Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would request that floor privileges for the balance of the month be afforded to my interns: Annika Graham, Nathan Sidell, Amber Vernon, Rebecca Carney-Braveman, Samuel Ortiz, Evyn Ysais, Marcus Gamble, Diane Murph, Izabella Powers, Sarah Pherson, Kendall Eilo, and Ben Gilman.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I wish to speak very briefly this afternoon to acknowledge a hero. I come to the floor just after the announcement has been made about a leader in the Senate, Senator Baker. While I did not have the privilege of serving at the same time as he, my father did. They were close friends, not only Senator Baker but Senator Kassebaum. My heart, my thoughts go out to the family. The contributions clearly from Senator Baker on so many different levels are so greatly appreciated.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that my friend and colleague from Wyoming is helping to lead this discussion about the Keystone XL Pipeline and really to encourage the Senate to move on it, to do something on this rather than just talk about it. We are sitting here Tuesday afternoon. We had a series of votes on judges here this morning, and it looks like we are going to have some more this week. But from the view of so many around this country who are worried about jobs, worried about the economy, worried about what is happening with the IRS, with the VA--and not to mention what has happened on the world scene--it looks like we are going to have yet another unproductive week in the Senate. Since we are here and we have time, I can't think of a better time on a better issue to take up than this Keystone XL Pipeline. The bill that we are asking to be brought up is Senate bill S. 2280. It was introduced by our colleague from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven. He introduced it on May 1. It was placed on the legislative calendar a few days later. It has 55 cosponsors. When we talk about bipartisan issues and initiatives within the Senate, 55 is a very good number. It includes 11 Democrats, including the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We are well behind the House of Representatives, though, on this initiative. They passed a Keystone bill over 1 year ago, but we have been working in the energy committee. We had a Keystone bill that was reported out of the energy committee just last week. We passed an original bill on a bipartisan basis. It has not yet been filed, but it is virtually identical to Senator Hoeven's bill, which we are discussing today. But I did vote. I know my colleague from Wyoming and I know the Presiding Officer voted for Senator Landrieu's original bill. I did so because I think it is good policy to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. I committed at that hearing, and I certainly commit now, that I am going to do everything I can to help advance this initiative. If and when her bill is placed on the calendar, I intend to support that as well. But the problem that we have--and it should be no surprise to most-- is no matter how many Keystone bills are added to the calendar, it appears that the majority leader is going to ignore them. It doesn't matter how long Keystone has been under review, it doesn't matter how many new jobs will be created, and it doesn't matter that the delays are political and not substantive. The fact of the matter is we cannot get to that point where we can take up this important initiative. The majority leader could have offered us a vote on Senator Hoeven's bill at any point over these past 6 weeks, but he has chosen not to. It seems very clear to me that he has no intention of moving to it, especially if we just kind of sit back on this and don't push. It may be that is the will of some in this body--that they don't want us to do anything, they don't want us to push forward. But I think that is contrary to the will, to the wish of 56 Members of this Chamber, and it is contrary to our national interests. It is interesting to note Democrats were not always opposed to importing crude oil from Canada, as they would appear today. Back in 1970 the Nixon administration announced that it would place a quota on Canadian oil imports, and it was none other than Senator Ted Kennedy who led the fight against this decision. Senator Kennedy said in a Senate hearing in March of 1970: The reason why Canadian oil has never been restricted in the past is obvious. Canadian oil is as militarily and politically secure as our own and thus there can be no national security justification for limiting its importation. Those were pretty telling words back then, and I think they still hold true today. It wasn't only Ted Kennedy. There were other Democrats who opposed the Nixon administration's restriction on trade with Canada: Senator Proxmire of Wisconsin and Senator McIntyre of New Hampshire. I think we have had such an opportunity on this floor to debate the merits of the Keystone XL Pipeline and to debate not only how many good-paying jobs it can bring to us but how it can help this Nation and Canada as we work to promote our North American energy independence. Our energy partnership with Canada has taken decades to develop. It has had some rocky times, but all good and worthy relationships take a little bit of work to maintain. So if the Obama administration is unwilling to do the hard work of diplomacy and make this remarkably easy decision--approving a job- creating and a security-enhancing pipeline--then I think it is time for Congress to act. That is why a few of us have gathered here today to move this issue forward, to do more than just talking about it, but to get the Senate to the point where we might actually have an opportunity to vote on it and do some good for this country. So we are sitting here waiting. We have an opportunity to do it, and I think we should end the delay. I think we should move forward with this bill.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, this has been an interesting week here in the Senate. When we began this week, there was a great deal of attention focused on what was happening overseas with the release of a prisoner of war who had been in captivity for some 4 to 5 years, Sergeant Bergdahl. Conversation moved to education, with a measure that Senator Warren from Massachusetts had introduced. The thought was we would be discussing education issues--the high cost of college and the burden of college debt on our students. Then we turned later yesterday to veterans and how we address the real scandal we have seen within the VA in failing to provide that level of care in a timely manner for our veterans who have served us so honorably. It has been kind of a fast and furious week, and I wish to take a few minutes this afternoon to talk about my perspective on not only the legislation that Senator Warren had put out for discussion, but, really, the concerns so many in this country have when it comes to the issue of student loan debt. I am the mom of a recent college graduate. Our number two son is going to be entering his senior year of college. So we are fully embroiled as parents in the understanding as to what the current costs of a college education are, what young students go through in order to achieve their dreams of going to college and their struggles as they then face the reality of moving into a working world, but starting off saddled with debt that can be almost breathtaking for them. In addition to being a mom of kids in this generation, I am also a former commissioner of the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education. This is Alaska's State agency lender. So I am coming at the issue wearing a couple of different hats today. I know full well people are discussing the issue of the high cost of college and student loan debt--and not just here on the floor of the Senate but talking about it around their kitchen tables. They are very concerned about the cost of college and the burden the debt then places on our young Americans. Young people who are just starting out after college graduation have an average debt of about $27,000. Now, some would say $27,000 is manageable; that is about in the range if you are purchasing a new car. But think about it. For a young person just out of college, starting to make those initial payments, $27,000 can be a staggering amount. Whether we talk to the young people working the phones in either a State office or here, the young interns that I have--who are excited about the prospects of going to college or are in the midst of college or who have just graduated from college--some of that excitement and that enthusiasm dims when they realize what it is they are taking on. So this debt is daunting. Keep in mind, that debt then assumes the means to pay it back. So many of our young people of course cannot find a job. For the 18- to 24-year-old age bracket, the unemployment rate is twice the national average. For those graduating with a masters or a doctorate, of course, the debt burden is much more. Then for the parents and those who have taken out loans to help put their kids through college--many families also struggling. So, again, this is something that families are talking about around their dinner table. And I am hearing about this from parents, from high school and college students in Alaska, and talking with my interns here. They all say the same thing. They are all concerned. They are all concerned about the cost of college and job training and the debt they are going to incur and their ability then to move forward, whether it is to buy that first car, whether it is to purchase a home, the decisions about getting married or starting a family. The debt has an impact, and that is absolutely a given. I do think it is important to know we in Congress have not turned a blind eye to this and we have been working over the years to help address the cost. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act and the Higher Education Opportunity Act are measures that I worked to craft some years ago, and they address these issues in many ways. We created income-based repayment and public service loan forgiveness. There was Active Military loan deferment, graduate student eligibility for income contingent repayment, interest rate reductions, Pell grant increases, TEACH grants, automatic zero expected family contribution for low- income families and much more. We improved student support programs like TRIO and helped ensure students and parents have access to the kind of information they need to ensure they really do get top dollar for their education dollars and also to help students then persist in college to complete that process to earn the degree. We required counseling for federal loan borrowers prior to the students' graduation on repayment plans, debt management, loan forgiveness, consequences of default, tax benefits, and more. We also required disclosure about the terms and conditions of the Federal Family Education Loan Program. These are the FFEL loan programs before the loans are disbursed, before repayment, and during repayment. Recently Congress has supported pay as you earn and other programs and just last year enacted a new interest rate structure to protect both students and taxpayers. Unfortunately, we haven't seen much out of the administration to make Americans aware that these opportunities actually exist, that they are in law. We heard a nominee for a senior policy position at the U.S. Department of Education who tried to justify this lack of action by saying the provisions were just enacted recently. But 7 years ago is not recent when it comes to helping Americans understand the many loan repayment options. Just this week we heard the President give the Department of Education yet another 6 months to figure out how to tell Americans about their loan repayment options. I think we can do better. I heard just last week a young teacher who was testifying before a Senate committee. She said she was completely unaware of the income- based repayment program which could have saved her about $4,000. Instead, with her unaffordably high loan payments, she basically defaulted on her loans. So it is important that when we put measures in place, we do make sure that education effort is there on the back end so people understand and can take advantage of some of these initiatives that will help to make a difference. Obviously we do not have the Warren legislation in front of us for consideration. I am certain that it will be a matter that will be brought back before the Senate. I certainly would hope we would have extended debate about what we as a Senate can be doing to help our young people as they deal with the burden of college debt, of job training debt, and what we can do to ensure they are well on their way to good strong careers. But I want to raise just a couple of issues that presented themselves with the legislation that Senator Warren had put out on the floor, because they speak to a program in my State that has considerable impact. Madam President, I know that I was scheduled to speak for about 15 minutes this afternoon. I have another colleague that is on the floor. I would ask unanimous consent for about another 5 minutes, if that is acceptable to my colleague and to the Chair.