Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will speed the next phase of a renewable energy project in my home State of Alaska, that Congress effectively authorized 35 years ago. Back in 1980, Congress in Section 1325 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, noted that the Kodiak Electric Association Inc., KEA, then wished to build a lake-tap hydroelectric project by taking water from Terror Lake, a high alpine lake, whiph was placed just inside the boundary line of Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge by the act. At the time KEA had wanted to build a 20 megawatt hydroelectric project inside the refuge to power the namesake community on Kodiak Island. Under the law, the Secretary of the Interior was to approve the project and its expansion on a ``case-by-case'' basis--the law simply saying that nothing in the 1980 Act ``shall be construed as necessarily prohibiting or mandating the construction'' of the project. The Secretary the next year approved the power project, which started generation in the mid 1980's. A third 10-megawatt turbine since was added to the project in 2012-13. Kodiak Electric Association, a rural electric cooperative, is a leader in Alaska in promoting renewable energy. In 2014, 99.7 percent of its total electricity came from hydroelectric generation and from a Pillar Mountain wind turbine farm--the first community in Alaska to be nearly 100 percent supplied by renewable energy sources. But that designation will disappear if the next phase of the originally planned Terror Lake project is not constructed, since the utility will need to resume burning more diesel fuel to produce power if additional hydroelectric generation from the lake is not permitted. That will result in the burning of 2 million gallons of diesel fuel--in a typical year given current electricity load forecasts--that will emit 26,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually. The new expansion involves diverting five small streams located on Alaska State lands in the adjacent Upper Hidden Basin--streams branching off the East and West Upper Hidden Creeks--and allowing the water to flow into Terror Lake through an underground tunnel that will be drilled through the ridge line marking the boundary between State and refuge lands. The project, which will impact about 13 acres of refuge lands, 3 acres being made up by the tunnel itself, will have a single visible impact, some grading for a construction laydown area on the rocky slopes above the upper end of the lake, and the ``natural'' waterfall that will result from water entering the lake from the tunnel. The entire extent of the project involves drilling a 1.22 mile- long tunnel, about 2,150 feet by current estimates being on refuge lands, plus the diversion structure on the State's creeks, a water pipeline to carry water from the East Creek over to the main diversion structure located on the West Creek, and a related access road. The project should have no impact on the environment or wildlife, since the amount of water being diverted from the 4 square mile basin is so slight as to have no impact on fisheries at the mouth of the Kizhuyak River on the east side of Kodiak Island at Ugak Bay, into which the Hidden Basin Creeks flow. The project should not affect the wildlife along the shore of the steep, rocky lake. The project will not involve adding turbines or equipment to the existing Terror Lake powerhouse, as the project will not increase the maximum amount of megawatt production, but simply increase the annual total production of electricity from the power project. Terror Lake in 2014, a normal water year, produced 134 gigawatt-hours of electricity. By the addition it should produce about 30 additional gigawatt-hours annually, about a 25 percent increase. The project, besides allowing KEA to utilize clean, renewable energy, should also enhance the utility's innovative wind-hydro integration system and further its micro-grid energy storage technology. While this project should be able to proceed by seeking administrative approvals either because of its ANILCA inclusion or because of Title 11 of ANILCA, which governs future rights-of-way requests, I am introducing legislation seeking Congressional approval to speed up the start of construction on the power project. Without Congressional approval, the utility will need to fund two environmental impact statements, EIS's, instead of one, covering the exact same issues, delaying the start of construction by years. With congressional approval, the project will still face the delay of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission conducting a single EIS as part of its hydro licensing amendment process. The project still will be subject to any conditions to protect fisheries or wildlife placed on the project by the USF&WS under Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act. But it will have to clear only one such EIS process, sparing rate payers on Kodiak Island a doubling of the permitting expense. This authorization will simply allow another phase of the Terror Lake project to be constructed, as it was envisioned nearly 40 years ago. In the 1978 feasibility plan, two years before passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Hidden Basin Creek diversion was clearly outlined. ``This scheme is the most economical means of increasing the output of the development . . . and it can be built whenever the growth in power demand in Kodiak justifies it. Therefore, the scheme is included in the present report as a recommended future development,'' said the Terror Lake hydro report in December 1978. The project will permit additional clean, renewable energy to be generated for the inhabitants of Kodiak Island, but without any environmental or negative fishery or wildlife consequences. This bill, if approved by Congress this year, will produce that power more quickly and at less cost than will be involved should a lengthy, multiple administrative review take place. It is unfortunate, but in the past 35 years since passage of the Alaska lands act, no entity has ever completed the lengthy process and received a right-of-way permit under the bureaucratic process set up by Title 11 of ANILCA. I hope that this project will not have to attempt to be the first to actually navigate the Title 11 right-of-way process in order to proceed. I hope Congress will quickly approve this authorization so that more renewable electricity can flow to the citizens of Kodiak in the near future.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will speed the next phase of a renewable energy project in my home State of Alaska, that Congress effectively authorized 35 years ago. Back in 1980, Congress in Section 1325 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, noted that the Kodiak Electric Association Inc., KEA, then wished to build a lake-tap hydroelectric project by taking water from Terror Lake, a high alpine lake, whiph was placed just inside the boundary line of Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge by the act. At the time KEA had wanted to build a 20 megawatt hydroelectric project inside the refuge to power the namesake community on Kodiak Island. Under the law, the Secretary of the Interior was to approve the project and its expansion on a ``case-by-case'' basis--the law simply saying that nothing in the 1980 Act ``shall be construed as necessarily prohibiting or mandating the construction'' of the project. The Secretary the next year approved the power project, which started generation in the mid 1980's. A third 10-megawatt turbine since was added to the project in 2012-13. Kodiak Electric Association, a rural electric cooperative, is a leader in Alaska in promoting renewable energy. In 2014, 99.7 percent of its total electricity came from hydroelectric generation and from a Pillar Mountain wind turbine farm--the first community in Alaska to be nearly 100 percent supplied by renewable energy sources. But that designation will disappear if the next phase of the originally planned Terror Lake project is not constructed, since the utility will need to resume burning more diesel fuel to produce power if additional hydroelectric generation from the lake is not permitted. That will result in the burning of 2 million gallons of diesel fuel--in a typical year given current electricity load forecasts--that will emit 26,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually. The new expansion involves diverting five small streams located on Alaska State lands in the adjacent Upper Hidden Basin--streams branching off the East and West Upper Hidden Creeks--and allowing the water to flow into Terror Lake through an underground tunnel that will be drilled through the ridge line marking the boundary between State and refuge lands. The project, which will impact about 13 acres of refuge lands, 3 acres being made up by the tunnel itself, will have a single visible impact, some grading for a construction laydown area on the rocky slopes above the upper end of the lake, and the ``natural'' waterfall that will result from water entering the lake from the tunnel. The entire extent of the project involves drilling a 1.22 mile- long tunnel, about 2,150 feet by current estimates being on refuge lands, plus the diversion structure on the State's creeks, a water pipeline to carry water from the East Creek over to the main diversion structure located on the West Creek, and a related access road. The project should have no impact on the environment or wildlife, since the amount of water being diverted from the 4 square mile basin is so slight as to have no impact on fisheries at the mouth of the Kizhuyak River on the east side of Kodiak Island at Ugak Bay, into which the Hidden Basin Creeks flow. The project should not affect the wildlife along the shore of the steep, rocky lake. The project will not involve adding turbines or equipment to the existing Terror Lake powerhouse, as the project will not increase the maximum amount of megawatt production, but simply increase the annual total production of electricity from the power project. Terror Lake in 2014, a normal water year, produced 134 gigawatt-hours of electricity. By the addition it should produce about 30 additional gigawatt-hours annually, about a 25 percent increase. The project, besides allowing KEA to utilize clean, renewable energy, should also enhance the utility's innovative wind-hydro integration system and further its micro-grid energy storage technology. While this project should be able to proceed by seeking administrative approvals either because of its ANILCA inclusion or because of Title 11 of ANILCA, which governs future rights-of-way requests, I am introducing legislation seeking Congressional approval to speed up the start of construction on the power project. Without Congressional approval, the utility will need to fund two environmental impact statements, EIS's, instead of one, covering the exact same issues, delaying the start of construction by years. With congressional approval, the project will still face the delay of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission conducting a single EIS as part of its hydro licensing amendment process. The project still will be subject to any conditions to protect fisheries or wildlife placed on the project by the USF&WS under Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act. But it will have to clear only one such EIS process, sparing rate payers on Kodiak Island a doubling of the permitting expense. This authorization will simply allow another phase of the Terror Lake project to be constructed, as it was envisioned nearly 40 years ago. In the 1978 feasibility plan, two years before passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Hidden Basin Creek diversion was clearly outlined. ``This scheme is the most economical means of increasing the output of the development . . . and it can be built whenever the growth in power demand in Kodiak justifies it. Therefore, the scheme is included in the present report as a recommended future development,'' said the Terror Lake hydro report in December 1978. The project will permit additional clean, renewable energy to be generated for the inhabitants of Kodiak Island, but without any environmental or negative fishery or wildlife consequences. This bill, if approved by Congress this year, will produce that power more quickly and at less cost than will be involved should a lengthy, multiple administrative review take place. It is unfortunate, but in the past 35 years since passage of the Alaska lands act, no entity has ever completed the lengthy process and received a right-of-way permit under the bureaucratic process set up by Title 11 of ANILCA. I hope that this project will not have to attempt to be the first to actually navigate the Title 11 right-of-way process in order to proceed. I hope Congress will quickly approve this authorization so that more renewable electricity can flow to the citizens of Kodiak in the near future.