Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I wish to thank my colleague from North Dakota. I have had an opportunity to go to North Dakota and see firsthand how, in Senator Hoeven's State, they are embracing this energy renaissance we are seeing in this country--a renaissance that is truly allowing us to move forward with jobs and economic opportunity not only for the good of this country but really for the good of so many others. When we are talking about our neighbors to the north in Canada--or if one is from Alaska our neighbors to the east--there is a recognition that the United States and Canada are really joined at the well, if you will. That is a term I have used quite frequently. But when it comes to energy issues, there are 17 operating oil pipelines between the United States and Canada. There are another 30 electric transmission lines. There are 29 natural gas pipelines. This is all energy infrastructure that crosses the border with Canada-- whether it is into Montana, Washington, North Dakota, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Idaho, Maine. You have to wonder--you have to wonder--are not these all in the national interest? What is so unique, what is so compelling about this Keystone XL Pipeline that it is not only taking the 5 years of study that has already been done but is now on indefinite hold for yet further study? So it causes one to kind of go back in time. Let's look at some of the pipelines that have been already determined as being in the national interest. Back in August of 2009, the Department of State signed off on Enbridge Energy's Alberta Clipper Pipeline. When you look at what they did in signing off on that, it is exactly what we are talking about here with the Keystone XL. It said--and this is coming from the national interest determination on the Alberta Clipper. I ask unanimous consent to have that application printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I come to the floor about an hour or so after a vote on a motion to proceed to take up the Paycheck Fairness Act. I struggled with my decision as to whether to move to this measure that I feel was flawed in terms of its approach to a solution or to recognize that perhaps this measure was more of an exercise in political messaging rather than an effort to resolve what I believe is an issue. In sorting through all aspects of not only the merits of the legislation, but also the facts as they exist back home, the facts as they exist around this country, where we see pay disparity between men and women, I had a lot on my mind. I had a lot to weigh. I did not come to the floor yesterday to speak with the many who rose to either offer proposed amendments to the Paycheck Fairness Act or those who rose to speak to defend the act. I don't want my silence yesterday to be construed that I don't think there is an issue here; that I don't think this is something that needs to be addressed. Yesterday was national Equal Pay Day, the day when, according to the Department of Labor, women's wages supposedly catch up to men's wages. We can argue and we can debate what that gap is--whether it is 77 cents, whether those statistics are outdated, whether it is closer to 82 cents or what the raw statistics are. We can debate that. But the fact is--and I think the Presiding Officer and I would agree--if there is any discrepancy there, it is worth looking at. Why does a discrepancy exist? Is there disparity that stems from discrimination? Because if it stems from discrimination, it should not be allowed-- pretty simply. In Alaska, the statistics are a little bit different than what we have on the national level. In my State, Equal Pay Day is not going to occur until May 5. As an Alaskan, as a woman, and as one who has been in the Alaska job market, I want to know: Why the greater disparity in my State? We had a women's summit in Anchorage, AK, last October. I worked with a former colleague in the Alaska State legislature to host a summit designed to look at many of the issues women face in Alaska, whether it is pay disparity, childcare affordability, access to health care--so many of the issues and concerns women all over the country deal with day to day. We relied on a study from the state Legislative Research Services. A portion of the research tried to drill down into some of the pay disparities we have in the State. In 2010 our State Department of Labor reported a wage gap of 67 cents or 33 percent. This statistic is different from the overall national averages because that review conducted by Legislative Research Services included part-time as well as full-time workers and part-time workers generally receive lower salaries. That may be one reason for the disparity. But when we look at some of the areas where there are discrepancies, it really does cause one to say: Wait a minute. In areas where occupations are significantly male-dominated--crab fishermen, for instance, welders on the pipeline--occupations where the pay is really quite substantial, we might look at that and say, OK, I understand why there might be a discrepancy. But there are other occupations that have some surprising statistics. For example, back in 2010 the average earnings for a male physician were $229,312, but the average for a woman physician was $166,000. It doesn't make sense. In certain areas, women out-earn men--dietitians, for instance. The ratio of women's to men's earnings is 170 percent, according to the raw numbers. For legal secretaries, the ratio of women's to men's earnings is 132 percent. For teachers, the ratio of women's to men's earnings is 125 percent. We need to peel back the onion to understand what we are dealing with--is this a situation where it is the difference in the career choice that has made the distinction with the pay disparity? If that is the case, what are we doing to encourage women to go into areas where, quite clearly, earning opportunities are better? When we look at occupations, I think it is something that needs to be considered. When we talk about a wage disparity, a pay disparity, I think we need to look very critically at whether there are other factors that come into play. Is it a career choice? Is it the need or desire for flexibility? Starting out as a young lawyer in Anchorage, I was making what the young men in the firm were making. But when my husband and I decided that I wanted to spend more time at home with our boys, I negotiated for that level of flexibility. That put me behind my male counterparts in the firm. I was good with that. That was a choice I made. I wanted that flexibility. Are there other nonmonetary forms of compensation that perhaps the wage gap statistics don't necessarily respect? We don't know. So this is where I came down in my decision process as to which direction to take on the Paycheck Fairness Act vote that we had just an hour or so ago. Do we want to try to address what I believe is an issue in that we do have a disparity but how we understand what causes that disparity and, then, what we do with that going forward is an important consideration. We have the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that imposes strict liability for wage disparity based on gender. It is in law. We have title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that protects against all forms of employment discrimination, including on the basis of sex. But maybe we are not enforcing these Federal laws as we need to. If after all these years we are still seeing areas of disparity that we cannot reconcile based on occupation or based on desire for flexibility, does there continue to be discrimination? That is what we need to get to. That is why I and many of my colleagues supported some of the amendments that were presented yesterday and I think were important to present--to make sure there is no retaliation for a woman when she inquires as to what others are making to determine whether there is discrimination, so making sure we are able to access that information. However, when we take a proposal like the Paycheck Fairness Act that has an initial presumption that the employer has unlawfully discriminated against an employee if there is a difference in pay--if we start off with a presumption of discrimination, it is pretty hard for an employer--particularly a small employer--to deal with that, to defend that, to present the case, to really work through this issue. The solution should not be more litigation as the Paycheck Fairness Act response is here. The solution needs to be more all-encompassing because we have laws on the books that already say it is illegal to discriminate. If we are still seeing instances of discrimination--and, again, let's figure out where and why and how--then let's honestly try to address that rather than through messaging efforts that are designed to elevate the issue, which is fair, but then not be pragmatic about how we approach the solutions. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from this morning's Washington Post titled ``President Obama's persistent `77-cent' claim on wage gap gets a new Pinocchio rating.''

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Included in this article is the following quote referencing a study by the Census Bureau: This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. I don't know that. There indeed may be more that we can correct. I am willing to look to see, to continue to peel back this onion to see if we can do more than we did with the Equal Pay Act of 1963, do more than we did with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, do more than we did with the Lilly Ledbetter Act that I supported several years ago. If there is more that needs to be done, I am willing to work on it because I don't want to be in a State where men are viewed as being paid $1 to the 67 cents that a woman is being paid. I don't want those statistics to be valid. I don't want them to play out in my State. I want to understand how we ensure that there is a level of fairness. I think we need to make sure we look keenly to the issue of whether there is discrimination at play or whether, in fact, there are a host of other issues we need to consider as well. I am willing to work in good faith with my colleagues to do just that. I see the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is with us. (Mr. MARKEY assumed the Chair.) Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to discuss the opportunity we have as a nation to truly take a leadership role when it comes to responsible development of the Arctic region. As we discuss the great opportunities and the challenges that face us, I think it is fair to say that I will also be expressing some disappointment with the general lack of resources our Federal Government has invested in this important issue, including, just most recently, through the President's annual budget request. Back in May 2013 the Obama administration released its ``National Strategy for the Arctic Region.'' The national strategy was really designed to set forth this government's strategic priorities for the Arctic--pretty important to recognize what our priorities are going forward. While that might sound impressive--a national strategy for the Arctic region--what we ended up seeing was just an 11-page document, and it is really hard to describe it as strategic. Perhaps a more accurate description is that it was a glorified memo, a general outline, but there were a lot of gaps that needed to be filled. Recognizing that this is a new area for us in terms of opportunities and, really, for vision, I was prepared to sit back and listen to what the administration had to say and work with them as they built this strategic vision. So when they released their implementation plan for the national strategy in late January, I was looking forward to it. I was looking forward to what had been gathered in meetings not only in Alaska--the State of Alaska is what makes the United States an Arctic nation--but it was broader than just Alaskans' input; it was input from so many of our agencies, so many of our departments. Yet, when the implementation of our national strategy was released, I have to admit that, again, I was underwhelmed. I made certain the President and members of the administration knew my concerns, and I told him--these were my words when I wrote to him-- my concern was that his plan does not offer a vision to make the United States a leader in the Arctic, particularly as we prepare for the chairmanship of the Arctic Council in May 2015, nor does it suggest that the Arctic is a national priority. Instead, the plan provides a snapshot of existing Arctic-related programs and projects with numerous assessments to be undertaken but no real path of action. It was important to me as someone who cares very deeply about our role as an Arctic nation and our role not only within the confines of the Federal Government but our role going forward in the world among the other Arctic nations and truly all of the nations throughout our planet in terms of where the United States sits when it comes to our vision and our view for the Arctic. The administration's plan would maintain our rather meager status quo in the Arctic while the other Arctic nations--the rest of the international community--seem to be devoting increasing amounts of resources to the region. It would also leave the residents of the Far North--U.S. citizens up there in Alaska--out in the cold when it comes to the U.S. Government's own priorities. Rather than advance an agenda that will benefit those who live in the Arctic, they are, instead, regulated to being part of a science project for observation and conservation. Let me give you an example of that. One of the proposed initiatives within the implementation plan is to ``Improve Arctic Community Sustainability, Well-being, and Cultural and Linguistic Heritage.'' I have to say, that is a pretty laudable goal. We certainly want to maintain, we certainly want to pass down the culture of our indigenous populations to future generations. We certainly want to improve their quality of life. Yet within this initiative, the administration has designated the Smithsonian Institution to be the lead agency for this particular initiative. It is as if the people of the Far North--it is as if the Inuit, the