Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the bill we just passed out of the Senate, a bill to aid the victims of Superstorm Sandy, is important. It is important when we are faced with a disaster--whether it is a hurricane, whether it is an earthquake, whether it is a drought, whether it is a flood--that we step forward and find those ways that we can help citizens who have faced immeasurable loss. The effort that has gone back and forth between two bodies now, and will, hopefully, move forward, is one which will certainly help to address the needs of those families who lost so much in Superstorm Sandy. I think we all recognize this was not the only disaster this country faced last year. In my State of Alaska we faced a fish disaster. For those of you who are from States that do not rely on your fisheries as a source of income, a source of jobs or a source of daily sustenance, you might think: Fish disasters; well, that is not really much to talk about. That is not a true disaster. In my State, when fisheries have declined to the extent we have seen--the loss of the Chinook salmon on the Yukon River, the Kuskokwim River, the Upper Cook Inlet--this has a dramatic impact on our State's economy, a dramatic impact on the livelihoods of so many Alaskans. Whether they be commercial fishermen, sport fishermen, our subsistence- based fisheries, our fisheries communities, those businesses that are dependent on our salmon fisheries, these were all impacted this past year. As I had gone around the State, basically from about midsummer through the end of the year, everywhere I went, whether I was in an urban center such as Anchorage, Homer, or down in Seward, up in the Matanuska Valley, or out in the rural parts of the State up along the Yukon, out along the Kuskokwim out in the southwest, people were talking about two things: People were talking about our cost of energy because our energy costs remained the highest in the Nation, but they were also talking about fish. Pretty basic stuff: fuel, fish, and food. When we had a disaster this summer, it was an imperative around our State. We, in September of this past year, had an official declaration from the Secretary of Commerce--actually the Acting Secretary of Commerce, Rebecca Blank--that recognized this fish disaster, and this is a disaster that is statutorily authorized by section 308 of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and section 31 of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. These are designations that are statutorily authorized. These are not earmarks. They are not to be labeled as pork or something special for an area. These are disasters subject to a statutory authorization, a process that has been clearly laid out. They are authorized in law for fish failures that require affirmative action from the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary has taken that action. Congress then needs to do its part by funding for these disasters. I mentioned at the outset that some of my colleagues might not appreciate the importance of these fish disasters. But, again, these disasters are no less important than disasters for which we provide for other industries, such as drought disaster or drought assistance for our farmers. I think the Acting Secretary, when she signed these fisheries designations, recognized them for essentially what they are: fish droughts, fish droughts in our rivers and our oceans. She responded to the fisheries disasters not only in my State of Alaska, but she also moved forward with disaster determinations for Rhode Island, for New York, for Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Mississippi. The disaster declaration the Acting Secretary advanced opens the door, then, for the financial assistance from the Federal Government. You might notice those funds were not included in this disaster relief bill. That does not mean I will back down from attempting to do my best to make sure the disaster that Alaska faced with its fisheries, and that so many of our other States faced with their fisheries, that these needs will not be addressed. We didn't advance it in this package. It is important that the Sandy provision move forward, and that is why I eventually cast my vote in support of it. I know many of my colleagues--the Senator from Rhode Island is with me tonight. I know the Senator from New Hampshire is very concerned about it. The Senator from Maine is very concerned about it. I think it is fair to say we will continue our efforts to ensure the disasters that our fishermen have faced will be addressed as is statutorily provided in law. We will work to find that funding to make sure that disasters, however they present themselves in this country-- whether it is storm, flood, drought, hurricane, or earthquake--are addressed. I commit to working with my colleagues to continue to find those sources of funding so we address these revenues. I note that my colleague from Rhode Island is here, and I know he too wishes to address this important issue.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I think we have 33,000 miles of coastline, not to be bragging on a coastline. But what is so important as part of this discussion--and my colleague Senator Shaheen has stated this--our fishermen often are not included when we think about areas of disaster. Yet, in terms of those industries, those parts of our economy that are making things happen as folks are kind of chugging along, it is our fisheries that for decades--and for centuries, as Senator Whitehouse noted--have been producing good jobs and providing a source of sustenance for our families. Alaska is in somewhat of a unique situation in that we still have so many families who rely on their fisheries for subsistence. This is not just an income source for many. For so many in rural Alaska, this means whether or not you are going to be able to eat this winter. The situation on the Yukon and on the Kuskokwim--when those rivers were shut down to fishing, we had actions of civil disobedience, where individuals just came to the river and said: We have to put our nets in because we have to be able to feed our families. Down in the Cook Inlet region, it is not so much a subsistence lifestyle there but a commercial fishery as well as sport fishing. So sport guides who are required to be off the river cannot take that tourist who has come to Alaska for their dream fishing trip. They have to cancel that and lose their revenue, and so guides can no longer stay in place. So Senator Shaheen is correct about the ripple effect to the economy. It affects all of our fishing communities and those who support them. So when we talk about disasters in areas and $150 million that was to be split between all of these different regions and States, it is a recognition that it is quite slight in comparison to the true loss to our economies, the true loss to our families who have suffered. Again, I appreciate the commitment we have from so many who have been impacted that we don't give up on this. We have gone through the process, we have jumped the hurdles to get the designation that is required by our government through the Secretary of Commerce. We have done that. Now the step is for Congress to provide that funding that makes the difference. It is one thing to get a disaster declaration on paper; it is another to be able to provide the relief. And I certainly intend to push until that relief is provided not only for the families in Alaska but for those who have been impacted by fisheries disasters throughout the country.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that represents an important step in the conversion to renewable energy sources in rural Alaska and towards honoring the first individual to reach the summit of our Nation's tallest peak, Denali. Today I introduce the Denali National Park Improvement Act of 2013, comprised of three important provisions relating to Denali National Park and Preserve. The first provision is the Kantishna Hills Renewable Energy Act. The Kantishna Roadhouse, owned by Doyon Tourism, Inc., is located 100 miles inside Denali National Park and Preserve. The settlement of Kantishna was founded in 1905 as a mining camp near the juncture of Eureka and Moose Creeks. Gold in the region brought a flurry of prospectors in the early days, but as the gold began to run out, so did interest in mining the Kantishna Hills. The original roadhouse at Kantishna was built in the early 1900s, serving as a private residence, a community center, post office, and informal hotel accommodations for those who visited Kantishna in Denali Park. The Roadhouse, like many structures within Denali National Park, is entirely off the grid and generates all of its electricity needs with a diesel generator. As a result, all guests and supplies, including diesel, are trucked through the park to the Roadhouse over National Park roads. The construction of the micro hydro project would allow the Roadhouse to cut down their diesel usage by approximately 50 percent, which would result in a decrease in diesel truck traffic on the Park Road, improved local air quality, and less sound pollution in this remote area, as well as reduce disturbance and vehicle impacts on park wildlife, allowing for an enhanced visitor experience for tourists within the National Park. My bill will authorize the National Park Service to exchange roughly 10 acres of National Park land for an equivalent amount of land currently owned by Doyon Tourism, and would allow the National Park Service to obtain the highly desired Galena tract of land, located just off the Park Road in the Kantishna region. Doyon Tourism would obtain land over which the hydro project would be implemented. In the interim period, prior to completion of the land exchange, the National Park Service will issue a permit to allow Doyon Tourism, Inc., to construct the micro hydro unit. I want to emphasize how important I believe that this bill is. The benefit to the citizens of Alaska, especially rural Alaska, of reducing their dependence on expensive diesel generation through access to renewable and clean sources of energy is enormous. This type of Micro- Hydro project within Denali provides an excellent blueprint for others around the State to follow suit. The next portion of my bill will allow a natural gas pipeline to be placed inside Denali National Park. I am reintroducing legislation that I first offered in 