Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Sullivan amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Alaskans will gather on August 9 to celebrate the life of Dan Fauske, a public servant extraordinaire, who lost his battle with cancer in April. Upon learning of Dan's passing, Representative Mike Chennault, four-term Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives described Dan as ``Superman.'' In Mike's words, ``Dan Fauske leaped tall buildings in a single bound. Like Superman, there was not a challenge he couldn't take on.'' Dan was a dear friend of mine, and his family is part of our extended family in the Murkowski office. Dan's son, D.J., who now serves as director of government and external affairs for the North Slope Borough, helped open my Washington office in 2003 as a staff assistant. D.J. subsequently married Gretchen Wieman, a legislative correspondent in my office during that period. I counted on Dan for advice and counsel on important public policy issues affecting Alaska, as did many others in the State. His integrity and wisdom were unsurpassed, but Dan's greatest attribute was perhaps his humility. He was known as a straight shooter; one who was about getting the job done and doing it right. Although he waded into many a difficult political problem, he resisted the urge to become a politician. If there was an ounce of self-promotion in Dan Fauske, I never saw it. Dan was one of the most grounded people I have ever met, and that was the key to his influence and effectiveness. Dan Fauske, like so many builders of Alaska in the half century after Statehood, adopted our State as his home. Dan was born in Fargo on December 13, 1950. He relocated to Alaska in 1974 after serving in the Army--not to the big city, but to Barrow, now called Utqiagvik, the northernmost American city. A place where the first language was then and remains today Inupiaq. His older brother, Dave, was a teacher in the village. Dan worked construction and delivered fresh water, and he made himself part of the community. Elise Patkotak remembers him as one who approached the world as if everyone were a potential friend. Dan built a dog ramp to help Elise get her handicapped dog into the house. This is just one example of the many random acts of kindness for which Dan was known. Bridging the cross-cultural divide, his kindness was reciprocated in the community. Dan left Alaska to study for an MBA at Gonzaga University in Spokane, WA, but it was a temporary absence. Utqiagvik was Dan's home, and upon graduation, Dan went to work for the North Slope Borough. He was chief financial officer and chief administrative officer. During his tenure, he pursued a vigorous capital construction program which brought water and sewer to many of the North Slope villages. In 1995, Dan moved his family to Anchorage. He was named chief executive officer of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, AHFC. John Bitney, then a legislative staffer, remembers the day that he and the legislative auditor presented a bill in committee to liquidate AHFC. Just when the committee was about to move the bill, a man ventures forward from the audience, announces that he is the CEO of AHFC, and it is his second day on the job. He asked the committee to allow him to pursue a turnaround of the agency--and, boy, were we lucky that the committee agreed. Over the next 18 years, Dan would not only rescue AHFC from its financial difficulties, but mold it into one of the most respected State housing agencies in the Nation. During his tenure, AHFC pioneered its weatherization and energy rebate program, which helped Alaskan families survive the challenge of high energy costs in the frozen North. He issued more than $7.5 billion in bonds, led AFHC to avoid the subprime mortgage collapse and returned more than $1.9 billion back to the State of Alaska through cash transfers, capital projects, and debt service payments. The AHFC building has been renamed the ``Daniel R. Fauske Building'' by the Alaska Legislature in honor of his many accomplishments. Dan was so successful at AHFC, the Alaska Legislature asked him to take on a second duty, that of exploring the feasibility of constructing a small diameter pipeline to bring natural gas from the North Slope to serve Alaskans. In 2013, he left his job at AHFC to pursue this ``second job'' full time as executive director of the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, AGDC. He served in that role until November 2015. At AGDC, Dan brought the same focus to the position he had to every other one he had held in his distinguished career: serving Alaskans. For Dan, AGDC's mission wasn't so much about commercializing Alaska's gas as it was delivering energy to Alaskans. His focus on delivering energy relief and security drove the State's efforts and resulted in AGDC joining the integrated effort to build Alaska LNG as the entity focused on delivering gas to Alaskans. Whether it was building water systems on the North Slope, developing housing across the State, or delivering energy, Dan did it for Alaskans first. That was what we loved about him, he saw policy not at the 50,000-foot level but in the face, life, and experience of every person he worked with and served. Dependable, trusted, respected--the consummate ``go to'' guy--all of these phrases are used to describe Dan Fauske. He believed in Alaska. He believed in Alaskans. Like all great Alaskans, he believed anything could be done, but what earned him our unwavering respect is that he followed through and got it done. Dan Fauske will long be remembered as a true leader who walked with the people and a key figure in Alaska history of the post-Statehood era.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my second-session summer interns Kasey Casort, Hannah McCue, Jesse Oney, Ronald Meehan, Dawson Verley, Evan Ipock, Samantha Warner, Kobe Rizk, Brian Dusek, Madeline Ko, Aimee Bushnell, and Fatos Redzepi for the remainder of their session in August.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak this evening in support of the confirmation of David Bernhardt to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior. The Deputy Secretary is the department's COO, or chief operating officer. This is the individual who holds the position to really execute the strategy and oversee the initiatives that are undertaken by thousands of employees as they carry out their statutory duties and the administration's agenda. It is a very key position. I believe very strongly that Secretary Zinke has chosen a strong individual for this position of Deputy Secretary. Mr. Bernhardt is a fellow westerner. He comes from the small town of Rifle, CO. He understands the management of Federal lands and how it affects those who live near them, the implications of Federal policies, and the need for balance between conservation and development. David is an avid sportsman. He likes to hunt. He likes to fish. He likes to get outside and enjoy the outdoors. Mr. Bernhardt also has extensive experience at the Department of the Interior. He previously spent several years as its solicitor, and this is a position for which he was confirmed by this Senate Chamber by voice vote. So he has gone through this process before and was endorsed strongly at the time. Throughout his time at the Department of the Interior, Mr. Bernhardt gained expertise about a range of Alaska and western issues. He also has a strong reputation as a manager which, of course, is critical for a Deputy Secretary. Mr. Bernhardt's nomination is supported by dozens of Members of this Chamber and by dozens of stakeholder groups. He has been endorsed by a broad coalition of sportsmen's groups as well, including Ducks Unlimited, the Safari Club, and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Water Resources Association, the Family Farm Alliance, NCAI, or the National Conference of American Indians, and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe are just a few more that have weighed in favorably on his behalf. Mr. Bernhardt also fared well throughout the confirmation process, proving again that he is a good choice for this role. We held a hearing on his nomination on May 18. We reported him favorably from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee with bipartisan support. We moved that out on June 4. So we have had about 6 weeks now where others have had an opportunity to review him and review his credentials. It is unfortunate that he has had to wait 6 weeks. I know that Secretary Zinke is anxious to put him to work. He is now ready this evening to be confirmed by the full Senate. I would like to thank David Bernhardt for his willingness to return to Federal service. I think he will be a very capable second-in-command for Secretary Zinke, helping to steer the Department in a positive direction. Alaskans, especially this one, are looking forward to working with him. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Bernhardt's confirmation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this Saturday Alaskans will observe ``Ted Stevens Day,'' a living memory to Alaska's greatest Senator, who left us 7 years ago next month. As family, friends, and former staffers of Senator Stevens gather in Alaska for this annual observance, many will take time off on Thursday to honor a beloved member of the Stevens' team, Ted's loyal assistant and State director, Barbara Andrews-Mee, who passed away earlier this year. I will not be able to attend this event because the Senate will be in session on Thursday, but I wanted to take this opportunity to speak in memory of this loyal and dedicated employee of the U.S. Senate, as well as great friend of Alaska. Barb's tenure with Senator Stevens long predates his Senate service. Barb began working with Ted in 1962, 2 years after she came to Alaska. She followed him to the Alaska Legislature and the U.S. Senate, retiring in 1997. Upon her retirement, Stevens said, ``For half of my life--and two-thirds of hers--Barbara Andrews-Mee has been my boss. . . .'' Barb returned the compliment noting that she had been with Ted Stevens longer than she had been with three husbands. Barb had a great sense of humor and a huge and welcoming personality. She was regarded as a mentor and grandmother-like figure to generations of young staffers who went to work for Senator Stevens. She could sure turn a phrase. Alaska humorist Mike Doogan published a few of Barb's quips in the Anchorage Daily News to celebrate her retirement. Among them, Barb, who was 5-feet tall, once said, ``I tell people I used to be 6-foot-2, and then I went to work for Stevens.'' But she wasn't always so humble. Another ``Barbism'' was ``[m]y grandmother always told me dynamite comes in small packages.'' I am told that one came in handy when she was working difficult constituent problems to successful conclusion and building Ted's brand in the process. Whether it was Norwegian stubbornness or Alaskan toughness, she got the job done. That seemed to be her second best characteristic from Ted's standpoint. In his May 21, 1997, floor tribute to Barb, Senator Stevens said, ``When I've been asked what her best characteristic is, I say `loyalty'. That means more to me than any of the help that she's given me and the people of Alaska over more than three decades; work above and beyond the call of duty.'' Barb was quite the worker, delivering care packages to visiting dignitaries whose flights were refueling at what was then called Elmendorf Air Force Base, picking up Senator Stevens at what is now called Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, whatever the hour, and making sure he made the flight back to Washington, and supporting servicemembers and military families. It wasn't all work though. Barb actually christened a Navy PC8 coastal patrol craft, the USS Zephyr. She flew in an F-15, experienced several aircraft carrier landings, and traveled in the submarine, USS Alaska. Then there was golf. In 1995, Barb married Vince Mee, her longtime golfing partner. Senator Stevens performed the ceremony on the ninth hole on Eagleglen golf course on Elmendorf. In 2010, Barb authored a book, ``Ted Stevens and Mee,'' a memoir of her time working with the man they called Alaskan of the Century. Barb lived a wonderful life--or as she might put it, ``A great ride.'' Devoted to her wonderful family, to her church, and to community service, she came far from humble beginnings in South Dakota, leading to a long drive up the Alcan to Glennallen, AK, and a path to Alaskan greatness. One of the first women in Rotary and a member of the Athena Society of Anchorage, Barb's contributions and leadership will be long remembered. On behalf of the Senate family, I extend my continued condolences to Barb's family and friends this week as Alaska reflects on her great legacy.