Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about two pieces of legislation that I have introduced. They are the Educational Accountability and State Flexibility Act and the Early Intervention for Graduation Success Act. I intend to speak with my colleagues about these bills in the coming days and weeks, but I would like to take a moment now to provide an overview of my thoughts. We have all heard from our constituents--teachers, principals, superintendents, school board members, and parents--about the No Child Left Behind Act. Clearly, the law has some good things. Americans deserve accountability for how their Federal tax dollars are spent, even when they are spent in their local schools. Parents want to know their local schools can help prepare their children for the future. But No Child Left Behind went too far. My bill, the Educational Accountability and State Flexibility Act, seeks to maintain reasonable accountability to taxpayers and parents while providing greater flexibility to States and schools to meet our children's needs and local communities' individual circumstances. As we know, the Senate HELP Committee has again begun to address the need to reform No Child Left Behind. A markup of the Strengthening America's Schools Act began yesterday, Tuesday, June 11, 2013. I am hopeful the committee can come together to reduce, not expand, the Federal government's role in our local schools. I know several of my colleagues share that hope, including Senator Alexander, who offered a substitute amendment to reduce the Federal mandates in the Strengthening America's Schools Act. I voted for that amendment and others like it. Since the Alexander amendment and several similar amendments failed, I hope my colleagues will review my Educational Accountability and School Flexibility Act. It is intended to offer some ideas for continuing the conversation. My bill would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--also known as No Child Left Behind--to do the following: No. 1: Eliminate adequate yearly progress--AYP; No. 2: Allow States to stick with an approved waiver plan if that is their choice; No. 3: Require States, not the Federal government, to determine each school's level of success in helping kids succeed based on broad, flexible parameters, publish the results, reward what schools are doing right, and help the schools that need help; No. 4: Require States to diagnose why a school is not improving to help fix what is wrong in a way that will work for that school and community--not implement a school turnaround model mandated by the Federal government; No. 6: Prohibit the Secretary from prioritizing or mandating any school turnaround strategy; No. 7: Prohibit the Secretary of Education from approving or disapproving a State's decisions about standards, tests, and accountability while making sure the public can access experts' opinions on the plans; No. 8: Eliminate the Federal ``highly qualified teacher'' requirements and let States decide what makes teachers highly effective; No. 9: Continue to ask the low-performing schools to tutor students who are not succeeding in schools; No. 10: Continue to allow public school choice as long as a higher performing public school is available and kids would not have to ride long hours on dangerous roads to get there; and No. 11: Respect the voice and expertise of our Nation's indigenous first peoples regarding what helps Native children succeed in school. I have also reintroduced my Early Intervention for Graduation Success Act with a few changes from last Congress. I hope my colleagues will take some time to review this legislation. This legislation would, if enacted, amend the current school dropout prevention provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It would focus attention on identifying and helping students who are at risk to not graduate from high school as early as prekindergarten and through elementary and middle school. Some may ask, Why are you concentrating on toddlers and elementary school children when you are trying to solve the high school dropout crisis facing our Nation? Why not focus attention and our Nation's scarce resources on high school students, or even middle school students? The reason is simple. Early on is when children's troubles in school begin, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. High school and middle school students do not just wake up one day and say, I think I will drop out of school today. Twenty-five years of research tells us that dropping out is a long process of frustration, alienation, and even boredom--it is not a sudden decision. We know that students with disabilities, minority and poor children, and students whose home lives are, in all sorts of ways, difficult have lower graduation rates than their peers. The challenges children face today are all too prevalent, and we know the factors that make it harder for them to succeed in school. We know this. It only makes sense, then, that we rework the program intended to help schools increase their graduation rates so that it actually helps schools help children when we can make the most difference. We need to act before these children have fought for years just to stay afloat, and before they are too tired, frustrated, alienated, and angry to fight anymore. But I have also heard from some who asked that my legislation include a stronger focus on secondary schools, knowing that today we have middle and high schools that are struggling to keep their students in school and on a path to success. So I have done that. I have also heard from my State. They shared concerns with me that the cost to create a database combining data from multiple State agencies that have information that will inform schools as to students' risk factors for dropping out--participation in public assistance programs, being homeless or a foster child, having an incarcerated parent, etc.--would be too high. So, knowing that it still makes sense to help our educators better identify students who are at risk, I have amended my bill to just ask the State to help schools access this information while following FERPA and HIPAA rules for privacy of that data. We all want our schools to be successful. We all want our children to be successful. I am hopeful my colleagues will take a good look at both of these bills, and that they will help to move the conversation forward about how we can help reach our goals.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have the honor today to recognize five great Americans who valiantly risked their lives multiple times in the service of their country. CPT Christopher Keen, MSgt. Sergeant Chad Moore, TSgt. Christopher Harding, SSgt. William Cenna, and SSgt. Sergeant Nickolas Watson are members of the Air National Guard from the State of Alaska who serve with the 212th Rescue Squadron from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. I'd like to tell you about some of the heroic actions taken by these men in the summer of 2012, when they were deployed to Afghanistan. Captain Keen, Master Sergeant Moore, Tech Sergeant Harding, Staff Sergeant Cenna, and Staff Sergeant Watson are assigned to an Air National Guard unit that specializes in dangerous medical evacuation missions. Pararescue Jumpers, or PJs, train to be inserted into the most hazardous and precarious situations to save lives. They learn to operate in the extreme cold and harsh terrain. As a matter of fact, Staff Sergeant Cenna was part of a five-member team to summit Denali about a month ago on May 9, 2013. PJs train on some of the most cutting edge equipment and master complicated medical procedures. If that is not enough, they prepare to do this job in the face of an enemy that, when they are plunged into the heart of a battle, can appear from any direction. In order to fully understand the valorous actions of these five men in 2012, I must begin the story in April 2011. Staff Sergeant Cenna, who you will hear about again, was part of a rescue team tasked to recover two U.S. Army pilots downed in the Tagab Valley, Afghanistan. After dropping Sergeant Cenna and his teammate at the crash site, members of the aircrew were injured by enemy fire and forced to leave the team without overhead coverage. On the ground, insurgents began voicing their intent to take individuals hostage and Sergeant Cenna began taking enemy fire. A six-hour firefight ensued, and Sergeant Cenna maintained complete situational awareness while relaying critical information to attack helicopters above. Risking his life repeatedly, Sergeant Cenna's actions directly contributed to eliminating the threat and most importantly, enabled the recovery of the downed American pilot, a killed in action infantryman, and another critically wounded soldier from enemy territory. For his gallantry and devotion to duty on April 23, 2011, Staff Sergeant Cenna was awarded the Silver Star. Just over a year later, on July 29, 2012, Staff Sergeant Cenna was again deployed to Afghanistan. He, along with Tech Sergeant Harding and Staff Sergeant Watson, were conducting a mission to evacuate two Danish soldiers near Gereshk, Afghanistan. The Danes had been critically wounded and were pinned down in an active firefight. The three-man pararescue team infiltrated at an unplanned insertion point approximately 100 meters from the soldiers. Without hesitation, the PJs maneuvered through a field with possible improvised explosive devices and enemy machine gun fire. The team then forded a flowing canal and climbed a 12-foot embankment to reach the wounded Danish soldiers. After applying lifesaving medical interventions and evacuating them to the transport vehicle, the team was notified of two more critically wounded soldiers at the incident site. Exposing themselves to extreme danger again, the team extracted those wounded troopers as well. In all that day, Tech Sergeant Harding, Staff Sergeant Cenna, and Staff Sergeant Watson saved four lives. Just a year after earning the Silver Star, Staff Sergeant Cenna joined Tech Sergeant Harding and Staff Sergeant Watson displaying sheer courage under fire and unadulterated, unselfish dedication to their duty, their country and their brothers in arms. The very next month, on August 8 and 9, 2012, Captain Keen, Master Sergeant Moore and Staff Sergeant Cenna were operating in support of Marines in Alpha Company, 2d Reconnaissance Battalion, near Urmuz, Afghanistan. The operation was called Lion's Den. It was during this operation that Sergeant Cenna earned his second Bronze Star with Valor. Captain Keen led the insertion and extraction of the Marines into unexplored enemy tunnel networks, while combating small arms fire, heavy machine gun engagements, mortar attacks and improvised explosive devices. While conducting their primary mission, Captain Keen's dismounted patrol was engaged by the enemy, isolating one member of his patrol. After observing the enemy firing position was in close proximity to women and children, he maneuvered 75 meters to another position, preventing civilian causalities while simultaneously eliminating threats. Sergeant Moore was also performing his duties of lowering and recovering Marines into tunnel systems in order to destroy enemy lethal aide. While moving to an objective through a known concentration of improvised explosive devices, a supporting tank struck such a device. Without regard for his own safety, Sergeant Moore maneuvered with his team's vehicle to rescue the tank crew. He treated the tank crew, and soon after his own vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device and began receiving enemy mortar fire. Despite the dire situation, Sergeant Moore maintained security and safeguarded the disabled tank crew, enabling the success of the operation. For their actions in the summer of 2012, all five of these men have been awarded the Bronze Star with Valor. I wish to thank these great men for their selfless service and dedication to our nation. They are all my heroes.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the importance of Memorial Day, a day that means so much to me, the Nation, and those I represent in Alaska. For many Alaskans, Memorial Day means the unofficial beginning of summer, sunlight, and enjoying the great outdoors. But let us never forget the deep, true meaning of Memorial Day. It is about taking time to pay respect, and appreciating the sacrifices of men and women who have defended the rights and privileges we enjoy today. On this solemn day in which Americans unite to remember our Nation's fallen, we also pray for our military personnel and their families, our veterans, and all who have lost loved ones. For over two centuries, brave men and women have laid down their lives in defense of our great Nation. These heroes have made the ultimate sacrifice so we may uphold the ideals we all cherish. Ordinary men and women of extraordinary courage have, since our earliest days, answered the call of duty with valor and unwavering devotion. America's sons and daughters have served with honor and distinction, securing our liberties and laying a foundation for lasting peace. Memorial Day officially began nearly 100 years before Alaskan statehood, but even in our territorial days we had Alaskans who fought on our own soil against foreign enemies--one of the few States that can say such a thing. It is because of those early successes--and the success of Alaskans from then to those deployed today--that we salute our flag. Although we may not be able to fully measure the cost of our heroes' sacrifice, we can commit ourselves to preserving their memory. So on Memorial Day 2013, I ask that we honor our fallen heroes, comfort the loved ones of those we lost, and carry on our lives in a manner that is worthy of their sacrifice. May God continue to bless our great Nation.