Chamber and perhaps on the other side, as well, and Presidents have come and gone and all talked about the need for more investment in our infrastructure. But truth be told, we really haven't done a real wholesale effort toward that goal until this year. We saw significant work come out of committees this year.

I want to commend the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Carper, my friend from Delaware. His committee worked hard, not only on the surface transportation measure but also the water infrastructure measure that had passed through.

We have seen other good work in other areas of infrastructure.

I am on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. That committee was able to move out a significant--what we call the power infrastructure--piece that became one of the anchor tenets, if you will, within this measure.

There has been good, collaborative work through the committees. Then that has been built on by Members, again, across the aisle over these past months to get us to where we are today.

I ask Members, as they are going through the bill itself, the language that we had hoped we would get a little bit earlier for colleagues to go through--but in fairness, we really needed to take the time to make sure

that we had gotten it right. It really does matter. So it did cause some delay that we wish we could have avoided, but we are where we are.

It is Monday afternoon, and what I am hearing from colleagues is that they want an opportunity to engage in this process. Many in this body have not been part of the working groups. Perhaps, they weren't part of the committees that had advanced some of these pieces of legislation that we have incorporated. They want to be participants, and rightly so. This is the time to do just that.

I think it is everyone's intention that we have a robust amendment process moving forward. I am actually looking forward to this. I have had the opportunity on this floor several times now to be able to manage energy bills, natural resources bills, bills that have been significant, bills on which we have actually been able to have a pretty decent amendment process.

Sometimes, in fairness--sometimes--that amendment process caused things to derail for a period of time. We don't want to do that in this instance, not at all. But it is not very often that we really do have a true and a meaningful amendment process. We are going to have an opportunity for that with the budget resolution coming forward. But I think, for the most part, most of us know that there is a lot of messaging that goes on. This is not about messaging. This is about delivering results for the American people. This is about creating jobs as we build out legacy infrastructure that is needed around the country.

Highways. We all know--we all know--that our highways are in need of help and support. The provisions that we have included in this measure for roads and bridges will be significant as we attend to the many damaged bridges that we see around the country, that really do present a threat to public safety. Let's get on them. We know our highways, in so many areas, are in serious disrepair, and in certain areas, we need to be doing more to help build out that highway infrastructure to ease the congestion to allow for greater efficiency, to allow us, as Americans, to do more of the things that we want to do, whether it is to spend more time with your family, be more productive at your work, but let's have an efficient system.

We have a little over 14,000 miles of public roads in Alaska. I can tell you that, as we look to my State's roads and the condition and the shape that they are in, I know that we need investments in this space, but I also know that it is not just about roads and bridges. We also allow for things like replacements of culverts for the community-- actually, the community that I was born in--in Ketchikan. I just met with the community leaders, and they shared with me that some of these culvert replacement projects are as key and critical to them as anything else that they have going on. And so recognizing that what we are doing is allowing for greater safety, greater access through our support for highways, for bridges, for things like culverts, for pedestrian safety initiatives, I think we all want to do more in that area.

Alaskans probably fly more than we drive. Our reality is some 80 percent of our communities are not connected by road, and the geography, the expanse that we deal with, is that we are just not going to be connected that way. But we don't need to be connected that way when we can be connected by the air and when we can be connected over the water. And so this legislation is, again, very important to those who fly.

And when I talk about flying, you know, sometimes these are small bush carriers, moving mail and groceries and people to medical appointments. But the fact that we have $15 billion in formula funding for the FAA Airport Improvement Program, this is going to be key. This helps with everything from runway lighting to navigation, taxiway initiatives. These are ways that the 400 public airports in Alaska are going to be able to move out on a more efficient basis, if you will, some of the necessary safety upgrades that they have in front of them. And, again, us, it is not just about the land-based airports; we also have the sea-based areas that we worry about. We have some 114 sea- based airports that we refer to.

So recognizing that not every airport is like a Dulles or a DCA here, what we are able to do for our small hub airports, our nonhub airports, our nonprimary airports--communities of all sizes, because, again, whether you are in Bethel or Utqiagvik or wherever you may be throughout the State, all sizes are not the same here. So making sure that we are able to accommodate that is going to be important.

I have mentioned that we are also connected on land, air, but also by sea, and for those of us who are in coastal States--the Senator from Delaware has a coastline, has ferries--people move around by ferries. We rely on our Alaska Marine Highway System. There are some 30, 35 different communities where that really is their connector. That is how the kids move the high school basketball team. That is how the church groups move. That is how you pick up the groceries at Costco in Juneau, and you put them on the ferry to go over to Angoon. It is how people shop. It is how they--it is their road. It is the Alaska Marine Highway System, and so recognizing the support that we can provide for our ferry systems, whether it is in Alaska or Delaware or places in between, is, again, an important opportunity for us.

We recognize that as we provide support for those technologies that will allow us to move people more efficiently and more cleanly, there is a lot of emphasis from this administration, particularly, with focus on EVs. Well, in this measure, we not only have provisions as they relate to clean schoolbuses but also to alternative fuel ferries. Recognizing that we have some opportunities, whether it is an EV ferry that might run from Haines to Skagway or an alternative fuel, we want to be thinking forward into the future.

One of the pieces of this measure--this very significant infrastructure bill--that a lot of work has gone into is the water and wastewater title. This is significant. This is significant. We saw, not too many years ago, the situation in Flint, MI, with lead pipes. We have been working to address many of those issues for a period of time, and rightly so. We provide significant funding--more than $180 million over 5 years--for the water and wastewater projects in Alaska through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs. These are significant for us.

In so many parts of the State, we are either faced with unserved communities, when it comes to water and wastewater, or vastly underserved. And when I say unserved, we kind of know what it means in the broadband sense, but let me explain to you what it means in the water and sewer place. It means that you don't have running water in your home; you don't have a toilet that flushes. You have a community well where people go, and they fill up their cherry jugs and haul it back. It means that for sanitation, for using the bathroom, the bathroom is effectively a Home Depot bucket. If you are fancy, you have a toilet seat on it. But it is the responsibility of somebody in the family to haul that bucket out and dump it.

I have shared pictures on the floor here of what that really means in a community to have no water--no water, no sewer system. Thirty-two out of a hundred ninety rural Alaska villages are currently in this situation.

I received a voice mail, over the weekend, from one of Alaska's mayors from a smaller community--on the road system, though. And she shared with me--and I owe her a call back--but she shared with me--she said: You know, there are so many people in my community who don't have running water. And, again, this is a community that is on the road system between Anchorage and Fairbanks. And so how we can help address what most would say is pretty basic infrastructure, is pretty basic healthcare needs when it comes to water and sanitation, there is significant funding in this measure for Indian Health Service's sanitation facilities.

I am the ranking member on the Indian Affairs Committee. I have been on this committee since I came to the Senate 19 years ago. I have seen, over the years, the efforts that we have made to try to address the water and sanitation needs in Indian Country in Alaska with our Native villages. Our reality that we face is we are still in an extreme deficit when it comes to our Tribal communities. The reality is that

we have left them behind when it comes to something like modern-day water and the wastewater systems. And so the unprecedented investment in sanitation infrastructure is one that, I think, is significant and incredibly important because we are seeking to clear all the known project needs.

Now, people will say that is aggressive, but let me tell you, when you go to some of these communities and you hear the concerns from the people in the village about how they are supposed to keep their families from contracting this virus, when this first simple step is to wash your hands, and they say: Water is pretty precious around here because we don't have a sink to wash our hands in. And so the effort here to catch up--and I don't even like to use those words in that sense. We have to do right by our Native people, and the effort here, I think, is key and critically important.

Another area that I am pleased that working with the committee of jurisdiction, led by Senator Carper, that there has been a focus on-- and this is something that Ranking Member Capito has been keenly focused on, as well--and this is the PFOS contamination through our clean water and our drinking water programs.

I also recognize that there is a focus on small and disadvantaged communities. I have one small community down in southeast Alaska, Gustavus. It is the community that is right next to the Glacier Bay National Monument area, and the PFOS in their little community, near the airport area, is something that is a major and significant concern for that tiny, small, little community. So making sure that, again, these programs--the funding that we are helping to advance--is good, whether you are an urban area with 100-year-old pipes that need replacement or you are a community that has lacked the original infrastructure in the first place, how we are able to ensure that the needs of our small communities are met as well is significant, and I think it is an important part of this legislation.

I mentioned broadband as being that other connector. We connect by way of transportation systems. We get that. But, nowadays, if you are not connected--if you are not connected by the broadband availability, the ability to communicate elsewhere--your economies are limited; you are limited. I mentioned the fact that so many of the communities in my State are not connected by a road and probably will not be in my lifetime. And they are not seeking that as an answer, but they do want to be connected to the rest of the world. They want to know that for the crafts that they are able to make at home, they have the ability to, perhaps, sell them to a broader audience. Maybe it is on your own little website, selling to folks in the lower 48 or globally. But you can't do that. You can't do that if you don't have the connection.

And so the recognition that the grants for the deployment--the broadband deployment--with minimum allocation to each State are important, but also recognizing a focus on these high-cost areas for deployment. I am just saying, if you are looking for a high-cost area for deployment, look no further than Alaska. It is not something that we are proud of; it is a reality. But part of the tragedy that we see is that, in many communities, broadband has arrived. The internet is there, but people can't afford to use it.

We have heard in the height of the pandemic last year a reality that families could not--could not connect because the cost to do so was just prohibitive, which meant that children weren't gaining that full access to the information. It meant that if you were trying to work from home, that you couldn't do that. And so it is a reality that it is not just about access, but access has to mean some level of affordability.