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Maj. Gen. James F. Martin, Jr., USAF, will officially retire from Active Duty at the end of September. This month, Major General Martin's friends are gathering at the Pentagon to celebrate his career. In advance of that event, I wanted to say a few words about this exemplary military officer and adopted Alaskan who has devoted his entire 32 year career to the security of our Nation. Major General Martin was born and raised in the State of Missouri. He completed his undergraduate work at Mississippi State University in accountancy and was commissioned as an Air Force officer through the ROTC Program. His initial assignment was Lowry Air Force Base, CO. Major General Martin pursued a traditional Air Force career serving in Texas, Panama, Italy, Hawaii, Ohio, and multiple stints in the Nation's Capital. In 1992, he was the Air Force Finance and Accounting Officer of the Year and has received numerous other awards and distinctions throughout his career. Although Major General Martin served throughout the Air Force, it was a fine day in 2001 when he arrived at Pacific Air Forces, PACAF, to serve as chief of the Operations and Maintenance Budget Branch. In 2006, Major General Martin, then Colonel Martin, took his first assignment in Alaska as commander of the 354th Mission Support Group, Eielson AFB. Major General Martin learned the hard way that, once bitten with the wonders of Alaska, you can never let it go. During that Alaska assignment, Major General Martin made friends around the State. Following his Eielson assignment, Major General Martin returned to PACAF Headquarters, first as director of financial management and comptroller and subsequently as chief of staff. He then began the first of three stints working for the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Financial Management and Comptroller. In July 2013, Major General Martin was named Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, his capstone experience and the role from which he will soon retire. As Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Major General Martin is responsible for planning and directing the formulation of the Air Force budget. This is a weighty and stressful responsibility in any year, but Major General Martin arrived his position just in time to deal with the 2013 government shutdown, as well as the overhanging threat of sequestration which continued to dog him for the remaining days of his Air Force career. In spite of the many difficult challenges that faced his office, Major General Martin maintained the bearing of a calm and happy warrior; completely devoted to the cause of our airmen, airpower, and air dominance. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget is responsible for the Air Force's relationship with members of the Defense and Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittees. Under his leadership, the appropriations liaison team was uniformly responsive and helpful to me and my staff. Major General Martin played a significant role in restoring congressional confidence in the Air Force as it emerged from several very difficult years in its relationships with Capitol Hill. The Air Force's loss is Alaska's gain, Retirement will free up Major General Martin to spend more time in his beloved Alaska, and I understand that he plans to spend more than a few days in Unalaska-- Dutch Harbor, one of his favorite places. I hope to continue to rely upon General Martin in retirement for advice as I have many retired general officers whom I have come to know through their service in the State. In Alaska, we take great pride that the path to a great Air Force career seems to run through our State. We have had more than our share of servicemembers who leveraged their time in Alaska to reach the highest levels of their profession. Major General Martin is among this select group, and his exemplary career sets an example for Alaska's airmen about where you might end up if you simply ``Aim High.'' On behalf of my Senate colleagues, I take this opportunity to thank Major General Martin for his service and wish him well in retirement.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this afternoon to mark the 40th anniversary of the first oil moving through the Trans- Alaska Pipeline System. In Alaska, we call it TAPS. This is an 800- mile-long engineering marvel that runs from the North Slope of Alaska to tidewater in Valdez. Forty years is a good, long history. I recognize that, and so this afternoon, in the interest of time, I will abbreviate the history, but I want to start the story of our pipeline in the late 1960s. Believe it or not, this was a pretty bleak moment for oil exploration in Alaska. Despite great promise, many companies had given up on exploration on the North Slope. By some accounts, at that point in time, there were at least 14 dry holes that had been drilled before ARCO and Humble Oil Company decided they were going to sink just one last well. It was actually an ARCO executive who described it ``more as a decision not to cancel a well already scheduled to go ahead.'' That well, Prudhoe Bay State No. 1, would prove to be a game changer for Alaska. We had discovered oil. We discovered oil on the North Slope and a lot of it. We quickly learned that Prudhoe Bay would be one of the largest oilfields in global history, by far the largest ever discovered in the United States. Early estimates, at that time, suggested as much as 9 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from it. We have learned over these intervening 40 years that we so far underestimated that. Yet it was not just the issue of discovering the oil. Prudhoe Bay is located in a very remote part of the State, as far north as you can go--a pretty inhospitable area given the climate--far away from population centers in the lower 48. So a lot of challenges needed to be overcome before production could begin. Initially, it was like, OK, how do we move significant quantities of oil? How do we transport this oil to market? It was Dan Yergin, in his book ``The Prize,'' who did a great job of describing the various choices that were out there. He wrote: ``Icebreaker tankers that would travel through the frozen Arctic seas to the Atlantic were seriously considered. Other suggestions included a monorail or fleet of trucks in permanent circulation on an eight-lane highway across Alaska.'' They then ``calculated that it would require most of the trucks in America'' to do this. There was also ``a prominent nuclear physicist recommended a fleet of nuclear-powered submarine tankers that would travel under the polar ice cap to a deepwater port in Greenland--the port to be created, in turn, by a nuclear explosion. Boeing and Lockheed explored the idea of jumbo jet oil tankers.'' Obviously, none of those ideas came about, and some probably for very good reason, but after significant study and debate, a pipeline emerged as the best way to transport Alaska's oil. While two routes were considered--one over land, which would run across Canada--an all-Alaska route was ultimately chosen as the best way to go. Yet, even then, pipeline construction could not begin right away. There were serious debates in the State over issues like taxes and tariffs and pipeline ownership, and it really consumed our State's legislature for years. The land claims of the Alaska Natives needed to be settled. This occurred in the landmark legislation that passed in 1971. Then it was in 1973 that Congress took up the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act. As part of that debate here on the Senate floor, Alaska's Senators offered an amendment to deem the environmental impact statement for the pipeline to be sufficient and to shield it from what could have been decades of litigation by its opponents. This was a critically important aspect to the debate and really to the future of the pipeline in order to ensure that this construction would not be delayed by litigation. The vote was as close as votes get here in the Senate. It was deadlocked 49 to 49, and sitting in that chair, the Vice President at the time, Spiro Agnew, cast the deciding vote in Alaska's favor. So every time I see the bust out here of Vice President Agnew, I look at him. Other people reflect on Vice President Agnew in different ways. I reflect on that deciding vote that allowed us to proceed with our Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The pipeline bill went on to pass the Senate on a strong bipartisan basis. Not long after that, then-President Richard Nixon signed it into law. This was tremendous news for Alaska because we would be allowed to move forward with the construction. The construction of this pipeline was a monumental undertaking, but that monumental undertaking was also done with considerable speed. In April of 1974, construction on a 360-mile haul road began. We now call it the Dalton Highway. It was finished in 154 days. For those of you who have heard my plea on the floor and to colleagues who have been in committees when I have talked about the history of my efforts to try to get a 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road for the people of King Cove, I think about what we were able to accomplish in 154 days with that haul road that allowed us to then help to facilitate the buildout of the pipeline. The pipeline itself was the largest privately funded infrastructure project ever undertaken in America at the time. It was significant. It was significant for Alaska, of course, but it was significant for the Nation as well. Its total cost came to be about $8 billion. In October of 1975, there were about 28,000 people who were working to make this pipeline a reality, and that pipeline was completed in 1977. Again, initial construction of the haul road began in 1974. It was completed in October 1977, which was just 3 years and 2 months after construction began. I am told it was actually 10 days ahead of schedule, according to one estimate, which is pretty remarkable. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline--and I cannot find a picture that really shows the line well--an extraordinary line, which again, is 800 miles long, running from the North Slope to an ice-free Port of Valdez at tidewater. It crosses three mountain ranges, including Atigun Pass, which has an elevation of more than 4,800 feet. It reaches a grade of 55 degrees at one point in the Chugach Range. So it goes up incredible mountains and down the other side. It crosses more than 600 streams and rivers, and more than 400 miles of it are elevated above the ground. We have it elevated aboveground here, but in certain areas, you can follow the pipeline either by air, or occasionally, you can see it from the road. It is probably one of the most photographed pipelines in the country, but you will see it go underground in many areas. About half of it is buried underground. This was part of the engineering that allowed for the recognition that you are building in a permafrost area, so it is how you ensure that you are not having an impact in the ground and the area around it. It crosses a major fault line, the Denali Fault. Back in November of 2002, we had a 7.9 magnitude earthquake just about 90 miles from Fairbanks on that Denali Fault. The pipe moved 7\1/2\ feet horizontally--moving back and forth this way--and 2\1/2\ feet vertically. This pipeline was designed for an 8.5 earthquake. It allows for 20 feet of horizontal movement and 5 feet of vertical movement. The engineers not only worked to cross some extraordinary terrain but also recognized that this was in an area in which earthquakes did happen. It is extraordinary to listen to the stories of the engineers who inspected every inch of that line after that earthquake in 2002 and to hear their comments about, truly, this engineering marvel. There are so many stories about the construction of the pipeline just as Alaskans, as we have lived through those pipeline years. It is hard to really capture what it was like to be in Alaska during the time of the construction of that line. We saw our population boom as we saw new workers come into the State. I was living in Fairbanks at the time. I was a high school student and was going into college there. Obviously, that was my town. In my town, all of a sudden there were people from Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma. I can remember seeing guys in cowboy boots in Fairbanks in the winter on the ice and thinking that these guys are going to figure out how to change their footwear. But we worked to welcome these people who were there to really help make a difference. There were pressures on our community. You could not find a hotel room. You couldn't find a rental car. It was hard for the grocery stores to keep the shelves stocked in many of the towns. We saw a significant investment in our communities in many different ways. There were a lot of wild stories and tales, some which are appropriate to tell years afterward, some which still keep us smiling, but we do not talk too much about them. There are many good stories out there. I am proud of this extraordinary infrastructure that we have in Alaska--an extraordinary energy asset--and to be celebrating the fact that, for 40 years now, this pipeline has been not only contributing to Alaska, but contributing to the Nation as something that, as Alaskans, we do look to with pride. This pipeline is not just a piece of pipe; it is an economic lifeline for the State of Alaska. Over the course of 40 years, TAPS has become the veritable backbone of our State's economy. It has helped us create jobs to the point at which our oil and gas industry either employs or supports fully one-third of the Alaskan workforce. So it is pretty significant in terms of its impact. It has generated tremendous revenue for our State, some $168 billion at last count, which has been used for everything from roads, to schools, to essential services. It really has helped build the State and continues to allow our State to operate. TAPS has allowed us to create our permanent fund, which we have used to convert the revenues from a nonrenewable resource--oil--into something that will make an enduring contribution to the growth and the prosperity of future generations. Our pipeline has also allowed us to keep our tax burdens low, which is critical in a State like Alaska, where the cost of living is extraordinarily high. Alaska has one of the lowest tax burdens of any State, and that is thanks to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. It also allows us to keep other industries, whether it is fishing or tourism-- keep their taxes much lower than they would otherwise be. The scale of this is often hard to imagine. Dr. Terrence Cole, who is a history professor at the University of Alaska, put it this way back in 2004: ``Prudhoe Bay oil was worth more than everything that has been dug out, cut down, caught, or killed in