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to follow my friend and colleague Senator Wyden from Oregon, the chairman of the energy committee, to speak today about the confirmation of Dr. Ernest Moniz to be our Nation's Secretary of Energy. I think it is good when we are able to stand as the chairman and the ranking member and come to terms of agreement so far as support for an individual for a position such as Secretary of Energy. This is an important position within this administration. It is an important position just from the perspective of how we move forward in this country while we deal with our energy issues and our energy future, which I think is where we get relatively enthusiastic about this nomination. Again, I thank the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my friend from Oregon, for his leadership in advancing the nomination to the finish line. I also want to recognize and thank the members of our committee for their very thoughtful questions. When we had Dr. Moniz before the committee, it was perhaps one of the smoother confirmation hearings we have had in quite some time. I also thank the full Senate for working with us so we can fulfill our constitutional responsibility for advice and consent here today. Before I speak to Dr. Moniz's qualifications--and I do think Senator Wyden has addressed those very well--I wish to take a moment to discuss the agency he will soon lead. The Department of Energy was created back in 1977. It was created following the oil embargo which caused the gasoline shortages we saw around the country. The architects--those who put together the contours of DOE--were surveying a very different energy landscape than we face today. Back in 1977, energy was viewed from the position of scarcity rather than the abundance we recognize today. Those architects, as they defined what a Department of Energy would look like and what it would hope to achieve, as well as the mission set there, had some pretty high hopes for what the Department would accomplish. I think what we need to do is look back to that organic act which states that DOE would ``promote the general welfare by assuring coordinated and effective administration of Federal energy policy and programs.'' That is pretty simple. That same act goes on to list 18 different purposes, a few of which bear repeating. One of them is to assure, to the maximum extent practical, that the productive capacity of private enterprise shall be utilized in the development and achievement of the policy and purposes of the act. Another one of those purposes is to provide for the cooperation of Federal, State, and local governments in the development and implementation of national energy policies and programs. A third purpose is to carry out the planning, coordination, support, and management of a balanced and comprehensive energy research and development program. Looking back at DOE's creation is a reminder of how far we have come and yet how far we still have to go in achieving these various purposes that were set out in that organic act. Today the Department is a major department. It has a budget of more than $25 billion each year. Thousands of scientists work on cutting- edge technologies at our national labs as they look for breakthroughs and manage our nuclear weapons programs. Yet more than three decades later, it would be difficult to find many who truly believe we have achieved this coordinated and effective administration of Federal energy policy. In fact, we are going to have some who would disagree as to whether we have developed a Federal energy policy that adequately serves our national needs. Instead, we have seen energy-related programs and initiatives that are fragmented and scattered throughout the Federal Government. Not enough money, in my view, is getting to the bench for research and development, which is a critical aspect of how we build out that energy policy. It is also a critical component of how we move toward our energy future. All too often it appears we have silos within the Department that stand in the way of progress. In recent years I have become concerned that DOE is not clearly and unambiguously working to keep energy abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure, principles that I think go into defining a good, strong Federal energy policy. As I see it, DOE, in particular, must be a stronger voice in the councils of this administration for energy supply. In light of several costly failures, the Department must become a better steward of taxpayer dollars. So all of these challenges, and more, will be inherited by our next Secretary of Energy. Along with the challenges, I think we also recognize there are great opportunities within the energy sector. That is why I believe we will do well to place Dr. Ernie Moniz, who is clearly a man with talent and experience in both the laboratory and as a public policymaker, to place him at the helm of this department. Dr. Moniz has some pretty impressive credentials. He is a physicist, having graduated from Boston College before completing his Ph.D. at Stanford. He served in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and as an Under Secretary of the Department of Energy during the late 1990s. For the vast majority of his career, he has also served as the director of the MIT Energy Initiative. He has studied and written about nuclear energy, natural gas, innovation--really any number of topics with direct relevance for the future of our energy policy. So he has both. He has the academic experience, most certainly, as we see at MIT and at Stanford, but he also has that practical application. My colleague from Oregon described him as solution oriented, and I think that is a very apt description. He is an impressive nominee. In our meetings where it is nice and casual and relaxed and people can have a pretty good conversation, I was very impressed with not only Dr. Moniz's background and experience but how he views moving forward within the Department of Energy. There is a level of comfortable confidence I found encouraging. He has shown he understands what his job requires, and because of that I believe he will be a capable Secretary. He is knowledgeable, he is competent, and he is refreshingly candid, and I think that is an important part of it. I kind of challenged him in the confirmation hearing before the Energy Committee to keep that up: Don't be afraid to speak out, to be refreshingly candid. I think that is good advice. He also has proven the Senate's confirmation process can be navigated successfully without undue delay, as long as questions are answered and concerns raised by Members are taken seriously, and I think he did attempt to do that. It is my hope that after his confirmation, Dr. Moniz will guide our Nation's energy policy as the respected scientist he is and do so rigorously, robustly, free of preordained conclusions, and, again, not afraid to speak up or to speak his mind. His Department will benefit, and I think the country will as well. As I have indicated in my comments, I think the Department of Energy needs good, strong direction. It needs that leadership, and I believe Dr. Moniz will provide both. That is why I am supporting his nomination, and I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in voting to confirm him later this afternoon. I note my colleague from New Jersey is here. I have some comments I wish to make about the Arctic Council meeting, but I will certainly defer to my friend from New Jersey for his comments this morning.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, while we are waiting for colleagues to come and join us on the floor to speak about the nomination of Dr. Ernest Moniz to be Secretary for the Department of Energy, I thought I would take a few moments and fill in my colleagues about a meeting I just returned from in Kiruna, Sweden. This was the Arctic Council ministerial meeting. The Arctic Council is comprised of the eight Arctic nations, of which the United States is one by virtue of the State of Alaska, but not to diminish the fact that we truly are an Arctic nation, and our role as such, involved with other Arctic neighbors, is a growing role and a role the rest of the world is looking at with great interest and great anticipation as to how the United States is going to step forward into this important arena. This is the second Arctic Council meeting I have attended. I was in Nuuk, Greenland, with Secretary Clinton and Secretary Salazar 2 years ago. That was the first time the United States had sent a Cabinet member, sent the Secretary of State to the Arctic Council, and it caused great waves throughout the Arctic world and certainly gained the attention of nations around the world. The sentiment was the United States is finally stepping up, the United States is moving forward, recognizing its role as an Arctic nation. So it was exceedingly important that Secretary Kerry continued that good work of Secretary Clinton in leading the United States in its role at this ministerial meeting. I will tell you, Secretary Kerry has been very involved here in this body as a Senator in his leadership on certain issues, specifically advancing the Law of the Sea Treaty--ratification of that important treaty--speaking out and being very forthright on the issue of climate change. His leadership at the council meeting in Kiruna yesterday was clearly evidenced as he worked to bring the parties together in terms of an agreement to move forward with how we treat observers to the Arctic Council. I commend Secretary Kerry for his leadership, certainly for his initiative, in ensuring that the United States continues to have a high profile and a growing profile. Why is this important? Why do we need to not only be engaged but to step up that engagement? Well, yesterday, the chairmanship of the Arctic Council transferred from Sweden to Canada, so our neighbors to the North will chair the Arctic Council for these next 2 years. In 2015, the gavel of that chairmanship will pass from Canada to the United States, so we will be working to set the agenda, although it is a very consensus-driven process. But we will clearly be in a leadership role amongst the eight Arctic nations and those observer nations. It is critically important that we are ready, that we be working toward assuming this leadership position. In doing that, it is more than just attending meetings every other year. It is the agreements that come out as a result of these ministerials, these consensus initiatives that help to advance the dynamic in an evolving part of the world. In Nuuk, the first-ever binding agreement of the parties was entered into, and this was a search-and-rescue agreement. If there is an incident up in the Arctic--and the world up there knows very little in terms of boundaries and what happens with ice, but we recognize our infrastructure is severely limited. So who is in charge? How do we work cooperatively, collaboratively with search and rescue? It was an exceedingly important initiative that was adopted 2 years ago. Yesterday, in Kiruna, it was the adoption of the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic. There is a recognition that in the Arctic, where some 15 percent of the world's known oil and gas reserves are situated, there will be activity. We are seeing it in Russia to our left-hand side; we are seeing it in Canada to our right-hand side. In the United States, as we all know, Shell attempted to begin exploration this year. There have been previous exploration efforts up in the Beaufort and in the Chukchi. Whether you are for or against oil development here in this country, the recognition is that within the Arctic nations there is activity. There are ongoing efforts, whether it is through exploration or, hopefully, production that will move forward. What we are trying to do within the Arctic Council and other entities is make sure that when that happens, we are prepared. So we are putting forward collaboration and collective agreements so there is an understanding that in the event--hopefully, a very unlikely event-- something would ever happen, there is an understanding as to how all the nations act, the level of preparation that moves forward. There are incredibly important initiatives as we deal with an evolving Arctic. Think about the world up north there. Really understand what is happening. This is no longer an area that is locked in ice and snow, an area where we are not able to transit, an area where there is no human activity. The Arctic has clearly seen an opening, as we see the sea ice receding. We are seeing a level of activity that is unprecedented. It is truly the last frontier--a new frontier, so to speak. Again, how we prepare for a world where there is more movement, where there is more activity, is going to be a critical key to the success and the opportunity. We recognize the volume of shipping now coming through the Northwest Passage, coming from Russia on down through the Bering Strait, through very narrow channels there out to Asia, down into the Pacific. There is incredible movement. So how are we preparing ourselves for an increased volume of shipping traffic? Do we have the navigational aids we need? Do we have the ports and the infrastructure that will be necessary? These are some of the initiatives that were discussed. Obviously, when we think about an Arctic that is changing, a key focus is on climate change and what is happening. We are seeing the impact of climate change in the Arctic more noticeably than in other parts of the globe. So there is a great deal of science and research that is going on that is necessary. How we collaborate, how we share that with all of our other Arctic neighbors is going to be key. How we map our resources, whether it is understanding the sea floor, whether it is understanding the coastline, this is an area