2009 and that passed the Senate, but not the House of Representatives in the 112 Congress, which will authorize a right- of-way for construction of an Alaska instate natural gas pipeline to run along the State's main highway from Fairbanks to Anchorage. This bill will provide a right-of-way for a natural gas pipeline near the shoulder of the Parks Highway for the roughly 7 miles that the highway runs through Denali National Park and Preserve. I wish to explain why I am introducing the bill now, and why, rather than being an infringement on Alaska's most famous national park, the measure is actually the favored route by many in the environmental community to bring natural gas from the foothills of Alaska's North Slope to Southcentral and coastal Alaska. While many in this body have heard about plans for a large-volume natural gas pipeline to run from the Prudhoe Bay oil fields to the Lower 48 States, the project for which many in this body voted to approve a loan guarantee, tax credits and permitting improvements in 2004, there is concern that the big pipeline will not be finished in time to get gas to Southcentral Alaska, gas that is vital for electric generation in Fairbanks, Anchorage, the Mat-Su Borough and Kenai Peninsula. Currently electricity in Alaska's southern Railbelt, as it is called, is largely generated by burning natural gas that has been produced since the 1960s from the gas fields in Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. But production from Cook Inlet, while the province theoretically holds far more gas, has been falling for years, currently by about 10 percent annually. A major fertilizer plant near Kenai, for example, had to close in 2007 because there was not enough natural gas being produced to allow it to obtain the raw product it needed for urea production at a reasonable price. While there are contract issues and storage concerns involving getting sufficient gas quantities for Railbelt utilities starting as early as next year, there are serious concerns about the ability of the region to produce sufficient gas for electric generation and home heating for Alaska's most populated area as early as the winter of 2014-15, and especially by the winter of 2015-2016. To provide a new, reliable natural gas supply, one proposal, is the so-called ``bullet'' gas pipeline that involves constructing a relatively small diameter-natural gas line, probably 24-inches in size, to run from Alaska's North Slope region, past Fairbanks along the Parks Highway, and terminate near Wasilla, Alaska. This pipeline would tie into existing transmission systems and would bring about 500 million cubic feet of gas a day to Southcentral Alaska. This project could be completed well in advance of when a larger-diameter pipeline might be in service to deliver 4 to 4.5 billion cubic feet a day to Lower 48 markets or a different project could bring between 3 and 4.5 billion cubic feet a day to tidewater in Alaska before the gas could be liquefied for water-borne deliveries. Given the pace of planning for construction of a larger line project, it is unlikely that a larger Alaska natural gas pipeline will be able to deliver gas until 2022 or later 6 or more years too late to aid Southcentral Alaska's growing need for natural gas. There are several potentially competing proposals for a small- diameter, in-state gas pipeline. I have just described the ``bullet'' line proposal along the Parks Highway. A second proposal would run a similarly sized pipeline along the Richardson and Glenn Highways to the east, also tying into existing transmission systems near Palmer, Alaska. There are advantages to both routes, the Parks route delivering gas to communities along the Parks Highway while perhaps providing clean natural gas to Denali National Park, while the Richardson/Glenn project would help provide economic activity to differing towns, such as Delta and Glennallen to the east. Now there is a third proposal by Fairbanks Pipeline Co. based on the assumption that routes for either of the two larger ``bullet'' lines won't be available in time to meet gas demand. That project would build a ``mini'' 12-inch line from the North Slope to Fairbanks to supply the Interior with natural gas and not attempt to provide any gas for use in southern areas of the state. It is not my desire to prejudge the outcome of which project or route should be selected, since that decision will be made by Alaska state regulators and financial markets. It is my desire, however, to reintroduce legislation that would clear the lone legal impediment to planning for the Parks Highway route, that being how to get the gas economically through the mountainous central region of the State past Denali National Park and Preserve. According to a 2008 analysis of routing options through this area, there are three feasible routes for a pipeline through or around the roughly 10-mile bottleneck of the Nenana River Canyon and Denali National Park and Preserve. The shortest and most logical route follows the existing highway through this entire area, 7-miles of which passes through Denali National Park. This route causes the least environmental and visual impact due to its location in an existing corridor, and provides a route that is easily accessible for routine pipeline maintenance. A second feasible pipeline route diverts from the highway to stay outside of the national park boundaries on the east, but in so doing skirts along a steep hillside that dominates a park visitor's view. A third route proposed in 2009 would travel far to the west around the national park, increasing costs, and potentially moving natural gas closer to proposed mineral ventures in southwest Alaska. Either of the latter two proposals will create a new disturbed corridor in remote locations, and will cause pipeline operation issues and reliability challenges due to the remoteness and the ruggedness of the routes. The route that avoids the park to the east is estimated to cost twice as much as the route along the highway and through the park. The western route's cost has been harder to quantify. Besides being less expensive to construct and operate, the pipeline along the existing, previously disturbed Parks Highway right-of-way, could well allow electricity generation for the park facilities at Denali to come from natural gas. And for the first time reasonably priced compressed natural gas, CNG, could become available to power park vehicles, another environmental benefit of the Parks Highway route. Currently National Park Service permitted diesel tour buses travel 1 million road miles annually taking visitors into the park. Converting the buses to operate on CNG can significantly reduce air emissions in the park. A third benefit is that for the pipe to cross the Nenana River, not far from the park's entrance, will require a new bridge to be built that could carry not just the pipe, but provide a new pedestrian access/bicycle path for visitors that today need to walk along the heavily traveled highway rather than on separated, pedestrian path toward visitors attractions and nearby hotels. In all probability the installation work will be conducted in the shoulder seasons to make sure there are no visitor dislocations for tourists visiting the park. For those reasons and others, a group of eight environmental groups: The National Parks and Conservation Association, the Alaska Conservation Alliance, the Denali Citizens Council, The Wilderness Society, Cook Inlet Keeper, the Alaska Center for the Environment, the Wrangell Mountain Center and the Alaska Wildlife Alliance in 2009 generally supported the granting of a gas line right-of-way through Denali Park, along the existing highway right-of-way. The granting of a permanent 20-foot easement, and probably a 100-foot construction easement, is not precedent setting. The National Park Service already has granted a permit for an installed fiber-optic cable along the same basic alignment for an Alaska communications company. Obviously the exact right-of-way will have to be delineated to avoid the existing cable and to accommodate park goals, such as routing around a vernal pond viewing area located along the general right-of- way. Just earlier this year the 112 Congress gave approval for a similar bill that allows a gas line to pass through Glacier National Park in Montana. I am proposing this bill simply to authorize the right-of-way for a Parks Highway route soon so that the decision on which route is best for the state and its citizens--if the ``bullet line option is chosen-- can be made based on greater certainty in the cost estimates and the timing for a project. Removing the uncertainty of permitting and regulatory delays will at least permit the Parks Highway route to be on a level playing field with the Richardson and Glenn Highway or other potential projects. The State of Alaska in 2010 finished a preliminary study of the project and continues to consider whether to permit and finance a ``bullet'' line project, compared to other options, including importing liquefied natural gas or building other renewable energy project to attempt to meet Southcentral power needs in the future. But approval of the right-of-way would remove a key unknown and allow the decision on which project makes the most sense for all Alaskans to be made without fear that right-of-way acquisition delays could inflate costs unreasonably. If the Parks route is chosen and the project proceeds, then the national park may well benefit from the environmental benefits of natural gas and compressed natural gas being more readily available for park activities, cutting air quality concerns, and improving pedestrian access--depending upon final economic considerations involving the cost and location for a gas conditioning plant. In 2009 when this bill was first introduced, it was modified after initial introduction to meet all concerns voiced by the environmental community and congressional staff and the National Parks Service. The version being reintroduced in this joint bill was approved unanimously by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and added to the American Clean Energy Leadership Act that passed from the Committee on June 17, 2009, and again on Dec. 17, 2011. The provision, according to the Congressional Budget Office, had nominal--less than $5,000 in cost impacts--when scored. I truly believe there are no environmental issues with this legislation. I