Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

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

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

Mr. President, today I wish to give special recognition to Lawrence P. Cotter on the occasion of his retirement. Larry is a great friend and dedicated Alaskan whose contributions to our State are significant and lasting, benefiting our State's fisheries and rural communities to this day and into the future.

As a resident of Alaska for almost half a century, Larry's work has taken him from fish processing plants to the halls of our State capitol and beyond. After arriving in Alaska in 1974, he spent over 4 years as a seafood processing worker in Juneau and 8 years as a labor organizer and representative for processing workers and longshoremen.

Larry shaped critical fisheries policy through his service on the advisory panel to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, of which he was a member for 6 years. This service was followed by an additional 6 years as a voting member on the Council during a critical time in the development of our Nation's domestic fisheries. Larry worked to ensure that foreign fishing in our exclusive economic zone was phased out and that our domestic fishing and processing capabilities were stepping up to replace the foreign fleets.

This shift to an all-domestic fleet allowed the United States to finally harvest our fishery resources for the sole benefit of American fishermen and processors. It was also during this period that allocation issues among U.S. fisheries interests were first coming to the forefront. These were challenging and exciting times, during which Larry's leadership thrived. His legacy in Alaska fisheries cannot be overstated.

Most recently, until late this year, Larry served as the founding CEO of the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association, or APICDA. As one of six community development quota organizations in western Alaska, APICDA has used the benefits of Bering Sea and Aleutian fishery resources to support its member communities in some of the most rural and remote parts of Alaska.

In helping to develop, implement, and sustain the CDQ program, Larry did perhaps his best work, accomplishing goals that will have positive impacts on western Alaskan communities for generations to come. Larry's visionary work on the formation of Alaska's CDQ program has benefited all of the participating communities through workforce, infrastructure, and economic development.

Many observers, myself included, have correctly noted that Alaska has the best managed fisheries in the country, and I know we could not have achieved this hard-earned status without Larry's tireless dedication to making our seafood industry truly sustainable.

Thank you, Larry, for your tremendous contributions to sustainable fisheries and to the participation of our coastal communities in those fisheries. I wish you a restful retirement and the best of luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. President, I speak today in memory of a friend and dear Alaskan, Ellen Campbell of Juneau, who passed away on October 16, 2018, at age 96.

Ellen was the mother of McKie Campbell, who served as Republican staff director for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee from 2008-2013. On behalf of my Senate colleagues, I take this opportunity to extend condolences to McKie, his siblings and their spouses, and the many grandchildren, great-grandchildren, nieces, and nephews who held Ellen dear. She was a very special person.

Ellen was a native of Waynesboro, GA. She grew up wanting to be a stewardess. That is what women who wanted to fly aspired to in Ellen's day, but after college, her career took a decidedly different direction. She went to work helping the war effort. That was during World War II when women were needed to backfill positions held by men who went off to war. She was a link trainer operator at the Atlanta Naval Base and then went on to lecture pilots. That led Ellen to wonder whether she might become one herself.

``It seemed absurd to be lecturing about flying and not have a private pilot's license, so I asked my father for my birthday present if he would give me flying lessons,'' Ellen explained. Shortly after obtaining that license, she applied to serve in the Women's Airforce Service Pilots, the WASP program. The hardest thing about it, Ellen said, was the fear that she would wash out during training. Ellen came darn close but managed to pass the three primary qualification tests.

She served in the WASP program from its inception in 1942 to its disbandment on December 20, 1944. Her

role was that of an engineering test pilot. Stationed in Jackson, MS, she flew many different kinds of aircraft; her favorite was the B-25 bomber.

Ellen was one of 1,074 women who earned their WASP wings. Her service and those of her fellow WASPs was honored with a Congressional Gold Medal authorized by law on July 1, 2009. Ellen traveled to Washington, DC, to receive her medal in March 2010.

When asked how she felt about her time in the WASPs by the Juneau Empire, the first word that came to mind was ``service.'' She went on to offer a favorite quote from Marian Wright Edelman, ``Service is the rent we pay for being. It is the very purpose of life, and not something you do in your spare time.''

These were words that Ellen lived by, during her service to our Nation and throughout the remainder of her life. Ellen came to Alaska with her husband Charles, who had been recruited to head the Alaska Department of Corrections. He retired from the department in the 1980s. Ellen threw herself into community service. A person of deep faith, Holy Trinity Episcopal Church in Juneau was her anchor.

She ran a weekly Bible study group at Lemon Creek Correctional Center. Inspired by interactions with women who struggled to reenter society after serving their sentences, she founded Haven House, a nonprofit ministry to foster healing and self-sufficiency for women coming out of prison in Southeast Alaska.

McKie told the Juneau Empire, ``Without being naive at all, she was convinced that everyone was good and had potential. She always saw the best in people.''

Ellen relocated to northern Virginia in 2009, with Charles, who died in 2012. It was there that she passed away, but Ellen's legacy will long be remembered in Juneau, which celebrated her life in a memorial service at Holy Trinity on Tuesday, November 13.

I am honored to pay tribute to Ellen Campbell, a force of nature who helped people find the best in themselves.

Mr. President, today, as the Senate returns from recess, I wanted to speak in loving memory of Barney Gottstein, a patriarch of Alaska's Jewish community, who passed away on October 21 at the age of 91. He was buried in the Anchorage Cemetery on October 22, in accordance with Jewish burial traditions.

I suspect that my colleagues might not be aware that Alaska is home to a thriving Jewish community or that the origins of that community preceded statehood by generations. One might be even more surprised to know that Barney was not the first generation of Gottsteins to occupy a leadership role in pre-Statehood Alaska, but the second generation. The Gottstein family is up to four generations of leadership, with a fifth--the great-grandchildren--now in place.

The first generation, Barney's father, Jacob B. Gottstein, originally of Des Moines, IA, came to Anchorage in 1915, selling cigars and confections out of the tent city established to construct the Alaska Railroad. Jake, as he was known, then opened a wholesale grocery and dry goods business, known as J.B. Gottstein & Co., which made sales calls by dog sled. You can't get more Alaskan than that. Jake passed away in 1963.

Barney was born in Des Moines in 1925, but soon moved to Anchorage, population 2,500, where he was raised. He enlisted in the Army and served in the Army Air Corps. After the war, Barney went to the University of Washington studying to be an aeronautical engineer. That didn't work out so well. He was told by a counselor that anti-Semitism would likely prevent Barney from getting a job in his chosen field, so he switched to business and economics and came home to work in the family business, but he didn't abandon his love for flying. Barney was a licensed private pilot who loved to fly around Alaska and beyond.

