Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Senator McCain, because Congress specified that distributions may be made as determined in article 10, section 7, of the Arizona Constitution, I share his view that Congress need not provide consent.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank not only the Senator from North Dakota but many others for the effort that has been made to get us to this point where we will soon have the opportunity to vote to lift a 40-year-old ban on export. We are the only Nation in the world that produces oil that limits our ability to export that. It is a policy that 40 years ago may have made sense at that time, but it is so outdated. It is so past time that we recognize we are that energy superpower, and, as that energy superpower, act like one. The Senator from North Dakota mentioned there were very few people initially who thought this could be done. In January of 2014, I gave a speech to the Brookings Institute, and I called for repeal of the ban. At that time, I was the first policymaker who really got out front and said what a lot were thinking but were thinking maybe this was way too soon. A couple months later, I had the opportunity to lay out a framework or a pathway forward--a pathway that said we are not going to lay down legislation right now; we are going to build the case, and 2014 is going to be the year of the report. There were some dozen reports--very considered, substantive reports--that came out and said: This isn't going to increase the price of oil. This is going to be good for jobs and our economy. This is going to be great, important, and vital for our role around the world to help our allies and to help others who would like to rely on our energy resources rather than on Russia or Iran. So that path was set. I think it set the table for where we are now, in 2015. We were able to introduce legislation, to have it heard by our committee, to move the bill out of committee, to see the House do the same and move it across the floor, and to get us then to the point where we could consider it in various legislative vehicles. It didn't quite work with NDAA. It didn't quite work with the Iran deal. It didn't quite work with the transportation bill. But now we are here with this omnibus package. Again, recognizing that this is so substantive from a domestic policy perspective is something that I think the occupant of the Chair, as well as Senator Heitkamp, as well as Senator Heinrich from New Mexico-- all producing States--can recognize the enormous gains. But I think we also need to consider the very real, very substantive difference that we will make when as an energy superpower are able to share our resources--whether it is oil, whether it is natural gas--to help whether it is our friends in Europe, whether it is Poland, which is 95- percent reliant on Russia for its oil, whether it is South Korea or Japan. Alaska has been able to export its oil since 1996, when we received basically a waiver. We have seen the benefits that oil exports bring. Our State has had the ability to do so. Why should the rest of the country not see that benefit? Again, since 1996, with our oil, we have exported our natural gas from Cook Inlet, and it has actually been the longest term export contract that this country has seen as far as natural gas. We have seen the benefit. We know that when we are the export trading partner, we as a nation benefit from it. Whether it is jobs, revenues, growth or prosperity, this is good, this is a win, and it is very important. Again, I appreciate the efforts of so many that have brought us to the place that we are today. I think we acknowledge that, yes, there are heavy legislative lifts around here. But I think we work constructively to build the case, to try to depoliticize to the extent possible, to avoid the partisanship that can come into specific issues, by saying: Let's examine this from a policy perspective. Does it make sense to lift sanctions on Iran for their oil and keep in place a ban on our U.S. oil producers, effectively sanctioning U.S. oil producers? I think we got a lot of colleagues when we raised that question to them: Think about it from a policy perspective and whether it is good or outdated. This one is outdated, and it was time to go. So I thank Senator Heitkamp for yielding for just a moment and allowing me to speak very briefly to what I think is very significant for this country, both domestically and internationally. Let's let the United States of America be that energy superpower that we are.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, most of us are busy today reviewing the contents of the Omnibus appropriations bill that was released late last night--actually, early this morning. I come to the floor this afternoon with my colleague from Washington, the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to speak about the wildfire provisions. More specifically, I am here to explain why Congress chose not to accept a flawed proposal from the administration and really, I think, to be here to give hope and optimism about a path forward for next year. I think it goes without saying that our Nation's wildfire epidemic is a serious challenge that demands attention from each one of us. Each year the wildfire season seems to include new ``worsts'' and shattered records, and 2015 has been particularly devastating. It seems as though we didn't have a wildfire season; we've had a wildfire year. We all know that we have seen too much acreage burn, too many western communities have suffered damage, and, tragically, lives have been lost. According to the National Interagency Fire Center, more than 9.4 million acres of our country had burned through October 30 of this year. In Alaska, where most of these fires occur, we lost over 5 million acres during this period. For perspective, that is about the size of the State of Connecticut. That is what we saw burn in Alaska alone this year. Those of us whose States are impacted by wildfire started this year in agreement that the way wildfire management has been funded is broken; and that it is past time we fix it. We know we can't continue to underfund fire suppression, only then to scramble to borrow money to fight fires--and all this while the fires are many times burning out of control. We know that we need to end this very disruptive and unsustainable cycle of fire borrowing, which drains funds from other programs as agencies desperately seek resources. I think this fire borrowing concept is one area where we have all been able to come together, whether it is those within the agencies or those of us looking to address policy, the appropriators. We have to figure out how we are going to stop the fire borrowing that goes on within the various accounts in an effort to respond to these wildfires. Earlier this year, as the chairman of the Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, I set out to fix this very broken system. Under my direction, our committee reported a bill to do just that. The Interior appropriations bill included a permanent, fiscally responsible fix for fire borrowing. It would have provided resources to the agencies up front--enough funding to fully cover the average annual cost of firefighting over the past 10 years--while allowing for a limited cap adjustment in have truly catastrophic fire years. The bill simultaneously increased funding for fire prevention efforts and took steps also to return to active forest management. We thought this was not only a sound approach to address the fire borrowing but also the forest management issues that so many of us are concerned about. Unfortunately, we ran into a wall with the House of Representatives. They wouldn't accept the language because of its limited cap adjustment. Instead, we worked across Chambers within the Appropriations Committee to provide an unprecedented level of funding to address wildfire in this omnibus. As I said, I am still going through the omnibus myself and trying to figure out whether to support the overall bill. But I do think it is important to recognize and understand what we have included in this omnibus. The wildfire provisions are both responsible and pragmatic. It provides real money, right now and gives us the time to develop long term real solutions. The bill includes $1.6 billion for fire suppression, which is $600 million over the average cost of fighting wildfires over the past 10 years. It also includes $545 million for hazardous fuels reduction, and it includes $360 million for the Forest Service's timber program, which will help us resume the active management of our forests. What we have in this omnibus bill is more funding for wildfires than was spent during the 2015 fire season--and, again, that was one of the most expensive fire seasons in history. When we think about what we have done, barring a truly record-setting fire season in 2016, fire borrowing should not be an issue for us the rest of this fiscal year. We did this the right way--the way that Congress should deal with the government's responsibilities--by making cuts elsewhere to pay for this within the budget. Again, this is real money. This is money that will be available immediately because we have done this through the appropriations process. We have had many conversations--Senator Cantwell and I and many in this body--with Members who were hoping to see a different proposal. The House had a proposal, colleagues here in the Senate had a proposal, and the administration had a proposal. They were hoping it could be factored into the omnibus, but for a number of reasons it was not included within the bill. The administration's proposal would have amended the Stafford Act to expand the purposes for emergency funding for major disasters to include fighting wildfires on Federal lands. The House included a similar idea in a forestry bill it passed earlier in the year. The irony here is that the Administration came out very strongly against this back in July, just a few months ago. The President's advisers issued a Statement of Administration Policy objecting to the repurposing of the Stafford Act and the use of the Disaster Relief Fund for wildfire suppression operations. In September, the director of FEMA wrote an opinion piece about this. He said that tapping the Disaster Relief Fund for wildfires would ``undermine the federal government's ability to budget for and fund responses to disasters, as well as to finance state and tribal public infrastructure recovery projects.'' The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the head of the Office of Management and Budget echoed that concern in a letter where they said, ``We do not believe that Congress should modify the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act as a means to address the escalating costs of wildfire.'' Yet here we are just a few months later, and the administration is now proposing to amend the Stafford Act. And after reviewing the proposal, it appears to be nothing more than a work-around that still has serious problems. I think the first important reminder is that the Stafford Act itself is designed to provide Federal assistance to State, local, and tribal governments to alleviate disaster suffering and facilitate recovery after a disaster has occurred. There is no precedent for accessing it to provide emergency money for disasters on Federal lands. The second concern we have is that this proposal doesn't actually end fire borrowing. What it does is create an account that is separate from the Disaster Relief Fund that is subject to appropriations, which means that it is now empty. That fund may be there, but there is nothing in it, and it could remain empty. There is no guarantee that appropriators will fund the account or that the President will ever request funds for it. And if there are no funds in the account, then basically what we have to assume is that the agencies are going to have to borrow again. So we haven't fixed the borrowing. We have an average of 68,000 fires each year. Under this proposal, each one could require a separate Presidential declaration once the initial appropriations run out. So we have to ask the question: How does this actually work? Does the Forest Service Chief have to estimate how much each fire is going to cost? What happens in the meantime while you have all these fires burning? Again, the agencies are going to be in a situation where they are going to be forced to fire borrow. Even if we assume that Federal dollars will be