Alaska since the beginning of time. The discovery of the Prudhoe Bay oil field in the late 1960s fulfilled even the most optimistic dreams for statehood.'' From day one, Alaska's pipeline has also strengthened the energy security of our Nation. Remember, TAPS began operating in the wake of the first Arab oil embargo. It helped tide us over during the 1979 oil crisis. It has insulated us from OPEC and has lessened our dependence on nations who do not share our interests. It has provided reliable and affordable energy that is needed by millions of Americans all up and down the west coast. It really is hard to imagine Alaska without the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. It is hard to imagine the consequences that America would have faced without the 17.5 billion barrels of oil that it has now safely carried to market. Think about that--17.5 billion barrels of oil over the past 40 years. It is no exaggeration to say that, while we built a pipeline, that pipeline helped us build our State. Today, as we mark the 40th anniversary of TAPS, we can also take stock of the challenges that it faces. Many are a direct result of the decisions made--or perhaps not made--in this very Chamber. While our pipeline once carried 2.1 million barrels of oil per day, accounting for a full quarter of America's supply, today, that amount has been crimped down to just over 500,000 barrels a day. It is not due to lack of resources--not at all--but instead it is due to our lack of access to those resources. Alaska has never lacked for energy, just the permission to produce it, despite the promises that had been made to us at statehood and beyond. According to the Federal Energy Information Administration, we have at least 36.9 billion barrels of oil. That is enough to produce 1 million barrels a day for the next 100 years. We have prolific potential in our National Petroleum Reserve, which was specifically set aside for oil production. We have world-class resources in our offshore areas, in the Beaufort, and in the Chukchi Seas in our Arctic Outer Continental Shelf. We have what is believed to be North America's largest untapped conventional oil field, which would occupy about one ten-thousandth of the nonwilderness 1002 Area within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Again, this is an area that was specifically set aside for development, and the Federal Government recommended that it be opened for that purpose back in 1987--a 30-year anniversary there. So while we have the resources, what we need are partners at the Federal level who will work with us to restore throughput to the Trans- Alaska Pipeline. I welcome the new administration and its commitment to helping us produce energy--energy for Alaska, energy for the Nation. I want to end with a quote from the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. This is an opinion piece by VADM Tom Barrett, who is the president of Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. This is the TAPS operator. He has written this opinion piece, and he states as follows: ``Though there has been a lot of change on TAPS in 40 years, one unwavering constant remains: the commitment of the people who work on TAPS today to provide safe, reliable, operational excellence, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, resilient amid all of Alaska's extreme geography and weather.'' I think about the men and women--the engineers, the workers, the contractors, and all those who do such an incredible job to deal with the day-to-day to keep that oil flowing safely. Again, as we recognize 40 years of safely transporting this oil, I want to repeat to my colleagues: TAPS, or the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, is not just a pipeline; it is an economic lifeline for us. It is source of security and prosperity for us as a nation. So I join my delegation and my colleagues--Senator Sullivan and Congressman Young--and all of the Alaskans who are marking this anniversary today, as TAPS reaches 40 good years. We look back, and we appreciate the past, but we also look forward and set our sights on another good 40 years to come. Mr. President, I thank you, and I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They do not have the approval of the Democratic leader; therefore, they will not be permitted to meet. I ask unanimous consent that a list of committees requesting authority to meet be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, over the Memorial Day weekend, Alaska lost two really great men. These men were doers and they were builders in every sense of the word--both literally and figuratively. They were family people, and they were the best of friends to one another and to so many of us. Today I wish to pay tribute to Sam R. Brice and Howard A. Otis-- although, nobody called him Howard. We all knew him as ``Buzz'' Otis. I wish to take just a few moments this afternoon and tell Members of the Senate a little bit about these two very wonderful and great men. You really couldn't find two more genuine Alaskans than Sam or Buzz. Yet neither was born in the State. They came to Alaska. Sam grew up in Florida. He was educated at Columbia University in New York City. So he was a long way from New York City when he came to Fairbanks, AK. He served in the Marine Corps, and then he moved to Alaska to help his parents, Luther and helenka, establish a family construction business there in the Interior. The story is pretty legendary about his mother helenka. His mother spelled her name always with a lower case ``h''. She didn't want the capital, and always made sure that you put the emphasis on the ``len'' in helenka. She was really the epitome of an independent, self-reliant, really strong Alaskan woman, and she wouldn't let anyone forget that. She was very outgoing, vivacious, and had a heart of gold. I think it all wore off on her children. We certainly saw that in Sam. It was said that Sam Brice never met a stranger. He was known for remembering every good deed that others did for him--no matter how many years in the past it may have been, decades after the event. He always generously returned the favor and always remembered to just say: ``Thank you for that''--``thank you for that.'' Sam was one who just did good. He did good throughout the State. Those in rural Alaska have fond memories and affection for a man who helped build their communities and who was a leader. He was a leader of the Associated General Contractors, and in his later years was well known for roasting his fellow contractors at the AGC dinners. He had a great sense of humor, and that humor was really contagious. The lines from Sam's obituary really say everything one needs to know about the man. They are: In lieu of flowers, the family would wish all to remember Sam who lived by example, whether a handshake, a smile, or a contribution; he was always willing to lend a helping hand. Please remember all the different ways Sam has touched people's lives and consciously think how you can make the world a better place, as Sam demonstrated throughout his life. We ask you honor Sam's memory by emulating his compassion to others and be a friend to man. Sam's memorial services were this past Saturday. I was unable to attend. I know the church was packed to overflowing. But as I was in another part of the State that day, I couldn't help but think of those words from the obituary about how we can individually and collectively think about how we can make the world a better place by being compassionate to others, being a friend to others, and living that in our daily lives, as Sam did--truly, truly a great man. His friend Buzz Otis was also a transplant to Alaska. He grew up in Michigan. He was educated at Michigan State and came to Alaska in 1975, thinking he was just going to explore the State for a few months, like so many who come to our State. They think they are just going to come, take a peek, and then leave, but as with many Alaskans, that didn't happen with Buzz. In 1976, he founded a landscaping business in Fairbanks called Great Northwest, and this was really his ticket to business success and to a lifetime commitment to Alaska. I have so many good friends throughout the State who are givers and doers. I just think we Alaskans have a tendency to want to give back to our communities. We help our neighbors. Buzz Otis did that in spades. He was involved in a lot of different levels politically. He was a strong supporter of mine and other members of the Alaska delegation. He served on the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly and was elected as its presiding officer. He chaired the Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation and managed the North Pole Economic Development Corporation. He was just involved in so many different aspects of his community. He was an outdoorsman and loved sports. He was a rugby player and had a rugby pitch. He loved the sport of dog mushing and encouraged young people to take it up. He was just always doing, always engaged. He was blessed in life to have a great family and a wonderful, beautiful wife, Renee. That family standing together was a beautiful thing to watch in terms of the support they all gave one another, and it was truly so for Buzz, as a father and as a family man. I just can't think of anything better. Family really does come first. That is ultimately what claimed the lives of these two wonderful men who had so much life left in them. Buzz's son was out on the river, and Sam and Buzz went out to check on him in Sam's plane. It wasn't out of the ordinary to do this. It was good weather, good visibility, and a pretty fair day for the Interior. It turns out that Buzz's son was OK, but the flight ended in tragedy. Sam's plane went down near the Salcha River on the morning of Saturday, May 27. If only this story had a happy ending. Instead, it had somewhat of an Alaskan ending. Sam and Buzz gave their lives doing what so many Alaskans do; that is, looking out for one another, looking out for their families. But we know we don't remember people for how they lost their lives. We remember people for how they lived their lives. Sam and Buzz were truly ``salt of the earth'' Alaskans. They were honest, hardworking, caring, and adventurous. They hired local people, they treated them well, and they were always welcomed back by the communities they served so faithfully. They really dedicated their lives to the betterment of the last frontier, and they never forgot family. Family was always first. Everyone says that you can't say enough about these people, and it is true. So I will conclude my remarks and just simply express the Senate's condolences to the Brice and Otis families: to Joan Brice, to Renee Otis, to their children, and to their families--great families-- destined to carry on the legacies of Sam Brice and Buzz Otis. 75th Anniversary of the Aleutian Campaign We just recognized Memorial Day last week in our respective States. I was pleased to be with many Alaskans as we observed Memorial Day. We clearly revere those who serve in our military. In Alaska, we are home to more veterans per capita than any other State in the Union. This year, I was privileged to host a most distinguished veteran at Alaska's official State veterans' memorial. This is located in a place called Byers Lake, which is midway on the Parks Highway between Fairbanks and Anchorage. It is extraordinarily picturesque. It is very tranquil. It is almost a spiritual place in many, many ways, as we look out to Denali in the background, being surrounded by the memorials for honoring those veterans who have served us. But I was able to bring to that gathering a very distinguished veteran, our Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, a former Navy SEAL. This following week, just on Sunday, I was able to do yet another Memorial Day. Our focus was not on those who gave their lives on foreign soil but in a battle for American soil. Our focus this past Sunday was on what is known as the ``forgotten battle'' of World War II. It was the bombing and subsequent occupation of the Aleutian Islands of Alaska by Japan. It was a yearlong campaign, and for those of us in Alaska, it is a campaign that we often speak about and we share the stories. There are veterans of that campaign who are still around today, sharing stories with us. They are living legends, if you will. I recognize that for many, if you were to ask them whether the United States has ever been occupied--occupied in World War II--they wouldn't know. I think, unfortunately, the name the ``forgotten battle'' may be just exactly that. Most Americans don't recognize that the Aleutians were occupied by the Japanese, that Americans were killed in defending our homeland, and that some of the indigenous people were either transported to Japan as prisoners of war or evacuated to the southeastern coast of our State, a thousand miles away. Making sure this ``forgotten war'' is not forgotten is a mission for me. It is an important part of our Nation's history. Again, that Aleutian Campaign was a yearlong campaign--fighting weather and terrain with equipment that was clearly not up to the challenge--to reclaim U.S. territory from a determined Japanese force. A little bit of the history: On June 3, 1942, Japanese forces bombed Dutch Harbor and, over the succeeding days, occupied the islands of Attu and Kiska. These islands were occupied by Native people who had been there over a thousand years. It was not until May of 1943 that Attu was retaken, and 549 U.S. and Allied troops were killed in combat. But there is evidence that the U.S. and Allied losses in the Battle of Attu were much higher as a result of exposure, disease, Japanese booby-traps, friendly fire, and frostbite. Let me just tell you, the elements out there in the Aleutians are particularly harsh. When you don't have the equipment, it makes it even