that--we use the term ``frontier.'' When we go out into a new frontier, it is important to know what it is we are dealing with; how we can work cooperatively on things such as mapping; what we can do to ensure that as we see changes, as we see development, as we see increased economic activity in the Arctic, that the indigenous people--the people who have been there for thousands of years, living a true subsistence lifestyle--that their lifestyle remains intact, that there can be a balance and a harmony with their world and this changing scenery and landscape in front of them. This is a story that was conveyed to me several years ago. I was up in Barrow, which is, of course, the northernmost city in the United States. Barrow is a relatively small community of several thousand individuals. One afternoon there was a group of folks who were in town and they were all speaking German. Somebody asked: Well, how did you get here? Where did you come from? They did not see that many people getting off the Alaska Airlines jet. The German tourists pointed to a cruise ship that was offshore. They had lightered these German tourists into the community. Just a few years back, a cruise ship in these waters was unheard of. What we are seeing now are cruises. We have a level of tourism that would never have been anticipated. So how we prepare for all of this is a challenge for us. The work of the Arctic Council is again focusing on collaboration and cooperation in an area, in a zone of peace, as many would suggest. This is an important opportunity for us from a diplomacy perspective. Think about how many hot spots we have in the world, how many places on this planet where we are trying to put out fires that have been simmering or smoldering for decades, for generations, for some, millennia. If we have a part of the world where we can work together, what kind of a message, what kind of a symbol does that represent? So we have some enormous opportunities within the Arctic. Part of my challenge--and I shared this with Secretary Kerry--is impressing upon people in this country that we are an arctic nation. The Presiding Officer hails from the State of Massachusetts. My colleague and chairman of the Energy Committee comes from Oregon. I would venture to say that most of the Senator's constituents do not view themselves as people of the Arctic, but we are. As 50 States, we are. So how we work together to make sure America's role as an arctic nation is represented is key. I will conclude my remarks by noting that on Friday the White House released its Arctic strategy. This is a document to advance national security interests, how we responsibly manage the Arctic ecosystem, how we bolster international relationships--all very worthwhile goals. I think we recognize that it is perhaps a little bit light on detail, but the good news is that so many of our Federal agencies are working to help advance these goals. What we need, in addition to a coordinated strategy, is a policy that is going to make sense from all of the different levels, whether it is how we deal with the energy, how we deal with the human side, how we deal with the security aspect of it. These are complicated issues, but it is an opportunity that is almost unprecedented to be able to take a blank page and be able to create opportunities, to be able to create policies that really began with a level of collaboration and cooperation. This is what we are hoping to build not only with our Arctic neighbors but beyond that. It was interesting to note the recognition of six nations that joined as observers: China, India, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. No one would ever suggest these are Arctic nations, but the reason they want to be engaged as observers is they recognize the importance of the Arctic to the rest of the globe. They recognize the importance, whether from a shipping perspective, whether from an environmental perspective, whether from just an opportunity for resources. There is a keen awareness of what is happening in the Arctic, that this is the place to be right now. So my urging to my colleagues is to pay attention to not only what is happening in the Arctic but pay attention to how an increased role in the Arctic impacts them and constituents in their States because whether it is sending goods from one nation to another, this is an opportunity to allow for transit and commerce that has only been a dream. Whether it is how we access our energy resources in a way that is done responsibly, safe, and with an eye toward environmental stewardship, there are opportunities for us--challenges, yes, but opportunities for us as well. So I will be talking much more about our role as an arctic nation, our responsibilities as an arctic nation, but I would ask that we start thinking about this: Where does Massachusetts, where does Oregon, where do they fit in as part of an arctic nation? I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich.) The Senator from Massachusetts.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it has been my practice over the past decade to honor the men and women of law enforcement during National Police Week. This week is National Police Week. The annual candlelight vigil at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial will take place this evening. I should mention that 2013 marks the 25th anniversary of the candlelight vigil. This year, the names of 320 officers killed in the line of duty are being added to the memorial. These 320 names include 119 officers who were killed during 2012, plus 201 officers who died in previous years but whose stories of sacrifice had been lost to history until now. Alaska did not suffer a law enforcement casualty in 2012. However, we have suffered three since the beginning of 2013, and I would like to take this opportunity to remember the three Alaskans who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for the heroes they are. Today I recognize three men, each of different backgrounds but all united in their bravery and willingness to go the extra step. John 15:13 says: ``There is no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friend.'' In Alaska, where we treat strangers in need of a helping hand as friends, these three individuals demonstrated a spirit not only worthy of their profession but that of a State and a people forever grateful for their sacrifice. Thomas Madole In law enforcement there is spirited debate over who walks the toughest beat in America. The men and women of corrections think they have won that debate hands down, but I would suggest that Alaska's village public safety officers, or VPSOs, our first responders in the last frontier, are formidable contenders. Alaska's VPSOs wear all four hats of first response. They are at the same time police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and search-and-rescue coordinators. They are the sole first responders in the bush villages of Alaska--villages with populations that might number 400 to 600 people--and carry out their dangerous work with no backup in the immediate community. The closest backup is often an Alaska State trooper in a rural hub, who must fly in to the village by air--assuming weather conditions allow the troopers to fly. I would submit to you that our village public safety officers, who patrol unarmed, in fact walk the toughest beat in America. Thomas Madole, age 54, was the village public safety officer in Manakotak, AK. Manakotak has a population of about 400. It is in Alaska's Bristol Bay region. Ninety-four percent of its residents are Alaska Native descendants of the original people to occupy the area. Officer Madole was killed on March 19, 2013 while responding to a report of a possibly suicidal person. He was unarmed. His assailant was not. There is much to say for how Officer Madole lived his life. He will be remembered as a man of peace. An ordained minister of the Assemblies of God Church, he preached and mentored in the Yupik hub community of Bethel Alaska for 6 years before moving to Manakotak. Patricia Zulkosky, a board member of the Bethel Assemblies of God Church, referred to Madole in this way: ``He was a man of God, he walked his talk.'' And in the community of Manakotak, Madole is remembered as a friend and a role model for the youth as much as a cop. Mel Nading and Tage Toll Alaska is remarkable for many reasons, among which that the wilderness begins literally beyond the backyards of our homes. The Alaska State troopers rely extensively on aviation resources to get where they need to go and their pilots are some of the best in the world. Mel Nading, originally a Hawkeye from Manchester, IA, was hired in December 2000 to be the primary pilot for the Alaska Department of Public Safety's Helo-1. Helo-1 bore the tail number ``N911AA.'' During Mel's 13 year career, he was the primary search-and-rescue pilot for the department and interacted with other agencies to coordinate search and rescue efforts, going on almost-weekly missions. Mel also provided air support for law enforcement missions. In 2012 alone, Mel flew over 200 hours logging 73 rescues and 13 medical evacuations. He recovered eight bodies and assisted with two arrests. In 2008, Mel and trooper Sergeant Bryan Barlow shared the Governors Denali Award Peak Performance for saving the life of a kayaker caught in a bore tide. During that daring rescue, Mel was able to hold the helicopter steady and close to the waters as Barlow leaned out and pulled the kayaker from Turnagain Arm, saving the man's life. This act was but one of many saves he made in his career. These remarkable numbers, however, are just a small part of what made Mel a valued member of the team. He was well known and well respected among the search and rescue community and was known for his attention to safety. Trooper Tage Toll, of Talkeetna, joined the Alaska State troopers in 2003 after spending 2 years with the Kansas Highway Patrol. He served in Fairbanks, Glennallen, and Northway. Then in September of 2009, he transferred to Talkeetna at the gateway to Denali National Park. He was an expert marksman and a member of the regional SWAT team what we in Alaska refer to as the SERT. Like Mel, Tage was also a pilot and loved to fly his Super Cub. On March 30, the Alaska State troopers dispatched Helo-1 to rescue a snowmachiner who crashed near Larson Lake, 7 miles east of Talkeetna. Mel flew from Anchorage to Talkeetna, picked up Tage and began a search. The pair found the snowmachiner around 10 p.m. They intended to fly to a nearby gas station to rendezvous with EMS personnel. The helicopter crashed a little over an hour later, and there were no survivors. This National Police Week, as America focuses on the daily sacrifices of what those in law enforcement refer to as the ``Thin Blue Line,'' I am honored to share the stories of these three outstanding Alaskans, who paid the ultimate sacrifice, with the Senate. In valor, there is hope.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 70th Anniversary of the Battle of Attu. The Battle of Attu is often times forgotten or dismissed, but this battle is an important part of our history as a Nation. After all, it was the last battle between warring nations to be fought in North America. During WWII Alaska was still a territory to the United States, and in 1942, Japan seized three islands off the end of the Aleutian chain in the most southwest part of Alaska. Japan prepared the island for the inevitable counterattack. On May 11 1943, the Americans launched towards Attu Island, and a battle raged until May 29 when 800 Japanese soldiers employed a full fledged Banzai attack, fighting hand to hand. While the Japanese attack crumbled, Japanese soldiers pulled grenades, dying by their own hand as a sign of honor. By the afternoon, the battle was over. American forces had prevailed. This battle was remarkable in many ways. More men were killed in action on Attu than at Pearl Harbor. It also remains the only time American soldiers have fought an invading army on American soil since the war of 1812. Last summer I had the honor of travelling to Attu with Admiral Ostebo, the Coast Guard District 17 Commander, where we dedicated a permanent memorial to the sacrifice of the Attu villagers. Now all who walk the hills of Attu will be reminded of the sacrifice Attu village residents and other Alaskans made during World War II. An article in the Anchorage Daily News by Mike Dunham did a great job in relaying the story of the battle, and I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, today I wish to celebrate 50 years of the Alaska Marine Highway System as an essential means of transportation to the people of Southeast Alaska. The Marine Highway began with one ship in 1963 and has grown to 11 vessels serving more than 350,000 passengers and 30 communities a year, along routes that total more than 3,000 miles. Growing up in Southeast Alaska like I did, or in other remote coastal communities, you grow to love the Marine Highway and depend on it. With 656,425 square miles of rugged wilderness, scenic beauty and abundant wildlife, Alaska is a large and diverse State. Naturally, traveling in Alaska presents some unique opportunities and challenges. Unlike the lower 48, many of our communities are not accessible by a land-based road system, and our only means of travel is by air or sea. The Marine Highway is a significant part of our highway system, and where traditional roads do not exist, it is our link to the rest of the State. The Marine Highway began when the M/V Malaspina, a sleek blue and gold vessel named after a glacier in the panhandle of Southeast Alaska, docked in Ketchikan for the first time on January 21, 1963. Three days later it docked in Wrangell for the first time. My father, Frank Murkowski, whom at the time was president of the Wrangell Chamber