appropriated to the fund envisioned by this proposal and that the President will make disaster declarations after he is asked to do so by Cabinet officials, we are still setting another troubling precedent. The administration will effectively be able to decide to give itself money under the Stafford Act. This is not like giving an individual money after they have suffered a disaster, a loss to their home or property; this is the administration being able to decide to give itself money. So the question is, is this really something that we want to do? Finally, I think this proposal is a missed opportunity. It was supposed to be coupled with a set of productive forest management reforms. What we saw is a good start. There are forest reforms in there but there is not very much in this to get excited about for Alaska, where we have both a wildfire problem and a timber problem. The proposal also does too little to help our firefighters or our communities which are at physical risk from wildfires and economic risk from restrictions on timber harvesting. I am certainly not alone in this. Again, Senator Cantwell has spoken very passionately on this issue--not only in committee but here on the floor. I am going to yield to her in just a moment. We heard from a representative from the International Association of Fire Chiefs, who said that ``due to the rapidly rising cost of wildland fire suppression, IAFC [the International Association of Fire Chiefs] is concerned that the [Disaster Relief Fund] could run out of money as it is also used to address hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and other emergencies.'' We have also heard from a nonprofit organization called Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology. Their letter to congressional leaders observes that ``allowing agencies to declare wildfires as disasters simply to access near-unlimited funding for suppression will undermine efforts that have been long in the making to shift agencies toward alternative proactive strategies in fire preparedness and planning, fuels reduction and forest restoration.'' I want to find a solution to the fire-budgeting problem as much as anyone in this Chamber, but the proposal that surfaced during budget negotiations was not the right way to go. It was not developed in the open and transparent manner that we would hope, and it has not been fully vetted. It has drawn opposition not only from Members here but from outside groups whose members are on the ground actually fighting these fires. So the only solution was to do what we have done, which is fully fund firefighting within the budget that we were given. The omnibus is our path forward on wildfire funding for this year. It devotes greater resources to fire prevention and hazardous fuels reduction and contains real money--not an empty account--that will be available immediately. We can use the window it provides to develop long-term solutions. This is where I want to give encouragement to other Members. I am committed, as I know that Senator Cantwell is, to working to address the longer term solutions to these issues. I am here today to affirm that wildfire management legislation will be a top priority for those of us on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee next year. I know we come at this from different perspectives, but that is OK. Let's bring our different perspectives and work collaboratively with all Members to develop a commonsense bill that properly addresses the challenges and concerns that Senator Cantwell has articulated when it comes to active forest management, how we deal with our hazardous fuels, and how we work on the front end to prevent these catastrophic fires. We need to be working together toward these solutions, and I certainly make that commitment with my ranking member to advance early on in the New Year these provisions that I think will make a difference. I know Senator Cantwell wants to be part of the solution here and she has played a great part as we have worked together to craft a solution in the committee. With that, I know that from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee perspective, we have a lot on our plate. But I think that from my perspective as a Senator from Alaska, this is an issue that the people in my State feel very passionately about. I will ask Senator Cantwell, as we deal with the pressing issues that are before us, is this an area where we can come together as an energy committee to address these very immediate concerns?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know that Senator Cantwell has a longer statement that she would like to make at this point in time. I yield to Senator Cantwell.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Washington for not only her comments here this evening but for her leadership and guidance in this area. When your State is hard hit by these disasters, you learn a lot. You learn a lot about what works in the process and, unfortunately, what doesn't work. When you cannot get a cat to run a fire break because it doesn't have the appropriate card or designation, people come to us and say: Well, that is crazy. And you have to agree; it is crazy. We can do better. When we are talking about the issue of wildland fire and management, it is this management piece that I really hope we can get to, because it is not just about throwing more money at the fires and hoping that we get it right. It is not only about ensuring that we prioritize and get it right with suppression dollars, but also that we are working aggressively to deal with the prevention, with hazardous fuels reduction, with actively managing these issues. That is how we are going to be making the headway. That is where we need to be working collaboratively, whether you are from a very open, remote, and large State such as Alaska or whether you are a State that sees smaller fires that have a catastrophic impact on your local economies. I know that Senator Cantwell has articulated that very, very clearly within the committee. We have our work cut out in front of us. I worked on a statement that included no shortage of fire puns and needing to put a damper on this 10-alarm fire that was out there, but I decided that the issue of fire was not a joke or a laughing matter for anybody. We have a lot of work to do, and I am ready to do it. I am rolling up my sleeves and looking forward to a lot of cooperation from my colleagues as we address this very important priority. With that, I yield the floor.

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 ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 16, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Administration's Strategy in Afghanistan.''

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I wish to take a few minutes this afternoon to pay tribute to an amazing Alaskan, a man who lived a life that many would say was remarkable. Yet I think in his humble words he would respond that he just lived his life and did the best he could. Dr. Sidney Charles Huntington was truly a great Alaskan. He died yesterday at the age of 100 years old in Galena, AK, which is on the Yukon River. Sidney Huntington was a respected Athabascan elder. He was a culture bearer. He was a role model--definitely a role model. He was a mentor to so many, not only in his village but in his region and in his State. He was a prolific storyteller. He was a philosopher. He had words of wisdom. He was a reservoir of traditional knowledge. He was an outdoorsman who knew, understood, loved, and feared the land. He was a businessman. He was truly a public servant, especially when it came to education and conservation, and he was a warrior in the fight against youth suicide. These are just some of the words by which we remember one of our State's most treasured, cultural icons. Sidney Huntington was known to his family and his friends as Grandpa Sid, and probably, for many good reasons, he had a lot of grandkids. There were the personal stories, and I think as we reflect on the 100 years of this great Alaskan, we will begin to share these many stories and tributes. He was certainly a savvy poker player. That is going to come out. He was a very generous man. We were talking about him earlier today in my office. He was one of those guys who would truly give the shirt off his back. Sidney once encountered a young Native student who he thought had left the village and gone off to school, and the young man said: I couldn't go because I need to stay home and earn some money. Sidney literally took out his wallet, gave him eight hundred-dollar bills, and he told him to get to school. That was vintage Sidney. School was important. School had to be a priority, and Sidney wasn't going to let the fact that this young man thought he needed to stay home and make money stop him from going to school. He literally took out his wallet and solved the problem. Sidney Huntington was one tough Alaskan. He was a man of very impeccable standards. He told it like it was. He would hold back not one iota. I was in Galena after they had experienced some terrible flooding several years back, and the community had come together to talk about the FEMA response, how that was working with the State. You had the Federal Agency reps, you had the State people, and everybody was trying to figure out how to get through a difficult situation. Sidney Huntington--not sitting in the back of the room but sitting right up front at that table--said: By gosh, we have to get to work. No mincing words about it; he told it like it truly was. He was hardy. He was determined. He was very resilient. He was the real deal. I was very privileged to know Sidney, and I was honored to be called his friend. That is quite an honor because you didn't choose Sidney to be your friend. Sidney chose you. He had identified me as somebody who could not only be helpful but that he could relate to, that we could have conversation back and forth. It wasn't too many years ago that I flew into Galena. Galena is a very small village on the Yukon River, as I mentioned. You fly into the little airport there. I went to the very small terminal, and there was Sidney sitting on a chair right outside the little airport terminal. I asked him: Where are you going, Sidney? I am sorry you are not going to be here while I am visiting Galena. And he said: No, no, no. I am here because I have some talking to do with you. Where are we on some of these education things? He was talking to me about No Child Left Behind. So Sidney was like: I am not going to miss her coming to Galena and perhaps not getting a chance to talk to her. He wasn't leaving. He was parked there to visit. If Sidney Huntington chose to call you a friend, you didn't take it for granted, and you accepted that gift with great humility. I think about the relationships, the friendships I have made over the years. I can say nothing can make me, a third-generation Alaskan, feel more like an Alaskan than knowing I had earned the respect of Sidney Huntington. Eric Mack, a journalist who worked in Galena, tells the story of how Sidney managed to survive when his snow machine fell through the ice. He was coming back from a trip. He had been out tending his trap line, and it was cold. It was about 30 degrees below zero. It was night. It was dark. He was on his snow machine. His snow machine went through a hole in the ice into a shallow section of the Yukon, and he was a long way from home. He dragged that snow machine out of the water, out of the icy water by himself. He made a fire from the gasoline and some frozen wood he had, and he kept himself from freezing to death. Think about how you do all of that. That is one tough Alaskan there. Sidney Huntington was born in Huslia, which is on the Koyukuk River. He was born in 1915 to a Scots-Irish father who arrived from New York in 1897 to participate in the Gold Rush. His mother was Athabascan Indian. Sidney's mother died when Sidney was about 5 years old, and for about 2 weeks it left Sidney and two younger siblings to survive in the wilderness. Think about that. This is all laid out in an exceptional book that Sidney wrote called ``Shadows on the Koyukuk.'' The details in the opening chapters are about the situation when he, as the oldest of three children, at 5 years old, was in a cabin in the middle of the wilderness with his mother and his mother died. At 5, he was the only one to care for his two siblings. This was the beginning of, again, a remarkable life for a remarkable man. His father