more so. The war in the Aleutians came at a great price for our Native people who had lived on those lands for thousands of years before the war. The homes were burned, churches were burned, and 881 of the Aleut residents of 9 separate villages were relocated to abandoned mining and fishing camps in Southeastern Alaska, where they were forced to live under some pretty tough conditions. At the remembrance event that I attended in Alaska on Sunday, some of the evacuees were at the ceremony. They were there. They shared their stories about what it meant to literally be ripped from their village-- without having any idea what was really going on--and then sent to an area that may have been a foreign country to them. On the Aleutian Islands, the environment is entirely different from that of a cannery in in Southeast Alaska. But what was extraordinary about these evacuees was, despite the very harsh, difficult, and, in many cases, horrible conditions, they never gave up. They didn't give up hope, and they certainly didn't give up their patriotism. Twenty-five men from the evacuated villages chose to join the fight. Three men joined the retake of Attu. All were awarded the Bronze Star for their valor. I think it is important to remember that the many lessons to be learned from the Aleutian Campaign. America once perceived itself as a nation oceans away from foreign threats. Today, I think it is unthinkable for us to think that any of our territory could be occupied by a foreign power. But we must never forget that during World War II, a portion of the United States was occupied, and it was occupied in those days, as today, because Alaska is a strategic location. These lessons cannot and should not be lost to history. We all know the saying that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. The Japanese incursion occurred less than a decade after GEN Billy Mitchell testified that Alaska is indeed the most strategic place in the world. The incursion taught our Nation a vital lesson--that the defense of America begins in Alaska. Fortunately, the lessons of the Aleutian Campaign and Alaska's strategic location are not lost on today's military planners. Let me walk you through what we see in the State of Alaska right now, recognizing the proximity of Alaska to some of the hot spots around the world, whether it is North Korea, Russia, or China. Alaska is seeing a renaissance when it comes to our military presence. We see it at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, where Air Force F-22s and AWACS launch to acknowledge their Russian counterparts that are flying in the Air Defense Identification Zone. We see it at Eielson Air Force Base, which is preparing to receive two squadrons of F-35s beginning in 2020. We see it in the soldiers of the 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team in Anchorage, who are now waiting deployment to Afghanistan. We see it in the soldiers of the 1st Stryker Brigade, who will soon begin their rotation of pre-deployment training at the National Training Center. We see it in the crews who are staffing ballistic missile radars in the State, looking very carefully at North Korea. We also see it in the patriotic construction workers who will begin building the new long- range missile discrimination radar at Clear Air Force Station this summer and on the missile fields of Fort Greely, ready to intercept an ICBM aimed at the North American continent from wherever. We see it in the Navy SEALs who train in Kodiak and in the coastguardsmen who protect our coastline from Metlakatla in the south, all the way north to the Arctic. I think it is very clear that never again will the United States leave Alaska undefended, which brings me back to the characterization of the Aleutian Campaign as the forgotten battle. Seventy-five years ago, U.S. and Allied troops were called upon to repel an invader who occupied U.S. soil. We in Alaska, particularly, will never forget that fact, but neither should America. Ignoring the fact that war has been, in fact, waged on U.S. soil in this last century is a dangerous and a tragic thing. Let's resolve on this 75th anniversary of the start of the Aleutian Campaign that the forgotten battle is be forgotten no longer. As I prepare to leave the floor, I would be remiss if I didn't add that at the remembrance event in Unalaska this weekend, it was not only an opportunity for many of the remaining evacuees to come together in Alaska--for some it was their former community; others were from the Pribilof, Kiska, and Attu. It was a coming together. It was a homecoming for some, but there was also an effort to bring together many of our veterans who had served in the Aleutian Campaign and whose only exposure to the Aleutians was when they came in to defend that territory. To have the exchange between those who had been forced from their homeland and those Americans, those veterans who had come to help--to have them united in a conversation for the first time ever was an exceptional American story. Over the course of 3 days, the sharing of stories was a remarkable opportunity for us. I had a chance to speak with one of our World War II veterans who said: I always knew what our part of the fight was about, but I had no idea how what we were doing from the war effort had impacted these displaced people--the original people of the Aleutian Islands. To have that sharing, again, was a remarkable part of the story. Then, to complete that picture, there were several individuals who were part of a Japanese film production company and were there to do the filming of this 75th remembrance because, as they said: This is an exceptional part of our history coming together too. Recognizing, sharing that, and allowing the stories, again, to ensure that this is not forgotten was a very significant and, I think, healing opportunity for so many. Madam President, I thank you for the opportunity to share this important part of our history, ensuring that the forgotten battle is not forgotten. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my interns for the remainder of the month of June 2017. Those interns are Claire Faulkner, Fiona Kelty, Jackson Blackwell, Jaden Frazier, James Flemings, Kinani Halvorsen, Mary Crowley, Tasha Elizarde, Taylor Holman, Tristan Douville, Fatos Redzepi, and Aimee Bushnell.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate adopted the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act. This legislation facilitates the process of terminating nonperforming VA employees by eliminating certain due process protections that are currently part of the system. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs says he needs this authority to reform the system. The Senate, by voice vote, honored the request. However, in Alaska, we have a different problem which is not addressed in the legislation, and that problem is filling vacant positions within the VA. The major challenge facing VA leaders in Alaska is recruitment and retention. The Wasilla community based outpatient clinic, CBOC, serves veterans in the fastest growing community in the State. The last permanent physician at this CBOC resigned in May 2014, citing ``excessive workload.'' A number of temporary physicians have rotated through since, and some have considered VA employment, but ultimately said no. The fact remains that, for the past 3 years, the VA has not been able to recruit a single physician to permanently staff this CBOC, a facility that, given demand, requires a permanent staff of two--or possibly three--physicians. Wasilla is hardly the most remote place in the State. Actually, it is one of the least remote. Moreover, it is one of the most desirable places in Alaska to live. For example, Mat-Su Regional Hospital, the community hospital down the road, has no problem retaining medical professionals. Staffed with 160 physicians in 28 specialties, including primary care, it was recently highlighted by Becker's Hospital Review as one of the 150 best places to work in healthcare for 2017. By comparison, the VA has been unable to recruit a single physician to permanently tend to the needs of our veterans in the Mat-Su Valley. That suggests to me that the VA has a second problem. The VA is simply not regarded as an employer of choice among potential recruits. Removing due process protections for VA employees may well exacerbate that problem. Over the past 14 years, I have spent time with a great many VA employees, and the fear that a supervisor may now have greater latitude to target an individual on a trumped up charge because they are seen to be rocking the boat or because they just don't like them is a real one. We have very good management in the Alaska VA healthcare system now, but the faces of managers change with some frequency and with those charges can come wide swings in management philosophies. At a recent hearing of the MILCON-VA subcommittee, my friend from Florida, Senator Rubio, asked Dr. Shulkin, ``In your time at the Veterans Administration, have you ever seen or do you have any evidence of any instance in which supervisors targeted individuals for dismissal because they just don't like them and were going to make something up in order to get rid of them?'' While the official transcript is not yet available, we do have the CQ transcript. That transcript indicates that Dr. Shulkin did not directly answer the question. He responded that the VA has seen cases of documented whistleblower retaliation. But not every employee who faces inequity in the workplace becomes a whistleblower. Some just go out and find a new job which offers better working conditions and in some cases better money than the VA pays. To his credit, Dr. Shulkin went on to say, ``But, I want people to understand, I am not seeking this and I do not support your legislation so that we can willy-nilly fire employees, or allow supervisors to abuse our employees. This allows due process. I believe it's very important that our employees have due process, the right to pre- decisional appeals, and the right to be represented by the union or their attorneys.'' I hope that he is right about how this will work out on the ground, but the VA is a highly decentralized system with a great many seemingly autonomous decisionmakers. In asking for this new authority, Dr. Shulkin must accept the responsibility for ensuring that it is not abused and must also accept accountability in the event that it is, but the larger question is whether all of the energy we have put into legislating VA accountability does anything to make the VA a more attractive employer to in-demand healthcare professionals. I would like to see the VA devote as much energy and creativity to addressing this challenge as it has to the issue before us yesterday.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I often come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to discuss issues of the Arctic. Since the United States is an Arctic nation, it seems that it is only appropriate to give updates when there have been items and events that are noteworthy in this space. Several weeks ago, we hosted in Alaska the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, an event duly of note and an event upon which I would like to spend a few moments this afternoon updating colleagues on all that took place at this ministerial and provide a little bit of a recap of the role of the United States as chairman of the Arctic Council for these past 2 years. This opportunity today to congratulate those in the State Department, the people of Fairbanks, AK, and the Alaska Arctic Council Host Committee for a successful Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Fairbanks is certainly timely. I have also come to review the accomplishments and the challenges of the Arctic Council during the recent chairmanship by the United States and I think also to look ahead at what I hope and expect will be our Nation's continued leadership in the Arctic. As I mentioned, for the past 2 years now, the United States has been chair of the Arctic Council. This is an international forum for the eight Arctic nations. That includes the United States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden. It also includes six permanent participant organizations that represent the indigenous peoples of the Arctic, as well as dozens of interested observer nations and international organizations. I think it is important to recognize that while you would understand and assume that the Arctic nations are clearly interested in happenings in the Arctic, the interest in being an official observer as part of the Arctic Council has grown steadily in these recent years as nations around the world are recognizing the opportunities that are presenting themselves in this portion of the globe. The Arctic Council was established in 1996, and it focuses its work on sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic. When we speak at these council meetings, as Arctic Parliamentarians, we always refer to the Arctic as a zone of peace. It is that way now; we would like to see it remain so. Back in April of 2015, the United States took over as chair from Canada, and at that time, the United States proposed three thematic areas that we would focus on during this 2-year chairmanship. Those three areas were improving economic and living conditions in Arctic communities; Arctic Ocean safety, security, and stewardship; and the third issue area was to address the impacts of climate change. While there were many who believed that the previous administration focused most of its attention on climate change--sometimes at the expense of the other two areas and most notably the focus on economic and living conditions for the people who live and work and raise their families in the Arctic--I believe we saw a good outcome from this 2- year chairmanship. I would like to note today and acknowledge