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank my friend from Ohio. First, I would like to bring up the issue of the Alaska State student aid agency. The Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education--or as we call it ACPE--is funded by the Alaska Student Loan Corporation. It is a public corporation in the State of Alaska and it is an agency that originates Federal loans under the old Federal Family Education Loan Program, FFEL, and for 40 years it has originated State loans. Now, before you dismiss ACPE as just another private lender, let me tell you what this agency does. It is the Alaska agency for authorizing and investigating institutions of higher education. They provide consumer protection for Alaskans. They gather student data to inform policymakers so we know what policies and practices are working and where improvement is necessary. They manage the State's performance scholarships and education grants, which provide both merit and need-based grants to Alaskan students for postsecondary education. They create and manage college readiness and job training programs and help them figure out how to afford it. What ACPE does is promote access to and success in high quality post- secondary education and job training for thousands of Alaskans and non- Alaskans who are attending Alaskan schools. But they also have a special emphasis on outreach to groups that are underrepresented in postsecondary education. They do such a great job for us in the State that when the late- Senator Ted Kennedy was here, he insisted on creating the College Access Challenge Grant Program to expand what ACPE had been doing for all these years. But the measure that Senator Warren has, the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, would potentially put these programs in peril and potentially end them. It would incentivize borrowers who borrowed their FFEL loans and their State loans through ACPE to refinance. But because this opportunity would only be available to borrowers in good standing on their State loans, it would leave ACPE with only the poorest performing and lowest credit quality loans in its portfolio, leaving behind the borrowers who are the ones the sponsors of the bill say we really need to help so much. The loss of the FFEL loans would be bad enough, but here is another problem. State student financial aid loans were financed by the Alaska Student Loan Corporation through long-term fixed rate revenue bond issues. These have very restrictive terms with respect to paying them off before their scheduled maturity dates. The impact on the State agencies and the Alaskans they serve and to the corporation's bond rating of having a large percentage of student loan volume prepaid through this refinancing bill would be severe. The money the Treasury would pay ACPE for those loans could not be used to pay off the bonds early, nor can it be reinvested at anywhere near the interest rate on the outstanding bonds. The value of the bonds exceeds $65 million. It is not only the cost to the agency and its ability to function. Whether the State corporation were to default or to perhaps go to the legislature for a bailout, the consequences are not good. Either situation would be toxic for the Alaska Student Loan Corporation in terms of subsequently being able to issue bonds that really would be palatable to any investor. In addition to the risk of default or a hefty bill placed on the State and being labeled a toxic risk to bond issuers, the combined loss of income across both old FFEL loans and State loans could very well leave ACPE unable to continue to perform any of the services that it performs really quite well. This is not the only issue I have as it relates to what we have before us this week. We don't want our students, our young people to be struggling when it comes to debt. We have to work together to try to find the solutions that truly are helpful across the spectrum. One of the problems that we noted, though, was that the bill would prohibit Americans who have private loans from banks or State agencies, and who are having trouble paying as agreed, to refinance to a lower rate--a prohibition that does not extend to those who are having trouble paying their Direct and FFEL loans. I cannot understand why we would treat Americans differently based on the kind of debt they have. The sponsors of the bill I think genuinely want to help struggling borrowers, but with this provision they leave a lot of folks out in the cold. So that is something that needs to be addressed. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the cost of college is going up, but State funding for higher education, which went down during the recession, is not rebounding. We are seeing exceptions in Alaska and North Dakota. But according to the CBPP, Louisiana is at the top of the list and contributes a little over $5,000 less per student to higher education than they did prior to fiscal year 2008. Hawaii, New Mexico, and Alabama are seeing $4,000 per student less. Idaho, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Nevada, Connecticut, and Arizona are in the $3,000 less per student range. The list goes on. So when the States are unable to contribute to their public universities and postsecondary education in general, the cost burden then for our students too often goes up. Even when our colleges tighten their belts and cut their internal costs, we see the costs rise. So obviously there is a great deal to do. I know that so many of my colleagues are committed to working to find that good solution which works not only for students in my State but around the entire country. We have our work cut out for us. I appreciate the efforts that many have made. I think the discussion will continue, and I look forward to that. With that I yield to my colleague from Ohio, and I thank the Senator for his indulgence of an additional 5 minutes.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I request that the following interns from my office be given privileges of the floor for the balance of the day: Emily Hartley, Alfonso Sitenga, Rachel Tougas, Michaela Spaulding, Deirdre Creed, Maria Villa, Lyndsey Brollini, Nicole Eldred, Austin Ramsay, Mckenzie Stepovic, Kendall Eilo, Ben Gilman, Gabrielle Gilbertson, and Luke Hopkins.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I wish to thank RADM Thomas P. Ostebo for his leadership as commander of the U.S. Coast Guard's 17th District. In this role Rear Admiral Ostebo was responsible for all Coast Guard assets and operations in Alaska--operations that were safely executed in some of the country's harshest and most demanding conditions. From May 2011 to June 2014, Rear Admiral Ostebo was the head Coast Guard official in Alaska, leading 2,500 Active Duty, Reserve, civilian, and auxiliary personnel, all charged to keep the largest State, with over 44,000 miles of coastline, safe, secure, and prosperous. Under his leadership, Rear Admiral Ostebo's crews successfully executed this mission by conducting over 1,600 search and rescue cases, saving 519 lives and assisting more than 2,200 individuals. In addition to commanding this courageous cadre of Coast Guard men and women, Rear Admiral Ostebo remained a consistent champion for the State of Alaska. He was a leader on Arctic issues on many different levels. He recognized the importance of the Arctic trade routes and launched operation Arctic Shield, the Coast Guard's seasonal Arctic operation, to ensure the safe transit of commercial shipping routes, maintain Alaska's wild and sustainably managed fisheries, and sustain a ready response to any rescue mission at a moment's notice. Further, Rear Admiral Ostebo fostered many important partnerships with Alaska Natives and leadership that shared best practices and traditional knowledge of those that rely on the Arctic for subsistence. On behalf of all Alaskans I want to personally thank Rear Admiral Ostebo for the great work he has performed during his command in Alaska. I wish him the best of luck as he transitions to the next phase of his career. He will be greatly missed in Alaska.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I come this afternoon to speak about the regulations proposed by the administration on Monday relating to the Environmental Protection Agency. This time the agency's target is a 30-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from existing powerplants by the year 2030. The regulation that has been announced, which has been the subject of a great deal of conversation this week, should not be confused with EPA rules for cooling water intake or for proposed powerplants or for cross-state air pollution or for boilers or for ozone or for incinerators or for regional haze or for fuel economy or for the waters of the United States or for renewable fuels or for cement kilns or for coal ash or for effluent limitations or for any other number of regulatory actions that the agency has taken or is expected to take. This rule--and there have been so many of them, it almost feels like this should be EPA's rule of the week or rule of the month--is a unilateral effort to bypass Congress and to force into place policies that we in Congress have not approved. The goal is to push our electric supply away from coal and, I think, ultimately, away from natural gas as soon as possible. As the ranking member on the energy committee, I can attest that energy is always the flip side of the environmental debate. If we have a discussion about energy, we always have a discussion about the environment. I believe we should advance policies that make our energy abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. To that end, our environmental goals must be balanced with our energy needs. Because of this, I have for years expressed concern that EPA's relentless onslaught will harm the affordability and the reliability of our electric supply. In fact, I even released a white paper on this matter earlier this year. We still do not have an accurate accounting of the cumulative costs associated with all of these EPA rules that I just gave in the laundry list, but we do know not to trust their math because EPA has dramatically underestimated the powerplant retirements in very recent past. I will give you some examples. For the mercury and air toxic rules, EPA estimated only 4.7 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity retirements by the year 2015. But then we see the contrast. The labor unions forecast that MATS alone would result in 55 gigawatts of coal plant retirements and the loss of some 250,000 jobs. Government experts have determined that approximately 10 to 20 percent of existing coal capacity could be retired by the middle of the next decade. This is a calculation that really dwarfs EPA's number and one that doesn't include the potential impact of the latest proposal. Now, I know that the EPA has an important job to do, and I appreciate that, but I also recognize that it does not and cannot regulate in a vacuum. Baseload coal and the ancillary services that it provides account for almost 40 percent of our power. In many instances the EPA's regulations will render generating units uneconomic, with compliance requiring retrofitting, the use of best available technology, and downtime for installation. So I am concerned--greatly concerned--that the EPA's rules, particularly when you combine them with one another, will result in a grid that is less stable and less reliable. The cumulative effect of federal regulations on baseload capacity resources, whether they are coal or nuclear, which produce electricity on demand has to be looked at. We have to examine and appreciate the cumulative effect of this loss of production and not discount or ignore it. Many this past winter got a taste of what life in Alaska is like in the wintertime when we experienced the polar vortex here in the lower 48. The polar vortex caused 50,000 megawatts of powerplant outages. For one key system 89 percent of the coal capacity that is scheduled for retirement next year because of an EPA rule was called upon to meet the rising demand. So again, just think about that. We had a tough winter. We had coal-fueled facilities that were able to step up and provide for that increased demand--89 percent of that capacity was utilized during this polar vortex. That is fine. But what happens when those facilities are now offline, when they are in retirement, when you do not have that backup? The question we really need to be asking is, What happens when that capacity is gone? Hoping