Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' subcommittee assignments for the 115th Congress be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Alaskans tend to view our State as a big family, a family whose members come from many places but are united in our love and loyalty for our great land. And like any family, Alaska has been blessed with outstanding sons and daughters, distinguished in their own unique ways. Today I wish to pay tribute to the memory of one such Alaskan, acclaimed watercolorist Byron Birdsall. Byron's passing on December 4, 2016, just 2 weeks shy of his 79th birthday, leaves a hole not just in the hearts of Alaskans, but in the art world itself. Given the indelible impact that Byron's prolific volume of work has had on Alaskans over the last 41 years, it is all the more impressive, considering that he lived the first half of his life outside the State. Born in Buckeye, Arizona on December 18, 1937, Byron was raised in the suburbs of Los Angeles. After graduating with a bachelor's degree in history from Seattle Pacific College in 1959, Byron attended Stanford University. Following his 1960 marriage to his beloved Lynn, who succumbed to breast cancer in 1998, the couple set out to travel the world. The couple traveled to Africa to teach English and explored the Pacific, living in American Samoa for a few years. They then returned for a job in Seattle before arriving in Anchorage for a job at an advertising agency, which he soon quit to paint full time. He recalled that it was 1975, during the pipeline boom that he was painting pictures. ``People started buying them so I quit work and started painting.'' Byron painted Alaska. He later explained to the Anchorage Daily News, ``Alaskans love Alaska. That's what they want to buy.'' Despite his talent in multiple mediums, including portraiture and oils, Byron will likely be best remembered for his prolific work in watercolor and landscapes, and, perhaps rightly so, as many of the pieces and prints so familiar to most Alaskans were in that format. His work is so highly regarded that one of his prints, ``McKinley Moonlight,'' was selected to serve as a background for Alaska's heirloom marriage certificates. As his wife Billie said, Byron was ``inspired by both the scenic beauty of Alaska and its people.'' Alaska Dispatch News writer David James described Byron's landscapes for a recent book Byron completed this year as ``rich with color and detail. His summer scenes explode with flowers, animals and sunlight, while his images of winter, where snow covers the ground and twilight darkens the sky, are alive with elaborate hues and stellar lighting that belie the notion of Alaska as a desolate wasteland for half the year.'' But I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to highlight for the record that Byron's work was not just the beautiful landscapes that Alaskans love so much. Rather, he helped catalog the history of the 49th State. Among the many honors we have as Senators is adorning our offices with artwork that represent our States. In my case, that includes two of Byron's prints proudly hanging in the hallway leading to my office. While the first is one of his traditional moonlit landscapes, the other is ``Anchorage Land Auction, 1915.'' It features a crowd huddled in what was then no more than a tent city near Ship Creek, in what would eventually become downtown Anchorage. Byron's painting reminds me not just of those pioneers who ventured to Alaska with the promise of a new life waiting to be carved out of the wilderness but, despite how far Alaska has come, how much raw potential still remains. Despite our rich history and heritage, we are a young State, and many of our founding generation has been--and is now--passing from the scene. However, whether through his capturing of the 75th Annual Anchorage Fur Rendezvous Festival or ``Fur Rondy,'' featuring Rondy 10- time champion George Attla racing his sled dog team down 4th Avenue, or in his painting the historic devastation to downtown Anchorage following the 1964 earthquake, Byron was interpreting and memorializing the highs and lows of our history for generations of Alaskans to come. I can think of no better way to end than with Byron's own words about his life: ``A dream come true. That is what Alaska has given to me. Incredible beauty for subject matter, and a receptive public have combined to allow me to do what I love best, painting all day, every day for more than 41 years.'' On behalf of grateful Alaskans and my fellow Senators, I extend my condolences to Billie and Byron's family. With Byron's passing, Alaska has lost a cultural icon, but his substantial body of work lives on forever.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to once again open a small portion of the Arctic coastal plain, in my home State of Alaska, to oil and gas development. I am introducing the bill because, now more than ever, new production in northern Alaska is vital not only to my state's future, but also to our Nation's energy and economic security. It has been known for more than nearly 4 decades that the 1.5 million acres of the Arctic coastal plain that lie inside the northern one- eleventh of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are the most prospective lands in North America for a major conventional oil and gas discovery. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to estimate that this part of the coastal plain--which represents just 3 percent of the coastal plain in all of northern Alaska--has a mean likelihood of containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as well as a reasonable chance of economically producing 16 billion barrels of oil. Even the relatively recent major finds in North Dakota's Bakken field and the recent estimates of shale oil in Texas' Wolfcamp formation pale in comparison, as ANWR is likely to hold over three times more conventional oil than any other onshore energy deposit in North America. In the 1990s, opponents dismissed ANWR's potential and argued that the nearby National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska was forecast to contain almost as much oil. However, early this decade the U.S. Geological Survey significantly reduced its oil estimates in the 23 million acre reserve. Instead of containing somewhere between the 6.7 to 15 billion barrels as forecast in 2002, the USGS now forecasts a mean of 896 million barrels--a dramatic downward revision. While I still believe oil production must be allowed to proceed in NPRA and that development of satellite fields must be allowed to occur, the revised forecast means that opening a small area on shore to the east on the coastal plain, is now more vital than ever for America's economic and national security interests. That is especially the case given that President Obama late last year closed almost all of Alaska's outer continental shelf oil and gas deposits to future exploration and development. That makes production of onshore deposits even more vital for Alaska's economic future, and for the Nation's long-term energy security. America once received more than 10 percent of its daily domestic oil production from fields in Alaska. You heard correctly, production already occurs in Arctic Alaska, and has for nearly 40 years. We have successfully balanced resource development with environmental protection. Alaskans have proven, over and over again, that those endeavors are not mutually exclusive. Today, however, we face a tipping point. Alaska's North Slope production has declined for years and now accounts for just under 5 percent of the Nation's daily production. It is now forecast to decline further to levels next decade that will threaten the continued operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. A closure of TAPS would shut down all northern Alaska oil production. This would devastate Alaska's economy, drag global oil prices even higher, and deepen our energy dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world, especially once oil shale production peaks in the Lower 48 States. Anyone who takes the long view on energy policy recognizes that no matter what energy policy our Nation pursues, we will use substantial amounts of oil well into the future. The more of that oil we produce at home, the better off our economy, our trade deficit, our employment levels, and the world's environment will be. To help meet future demand both here in America and throughout the rest of the world, and to help avoid a tremendous price spike in the event of supply disruptions, we need to take steps today to ensure new production is brought online, as soon as possible. ANWR development will provide huge benefits for the U.S. Treasury. Let's examine this with some simple math. ANWR's mean estimate of over 10 billion barrels, at even today's $50 per barrel price, means that there is half a trillion dollars worth of oil locked up beneath this small area in northern Alaska--and even more when prices rebound. That is half a trillion taxable dollars, and it is difficult to calculate or even fathom the corporate and payoll taxes that this would generate for our treasury. But we do know that there are hundreds of billions of dollars in pure Federal royalties since my bill devotes 50 percent of the value to a Federal share, rather than the 10 percent which current law allows. As our Nation grapples with a huge budget deficit, nearly $20 trillion in national debt, and a lack of capital to incentivize new energy development, it is folly for America to further delay new onshore oil development from Alaska. The question is no longer, ``Should we drill in ANWR?'' Today, it has become, ``Can we afford not to?'' I understand that no matter what happens, some will remain opposed to development in this region. The outgoing administration has attempted to not only prohibit oil and gas development onshore in the coastal plain--proposing to forever lock the area up into formal wilderness-- but also has proposed to impede oil and even natural gas development from vast portions of NPRA and from the offshore waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. This mindset ignores Alaska's economic realities, it ignores the Nation's looming energy challenges, and it ignores the fact that Arctic oil production