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, when we talk about national security issues and the vulnerabilities we have as a nation, I can think of no other area where we face such challenges and yet such opportunities when it comes to our energy assets and how we can utilize our energy policies at their intersection points with our national security policies. The inability of the United States to export oil is a vulnerability to our nation. At a time when we have risen to be the world's top producer of oil, our outdated 1970s-era ban on oil exports is causing us to miss out on a significant economic- and security-related benefits. The good news is we can change this. It is within our power to change this, and that is why I have come to the floor this afternoon. Here is a fact: The United States is the only advanced Nation that prohibits crude oil exports. We are the only one. Countries such as Australia, Denmark, Norway, the United Kingdom, Canada, and even New Zealand all allow for both imports and exports, just like the normal trade in any other commodity. It is distinctly weird that we would prohibit our own exports. We are also in a position where our friends and our trading partners are openly asking us for assistance. They are coming to us and saying: Hey, can you help? We are your friends. We are your allies. You have the resources. The world has changed dramatically. We have new alliances. We have new threats. We have new hopes. We have new fears. It is my own hope that while the world may have changed, our Nation's role as a global leader has not eroded. This is an area where we have an opportunity to prove it has not eroded. Our energy renaissance is a new thing, and sometimes it takes time to understand the implications of new things, of changes, but here is where we have been. We have already held about half a dozen hearings on the topic of oil exports in the House and in the Senate since last January. I introduced this subject last January 2014, and I said at that time that 2014 was going to be the year of the report, where we would seek out the experts, we would ask the think tanks to weigh in on this issue, and so they did. The reports that came out were numerous, they were considered, they were thoughtful, and they were all very helpful. Reports came out of the Brookings Institution, Columbia University, the Center for a New American Security--too many to even list here. The individual experts who are in favor of allowing oil exports are also quite impressive. These are people whom we look to for leadership in a host of different areas. There was a piece in the Wall Street Journal that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record, penned by Leon Panetta and Stephen Hadley, the Defense Secretary in the Obama administration and the National Security Advisor in the Bush administration. They wrote a piece that was entitled ``The Oil-Export Ban Harms National Security.'' It is well-founded, well-written, and to the point.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. It said directly: We keep this ban in place, this decades- old ban. It hurts us as a nation. It harms us from a national security perspective, not to mention the benefits that oil exports will provide when it comes to increased production and increased jobs benefits to our economy. There are other folks out there who have also weighed in. Larry Summers, formerly the Treasury Secretary for President Clinton and also Director of the National Economic Council for President Obama, said this about lifting the ban on oil exports: ``The merits are as clear as the merits with respect to any significant public policy issue that I have ever encountered.'' This is a guy many people looked to for leadership in a host of different areas. The merits are as clear as the merits with respect to any significant public policy issue he has encountered. Tom Donilon, formerly the National Security Advisor to President Obama, has said that allowing exports ``will increase diversity of supply, increase competition, reduce volatility and lower prices in global markets.'' The questions we needed to ask about oil exports have been asked, and answered favorably. Independent experts have studied what would happen if we lift the ban and almost universally encouraged us to move forward to lift this outdated, outmoded policy. This is not a partisan issue. My colleague from North Dakota is on the floor today. We have introduced bipartisan legislation to remove this ban. This is something which is simply in the best interest of the United States, both in terms of our economic strength and in terms of our national security. I am here today to tell our colleagues, to repeat and remind our colleagues that the time to legislate on oil exports is now. I think the bill we have in front of us, the National Defense Authorization Act being led by our friend and colleague from Arizona, is the perfect vehicle on which to advance this. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to call up and make pending my amendment No. 1594, related to crude oil exports. Mr. President, I withhold the request to make this amendment pending at this point in time, but if I may proceed to speak to three quick components to the amendment. The first requires the Department of Energy to assess the impact that lifting sanctions on Iran would have on global oil markets. We would likely see higher Iranian oil exports, even as American producers are prohibited from accessing global markets. So our friends in Japan, India, South Korea, and elsewhere would continue importing from Iran, in part because they cannot get the crude oil from us. They cannot import from us. That situation is simply unacceptable. We would be lifting sanctions on Iranian oil while maintaining them on American oil. I have made this point and I have repeated it before: Leaving in place the oil export ban on U.S. producers while at the same time sanctions are relieved on Iranian producers effectively sanctions U.S. oil production. There was an article in Reuters this week that revealed that India is now importing record volumes of oil directly from Iran. Another from May showed record oil exports out of Iraq to global markets. Yet another shows the highest volumes of oil exports from Saudi Arabia in 10 years. So the fact is that we are simply not competing. The second component of my amendment says that 30 days after completion of this report, all U.S. crude oil may be exported on the same basis as the regulations and law currently allow for exports of petroleum products. Today, we can export gasoline, we can export diesel, we can export jet fuel--really, any refined product we can export without a license--but we cannot export crude oil. It does not make sense, and it is high time we resolve that inconsistency. The third component of my amendment preserves the authorities of the President to block exports during emergencies, during a national security crisis, and so forth. So what we have done is we have borrowed language on these authorities directly from the legislation from 20 years ago that authorized oil exports from Alaska's North Slope, which was a measure that passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote, 74 to 25, and was signed into law by President Clinton. What we had over 20 years ago was an overwhelmingly favorable vote well before this American energy renaissance began. I find the whole idea that oil exports would still be prohibited a little mind-boggling. The Commerce Department keeps a list of commodities that are in short supply. They call this the short supply controls. Historically, these controls were generally not blanket prohibitions; they were on items such as aluminum, copper, iron and steel scrap, diamond bort and powder, nickel selenium, and the polio vaccine--not blanket prohibitions, just bits of them. Only three items remain on the short supply controls list. One of them--you guessed it-- is crude oil, the second is western red cedar, and the third is horse for slaughter. There is also a small caveat here that prohibits exports from the Naval Petroleum Reserves, but, really, the list is pretty short. There are three things: crude oil, western cedar trees, and horse for slaughter. Clearly our policy needs to be modernized. We see many parts of the world in a state of unrest. Many parts of the world are seemingly on fire. America and American energy need to be ready to render vital assistance to our friends who are counting on us to demonstrate that global leadership. This is our chance, and I look forward to further discussion on the floor as we move this NDAA measure forward. I encourage colleagues to look at this amendment, look at the merits of the reports that have gone down in the past year, and look to updating this very outdated policy that is holding us back as a nation. 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 ask unanimous consent that my interns, Jasper MacNaughton and Holly O'Brien, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to recognize a man who was well known across my State, and in many circles across our Nation. Bobby Andrew, an Alaska Native Yupik leader, passed away on May 12 at the age of 73 near Aleknagik in southwest Alaska. Aleknagik is 16 miles northwest of its hub community of Dillingham, a small town of about 2,500 residents, which sits at the confluence of the Nushagak River, an inlet of Alaska's Bristol Bay. Bobby was seen as a leader by many Native and non-Native Alaskans. At a young age Bobby attended territorial and BIA schools in Southwest Alaska and then went off to Ohio to earn an accounting degree from Dyke Spencerian Business College, now known as Chancellor University in Cleveland. He then returned home to bring his education back to Alaska. Bobby was a lifelong subsistence hunter and fisherman who was respected by many across the State. He taught many of the importance of traditional knowledge and passing along important Alaska Native values. Bobby was a known advocate for land and water protection in Alaska. As a writer and public speaker Bobby took his advocacy across the State, Nation, and overseas. He often visited places like Juneau, Washington, DC, and London when asked to speak about Alaska. It was said about Bobby that ``anywhere he was needed, he would go . . .'' Bobby was once quoted saying, ``I find myself fighting for the future of our renewable fish and wildlife resources. They are the central part of my culture,'' he said. ``We need to let the rest of the world know so we can all work together to protect the environment, air, water and lands that produce subsistence resources on which we depend.'' Bobby loved Alaska, loved his family--especially his grandchildren-- and he was an important voice for Alaska. He passed naturally at his cabin, a place he loved, where he went to rest after fishing. He will be missed.