think anyone who has ever traveled on the Parks Highway in Alaska through Denali National Park would agree, and I hope it can be approved by Congress early in the 113 session given the increasing severity of the need for power generation in the Alaska Railroad in coming years. The third and final section of my bill is the Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station Renaming Act. The Talkeetna Ranger Station, which is the home of Denali National Park's mountaineering rangers, sits just about 100 miles south of the entrance to the park. Of course, the landmark that's most commonly linked to both the park and the ranger station itself happens to be the mountain that features a summit which represents the highest point in North America: Denali. In fact, anybody who intends to attempt a climb of Mt. McKinley is required to first stop at the Talkeetna Ranger Station for their permit and mountain orientation. It is only fitting, then, that we honor the memory of Alaska Native Walter Harper by forever linking his name with this specific ranger station. It was Mr. Harper that 100 years ago next year became the first person to reach the summit of Mt. McKinley. My bill is a simple one, and it is not likely to gain much notice outside of Alaska. Within my home state, however, this small gesture means a great deal. Alaskans, like the people who call any other state home, are proud of the historical accomplishments of their fellow Alaskans. Walter Harper was one such Alaskan, and his feat is one that will always be remembered. Certainly, officially designating the Talkeetna Ranger Station--the very building where any hiker today planning to climb Mt. McKinley is required to first stop--the Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station is a fitting tribute to the man himself, as well as his spot in our state's history books. June 7 of next year, 2013, will mark the 100 year anniversary of Mr. Harper's historic climb. It would truly be special for Alaska and Alaskans to have this designation in place by that date.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Huna Tlingit Traditional Gull Egg Use Act which represents an important step forward in allowing the Huna Tlingit people access to enjoy their traditional subsistence activity of gull egg collection. The collection and consumption of gull eggs is an integral part of the culture of the Tlingit people of Southeast Alaska, and eggs were gathered at rookeries long before Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve's establishment in 1925. A Legislative Environmental Impact Statement was completed in 2010 regarding this proposal to allow limited harvests of gull eggs in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, and the preferred alternative authorized the implementation of a cooperative management program for gull egg collection and emphasized a traditional harvest strategy for the collections. My bill will authorize this harvest of gull eggs at five nesting areas on two separate days each calendar year within the Park. This would allow a large number of tribal members to interact with their traditional homeland and provide an opportunity for as many as 12 young people to participate annually and spend time with elders learning about traditional egg harvest practices in addition to other aspects Tlingit culture. This bill is widely supported throughout the environmental and conservation communities, as well as the Alaska Native community. The harvesting of gull eggs would only have minor effects on the gulls, but the cultural benefits that would be realized by the Native community would be great. It is my hope that this bill will receive quick but careful consideration as the local tribe members have been eagerly awaiting passage of this measure for quite a long time.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would officially rename Mount McKinley in Alaska, simply, Denali. Mount McKinley is one of the most iconic geographical features in the country, and certainly Alaska. It is the tallest mountain in the United States, and we Alaskans are not all that shy about reminding folks the mountain is ours. Here is the problem: In Alaska, Mount McKinley is referred to as something else. We just call it ``Denali.'' That is what we have always called it. Denali is an Alaska Native word, an Athabaskan word, and its meaning is fairly straightforward. The High One. All my bill does is make the name official. I know the name Mount McKinley has a special meaning of its own to some folks, specifically the good people of Ohio, the home State of our 25th President, William McKinley. My response to those people is this: You are more than welcome to go right on referring to the mountain as Mount McKinley, just as Alaskans have long called it Denali. All that is changing is that the Alaskan name is becoming, technically, correct for an Alaskan landmark. In the big picture, this is a little bill. I understand that. But I also understand, as I know my colleagues do, that it is the little things that sometimes matter a great deal to communities. Making Denali, the name all Alaskans use anyway, the official name of America's tallest mountain means something to Alaska. Officially being able to call an Alaskan landmark by its Alaskan name means something to Alaskans.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would officially rename Mount McKinley in Alaska, simply, Denali. Mount McKinley is one of the most iconic geographical features in the country, and certainly Alaska. It is the tallest mountain in the United States, and we Alaskans are not all that shy about reminding folks the mountain is ours. Here is the problem: In Alaska, Mount McKinley is referred to as something else. We just call it ``Denali.'' That is what we have always called it. Denali is an Alaska Native word, an Athabaskan word, and its meaning is fairly straightforward. The High One. All my bill does is make the name official. I know the name Mount McKinley has a special meaning of its own to some folks, specifically the good people of Ohio, the home State of our 25th President, William McKinley. My response to those people is this: You are more than welcome to go right on referring to the mountain as Mount McKinley, just as Alaskans have long called it Denali. All that is changing is that the Alaskan name is becoming, technically, correct for an Alaskan landmark. In the big picture, this is a little bill. I understand that. But I also understand, as I know my colleagues do, that it is the little things that sometimes matter a great deal to communities. Making Denali, the name all Alaskans use anyway, the official name of America's tallest mountain means something to Alaska. Officially being able to call an Alaskan landmark by its Alaskan name means something to Alaskans.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Huna Tlingit Traditional Gull Egg Use Act which represents an important step forward in allowing the Huna Tlingit people access to enjoy their traditional subsistence activity of gull egg collection. The collection and consumption of gull eggs is an integral part of the culture of the Tlingit people of Southeast Alaska, and eggs were gathered at rookeries long before Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve's establishment in 1925. A Legislative Environmental Impact Statement was completed in 2010 regarding this proposal to allow limited harvests of gull eggs in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, and the preferred alternative authorized the implementation of a cooperative management program for gull egg collection and emphasized a traditional harvest strategy for the collections. My bill will authorize this harvest of gull eggs at five nesting areas on two separate days each calendar year within the Park. This would allow a large number of tribal members to interact with their traditional homeland and provide an opportunity for as many as 12 young people to participate annually and spend time with elders learning about traditional egg harvest practices in addition to other aspects Tlingit culture. This bill is widely supported throughout the environmental and conservation communities, as well as the Alaska Native community. The harvesting of gull eggs would only have minor effects on the gulls, but the cultural benefits that would be realized by the Native community would be great. It is my hope that this bill will receive quick but careful consideration as the local tribe members have been eagerly awaiting passage of this measure for quite a long time.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of my friend and colleague Senator Dick Lugar, who is retiring from the Senate at the end of this year. Senator Lugar has been a good friend to me in the decade we have served together. As the Chamber's most senior Republican he has been a mentor to me, and when I first came to the Senate he was also my Chairman on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I have been proud to work with him on a number of foreign policy issues, including those affecting the United States as an Arctic nation like the Law of the Sea Treaty. We have also worked together on energy issues. Senator Lugar's Practical Energy Plan is a thoughtful bill to strengthen our energy security. On this bill, as on all other issues throughout his Senate career, Senator Lugar worked to develop practical solutions to the challenges we face regarding energy. Senator Lugar is the longest serving Member of Congress from his home State of Indiana. He graduated first in his class from Shortridge High School in Indianapolis and after attending college, he began his service to our country as an intelligence briefer in the U.S. Navy. He later served as mayor of Indianapolis, on the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, and as President of the National League of Cities before beginning his 36 year Senate career. He has clearly served the people of Indiana well. Just last month, the Indianapolis Monthly Magazine published ``By the Numbers: Richard Lugar's Legacy,'' which listed many of Senator Lugar's accomplishments. The article noted that Indianapolis gained 57,000 jobs during Senator Lugar's tenure as mayor and 7,500 nuclear warheads were deactivated as a result of the Nunn-Lugar program. According to the article, Senator Lugar has cast more than 13,000 votes in the Senate and worked with 7 different Presidents. He