Eskimo, the Aleut, the Yupik--are somehow or other people to be observed as part of a museum exhibit or perhaps placed under a glass bubble. Combine this with the implementation plan's heavy emphasis on conservation, research into climate change, and preemption of development on State Native and Federal lands, and it is difficult for me to see any support by this administration for economic development, for job creation, or really for a better quality of life for the people who live in the Far North. So again, when we talk about the ``Implementation Plan for the National Strategy for the Arctic Region,'' climate is absolutely an issue that needs to be discussed and addressed--absolutely. Development issues clearly need to be addressed. Conservation clearly needs to be addressed. But we have to remember there are people who live and raise their families and work up in the Arctic. So making sure we are thinking about them as we advance an implementation plan is key. But even with the implementation plan being rolled out in January, I thought: OK, there is still not enough meat on the bones here for me to understand how we move forward with a set of priorities, a real vision for the Arctic. But I knew the President's budget was going to be coming out in March, and that is the opportunity for any President to establish his or her priorities when it comes to the budget. So I held out hope that when we saw the fiscal year 2015 budget request that was where we would finally start to see some kind of a coherent strategy come together. I expected it would at least demonstrate the administration's desire to show some level of leadership in the Arctic. My office was told that part of the purpose of the implementation plan and the designation of lead and support agencies was to gain an ability to propose jointly supported Arctic projects that OMB would then deem important enough to be included in the budget request. But, again, we looked through the budget, and I am disappointed, sorely disappointed. My immediate reaction to the budget request was we are seeing so much spending here through the budget proposal, but yet so very little attention paid to our needs and our opportunities in the Arctic. A search of the 1,400-plus page detailed appendix for the administration's budget reveals only 5 requests--5 requests--for Arctic-related activity. Two are for longstanding programs that have been funded for many years. One is the U.S. Arctic Research Commission--very important--and then, of course, the North Pacific Research Board. Another is for international fisheries work done through the Arctic Council. And the last two are for climate change- related activities. That is it. Five references--five references--out of a 1,400-plus page appendix for the budget speak to any Arctic- related activity. Now, you may ask why I am disappointed, underwhelmed, perhaps a little bit agitated about where we are with advancing an implementation plan, a strategic vision for the Arctic. Well, in about a year from now, the United States will take over the chair of the Arctic Council. That chairmanship is currently held by Canada. I have had opportunities to sit down with the chair of the Arctic Council, Leona Aglukkaq, who is from the Nunavut area, and talk about what Canada is doing to really lead in so many different areas when it comes to Arctic policy and Arctic strategy--not only for their nation but all the Arctic nations and beyond. I look with a little bit of longing at how Canada has truly embraced their leadership role as an Arctic nation, not only with statements of intention that are backed up by real resources, but an appreciation for what the future can hold for the Arctic. So over the last several weeks we have had our Appropriations subcommittees that are really starting to kick into gear here, and I have had the opportunity to ask several Cabinet members--Secretary Johnson from the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Jewell from the Department of Interior--I have had a chance to ask both of them about their Departments' budget priorities for the Arctic and, specifically, the programs for which their Departments have been designated as the lead agency within this implementation plan for fiscal year 2015. And both Cabinet members have assured me, they have said, yes, the Arctic is a priority, it is important to the United States. But neither one of these Cabinet members could tell me what their Department's budget request contained for the Arctic. They have assured me they are going to be going back and seeing if they cannot fill in those details for me, but, to me, that is symbolic of the Arctic's overall standing within the administration. There are lots of good words when asked about it. Everyone is saying, yes, it should be a priority. But yet it does not seem to be important enough to be proactive on or to even be familiar with without prompting. We all know that any President's budget request, regardless of party, is not likely to be enacted word for word, and, quite honestly, recognizing politics, more likely than not it is not going to be enacted at all. But if a budget request does signify something, it is the message, it is the signal of what the administration's priorities for that fiscal year and beyond are. So it is apparent, at least in my view, that this administration is not willing to devote the resources necessary to make the Arctic a true priority. That, to me, is very shortsighted. I think it is a failure of leadership, a failure to think ahead and to take the long view. I recognize, as we all do, that we are at a time of budget constraint and restraint, that there is competition for all dollars, as we look to make wise decisions here. But as we are setting priorities, as we are thinking toward the future and a longer term view, we have to ensure-- we have to ensure--that the Arctic is placed as a priority. Some people would ask why we should care about it. Is this just an Alaska-specific issue? Are these just Alaska projects we are talking about? Why should the Arctic really matter to the United States? First, the reality is that the Arctic is a relatively blank slate right now. It is not presently an area that is subject to longstanding disputes or entrenched views. Think about the significance of that. When you look at the Arctic, you have your eight Arctic nations around it, but whether it is Finland, Norway, Canada, the United States, Russia, the area that occupies the Arctic is not one that is known for conflict. Think about the role Secretary Kerry has. He does not have to worry about hotspots in the Arctic in the sense of political hotspots. You just do not have those longstanding disputes. It is not a hotspot for potential conflict. It is, however, a region that is garnering increased international attention and recognition because of its tremendous potential, and it is generating cooperation amongst Arctic nations. Now, isn't that a concept--that something is actually generating cooperation? Let me give you an example. I was at the 2013 Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Sweden, and I was there with Secretary Kerry. When you think about the issues in front of our Secretary of State, at that time back in May, there was no shortage of differences and disagreements with the Russian Government at that moment. Yet at that ministerial meeting, we had Secretary of State Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov side by side signing a binding agreement on oilspill preparedness and response capabilities in the Arctic. But this was all going on while differences over Syria and U.S. Embassy spy charges were hanging over their heads. So despite all the other issues those two gentlemen were dealing with, they were able to come together in Sweden and join on to a joint document of cooperation among Arctic nations as it related to oilspill preparedness and response capabilities. From a foreign policy perspective, the Arctic is an area for cooperation and relationship building, and that is a good and a positive that we should look to build on. From an economic perspective, our neighbors--Russia to the west and Canada to the east--continue with aggressive national plans that include state investment to develop northern resources and advance commerce in the region. They know--they know all too well--that this will help create jobs and economic growth in areas that face extraordinary challenges. A recent report by the Norwegian Shipowners' Association shows that the regions bordering the Arctic Ocean are experiencing higher annual economic growth than the rest of their respective nations on average and are considered drivers for economic growth in the Arctic countries. Russia's territorial claim to a large swath of the Arctic seabed received a boost when an area in the Sea of Okhotsk was recognized as part of its extended continental shelf by the same commission examining its Arctic claims. These are territorial claims that Russia is able to make because they are a party to the Convention of the Law of the Sea, while the United States is not. I will just make a particular aside at this point in time that I have long been a proponent of the U.S. Senate ratifying the Convention on the Law of the Sea. As we engage in the Arctic, as we not only work on areas of cooperation, I think we need to ensure that we, as an Arctic nation, have a seat at the table on the issues that face the Arctic. While we sit on the sidelines, because we have failed to ratify the law of the sea, we miss out. We miss out. Even non-Arctic nations are embracing the opportunities that come with diminished polar sea ice representing the transit benefits, conducting scientific research and moving ahead with resource exploration and development activities. Nations such as China, South Korea, and Japan each have icebreakers. China is in the process of constructing a second larger icebreaker. It is even India's intention to have an icebreaker by the end of 2016. Think how far India is from the Arctic. You may ask the question: Well, where is the United States when it comes to its number of icebreakers? We have one heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star. We have a second, the Polar Sea, which is going to effectively be mothballed. We have a medium breaker, the Healy, which is primarily used for research missions, and the useful life of the Polar Star is expected to be concluded in less than 10 years. Right now, as I talk to those within the administration about the plans to move forward on a polar icebreaker, it is pretty dismal. The proposal thus far in the President's budget is that there will be $6 million to advance, as far as studies go. We know we need a heavy polar-class icebreaker. In fact, we know we need three heavy icebreakers and three medium icebreakers. But it is a big capital investment. It has not been made a priority. It is yet one of those initiatives that I think we look at from a shortsighted perspective by failing to place an imperative on it now. Even Singapore--not exactly synonymous with the Arctic--has designated an Arctic ambassador and is actively participating in the Arctic Council and other Arctic-related forums around the globe. So there are non-Arctic nations that are building ice-capable ships. There are non-Arctic nations that are asking to be observers in the Arctic Council. There are non-Arctic nations stepping forward and saying: We want to have an Arctic ambassador, somebody who is there as part of the discussions on issues in an area of the globe that is evolving so quickly; where there are so many opportunities; where there are challenges, yes, but where there are so many opportunities. We want to be part of that. You would think the United States would not only jump in and say ``me too,'' but that we would be leading as one of the eight Arctic nations. This activity by other nations is going to continue--in fact, accelerate--regardless of whether the United States engages. But if we do engage, we will also benefit and we will also be in a better position to ensure that any development, that any commerce, that any activity is carried out safely and responsibly. There is a lot of discussion about the energy potential, the potential for natural resource wealth and what that might bring to the Arctic. This is a map that shows the extent of the yearlong ice in the Arctic. Setting aside the natural resource potential, which is in the range of 30 billion barrels of oil and 220 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the United States Arctic OCS alone--we recognize that the natural resource potential is significant, but it is not just about the natural resources. Let me give an example of the activity that is already underway in the Arctic, its impact on us here in the United States, and the opportunity our Nation has to embrace that potential. With the decreasing amount of sea ice in the Arctic, we are seeing a corresponding increase in maritime activity. So, again, this is a chart that shows the extent of the sea ice in the year 2000. So your sea ice is the whiter area, with your opportunities for maritime activity limited as you are moving through Canada here and even through Russia there. This next chart shows the extent of the sea ice and vessel activity in the Arctic in 2011. So you can see increased activity is taking place where the sea ice used to be. So here is the sea ice now, but notice the passage you have transiting through the Bering Strait, over the top of Alaska, through the Northwest Passage, and out over to Europe. Notice also going through the Northern Sea Route from Russia over to the Baltic States. The colored lines you see are not necessarily oil and gas exploration ships; they are cargo ships, they are tankers, and they are icebreakers. They are fishing vessels, research vessels, passenger vessels, cruise ships, and others. So in a decade, what you are seeing is a level of maritime traffic that is really unprecedented--and unprecedented because we have not had the ability to transit in these waters because they were locked by ice for almost the full extent of the year. So here is a closer look at the vessel activity in the Bering Strait region in 2013. So this is going to look like this amazing blur of color. But here we have