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation in a dramatically different form to reinstate two small miner's claims, which have been taken from them because of an inequitable federal administrative process. Under revisions to the Federal Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 28(f) holders of unpatented mineral claims must pay a claim maintenance fee originally set at $100 per claim by a deadline, set by regulation, of September l each year. Since 2004 that fee has risen to $140 per claim. But Congress also provided a claim maintenance fee waiver for ``small'' miners, those who hold 10 or fewer claims, so that they do not have to submit the fee, but that they must file to renew their claims and submit an affidavit of annual labor, work conducted on the claim, each year, certifying that they had performed more than $100 of work on the claim in the preceding year, 30 U.S.C. 28f(d)(1). The waiver provision further states: ``If a small miner waiver application is determined to be defective for any reason, the claimant shall have a period of 60 days after receipt of written notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau of Land Management to: A) cure such defect or defects or (B) pay the . . . claim maintenance fee(s) due for such a period.'' Since past revisions of the law, there have been a series of incidents where miners have argued that they submitted their applications and affidavits of annual labor in a timely manner, but due to clerical error by U.S. Bureau of Land Management staff, mailing delays or for unexplained reasons, the applications or documents were not recorded as having been received in a timely fashion. In that case BLM has terminated the claims, deeming them null and void. While mining claim holders have argued that the law provides them time to cure claim defects, BLM has argued that the cure only applies when applications or fees have been received in a timely manner. Thus, there is no administrative remedy for miners who believe that clerical errors by BLM or mail issues resulted in loss or the late recording of claim extension applications and paperwork. There have been a number of cases where Congress has been asked to override BLM determinations and reinstate mining claims simply because of the disputes over whether the claims had been filed in a timely manner. Congress in 2003 reinstated such claims in a previous Alaska case. Claims in two other incidents were reinstated following a U.S. District Court case in the 10th Circuit first in 2009 in the case of Miller v. United States and in a second Alaska case in 2013. Legislation to correct the provision to prevent this problem actually was approved by the Senate in 2007, but did not ultimately become law. In the past three Congresses I have introduced legislation intended to short circuit continued litigation and pleas for claim reinstatement by clarifying the intent of Congress that miners do have to be informed that their claims are in jeopardy of being voided and given 60 days of notice to cure defects, including giving them time to submit their applications and to submit affidavits of annual labor, should their submittals not be received and processed by BLM officials on time. If all defects are not cured within 60 days--the obvious intent of Congress in passing the original act--then claims should be subject to voidance. But this administration has opposed the legislation arguing that it would be too expensive to notify all small miners who fail to file their small miner waiver documents on time and giving them time to solve the defect prior to the loss of their claims. It has even been suggested that giving small miners simple due process would just encourage miners to ignore the deadline for filing of their fee waivers. I clearly find the cost argument unpersuasive. Many Federal departments and agencies, the Federal Communication Commission, as one example, routinely sends out notices on permit and license applications. The FCC sends out hundreds of thousands of such notices to Americans who have small radio licenses expiring yearly, warning them that they need to file applications for license renewal. The Bureau of Land Management certainly should be able to afford a few hundred stamps to perform a similar service. Given the value of claims placed at risk and the bother, inconvenience and fear of loss of claims, it is highly unlikely that miners would avoid filing their waiver paperwork on time just because a notification process was clearly in place before claims could be terminated. But after facing the clear opposition of this administration over 6 years to resolving this inequity, today I simply file legislation to remedy the injustices for two of my constituents who have lost their rights, in one case to nine mineral claims on the Kenai Peninsula, near Hope, Alaska, and in the second case to a single placer claim in the Fortymile District of northeast Alaska. The transition language proposed will reinstate claims for Mr. John Trautner, who has lost title to claims that he had held from 1982 to 2004. Mr. Trautner suffered this loss even though he had a consistent record of having paid the annual labor assessment fee for the previous 22 years. The local BLM office did have a time-date-stamped record that the maintenance fee waiver certification form had been filed weeks before the deadline, but just not a record that the affidavit of annual labor had arrived when he dropped it at the office in Anchorage at the same time. In the second case, it will reinstate a claim held by Mr. and Mrs. Vernon Thurneau, now of Wasilla, who lost their claim after mining it continuously for 38 years in 2009, simply because of a holiday season error. In this case the Thurneau's paid their fees on time, and turned in their proof of labor affidavit to the Fairbanks Recorders Office in December before the deadline. They received a time and date stamp that they produced the information in a timely manner. But because of the Christmas holidays they simply forgot to turn/mail in the form to the BLM Anchorage office until after Jan. 1, missing the BLM's required Dec. 31 deadline. Because of a holiday delay, they lost their claims and 38 years of work. This legislation, supported in the past by the Alaska Miners Association, will simply reinstate the two sets of claims, claims that have been held by the government over the past decade. In response to complaints by the Department of the Interior that past versions of my legislation improperly would have resulted in the patenting of the claims by the granting of a first half final certificate in the Trautner case, I have modified this bill simply to reinstate the claims, but not to take steps to confirm patents. By this bill Mr. Trautner will have to wait like many other miners for Congress to reconsider the merits of the moratorium on patent issuance first imposed on the Mining Law of 1872 by Congress in 1995. It is simple justice that Mr. Trautner and the Thurneau family receive their claims back, since Congress clearly thought it was giving miners a guaranteed opportunity to remedy claim defects when it created the small miner waiver provisions in 1993. Return of the claims will cost the government nothing and likely will result in added federal revenues, hopefully preventing this bill from facing any procedural issues. I hope that justice will finally prevail in these cases this Congress, even though I regret that I see no means to fix the larger inequity in the interpretation of the small miner waiver statute for the foreseeable future.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation in a dramatically different form to reinstate two small miner's claims, which have been taken from them because of an inequitable federal administrative process. Under revisions to the Federal Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 28(f) holders of unpatented mineral claims must pay a claim maintenance fee originally set at $100 per claim by a deadline, set by regulation, of September l each year. Since 2004 that fee has risen to $140 per claim. But Congress also provided a claim maintenance fee waiver for ``small'' miners, those who hold 10 or fewer claims, so that they do not have to submit the fee, but that they must file to renew their claims and submit an affidavit of annual labor, work conducted on the claim, each year, certifying that they had performed more than $100 of work on the claim in the preceding year, 30 U.S.C. 28f(d)(1). The waiver provision further states: ``If a small miner waiver application is determined to be defective for any reason, the claimant shall have a period of 60 days after receipt of written notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau of Land Management to: A) cure such defect or defects or (B) pay the . . . claim maintenance fee(s) due for such a period.'' Since past revisions of the law, there have been a series of incidents where miners have argued that they submitted their applications and affidavits of annual labor in a timely manner, but due to clerical error by U.S. Bureau of Land Management staff, mailing delays or for unexplained reasons, the applications or documents were not recorded as having been received in a timely fashion. In that case BLM has terminated the claims, deeming them null and void. While mining claim holders have argued that the law provides them time to cure claim defects, BLM has argued that the cure only applies when applications or fees have been received in a timely manner. Thus, there is no administrative remedy for miners who believe that clerical errors by BLM or mail issues resulted in loss or the late recording of claim extension applications and paperwork. There have been a number of cases where Congress has been asked to override BLM determinations and reinstate mining claims simply because of the disputes over whether the claims had been filed in a timely manner. Congress in 2003 reinstated such claims in a previous Alaska case. Claims in two other incidents were reinstated following a U.S. District Court case in the 10th Circuit first in 2009 in the case of Miller v. United States and in a second Alaska case in 2013. Legislation to correct the provision to prevent this problem actually was approved by the Senate in 2007, but did not ultimately become law. In the past three Congresses I have introduced legislation intended to short circuit continued litigation and pleas for claim reinstatement by clarifying the intent of Congress that miners do have to be informed that their claims are in jeopardy of being voided and given 60 days of notice to cure defects, including giving them time to submit their applications and to submit affidavits of annual labor, should their submittals not be received and processed by BLM officials on time. If all defects are not cured within 60 days--the obvious intent of Congress in passing the original act--then claims should be subject to voidance. But this administration has opposed the legislation arguing that it would be too expensive to notify all small miners who fail to file their small miner waiver documents on time and giving them time to solve the defect prior to the loss of their claims. It has even been suggested that giving small miners simple due process would just encourage miners to ignore the deadline for filing of their fee waivers. I clearly find the cost argument unpersuasive. Many Federal departments and agencies, the Federal Communication Commission, as one example, routinely sends out notices on permit and license applications. The FCC sends out hundreds of thousands of such notices to Americans who have small radio licenses expiring yearly, warning them that they need to file applications for license renewal. The Bureau of Land Management certainly should be able to afford a few hundred stamps to perform a similar service. Given the value of claims placed at risk and the bother, inconvenience and fear of loss of claims, it is highly unlikely that miners would avoid filing their waiver paperwork on time just because a notification process was clearly in place before claims could be terminated. But after facing the clear opposition of this administration over 6 years to resolving this inequity, today I simply file legislation to remedy the injustices for two of my constituents who have lost their rights, in one case to nine mineral claims on the Kenai Peninsula, near Hope, Alaska, and in the second case to a single placer claim in the Fortymile District of northeast Alaska. The transition language proposed will reinstate claims for Mr. John Trautner, who has lost title to claims that he had held from 1982 to 2004. Mr. Trautner suffered this loss even though he had a consistent record of having paid the annual labor assessment fee for the previous 22 years. The local BLM office did have a time-date-stamped record that the maintenance fee waiver certification form had been filed weeks before the deadline, but just not a record that the affidavit of annual labor had arrived when he dropped it at the office in Anchorage at the same time. In the second case, it will reinstate a claim held by Mr. and Mrs. Vernon Thurneau, now