By the time Barney returned home, the family business was growing as fast as the state. The focus had changed from dry goods to wholesale groceries. Barney took it the next step. One of J.B. Gottstein's customers was the Carr Brothers Grocery. The rest is history.

Barney partnered with Larry Carr to grow the retail grocery business and pursue real estate ventures. Carr's Quality Centers sprung up throughout Alaska, along with an associated chain of Eagle markets. By the late 1980s, the Carr-Gottstein group of companies was the largest Alaska-owned business in the State. Barney and Larry sold the grocery side of the business in 1990 but remained in the real estate business. Today, the Carr's name remains on grocery stores in Anchorage, Eagle River, and the Mat-Su Valley.

In 1989, Barney was inducted into the Alaska Business Hall of Fame, and in 1991, he was awarded an honorary doctor of laws degree by the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Barney's business success in Alaska was deeply respected, but his community engagement even more so. He was chair of the Alaska Board of Education and provided financial assistance that enabled hundreds of Alaska Natives to pursue schooling. He was an inaugural member of the Alaska State Commission on Human Rights as well.

Barney was active in Alaska's political life as well. He was chairman of the Alaska Democratic Party, Alaska's Democratic National Committeeman, and an Alaska delegate to the Democratic National Conventions.

I mentioned that Barney was one of the patriarchs of Alaska's Jewish community. An early supporter of the State of Israel, he was the face of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, in Alaska for many years. Today, Barney's son, David, leads the AIPAC group in Alaska and in that capacity is a frequent visitor to my office. He provided financial support to enable young Jewish Alaskans to participate in the ``March of the Living,'' so that they might better understand the legacy of the Holocaust. He visited Israel on many occasions and took on the cause of supporting Ethiopian Jews who had made Aliyah to Israel integrate into society and pursue advanced degrees.

Barney was not only a father figure to the Alaska Jewish community. He was the patriarch of a large family himself. Barney is survived by Rachel, his second wife, of 32 years, who not surprisingly he met on a trip to Israel. Barney was father to seven children. Some of Barney's children have followed in their father's footsteps to achieve positions of great respect and prominence in Alaska. I am proud to count Robert, David, and Jim among my friends. A fourth generation of the Gottstein family, the grandchildren, are just beginning to make their mark, and there are great-grandchildren behind them.

On behalf of my Senate colleagues, I proudly pay my respects to Barney Gottstein and his wonderful family. May his memory be a blessing.

Mr. President, many Alaskans have contributed enormously to the development of the Territory of Alaska through Statehood and beyond with their special life skills, talents, courage, and insights into the world around them. Among that distinguished group was a very special man, Roy H. Madsen of Kodiak, AK. Roy Madsen was known for so many things. Among them, he was the first Alaska Native to serve as a judge of the Alaska Superior Court. On the eve of the Alaska Federation of Natives convention, I proudly honor his remarkable life that spanned 94 years from March 15, 1923 to December 26, 2017.

Roy was born in the village of Kanatak, located just across Shelikoff Straits from the Kodiak archipelago near the Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes and Mount Katmai in the Katmai National Monument on the Alaskan Peninsula, an area which, in 1980, was expanded and renamed the Katmai National Park and Preserve.

Roy was one of eight children. His father, Charles Madsen, was a Danish immigrant who established a trading post at Kanatak. His mother, Alaska Native Mary (Metrokin) was a homemaker. The Madsens returned to his mother's hometown of Kodiak where, when Roy was only 4 years old, she passed. Roy and his siblings were raised in Kodiak by their dad and their stepmother, Alexandra Churnoff Madsen. Roy's love for his heritage and for the island remained centerpieces throughout his life. A member of the Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak, he lived there for most of his life.

Blessed with his mother's rich, Alaska Native Sugpiaq-Koniagmiut- Alutiiq-Russian subsistence culture and fortified by his father's immigrant mindset of courage and ambition, Roy lived his life setting goals and pursuing them, most often with success.

After graduating from Kodiak High School in a class of six, he entered Oregon State University in 1941. In 1943, he left college and enlisted in the U.S. Navy and served as a gunner and navigator on Patrol Torpedo Boat PT 190, the ``Jack of Diamonds'' in the South Pacific during World War II. While serving in the Navy in the Philippines and New Guinea, Roy's unit was awarded campaign medals and two battle stars.

It was after WWII that Roy and his first wife Katharine (Walters) and family moved back to Kodiak in 1946. To support his growing family, he spent a couple of summers fishing in Bristol Bay on a Columbia River double ender by sail and became a registered Alaska bear guide, working with his father Captain Charles Madsen, guiding clients on Kodiak brown bear hunts.

The Madsens then moved to Oregon, where Roy finished his bachelor's degree and entered Northwestern College of Law, today the Lewis & Clark Law School, where he received his juris doctor degree in 1953. He served as assistant district attorney and practiced law in Oregon before, in 1961, returning with his family to Kodiak. Over the years, the Madsen clan grew to include seven children: Elizabeth, Mary Jane, Charles, Charlotte, Jacqueline, Guy--deceased--stepdaughter Shannon, 13 grandchildren, and 4 great-grand children.

Roy Madsen immersed himself in Kodiak's thriving civic and cultural life. In the 1960s, he established a law firm, was the Kodiak city attorney, and the Kodiak Island Borough attorney. During this period, his commitment to his heritage grew and became legendary. He helped establish the Kodiak Area Native Association KANA, serving as its first vice president. His niece, Rita Stevens, wife of State Senator Gary Stevens, later furthered the work Roy had begun by helping to lead KANA for nearly two decades.

As an attorney and Alaska Native, he contributed his knowledge and experience to efforts within Alaska to achieve a settlement through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of Alaska Native aboriginal land claims that resulted from work by many across the State in the enactment of Public Law 93-203 in 1971. He then helped to establish Koniag, Inc., one of the regional Alaska Native Corporations authorized by ANCSA.

It was in 1975 that Roy began service as a Superior Court judge. He served in the State's Third Judicial District, an area of approximately 67,000 square miles, and sat in Kodiak. He served as a judge on that court through 1990.