has been recognized for his service with the Guardian of Small Business award, the Spirit of Enterprise award, the Watchdog of the Treasury award, and more than 45 honorary degrees from colleges and universities in 15 States and the District of Columbia. The American Political Science Association got it right when they named him an Outstanding Legislator, and he won his last general election with 87 percent of the vote. I will miss Senator Lugar's friendship, commonsense approach to getting things done, and commitment to the people of Indiana and the people of the United States. I will miss his always congenial personality and his gracious and respectful manner towards others. I will close by noting what I think may be the biggest accomplishment noted by Indianapolis Monthly Magazine, his 56-year marriage to his wife Char. I wish them the best in the coming years. Kay Bailey Hutchison Mr. President, I rise today to honor my colleague and friend from the State of Texas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, as she prepares to retire from the Senate after almost 20 years serving her beloved State. I have been honored to serve with Senator Hutchison and will truly miss her presence and the guidance she has shared over the last 10 years. Senator Hutchison is a Texan through and through. She is the descendant of Texas pioneers, which might account for the fighting spirit she has displayed here in the Senate. She is a trail blazer, and in finding her own path broke barriers and overcame the challenges she faced early in her career. She was one of only 13 women in a class of nearly 400 who graduated from the University of Texas Law School in 1967. After graduating, she faced a harsh reality of the time as no law firm in Houston would hire a woman; however she did not let this break her spirits. In 1972 she became the first Republican woman elected to the Texas State House, where she learned the value of bipartisanship, working across the aisle to address the inequities and stigma that rape victims faced in the legal system--and carried legislation which would become a model for states across the country. This is one of the many reasons I have come to respect and admire the senior Senator from Texas--her ability to bring people together to benefit those we serve. After being elected Texas state treasurer in 1990, she again made history in 1993 by becoming the first, and only, woman to be elected to the Senate from Texas. Here in the Senate, she has been a champion for our military forces, serving on the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees, and as chairman and ranking member of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee. In those roles she has worked to ensure our servicemembers and their families have the support they need. She has also made major contributions through her work to expand science and education, consistently advocating for needed improvements so that our students stay competitive. Her commitment to education has led her to play a role in creating a program at the National Science Foundation which will expand training for math and science teachers of tomorrow, and she was a driving force in establishing the Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas. In addition to her legislative accomplishments, Senator Hutchison is to be recognized for her efforts to keep the Senate schedule workable for families. Kay's children are now 11 years old and many of us have watched as they have grown. One of my favorite pictures is of Senator Hutchison, the only woman in a sea of men, holding the hands of Bailey and Houston as toddlers. Whether it was late nights or flights to catch, Kay reminded the leaders that we have an obligation to our families as well. Throughout her career Senator Hutchison has tackled challenges with grace, resilience, and perseverance. As a tireless advocate for her State, we can learn a lot from Senator Hutchison's example of what a public servant should be, and she certainly leaves an impressive legacy here in the Senate. In her book, American Heroines, which chronicles some of the first American women trailblazers, she wrote that she believes America is the best place on earth to be a woman that--the opportunities are endless. These opportunities are due to Senator Hutchison and women like her, women whose independence and integrity have set an example for those who will follow in their footsteps. I thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership and her friendship, and wish her the best. Olympia Snowe Mr. President, I rise to recognize my colleague and friend, Senator Olympia Snowe, as she plans to retire from the U.S. Senate. Her nearly four-decade career in Congress has been one of distinction and unwavering public service to Maine and the United States. Senator Snowe's achievements are numerous. In 1978, she became the youngest Republican and first Greek-American woman to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1994, when she was first elected to the U.S. Senate, she became the fourth woman to serve in both Houses of Congress. She also has the distinction of being the first Republican woman to secure a full-term seat on the Senate Finance Committee. In total, she has won more Federal elections in Maine than any other person since World War II--a testament to how loved she is by her constituency. Senator Snowe has worked extensively on a number of issues, including budget and fiscal responsibility, veterans, education, national security, welfare reform, oceans and fisheries issues, and campaign finance reform. It has been my pleasure to work with Senator Snowe on the Senate Oceans Caucus, where together we have stressed the importance of ocean policy and the crucial role our oceans play in all aspects of life in our respective States and across America. I also appreciate Senator Snowe's leadership on the Small Business Committee, where she has been a strong advocate for small businesses in Maine and across the country. I know that I speak for all the female Senators in the U.S. Senate when I say it is sad to see such a well-respected female colleague retire. Senator Snowe deserves the highest accolades for her service to this Nation. This is a woman who has done remarkably well by the American people, by her constituents in Maine, and by her colleagues in the U.S. Senate. I personally admire her efforts to work--always--in a bipartisan manner. Her moderation and willingness to listen to all sides of an issue are examples for us all. I am encouraged that she intends to continue her efforts to advance good public policy by working to help elect those who are unafraid to stand in the middle and work to build consensus. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I thank Senator Snowe for her dedication to her country, and I congratulate her on her retirement. I also want to recognize her husband Jack, who has also been an amazing public servant. Scott Brown Mr. President, I rise to recognize Senator Scott Brown's service to the Senate. While we have only had the opportunity to work together for 2 years, I have truly appreciated Senator Brown's insight, leadership, and friendship. Senator Brown moved to Massachusetts as a young boy. He graduated from Wakefield High School, then joined the Massachusetts National Guard when he was 19. After attending Northwestern University and graduating from Tufts University and Boston College Law School, Senator Brown began serving the people of Massachusetts in 1992, first as a real estate assessor and then as a selectman in Wrentham. In 1998, he was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and after three terms he was elected to the Massachusetts State Senate. In each of his State Senate reelection bids, he ran unopposed. As a State legislator, he advocated for children's and victims' rights as well as veterans affairs and worked to promote good government initiatives. Senator Brown came to the United States Senate in 2010. He quickly found his voice on the Armed Services and Veterans Affairs Committees thanks to more than 30 years of service in the National Guard. I was proud to join more than 30 of my colleagues in cosponsoring his Stolen Valor Act, which would make it a crime to knowingly misrepresent military service if a person wanted to profit from his or her lie. Senator Brown also worked on good government initiatives in the Senate, leading bipartisan efforts to repeal a provision of law requiring Federal, State, and local governments to withhold 3 percent of payments due to contractors. I was proud to cosponsor his bill to avoid making infrastructure improvements more costly and business more challenging for healthcare professionals who accept Medicare payments. I have also been proud to work with Senator Brown on another commonsense initiative in this Congress, the Prompt Notification of Short Sales Act. Our bill would improve the housing market by requiring banks to provide a written response to an short sale offer within 75 days of a request from a homeowner. There are neighborhoods across the country full of empty homes and underwater owners who have legitimate offers, but unresponsive banks, and I commit to Senator Brown that I will continue to work on this issue in the coming year. Clearly Senator Brown has served the people of Massachusetts and the people of the United States well, and he will be missed. I wish the best to him, his wife Gail, and their daughters Ayla and Arianna. Jeff Bingaman Mr. President, today I rise to recognize one of our most distinguished Senators as he prepares to retire from this body after five terms. Senator Jeff Bingaman has earned the reputation of being a strong and effective leader during his time in the Senate. He has achieved what all of us try to achieve as advocates of our States-- getting results in Washington while staying closely connected to our constituents who sent us here to represent them. I have admired his intelligence, courage, pragmatism, and willingness to solve problems with bipartisan solutions. Senator Bingaman and I have worked together on many issues and projects, and I have never questioned his steadfast commitment to do what he believes is right for New Mexico and this country. During his 30 years in the Senate he has worked tirelessly on a number of committees, including the Armed Services Committee, the Finance Committee, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which