can proceed without any significant environmental impact. Our development has coexisted productively with polar bears, and will not harm the Porcupine caribou herd or any other form of wildlife on the Arctic coast. The groups who oppose my legislation seem totally oblivious to strides made in directional, extended reach drilling, three- and four-dimensional seismic testing, and new pipeline leak detection technology, all of which permit Alaskan energy development to proceed safely without harm to wildlife or the environment. For all these reasons, I am reintroducing legislation to open the coastal plain of ANWR to development. At the same time, I am again focusing and narrowing that development so that just 2,000 acres of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain can be physically disturbed by roads, pipelines, wells, buildings or other support facilities. At most, just one-tenth of 1 percent of the refuge's coastal plain would be impacted. For comparison's sake, 2,000 acres is roughly the size of National Airport--compared to an area roughly three times the size of the state of Maryland. It is hardly a blip on the map. Limiting development to such a small area is important. It will help guarantee--beyond any shadow of doubt--the preservation in a natural state of more than sufficient habitat for caribou, muskoxen, polar bear, and Arctic bird life. My legislation also includes stringent environmental standards. The bill, named the Alaska Oil and Gas Production Act, AOGPA, which is being cosponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Dan Sullivan, also includes guaranteed finding to mitigate any impacts in the region, and guarantees that the Federal Government will receive half of all revenues generated. For decades, Alaskans, whom polls show overwhelmingly support ANWR development, have been asking permission to explore and develop oil in the coastal plain. Finally, technology has advanced so that it is possible to develop oil and gas from the coastal plain with little or no impact on the area and its wildlife. At this time of unsustainable debt, and an unstable global environment, we need to pursue domestic development opportunities more than ever. My ANWR bill offers us a chance to produce more of our own energy, for the good of the American people, in an environmentally- friendly way. I hope this Congress, given the new administration that will soon take office, will have the common sense to allow America to help itself by developing ANWR's substantial resources. This is critical to my state and the Nation as a whole. And with this in mind, I will work to educate the members of this chamber about ANWR. I will show why such development should occur, why it must occur, and how it can benefit our Nation at a time when we need the domestic jobs and energy security that ANWR will produce.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to once again open a small portion of the Arctic coastal plain, in my home State of Alaska, to oil and gas development. I am introducing the bill because, now more than ever, new production in northern Alaska is vital not only to my state's future, but also to our Nation's energy and economic security. It has been known for more than nearly 4 decades that the 1.5 million acres of the Arctic coastal plain that lie inside the northern one- eleventh of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are the most prospective lands in North America for a major conventional oil and gas discovery. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to estimate that this part of the coastal plain--which represents just 3 percent of the coastal plain in all of northern Alaska--has a mean likelihood of containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as well as a reasonable chance of economically producing 16 billion barrels of oil. Even the relatively recent major finds in North Dakota's Bakken field and the recent estimates of shale oil in Texas' Wolfcamp formation pale in comparison, as ANWR is likely to hold over three times more conventional oil than any other onshore energy deposit in North America. In the 1990s, opponents dismissed ANWR's potential and argued that the nearby National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska was forecast to contain almost as much oil. However, early this decade the U.S. Geological Survey significantly reduced its oil estimates in the 23 million acre reserve. Instead of containing somewhere between the 6.7 to 15 billion barrels as forecast in 2002, the USGS now forecasts a mean of 896 million barrels--a dramatic downward revision. While I still believe oil production must be allowed to proceed in NPRA and that development of satellite fields must be allowed to occur, the revised forecast means that opening a small area on shore to the east on the coastal plain, is now more vital than ever for America's economic and national security interests. That is especially the case given that President Obama late last year closed almost all of Alaska's outer continental shelf oil and gas deposits to future exploration and development. That makes production of onshore deposits even more vital for Alaska's economic future, and for the Nation's long-term energy security. America once received more than 10 percent of its daily domestic oil production from fields in Alaska. You heard correctly, production already occurs in Arctic Alaska, and has for nearly 40 years. We have successfully balanced resource development with environmental protection. Alaskans have proven, over and over again, that those endeavors are not mutually exclusive. Today, however, we face a tipping point. Alaska's North Slope production has declined for years and now accounts for just under 5 percent of the Nation's daily production. It is now forecast to decline further to levels next decade that will threaten the continued operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. A closure of TAPS would shut down all northern Alaska oil production. This would devastate Alaska's economy, drag global oil prices even higher, and deepen our energy dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world, especially once oil shale production peaks in the Lower 48 States. Anyone who takes the long view on energy policy recognizes that no matter what energy policy our Nation pursues, we will use substantial amounts of oil well into the future. The more of that oil we produce at home, the better off our economy, our trade deficit, our employment levels, and the world's environment will be. To help meet future demand both here in America and throughout the rest of the world, and to help avoid a tremendous price spike in the event of supply disruptions, we need to take steps today to ensure new production is brought online, as soon as possible. ANWR development will provide huge benefits for the U.S. Treasury. Let's examine this with some simple math. ANWR's mean estimate of over 10 billion barrels, at even today's $50 per barrel price, means that there is half a trillion dollars worth of oil locked up beneath this small area in northern Alaska--and even more when prices rebound. That is half a trillion taxable dollars, and it is difficult to calculate or even fathom the corporate and payoll taxes that this would generate for our treasury. But we do know that there are hundreds of billions of dollars in pure Federal royalties since my bill devotes 50 percent of the value to a Federal share, rather than the 10 percent which current law allows. As our Nation grapples with a huge budget deficit, nearly $20 trillion in national debt, and a lack of capital to incentivize new energy development, it is folly for America to further delay new onshore oil development from Alaska. The question is no longer, ``Should we drill in ANWR?'' Today, it has become, ``Can we afford not to?'' I understand that no matter what happens, some will remain opposed to development in this region. The outgoing administration has attempted to not only prohibit oil and gas development onshore in the coastal plain--proposing to forever lock the area up into formal wilderness-- but also has proposed to impede oil and even natural gas development from vast portions of NPRA and from the offshore waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. This mindset ignores Alaska's economic realities, it ignores the Nation's looming energy challenges, and it ignores the fact that Arctic oil production can proceed without any significant environmental impact. Our development has coexisted productively with polar bears, and will not harm the Porcupine caribou herd or any other form of wildlife on the Arctic coast. The groups who oppose my legislation seem totally oblivious to strides made in directional, extended reach drilling, three- and four-dimensional seismic testing, and new pipeline leak detection technology, all of which permit Alaskan energy development to proceed safely without harm to wildlife or the environment. For all these reasons, I am reintroducing legislation to open the coastal plain of ANWR to development. At the same time, I am again focusing and narrowing that development so that just 2,000 acres of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain can be physically disturbed by roads, pipelines, wells, buildings or other support facilities. At most, just one-tenth of 1 percent of the refuge's coastal plain would be impacted. For comparison's sake, 2,000 acres is roughly the size of National Airport--compared to an area roughly three times the size of the state of Maryland. It is hardly a blip on the map. Limiting development to such a small area is important. It will help guarantee--beyond any shadow of doubt--the preservation in a natural state of more than sufficient habitat for caribou, muskoxen, polar bear, and Arctic bird life. My legislation also includes stringent environmental standards. The bill, named the Alaska Oil and Gas Production Act, AOGPA, which is being cosponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Dan Sullivan, also includes guaranteed finding to mitigate any impacts in the region, and guarantees that the Federal Government will receive half of all revenues generated. For decades, Alaskans, whom polls show overwhelmingly support ANWR development, have been asking permission to explore and develop oil in the coastal plain. Finally, technology has advanced so that it is possible to develop oil and gas from the coastal plain with little or no impact on the area and its wildlife. At this time of unsustainable debt, and an unstable global environment, we need to pursue domestic development opportunities more than ever. My ANWR bill offers us a chance to produce more of our own energy, for the good of the American people, in an environmentally- friendly way. I hope this Congress, given the new administration that will soon take office, will have the common sense to allow America to help itself by developing ANWR's substantial resources. This is critical to my state and the Nation as a whole. And with this in mind, I will work to educate the members of this chamber about ANWR. I will show why such development should occur, why it must occur, and how it can benefit our Nation at a time when we need the domestic jobs and energy security that ANWR will produce.