of Wasilla, who lost their claim after mining it continuously for 38 years in 2009, simply because of a holiday season error. In this case the Thurneau's paid their fees on time, and turned in their proof of labor affidavit to the Fairbanks Recorders Office in December before the deadline. They received a time and date stamp that they produced the information in a timely manner. But because of the Christmas holidays they simply forgot to turn/mail in the form to the BLM Anchorage office until after Jan. 1, missing the BLM's required Dec. 31 deadline. Because of a holiday delay, they lost their claims and 38 years of work. This legislation, supported in the past by the Alaska Miners Association, will simply reinstate the two sets of claims, claims that have been held by the government over the past decade. In response to complaints by the Department of the Interior that past versions of my legislation improperly would have resulted in the patenting of the claims by the granting of a first half final certificate in the Trautner case, I have modified this bill simply to reinstate the claims, but not to take steps to confirm patents. By this bill Mr. Trautner will have to wait like many other miners for Congress to reconsider the merits of the moratorium on patent issuance first imposed on the Mining Law of 1872 by Congress in 1995. It is simple justice that Mr. Trautner and the Thurneau family receive their claims back, since Congress clearly thought it was giving miners a guaranteed opportunity to remedy claim defects when it created the small miner waiver provisions in 1993. Return of the claims will cost the government nothing and likely will result in added federal revenues, hopefully preventing this bill from facing any procedural issues. I hope that justice will finally prevail in these cases this Congress, even though I regret that I see no means to fix the larger inequity in the interpretation of the small miner waiver statute for the foreseeable future.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing a piece of legislation which I strongly believe in and know that it is long overdue. The Hmong Veterans' Service Recognition Act is a bill to authorize the interment in national cemeteries of Hmong veterans who served in support of U.S. forces during the Vietnam War. I, along with a bipartisan group of colleagues, Senators Klobuchar, Sullivan, Franken, and Whitehouse believe this is an appropriate honor. Public Law 106-207, The Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 2000 already acknowledges Hmong Special Guerilla Unit's contributions during Vietnam and recognizes the service of Hmong Special Guerilla Unit veterans for the purpose of naturalization. Today we try to write the next chapter for these brave veterans and grant them the one right they are requesting, to be buried in our U.S. national cemeteries. The Hmong were ideal candidates for America's secret war--they were fighters known for their bravery and warrior traditions who knew the rocky mountain terrain of Northern Laos very well. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency conducted covert operations in Laos which employed some 60,000 Hmong volunteers in Special Guerilla Units. The Hmong Fighters interrupted operations on the Ho Chi Minh trail and assisted in downed aircraft recovery operations of American Airmen. In Laos, they valiantly fought the Vietnamese and Laotian Communists for over a decade and were critical to America's war efforts in Vietnam. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. More than 35,000 Hmong lost their lives and many more were injured and disabled. I would like to recognize several Hmong Combat Veterans who live in Alaska. Lieutenant Pasert Lee from Mountain View in Achorage, AK, was injured in 1972 when his bunker was bombed while providing radio support for American jets in Laos. He recovered after several days, made his way to a refugee camp and many years later he was able to come to America. Lieutenant Wilson Chong Neng Vang, Sergeant Tong Pao Less and Sergeant Xia Ger Vang reside in Anchorage, AK, and are recognized for their selfless service in the U.S. Secret Army, Kingdom of Laos. There are currently over 260,000 Hmong people in America and according to the 2010 Census, the heaviest concentrations are in California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Michigan, Colorado, Georgia, Oklahoma, Oregon, and my home state of Alaska. Of the Hmong who became U.S. citizens, approximately 6,000 veterans are still with us today, and they deserve the choice to be buried in national cemeteries. This concept is not without precedent. Currently, burial benefits are available for Philippine Armed Forces veterans who answered the call to serve during World War II, just like the Hmong. This legislation would not grant the small group of Hmong veterans full veteran benefits, but would simply authorize their interment in national cemeteries across the Nation. A small, but deserved token of appreciation and an appropriate honor for their sacrifices towards a common goal of democracy and freedom in the world. I believe it is time to recognize the Hmong-American's bravery, sacrifice and loyalty to the United States. We would like to honor the Hmong Special Guerilla Unit Veterans' service and sacrifices by allowing them to be buried alongside their brothers in arms in our national cemeteries. Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues who have joined me to introduce this legislation and look forward to working with them and others in the Senate to finally getting this approved into law.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I will close with these words which appear at the gates to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. The words of President George H.W. Bush: ``Carved on these walls is the story of America, of a continuing quest to preserve both democracy and decency, and to protect a national treasure that we call the American dream.'' Last evening the names of Patrick Scott Johnson and Gabriel Lenox Rich were carved into those walls. A reminder, once again, that in valor there is hope. Madam President, returning to the issue of trade in my State of Alaska, we are here to debate trade promotion authority. We have had an opportunity to proceed to this measure. I was pleased to be able to vote to advance it earlier this week and again today, and I will continue to support free trade. In my State, which is separated from the contiguous 48 States, our trade is based primarily with those to the west in Asia. Most of our trade does not go to the lower 48 States. So when we think about our trading partners, for Alaskans, it is international trade. International trade in our State supports about 1 in 5 jobs--over 90,000 Alaskan jobs. Of those who are exporters, about 70 percent are small- and medium-sized companies. These are men and women who are engaged in a very sophisticated level of trade overseas, but many of them are relatively small. We are very vigorous in our trade with Japan, South Korea, and China, but we also have good relationships, of course, with our friends in Europe and elsewhere around the globe. In 2013, the countries that are negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership--the TPP--and the TTIP agreements comprised about 54 percent of Alaska's exported goods. This is a significant part of what we look to for our exports. As we look to the TPP and the benefits that it will accrue, I think our State is looking to clearly strengthen these relationships as well as open new markets for Alaska's exports. About 34,000 Alaska jobs are supported by trade with TPP countries. Thirty-six percent of Alaska's goods are exported to TPP countries, and more than 50 TPP companies have investments within the State of Alaska. One of our longest and more established trading partners--Japan--is obviously not a current U.S. FTA partner, but the TPP negotiations will provide an avenue for removing some of the trade barriers we see with Japan and will allow us additional economic opportunities within the State of Alaska, specifically as it relates to our fish, our fisheries, and our frozen fish. Current tariff rates to export frozen fish and prepared crabs to Japan are about 10 percent, so a free-trade agreement will lower these tariffs and increase access to Japan's seafood market. This is something we care a great deal about, and it has been a very longstanding partnership and relationship. Today, I want to move from some of the issues relating to my State and what opportunities there will be for us with the prospect of trade promotion authority moving forward and I want to draw attention to a related issue. This is an issue that is outdated when it comes to exports and, very specifically, a ban on exports. What I am referring to is the current ban, the prohibition on crude oil exports. This absolutely runs counter to the principle of free trade as well as the notion that we should stand ready to help our allies, to help our friends for the sake of global security. We talk a lot about national security. We talk a lot about what more we can do to provide for national security and the geopolitics and how we can be of help to our friends and allies. Well, one way we can demonstrate our willingness to help is by lifting this decades-old ban, this prohibition on our crude oil and allow for exports. I want to share with my colleagues five quick facts they may or may not know about our Nation's history of oil exports, because while we have this ban in place--and it has been in place since the mid-1970s-- there is a history that I think is important. The first fact goes back to World War II. The United States exported tens of millions of barrels of crude oil to our allies in World War II, and I am talking about Canada, the United Kingdom, India, and Australia. We were engaged in a very robust level of exports to our friends during World War II. Second fact: When Egypt seized control of the Suez Canal, President Eisenhower moved quickly, and he ordered American oil to relieve what was called Europe's oil famine. That was pretty immediate, that was pretty direct, and it was targeted to help our allies and friends at that time. Third fact: When Rhodesia cut off the flow of oil to Zambia in 1965, America stood with Britain to provide assistance. We delivered petroleum products in the Zambian airlift. So we were there in 1965 when Zambia needed that assistance. Then, in the 1970s, facing a threat from multiple regimes, Israel secured an agreement from the United States to supply it with oil in the event of a national emergency. So this agreement was made back in 1975. This was under the administration of President Ford, and that agreement was that the United States would stand with our friend and ally and provide oil in the event that their sources were threatened, that Israel was threatened. That agreement stood through President Ford's administration, President Carter's, President Bill Clinton's, President George Bush's, and with President Obama's administration. So it is an agreement that has endured--that we will stand by our friend Israel in providing it with a source of oil in the event of a national emergency. This is something where we just got the administration to sign off on this just literally a month or so ago, to re-affirm that agreement. Then, the fifth fact here is that former Ambassador Carlos Pascual and others have testified before our energy committee that the sanctions against Iran--which brought Iran to the table--worked. They worked because of rising U.S. oil production. He went further to say that we were hamstrung by our inability to export it. We have heard this consistently in the energy committee. We heard this discussed on the floor of the Senate the past couple of weeks when we were talking about the Iran deal. Today, we are in a position where our friends, our trading partners, and our allies are again asking for our assistance. We have the resource. Some would say we are awash in oil right now. The production we have seen has been nothing short of phenomenal. But we are tied. We are limited in our ability to move it beyond our shores. Our allies are looking at us, and they are in the grips of tension. Look at our friends and allies in Poland. Poland is 96-percent dependent on Russia for their