Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 99, S. 178.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action for the nominations confirmed during today's session of the Senate.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:15 p.m. on Thursday, September 12, the Senate vote on the Bowman and Nordquist nominations and that, if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; further, that following disposition of the Nordquist nomination, the Senate resume consideration of the Feddo nomination; finally, that at 1:45 p.m. the Senate vote on the Feddo nomination and that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, September 12; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired and the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Bowman nomination under the previous order.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. My colleagues have been to the floor here for the past little bit talking about various road trips in their State and destinations, including their favorite destinations. When you think about where your favorite place is, it is like saying which son is your favorite son. We all have our favorite places all around our State. I got to thinking about road trips. I thought, well, road trips in Alaska perhaps take a little bit of a different meaning than in other States. We all know the State I come from because we talk about it a lot. Senator Sullivan and I come from a big State. We have over 663,000 square miles, but within those 663,000 square miles, we don't have a lot of roads. Over 82 percent of the communities in the State of Alaska are not connected by roads. We are not part of the road system. So traveling in Alaska can be a little bit of an adventure. Flexibility is always key. More often than not, when you are in a big State, you move around from town to town, and you rely on the commercial carriers. You rely on Alaska Airlines. You rely on Ravn. You rely on some of the others. We pretty much move around by air. But sometimes it is impossible to get around by air all the time. Sometimes we have what I call ``forest road trips.'' It is not that I don't want to be on our roads, but once you get on the roads, you are on them for a fairly long time. Sometimes the jets don't fly. Sometimes the jets don't fly because you have bad weather. Sometimes the jets don't fly because you have a volcano that goes off. I was holding a field hearing in Fairbanks and needed to get down to Anchorage, and Pavlof blew. Pavlof is one of our more active volcanos, and it shuts down the air space. What was going to be a 45-minute trip home turned out to be a 359-mile drive home--7 hours--that evening. We had another trip going out of Valdez to Anchorage, and we needed to get back to Anchorage that night, but the fog and the wind in Valdez said there are no planes coming in to take you out, and they might not be there the next day and they might not be there the next day after that. There is bad weather. The pass is shutting down so you better move now. When that happens, you get in a car and 300 miles later--5 hours later--you are in Anchorage. I had Senator Manchin with me just over the Fourth of July break. We were headed from Anchorage to King Salmon to attend a ribbon-cutting for a National Park Service facility. We got fogged out in the morning and waited for hours in the airport, and then we got word that the fog had lifted, and we were getting ready to get on a plane and they called a mechanical. If there is a mechanical, I am with you, and we just don't fly. Senator Manchin turned to me and said: I know it is a long way, but can't we just drive there? That was my opportunity to turn to my colleague in another learning moment and tell him: No, this is one of those 82 percent of our communities where there is no road. So Joe, we are not flying. Aviation really is our lifeline here. If you are not on Alaska Airlines, you are on one of our many bush carriers. This is a picture of a pilot I had an opportunity to fly with, Eric, who is the pilot and owner of Arctic Backcountry Flying Service. This is his Cessna 206. More often than not, these are the type of aircraft that we are in. We are not flying in some fancy leased jet. We are in a small aircraft, what we call a bush carrier. That is when we have airstrips that we can land on. But we don't have airstrips in many of our communities. What we do is we come in and out on the water on our floatplanes. Some people call them seaplanes out here. We call them floatplanes. Here is a picture of me and Secretary Perry on Kodiak Island. We had flown over on Alaska Airlines. But to get around the island, you either take a boat or fly in a floatplane. We were flying over to Old Harbor there on Kodiak Island, but we got around on the water. Sometimes you don't have the water though. In a place like Alaska, what we do have in the wintertime is a fair amount of snow. You take your floats off and you put your skis on. You can see the wheels there. This plane can land in Anchorage and take off in Anchorage on the wheels, but when you are up on Ruth Glacier, as this Cessna 185 is, you are landing on skis. That gets your attention because it is a little bit different than a floatplane, but it gets you in and out of what you need to get in and out of. There are some places, though, where you don't have an airstrip, a floatplane can't land, and the only way to really get in and out is by helicopter. Little Diomede Island sits out in the middle of the Bering Straits. It is 2 miles from Big Diomede. Big Diomede is owned by Russia. Little Diomede is owned by us. There are about 150-plus people who live out there on Diomede. They have a school, and they have a community center, but how do they get the mail? People move in and out by helicopter. The mail is delivered by helicopter. There are a few weeks in the wintertime--maybe, sometimes, as much as a couple of months--when the ocean freezes over and they can make a strip where a plane can land on the ice. But most of the year, you fly in and out on helicopter. So we fly. The other way we get around when we don't have a lot of roads is on our rivers. One thing that Alaska is blessed with is a lot of rivers. We have 365,000 miles of rivers. That makes for a lot of roads because in the summertime, those rivers are our roads. This is a picture upriver in the village of Napaskiak. There are about 500 people there. We had Attorney General Barr with us in May. We took him upriver. This is how he traveled. These are the Bethel Search and Rescue boats there. They are not fancy boats. They are not yachts. These are functional. They have decent motors on them because these are workhorses. Yet how we travel in the summer is up and down these rivers. In the summer, it makes it possible to move around these communities. In the winter, you move around by snow machine. You have trucks and you have vehicles out there as well. When the rivers freeze, you then have your frozen highway, and you can have 100 miles of it. The Kuskokwim, I think, plowed out 250 miles of road on the river. This is a frozen river. This is actually a picture that was taken when we took Secretary Moniz from Bethel to Oscarville. We had with us about four other Members of the Senate because we had a field hearing for the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. We held it out there in Oscarville, and we had a motorcade on ice. It was basically about six trucks that went down the river, but the Secretary said it was his first official truck motorcade on ice. That really does allow us to get around when the rivers are frozen over. Down in the southeastern part of the State, where I was born and spent a lot of my growing-up years, they are all islanded communities. There are 32 or 33 islanded communities in the southeast. So to move around, we either fly Alaska Airlines, fly smaller carriers, or we rely on our Alaska marine highway system, our ferry system. This is our marine lifeline. This is how we move freight, how we move vehicles, how we move goods, and how we move people. Right now, our very system is threatened on a host of different levels, which really hurts my heart because, as one who knows how dependent we are on being able to move on the water, this is our road, and these types of vessels can move us in ways that are efficient. The marine highway system is our road. So we are working in the State right now to address it. Again, this is one more way that I do my road trips when I am back home in the State. In the interior, you have communities, again, that are isolated. There is no road system that gets you there. There are small villages, Arctic villages, that are about 500 people strong. I was in an Arctic village just in July, and this is how I was picked up at the airport. There are not many trucks. There are basically four- wheelers. There are ATVs, and everybody just hops on. This was my driver for the day. Again, you just hop on the back and ride. Then, there are some communities in which, really, the