Judge Madsen continued to serve his beloved island through the decades. After his retirement from the bench, he enjoyed participating in Alaska court system's Colors of Justice Program, promoting acceptance of diversity and encouraging minorities to consider pursuing law as a career. He helped found, was chair of the first advisory board, and was a professor at the Kodiak Community College teaching constitutional, criminal, and business law. After his retirement from the bench, he was appointed to the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights and to the Alaska Supreme Court Committee on Fairness and Access to the Courts.

Roy was counsel for writing the articles of incorporation for and an original board member of St. Herman's Orthodox Theological Seminary, a board member of the Kodiak Baptist Missions Treatment Center for Troubled Youths, and a member of the advisory board of St. Innocent's Orthodox Academy for Troubled Youths. He also served on the

Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative committee which focused on incorporating ``Native Ways of Learning'' into mainstream education delivery in Alaska. That initiative added a great deal to the recognition and usage of this form of wisdom of the Elders and Native culture in learning delivery in the State.

A mesmerizing storyteller, with deep and broad knowledge as an elder, Roy was a sought after and frequently featured speaker at any number of local events. Among his many honors was Saint Herman's Cross, bestowed upon him by Bishop Gregory Afonsky. In more recent years, Kodiak's courthouse was rededicated as the Roy H. Madsen Justice Center.

Not long before his passing, Roy was named Conservation Elder of the Year by the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge for his long dedication to the refuge's Kodiak brown bear program. In recognition of his lifetime of achievement, the University of Alaska honored him with a doctorate of humanities. The documentary, ``Magnetic North,'' capturing how his life contributed to the history, spirit, and character of Alaska, premiered in Kodiak and aired on Alaska Public Television during 2017 shortly before his passing.

Roy was equally comfortable in his robes dispensing justice from the court bench as he was in a flannel shirt and worn corduroys at the helm of his skiff, shuttling family to a cabin on Woody Island or helping ferry pilgrims for the annual St. Herman's Pilgrimage to Monk's Lagoon or simply picking wild berries and mushrooms in the woods.

He was in his element with an audience, be it 2 or 200 hundred, sharing his stories of nature and human nature. His deep bass voice could fill a room, and his easy smile and laughter were contagious. Roy was manly enough to shed tears of joy or sorrow without embarrassment, to render steady advice, and to dispense his love, help, and friendship to all in need.

When asked for some words of advice, Roy once answered: ``For a good quality of life, I believe it is important to have several things: a positive mind, good family relationships, goals you hope to achieve and to be adaptable. Be open to new relationships, never feel too old to learn and always be yourself. Recognize that you are unique. There is only one you.''

He held his most satisfying accomplishments as: ``Extending justice and judicial services to rural Alaska--exposing rural Alaskans to Alaska's judicial system and making them feel included by traveling to them and delivering services in their own communities.''

Linda, his wife of 36 years prior to his passing, perhaps said it best: Roy had ``the soul of a poet, the vitality of a fisherman and hunter, measured reason and mental retentiveness of a judge, courage and vision of one committed to making life better for others, and the heart and humanity of a loyal friend.''

This is but a brief overview of the life of Roy Madsen who lived such a productive and principled life and who, by his deeds and who he was, represented the apex of what frontier Alaska and America can produce.

It is with the greatest respect that I share with my Senate colleagues and with the American people this short biographical sketch of the life of Roy Madsen, a wonderful Alaskan who served his country in war and peace and his fellow citizens in so many exemplary ways. We all are enriched to know about this great man whose life will be remembered and, hopefully, emulated as a ``north star'' for those who were fortunate to know him and those who will learn about his remarkable life.

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

Mr. President, just a little bit ago, a few hours ago, we had a matter before the Senate relating to S.J. Res. 63. This was a resolution of disapproval, which would have worked to disapprove of the rule that was issued jointly by the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services regarding these short-term, limited duration insurance plans.

I had hoped, actually, to have an opportunity to speak to this prior to the vote but was not able to. I want to take just a couple of minutes this afternoon to weigh in on this issue from an Alaskan perspective. I think there have been some suggestions that with this rule in place, those of us who care about protecting those with preexisting conditions, somehow or another, are taking these protections away.

I have weighed this carefully. In fairness, I think some of the arguments that have been made are, perhaps, not quite as clear cut as would be suggested and, perhaps, certainly, in a State like mine, where we still have the highest healthcare costs in the country and some of the highest costs for coverage in the country.

I think Members here in the Senate know full well that while I have opposed many aspects of the Affordable Care Act, I have supported and have strongly supported certain parts of it as well. Again, one of those things that I feel very strongly about is the need to ensure that we protect those who have preexisting conditions. That is a debate that, I think, is ongoing in other places as well. Yet I want to make clear that, certainly, my vote this morning is in no way meant to erode or undermine where I am coming from when it comes to preexisting conditions.

Back to the situation that we face in Alaska, as I mentioned, we are the highest in terms of the cost of care and the highest in terms of the cost of coverage, and we are still one of those States that has but one insurer on the exchange in Alaska. So our options are, really, pretty limited. As I am speaking to individuals about what they are hoping for when it comes to coverage, they are looking for additional options, but they are looking for affordable options as well.

It is true--it is absolutely true--that these short-term plans do not offer as much or, certainly, may not offer as much in the way of coverage as those plans that are offered on the individual exchanges. I understand that, but I have had to come down on this issue on the side of more choice for consumers and more options being a good thing for consumers.

In Alaska, our population, as one knows, is relatively small. We have about 720,000 people in the whole State, but we are talking about 18,000 people, give or take, who are enrolled on the individual exchanges each year. The

universe here is 18,000 people when we are talking about the exchanges. In the year 2016, which was the most recent year about which the IRS can give us information, there were about 15,000 people who chose to pay the individual mandate penalty rather than to buy the insurance. Think about what that means. They are weighing this, and they are saying: I would rather pay a fine, pay that penalty. It is not that I don't want the insurance, but I cannot afford it.

So you had 18,000 people on the individual exchanges, and 15,000 people chose to pay the individual mandate penalty rather than buy the insurance. That is because, if an Alaskan does not get the subsidy--and a pretty heavy subsidy--the exchange plans just aren't affordable. Even though you want to have that coverage--you want that insurance--wanting it doesn't necessarily get it to you if you cannot afford it.