Alaska. This is Russia. Where all of these lines seem to be converging, at the center here, is where we have Little Diomede and Big Diomede. Big Diomede is owned by Russia, Little Diomede is held by the United States, and 2.5 miles separates the two islands. In truth, we can see Russia from Little Diomede. I was there last summer. But when you appreciate that the distance between Alaska and Russia outside of the very narrow area between Big and Little Diomede is just 57 miles--we have a 57-mile choke point here in the Bering Strait where we have incredible amounts of maritime commerce coming through: tankers, cargo ships, tugs, towing ships, passenger vessels, fishing vessels, search and rescue, military, law enforcement, and others. This is what we are seeing in the year 2013. Transits have doubled in the past 5 years. The next chart comes from the recently released U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap. This map shows the predicted sea ice coverage by the year 2030. So here we were at 2012 with the sea ice covering all of this. By 2020 it is shrinking. Here it is by 2025, by 2030. This is the predicted model for our sea ice coverage by 2030. We can see an even larger portion of the Arctic is expected to be open to maritime commerce. The Navy predicts that the traffic through the Bering Strait will double again in the next 10 years. Again, that is going to happen whether or not the United States participates. Foreign vessels, if not American vessels, will be traveling across Alaska's western and northern coast. That is a given. The last chart I have shows the Bering Strait as the gateway between the Pacific and the Arctic Oceans. Again, when we talk about Alaska, we are talking about its strategic geographic location, where it is on the globe. We are very proud of the military opportunities we have for amazing training ranges in Alaska when it comes to our assets in the air and on the ground. But look at where Alaska sits in terms of its strategic location to not only Asia--we are sitting literally halfway between Nagoya, Japan, and Seattle, Washington, when you are at Adak. It is just as easy for me to get to Japan as it is to get to Seattle if I go as the crow flies. Unfortunately, I do not have anything that will take me as the crow flies. But I think it is important for us to recognize this: That whether it is passage over the Northwest Passage, which is still relatively problematic, the increased traffic we are seeing from the Northern Sea Route coming over Russia, or potentially the transpolar route at some point in time, everything funnels through the Bering Strait here--the 57 miles between Russia and the United States--and then has to exit or cut through the Aleutian chain here. So when we think about where Alaska sits, we truly are the gateway between the Pacific and the Arctic Oceans. With the predicting of a doubling of vessel activity in the Arctic via the Bering Strait in the next 10 years, the time to develop the infrastructure and support capacity to handle this growing amount of traffic is now--actually, it was yesterday. This is not a region that is devoid of activity, but it is a region that lacks adequate levels of investment, government resources, and attention. Deepwater ports, navigational aids, search and rescue capabilities, and icebreakers are all needed now and, in addition, the basic charting of many of our Arctic waters, which some of us have recognized is seriously lacking. This is going to take a very collaborative effort across all of our agencies and working with our Arctic neighbors to achieve that. With a vision, it is not difficult to see how we could have a transshipment facility developed in the Aleutian chain to capitalize on the intersection between the North Pacific great circle route and the three Arctic Sea routes. Imagine you have cargo that is transiting the Arctic from Europe, coming from the Northwest Passage or coming over the Northern Sea Route. Imagine that cargo then being offloaded at Adak. Adak is a former Navy base and, quite honestly, the infrastructure that is there is-- well, it is a little bit old--pretty amazing. You could then offload in either Adak or Unalaska and load that cargo onto ships transiting the North Pacific and to the west coast--and vice versa. Ice-strengthened ships could be used entirely within the Arctic, rather than traveling all the way to Singapore or Hong Kong. It would save time, it would save money, and it would allow for an increased number of transits. I am looking at it and saying: This could be a real win, a win for consumers, a win for business, and a win for national security by being able to keep a closer eye on commerce traveling to the United States. It is clear--I hope it is clear--that people recognize that we have such opportunity, we have such capacity for opportunity and growth within the Arctic. But we have to be careful, we have to be considerate, and we have to be sure that the necessary resources and infrastructure necessary are there. The United States has never been last in a race to the future, but absent visionary leadership and meaningful resourcing, we will continue to take a back seat and fail to capitalize on all that the Arctic has to offer. We will miss out on resource development and shipping efficiencies and, in turn, new opportunities to create new jobs and generate needed economic growth. I don't believe that we can afford to sit idle any longer, which means that it is time for our Federal Government and this administration to really start taking the Arctic seriously and dedicate the necessary resources to the region. I don't mean to suggest that the efforts that have been made to date are not important. We have come quite far in the past few years, but you have to remember, we were starting from ground zero. There was nothing, really. We have made some strides, and it is important that we have these documents coming out of our agencies, and it is important that we have framework because it is on these that we will build. But I feel like I need to lend an air of urgency that it is not just about methodically chipping away year by year with yet another document-- another strategy plan that will sit on the bookshelf. I have a lot of those on the Arctic. I think many do. It is how we are a true participant in a level of engagement in a region that holds such excitement and such potential that nations around the world are turning their eyes northward with excitement and enthusiasm. The United States should be leading with equal enthusiasm about what our opportunities hold. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I express deep gratitude to COL Gregory A. Scheidhauer for his past 2 years of exemplary dedication to duty and service as a congressional budget liaison for the Secretary of the Army. Greg was recently selected to serve the Army and Congress as the chief of Army Reserve Legislative Affairs. We wish him well in his new position. A native of Bowie, MD, Colonel Scheidhauer earned a bachelor of science degree at West Virginia University and was commissioned a quartermaster officer in the Army in 1990. He has earned advanced degrees in public administration, public health education, and strategic studies. Greg has served in a broad range of duty stations and assignments during his 23 years of service. As a lieutenant, he served as a transportation platoon leader and battalion logistics officer. As a captain, he served as a supply and services officer in Tennessee and as a training officer in Fort Buchanan, PR. Prior to his current assignment, Greg was the director J4, Joint Forces Special Operations Component Command, Iraq. In 2009, following his assignment with the First Army Division East, Colonel Scheidhauer was selected as a military fellow in then- Representative Joe Donnelly's personal office, serving the people of Indiana's Second Congressional District. After this, he served as a legislative liaison in the Office of the Chief of Army Reserve, and then as a congressional budget liaison officer in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller. In this capacity, Greg was tasked with managing the Army's research, development, test and evaluation portfolio as well as its aviation portfolio. As a budget liaison officer, he worked directly with the Senate and House Appropriations Committees to educate and inform Senators, Representatives, and staff on critical Army issues. Throughout his 23-year career, COL Gregory Scheidhauer has positively impacted his soldiers, peers, and superiors, and I am grateful that he has chosen to continue to serve as an Army leader. I join my colleagues today in honoring his dedication to our Nation and invaluable service to the U.S. Congress as an Army congressional budget liaison. Greg is accustomed to working long hours in his congressional relations work. So let me also acknowledge Greg's wife Andrea, and their children Alexis, Brennan, and Christopher, thank them for their sacrifices and wish them all the best for continued success in the future.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think we are waiting here for a couple of minutes. I will use a couple of minutes to speak again to those who come to our assistance when it comes to the enforcement of our fisheries laws--the men and women of our Coast Guard, NOAA, and our other enforcement agencies. Senator Begich has somewhat dramatically shown some of the scenes. This is not easy stuff out there. When you have somebody who we have reason to believe has been operating illegally in violation of our agreed fisheries laws, more likely than not they are not just going to stand by and let you board and take a peek. They are going to take chase. As we are hearing, as we are trying to find some evidence of the missing Malaysian jetliner, the oceans out there are pretty darn big. Usually, the conditions are not ones in which you would want to go out on a pleasure cruise. Our men and women who are engaged in those enforcement efforts are truly heroes to us in terms of the efforts that they make, the energy that they expend, and the risk that they place themselves at. So day after day, as they cover our waters, as they work to ensure that there is a effective management of our fisheries, their efforts to enforce these laws, their efforts to provide for a level of protection and safety, their efforts to bring the pirates to justice are truly to be applauded. I thank the Senator for the opportunity to make that brief statement. I see my friend and colleague is at the ready, hopefully to announce that we will be able to move to passage of these significant treaties.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my friend and my colleague from Rhode Island, who also is my cochair on the Senate Oceans Caucus. As he has noted, this is an issue of IUU fishing--illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing--and, really, that is too polite a term for it. It is really piracy--piracy of our fisheries. Senator Whitehouse has been very engaged in working on so many of these key issues. I think this is quite important what we are discussing today--the positive step forward, not only for fishermen in my State but for fishermen around the Nation. I would like to thank those who have been involved in this effort in addition to Senator Whitehouse--Senator Wicker, as well as Senator Begich, for their efforts to help advance these treaties. I would also like to recognize Senator Menendez and Senator Corker for their support through the Foreign Relations Committee process. It should come as no surprise to any of my colleagues here in terms of Alaska's role with our fisheries. Alaska leads all States in terms of both volume and value of commercial fisheries, with approximately 1.84 million metric tons, worth $1.3 billion. The seafood coming out of Alaska accounts for over 52 percent of our Nation's commercial seafood harvest. Our commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries are really at the heart of coastal Alaska. They are the source of economic livelihood for more than 80,000 Alaskans who are directly or indirectly employed in the industry. I count my family as part of Alaska's fishing families who support very well managed, sustainable fisheries. But what we have seen from these acts of piracy--this illegal fishing--let's take, for instance, the crab fisheries, is very serious. Illegally harvested Russian king crab has been a real problem for us in Alaska since the early 1990s. In 2011 NOAA law enforcement seized 112 metric tons of illegally harvested Russian king crab that was being shipped to U.S. markets through the Port of Seattle. So what happens here is you have the Russians, who are taking too many of the king crab, illegally harvesting them and then effectively dumping them on the U.S. markets. Well, what do you think that does, then, to the price of the crab we are catching here lawfully in the United States? It is depressing the price of crab. Now, I know this. I mentioned that my family is in the fishing business. My cousin is involved in the crab industry. They have seen the prices of crab go down between 20 and 25 percent because of this illegal harvesting by the Russians. This is not just a small problem. This is not something that is just happening right now. This has been happening for decades now, and it needs to be stopped. I do want to take a moment to express my appreciation for the amazing work our U.S. Coast Guard does, as well as the other agencies, NOAA and the State Department, their combined efforts they are making to combat pirate fishing. It is greatly appreciated by me and my constituents. We have four treaties in front of us that will help to level this playing field and ensure that our coastal fishing communities will face less unfair competition from pirate fishing vessels that simply have not been held to the high fisheries management standards we have here in the United States. Two of the treaties we are looking at are particularly important for my State. One is the Port State Measures Agreement. This sets global standards to combat IUU fishing, and it helps to protect our U.S. fishermen by keeping the foreign, illegally caught fish from entering the global stream of commerce. It is hugely important for us. The other one I would like to highlight is the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North Pacific Ocean. This will ensure that the North Pacific Fisheries Commission is established and also helps to ensure that there is a fisheries management regime in place to deter this IUU fishing within the region adjacent to Alaska. So it is critically important when it comes to our fisheries and the sustainability of our fisheries and how we manage our fisheries. We are trying to play by the rules. We expect others to be doing the same. So, again, I appreciate the work so many have done to help advance these treaties that are before us. I see my colleague from Mississippi on the floor, and I would like to hear again from him in terms of support for these treaties. With that, I yield to my friend from Mississippi.