he currently chairs. While most of my work with Jeff has been on energy issues, working with Senator Bingaman on the Senate HELP Committee was also a great pleasure. He has been an excellent partner, for example, on issues that are important to our American Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native constituents, who often live in communities that face multiple challenges. There have been many times in the HELP Committee when it has been necessary for me to explain why a proposed solution won't work in Alaska. As I begin to explain about the Federal trust responsibility, or tribal sovereignty, the lack of health care and basic infrastructure, or how difficult it is to get and keep teachers, nurses, and others in those communities, there have been times when I have seen my colleagues think--here we go again, the ``It is different in Alaska'' speech. But whether we have been discussing education, health care, job creation, or any one of the innumerable challenges Americans face when they live in Indian Country, Jeff Bingaman gets it. He and I have been able to speak with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle with one voice about what will work, what will not work, and why. We can explain the complexities of the Federal trust responsibility and tribal sovereignty as a bipartisan team because whether our constituents live on a reservation in New Mexico or a remote village in Alaska or in one of our larger cities, the challenges they face are often the same, and what will work in other places in America often won't work in our Native communities. That partnership has been so important in making sure that the good work we are trying to do for all Americans works for America's first peoples in every State. In addition to our work on HELP, our strongest collaboration has been while working together in our leadership roles on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Senator Bingaman has been tireless in ensuring that our Nation has the energy resources it needs to meet our growing demands well into the 21st century. He was a leader in the development of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, both major blueprints for the expansion of all forms of renewable energy, especially biomass, geothermal, and marine hydrokinetic power. I am happy to have had the chance to work closely with Senator Bingaman in those efforts. In 2008 and 2009 we also worked to pass a package of major public land legislation that will be a legacy for the Senator for decades to come. When Senator Bingaman announced he was retiring from the Senate, I took note that he vowed to finish out the remainder of Congress with substantive achievements. Since then, he has affirmed this promise and has again driven productive discussions on several issues that will last beyond his time here, such as his efforts to move forward our Nation's program on spent nuclear fuel. The legislation that he introduced is indicative of months of thoughtful and productive discussions aimed to address the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. I congratulate him on constantly moving the conversation forward and putting a marker out there toward reaching an equitable goal. Senator Bingaman should be very proud of his nearly four decades of public service as New Mexico's attorney general and U.S. Senator. From fighting for our energy future to standing with the people of New Mexico through difficult economic times, Senator Bingaman has been a trusted leader for the people of his State. He has been a champion for his constituents, a powerful voice for Native American concerns, and a leader on science research and energy tax policy. He has been unfailingly and personally considerate to me, and I extend my gratitude for his service and thank him for his gracious aid on issues of concern to me and my home State. I wish him and his family good health and best wishes in the future and great happiness in whatever he and Anne now decide to do. The Senate has been a better place due to his civilized manner, his wit, and his intelligent solutions for the Nation's problems. We will miss Senator Bingaman's presence here in the Senate. Herb Kohl Mr. President, I come to the floor to recognize Senator Kohl as he prepares to retire after 24 years in the U.S. Senate. Senator Kohl was born and raised in Wisconsin, the State he tirelessly represents to this day. He attended public school in Milwaukee and at the University of Wisconsin-Madison before obtaining his MBA from Harvard University in 1958. His business ventures proved incredibly successful and he was acting President of Kohl's grocery and department stores for nearly a decade. In 1988, he took his business and education experience to the U.S. Senate. I have had the pleasure of serving with Senator Kohl on the Appropriations Committee for the past 4 years. His bipartisan cooperation is outstanding and together we have worked on numerous hearings and bills. He has been an asset on the committee and we will miss his dedication, intuition, and eagerness to work with others to find solutions. As a mother of two and former PTA member, I also appreciate Senator Kohl's zeal in advocating children's issues. He authored legislation to expand the school breakfast program, strengthened child nutrition programs, and has worked to meet the growing demand for child care. His work on the Appropriations Committee ensured the continuation of important programs such as the Boys and Girls Club and the Families and Schools Together Program. This hard work did not go unrecognized. In 2010, Senator Kohl received the Best of Congress Award from Working Mother Magazine and Corporate Voices for Working Families. I will always admire Senator Kohl for his hard work on behalf of families and children across the U.S. Senator Kohl's charitable endeavors will also remain an important part of his legacy. In 1990, he established the Herb Kohl Educational Foundation Achievement Award Program. This program provides annual grants to 200 graduating high school seniors, 100 Wisconsin teachers, and 100 schools in his home State. I cannot thank Senator Kohl enough for his service over the past few decades. I am honored to have worked by his side and wish him the best.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was watching my friend and colleague Senator Akaka as he was delivering his comments earlier about Senator Inouye and the legislation that both he and our dear friend and former colleague have worked so hard on over the years, and I wanted to come to the floor this evening and tell my friend that I am deeply appreciative of the words he has delivered as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. I would certainly hope the Senate would respect the thinking the Senator has outlined as it relates to the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. As the Senator knows well, I have long been a supporter of that act. It is indeed an honor to have worked with him on it, as well as our dear friend and late colleague, Senator Inouye. This legislation has been going on for some 12 years now, and I think it is fair to say that it truly has been a bipartisan effort, not only here in Washington, DC, but in Hawaii as well. For several years, when Governor Lingle was Governor of Hawaii, she was back here helping on the Republican side of the aisle. I firmly believe this cause of Native Hawaiians is just. The native people of Hawaii are similarly situated to the native people of Alaska. Both are aboriginal peoples from former territories. Yet the fact is that the two peoples are not treated the same for purposes of Federal Indian law. The native people of Alaska are recognized as among the first peoples of the United States. Their tribes appear on the Interior Department's list of federally recognized Indian tribes, and they have access to important Federal Indian programs that truly have improved the quality of life for Alaska natives. The native people of Hawaii, however, are not federally recognized among the first peoples of the United States. For more than a decade now, efforts to provide Federal recognition have been filibustered, and I would suggest unjustly so. Senator Inouye and Senator Akaka have worked valiantly to create programs for Native Hawaiians that parallel those available to American Indians and Alaska Natives, but this is not enough. Justice demands that the native people of Hawaii earn the Federal recognition that is rightfully theirs. The time to provide parity and justice for Hawaii's native people is now. The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which has passed out of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I think is a responsible bill. It is a constitutional vehicle to accomplish this objective. We began our mourning paying tribute to our friend and former colleague Senator Inouye. As we think about Hawaii and its peoples, and as we remember the contributions of Senator Inouye, and as we recognize Senator Akaka as he departs from this body after years and years of honorable service, I would hope that within this body we would not forget the efforts they have worked on so valiantly. I will commit to my friend, Senator Akaka, that the cause the Senator has taken up, that he has worked on so hard with Senator Inouye, will not die until justice for the native people of Hawaii is achieved. I thank the Senator for his leadership. Mr. President, I was going to yield the floor, but I would like to take a moment to provide my remarks regarding Senator Akaka and his contribution here, if I may. Daniel K. Akaka Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of my friend, my colleague, Senator Daniel Akaka, who is set to retire after 22 years of dedicated service in the Senate. He has been a personal friend to me, he has been a personal friend to my family, and to my parents. He and his wife Millie, a wonderful, beautiful woman, have been leaders on behalf of the people of Hawaii and have long been friends and partners to the people of Alaska. Senator Akaka has served our Nation and the great State of Hawaii honorably for nearly 70 years. That is an incredible contribution. His service began in 1943, immediately following his graduation from the Kamehameha School for Boys in Honolulu. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had taken place a year earlier, only 5 miles from his dormitory steps. In the hours immediately following that attack, Senator Akaka, who was a 17-year-old ROTC cadet, helped his classmates search for paratroopers in the fields above his school grounds. Like so many others of his generation, Senator Akaka answered the call of duty, joined the U.S. Army, first with the Corps of Engineers as a mechanic and a welder, and later as a noncommissioned officer. In 1952, Senator Akaka used the GI bill to earn his degree in education from the University of Hawaii and began his lifelong dedication to our Nation's students, first as a teacher, then as a principal at a high school in Honolulu, and later with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Senator Akaka was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1976 and then went on to win six more elections. It was clearly evident to the people of Hawaii within that second congressional district they valued his passion and his dedication for the office. In 1990, after the death of Senator Spark Matsunaga, Senator Akaka was appointed and then subsequently elected to the seat in the Senate that he has held for 22 years now. Senator Akaka's fortitude and his determination have not waned in these 70 years. As the first Native Hawaiian ever to serve in the Senate, and the only indigenous person currently serving in the Senate, he is a proven champion for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. It was just in October of this year that Senator Akaka came to Alaska and was honored by the Alaska Federation of Natives with the Denali Award. This award is presented to an individual who is not an Alaska Native for their contributions to the growth and development of the Alaska Native community's culture, economy, and health. Senator Akaka has done that repeatedly over the years. The efforts he has worked on, whether it was bigger initiatives or whether to ensure the people in King Cove had access to an airport so their lives weren't threatened in a medical emergency and they could get out, Senator Akaka has stepped up to ensure the people of Alaska are cared for. It has truly been a pleasure to work with Senator Akaka over these past 10 years on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. The chairmanship he has administered has been admired and appreciated by all of us who are on that committee. Senator Akaka's leadership, wisdom, and grasp of issues has helped us work together toward many visions and goals that we shared. The Save Native Women Act--a bill to help protect native women and children across our 565 federally recognized tribes--was largely incorporated into the Senate version of the 2012 Violence Against Women Act. We need to make sure that legislation passes. And again, as we think about the statistics that so many of our native peoples face, we need to make certain we are making appropriate gains and strides to help address them, and Chairman Akaka has worked with us on that. We fought to ensure the preservation of native languages not only in our communities but within our classrooms. As I mentioned, I have long supported the concept that Senator Inouye and Senator Akaka have championed with regard to Federal recognition of Native Hawaiians. But Senator Akaka is also special to two other constituencies--our Federal employees and our veterans. He is one of this body's leading experts on some of the more arcane laws that apply to Federal civil service. Alaska's Federal employees clearly appreciate his leadership on the Non-Foreign AREA Act, which made them eligible for locality pay that counts toward retirement. This is an issue in my State that took some time to negotiate and to move through, but the Federal employees in Alaska--as they are seeing the benefits of that locality pay--owe thanks and gratitude to the work of Senator Akaka. And of course he knows well the laws that govern the U.S. Postal Service probably as well as anyone in this body. During Senator Akaka's tenure as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, this body has made great progress in ensuring that the VA had a budget commensurate with its needs. His contributions to ensuring that post-9/11 veterans had access to critically needed health and education resources will endure. As neighbors in the Pacific, Alaska and Hawaii have always shared a very special bond, not only because of our geography and our time differences. Every time I endure a 12-hour flight across the country to go home--and home is four time zones away--I am reminded that it takes Senator Akaka a couple hours more and one time zone more to get home. But it is not only our geography that binds us; we have many other similarities: our indigenous peoples, the relative youth of our States, our unique landscapes, and for years our delegations have worked together across the aisle for the good of our people. Senator Akaka's bipartisan approach, his willingness to work toward success, will be missed by myself and so many of our colleagues. And, of course, I don't think Senator Akaka would call it bipartisanship. He would call it aloha. We work in the aloha spirit. With that, I wish to tell my friend and my colleague, mahalo. From the bottom of my heart, mahalo. I am going to miss you, Senator Akaka. I am going to miss your wife Millie and your entire extended family. But as you return home to your beloved Hawaii, know that you have left an impression on so many. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is only fitting that I be allowed to speak for a few minutes recognizing that on this floor we have just advanced these resolutions in honor of our friend, our colleague, and truly an incredible gentleman and statesman, Senator Daniel K. Inouye. In Alaska, we regarded former Senator Ted Stevens as ``Uncle Ted.'' What follows, then, is that the people of Alaska would regard his brother, our beloved Daniel Inouye, as our uncle as well. Today, the people of Alaska are mourning the loss of Senator Inouye in the same way we would mourn the loss of one of our own; that is, because Senator Inouye is one of our own. Regardless of whether he wanted that burden--I know that perhaps at times he did not want that-- we would think of him as Alaska's third Senator. A great many Alaskans came to know, to love, and to rely on Senator Inouye to watch Alaska's back, and he never let us down. Senator Inouye delivered a very touching, a very tender eulogy at Ted Stevens' funeral in August of 2010. In that address, he mentioned that millions and millions of words had been written of Ted's accomplishments. Yet as I was thinking about how I might frame my remarks about Senator Inouye's life, it dawned on me that millions and millions of words had also been written already about Senator Inouye. That is because I think so many of Ted's accomplishments came with Dan Inouye at his side and, not coincidentally, many of Dan's accomplishments occurred in the presence of Ted. So where do we begin? There is so much that must be said and that should be said. I was present at the Anchorage Baptist Temple when Senator Inouye delivered his eulogy, and I had the opportunity last evening, after we learned word of Senator Inouye's passing, to view that video clip again. As I listened to that eulogy, it came to me that everything Senator Inouye said about Ted told us as much about Dan as it did about Ted. There was so much that these two men shared. Senator Inouye related that he knew from the very beginning of the relationship that the two would have a great deal in common. Both represented former territories at the very edge of our great Nation-- territories that at times were treated as appendages to our Nation. He characterized Alaska and Hawaii as the forgotten people. In those early years, he reminded us it cost more to make a telephone call from Honolulu to here in Washington, DC, than it did Honolulu to Tokyo. It was cheaper to call Beijing from Washington than Anchorage. Dan and Ted set out to do something about that, and they did. They traveled to each other's States. They came to understand the unique challenges each faced. Senator Inouye related on one trip to an Alaska Native village that he met a nurse. It actually was not a nurse. It was our community health aide, an individual from the village who had been trained to provide basic medical care. It occurred to both of them at that time that the new technology could enable a doctor at a major hospital, hundreds or perhaps even thousands of miles away, to observe and diagnose a patient via a video link. So was born the Alaska telemedicine network, one of the first of its kind in the world and truly a remarkable advancement and achievement in Alaska. It was born from their very conversations on that CODEL. This is just one small example of the many collaborations that improved life for the Native peoples of Alaska and Hawaii. These collaborations created models by which Senator Inouye improved conditions for the Native peoples of the 48 States as well. Another thing that Ted and Dan shared in common was, of course, that they were both veterans. One of our colleagues described them as World War II soulmates--men who loved the military, absolutely loved the military, with every ounce of their being. They traveled together across the globe to zones of conflict to visit Americans in uniform. The tragedy of Vietnam veterans returning home unappreciated was not lost on either of these veterans, and they devoted their lives to ensuring that our veterans would never again be disrespected. Following Ted's death, Senator Inouye came to this floor, and he said the following of his fallen brother: When it came to policy, we disagreed more often than we agreed, but we were never disagreeable with one another. We were always positive and forthright. This remark came as perhaps a little bit of a surprise to me because on the important issues that faced this country, they would most often arrive at significant agreements that would allow the issues to advance in the Senate. Not one of them viewed bipartisanship in a negative context. It was not a dirty word. Senator Inouye said of Ted: ``We made the word bipartisan become real--real.'' It is no coincidence that each would be described in these terms: His word is his bond . . . . Good as gold. Daniel Inouye brought depth to every debate and dignity to every room in which he entered. He was a model Senator and in these times of turbulence within the Senate I think a role model for so many of us. There was an