of Commerce, was aboard the Malaspina for its maiden voyage to Petersburg. In its first year of service, the Marine Highway added the Taku and Matanuska ferries, which broadened service from Ketchikan to Petersburg, Sitka, Skagway, Wrangell and Prince Rupert, British Columbia. During that inaugural year the fleet moved more than 15,000 vehicles and 80,000 passengers. In 2005, I attended the designation ceremony to name the Marine Highway as a National Scenic Byway--All American Road, the highest recognition that can be received under the Byways Program. This designation recognized that for Southeast Alaska, the ferry system is a piece of history, a tourist attraction, and a way of life. It is the primary transportation link for many of the 30 communities it serves that populates Alaska's 35,000 miles from Bellingham, WA, up the Inside Passage, across the Gulf of Alaska and out along the 1,000 mile stretch of the Aleutian Chain to the Bering Sea. It also enables Juneau to serve as the only United States capital city not accessible by road. The Marine Highway directly affects our school system in Southeast Alaska. Over 15 rural schools are given an economically feasible way to travel so that students may participate in competitive academic and sporting events. This allows young Alaskans opportunities that would otherwise be impossible, providing the chance to interact and identify with communities, families and other students from across the State. To commemorate this special occasion, this summer the M/V Malaspina will sail a special voyage inspired by the 1963 inaugural sailing. The celebration will include community events across Southeast Alaska showcasing the unique culture and heritage of each community. Much like the blue and gold of Alaska's state flag, the blue and gold ships on the Alaska Marine Highway System embody the spirit and fortitude of Alaskans. What was once called one of the most important and permanent achievements for Alaska since statehood, the Marine Highway has grown alongside the people it serves to improve life in Alaska. We share pride for our unique State, and pride in the Alaska Marine Highway System.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I appreciate being here in the Chamber to hear the comments from my friend the Senator from New Hampshire. As she has noted, there is a small handful of States that for a host of different reasons have chosen not to impose a sales tax on their residents. As she has very well stated, this so-called Marketplace Fairness Act is not fair. It is not fair to those States that have put in place other mechanisms. Yet what we are doing through this legislation that we have pending on the floor right now is to tell States such as New Hampshire to tell States such as Alaska regardless of what your State chose to do, those who are engaged in online sales and activity are going to be scooped into the requirement of whatever State in which the individual purchasing your product lives. To me, that is absolutely not fairness within the marketplace. I think the people in Alaska, when they think about their marketplace, are looking at where they are and assuming their State's laws are going to be what they are dealing with. I thank the Senator for her comments, and in laying out very well how this measure impacts these few States. Maybe that is our problem. Maybe we do not have enough of us in terms of those States that have opted to not move forward with a sales tax. We are at a point in the evening where we had a vote to move on. We are told we are going to be taking up this measure when the Senate returns in about a week. It is my understanding at this point in time there will be no amendments allowed despite the efforts of many of my colleagues to help address, to help bring about some fairness to this legislative measure. We will not be allowed to do that. It is a real challenge today as we discuss this, recognizing that these few States might be impacted disproportionately in a way that I think does not demonstrate any level of fairness.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Certainly.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I would absolutely agree. As the Senator points out, it is Alaska, Oregon, Montana, Delaware, and New Hampshire that are in this situation. Basically, if this legislation were to pass, the message to those within these States is it does not make any difference what your State laws are with regard to a State sales tax. It does not make any difference, because we have made this directive back here that there is going to be uniform application. I have a tough time with that. I think our States may be somewhat similarly situated in the sense that there is a real sense of States rights, State sovereignty. I believe your motto is ``Live Free or Die.'' We feel pretty independent up North as well. I do feel this is a hard push against States' rights and their ability to impose local taxes within their State boundaries. I am very concerned about the direction we have taken. I note again, for the States without sales tax and use taxes like these five States my colleagues and I have been talking about, and that are not members of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, this legislation creates an inherent unfairness. Again, I do think it is somewhat ironic that the bill's sponsors chose to call it the Marketplace Fairness Act. We have noted here on the floor what the requirements under this legislation would mean. Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire has indicated exactly what it means to a small business. A remote seller in Alaska who makes an online sale to someone in Vermont who is a member of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement will have to comply, collect, and file a return in the State of Vermont. The seller otherwise has zero connection to Vermont. So it does beg the question, is this fair? I would contend not. Does it present a burden on interstate commerce? Absolutely. The drafters of this bill will argue it creates no new taxes, but I would also respectfully disagree. This bill essentially forces States such as ours to adopt its requirements to ensure parity. Currently no State can impose its local sales tax on another, short of meeting constitutional nexus requirements. So we have made clear that you cannot do that. This legislation again scoops in everybody. States that wish to enter into agreements with other States for this purpose are able to do so. Let those individual States decide whether they want to participate in the Streamlined Use and Tax Agreement but do not mandate it. That is what this measure would do. Only 24 States could agree to do this. You have to ask, is 24 States a mandate for Congress? I do not think so. Again, it begs the question, is this fair? Absolutely not. This law presents a backdoor mandate to States such as Alaska, such as New Hampshire, to effectively adopt a sales tax. I think Congress has to respect a State's right to determine how to implement and how to enforce its tax laws and not impose how it must do so. The Senator has mentioned the burden on small business owners, and the Senator spoke to an article that detailed some of the concerns. This is an issue that has generated considerable interest in my State. I have had over 600 constituents who have written to me in opposition to this bill. Here are a couple of the examples of the mail I am getting. I have a constituent in Fairbanks, AK, who says: I am a small business woman selling books off of my Web site. I do not want to be a tax collector for other States. I especially do not want my customers running off to other non- tax parts of the world. I have got another constituent who owns a business in Anchorage who writes: I do not support a measure that would allow individual States to collect sales taxes on any on-line purchases regardless of which State an on-line retailer is located. As a small business owner, this legislation will affect me, because I often have clients that start our transaction out of State, and we do not have the staff to handle collecting taxes for 50 States. Then, finally, a constituent from Eagle River writes: As a former small business owner, I am very aware of the constant and increasing burden that government subjects our businesses to. Requiring on-line businesses to collect local sales taxes would be a horrendous administrative burden that would undoubtedly cause many businesses to fail. Governments at all levels should be trying to encourage businesses to succeed, rather than trying to squeeze every last dollar of revenue out of the businesses and their customers. These are three examples of some of the correspondence I have received from folks who are worried about the burden it is going to inflict on our small business owners. Of course, we hear this from all of the other States, certainly heard it just now from the Senator from New Hampshire. The communities I mentioned we have been hearing from are all on the road system, as we call it in Alaska, are bigger communities. But in many of our rural communities, for those that are offroad, where economies are very limited, there is no major business, there are no big stores. We have been encouraging folks in our villages to use the Internet to bring the world marketplace to your door, and to sell their products on line, and to sell--whether it is arts and crafts or whatever it may be. So we are encouraging them to do this. Now the concern we are hearing is, I do not want to be the one who is the tax collector for California taxes. I am trying to get myself up and going and make a business, make an economy in a very small area. I know there is a carveout or an exemption for the smaller businesses. I think that is critical. That is important. That is going to help the very small mom-and-pop operators. But I think we recognize it will have a burden on our small businesses, not only in Alaska but around the country. The ability of a small business owner to comply with the reporting requirements that will be required by this bill, which would include the 50 States plus the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories, I think deters new startups. I think it acts as a hurdle, if you will. I do not think our businesses need that, particularly now. We already have regulatory burdens that our small businesses are concerned and worried about. I do not think we need to impose that on these States that have, again, made that determination that they would not apply a sales tax within their State boundaries. So for these reasons, as well as so many of the reasons that have been outlined by others on this floor earlier, I cannot support this measure. We will see whether we have got the opportunity to have any amendments in the week following our recess. Again, I feel it was important to express the concerns of many of the individuals I represent in the State of Alaska. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from Delaware for his leadership as well as for the opportunity to speak to this issue on the floor today. As we talk about the momentum, I think we recognize that oftentimes there will be good ideas that are discussed and debated but often don't get that full body support that allows a good thought to materialize into policy. I want to let the Senator from Delaware know how committed I am to advancing this good policy. The Senator mentioned the reference to financial innovation, and I think, perhaps, in view of what we have seen in past years with a little bit of chaos on Wall Street and in our banks with derivatives, et cetera, that some people might be concerned about this new financial innovation. We are not recreating the wheel. This has been, as the Senator from Delaware points out, a financing mechanism that has been available to a certain sector of the energy industry for a considerable period of time. And it has benefited them. This is not financial innovation in that we are building something out of whole cloth and hoping it works. We know it works. What we are trying do with this is contained in the title. This is bringing about parity, allowing for an extension of a good financing mechanism that will benefit our energy sector throughout the country. Again, I do not mean to repeat myself, but when we talk about an ``all of the above'' energy policy, I think we need to appreciate that there are some things we do from a policy perspective that hinder us from achieving that ``all of the above.'' When we put in regulatory hurdles or when we put in place limitations that would limit our ability to move that ``all of the above,'' then we need to look critically at that, we need to look at how we could address this. So I think the effort, again, to allow for real fairness, equal opportunity, is critical to us. I want to wrap up my remarks by saying that I think it is important that what we are doing is allowing for this level playing field within the energy sector. So we are not talking about stripping oil and gas pipelines of their eligibility for the MLP status and replacing it with renewables. This is not a swapping-out deal. I would not support that if that were the case. I would also not support it if it extended a false sense of parity by making, let's just say, only wind available for MLP status or only solar. But, as the Senator has noted, this bill includes it all. We just had a hearing in the Energy Committee this week on hydropower. There is a great bill coming out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I cannot wait until we get it to the floor. Hydropower holds enormous potential for our Nation. When we talk about kind of the backbone of the American energy system, fossil fuels are kind of it right now, but then hydropower is by far the backbone of the renewable energy sector. About 60 percent of our renewable energy comes from hydropower. So what we are doing is opening this MLP structure to our renewable resources. But it goes beyond. It is kind of like the Ginsu knife: there is more. It includes the marine hydrokinetics, the biorefineries, alternative fuels, biomass, energy efficient buildings, which I have spoken to, storage, solar, wind, and more. Again, there is no guarantee that we are going to see billions of dollars of private capital that is going to flood immediately into these sectors. We cannot guarantee the outcomes. But we are trying to ensure equal opportunity across an enormous scope of energy sources. I again thank the Senator for his leadership on this issue, his stick-to-itiveness. I do think that as we move the issues of tax reform forward, as we move more energy matters through the bodies of the Congress, folks will look at this as a sensible and rational way to approach how we build out an energy sector in this country of which we can all be proud. I thank the Senator for his leadership, and I am so pleased to be part of the effort.