The average premium for plan year 2018--this is according to CMS data--is $804 per month. What am I getting from constituents, from folks who are writing in to me and calling me? They are telling me what they are paying for their plans. For a family of four, the premium was over $2,000 a month, with a $7,500 deductible. Think about what that actually means for this family, for folks with those kinds of bills, who, basically, only have catastrophic coverage, as it is. Again, you think about the number of folks on the individual exchanges, and you think about those who choose not to pay the fines. You look at the numbers of those who receive the subsidies in the State of Alaska, which is quite considerable.

We also have about 10,000 or so Alaskans--this is according to the State division of insurance--who have enrolled in healthcare sharing ministries. This is yet another option for people out there. A significant number has turned to these healthcare sharing ministries, and these folks have managed to avoid the penalty in prior years. In fairness, some of the ministry plans do not provide much in the way of coverage, but it is an indicator of what people feel they have to do in the face of just very, very high-cost plans.

I understand where those who oppose this rule are coming from, and I have had good, long conversations about this. I guess I would ask that they turn to the realities that we are facing in a State like Alaska and just appreciate where people are coming from when you think about the 15,000 Alaskans who have chosen not to buy insurance over these past few years because it has been too expensive, but they want to have something they can afford. These short-term plans, while not ideal--I am not suggesting that they are--are an option for them to consider.

What about the people who don't get subsidies and are paying over $50,000 per year before their insurance covers anything? That too is a situation in which they are looking for alternatives. So perhaps these short-term plans could be a viable option. For the 10,000-some-odd people who are currently using a sharing ministry, again, these types of plans could be an alternative. For the people who may choose to drop off the individual exchanges next year, these plans could be a path forward for some having some level of coverage.

Again, I am not saying that this is perfect, and I am not saying that this is ideal. I am saying it offers a limited option in a place in which we have very few affordable options to turn to.

Another reason these shorter term plans are helpful for us and why I have heard from so many Alaskans on this is that we are a State in which our employment base is very, very seasonal.

You have a construction industry, but it is not like it is back here. Construction is, maybe, 6 months out of the year--longer in some parts of the State and shorter in other parts of the State. Yet you have a seasonal job.

Our fishing industry is a great example. If you are working in the processing end of fishing, it may be 3 months. If you are working as a crabber, it may be 2\1/2\ months. If you are working on a tender up in Bristol Bay, it may be a very truncated 2 months.

Then we have the tourist season. Again, we would like to think that we can entice you all to come up year round, but quite honestly, it too is very, very seasonal. So we need to have some level of flexibility for those many, many Alaskans who move between many of these seasonal employment opportunities.

Under the prior rule, a short-term insurance plan could only last for 3 months. That is not going to help out, say, those in the fishing or in the tourism industry or, again, in so many of these areas in which you need longer term coverage but you don't need a full year. So flexibility is something that people have been asking for as well. Where that sweet spot is, I am not sure. I am telling you that, for us, 3 months doesn't make it. Maybe 3 years is too long. Maybe we do need to look at that. I happen to think that we do, but that is an area that is open for review.

The last point I would make is that I think we have to have some trust in both our States as regulators and in individuals, the consumers. The rule that we were speaking about this morning really does allow States to have a great deal of leeway in regulating at the local level. We are seeing that among many of the States. I had a long conversation with our director of insurance up in the State of Alaska. We talked about where our State might take this and looked again at, perhaps, the length of these short-term, limited duration plans and how they might be regulated.

Also, there is the transparency side of this, and this is something that concerns me. Some of the things we have heard are that people have bought these less expensive plans, these shorter term plans, and then, when they need them the most, they realize the coverage doesn't take care of them. That is also not a place we want anyone to be. Making sure that there is a level of transparency, that there is a level of disclosure that is real and not just the tiny boilerplate that nobody can understand--it has to be, again, transparent in that way.

I think this is one of those areas where trusting in our laboratories of democracy, which are our States, to tailor plans that fit a State well should not be an action that we here in the Senate are so unwilling to take.

As we look to how we do more in this Congress and how we do more to help those for whom healthcare--the cost of healthcare and access to healthcare--is still their No. 1 issue, still the No. 1 subject of discussion, I have come to speak on this particular issue today because there are maybe 25,000 people in my State who could see some benefit from these types of plans being available and also because I believe that trusting the regulators, certainly in my State, to handle the plans intelligently is an important part of how we move forward as well.

I wanted to put that on the record today following the discussion from earlier this morning and the vote at noon.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to share my thoughts on what has been an extraordinarily long, difficult, and truly painful process.

As we took up the cloture motion on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, the process that led us to this vote today has been, in my view, a horrible process, a gut-wrenching process, where good people--good people--have been needlessly hurt, where a woman who never sought the public spotlight was, I think, cruelly thrust into the brightest of spotlights; a good man--a good man--with sterling academic credentials, an unblemished professional record, both as the professional lawyer and judge that he was and also as a husband and father of two young girls, has been damaged--damaged terribly.

As both of these individuals, Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, have been harmed, their families have, too, and we need to, we must, do better by them. We must do better as a legislative branch. We have an obligation, a moral obligation, to do better than this.

I have spent more time evaluating and considering the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh than I have any of the previous nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court that I have been privileged to review. I have had the opportunity to vote on five Justices prior to this, and I took my time. I was deliberate; I was thoughtful. Some accused me of being too deliberate, too thoughtful, taking too much time, but this is important to me. It should be important to all of us, and I know it is important to all of us.

I studied the record. I sat with Judge Kavanaugh for a lengthy period of time--about an hour and a half--and asked the questions that I had, and then I did more due diligence, reviewed the cases, and did my homework, listened to the concerns that were raised by many in my State on issues that were all over the board, whether it was a woman's right to choose, whether it was the Affordable Care Act, whether it was Executive authority, deference to the agencies, Native issues. I took considerable time.

When the hearings came, not being on the Judiciary Committee, I paid attention. I followed the testimony of the judge, the very critical questioning from many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and then at the end of the process--or, seemingly, what we believed to be the end of the process--there were more questions. I went back to Judge Kavanaugh and had a good conversation with him.

Then the allegations that we have been discussing and trying to understand more about came forward, and we all moved from focusing on the issues to truly a discussion that none of us ever thought we would be having when it came to a confirmation process for someone to the highest Court in the land.

There was more work to be done. I was one who wanted to make sure there was a process going forward, and when there were more questions that were raised after the initial process, I was one who joined in asking that the FBI step in and do further review.