the work of Julie Gourley as the U.S. Senior Arctic Official; the work of Ambassador David Balton as the chair of the Senior Arctic Officials; and ADM Robert Papp, who served as the U.S. Special Representative for the Arctic. All three of these individuals served to facilitate the U.S. chairmanship and worked to increase public awareness and knowledge of the Arctic. I thank them for that. I also commend the City of Fairbanks and the Fairbanks North Star Borough, which hosted the ministerial meeting. I think it is important to recognize that most assumed that when the United States hosted the ministerial, it would be in Alaska's largest city. Anchorage certainly has the ability to accommodate just about any conference, anywhere, at any time, but I think it was significant that we chose to host in a city that--while it is not above the Arctic Circle, it is getting pretty close up there. The people of Fairbanks went all out to embrace our friends from around the world. Their efforts were matched by the tremendous work of the Alaska Arctic Council Host Committee and particularly of Nils Andreassen, who connected the Arctic Council with the host communities during its numerous meetings. In the past, what we had seen at these Arctic Council meetings was folks would fly into an Arctic location, and more often than not, we would be in a large conference hall, typically with no windows and closed doors, and then everyone would fly out without having any real interaction with the community. They wouldn't have an opportunity to engage with the public, and sometimes it made the work of the Arctic Council a little bit of a mystery. I think we missed some opportunities to build support for the Arctic Council and its work and also to learn and to hear from those who live in our Arctic communities what matters are of concern to them. The Alaska Host Committee worked to break down that barrier by organizing side events. There were dozens of different side events and receptions that allowed for critical interaction. The City of Fairbanks and the North Star Borough provided incredible hospitality. They always do that, but I think this time they went above and beyond in rolling out the red carpet to ensure the success of the meeting for all who were involved. During the U.S. chairmanship, there were a number of successful activities that I would like to highlight briefly. First, there was an agreement on enhancing international arctic scientific cooperation. This was signed by all eight Arctic nations at the Fairbanks ministerial. It is now the third legally binding agreement among the Arctic nations. We have already done an agreement on search and rescue and a second one on oil spill preparedness. This is now the third, focusing on scientific cooperation. This new agreement will allow scientists to more freely and assuredly work across political borders to develop scientific knowledge about the Arctic. What I think is significant about this particular document is that the process to develop the agreement was co-chaired by the United States and Russia. This demonstrates that while our nations clearly have a good number of disagreements and disputes around the world, the Arctic can be that place of cooperation. I think we demonstrated that with this particular scientific cooperation. Another area of focus was on telecommunication. For the first time, we have assessed telecommunication infrastructure in the Arctic. For anyone who has been there or who has been to any very remote location, you know well the importance of dependable communications. Those familiar with the Arctic know that we have significant gaps. We have significant challenges in this area. Finland, which has now assumed the chairmanship, will take this issue with them and work with the private sector to do what they can to improve telecom in the Arctic. The Arctic Council also launched an Arctic ship traffic data cooperative agreement. The intent is to have a better understanding of the ships that are operating in the Arctic. As we all know, we are seeing sea ice recede. We are seeing shipping lanes in areas where we have not had an opportunity to have ships or any level of commerce. With this project, we are seeking to collect information from each Arctic nation about the shipping activity in the Arctic for traffic trend analysis. This is important because we are seeing an increase in shipping levels in the U.S. Arctic--an increase by nearly 60 percent over the last 8 years. It is clearly expected to increase with every passing year, as we are seeing sea ice diminish. As we are seeing this increased volume of shipping traffic, I think it is important to keep in mind that when it comes to charting, when it comes to mapping, less than 5 percent of the U.S. Arctic has been charted to modern standards. Again, think about what is happening. We are seeing increased shipping traffic. We still don't know as much as we need to know about the charting and the mapping, so it is vital for homeland security, for local security, and for navigational necessity that we have an accurate understanding of who is transiting when and where within the region. I have talked with Native whaling captains, those who are engaged in a level of subsistence, particularly in the Bering Straits area. Understanding when and where and who is transiting is very important for those subsistence hunters as well. Another item that came from the Arctic Council ministerial--and this was not a direct outcome from this meeting but the prior one--a new fund, the Algu Fund, was established to help the indigenous peoples of the Arctic more fully participate in the decision making of the Arctic Council and its working groups. The permanent participants and the indigenous peoples who make up these representatives are a critical piece of the discussion in these significant meetings with Foreign Ministers. To have that local knowledge, to have the voices of the local people of the Arctic speaking up is important. Think about it. They don't necessarily have a formal government, a fund that can help send them to these meetings, to be part of these working groups. And so oftentimes, their participation is not present, and not because they don't wish to be but because they lack the resources. So this Algu Fund was established. The goal is to raise $30 million for the fund, which will benefit the Aleut, the Athabaskan, Gwich'in, Sami, and over 40 Russian indigenous groups. Of the other work that was conducted, seven new observers were added to the Arctic Council, including the country of Switzerland. There were additional organizations that were added, but we are now up to a total of 39 observers, 13 of these being from non-Arctic nations. So again, the interest in all things Arctic, regardless of where you are on the globe, is really increasing. On the sidelines of the ministerial meeting, there were 12 mayors from Arctic communities in Alaska, Canada, Finland, Iceland, and Norway. They held their own forum to look at the challenges to local governments in the Arctic. Issues such as economic diversification with benefits to local populations, infrastructure investment, energy independence, efforts to adapt to a changing climate, and the incorporation of traditional and local knowledge in the decisionmaking were discussed. These mayors from across the region saw the value of attending the ministerial meeting, even though they were not part of the official meetings. But they also felt that it was important to ensure that the people of the Arctic, those who actually live there, work there, and raise their families there, were heard in the discussions, as well. Even after all that I have highlighted, there are many other documents from the ministerial meeting that I could mention here, but one that I would like to draw particular attention to is the Fairbanks Declaration. This is the statement signed by all eight Arctic nations coming out of the 10th Arctic Council Ministerial. I think it is significant to note that, in these issue areas that the United States focused on--Arctic Ocean safety, security, and stewardship, improving economic and living conditions, and addressing the impacts of climate change--the statements coming out were good, strong statements of agreement, and there was true cooperation and collaboration. I think I would be remiss in stating that there was some speculation that, with a new administration taking over right at the end of the United States' term, there was some discussion as to this: Well, how is this declaration going to be coming about, because it is the United States that ultimately, as the chair, holds the pen there? I know there has been a lot of discussion around this town about the administration's position on the Paris Agreement. The President is still determining how he wants to proceed there. But I do think it is noteworthy--very noteworthy--that the Fairbanks Declaration, which was signed by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, speaks directly to climate change in the Arctic. Specifically, it notes the entry into force of the Paris Agreement. But in looking specifically to the language relating to climate change, it states, and I will quote here: Note again that the Arctic is warming at more than twice the rate of the global average, note with concern that the pace and scale of continuing Arctic warming will depend on future emissions of greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants, reiterate the importance of global action to reduce both greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants to mitigate climate change. Then, it calls for the Arctic Council to undertake additional analysis. So I think that is significant as well. It is an important recognition, and, while this administration has not yet determined where they may end up when it comes to the Paris Agreement, I think it is telling to look to this document--again, that was not only signed by the United States, but, ultimately, it was drafted by the United States--as an indicator of the realities that we face with climate change and, particularly and most noteworthy, in the U.S. Arctic, where we are seeing that impact most pronounced. I mentioned the aspect of climate change, but the Declaration is broader than that. It also recognizes the importance of the contributions of the Arctic indigenous peoples, the importance of healthy Arctic communities, the impact of maritime activity in the region, and the emergence of the Arctic Economic Council, which is an issue that I feel very strongly about. We had an extraordinary Alaskan woman who was chairing the AEC throughout these past 2 years, and she did a fabulous job standing that up. Her contributions were quite remarkable. There is the need to improve the access of Arctic communities to clean, affordable, and reliable energy sources. So, again, I would commend to anyone's reading the Fairbanks Declaration. If you are interested in Arctic issues or if you are interested in just a sense of the breadth and the depth of the issues and challenges facing the Arctic region, I think it is an important document. With our handing the gavel now to Finland, the obvious question request is this: What happens next for the United States in the Arctic? I am encouraged by Secretary Tillerson's comments in Fairbanks that the United States will remain engaged and remain a leader on Arctic policy. That has got to be key. We have made great headway in recognizing that we are an Arctic nation. At every appropriations hearing that I have been to thus far, I think I have reserved my questions to ask about Arctic-specific issues--whether it is the status of where we are on infrastructure, such as icebreakers, or whether it is a recognition and an understanding that, with decreasing sea ice up north, you have people in ships up there, which we have never seen before. Quite honestly, we now have an area of exposure. We focus a lot on the southern border. We now have a northern border that is open. What might that mean? We were able to query Secretary Kelly this morning about possibly partnering with Canada as we look to how we can provide for sharing of information about who is coming and who is going and knowing what we have in front of us. We will have an opportunity--again, as we move forward with legislative initiatives, appropriations, and reviewing the President's budget--to make sure that the leadership that the United States has demonstrated these past 2 years as we have been chairing the Arctic Council continues and that it continues in a strong and a prominent way. With that, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this week, our Nation observes National Police Week. This year, during National Police Week, we pay tribute to 143 officers who died in the line of duty during 2016--among them, Sergeant Allen David Brandt of the Fairbanks Police Department. I come to the floor to acknowledge not only Sergeant Brandt but all those officers who served us so honorably. Sergeant Brandt's wife Natasha and children, Fritz, Kate, Claire, and Belle have traveled all the way from Fairbanks to participate in the events this week. They are accompanied by Allen's best friend, Officer Phil McBroom of the North Pole Police Department, as well as a large group of colleagues from the Fairbanks Police Department, led by Chief Eric Jewkes. Chief Jewkes, joined by Sergeant Lockwood and Officer Werner, came into Washington for Police Week in a somewhat unique way. They joined 2,200 officers from around the Nation in a 4-day charity bike ride from Northern New Jersey to Washington, DC. They call it the Police Unity Tour, and their motto is: ``We ride for those who died.'' Police Week begins with the dedication of names added this year to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial on Judiciary Square. That dedication occurs during a very, very moving candlelight