for a mild winter isn't a viable strategy. You cannot have a hope-and-prayer energy policy, hoping that the weather is not going to be so bad. Our Nation relies on installed dispatchable power generation during extreme weather, which is why we need to ensure grid reliability through a diversity of baseload capacity. Today it is unclear how many plants will retrofit to comply with various EPA regulations--including this most recent one--as opposed to making a decision to just shut down. It is uncertain if there will be enough time--to say nothing of sufficient capital available for investment--to build these new facilities or other forms of generation needed to ensure the continued reliability of the grid. I have been talking about grid reliability for a long while now, and I think it speaks to our system that while we may have been pushed to the edge of getting nervous, we have been able to meet that reliability requirement Americans have just come to expect. They want to know that when they want to have the lights on or keep cool or keep warm, there is that availability. Reliability is key here. I am even more troubled that the EPA, which has conceded that a single rule may result in what they have called a ``localized effect,'' has not sought from our grid regulators, FERC and NERC, an analysis of the cumulative impact its rules may have. Understanding the impacts of these rules by checking in with our grid regulators, FERC and NERC, as part of a formal process is an important part of what needs to go on. Yet we are not seeing that follow-through. Instead, EPA appears to be morphing into an industrial planning agency for the energy sector. That is not what they are designed to do. This latest rulemaking makes it even more important for FERC and the Department of Energy to step up, to really go toe-to-toe here with EPA to protect the reliability and the affordability of our power supply. The current chairwoman of FERC, while she has not called for a formal official role for the commission--as many of us would like--is certainly up to the task in my view. But with that situation at play right now within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, it appears that the White House doesn't want to keep the acting chair in charge. Its nominee to serve as chairman is both short on energy experience and largely unaware of the electricity reliability implications of EPA's rules. In response to a hearing question about grid reliability from Senator Manchin, the nominee conceded that he ``has not been following the decisional process at EPA closely enough to know.'' I find that response not only disturbing, but I think it raises the question of whether anyone within the administration is actually following the EPA process closely enough to know what will happen to our electric grid. I can tell you that I don't think the EPA knows the impact for my State of Alaska. The Agency readily admits that its proposal ``fails to account for the expected costs and benefits for areas outside of the contiguous United States.'' Alaska is one-fifth the size of the country, and we are part of the country. But the EPA, in advancing these proposed regulations, admits that ``we don't know.'' We don't know the cost-benefit for Alaska. We don't know the cost-benefit for Hawaii. That does not mean that my State is exempt from this rule as some reports have led Alaskans to believe. Instead, without the benefit of any analysis, EPA has directed Alaska to reduce our emissions by 26 percent and this while EPA ignores--totally ignores-- the likely inflationary costs and increases inherent in requiring the revamping of so much power production likely within a single decade. The EPA has recommended that States work together, work together to figure out how we are going to make these cuts. But again, when you are not part of the contiguous United States, it is a little more difficult for us in Alaska and our neighbors to the south in Hawaii if we are not part of an interstate electricity grid. Alaska is really in many ways on its own. Because of our constant need for Federal approvals or at best Federal cooperation that is too often slow to come, we are not even able to develop our clean hydropower. Some may ask: Well, I understand that you have about 25 percent of your power in the State of Alaska coming from hydro. That is correct. But because of other Federal policies--whether it is the roadless rule or other policies--we are truly hamstrung in our ability to build out more hydro. Based on more than 50 years of delay or broken Federal promises, there is no guarantee that we will be able to develop fully our abundant natural gas or even our vast renewable resource potential. We have challenges and we acknowledge them. We are working on those challenges. We are working diligently because there is nobody who wants to get reliable, affordable, clean diverse energy supplies to our State more honestly and earnestly than myself. But it is challenging. So as we work towards that transition, we need that flexibility. We need that time. Now the EPA has suggested a series of strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But of the five powerplants in Alaska that are directly impacted by this proposed rule, four are natural-gas-fired plants, and they are located near each other and Anchorage. So in the whole State of Alaska there are only five plants that are impacted by this regulation. Everything else is small enough or doesn't sell its power. So of the five, four of them are already natural gas. The fifth already has clean coal technology. The proposed strategies of switching to natural gas, dispatch changes or retiring plants are really just unworkable given the configuration we have in my State. Given that we live in this polar vortex every winter--everywhere is polar vortex in Alaska--many of our houses are well insulated to protect from the cold. So efficiency programs will provide comparatively small gains. Having said that, I know that we can and must do more when it comes to efficiencies, and I will continue to push on that because that is an area where I think we can make a difference. But trying to get to this 26-percent reduction is a challenge. I am still canvassing my State, but it will be difficult for Alaska to reach our 26-percent emissions reduction without serious economic impact. Electricity is already more expensive in Alaska than in most of the rest of the Nation. We have to reduce these prices, not engage in policies that will raise those prices even higher. In the lower 48 States, on average, an American family spends a little over 4 percent of their household budget towards their energy--keeping the lights on and keeping the house warm or cool--depending on the season. In many parts of my State of Alaska we have households that pay between 40 and 50 percent of their household budget to stay warm and to keep the lights on. So I am looking at this very, very critically. While I want to ensure that our air is clean, that we are working to reduce health risks, we don't have any room in Alaska to increase our energy costs. We have to be working aggressively with one another to reduce those costs. So I look at the proposal that has come out from the EPA this week, and I am very concerned about how a State such as mine will achieve the level that the EPA has imposed on it without extraordinary increases to cost. Some have labeled this recent EPA proposed regulation ObamaCare 2.0, and in many ways it is. The administration insists that there will be no cost increases associated with this rule. All we are missing here is an awful Web site and a pledge that if you like your current electricity bill, you can keep it. The President promises the electricity bills will shrink, but I am not buying that. The Wall Street Journal has rightly labeled this a huge tax on the poor and the middle class, and no one understands what will happen if States perhaps refuse to move forward with their own plans. Again, you have to ask the question: Does anybody really think that the EPA has the ability to impose its Federal will while simultaneously keeping the lights on and keeping power affordable to all 50 States? Despite negative economic growth last quarter and despite far better approaches pending in Congress to promote energy efficiency and energy innovation, such as an energy efficiency bill that my colleague from Ohio has been working doggedly to try to advance--a measure that I think is smart and sound and built on good policy--to not only help States like mine but all across the country, we do have some good proposals out there. We have initiatives we can move forward. But instead the President has decided to push ahead and to propose sweeping new regulations on our still weak economy. We must keep costs and reliability in mind as regulatory mandates push more and more baseload coal plants offline. FERC must be the unambiguous champion of reliability with a formal and a documented role with respect to EPA's rulemaking process. Powerful regulatory laws must be judicially administered, and only Congress--not the EPA--should decide such consequential changes for our energy supply, our economy, and our people. I think anything less is unacceptable and could very well yield significant negative consequences for a wide variety of American families and our businesses. I thank the Presiding Officer for her attention and the opportunity to discuss a very important issue for our entire country. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Cathy Cahill for the remainder of the 113th Congress.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two separate bills to open a small portion of the Arctic coastal plain, in my home State of Alaska, to oil and gas development. I am introducing these bills because new production in northern Alaska is vital to my State's future and global energy security. The 1.5 million acres of the Arctic coastal plain that lie within the non-wilderness portion of the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are North America's greatest prospect for conventional onshore production. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to estimate that this part of the coastal plain has a mean likelihood of containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as well as a reasonable chance of economically producing 16 billion barrels of oil. If produced at a rate of 1 million barrels per day, that supply could last for more than 40 years--bringing us jobs, revenues, and security in every one of them. Today, Alaska supplies about 7 percent of U.S. crude oil. This is a 4 percent decline since I last introduced similar bills in 2011. It is an even more substantial loss compared to what we have provided in past decades, and what we could be providing today. Importantly, despite the Federal Government owning almost 70 percent of the lands in Alaska, almost all of our oil production is from State lands. The only production on Federal lands is from the Northstar project, a small man- made island that straddles state and federal waters in the Beaufort Sea. For more than 30 years, my State has successfully balanced resource development with environmental protection. Alaskans have proven, over and over again, that these endeavors are not mutually exclusive, and with advances in technology, the footprint of development projects is only getting smaller. Yet at the Federal level, there is an astonishing refusal to acknowledge that record. As a result, production on the North Slope continues to decline by about 6 percent annually. With new exploration and development projects on Federal lands blocked or delayed at every turn, Alaska faces a tipping point. Declining production is now threatening the continued operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. A closure of TAPS would shut down all northern Alaska oil production, devastating Alaska's economy, causing global oil prices to rise, and deepening our dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world. Exploration and development in the Arctic offshore and National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska are moving forward, but these resources will not be developed without a viable way to transport them to market. The bills I introduce today, S. 2408 and S. 2409, would disturb no more than 2,000 acres of the vast coastal plain, and one bill would not allow surface occupancy of the coastal plain, only directional drilling from outside the refuge to access the oil and gas resources. To put this in perspective, 2,000 acres is less than the size of the local Dulles Airport, or about \1/10\ of 1 percent of the refuge. Since these areas are less than 60 miles from TAPS, development in the coastal plain is the quickest, most environmentally-sound way to increase oil production in Alaska and ensure the pipeline will operate well into the future, providing jobs and supporting the