I have been engaged in this lengthy and deliberative process for months now, and I was truly leaning toward supporting Judge Kavanaugh in his nomination as I looked to that record. But we know that in our role of advice and consent, it is not just the record itself. There is more that is attached to it. It is why, when in the State of Alaska, nominations for judges go forward, you rate them not only on their professional competence--what they have demonstrated through their record--but also on matters of temperament and demeanor, which are very, very important.

So we moved--we shifted--that conversation from so many of the issues that I had been focused on to other areas that are also important in evaluating a nominee for the courts. But I listened very carefully to the remarks, the strong, well-articulated remarks, of my colleague and my friend who sits next to me here, Senator Collins, and I found that I agreed with many of the points that she raised on the floor earlier.

I do not think that Judge Kavanaugh will be a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and I also join with her in saying that I do not think that protections for those with preexisting conditions will be at risk.

I also do not think that he will be a threat to Alaska Natives. This was an issue that certainly had been raised, but I had an extended conversation with the judge on just these issues, and I believe that he recognizes, as he told me, that Alaska Natives are not in a place identical to Native Hawaiians. Alaskan Tribes are included on the list of federally recognized tribes, and the fact remains that Native Hawaiians are not. This is a distinction; this is a difference.

I am one in this body who has said that I would like to see Native Hawaiians there, and I worked with my friend Senator Akaka when he was in this body to help advance that; I supported that. But the fact remains that the constitutional status of Alaska Natives and the Indian Commerce Clause are simply not at play with this nomination. I don't believe that. So the question is fairly asked: Do you think he is going to be there on issues that matter to Alaskans, that you have taken strong positions on?

The reason I could not support Judge Kavanaugh in this cloture motion this afternoon is that in my role, in my responsibility as one Senator on this floor, I take this obligation that we have in the role of advice and consent as seriously as anything that I am obligated or privileged to be able to vote on. I have a very high standard. I have a very high bar for any nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Code of Judicial Conduct rule 1.2--this is one that many, many people in this body know--states that a ``judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence and the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.''

I go back, and I look to that. It is pretty high; it is really high: A judge shall act at all times--not just sometimes, when you are wearing your robe, but a judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence--public confidence. Where is the public confidence?

So it is high, and even in the face of the worst thing that could happen, a sexual assault allegation, even in the face of an overly and overtly--overtly--political process, politicized process, and even when one side of this Chamber is absolutely dead set on defeating his nomination from the very

get-go, before he was even named, even in these situations, the standard is that a judge must act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

After the hearing that we all watched last week, last Thursday, it became clear to me--or was becoming clearer--that the appearance of impropriety has become unavoidable.

I have been deliberating, agonizing, about what is fair. Is this too unfair a burden to place on somebody who is dealing with the worst, the most horrific, allegations that go to your integrity, that go to everything you are?

I think we all struggle with how we would respond, but I am reminded that there are only nine seats on the Bench of the highest Court in the land, and these seats are occupied by these men and women for their lifetime. So those who seek one of these seats must meet the highest standards in all respects at all times, and that is hard.

We are in a time when many in this country have lost faith in the Executive branch, and it is not just with this administration. We saw much of that in the last as well.

Here in Congress, many around the country have just given up on us. They have completely said: We have had enough. But I maintain that the public still views--I still view--that there is some small shred of hope that remains with our judiciary, this judiciary that must be perceived as independent, as nonpartisan, as fair and balanced in order for our form of government to function.

It is that hope--it is that hope--that I seek to maintain, and I think that is why I have demanded such a high standard to maintain or regain that public confidence because it is so critical that we have that public confidence in at least one of our three branches of government.

I think we saw from the vote earlier today and we have seen from the statements of several of our colleagues that it does appear that Judge Kavanaugh will be seated on the Supreme Court without my vote. It is my hope--it is truly my hope--that Judge Kavanaugh will share that same hope of rebuilding, maintaining a level of public confidence, that he will strive for that ideal every day. It is my hope that he will be that neutral arbiter, the umpire who calls only the balls and the strikes, and that he will be that force for stability.

I believe that Judge Kavanaugh is a good man. He is a good man. He is clearly a learned judge, but in my conscience--because how I have to vote at the end of the day with my conscience--I could not conclude that he is the right person for the Court at this time.

This decision has been agonizing for me. It is as hard a choice, probably as close a call as any that I can ever remember, and I hope--I hope and I pray--that we don't find ourselves in this situation again.

But I am worried. I am really worried that this will become the new normal, where we find new and even more creative ways to tear one another down, and good people are just going to say: Forget it. It is

not worth it.

I am looking at some of the comments and the statements that are being made against me and against my good friend, my dear friend from Maine--the hateful, aggressive, truly, truly awful manner in which so many are acting now. This is not who we are. This is not who we should be. This is not who we raised our children to be.

So as we move forward, again, through a very difficult time for this body and for this country, I want to urge us to a place where we are able to engage in that civil discourse that the Senate is supposed to be all about--that we show respect for one another's views and differences and that when a hard vote is taken, there is a level of respect for the decision that each of us makes.

There is something else that I do hope. Again, I refer to my friend from Maine. I will note that if there has been a silver lining in these bitter weeks--which, quite honestly, remains to be seen--I do think what we have seen is a recognition by both sides that we must do more to protect and prevent sexual assault and help the victims of these assaults.

There has been a national discussion. There has been an outpouring of discussions, conversations, fears, tears, frustration, and rage. There is an emotion that really has been unleashed in these recent weeks, and these are discussions that we need to have as a country.

We need to bring these survivors to a place where they feel they can heal, but until they come out of the shadows and do so without shame, it is pretty hard to heal.

I have met with so many survivors, and I know that every single one of us has. I have heard from colleagues as they shared with me that they have been truly surprised--many stunned--by what they are learning is the prevalence of this, unfortunately, in our society today.

In Alaska and, as the Presiding Officer knows, in his State, the levels of sexual assault we see within our Native American and Alaskan Native communities are incredibly devastating. It is not something that we can say we will get to tomorrow. We heard those voices, and I hope that we have all learned something. We owe it to the victims of sexual assault to do more and to do better and to do it now, with them.

I am going to close. I truly hope that we can be at a place where we can move forward in a manner that shows greater respect, greater comity. We owe it to the people of America to return to a less rancorous confirmation process.