oil. Don't we think that Poland would rather receive their oil from their friend the United States? Poland has been there with us when it comes to national missile defense. With just about every engagement we have had, Poland has been there for us. Wouldn't it be nice for us to be there for our friend Poland? Just a couple weeks ago, we had the Prime Minister of Japan here, Mr. Abe. Iran is still supplying oil to Japan, despite those sanctions. Japan needs a source of oil. Don't we think that Japan would much rather receive oil from the United States--more crude from the United States? I think we recognize the world has changed out there. There are new alliances, there are new threats, there are new hopes, and there are new fears. It remains my hope that, while the world may change, our role as a global leader has not eroded. And one way--one clear, sure way--we can ensure that it hasn't eroded is to help our friends and to use our resource as a national strategic asset to help our friends and allies. The whole idea that oil exports are still prohibited is just mind- boggling. I have been working on this now for over a year. We have been encouraging different reports so people really understand this issue and wrap their minds around it, because to change a policy that has been in place for decades takes understanding and education. I am willing to give that time, but I also appreciate that the policy that is in place right now just doesn't make sense. The Commerce Department retains a list of commodities that are defined in short simply, and they call this the Short Supply Controls. Historically, these controls were generally not blanket prohibitions. They were on things such as aluminum, copper, iron, steel scrap, nickel, selenium, and the polio vaccine. But it is interesting--we look at that Short Supply Controls list right now, and there are three items on that list. The first, obviously, is crude oil; the second is western red cedar; and the third is horses for export by sea intended for slaughter. Now, there is a small caveat, because there is a prohibition of exports of petroleum products that would come from the Naval Petroleum Reserve, but it is very small. So really what we are talking about and the three items that are on this Short Supply Controls list--in other words, prohibited--are oil, cedar, and horses. Go figure. Now, we do have embargoes on North Korea, for example, and we control the export of other things such as sensitive technology. But crude oil's presence on the Short Supply Controls, I think, is particularly conspicuous, since we export our petroleum products--our refined products--at record levels. I think it is important for people to make that distinction because sometimes there is a little bit of confusion. We export our refined products at record levels. What we don't export is the crude. Some people say: Well, I am afraid that if we lift the oil export ban and we allow for crude export, the price of oil or the price at the pump is going to go up, and I am worried about that. I think we would all be worried about that. We don't want to see the price of gasoline at the pump go up. The fact remains that what we put in our vehicle, what we pump at the filling station is a refined product that we already export. So we don't see that price spike; we don't see that increase. What we don't refine is the crude product. We have engaged in study after study after study. There have been about eight different, very reputable studies out there, and each and every one of them has come to the same conclusion--that allowing for the lifting of the export ban will not increase the price of gas to the consumer. I think it is important to reaffirm that. I urge my colleagues who are ready to vote for trade promotion authority to consider joining my effort. My colleague Senator Heitkamp from North Dakota is working with me on the other side to lift this ban, to extend the principle of free trade to crude oil exports. We export natural gas. We export diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, natural gasoline, propane, coal--so many other petroleum products. I should end by reminding people that the ban that we have in place does allow for certain limited amounts of export. Today, we export to Canada about 4,000 barrels a day. I think that is about average right now. With Alaska, there is an exception that allowed for export of Alaska crude back in the mid 1990s. I just asked for confirmation on what we have been exporting. Last year, in September of 2014, we exported about 800,000 barrels to South Korea, and I am told that just this month, in May, there were 975,000 barrels that went over to South Korea. So we in Alaska are trying to do our little bit to help. We need to get our oil pipeline filled up so that we can do more to export more to those who are our friends, partners, and allies. But this is something for which, again, the time is now. The subject is ripe as we are talking about allowing for greater opportunities for export. But when we look to those policies that hold us back--hold us back from good jobs, from producing our resources to our benefit and our economy's benefit and to the benefit of our friends and allies--it is time that we lift the ban on crude oil. Doing so will create jobs, strengthen our security, lower our trade deficit, and, again, as study after study has shown, not raise our gasoline prices. I thank the Presiding Officer for the time on the floor this afternoon, and look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, while my colleague from Oregon is still on the floor, I want to thank him for his leadership through these discussions over these past several days on the floor and longer prior to that. He has been a leader in trying to thread the needle, and it has been a little bit harder, but I appreciate the fact that we are here today and hopefully moving forward to that agreement that will allow us as a nation to be the best we can and to engage in a level of trade that is fair, free, and really of great benefit to us as a nation. I thank him for that. National Police Week Madam President, I too want to speak about the trade promotion authority and some of the issues associated with it, but I first want to speak briefly and acknowledge the comments made by my colleagues from New Hampshire when they spoke about National Police Week and honoring those brave men and women who serve us day in and day out, those who go where many of us would choose not to, whose families worry about them, and those who have fallen in the line of their service. This is National Police Week in the Nation's Capital and across America. Each year during National Police Week I honor the men and women of law enforcement who have given their lives in the line of duty. In previous Police Week speeches I have taken note of the sad coincidence that a spate of line-of-duty casualties seems to happen in the days and weeks leading up to National Police Week. This year, unfortunately, is no exception. Last weekend the Nation was shocked by the shooting of two members of the Hattiesburg, MS Police Department. A week ago two communities lost law enforcement officers bearing the last name of Moore--Detective Brian Moore of the New York Police Department and Sergeant Greg Moore of Coeur d'Alene, ID. They are among 45 law enforcement heroes who have died in the line of duty this year alone. I extend my condolences to their families and to their communities on these tragic losses. And I extend my support to my colleagues from the States of Idaho, Mississippi and New York who share in the grief of their communities. In the U.S. Senate we take the loss of a first responder personally for we regard these public servants as members of our own extended families. During National Police Week we honor and remember the 117 law enforcement officers lost in 2014. Their names were read at a candlelight vigil on Judiciary Square Wednesday evening and their memories will be honored at the Peace Officers Memorial Service on the Capitol grounds on Friday. This week the families and colleagues of these 117 officers are gathered in Alexandria at the Police Survivors Seminar sponsored by Concerns of Police Survivors, where they will gain comfort from a community of survivors who have walked in their steps. This week's events are very important steps in the lengthy journey our families face to heal their losses. But it is a vital step. I have attended the Police Survivors Seminar and cannot say enough good things about Concerns of Police Survivors and Suzie Sawyer, its founding executive director, who set the standard for caring and healing. Although Suzie claims to have retired, when we face a law enforcement tragedy in the State of Alaska I am comforted by the fact that her phone number is still in my speed dial. Sadly I had an opportunity to use it in 2014. Last evening I attended the candlelight vigil as I have in past years to honor fallen officers from the State of Alaska. Joined on the dais by the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of Homeland Security I was honored to read the names of two Alaska State Troopers who gave their lives while protecting the Native Village of Tanana in 2014. Trooper Sergeant P. Scott Johnson and Trooper Gabriel Lenox Rich at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. I have spoken before about the unique dangers that are presented when law enforcement officers perform their duties in Alaska Native villages. No roads connected most of these villages to the nearest trooper post which can be hundreds of miles away, accessible only by air or boat and only then when the weather cooperates. And that was the case when Sergeant Johnson and Trooper Rich were ambushed in the village as they sought to apprehend an individual who was driving while intoxicated in the village and brandished a weapon at the unarmed village public safety officer. There is no consoling those who remember the lives and passions of Scott and Gabe. But it matters that their life stories were not forgotten. Fallen law enforcement officers are heroes for the way they live their lives. And at last night's observance the stories of Scott and Gabe were an integral part of the event. Attorney General Loretta Lynch spoke to their heroism as did the event organizers. For the first time I can remember you could see the distinctive tunics worn by our Alaska State Troopers among the crowd of 10,000, and as the event ended my staff encountered two members of the Fairbanks Police Department in uniform on the streets of downtown Washington. They traveled at their own expense to pay their respects to two individuals from Interior Alaska who were widely respected by area wide law enforcement. Sergeant Johnson was well known as a ``cop's cop''. He was well known as both a drug expert and a tactical expert. The Fairbanks officers mentioned that Scott was gracious with his time and his expertise--providing training to the Fairbanks Police Department that otherwise would have cost tens of thousands of dollars. Gabe Rich was a young guy and mentored by the finest of Alaska's finest--Sergeant Johnson--and he demonstrated great potential. Both lived their lives as model Alaska State Troopers. Service as an Alaska State Trooper is regarded as a huge deal in our State. I am reminded that there are 700,000 law enforcement officers across the country but only 400 have what it takes to be Alaska State Troopers. Guardians of the last frontier. In May I came to the floor to discuss the lives of Scott and Gabe and the families they left behind. Today I would like to pay homage to the organization they were a valuable part of and devoted their lives to. And I pay homage to the creed they willfully and enthusiastically chose to live their lives by. I ask unanimous consent that the Creed of the Alaska State Trooper be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, this is a bittersweet week in my home State of Alaska. On Saturday, the celebrated Athabascan Elder, Sidney Huntington, turned 100. That is indeed a cause for celebration. Sidney Huntington's life is the stuff of which legends are made. His book, ``Shadows on the Koyukuk'' published in 1993, details his remarkable life. Sidney's inspiring ways are the subject of a stage play, ``The Winter Bear.'' The Winter Bear is a play that tells the story of an abused, neglected Alaska Native teenager. He decides suicide is his best option until Athabascan elder Sidney Huntington shows him how to use traditional culture to work through his despair and find his true voice Last evening as I approached the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial to honor the memories of Alaska State Troopers Patrick Scott Johnson and Gabriel Lenox Rich, I learned of the death of Dan Cuddy of Anchorage. Dan was president of First National Bank Alaska for some six decades. Dan was age 94. He leaves a remarkable legacy which is carried on today by his daughter Betsy Lawer and a large family of achievers. I will have more to say about the exemplary life of Dan Cuddy next week. Dennis McMillan, the recently retired CEO of the Foraker Group spoke to KTVA last evening about Dan's passing. Dennis said, ``We're losing history, especially as we are losing these 90 plus citizens, but such a great legacy because they were still engaged with the community and totally involved in all sorts of things, and great role models.'' Dennis's words seem especially appropriate this week as we celebrate Dan's legacy while at the same time wishing Sidney another 100 years of inspiration to our Alaska community.