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I say to my friend, the Senator from Delaware, yes. In fact, I view this as an opportunity. I view this as a positive direction as we build out an energy policy that works for the entire country. The Senator's question is specific to my home State of Alaska, an area that is known for its enormous potential with our fossil fuels, our oil, our natural gas, and the opportunities that have been available to a State such as mine where we have the more traditional fossil fuels. But we are also a State that is rich with potential for renewable energy resources whether it is geothermal, whether it is marine hydrokinetic, whether it is ocean energy potential, harnessing the tides, harnessing the waves; whether it is biomass, whether it is wind, which we have abundant capacity for; whether it is solar, which we don't often get a lot of credit for, but, yes, we, too, have solar. So from my perspective as a Senator from Alaska, I am looking to try to find those areas where we can branch out, where we can move the energy discussion to what we are all talking about now, which is an ``all of the above'' policy. In order to truly have an ``all of the above'' policy and to avoid picking winners and losers, as the Senator from Delaware has noted, then it is important that when we talk about how we finance these energy projects--and we all know there are considerable dollars at stake with any energy project--then let's work to provide a level of parity, and that is exactly what this bill does. My hat goes off to the Senator from Delaware. His leadership on this bipartisan measure is extremely important. I can recall when the Senator first came to talk to me about it, and I said: We need to really do wholesome tax reform. I haven't changed my mind on that. But what I have recognized is that if we are to work to build out our energy sector, if we are to work to advance our ``all of the above'' policy, then we need to be a little more expansive in how we are going to look to the financing opportunities. So I agreed to join the Senator from Delaware as a cosponsor of the Master Limited Partnership Parity Act because fundamentally, at its base, it is about fairness and opportunity. That is a pretty good place to be sitting. I think too often in this Nation debates about our energy policy kind of devolve into this advocacy where we show preferential treatment for one sector or another sector. As the Senator from Delaware and I have discussed, I am absolutely an advocate for an ``all of the above'' approach. I have spelled that out in a blueprint that I have shared with so many of my colleagues called ``Energy 2020,'' which we released earlier this year. But I do think that with the legislation the Senator from Delaware has spearheaded, we have identified a way to further our progress in that direction. Right now, the oil and gas sector is able to benefit from the master limited partnership structure, and it is a good thing because it has helped to raise billions of dollars in private markets for much needed pipeline infrastructure. We are going to need that as we work to keep up with the natural gas boom we are having in this country--how we build new infrastructure, how we take care of existing infrastructure. So we need to have these financing mechanisms. That is all great. But why not expand that out to the renewable sector? Currently, as the Senator from Delaware points out, the law does not allow for that. It is time to fix that. So what we do with this legislation is extend the parity to the renewable sector so that businesses that are pursuing investments in biomass, energy efficiency, and other areas are able to structure as an MLP. I wish to pause here for a moment because I just came back from a bipartisan, bicameral meeting where we were talking about the energy agenda for this Congress moving forward. Of course, as a nation looking at a $16.8 trillion debt, everything we do we have to figure out how we are going to pay for it. When we think about the energy efficiency initiative--and I note our colleague, Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire, is on the floor with us. Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman have spearheaded a great piece of legislation focusing on energy efficiency. We think about how we move that forward because that is going to require dollars. Where do we find those dollars? There are not enough rocks with enough money underneath them to advance this. So if we can expand the opportunities for financing to include our renewables and to include energy efficiencies, this is how we move it forward. Bottom line, when we are talking about the dollars. This is only going to happen if the private markets think the math makes sense. The investments and the structures of the entities that are making them very well might not occur, but, again, that is not our job. We are not here to pick winners and losers. If it is good, if it works, it will happen. But we are helping to provide a financing mechanism that is fair and creates opportunities. Our job, which this bill highlights, is to provide that level playing field. This is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. We can't guarantee that outcome, but what we can do is kind of level the playing field in terms of what options are available. This bill enables the renewable sector to structure a certain way. I am certainly glad to be supporting it with the Senator from Delaware. I think we have some momentum. I was talking to some folks up in New York where I addressed an energy financial forum, and what everybody was interested in was not what is happening on the R&D side; it was so much interest in the master limited partnership and its ability to expand to other areas; how we can take a tool that has worked very well for us in the oil and gas sector and push it out to renewables and efficiency. So I think the momentum is there, and I applaud Senator Coons for his leadership in that regard. The Senator from Delaware also mentioned the expanded scope. Again, I think that is an important aspect of this bill. I am excited about where we are right now, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Delaware as we build out our renewable energy future here.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I follow my colleague from Oregon, the chairman of the Energy Committee, here in discussing the qualifications of the nominee for Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell. We recognize as westerners that this is an appointment, this is a position that has great significance, great meaning to our States, so we pay attention to these nominees, we pay attention to who is the Secretary of the Interior. I have taken the position that our constitutional responsibility for advice and consent should begin with very thoughtful questions on our part, and then, absent any seriously disqualifying factors, we should conclude with the confirmation of the President's nominees. Our obligation to get answers to our questions is always a serious one, and the duty weighs most heavily when the interests of our constituents are directly at stake. I mention the impact the Department of the Interior has particularly on our Western States--our States that have so much in public lands, our States where we have national forests, where we have BLM lands, rangelands, refuge lands. In Alaska and really in many parts across the West, the Federal Government's biggest and most prominent role is really that of a landlord. Sometimes you have a good relationship with your landlord, and other times it feels as if the landlord won't even let you put a nail in the wall to hang a picture. So, again, we look very critically and very carefully at this position. In several States, the Federal Government controls the majority of the land. In Alaska, 64 percent of the State is controlled from here in Washington, DC. So that means an individual who may have an inholding in some Federal land basically has to get permission to get to his or her inholding within a park. It is almost hard for many of my colleagues to believe that so much of what it is we do has to go through this process of approval, but that is our reality. In Alaska, with the Federal ownership, there are more than 230 million acres that are held in Federal ownership. That is an area which is larger than the State of Texas. We always like to compare ourselves--Alaska to Texas--but the fact is that the Federal public lands in Alaska are larger than the size of the State of Texas. We have over 57 million acres of wilderness. That is about the size of the State of Minnesota. And that is just sitting in my State. The proportion of Federal land in Alaska is exceeded only by that of our colleagues from Nevada. The majority leader and Senator Heller remind us quite frequently the Federal lands held in their State are at about 85 percent. So when you think about what this does, the Federal land classifications that we have to deal with, oftentimes it not only severely restricts the usage of Federal lands by our people, but as a practical matter they restrict the use of State and private lands too. So, again, the Secretary of the Interior is important to the future of a State such as Alaska and the West, but really, as it relates to other Cabinet members, this is one to which we are going to pay serious attention. I had occasion to come to this floor several months ago to discuss a decision that came out of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In that decision, they somehow found cause to oppose a single-lane gravel road, 10 miles, that would connect the community of King Cove--near the Aleutians--connect it to the smaller community of less than 100 people of Cold Bay. The reason for the need to connect these two communities is Cold Bay has the second longest runway in the State of Alaska. King Cove, on the other hand, where most of the people live--about 900-some- odd Native Alaskans--has an airport that is dicey at best. We have seen accidents, we have seen lives lost as folks have tried to leave King Cove for medical services. It was an issue that, for me and for the people of King Cove, was far beyond a discussion about what happens when you put a small road through a refuge. For the people of King Cove, this was about safety, this was about life and safety, and they felt they were not being heard by their Federal landlord. The agencies had not heard the people. In fact, the Department had not heard the people. Now, they had listened to the biologists and they had gotten that message, but the people had not been heard. So through a series of very lengthy discussions with Secretary Salazar, through a series of conversations with the nominee Sally Jewell, and through the impassioned words of many of the people of King Cove, who traveled over 4,000 miles to come here to Washington, DC, to knock on the door of the Secretary and say: Please hear our voices, there has been an accommodation, there has been an agreement reached. And I appreciate my colleague, the chairman, helping us with this. The Department of the Interior has agreed to have the new Secretary as well as the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs review the public health and safety impacts of the decision to build this road. But I think it is important that folks understand this wasn't a parochial issue I was raising here on the floor. I kept referring to it as the King Cove issue, but it is not one single issue, and it is not parochial. It is obvious to the people of Alaska why this was such a considerable deal, why it was so important the people of King Cove be heard. For them, it was not just about a road, it was an issue of overreach. It was a symbol of Federal overreach on way too many policies we see come out of the Department and the harm that causes across our Nation. The reality is so many of us, particularly those in the Western States, have our own King Cove. We all have those instances when issues have come up, where the people from the States we represent have to go knocking on the door of some Federal agency for permission, have to try to navigate a morass of regulations, and they do not feel as though they are being heard. Every day we have Federal restrictions making it harder for local people to live and to prosper. I made a big effort to make sure the incoming Secretary of the Interior not only understood the particulars of King Cove--and I welcome the opportunity to travel with her when she comes to Alaska and flies out to King Cove hopefully at the end of the summer--for her not only to understand this issue but for her to understand the bigger role she will assume as Secretary of the Interior and how important it is for her to