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I commend my colleague, the Senator from North Dakota, not only for his leadership on so many energy initiatives, but for the proposal he has put forth this afternoon. I am pleased to be able to join him in support of those various measures--measures that, as he has outlined, will not only as a nation allow us to move forward and take that leadership role, which we so rightly have and should use as something to benefit not only ourselves and our economy, jobs within the Nation, but to benefit other nations. The proposal he has advanced--again, that I am pleased to join him on-- is one that allows for incredible jobs and opportunities with the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, provisions that will allow for expedited processing of our LNG exports. It recognizes, again, that when we produce more in this country--when we produce more of a resource that not only allows us to be more energy secure, but that also helps our friends and allies around the world, it also helps to truly effectively reduce the cost of that energy to American consumers. How can this possibly be a negative? How can this possibly be bad when it adds to jobs, when it strengthens our economy, and when it makes us more secure as a nation. There are many win/wins that we see in these energy proposals we have in front of us that Senator Hoeven has offered. But, again, if we only have an opportunity to kind of talk aloud about them but never actually have the chance to move them forward through a legislative process so they can actually become law so we can actually see those benefits play out, it doesn't do us much good. I appreciate what my colleague has outlined this afternoon through his proposals. I know we will have an opportunity to speak further to them tomorrow, and I look forward to doing that as well. King Cove I want to take 5 minutes in this late afternoon to continue to educate not only my colleagues but folks within this administration and around the country about an injustice that continues to unfold in a small corner of my State, a very remote part of my State in southwestern Alaska for the small community of King Cove. There are about 950 people who live in King Cove. I have been fighting since I came to the Senate, and before I came my father took up this fight, in an effort to get a small connector road, a small 10-mile, one-lane gravel, noncommercial-use road that will allow the people of King Cove access to an all-weather airport so they can get out in the event of medical emergencies. We had another one last night. I had an email saying the weather had completely taken over in the gulf in King Cove, and there was an emergency call that went out. It was for a 58-year-old fisherman who had been injured. He had been out on a Seattle-based processor called the M/V Golden Alaska. This fisherman happened to live in Seattle, and he was onboard this boat. They were out near Unimak Island, which is out toward the chain in the North Pacific, when this fisherman was accidentally sprayed with a high-pressure hose and it severely injured his eye. It was 1 a.m. when this incident happened. We have this big vessel, a big processing vessel of 305 feet, heading from Dutch Harbor to Seattle when the accident happened. I don't have a map with me, but if we can envision, there is a lot of big, wide-open ocean, and medical care is a long way away. This fisherman couldn't wait for that medical care. The closest deepwater port was King Cove. King Cove got the word that they had an injured fisherman onboard and they said: Look, our clinic can't handle somebody who has critical needs. See if you can take the boat over to Cold Bay so that not necessarily he can get medical care, he could get on an aircraft out of Cold Bay that could fly him the 600 miles or thereabouts to Anchorage for the medical care he needed. But the problem they faced was they had wind gusts of up to 60 miles per hour. They had rough seas, very rough seas. The ship's captain said: I am not going into Cold Bay. I am not going to try to hoist a man who has been severely injured in his eye--I am not going to try to hoist him up a 20-foot ladder at the Cold Bay dock. We are not going to do that. So they went into King Cove, a safer, more protected cove, and they were able to get the gentleman there at 11:30 a.m. The physician's assistant--we don't have a doctor in King Cove, we have a PA, somebody who basically does a good job in stabilizing folks. She contacted the emergency room in Anchorage. The ER folks said: Look, you have to get this guy to an ophthalmologist as soon as you possibly can in order to preserve as much of his eyesight as possible. As I mentioned, not only does King Cove not have a doctor, they don't have any kind of a eye specialist. The nearest ophthalmologist is in Anchorage, more than 600 miles away. The PA, Katie Eby, did what health professionals at the clinic always do in an emergency like this. She calls for help to our Coast Guard. She begs the Coast Guard to come. The Coast Guard says they will come, but they can't come now. They can't chance the weather to get in there. They are not going to risk a pilot and his crew to get into this situation where we unnecessarily put even more lives at risk. They said: Look, we are going to have to wait until the conditions improve and the winds die down. So the physician's assistant tries to stabilize the fisherman, manage his pain as best she can and basically she waits, holding the hand of a man and telling him the Coast Guard will come. The Coast Guard did finally make it in around 3 in the afternoon the next day. So this injured fisherman waited 13 hours for the winds to settle. The problem with this story, of course, is there were other alternatives for this fisherman who had been injured, who had to wait in pain wondering if he was going to go blind, if he was going to completely lose his eyesight while he was waiting for the Coast Guard helicopter to come in, to pluck him out, to fly him over to Cold Bay, and have a flight take him to Anchorage. The other alternative--the safe, reliable, affordable way out is a 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road. If that fisherman could have been put in an ambulance and taken across that road, a dozen hours could have been spared. Yesterday's medevac marks the fifth medevac by the Coast Guard in this current year. In 2014, we have had five Coast Guard medevacs. Keep in mind, each one of these medevacs costs around $210,000 per flight. So for those who are saying we can't have a road in King Cove because it is going to cost the taxpayers money, it is costing the taxpayers money because we are footing the bill for the Coast Guard. Thank goodness the Coast Guard is there. But we are also putting the lives of these men and women--our fine coasties--at risk when we are doing this. If we had a road, who is building the road? It is the State of Alaska. Who is maintaining the road? It is the Aleutians East Borough. This is not the U.S. taxpayer who is paying for this, again, 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road. There are options here. But the Secretary of the Interior has determined she wants to look at other options. She wants to find other alternatives. The fact of the matter is we have been looking at alternatives for a long time now, and those alternatives have been tried and failed or studied and reviewed and discarded. But the one thing we are pretty sure of is that this fisherman from Seattle who was injured and had to wait 13 hours to get out--we are pretty sure we could have put him on an ambulance across that road--if one existed--and he would not have had to wait for 12 hours. We are pretty sure that the 63-year-old woman who suffered heart issues on Valentine's Day and had to wait hours and hours for the Coast Guard to pluck her out of King Cove before she was able to safely make it to the hospital in Anchorage, we are pretty sure she could have been spared some of that agony. We are pretty sure that a couple of weeks ago when a father who had been crushed by a 600-pound crab pot--his pelvis crushed and his legs broken--that for hours and hours and hours he waited in the King Cove clinic to get medevaced out, and of the fact that his infant son, a 1- month old baby named Wyatt who was there in respiratory distress also had to be medevaced out on the same day, only that baby had to make it through the night in the arms of the physician's assistant, and the PA knowing and feeling the infant was in distress and actually feeling him stop breathing. If we had a road in place, with the agony of not only the individuals who have been injured but the loved ones who care about them, there are better alternatives, and, it is very clear to me, alternatives that work for the people who live there and the people who are in the area-- the fishermen. Maybe I am taking this a little too personally because my oldest son crabbed in the Bering Sea this winter. He was out in those waters. He was out in that foul weather. He was working in a very dangerous industry. Anybody who has ever watched ``Deadliest Catch'' knows what I am talking about. Both my sons fish in these areas. They go through the Gulf of Alaska. They go through Nunivak Pass every year as fishermen. If something should happen to them or to somebody else on their crew, and the closest deepwater port for them happened to be King Cove but the weather was to the ground, I want a road for them. I want a road for the people in King Cove. I want a road for the Seattle fisherman who is transiting back. It is a lifeline. It is a way to get to help. Right now, the one thing keeping these people from getting help is the Secretary of the Interior because she has concluded that we cannot build a 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road without disturbing the waterfowl, the black brant, and the geese that go through the Izembek. We have all heard my story on this many times before. We know we can build this small road and have it coexist peacefully with the birds that go through there. We know the people who live there will continue to care for the waterfowl and the wildlife just as they have for thousands of years. I don't want to keep coming to the floor and ranting about why we need this road. I don't want to make it appear we are sensationalizing the injuries of men, women, and children for the purpose of winning this fight. But I am not going to have somebody die out there when we could have found a safer and saner path forward. So I am going to keep coming to the floor. I hope the Secretary of the Interior is listening, that folks in the administration are listening, and that they understand we in Alaska can be responsible for the lands where we live, and we can provide for the health and safety of those who are out there and those who are transiting through. But we need this Secretary to do the right thing for the people of the State of Alaska and provide for a life-saving road. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank you for the opportunity to speak again on this historic event to recognize those who lost lives, lost family, and those who helped to not only ensure that Alaska was able to regroup and regain but knowing we have used these lessons learned 50 years ago to help us going forward.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, over the past several days we have all watched the news of the massive landslide in Washington State. We have watched that with sadness, with shock--truly an awful, awful episode. Our hearts, our prayers are certainly with all of those who have been affected by this terrible tragedy. We continue to hope for the best as rescue and recovery efforts continue. Today I have come to the floor to speak about a different natural disaster. This is a natural disaster that affected Alaska on Good Friday exactly 50 years ago today, in 1964. This is the Great Alaska Earthquake, the Good Friday Earthquake, the epic earthquake of 1964. At the time that Alaska was struck by this massive earthquake, I was a young child. I was living in the southeastern community of Wrangell, AK. I have a map here, a map of the State of Alaska. The epicenter of the earthquake is here in the south central area. About a year prior to the quake, my family and I moved down to the small southeastern community of Wrangell, tucked safely in the inland passage waterways here. We were all looking forward to Easter. When the earthquake hit, I certainly did not know that we had been struck by a massive, massive 9.2 earthquake of the magnitude on the Richter scale that decimated southcentral Alaska. The earthquake struck at 5:36 in the evening. I did not know that what had just occurred was the largest earthquake to strike the United States in recorded history. It is the second largest earthquake ever recorded on modern instrumentation. Those of us who lived in Alaska at the time have memories of what happened on Good Friday 50 years ago. We have stories that will live with us for generations and passed down from generation to generation. You can talk to Alaskans about it: Where were you in the quake of 1964? We had just moved, as I said, from Anchorage to Wrangell, AK. We did not feel the shake in Wrangell. We waited for the big waves to come. We waited for the tsunami. We sat listening to the radio. But our home was situated directly on the beach. Everyone was told to move up to higher ground. So we moved everybody