lived off the land as a trapper and a trader, and so the stories that are shared through Sidney's book, again, are just remarkable about what was happening in Alaska in the early 1900s. Sidney and his siblings first were sent to the Anvik Mission for schooling, and then he later attended the BIA school at Eklutna. He basically got the equivalent of a third-grade education. That was it. That was it for his formal schooling--third grade. You need to keep that in mind as I talk about the rest of Sidney's story and his life. When he was 12 years old he returned to help his father work the trap line and learn the subsistence lifestyle, so he was out in the middle of Alaska. He was out in the wilderness. He was not in school. By the age of 16 he was earning a living hunting and trapping and at age 22 he went to work in a gold mine. In 1963 Sidney moved to Galena to work for the Air Force as a carpenter, and then in the 1970s he went into the fish-processing business. So he had been everything. He had been a gold miner, he had been a carpenter, he had been in fish processing, he had been a hunter and a trapper and a subsistence guy. He was truly living a traditional life in rural Alaska, sustaining himself and his family through a mixture of subsistence and participation in the cash economy. Many around the State share this life story, but that was just one dimension of Sidney. This man, who had the equivalent of a third-grade education, served two decades on the Alaska boards of fish and game. In 1993 he published the best-selling biography I just mentioned entitled ``Shadows on the Koyukuk.'' In fact, this book he wrote is so good, is so compelling, it is the book I take around to the high schools when I go to visit students. I never leave a school visit without leaving something there, and I leave a book for their library. The book I have chosen to leave with students all over the State is ``Shadows on the Koyukuk'' because of the amazing accomplishments of this amazing Alaskan. The University of Alaska Fairbanks in 1989 awarded Sidney an honorary doctorate in public service. Here again is an extraordinarily accomplished man, a man with a third-grade education, focused on public service, education, helping his community, his State, and publishing a best-selling biography. Through the University of Alaska system, Sidney participated in oral history interviews that will be examined by historians and students for decades to home. He was truly the stuff of which legends are made. Alaska holds a lot of legends. It is a big State with tall stories. But Sidney, once again, was the real deal. His life was a profile of courage and inspiration. It has not only been chronicled in books and interviews-- it was even played out in theater in a stage play called ``The Winter Bear.'' ``The Winter Bear'' tells the fictional story of a young Native man who contemplated suicide. In this play, this young Native man is sentenced to cut wood for Sidney Huntington. Making a pact with Sidney to live, he goes on to construct a traditional bear spear under Sidney's guidance. That spear is used to bring down this marauding bear. But Sidney is injured in the incident, and the young man, who is very insular and very afraid of public speaking, must now speak for Sidney before thousands of people at the Alaska Federation of Natives convention. At this point, the young man finds himself and his voice, recognizes the value of his life, and emerges as a leader. While this play, ``The Winter Bear,'' may be fictional, Sidney Huntington's experience with suicide is absolutely not. In real life, Sidney lost children to suicide. He grieved for them every day and shared his loss with schoolchildren who visited his cabin. As we visited in quiet conversations, he shared with me the loss and grief that he felt, as not only his children but others in his community and his region have suffered because of suicide. Sidney was a champion for young people. He believed in the future of our young people, urging that they choose life, that they get a good education, and that they take pride in their proud heritage. Sidney Huntington was the patriarch of a large and extended family. I know so very many of them, and they are all very accomplished in their own right. He is survived by his wife, Angela. They were married 72 years; that is a pretty good marriage there. He has some 30 children, both biological and adopted, and many, many grandchildren. On May 10 of this year, they gathered in Galena to celebrate the centennial of Sidney's birth, and they all wore T-shirts that bore some of Sidney's words of wisdom: Make life worth living; work hard; keep up a good spirit; have a good attitude toward others--this will take you a long way in life. These are words to live by and words to remember an Alaskan who was truly larger than life and as large as the great State that he called home. I was privileged by the gift of the friendship of Sidney Huntington. Alaska is privileged by the gift of his legacy. This man is a true hero of our homeland. He is now gone, but his life of inspiration will long, long be remembered. I am grateful for the opportunity to again pay tribute to a great Alaskan and to extend my condolences and that of the U.S. Senate to his family, his many extended relatives, and those of us throughout the State who cherish a great Alaskan leader. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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 have come to the floor to speak about a measure that has moved through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This legislation is a pretty significant bipartisan accomplishment and I would like to share our progress with my colleagues. On November 19, our committee reported S. 556. We refer to it as the Sportsmen's Act. This is a measure I have been working on, and we were able to report it out by voice vote. This is a bill that would benefit millions of sportsmen and sportswomen all across our country. It includes some key items within our jurisdiction that are part of a broader Sportsmen's package. That portion is being worked on by another committee. I have been working on our iteration of this bill with Senator Heinrich of New Mexico, and I truly appreciate his leadership, his support, and his guidance on this measure. As many Members in this Chamber are aware, the broader Sportsmen's bill has had a long history of bipartisan support in the Senate, but year after year it has failed to advance for a host of different reasons. It has been the victim of political brinkmanship in what for years was a Chamber that wasn't working, but I think this year is different. I outlined some of the successes yesterday when I came to speak on the floor and I think we are getting back to regular order. The committees are working hard--certainly the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is working hard--and we are working to advance legislation to go to the floor, whether it is this Sportsmen's bill or whether it is our Energy Policy Modernization Act that we reported out of the committee on an 18-to-4 margin back in July. Our Sportsmen's Act is the latest example of a bipartisan bill that encompasses both good policy and good process. I think both of those are key. Staff from both sides of our committee--and the Sportsmen's Caucus, which is led by Senator Risch and Senator Manchin, worked diligently with outside stakeholders to improve and refine the bill. So I want to briefly summarize some of the contents found within the Sportsmen's Act. First, we included a congressional declaration of national policy to require all Federal agencies and departments to facilitate the expansion and the enhancement of hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on Federal lands. This is our clear goal. It is a pretty clear and explicit direction for the executive branch. The next component within the bill--and this is the heart of the bill--is a provision we are referring to as ``open unless closed.'' Through these, we are setting a new national standard, and that standard is that our Federal lands will be open unless they are closed. They are going to be open unless they are closed, not closed due to bureaucratic inertia. What we are trying to do is pretty simple. We are trying to allow all Americans to be able to access and enjoy their public lands. Under our bill, if Federal lands are going to be closed even temporarily, agencies will have to notify the public and provide opportunities for meaningful public comment. The agencies, whether they are the BLM or the Forest Service, will need to justify any proposed closures and address issues that have been raised by the public. Our bill will also prevent temporary closures from becoming permanent by limiting any of these designations to just 180 days. Currently the BLM can close lands for 2 years and does not guarantee the opportunity for any public comment. BLM has acknowledged to us that they regularly implement what they call temporary closures while they prepare the paperwork to make them permanent. My Sportsmen's Act will allow BLM and the Forest Service to renew temporary closures, but they can only do it up to three times. Each and every time they do so, we are going to require them to engage in a public comment and notification process. What this ``open unless closed'' policy does is it reverses the practice of public lands being closed until opened or closed altogether. As a result of it, our sportsmen and sportswomen will have increased access to our public lands, they will have a real voice in decisions regarding any temporary closure, and they will also receive justifications for any temporary closures that are deemed necessary. So we are providing a more fulsome public process but also a more genuine opportunity for access to our public lands. My Sportsmen's bill also addresses concerns raised about the unnecessary difficulty of securing permission for commercial filming on our public lands. Among other steps in the bill, we require the publication of a single joint land use fee schedule within 180 days, but we also say there are small crews that shouldn't have to go through this big rigmarole and pay this big fee. So small film crews of three or fewer people will be exempt from having to pay a fee. I have heard a lot of stories about the horrors some of our outfitters or guides have experienced while they were trying to film some kind of promo-type material on a trip. Agencies are making them jump through hoops by telling them that they need a separate permit and have to pay additional fees. It gets to the point where you can't take a video or a picture on our public lands. That is just wrong. These folks already have a permit to be out there, and filming may be incidental to that. In this bill we ensure that small crews and businesses can film on public lands without having to pay to do it. That seems pretty reasonable and fair to me. We also protect First Amendment rights by preventing content from becoming a factor in issuing permits, and we protect free speech by clarifying that journalism is not commercial activity. Some might say: What is this issue all about? Think about it. If you have an agency that doesn't want to have filming or pictures in a certain part of a wilderness area or certain part of public land because a different story might be told that doesn't fit with the agency's view, that is not right. This bill will ensure that we are not going to regulate content in terms of whether or not a permit is issued. I will give a specific example of why this is needed. Back in 2014, a producer for Oregon Public Broadcasting wanted to film a piece in the Willamette National Forest to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act. To ensure that the piece had the ``primary purpose of dissemination of information about the use and enjoyment of wilderness,'' officials from the Forest Service asked to review the script. They wanted to look at the script before issuing a permit. That was not right. I believe giving Federal officials veto power over content can have a very chilling effect on journalism. The final title of the Sportsmen's Act--this is a new title we came up with in committee--provides for reforms in the Land and Water Conservation Fund--LWCF. The reforms in the bill do not go as far as I would like to see them go, but they do reflect what our committee could agree on. We also agreed to reauthorize the Historic Preservation Fund and to create a fund to address the maintenance