economies of both Alaska and the United States. The terms of both bills include strong protections for fish and wildlife, fish and wildlife habitat, subsistence resources, and the environment. Development could not move forward if it would cause significant adverse impacts to the coastal plain. Both bills also return 50 percent of all revenues to the Federal Government, rather than the 10 percent allowed under current law. At approximately $100 per barrel, and given the Coastal Plain's estimate of over 10 billion barrels, there is a trillion dollars' worth of oil locked up beneath this small area in northern Alaska. As we continue to struggle with high long-term unemployment and unsustainable national debt, we need to pursue development opportunities more than ever. The shale oil and gas boom on state and private lands in the Lower 48 has been the one shining light as our economy struggles to recover from the recession. My bills offer us a chance to produce more of our own energy, for the good of the American people, in an environmentally-friendly way. With oil hovering near $100 a barrel, with so many of our fellow citizens out of work, and with the U.S. nation still about 40 percent dependent on foreign oil--it would be foolish to once again ignore our most promising prospect for new development. For decades, Alaskans, whom polls show overwhelmingly support development of the coastal plain, have been asking permission to explore and develop the resources located there. Technology has advanced so that it is possible to develop oil and gas from the refuge with little or no impact on the area and its wildlife. I hope this Congress will have the common sense to allow America to help itself by developing the coastal plain's substantial resources. This is critical to my State and the nation as a whole. With this in mind, I will work to educate the members of this chamber about the opportunity we have and the tremendous benefits it would provide. I will show why such development should occur--why it must occur--and how it can benefit all of us at a time when we so desperately need good economic news.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two separate bills to open a small portion of the Arctic coastal plain, in my home State of Alaska, to oil and gas development. I am introducing these bills because new production in northern Alaska is vital to my State's future and global energy security. The 1.5 million acres of the Arctic coastal plain that lie within the non-wilderness portion of the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are North America's greatest prospect for conventional onshore production. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to estimate that this part of the coastal plain has a mean likelihood of containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as well as a reasonable chance of economically producing 16 billion barrels of oil. If produced at a rate of 1 million barrels per day, that supply could last for more than 40 years--bringing us jobs, revenues, and security in every one of them. Today, Alaska supplies about 7 percent of U.S. crude oil. This is a 4 percent decline since I last introduced similar bills in 2011. It is an even more substantial loss compared to what we have provided in past decades, and what we could be providing today. Importantly, despite the Federal Government owning almost 70 percent of the lands in Alaska, almost all of our oil production is from State lands. The only production on Federal lands is from the Northstar project, a small man- made island that straddles state and federal waters in the Beaufort Sea. For more than 30 years, my State has successfully balanced resource development with environmental protection. Alaskans have proven, over and over again, that these endeavors are not mutually exclusive, and with advances in technology, the footprint of development projects is only getting smaller. Yet at the Federal level, there is an astonishing refusal to acknowledge that record. As a result, production on the North Slope continues to decline by about 6 percent annually. With new exploration and development projects on Federal lands blocked or delayed at every turn, Alaska faces a tipping point. Declining production is now threatening the continued operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. A closure of TAPS would shut down all northern Alaska oil production, devastating Alaska's economy, causing global oil prices to rise, and deepening our dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world. Exploration and development in the Arctic offshore and National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska are moving forward, but these resources will not be developed without a viable way to transport them to market. The bills I introduce today, S. 2408 and S. 2409, would disturb no more than 2,000 acres of the vast coastal plain, and one bill would not allow surface occupancy of the coastal plain, only directional drilling from outside the refuge to access the oil and gas resources. To put this in perspective, 2,000 acres is less than the size of the local Dulles Airport, or about \1/10\ of 1 percent of the refuge. Since these areas are less than 60 miles from TAPS, development in the coastal plain is the quickest, most environmentally-sound way to increase oil production in Alaska and ensure the pipeline will operate well into the future, providing jobs and supporting the economies of both Alaska and the United States. The terms of both bills include strong protections for fish and wildlife, fish and wildlife habitat, subsistence resources, and the environment. Development could not move forward if it would cause significant adverse impacts to the coastal plain. Both bills also return 50 percent of all revenues to the Federal Government, rather than the 10 percent allowed under current law. At approximately $100 per barrel, and given the Coastal Plain's estimate of over 10 billion barrels, there is a trillion dollars' worth of oil locked up beneath this small area in northern Alaska. As we continue to struggle with high long-term unemployment and unsustainable national debt, we need to pursue development opportunities more than ever. The shale oil and gas boom on state and private lands in the Lower 48 has been the one shining light as our economy struggles to recover from the recession. My bills offer us a chance to produce more of our own energy, for the good of the American people, in an environmentally-friendly way. With oil hovering near $100 a barrel, with so many of our fellow citizens out of work, and with the U.S. nation still about 40 percent dependent on foreign oil--it would be foolish to once again ignore our most promising prospect for new development. For decades, Alaskans, whom polls show overwhelmingly support development of the coastal plain, have been asking permission to explore and develop the resources located there. Technology has advanced so that it is possible to develop oil and gas from the refuge with little or no impact on the area and its wildlife. I hope this Congress will have the common sense to allow America to help itself by developing the coastal plain's substantial resources. This is critical to my State and the nation as a whole. With this in mind, I will work to educate the members of this chamber about the opportunity we have and the tremendous benefits it would provide. I will show why such development should occur--why it must occur--and how it can benefit all of us at a time when we so desperately need good economic news.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President I have come to the floor today to introduce a piece of legislation that I feel is timely and critically necessary, the Department of Defense Suicide Tracking Act of 2014. As our Nation winds down involvement in the longest war in our history, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the men and women who have carried the burden of combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world, as well as their family members, are taken care of to the fullest extent possible. That means we must address the tragic suicide epidemic in our military. While the services have focused on this problem for years, there still appears to be significant gaps, especially in reserve component and dependent tracking and analysis. This is a complex issue with no obvious solutions, but I intend to work with my colleagues in the Senate to develop comprehensive, meaningful ways to address this problem. The DoD recently released its 2012 DoD Suicide Event Report, which concluded that there were a total of 319 active component suicides and 203 reserve component suicides in 2012. That equates to 22.7 and 24.2 for every 100,000 service members, respectively. Additionally, there were a total of 841 attempted suicides in 2012. While preliminary data suggests that 2013 had an 18 percent drop in suicides, this is still a significant and tragic problem in the military that we need to tackle head-on. The report doesn't include any data for dependent suicide or attempted suicide, because currently only the U.S. Army even tries to track that information, so there is no comprehensive assessment of how years of combat and readiness have impacted military dependents in that way. The purpose of the DoD Suicide Tracking Act is to establish programs to consistently track and analyze information regarding suicides involving members of the reserve components and dependents of regular and reserve component members. Specifically, the bill would improve consistency in reserve component suicide prevention and resiliency programs by requiring the Secretary of Defense to develop a standard method for collecting, reporting, and assessing suicide data and suicide attempt data involving members of the National Guard and Reserves. Alaskans are extremely proud of the contributions of our National Guard and Reserve members, both home and abroad. They have endured the stress of readiness, deployments and combat like the active component, making us all very proud. As such, it is time that we ensure the Department of Defense is tracking and addressing their mental well- being just like every other military member. According to an annual survey by the Blue Star Families military family advocacy group, of 5,100 military family members surveyed in 2012, 9 percent of military spouses reported that they had considered suicide. Of those, nearly a quarter said they had not sought help. This bill would establish a Department of Defense suicide prevention program for military dependents that requires each service to implement programs to track, report and analyze information regarding suicides. We often talk about the burden placed on military family members, but when it comes to suicide we have simply cut them out of the conversation. This bill would ensure the DoD finally focuses on the hardship and emotional stress born by military dependents and keeps them in the picture when evaluating the problem and working towards a solution. Our military family members have endured countless deployments, cared for injured service members, and picked up the pieces when heroes have made the ultimate sacrifice. I intend to make sure our government cares for them and gives them options beyond suicide to recover from their pain and emotional stress. Suicide among the active military, reserve and veteran populations continues to be a problem that doesn't appear to be improving. Sadly, the problem will likely get worse before it improves as the war in Afghanistan winds down and the services downsize, sending veterans with complex mental issues into the private sector without the military for support. That is why we need to improve our efforts now to proactively identify and care for these service members and their families as soon as possible and with the full resourcing of the Department of Defense. Our military men and women, and their families, have endured years of conflict across the world. They embody the proud tradition of selfless service to our Nation and I cannot thank them enough for everything they do. I call on all of my colleagues in the Senate to help those who have dedicated their lives to helping others and who, day in and day out, make the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of our freedoms. I would like to thank Representative Niki Tsongas for her leadership on this issue and introduction of the House companion bill, H.R. 4504.