in the family, five kids at the time, up the hill. We went to my first grade teacher's house, which was really quite exciting for me. We were allowed to stay up late into the evening. As a small child, there was a buzz. It was kind of exciting but kind of scary because we did not know what was happening in other parts of the State. My mom had basically packed some diapers for the smallest of the children in the family. She tells me that she brought along her silver tea set. That is the only thing that she brought from the house, along with the five kids. We also tell the story of the home that we lived in just before we had moved to Wrangell. It was situated in a residential area called Turnagain. Turnagain was the area that was immediately and massively hit. This is the Turnagain neighborhood. Our home that we lived in prior to moving to Wrangell was situated about two blocks back from the bluff. After the earthquake, the bluff slid down taking tens and tens of houses with it. The home that we were in then became bluff property. It was condemned never to be lived in again. We all have stories of the earthquake. We saw the news accounts as they came slowly to us. We saw the photographs of the collapsed buildings. I am going to go back to the first picture here. This first one that was up initially is downtown Anchorage, AK, 1964. This is on Fourth Avenue. You can see from the picture the ground just sunk, dropped--the crumpled buildings, the cars cattywumpus. The destruction and the devastation in the downtown area literally took your breath away. One very photographed picture was the J.C. Penney building which had just recently been constructed. The whole front facade of the J.C. Penney building just crashed down onto the streets and onto the cars below. This is a picture here of Government Hill Elementary School. I showed you the previous picture where my family and I had lived in the neighborhood at Turnagain when I was a child. When my husband and I bought our home, where our sons were raised, it was directly across the street from this property where Government Hill Elementary literally slid down the hill. As you can see from the picture there, the devastation to the school was extraordinary. Fortunately, it was 5:36 in the evening on Good Friday, and there were no children at the school. But the devastation, the visual impact that still remains as we look back 50 years now at what happened--the stories of loss of property, of damage to property, the stories of loss of life and truly miraculous survival--slowly started to reveal the extent of the destruction from an earthquake that Federal scientists would tell us years later was roughly equivalent to 100 million tons of TNT exploding--massive. The Good Friday Earthquake reshaped the Alaska landscape. Land was lifted 33 feet in some places, and then in other places it sank in the ground--sank as much as 6 feet in places. Cliffs and buildings crumbled, forests and towns were flooded. Huge waves approximately 200 feet high were measured near the community of Valdez. A 200-foot wall of water was coming into the community of Valdez. Communities were literally washed off the map in Anchorage. This is a picture here of Seward, which again is in Resurrection Bay along the coast, but the waves literally came in and swept everything out with it. But it was not just one wave. It was a series of waves. Anchorage, which is our State's most populous city and really the center of infrastructure in the State, was just 74 miles from the epicenter of the quake. That is where we see so many pictures of the tremendous damage there. There has been a series of articles in our local newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News, leading up to this historic 50th anniversary. It is a series written by Mike Dunham. I ask unanimous consent that a portion of these series be printed in the Record. But in the series discussing the tsunamis that hit Alaska, I would like to share with my colleagues some of the information that Mike outlined. He said NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center puts the total number of deaths resulting from the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964 at 139. Fifteen of those deaths are attributed to falling buildings or crumbling ground during the quake itself. The rest were killed by the water. Thirty-two people died when a wave 30-feet high built up in Valdez. Similar-sized waves took 12 lives in Seward, and 15 in Kodiak and its surrounding villages. Another dozen perished when a wall of water 40-feet high smashed into Whittier in the Prince William Sound village of Chenega. One-third of the population, 23 people, were swept away by a 90-foot wave. One thing that I found very fascinating in understanding some of the attributes of this earthquake and the tsunamis that came is that in many places the ground was still shaking when the water hit. Keep in mind, this earthquake lasted 4\1/2\ minutes--4\1/2\ minutes where the earth is lurching and shuddering and shaking. That is a horribly long time. The first tsunami that hit Valdez, I am told, hit just 2 minutes after the quake had begun. So imagine the terror. You have got the ground moving all around you, up and down, lurching back and forth, and 2 minutes into it, you have a tsunami at your doorstep. The loss of life from the tsunamis did not stop at the Alaska border, though. Four children died in Beverly Beach State Park in Oregon; 12 people died in California, mostly in the waves that destroyed Crescent City's harbor. But we know that it could have been much worse. The death toll was low for an earthquake of this magnitude. As I mentioned, it was after work. It was on a holiday. It occurred in an area with a small population that constructed buildings from wood, not bricks or other heavier materials. But the Good Friday Earthquake and the subsequent tsunamis that followed caused some $3.75 billion in damage and that is in today's dollars. This is 50 years ago, so $3.75 billion is amazing. Also, consider this was largely done to a State that was barely 5 years old, but the impacts reached far beyond Alaska. Tsunamis also caused damage to many of our Pacific neighbors, including Canada, Washington, Oregon, California, Washington, and Hawaii. Those tsunamis destroyed everything in their path. They destroyed houses, cars, boats, and fishing gear all along the Pacific coast. In Ocean City, WA, a bridge over the Copalis River collapsed. In Crescent City, CA, a dockside tavern was destroyed. In Hilo, HI, 12.5 foot waves overran the waterfront. Seiches, which are seismically induced water waves in rivers, lakes, bayous, and harbors, caused minor damage. It wasn't extensive damage, but it caused damage along the gulf coasts of Louisiana and Texas. Think about how this massive earthquake reverberated around the world. If we look again to the map that has the epicenter, we would think the extent would only be where the epicenter lines, the falt limits go, but in fact when we account for the tsunami effect, it truly was an amazing instance where Mother Nature came together in a massive and a violent way. As we think about the devastation, the loss of life, the lost property, we have to ask the question whether anything good can come from a tragedy such as the Good Friday Earthquake, but I think the answer is ultimately yes. We came together, Alaskans came together in the aftermath of the quake and the tsunamis to help rebuild the worst hit communities. We rebuilt them to withstand earthquakes and in locations that are hopefully protected from the ravages of future tsunamis. We set aside parks to remember the historic earthquake and to prevent future building on landslide-prone cliffs. Out of the devastation we did gain a better understanding of what is happening below the surface in Alaska and other earthquake-prone areas. In the 1960s we had very little information about what caused the massive shifts in the Good Friday Earthquake. There was very little understanding of the giant tectonic plates that make up the surface of the Earth and how their movement causes earthquakes. The 1964 earthquake resulted in greater seismic monitoring across the country and has led scientists to have a far better understanding of how earthquakes occur and where they occur. We can now better protect our citizens by implementing better building codes and preparing for earthquake disaster response in earthquake-prone regions, thereby reducing the chance that another earthquake would result in so many deaths. The tsunamis that were spawned by the Good Friday Earthquake provided scientists with a unique and important set of tsunami arrival times and heights that have been used to validate new models of tsunami propagation. These models have allowed our scientists and emergency authorities to warn coastal populations of potential tsunamis, protecting life and property. We see these exercises and drills conducted certainly in my State, I know in Hawaii, and in our coastal communities. The science has come a long way in the past 50 years and Alaska has too. As we mark this historic anniversary, we remember those who perished in the Good Friday Earthquake. We salute the men and women who help protect our safety by monitoring and researching earthquakes and tsunamis, both in our State and in others. We thank the first responders who helped Alaskans in 1964, just as we thank those who are helping with the recovery in Washington today. Let us also use this occasion to consider whether we ourselves are prepared for the worst should we ever face a similar day of reckoning in the future. To recognize this historic event, I have submitted a Senate resolution that commemorates the Great Alaska Earthquake. My colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich, and my colleagues from Oregon, California, and Hawaii have joined me.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 400, submitted earlier today.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend from Maine and appreciate the conversations we have had in this past week. He has taken a journey to the north that most of us only dream about. He is engaged in issues I care deeply about as it relates to the Arctic. Although I know that was not the discussion my colleague was speaking to earlier, I just wanted to note while my friend from Maine was still on the floor that I look forward to working on these issues of great importance not only to my State but truly to our entire Nation and Arctic Nation. I come to the floor this evening to speak very briefly about the physical security of our Nation's power grid, which is a very important subject. Recently, there were stories in the Wall Street Journal about an attack on the California Metcalf substation that happened last April and has drawn considerable attention. While those stories about that attack highlighted potential vulnerabilities, my principal focus will be to highlight not only the safeguards that are already in place to protect the Nation's bulk power system but also to announce a step that I believe is now necessary to prevent the undue release of sensitive nonpublic information. First and foremost--and I think this is important for people to recognize--it is important to remember that during the Metcalf incident, the PG&E system did not lose power. In fact, it was an incident that many didn't know had taken place until months after because there was no loss of power. I think this fact emphasizes the grid's resiliency and the importance of building redundancy into the bulk power system. As usual, the electric industry has learned from and responded to-- appropriately responded--the California incident. At the end of last year the Departments of Energy and Homeland Security--along with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC, along with the Federal Regulatory Commission, or FERC, and the FBI began a cross- country tour of 10 cities in order to brief utility operators and local law enforcement on the lessens that were learned from Metcalf. Government officials discussed mitigation strategies and meeting participants were able to develop some pretty important relationships between first responders and the industry. In fact, as a result of the mandatory requirements of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, the electric industry has invested significant resources to address both physical and cyber security threats and vulnerabilities. Through partnerships with various Federal agencies, the industry is keenly focused on preparation, prevention, response, and recovery. For example, NERC holds yearly security conferences and a grid exercise which tests and prepares industry on physical and cyber security events. Yet former FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff was quoted in the Wall Street Journal calling the Metcalf incident ``the most significant incident of domestic terrorism involving the grid that has ever occurred.'' In my view, comments such as these are certainly sensational. Depending on the factual context, they can actually be reckless. Although the topic of physical security warrants discussion-- absolutely warrants discussion and debate--we have to be prudent about information for the public sphere. Many government leaders are privy to confidential and sensitive information that if not treated carefully could provide a roadmap to terrorists or other bad actors about our vulnerabilities. At a minimum, government officials have a duty to safeguard sensitive information that they learn in their official capacity. A story that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on March 13 was, I believe, shocking because it included sensitive information about the Nation's energy infrastructure that the newspaper said came from documents that were created at FERC. Although the Wall Street Journal did not name specific facilities at risk, it did detail the geographic regions and the number of facilities that if simultaneously disabled could cause serious harm. The March 13 article claimed the potential for a national blackout. I want to commend FERC Chair Cheryl LaFleur for her statement regarding the publication of this information. I thank Commissioner Tony Clark as well for his statement about the matter. I think it is