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the memory of Brig. Gen. Rosanne Bailey, U.S. Air Force, Retired. General Bailey, who was known simply as ``Ro,'' passed away on November 2, 2016. Ro began her Air Force career through the ROTC program at Purdue University, where she earned a BS in industrial management from the Krannert School of Management. In 2005, she received the Krannert School's ``Distinguished Alumni Award.'' As an Air Force officer, Ro held significant positions in acquisition and logistics before assuming command level responsibilities. Before retiring, Ro served as commander of the 435th Air Base Wing at Ramstein AFB in Germany and as commander of the Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center in Colorado Springs. One of the stops along Ro's distinguished Air Force career was Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks, AK, where Ro served as commander of the 354th Logistics Group from 1996-1998. Following her retirement from the Air Force, Ro returned to interior Alaska to accept a series of executive positions at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. In 2006, she was named vice chancellor for administrative services. Two years later, she became involved in the university's efforts to develop a niche in unmanned aerial systems. Her initial position was special projects manager for unmanned aircraft and rocket launch support in 2008. Ro's success in that position led the University of Alaska Board of Regents to create the Alaska Center for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in 2012. Ro was named deputy director of the center. She was instrumental in writing the proposal that created the Pan-Pacific UAS Test Range Complex, which is one of only seven FAA-approved unmanned aircraft system test sites in the Nation. Leading the center during the difficult early years, she left her mark on the unmanned aircraft industry. She was also active in the interior Alaska community as a commissioner of the Steese Fire District and an elder of the First Presbyterian Church of Fairbanks. Ro's passing is a great loss to her many friends in the UAS world, at the University of Alaska, and in the broader interior Alaska community. I was privileged to know Ro and am grateful for that opportunity. Thank you for the opportunity to celebrate the life of Ro Bailey today in the U.S. Senate.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wanted to say a few words in tribute to a longtime Senate employee who is retiring this month after 35 years of service. Debbie Kapanoske has served as my office manager in Washington for my entire tenure in the U.S. Senate; going on 14 years-- but she has been in the Murkowski family much longer. Debbie became correspondence director for Senator Frank Murkowski in 1993. She was subsequently promoted to office manager and continued in that role until 2002 when Senator Frank Murkowski resigned from the Senate following his election as Governor of Alaska. That left Debbie the responsibility of closing one office while simultaneously opening another, and that is no small juggling act. In fact, I understand that the experience led Debbie to swear that she will never close another office again. Before joining the office of Senator Frank Murkowski, Debbie served in the office of the Senator Bob Kasten of Wisconsin as correspondence director. Debbie is highly respected among her fellow administrative managers in the Senate. She is one of many unsung heroes without which Senate offices could not run. I have often remarked that she is the best office manager I have ever had. So today let me take this opportunity to thank Debbie for her service to the Senate and in particular for her 23 years of service to Alaska. Over the years, Debbie has mentored scores of staff members first in my father's office and now in mine. And, while they aren't here today to say it personally, I know that she has played a special role in all of their lives. So let me close by thanking Debbie for all that she has done, but more importantly for the powerful impression she has left on all who have worked with her and to wish Debbie and her husband, George, well in retirement.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I acknowledge the very good work of my friend, colleague, and neighbor to the south of us from Washington State, Senator Cantwell. She has been a partner throughout this 2-year process we have been engaged in as we have tried to formulate and format a renewed energy policy for this country, something that has not been done in close to a decade. We acknowledged early on that there were going to be policy differences we each have, given where we come from and some differing views, but we were committed to working together to work through the thorny issues, to work toward consensus, not only that she and I could come to but our whole committee and, ultimately, the Senate. We were successful in doing that. I also acknowledge the good work of Senator Cantwell's staff, as well as my staff, on the Energy Committee. These folks have been working tirelessly for 2 years, but more immediately--and when I say tirelessly, pretty much 24/7 for the past several weeks, in trying to get us to a point where instead of talking about what might have been in an energy bill, being able to stand in front of my colleagues and tell them these are the policy changes that we will now see placed into law. I had truly wished I would not be in a situation where I would have to come to the floor and speak negatively about where we are right now because, as Senator Cantwell outlined, the process we have been engaged in is one that we are proud of, but also that the institution should be proud of. Our committees are designed to be incubators of good ideas and how we then allow these ideas to materialize and come together through good debate, amendments, refinement and then bringing that forward to the full body, again, for further work and refinement. We have done it by the book. There are not too many things in Congress that look like what you learned about how a bill becomes law. I am looking at the young pages sitting here. In your classes, in American Government, you learn about how a bill becomes law. If you read that and you see what happens around here, you would say: these are two different universes. You are nodding because you know you are seeing that. What we have attempted to do and what we have done for the past 2 years is to allow our committees to work, to take the good ideas from energy-producing States such as Alaska and Louisiana, and to work with colleagues from the interior of the country with views and ideas that are perhaps different than ours, building consensus with energy policy, with resources, with access. We did it. We have been that textbook example of regular order process. I am actually told that they have a training course or a training program offered in the Congress that walks committee staff through examples of how a bill should be moved through a committee. Just the other day, I was told that our bill, the Energy bill, is the model that is being used as what to do in that training program. This is quite the compliment; however we still have to get it over the finish line. This is where Senator Cantwell and I are so frustrated. This is where we are so frustrated because, after 2 years of work and being this close to the finish line, we are being denied that opportunity to share this success and all because of lack of action over in the other Chamber. We started this Energy bill by convening ideas. We held hearings in Washington, in Alaska, and other places in between. We gathered the ideas for what we hoped was going to be the first major Energy and Natural Resources bill signed into law in nearly a decade. We held oversight hearings and legislative hearings. We reviewed over 115 separate bills. We spent weeks negotiating a base text of the bipartisan bill. We held markups where our bill drew support from nearly all of our Members. Then we brought it here to the floor. Yes, we had some bumps along the way. Flint, which certainly needed to be addressed, was part of it. That seems like ancient history now. But we persevered. We worked through all of the issues. We added more priorities for our Members, to the point where over 80 different Senators had their priorities incorporated into our bill. Then, in April, 85 Members of this body--85 Members--voted in favor of passage of this bill. When we think of all that was contained in it, to gain that level of consensus, I think the Senator from Washington and I were doing something positive, to get everybody on board. Then the House responded to our Energy bill in late May, and in July, we went to a formal conference. We began work right away. The negotiations started just about immediately, even before the first formal meeting of our conference. So think about it. We have been working this conference between the two bodies since July--and not just on an occasional basis; rather, we have been working this aggressively. During this conference, we have held more than 75 bipartisan and bicameral negotiating sessions at the staff level. There have been countless more meetings and daily interactions amongst our staff. The final conference report includes