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President I have come to the floor today to introduce a piece of legislation that I feel is timely and critically necessary, the Department of Defense Suicide Tracking Act of 2014. As our Nation winds down involvement in the longest war in our history, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the men and women who have carried the burden of combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world, as well as their family members, are taken care of to the fullest extent possible. That means we must address the tragic suicide epidemic in our military. While the services have focused on this problem for years, there still appears to be significant gaps, especially in reserve component and dependent tracking and analysis. This is a complex issue with no obvious solutions, but I intend to work with my colleagues in the Senate to develop comprehensive, meaningful ways to address this problem. The DoD recently released its 2012 DoD Suicide Event Report, which concluded that there were a total of 319 active component suicides and 203 reserve component suicides in 2012. That equates to 22.7 and 24.2 for every 100,000 service members, respectively. Additionally, there were a total of 841 attempted suicides in 2012. While preliminary data suggests that 2013 had an 18 percent drop in suicides, this is still a significant and tragic problem in the military that we need to tackle head-on. The report doesn't include any data for dependent suicide or attempted suicide, because currently only the U.S. Army even tries to track that information, so there is no comprehensive assessment of how years of combat and readiness have impacted military dependents in that way. The purpose of the DoD Suicide Tracking Act is to establish programs to consistently track and analyze information regarding suicides involving members of the reserve components and dependents of regular and reserve component members. Specifically, the bill would improve consistency in reserve component suicide prevention and resiliency programs by requiring the Secretary of Defense to develop a standard method for collecting, reporting, and assessing suicide data and suicide attempt data involving members of the National Guard and Reserves. Alaskans are extremely proud of the contributions of our National Guard and Reserve members, both home and abroad. They have endured the stress of readiness, deployments and combat like the active component, making us all very proud. As such, it is time that we ensure the Department of Defense is tracking and addressing their mental well- being just like every other military member. According to an annual survey by the Blue Star Families military family advocacy group, of 5,100 military family members surveyed in 2012, 9 percent of military spouses reported that they had considered suicide. Of those, nearly a quarter said they had not sought help. This bill would establish a Department of Defense suicide prevention program for military dependents that requires each service to implement programs to track, report and analyze information regarding suicides. We often talk about the burden placed on military family members, but when it comes to suicide we have simply cut them out of the conversation. This bill would ensure the DoD finally focuses on the hardship and emotional stress born by military dependents and keeps them in the picture when evaluating the problem and working towards a solution. Our military family members have endured countless deployments, cared for injured service members, and picked up the pieces when heroes have made the ultimate sacrifice. I intend to make sure our government cares for them and gives them options beyond suicide to recover from their pain and emotional stress. Suicide among the active military, reserve and veteran populations continues to be a problem that doesn't appear to be improving. Sadly, the problem will likely get worse before it improves as the war in Afghanistan winds down and the services downsize, sending veterans with complex mental issues into the private sector without the military for support. That is why we need to improve our efforts now to proactively identify and care for these service members and their families as soon as possible and with the full resourcing of the Department of Defense. Our military men and women, and their families, have endured years of conflict across the world. They embody the proud tradition of selfless service to our Nation and I cannot thank them enough for everything they do. I call on all of my colleagues in the Senate to help those who have dedicated their lives to helping others and who, day in and day out, make the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of our freedoms. I would like to thank Representative Niki Tsongas for her leadership on this issue and introduction of the House companion bill, H.R. 4504.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President I have come to the floor today to reintroduce a piece of legislation that I feel 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. Thousands of members of the Hmong community fought for America during Vietnam yet they enjoy no rights as veterans. The Hmong veterans are requesting to be buried in national cemeteries and I, along with a bipartisan group of colleagues, Senators Franken, Klobuchar, Feinstein, Begich, Whitehouse, and Pryor, believe this is an appropriate honor. To preserve Laos's neutrality during the Vietnam War, the U.S., Soviet Union, North Vietnam, and ten other countries signed the 1962 Geneva Declaration prohibiting all foreign military personnel from Laos. While the U.S. and other countries withdrew all military personnel, the North Vietnamese Army blatantly violated the Geneva Declaration by keeping thousands of troops in Laos. Using Laotian territory to circumvent borders, these NVA forces posed a direct threat to America's military position in South Vietnam. Unable to be present in Laos, but needing to counteract the NVA, America required a covert military force. The Hmong were ideal candidates for America's secret war--they were renowned as being brave fighters who knew the rocky mountain terrain of Northern Laos well. All told, 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. In all, over 35,000 Hmong lost their lives by the end of our involvement in Vietnam. Since the end of the Vietnam War, thousands of Hmong and Lao families have resettled around the United States to become legal permanent residents or United States citizens and have greatly contributed to American society. There are currently over 260,000 Hmong people in America. 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. This new legislation is improved from the previous version, S. 200, in that it connects with Public Law 106-207: The Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 2000 which acknowledges Hmong Special Guerilla Unit's contributions during Vietnam and provides a path to validation of a Hmong veteran's service for the purpose of naturalization. Public Law already recognizes the service of Hmong Special Guerilla Unit veterans for the purpose of naturalization, so it is a natural connection to afford them burial rights as well. Hmong-Americans who fought and risked their lives in secret for America deserve the same public respect and honor we give the men and women they served with and rescued. I believe it's time to honor the service and sacrifice of Hmong Special Guerilla Unit Veterans by allowing them to be buried alongside their brothers in arms in our national cemeteries. Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues from across the aisle for this legislation and look forward to working with them and others in the Senate to finally getting this approved into law this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President I have come to the floor today to reintroduce a piece of legislation that I feel 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. Thousands of members of the Hmong community fought for America during Vietnam yet they enjoy no rights as veterans. The Hmong veterans are requesting to be buried in national cemeteries and I, along with a bipartisan group of colleagues, Senators Franken, Klobuchar, Feinstein, Begich, Whitehouse, and Pryor, believe this is an appropriate honor. To preserve Laos's neutrality during the Vietnam War, the U.S., Soviet Union, North Vietnam, and ten other countries signed the 1962 Geneva Declaration prohibiting all foreign military personnel from Laos. While the U.S. and other countries withdrew all military personnel, the North Vietnamese Army blatantly violated the Geneva Declaration by keeping thousands of troops in Laos. Using Laotian territory to circumvent borders, these NVA forces posed a direct threat to America's military position in South Vietnam. Unable to be present in Laos, but needing to counteract the NVA, America required a covert military force. The Hmong were ideal candidates for America's secret war--they were renowned as being brave fighters who knew the rocky mountain terrain of Northern Laos well. All told, 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. In all, over 35,000 Hmong lost their lives by the end of our involvement in Vietnam. Since the end of the Vietnam War, thousands of Hmong and Lao families have resettled around the United States to become legal permanent residents or United States citizens and have greatly contributed to American society. There are currently over 260,000 Hmong people in America. 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. This new legislation is improved from the previous version, S. 200, in that it connects with Public Law 106-207: The Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 2000 which acknowledges Hmong Special Guerilla Unit's contributions during Vietnam and provides a path to validation of a Hmong veteran's service for the purpose of naturalization. Public Law already recognizes the service of Hmong Special Guerilla Unit veterans for the purpose of naturalization, so it is a natural connection to afford them burial rights as well. Hmong-Americans who fought and risked their lives in secret for America deserve the same public respect and honor we give the men and women they served with and rescued. I believe it's time to honor the service and sacrifice of Hmong Special Guerilla Unit Veterans by allowing them to be buried alongside their brothers in arms in our national cemeteries. Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues from across the aisle for this legislation and look forward to working with them and others in the Senate to finally getting this approved into law this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Ron Faibish of my staff during pendency of discussion on S. 2262.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania and the discussion of why we are here on a late Thursday afternoon. We started off the week with an air of optimism that with the energy efficiency bill before us, we could get to that place where we could be debating substantive issues of the day. As my colleague has noted, we have not seen a real energy bill on this floor now for 7 years. When we think about the energy landscape in this country and what has happened in 7 years' time--7 years ago, we were looking to build import terminals to receive LNG. Now we are debating--or hoping to debate--the export of our LNG. I have kind of put a target on my back, if you will, and said: Let's talk about what is happening with our oil potential in this country and our opportunity as a nation to export our oil, given that next year we will actually be producing more oil in this country than the county of Russia, than Saudi Arabia, but that is going to require some debate, some discussion, some policy considerations. If we cannot even get to the point where we can move forward on an energy efficiency bill, how are we ever going to advance some of these policy initiatives when it comes to our natural gas, when it comes to our oil or how we might be able to deal with issues such as nuclear waste, where, quite honestly, until we can resolve these issues, they are going to be holding back our opportunity to advance in these areas. How are we going to build out the potential in this country for our renewables and how we integrate them into an outdated system? There are so many policy issues we have to talk about. So when people suggest all we want to do is talk about energy, I am one Senator who would love to do a lot of talking about energy. I would also like us to be able to legislate on energy initiatives. I would like us to update some of our energy policies, because as times have changed, unfortunately some of our laws have not. My colleague from Pennsylvania has mentioned there was a time when we would have substantive debate. Take that back to the Energy bills that were before us when I first came to the Senate back in 2003. We took up an energy bill at that time that was on the floor, I know, for multiple weeks; it may have been multiple months. On July 25, 2003, we resumed consideration of the Energy bill. We had a unanimous consent agreement at that time that more than 370--370-- remaining amendments would be in order. Now, 2003 may seem like a long time ago for some, but for me it seems like just yesterday. Thinking