So the focus in this broadband piece, I think, is critically important as we look to the provisions in the Middle Mile Infrastructure grants; as we look to the support, again, for Tribal broadband, recognizing, again, that this is an area that has been chronically underfunded in the past.

There is so much that--when you think about how solid infrastructure allows you to have an economy. In Anchorage, we host what we call Alaska's port. And it is a significant port. Obviously the largest one in the State. But it is through the Port of Alaska that over 85 percent of the goods, the commodities come into the State, and then they are distributed either by truck or by rail, air, but they are moved out from there. And we know what an economic driver that port is to not only Anchorage, but to the State as well.

But it is not just big ports; it is also the smaller ports. We have got more coastline than any State in the country.

And, again, if you don't have the roads, how are you getting in?

You are maybe flying in by small airplane, but more likely your materials are barged up during the summer months. That is how you get the lumber. That is how you get the snow machine or the four-wheeler to go out and do your hunting.

Our reality is that our ports have to work in every size community, and so knowing that there will be additional support for remote and subsistence harbor construction is going to be so key--so key--to these small, small, little communities for whom, if they didn't have this, they have got nothing.

You can't move fish out, you can't move fish in; you can't move goods in, you can't move goods out. Everything, then, is flown in; and think about what that means if everything is flown in. It is crazy, wicked expensive. And you are talking about a--you are talking about a sheet of sheetrock, the fact is that if you are--if you are flying in your materials, it is almost impossible to be able to afford any of it.

There is so much, again, when I think about ways that we help to build our communities, help build our economies, help create jobs through infrastructure.

And I spent a lot of time focused on energy initiatives, and I am pleased with the work that came out of the Energy Committee that is focused in these various areas that drive the level of innovation that we will need as we are working to be more efficient, to have cleaner energy sources, and to really be more competitive.

We effectively took the Energy Act that we passed last--at the end of last Congress and we helped to build out many of the provisions that were contained in that act, whether it is the advanced reactor demonstration project; more on hydropower and marine energy research; funding for geothermal, wind, solar energy; the energy storage demonstration projects--so much, again, that is focused on what do we need to do to really be not only forward-leaning and innovative, but efficient to allow for a more competitive role globally.

When you think about our Nation's grid infrastructure and resiliency, you don't need to close your eyes and imagine what can happen when your grid fails.

Unfortunately, as we are seeing--as we are seeing, whether they are wildfires, whether we are seeing brownouts with the extreme heat, our reality is that our grid infrastructure needs support. We need to have that resiliency that we all talk about. And, again, I am going to stand up for the small grids, the smaller utilities who face the same pressures that you might have in an integrated grid back here, in fact, even maybe more so.

If you are a small, stand-alone community, you are your own grid. You need to have a level of resilience and the ability to make sure that people are not literally freezing in the dark.

And so the effort that we have included with regards to our set-aside for small utilities, these are--these are significant initiatives.

I have mentioned resilience a couple different times. I think sometimes people think that that is a word that is overused, but I will tell you, we can't be doing enough when it comes to resilience.

We have included in this measure a provision that we entitled ``Tribal Climate Resilience.'' This is funding that is included to really help with those threatened communities. Many we see in my State, but certainly I hear from colleagues in other States who are seeing the same concerns as communities are more threatened due to--whether it is erosion, as we are seeing in Alaska, or flooding, but support to assist with climate resilience, adaptation projects, as well as community relocation.

I will wrap up by just a little bit more commentary on the resilience

piece. We are seeing in the West incredible drought right now. We are seeing the extent of these forest fires from Oregon going east. But I think it is important for colleagues to know that, again, when we are taking about infrastructure and resilience, we also are acknowledging natural resource-related infrastructure and what more we might be doing with wildfire management, ecosystem restoration.

And so to make sure that there is support for things like mechanical thinning, fuel breaks, other activities to reduce the risk of wildfire, whether it is on our Forest Service lands or any of our public lands, but also the concerns, then, when the fire knows no boundary as to whose lands they are

Certainly in Alaska we saw the benefit of fuel breaks as they were implemented on the Kenai. We had a pretty significant fire several years back, the Funny River Fire, and we saw full well what that fuel break really did to help protect property and life.

The bill also includes precommercial thinning, which, again, is important in a host of different areas, not the least of which in my State on the Tongass.

But I think we do a good job to make sure that when we are talking about infrastructure, we are recognizing the core infrastructure of-- whether it is legacy projects, like roads, rails, bridges, but also recognizing that infrastructure has impact to our lands and how we ensure that there is greater resilience, again, greater protections, and ensuring that it is addressed perhaps more broadly.

So there is much good in this bill. There is not everything that I would have wanted, most certainly. There are a lot of things in it that, in fairness, I wish weren't in it. There are some pieces that I look at and I say ``way over the top,'' but I have to acknowledge I come from a State where infrastructure is just a little bit different.

We don't have a big public transit system, so I look at the transit dollars, and my immediate jump is: Way too much. Don't need this.

But I recognize that in a collaborative process, in a negotiated process, you have got to hear the views back and forth of all of your colleagues, and you take some things and you leave some things behind in a give-and-take process.

And so just as my colleagues have listened to me convey the urgency of need for more support for the Tribal programs when it comes to infrastructure, whether it is on water and sanitation or broadband, they heard the urgency there; whether it was recognizing that not all infrastructure projects are big in terms of their size, but they are big for that small community; to know that the fishing community of Craig is going to be able to build out that little harbor there.

And so I have asked my colleagues to listen to the concerns of a very rural State like Alaska, a State where our infrastructure is very unique, and they have had an open mind and a view towards not only recognizing how unique Alaska is, but recognizing the unique needs of rural America.

So we have a compromise product in front of us, and it is a significant product, and we are now at a place where we want colleagues to join us in this product, weigh in with your good ideas. Let's move some good amendments. But I would suggest that the sooner we start moving with these amendments, the better it will be for us and this process here, but also for the American public.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is indeed a pleasure to be on the floor, even though it is a little bit late on a Sunday evening, but to be here with colleagues that we have spent probably more time with one another than we have with our families, our spouses, our roommates, and what have you. But we have been working to build a product not only that we are proud to stand behind but a product that I believe the American public will be proud of the work that we have put into this-- work not just of this group but, again, the broader group of 22.

And also we recognize the very solid work that comes from our committees. We recognize all that was built at the committee level to help kick-start in so many different--in so many different--areas, but also to build the base of much of this infrastructure bill that we have in front of us today.

My friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--when we started to sit down and focus on what we were going to do with infrastructure, the necessity for a power piece was important. It was critical to what we were building. And so the committee went to work, put together, I think, a good product that moved out of the committee on a bipartisan basis, and that served as really the base for the title that is part of this measure, building on the energy act that we moved out of this body last year.

So the work that has gone into it has been a collaborative process throughout the way--very much an iterative process, as I might add, as well.

But I think we recognize that the good, solid work that has been put into this to date is just really the beginning of bringing in more of the efforts and input from our colleagues from this body from around the country.

You know, when you think about infrastructure, infrastructure connects us. Infrastructure brings us together. And so whether you are from a rural State, like mine, or from an urban State, like the occupant of the Chair, when we are able to move safely and efficiently, when we are able to communicate affordably and quickly and efficiently, when we are able to ensure that our systems are all working together, this is what makes us the strong, competitive Nation that we are.

So there is extraordinary policy in this product, but the process that has gotten us here this evening is one that, while hard and arduous, as the Senator from Arizona has noted, this is what we come here to do. We have come here to do the hard work, to do the necessary work. And tonight we are at that place where we can begin to take up the infrastructure product that we have been working on for months now and what the country is waiting for deserves.

With that, I turn to my friend and colleague from West Virginia.

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

Mr. President, I wanted to just literally pop into the discussion here this morning. There is a great deal going on here in the Capitol.

The discussions on the bipartisan infrastructure bill are continuing in a good, productive way, and we are hopeful we will be able to move to that great deal of work that has gone on by folks on both sides working in extraordinary good faith.

And to be able to proceed on this matter, I think, will be an important policy initiative but also good for our process in this body

Mr. President, I don't come here this morning to speak to that at this moment but to just give a strong Alaska ``attagirl'' shout-out to Lydia Jacoby.

A few days ago, most people outside of the State of Alaska had probably never heard of Lydia, 17 years old, from Seward, AK. Seward is a pretty small community in the south central part of the State. It is a coastal community. It is a fishing community. It is a hard-working community.

Lydia is a typical high school student at Seward High School, except she is a swimmer, and is she an extraordinary swimmer. To see the news the other night of her gold, of her unexpected and spectacular win, was a moment of pride for all Alaskans, a moment of pride for Americans that just makes your heart swell. So I wanted to come to the floor and share that.

I actually was able to start my morning off early, but in a good way, by being able to call Lydia--she is over in Japan, obviously--and to speak with her directly and offer my congratulations. Mr. President, you can tell when people are grinning ear to ear, even though you are separated by thousands of miles and you are talking over a telephone. This morning, Lydia Jacoby was grinning ear to ear as I was sharing my words of congratulations and she, just her exuberance and delight for being able to represent the United States at these Olympics in this way.

We are extraordinarily proud. Lydia has put Seward and certainly Seward High School on the map. Folks are coming up to me saying: Gosh, I didn't realize you didn't have Olympic-meter swimming pools in most of your communities. Well, that is true. Lydia did some training that I think most would say: It is going to be a long, hard slog to get to any Olympics.