provisions from 74 Members of the Senate and 224 Members of the House. That means there is input from almost 60 percent of the U.S. Congress included in the conference report. This is not a bill where we are cramming it through; this is a measure of considerable consensus. The chairmen and the ranking members of the committees of jurisdiction, whether it is here in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources, the House Natural Resources Committee, the House Science Committee, the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee--we have been meeting to resolve our differences. Again, staff has been working around the clock. Just this weekend, we went through hundreds of pages to close out all of the issues. Again, we did it by the book. We did what we were supposed to be doing. We were the team players here. We adhered to the regular order process. Senator Cantwell said we were doing the ``normal'' process. But I think what we are doing now is extraordinary. It is not normal--because it seems that, if there is guerilla warfare that is going on, that seems to be the way to move a bill nowadays. That does not send a very powerful message nor set a good example for how to advance a consensus measure such as we have with the Energy bill. We were really on the right track until just a couple of weeks ago when it became pretty apparent that the House was, plainly stated, just done. They were finished. They stopped negotiating in good faith. They stopped trying to work to reach agreement. So we are at that point where we have the House going out. We are told we here in the Senate are going to be wrapping up shop. But, as Senator Cantwell has outlined, what colleagues need to know is what is being left behind on the table. It is not just the guts of this conference bill that we have been negotiating that is on the table; what is on the table a tremendous amount of time and effort put forth into a good committee process that has built a consensus and a good product. That is a problem, and I think it is something we are going to have to work on. It looks like we are going to have to work on this aggressively in the next year. There has been a lot of speculation about what is really going on. What is the problem? Why can't you get a deal? Well, I mentioned that we have closed out every aspect of this bill with the exception of two issues, but there have been a lot of excuses out there that we don't have enough time; the bill is too complicated; there is not enough in it; then suddenly, there is too much in it. So we worked to address all of that, and we got it down to two issues. Both of those issues can be easily resolved in plenty of time for us around here if everybody is willing to sit down and work through them in good faith. In fact, on both of those issues, the Senate has already written--we have already proposed the modifications that were necessary to reach the final agreement. What happened when we sent them over? We wait. It is going to be half an hour, an hour, and now it is half a day. That is not good faith. I will give one specific example. This relates to LNG export projects. This is something, quite honestly, that folks had agreed was going to be a part of the bill. We have included it in every Senate offer. It was taken out by the House. Then, when the House says, ``Your bill doesn't seem to have enough in it. What happened to LNG?'' we say ``You took it out.'' Let's not be moving the goalpost. What we have is vitally significant for many in our Western States. It includes forest management reform with the potential for a fire budget fix, for our sportsmen and women who care about accessing our public lands for hunting and fishing and recreational shooting. It includes a water package to help boost our water storage and management in some of our most drought-stricken Western States. It has a robust public lands title with more than 50 bills in it that provide everything from the expansion of a VA cemetery in South Dakota to high- priority land exchanges in places like Colorado. We have language related to the National Park Service Centennial that really sets our national parks on track for a second century. It includes a range of nuclear, cyber security, and hydroelectric innovation policies. These are good things that will help our country move forward and produce more energy that is affordable, reliable, and free of any form of pollution. We have worked so hard. To be here on the 8th of December and say we are out of time--well, tell that to the sportsmen who have been working for 6 years to get a legislative package. And here we are on December 8 saying we are done. Tell that to those--particularly from the West--who are concerned about wildfire threats year after year and whether the funds are going to be there not only to address fire but to be there for the other accounts that our agencies are worried about. Tell them that we ran out of time on December 8. Mr. President, I have to say that we have not run out of time; we have, unfortunately, run out of a desire to work together to finish important work for this country. We have plenty of time and should not be making excuses. Now is not the time to run down the clock. We must recognize that we have worked for 2 long years and this work deserves to be placed into law. I urge my friends and my colleagues in the other Chamber to work with us on this. Let's not give up on energy policy. With that, I yield the floor. I thank my colleague for the indulgence of some additional time.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is following these sad and difficult comments that I continue my remarks this afternoon to pay tribute to a truly great Alaskan leader who lived a full and strong life. Today I rise to honor the life of Edward Itta of Utqiagvik, AK, formerly known as Barrow. Mr. Itta passed away on November 6 after a very courageous battle with cancer. It is hard for me to even share comments about Mr. Itta's life-- Edward's life--because he lived a life that was so remarkably full. As I look to the comments that I have prepared, it just doesn't seem appropriate to recognize Edward, using the formality we have here in the Senate, with just words. Edward Itta was a visionary leader in our State. In many ways, like many Alaska Natives, he lived in two worlds--the traditional world of an Inupiaq whaling captain, as well as the past president of the association and vice chairman of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. I came to know Edward through his life as a whaling captain and how he helped to translate that into this modern world because he was very much a part of the modern world of business, government, and politics. Edward Itta is probably best known for the two terms he served as mayor of the North Slope Borough, which is where many of us in Washington, DC, our Nation's Capital, came to know of and learn about Edward Itta and his leadership. He, as mayor, created the Healthy Communities Initiative to promote community-based activities. He also created the mayor's Youth Advisory Council, recognizing the need to encourage student leadership for our Next Generations, always focused on, again, a forward vision. He was deeply involved in policy discussions over how to balance oil and gas development in the Arctic with traditional values and the impact of climate change on his communities. He came to Congress to testify before our committees. He was viewed as the Arctic expert, if you will, one who certainly had a Ph.D. in Arctic living. He spoke at just about every Arctic conference that I have participated in, as one, again, who could speak to his life as a whaling captain, as an Inupiaq, as a leader, as a father and husband but also a very strong businessman who was committed to leading his people into a modern-day world, while at the same time retaining ties to the land, to the waters that feed and sustain them. Our former colleague Ken Salazar, who went on to serve as Secretary of the Interior, referred to Edward Itta as a giant of Alaska who opened his eyes to the wonders of the Arctic and its people. There is a great book that is authored by Bob Reiss, entitled ``The Eskimo and the Oil Man.'' It tells the story of how, as Shell was first seeking to explore opportunities in the Beaufort and the Chukchi Seas-- some of the resistance that this oil company met as it dealt with the Native people in trying to gain consent and support for their activities in the Arctic and how this Eskimo, this Inupiaq visionary, helped to bring together the world of the traditional subsistence lifestyle and how it could be compatible with oil exploration and development in the Arctic. It is a book that once I had completed, I didn't put away on a bookshelf to not read again. I keep it out because I continue to refer to it. Edward was appointed in 2012 to the U.S. Arctic Research Commission by President Obama and did wonderful work within the Commission. In the business world, Mr. Itta was active in his regional corporation--the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. He served on numerous subsidiary boards as well as his village corporation, UIC. Also, before taking on the role of mayor, Mr. Itta served in numerous management roles on the North Slope Bureau, including chief administrative officer and public works director. Locally he will be remembered for his leadership in building and maintaining community infrastructure, gravel sources, sewers, roads, airports and the like which were so essential to the survival in the far north. Edward Itta played in so many worlds and in all of them successfully. Yet he never forgot where he came from or who he was. His family, his friends--so many of us who call him friend--recognize what he provided for so many. We will remember his great sense of humor, his infectious laugh. He loved to tell stories. He would walk around the community gathering--a gathering they call Nalukataq, and Edward would walk me around to every little family in this semicircle on the beach, introducing me to everyone from the elder down to the youngest grandchild and telling stories about all in between. He was an amazing man. He had a passionate commitment to the values and traditions of the Inupiaq people. We will miss Edward Itta. I had an opportunity to be there at the hospital in Barrow during the last few days Edward was on this Earth and had a chance to give a hug to his wife and to share my love and my support for a truly great Alaskan. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I have been proud to associate myself with the work of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. I have been doing this for the many years I have been here in the Senate, and I have been privileged over the years to read the names of Alaska's fallen law enforcement officers. They have a candlelight vigil that occurs at that memorial every May. It is an extraordinarily powerful and moving vigil. From my seat, I am able to look out and see thousands of individuals, and directly in front of the stage they have the wives, husbands, parents, and children of those officers who paid the ultimate sacrifice. As I think of the families, individuals, and those who have served and paid the ultimate sacrifice, it is very difficult to find words that express the depth of my gratitude for their service or the depth of my sorrow. It is a great honor to be asked and a duty to demonstrate my solidarity with the thin blue line. I go each year hoping that I will not be invited back the next year because that would mean Alaska did not lose a law enforcement officer in the previous year. Unfortunately, I will be invited back to the 2017 ceremony because the year 2016, this year, I am sad to say has been a most difficult one for the law enforcement community in Alaska. This past autumn has been particularly difficult. Since this body recessed at the end of September, 25 law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty--15 to gunfire. Firearms-related law enforcement fatalities are up 70 percent according to the Officer Down Memorial Page. This year we have to contend with a particular type of firearms-related fatality, the ambush shooting. This year, 2016, will go down in the annals of law enforcement as the year of the ambush shooting. From Stanislaus County, CA, to Canonsburg, PA; from New York City to Des Moines, IA; from Peach County, GA, to Palm Springs, CA, it seems no corner of the country is immune from this tragic trend. Unfortunately, Alaska is not immune from it either. Just this last Saturday, on November 12, Anchorage police officer Arn Salao was dispatched on a call involving an individual who failed to pay a taxi fair, and as he pulled up to the scene, an individual opened fire on his patrol car. Officer Salao exited his car and began to return fire, but he was struck four times before the assailant was brought down by Officer Salao and his backup. It turns out--we have just learned this within the past day--that the perpetrator's gun was linked through ballistics to five homicides in Anchorage during this year of 2016. Officer Salao has undergone two surgeries and he is expected to survive. On behalf of a grateful Senate, I will take this opportunity to recognize Anchorage Police Officer Arn Salao for his bravery and his heroism, and wish him Godspeed in his recovery. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the men and women of the Anchorage Police Department under the able leadership of Chief Chris Tolley. Chief Tolley is very proud of his team--and justifiably so--from the officers on the scene to the dispatchers who calmly managed the situation, to the investigators who pieced together the story. Up in Fairbanks, to the north of Anchorage, we had a different outcome with a different ambush shooting. Sergeant Allen Brandt of the Fairbanks Police Department was not so fortunate. On the evening of Saturday, October 15, Sergeant Brandt gathered his four children, brought them together on his bed before he was going out to report for duty. That was ordinary for this sergeant--four young kids under the age of--I believe it is 8--all snuggling with their dad as he prepared to read a story, as he did each and every day. Unfortunately, nothing beyond that was ordinary about that particular evening. Sergeant Brandt had a premonition that he would get shot that evening, and he actually shared that with his family. Sergeant Brandt was dispatched to a call of shots fired in downtown Fairbanks later that evening. He pulled up on the scene. He was shot six times by an assailant who took his gun and his patrol car, leaving Sergeant Brandt on the street to die. Hearing the gunfire, Brenda Riley rushed out of her home. It was late. It was cold. She was wearing a robe and slippers, and she literally held Sergeant Brandt in her arms while help arrived. The sergeant was first taken to Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, and then he was air-lifted to Alaska Regional Hospital in Anchorage. I had an opportunity to visit with him just hours after the shooting there at the hospital in Anchorage and had an opportunity to not only hear directly from Sergeant Brandt about the circumstances behind the shooting but to share his thoughts with his wife present as well as his best friend. Sergeant Brandt was supposed to survive. His most serious injury was shrapnel to the eye. He had been shot multiple times in the legs, took a shot directly to his chest, and, fortunately, the bulletproof vest saved him, but shrapnel came up into his eye. At the time I saw him, he had a patch. He was quite concerned that he would lose his eyesight and, if he lost his eyesight, he was concerned that he wouldn't be able to continue to serve in the Fairbanks Police Department--a concern he said was very troubling. The sergeant was released from the hospital. He returned home to Fairbanks to thank Mrs. Riley and to thank the Fairbanks community for their support. Eight days after he was released from the hospital, Sergeant Brandt went to the Fairbanks City Council. He went to speak before the council. It was actually the same day that the new mayor was being sworn in, new council members were being sworn in. Sergeant Brandt wanted to thank the community of Fairbanks. A devout and humble man, Sergeant Brandt told the council that he has seen the hand of the Lord. Yet, he noted, we have many fine officers who have done greater and better things than I have. He said: Our officers do a very hard job and they need your support. Working weekends when their friends are working nights, sleeping during the day, the time that you miss with your family. In Sergeant Brandt's words, officers do a hard job and most of the time thankless. He said: We need your support and not just when bad things happen. He asked the council: Can you imagine telling your kids before you go to work that you think you are going to be shot? That's what our police officers deal with every day. I just want you to know what life is like for a police officer. Those were the words that Sergeant Brandt shared with the Fairbanks City Council. Later that week, Sergeant Brandt returned to Anchorage for scheduled eye surgery. He was fighting to save his eyes, again, in hopes of returning to duty. Unfortunately, Sergeant Brandt died from complications of that surgery. His assailant has been charged with murder in the first degree. Sergeant Brandt's final public utterance--that the law enforcement family needs the support of the community and not just when an officer has been shot--these words must resonate throughout this Nation. As we reflect on a tragic year about to close, it is my sincere hope this will be our national resolve in the year to come. Like every other law enforcement officer, Sergeant Brandt knew the risks and his family knew the risks. In spite of those risks, his wife Natasha sent him out to work each and every day because the community needs people with Sergeant Brandt's selflessness, his courage, and his integrity. So my thoughts today remain with Natasha Brandt and her four kids, who I hope will grow up to appreciate just how much of a hero and a role model their father was. My thoughts also remain with Brenda Riley, who ran out of the house in her robe and slippers to come to the aid of an officer in distress, and with Phil McBroom of the North Pole Police Department, who is Allen's best friend, who stood watch with him there at the hospital and who maintained vigil and then cared for Allen's children, along with his own four kids, as well as with all of the men and women in law enforcement. Once again, I join with my Senate colleagues in wishing Officer Salao a speedy recovery.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak in strong support of S. 3110, the American Energy and Conservation Act. I would like to thank my colleague from Louisiana for introducing it, and I would also like to thank all of the Members who are cosponsoring it with us. I certainly thank Leader McConnell for scheduling a vote on it this morning. I would like to begin by providing a little bit of context for why this legislation is necessary before I move into specifics of what it contains. For literally centuries in Alaska, we have relied upon balanced and environmentally responsible resource development. Whether it is fish, game, our mineral resources such as copper or gold, timber, our marine mammals, or oil that was used to waterproof ocean-going vessels, resources have been extracted or harvested relatively lightly for thousands of years but more intensively harvested and extracted over the last 100 years. This resource extraction has fed us, it has housed Alaskans, and it has allowed us to sustain a life in oftentimes a very harsh but, without question, an extraordinarily beautiful environment. In the last few years, resource extraction has become strategically and economically important to the livelihoods of all Americans. We have carefully regulated our resource extraction and protected our environment, and today millions of tourists from all over the world come to Alaska to view nature and look at the amazing landscapes that are hard to find anywhere else in the world. Some might say that it is a contradiction to have resource extraction on the level that we have in Alaska--providing oil resources, mineral resources--and still have this amazing place that people from around the world want to see. Our State has truly managed to balance accessing our resources while still maintaining the environment and the natural beauty that makes us who we