Lisa Murkowski

Do you think that our policies as we're talking about, you know, how we build this out? How we build out the biofuels? Are we looking at the issue of our water usage and the water nexus in the creation of energy, are we looking at that…

We're looking at exciting technologies. We're looking at ways that we can advertise that we are reducing our consumption on oil. But we are not factoring in the very critical assessment that must go on when we look at water and our water…

Whether the proponents realize it or not any plan to switch from gasoline to electricity or biofuels is a strategic decision to switch our dependence from foreign oil to domestic water.

I think that this hearing marks the first time that our committee has actually focused specifically on biofuels policies since some time mid of 2008.

But roughly 3 years later I think it's probably fair to say that some of the optimism surrounding biofuels has begun to ebb.

Do you see the liability issue as one that if we fail to resolve this you will have your Mom and Pop operators who simply choose not to go there with these other fuel selections?

We've reached a crossroads, I think, for our biofuel policies well before most of us expected to reach one.

Some are worse offenders than others. Apparently the biofuels is one of the worst offenders, at least in the presentation that we had last week, so. But it is something that I worry that we are not focused enough on.

Let me ask you a question about the tariffs because we're now seeing Brazil importing.

I think we need to be fiscally responsible. But I do think we need to allow this industry to continue to grow and evolve.

I'm going to bring up the issue that we're all talking about here which is how do we pay for all the things that we want.

I often wonder whether the same stigma that attaches to just the need for services for behavioral health might also attach when it comes to issues as they relate to sexual trauma, sexual harassment.

We are all very cognizant that we are in times of greatly reduced budgets, and some would look at these programs--these congressionally directed medical research programs--as being something that are perhaps nice, but not necessary.

It is the health of the whole family, not just the soldier, that we need to address here.

It is difficult to hear that we would go backward on our research--go backward on the progress that we have made.

We want to continue that. And we have a real champion in Senator Inouye.

Thank you all again for your service.

So there is, what you would consider to be, a definitive plan that is either under way or is on the books for after 2018?

I think it has meaningful consequence and unfortunately, possibly negative consequence if we're looking at a lot of the deferrals.

We are going to look at very closely why we would send a veteran on a 2,000-mile journey if there is competent, safe healthcare available close by.

It's one thing to come down for open heart surgery, which may be a super special kind of thing to do, but on the other hand, routine surgery that could be performed in Anchorage on a contract or in-fee basis probably ought to be looked at.

I appreciate your comment earlier about working together more collaboratively within IHS and with the tribes.

I think there are more things that could be done.

I think the answer is clearly there. It is not as if we need to create or build VA facilities in every small community in America.

Is it necessary for the Congress to provide you with any additional legislative authority in order to reduce the number of veterans that are sent outside for care?