I think the dedication of this young woman has certainly played out. The support that she has received from her parents over the years, the support she has received from her community, is an example of just good, strong Alaska roots: everybody working hard and just doing your best on a daily basis.

Lydia Jacoby has absolutely done her best. She set the gold standard, and we are just extraordinarily proud of this young Alaskan woman.

Mr. President, just about a month ago, I was on the floor. Senator Durbin from Illinois was here. We were on the floor at that time to ask for unanimous consent to pass legislation to fix a technical issue with the VOCA deposit.

As my colleagues will remember, VOCA is designed to help sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act, or that is the legislation that we had introduced at that time. Just to refresh memories, I would like to reiterate why this fix to the victims fund is so essential.

Effectively, what we are talking about here is stability; sustainability; and, really, certainty.

I had an opportunity in late June to host a roundtable with members from the victim services groups from around the State. We were focused on the impact of the VOCA deposit issue specific to Alaska and what it meant for those who provide the services for victims, whether these are the child advocacy centers, whether these are the domestic violence shelters and the centers, abused women networks. But I was really blown away by the testimony from so many in these organizations. They were facing a 36-percent cut to the VOCA funds in just this past fiscal year.

When you think about what the impact of cuts at 36 percent means to any organization, it is, obviously, very, very limiting. But for some of these organizations, we are talking about a quarter of their budget. A quarter of their annual budget could be lost just like that.

What they shared with me was that this was everything for them. This was the difference of being able to answer the phone from somebody who has been abused; is in an awful, tragic situation; doesn't know where to go, and they phone that number and there is nobody to take that call, nobody to respond, nobody to save those lives.

It is a matter of not just having the individual there to answer the phone, but, again, when we think about the types of services that are provided by these victim services organizations, they are there for, truly, the most vulnerable at an exceptionally vulnerable moment in their lives.

I was able to hear from those who were gathered at this roundtable, to hear firsthand on the increases in victimization that we have seen in my home State of Alaska during this past year, as we have seen this impact from COVID. But the impacts of this increase on our providers have really been astounding.

Alaska CARES, for example, saw a 173-percent increase in children hospitalized in the pediatric ICU for serious physical abuse and fatal neglect.

Think about that. They had a 173-percent increase in these kids who are being hospitalized, and they have said they were seeing significant brain trauma, significant brain injury. I heard about unprecedented increases that we are seeing in child torture, which our child advocacy centers are witnessing firsthand. Really, when you think about that, it has to just haunt you to the core.

The Alaska chapter of Volunteers of America, which receives VOCA funds to provide at-risk youth and children with vital mental health services, shared a story. They introduced me to Alice.

Alice is a teen who experienced numerous traumatic events in her young life, including child sexual assault and neglect. By receiving services through VOCA, she is pulling her life together. She is learning coping skills, learning to make those positive choices.

So when we think about the role that these victim services play, these providers who, again, are there for truly the most vulnerable at the most vulnerable times that they may face, it should make us want to do everything we can to ensure that they have the resources available for them.

The longer Congress delays this inevitable fix, the larger cuts victim services in Alaska and in every State in our Nation are going to face. I think

we all recognize this has been a difficult time, but for those who are trying to serve victims through a global pandemic, it has really been so much harder. It has been 10 times harder. Our providers are exhausted. They are burned out. And now they are faced with massive cuts.

Now, my colleague from Pennsylvania has some legitimate budget concerns that he hopes to address through an amendment we will take up later today. His concerns with changes in mandatory spending are valid, and I respect that, but this VOCA fix legislation is not the mechanism to address these concerns. I fear that if his amendment should pass, it will delay and perhaps derail this much needed fix.

Again, we are hearing from victims. We are hearing from survivors. We are hearing from victim service organizations. They are asking us--they are asking us--they are begging us for a fix now to the VOCA deposit. I am not hearing too many of them ask for CHIMP reform. The use of CHIMPs is controversial. Our legislation, which would fix the VOCA deposit, is not.

We cannot fail the many who dedicate their lives to serving victims and survivors. There was an Alaska organization at the VOCA roundtable who said it very neatly. She said: It is a representation of our values as a society how we help those who are most vulnerable.

We have the ability today to do what is right, so I would urge my colleagues to vote aye on the VOCA Fix Act.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, this afternoon, we will have before us, as Members of the Senate, legislation that is entitled the For the People Act.

Before I speak to the For the People Act, S. 1, I want to make clear to colleagues that I have been keenly focused, interested in ensuring that when we have elections in this country, that they are free, they are fair and they are accessible to all, that barriers to voting should be placed on the sidelines.

For the past three sessions of Congress now, I have been the only Republican cosponsor of the Voting Rights Advancement Act. This was a measure that in prior Congresses was led by Senator Leahy, and I was pleased to be able to join him as a cosponsor. That measure has now been introduced on the House side as the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, a measure to basically reestablish the preclearance system, which was in place until 2013, and then it was pretty much upended with the Supreme Court ruling in Shelby.

I certainly and absolutely intend to cosponsor that measure again under its new name, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. I will work with Senator Leahy, I will work with Senator Manchin--I will work with anybody on this initiative to help update this formula to ensure that we do have just exactly that, access to voting that is equal, that is fair, that is free from discrimination.

I note at the outset of my comments this morning the support for that legislation so that, again, folks understand that I fully understand that access to the ballot in this country is not perfect and, again, that I have stood behind legislation to ensure that our elections

are fair. We have come a long way. We have come a long way, but I think we all recognize that there is a long path ahead of us.

So let me turn to S. 1, the For the People Act. My fear is that this measure does not move us further down the path. If you look at the bill, it is wholly partisan. Unlike the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which is very narrowly focused on voting rights, S. 1 has been described as sprawling. It has been described as ambitious, which is fair. Ambitious is not a bad thing, but it is clearly, clearly very broad, and it certainly contains some noteworthy goals, but I fear that there are provisions contained within S. 1 that take it too far or that I think are bad policy or that I simply think are beyond the power of Congress to regulate.

My concern, and I shared this with many, is that the bill that we have in front of us is not so much about voting rights as it is a Federal takeover of the election system--and a partisan Federal takeover of the election system.

The way the bill is being advertised--that somehow or another, we can't count on States to do elections right or fairly--is a premise that I have a problem with. I come from a State where we were under preclearance for a long period of time. We recognize that. We had a history that was not one that I think we were proud of in terms of ensuring that there was fair and open, equal access to all. But what we have seen in the State and how we have worked through that process that was in place some years back is that we have come to this place where we can--we have demonstrated that we can run a proper and an honest election. We have proven this time and again.

Much of my concern about what we have in front of us is that when you nationalize something, when you have kind of a Federal overall oversight, it ends up being a one-size-fits-all mandate coming out of Washington, DC, and in many cases doesn't work in a place like Alaska.

There are certain aspects of S. 1 that I absolutely do support. Early voting. We shouldn't be limited to just the day of the election. I think we recognize that. What we can do to ensure that early voting is there I think is important to us.

I come from a State where, if you want to vote absentee, there is no excuse required. You can just vote absentee because it is more convenient to you. I will tell you, I was really surprised to find out how many States do not allow for that. I think that is something we need to address. I am in support of that.

I think we need to be doing more when it comes to ease of voter registration. Again, in the State of Alaska, we have put in place ways to make it easier for folks to register. But, again, I am looking at what we have done in Alaska, proud of some of the measures we have put in place, but I recognize that we did this without DC prescriptives or mandates of uniformity.

So in walking through some of the concerns that I have--I mentioned making voter registration easier. Well, the For the People Act mandates automatic voter registration. OK. Maybe a good idea. In Alaska, what we have put in place is that Alaskans are automatically registered--unless they specifically opt out, they are automatically registered to vote when they sign up for their Permanent Fund dividend. This is obviously very exclusive and unique to one State and one State alone. But under this measure that we have in front of us, it would require State election officials to automatically register any eligible unregistered citizens.

So I am looking at that and I am saying: All right, well, if we allow for automatic registration on the PFD--there are a lot of Alaskans, believe it or not, who do not sign up for the PFD or are not eligible for the PFD. So is the State going to have to have two different systems here in terms of how we meet this mandate?

I am looking at it and saying: Well, that is a fair amount of Federal micromanagement here. If the State wants to implement an automatic system, it should do so, as Alaska did, but without the threat of the Federal Government looming behind them, making sure the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed in precisely the way the Election Assistance Commission thinks they should be. I don't think we want to make the administration of elections involve even more burdensome efforts or more cost. It is something that you look at and say: Let's make sure we can allow for easier registration, but let's not impose burdensome mandates.

Early voting requirements is another issue. The bill requires at least 15 days of early voting. This is something, again, in Alaska that we already do. It works great, but it also requires that each polling place must be open for at least 10 hours a day. So we are basically back here in Washington, DC, telling us in Alaska that you have to have your polling place open for 10 hours a day.

Think about this in the context of a small community. I will take a super small community, Arctic Village. About 150 people total live there in the village--not 150 voters but 150 people total. It wouldn't make sense. It wouldn't make sense for the State to maintain poll workers for at least 10 hours per day, for at least 15 days, in a community like Arctic Village. The whole town can practically vote in an hour. But that is not the point here. The point is, you are imposing a Federal mandate in a one-size-fits-all approach that just might not fit well there.

One provision in the bill that I have some significant concerns about is requiring same-day voter registration across the country. Again, in Alaska, we think we have been doing a pretty fair job as to how we run our elections. I think it is reasonable that we be allowed to establish voter registration deadlines that work for the administrators in their respective States.