fortunate our current FERC Commissioners are an independent lot. I understand that the Commission is looking into this matter, including the question of how sensitive internal FERC documents made their way into a very high-profile news article. I urge FERC to be very diligent in this matter and truly leave no stone unturned. I have grave questions about the irresponsible release of nonpublic information that unduly pinpoints potential vulnerabilities of our Nation's grid. If this conduct is not already illegal, I have suggested it should be. The source of the leaked information appears to be someone with access to highly sensitive, narrowly distributed FERC documents. Releasing this sensitive information for publication has put the Nation potentially at greater risk and potentially endangered lives, including those of the many good people who are faithfully working every day to maintain and to protect the grid. In order to learn what has happened and to determine how better to safeguard critical information as steps are being taken to make the grid less vulnerable, my colleague, the chairman of the energy committee, Senator Landrieu, and I have written to the inspector general of the Department of Energy whose oversight includes FERC. It is our understanding that the IG has already begun an inquiry into this matter. We have asked him to conclude his inquiry as soon as possible. We have also asked for his immediate assurance that if the inquiry must ripen into an investigation, that he will--as we have every confidence he would--follow the information he learns wherever it leads. We are eager to receive recommendations to improve the safeguard of keeping sensitive information from disclosure. We have also asked the IG to look into the obligations of current and former FERC Commissioners and employees with respect to nonpublic information. I would certainly hope the inspector general's inquiry leads to the identification of the person or persons who provided this sensitive, nonpublic information to the media, but even if it does not, even if we learn the leak of this information could have been accomplished without the violation of any disclosure restrictions, we will consider introducing legislation to make sure that in the future the disclosure of nonpublic information about our energy infrastructure that puts our Nation at risk is a violation of Federal law. We must remember that the possibility of a physical attack that disables key parts of the grid has always been a risk. Again, in this instance, though, with the Metcalf instance, our system worked and no power was lost. Therefore, I urge a measured approach when evaluating our next steps in response to Metcalf. Erecting barriers at every transmission substation and surveillance of every inch of transmission is not feasible. I am concerned these types of measures will potentially cost billions of dollars with little impact. There must also be a balance between the measures related to physical security and the costs that would likely be passed through to consumers. On March 7, the FERC used the grid reliability framework that Congress established in the 2005 Energy Policy Act by directing NERC to establish standards addressing physical vulnerabilities to better protect our Nation's power grid. NERC has 90 days to develop its proposed standards through a collaborative process. The proposed standard will then be reviewed independently before it is submitted to the FERC. Our Energy Policy Act standards are foundational. Constant information sharing between government and industry, coupled with alerts for rapid response, are also key tools for dealing with the changing state of security. As policymakers we must include physical security as a key issue in our decisions. We must also take measured steps to protect the grid, but we shouldn't sensationalize the threat. I commend NERC and FERC for starting the standard-setting process, and I urge all of the participants to strike this balance between measures related to physical security and costs and benefits for electric customers and the broader public as a whole. Again, I thank the chairman of the energy committee for her willingness to join me on this letter which again I feel is very important as we begin this review through the inspector general. I know the Presiding Officer, as a valued member of the energy committee, is very keenly aware of these issues when we talk about our grid reliability threats to not only the physical security of our infrastructure but most certainly the cyber security threats we face as well. I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair this evening. I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referenced in my remarks be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President. In Alaska there is a great deal of attention focused this week on the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964. March 27 marked the 50th anniversary of this amazing physical event, the second largest earthquake that has ever been recorded, an episode Alaskans have been talking about for the past 50 years and will be talking about for the next 50. I rise this afternoon not to speak about that anniversary but to speak of a 25-year anniversary that while not caused by Mother Nature had a devastating impact on Alaska and the surrounding waters of our State. I would like to speak very briefly about where we are 25 years after the Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef. The Exxon Valdez was a 987-foot tanker. It was carrying 53 million gallons of crude oil. It struck Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound at 12:04 a.m., on March 24, 1989, and within literally hours it had released approximately 11 million gallons of crude oil into the water. As most know, the Alaskan coastline isn't just a nice thin straight beach; it is hundreds and hundreds of coves and islands and miles of shoreline. That oil spread over approximately 1,000 miles of shoreline across our coast. It is absolutely a fact that this environmental disaster is something that has left an impression on Alaskans not unlike what we experienced 25 years prior to that with another one of Mother Nature's devastations, the Great Friday earthquake in 1964. It is important when we have milestones, when we have anniversaries or times where we pause to think about what has happened before, that we not only think about the tragedy at the time but we think about how we have moved forward from that time, hopefully learning from those incidents that trigger such strong memories. So many Alaskans have stories of how they worked to help clean up the oil spill in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez, whether it was fishermen who had been displaced--they were no longer going out and fishing; instead they charged their vessels to be part of the massive cleanup effort that was underway. The stories that are out there throughout our State and from folks around the country are as poignant and touching 25 years later as they were at the time, because as the environment was impacted, the lives of Alaskans were clearly impacted. I like to think I spend a good amount of time in the small fishing community of Cordova--a community that was dramatically impacted by the Exxon Valdez spill--visiting with fishermen and fishing families decades after the fact and hearing their stories not only of the loss they incurred because they were not able to go out and fish, they were not able to meet their boat mortgages, but the other stresses the community experienced because of this disaster, whether it was personal bankruptcies, whether it was divorce, whether it was social issues because people just couldn't deal with the fact that their landscape and their livelihoods had been changed. It was a very trying and traumatic time. I think those scars take decades to heal. My hope is that, as Alaskans, we come together and learn from these tragedies and events so we can move forward. We are pretty resilient people. The people who have been so dramatically impacted are proof and evidence of that. What else have we seen as we have tried to learn from that tragedy? I think it is fair to say that at the time--back in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez ran aground--there was perhaps, as some would call it, a complacency. Perhaps we were just not monitoring operations as we should have, but we had an industry that had been operating quite safely--absolutely safely--for decades without incident. When you lose that vigilance, things can happen, and things happened with the Exxon Valdez. Since that time, we have learned that you have to have a level of preparedness as you operate in areas such as the Prince William Sound, you have to have a level of preparedness that meets the challenge you face. At the time the tanker ran aground, the spill response equipment that was there and had been planned for was not readily available. We didn't have sufficient boom available in the event of a disaster. We didn't have the fleet that could go out and assist in the disaster. Now, 25 years later, Alyeska has 189 skimmers, 49 miles of boom and on-water storage capacity of almost 38 million gallons. We have put in place a requirement that North Slope oil must be transported in double- hull tankers. You cannot bring a tanker in to carry North Slope crude unless it is double-hulled. It doesn't matter what the weather is, we require a level of escort--a two-tug escort--out of the Prince William Sound. It can be a flat, calm summer day or a foul winter day, but every tanker going out is escorted by two tugs. We also have radar monitors that are in place that truly allow for a greater level of oversight and scrutiny. What we have done in response to the spill is, I think, something that is worthy of note. Clearly, it is something that Other Nations look to as the example of preparedness. We have our Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council in place. They are truly active and engaged, not only with the community, but with the fishing fleets. We have learned that the company Alyeska--the management company for the transportation of Alaska's North Slope oil--conducts two major oil spill drills every year to make sure that there is a level of preparedness. We have about 400 local fishing boat owners that are trained to deploy and maintain the boom. They come together with drills to make sure we never have anything like we saw with the Exxon Valdez again. I think it is fair to say that 25 years after the spill, we are continuing to monitor not only the land and water but our fisheries. I recognize we still have a herring fishery that has not yet recovered. We still have a bird population--the guillemot--which has not recovered. Twenty-five years is a long time. When you have a disaster, as we had, it does leave an impact. My goal, mission, and effort as a legislator is to make certain we do not have a level of complacency where we close our eyes and fail in our efforts for preparedness again. I think what we have demonstrated in Alaska since the spill is, as I say, admirable in recognizing that we had failed in a level of prevention, but we also recognized we could learn from that tragedy and move forward, and we did. I wanted to take a couple of minutes this afternoon and acknowledge that there are still many Alaskans who woke up this morning not thinking about the weather or getting their kids to school, but with a very strong reminder of where they were 25 years ago and how the events of that day changed people's lives. Again, the goal here is to never have a tragedy of that scale and scope again. With that, I thank the Chair, yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a resolution I submitted in recognition and celebration of the 2014 Arctic Winter Games. This year's games are being held in Fairbanks, AK, and run for one week, from this Saturday to next. I feel honored that I am able to attend. In fact, I will be attending the opening ceremony with the honorable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, and Chair of the Arctic Council. I am excited to be able to show her Fairbanks and cheer on our respective teams. The Arctic Winter Games was envisioned over 40 years ago by Alaska Governor Wally Hickel and commissioners from the Northwest Territories and Yukon to provide an opportunity for athletic competition for northern athletes and coaches. Today, the games have grown to be an important opportunity to share cultural values from northern regions around the world, and have some good old fashioned fun. The 2014 games welcome more than 2,100 athletes from 9 contingents, from the United States, Canada, Greenland, and Russia, including 287 Alaskans. Twenty different sports are included, both winter and summer--from dog mushing to hockey to gymnastics to soccer to wrestling. I wish the best of luck to all the athletes. I thank Fairbanks for hosting the event, as well as the 2,600 volunteers who will contribute to the success of this year's games. I hope you will join me in supporting this resolution.