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing a piece of legislation which I strongly believe in and know that it is long overdue. The Hmong Veterans' Service Recognition Act is a bill to authorize the interment in national cemeteries of Hmong veterans who served in support of U.S. forces during the Vietnam War. I, along with a bipartisan group of colleagues, Senators Klobuchar, Sullivan, Franken, and Whitehouse believe this is an appropriate honor. Public Law 106-207, The Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 2000 already acknowledges Hmong Special Guerilla Unit's contributions during Vietnam and recognizes the service of Hmong Special Guerilla Unit veterans for the purpose of naturalization. Today we try to write the next chapter for these brave veterans and grant them the one right they are requesting, to be buried in our U.S. national cemeteries. The Hmong were ideal candidates for America's secret war--they were fighters known for their bravery and warrior traditions who knew the rocky mountain terrain of Northern Laos very well. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency conducted covert operations in Laos which employed some 60,000 Hmong volunteers in Special Guerilla Units. The Hmong Fighters interrupted operations on the Ho Chi Minh trail and assisted in downed aircraft recovery operations of American Airmen. In Laos, they valiantly fought the Vietnamese and Laotian Communists for over a decade and were critical to America's war efforts in Vietnam. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. More than 35,000 Hmong lost their lives and many more were injured and disabled. I would like to recognize several Hmong Combat Veterans who live in Alaska. Lieutenant Pasert Lee from Mountain View in Achorage, AK, was injured in 1972 when his bunker was bombed while providing radio support for American jets in Laos. He recovered after several days, made his way to a refugee camp and many years later he was able to come to America. Lieutenant Wilson Chong Neng Vang, Sergeant Tong Pao Less and Sergeant Xia Ger Vang reside in Anchorage, AK, and are recognized for their selfless service in the U.S. Secret Army, Kingdom of Laos. There are currently over 260,000 Hmong people in America and according to the 2010 Census, the heaviest concentrations are in California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Michigan, Colorado, Georgia, Oklahoma, Oregon, and my home state of Alaska. Of the Hmong who became U.S. citizens, approximately 6,000 veterans are still with us today, and they deserve the choice to be buried in national cemeteries. This concept is not without precedent. Currently, burial benefits are available for Philippine Armed Forces veterans who answered the call to serve during World War II, just like the Hmong. This legislation would not grant the small group of Hmong veterans full veteran benefits, but would simply authorize their interment in national cemeteries across the Nation. A small, but deserved token of appreciation and an appropriate honor for their sacrifices towards a common goal of democracy and freedom in the world. I believe it is time to recognize the Hmong-American's bravery, sacrifice and loyalty to the United States. We would like to honor the Hmong Special Guerilla Unit Veterans' service and sacrifices by allowing them to be buried alongside their brothers in arms in our national cemeteries. Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues who have joined me to introduce this legislation and look forward to working with them and others in the Senate to finally getting this approved into law.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am here on the floor this afternoon with my good friend from North Dakota, and I want to speak to an issue as it relates to the Iranian sanctions bill that we have on the floor in front of us. This is about an issue that so many of us care deeply about--about our own domestic production here, about the strength of our economy, about the strength of our national security and how the United States in a global environment really stands toe-to-toe in good strong competition around the world. I want to speak today about U.S. oil--the ban on U.S. oil--and how this all intersects with Iran, Iranian sanctions, and specifically, the sanctions on Iranian oil. I am submitting a bipartisan amendment to allow U.S. oil to compete with Iranian oil on the global market. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Heitkamp, Senator Hoeven, Senator Lankford, and, hopefully, others, as this discussion progresses. Iran's Government is largely dependent on its exports of oil for its revenue source. It sends oil to countries such as China, Japan, India, and South Korea. The sanctions that have been imposed have really hurt Iran's economy. They have brought Iran to the table. The sanctions that have been in place have cost the government in Tehran some $40 billion in lost export revenues in 2014 alone, according to the Treasury Department. Under the sanctions regime and the Joint Plan of Action, countries are still able to purchase Iranian oil, and I don't think a lot of folks understand that. They think the sanctions are in place and Iran can't derive a benefit from the oil exports. But in fact, companies are still able to purchase Iranian oil, up to 1 to 1.1 million barrels per day and--no surprise--countries have purchased up to that limit nearly every month since the JPA was implemented in November of 2013. So sanctions are in place, but Iran is still deriving the benefit of being able to sell Iranian oil to other nations. It is worth pointing out that this is only possible because the State Department does not include condensate in its definition of crude oil. If you include the condensate volumes, then the limit of 1.1 million barrels per day was breached back in January of 2014, in February, March, April, and May--not June--in July, September, October, and December, and also in February of 2015, according to reports that came out of the International Energy Agency. It simply does not make sense for us to lift sanctions on Iranian oil while we keep them on American oil. It just doesn't make sense that we would tell Iran that we are going to allow these sanctions to be lifted over there, but by keeping our oil export ban in place, we are effectively imposing sanctions on U.S. oil producers. This is a de facto sanctions regime against ourselves. Now, one can understand why we have imposed sanctions on certain places--on Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus. However, we are effectively talking about sanctions on the Permian, on the Utica, on the Niobrara, and on regions where we have the ability to produce a resource that helps this country, helps to create jobs, and helps with all aspects of our economy. We are going to say: Iran, OK, we are going to relieve sanctions on you, but we are going to keep in place sanctions on U.S. oil producers. So what this amendment does is to add a third section to the Corker- Cardin Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. It would require a DOE report on Iranian crude oil and condensate exports. It would then lift the de facto ban on U.S. crude oil and condensate exports. It still preserves the emergency authorities of the President to prohibit exports if it is warranted. So there is that safety valve there. The deadline for submission of this report to Congress would be 60 days following the enactment of the act. It would still be required even if an agreement with Iran were not reached. It would effectively address two issues--the relative ability of U.S. and Iranian oil producers to compete in the global market, which is pretty important out there, and the extent to which any agreement with Iran would increase Iranian oil exports through the lifting of sanctions. As we know, American oil producers are generally prohibited from exporting overseas. Alaska is the one exception to the oil export ban. A very limited amount is exported over the years. Iran, on the other hand, currently exports over 1 million barrels per day of oil onto the global markets. Now, we had a hearing in the energy committee a week or so ago. The Presiding Officer was there. We heard from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the EIA. They estimated that lifting the sanctions on Iran would increase Iranian volume by some 700,000 to 1 million barrels per day. So if we lifted that, EIA estimates that Iran would then be in a situation where they would be able to put out onto the market, basically to new purchasers, 1 million barrels per day. Think about what that does--giving them new markets for their oil. As they have new markets for their oil, they get paid for it. EIA estimates that given the price of Brent being where it is in this range right now, it would be $25 billion per year to Iran from the ability to put that out onto the market and gain new customers--an extra $25 billion. How comfortable are we with that? How much of that $25 billion is going to fund terrorist organizations, terrorists, in areas that we are fighting directly and immediately today? What kind of sense does it make that we would say that we will remove sanctions on Iran, allowing them to move their product to new customers, gain potentially $25 billion additionally into their treasury to do who knows what with it. At the same time, what this does is it harms American producers who are unable to compete with Iranian oil due to this outdated ban on U.S. exports that was imposed 40 years ago. So we are going to let a 40- year-old policy sanction us, sanction our economy and benefit Iran's. Lifting the ban on U.S. oil exports would let American oil compete with Iranian oil. It would reduce Iranian revenue from oil exports. It would send a strong signal to U.S. allies that still depend on Iranian oil that alternative supplies are available and lower global oil prices which would decrease the price of gasoline and other consumer fuels. A few hours ago, on the other side of the hallway here, over in the House of Representatives, we heard from the Prime Minister of Japan. Japan is currently purchasing and is able to purchase oil from Iran. Don't you think that our friend Japan would much rather have security and diversity of supply if it were to come from their friend the United States? I sure think so. The amendment that we have introduced lifts the ban by requiring, after 30 days have elapsed from the enactment of S. 615, that crude oil exports may be authorized on the same basis that they are currently authorized for petroleum products, whether it is gasoline, diesel, jet fuel or whatever it is. Currently, these petroleum products can be exported without a license. In fact, we are, here in this country, the largest exporter of petroleum products in the world. So think about this as you kind of shake your head and say: What is going on here? We are the largest exporter of refined products, but yet we impose a flat ban--an outright ban--on the crude itself. So, again, we have a safety valve in the amendment that preserves the President's emergency authority, which is derived from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the National Emergencies Act, and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. They prohibit exports, under these various proposals, if needed for the safety and security of the Nation. We do not touch those. We do not impact them in that amendment at all. So it is important to recognize that what we are doing here is we are looking at an outdated policy that is 40-years old. We are moving into present time and space, where we have a situation with a country that we have tried desperately to bring to the table to be a nation that will work with us rather than against us. Yet part of what we are considering is an action that would remove sanctions on them and continue to keep in place sanctions on this country. It makes no sense to me. I would hope that my colleagues would consider it. I know that my colleague from North Dakota has given great thought to this, has great understanding about the issue, and also has great passion about how we ensure that from a national security perspective we are covered in all corners. So I would ask my colleague from North Dakota, as she has reviewed an antiquated and an outdated policy, and being from a producing State such as North Dakota, where she is working to advance the opportunities not only for North Dakotans but for people all over this country, how people in North Dakota feel when it is suggested that we are imposing, effectively, domestic sanctions on them, while at the same time we would relieve sanctions on Iran.