are. I think many here are aware that Alaska is this amazing place, but what I am about to say should not surprise or amaze people. A majority of the residents living in Alaska's Arctic, a majority of the tribal governments, a majority of Alaska's Native corporations representing Alaska's Natives who live in the Arctic, a majority of residents statewide, a supermajority of our State legislature, our Governor, and every Member of the Alaska congressional delegation whole-heartedly support oil and gas development in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. I know that the President, the Secretary of the Interior, and the team that is responsible for developing a leasing program for Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf have all heard this support because, believe me, we have made sure that they have. So I am hoping that the news reports I have just heard--as I walked onto the Senate floor--from a reporter about rumors that the administration intends to put off-limits the Beaufort and Chukchi in this upcoming 5-year OCS lease plan. I hope the news reports are wrong. I hope they are nothing more than a rumor. I hope the administration will see reason and that it will allow new lease sales to proceed in the Arctic as is clearly the desire of the vast majority of Alaskans. This is not the only step that this administration should take. When responsible resource production does begin in the Alaska OCS, the 96- year-old Federal policy of sharing resource revenues with the States hosting this development must also apply. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 established this policy for Federal onshore revenue sharing at a time when there was very little offshore production occurring in our country. That policy has not forced resource development on States that are not interested, but instead it recognizes that the development requires infrastructure that counties and State governments pay for. Congress realized in 1920 that we need to share the revenues from resource development to help local and State governments with the impacts of these activities. This policy has nationwide benefits from the east to the west, from the north to the south. Just in the past 10 years, residents of Michigan have received $5.7 million of shared Federal revenues. Missouri residents have received $30.6 million. Residents of Nevada have received $108.6 million. I have full confidence that these States and counties put those dollars to tremendous productive use and certainly do not have any interest in parting with them. What we are considering today with the legislation that we will vote on shortly is an effort to expand Federal revenue sharing to offshore areas. It is time to do just that. This is a matter of simple fairness. At its core, it is a matter of simple fairness. Offshore production should be no different than onshore production. No other State will bear the burden of development like we will. Most will only see the end result of it. They will see the benefits that come from it--the benefits that come with affordable fuel coming out of the pump at their local gas station, for instance. But those who host the development will bear the burden of development, and in Alaska we are willing to bear that burden. This legislation has been carefully crafted to apply only to States where responsible OCS development is supported. That is important to reinforce. We are not pushing this on those who do not want development. The legislation applies only to States where responsible OCS development will support it. So if a Senator is not interested in this development, we have respected their views and left their State out of this legislation. This is only about revenue sharing. Our bill will not open any new offshore areas to energy development. So those that would suggest that this is a Pandora's box, well that is clearly not the case. We are talking about the revenue sharing that will come to those who support the development offshore. It will not force any State to develop its resources if that State does not want to do it. Florida is a good example. Florida would see no different treatment after the passage of this bill. What the American Energy and Conservation Act will do is to make our policies equitable so that the States that bear the burden of development are finally allowed to share in the government's rewards. This is true for both conventional energy such as oil and gas as well as the renewables that many Members of this Chamber claim to support. In addition to allowing offshore revenue sharing for Alaska and the Middle Atlantic States, we have also incorporated a number of priorities that this Senator believes the Senate would do well to approve. Some of these priorities are pretty important to us. We have a small funding stream to increase sportsmen's access to Federal areas for hunting, fishing, and similar activities. We have included additional funding streams for energy research and to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog at the National Park Service. This is something so many of us have talked about--how to achieve the funding necessary to reduce the backlog at the National Park Service. This will help them. It also provides a funding stream for TIGER grants at the Department of Transportation. We fund a tribal resilience program. This is very important to us in my State of Alaska, to ensure that our Native communities have the ability to adapt to a changing climate and to invest in critical infrastructure. If coastal erosion is impacting this, whether it is the water infrastructure in a place like Barrow, whether it is the need for an emergency evacuation route for a community such as Shismaref or Kivalina or relocation, this can help to facilitate this with our Tribal Climate Resilience Program. We have also dedicated revenues to the PILT program, which has become a chronic funding challenge. If you vote for this bill, what you are voting for is a more rational energy policy for our country. You are also voting for sportsmen's rights, for renewable energy, for the health of our national parks, for better infrastructure, and for our native communities and their ability to be more resilient and adaptable On the other hand, if you vote against this bill, you are not voting to halt or even limit offshore development. What you are doing is voting to continue an unfair practice toward the coastal producing States, and you are also voting against the priorities of thousands of your constituents. Those of us who have assembled this bill have respected those who do not want development off their shores. Now we would ask those Members to respect those of us who do support development for our States. We ask you to support this legislation. I see my colleague from Alaska. I think it is fair to say that not only is our Congressional delegation very unified on this, but the support from our State and an understanding as to why revenue sharing for Alaska and other coastal States that seek this development is critically important. I appreciate all of the good work he has done on this issue to help it advance. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I can just say right back to my friend that it was indeed a privilege and an honor to be recognized with the Jefferson-Lincoln Award, along with my colleague from Delaware. Particularly at times when political heat and rhetoric can be amplified a little bit, I think it is important to recognize and know that colleagues from very different parts of the country, with different constituencies, and different political perspectives can come together, whether working on legislative agendas or just showing respect and appreciation for the good work they do. I have such respect and appreciation for my friend from Delaware. It was indeed a privilege to be recognized with him, and I thank him.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it seems I am coming to the floor of the Senate on an increasingly frequent basis to honor the pioneering men and women who arrived in the State of Alaska prior to statehood who truly have left a lasting impression on the history of the 49th State. Today I rise to remember the Venerable Norman H.V. Elliott. Father Elliott was an Episcopal clergyman who arrived in Alaska in 1951. He was truly a profound spiritual force in Alaska from the day he arrived in our State until his death on Friday, September 9 of this year. Father Elliott passed at the age of 97. To say he lived his life to the fullest would be a huge understatement. Father Elliott lived a life as big as the State of Alaska. As we reflect upon that life, it would be no overstatement to characterize Norman Elliott as a true Alaskan icon. Father Elliott was born in England. He moved to Detroit, MI, when he was 4 years old, and according to the stories, he decided very early on, about middle-school age, that he wanted to enter the ministry. That future was somewhat interrupted by World War II. Father Elliott was drawn to military service, and after considering the possibility of joining a Canadian Forces battalion in neighboring Windsor, Ontario, he chose the U.S. Army instead. He was assigned to a new experimental light infantry division which was patterned after a German light division. After training in the swamps of Louisiana and California's mountains, he was deployed to Europe. Initially deployed to France, he fought in Luxembourg and Germany. I had an opportunity to come to know Father Elliott very well over the years. Several years back, he agreed to sit for an interview as part of our Veterans Spotlight series. This is an oral history project I sponsored to capture the stories of Alaskan veterans. We worked in conjunction with the Veterans History Project at the Library of Congress. In that interview, Father Elliott talked about the realities of the war. He said: I remember good times. I remember bad times. I remember times where I barely escaped by the skin of my teeth. You never forget. I remember, and there are things I wish I had done or didn't do. I hope that as a whole, Alaskans remember what we did, because as a Nation, we are losing our remembrance of World War II. Well, Father Elliott never let us forget our veterans, whether it was our veterans who fought honorably in