way that you get around is not on a road and not on a sidewalk but on just a wooden trail, a wooden boardwalk. This is the village of Napaskiak. This is out in the Bethel region, in the Y-K Delta. These are just planks that are put down on top of the tundra because the area is so marshy that you cannot walk on it. You would need hip waders to be better able to travel through it. Just walking around on the boardwalk is the extent of your road trip in a place like Nunam Iqua or Napaskiak. Whether it is freedom to be on a frozen river or freedom to be out on the Arctic Ocean, wintertime gives us a little bit more freedom. This is a picture of me with a friend, off of Utqiagvik, which is on the Arctic Ocean. It looks like a lot of fun. We were going out snow- machining. We were going out to work because the community had harvested a whale, and the whaling crew and the community were taking their snow machines out to load the muktuk onto sleds to haul back to the community so it could be shared as part of their subsistence food. So we were going out to help the community harvest that whale. This is not fun and recreation. It is your means of transportation. This is your workhorse. We do have a little bit of fun every now and again. Everyone asks: Do you ever travel around by dog sled? That is my dream. That would be the next career opportunity for me. I would love to run the Iditarod, and I would love to have my own dog team, but, right now, I don't have enough hours in my day. Yet, every now and again, you can hop on the back of a dog sled. I am looking forward to being back home and traveling around the State, visiting from Ketchikan to Barrow. It is 4,000 miles for Senator Sullivan, Congressman Young, and me to get back and forth between Washington, DC, and Alaska. I have kind of mapped out my trip for the month ahead. Once I get back to Alaska, in that first couple of weeks, I will have doubled that airtime, if you will. Then, with the additional travel that we have toward the end of August, I am looking at about 15,000 miles of travel within my State. I know many of my colleagues are going to exotic locations that will take them to places that will be a long, long ways away. Yet I am just reminded every day of the privilege and the honor of being able to travel through an extraordinary State like Alaska, where we use a little bit of everything to get us to where we need to go in order to visit some of the finest Americans whom I know and am blessed to be able to serve. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my interns Christopher Brown, Finn Carnahan, Ayden Kovol, Selma Matiashowski, Elizabeth Mears, Kaeli Peltola, Kali Spencer, Riley Vivlamore, Riley von Borstel, Nicholas Schok, and Clare Baldwin for today.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak in support of the nomination of Dr. Rita Baranwal to be Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy. Dr. Baranwal was reported from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee without opposition in both the 115th and 116th Congresses, and I am glad we will vote to confirm her today. Over the past several years, the United States has lost influence in nuclear energy to countries like Russia and China. That is not a positive development, but advanced nuclear technologies have the potential to reposition the United States as a leader in the world market. To achieve that, we will need strong, experienced, and consistent leadership at the Department of Energy. Dr. Baranwal's experience as the director of the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, also referred to as GAIN, provides her with an informed perspective to push forward the research, development, and deployment of advanced reactor technologies. Congress began to demonstrate its strong support for advanced nuclear through the enactment of two bills in the last Congress, the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act and the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. These new laws are intended to facilitate reactor development and streamline the licensing process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In addition, legislation I have sponsored, the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, has garnered 17 bipartisan cosponsors in this new Congress. Our bill provides for the next steps on advanced nuclear technologies, including the need to ensure high-assay, low-enriched uranium fuel is available for them. We need a strong leader in the Office of Nuclear Energy, someone who recognizes the potential of these technologies, who will move forward so that we can realize that potential and who will work to restore the United States' leadership in nuclear energy. I appreciate Dr. Baranwal's willingness to serve in this role and urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am requesting that these 10-minute votes be true 10-minute votes--in fact, less than 10-minute votes.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak in strong support of the nomination of Ms. Susan Combs, of Texas, to be Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget at the Department of the Interior. This is one of five Assistant Secretary positions at Interior, and, as the title suggests, it is critical to the Department's ability to function. The individual who holds this position is responsible for overseeing everything from the annual budget request to financial management, procurement, and policy and program analysis. The President's nominee, Susan Combs, is very well qualified. She has previously served as a State representative, as agriculture commissioner, and as comptroller in her home State of Texas. Over the years, Ms. Combs has worked extensively with the Department of the Interior, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has helped her gain substantive expertise about a range of issues that she will face in her new role. My only wish is that we could have confirmed Ms. Combs long ago. Instead, due to holds and delays here on the Senate floor, she ultimately had to be reported from the Energy and Natural Resources committee on three separate occasions--in 2017, in 2018, and again this year. She is not controversial. Each time, we reported her with bipartisan support. But she has now been forced to wait for a total of nearly 700 days for confirmation, meaning she will have held up for longer than she will be able to serve, at least in the current term. I appreciate Ms. Combs' willingness to serve our country. I appreciate her patience over the course of nearly 2 full years, which is testament to just how broken the nominations process had become, and her commitment to see this through. I also thank Leader McConnell for scheduling this vote and encourage every Member of this Chamber to vote in favor of confirmation.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues as we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the date Congress sent to the States this question: the ratification of a constitutional amendment granting women the right to vote. Our ancestors have long sought the promise of a better life for themselves and their children. Many of our forebearers came to this country seeking religious liberty, economic security, or personal freedom. Since 1788, they were drawn to the promise of these words: ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Today, most in this body and across the country would agree that a woman's full participation in the life of her community and Nation are crucial if the promise laid out in our Constitution's preamble is ever to be fully realized. But in 1788 and for many years thereafter, women could not own property, could not open a bank account on their own, or even control the money that they earned through their own work. They could not control their destiny or, indeed, their own bodies. Justice, tranquility, the general welfare, and the blessings of liberty were, for women, what men said they were. That all began to change on June 4, 1919, the date when finally, after so many years of struggle and failure, the required number of Senators voted aye for House Joint Resolution 1, ``proposing an amendment to the Constitution extending the right of suffrage to women.'' It was very simple yet intensely powerful, a resolution with just one article that read: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. That remarkable moment, we know, did not come easily. For decades, women across America sought the promise of our Nation for themselves and their daughters. They were subjected to insults and ridicule and, sometimes, even imprisonment and violence. In 1906, an editorial in the New York Times defined the word ``suffragette'' as a ``demanding screecher'' and ``a woman who ought to have more sense.'' Walking in parades in support of the right to vote, women had insults and worse hurled at them. Suffragists were physically attacked. Beginning in June of 1917, it got much worse. Here in Washington, DC, police began arresting women who were