backlog at the National Park Service. This is the same language we included in the broad, bipartisan Energy bill back in July--the same language now incorporated as part of the sportsmen's bill. As I said before, my own proposal to reauthorize LWCF would look different from what our committee reported. When LWCF was created decades ago, monies were to be allocated each year so that Federal agencies would receive no less than 40 percent. States were to receive 60 percent. But what has happened in the ensuing years is that now nearly 85 percent of LWCF dollars have gone to Federal land acquisition, and we are not seeing the original congressional intent being met. Again, keep in mind that when LWCF was first created, it was going to be so that Federal agencies would get about 40 percent and States would get about 60 percent. We have now turned that on its head. What our LWCF title does is recognize that States are leaders on recreation and conservation. Our reforms are trying to restore balance to the State-Federal split by ensuring that at least 40 percent of LWCF dollars are allocated to States for the State-based programs, including the traditional stateside program. This is an improvement, in my mind, but doesn't go far enough to restore the original congressional intent. The title also recognizes the importance of accessing existing Federal lands and sets aside the greater of 1.5 percent or $10 million per year to improve access for sportsmen. This is an important provision for our sports men and women. Like many western Members, I remain concerned about Federal acquisition. In Alaska, close to 63 percent of our lands are already controlled by the Federal Government. To begin to address the issue, the LWCF title also emphasizes conservation easements. This will keep lands in private ownership as working lands and will require agencies to take into account certain considerations when acquiring lands, including whether the acquisition would result in management efficiencies and cost savings. To prioritize the backlog of deferred maintenance needs, this title establishes a National Park Service Maintenance and Revitalization Conservation Fund. This fund will help shift our focus to a more appropriate place, which is taking care of the lands we already have rather than an endless acquisition of new acreage. Our country is fortunate to have an abundance of lands that are designated for recreation, conservation, and preservation. It is time we reached a consensus on how to care for and how to manage them. I believe we can do that best by allocating more than 40 percent of the LWCF to State-based programs. People on the ground, who see what is happening day in and day out, provide the greatest insight into management, and we should recognize that. We should pair increased funding for State-based programs with increased authority for States to manage public lands. And we should consider giving Governors a say on Federal land acquisitions. After all, these are their States we are talking about--and opportunities for all sorts of activities on their land--are often affected by these decisions. The LWCF reforms in the sportsmen's bill are a step in the right direction. I believe they provide a greater framework for further discussion. If we work hard and work together, we can agree on additional reforms to make LWCF even more effective in the years to come. Those of us on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee have now completed our work on the Sportsmen's Act, and that brings us to the next step, which will be taken by our friends on the Environment and Public Works Committee. They are now considering a separate bill, S. 659, with provisions that are jurisdictional to them. I think it is fair to say that EPW's portion of the sportsmen's bill is also quite vital. As I wrap up, there is one provision I would like to call attention to briefly, and that is the reauthorization of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. The NAWCA program helps conserve waterfowl, fish, and wildlife through partnerships involving governments, nonprofits, and community groups. In Alaska, we are not in any danger of running out of wetlands and this program has funded a lot of good wetlands projects in my State. For example, on the Kenai Peninsula, partners in the private sector provided $1.6 million to match and exceed an $800,000 grant provided through NAWCA. Those funds were then used to implement habitat protection for over 300 acres of land along the Kenai River. I think it is important that we reauthorize this program and provide funding to it so we can see important work like this continue, particularly in States that have fewer wetlands and thus have greater need for conservation. NAWCA is just one of the provisions the EPW Committee can and hopefully will report in the future. Once their work is complete, all who support America's sportsmen and sportswomen and all of us here in the Senate who are sports men and women ourselves, should look forward to considering the full Sportsmen's Act here on the floor next year. I am pleased that we are on a better track for this legislation in the 114th Congress. I again thank the many Members who have worked with us to get S. 556 to where it is today. As a result of this good work, millions of hunters, fishermen, recreational shooters, and other outdoor enthusiasts will soon have greater access and greater opportunities on our public lands and Federal lands, and I think that is something we should all be proud to support. Mr. President, I see that my colleague from New Jersey is here. I think my time has expired. I do have a further statement about a truly mighty Alaskan leader who has been known throughout the education community in the State of Alaska who passed just yesterday at the age of 100. The death of Sidney Huntington in Galena, AK, is news that has brought great sadness to us all. In deference to my colleague from New Jersey and in recognizing his time, I would like to come back to the floor later this afternoon and provide tribute to a great man who provided so much in terms of leadership and direction to so many, whether they be Alaskan Native children in the small, remote, rural communities or in our urban centers. It is fair to say that as of yesterday, we have lost a great Alaskan, and our hearts go out to him and his family. I look forward to coming back to the floor later to provide greater tribute to the great Sidney Huntington. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 15 minutes.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments this afternoon to talk about where we are at the end of this year, 2015. There has been a lot of talk about wrap-up, a lot of talk about how we knitted together the outstanding issues before us as a Congress. There is much yet to be done, but I do think it is significant to recognize that there has been good work, there has been substantial and substantive work that has come out of the U.S. Senate this year as the Republicans have led the Senate in the majority. As we think back at year-end on a series of accomplishments, I think it is important to recognize that the business of the Congress has been productive. Sometimes we get so busy around here that we don't stop to even recall what we did yesterday, much less last week or the week before. Today we have had an opportunity to almost bring to a close the education reform measure that Senator Alexander from Tennessee and Senator Murray from Washington have been working so hard on over this past year. As a member of the HELP Committee, I have been very pleased to work with them as we have attempted to advance meaningful and long- overdue education reforms. Before I speak specifically to the Every Student Succeeds Act, I would like to rattle off a few of the measures. Of course we recognize that it was just last week that the highway reauthorization bill moved successfully not only through the Senate but through the House, through the full bodies ready to be signed into law by the President. The 5-year highway reauthorization bill is the longest highway reauthorization bill we have seen in 17 years. That is significant. For a State such as mine that is looking for some level of certainty for projects around the State, that is considerable, and that is a good accomplishment to look back to as a marker of success. The vote we had last week would roll back some of the many harmful effects of the Affordable Care Act--the Not-So-Affordable Care Act, as I mentioned on the floor last week, saying that for far too many Alaskans, the Affordable Care Act was simply not affordable. There have been other measures we can look to and acknowledge that we are doing the work of the Congress--moving forward the national defense authorization bill, which the President chose not to deal with the first time around but signed it the second time around. We were able to move forward several measures related to the regulatory environment we are dealing with, whether it was the Clean Power Plan or the waters of the United States, being able to push back on those very burdensome regulations that I think we recognized--the goals for clean air and clean water are something we all want. We need to make sure that we move in this direction in a way that doesn't burden or weigh down our economy. The first appropriations stand-alone bill that we have seen move through the Senate in 5 years when we advanced the MILCON appropriations measure--that was also significant. The committees have been doing great work. In our energy committee, we moved forward an energy reform bill that would help to modernize our energy grid, access to all areas of energy, not only by night but our renewable resources as well. That was an effort which was very bipartisan and enjoyed good, strong support within the committee. We moved it out 18 to 4 and hope to have an energy reform bill before the Senate for consideration early in this next calendar year. We haven't seen energy modernization or an energy reform bill since 2007. Again, it is long overdue but is now teed up. We have a sportsmen's bill that we moved through committee. The Environment and Public Works Committee is working to advance their portion of those very significant measures that will allow for greater access to our sports men and women and our families who seek to recreate on our public lands. These are good things that we are seeing coming out of committees and coming to the floor and moving forward. This is a level of governance that has been good for the body and, even better, will be good for the country. Mr. President, I would like to speak very briefly about the Every Student Succeeds Act. I know several of my colleagues have come down to the floor. Just a couple minutes ago, the Senator from Wyoming came to talk about the good things we have seen in this education reform bill and celebrate how it ends the national school board by putting more control of our schools in our States' and locals' hands. I think that is worthy of note. For the schools, administrators, teachers, and the parents, that is worthy of celebration. I am more than pleased that the Every Student Succeeds Act will finally allow our States to judge our schools by more than just the test results and allow our teachers to do what they want to do to teach our kids and engage them in the art and love of learning and not just prepare for tests. We all know our children are more than what can be described in some of these fill-in-the-bubble exercise tests, and our teachers are certainly more than robots that stand in front of a class and follow a script that has been orchestrated from elsewhere. I tell many Alaskans that I got my political start, if you will, as the president of my son's PTA, our parent teacher association in our local neighborhood school. I came to understand firsthand and in a very upfront and personal way what No Child Left Behind meant not only for my son's school but for the schools across Alaska, an area where you have a lot of geography and not a lot of numbers in terms of population. NCLB did not work for us as a very rural State. The one-size-fits-all did not work. My son's public school was deemed a failing school in the first year that adequate yearly progress was the standard of measurement. We were dubbed a failing school because we had one subcategory of students where the numbers were so small, but we didn't have enough students show up to take the test on that day. So we all know there were 31 different