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I, too, am pleased to rise today to join my fellow women Senators on the floor this afternoon to speak in support of the bipartisan Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014. I also commend Senator Mikulski and Senator Burr on their leadership in developing a truly bipartisan bill as we are moving forward. They have worked diligently and they have worked in a positive and constructive manner that does credit to the Senate operations. I also would like to recognize and commend Senator Harkin and Senator Alexander, as they have brought this bill through the committee and onto the floor. I believe this legislation walks that line between asking the States, our tribes, and providers to plan ways to improve childcare quality without actually dictating the who and how and the what of every aspect of childcare. What the bill really does is it strengthens the ways in which providers can combine CCDBG, Head Start, title I, and IDEA funds to serve more kids, and if we can serve more kids, that is all good. It asks them to take an updated look at how they serve children with disabilities and how they will address nutrition and fitness and health and safety issues, but it will continue to let them figure out the best ways to achieve the goals, and that really does make sense. In addition, as a result of the bipartisan nature of how this bill has come together, Alaskan voices were heard on this, and Alaskan concerns about several provisions in the original draft of the bill were addressed. For example, States that will be required to perform health, safety, and fire inspections may delegate to qualified agencies those inspections that require specialized expertise. That helps us in Alaska. The committee report clarified that States' disaster preparedness standards include specific mention of children with disabilities and family reunification. I was pleased to work with my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Hirono, to make sure the bill managers included the technical amendments she had requested, which ensured that Native Hawaiian children were not inadvertently left out. I again thank Senators Mikulski, Burr, Alexander, and Harkin for accepting those amendments that have made this bill that much better. Mr. President, ensuring that families and children are well served by the childcare they pay for, in part with CCDBG assistance, is an important task before the Congress because this is not just about daycare or early learning, as important as those topics are. The fact is that access to high-quality, safe, and affordable childcare is really the key component when we are talking about those things that build strong economies and strong American communities. This assistance allows parents to get the education or the training they need to qualify for a good job. It allows them to accept and keep a good job that will help pay those bills. It helps employers hire qualified employees who are then able to work. It helps the children get the foundation they need both academically and socially to be prepared to succeed in school and life. Getting CCDBG-funded childcare up to speed with the 21st century is a key element in addressing income inequality and the deep recession that is still present for so many low-income American families. This is especially true for American Indian and Alaska Native families. American Indians and Alaska Natives experience exceptionally high unemployment levels compared to the rest of the Nation. I think the Presiding Officer knows this from his State, but in many regions of Alaska unemployment among our Native people is more than double our statewide rate. In the lower 48, unemployment on our Indian reservations was at approximately 50 percent in 2012. We also know that high-quality early education can have an important and positive effect on the often very difficult academic and social outcomes we can see with our American Indians and our Alaska Native children if they do not have some of these foundational opportunities before them. So increasing these families' access to quality early education can have an important, positive effect on these children by improving their academic outcomes and their economic opportunities and really bringing hope to the community. I thank the Senators on the floor for supporting the amendment we just had in front of us. Senator Franken and I had offered the tribal set-aside. This change, which moves the set-aside from a ceiling to a floor, will provide tribes with an opportunity to work with HHS to receive additional support for the childcare opportunities that are so needed in Indian Country. I am proud of the work we are doing in the Senate this week. We could have hotlined this bill and passed it by unanimous consent, but I think the path we have taken is the right one in bringing the bill to the floor and giving each Member the opportunity to be heard on ways to improve the bill. Holding votes on amendments in the regular order is the right thing to do. I applaud the chairwoman and those who have worked so hard, and I look forward to supporting this bill as we see its conclusion. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I request permission to speak as if in morning business.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am happy to be on the floor this afternoon to give the announcement and the update about the running of the 42nd Iditarod in my State of Alaska. It is an extraordinarily famous and fabulous sporting event where man and dog test the elements of a course of almost 1,100 miles beginning in Willow, AK, and going all the way to Nome. This year there were 69 teams that started out, and the first team crossed the finish line at 4 a.m. Alaska standard time this morning. It was one of those races that truly came down to almost a photo finish, with the leaders trading off literally in the last several hours. This was a situation we honestly have not seen in quite some time with the Iditarod. With that buildup, I am pleased to announce that this year Dallas Seavey has become the winner of the 42nd running of the Iditarod, beating out Aliy Zirkle by 2 minutes 22 seconds. He and Aliy Zirkle battled it out in the last hour of the race not even understanding that the frontrunner, who had been in place of Aliy and in place of Dallas, Jeff King, had to scratch because of a ground blizzard that forced him off the trail, losing his sled and effectively having to call and ask for assistance. It was a very dramatic ending to a pretty fascinating race. The weather has been problematic throughout. We had warm weather conditions at the outset of the race, and then to have the weather really be the No. 1 opposition at the end made it something we are going to be talking about for years. The Presiding Officer has had the opportunity to attend the ceremonial start of the Iditarod and is familiar with the excitement when there are 60 to 70 dog teams, mushers, and all their supporters around handling the dogs. There were literally 1,000 dogs in the downtown area of Anchorage. It is really quite exciting. It is a fabulous way to come to understand the history of the Iditarod but, more importantly, to understand the mindset of some of these mushers and the dedication they have to this sport and the passion they have for their dogs. This year I was in the chute, and I like to visit with each of the mushers as they are coming down. Dallas Seavey was in the chute, and I was talking to him. He was really excited about the course because he said: This is going to be fast. This is going to be the quickest course we have seen. It is just perfect for someone like me who is young and fit and can stand up on his sled and literally be running next to his sled the whole way. Three mushers later is Jeff King, and Jeff is telling me: This race is the perfect race for us older guys. Jeff is my age. He said: It is perfect because it takes the maturity and the wisdom and having been through a series of Iditarods to know exactly how to handle a course like this. I think both of them were right. We saw the energy and determination of young Dallas Seavey 2 years ago. When he won for the first time, he was the youngest musher to win. He demonstrated a level of energy and determination that truly knocks your socks off. But what Jeff King was able to do with his methodical planning and strategy that goes into that race is certainly something to be embraced. And then, of course, Aliy Zirkle, a 44-year-old woman demonstrating once again that tough, independent female spirit--my gosh, she was in there all the way. This is the second year now that she has come in--actually, it is not the second year she has come in second. She has come in second more times than any other musher out there. Dallas Seavey broke the Iditarod record this morning at 4 a.m. He came in at 8 days, 13 hours, 4 minutes, 19 seconds. He shaved off almost 5 hours from John Baker's previous win back in 2011. There were a lot of firsts and a lot to be celebrated. There are still more mushers out on the trail. When I talked to Dallas about an hour ago to congratulate him, I said: You must be pooped and ready to go to sleep after the last 8 days. He said: Well, I am going to wait up for my dad. His dad, Mitch Seavey, is in third place at this point in time. We expect him to come across the finish line. I said: Isn't it nice to know that after all the years your dad waited up for you, you get to wait up for your dad before you take a break? Alaskans are pleased with the outcome. We are happy to celebrate amazing athletes--both human and canine--doing amazing things in an amazing State. I am pleased to be able to announce today's results. I thank the indulgence of the Chair.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, with the very unfortunate events in Ukraine in the headlines and the Ukrainian people close to our hearts, I rise today to speak to a topic that has significance not only for that European crisis and for our own well-being but also bearing a little bit on the longer term subject of climate change, which, of course, was a big discussion here last night. This morning I am speaking to the American energy renaissance and its broader benefits to us all. Today American technology and know-how are delivering energy abundance, keeping energy affordable, enabling energy to be cleaner than the next most likely alternative, permitting us to rely on ever more diverse energy sources, and, finally, improving energy security for our people here in this country and around the world. America's overall production of nearly every type of energy is rising. The efficiency of just about everything--whether it is our vehicles or whether it is our buildings--is increasing. And in comparing our supply with our demand, we are rapidly approaching a self-sufficiency rate of 90 percent. The American energy revolution has generated a variety of welcome benefits. It is creating jobs. It has generated revenues. It has helped reduce both energy prices and price volatility. And as our Nation imports less, the simple fact is there is more energy available for others. That, in turn, is creating the kinds of supply conditions in the world oil market that allow all of us to deal with the bad actors from a position of relative strength. There was a recent essay in Foreign Affairs which argued that energy has been viewed as a strategic liability in the United States since back in the 1970s. Now energy is becoming a strategic asset--a strategic asset--and one that can boost the U.S. economy and grant Washington newfound leverage around the world. It is really hard to disagree with that. The question then becomes, What will we do with this strategic asset? How will we use our newfound position? There was a survey of responses to Russia's disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty, and of those prudent areas where the United States might go. Energy is clearly among the most major strategic assets we possess. How we use it to bring about geopolitical stability can really define our leadership in the world. Our first real challenge as a nation is how to keep this American resurgence going. There are two specific areas where we have to make some decisions; that is, whether to grant access to new lands and new markets, and that will go a long way in determining whether we actually do that. As I noted, America's total energy production has increased dramatically in recent years, but within those numbers there is a serious dichotomy. Nearly the entire oil and gas production resurgence here in the United States has occurred on State and private lands, not the millions of acres managed by the Federal Government. Despite the discussion of all of the above and no small amount of credit taken by the administration, combined carbon fuel production on Federal lands actually fell from 2008 to 2012. That is a disappointing trend which, in my view, needs to be reversed. Consider, for example, the opportunity we are missing in my State of Alaska. Thirty years ago, in March 1984, Alaskan crude oil production stood at 1.6 million barrels per day. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System had been completed just a decade earlier. There were debates over opening new areas to production and even allowing exports of crude oil from the State, but the Federal Government did not act at that time. It did not seize Alaska's best and most obvious opportunities. Production peaked at 2.1 million barrels per day in March 1988. It has been on general decline ever since then. Alaska's production has dipped below the half million barrels per day marker several times since 2012. This is a fall of nearly 75 percent from its high. Back home we keep talking about a pipeline that is less than half full. The difference is not only geography, it is also policy. Our Federal policies are not working as they should. State policies, combined with private sector inventiveness, powerful as they are, cannot overcome the Federal barriers. In North Dakota, where we see a booming energy market, only 4 percent of that State is federally held. In Texas, it is just 2 percent of Federal lands. In Alaska, 62 percent of our lands are Federal, and most of our untapped resources are within these Federal areas. Alaska's falling production is a missed opportunity--a missed opportunity--to create jobs, to generate revenues, to stabilize world energy prices, to diversify world energy supplies. And it is not the only place in America where potential growth is going unrealized. We are passing up tremendous opportunities off of our Atlantic coast, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and in the Rocky Mountains West. We also have increasingly burdensome regulations that slow the pace of development in the Federal lands that are open. All of this highlights the need to reexamine our Federal energy policies and really reorient them for a new century. That leads us to the subject of exports. Back in January I laid out the case for why we need to renovate the architecture of U.S. energy trade. We have substantial opportunities for exports of coal, petroleum products, natural gas, natural gas liquids, renewable technology, nuclear technology, and even crude oil. I have called for the lifting of the de facto prohibition on crude oil exports as a preemptive measure. I say what we need to do is lift it to prevent future losses of production and jobs when our trade restrictions inevitably