vigil at the beginning of Police Week. The candlelight vigil was conducted on Saturday evening on the National Mall this year. Chief Jewkes, in full uniform, read Allen's name before a crowd numbering 10,000 people or more. A bell was rung, acknowledging the loss of Allen David Brandt. Allen's name was the only Alaska name added to the wall this year. I wish to thank Craig Floyd, who is the president of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, for the courtesy in affording Chief Jewkes this special honor. Allen's name is now inscribed in perpetuity on the memorial wall among the 21,000 officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. His name appears on the bottom of Panel 21-East. This week, the shoulder patch of the Fairbanks Police Department is affixed at the top of that panel. Quite coincidentally, a few lines up on that same panel are the names of Officers Matt Tokuoka and Anthony Wallace of the Hoonah Police Department, who were brought down by an assailant's bullet in 2010. During Police Week, we do not dwell on the circumstances under which law enforcement officers gave their lives. We rather focus on how they lived their exemplary lives, and, yes, we pay our respects to the fallen, but Police Week also looks forward. The annual survivor's seminar, sponsored by Concerns of Police Survivors, which helps those who have suffered a law enforcement tragedy grieve and ultimately recover, is an important part of this week as well. While so much of Police Week is for the law enforcement family, those of us in Washington cannot help but notice what is going on around us-- officers in uniform, honor guards, motorcycles, police cars from around the country, the entire law enforcement family--Federal, State, local, Tribal, and visiting officers from places like Canada, England, and Israel. Many visiting officers bring their spouses. Some bring their children. We are able to truly see the faces behind those uniforms and those badges, and we can look into the eyes of the families. Let me say a few words about the children who have come in for the observance. You see them on the Metro, sitting atop their father's shoulders. Daddy is wearing his dress uniform. At the candlelight vigil, one of my staff members witnessed a U.S. Park Police officer, in uniform, explaining to her young daughter the meaning of the ceremony. You experience the words of the children at the memorial wall itself, where Emma Moody, the 10-year-old daughter of a fallen California officer, left a hand-drawn memorial to her dad, and it reads: When I get to heaven the first thing I am going to do is find you. The second thing I will do is never ever let you go again. When you experience things like this, you cannot help but appreciate the humanity behind the uniforms--a father, a mother, an aunt, an uncle, a friend, a colleague, a neighbor. Law enforcement is no stranger to controversy. Yet it is so important that we see beyond controversy; that when we look at an officer we see the humanity that runs toward danger and not from it; the humanity that responds to every call for service, not knowing whether it will be the last; the humanity that kisses a child goodbye before beginning a shift, not knowing whether he will ever see those children again; the humanity that was Allen Brandt. The story I just recited is Allen's story. Allen was released from the hospital after being shot five times by an assailant. He died from complications associated with a second series of surgeries. Allen lived long enough to appear before the Fairbanks City Council and thank the community for their support. He also offered some very cautionary words. He said: Our officers do a very hard job, most of the time thankless. Working weekends when their friends are with their families. Working nights and sleeping during the day. We need your support and not just when bad things happen. A few weeks later, Anchorage Police Officer Arn Salao thought he was responding to a call involving a dispute between a cabdriver and his passenger. When he arrived at the scene, he was ambushed and shot four times. Miraculously, Officer Salao survived his injuries. In spite of these tragedies, it is dispiriting that people continue to challenge law enforcement. Last week, Colonel James Cockrell, retired after 30 years with the Alaska State Troopers, and just prior to his retirement, reflected on the dangers troopers face. Assaults on Alaska State Troopers are up, from 52 in 2013 to 131 last year. I wish to share with the Senate a few lines from an interview with KTUU in Anchorage. Colonel Cockrell said: I think there's generally a little bit less respect for law enforcement. I think a lot of that spurred from the Lower 48. We're having troopers contact people in a one-on-one situation. Individuals are more apt to fight with us if they think they have an advantage, when we don't have backup. We don't have two or three troopers responding to a high risk crime in progress. The consequences are that people are more apt to fight with our Troopers. All of this is deeply tragic. As I look across the Nation, we are not really seeing any signs of abatement. Some might be attributable to the opioid crisis, some to a loss of respect for law enforcement, and some simply because suspects challenge law enforcement in hopes of evading them. This year, law enforcement has already suffered 48 line-of-duty deaths, 17 of those from gunfire. This fact is not lost on the officers from Interior Alaska who are in our Nation's Capital this week. It is not lost on those who are considering law enforcement careers but decide to perhaps take a pass, leaving critical vacancies in agencies throughout the country. Law enforcement remains very dangerous work, and for all the satisfaction that comes from serving people in their darkest moments, there are no guarantees the officer will return home. I hope that, during this National Police Week and throughout the year, we will reflect on Allen Brandt's final words: ``Law enforcement needs our support and not just when bad things happen.'' In these times, law enforcement needs that support now more than ever. On behalf of my Senate colleagues, I offer my continued condolences to Natasha Brandt and her family, to Allen Brandt's colleagues, and to survivors of law enforcement tragedies everywhere. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that if the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 244 is agreed to, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 53, an enrollment correction to H.R. 244, that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I have come to the floor this afternoon to speak on the Omnibus appropriations bill that is now before the Senate. We will have an opportunity to vote on that very shortly here. I would like to take a few moments to explain why I intend to support this legislative measure. I support this bill because I think it is good for the country, and I believe it is good for my State of Alaska. I think what we have seen through this appropriations process is a negotiated bill going back and forth between both sides, between both bodies, and it is a bill that funds the Federal Government through the end of this fiscal year. It is far from perfect. I think we recognize that, but it is tough to find legislation anyplace where we are all going to be in agreement that it has everything each of us wants. I do believe it is a solid bill. It is a solid, bipartisan effort, and I would urge my colleagues to support this bill. The first thing it does is it prevents the government from shutting down. Simply put, there are very few things in my mind that would warrant a government shutdown. The people of this country expect us to govern. They don't expect us to come to work and say we are going to shut it down. They expect us to figure out how we are going to fund it, to keep it open, and to do so in a responsible way that allows for the priorities to be reflected. I think we have done that. I feel very strongly that those who would suggest that the way to deal with things is to shut it down is not the proper approach. That is why I have supported Senator Portman's legislation to put an end to government shutdowns. We just don't need disruptions that ultimately hurt our economy and hurt our families. I certainly would have preferred a process that would allow for funding the government by passing appropriations measures on an individual basis, one by one. My colleague from Vermont, who is on the floor, has been around for a few Congresses, and he knows that used to be the way we handled appropriations. We had an approps bill come to the floor. We debated it. We amended it. We moved it through. We worked through that process. It was somewhat tediously slow at times, but it was a very open and collaborative process that I think reflected, again, the priorities around the country. What we have in front of us is a measure that did in fact go through the full appropriations process, all 12 appropriations bills. It made it through the committee. Sometimes not all of them do, but for fiscal year 2017, these appropriations bills did. As we saw at the end of last year, there was an agreement that we would not move forward with the appropriations bills at that time-- actually, it was probably less than an agreement, but a decision was made--and we are here, as of May 4, still working on fiscal year 17. This is clearly not the best option, in my view, in terms of how we handle our appropriations bills, but it is where we are right now, and the option we have in front of us, in my view, is clearly the best option. Continuing resolutions are just not a way to operate. I think they are poor policy. Keeping funding at previous levels doesn't allow for Congress to have any input on any new priorities. In some cases, programs receive more money than they may actually need at that time; thus, you have a situation where you are ending up wasting dollars, rather than being good and efficient stewards of the taxpayer dollars. I think we saw that with this omnibus bill we have in front of us now, it gave our new President the opportunity to weigh in. Clearly, we heard President Trump's priorities expressed not only throughout the campaign but early in his new administration, his priorities on national security, making sure that from a defense perspective and border security, these issues were addressed. I think we have done so in a responsible way on the defense spending side but also with a comprehensive approach to border security and utilizing new surveillance and new technologies. This bill consolidates or terminates dozens of existing programs and rejects unnecessary spending tax dollars. It reduces spending and wasteful programs, eliminates unnecessary, ineffective, and duplicative programs. Again, I think what we have put together within this appropriations omnibus is a spending proposal that does apply the taxpayer dollars responsibly. Overall, the bill puts real dollars behind our Nation's priorities by enhancing our national security, investing in education infrastructure and innovation, as well as improving the health and well-being of all Americans. I would like to take just a few moments to speak specifically to some of the provisions that will be helpful in my State of Alaska. The omnibus bill sustains Alaska's contributions to our national defense, helps to protect our fisheries, address high energy costs, helps our very struggling timber industry in Southeastern Alaska, and helps keep the Federal Government's commitment to Alaska Natives. There are some programs that would appear to be pretty small, but in terms of consequence and impact on Alaska, they are quite significant. Essential Air Service, we provide funding in this measure that helps maintain commercial air service to as many as 60 small communities in the State. The reason it is called Essential Air Service is because in most of these communities, there is no other way to get to these smaller communities. There is no road access. There is no other way. You might be able to run a riverboat out, but in terms of ability to access, this Essential Air Service is exactly that. The bill provides for new investments in the Coast Guard that will help increase safety in Alaska's waters. There are infrastructure improvements in Kodiak to support homeporting Offshore Patrol Cutters in the Arctic region and funding for new cutters that we will see stationed throughout Alaska. There is a lot going on in the news right now with regard to Russia and North Korea, and it certainly is front and foremost for Alaskans. We have our neighbors to the west of us there, in Russia, and of course we are within range of anything North Korea might consider. So there is a very keen interest and a desire to ensure that our Nation is investing in our Pacific and our Arctic defense. This bill recognizes the issue, and it recognizes the strategic value that Alaska has. It provides $4.3 billion for the procurement of F-35s, including some of those that will be based in the interior part of the State. We saw the need for the next generation of fighter jets in Alaska when, just a few weeks ago, Russian planes were buzzing the coast for 4 days straight. Well, today's news reups that. F-22s intercepted two Russian Bear bombers 50 miles southwest of Alaska, according to the news this morning. Again, when you are thinking about the investments we make to provide for our Nation's security, Alaska sits at the center up there in terms of strategic location. There is also money for developing the long-range discrimination radar at Clear and funds for the ground-based missile defense at Fort Greely. Again, this is very significant at this time, given the geopolitics not too far from our State. Another key part of our Arctic defense strategy is finally being realized, after years of me kind of pounding on this