elegance in this man that I think we should all strive to emulate. I wonder often if those of us who did not come of age in that ``greatest generation'' are up to this challenge. But we should certainly strive to be. On behalf of the people of Alaska, I express our deepest appreciation and condolences to his wife Irene and to Ken for sharing this extraordinary statesman with us and with the Nation. For that, we owe them a very sincere and genuine thank you--mahalo. Irene, of course, is doing important work with the United States-Japan Council. I look forward to working closely with her in that important role. When a significant figure in Alaska passes, we often say: ``A big tree has fallen.'' In the islands, Daniel Inouye was the biggest of the big trees. There is no way to minimize the loss the people of Hawaii are feeling. We could see it in the face of Governor Abercrombie yesterday. He could barely control his tears as he conducted a lengthy news conference following Senator Inouye's passing. We saw our friend and colleague, Senator Akaka, as he delivered very sad remarks as well. In Hawaii, as in Alaska, these things are personal. Losing a longtime Senator feels like losing a member of your own family. The Senate ohana is less today because Senator Inouye is no longer with us. Let me simply say the people of Alaska and the people of this great Nation stand with the people of Hawaii. I offer my personal commitment to the people of Hawaii as the now senior-most Senator representing the decades' old alliance of our former territories: Your needs will not be forgotten. With that, I thank you for the few extra minutes this evening to pay tribute to a good man, a good friend. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I agree these are two great fisheries and economic drivers of our thriving seafood industry. I have a question about Section 307 of H.R. 2838, which I understand is intended to clarify longstanding restrictions that have applied with respect to certain vessels under the American Fisheries Act. I know that Senator Cantwell and the senior Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, have worked with Senator Begich and others to develop this language for inclusion in the final version of the Coast Guard bill as received from the other body last week, and I think it is important for us to make clear what it is intended to do. I am told that this provision is designed to maintain and reinforce the separation that exists between these two fisheries, and nothing more. Currently, none of these 20 AFA vessels participate in the Amendment 80 fishery, and under Amendment 97 to the Bering Sea Fishery Management Plan they are expressly prohibited from doing so. Is it true that Section 307 maintains this separation?

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the bill we have before us, the Defense authorization bill, we all recognize as a pretty special bill. Every year for the past 51 years Congress has sent to the President a Defense authorization bill which has been bipartisan in nature. Based upon the progress we have seen in this Chamber for these past several days, it appears this year will not be an exception. I deeply appreciate the strong leadership of our colleagues, the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Arizona, in managing this bill. They have put in countless hours and have worked to wade through nearly 400 amendments that Members have filed with respect to this bill. Not only the chairman and ranking member and their leadership, but their staffs have worked incredibly hard. So I am pleased with where we are. I think the Chair probably knows I am one of those Members who doesn't have a tendency to pile on or add multiple amendments to this measure or to many measures, but on this bill I have broken with that practice by filing 10 amendments. Six of these amendments relate to frustrations I have experienced in responding to force structure changes that were announced by the Air Force this last February. I think we recognize that force structure changes can be a euphemism for realignments, and realignments are usually reserved for a BRAC round. But faced with the need to meet rigid fiscal year 2013 budget objectives, the Air Force didn't wait for a BRAC round and, instead, proposed a series of backdoor BRACs. Most of these changes affected the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserves. One of these changes would substantially realign and stop one step short of closing an Active-Duty air base, and I am referring to Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks, AK. Last February, the Air Force informed the Alaska congressional delegation that it intended to make what they call a ``warm'' base out of Eielson and reduce its current population of about 3,000 airmen by half. The reduction would most profoundly affect the Active-Duty population, which would be reduced by about two-thirds. It would have led to the laying off of hundreds of civilian and contractor personnel. In the words of one prominent Fairbanks community leader: It's the Air Force's intention to change Eielson from a base that is mission capable to a base that is mission incapable. The Air Force somehow concluded it could pull off a move of this magnitude without ever having to face the BRAC Commission or answer to Congress. That takes a little bit of chutzpah. The Air Force knew this was not going to sit well with the community. They promptly dispatched then-Chief of Staff GEN Norton Schwartz to Alaska for a meeting with community leaders. I appreciate his presence, and I was there when he spoke to those leaders. But his message didn't leave much room for optimism. The Air Force official pretty much insisted this was a happening thing; that resistance was going to be futile. I have to admit it came as something as a surprise to me that the Air Force would select Eielson as the only Active-Duty base slated for a backdoor BRAC. For those who are not familiar with Eielson's strategic position, it sits at the gateway to the Pacific Area of Responsibility, the most strategically important Area of Responsibility, according to this administration's defense planner. It also sits at the front door of the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex, which the Air Force regards as its top unencroached training facility with tremendous future upside potential. But for some reason this is the Active-Duty base that the Air Force chose to essentially throw under the bus. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time. Back in 2005, the Air Force proposed to warm base Eielson. The BRAC Commission rejected that proposal. They, instead, suggested the Air Force should place an F-16 Aggressor Squadron at Eielson to take advantage of its proximity to the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex. That Aggressor Squadron supports cutting edge exercises, such as Red Flag Alaska and Northern Edge-- superior, phenomenal training exercises. Under the Air Force 2012 proposal, that squadron would now base at Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson, and they would essentially commute to future exercises launched out of Eielson Air Force Base. So, Mr. President, I am left to conclude that perhaps there is somebody in the Air Force who, for whatever reason, doesn't like Eielson. I reach this conclusion with some hesitation and reluctance, but when I see the Air Force prepared to sacrifice a base with one of the longest runways in North America--it is a 14,531-foot runway, which I think the Chair can appreciate--it is significant. There are no encroachments, it has geographic superiority with respect to missions in the Pacific and, really, across the globe. So it really does cause me to wonder. Since February, Senator Begich and I and our staffs have been in touch with the Air Force on an almost daily basis trying to understand the thinking of the Air Force. And it has been a moving target. It has been tough to pin down. First, they claimed it would save money in 2013, and then they admitted that, well, a move would cost unbudgeted money in 2013. They next claimed the move could be accomplished without any NEPA review. Then they admitted that maybe an Environmental Impact Statement is going to be required. They concluded the move could be executable in 2013 because there was sufficient housing that was proximate to JBER, but then they came back and admitted their housing availability data had come primarily off of Craig's list. Later, there was a more disciplined study conducted that demonstrated if the move were to be executed in 2013 there was not going to be housing that was sufficient and proximate to JBER in order to relocate the airmen, and there probably wouldn't be sufficient classroom seats for the military families either. A whole series of issues have cropped up because they weren't thoroughly reviewed prior to the decision being made. So the Air Force has now conceded that its plans are not executable in fiscal year 2013. That is a wise decision, but it kind of begs the question: So what about the future? The Air Force may deny, but I think reasonable minds could conclude, the Eielson plan is still moving full steam ahead. Let me offer the following in evidence of that. The Senate Appropriations Committee has directed the Air Force to spend no fiscal year 2013 money to implement the force structure change until the Commission on the Future Structure of the Air Force reports. I think that is a good thing, and I intend to argue Eielson's case before that Commission. But I would note that S. 3254 requires the Commission, which is only going to be created once the Defense authorization bill is signed into law, to report by March 31, 2013--essentially, a 3-month period. That is absolutely not adequate time for the rigorous analysis that is required. I have submitted an amendment this week, amendment 3135, which gives the commission an additional year to complete its work. Now, notwithstanding this direction to stop, the Air Force has announced its plans to begin an Environmental Impact Statement on the Eielson downsizing. They have announced this will commence January 2013 using fiscal year 2012 money. I do agree an EIS is a legally required condition precedent to implementing the Air Force's structure changes at Eielson, and that if the Air Force ultimately intends to downsize Eielson and add airplanes and people to JBER, it will have