ways to fail AYP, and little Government Hill Elementary in Anchorage, AK, failed that first year. That is tough as a neighborhood. They were saying: What is wrong with our school? What is wrong with our neighborhood? Really, there was nothing wrong with our school. There was nothing wrong with our neighborhood. What we had was a directive that came out of Washington, DC--some 4,000 miles away--and it didn't work for us. I am more than pleased to join with superintendents, principals, and school board members who celebrate Federal bureaucrats being prohibited from dictating standards, assessments, and school ability plans. No more Federal control. No more waivers with strings. No more one-size- fits-all education mandates that never ever fit us in Alaska. I also place a high value on the fact that this bill recognizes the rights of our American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian peoples throughout the country. It makes sure they have a greater say in how public schools will serve their children. Also, this bill will support the revitalization of Native languages by supporting Native language immersion schools. This has always been one of my priorities, and I am pleased we see this in the Every Student Succeeds Act. I am grateful for the support of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Senator Boxer worked with me on this to make sure we maintained Federal support for afterschool programs that allow parents to remain at work if they need to after the school day ends, knowing their children are going to be safe and engaged in good, enriching activities that help them learn in a fun way. Making sure we had that critical piece in the bill was important. I am also grateful for the support for the number of Alaska-specific provisions that will ensure that this bill, unlike the No Child Left Behind Act, will truly fit Alaska's needs. I appreciate a great deal the work Senator Alexander put into working through some of these issues with us, understanding the Alaska piece, recognizing that sometimes we have entities that are different from what you have in the lower 48. How you translate that when you are drafting language to make sure it works is key. His staff worked with mine to make sure we didn't drop the ball in these areas. Those of us who are parents realize that this legislation will give us a stronger voice in our children's education and encourage parents to take the lead in helping our schools communicate better with parents rather than the other way around. Again, coming into the politics of schools, knowing that your parents have a voice in what is happening at the school is critically important. Over the years, we have all met with teachers, school board members, parents, principals, superintendents, and students from our States who were so discouraged, very discouraged, sometimes just plain old fed up with the No Child Left Behind top-down control over every decision. The Every Student Succeeds Act guarantees that our parents, teachers, tribes, community leaders, and principals have a seat at the table to design how our schools serve our children. It even guarantees our Governors a voice while drastically reducing the role of the Secretary of Education here in Washington, DC. I want to acknowledge the good work of the members of the Senate HELP Committee and their staffs. We all know their staffs put in amazing hours to get the bill to this point, working together, compromising, negotiating, making their case for the priorities of their constituents. This bill is one of the great examples--a poster child, if you will-- of how Congress should be working around here. It is hard work, but it requires compromise. It requires an open amendment process in committee, which we absolutely had. We had days of process on the committee and then here on the floor but also within the conference committee. We had a real, live, old-fashioned conference committee, and it was an absolute pleasure to be part of a process where you could go in with your colleagues from the House on the other side of the table and go back and forth in further perfecting a bill. In just a few days, the baton on education reform will be handed off to the people of our States. I look forward to this. I am encouraging folks back home to get involved, be aware, know what is going on. It will be a responsibility every one of our constituents must take seriously. No matter what role they play in a student's life, what happens next in each of our States will be determined by the people who show up, who share their perspectives with their States, with their departments of education, with their school boards. And I believe that coming together in this way at the local and State level--together it will be a good job for Alaska's children and for all of our Nation's children. With that, Mr. President, I thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise with Senator Cantwell of Washington State to introduce the Omnibus Territories Act of 2015, which relates to the U.S. territory of American Samoa, as well as the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau--collectively known as the Freely Associated States. Sections 2 and 3 of the legislation are introduced at the request of the administration and section 4 at the request of the governments of the three Freely Associated States. Section 2 would permit the use of resettlement and relocation funds provided to the people of Bikini Atoll to be used within or outside of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. As a result of nuclear weapons testing by the United States in the northern islands and atolls of the Marshall Islands, Congress, through Public Law 97-257 in 1982, provided the people of Bikini Atoll a relocation and resettlement trust fund to be used by the people of Bikini to resettle from their traditional homeland of Bikini Atoll to other islands within the Marshall Islands. Currently, most members of the community live on the islands of Kili and Ejit. Today, however, the people on these islands have limited living space, lack suitable sustainable resources to provide water and food for their population, and they are exposed to tidal flooding on an increasingly frequent basis. Under current Federal law, citizens of the Freely Associated States, including the people of Bikini, are able to enter into, reside, work, and study in the United States as nonimmigrants without visas. This section would allow the people of Bikini to use the resettlement and relocation trust funds for relocation and resettlement outside of the Marshall Islands, whether in the United States or elsewhere, if they so choose. Section 3 seeks to improve air service capabilities in American Samoa. There are currently no U.S. airlines that provide flight service within American Samoa between the islands of Tutuila and Manu'a. The U.S. Department of Transportation has granted a foreign air carrier emergency service capability to provide this service, but that designation must be renewed every thirty days under statutory requirement. This section would amend current statute to allow for a foreign carrier to operate between the islands of Tutuila and Manu'a without the need for an emergency service capability designation. Section 4 would amend the REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, to allow citizens of the Freely Associated States to document their lawful resident status in the United States in conformance with the Compacts of Free Association between the United States and each of these three nations. Section 141 of the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, Public Law 108-188, and the law that implemented the Compact of Free Association with Palau, Public Law 101-219, permits citizens of the FAS to enter into the United States to lawfully engage in occupations and establish residence as nonimmigrants. However, the REAL ID Act of 2005 did not provide a means for FAS citizens to document their lawful status in the United States. As a consequence, FAS citizens are denied anything more than a temporary ID valid only for one year, resulting in practical difficulties in their ability to maintain employment and engage in other lawful activities where they reside. Giving FAS citizens the ability to document their lawful status and obtain a State-issued driver's license or identification card would facilitate employment and provide more stability and certainty as they engage in lawful activity as legal residents in the United States.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I understood that the Senator from Ohio was seeking consent to speak after me. I would like to take a few minutes this morning to speak about how the Affordable Care Act is harming the people of the State of Alaska. This Senator has come to the floor a lot to talk about the fact that we in the State of Alaska have the highest insurance premiums. Well, again, we have the highest insurance premiums in the country. Believe me, I am hearing from folks back home all the time about the burden that these costs place on them. Our State's largest newspaper has been reporting, as we have seen these premium increases coming out over these past several months--they have been detailing the incredible rise of premiums throughout the State. The average monthly premium for a single 40-year-old in the State of Alaska is now over $700 a month--$700 a month for the average single 40-year-old--more than double the national average. People are paying thousands of dollars each month to insure their families. The insurance premium costs have gone up somewhere between 25 percent to 40 percent each year. How do you budget for that? A family of three in Ketchikan--I got the information from them--are going to be paying almost $2,000 a month next year for one of the cheapest bronze plans available. This is a family of three paying for one of the cheapest plans, and they are going to be paying $2,000 a month. This plan comes with a $10,500 deductible. Heck of a deal. In spite of paying almost $24,000 on insurance, nearly all the medical bills will still be paid out of pocket for this family. They will not see any benefit until they have spent just about $35,000. Contrast the $2,000 per month for health insurance with their mortgage payment. Their monthly mortgage payment is $1,250. Does this seem right to anyone? It should not cost more to provide health care coverage for your family than to own your home. We have a married couple in Wasilla who were paying $850 a month prior to the ACA, but that plan wasn't acceptable under the new regulations. The promise that you can keep the plan if you like it-- well, that didn't hold. They had to find other insurance. Next year this married couple is going to be paying over $2,300 per month. That means they are going to be paying over $17,000 more per year for the same coverage. This is a 268-percent increase in just one calendar year. This is not right. This is unconscionable. It is not that this married couple has somehow increased their income by an additional $17,000 last year. No, this is just the cost to cover their insurance. A self-employed man down in Homer whose insurance covers him, his wife, and his son has seen his costs increase from $325 per month 2 years ago to $1,325 a month since the ACA was passed. That is an additional $1,000 per month that these folks are now paying for the cheapest bronze plan available with a $12,000 deductible. This is not some Cadillac plan. This is the cheapest plan available. This is a $12,000 deductible. This is what these folks at home are paying. The ACA repeal bill that we are currently debating addresses the problem by reducing the penalty for not buying insurance to zero. Alaskans could choose to buy insurance or simply save the thousands of dollars they would be paying each month that could be spent on medical bills as needed but would be available for the families to use as they see fit. On top of the outrageous costs that we are seeing that come with the individual mandate, the Cadillac tax that I just mentioned hits Alaskans harder than anywhere else in the country. Premera is the largest insurer in our State and they tell me that about 62 percent of their customers in Alaska will be forced to pay these tax penalties under the Cadillac tax in 2018, the first year of the tax. The average cost will be $420. That would be the tax on the plan that they would be paying that first year. It is not as if these plans are grand. The problem is with the high cost of health care within our State. The tax penalizes Alaskans because our health care is more expensive in a rural State with a low population. This tax is going to hit the State, the boroughs, and our school districts. It will take away money from public education and other services that the State provides. I am hearing from school districts. Instead of saying they are concerned about testing or some of the other issues we are dealing with in education, they are saying their No. 1 concern is the implementation of the Cadillac tax. It is the single greatest threat to quality public education. That is how Robert Boyle, the superintendent of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District describes the ACA, as the single greatest threat to quality public education. Bob's district faces a tax penalty of over $500,000 due to the Cadillac tax coming up in 2018, the first year of the tax, and the penalties only increase from there. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District is looking at a half-million-dollar tax coming due in 2018. They are not getting more money to run their school district. This is money out the door that isn't improving the education of a single child in that district. We are facing a financial crisis in the State. The State cut the education budget this year, and they are looking hard at cutting it again next year. We are a State that relies on oil revenues, and you see what is going on with the price of oil. That is an impact to us. We are feeling it--desperately feeling it. School districts cannot afford the imposition of hundreds of thousands of dollars of new taxes on top of a budget reduction. The money, as you and I know, would be far better spent paying teachers what they deserve. School districts are now looking to possibly reduce benefits for teachers in order to avoid paying the new tax. With low pay and no benefits, how are our schools going to get ahead? How can we expect to attract and retain quality teachers? The answer is pretty real--we just can't do it. Without quality teachers who suffers? It is going to be the kids. The bill we are debating solves the problem for 6 years by delaying the Cadillac tax for 6 years until 2024. That gives us time to find a way to address it permanently and in a responsible way. This Senator advocates eliminating the Cadillac tax altogether. The problems with the ACA don't end with hundreds of thousands of dollars in new taxes on schools or charging individuals outrageous premiums. It also impacts our small businesses. I heard from so many business owners around the State who want to expand but are saying they just can't do it. They can't do it. They cannot afford to both expand their business and then hit the 50-employee threshold at which they are required to provide the insurance. So, at best, these businesses are kind of treading water right now. The ACA requires every business owned by an individual to be grouped together when counting employees. I have heard from a fellow in my State from Fairbanks. He owns several businesses there. It is a mix of businesses. One is a plumbing distribution company, but he also has a whole handful of little coffee shops. There is quite a difference between plumbing distribution and coffee shops. For tax purposes, Mr. Vivlamore's businesses are all treated as separate entities, and for legal purposes, they are all treated as separate entities. That makes sense. But for some reason, for purposes of health insurance, they are all lumped into one bucket. He has his employees from the coffee shop, and he has employees from the plumbing distribution business, so he is going to be required to provide health insurance when the mandate kicks in because he employs more than 50 people across all of his companies together, even though he doesn't have 50 employees in every one of his very different businesses. He has talked to me about what he is going to do about the prospect of possibly downsizing because the cost of doing business under the ACA for him is just too high. This issue is also resolved in the bill by reducing to zero the penalty for noncompliance with the employer mandate. Employers will once again be free to offer workers more hours, hire more staff, or expand operations without facing a large tax penalty for not offering insurance or an equally significant cost increase when they are forced to provide insurance. I have been on the floor before, and I have asked the question before, but it is worth repeating: For whom is the Affordable Care Act actually affordable? It is certainly not affordable for the average, hard-working Alaskan who is being forced to shell out thousands of dollars for their premiums each month. It is not affordable for the school districts and other State entities that will pay huge taxes. It isn't affordable for the kids whose educations will potentially suffer. This law is not affordable for us in Alaska. That is why I support the bill that repeals the ACA and wipes out these harmful impacts. We cannot stand by and see these premiums shoot through the roof 30 percent or more each year, see our businesses artificially constrained, and see the quality of public education decline. It just doesn't work. I appreciate the time this morning and look forward to the opportunity this afternoon to weigh in on some of these very significant issues that have great and considerable impact on the people of Alaska. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has obtained from the Congressional Budget Office an estimate of the costs of S. 2012, the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2012, as reported from the committee. I respectfully ask unanimous consent that the summary of the opinion of the Congressional Budget Office be printed in the Congressional Record. The full estimate is available on CBO's Web site www.cbo.gov.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last week President Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our Nation's highest civilian honor, to my longtime friend and fellow Alaskan Bonnie Carroll. In my judgment, this is a recognition long due. While America may have first heard the name Bonnie Carroll last week, our military families have long viewed her as a lifeline, a true woman of valor. Bonnie is the founder of the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, TAPS. She founded TAPS after the death of her husband, Alaska Army National Guard BG Tom Carroll, in a military plane crash on November 12, 1992. TAPS is an organization that provides support to military families who have lost a loved one. TAPS welcomes anyone who is grieving the death of someone who died in the military. Its families have experienced loss in a variety of ways--from combat, suicide, terrorism, homicide, negligence, accidents, and illness. Our survivors include mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fiances, and other relatives of those who have died. Since its launch in 1994, TAPS has cared for the more than 50,000 surviving family members through a national network of peer-based emotional support services, a 24/7 helpline available to those grieving a loss, connections to community-based care throughout the Nation, and casework assistance for families navigating all of the resources and benefits available to them. One of TAPS' most respected programs is its ``Good Grief Camp,'' which is offered to young people who have lost a loved one. This program pairs young survivors with Active-Duty military mentors. Military mentors help the young survivors learn how our Nation honors those who have served and sacrificed and companion these children during their grief journey. I suspect that many of our fellow Americans had never heard of Bonnie Carroll or TAPS before. Unlike some of the others honored at last week's ceremony--people like Barbra Streisand, Steven Spielberg, and James Taylor--Bonnie is not a celebrity. She does not seek attention for herself. Her laser focus is on helping military families, and she does nothing to distract herself or her organization from that mission. But that doesn't make her any less a rockstar. And now America knows why. Incredible as it may seem, Bonnie Carroll's road to distinction did not begin with her work at TAPS. Her resume includes service to America as a member of the Air National Guard, the U.S. Air Force Reserve, as a senior staff member in the Reagan White House Cabinet Affairs Office, and the VA's White House liaison in the administration of President George W. Bush. She relocated to Baghdad to serve with the Coalition Provisional Authority. She has served on countless boards and commissions related to military health, suicide prevention, and grief therapy. Bonnie reflects the very best of the Alaskan spirit, a spirit of community and service before self. I am honored to join with the President in recognizing the extraordinary contributions of Bonnie Carroll, my dear friend, fellow Alaskan, and great American.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has obtained from the Congressional Budget Office an estimate of the costs of S. 2011, the Offshore Production and Energizing National Security Act of 2015, as reported from the committee. I respectfully ask unanimous consent that the summary of the opinion of the Congressional Budget Office be printed in the Congressional Record. The full estimate is available on CBO's Web site www.cbo.gov.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has obtained from the Congressional Budget Office an estimate of the costs of S. 720, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2015, as reported from the committee. I respectfully ask unanimous consent that the summary of the opinion of the Congressional Budget Office be printed in the Congressional Record. The full estimate is available on CBO's Web site www.cbo.gov.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this afternoon to speak on an energy-related topic--one that I think the Presiding Officer and many will have interest in--and that is the issue of innovation within the energy sector. Before I speak on energy, I wish to bring up an issue that has come about today with the announcement coming out of the Food and Drug Administration that they have approved an application for what they have called AquAdvantage salmon. This is actually quite disturbing news to any of us who care about our wild species of salmon, our healthy wild stocks, and who are proponents of good amounts of fresh seafood in our diets, knowing that nutritionally it is a pretty extraordinary source of omega-3 fatty acids and good-for-you nutrients. We have been trying to get the FDA to make good on their commitment to make sure that pregnant women and nursing mothers know and understand the guidelines out there in terms of what is safe to consume when it comes to fish because, again, when we are looking for that good, nutritious food source, it is pretty tough to beat Mother Nature. Yet, that is exactly what this approval from the FDA is trying to do, which is, effectively, not only trying to beat Mother Nature but messing with Mother Nature. Again, as one who believes that the real thing is the best thing for our families, the best thing to serve at the dinner table, I find it very troubling. In fact, I am spitting mad today. I have calmed down a lot since I received this news this morning, but I can tell my colleagues that people back home are going to be mad about this for a long time. For about 5 years now, the FDA has been considering this application for this genetically engineered salmon. Again, they are giving it a pretty nice name, calling it the AquAdvantage, that somehow or another this gives an advantage to the salmon. Well, it does. What it does is allow this genetically engineered fish--I don't even know that I want to call it a fish--this genetically engineered organism to grow twice as fast as any other salmon in the water. So how does it get to grow twice as fast? Well, it doesn't happen naturally. It is not the way Mother Nature orders it. What they do is they start messing with it. This process, which has now been approved by the FDA, is a process that splices genetic material from a Chinook salmon, a king salmon, and it takes that genetic material and it integrates it with a pout fish and an Atlantic salmon. People might know about an Atlantic salmon, a farmed salmon. What is an ocean pout? Let me show my colleagues what an ocean pout is. An ocean pout is basically this eel-type of bottom fish. Those of my colleagues