collide with this surge of light tight oil and condensate production that comes out. The conversation I hoped to frame last year in January when I submitted my ``Energy 20/20'' report is really very well underway. My point is that we must increase the value of energy as an American strategic asset for global security and price stability. I wish to say a couple of words--maybe more than a couple but a few words--about climate change. Many groups have formed to go on the offensive to ``wake Congress up'' on the issue of climate. They want to force the Nation to talk about this subject no matter what the issue of the day might be. Unfortunately, they also seem to want to blame Republican Members and somehow also to adopt policies that this body has rejected year after year. So much of the climate change conversation seems to be defined by old ideas that have been rejected. It seems that if one is not supportive of yet another regulatory edifice, either through cap and trade, a carbon tax, or letting the EPA expand its authority without any checks by the people's representatives in Congress, then somehow or other one is against the environment. I reject that. I want to see greater balance. I know we can achieve it, and I think it is important that, again, we reframe the conversation. I think finding agreement on environmental policy is hard, but it is not impossible. I think what we need to do is kind of pull back and change the conversation we are having. What I want to remind my colleagues of is that part of the opposition I have had to some of the ideas I have heard from folks is based on what those policies would mean for our affordability of energy. Here I mean not just for Americans who are energy insecure, including residents in my State and in some of our most remote areas who already face exorbitant energy costs, but also the 1.3 billion people across the globe with no reliable access to electricity. Worldwide-- worldwide--families are struggling to attain the basic necessities of life. Although many portray climate change as our most pressing moral issue, I would suggest it is but one of many. Energy poverty and energy insecurity are others, and ones that we simply cannot ignore and we should certainly not make worse. Another part of my opposition to cap and trade or a carbon tax is based on what we have seen in Europe as compared to what has actually happened here in the United States. Without climate legislation, but with the advent of increased domestic production here through shale gas production, our greenhouse gas emissions are now 11 percent below our rate of emissions in 2005. Yet our friends across the Atlantic, who actually did pass cap and trade several years ago, haven't exactly seen the expected results. In the face of weak growth, high unemployment, and high debt, some European nations are now dialing back the extremely expensive subsidies they have offered and, at the same time, many of our NATO allies are clamoring for the cheap and the abundant natural gas that we are now producing on our State and our private lands, and they are importing our abundant and affordable coal. The unfolding situation in Ukraine also highlights the compelling importance of energy security--something that neither a carbon tax, cap and trade or any climate bill we have seen in the Senate has properly accounted for. Then there is the approach the President seems to want to take. Earlier this year he threatened to use his regulatory authority to regulate greenhouse gases if Congress failed to act. It is really quite a choice here. He suggests either to pass legislation that we don't like or he will enact regulations that we don't like, either way to be carried out under the Clean Air Act, just not according to the Clean Air Act. It is difficult to consider really whether this is a serious offer. What we can say, though, is this threat and the rulemakings that will follow is contrary--contrary--to what our forefathers envisioned. Executive authority foregoes the benefits and protections of a legislative process and it curbs the debate that is needed to ensure fair and balanced policy, and particularly in this area where we need to ensure they are fair and balanced policies. To effectively combat climate change we have to safeguard our economy. Prosperity is key to the resources that we will need to make progress. The Nation has to pursue all forms of energy and stress energy security. We cannot exclusively count on renewables to achieve a low carbon environment. Emission free nuclear energy has to be part of the solution. Technology must play a role in reaching the goals that we set for our country. Finally, as we discuss the issues and the approaches to these issues, we have to do so with humility, keenly aware of the unintended consequences that could be worse than no action at all. Climate change is a global issue that requires global acknowledgment of the issue and global action. But through it all we must be deeply concerned and always aware about the impacts of our actions on the individual family. I spend a lot of time in the rural parts of my State. We don't even call them rural; we use the terminology ``bush'' because it is just so remote, and these are areas where the only way to access the communities is either by air or by boat, up the river by barge. Supplies are brought in two times a year, if you live on the river system. You look around and you may be able to see the impact of climate change, and that is an awareness the people in this region have, but first and foremost, these people need to be able to live. This is where they have lived for thousands of years. When you appreciate the costs they are paying for their energy right here and right now, I can't support anything that is going to increase the energy cost for the people in my State who are already paying-- some--close to 50 percent of their income for fuel to stay warm in the wintertime. I have one letter here that I received just last week from a village by the name of Kwigillingok. This is an area out in the coastal villages region. In this letter from the tribal council they state: The current cost of heating fuel is 6.02 per gallon and gasoline at 6.52. If I were to suggest to the fine people in Kwigillingok that in order to arrest what we may be seeing with increased emissions around the globe that their energy prices are going to double, that the cost of their heating fuel is going to go from $6.02 per gallon to $12, how will these people live? We have to be aware of the energy insecurity, the energy poverty in far too many places in this country and truly around the world. So as we discuss these very important issues about energy and how we do right by all, again let us do so with a level of humility and a level of respect for people all throughout our Nation. I see that my colleague from Texas is here, another fine producing State. In fact, Texas is a State that is really doing quite well right now when it comes to our energy and our energy resources. Through the efforts of States such as Texas, North Dakota, and California we are seeing a true resurgence in our energy production, and I think an opportunity for us as a Nation to again not only provide for our energy security as a Nation but to provide for security and stability on the global scene as well. With that, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I join my colleagues today in a discussion about an issue that I think we all would agree is an issue that really tears at the heart, causes great anguish, as we think that those who have volunteered to serve our great Nation, who have agreed to put themselves on the front lines, would be in a situation where they would be made a victim--made a victim of military sexual assault and be put into a situation where they do not know where to turn, they do not know if it is safe to speak up, and they do not know how to respond. Our military men and women, we are proud to say, are the most professional, the most highly trained and skilled and qualified. We will match them against any. Yet, when we face these very troubling and difficult issues of military sexual assault, it is an underside of the military culture that we have not been able to sufficiently address and eradicate. The most recent report of the Defense Department Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, which covers 2012, speaks to the statistics. These statistics have been reported so frequently on the floor of the Senate. We know them. We share them. We really agonize over them. An estimated 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact and sexual assault occurred in fiscal year 2012, a 37 percent increase from fiscal year 2011. Some 25 percent of women and 27 percent of men who received unwanted sexual contact indicated that the offender was someone within their military chain of command. Then, the statistics that really just go to the heart of what we are talking about here today: Across the services, 74 percent of females and 60 percent of males perceived one or more barriers to reporting the sexual assault; 50 percent of male victims stated that they did not report the crime because they believed nothing would be done. They have been victimized once, and now they do not believe that anything will happen if they speak. They do not believe that anything will be done with their report. Some 62 percent of victims who reported a sexual assault indicated that they perceived some form of professional, social or administrative retaliation, retaliation from the system that they have been trained to trust, to be there for one another, and yet now fear retaliation. This report was such an eye-opener for many of us. It certainly has galvanized the issue to address where we are today, to truly put on the front burner of this body, the issue of what has happened with military sexual assaults and what we can do to address it. It has remained on the front burner, thanks to the persistent efforts of the Senator from New York to keep it there. She has relentlessly pursued the vote that we will take today. Regardless of the outcome, I think that she should take pride, I think we should all take pride in what we have collectively accomplished. I also note the very fine work of my colleague from Missouri, Senator McCaskill, and her efforts, along with Senator Ayotte, Senator Fischer, and the Presiding Officer, to bring this issue to a level where we have seen changes made already, but the question that remains is, is there more that can be done. This Congress has significantly improved the system through amendments to the military justice system that were included in the National Defense Authorization Act. The services have also done their part to improve ways to improve their sexual assault and prevention programs, such as making sure that a Naval Academy midshipman need not be driven across the State of Maryland searching for a hospital that has a sexual assault nurse examiner on duty. In my State of Alaska, the headlines over the past year, as they related to military sexual assault within the ranks of our National Guard units, stunned us all. I recently received a further briefing from our adjutant general and folks within the Alaska National Guard in terms of what they too are doing to address, within their own system, the changes that are absolutely necessary. But the question is whether these changes will move the needle on these statistics we have just recited. In my view, it remains to be seen. Will they give the victims more confidence in the system? Will they deter offenders by increasing the certainty that there is going to be accountability if these acts are taken? Today the Senate considers the Military Justice Improvement Act, a measure that provides victims with the certainty they need to have confidence in the system. If they don't believe the system is going to be there for them, if they don't believe it is going to work for them, they are not going to report it. They will not expose themselves again. As I said on the Senate floor before, this is strong medicine. It is very strong medicine to any offender who believes that the ``good old boys'' system will permit him to escape the consequence of his actions. In my judgment, enactment of the Military Justice Improvement Act will lead to greater consistency in charging decisions. This, again, is a very important aspect. It will ensure that those decisions are based on the facts, the law, and not any external factor. That too offers an increment of protection to victims as well as to the offenders. The current system of military judgment relies upon the individual decisions of commanders as to whether an offense is to be punished and which charges are to be brought. We recognize we have a complex military and there are many commanders. While our code of military justice may be uniform, recent history suggests that its implementation is, unfortunately, anything but uniform. Some have called the Gillibrand proposal a radical solution and one that will make it impossible to maintain good order and discipline in the military. I don't buy that. These were some of the statements that were made several years back when we were considering don't ask, don't tell about 3 years ago. The military is proving it is resilient enough to implement culture change--and that is what this will take, is culture change. I believe they are resilient enough to implement a change of this magnitude, and it will be resilient enough to implement the Military Justice Improvement Act. It is not a radical and novel solution to a difficult problem. In fact, many of our allied modern militaries have moved the decision on whether to prosecute sexual assault outside of the chain of command. They have done it. I believe it is high time we do as well. Again, I commend those who have led so nobly on this effort to make sure that when those fine men and women stand to serve our country, there is ensured a level of justice, a level of uniformity of justice, and that we no longer see the devastating statistics we have, unfortunately, been faced with for far too long. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that MAJ Matthew Altman, a military fellow in my office, be given floor privileges for the remainder of the 113th Congress.