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota. She has articulated the case so well not only from a domestic perspective but from the international perspective as well. We need to appreciate that as we are recognized as a nation, as that superpower when it comes to our military strength and all those who serve us have to offer, that we are also an energy superpower. We have not yet embraced that as a responsibility, as an obligation to use that not only to our advantage but to the advantage of our friends and allies around the globe. That is an important transition, transformation we need to make. We are mired down in policies that are decades old, based on history that is no longer relevant given the geopolitics of today. We have an opportunity to wake up to where we can be, how we can lead from an international perspective. It can begin with the strength of our energy and our energy resources, but we have to believe in our own possibilities. Right now, I think we are lagging in that. I appreciate all that my colleague is doing in this effort to help educate people. I recognize that it takes a little bit of time to recalibrate the thinking, but we are doing that, and we are doing it for the right reason, based on common sense, based on strength of the economy, and based on national security, which should be our primary consideration right now. We will never have sufficient boots on the ground or budget for defense to be everywhere many would like to be around the globe. What other assets do we have? What else can we contribute? It can begin with our energy resources. So we have great opportunities, and I forward to further discussions about not only what we are proposing in this amendment but how we can lead as a nation in the energy sector. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call the Senate's attention to the forthcoming retirement of U.S. Forest Service official Forrest Cole, who for the past 12 years has served as the supervisor of the Nation's largest National Forest, and probably unfortunately its most controversial one, the 16.9-million acre Tongass National Forest in southeast Alaska. Mr. Cole, a four-decade employee of the U.S. Forest Service, began his career, following receipt of a bachelor of science degree in forestry from Northern Arizona University, working on fire-related jobs in Arizona forests. In 1979 he began what he thought at the time would be a 2-year posting working in the Tongass forest in southeast Alaska, a forest that covers an area just slightly larger than the State of West Virginia. The Coles, however, found the beauty, wildlife, and resources of southeast Alaska too attractive to leave, and the family stayed. Over the past 36 years, Mr. Cole has served as the presale forester and small sales forester on the Petersburg Ranger District in the central Tongass; as timber management assistant on the Juneau/ Yakutat Ranger Districts in the northern Tongass; as the timber minerals, special uses management assistant on the Juneau Ranger District; as the timber and fire management staff officer and resources staff officer on the Stikine administrative area, and later as the Forest and Fire Management staff officer for the entire Tongass National Forest based in the southern Tongass in Ketchikan. Mr. Cole also served in the regional office as director of forest management, and as part of the planning team for the Tongass land management plan, with responsibility for the timber, vegetation, and subsistence programs in all of southeast Alaska--the land plan being the key document that guides all activities in the forest. In 2003 he was named as the forest supervisor for the Tongass, a key supervisory post, second only to the Regional Forester. Mr. Cole during his years in Alaska has been in the midst of many controversial issues such as of how much timber should be allowed for harvest; how to protect wolves and goshawks, bald eagles, salmon and bear while harvesting timber; and how to provide the recreation that Americans increasingly demand. Mr. Cole arrived in Alaska the year before Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, that cut the allowable timber harvest in the Tongass by several hundred percent, from 1.35 billion board feet a year--a level that was considered its biological, sustainable yield level when modern timber harvesting began in the 1950s--to 450 million board feet that mandated by Congress in 1980. A decade later he was involved in implementing the next Tongass timber ``reform'' bill that once again nearly cut the forest's allowable timber forest in half, creating another six areas of wilderness, and designating another 12 new areas as congressionally protected lands, bringing to 6.48 million acres the amount of the Tongass protected from development. As forest supervisor, Mr. Cole was required to implement the national Inventoried Roadless Area rule last decade that took another 9.5 million acres of the Tongass out of the timber base. And just this year, with passage last December of the Sealaska Native Corporation final land conveyance act, Mr. Cole has started the process of revising what lands will remain in the region's slimming federal timber base. He has had to wrestle with how to guide the timber industry's survival given that only 1.8 percent of the Tongass is still ``open'' to the harvesting of older-growth trees--80 percent of them having been permanently protected, and how to manage guiding, recreation, tourism, utility and infrastructure access and development in a forest that stretches 500 miles from near Ketchikan to Yakutat. More than any other individual Mr. Cole has been a referee between many forces. And I know it can't have been a pleasant experience implementing policy set by Congress and the executive branch, more than 3,000 miles away. It has been a hard, often thankless job managing the Tongass. I wish to publicly thank Mr. Cole for his tireless service to America in doing that job well. We have not always agreed, but I truly appreciate that he has labored long and hard to be fair. He has listened to all sides. Given the legal, political and budgetary mandates he has faced, he deserves all of our thanks for all of the difficult phone calls he has returned, all of the complaints he has patiently fielded, and for all of the tough decisions he has been forced to make. It is no wonder that Mr. Cole was the recipient of the 2008 Regional Forester Award. He deserves the gratitude of the entire Senate for doing his best to meet all of the competing demands Americans make of our national forests. And I personally thank him for his contributions and commitment to public land stewardship, community stability and for keeping the public's trust in one of America's most hotly contested regions. I think it demonstrates his love and concern for Alaska and the Tongass that he and his family are choosing to retire in Petersburg, AK. I wish him and his family well.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the Job Corps program, which trains our Nation's young people to see and create a viable future. This year, they celebrate their 50th anniversary. In my State, Alaska, our Job Corps Center is now 20 years old. In that time, it has graduated over 5,000 students. At any of Alaska's hospitals, businesses, government offices, native corporations, contractors, electrical or telecom companies, nursing facilities, accounting firms, banks, water plants, and prestigious restaurants, you will always find successfully employed Alaska Job Corps graduates. These former students are now taxpayers and so proud of their achievements. I stand with them, as their proud Senator. These alumni look favorably upon their time at Alaska's Job Corps Center as a time that made an enormous difference in their lives; oftentimes the difference between safety and danger, success and failure, and wealth and poverty. This program works. It has a heart that never stops beating the supportive drumbeat of success and training for our young people.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to allow five Southeast Alaska communities to finally be allowed to form urban corporations under the terms of 1971's Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition and Compensation Act. I am joined in sponsoring this bill by my Alaska colleague, Senator Dan Sullivan. At the very beginning of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 there are a series of findings and declarations of congressional policy that explain the underpinnings of this landmark legislation. The first clause reads: ``There is an immediate need for a fair and just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, based on aboriginal land claims.'' The second clause states: ``The settlement should be accomplished rapidly, with certainty, in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives.'' Unfortunately 44 years have passed since the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act became law and still the Native peoples of five communities in Southeast Alaska: Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Tenakee and Haines--the five ``landless communities''--are still waiting for their fair and just settlement. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act originally awarded $966 million and 44 million acres of land to Alaska Natives and provided for the establishment of Native Corporations to receive and manage such funds and lands. The beneficiaries of the settlement were issued stock in one of 13 regional Alaska Native corporations--12 based in Alaska. Most beneficiaries also had the option to enroll and receive stock in a village or urban corporation or group. For reasons that still defy explanation, the native peoples of the ``landless communities,'' were not permitted by the Act to form village or urban corporations. These communities were excluded from this benefit even though they did not differ significantly from other communities in Southeast Alaska that were permitted to form village or urban corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. For example, the Ketchikan area had more Native residents in 1970, than Juneau, which was permitted to form the Goldbelt urban corporation, or Sitka that formed the Shee Atika urban corporation. This finding was confirmed in a February 1994 report submitted to the Secretary of the Interior at the 1993 direction of Congress. That study was conducted by the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska. The native people of Southeast Alaska have recognized the injustice of this oversight for more than four decades. An independent study issued two decades ago confirms that the grievance of the landless communities is legitimate. Legislation has been introduced in the past sessions of Congress to remedy this injustice. Hearings have been held and reports written. Yet legislation to right the wrong has inevitably stalled out. I am convinced that this cause is just, it is right, and it is about time that the Native peoples of the five landless communities receive what has been denied to them for so long. The legislation that I am introducing today would enable the Native peoples of the five ``landless communities'' to organize five ``urban corporations,'' one for each unrecognized community. These newly formed corporations would be offered and could accept the surface estate to 23,040 acres of land--one township as granted all other village corporations in Southeast. Sealaska Corporation, the regional Alaska Native Corporation for Southeast Alaska, would receive title to the subsurface estate to the designated lands. This version of the legislation has been modified to guarantee that the lands to be conveyed may include subsistence sites, aquaculture sites, hydroelectric sites, tidelands, eco-tourism sites and surplus federal properties to help satisfy any compensation requirement. It is long past time that we return to the Native peoples of Southeast Alaska a small slice of the aboriginal lands that were once theirs alone.