about that, it is like: Wow. We were able to come to a UC on 370 amendments. If we go back to the Energy Policy Act, if we look at the amendment log, it shows that more than 130 amendments from Senators of both sides of the aisle were considered. I think it speaks to the issues that were at play at the time. We are still basing most of our energy policy, of course, on those 2005 and 2007 energy acts. I think it is important to recognize that when it comes to something as significant as our energy policy in this country, the debate is worthy, the debate is important, and legislating on these issues is critically important. I know there are conversations yet underway as to whether an amendment opportunity will be made available, whether the four or five amendments the Republicans have offered that are being considered by the majority leader and the bill's sponsors of ShaheenPortman, whether we will be able to reach a fair consideration for the processing of those amendments. I would certainly hope we are able to do just that. The energy efficiency bill, as I noted in my comments the day before yesterday, is good, sound policy. It is an important leg in the energy stool. When we talk about our energy resources and what we have available domestically, what we are able to be producing--whether it is our fossil fuels, whether it is our renewable fuels, whether it is other alternatives--the recognition is that our most readily available energy source is the one we do not waste. If we can be more efficient, if we can do more when it comes to conservation, this benefits all of us. So let's figure out how we can move an energy efficiency bill. This is round No. 2 for us. Let us not allow the process to bog down a good bill and a bill that deserves to not only pass this body but to be worked through the body on the other side and to ultimately be signed into law by the President. I want to start work. I want to be legislating. I also recognize this has been a difficult time for us all right now. We are not seeing a lot of legislation moving through this Senate, but I have been trying to use the time I have, as the ranking member on the energy committee, wisely, trying to focus on those areas where we can critically examine the energy policies we have in place and how we might refresh, how we might reimagine the energy architecture we have. Last year I released a pretty major report. We called it ``Energy 20/ 20.'' It is a blueprint that kind of lays out my view of a sound, robust energy policy. I did not want a report that had taken a lot of time and energy and effort and love and passion to just sit on somebody's desk, so we have been working in this past year to flesh out some of the details we outlined in the blueprint. I have released now four separate white papers stemming from ``Energy 20/20.'' The first one was on LNG exports. The second was on energy exports generally but also focusing on the specific issue of the prospect for oil exports. We released a very well-received white paper on electric reliability, and then earlier this week I had an opportunity to release a white paper on the nexus between energy and water. All of these are available on the energy committee's Web site. I have given speeches on the floor. I have addressed small groups, large groups, basically anybody who will listen, not only in my State of Alaska but around the country. My colleagues and those who have been listening have heard me say multiple times that what I am looking for, what I am hoping for, what I am trying to build are laws and policies that will help us access our energy resources to be able to have a policy that says our energy should be abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. I joke about it and say there is no acronym for that, but I have arranged it alphabetically so you can remember it. But when you think about these five components, when you incorporate these all together--abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, secure--it makes pretty good sense. I think the effort we have engaged in, in the energy committee, has been a worthwhile effort, and I hope this broader conversation will forge consensus on what I think we recognize can be some tough issues. I have been working hard, even though we are not moving a lot of bills through the floor right now, to try to advance the conversation on so many of these issues I think are a priority. The Nexus Between Energy and Water I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon to speak about the most recent white paper I have released, and this is on the connection or the nexus between energy and water. I mentioned I had an opportunity to present this on Tuesday at the Atlantic Council here in Washington. It is entitled, ``The EnergyWater Nexus: Interlinked Resources That Are Vital for Economic Growth and Sustainability.'' It is a very timely subject, very relevant to the current discussion of measures we can take to support energy efficiency. I think it is apparent, but it certainly bears repeating, that there are clear links between energy and water and water and energy. These fall into two categories. It sounds kind of simple, but it is water for energy and energy for water. Without water much of our energy-- electricity included--cannot be produced. Our economy literally comes to a halt. Without energy--and particularly electricity--the treatment, the transport, the distribution of water does not function either. That all seizes up as well. So we have water and energy just inextricably linked, and I think it is important to acknowledge that the continued availability and reliability should not be taken for granted. I think sometimes this is the part we fail to keep in perspective. We are talking a lot about energy right now, but as we talk about energy, let's talk about how that energy source intersects with water. In an effort to produce this energy, how much water are we consuming? In an effort to use that water, how much energy is being consumed to move or treat? So, again, the nexus is tight. When it comes to water-for-energy, an interesting statistic is that about 41 percent of our freshwater withdrawals in the United States are attributed to cooling the vast majority of our powerplants. This also consumes about 6 percent of our freshwater. Water is also routinely needed to produce the various energy resources we rely on, whether it is oil, coal, gas, or uranium. According to the Congressional Research Service, the production of biofuels has the highest water-intensity value, requiring 1,000 times more water than conventional natural gas. So, again, understanding the intensity is important as we talk about our energy resources. Altogether, more than 12 billion gallons of freshwater are consumed daily for the combined production of fuels and electricity across the country. Turning to energy-for-water, one study on a national scale found that direct water-related energy consumption amounted to more than 12 percent of domestic primary energy consumption in 2010. That is equivalent to the annual energy consumption of about 40 million Americans. We are seeing new technology, and we are seeing that really with the potential to provide a paradigm shift. But from today's vantage point, a steady population increase and the resource needs of a modern economy could make freshwater a limited resource in many parts of the country. We are certainly seeing that out in the West. Severe droughts in California and for that matter across most of the Western United States only serve to underscore the risks. Out West, of course, hydroelectric power is a major contributor to clean and cost-effective electricity generation, particularly in Washington State, Idaho, and Montana. So if rivers and reservoirs are running low, this power-generation capacity is at risk. I believe the recent and rapid expansion of our domestic energy production is very good for our Nation, particularly the growth in unconventional oil and gas production. What we have seen is that it has created jobs, it has generated revenues, it has revived local economies, and it really does wonders for our energy security. As I mentioned, the United States is now producing and exporting more energy than ever before. Our net energy imports are at a 20-year low. They are projected to fall below 5 percent of total consumption by 2025. With many new wells located in regions that have already experienced some water shortages, we are seeing producers who are moving in a direction to help ensure that there is going to be sufficient water available for both the work they are doing and other regional needs. New technological advancements and new methods to maintain a balanced use of freshwater resources have been continuously emerging. I think it is important to recognize that folks are appreciating that you can't count on an unlimited supply of this water resource. Utilizing our technology to be smart, to be efficient, is going to put everyone in better stead. Even in the case of conventional power generation stations, technological innovation and advances can assist in reducing--if not eliminating--the overall amount of water that is required for cooling purposes. But, again, the key is technology. Continued research and development is at the heart of innovation and advancement. The questions that are appropriate to ask are what can we do to ensure an adequate supply of water and how can we responsibly minimize the amount of water that is used for energy and then also energy for water? Conservation, of course, can help reduce demand for both water- for-energy and energy-for-water activities, but we have to recognize that it can only go so far. As I just mentioned, innovative energy and water use strategies, coupled with advanced technologies, are equally important when trying to optimize our limited supplies. I have called on all stakeholders in the private sector as well as in government to support R&D and demonstration of new technologies that can really work to reduce our energy and water consumption. Again, talking about the bill that is on the floor--energy efficiency--everything we can do to reduce our energy consumption as well as our water consumption is all good. It is all good. The genesis and sustainability of such efforts are highly reliant on open and continuous information exchange between the parties. I have suggested that the Federal Government not only can but should facilitate this exchange of information on a national and international scale. It can do that by forming genuine partnerships with the stakeholders--including industry, utilities, and academia--and teaming up to advance a better understanding of the energy-water nexus, adopt better practices through technological innovations, and really learn from one another about the procedures and implementation strategies. This dialogue should also include international perspectives on the energy-water nexus, utilizing the experience and expertise from around the world. We have seen technological advancements and great work going on in Australia, the Gulf countries, Israel, and Singapore. The development of new and improved technologies can answer the needs of both the domestic and international energy-water markets. This could mean opportunities for job creation--good jobs--in high-tech, R&D, and manufacturing. What I am advocating with this white paper and the proposals out there is really better planning and better collaboration. I am not looking for a top-down approach. I am not looking for more binding rules or mandates. I am certainly not advocating for the forceful implementation of any new policies or directives to use certain technologies. The adoption of best practices should always be on a voluntary basis. But having said that, I do believe that if we can demonstrate savings and demonstrate efficiencies from new technologies and better resource management approaches, the stakeholders are going to figure this out, and they are going to say this is a win-win for their own bottom line. This makes sense for their customers. It is good to advance. Along these lines, I have introduced energy-water legislation with Senator Wyden. We introduced it in January. Our bill is the Nexus of Energy and Water for Sustainability Act--we call it the NEWS Act--and it features some plain old commonsense policy improvements. What a concept. Just think, in more ordinary times perhaps I would have even introduced the proposed NEWS Act as an amendment to the bill we have before us. But what we have--S. 1971--is a short bill, a simple bill that directs the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish a committee or a subcommittee under the National Science and Technology Council to coordinate and streamline the energy and water nexus activities of our Federal departments and agencies. We are asking this panel--which would be chaired by the Secretaries of Energy and Interior, and representatives would be brought in from these and other agencies--to identify all relevant energy-water nexus activities across the Federal Government--because we know it is just a huge spaghetti mess here--and work together and disseminate the data to enable better practices and explore the relevant public-private collaboration. We also call for OMB to submit a cross-cut budget that details these Federal expenditures related to energy-water activities. What we are looking to do is to streamline these efforts not just to save water, not just to save energy, but to save taxpayer dollars. It is good. It is sensible. I think it is a rationed approach. I would like to be able to legislate on this, and I hope we will get to that point where we are beyond the energy efficiency bill, the Shaheen- Portman bill we have been trying so hard to work to advance not only this week but for years now; where we are beyond arguing over whether we are going to be able to move on some amendments; where we will take up with great energy and enthusiasm--pun intended--these initiatives that will help our Nation to be more productive, to be more energy secure, to have a stronger national security, and to have energy policies that are current and sound. I am one who tries to get up every morning optimistic, glass half full, and I want to believe we will work out an arrangement so that we can have a fair amendment process that allows Republicans to offer a small handful of amendments to be debated and voted on, that will allow us to move an energy efficiency measure that is important to our energy policy and to demonstrate that perhaps we can do a little bit of legislating, a little bit of governing, and advance the cause. 