I know some people are surprised, but the fact is, we don't know everything best back here in terms of how to implement or how States should be implementing. States should have the latitude to implement a registration system that works with the State's geography, with their IT infrastructure, and with their election funding and other limitations they may have.

Forcing States to allow ballot harvesting--this is another area I have a problem with. This practice involves paid campaign operatives going out, collecting ballots, and returning them to be counted. I don't know. I look at this one and see so many ways in which this can be abused and exploited.

If a State wants to permit this practice with certain parameters that the State thinks would prevent abuses, that is fine, but not all States should be forced to do so by the Federal Government and be made subject to DC's idea of what actually works here.

Maintaining voter rolls. I think we all want to make sure that voting rolls are current or accurate, but the provisions in S. 1 really go very far. The bill would require States to secure ``objective and reliable evidence.'' This is a term that is not actually defined in the bill, and they have to be able to establish that before removing a voter. What is not considered objective and reliable is a failure to vote or the failure of a voter to respond to a notice sent by the State informing the voter that they have been removed. So you are going to have a situation here where this undefined term will result in people who have long since left the jurisdiction actually remaining on the voter rolls.

Then there is the issue of restructuring the Federal Election Commission. From its very inception, this was designed to be--this was meant to be a body that was bipartisan to specifically ensure that no political party would grant its candidates an unfair advantage in elections. So you have got a restructuring that is proposed here that I think presents a flaw. It would reduce the number of seats on the FEC from six to five, two members each from the two major political parties and one ostensibly Independent. So what this could mean is that a President could simply find someone who would vote in his or her favor each time but who never registered as a member of a particular political party.

This newly partisan FEC would also be given the responsibility of handing out loads of cash from the public coffers. I take issue with this, and I think that you have a fair amount of folks in my State and across the country who do take issue with that as well in terms of public funding.

S. 1 creates a new structure of public financing of campaigns that matches

small dollar donations on a 6-to-1 basis. So I look at that, and, again, I have concerns about why anyone thinks it is a good idea to have even more money in politics. But it is easy to me to see how this could be exploited by a partisan board holding the purse strings here. So, again, I look at that as a particular example of, what are we doing with this in this voting rights bill?

I mentioned in my introduction here that I feel that you have many provisions in this measure that are likely unconstitutional. To start, while Congress has broad authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of congressional elections, our powers are much more limited in how a State chooses to appoint electors to the electoral college. There, we may only determine the time of choosing electors and the day on which they should give their vote. So every provision that purportedly changes State laws regarding how a State chooses its electors could face significant and I think justified challenges in court.

There are numerous provisions that try to criminalize speech that is almost certainly protected. Even the ACLU opposed several parts of this bill on the grounds that it would unconstitutionally limit the speech of citizens as well as compel speech, neither of which is acceptable. Just 2 years ago, the Fourth Circuit invalidated a law that was nearly identical to a provision that is contained in this bill.

Another issue is the issue of tax returns and whether or not Congress can mandate candidates for President to release their tax returns. I think it is only reasonable that they should do so, but the concern that I have is, the Constitution is really pretty clear in outlining the requirements to be President, and releasing tax documents is not one of those. So it just kind of presents a challenge there. Can we direct that? There is an issue.

Requiring States to create redistricting commissions may also be unconstitutional since Congress cannot coerce or commandeer the mechanisms of State government. Congress also likely doesn't have the authority to require States to permit convicted felons to vote or the ability to impose an ethics code on the Justices of the Supreme Court.

So while these may be good ideas, is the constitutional authority there? I think there is a real question to that.

So my concern--and I am coming to the end of my comments here--my concern about this measure is that while the title is strong, ``For the People,'' I am not certain that this measure will do what those who have hoped that it would do will do--it will make administering elections more difficult, more expensive, and subject to Federal micromanagement.

Again, I mentioned the issue of questions of constitutionality and whether aspects of it will be thrown out. Passing this into law could result in messy litigation that leaves the state of election law uncertain for years to come.

I mentioned my concern about one-size-fits-all. That is challenging. We are a pretty amazing 50 States, but we are all a little bit unique. But how States have leeway or latitude in determining what works I think is important.

So I recognize that we are at a place and a time when credibility and faith in our institutions are at a really weak moment, a very weak moment, and so when we think about the things that are core to our institutions, one of those fundamentals is the fairness of our elections and also ensuring that we are taking an approach in this Nation where all people feel that the election process is for them as equal and fair as it is for their neighbor down the street or their fellow American all the way across the country. How we are able to deliver on this promise is something that we need to continue to strive toward.

So I am going to continue to work on voting rights reform. I am going to be doing that through the template of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Americans need to have faith in our institutions. They need to know that our elections are fair; that they are easy and accessible for all; and we can't instill that trust with a wholly partisan effort. We have got some work to do. We have got a lot of work to do, and it is important work.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to acknowledge and thank my colleague and friend from Illinois for his leadership on this issue. He has outlined well the situation in front of us with regard to the status of the Crime Victims Fund.

Again, this is a nontaxpayer source of funding, which is designed to help the millions of victims of crimes--those who have been violated, those who are extraordinarily vulnerable. And we are at a place where, as he has indicated, we have a proposal here that could help address how this fund is replenished to, again, ensure that those who have been made victims can receive some level of compensation.

We are kind of stuck here this morning, which is extraordinarily unfortunate. Folks back home in Alaska are just starting their day, and they are looking with anticipation and hope and, quite honestly, prayers that today might be the day that they get good news on this.

Right now, I have about 30 organizations in Alaska, including our domestic violence shelters, our child advocacy centers, our victim advocacy organizations--they have all been notified that they are going to expect a 35-percent cut to their funding, effective the 1st of July, so just in a couple of weeks here.

And because of this broken VOCA deposit issue, this cut is set to affect their funds for not only this year but for next year going forward.

So think about it. You are the shelter in Kodiak, where I was just 6, 8 weeks or so ago. When you are told you have a 35-percent cut to your budget coming and you have a small community, where are you going to find those resources? Because, believe you, me, the individuals who still require those services are not staying at home and saying: Well, I guess we didn't have the services here on this big island of Kodiak; so I am just going to stay put.

The need is still there. In fact, the need is more enhanced or exacerbated than ever before. We have seen this as a follow-on from COVID. We have seen those aftereffects, that aftershock, when you have been in an isolated situation where you have been forced to kind of shelter in place, if you will, but your home is not a safe shelter. It is not a shelter in that sense of the word. But you don't have services. And so where do you go? You stay with your abuser. You stay in the situation that is unsound, unsafe, because you don't have anyplace to turn. So the need out there is considerable.

We had a situation last summer of devastating loss, with five village residents in different villages who had died in domestic violence murders over a course of 10 days. These are small villages where everybody knows everybody, and the loss of one person--an elder, a child, or a victim--is extraordinary. And so we looked at that, and we said: Well, that is exacerbated by COVID and what has happened.

But, no, this has been a situation for us long prior to COVID, in terms of, unfortunately, the levels that we see of domestic violence, sexual assault, the victimization that we see--so being there to provide funding for services to help prevent these deaths, the trauma that children experience when they are in the room, the murders that affect families for generations. There is a story in the news just today--a domestic situation, the husband and the wife. The husband took the wife's life and then took his own, and it was a 6-year-old with an iPad who notified the authorities.

I think about the reality of what a 35-percent cut means, what it means when you say your service providers are faced with $6 million less in funding for victims services. The shelters are calling out to us for help. One domestic violence shelter in the State is facing the reality of laying off six full-time jobs within their organization. This is unacceptable.

I understand that there are concerns. Senator Toomey is going to speak to them. But this legislation doesn't change how Federal tax money is spent. It provides a technical fix by directing additional nontaxpayer dollars from criminal monetary penalties into this fund. So we are sitting at a point where the longer that Congress delays this fix, the larger the cuts that victims services in my State and all around the country will face.

This has been a hard time for us, and I think we recognize it, but for those who are trying to serve victims, for those who are trying to serve the most vulnerable at an exceptionally vulnerable time in their lives, it makes it 10 times harder. Our providers are exhausted, they are burned out, and now they are faced with massive cuts. We simply cannot fail them.

I would urge us to look past the politics on this. This is what these victims' advocates are saying: Please don't use us as the political lever here. So I join not only with Senator Durbin but with the many in this body who would urge that we pass this technical fix to VOCA.

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

Mr. President, we are in a bit of a lull here, so whenever there is a lull in Senate activity, it is one of those moments and times when you think about those who have contributed to those of us who serve here in the Senate--staff who have been with us over a period of time, whether they be here in Washington, DC, or back in our home States.

Tonight, I come to the floor to share some long overdue recognition to a long-term member of my team, Michelle Blackwell.

We have had kind of a hectic beginning to this Congress. Yet we are back, doing legislative business, and that is good, but it has, I guess, delayed my tribute to, again, an extraordinary Alaskan, a woman who has been a good team member but also a friend of mine.

Earlier this year, Michelle retired from my team after 17 years of service--amazing years--to the U.S. Senate, as a member of my staff in Alaska, and to many of my constituents back home. Since 2003, Michelle served as my regional representative for the Southcentral region on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska. The Kenai Peninsula, for those who are not familiar with it, is a pretty significant area. It is equivalent in size to the States of Massachusetts and New Jersey combined, with a population of about 55,000 people.