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 838.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Senator Sullivan and I have come together to move forward on this amendment. It provides a spending- neutral reserve fund for the sale, transfer or exchange of Federal lands to State and local governments. I want to make sure that folks understand. This is not selling any land by itself. Only subsequent legislation can do that. It would require us to come back, just as we do now, with exchanges, conveyances, and sales, to move the legislation through. What we have done is we have made sure that all lands that are included within national parks, national preserves, and national monuments are excluded so there can be no effort to purchase or exchange there. Our amendment will allow us to craft balanced, bipartisan legislation to empower States, improve conservation systems, and promote economic growth. That is exactly what we did last year, when we moved through the NDAA with support from 80 Senators for that package.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to allow five Southeast Alaska communities to finally be allowed to form urban corporations under the terms of 1971's Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition and Compensation Act. I am joined in sponsoring this bill by my Alaska colleague, Senator Dan Sullivan. At the very beginning of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 there are a series of findings and declarations of congressional policy that explain the underpinnings of this landmark legislation. The first clause reads: ``There is an immediate need for a fair and just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, based on aboriginal land claims.'' The second clause states: ``The settlement should be accomplished rapidly, with certainty, in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives.'' Unfortunately 44 years have passed since the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act became law and still the Native peoples of five communities in Southeast Alaska: Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Tenakee and Haines--the five ``landless communities''--are still waiting for their fair and just settlement. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act originally awarded $966 million and 44 million acres of land to Alaska Natives and provided for the establishment of Native Corporations to receive and manage such funds and lands. The beneficiaries of the settlement were issued stock in one of 13 regional Alaska Native corporations--12 based in Alaska. Most beneficiaries also had the option to enroll and receive stock in a village or urban corporation or group. For reasons that still defy explanation, the native peoples of the ``landless communities,'' were not permitted by the Act to form village or urban corporations. These communities were excluded from this benefit even though they did not differ significantly from other communities in Southeast Alaska that were permitted to form village or urban corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. For example, the Ketchikan area had more Native residents in 1970, than Juneau, which was permitted to form the Goldbelt urban corporation, or Sitka that formed the Shee Atika urban corporation. This finding was confirmed in a February 1994 report submitted to the Secretary of the Interior at the 1993 direction of Congress. That study was conducted by the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska. The native people of Southeast Alaska have recognized the injustice of this oversight for more than four decades. An independent study issued two decades ago confirms that the grievance of the landless communities is legitimate. Legislation has been introduced in the past sessions of Congress to remedy this injustice. Hearings have been held and reports written. Yet legislation to right the wrong has inevitably stalled out. I am convinced that this cause is just, it is right, and it is about time that the Native peoples of the five landless communities receive what has been denied to them for so long. The legislation that I am introducing today would enable the Native peoples of the five ``landless communities'' to organize five ``urban corporations,'' one for each unrecognized community. These newly formed corporations would be offered and could accept the surface estate to 23,040 acres of land--one township as granted all other village corporations in Southeast. Sealaska Corporation, the regional Alaska Native Corporation for Southeast Alaska, would receive title to the subsurface estate to the designated lands. This version of the legislation has been modified to guarantee that the lands to be conveyed may include subsistence sites, aquaculture sites, hydroelectric sites, tidelands, eco-tourism sites and surplus federal properties to help satisfy any compensation requirement. It is long past time that we return to the Native peoples of Southeast Alaska a small slice of the aboriginal lands that were once theirs alone.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to rename a wilderness area in my home state of Alaska in honor of Alaska's fourth Governor, Jay S. Hammond. I am pleased that I am joined in sponsoring this bill by my Alaska colleague, Senator Dan Sullivan. Jay Hammond is truly one of the unique figures in Alaska history. In a state with many unique statesmen, Hammond is truly worthy of honor. A New Yorker who first studied petroleum engineering at Penn State, he became a Marine fighter pilot who fought in World War II in the Pacific/China with the famed Black Sheep Squadron. After the war he found life on the East Coast too confining and flew an old plane to Alaska in 1946, never looking back. Initially a pilot to ``Bush'', remote rural parts of Alaska, he worked as a trapper, wildlife guide and laborer before heading back to college to gain a degree in biological sciences in 1949 from the University of Alaska. He then went to work as a wildlife biologist and hunter for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. By 1950 after conducting some of the first swan studies in northern Alaska, Jay Hammond was transferred to Southwest Alaska where he conducted predator/prey studies on Alaska Peninsula caribou, flew fisheries enforcement flights out of Dillingham Alaska, and fell in love with Lake Clark and its surrounding wilderness, a 45-mile lake on the west side of Aleutian Range that he would call home, besides a setnet salmon site at Naknek, for nearly 55 years. Mr. Hammond, upon Alaska entering the Union in 1959 ran and won election to the Alaska State House of Representatives as an independent, serving three terms before redeclaring himself as a Republican and serving two terms in the state Senate. He then served as mayor of the Bristol Bay Borough from 1972 to 1974, after serving as the borough's manager in the 1960s and 1970s. Mr. Hammond then was drafted to run for Governor of Alaska in 1974, defeating the state's second Governor and former Secretary of the Interior Walter J. Hickel in the Republican Primary before defeating the state's first Governor William A Egan in the general election. It was an election dominated by Hammond's opposition to oil leasing in Southcentral's Kachemak Bay, concern over the State of Alaska's salmon fisheries and fear over the state over spending soon after the discovery of oil on Alaska's North Slope. Governor Hammond during his two terms oversaw construction of the Trans-Alaska oil Pipeline System, TAPS, championed creation of the Alaska Permanent Fund savings account, and was the author of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend program, which provides Alaskans a yearly dividend check from the interest earnings of the savings from a quarter of the State's petroleum revenues. He also won approval of a constitutional budget reserve that was intended to reduce State spending, and championed agricultural development in Interior Alaska. He also oversaw the state's purchase of the Alaska Railroad from the federal government. Hammond on environmental issues opposed construction of a proposed Ramparts hydroelectric dam on the Yukon River, supported the congressional creation of a 200-miles fisheries zone off the State's coast that improved state fishery stocks, oversaw creation of a state limited entry fisheries regime, oversaw the creation of the Nation's largest State park, the Wood Tikchik State Park in Southwest Alaska, which contains 1.6 million acres of wilderness, and worked with Congress and observed congressional passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980 that replaced the designation of 120 million acres of Alaska into protected status under the federal Antiquities Act, while placing 104 million acres of new lands into national parks, preserves, refuges, monuments, wilderness and wild and scenic river classifications. The law added 5.5 million acres of wilderness in 14 units in national forests, added more than 40 million acres in 10 new units to national parks, including the 3.86 million- acre Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, bringing to 54 million acres the total size of Federal park holdings in Alaska; added a number of new wildlife refuges in Alaska, bringing to 19 the number of refuges covering 76.8 million acres in the State; and created 13 wild and scenic rivers running 3,131 miles. The act created 57.9 million acres of formal wilderness in the State, Alaska containing about 60 percent of the nation's total formal wilderness. Mr. Hammond was also a talented and prolific writer and poet, presenting to the University of Alaska Library Archives an impressive collection of speeches, testimony, notebooks and papers. He also wrote several books on life in Alaska, led by his first book, ``Tales of Alaska's Bush Rat Governor.'' He died on Aug. 2, 2005, at age 83 in his sleep at his homestead near Port Alsworth, Alaska, having survived five plane crashes and innumerable close calls during his first flight to Alaska and in fighting a fire at his home at Lake Clark, and over the following 59 years in the State. He was survived by his wife, Bella and daughters Heidi and Dana. Jay Hammond was well-respected for reaching across the aisle to forge bipartisan alliances and enjoyed many close friendships with colleagues in both political parties and with his staff, who were deeply loyal to him. The designation of the 2.6 million acres of already created wilderness in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, where his homestead lies, will honor Jay Hammond and will be a fitting tribute to his honorable life and legacy, a man that the Anchorage Municipal Assembly on August 7, 2005, called, ``the finest example of a true public servant. There are few men who have influence through their quiet articulation of what is right and fair in the way of Jay Hammond.'' I hope for quick passage of this bill prior to the anniversary of either his birthday or the date of the tenth anniversary of this death. He was creative, funny, thoughtful, respectful, wise and courageous and truly deserves this honor.