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. Mr. President, we are here today to discuss the energy efficiency bill and what may or may not be the status on any given amendments. I want to take a few minutes this afternoon to speak about the issue of liquefied natural gas exports. Senator Barrasso has proposed a bill that would provide for fast- track status for DOE licensing to LNG projects to export to members of WTO countries. As we focus on our opportunities that we have when it comes to our natural gas, our LNG, and the opportunities for Federal support for energy projects overseas, I think it is important to recognize there is a little inconsistency going on with this administration slow-walking infrastructure and hydrocarbon development in this country. I will give a couple of examples. The Export-Import Bank has supported a slew of LNG-related transactions over the past couple of decades. These are structured and project-financed transactions, these are loan guarantees, and some are even direct loans. With the assistance of the Ex-Im Bank and my committee staff, the Congressional Research Service has compiled a report on this subject which I would like to reference at this time. I emphasize that this is a list for LNG-related projects only. * * * if not exhaustive of the other kinds of energy-related infrastructure that the Federal Government finances overseas. So what we have here are projects that are LNG-related transactions that have been moved through the Export-Import Bank. Over $350 million in loan guarantees for equipment and services went to Trinidad and Tobago in 1996. In 1997, we saw over $775 million in loan guarantees go to Qatar and Oman for engineering and management services, for cryogenic heat exchanges, for compressors, and for gas turbine drives. In 2000 there was a loan guarantee of over $70 million that went to Malaysia. In 2002 there was a $135 million loan guarantee for equipment and services for Nigeria. Then between 2005 and 2006 we had over $800 million in loan guarantees for liquefaction and facilities-related engineering services to Qatar. In 2008 there was a $400 million direct loan for equipment and services to Peru; then in 2010 $3 billion in direct loan and loan guarantees for equipment and services to Papua New Guinea. In 2012 there was nearly $3 billion in direct loans for engineering services to Australia. There was a large project that included the liquefaction plant, a shipping terminal, and transmission lines. Then just last year there was another $1.8 billion in direct loans to Australia for facilities construction. There have been over a dozen projects, eight countries, and $10 billion in financing. I think it is important to recognize that the Export-Import Bank is one of the few agencies in the Federal Government that actually turns a profit, and my objective in listing these projects is not to oppose the financing--that is not what we are talking about--but, rather, to point out the inconsistency that we have in some policies. Simply put, we are financing LNG export projects overseas because they are a good idea. We like that approach. But we are politicizing the project for their review here at home. If LNG projects can create wealth and can support jobs in Australia and in Qatar, they can and will do the same here in the United States of America. But this administration is stalling on other infrastructure and development initiatives, not just LNG export facilities. We have the Keystone XL Pipeline. It is a great example. Offshore development is yet another example. Another Federal agency, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, has supported oil and gas projects in other countries. I also reference for my colleagues this afternoon another CRS report that was commissioned by my committee staff. So OPIC--this is not OPEC but OPIC--has provided insurance and financing to companies operating in Indonesia, Guatemala, Egypt, and Botswana. The bigger list includes, back in 2002, $25 million of insurance for a liquefied petroleum gas storage facility in Guatemala. In 2005, we had a $2.5 million insurance for a natural gas pipeline in Benin; $2.5 million in insurance for a gas pipeline in Togo; $45 million in insurance for another pipeline in Ghana; $320 million in insurance for an offshore natural gas pipeline in Israel. Again, I am not saying that financing this is a wrong idea or a bad idea; I am asking the simple question: If this is good enough for helping other countries, why are we not doing it here at home? There is a third Federal agency I wish to briefly mention that has supported energy-related projects overseas. This is the Trade and Development Agency. It funds feasibility studies, pilot projects, technical assistance, reverse trade missions, and various training activities. I reference for my colleagues a third CRS report, again commissioned by my committee staff, that showcases some of these activities. Specifically, on LNG, the Trade and Development Agency funded feasibility studies for: LNG import and power generation in Thailand back in 2004, CNG/LNG distribution in Indonesia in 2005, import terminals in Lithuania and Romania in 2008, floating LNG storage and regasification in Ghana in 2011, and reverse trade missions to Turkey in 2005 and South Africa in 2008 on LNG-related issues. The Trade and Development Agency has also funded energy-related technical related assistance to Brazil, Colombia, Peru, India, Sri Lanka, Jordan, Morocco, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, and Nigeria. They have funded reverse trade missions with Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, and Hungary. Again, helping other countries to develop their energy resources while helping American companies find opportunities to generate jobs here in the United States is a worthwhile policy as well. It is a worthwhile policy abroad and a worthwhile policy at home. I know my colleague from South Dakota wants to say a few words this afternoon. I yield the floor, and I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President. We are on the measure again, the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill, also known as the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act--an efficiency bill. This should not be this difficult for us. When we talk about the benefits of an all-of-the-above energy policy--the benefits that can come to us as a nation when we are more resilient with our energy sources, when we are able to access our domestic energy sources, whether they be our fossil fuels, our renewables, or nuclear-- we all talk about it in good, strong terms because, quite honestly, energy makes us a stronger nation, having access to our energy resources. I have defined a good, strong energy policy as one that allows energy to be more abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. An energy policy is also about the energy we do not consume. It is about the energy we save because we are more efficient. It seems we have gotten to a point, at least with some aspects of this discussion, where somehow or other the efficiency side of the energy discussion is a partisan debate; that Republicans do not support energy efficiency. I cannot think of a more conservative principle than conserving energy. This is something we should be embracing, and it is something, in terms of legislation that is sound, that is good to move forward, something that I support. This bipartisan efficiency bill has been refined. It has been strengthened. It has been improved over the past 3 years. There have been plenty of eyes upon this legislation. There has been plenty of debate about it. We have a total of 13 Senators who are now on board with it, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. So I am pleased we have this legislation back on the floor again. The last time this legislation came before us was in September. I spoke then about the importance, the relevance to today, the many good reasons the Senate should support it. I am not going to necessarily repeat all of those points this afternoon, but I do want to highlight quickly a couple of the main points. The first is going directly to the policy side of it. Energy efficiency should be a broader part of our Nation's energy policy. It is good for our economy. It is good for the environment. It enables us to waste less, to use our resources more wisely. Who can object to this? Who could possibly say this is not a good thing we should encourage? And there is more. Think about what it does to help create jobs and deliver financial benefits. Study after study shows we can save billions of dollars every year through reasonable efficiency improvements. Whether we are talking about small appliances or large buildings, there are opportunities for gains in efficiencies throughout the system. The second reason for support of the bill is it envisions a more limited role for the Federal Government. When I think about efficiency, I think the Federal Government should seek to fulfill three key roles. It can act as a facilitator of information that consumers and businesses need. It can serve as a breaker of barriers that discourage or prevent rational efficiency improvements. As the largest consumer of energy in our country, it can lead by example by taking steps to reduce its own energy usage. This legislation helps us make progress in all of these areas, but it is appropriately tailored as well. It has a number of voluntary provisions. It does not contain any new mandates for the private sector. I think that is worthy of repeating. There are no new mandates in this bill. When the legislation was first introduced some time ago, there was some concern about impact on building codes. But the provision related to model building codes is voluntary. It is not mandatory. No one has to benefit from it if they do not want to. The third reason to support the bill is the cost--or, really, the lack of cost. We all know we are operating in a time of high deficits and record debt. The good news is this efficiency bill actually subtracts from our spending rather than adding to it. The CBO has indicated it will yield a modest savings of about $12 million over the 10-year window. Again, this is good from a policy perspective. It is good from a fiscal perspective. Then the last point is one I want to make in support of process. We have followed regular order, as well as ``regular order'' can be defined around here, but we have done that from the beginning with this legislation. Those of us who serve on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported it on an overwhelming bipartisan basis back in 2011, and then again in 2013. So it has gone through a fulsome committee process. Improvements were suggested and have been thoughtfully considered and incorporated. Many, many of the ideas are now incorporated in the text we have in front of us. Then, finally, a few words about the amendments that are being filed to this bill. When we last had this bill before the Senate, we were unable to reach agreement on amendments. We got bogged down and the bill was pulled from the floor. The Senate moved on to other matters. We are back again now, and I really do not