In the spirit of that comity--and again, while I voted no on cloture today and I will be a no tomorrow--I will in the final tally be asked to be recorded as present, and I do this because a friend, a colleague of ours, is in Montana this evening, and tomorrow, at just about the same hour that we are going to be voting, he is going to be walking his daughter down the aisle, and he will not be present to vote. So I have extended this as a courtesy to my friend. It will not change the outcome of the vote, but I do hope that it reminds us that we can take very small steps to be gracious with one another and maybe those small gracious steps can lead to more.

I know that as hard as these matters are that we deal with, we are human and we have families that we love. We don't spend nearly enough time with them. I am sure we can do one small thing to make that family a little bit better. That is a better way for tomorrow.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, there have been many words that have been spoken about our friend, Senator John McCain, and I want to join with the many words and the tributes that have been shared in the recent days since his passing.

We all know the background. We all know the bio. John McCain served our

Nation for 60 years, starting as an officer in the U.S. Navy, as a prisoner of war in unspeakable conditions, and during his terms in the House of Representatives and in the Senate for some 30 years. That is the biography of the man, but it is just the start of who he was and the mark he made not only on the lives of us in the Senate but on the lives of Americans all over the country.

John McCain was a beloved colleague. He was a patriot. He was truly an American hero. He had remarkable intellect. He had an iron will, most certainly. He had unquestionable integrity and courage that was absolutely unwavering.

When I think about John and how John approached issues, John was one who did what he thought was right. When he thought he was right, there wasn't much arguing with him--he was right. Even then, we would engage, we would go back and forth, and I think oftentimes it was those arguments that caused us to either gain greater respect or perhaps greater fear, depending on where you were in the process.

John was one of those guys who favored straight talk. I don't think he would have any hard feelings about any of us describing our relationship with him over the years. We didn't always agree, and sometimes we didn't even get along, but the truth was, John McCain would always make sure you knew where he stood.

John was very clear that you had to earn his respect. Respect was not something that came with the title. The fact that you were a U.S. Senator didn't mean you had earned his respect. And I know because I felt that in my early years here in the Senate. I came through an appointment, and I think John McCain was just going to wait to see if I was able to prove myself, and he ultimately decided, apparently, that I had. He came up to me one day--we were actually walking down the aisle there, and he came up and he said: You know, you are OK, kid. And for that, that was high praise.

We all have heard some of the legendary stories of when individuals kind of came head-to-head or toe-to-toe with John McCain, and certainly there were some areas where we disagreed. We had a little bit different view on earmarks. And that was not just my relationship with Senator McCain but previous Alaskan Senators as well. But I think we all agreed that our disagreements were principled in nature.

I remember one very interesting and heated exchange over the merits of essential air service, and John was on one side of the issue and I was an advocate for essential air. We were literally nose-to-nose, and I said: Don't you understand that it is called essential air because it is essential because we don't have roads to these places? And he kind of growled at me and: Well, I don't know why we need to have it. There were legendary back-and-forths, and sometimes you won, sometimes John won, but it was always with a great deal of passion that these exchanges moved forward.

Then there was the other end of the spectrum--those times when John and I were voting together, sometimes against the majority of our own party. Healthcare and the ACA vote last year is certainly a prime example of that. That was a tough vote. That was a tough vote for our conference. It was a difficult vote, but I will tell you, it was comforting to have some solidarity with my friend John McCain even when it was clear that we may have disagreed with many of our colleagues. But John was one who, when he had made up his mind up, he had made up his mind, and you respected that.

John visited Alaska, and it helped validate his view that climate change is real, that it is something we have to deal with, and that we have to take practical steps to address it. And I agree with John. I don't need any convincing on that, and I am going to be proud to help achieve that goal.

I valued John's work on campaign finance reform and comprehensive immigration reform. I was never part of the gang on immigration, but my votes clearly marked me as a fellow traveler.

We also shared a strong respect for our Native peoples. Both Arizona and Alaska have many Tribes and large concentrations of indigenous Americans, and his decades of work to advance the cause of Native people was legendary.

Because John accomplished so much during his time here--we all talk about his time spent on the international front working on defense issues, but I think oftentimes the issues with Native Americans, Indian issues, were overlooked, so let me comment on that for a moment.

Back in the 1990s, John joined with Senator Inouye of Hawaii on amendments to the Indian Self-Determination Act providing for Tribal self-governance compacting. That opened up a whole new era of opportunity for Alaska Tribes. It laid the groundwork for Alaska Tribes to take over the delivery of Native healthcare from a failing Federal bureaucracy. Now, around the State, whether you are up in Utqiagvik or down in Ketchikan, they enjoy award-winning, world-class healthcare in a system that the Native people control, and that really would not have been possible without people like John McCain fighting for our Native people.

I think that John would have been proud of me on the afternoon that he passed. I was in the village of Savoonga, which is a small community--about 800 people--on St. Lawrence Island, about 40 miles from Russia. It is in the Bering Sea. It is one of the most remote places in Alaska. I was there to conduct a field hearing--the Indian Affairs Committee--focused on poor housing conditions, overcrowded housing, where our Native people are forced to live in extraordinarily difficult homes with difficult sanitation problems in these very remote communities. John was really a champion for ending the Third World living conditions that too many of our Native people still endure. We have a lot of unfinished work on that front, and I plan to attack it with the same vigor John brought to the fight.

I mentioned John's love for our military, for our veterans. He will long be remembered for his efforts to bring our military back from years of neglect and the devastating pain of sequestration.

The story that we all know--John worked on major defense budgets and was an extraordinary advocate for all of our defense. I think my story and how it intersects with a very, very small group of elderly Alaska warriors demonstrates that this big, strong, gruff guy, who was truly taking on the world, had a very soft spot in his heart, and the kindness he showed to these few elderly Alaska Native Guard veterans is something that is worthy of sharing.

After Senator Stevens left the Senate in 2009, the Pentagon had tried to cut off the pensions of two dozen--just two dozen--elderly men who served in the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II. Senator Stevens had worked very hard to get their service counted as military service and to grant them veteran status, and, not unlike the way Ted did things, he took care of it in the appropriations process, so it was an earmark. Over the Christmas holiday, the Pentagon kind of worked to reinterpret that earmark. Needless to say, Ted was gone, and this was an important issue to these 24 elderly veterans, and so I moved an amendment on the Defense appropriations bill to reverse it. I talked to John, and he was pretty skeptical at first because, he said, it was an earmark. But then he asked whether these Native Guardsmen, these Eskimo Scouts, had actually seen war, and I was able to share with him the story of those who had stood lookout on the homeland in the Aleutian Islands, the reminder that in Alaska, we were the only American soil that was occupied by the Japanese in World War II and that it was these Native warriors who were standing guard, standing lookout. So, long story short, John knew that supporting these elderly veterans was the right thing to do.