drum--funding for icebreakers. As of right now, we are woefully behind when it comes to our ability to maneuver in the Arctic regions in our waters. So there is $150 million in advance procurement funding for an icebreaker that is in the DOD budget and an additional $55 million in the Coast Guard budget. It is imperative that we move to fund a new icebreaker now. We also recognize the role the Coast Guard plays in terms of national defense across the country, particularly in the Arctic. So the bill provides $1.3 billion in acquisition construction and improvement money. The Coast Guard needs to recapitalize its aging fleet, and we see this no more apparent than in Alaska. A ship that was built back in 1971 is still being used to patrol areas that are perhaps some of the roughest seas in the world. This is not smooth water sailing. Congress needs to recognize the role played by the Coast Guard, not only in national defense but in drug interdiction, fisheries patrol, and safety encroachment, and we must give it the assets it needs to do its job well. On the education front, this bill provides funds for our public schools, including money for programs that were authorized in ESSA. It funds IDEA, Carl Perkins, impact aid, and 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Especially important for us in Alaska are the programs like ANEEP, Alaska Native Education Equity Program, strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions, tribally controlled colleges and universities, and Indian education national activities. We have all come to the floor over the course of these past few months this Congress to talk about the impact on our communities of the opioid epidemic in this country. This bill helps to get money where it is needed to help fight this epidemic. Over $1 billion is provided to various programs and agencies to specifically address this problem. Over $600 million of that will go to SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, including $500 million for a new program that was created by the 21st Century Cures Act that we passed earlier last year. The CDC, the Department of Justice, and the VA will see increased funding to help deal with this scourge of addiction. As chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Approps Subcommittee, the division G of the omnibus is of particular significance to me. The Interior appropriations section probably has more impact on the State of Alaska than most would realize. It controls funding levels for the Federal agencies and Departments that have a huge presence in my State: BLM, Forest Service, EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, Indian Health Service, BIA, and National Park Service. These are all within the auspices of Interior. I will give you some of the highlights within the Interior bill. This is the centennial year of the National Park Service so we were able to do more to help address the maintenance backlog within our park system. The two agencies that deliver services for Indian communities, BIA and Indian Health Service, we did our best to support those programs which are critical to the Indian community. For those agencies, we have provided full contract support costs. We continue Tribal court funding for those Public Law 280 States. We have really worked to do what we can within IHS to address the issues of suicide, domestic violence, alcohol, and substance abuse programs. Making sure we are doing right by providing the support for our healthcare facilities is critically important. We also have oversight of the EPA within our jurisdiction. I have heard some criticism from some that we didn't do enough to reduce EPA spending and then others are saying we took too much from the EPA, but what we really looked to try to do was to take a commonsense approach, focus resources on the programs that do the concrete things to improve the quality of the environment for the public when it comes to clean air and clean water. We need to effectively make sure that whether it is the WIFIA program, the State revolving funds for our water and our waste water programs, making sure we have the resources to do right by our communities, and making sure there is clean air and clean water, whether it is the Targeted Air Shed Grant Program, which helps communities deal with pollution issues and air issues--I think we did a fair job with the EPA budget. Again, we have worked to reduce in areas where we are just staffing up for initiatives that quite honestly have been questioned and challenged, making sure we are focusing on the priorities that deliver on EPA's mission, which is clean air and clean water. Madam President, the last thing I would like to add is what we were able to do with regard to wildfires because this is an issue for so many of us in the West. We were able to include funding for wildland fire management programs to fully fund the 10-year average of suppression costs, as well as to allow for emergency funding in the event that we have a catastrophic wildfire season. I think we all understand the challenges our agencies face when we have fire borrowing going back and forth. So this is an effort we have long sought to address, and we will continue to work on that. It has been interesting to watch and to read the news about this omnibus. You have the President who said: This is good. This is what winning looks like. You have Democrats who have said: We won. It is not about a win for the D's or a win for the R's; it is about making sure this is right for the country. I would suggest that if both sides are taking credit, we must have hit the sweet spot somewhere in the middle. I think at this place where we are right now, with over 7 months into this fiscal year, it is well past time that Congress pass a bill that funds the government for the balance of this fiscal year. These are uncertain times for the country--uncertain times certainly in my State--and I think it deserves some certainty from us. It is a good bill, and I think we owe it to the American people not to create unnecessary and unwanted drama about whether the Federal Government remains open for business. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Alaska's one and only professional sports team and an organization that has become part of the fabric that makes up the Alaskan society, the Alaska Aces. The team started as a small semi-professional hockey team in the late eighties known as the Anchorage Aces, but quickly gained the support and popularity of the community and rose through the ranks to become a professional hockey organization in 1995. In 2003, after becoming the Alaska Aces, the team joined the East Coast Hockey League and almost immediately became one of the league's powerhouses, winning three ECHL Kelly Cups in 2006, 2011, and most recently 2014. The Aces have produced some of the biggest Alaskan professional athletes such as Scotty Gomez, who went on to win two Stanley Cups and became an NHL All-Star on multiple occasions, and Eagle River's Brian Swanson, whose hockey career took him to the National Hockey League, Europe, and finally back home to the Aces before he retired in 2012. As good as the team has become, it is their dedication to the community that made them a staple with multiple generations of Alaskans. Whether it was their ``Skate with the Aces'' events in which families could skate with the players and get to know them after home games or the ever-popular military appreciation games, this organization has made a lasting impact on the lives of many hockey players and fans alike. The Aces are full of fond memories and traditions such as the cowbell crew, which is the name given to its enthusiastic fan section. Then there is Bobby Hill, also known as ``The Horseman,'' who is not only the Alaska Aces superfan in charge of keeping the energy alive at every home game by going up and down the length of the ice riding a hockey stick, but is also a Special Olympics Gold medalist. The Alaska Aces will be dearly missed in what is certainly an unfortunate end for such a storied franchise. Economic times have taken a hit on many sectors of the Alaskan economy, and we have seen the impact with our sporting events, but Alaskans are resilient and our sports teams and athletes are no different. Hockey has a rich history in Alaska and is culturally ingrained in the fabric of our State. Alaska has over 45 hockey associations, reflecting the passion and involvement shared by Alaskans of all ages. It is this passion and dedication to the sport that will surely keep the spirit and memory of our Alaska Aces alive. I want to commend the leadership of the team's owners, the dedication of its fans and players, and the community for making the Alaska Aces one of the league's best franchises and perennial contenders for the ECHL Kelly Cup every season. The Aces play their very last game on April 8, 2017; however, the memories that countless Alaskans have with our hockey team will not fade, but will last a lifetime.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Senator Sullivan and I introduced a bill, S. 883, the Offshore Production and Energizing National Security Alaska Act of 2017, to lift a damaging Federal moratorium, reopen Alaska's energy-rich Arctic waters to responsible production, and ensure our home State receives a fair share of the revenues from development off our coasts. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the Arctic contains 22 percent of the world's undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources. The Federal Government projects that the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas alone contain an estimated 23.6 billion barrels of oil and 104.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet, despite that prolific potential, the Obama administration spent much of the past 8 years systematically putting the region off limits. It began with the cancellation of lease sales scheduled for our Arctic Outer Continental Shelf. It continued with critical habitat designations, the imposition of burdensome new rules, and a constantly shifting administrative approach that seemed designed to make commercial operations impossible. We saw new withdrawals in our Arctic OCS in early 2015, followed by a decision by President Obama, just days before he left office, to withdraw nearly all of the region from future leasing. Those decisions ran directly contrary to the views of the vast majority of Alaskans, who overwhelmingly support the responsible development of our Arctic OCS. Those decisions ran contrary to the promises made to Alaskans, at statehood and repeatedly in the years since then, that we would be allowed to access our resources to help build our State. Those decisions have already cost Alaskans jobs and revenues and today continue to deprive us of a golden opportunity to provide for our families, end our economic recession, and refill our Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. Our bill, the OPENS Alaska Act, recognizes our needs and opportunities in Alaska, it rejects the heavy-handed decisions made against our State in recent years, and it puts our policies for the Arctic OCS on a better track. First, it repeals President Obama's so-called 12(a) withdrawal of nearly all of the offshore Arctic. This is a simple necessity, before leasing can occur. It is not a statement about the President's current legal authority to amend, modify, or revoke a withdrawal made under section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. I believe our new President has all the authority he needs to revoke the Alaska withdrawals, and I hope he will do just that. If he does, precedent will be on his side. In the meantime, our legislation makes clear the position of Alaska, which is that we do not support the withdrawal and want it gone by any possible legal means. Next, our bill would create a new nearshore Beaufort Planning Area. The State of Alaska currently conducts annual lease sales in the area from zero to 3 miles offshore. The establishment of a separate planning area in the adjacent nearshore zone will provide a real, near-term opportunity to provide vital throughput into the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, known as TAPS, because of its proximity to existing infrastructure. Projects in this area are easier, faster, and less expensive. Our bill would also provide for additional lease sales in the Nearshore Beaufort Sea and Cook Inlet Planning Areas. By lifting the withdrawals in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, those areas would be eligible for leasing in the next Five-Year OCS Leasing Program or a supplement to our current program. Frequent and predictable lease sales are needed to create stability and certainty for investors, Alaska, and the United States. It is also important that Alaska and Alaskans receive fair compensation for any exploration, development, and production that occurs in the Arctic OCS. Under current law, no matter how much energy we provide for the rest of the Nation, Alaska will receive none of the revenues. That arrangement is widely recognized as unfair, and so my bill devotes a reasonable share of the revenues that will only be generated as a result of this bill, and as a result of the waters that are only part of the United States by virtue of Alaska, with our State. We have divided revenue sharing into two time periods, from 2017 to 2027 and from 2027 onwards, to reflect our differing needs during the exploration, development, and production phases. During the initial 10- year period, our bill proposes that 7.5 percent of the revenues be shared with the State and 7.5 percent of revenues be divided between coastal political subdivisions. The division between coastal political subdivisions is based on distance from the lease tracts, with 90 percent of the funds going to areas within 200 miles and 10 percent reserved