want to see a repeat of that experience. Quite honestly, we do not need to. It is certainly true a lot of amendments have been filed to the bill. We had more than 100 last September. That should not be evidence that somehow this bill is flawed. But what it recognizes is there is this pent-up demand for a discussion on the issue of energy. There is a pent-up demand to bring forward ideas and concepts and innovation and policy when it comes to energy debate. It has been more than 6 years since we have had anything more than a brief debate. When you think about what has happened in the energy sector in the past 6 years, I say to the Presiding Officer, you are sitting in the chair coming from a State that has seen an amazing--an amazing--boom when it comes to natural gas production in your State. You have seen technologies come in that are able to access areas where you did not even know you had the resource. Think about the changes we have seen in the energy sector in 6 years. Six years ago we were talking about building LNG import terminals-- terminals so we could bring LNG in from other countries. Now we are pressing the case for greater LNG exports. We are trying to build out more facilities so we can move this abundant resource from our shores to help our friends and allies around the world. Six years ago, if I had stood on this floor and suggested to you we were going to have a debate about the export of our crude oil from this country, you would have laughed me off the floor. Nobody was talking about it. But look at what is happening, coming out of the Bakken up in North Dakota, what is coming out of Texas and New Mexico and out of California, Colorado, out of States in the Midwest. We are producing like we have not produced in ages. We are doing so because we have the benefit of good, strong technologies that are allowing us to access a resource safely and making sure we are being good stewards of the land while we are doing it, and creating jobs and opportunities. So when you think about what has happened in 6 years, and the fact that we have not had a real debate and conversation about energy, it is no wonder people want to present amendments. But we are in a situation now where there is real debate about whether we are going to have any amendments at all. We have been sitting here in the Senate since last July--almost a year--and there have been nine amendments allowed of the Republicans' choosing to be heard, to be entertained, to be taken up on the floor of the Senate. We are not asking for an unreasonable number. Given everything that is going on in the world, everything that is happening in the energy sector, it is understood why we would want an opportunity to present amendments. But we are not asking for the Moon here. Out of all the amendments filed to the bill, we are seeking votes on four of them. If we were to take just 15 minutes per vote, with a little extra time for statements in support or opposition, we could work those out in an afternoon. There is no reason we need to stretch this out. Our other option is to spend the next several days arguing about whether we are going to vote at all. We are sent to the Senate to do good work, and this is a venue where the work is demanding attention, so let's get to it. Let's advance these measures. Let's get to the debate about whether it is LNG export opportunities, whether it is the advantage from many different perspectives about the Keystone XL Pipeline, and about what more we can be doing as a nation to be a world leader with our energy resources, accessing our resources for the good of Americans, the creation of jobs to strengthen our economy, to help our trade deficit, to help our friends, and to help our allies. We can be in a position to do so much more, but we have to be able to get beyond the discussion, the debate about whether we are just going to talk about whether we are going to talk about it or whether we are going to get to it. I am hopeful that throughout the afternoon, throughout tomorrow, and throughout the balance of the week we will have an opportunity to discuss and to vote on amendments that are energy-related amendments that will help move this country in a more positive direction when it comes to our energy policy and attach that to a fundamental anchor of a good, strong energy policy, which is energy efficiency, and that is what the Shaheen- Portman bill allows us to do. National Police Week I want to pivot for a moment and move off the issue of energy efficiency. I wish to speak for a few more minutes this afternoon about National Police Week. National Police Week is a week to honor our fallen law enforcement officers. It occurs next week. Next week in Washington, DC, we will see police vehicles from all over the Nation. We will see officers in uniform, perhaps some with young kids in tow, flooding the Metro system. The survivors of law enforcement tragedies will gather in Alexandria, VA, for the annual meeting of Concerns of Police Survivors. On Tuesday night, tens of thousands will gather at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, and they will read by candlelight the names inscribed on the memorial walls this year. On Thursday, the National Peace Officers Memorial Day Service will convene on the west front of the Capitol. These are all very moving tributes to our fallen, those who have served in the line of duty and who honor us all. For the past 11 years, I have made it a habit of honoring the fallen during National Police Week, regardless of whether any Alaska law enforcement agency suffered a line-of-duty death during that preceding year. At times I have made note of a sad coincidence, a sad coincidence that law enforcement tragedies in the twos and threes often seem to occur in close proximity to the annual National Police Week observance. About this time 8 years ago, the National Capital Region was grieving the loss of Michael Garbarino and Vicky Armel, the first Fairfax County police officers to die from gunfire in the line of duty. In April 2009, Pittsburgh lost three of its finest. This year, as we anticipate the arrival of National Police Week, Alaska carries that tragic burden. Last week my home State lost two members of the Alaska State Troopers in a single incident. On May 1, Alaska State troopers Sergeant Scott Johnson and Trooper Gabe Rich flew from Fairbanks to the village of Tanana. Tanana is an Athabascan Indian community and there are about 238 people. Tanana sits at the confluence of the Yukon and Tanana Rivers. It is a strong community, it is a resilient community, but it is a community that is truly suffering right now. Similar to most of the Alaska Native villages, the only full-time law enforcement presence in Tanana is a single, unarmed village public safety officer. Law enforcement backup, when they are needed and called in, will fly to Tanana. Tanana is not accessible by roads, so basically the only way in and out is to fly in and out, coming in from Fairbanks, so it is about a 1-hour flight away. The village public safety officer asked for trooper assistance to respond to an individual who had been waving a gun in the village. With no backup, other than the unarmed village public safety officer, Sergeant Johnson and Trooper Rich attempted to serve a warrant on the offender. Both officers were shot and killed. The 19-year-old son of the individual who was the subject of the warrant is now charged with the shooting. This is a horrible tragedy for Tanana, a tragedy for Alaska, and a tragedy for the entire law enforcement community. Tanana is, as I mentioned, a small village. It is an isolated village. It has been a very resilient village. It is a very proud and a very kind-hearted community. The Athabascan word for Tanana, known as ``Nuchalawoya,'' means ``wedding of the rivers,'' and the village has played a very central role in Athabascan culture for thousands of years. But like many Alaska Native villages, it suffers from drug and alcohol problems. Last October there was a group of young people from the village of Tanana, and they traveled to the Alaska Federation of Natives convention. It is the largest gathering of Alaska Natives in the State, and they did a very brave and heroic thing. They assembled on stage in front of 4,000 to 5,000 people to tell Alaskans that they had had enough of the pain and the violence, and they were determined to make their community a healthier place. It was an amazing moment. It was inspiring. There was not a sound to be heard in the huge Carlson Center in Fairbanks as these young people spoke. So inspiring were the words of these young kids that I wrote Attorney General Holder and I asked that his department invest prevention resources in the village and others like it that were trying to turn things around, trying to face the ugly side of what happens in a small community when we have domestic violence and child sexual assault brought on by drugs and alcohol. Tanana is absolutely devastated by what happened last week. In the words of Cynthia Erickson, who is the youth leader of the young people I mentioned, last week's incident amounts to two steps back in Tanana's effort to heal itself, but the healing process must begin and now is the time for it to begin. We remember fallen law enforcement officers for the way they lived their lives. Vivian Eney Cross, who is the widow of a fallen U.S. Capitol police officer, said: It is not how these officers died that made them heroes, it is how they lived. In that spirit I wish to share with the Senate a little about the lives of our two fallen Alaskan heroes. Sergeant Johnson was born in Fairbanks, and he grew up in the small community of Tok, which is 150-plus miles out of Fairbanks on the road system. He went to school in the Tok community, and he was a wrestler. He joined the Alaska State Troopers in 1993 after serving as a North Slope Borough police officer. Sergeant Johnson spent his entire 20-year trooper career in Fairbanks, where he rose through the ranks to supervise the Areawide Narcotics Team and ultimately the Interior Rural Unit. Sergeant Johnson also was an accomplished canine handler and a leader of the regional SWAT team. We call it SERT in Alaska, the Special Emergency Reaction Team. His final assignment was leader of the Interior Rural Unit, a team of four who respond to incidents in 23 Native villages. Sergeant Johnson assumed that role this year. His territory covered hundreds of miles end-to-end. Again, these are hundreds of miles without road access. Sergeant Johnson was 45 years old. He is survived by his wife, daughters aged 16, 14, and 12, and also survived by his parents and siblings. Trooper Gabe Rich was born in Pennsylvania. He moved to Fairbanks shortly after he was born. He graduated from Lathrop High School in 2006. He was 26 years old at the time of his death. Trooper Rich spent 4 years working as a patrolman with the North Pole Police Department before deciding to become an Alaska State Trooper in 2011. He is survived by his fiance, their 1-year-old son, and his parents. He was in the process of adopting his fiance's 8-year-old boy. Sergeant Johnson and Trooper Rich were known to those who watched the popular National Geographic series ``Alaska State Troopers.'' Undoubtedly, those who have watched the two in action are also grieving the loss, along with the people of Tanana and all of Alaska. I think I speak for all in this body when I say we are shocked and we are saddened by the events in Tanana last week. On behalf of a grateful Senate and a grateful nation, I take this opportunity to extend my condolences to all who held Sergeant Johnson and Trooper Rich deep in their hearts. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Some of the things the Alberta Clipper line provided were increasing the diversity of available supplies. It shortens the transportation pathway for a sizable portion of our crude imports. It increases crude oil supplies from major non-OPEC countries. It allows our country to cooperate on best practices in technology. And then, finally, approval of the permit would send a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availabilty of a portion of U.S. energy imports. These are not from the Keystone XL Pipeline. This is coming from the Alberta Clipper Pipeline, approved back in 2009, for exactly the same reasons that President Obama should sign off on the Keystone XL Pipeline and sign off now. It is in the country's best interests. It is clearly in the best interests of our friend and ally and neighbor to the north, Canada. I think we recognize there is so much opportunity for us. But we need to get out of the way of the stops and the hurdles that have been placed by this administration--limiting our jobs, limiting our economic opportunities, and truly working to restrict our energy independence. With that, I yield the floor, as I know several other colleagues wish to speak in the time remaining.