picketing the White House in support of suffrage for ``obstructing sidewalk traffic.'' Throughout the summer and into the fall, women who refused to pay the fine were sent to the Women's Workhouse in Lorton, VA, or the district jail, where conditions were deplorable. Rats ran free in the prison. The food was infested with maggots. Alice Paul, a leader of the National Woman's Party, and about 71 other women began a hunger strike while in jail and for months suffered force-feeding of raw eggs in milk through nasal gastric tubes. In November, 33 of the imprisoned suffragists were beaten by guards by order of the prison superintendent. One woman's hands were handcuffed high above her head on the prison door for an entire night. Some were left unconscious. Sojourner Truth, Lucy Stone, Julia Ward Howe, Ida B. Wells, Mary Church Terrell, Alice Paul, and others are widely known as suffragist leaders. There were millions of others across the country doing what they could in their own families, in their own communities and States, to advance women's rights. They marched, protested, sewed flags and banners, and spoke up at home and in their hometowns. In the following 100 years since the Senate sent the women's right to vote to the States for ratification, the right to vote gave women the power to change their lives and to impact our Nation in so many positive and profound ways. As a result, our Nation has made incredible strides. Today, in 2019, it may be difficult for some to imagine an America without women leaders in every conceivable endeavor. Amazing women have contributed to our Nation in countless ways, both large and small. We have moved from the horse and buggy era to putting a man on the moon, but man would not have gotten there and back without women mathematicians and engineers. While few colleges admitted women a century ago, by 1980 more women than men earned bachelor's degrees. Since 1919, women are able to enter any profession for which they are qualified, keep their own wages, start and run corporations, lead scientific and medical advances, and fly into space. Women have the right to be heard in the Halls of Congress and in their children's schools. We are allowed to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused and volunteer as poll workers. We can inherit property, run the Iditarod, and become mayors and Governors. And we can not only run for office, but we can vote for ourselves. Women can do anything we put our minds to, but if it had not been for the right to vote--the basic, legal right to be recognized--would we be where we are today? Would we have women like Sandra Day O'Connor, Condoleezza Rice, Christiane Amanpour, or Sally Ride? Would we have the benefit of the voices of countless American women who share their views with Congress because they know that their opinions--backed up by their votes--matter on issues as varied as childcare, climate change, and national security? Would the young women of today have the faith that they really can do anything they set their minds to? Maybe not. I rise today to call on all Americans to commemorate this day, to remember all those who made it possible, and to honor them by recognizing that the right to vote, to be heard, and to be valued is a precious right. It has not always been implemented fairly, and it must be guarded and defended. As we look to honor the past, we must also acknowledge that, like our ancestors, we have more progress to make. Gaining the right to vote was the first step toward full equality. Despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which makes discrimination on the basis of sex illegal, and despite the Equal Pay Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, our Constitution gives us the right to vote but does not protect us from discrimination. So in the spirit of women who fought for the rights of women who would come after them, I hope the Senate will pass S.J. Res. 6 to remove the deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. That will be something we will bring up at another point in time. But today, I am able to stand with my friends and my colleagues here in the Senate as we recognize and honor those who paved the way and have allowed for this right to vote, that right and value to be heard. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Anthony Spanos and Edith Spear, interns from my office, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of the year.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have asked for a few moments on the floor today to speak about an issue I care about deeply. It is a part of the globe, a part of the world that, in my view, is truly evolving and is as dynamic an area as anyplace on planet Earth. This is the Arctic. The Arctic is growing in prominence around the globe. Countries like China, India, and Germany have taken a keen interest in what happens in the far north. I have had many colleagues ask me: Why should a Senator from, say, the State of Indiana care about the Arctic? I guess my rhetorical answer would be this: Well, why should China care about the Arctic? Why should Japan, Germany, and India care about the Arctic? If they are paying attention to it, shouldn't we, as an Arctic nation that actually has territory in the Arctic, be interested and focused on this as well? To be fair, we have made some good progress this year. I appreciate the administration working with us. I appreciate my colleagues here in the Congress who worked with us to ensure that we were able to advance appropriations for the first polar security cutter. This is significant news for the American Arctic. People have heard me say that we have about 1\1/2\ icebreakers in the United States right now. We have the Polar Star, which breaks ice down in Antarctica, meeting our obligations there. We have the Polar Sea, which is tied up in Washington State and will probably never see service again. We have a medium-strength icebreaker, the Healey, which does a fair amount of research work. But for us, as an Arctic nation, it is important to have a fleet of icebreakers. That is what we, as an Arctic nation, must be working toward, so a contract for the design and construction of the first polar-class icebreaker to be built in the United States in the past 40 years was awarded just last month. As a nation, we haven't seen work on an icebreaker in four decades now. A total of $20 million is also being provided for long lead time materials for a second polar security cutter. Hopefully, we will be talking about more than just one polar security cutter and we will one day have what this country, as an Arctic nation, should have, and that is a fleet. But the Arctic is about more than just icebreakers. It is about the people who live there. It is about the environment. It is about its location on the globe. The Arctic is a living and breathing place. I think some people, in their mind's eye, view the Arctic as a frozen wasteland, or perhaps it is a snow globe that just kind of sits up on a shelf and you don't touch it. But it is not. It is home to some 4 million people in the Arctic region. It is not highly populated, but there are people living, working, raising their families, subsisting, and engaging in commerce. It is an important place. It is a good thing when officials at the highest levels get together to discuss the issues within the Arctic. That is what happened earlier this month--actually May 6 and 7--at the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Rovaniemi, Finland. The Foreign Ministers for each of the eight Arctic nations were in attendance. The significance of that is noteworthy. It was only the second time in the council's 30-plus-year history that all of the eight Ministers were gathered together. I was pleased to be a part of the U.S. delegation that was led by our Secretary of State, Secretary Pompeo. This was actually the fifth Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting that I have attended going back to 2011, when the ministerial was held in Nuuk, Greenland. At that point in time, it was then-Secretary of State Clinton. That marked the first time the U.S. Secretary of State attended such a meeting. So 2011--it wasn't too many years ago that the United States had a Secretary of State attend. The Arctic Council includes the eight Arctic nations. The eight Arctic nations are Canada, United States, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and Greenland. It also includes six permanent participant groups within the Arctic Council that represent the indigenous populations within the region. Four of those partially reside in Alaska, and those are the Aleut International Association, the Arctic Athabaskan Council, the Gwich'in Council International, and the Inuit Circumpolar Council. While only the Arctic nations have voting rights, the permanent participants have a seat at the table, and they provide valuable input into the council's discussions and deliberations. I think we really saw the impact of the permanent participants at