who know their salmon know about the Chinooks, the sockeyes, and the chums, and they know that this isn't anything close to a salmon, whether it is a wild Alaskan salmon or whether it is a farmed salmon. This is an eel. We are taking a splice from this, and we are taking a splice from an Atlantic salmon, and we are basically splicing this with a Chinook salmon. The resulting organism, this company claims, is going to grow to the size of an Alaskan king salmon in a shorter period of time than that found in nature. Freaky. We call this combination ``Frankenfish'' because it is just not right. It is just not right. It disturbs me, quite honestly, that the FDA would sign off on the approval of a genetically engineered animal designed for human consumption. This is the first time ever. The FDA is saying this is going to be safe: We are going to make sure it is safe. We are going to make sure that it doesn't interbreed with the wild stocks, and thus perhaps destroy them. We are going to make sure that it doesn't mix with them so that it doesn't transmit disease. We are going to make sure that it is separated so that it doesn't eat up all of the wild sources available for our Alaskan salmon. They are going to make sure, apparently by doing this, because they are saying that with this approval, these AquAdvantage salmon can only be raised in land-based, contained hatchery tanks in two specific facilities in Canada and in Panama. We should all feel safer, I guess, because it is all going to be in Canada and Panama. There are no other locations under this application in the United States or elsewhere that are authorized to do this. Somehow or other, the FDA says they are going to maintain regulatory oversight over the production and the facilities, and they are going to conduct inspections to confirm that adequate physical containment measures remain in place. They will be working with the Canadian and Panamanian governments to be conducting inspections. Really? Do I feel safer about making sure that our wild and healthy stocks are going to be not infiltrated by the Frankenfish, by these genetically engineered organisms designed for human consumption, designed to grow twice as fast to get to the size of a king salmon, so that a company can derive the benefit of selling more of this fish. Well, I am saying FDA should never have approved this--never have approved this. The fact is that the Alaska delegation, as well as members of other delegations in this body and on the other side, have pounded their fists for quite some time against this measure through the FDA. They know full well how much we object to it. At 7:55 last night my assistant got an email from the FDA saying that commissioner would like to talk to me about some imminent news. By the time the morning came around, the imminent news was already made public. Alaskans were already aware that this approval from FDA had come forth. It was not only me; it is my understanding that the head of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee--I met with him yesterday-- didn't get a heads-up about it. The nominee was before us yesterday in the HELP Committee, and I actually put two questions to him about seafood. There was no heads-up that this was coming our way, just kind of, boom, lay it on the table. I have to tell my colleagues, we have made no bones about the fact that this is wrong not only for Alaska and our wild stocks, it is wrong for our salmon stocks around the country, and it is something I am going to continue to fight. I am not sure as we deal with this news today if we can get the FDA to reverse this. I am going to keep working on it. But at a bare minimum, people around this country need to know what they are serving their families when it comes to seafood. If this is going to be allowed into the markets, if it is going to be allowed on restaurant menus, then it needs to be labeled as such. The FDA has said there will be draft guidance on voluntary labeling indicating whether food has or has not been derived from GE Atlantic salmon. So, basically, if you want to put a label on that says this is a fake fish, a fake salmon, you can go ahead, but you don't have to. It is only voluntary. That is not good enough for this mom. That is not good enough for most who care about what their families are eating. So we are going to continue to press for mandatory labeling if the FDA is going to approve--wrongheadedly, in my mind--this genetically engineered fake fish for human consumption. They darn well better agree that labeling will be required because I am not going to eat it.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I acknowledge COL Bob Harter of the United States Army Reserve as he is promoted to brigadier general, effective November 8, 2015. The Harter family has long roots in Alaska; Bob's grandparents moved to Fairbanks in the early 1940s, and Bob's father, LTC Robert Harter, retired, was raised in Fairbanks, leaving Alaska to attend the United States Military Academy in 1961. Bob lived in Alaska in the mid-1970s, when Bob's father was stationed at Fort Wainwright. While Bob has spent the last 27 years serving his country both at home and abroad, he has always maintained his Alaskan residence and remains the son of a proud Alaska family. In fact, both Bob and his father travel to Cordova, AK, every summer to spend time on the family boat, fishing and enjoying ``the last frontier.'' BG Bob Harter is the incoming director of the Office, Chief Army Reserve, OCAR, Staff. He was previously assigned to the Army's chief of staff transition team, where he provided a total force perspective for GEN Mark Milley, the newly assigned chief of staff of the Army. As the director of the OCAR Staff, Brigadier General Harter will be responsible for synchronizing the actions of the 400-person Army Reserve headquarters based out of Fort Belvoir, VA, in support of the chief of Army Reserve's priorities. A graduate of Virginia Tech, Brigadier General Harter began his military career in 1988 as an artillery officer, assigned to the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, ACR, in Bad Hersfeld, Germany. While assigned to the 11th ACR, Brigadier General Harter participated in multiple border security missions prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall and German reunification. Colonel Harter also deployed with the regiment to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in support of Operation Desert Storm. Upon returning from Desert Storm, Colonel Harter transferred to the Ordnance Corps and was reassigned to Fort Campbell, KY, where he served as a group maintenance officer; battalion operations officer, S3; and as commander, 584th Direct Support, DS, Maintenance Company. In 1999, Brigadier General Harter transferred from the Active component to the Reserve component, entered the Active Guard and Reserve program, and was assigned to the 99th Regional Readiness Command in Pittsburgh, PA, as a training chief for a readiness team, with a follow on assignment to the 55th Sustainment Brigade, Fort Belvoir, as the brigade support operations officer. In 2006, Brigadier General Harter transferred to the 316th Expeditionary Sustainment Command and, in 2007, deployed to Balad, Iraq, for one year. While in Iraq, Brigadier General Harter served as the 316th's distribution management chief, responsible for synchronizing logistics support to the more than 150,000 military members operating in Iraq. Upon redeployment from Iraq, Brigadier General Harter attended the National War College at Fort McNair, Washington, DC, and was subsequently assigned as branch chief in the Force Protection Division, J8, of the Joint Staff. While in the J8, Brigadier General Harter was responsible for vetting the mine-resistant ambush protected, MRAP, and counter improvised explosive device requirements in support of Central Command, CENTCOM, operations. In 2011, Brigadier General Harter became the executive officer for the chief, Army Reserve, and, in 2013, assumed duties as the Office, Chief Army Reserve assistant chief of staff. Brigadier General Harter's awards include the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, and the parachutist and air assault badges. Brigadier General Harter is a graduate of the National War College. He lives in Stafford, VA, with his wife, Erin, also a Virginia Tech graduate, and his three children: Anna, 20, currently a sophomore at the University of Virginia; Bobby, 16; and Jack, 14. It is only fair and proper to acknowledge the unwavering support of his wife, Erin, and their three children, as they enabled him to work tirelessly on his assigned duties throughout his career and will undoubtedly continue to do so for many years to come. Let us thank them all for their sacrifices and wish them continued success in the future.

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, this weekend the interior Alaska community will honor the Rev. Scott Fisher, the rector and senior pastor of St. Matthew's Episcopal Church in downtown Fairbanks on the occasion of his retirement. St. Matthew's is not just any church. It is one of the three oldest churches in Fairbanks, a beautiful log building overlooking the Chena River. It is a diverse congregation, the spiritual home of the Athabascan community of interior Alaska. And Scott Fisher is not just any pastor. All who know Scott would agree that he reflects all that is good and all that is holy. Easy to talk to and calming in manner, Scott is respected by people of all faiths for his strength, compassion, and humanity. There is an old plaque on the door of St. Matthew's that reads: ``To all who are joyful and thankful--to all who mourn and need comfort--to all who are weary and need rest--to all who are friendless and wish friendship--to all who pray and to all who do not but ought--to all who sin and need a Savior and to whosoever will--this church opens wide the door and in the name of Christ the Lord says welcome.'' And under Scott Fisher's leadership, that was so. This is a church where newcomers feel welcome immediately. The Rev. Scott Fisher has served as rector of St. Matthew's Episcopal Church since June 1991. He arrived in Alaska, through the legendary Bishop William Jones Gordon, Jr., as a volunteer layworker in October 1970 and lived in the interior villages of Chalkyitsik, Stevens Village, and Beaver before leaving for seminary under Bishop Gordon's direction in the summer of 1973. Receiving his M.Div. from the Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest, in Austin, TX, he returned to the interior of Alaska, working for the church in Fort Yukon and Beaver before moving into the diocesan office. He was an assistant to the bishop, traveling and working extensively throughout the interior and Arctic coast, before coming to St. Matthew's in the summer of 1991. I want to take this opportunity to thank Rev. Scott Fisher for the powerful contribution he has made to life in interior Alaska and to wish him well in retirement. I know that I speak for the entire community in telling you that your departure leaves a large hole in our hearts, and we shall miss you.