If there are roads that wind around and go up and down and into some pretty extraordinary areas, Michelle has traveled them, and she has represented this region with grace, efficiency, diplomacy--resolving truly thousands of cases for constituents who have experienced problems with Federal Agencies. You name it--whether it is the IRS, whether it is Social Security, whether it is the VA--she has a story to tell there. Helping constituents and serving as a liaison to the community were really the keys to her success in my office. Her commitment to public service and to helping Alaskans has made me a better Senator and certainly a better representative for Alaskans.

I have to confess that, as much as we would like to claim her 100 percent for Alaska, Michelle did not get her start in public service in the State of Alaska. Like many who now call Alaska home, Michelle's path was kind of an adventurous one as she worked her way north.

She came to me from Wyoming via Washington, DC. She grew up in Wyoming, and then, following college, she went to work for then- Congressman Dick Cheney. This was back in the early eighties. She started out on the front desk, as a good staffer does, and as many successful staffers like Michelle have done, she worked her way up from there.

She spent 11 years working for Dick Cheney as one of his key aides, and he was so appreciative of her work that he brought her with him during his first tenure as Secretary of Defense under the 41st President, George H. W. Bush

As many of us know, when you find good staffers, you do everything that you can to hang on to them, but Michelle had a very adventurous spirit and a curiosity for foreign policy. She served a year in Switzerland with the State Department. She then returned to work for Mr. Cheney when his time with the first Bush administration had ended and he went to work for a public policy think tank, the American Enterprise Institute. Following this was the time that she then returned to Wyoming and opened the next chapter of her life.

In 1997, Michelle found herself in the famous Million Dollar Cowboy Bar in Jackson Hole, WY. I have been there myself--but Michelle met the man who would be her husband. The rest, as they say, is history.

Michelle and Jack were married a year later, and their adventurous spirit continued. They moved north. They moved to Sitka, AK, where Jack would serve as the park ranger for the State of Alaska's Department of Natural Resources. They spent 4 years there in Sitka, and Michelle was very active in the community, not surprisingly. She served as the director of the local visitor and tourism bureau--a key industry to our State and certainly to that region.

In 2002, Jack was transferred to Kenai, AK, to serve as the district ranger for Alaska State Parks for the

region. That is when Michelle found her way to the Alaska congressional delegation, where we found her. Again, I wish that I could take the credit for finding Michelle, but she came to work for the entire Alaska congressional delegation. This was at the time when the late Senator Ted Stevens was our senior Senator, and this was just when I was beginning my time in this office. Back then, the rules of this Chamber allowed us to share district offices and staff, so Michelle served not just me but also Senator Stevens and Congressman Young, who, as we know, is now the dean of the House, so some pretty big political powerhouses between Don Young and Senator Stevens. They are personalities that we have described as being larger than life at times and some personalities that can be interesting to balance, but Michelle did so with patience and poise.

All in all, Michelle has 25 years of Federal public service, and I am proud to say that 17 of those years have been as a member of my staff.

Of all of her many professional accomplishments, you will not hear her boast, but you will hear her colleagues speak with the highest respect for her ethics and her duty to public service. She is so humble but so, so respected by her staff both on the State side and among the policy team here in DC.

I have had a lot of time to be in a car with Michelle as we have driven around the Kenai Peninsula. I have seen her interact with constituents who have serious, challenging, personal, deeply emotional issues, and how she is able to communicate with Alaskans on their level, on their issues, in a way that is respectful and understanding and compassionate is a gift that is extraordinary.

Outside of the office, one source of pride--probably the biggest source of pride for Michelle--is very clear: the devotion to her family. When asked by others who worked with her, the first thing that you would hear is of Michelle's dedication to her family, and she has a great family.

Her husband, Jack, as I mentioned, is a great guy--a pilot. She was a little worried when he decided that, instead of a family minivan, it was going to be a family--I don't remember whether it was a Cherokee or a Piper or a 175, but the family is flying around and doing a lot of Alaska that we all enjoy.

They have two great kids, Jackson and Cameron. I have had the pleasure and the privilege to watch both of these young people grow into talented, kind, and smart young adults who are now pursuing college and postgraduate degrees. Jackson, who was a page here in the U.S. Senate and an intern for me, is a Truman Scholar. Cameron, his younger sister, was also a page here. She is pursuing a premed-health sciences program with the goal of being a doctor. Jackson is working on Arctic issues and climate issues. You just couldn't be prouder of these two young people. I know that Michelle is, and I certainly am. It has been great to be able to watch and be a part of their family.

To the family--to Jack, to Jackson, and to Cameron--thank you for sharing your mom with me, with all of my staff, and really with the Senate and our country for so many years. We know that those years were nights and weekends and holidays when we took a lot of her time, and we appreciate that.

I recognize that, as we see good, strong, capable, really impactful people move on from our teams, it is just the closing of one chapter and the opening of yet another for Michelle and her family.

So, to Michelle, thank you for all of the years that you have given to your public service and as a member of my staff. I wish you all the best in your very well-deserved retirement.

Tribute to Admiral Matthew T. Bell, Jr.

Mr. President, as I am still on the floor and we are still in a pause, I want to provide some short remarks with regard to an individual who has been not only a leader in the Alaska community for a period of years but a real leader for our U.S. Coast Guard.

I rise to offer my commendation to ADM Matthew T. Bell, Jr., who served the Coast Guard for 36 years, most recently as the commander of District 17, D17.

He had his retirement ceremony just about 6 weeks or so ago, and I had the opportunity to be out there at his retirement ceremony. It was held in Juneau. We had the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Schultz, who led the delegation, join Senator Sullivan, myself, and Governor Dunleavy. It was pretty significant that you would have a gathering there in Juneau for this retirement ceremony but not unusual because Admiral Bell had led in a way and manner that deserved this public recognition, certainly, at the highest level.

D17 is an enormous region that covers the entirety of Alaska, from the Bering Strait to the Aleutian Chain and all of the surrounding waters.

Admiral Bell, during his time there as head of D17, led with distinction, but before this he had had some pretty significant and impressive roles. He commanded the Personnel Service Center. He served as chief of staff for the U.S. Coast Guard Pacific Area and as a chemistry and nautical science instructor at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

He served as commander of Task Group 55.6 in Bahrain in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and he earned the highly esteemed ``Cutterman'' designation after more than 12 years of sea service.

Three times--three times--he was the commanding officer and his commands included the Coast Guard Cutter Point Divide, Coast Guard Cutter Alex Haley, and Coast Guard Cutter Douglas Munro.

The Alex Haley and Munro were each stationed in Kodiak when Admiral Bell served as their commander. In fact, we had the retirement ceremony for Admiral Bell, and then the following day we flew out to Kodiak to attend the decommissioning of the Munro after 40 years of service-- pretty admirable run.

But I can imagine that these tours helped sow the seeds of home for Admiral Bell and his family.

So I mentioned I had the opportunity to be there when Admiral Bell passed on the roles and responsibility of the D17 command. It was April 21.

He was honorably awarded and recognized for his outstanding service and retirement. But, again, I think it is noteworthy. This was not your average retirement ceremony. We had COVID-19 protocols that were still in place. Senator Sullivan and I were in the front row. It was a pretty limited gathering. I think they were limited to 30 people, joined by the Governor of Alaska. Over 300 people watched by live feed, but behind us--so in the speaker's view and behind us--was this exceptionally distracting view, the beauty of Mendenhall Glacier that was behind us. And every one of the speakers noted that it was quite extraordinary to be in this setting.

But I was honored to be invited and humbled to represent the Alaskans who have all deeply appreciated the Coast Guard's work in our State, and especially while Admiral Bell was at the helm.

I want to take just note of the fact and thank Admiral Bell and all of the really invaluable, heroic work that D17 does in the State.

In a given month in the State of Alaska, D17 rescues 22 souls, assists 53 people, saves over $1.65 million in property across 3,853,500 square miles and over 47,300 miles of shoreline--a lot of space, lot of territory to cover.

Alaska is tough. It is rugged. It is big. But these missions are carried out in the toughest, most challenging environment. And as I heard Admiral Bell mention during his retirement ceremony, he said: ``If you can do the Coast Guard's mission in Alaska, you can do the job anywhere [else].''

And he is right. It is the best that we will see.

Not only are Coast Guard men and women in Alaska mastering their craft and saving lives and property, they are also integral members of our communities. Those members and their families are our neighbors. They are our classmates. They are our friends. And I deeply appreciate the connection and fond relationship shared by the Coast Guard and Alaska, and that is why it is so important, I think, to just take the time to honor and to thank incredible leaders like Admiral Bell.

So on behalf of Alaska, I thank you for everything you have done to continue the longstanding legacy of lifesaving, environmental protection, and maritime safety in our great State.

But beyond that, thank you for representing and nurturing the connections between the Coast Guard and our State as the D17 commander and neighbor.

And I want to end my comments tonight with just a comment about Matt Bell as the neighbor. Matt and his wife Nancy have raised three sons, and like most Coast Guard families, they moved numerous times. They have accepted the assignments and adventure with the kind of a matter- of-factness that comes with military service. But wherever they have been stationed, they have become part of the community. They have made that community just a little bit better.

And when Matt and Nancy came to Alaska, they knew they were home. They said it. Absolutely, they knew they were home. In fact, it was somewhat interesting. Nancy was not at the retirement ceremony there in Juno because she had already moved all of their household goods to Kodiak. I think it was her first week of work there. She was working at the Coast Guard base there. So, you know, she is a true Coast Guard family for life.