this most recent ministerial. The council also has 38 observers, including 13 non-Arctic nations-- this goes back to China, as I mentioned earlier--13 intergovernmental and interparliamentary groups, and 12 nongovernmental entities. The number of observers and the number of pending applications to be observers has grown considerably in the past several years. Again, it just goes to demonstrate the rest of the world's interest in the Arctic. Much of what we have seen reported after the ministerial that was held in Rovaniemi focused not on what happened but on what didn't happen at the ministerial, which was that, for the first time, there was not a signed ministerial declaration. I was not part of any of the Minister-level discussions that went on either prior to their convening in Rovaniemi or directly prior to the day of the ministerial itself, but the crux of the impasse there was language regarding climate change and how much of the declaration would actually reference it. This has all been reported very widely in the media, but what has not been reported nearly as broadly are the areas of agreement that were highlighted at the ministerial. All eight nations signed a joint ministerial statement--not a declaration but a statement--which reaffirmed their commitment to maintain peace, stability, and cooperation in the Arctic. That is kind of a given. That is what we want to work for with each ministerial. But the joint statement recognized the diversity of the inhabitants of the region and the rights of the Arctic indigenous people. It also reaffirmed the commitment to sustainable development and the protection of the Arctic environment. In addition to that very short statement, there was a statement by the chair of the ministerial meeting--the Foreign Minister of Finland-- that encompassed what would have been in a declaration had one been signed and noted many of the areas of agreement amongst all the Arctic nations. These were items such as the importance of the role of scientific research, along with traditional and local knowledge, the significance of the Arctic Environment Ministers' Meeting, the Arctic Climate Change Update 2019 report, the outcomes from the Arctic Resilience Forum, the convening of the Second Arctic Science Ministerial. It encourages further work in adapting to climate change impacts, such as permafrost thaw, and responding to weather extremes, including the increased risk of wildfires. Looking at the Foreign Minister's statement, it was clear that there were many areas and many provisions on which there was cooperation and agreement within the Arctic Council and many areas of agreement on environmental issues as well. Another topic reported in the news was comments by Secretary Pompeo the day before the ministerial that were pretty direct. They were pretty directed and were directed to Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic. The Secretary's remarks pointed to a reality, plain and simple. They pointed to a growing reality that today's Arctic is not the Arctic we have known in generations past. We all still want--I certainly want, as one who works hard on Arctic issues every day--we want those buzz words that are synonymous with the region to continue to apply today and well into the future, words like ``cooperation,'' ``collaboration,'' and calling the Arctic the ``zone of peace.'' Greater accessibility to the region and its resources, as we are seeing the ice that is receding from the shore--with greater opportunities for commercial transit, you have greater accessibility-- is also bringing increased international awareness. You have seen not only a level of interest, but you have seen a level of investment activity and clearly competing interests that are presenting. Some of this is great news. Fiber optic cable and satellite coverage are bringing a level of connectivity to small, remote, and isolated communities, which is something the communities embrace. With these advancements, we see impacts on the culture and on the values of the indigenous populations. We are seeing opportunities for tourism. Cruise ships with thousands of passengers are pulling into small coastal communities, which certainly boost their economy, but think about the impact when you have 1,000 people who may want to disembark into a community that doesn't have the infrastructure. It dwarfs the local population and impacts the existing infrastructure there. Then, of course, whether we like it or not, national security interests are now at the forefront of many of the discussions about the High North. Secretary Pompeo--again, his words were pretty direct. He said: The region has become an arena for power and for competition. And the eight Arctic States must adapt to this new future. He also said that the Arctic Council no longer has the luxury to focus exclusively on scientific collaboration, cultural matters, and environmental research. He suggests that there is a new age of strategic engagement in the Arctic. I don't disagree with the Secretary that military and national security issues are much, much, much more prevalent now than they were only 10 years ago, and it kind of begs the question as to whether the Arctic Council should expand its portfolio and take on these issues. That was the discussion I participated in later that day in Helsinki at the Munich Security Conference that was focused on Arctic security. When the Arctic Council was established in 1996, military and national security interests were specifically excluded from Council activities. They chose to focus on economic development and resilience, the environment, research, the cultures, and left off of the mission requirements, if you will, the issues of national security and military interest. I think that is probably why we have been able to see such cooperation and collaboration coming out of the Arctic Council for these many years. Yet, as was mentioned by the Foreign Minister from Finland in a follow-on discussion about the ministerial, it is not as if we can just place a ``Do Not Disturb'' sign on the Arctic--we as Arctic nations. It has changed. It is changing. Investment is happening. The activity is already occurring. So whether we are ready for it, whether we want it, whether we want to put out that ``Do Not Disturb'' sign or not, it is happening. Russia is modernizing, and they are expanding their security posture in the region. Some say it is in a provocative manner; we can argue about that. But it is certainly a manner that suggests that they recognize the value of the region to their national interests, as well as the growing non-Arctic nation attention and access to the region. China is also quite interested. During the same week as the Arctic Council Ministerial, the Arctic Circle Assembly held a forum in Shanghai. So think about it. We were having an Arctic Circle Assembly in Shanghai. Think about how far Shanghai is from the Arctic. It highlighted China's interest and their investment in the Arctic. So, again, the geography can say that this is not an Arctic nation, not even a near-Arctic nation, but from scientific research to economic interest in the Arctic's natural resources, China has made it very clear that it has no intention of reducing its interests in a Polar Silk Road. What Secretary Pompeo made very clear is, look, if there is going to be investment in the region, we all need to be operating by the same rules, and the rules require transparency--transparency when it comes to investment in the region, regardless of who is making it. I would add to that notion that those who live in the region should benefit from any investment in the Arctic, as they are the ones who bear the greatest risk in any economic activity, whether it is on the shore or in the waters. We recognize there are plenty of opportunities in the Arctic, as we are seeing the impacts of climate change and what that means to an area that is becoming more exposed, but with those opportunities come very real challenges, and we have to address those as well. That includes environmental effects that come with climate change as we see a reduced sea ice cover and the need to develop rules of the road to provide transparency for the growing amount of investment in the Far North by both Arctic and non-Arctic actors alike. One of the underreported events of the Rovaniemi Ministerial was the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Arctic Council and the Arctic Economic Council. This new agreement will provide a framework to enhance responsible economic development and build partnerships for issues of common interest and capacity building of Arctic inhabitants. Perhaps this is the first step in developing a framework for transparent Arctic investment and a new age of strategic engagement in the Arctic. I was very honored to attend both the Arctic Council Ministerial in Finland, as well as the Arctic Circle Assembly in Shanghai. I continue to believe it is critical for us--for those in the administration, for us here in Congress--to actively engage in the Arctic. We have a lot at stake here. The region has a lot at stake, and we need to establish sound policy that will take advantage of all of our opportunities and address our challenges while ensuring that we are working to the benefit of the local residents. I think it is so important to reinforce that we cannot assume that if we are not stepping it up in the Arctic, that means nobody else is. That is absolutely and positively not the case. There is a level of engagement and there is a level of interest that is global. We are one of the eight Arctic nations. We have a place; we have a people in the Arctic. We have an obligation, as an Arctic nation, to behave as one. Alaskans are more than happy to lead whenever and wherever possible, but this is not an Alaska-specific issue. This is not just Alaska. This is all of us as a country. We also need that recognition at the Federal level. I encourage Members of this Chamber to recognize the importance of the Arctic, to pay greater attention to what is happening there, to make the region a priority in our policymaking efforts, and to help ensure that America, which is an Arctic nation by virtue of Alaska-- that we, as an Arctic nation, catch up to all of the others that are looking with great interest, whether making investments or truly making an impression on the Arctic. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the month of May is nationally designated Military Appreciation Month, so named because, in the month of May, we also observe Memorial Day, Military Spouse Appreciation Day, and Armed Forces Day. Last week, my friend from the State of Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, organized a floor event around National Military Appreciation Month. I would like to take a moment to lend my voice to this significant commemoration. In the State of Alaska we like to think of military appreciation month as every month, military appreciation day as every day. Alaska is proud to host more than 19,000 Active-Duty servicemembers, more than 4,600 members of the Reserve Component, and about 5,000 appropriated funds civilians across all of the services. That number will grow significantly as the Air Force begins the beddown of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, at Eielson Air Force Base, its first F-35 operating base in the Pacific Area of Responsibility. At first blush, Alaska is a difficult place to serve. It is dark in the winter, light all night in the summer, prone to temperature extremes, and geographically distant from family. Some military families who receive orders to Alaska are apprehensive at first, but when they speak with other military families that have served in Alaska, they come to understand that Alaskans treat our military families like no other people, and the opportunity to live in Alaska, while serving, is a once in a lifetime wonderful experience. I could offer many examples of the ways in which Alaskans make life wonderful for those who serve here. The one that is freshest is my mind is the annual Military Appreciation Banquet in Fairbanks. It is one of two that Alaskans put on each year. The Fairbanks banquet tends to occur in May; the other major banquet is Salute to the Military in Anchorage each February. Both attract senior military leaders as keynote speakers. During each, the services honor outstanding members from within their ranks and thank the community for its extraordinary support. I would like to speak to the history of the Fairbanks banquet for a moment. It began 51 years ago--1968 to be exact--when Jim and Rosemary Messer started small dinner in the home parties for friends in the military; 1968 was a pretty controversial year in the Nation's history with the country torn over our participation in the Vietnam conflict, but the Messers were determined to show those who came from around the country to serve in Alaska some love and home-cooking. The idea quickly outgrew the confines of the Messer home, and the Fairbanks Military Appreciation Banquet is its successor. The banquet is held in the Carlson Center, which is the convention center for Fairbanks. Capacity is about 600 people, and the banquet sells out every year. Following in the Messer legacy, each community member buys two tickets, one for themselves and another for a servicemember to host at their table. In addition to recognizing exemplary servicemembers, the Fairbanks community recognizes one local individual each year who has done the most to promote civilian-military relations with an award. That award is named the Messer Award, in honor of the couple that inspired the annual banquet. This year, the keynote speaker was VADM Michael J. Dumont, U.S. Navy, Deputy Commander of U.S. Northern Command. I am told he was a big hit. Last year, for the 50th anniversary, we had Gen. Joseph Lengyel, U.S. Air Force, Chief of the National Guard Bureau. We are grateful that our senior leaders travel a great distance to celebrate the military presence in Alaska's Interior, and I know that the participants are as well. This is an example of what we view as the golden contract between the community and the military. Each year, Alaskans go out of their way in big ways and small ones to make life for our servicemembers and their families extremely comfortable. Each year, in the presence of a distinguished senior leader, we break bread together to renew these bonds. I am proud of those who serve in Alaska and the Alaskans who serve them, and I am proud that we observe military appreciation month every month of the year.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the countless men and women in Alaska and across the Nation who have dedicated their talents to ensuring that young children and their parents have the tools they need to succeed. I speak of all those involved in their local Head Start and Early Head Start programs, the program directors, teachers, aides, and parent leaders. This week marks the 54th anniversary of Head Start and the 25th anniversary of Early Head Start. Since 1964, more than 36 million children have participated in Head Start, a program that research has shown reduces intergenerational poverty by helping parents to gain parenting, work, and leadership skills and which gives young children at risk the academic, health, and nutritional services they need to build a foundation for success. Children who attend Head Start begin school with better literacy, numeracy, cognitive, and behavioral skills than they otherwise would have had. They are more likely to graduate and complete college. They are more likely to live healthy, productive lives as adults. Today, Head Start alumni are strong, resilient individuals who make positive contributions to their communities as doctors, nurses, athletes, parents, entrepreneurs, teachers, police officers, CEOs, authors, artists, and more. Head Start and Early Head Start are more important now than they ever have been, helping families across the country so tragically hurt by the opioid crisis. Head Start and Early Head Start directors, teachers, aides, and parent leaders are on the frontlines, helping our most at- risk children survive and thrive in the face of the adverse childhood experiences caused by homelessness, neglect, and abuse. They are there in times of natural disaster, community violence, and personal crisis. They are helping parents and grandparents provide stable and nurturing environments. In Native communities, they are helping to revitalize languages and strengthen traditional ways of knowing and living. Our communities and the Nation as a whole are stronger because Head Start and Early Head Start programs help millions of families find their way to strength and resilience. Head Start staff in Alaska and across the country are dedicated, innovative, caring, and motivated people who work hard each and every day to ensure that the children and families they serve have the tools they need to achieve their full potential. Beyond the voluminous research showing the positive impact of these programs, I know what they do makes a lasting difference. When I visit elementary schools across my State, principals tell me that the students who have participated in Head Start are better prepared in every way for school. So I take this opportunity to wish every Head Start and Early Head Start staff member and participant. Happy anniversary. As a longtime supporter, I recommit to doing all I can to ensure that our Head Start and Early Head Start programs continue to make a positive difference for many more years to come.