World War II or the returning men and women who are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. Father Elliott's history after the war took him to Alaska. He attended Virginia Theological Seminary. He intended to serve as a missionary in India. There wasn't a slot available there for him, but there was one in Alaska. Father Elliott ended up in Alaska. His first stop was at St. Mark's Episcopal Mission in Nenana, a church and boarding home for Native children. Then he went to St. Barnabas's Mission in Minto and St. Stephen's Mission in Fort Yukon. Over time, his responsibilities expanded to missions throughout the Gwich'in communities on the Upper Yukon--communities such as Eagle, Circle, Chalkyitsik, Arctic Village, Venetie, Beaver, and Stevens Village. To cover this very large territory, Father Elliott would often travel by dogsled. He became a pilot and flew his own aircraft. I think he called his yellow plane the ``Drunken Canary.'' Father Elliott was truly ``as unique as Alaska itself,'' in the words of one of his parishioners. His duties in the villages were hardly romantic. Father Elliott was forced to confront the dual scourge of alcohol abuse and suicide and the loss of faith that comes along with despair. As a member of a joint Federal-State Commission on Alaska Natives in the 1990s, he encouraged a shift in government policies toward Native people. Instead of the government doing for Native people and doing things perhaps poorly, he believed the Native people themselves needed to be heard. He was an incredible advocate in so many ways. He was more than your village priest, though. In various villages, Father Elliott would come in and do whatever task was needed. In an article in our local newspaper, the Alaska Dispatch, just a couple of days ago, it was reported this way: [Father] Elliott did every kind of task--he was a policeman, a tax collector, a schoolteacher, a delivery person and a messenger. When he arrived in one village to do church services, he first vaccinated everyone for typhoid. He usually carried penicillin in his sled bag, giving anyone who needed it an injection in the rump, including any sick dogs in his team. Now, that is an individual who cared for everyone in whatever the capacity. After being in the remote interior of the State, Father Elliott's next assignments were in relatively urban corners of Alaska. In 1958, Father Elliott moved to Southeast Alaska where he served at St. John's Church in Ketchikan. In 1962, he settled in as rector at All Saints Episcopal Church, a beautiful church in downtown Anchorage. Father Elliott officially retired in 1990 when he reached the age of 70 in accordance with the church rules. That might be the end of the story there, but it is hardly the story for Father Elliott. Two years after his retirement, All Saints needed a replacement priest, and he came out of retirement to serve as something called a priest in charge and continued to serve until earlier this year. Father Elliott was one of those who was everywhere. He was at every social gathering. He was at every wedding, every funeral, baptisms, everything in between. He would visit those in the hospital. At times he would stay all night. He had this uncanny sense of knowing when they were in the hospital because he was very often the first one to visit. Father Elliott ended up in the hospital earlier this year. He was down with pneumonia. It was a bit ironic. I went to visit him. He was really pretty grumpy. He was grumpy because he knew the hospital in and out, but he didn't like being the one who was confined in the bed. He was grumpy because he had places to go and people to see. As I recall, he had a funeral to go to and a wedding to go to, and when he got out of the hospital, he resumed that active schedule. I have remarked often that Father Elliott lived every day to its fullest, from the time he woke up in the morning until the time he went to bed at night, and his is a life well lived. Last week, Father Elliott passed away, and that, I am afraid, is the end of his story--at least the end of the story as we know it here on this Earth. Father Elliott served his church, his Nation, and his community with great distinction, and his was indeed a life that was well lived. I have so many wonderful memories of my friend Father Norman Elliott, and that will sustain me, but I cannot help but observe that with Father Elliott's passing, another of Alaska's great and mighty trees has fallen. I will be in Alaska this weekend and on Monday will have an opportunity to join with Alaskans from around the State in paying a tribute to a man who truly lived a life of service to others, who truly cared in a way that goes almost beyond description. I stand with my colleagues and ask that we join in prayers for Father Elliott and the family of truly a great Alaskan. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Our highway bill. This has been a collaboration that has been recognized in the Senate. I think sometimes we joke that sometimes we have some polar opposites in the Senate on certain issues, but when there is a desire and a will to create something, to create legislation and make good things happen, that good will rises to the surface. I think we have seen that play out with our colleagues from California and Oklahoma.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from California and do recognize that tough issues come to us. If they were easy, they wouldn't be here, and so it is our job to kind of thread that needle and do that. I know the Senator mentioned the people of Flint being happy with a resolution here. It is not just the people of Flint and the communities you have named in California. I can tell you that when we successfully pass this, the people in the small communities of Craig, the Pribilof Islands, Seward, and Little Diomede are looking for this infrastructure that will allow them, as very small communities, to have an economy because they now have a port, a harbor, and some infrastructure they can rely on. When we think we are not making a difference, all we need to do is look to measures such as this WRDA bill. I commend my colleague for working with me, working with Senator Sullivan, including many of the priorities we had tried to advance on behalf of the good people of Alaska.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank and acknowledge the work of the Senator from California, as well as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, not only on this WRDA bill but on previous matters relating to our water, resources, and our infrastructure--

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. As we consider their bill--and I am pleased we have moved forward with this managers' amendment--I wish to speak to an amendment that is not part of a managers' package, and it is not an amendment I will call up and ask for consideration, but it is an issue I have presented to Members on the floor in the past. I wanted to take just a few minutes this evening to bring about, again, discussion about another community, a community in Alaska, a community that is in crisis. We have heard a lot about communities in crisis--whether it is Flint, MI, whether it is those communities that have suffered the flooding in Louisiana, but I have a community in Alaska--a little, small community of less than 1,000 people--by the name of King Cove. King Cove remains at risk, not because of flooding, not because of a failed water system but because of a decision that was made by our own government, a heartless decision made by the Federal Government. King Cove's problem is not contamination in its drinking water supply, it is something far more fundamental, and it is something that virtually all of our communities--whether you are in Colorado or California--take for granted. What the people in King Cove are asking for is a very simple road, a reliable access to medical emergency transportation. They simply want to be able to reach proper care in time in the event of an injury or an illness. So for those who aren't familiar with the small community of King Cove, it is a remote fishing community. It is about 625 air miles southwest of Anchorage. It is near the Alaska Peninsula. Eighty-five percent of the residents there are Alaska Natives. Many are Aleut and members of the federally recognized Agdaagux Tribe. As we have so many communities in the State of Alaska--in fact, 80 percent of our communities are not connected by road, but King Cove can only be reached by boat or by airplane. Often that is a challenge. The community is kind of nestled in this spit of land and is surrounded on one side by ocean and on the other by high volcanic oceans. This is an area that isn't known for its weather. It is very high winds, huge storms, and dense fog all the way down to the ground. King Cove does have a gravel airstrip it can access, and the small planes that fly in and out regularly grapple with low visibility and very strong turbulence that comes down off the mountains, forces the planes down. You have gale-force crosswinds. It is not a place for beginner pilots. I shouldn't even say that because it makes it sound too light. These are very serious flying conditions, but that is how you get in and out. I did mention it is accessible by boat, but if it is stormy in the air, it is also stormy on the water. Local mariners are facing the same conditions, plus you add in 12-foot to 14-foot seas to contend with. Most of the time you are saying: I am not going to travel when the weather is that foul, but there are times when you have to travel, when a medical emergency occurs that is beyond the capacity or the capability of the local clinic there. Keep in mind, this is a very small clinic. You don't have a doctor that can just get in a car and provide services. We don't have a doctor there. We have a physician's assistant. We may have doctors come occasionally, but you don't have the medical care you need. If you have severe trauma or if you are a woman in labor, if you have any kind of a serious illness, King Cove Clinic just simply cannot provide the level of service and care you need. So what do you do? The first step is to transport those who are sick and injured to the nearby community of Cold Bay. Cold Bay is host to a 10,000-foot-long