But for a small little side note and an anecdote, at the conclusion of the decommissioning of the Munro, I had to fly back to Anchorage, and as it turned out, the same airplane that was going to be taking me back to Anchorage from Kodiak was the same airplane that was delivering just recently retired Admiral Bell to Kodiak to come home to his wife and help, basically, move in.

Long story short, weather comes in and there are no airplanes to Kodiak. So he is not coming in and I am not going out.

As it was, I was supposed to be in Anchorage at a family dinner, and I knew that they had a place set for me, and while I was at the airport trying to rearrange reservations and trying to find accommodations for the evening, Nancy Bell was at the airport waiting for her husband. And she said: What can I do to make sure that you have a place to stay?

And I said: Well, it's not just about me. I have a whole volleyball team from Palmer and a soccer team from the valley. What are we going to do with 50-some-odd kids when there is no airplane until tomorrow?

And Nancy Bell sprung into action, as a good community member, to see what it was that she could do to get not only me and a couple of staff people but to get a couple teams of kids situated for the evening

And I said: You know, Nancy, you are taking care of me. Matt needs to go to my family dinner in Anchorage and take my place.

And so he did. He had a great evening with my family, and I had a great opportunity to spend a little bit more time with his wife in Kodiak.

But it just speaks to the neighborliness that goes on. You have a significant leader in our U.S. Coast Guard--a man who he and his family have given so much, 36 years in service. And they are now going to give that to their community--their Alaska community--that they have adopted, and we have embraced them.

We honor them, and we wish the best for them and their family in their retirement.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 593 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Murkowski amendment at the desk be agreed to and the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Madam President, I know of no further debate on the bill, as amended.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, we are at a much better place at this moment in time for the people of the State of Alaska, who have been anxious. We have all been anxious throughout this time of COVID, but we have been particularly anxious as we have watched our tourist sector just be decimated. And when I say ``decimated,'' I mean in the sense that when you have such a significant portion of one economic sector, the tourist sector, come to your State by one means, by one mode--and for us, in the State of Alaska, that is cruise ship.

We have had an extraordinarily robust tourist economy, growing over the years. People want to come and see the beauty and the splendor, and for many, they want to be on the comfort of a ship and watch the views go by, see the glaciers, see the whales come on up. It is a great place to visit. But for the past year, ships have not been sailing to Alaska. This is due to not only the CDC and the no-sail orders the CDC has imposed but also because of the limitations that have been put in place by Canada in terms of no sailing through the Canadian waters.

So there has been an effort to, as we try to regain our footing, rebuild a tourist sector, but you can't just flip a switch here. You just can't get an industry back on its feet this quickly without everybody pulling together, and this has been a struggle to get everyone pulling together. But I think we are at a place where there is a glimmer of hope for Alaska's tourism industry.

We were here on this floor just a couple weeks ago, Senator Sullivan and myself, talking about how significant cruising is as an element to Alaska's economy. At the time, I shared a chart with colleagues that showed that in 2019 we had 1.3 million visitors come to Alaska on a cruise ship, and in 2020 we had 48 come to Alaska on a cruise ship. I said at the time: That is 48 passengers, not 48,000.

You can just guess what that did to our economy--the statewide unemployment rate rising from 6.2 to 11 percent; municipal and State revenues dropping significantly; and every day that passes, more lost revenues, more lost salaries, more economic distress. So the effort that we have made to, again, try to get ships back in the water, try to get them heading north, has been considerable.

We have heard from so many in not only our coastal communities but, really, communities around the State about the economic impact and the hit they have taken.

In the Indian Affairs Committee, we had a hearing just yesterday about the impact on Native tourism due to COVID, and we had the CEO of Huna Totem Corporation, Russell Dick, describe to the committee the profound ``disruption of our local economy, as 80 percent of our local tax base comes from tourism,'' he said. Consequently, ``leadership from the city of Hoonah, the community, and Icy Strait Point are all eager for cruise ships to return.'' Consider that. Eighty percent of your local tax base comes from tourism, and if you don't have passengers coming in, if you don't have visitors coming in, you basically have nothing. So we needed to address this. We needed to fix this.

We have been working aggressively, not only the Alaska delegation here working with Congressmen but working with all members of the administration. We have the Secretary of Homeland Security, who is literally on speed dial, the Director of the CDC, who really doesn't want to hear from us anymore because I think we have been so constant. We have been engaging with the Secretary of Commerce. We have taken this to the head of the Canadian Government as well, with letters to Prime Minister Trudeau and to his Cabinet, to his Parliament. So the effort that has been underway has been considerable.

We had an opportunity on the floor a couple weeks ago to discuss this very issue. We heard concerns raised by Senator Blumenthal about some consumer protection provisions. We heard concerns from Senator Lee about the Passenger Vessel Services Act, the PVSA. We weren't able to come to a resolution at the time, but I think what was good at that time was a commitment to keep working on this. We kept working on this, and we are now to the point where we have successfully passed this temporary PVSA fix through the Senate.

I want to state, though, that this is not a fix for the cruise companies, if you will. This is help, this is a fix, if you will, for the communities in Southeastern Alaska, the communities around Alaska for whom opening up some semblance of a cruise season this summer is literally going to determine their future--not just whether they are able to open this year but whether they are able to open at all going forward.

To tell people that they have to hold on through 2022, hold on for yet another 14 months--that is just not possible because it has already been 19 months that these communities have been so severely and so significantly impacted.

So the timing of this is key. It is critical. It is literally every day counting, every day that matters, so that our communities can get the folks back in the little store, get your teams hired up to take the tourists out on the attractions, get us back to a place where again we can be more stable from an economic perspective and with regards to the benefit to Alaskans and the employment.

We are ready to go back to work. We have been working hard on the vaccine. We have advertised ourselves as a State to be coming to if you are looking for your travel adventure and do so in a safe place. But we have been tied--our hands have been tied--in our ability to get the season back up and running and in a way that is going to provide for a level of safety for all.

We are continuing to make progress with CDC. I think that is an important part to add to because that has been an impediment to us. The CDC has been slow--torturously slow--in laying down their guidance, but I am optimistic that we are very close. Hopefully--hopefully--we are going to have the necessary certainty for cruise companies to ramp up their operations to again prepare to cruise to Alaska.

With the CDC paving the way over there and the PVSA issue, we are very hopeful--very, very hopeful--that we will be able to advance over in the House, working with our colleagues over there, to be able to provide this certainty for a very short season that will allow Alaskans to have some glimmer of hope here.

But I want to end with a comment and a statement that came from Mr. Russell Dick, again, the CEO of Huna Totem Corporation. Mr. Dick is indigenous from the Hoonah region. Hoonah was his community, his village that he grew up in. And he reminded us of the situation that Canada has really placed us in.

The reality is, he has a community where they may have literally no economy this summer if you can't get cruise ships in. Eighty percent of the employees that work at Icy Strait there are local and native hire. But his comment was that we are dealing with this because Congress, in his words, hasn't dealt with the PVSA. And he says: This is not Canada's fault; this is the Federal Government's fault. And he says: Let me be clear. The PVSA right now is preventing us from hiring Americans in an American community that desperately needs those jobs. The U.S. Congress is responsible for this problem.

I think Russell made it very, very clear to us that we have to address this. We have to address this. What we have done just now is we have shown that when Canada is going to make some tough decisions, we are not going to stand by. We are not just going to say ``pretty please,'' withering on the vine here until another country--until Canada--catches up with our level of readiness. It should be up to us to be able to restore our economy, and we will take the first steps to do just that.

So I want to thank Senator Sullivan, absolutely, for his leadership throughout all of this, but I also want to recognize Senator Lee, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Cantwell, and Senator Wicker and their teams for helping us get to this place today

where we can be in a spot where we can tell Alaskans the light is coming on.

With that, I will yield to my friend and colleague Senator Sullivan

Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 593 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the Murkowski amendment at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, we talked a lot about the pandemic and all that it has brought. I would like to take just a few moments here, at the outset, before I ask for full consideration, to share with colleagues, very briefly, what we have faced in the State of Alaska with regard to our State's economy. We have probably taken a greater hit than any State in the country.

We saw a 32-percent drop in revenue last year, 10 percent higher than any other State in the Nation. We are starting to see a light at the end of the tunnel, and that is good, but we are also facing the prospect of another devastating tourist season.

Back home, right now, people are not talking about the season for 2021 coming up. The motto is ``Get through to `22.'' That is an awful way to be approaching our situation so they have asked for help. They realize that anything that we can do to try to salvage even a few weeks of the tourist season is going to be important to us.

So Senator Sullivan and I have been working on behalf of hundreds of small businesses that rely on this essential income just so they can scrape by for another year. A lot of people don't think about cruise ships as being an essential activity during a pandemic but, let me tell you, in our State, where so much of our economy is based on tourism, it is an imperative. It is jobs; it is livelihoods; and it really is what allows our small communities to keep their doors open.

In 2019, before the pandemic was upon us, we were looking at 1.33 million tourists who came to the State of Alaska by way of cruise ship. That is pretty significant. In 2020, there were 48 passengers. That is 48 passengers. That is not 48,000. So, in other words, you had an economy that was looking pretty strong and pretty good, and it absolutely went into a free fall.

Normally, the tourism industry generates more than $214 million in State and municipal revenue, more than $1.4 billion in payroll, $2.2 billion in visitor spending, and the prospect was doing nothing but going up until we were hit in 2020. The vastly diminished cruise season contributed to statewide unemployment rising from 6.2 percent to 11 percent. Southeast Alaska had greater unemployment, which increased from 4.7 to 11.3--17 percent of all jobs in the region impacted.