There are so many things we can share about John, but really when I think about his legacy going forward, whether he is ``Project Maverick,'' as my friend from South Carolina has said, or however we choose to remember him, I do hope that history will remember John as an institutionalist in the highest tradition of the Senate.

John was committed to thoughtful debate and regular order. He was an effective committee chairman, respecting the interests of members on both sides. He managed his bills on the floor working hand-in-hand with the other side. These were tough bills. The annual Defense authorization bill draws

something on the order of 600 amendments. He was always protective of committee prerogatives. He was known to put his foot down when appropriators sought to muscle out the authorizers. He was always looking toward compromise and bipartisanship.

John fought for our institution because he never lost sight of the fact that the legislative branch is a coequal branch of government, not subordinate to the White House. He took no guff--we all know--from the administration, no matter who was in charge. That wasn't just because John liked to flex his senatorial muscle; it was because he was a true believer in the Constitution and its checks and balances. He was a true believer in the institutions of government and a true believer in democracy.

John certainly made his share of history, and he has earned his place in it. I think we all know how much we will miss him, his passion, his courage. His loss leaves us sad, but at the same time, I think it offers us a beacon of hope here in the Senate as we reflect on his life and his contributions.

Senator Graham observed that John will not be replaced by any one Senator. It is going to take all of us working together. It is going to take all of us to really accomplish what John knew we were capable of. By coming together, respecting one another, one another's principles, even when we disagree, and working through these disagreements to compromise--that is how we really honor John's legacy. There are a lot of words, and these words will come and go, but the way to truly honor him is to live out what he believed this Senate is capable of doing.

We were reminded that there is a little John McCain in all of us. I think it would be good for us to remind one another of that, to urge the inner John McCain in each of us to present itself in a way that betters our institution.

On behalf of the people of the 49th State, the great State of Alaska, I thank you, John McCain. I thank the family for the years that you gave him to us, to his country. We will take it from here, inspired by your service, John McCain, by your intellect, by your integrity, and by your determination to do right.

May you rest in peace, John McCain.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I do stand reluctantly and in an unenviable position, as my friend from North Carolina has noted. As the chairman of the authorizing committee, the Energy Committee, I will be objecting at this time. But I want to acknowledge not only the work of the Senator from North Carolina but the passion with which he has put himself into this issue, which is something I think all of us--whether we are from North Carolina or Alaska or points in between, coastal, inland--care about. We care about our Nation's environment. We care about the land that supports us. In our hearts, I think we are all conservationists.

When you think about the purposes for which the Land and Water Conservation Fund was established, it is to do just exactly what Senator Burr has outlined. Some of the good work we see in North Carolina; some of the good work we see with stateside LWCF. In my State, and in all of our States, I think we have seen that role.

What the Senator has laid out here today I think is, in fairness, very right. It is a very popular program. We have had individuals look at it and see the concrete benefits in the places they love. It does have good support in both bodies. I think that is an absolute, when you look at the cosponsorship, particularly on the House side. Sometimes it is a little bit difficult over there to get those strong numbers.

The Senator rightly points out that the language he has used was part of an Energy bill that enjoyed strong, strong support on this floor--85 to 12--a year or so ago, and the language he has utilized in his proposed bill is language that we had included, for the most part, in our bill, with the addition of what he has suggested, with the opportunity every 3 years to revisit this. So it takes a good core of a bill that has already passed and kind of stood the test of fire, if you will.

I think it is important to note, with that Energy bill, that LWCF piece was part of a negotiated package that did include other components. I think we would still like to see those other components moving through. I am certainly committed to working to advance them and have told the Senator from North Carolina that is my intention.

I also believe Senator Burr when he says that he will continue with this effort--that he will continue to bring this issue to the fore-- because he believes it is the right thing to do. Permanent reauthorization is timely. I will note to colleagues that while this authorization does expire September 30, it is important to remember that the outlays from the LWCF will continue. So the appropriations he has referenced--$450 million for this particular year--still go out. But he raises a very valid point that we have an authorization. As it is coming due at the end of this next month, this is an opportunity for us to act. It seems that we act best when there is a little pressure from behind or with a timeline, and my commitment to him this morning is to continue this work and continue this effort.

I appreciate what he has done to address some of the concerns. I think we both know there are still outstanding issues that we have with some colleagues. In an effort to not only move this across the Senate floor but allow it to get to the point at which it is successfully implemented into law--I want to work with him to achieve that. But at this point in time, I reluctantly will object to the request of the Senator from North Carolina.

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

Mr. President, we are beginning to wrap up the appropriations package, which includes the

fiscal year 2019 bills for the Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies; Financial Services and General Government; Agriculture, Rural Government, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies; as well as Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, or T-HUD.

This is really quite an accomplishment this morning. It is perhaps not necessarily noted in the trade press out there, but the fact is, we are doing our business here. We are doing the business of lawmakers and legislators when it comes to our annual spending bills.

The fact that this is August 1 and we will be wrapping up in a matter of an hour or so, a couple of hours, 4 appropriations bills on top of the 3 that we have previously done--so 7 out of the 12 appropriations bills--is good progress. This is important progress. Some might say it is historic progress. I say it is progress that is long overdue.

I believe it is because of the leadership of Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy. They came together to basically lay down a path forward for the Appropriations Committee, urging us, as chairmen of our respective subcommittees, to go back to a process that was a working and functioning process where we do the work of appropriators--not as authorizers but as appropriators--in advancing these multiple spending bills. In my view, where we are today is the result of good leadership at the committee, good leadership that says that committee work matters.

To be able to lead the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee has been a very distinct privilege and an honor for me. These are areas that are clearly of interest to my home State. When we talk about our Nation's public lands, when we talk about support for our indigenous people and the agencies that support them--whether it is the BIA or the IHS--when we think about the arts and the contribution of the arts to our Nation, the issues that are within this subcommittee's jurisdiction are good, are important, and it is necessary that on an annual basis we work to advance these priorities.