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me switch to a better topic, and that is one I know the Presiding Officer cares a great deal about; that is, the issue of energy and the importance of energy to our Nation's economy and to our overall health. I have come to this floor many times to highlight what I believe are the shortsighted, anti-energy decisions that we have seen come from this administration. Whether we are talking about the Keystone XL Pipeline, more than 7 years of delay and the eventual rejection of that infrastructure, whether it is the burdensome rules coming out of the EPA that raise the energy costs or whether it is the actions from the Department of Interior that seek to halt resource development in Federal areas, this administration has rarely ever worked with us to promote responsible energy, mineral, and timber development. In Alaska this ever-shifting Federal regulatory environment played a very key role in the recent decision by Shell to abandon 7 years of work and $7 billion of investment in the offshore Arctic. It was just this week we received word that another company, looking again at low oil prices but seeing this same deteriorating regulatory environment, decided to follow suit, and they are seeking to return their leases in the offshore. The Obama administration has also canceled offshore lease sales in the State. It has hamstrung projects in our National Petroleum Reserve, which we absolutely need if we are ever going to refill our Trans- Alaska Pipeline. It has placed half of the National Petroleum Reserve off-limits, even though it was specifically designated for development. Of course we all know the situation in ANWR. This administration is trying to lock away 10 billion barrels of oil in the nonwilderness portion of ANWR, which could be safely produced with development of just 0.01 percent of its surface area. The list goes on and on. I told you I was going to move to more promising and more uplifting subjects than Frankenfish and what the administration has done to suppress our ability to access our energy resources. I do want to move to another area because I think this is an area and a focus that I would like to believe we can find support, not only working with the administration but working with colleagues and building some partnerships on both the public and the private side. This is in the area of energy innovation, where I believe there is greater hope for working together with this administration to make a real difference for our Nation. Innovation holds tremendous promise, not just for us as policymakers but also in terms of long-lasting benefits that it can deliver for not only the United States but around the world. Innovation doesn't require more complex and costly regulations. It doesn't need to choose winners or losers in the energy sector. Instead, innovation offers a chance at common ground that will deliver results and help power our Nation for decades to come. No matter your motivation for seeking cleaner and more affordable energy, we should all be able to agree that without innovation--without pushing every day for that greater technology--our energy future and our economic prosperity are hardly secure. The good news for us in this country is that the United States is the global leader in innovation. We hear this is a race and that America is falling behind, but I would contend that our strength and skill are unmatched. Our innovation, ideas, inventions and our products and processes have changed history and in turn changed the world. The United States has led the way in research and development that has changed our lives and lives across the world for the better. Among Federal agencies, the Department of Energy, in particular, has played an important role in these efforts, and I think they can make even greater contributions, especially when it comes to vital basic research. The DOE is hardly perfect. Many of us would make changes to the scope of its mission and improve its priorities if we were given the chance, but given that, the Department has also sparked innovation that has helped transform the global energy landscape. The most successful innovations give us more energy, reduce the amount of energy we use, as well as lower the cost we pay for energy. I think as we move forward we should keep those goals in focus and we will improve. Increasing access to energy, making it more affordable, and improving its environmental performance are the key factors that drive our innovation policy. Those of us on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee are always talking about innovation and how best to promote it through reasonable Federal policies. We understand how critical it is to our Nation's future. That is why energy and the innovation part of energy is a key part of our broad bipartisan Energy bill that we reported through the energy committee by a vote of 18 to 4 back in July. The bill also includes legislation that is authored by Senator Alexander to renew some of the energy-related portions of the America COMPETES Act. We have agreed to authorize a 4-percent increase in funding for basic energy research each year, which I think puts us on a responsible path to double our Nation's commitment to it. It is basic research that is at the heart of the mission of our system of national labs and also many of our research universities. The men and women in the research sector are pushing to make that fundamental discovery--to conduct the basic research that could find the next big thing for energy. This type of research should be a priority for us, and the Department of Energy should be committed to helping new discoveries transition to market viability. Within this bipartisan bill we also reauthorize the ARPA-E Program, which solicits ideas that are too early for private sector investment but with bridge funding has the opportunity to transform the energy sector. ARPA-E is a true hands-on program that ensures awardees meet milestones toward the goal of market viability. ARPA-E hasn't been around that long, but it has been promoting some good ideas, strong ideas, and producing some good results. Our bill also supports innovation in a number of other areas; specifically, energy efficiency, energy storage, and distribution; in vehicles it provides for hybrid microgrid systems; and for recycling, for geothermal power, for marine hydrokinetic, and for many other developing technologies. Recently, we have also seen more reports of private individuals and companies who plan to invest in energy technologies with the potential to transform the way energy is produced, delivered, and consumed. This, too, will help drive energy innovation in this country. Back in July, Bill Gates announced his personal commitment to invest $1 billion over 5 years to advance new energy technologies. He made that commitment based on his recognition that currently available energy options will not allow the world to achieve its much discussed climate goals in a way that also works to reduce the costs for people using energy. It is one thing to be working toward climate goals, but in doing so if all that we do is increase the cost to the consumer, that doesn't help us. His focus is as much on clean air and clean water as it is on lifting people around the world out of poverty. I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Gates several weeks ago and look forward to seeing what comes out of his commitment. I am also following the possibilities that are coming out of venture capital and other private investments. I think these efforts augment the Federal research and development dollars, in many cases ensuring that promising technologies are not just set up on a shelf somewhere but are pursued to a successful and productive result. Now you have heard me say it on the floor many times, but we in the State of Alaska are desperate to see energy innovation. Energy prices in many parts of Alaska are much higher than the prices paid by our friends in the lower 48. In some communities in Alaska it costs 40 to 50 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity. In certain parts of the State, over half of a family's budget goes just toward energy to keep warm and keep the lights on. Can you imagine what that means when over half of your family's budget--half of your income--is used just to keep your lights on and keep yourself warm? It doesn't leave a lot for anything else, such as educating your kids, feeding them or for health care. It is a huge issue for us. There are so many things that contribute to the high cost of energy. It is the big geography and the lack of a comprehensive and interconnected energy delivery system. We have tremendous energy potential in the State of Alaska, and unfortunately many of our communities are just not powered by it. We have natural gas in abundance, and yet our second largest community in Alaska doesn't have access to natural gas. We are trying to get it there, but that is our current reality. Many communities in rural Alaska still rely on diesel to generate their power. Delivering the diesel, whether it is moving it up river by barge or flying it in by plane is hugely expensive. It is not sustainable. Innovation is essential to moving these rural communities--and even the not so rural communities--off diesel and onto more sustainable, locally generated, and less expensive energy systems. What we are doing in Alaska is bringing some very innovative technologies to communities around the State through a variety of State-run programs that are largely financed by the revenues that are derived from our oil production. Think about that. We are a State that derives most of our revenues and income from oil. We are taking a nonrenewable energy source, taking the revenues from that and helping to facilitate our renewable resources--our resources that will be there for well into the future. These programs need to be financed. We are doing so much of it from our oil production. Responsible development of Alaska's resources has enabled our State to take the necessary steps to improve energy delivery in our remote communities. In many ways this is almost like a virtuous cycle, where current energy production helps fund the next generation of energy production and where we harness today's energy to significantly improve the lives of our people. What we are seeing in the State are several communities working with various State agencies to integrate wind, solar, and geothermal into their electricity delivery system in an effort to displace the power that is normally generated from expensive diesel. It is the microgrids that we are seeing that are coming to be found as the solution. We are home to more microgrids in the State of Alaska than any other State out there. That is largely because they are the only option for us. They are the only option for many of our communities that lie far outside any regional transmission grid. We have transmission grids in what we call the Railbelt area. But it is difficult when you have large geography and small population numbers. So you are going to have to figure out how you can literally power one village at a time or maybe you get lucky and you are able to cluster a few. But knowing what, for instance, the island of Kodiak has done with being able to power a major seafood-producing port through wind, combined with their hydro resources and also utilizing batteries--that area in Kodiak is almost 100 percent powered by renewable resources. This, again, is one of the major seafood-producing ports not only in the State but in the country. So the energy that is needed for those processes is coming to us by renewable energy sources--almost 100 percent. The irony--and we were able to talk about this briefly in the energy committee this morning--is that in order to meet increased demand in Kodiak, they are going to need to expand one of their hydro facilities, Terror Lake, and so they have asked for assistance with that. If they cannot get the expansion, which some are objecting to because they don't want to see an expansion of that dam, what will happen? You go back to diesel. You go back to diesel. That is not the answer here. So what we have been doing with pioneering of our microgrids is something that I think provides States and the Federal Government with ample opportunities to conduct research and develop solutions to better integrate renewable technologies into these microgrids. In order for renewable technologies to be effective in the State, innovative research and development is required, and I think the result of those efforts has made a dramatic difference in many communities. Bringing renewables online in remote communities like Kodiak has displaced hundreds of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel, not only saving the people who live there hundreds of thousands of dollars but resulting in a cleaner environment overall. I do think it is exciting to think about what a difference future innovations in renewable technologies and energy storage could mean for communities not only in a place like Alaska but really around our country and around the world. Whether it is through Federal research and development, whether it is through our State programs that are assisting our private capital, promoting innovation is a clear path to lower energy costs and a future with cleaner water and cleaner air. We might not agree on every energy policy that comes to this Chamber, but I hope we can all agree that energy innovation is one key to ensuring our economic growth, our national security, as well as our international competitiveness. I look forward to working with colleagues in all of these areas. With that, I see that my friend and colleague from Kansas--a gentleman who is always filled with thanksgiving and who has shared that with many of us today--is here on the floor, and so I will yield at this time.