I think the basis for the opposition is the illusionary effect that it has rather than the practical reality associated with a resolve of this issue. As I indicated, Senator Santorum took the floor to decry the amendment. I recognize that Senator Santorum is as strong an advocate of the steel industry as any Member of this body, and his credibility is certainly unchallenged. I have listened to the Senator from Pennsylvania describe this amendment as a 'cruel hoax' on the workers and on the future for U.S. steelworkers. I happen to agree with his description of the amendment because it fails to fund the benefits and leads workers and retirees of the steel industry down a blind alley. It is going to authorize something--get their hopes up--but you are not going to fund it. It is a shame because, as I indicated in my opening remarks, a month ago, the Senate had a chance to pass a comprehensive fix for the so-called steel legacy cost. And that is the issue that threatens the benefits of retired workers and the future, in my opinion, of today's steelworkers.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of an amendment related to the steel industry and its impact on workers.
Share
More from Lisa Murkowski
In Alaska, supporting our military services takes an all-hands-on-deck approach. We’ve seen firsthand how IGSAs benefit both military installations and local communities by combining resources for critical functions: everything from…
I will continue working to eliminate this fee permanently so that Alaska’s students are receiving the best education possible, regardless of the outcome of future legal challenges.
It’s tough to say that that the agreement is one that leaves Iran in a worse place, and the United States in a better place.
Alaska is praying for those on board, their loved ones, and the team at Security Aviation.