listen to all sides and to listen to the people she represents. As Secretary of the Interior, she is the one to implement that special trust responsibility the Federal Government has to our first people, to our Native people, so she needs to see and hear for herself. She also needs to fully understand what she has in front of her--as Senator Wyden mentioned, the massive public lands that will be under her jurisdiction as Secretary, understanding what that means to ranchers and farmers and those who are the recreators in our national parks, to those who will harvest timber, to those who will use our lands in the manner in which they are intended--multiple use--for her to fully understand what it means to be the custodian, the landlord of our amazing public lands in this country. We all need to be working with her. I have no question about Ms. Jewell's intelligence and her competence as a manager. I have been very impressed with what I have seen as her level of sincerity with her very distinguished private sector career. It has been noted that she has probably spent more time in Alaska prior to coming to the Department of Interior than any other nominee outside of Walter Hickel, who was our former Governor and served as Secretary of the Interior. So she gives me comfort with that, knowing that she understands much of what we have to deal with in Alaska. These are all important qualities as we think about her competence as a manager, as we think about her intelligence. But dealing with an agency the size, the scope, and the complexity of the Department of Interior really requires the ability to focus not only on the debates and conflicts that we are facing today, but it is going to require an understanding of how we got here, the fact that the debates and conflicts of today often are based on years, decades, perhaps even centuries of history. Those who are steeped in this history raise the importance of the Secretary understanding the context for the many difficult decisions that will be made. I had an opportunity to ask a lot of questions of Sally Jewell not only in our private meeting but before the committee and then also in writing. I asked questions about my questions. I wanted to be thorough. And I do concede that Ms. Jewell will be on a learning curve as she assumes the position of Secretary. But in her answers to questions at the hearing and in her written submissions, she has pointed out her experience and her skill at bringing diverse groups of people together to solve difficult problems on which they have been divided historically, and I do take her at her word there. I will certainly commit to participating in that dialog and to bringing all of my fellow western constituents with me, whether it is literally or figuratively. I believe that is important. Ms. Jewell has used the word ``convener'' when describing herself, and I think this will be a very important task and role that she will assume. There are conflicting groups and conflicting interests, and Ms. Jewell has spoken to how she has reconciled that in the past with her previous work experience, not only at REI but at other places, and I do believe she has the skill sets to accomplish just that. So with this commitment she has made to me and to others on the committee, I will certainly take the view that the fact that Ms. Jewell has perhaps not been through the full gamut of the conflicts that surround so much of what happens within Interior, perhaps that is a good thing because perhaps she is able to look at some of these issues through a fresh perspective, a different lens. Perhaps because she is not so embedded in the history, she will be able to look at this anew. And I think that is good. I think that is a positive. I certainly will look forward to engaging substantively with her as we complete this process--and beyond--on these issues, on how she can really bring her problem-solving skills to bear in a way that will serve all Americans. I think it is telling--and it was noted in the Energy Committee hearing by one of our colleagues--that Ms. Jewell brings to the table as the nominee for the Secretary of Interior a business background that is quite considerable. She is a petroleum engineer who has actually fracked a well, so she has experience there. She has experience in Alaska and worked on the beginning portion of how we built out the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. She did it from the Seattle area but has that skill set as well. It was asked somewhat tongue-in-cheek by one of my colleagues on the Republican side: Well, you have all these great characteristics. Why would President Obama select you? So I think it is important to recognize that we have before us a nominee who brings a unique set of skill sets and experiences to us that I am hopeful will be beneficial. This is important to me as an Alaskan, to know we have someone who will be a listener, who will be a convener, who will work to solve problems. I am looking forward to the opportunity to spend time in Alaska with her as she visits with the people up north to better understand some of the challenges we face and hopefully work with us on these issues that are so critically important. I appreciate the good work of my colleague and the chairman of the committee in getting us to this point so that we can move Ms. Jewell's nomination forward. I look forward to supporting her and working with her during her tenure as Secretary of the Interior. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in law enforcement there is spirited debate over who walks the toughest beat in America. The village public safety officers, or VPSOs, our first responders in the last frontier, are rarely part of that debate because they largely function out of sight and out of mind of the broader community of law enforcement officers. Alaska's VPSOs wear all four hats of first response. They are at the same time police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians and search and rescue coordinators. They are the sole first responders in the bush villages of Alaska--villages with populations that might number 400 to 600 people--and carry out their dangerous work with no backup in the immediate community. The closest backup is often an Alaska State Trooper in a rural hub, who must fly in to the village by air--assuming weather conditions allow the troopers to fly. I would submit to you that our village public safety officers, who patrol unarmed, in fact walk the toughest beat in America. This week the people of Alaska are mourning the line of duty death of Thomas Madole, age 54, the village public safety officer in Manokotak, AK. Officer Madole was killed while responding to a report of a possibly suicidal person. He was unarmed. His assailant was not. The name Manokotak is an English transliteration of a Central Alaska Yupik word, and 94 percent of its residents are Alaska Native descendants of the original people to occupy the Bristol Bay region. Officer Madole is the second VPSO to give his life in the protection of his village. The first was Officer Ronald Zimin, whose end of watch was October 22, 1986. A sad coincidence that Officer Zimin also lost his life responding to a domestic violence call while serving in another village in Alaska's Bristol Bay region. Officer Zimin's name appears on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Judiciary Square, Washington, DC. I suspect that a delegation of Officer Madole's friends and colleagues will journey from the Bristol Bay region to Washington, DC, to honor Officer Madole when his name is added to the memorial in May 2014. I expect to join them. The heroes of law enforcement are remembered for how they gave their lives and not the manner in which their lives were ended. There is much to say for how Officer Madole lived his life. He will be remembered as a man of peace. An ordained minister of the Assemblies of God Church, he preached and mentored in the Yupik hub community of Bethel, AK for 6 years before moving to Manokotak. Patricia Zulkosky, a board member of the Bethel Assemblies of God Church referred to Madole as ``a man of God, he walked his talk.'' And in the community of Manokotak, Madole is remembered as a friend and a role model for the youth as much as a cop. Officer Madole leaves behind a wife and a son. On behalf of my Senate colleagues, I extend condolences to Officer Madole's survivors and the people of Manokotak on this tragic loss.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I join my colleague in urging Members to support this amendment. All it does is require labeling of this fish, this fake fish. If you are going to be serving your family a good-quality product, you want to know it is good and it is quality. Allow us to label this fish. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Absolutely.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I came to the floor, as Senator Isakson from Georgia and Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire were speaking about the biennial budget amendment and the effort they have undertaken. I just want to acknowledge their leadership on this issue. I think it is smart, I think it is wise, and I think it is something that we as a Senate should surely consider. I wanted to just make that brief comment. As the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I know bipartisan progress on energy is possible in this Congress. While it may take our committee some time to develop, consider, and complete legislation within this area, we have a great opportunity to take the first step forward today through the adoption of a number of energy-related amendments that I have offered. I filed three amendments that would help us seize on the historic opportunities within our reach. I hope the Senate would agree to adjust the resolution before us to reflect their beneficial impact. The first amendment that I have introduced is cosponsored by the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Blunt. It would raise an estimated $3.1 billion--not through taxes but by facilitating new energy production on Federal lands and waters that are currently not open to development. It is worth noting that the $3.1 billion estimate is probably far too low. Almost certainly that number does not account for the substantial receipts that would result from a good plan to boost Federal production offshore and onshore in Alaska and across the continental United States. But for this amendment, we relied on the Congressional Budget Office estimates for receipts that we already know we can raise. If we were to take action today, we will also generate far greater receipts in the years ahead. CBO doesn't assume that production will begin within its 10-year window, but it has acknowledged that Federal receipts will grow tremendously by several billion dollars a year once it does. Some Members might question why this amendment is even necessary at all. They know that oil and natural gas production is rising in this country. After watching a few campaign ads, listening to a few speeches, they might think that everything is fine right now. But that is hardly the case. While overall production has in fact risen, the entirety of that increase has been from State and private lands. Production on our Federal lands and waters--the only area that the Federal Government is responsible for managing--has actually fallen. According to the Congressional Research Service, oil production on Federal lands is down 6 percent since 2009 while natural gas production is down 21 percent. Just as worrisome, the pace of permitting--which is a key indicator for future production--has also slowed. The Senator from Missouri and I believe it is time to produce more of our prolific resources beneath our Federal lands and waters. We need the jobs, we need to reduce our deficits, we need to keep energy prices down, and we need to break our dependence on foreign oil. New production will help us accomplish all of those crucial goals, and there is no real downside. My second amendment is focused on increasing oil production on Federal lands in Alaska. Right now, no production is occurring on those lands. That is the case even though we have more than 200 million acres of Federal land and close to 40 billion barrels of conventional oil just waiting to be produced. The cause, of course, is the Federal Government continues to deny, delay, and generally up-end anyone who tries to bring energy to the market. The consequences are now apparent for all to see. In 1988, Alaska produced more than 2 million barrels of oil per day. Last year, they had fallen all the way down to 526,000 barrels per day, and it is forecasted to drop even further in the years ahead. In Alaska, we are treating this as an emergency, and the Senate should as well. If our production continues to decline, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system could be shut down. Our Nation could lose a substantial share of its oil supply. Jobs will be lost, energy prices will rise, our dependence on foreign oil will deepen, sapping our economy and progress that we have made. These consequences and others that would manifest must be avoided-- can be avoided--and it is within our power to do that. Alaska doesn't need subsidies or loans or grants or tax credits. What we need is permission to produce. We need the Federal Government to work with us, not against us. We need access to our National Petroleum Reserve. We need access to that tiny dot of land in the nonwilderness portion of the Coastal Plains. We also need to be able to explore new areas where resources have not yet been discovered. My amendment is simple. It would modify the budget resolution to account for substantial receipts--about $2.5 billion--from increased oil in Alaska. As with the amendment that Senator Blunt and I have cosponsored, this estimate is probably too low. We anticipate that receipts would grow tremendously once production begins. We always talk about the need for an ``all of the above'' policy. That would allow for it. I have one final amendment that I would speak to briefly, and this is one that would facilitate the creation of an advanced energy trust fund. This was part of my energy 2020 blueprint that I released earlier this year. It is specifically designed to help create an energy policy that pays for itself. It would open new lands that are not currently available for development and devote a share of the receipts to energy research. This concept has gotten pretty broad support, notably from the think tanks, and even more notably from the President himself. But I would be remiss if I didn't point out why my plan works and why the President's does not. While I would raise new receipts from new production, the President would divert revenues from production that is already scheduled to occur. The result of his plan would be either deficit spending or, most likely, tax hikes elsewhere in the budget. Neither of those would be acceptable to us, particularly when we know there is a better path forward. My amendments offer us an opportunity to create jobs, to make energy more affordable, to reduce our debt, to break our dependence on foreign oil. That is in the best interests of a coherent energy policy that so many of us are working to develop and certainly in the best interests of our Nation's budget. I encourage my colleagues to take a look at these amendments and, should they be brought before us for a vote, to join me in support of them. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Virginia ``Ginny'' Hill Wood. On March 8, 2013, Ginny passed away at the young age of 95. Alaska lost a true pioneer and advocate for Alaska's wilderness. The Alaskan outdoors was always at the center of her life; she guided her last backcountry trip at age 70, cross-country skied into her mid-80s, and gardened into her early 90s. Born Virginia Hill on October 24, 1917, Ginny grew up in Washington and Oregon, where she fell in love with the outdoors. She took her first plane ride at the early age of 4 sitting in her father's lap as they flew with a barnstorming pilot. Ginny attended Washington State University, and in 1938 she took a break when she biked through Europe for a year before resuming her studies at the University of Washington. She was eager to pursue her passion for flying, and joined the Civilian Pilot Training Service in college. During World War II, she enrolled in the Women Airforce Service Pilots corps, known as WASP, and ferried all types of military planes throughout the Lower 48. Her flying and sense of adventure brought her north to Alaska. Ginny landed, literally, in Fairbanks, AK at Weeks Field on a very cold New Year's Day in 1947--along with fellow pilot and great friend Celia Hunter in a second aircraft. Her arrival in Fairbanks when the town was just barely out of its rough mining camp days is illustrative of her pioneering spirit. People were not flocking to Fairbanks in January of 1947, and it was especially rare to find a female pilot. She soon began flying tourists from Fairbanks to Kotzebue. In the late 1940's Ginny took a bicycling tour throughout postwar Europe with Celia Hunter, and when asked where she was from, Ginny would say ``Alaska.'' In 1950, Ginny married Morton ``Woody'' Wood, a forest ranger at Mt. McKinley National Park. On a rainy day in the summer of 1951, Ginny, Woody, and Celia arrived near the northern boundary of Mt. McKinley National Park in search of some land to homestead within view of Denali. That fall, Celia Hunter homesteaded 67 acres. Together, the founders built Camp Denali with locally- harvested spruce logs and reclaimed materials from the National Park Service, often with the help of friends and visitors, who would drop in just to look, but would stay to help haul logs. Ginny and Celia ran Camp Denali for 25 years, operating the remote tourist resort, forging livelihoods out of ingenuity, hospitality, and love of the land. Ginny was a committed, persistent, eloquent voice for conservation issues in Alaska. She was not afraid to speak on behalf of her values, and will be remembered in part as Alaska's pioneer conservationist. Her independent lifestyle, from building cabins, flying in the bush, and guiding in the Brooks Range and ANWR has inspired and served as an example for those around her. Her service as a WASP earned her a Congressional Gold Medal. She also received the Alaska-Siberia Lend Lease Award for her flying in 2002. I had the honor of presenting Ginny her Congressional Gold Medal at her cabin in Fairbanks in 2010 as she was unable to attend the ceremony in Washington, DC. Pouring through her scrapbook and listening to her stories was a visit I will always remember. Though many have noted that she served as a role model for other women, Ginny stated that ``I did what I wanted to do and I happened to be a woman.'' I admired her strong commitment to protecting the beauty of Alaska and her zest for life. I extend my sincerest condolences to Ginny's remaining family; her daughter Romany Wood and son-in-law Carl Rosenberg of San Cristobal, NM. Alaska has lost a friend and champion. May she rest in peace.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the winner of the 41st Iditarod race. Mitch Seavey of Seward finished the 998-mile dog sled race in a time of 9 days, 7 hours, 39 minutes, and 56 seconds. This is Mitch's second title and I am happy to congratulate him on this significant accomplishment. Sixty-six teams left this year from Willow, heading out into the dark, cold, and exceptionally rugged terrain of Alaska. This race is not for the weak. Temperatures can plummet, footing is not always solid, and mushers have to deal with the isolation of the Alaskan wilderness, leading an equally brave and athletic team of canine athletes. Iditarod mushers are not the only people to have witnessed the great ability of sled dogs. American soldiers overseas are now benefiting from the training these canines endure. The U.S. Marine Corps recently decided to study the training regimen of sled dogs that are able to consistently run 1,000-mile races through hazardous conditions. What they observed is what we in the Iditarod community have become accustomed to in sled dog racing--train to the level in which you need to perform. For Iditarod dogs this means training in weather conditions they will encounter during an Alaskan winter and eating up to 12,000 calories a day. Exercise and nutrition techniques were transferred from the Iditarod trail across the world to the deserts of Afghanistan. Bomb-sniffing dogs working in conditions just as extreme, sometimes in heat well in excess of 100 degrees, are now saving lives and limbs every day thanks to the science and innovative techniques developed in our great race. A group of those canines, led by Tanner, a 6-year-old husky, trained their way into peak physical condition and onto the winning podium in Nome. The Iditarod race exemplifies the greatest assets of my home State: vast nature and beauty, the greatest will and determination in the country, and most of all a sense of community. Those qualities are exemplified in this year's winner, Mitch Seavey. This title makes Mitch the oldest Iditarod winner ever. It is only fitting that Mitch crossed the burled arch on Front Street in Nome a champion, a year after his son Dallas claimed the title and became the youngest winner in Iditarod history. Back-to-back Seavey family championships lead me to believe that there must be some characteristics of this family that give them an advantage in the world's toughest race. Mitch Seavey's inspiring run this year was a testament to his athleticism, tenacity, and character. Mitch recaptured his title in dramatic fashion. His lead coming out of White Mountain, starting a sprint to Nome, was only 13 minutes. He thought he could see the dim light of his competitor's headlamp coming up behind his team and he reached another gear. Late Tuesday night Mitch crossed the finish line, claiming his second title, the first since his 2004 championship run. This was one of the closest Iditarod finishes ever. Mitch even joked coming out of White Mountain that he was going to grab his sneakers for the finish. In the heat of competition Mitch kept his sense of humor and now he has kept the Iditarod championship in the family for another year. Mitch Seavey may have claimed the Iditarod title in Nome, but getting to that point takes preparation and training that begins months if not years in advance. I would like to congratulate Mitch for all of his hard work and for claiming his second Iditarod title. I would also like to thank the Iditarod trail team, the many volunteers who came from around the country, the veterinarians, the Iditarod Air Force, and everyone else who has worked to ensure the safety and maintenance of the Iditarod trail and the safety of the dedicated athletes and canines that welcome the challenge. Their efforts are often underrated, but their commitment is resolute. My prayers go out to the families of Carolyn and Rosemarie Sorvoja, and pilot Ted Smith, who lost their lives in a tragic plane crash as they made their way to the eighth check point of Takotna. They had traveled hundreds of miles from the Anchorage area, in hopes of volunteering on the trail. Every volunteer knows the risks associated with their efforts to ensure the safety of others and the success of the Iditarod, but I am surprised each year at how many line up to serve in the face of rugged and extreme Alaskan conditions. This is now a time to remember and honor their efforts, and congratulate Mitch Seavey. I am proud to congratulate the Seavey team on this amazing accomplishment and historic milestone. I send my best wishes to Mitch and the whole Seavey family as they celebrate this well-deserved victory in Alaska's great race.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we often hear refrains of the need to make government policies more fair, clear, or simple--especially when these policies involve the collection of fees or taxes. Today I rise to introduce legislation to fix an inherently unfair policy by prohibiting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from charging land-use fees for hydropower projects that are no longer located on Federal land. FERC is responsible for licensing private, municipal and state hydropower projects. Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, the Commission is authorized to collect fees from project owners for those hydro projects located on Federal lands. The rationale behind these land-use fees is to recompense the United States for the ``use, occupancy, or enjoyment'' of its Federal lands. The Federal Government is, in some sense, a landlord for these types of projects, and can collect just and reasonable rent from its tenants. The current level of these rents is a separate issue but today I am focused on how a technicality in Federal law allows the government to continue to collect land-use fees even when the land at issue has been transferred out of Federal ownership. Under current law, if the Federal Government sold the land underneath a hydropower project to the operator, or transferred it into state ownership, FERC can continue to assess full land use fees against the operator. This untenable situation is like a landlord continuing to collect rent from a tenant even after the tenant buys the house outright. While the inherent unfairness of such a scenario is clear, the statutory and regulatory web that has created this snare is extremely complex. In addition to allowing for the collection of Federal land-use fees, the Federal Power Act also contains a section regarding Power Site Classifications, or PSCs. A PSC attaches to the land when a preliminary hydropower license application is made, and entitles the government, or its designees, to enter the associated land and develop a hydropower project if some other person or operation is occupying it. These classifications are similar to easements, in that they permanently attach to the title of the lands. The purpose of PSCs is to make sure that hydropower can be developed in the limited number of areas on Federal land that are suitable, and furthermore that once such an area is identified by a preliminary application, that the site is not then diverted to an alternate use. However, FERC has interpreted the statutory fee collection provisions to give these PSCs another affect that is not in keeping with this purpose--to charge land-use fees from existing hydropower operators in cases where the Federal Government no longer owns the land. In such a case, there is no need for a PSC to preserve the hydropower value of land as it is already being used for power production. Nor is the Federal Government somehow missing out on other beneficial uses of the land, because it no longer owns the land at issue. When I first learned of this issue, I asked FERC for a list of the hydropower projects for which it was collecting these PSC-based Federal land-use fees. I also asked the Department of the Interior, which maintains our Federal lands, for assistance. Unfortunately it appears that the government has not been diligent in keeping track of which projects are located on lands that have since been transferred away from Federal ownership as neither agency was able to produce a list of impacted projects. Consequently, my staff attempted to survey the number of affected projects by consulting with both the National Hydropower Association and the Alaska Power Association. This search identified 15 possible projects subject to these PSC land use fee collections--11 of which are located in my home State of Alaska. While some may dismiss these fees as being relatively minor, I can tell you that these annual Federal fees for land not even owned by the Federal Government can represent a significant hardship for my constituents. The bill I am introducing today would put a halt to this kind of fee collection. It simply says that when FERC is making fee determinations, it cannot take PSCs into account. Therefore, the only land that the Federal Government will be able to collect ``use, occupancy, and enjoyment'' fees for is land that it actually owns. I hope all of my colleagues can agree this treatment is a fair resolution of the issue and I ask for their support.