all-weather runway. It is one of the longest runways we have in the State. It was built after World War II. It is almost always open because they don't get the same weather conditions. Here is the beauty of it. It is only 30 miles from where you are in King Cove. So really, the challenge here, for people who need to get out quickly, is not getting from Cold Bay to Anchorage--the 625 air miles-- but from King Cove to Cold Bay, 30 miles. That is the toughest part of the journey there. Having seen this firsthand, I know that for the people who live in King Cove--the Natives who live there--the best answer, really the only answer, is to do what virtually every other community would do, which is build this short connector road. Keep in mind, we are talking about a distance of 30 miles between the two communities. But it is not even 30 miles I am talking about. What we are seeking is a short--about 10 to 11 miles--gravel, one-lane, noncommercial-use road. That is what we are talking about. That is all that is needed to connect two existing roads. There is one that runs out of King Cove and another that runs out of Cold Bay. We need to link these two communities to finally and fully protect the health and safety of nearly 1,000 Alaskans. What we need is a 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road. One might say: Well, do it. Why haven't you built the road? The reason is we cannot secure permission from our own Federal Government because--and here is the catch--it would cross a small sliver of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge that was designated back in the 1980s as Federal wilderness. They failed to consult with the Native people who were in King Cove at the time, but that designation was put in place. So we have been working through this for a period of years-- actually, a period of decades. We thought we had this resolved back in 2009. We overwhelmingly passed a lands bill through this Chamber that was signed into law by this President, and it gave the Department of the Interior the ability to approve a road for King Cove. It was a land exchange. And, quite honestly, it was an unbelievable deal. Alaskans offered a roughly 300- to-1 land exchange--a 300-to-1 land exchange--in the Federal Government's favor. The people of King Cove said: We need 206 acres for a road corridor, and we, along with the State of Alaska, are willing to exchange 61,000 acres of our State lands and of our Native lands. Let me repeat that. They were willing to give back to the Federal Government the lands that were conveyed to the Natives upon settlement of their Native land claims so they could get a small 206-acre corridor. So between the Native lands and the State lands, a 300-to-1 land exchange was offered up--a pretty sweet deal. Against all odds, the Secretary of the Interior rejected that offer. She did this on the day before Christmas Eve back in 2013. I think she was hoping that no one was going to pay attention. She decided against cherry-stemming these 206 acres--which, keep in mind, is about 0.07 percent of the refuge--because she said that somebody needs to speak up for the birds. Someone needs to speak up and represent the waterfowl. And she decided that protecting the people of King Cove while expanding the Izembek Refuge by tens of thousands of acres was somehow just not worth it. To this day, years later, I still struggle with how she could come to that decision. It was a horrible decision. It was cruel. It was coldhearted against the Alaskan Native people of King Cove who care deeply about these lands and have stewarded them for thousands of years. It was baffling. It is not as if there are no roads in this area. Since World War II, we have had roads in this area. The birds have flown. They have used it as their feeding site. It is not as if this is this protected, pristine area. The Fish and Wildlife Service brags on its Web site that local waterfowl hunting is world famous and spectacular. Come on out. If you want to be a sportsman, come out and go hunt on the refuge here. But you can't have this 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road there because someone has to watch out for the birds. The decision reflects a double standard when you think about refuges in other parts of the country. We have roads through our refuges throughout the country, whether in Florida, Maryland, Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Arizona, Montana, Missouri, Illinois, New Mexico, Nevada, or Washington State. So this would not be the first time you would have a small, narrow road through a refuge area. It is also ignorant. It is ignorant of the fact that human lives have been lost in King Cove as medevacs were attempted in bad weather. We have had a total of 19 people who have died since 1980, either in plane crashes or because they didn't last before they could be taken out. The decision of the Department of the Interior was cynical. It was callous. It devastated the people of King Cove, who finally thought help was on the way. It shattered the trust responsibility the Federal Government is supposed to have to our Native people, and it has left these people in the same situation they have been in for decades now. They are at the mercy of the elements. They have the potential to suffer needless pain, perhaps even death, if they should have a medical emergency. People have said to me: Well, Lisa, there are lots of places in Alaska where it is really tough to get in and out of, where weather shuts you down and you are not connected by a road. So why is King Cove so different, so special? It is not that they are so different or so special; it is that there is an easier answer that is right there. In many of the communities, there is not an easier answer. Again, we are talking about a small connector road that could be the answer here. It has been nearly 1,000 days since Secretary Jewell decided just to wash her hands of this issue. She promised the local residents she was going to figure out a way to help them gain reliable transportation to Cold Bay. Instead of working toward a real solution, she has decided to run the clock out. We have seen no engagement with local residents, no budget request, no administrative action, just one topical study of alternatives. And this alternative is one that has been examined before and rejected before as unworkable. As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I held an oversight hearing earlier this year, and the Presiding Officer had an opportunity to hear from the residents of King Cove, to hear what they have gone through, the anguish this has caused their community. We heard about King Cove's decades-long fight for a lifesaving road from its mayor and from its spokeswoman of the Agdaagux Tribe. We heard strong support for the road from Alaska's Lieutenant Governor, a member of the Democratic Party and an Alaskan Native. We also heard from a representative of the National Congress of American Indians. We also heard some really unsettling things. We heard about the Valium dispenser at the local medical clinic, where many of the residents who have such anxiety and stress about flying--because of the hazards of flying out of this little strip--are given two pills out of these dispensaries, one for the flight out of King Cove and one for when they return. We also heard from a retired Coast Guard commander who led a mission to locate a plane crash that killed four individuals, including a fisherman who was being medevaced out because of an amputated foot. The commander told us about the horror of finding these bodies still upright, belted into their seats, with limbs that were frozen and could not be untangled--a memory you just don't ever forget. King Cove has now had a total of 51 more medevacs--51 more medevacs-- since Secretary Jewell's decision in December of 2013 when she rejected this road. Our U.S. Coast Guard has carried out 17 of those medevacs, risking their own crews to rescue those in need. We thank them for that, though that is not the Coast Guard's mission. But they are there when you call them. Those patients who have been medevaced have been individuals in terrible pain and trauma. One man had dislocated both hips when a 600- pound crab pot fell on him. We have had elderly residents with internal bleeding or sepsis or apparent heart attacks. We had an infant baby boy who was struggling to breathe. Just this past month--we think: Oh, summertime, August, good weather. This was a bad month for King Cove. No fewer than four medevacs have been carried out. One was an elderly woman who arrived at the medical clinic with a hip fracture. She needed to be medevaced to Anchorage but had to wait for more than 40 hours because the heavy fog on the ground would not lift. So that is what is happening in King Cove without a lifesaving road. And I know, Mr. President, that King Cove, AK, is a long way from where we are here. Many in this Chamber--most in this Chamber--will never go there. Most people in America will not ever go there. But as remote as they are, as small as this community is, I would remind my colleagues this is still an American community. These are Americans. These are people who deserve to have our help, and it is our job to assist them. They are not asking for much. We should not let this continue. The people of King Cove are suffering, and it is entirely within our power to protect them. My amendment, and what I have offered in legislation and in amendments, is an opportunity, after decades of waiting and delay and frustration and pain, to finally authorize a short, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road. As I mentioned, I am not going to be raising my amendment to a vote on the WRDA bill, but I do want the Senate to understand it is well past time to help the good people of King Cove. We need to ensure they have reliable access to emergency medical transportation, and we need to do it this year so that we can put an end to the dangers, an end to the anxiety, an end to the suffering this community is enduring because of a decision by our own Federal Government. With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the measure.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.

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.