This kind of unemployment and this kind of stress is an extraordinary challenge. So Alaskans are trying to figure out is there a way to salvage there, and there are two points here.

We are ready to welcome visitors back in the State. We are leading the country in vaccination rates. Half of

all Alaskans have had their first dose. So 43 percent are fully vaccinated, but we have got two issues that we are facing here; first is, the Centers for Disease Control has their no sail order for the cruise industry in place. We actually got some very encouraging news just last evening. CDC has acknowledged these changing circumstances with regard to vaccination. They updated their guidance for how to safely resume cruising, so that is good. That is a positive.

But we have got a second issue, and that second issue is that Canada has a ban on allowing passenger vessels to depart from or transit through their waters. We are dealing with a law that is controlling so much of this because, in the United States, we only allow domestically built, owned, and crewed vessels to operate on solely domestic trips. This is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, the PVSA.

So we have got a situation that without a stop in Canada, a cruise to Alaska is a domestic ship. Canada has effectively been available to cruise companies that offer voyages to Alaska--not built in the United States, not crewed by U.S. citizens, not permitted to sail in Alaska without making a stop in a foreign country because otherwise this violates the PVSA. So what we are trying to do, we are trying to work with the Canadians to resolve this issue. It has been tough making headway because Canada is in a different spot when it comes to their vaccines.

We have turned to a legislative fix, a temporary legislative fix. There are a lot of different opinions on PVSA and the Jones Act. I am not here to debate them today, but what I am trying to offer, along with Senator Sullivan, is a temporary fix that will allow the cruise ships to travel between Washington State and Alaska because what we are trying to do here--I am not trying to save the cruise companies; I am trying to save communities that are so dependent on these vessels that bring these passengers up.

For them, it is critical. If we can't get some level of relief, and we can't get folks north, they are not going to--they have been on hold now since last year. So 14 months until we get into 2022, on top of what we have already seen, these businesses won't be there.

What we are doing is we temporarily deemed that a voyage to Alaska from Washington State without a stop in Canada is, by law, a foreign voyage. So PVSA is not going to hold us back. I have worked with Senator Cantwell, and I have worked with Senator Blumenthal to address some of the issues that they have raised, and I thank them both for their efforts to work with me.

We have incorporated, in this amendment, three simple requirements-- two of which the industry already adheres to--requiring defibrillators on ships, making sure that the passengers' bill of rights is publicly available, and we asked the Secretary to consider a rulemaking on how to safely return human remains in the tragic event that someone passes away on a cruise. These are simple, commonsense changes that ensure cruises are safe for passengers and the crew.

Along with Senator Sullivan and Congressman Young, I would ask the Senate to consider and pass the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act so that cruises can gain some semblance--some semblance--of opportunity in Alaska, as they have for so long.

So, again, I will restate my motion here asking unanimous consent that Murkowski amendment No. 593 be called up and agreed to.

Madam President, to just wrap up this discussion, I really appreciate the comments from my colleague Senator Sullivan because I think you have really keyed in on where we are today.

The Alaska Tourism Restoration Act is such a narrowly defined in scope initiative to, again, create this very brief period of time to allow for what is left or what will remain of a tourist season to proceed. But we are faced with bigger issues, and these issues clearly evoke great passion and debate, whether it is consumer protection or to Senator Lee's concerns that he has raised overall about Jones Act and

Mr. President, I didn't come to the floor to speak to the nominee who is before us this afternoon, but following the very impassioned comments by my colleagues, in fairness, on both sides of the aisle and recognizing the vote that I just took about an hour ago to advance Vanita Gupta to this position, I will take just a moment to explain where I am coming from and why I will be supporting her final confirmation in just an hour.

I have looked at her record. I have had an extensive sitdown with her. I am impressed with not only her professional credentials but really the level of experience, but more to the comments that we just heard on the floor, the passion that she carries with her in the work that she performs.

I think it is fair to say we will all agree her confirmation has been very challenged. She has had significant back-and-forth in committee. She has been elevated with very strong rhetorical words in favor and, equally, words of condemnation.

I asked her point blank: Why do you want this? Is this worth it? Because this has been, clearly, very hard on her as a nominee. She paused and reflected a moment and just spoke to how she feels called to serve in a very personal way that I thought was impactful.

We had a long discussion about some of the issues that I care deeply about in my State as they relate to justice, access to justice, public safety, and the real tragedy that we face when it comes to women, primarily our Native women, who experience rates of domestic violence and sexual assault that are shocking, disturbing, and wrong. Despite all that we have as a State, the resources we have, the opportunities we have, we have not been able to turn the corner as we have needed to in confronting what I believe is a true scourge.

It is going to take more than resources. Jurisdictionally, it is very complicated in Alaska. We don't have reservations. We don't have similar law enforcement presence in many parts of the State that you might have in the lower 48.

We have a great deal of work to do as a State. But as we discussed these issues, I felt that I was speaking to a woman who had not only committed a professional life to try to get to the base of these injustices, to try to not just direct a little bit of money, put a program in place, walk away, and call it a day, but to truly try to make a difference.

So there are some statements that she has made in some other areas that, in fairness, I find troubling and concerning, and part of my job will be to ensure that she understands clearly how this translates into issues in my State and with our particular issues. But I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to a woman who I believe has demonstrated through her professional career to be deeply, deeply committed to matters of justice. So I will be casting my vote in support of her in about an hour here.

Mr. President, I came to the floor today to talk about something that has been top of my mind for a period of time, and I wanted to bring it to Members' attention today because of some recent articles of late as it relates to national security and global competitiveness, particularly as they relate to domestic resource development.

In recent months, since the beginning of this administration, I have spoken out in concern at the direction that I have seen the new administration take with regard to energy security and how that relates to Alaska. I have spoken out at length about my opposition to several of these Executive orders that were very early on relating to leasing and permitting moratoria in my State. In fact, there were eight specific orders that were directed to one State and to one State only. That is a pretty hard hit for Alaska.

In other areas, I don't believe that additional Federal lands and waters in Alaska should be placed off-limits. We

already as a State hold more public lands than any other State, and by considerable degree. I don't believe our public land order removal process should be paused.

This was an announcement that just came out of the Department of the Interior last week. They say they are pausing it, but effectively, it could be delayed or abandoned not just for these next 2 years going forward but permanently. What this effectively does is it creates almost de facto wilderness, if you will, because you have placed land in a limbo, in a purgatory for decades. Nobody can do anything with it as these PLOs, these public land orders remain in place.

I note--no great secret around here--like most Alaskans, I strongly support our resource development industry and the men and the women who work within it. They are my friends. They are my neighbors. I fish with them. I recognize the importance and the value of what they do. I have worked hard here in the Senate and for a long time to ensure that the industry's continued centrality is allowed to prosper, not only because of them, the people I know, but because of what it means for our country, for our economy, our State's budget, our prosperity, and also for our environment.

After years of lagging behind, the United States has come to a better place on energy in recent years. We have seen domestic production rising. We have seen our emissions falling. We have created jobs. We have generated revenues. We have changed the world geopolitically even as we have lessened our impact on the climate. But these kinds of gains can't be taken for granted. They can't be actively ignored. They certainly should not be discarded.

We have to acknowledge that this energy renewal has not been even across the country. It has taken place largely on State and private lands. We have very limited private land in Alaska. And instate activity--we have been proudly producing for a while. But we also have, again, much land that is federally held, and we have only seen help arrive with any kind of activity and production on Federal land in the past few years. I would suggest that we cannot afford that forward progress to be reversed, but unfortunately that is the way it feels right now. The threat is that this administration is going to take an approach that is going to take us backwards.

So the question, I think, is a fair one for us to ask, to discuss here. It is an important question. What happens if we just decide we are going to turn our backs on this, our American energy? What happens if we really do move in this direction of just keeping it in the ground? What happens if we really do close our eyes to our domestic energy sources, these assets, if we close our eyes to the contributions that they provide?

I will suggest to you that there are a few warning signs that we have up on the horizon. Oil prices are back up above $60 a barrel. This actually helps my State; I will be honest there. We will accept that for budgetary purposes. But we all talk about what happens typically around Memorial Day. We have driving season coming on. We are still in the midst of a pandemic. But if the United States artificially restricts its supplies and demand rebounds rapidly, where does this put us?

I mentioned that there have been some articles of late that just really kind of struck me. It is interesting because I thought they were pretty significant, but it seems they are relatively unnoticed here in Washington.

According to Bloomberg, Russia has now supplanted Saudi Arabia to become the third largest supplier of crude oil in the United States. Canada is our No. 1. But there has been a series of circumstances. As our domestic production is falling, the Saudis have also reduced theirs, and it has been Venezuela. Venezuela is subject to sanctions. Their production has pretty much gone offline to the United States.

Part of what we are seeing, though, is the refusal on the Federal Government's side to approve cross-border pipeline infrastructure. Canada, again, is our largest--we import more from Canada than anywhere else, and they have greater capacity to help us out here so that we don't have to take it from Russia. But, instead, we haven't been able to take more from Canada to fill in that gap because of pipeline capacity. So what happens is, we are sending more of our money to Russia at a time when we are not on very good terms with Russia. Need we say elections? Need we say SolarWinds? Need we say what we are seeing from Putin?

This is what is happening: We are sending more of our dollars to Russia, and they are sending us more of the resources that we could produce here at home or perhaps at least import them from some friendlier nations.