for coastal political subdivisions that are beyond 200 miles but determined by the State of Alaska to be staging areas. In addition, our bill would allocate 2.5 percent of the revenues it generates to fund competitive grants for workforce development in support of OCS development, 2.5 percent to fund the North Slope Science Initiative, 2.5 percent to the Secretary of the Interior to support offshore development and the establishment of pipeline rights-of-way on Federal land associated with Beaufort and Chukchi development, and 2.5 percent to the Tribal Resilience Program established by the act. The remaining 75 percent would go to the U.S. Treasury, to help pay down our national debt. Following the initial 10-year period, we propose to divide the revenues slightly differently, with 50 percent going to the Treasury, 30 percent to the State, 7.5 percent to coastal political subdivisions, and 12.5 percent to the Tribal Resilience Program established by the act. These divisions do not apply to what is known as the 8(g) zone, such as the Nearshore Beaufort, where Alaska currently receives 27 percent of revenues. The Tribal Resilience Program established by our bill, which is national in scope, would provide grants for a number of critical purposes. These funds could be used to relocate villages or communities experiencing or susceptible to coastal or river erosion, to construct infrastructure to support emergency evacuations, to restore or repair infrastructure damaged by melting permafrost or coastal or river erosion, to install and manage energy systems that reduce energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions, and to construct and maintain social or cultural infrastructure that supports resilient communities. The OPENS Alaska Act will allow our home State to produce more of its vast offshore energy resources, which is a priority for the vast majority of Alaskans. It will help us create good jobs, generate billions of dollars in new revenues, and ensure a stable footing for our State for generations to come. I urge the Senate to recognize the improvements this bill makes to our current policies and to join Senator Sullivan and I in supporting its passage in this Congress.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, like several in this Chamber, I was asked for my input to the President on whom to nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court. After much reflection, I recommended to the Vice President that Judge Neil Gorsuch of Denver, CO, should fill the Scalia seat on the Supreme Court. I am, of course, very pleased that my advice was considered. I offered that recommendation before I had an opportunity to sit down one-on-one with Judge Gorsuch, although, in fairness, we had an opportunity in the Senate to review Judge Gorsuch and his credentials in 2006 when this body voted to confirm him by voice vote to the U.S. Court of Appeals where he now sits. After spending time with this exceptionally talented jurist and after reviewing his performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, my level of respect for him has only grown. Judge Gorsuch checks the box on every measure of what I am looking for in a Supreme Court nominee. Intellectual capacity, experience, independence, integrity--he has all of these. There is no question that he has the intellectual capacity to meet the challenge. Yes, we acknowledge he is an Ivy League graduate from Columbia and Harvard Law, and that actually describes many people at the top of the legal profession, but that alone is not what makes Judge Gorsuch exceptional. Judge Gorsuch did something that most practicing lawyers don't do. He went on to earn a doctorate in legal philosophy at Oxford. I think this is one of the many illustrations of Judge Gorsuch's tremendous depth. And whatever else my colleagues will have to say about Judge Gorsuch in this contentious confirmation debate, there is no question that he is an intellectual heavyweight. I next look to those who mentored Judge Gorsuch along the way, and one really cannot have better mentors than the late Justice Byron White and sitting Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice Kennedy, we all know, has carved a niche for himself as the swing vote on the Supreme Court. There is a great deal of debate about whether a Justice Gorsuch will be more of a Scalia than a Kennedy or a White or whether, instead, he will be a Gorsuch. I suspect that he will be a Gorsuch, and that is fine by me. What really matters is that Judge Gorsuch will come to the Supreme Court with a strong understanding of its dynamics, and there is no question that he will be effective from day one. There is no question that he will be his own man. I want to emphasize that point. Judge Gorsuch made it very clear to me when we met that he has made no commitments to the President or his team. And he made it clear at the hearings that if any commitment were sought, he would have gotten up and walked out. After spending time with Judge Gorsuch, I believe him. I believe him on that. His commitment to an independent judiciary is resolute, and I think on this issue he will not bend to political expedience, as he should not. He is not the President's man, not the party's man, nor will he represent an ideological movement on the Court. Judge Gorsuch will be his own man, following the law where it leads. That is what we should want in a Supreme Court Justice. Judge Gorsuch's unshakable integrity explains why he has earned the unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. I am also enthusiastic about Judge Gorsuch because he brings a western perspective to a Court that is desperately in need of diversity. Mr. President, you would surely agree with that--that making sure we have those who are knowledgeable based on their experience, of what is like to live in the West is important. Six of the eight sitting Supreme Court Justices have spent their entire professional careers in the Boston-Washington corridor--six of the eight. The only sitting Justice who came to the Supreme Court from someplace other than the Boston-Washington corridor is Anthony Kennedy, who was elevated from the Ninth Circuit. Judge Gorsuch has, of course, done the ``Washington thing,'' but his home is in the West, and he served for a decade on the Tenth Circuit in Denver. I think that makes a real difference, at least in my book. Appellate judges in the East rarely hear cases involving Federal Indian law and Native American issues. Among the hundreds of cases that Judge Gorsuch has heard, dozens involve Indians and Indian law. In deciding those cases, he has demonstrated great sensitivity to the unique role of Indian Nations under our Constitution. I think that explains why Judge Gorsuch has been enthusiastically endorsed by the National Congress of American Indians as well as the Native American Rights Fund. NCAI is the umbrella organization for the Nation's federally recognized Tribes. NARF is an independent, highly respected public interest law firm which advocates for Native Americans nationally. Neither of these organizations--neither NCAI nor NARF-- could ever be characterized as right-leaning. Yet they have endorsed Judge Gorsuch after reviewing his track record on cases involving Native rights. I think it is also important to recognize that the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska has also endorsed the Gorsuch nomination, which is important for Alaska Natives. Another example: The Federal government controls vast amounts of land in the West and, of course, that includes our home State of Alaska. Public lands cases tend to originate in the West, not in the East. It is tremendously important that somebody on the Supreme Court have a familiarity with these issues, and Judge Gorsuch clearly does. Along with the pervasive Federal presence in the West comes a huge Federal regulatory influence. Mr. President, you and I know that Alaskans talk about the extent of Federal overreach in our State like other people talk about the weather. Alaskans will be interested to know, perhaps excited to know, that one of Judge Gorsuch's top intellectual interests is regulatory overreach. He has publicly questioned the proposition that Federal courts must defer to agency interpretation of the law when regulations are challenged. That is a very good thing because when a homeowner has to go to court to litigate the question of whether the pond in the back of his house is regulated wetland, the last thing that the homeowner wants to hear is that the scales of justice are somehow tipped in favor of the agency on accord of a principle known as Chevron deference. I understand--and we all know--that there are some interest groups that suggest that Judge Gorsuch's views on Chevron deference means that somehow or another he stands for big business and against the little guy. To those organizations, allow me to introduce you to an Alaskan named John Sturgeon. Mr. President, you and I know him well. Mr. Sturgeon was prohibited from taking his hovercraft, his boat, up a river in northern Alaska adjacent to National Park Service land. Mr. Sturgeon had to go all the way up to the Supreme Court to vindicate that right, and, against many odds, he won. I think it is clear that Federal agencies can and do trample on the rights of the little guy. I will tell you, I find Judge Gorsuch's views on the question of deference highly refreshing at this point in time. I should point out that I don't agree with all of the opinions written by Judge Gorsuch, but I don't expect that from a nominee. That is almost an impossible standard. In fact, Judge Gorsuch himself has acknowledged that. I do expect that the nominee be always true to the law, as Judge Gorsuch has demonstrated throughout his career. Finally, from everything I know, Judge Gorsuch is a good and a decent man. He is a husband. He is a father of two girls. He is an outdoor person. He is a person who gives back to the next generation. In addition to his judicial duties, he regularly teaches legal ethics and professionalism at the University of Colorado Law School. In the classroom, he is known to have great respect for his students and their diverse views. In endorsing Judge Gorsuch's elevation to the Supreme Court, the Denver Post suggested that ``While Democrats will surely be tempted to criticize the nomination of anyone Trump appoints, they'd be wise to take the high road and look at qualifications and legal consistency.'' That is an editorial from the Denver Post, published on January 16 of this year, 2017. Those are pretty wise words. Again, ``Democrats would be wise to take the high road and look at his qualifications and legal consistency.'' That is what we should be looking at. And I think it is so unfortunate that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have failed to heed this advice laid down in the Denver Post earlier this year. I have seen judicial nominees come and go over my 14 years in this body, but I will tell you, I haven't seen anyone more intriguing than Judge Gorsuch with his qualifications. He has had a stellar legal career. He is brilliant. He is a rock star among Federal judges. And that kind of judge is the one law students would compete to clerk for. If this body could step back from the politics of all this, he should be confirmed with upwards of 80 or 90 votes, not subjected to a filibuster. That is the caliber of the person we are considering. I honestly cannot fathom why an individual of Judge Gorsuch's stature would be drug through the mud. I just don't believe that reflects well on this body. I am known within the Senate for my independence in evaluating judicial nominees. While I was not a part of the Gang of 14 back in 2005 who proposed the standard for Federal court nominees, I have pretty much chosen to live by it. Except in the most extraordinary of circumstances, I do not believe judicial nominees should be denied a straight up-or-down vote. I just don't believe they should be denied that. I have practiced that. If one were to examine my record, it is clear that I have walked that walk. Sometimes it has been a walk accompanied by my friend the Senator from Maine. In the case of Goodwin Liu's nomination to the Ninth Circuit, I was the sole Republican to stand up for this principle and vote against a filibuster. I would not have voted to confirm Mr. Liu, but I felt very strongly that he had the right to an up-or-down vote. So we are at this place today in considering not a nominee to the Ninth Circuit but a nominee to the Supreme Court. I would ask my colleagues on the Democratic side to give the same deference to Judge Gorsuch. I also pride myself as one who believes in the traditions of the Senate, but it is not the tradition of the Senate to filibuster a U.S. Supreme Court nominee. I do not believe that Judge Gorsuch is getting a fair shake in today's Senate, and as deeply as I care about bipartisanship in this body, I will not acquiesce to an effort to deny Judge Gorsuch a seat on the Supreme Court. I acknowledge my friends on the other side of the aisle who have indicated that they will not support a filibuster, and I implore those of my colleagues who have indicated that they will filibuster the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to reconsider that position. After spending time with Judge Gorsuch, after studying his life story, I am left with the undeniable impression that Neil Gorsuch has been nominated to a position that he has prepared his whole life to assume. He is not merely a good choice, in my book, he is the best choice. He will not merely be a good Justice; I believe he will be a great Justice, perhaps a Justice of historic proportion. So today I offer Judge Gorsuch my most enthusiastic endorsement. I have no doubt that before we leave for Easter recess, he will be confirmed as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.