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we often hear refrains of the need to make government policies more fair, clear, or simple--especially when these policies involve the collection of fees or taxes. Today I rise to introduce legislation to fix an inherently unfair policy by prohibiting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from charging land-use fees for hydropower projects that are no longer located on Federal land. FERC is responsible for licensing private, municipal and state hydropower projects. Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, the Commission is authorized to collect fees from project owners for those hydro projects located on Federal lands. The rationale behind these land-use fees is to recompense the United States for the ``use, occupancy, or enjoyment'' of its Federal lands. The Federal Government is, in some sense, a landlord for these types of projects, and can collect just and reasonable rent from its tenants. The current level of these rents is a separate issue but today I am focused on how a technicality in Federal law allows the government to continue to collect land-use fees even when the land at issue has been transferred out of Federal ownership. Under current law, if the Federal Government sold the land underneath a hydropower project to the operator, or transferred it into state ownership, FERC can continue to assess full land use fees against the operator. This untenable situation is like a landlord continuing to collect rent from a tenant even after the tenant buys the house outright. While the inherent unfairness of such a scenario is clear, the statutory and regulatory web that has created this snare is extremely complex. In addition to allowing for the collection of Federal land-use fees, the Federal Power Act also contains a section regarding Power Site Classifications, or PSCs. A PSC attaches to the land when a preliminary hydropower license application is made, and entitles the government, or its designees, to enter the associated land and develop a hydropower project if some other person or operation is occupying it. These classifications are similar to easements, in that they permanently attach to the title of the lands. The purpose of PSCs is to make sure that hydropower can be developed in the limited number of areas on Federal land that are suitable, and furthermore that once such an area is identified by a preliminary application, that the site is not then diverted to an alternate use. However, FERC has interpreted the statutory fee collection provisions to give these PSCs another affect that is not in keeping with this purpose--to charge land-use fees from existing hydropower operators in cases where the Federal Government no longer owns the land. In such a case, there is no need for a PSC to preserve the hydropower value of land as it is already being used for power production. Nor is the Federal Government somehow missing out on other beneficial uses of the land, because it no longer owns the land at issue. When I first learned of this issue, I asked FERC for a list of the hydropower projects for which it was collecting these PSC-based Federal land-use fees. I also asked the Department of the Interior, which maintains our Federal lands, for assistance. Unfortunately it appears that the government has not been diligent in keeping track of which projects are located on lands that have since been transferred away from Federal ownership as neither agency was able to produce a list of impacted projects. Consequently, my staff attempted to survey the number of affected projects by consulting with both the National Hydropower Association and the Alaska Power Association. This search identified 15 possible projects subject to these PSC land use fee collections--11 of which are located in my home State of Alaska. While some may dismiss these fees as being relatively minor, I can tell you that these annual Federal fees for land not even owned by the Federal Government can represent a significant hardship for my constituents. The bill I am introducing today would put a halt to this kind of fee collection. It simply says that when FERC is making fee determinations, it cannot take PSCs into account. Therefore, the only land that the Federal Government will be able to collect ``use, occupancy, and enjoyment'' fees for is land that it actually owns. I hope all of my colleagues can agree this treatment is a fair resolution of the issue and I ask for their support.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at increasing the production of our hardest working renewable resource, one that often gets overlooked in the clean energy debate-- hydropower. The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2013 is a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by my colleagues Senators Wyden, Risch, Cantwell, Crapo, Murray, and Begich, true hydropower advocates. The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2013 seeks to increase substantially the capacity and generation of our clean, renewable hydropower resources that will improve environmental quality and support local job creation and economic investment across the nation. There is no question that hydropower is, and must continue to be, part of our energy solution. It is the largest source of renewable electricity in the United States. The approximately 100,000 megawatts of hydroelectric capacity we now have today provide about seven percent of the Nation's electricity needs. Hydro-electric generation is carbon- free baseload power that allows us to avoid over 200 million metric tons of carbon emissions each year. Hydropower is clean, efficient, and inexpensive. Yet, despite its tremendous benefits I am constantly amazed at how some undervalue this important resource. Perhaps it's because conventional wisdom dismisses our Nation's hydropower capacity as tapped out. That is simply not the case. If anything, hydropower is really an underdeveloped resource--something we certainly understand in my home State of Alaska where hydro already supplies 24 percent of the State's electricity needs and over 200 promising sites for further hydropower development have been identified. There is great potential for additional hydropower development in every state, not just Alaska. According to the Department of Energy, conventional hydropower facilities have the capacity to generate an additional 75,000 megawatts of power--a staggering amount of clean, inexpensive power. Now, that doesn't seem possible until you realize that only three percent of the country's 80,000 existing dams are even electrified. Significant amounts of new capacity--anywhere between 20,000 and 60,000 megawatts-- can be derived from simple efficiency improvements or capacity additions at existing facilities. Additional hydropower can be captured in existing man-made conduits and hydroelectric pumped storage projects can help reliably integrate other renewable resources that are intermittent, such as wind, onto our grid. The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2013 seeks to multiply our nation's hydropower capacity in an effort to expand clean power generation and create domestic jobs. The bill provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with the authority to extend preliminary permit terms and to explore a possible 2-year licensing process for hydropower development at non-powered dams and closed loop pumped storage projects. The bill establishes an expedited process for FERC to consider ``qualifying conduit'' hydropower facilities and increases the rated capacity for small hydro projects to 10 megawatts. The act also calls for the Department of Energy to conduct studies of the technical flexibility and grid reliability benefits that pumped storage facilities can provide to support intermittent renewable energy, as well as on the range of opportunities for conduit hydropower potential. Importantly, the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2013 does not contain any spending authorizations and therefore does not represent any new funding. It is my hope that as the Senate considers our Nation's long-term energy policy, we can finally recognize the important contribution the renewable resource of hydropower makes, and will continue to make, toward our clean energy goals. Our colleagues in the House have already done so. The Hydropower Improve Act of 2013 is a companion piece to H.R. 267, the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 sponsored by Representatives McMorris-Rogers and DeGette. H.R. 267 recently passed the House by a stunning 422-0 vote and is supported by both the National Hydropower Association and American Rivers. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this hydropower legislation to promote the further development of our most cost-effective, clean energy option.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at increasing the production of our hardest working renewable resource, one that often gets overlooked in the clean energy debate-- hydropower. The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2013 is a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by my colleagues Senators Wyden, Risch, Cantwell, Crapo, Murray, and Begich, true hydropower advocates. The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2013 seeks to increase substantially the capacity and generation of our clean, renewable hydropower resources that will improve environmental quality and support local job creation and economic investment across the nation. There is no question that hydropower is, and must continue to be, part of our energy solution. It is the largest source of renewable electricity in the United States. The approximately 100,000 megawatts of hydroelectric capacity we now have today provide about seven percent of the Nation's electricity needs. Hydro-electric generation is carbon- free baseload power that allows us to avoid over 200 million metric tons of carbon emissions each year. Hydropower is clean, efficient, and inexpensive. Yet, despite its tremendous benefits I am constantly amazed at how some undervalue this important resource. Perhaps it's because conventional wisdom dismisses our Nation's hydropower capacity as tapped out. That is simply not the case. If anything, hydropower is really an underdeveloped resource--something we certainly understand in my home State of Alaska where hydro already supplies 24 percent of the State's electricity needs and over 200 promising sites for further hydropower development have been identified. There is great potential for additional hydropower development in every state, not just Alaska. According to the Department of Energy, conventional hydropower facilities have the capacity to generate an additional 75,000 megawatts of power--a staggering amount of clean, inexpensive power. Now, that doesn't seem possible until you realize that only three percent of the country's 80,000 existing dams are even electrified. Significant amounts of new capacity--anywhere between 20,000 and 60,000 megawatts-- can be derived from simple efficiency improvements or capacity additions at existing facilities. Additional hydropower can be captured in existing man-made conduits and hydroelectric pumped storage projects can help reliably integrate other renewable resources that are intermittent, such as wind, onto our grid. The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2013 seeks to multiply our nation's hydropower capacity in an effort to expand clean power generation and create domestic jobs. The bill provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with the authority to extend preliminary permit terms and to explore a possible 2-year licensing process for hydropower development at non-powered dams and closed loop pumped storage projects. The bill establishes an expedited process for FERC to consider ``qualifying conduit'' hydropower facilities and increases the rated capacity for small hydro projects to 10 megawatts. The act also calls for the Department of Energy to conduct studies of the technical flexibility and grid reliability benefits that pumped storage facilities can provide to support intermittent renewable energy, as well as on the range of opportunities for conduit hydropower potential. Importantly, the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2013 does not contain any spending authorizations and therefore does not represent any new funding. It is my hope that as the Senate considers our Nation's long-term energy policy, we can finally recognize the important contribution the renewable resource of hydropower makes, and will continue to make, toward our clean energy goals. Our colleagues in the House have already done so. The Hydropower Improve Act of 2013 is a companion piece to H.R. 267, the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 sponsored by Representatives McMorris-Rogers and DeGette. H.R. 267 recently passed the House by a stunning 422-0 vote and is supported by both the National Hydropower Association and American Rivers. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this hydropower legislation to promote the further development of our most cost-effective, clean energy option.