U.S. crude oil production fell from an average high of 12.2 million barrels per day in 2019 to an average of 11.3 million in 2020. According to the Energy Information Administration, this loss in domestic production will return the United States to being a net petroleum importer in 2021 and 2022. By all accounts, a sizable chunk of this will come from Russia.

What is going to happen is, we are going to move from this position where we have been in these past few years where we have had some real energy security here because we have been producing, and we have been producing to the point that we have been able to even supply to our friends and allies. But now, with policies that are taking us in a different direction and still knowing that we need the resource, we are turning to Russia.

This is what really galls me so much: In 2020, the United States imported 538,000 barrels of oil per day from Russia. In Alaska--we recognize Alaska is a great producing State. Despite our immense potential and desire to bring it to market, in 2020, we were producing an average of 448,000 barrels per day.

It just begs the question: Is this what we really want? Is this what we really want, for Russia to account for more of America's energy supply than Alaska? We both have similar environments, both big, but oil production goes on in areas that are tough to produce in. I will hold Alaska's environmental record over that of Russia any day--in fact, over most countries and even most States any day.

One article put it this way. They said: ``America's increasing reliance on Russian oil is at odds with U.S. energy diplomacy.''

Let's kind of put it in context. The position that we have taken with Nord Stream 2--basically what we have said is that we are asking those in Europe who need Russia's gas--we are saying we need to be tough on this. We need to break Russia's hold here. For all the years--it has been 7 years since Russia annexed Crimea and demonstrated to the world that they are not afraid to flex their muscles when it comes to energy exports in order to achieve their geopolitical goals.

So we have been saying on Nord Stream 2: Europe, you guys, don't go there. Yet we have to look at ourselves here because we are telling Europe ``Limit your reliance on Russia for gas,'' but over here, we are happy to step up our imports from Russia on oil.

The President has just recently imposed tougher sanctions on Russia, as he absolutely should, but I think we need to be eyes wide open here, folks, in terms of what it means when we need that resource.

I do recognize that much of this discussion on Russia and how Russia has supplemented Venezuelan crude--I recognize that most of the oil that is being imported is heavy and that this is a situation with our gulf coast refineries that are specifically geared for that. I do recognize that they have fewer options right now, but I do think this is a conversation that we need to be talking about. We just can't sit back and say: Well, this is just the way it is.

Congress and the administration need to be taking the steps necessary to ensure that we in this country have a strong, stable supply of domestic energy to meet our current demand, our future demand, and, to the greatest extent possible, the demand from our allies.

Russia is positioning itself to capitalize on all of that. They produce from wherever they want, and they are going to sell to wherever they can.

The least that we can do here at home is to support our own responsible production from States like Alaska, so that we have our supply--our own supply--and can provide a diversified commercial alternative.

Moving from oil and gas briefly here, Alaska is also ready to help in another increasingly crucial area and that is

with mineral development. Our history of tectonic events has created a geological environment that fosters deposits of a wide variety of minerals that are critical to both our current and our future economies.

Back in 2018, the Department of the Interior designated 35 ``critical'' minerals based on their importance to our economy and security, as well as their susceptibility to supply and disruption. These minerals are essential for everything. They help us with our advanced missile systems, solar panels, batteries for electric vehicles, your cell phones--everything. Our military is certainly aware of this. They recognize the vulnerable position that we are in. Our manufacturers recognize the vulnerability. These are products that we use on a daily basis.

Right now, the United States is import-reliant on 31 of the 35 minerals designated as ``critical.'' We have relatively no domestic production. We rely completely on imports to meet our demand for 14 of these. And, of course, most of where we are importing these materials are from China. That is not OK. That shouldn't be acceptable to us. I think we all should agree on the need to rebuild our domestic mineral supply chains. There has been good, positive conversation about what we can do.

I feel this is one of those areas that is a growing vulnerability. It used to be that we would talk about our vulnerability on the Middle East for our oil, and then policies changed and we reduced our reliance on that. That is why I am anxious. I am concerned about what I am seeing translate going forward. But I think we need to be, again, with eyes wide open when it comes to our mineral dependence and our reliance on these important materials for what we need to be a strong nation.

I think this is a pressing and long-term security threat that we face in this country. We have seen it play out in light of the COVID pandemic. We have seen the vulnerability of international supply chains. I thought it was great. It was so important that the administration really focused in on this. The new administration is focusing on this in a good way, and I appreciate that.

When President Biden released the first part of his infrastructure proposal, focusing on international domestic supply chains, he has one section there about electric vehicles. In the White House fact sheet, it says the plan ``will enable automakers to spur domestic supply chains from raw materials to parts, retool factories to compete globally, and support American workers to make batteries and EVs.''

This is the type of policy that we should all want to get behind, broadened out to every industry, not just to a select few. But the question here, though, is whether the administration is willing to accept what is going to be necessary in order to achieve this goal to have these secure supply chains, especially when it comes to expanding our domestic supply of raw materials. It is going to require approval of mining projects, and that has been a challenge for us. That has been a challenge for us.

This is where I go to another article that came up a few weeks back. This is from Reuters. It appears to me that rather than looking within our own borders, the administration is looking beyond. In this article from Reuters, it states that the United States looks to Canada for minerals to build electric vehicles. It provides:

The U.S. Government is working to help American miners and

battery makers expand into Canada, part of a strategy to

boost regional production of minerals used to make electric

vehicles and counter Chinese competitors.

It goes on further to talk about the different ways that the Department of Commerce is discussing with many how we can boost Canadian production of EV materials. It goes on further to say:

But Washington is increasingly viewing Canada as a kind of

``51st State'' for mineral supply purposes.

I am a big fan of Canada. They are our neighbor, but if we are going to be adding Canada as a 51st State to help us with our minerals and access to minerals, let's not forget the 49th State, because Alaska has good, strong resources. Where we seem to have problems is in gaining access, whether it is in the permitting process or just the ability to move forward with some of our mineral potential.

Again, I am not suggesting that we shouldn't be looking to our friends to build these alliances, particularly with our neighbors directly to the north and to the south. This is good. I am not suggesting: Let's not be talking to Canada.

That is an important part of how we really work to build these secure supply chains. All I am suggesting is that we here in America need to also look to the strength of our resource assets.

There are some--again, the issue of mining in this country sometimes can be a controversial one. I am going to suggest to folks that if we really want to do more to build out not only our national security but if we want to build out our clean, diverse energy infrastructure, moving toward the President's vision of greater renewable opportunities, which I want to do, let's acknowledge that we are going to need these minerals. We don't really have a choice here.

The World Bank recently released a report looking at ``The Mineral Intensity of the Clean Energy Transition.'' They found that ``large relative increases in demand of up to nearly 500 percent are estimated for certain minerals, especially those concentrated in energy storage technologies, such as lithium, graphite, and cobalt.'' The report also found that ``even with large increases in recycling--including scenarios where 100 percent end of life recycling is achieved--there is still likely to be strong demand for primary minerals.''

We know we are going to need it. People like Elon Musk last year said: ``Please mine more nickel.'' He promised: ``Tesla will give you a giant contract for a long period of time if you mine nickel efficiently and in an environmentally sensitive way.''

I am with you on that.

Look at the analysis from Goldman Sachs, which found that increasing demand for electric car batteries is causing automakers to brace for a surge in prices in lithium, cobalt, and nickel.

In order for us to get there from here, in order to achieve a transition to renewable and cleaner technologies, we have to acknowledge that there is going to be a mineral footprint. It will be impossible to establish a robust domestic supply chain for EVs and batteries if we continue to import the raw materials from other nations, including some that continue to dramatically outcompete us in these areas every year.

I think we need a rational, clear-headed, eyes-wide-open approach to energy and mineral development. We don't want to go backward on energy, and we can't be caught flatfooted on minerals. We have the resources. We have the highest labor standards in the world and the highest environmental standards in the world. Our energy workers and our miners will hold themselves to those standards. Instead of importing more from places like Russia and China, we need to free ourselves from them to the extent that we can establish ourselves as this global alternative.

I have kind of taken that--actually, it is not something new. In the beginning of the 116th Congress, I prepared a white paper. We called it ``The American and Global''--well, what we called it was a pretty cool title. It is a great little publication that should have gotten more notice, but like a good wine, it comes with time: ``'With Powers So Disposed,' America and the Global Strategic Energy Competition.''

I outline in this a strategic energy initiative designed to sharpen and direct our tools of energy related to economic statecraft and to enhance the geopolitical position of the country.

From that or as a jump-off from that, I am introducing my Strategic Energy and Minerals Initiative Act, which we call the SEMI Act. This legislation will enable U.S. companies to better compete in global markets, and it promotes the responsible domestic production of our oil, gas, and minerals. I think these are initiatives that are good for us to be looking critically at, again, as we move forward with this administration's priorities on not only how we can build infrastructure--build it better, build it cleaner, build it with a renewable future--but we have to recognize that when we build things, we need base elements.

Know that Alaska is ready, willing, and able to play a role on all of these fronts. We have tremendous stores of

resources, but equal to those tremendous stores of resources is the responsibility that I believe Alaskans feel to be good stewards as we access those resources to allow for a level of sustainability, whether it is with our fisheries or whether it is with the subsistence, the livelihoods of those who rely on the food and animals on the land. We believe that we can contribute to our national security and our global competitiveness, while at the same time working to protect the environment, but what we need is a chance to be able to do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before I begin my comments, I ask unanimous consent that Cristina Nelson, my Coast Guard fellow, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of her fellowship.