We haven't been able to really advance them, not only not here on the full floor but actually through the full committee. It has been many years--actually, since fiscal year 2010 that we have had an interior bill before the full Senate for full consideration. So, again, this is truly a milestone.

As I mentioned, I want to thank Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy for their leadership on this. I also want to acknowledge and thank Leader McConnell for placing a priority on the appropriations process. He urged us to advance, without delay, this multitude of spending bills to return us back to regular order.

He set forth a pretty aggressive schedule for us. In fairness, there were a lot of folks out there who said: The Senate is not going to do this one. There were a lot of skeptics who said: They can't get their act together on this one.

Well, it is kind of nice to be able to demonstrate that, in fact, we can, and we have, and we continue to do this good work. We are on track to meet our goal of avoiding what we have come to just accept as the regular course of business around here--that there is going to be a large omnibus package at the end of the year. Instead, we have allowed for a process on this floor where all Members of the Senate, not just those of us who serve on the Appropriations Committee but all of us, have an opportunity to weigh in, to dig in, and to review these measures that have come through the committee, offer up amendments, and have the ability to debate and amend them. Granted, we haven't had as many amendments on the floor as I think some of us might have wanted. We haven't had the hours-long debate on some of the, perhaps, more contentious matters, but what we have done is we have really focused on outlining the spending priorities and ensuring that we can find consensus. Finding consensus around here is the hard part of the responsibility because it means I have to stand down on some of my priorities, and others have to stand down on some of their priorities, in order for any of us to be able to advance the broader priorities.

So we are here with a process that has been delayed over the years, but I feel good, I feel optimistic that we have pushed the reset button when it comes to the Appropriations Committee and how we will be able to move forward.

We know there is more than just one body in the Congress, and we are going to have to deal with our colleagues on the other side, the House of Representatives, as we move into conference, but we can't get to conference until we have taken the first step, and we will be able to take the first step with these four appropriations bills that are part of this package this morning.

I want to highlight just some of the provisions in the Interior bill that our committee worked so hard on. As I mentioned, this is a subcommittee that has oversight in so many different areas. It is not only our Nation's public lands, it is matters relating to our Native people. It includes environmental issues with the EPA. It is arts and culture. So we have a broad array of responsibilities.

Some of the highlights here--folks are always very interested in what we have done to meet our responsibility when it comes to payments to those communities, those counties, those bureaus, and municipalities through the PILT Program, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. We fully fund the PILT Program at $500 million. This is going to be important to so many of our communities out there.

Another issue that has generated its level of support and some opposition in terms of wanting to see some additional reforms is the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program. We fund LWCF at the current level of $425 million to ensure that the important work that is advanced for conservation is able to proceed.

There is a lot of focus on what is happening with the devastating forest fires that we are seeing right now in the West, particularly in California. We provide robust levels for firefighting funding to ensure that both the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service have the resources they need at the time they need them. When you have a fire underway, they don't want us to be arguing about whether we have the resources. The resources are there, and we will be there to help.

I mentioned the matters that relate to our first people, American Indians, Alaska Natives. We do right by Indian Country within this bill.

For the two main agencies that deliver services for the Indian community, both the BIA--the Bureau of Indian Affairs--and the Indian Health Service, we have restored the cuts that were proposed of over $1 billion in critical program funding. The bill increases funding for the IHS facilities program, for construction, maintenance, and sanitation facilities improvements. We hear, time after time, in Indian Affairs as well as in the Appropriations Committee about the dire situation with so many of our facilities within not only our Indian hospitals around the country but also within the schools, truly leaving these children behind. So we do provide substantial funding for the BIA to help with construction of Indian schools. Also, we include irrigation systems and public safety facilities, so truly the full picture there.

For both accounts, we provide the fully estimated level of contract support costs for healthcare. This is very significant in ensuring that we are being honest by these accounts. We are not forcing IHS to effectively dip into other pots of funding to fund another, so it is important that we fully fund contract support.

In IHS, we also provided $10 million in critical new funding to provide grants to Tribes for combating the opioid crisis. So, again, we all know, all throughout the country, the issues we are facing with opioids. It is almost even more accentuated on our reservations and in many places where our Native peoples are facing this terrible scourge.

When it comes to public lands, how we did right by public lands-- whether it is our Forest Service, the BLM, the National Park Service-- is we worked to address contaminated land matters. We worked to provide support for construction and deferred maintenance not only within our National Park System but within our other public lands. We focused on areas of hazards. Most people didn't give a lot of thought to what was going on with volcanoes until

the situation we are seeing on the Big Island of Hawaii, and now there is a lot of attention. So we are making sure we are doing right in understanding some of our natural hazards, whether they are volcanoes or earthquakes. On mapping, which is so critical for us--USDS does such a great job on that--we need to be doing more.

We have also made responsible investments in the EPA that will lead to cleaner air and water. So within our bill, we provide additional funding to States that have delegated responsibility for environmental programs.

We provide an increase above last year's level for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. This builds on critical water infrastructure in communities across the country. I think we all recognize, when it comes to that role, the mission of EPA--clean air, clean water. What are we doing to make sure they are able to fulfill that mission? These accounts truly do make a difference.

We also continue to provide the highest funding level ever for the WIFIA Program. This leverages Federal funds for water infrastructure projects, and these programs have a direct impact on improving water quality in communities around the country.

Then, another small category that is not small for the arts and the cultural communities--but, again, we do right by our Smithsonians here in our Nation's Capital, helping to ensure that the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities receive the level of support that I believe is important.

Again, those are some of the greatest hits coming out of the Interior appropriations bill this morning. We have heard similar comments from my colleagues in the other three Departments, whether it is Financial Services, Agriculture, or Transportation and Housing.

Again, I look forward to working with colleagues as we advance these measures through the full process not only here in the Senate but in the conference with the House later.

I would like to close by again expressing my appreciation to my friend and the ranking member of the committee, Senator Udall, who is here this morning. He and his staff have been excellent to work with, and I appreciate his efforts and those of his staff as we have worked to shape this bill so it reflects the priorities of Members on both sides of the aisle. I think we have worked very hard to do that. I know I am pleased with where we are right now with this measure.

I look forward to the passage of this bill, again, in working with him and my other colleagues, as we move through the conference process.

With that, I yield the floor and await the comments of my friend and ranking member, Senator Udall.