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Bill Williams of Saxman, AK, a businessman, community leader, an Alaska statesman, and my friend, who died on Sunday, May 12, just short of his 76th birthday. Bill's story exemplifies how far one can go in Alaska if one works hard and exhibits a devotion for community service. Bill was lifelong Alaskan and a graduate of Ketchikan High School. He was a longshoreman, a proud member of the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Union. He was a business leader, serving as president of the Cape Fox Corporation, his ANCSA village corporation. He was a fisherman. He served on the Saxman City Council and was mayor of Saxman. Bill was a leader in the Alaska Native Brotherhood and Tlingit and Haida. In 1993, Bill was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives, serving until 2004. A strong advocate for development of Alaska's natural resources and preservation of the traditional subsistence way of life, Bill distinguished himself in the Alaska Legislature. He rose to cochair the finance committee of the Alaska House of Representatives, one of the most powerful positions in the State of Alaska. Bill knew how to make deals, and because his word was his bond, he knew how to keep a deal. I proudly served alongside Bill throughout my tenure in the Alaska Legislature. He was both a friend and a mentor to me. Tributes are pouring in from those who knew and loved Bill Williams. State Senator Bert Stedman, who is cochair of the senate finance committee in the current legislative session, had this to say about Bill: ``He understood that political differences don't need to divide Alaskans. In the Capitol, he was known for keeping his words and putting Alaska's interests above politics. He took the lead on both subsistence and development issues. He was known for working with our federal delegation and governors to keep jobs in the Tongass. He was a strong voice on Alaska Native issues.'' The Ketchikan Daily News, in an editorial, remembered Bill as an honorable man who represented the community and the region with quiet, steadfast dignity: ``Those who met Williams would not likely forget him. He was quiet and humble, possessing eyes of both twinkling good humor and the glint of iron resolve. Others in public life learned quickly not to underestimate the good representative from Saxman.'' Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy has also reflected on the loss of Bill Williams this week. Governor Dunleavy said, ``Real leaders do not come along very often, so it is especially tough when we lose one with the ability and character of Bill Williams. He worked both hard and smart for the constituents and communities he represented.'' Governor Dunleavy has ordered flags to be lowered to half-staff this week in Bill's memory. From the central council of Tlingit and Haida Tribes, ``Gunalcheesh, Haw'aa to Bill for his lifelong dedication to Southeast Alaska and its people.'' On behalf of my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate, I extend my condolences to Bill's wife Caryl, his family, the Saxman community, and all who hold this very special Alaskan dear in their hearts. It is a privilege to honor the late Bill Williams, an outstanding Alaskan, in the U.S. Senate today.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am pleased to be here today to speak in strong support of David Bernhardt's nomination to be Secretary of the Interior, and I thank all of my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We worked pretty hard together to report Mr. Bernhardt's nomination last week. We moved it out with good bipartisan support. I also thank the majority leader for filing cloture this week so that we can confirm him before we depart for this 2-week work period. I have several reasons--I have a whole host of different reasons to outline as to why I support Mr. Bernhardt's nomination. I outlined them before the committee, but I would like to take a couple of minutes here this afternoon to reiterate them on the Senate floor. First, really, is his background. He understands and is in touch with our public lands. Mr. Bernhardt is from the West where, of course, the vast majority of our public lands are located. He grew up in Rifle, which is a small town in Western Colorado. He spent a lot of his summers in Wyoming. He, to this day, remains an avid sportsman and outdoorsman. He likes hunting and fishing. He is a guy who appreciates the outdoors. He is really almost unparalleled in terms of the experience that he brings to the job. He has worked at the Department of the Interior now for about 10 years, including two Senate-confirmed posts. Back in 2006, we confirmed him as Solicitor by voice vote, and then in 2017, we confirmed him to be the Deputy Secretary. Again, that vote was a good bipartisan vote. He has now served as Acting Secretary since January of 2019, so we have a situation where, simply put, he has more experience at the Department than any other previous nominee for Secretary, except one. That is a pretty good credential there. Of equal importance, Mr. Bernhardt has the right perspective to be the Secretary of the Interior. He understands how Federal land management decisions affect our local communities. He has seen how Federal policies impact people's access to and use of public land, and he also recognizes the need to balance conservation and opportunities for economic development. I think David Bernhardt has really proved his ability to lead the Department. He is well qualified. He is highly competent. He has built strong working relationships with those who are affected by the Department's decisions. I really think there is no question that he is ready for the job. He can handle everything it entails. I have been asked by several of the reporters who are out there: What do you think David Bernhardt really brings to the table? What I have shared with them is that as I have gotten to know David Bernhardt in his various capacities at Interior, he is a guy who understands and enjoys the policy of these issues. He likes to get down into the fine details. He knows the background. He is not just being given something by staff to read. He is the one who is really engaged in understanding at a level of detail that is greatly appreciated. When I think about the importance of this position of Secretary of the Interior, I come at it from the perspective of an Alaskan coming from a State that has more Federal acres than any other State. The Department of the Interior controls most of those. We often refer to the Department, and the Secretary specifically, as our landlord. That is not necessarily a title we like. We like to consider ourselves a partner, but I think we truly recognize we need leadership to understand and appreciate the impact their decisions within the Department of the Interior can have on us. I know David Bernhardt understands that. He has been a good partner for Alaskans, but he has also been a good partner for individuals, groups, and States all across the country, and that is why his nomination is supported by a wide range of stakeholder groups from the Alaska Federation of Natives to Ducks Unlimited, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. I think it is also important to note that Mr. Bernhardt moved through our committee process in pretty good order. He answered all of our questions. Again, he demonstrated the depth of his understanding of the issues and his expertise. He really exceeded expectations, which led to a very strong bipartisan vote of 14 to 6 at the business meeting last week. Now the full Senate has the opportunity to confirm Mr. Bernhardt. Some will continue to make allegations over ethics, but the fact is, as we have reviewed those charges, we have found nothing that should hold him back. I know this has been a subject of discussion on the Senate floor, so I want to lay it out very clearly. There are some news stories that are being printed and have been printed that are filled with old information that has already been reviewed by our committee staff. New stories, old facts--they don't contain anything new or anything disqualifying. There is nothing amiss here, and there is no valid reason to delay this process. The Office of Government Ethics has certified that Mr. Bernhardt is in good standing; so has Interior's Designated Agency Ethics Official. My committee staff has contacted Interior's Inspector General. It has been confirmed that there are no open investigations into Mr. Bernhardt. I would tell folks that what needs to happen here is that we need to move forward. We need to reject the last-minute rhetoric that is designed to delay. We need to confirm a well-qualified candidate to be our next Secretary of the Interior. We have a lot to do. Interior has a lot to do to make sure that we are protecting our lands, increasing our energy security, as well as fulfilling all of the missions of the Department, and the sooner we are able to confirm a Secretary to focus on them, the better. Mr. Bernhardt is very well qualified to be the Secretary of the Interior. He has the right background, the right experience, and the right perspective for the job. He is ready to lead on a permanent basis, and I am glad that very shortly here we are going to be considering his nomination. I strongly encourage every Member in this Chamber to support his confirmation. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak to the robust support that David Bernhardt has received for his nomination to be Secretary of the Interior. Last week, those of us on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported Mr. Bernhardt on a strong, bipartisan vote of 14 to 6. He has actually added support from the last time that he was considered in committee, in 2017, and I hope we will see that again when we vote on his nomination later today. Mr. Bernhardt's support is not limited to the Senate. For example, the Congressional Western Caucus is solidly behind Mr. Bernhardt, with many of its members on record in support of his nomination. Bear in mind, these are members from Western States, where the vast majority of our public lands are located, whose districts are most impacted by the Department of the Interior. It is a very good sign that Mr. Bernhardt has drawn their strong support. We have also kept a list of individuals and groups who have submitted letters of support for Mr. Bernhardt. It spans the spectrum of stakeholders, from the Public Lands Council and the Colorado Farm Bureau to the American Exploration and Mining Association and the Corps Network. Multiple recreation groups have written in urging the Senate to confirm Mr. Bernhardt. The motorized recreation groups, like the American Council of Snowmobile Associations and the Off-Road Business Association, wrote that, ``At a time when many of the senior posts at the agency lack Senate confirmed executives, a person of Mr. Bernhardt's experience is sorely need . . . having [him] at the helm of the Interior Department will strengthen the agency's resolve to make the lands it manages accessible to the recreating public.'' Officials at all levels of government are voicing their support for Mr. Bernhardt's nomination. The Governor of Wyoming, Mark Gordon, offered this statement: [Mr. Bernhardt's] recognition of expertise in the States is refreshing . . . I wish [him] a speedy and easy confirmation process.'' The Mesa County Commissioners in Colorado wrote that ``Mr. Bernhardt's extensive knowledge of public lands and energy issues makes him an avid leader with skill to see issues from multiple perspectives to maintain and improve partnerships among federal, state, and local governments.'' The Harney County Court in Oregon has highlighted Mr. Bernhardt's commitment to balancing the multiple use of public land, writing that, ``[He] has proved himself in the past by exhibiting understanding between the balance that is needed from an ecological standpoint, but also, what is needed from the economic and social aspect of public land use. He will work towards a balanced approach by trying to assess and distinguish between the multiple issues that we are facing with the [bureaus].'' Tribal groups and entities are also supportive of his nomination. In my home State, the Alaska Federation of Natives noted that, ``Mr. Bernhardt has demonstrated a thorough understanding of the legal frameworks of the major laws covering Alaska Native subsistence customary and traditional rights and protections . . . he listens well, is articulate in his responses, and draws reasonable conclusions.'' The Chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council wrote in that, ``the [Tribe] has worked with [Mr. Bernhardt] previously and firmly believes that his knowledge and experience make him a very good fit for the Department . . . we also believe he is committed to building strong working relationships that rely on good faith and respect among all interests at the table.'' We have truly heard from a very wide range of organizations in support of this nomination. The Archery Trade Association wrote to us that ``[Mr. Bernhardt] has demonstrated tremendous commitment to conserving and protecting our nation's natural, historic and cultural resources . . . [his] experience with the Department of the Interior coupled [with his] exemplary history of collaboration, non-partisan views, highly respected demeanor and deeply held passion for conservation and historic preservation make him uniquely qualified for this position.'' One of the reasons that such a diverse group of stakeholders support Mr. Bernhardt's nomination is that they have worked with him during his nearly ten years at Interior, including most recently as Deputy Secretary and then Acting Secretary. He has proven that he can work with groups, he has formed strong relationships with them, and they respect and support him. For example, the Gila River Indian Community wrote that, ``based on our experience in negotiating and working on complex issues with Mr. Bernhardt we support his position as Secretary of the Department of the Interior. We believe he has an understanding of Tribal sovereignty and the United States' trust responsibility to Tribal nations.'' The Corps Network wrote that ``Mr. Bernhardt has been accessible and responsive to our inquiries, visited several Corps in the field, and joined the Corps Network's Day of Service last summer.'' These groups are reiterating what we already know--that Mr. Bernhardt's experience at Interior and in the West; his willingness to listen, build relationships, be responsive; and his ability to earn people's trust make him more than qualified to lead the Department of the Interior. I want to wrap up by reading an excerpt from a letter that we received from the Beaver County Commission in Utah: ``In our interactions with Mr. Bernhardt we have found him to act with integrity, be open minded to all points of view, and have a contagious passion for the health of our Nation's lands and people. These qualities, combined with many others, make Mr. Bernhardt an ideal candidate to serve the county by leading the Department of the Interior.'' I couldn't say it any better. Mr. Bernhardt knows the Department and the laws that govern it inside and out. He appreciates and respects the Department's mission. He is the right person for the job--the best person to lead Interior--and I look forward to his confirmation.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. He continues: I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some--such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle--have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as ``dirty nigger-lovers.'' Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful ``action'' antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago. But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen. When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows. In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: ``Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother.'' In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: ``Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.'' And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular. I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: ``What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?'' Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists. There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being ``disturbers of the peace'' and ``outside agitators.'' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were ``a colony of heaven,'' called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be ``astronomically intimidated.'' By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are. But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust. Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Alabama and thank him for his leadership.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank all of the Senators for providing their views on the language and for sponsoring this important legislation. I ask Senator Manchin, has he heard the discussion among the sponsors of this bill? Is what he has heard from them about the intent of the legislation in line with his understanding?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleagues for this clarification and explanation of the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act. As we have just explained, the bill sponsors, along with the chair and ranking member of committee of jurisdiction are unified in the expectation that enactment of this bill will lead to immediate action by the Secretary of the Interior, and the DCP will be signed and implemented upon execution by the States.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues from the Colorado River Basin and with Senator Manchin, the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, regarding the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act. I am pleased that we are considering this bill so quickly on the Senate floor. We need to act now as the historic drought conditions in the basin are a real threat to the water supply of 40 million people and 5.5 million acres of farmland. As the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I think it is important that we spend some time clarifying the intent behind this bill. We started last month with an oversight hearing in the Water and Power Subcommittee to examine the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan, which was chaired by my colleague, the Senator from Arizona, Ms. McSally. We also need to understand what the legislation that we are passing today does and does not do. As I read it, the measure directs the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Drought Contingency Plan agreements upon their execution by the seven basin States. The 2007 final environmental impact statement on Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead enables the Secretary to do so immediately as this document covers all of the Federal actions contemplated in the agreements. I ask Senator McSally, is that the correct reading of the bill?

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to recognize a truly exceptional member of the U.S. Senate--not one who has a vote on this floor but certainly one who has wielded great influence and who has generated great appreciation from many of us who have had the privilege and the honor to serve on the Appropriations Committee, as you have. Today I am here to speak about an individual who has been serving the U.S. Senate on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee now for two decades, and this gentleman is a friend by the name of Leif Fonnesbeck. Leif started with the Interior Appropriations Committee under the helm of Chairman Slade Gorton from the State of Washington and then also, of course, the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee at that time, my friend and mentor Ted Stevens. So it is actually a little bit bittersweet for me to be speaking about Leif and recognizing his contributions because after two decades--21 years--Leif is retiring from public service, and I understand, certainly, his desire. Twenty years is a good run. It is a significant amount of effort and truly an admirable career. Both Leif and I are born and raised Alaskans, and you can never take the home out of your heart. It is something that is a continual tug, and so I can certainly understand his desire to spend more time at home with the incredible Alaskans whom we call friends and family and to be in our amazing and extraordinary spaces. As I mentioned, Leif is an Alaskan. He grew up there in Anchorage. Leif's mom was a librarian, and his father was a principal. He and his sisters grew up exploring and experiencing everything that is Alaska-- all things great. He attended East High School. He left to get his undergraduate degree in finance from here in Washington, DC, at Georgetown University, my alma mater. He then went on to law school and went out to the University of Arizona. Then, shortly after he got his law degree, he returned home to Anchorage, thinking that he was going to practice law there. So he wasn't there for too very long when then-Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens tapped Leif and said: Look, I would like to have you come back to Washington, DC, and work for me on the Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee. So it was at that time that Leif made the big move, leaving from Anchorage and coming back here to Washington, DC, to work with his mentor and my mentor, Ted Stevens. There are a lot of stories that go on around here. I have enjoyed getting to know the great Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, who had a great tenure working with Chairman Stevens on the Appropriations Committee, but you learn a lot from leaders like that, and I know that Leif certainly learned a great deal from the leadership of Senator Stevens. He learned the art of the appropriations process, the art of trying to work with people on oftentimes contentious issues and places, but he really, truly learned the art of looking out for the needs of Alaska and Alaskans while meeting the needs of the Interior bill. He truly, truly served with distinction throughout his tenure on the subcommittee. In addition to being an expert--and he really was an expert at his job--he is just a rock-solid guy. He gave solid advice, was willing to be helpful, and had a nature and a generosity that were really key to all those who knew him and who really had the pleasure to work with him. Oftentimes, you can't say that it is really a pleasure to work with you. Well, it was a pleasure--it is a pleasure--to work with Leif Fonnesbeck. Since becoming chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I have had the benefit of Leif's experience and knowledge of Alaska and of the appropriations process. I will tell you, when I moved over to Interior to take that on as chair of that subcommittee, it was a little bit daunting at first. It is an expansive portfolio--everything from the EPA to management of our public lands, to the Indian Health Service, to the BIA. It is all over the board, and it is a challenging one, including how we are dealing with wildfires and fire borrowing. We have some significant, significant challenges, but Leif was just that font of knowledge, not only from his experience on the committee but just from his experience in working with so many of these issues and working with so many of the people over the years. He has been an absolutely excellent partner in navigating the really very difficult, complicated, and complex process that is required to produce funding bills in a manner that is viewed as fair and open and just true to the process. I am just so very, very grateful to his service to me, to the State of Alaska, and, truly, to the U.S. Senate. For 21 years now, Leif's work on the Interior Subcommittee has impacted the lives of more Alaskans than he will possibly ever realize. His efforts, particularly on behalf of Alaska's Native communities, as well as our vast natural resources, have had and will continue to have a tremendous impact on our State and our people. Because of his work, more communities have access to clean water through new drinking systems. This was something that Leif really concentrated on. He would go out to the villages. He would see firsthand what it meant to the health conditions of families when they don't have access to clean and safe drinking water and when they don't have sanitation facilities, and he worked to address that. More Alaskans are empowered to build their economy and create healthy communities through investments for new infrastructure and support for programs to address domestic violence, substance abuse, and suicide. Every year we have been able to help those accounts move forward because the needs were so desperate and the needs were so urgent, and Leif helped to advance those priorities. Support for rural healthcare clinics enabled more Alaskans to have access to care. There were the efforts that he went through to help facilitate Native hospitals, whether in Barrow or in Nome, and now down in the Bethel region with the joint venture projects, making sure that we have adequate, strong staffing packages. Investments in our public lands have helped to protect Alaska's tourism industry and our outdoor recreation opportunities. He and I would go back and forth and forth and back as to whether or not the pedestrian walkway to allow visitors in Brooks Camp to view the bears was too Taj Mahal of a bridge or whether it was a bridge that was going to be necessary to protect the tourists from the bears when the bears got disinterested in the salmon that they were munching on. Leif got down in the weeds. He got into the issues. He knew what was going on. His efforts for local governments to construct roads and public schools are investments that will make a lasting impact on the State of Alaska and the people who live there. Knowing that this is a lasting impact that this individual, Leif, has made, is just so huge. So as Leif is preparing to leave this place where he has been for two decades to go back home to spend more time there--whether it is fishing or just enjoying or going back to work--I know that he leaves many, many friends here. He leaves many that have such appreciation for his work, his character, his honesty, and just his professionalism. I want to thank him for all of his years of dedication, his commitment, his service. I wish him and his dog Leo the best as they go back to Alaska. They will be hiking around, wandering around the shadow of the Chugach Mountains. I know, wherever it is that he goes, though, he will be involved in helping the people of Alaska. I look forward to continuing to work with Lee in the next chapter of his life. It is indeed an honor to be able to speak about him and his good work today. I know we are set to wrap up here. It is my colleague from Alaska who usually has the last word on a Thursday evening, and he speaks about the Alaskan of the Week. Senator Sullivan is not here today and will not be giving those comments, but I feel I have kind of filled in with giving him an Alaska of the Week with Leif Fonnesbeck, a gentleman who has served our State honorably over such period of time. With that, I yield the floor. (Ms. MURKOWSKI assumed the chair.) (Mr. WICKER assumed the chair.)

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.