to complete the NEPA. Moreover, an EIS process will offer the Alaska community an opportunity to weigh in and to vent their frustrations and concerns with the Air Force, which is appropriate. But one has to wonder after reading the Senate version of the Defense appropriations bill, what part of ``stop'' is the Air Force not understanding. I actually put this question to them in writing in September. I still have not received a satisfactory answer. Several of the amendments I have introduced would bring this concept of ``stop'' into the Defense authorization bill, but there may be an alternative to offering them--a solution that I think could be a win for all. It strikes me that an EIS is not going to address two questions I think are critical and I think should be answered before the EIS process begins. The first is whether it makes any sense at all to throw Eielson under the bus given its considerable strategic upside potential. And the second is whether the Air Force will truly achieve any cost savings by walking away from Eielson or simply transfer costs someplace else. In addition, an EIS will not answer the question whether it makes sense for the Air Force to abandon a community that supports our airmen like no other community in the country. This is a community that loves to fly. You have people who have float planes and small aircraft and bush planes. Everybody is a pilot there. They love to fly. This community is more than willing to accommodate the Air Force's desire to conduct summer exercises at the expense of precious general aviation airspace, provided that the Air Force remains a good corporate citizen in the community. My amendment No. 3156 is a good-faith effort to find that common ground with the Air Force. It requires the Air Force submit a report to the defense communities evaluating the upside potential of Eielson Air Force Base before it acts to tear down that base or relocate its assets. I wish to take a minute here to speak to some of that upside potential, because I think it is considerable. It is a well-known fact in interior Alaska that the Air Force publicly announced scoping on an EIS for F-35 basing at Eielson back in 2008. So in 2008 they are talking about bringing in the F-35s. Then in 2009, they walked away from that announcement but suggested that Eielson would be a desirable OCONUS basing location for the F-35. I might suggest that this abrupt downsizing that is being considered now of Eielson is inconsistent with that possible future use. The 168th Air Refueling Wing of the Alaska National Guard fuels the North Pacific on a daily basis, every single day of the year. There has been some discussion about adding an active association and increasing the tanker presence proportionate to demand. But downsizing Eielson could undermine the efficiency of that operation. I mentioned earlier the unencumbered airspace that Eielson has. This unencumbered airspace might make a perfect place for remote piloted vehicle testing. This is a mission that Senator Begich has been actively promoting for the past several years. So let's come to a conclusion about whether this is a viable possibility. As the Pacific AOR becomes more important, Eielson might once again have the potential as a combat-coded fighter base given its proximity to the world's hotspots. But let's not also forget that Eielson is the air base closest to the Arctic and may certainly have new responsibilities in that rapidly changing part of the globe. That is one of the reasons why the Department of Homeland Security needs to be part of this ongoing conversation. So before the Air Force moves to potentially throw away all of this and potentially demolish perfectly good facilities that might support future missions, I think it needs to take a good hard look at the upside of Eielson--not just merely recite the same old lines that, quite honestly, failed back in 2005. That goes to the substance of the Eielson decision. I wish to spend a moment here to speak of the frustrations that I have had about process as we have gone through this since February. Congress has created a process to ensure that realignments that occur outside of BRAC rounds are vetted by the congressional defense committees. But like many laws, the Pentagon has been kind of looking around for loopholes and the Air Force has been pretty adept at identifying them--even if they might not actually be there. But there are some worthy amendments I have submitted that would close the loopholes. These are contained in 10 USC 993 and 10 USC 2687, and I hope they will be considered. One of the more substantial loopholes that is contained in 10 USC 2687 would seem to allow the Defense Department to characterize a substantial reduction in civilian personnel as a reduction in force rather than a realignment. That loophole, if it does exist, needs to be closed. Let me also note the difficulties we have had in obtaining information from the Air Force over the past several months. Just asking for specific information has been a struggle these past several months. Ask the Air Force a question, and you tend to get a heavily vetted and not terribly specific answer. Ask for documents explaining the deliberative process of the Air Force, and maybe you get one document months after you have asked for it. And, again, the document doesn't explain very much. Perhaps it is time for personal offices to be able to use the Freedom of Information Act--the FOIA process--to get the documents they need in a timely fashion, as journalists do. My amendment No. 3143 would provide for an expedited review of FOIA requests pertaining to its activities in a Member's home State, with no fees charged for processing that request. I think it would perhaps level the playing field between the committees that can subpoena documents and personal offices that have a more limited option to obtain the documents they need. I think it is a positive contribution to oversight and I hope others here in the Chamber will feel likewise. I will not be offering that amendment up at this point in time in the hopes that the Air Force is clear on my message, that I wish to find a way we can work more cooperatively with this information exchange and that there can be greater accommodation with the congressional request. I know that General Welsh, as the new Chief of Staff, intends to improve the Air Force relationships with the Congress. I have had a very positive conversation with him about that. I want to give him an opportunity to do so. I look forward to working with him on these issues and some of the others I have had an opportunity to raise with him. I wish to conclude my remarks by again thanking the chairman and ranking member and all of the staffs for their yeomen's efforts on the bill, and I look forward to supporting final passage. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have the honor today to recognize three great Americans who valiantly risked their lives in the service of their country. SMSgt Christopher Widener, MSgt Brandon Stuemke, and SSgt Aaron Parcha are members of the Air National Guard from the State of Alaska who served as pararescuemen within the 83rd Expeditionary Rescue Squadron out of Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan. I'd like to tell you about some of the heroic actions taken by these men between the 12th and 14th of November 2010. Senior Master Sergeant Widener, Master Sergeant Stuemke and Staff Sergeant Parcha are assigned to an Air National Guard unit that specializes in dangerous combat rescue missions. Pararescue specialists, or PJs, train to be inserted into the most hazardous and precarious situations to save lives. They learn to operate in extreme cold and harsh terrain. They train on some of the most cutting edge equipment and master complicated medical procedures. If that isn't 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. Their mission in the Pech River Valley of Afghanistan was to provide medical support to a United States Army task force. The operation was entitled Operation Bulldog Bite and was aimed at uprooting a determined and well-equipped enemy in the Kunar Province in the northeastern region of Afghanistan. After the battle began and the Army unit sustained casualties, the 83rd Expeditionary Rescue Squadron was sent into action to help extract the wounded and dead. Each of the airmen was tasked to travel by helicopter and to be inserted by hoist to evacuate casualties. Accompanying the dangerous task of insertion from a helicopter came the barrage of enemy gunfire directed toward the PJs. Even before they touched the ground, the PJs were targeted with a hail of bullets. Each of these men cast away their personal safety and pressed on with their mission. The skilled airmen arrived at the location of the wounded troops and began to triage and treat the casualties. They spent several hours tirelessly preparing the severely wounded for evacuation and hoisting each up to a lifesaving helicopter transport hovering above. After evacuating the wounded, the pararescuemen continued their efforts by evacuating fallen warriors from the U.S. Army unit while still receiving enemy gunfire. To ensure success, Master Sergeant Stuemke even returned fire on an enemy position. Senior Master Sergeant Widener showed courage by shielding the casualty on his final hoist with his own body. In all Senior Master Sergeant Widener, Master Sergeant Stuemke, and Staff Sergeant Parcha contributed to saving over 2 dozen American lives and ensure the return of several bodies of fallen comrades to their families. Their efforts ensured the United States Army unit supported could complete its mission, an operation that secured large stores of enemy weapons and munitions and significantly disrupted insurgent activity against coalition forces in eastern Afghanistan. These men have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for their actions. The award is the 4th highest decoration a member of our military can receive. 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 today to introduce legislation to clear the title to three small parcels of land owned by the Municipality of Anchorage, in Alaska, my home State, so that the land can be put to more productive uses in the future. At different times between 1922 and 1982, these three parcels of land, located in downtown Anchorage, comprising 2.65 acres in total, were conveyed to either the former ``City of Anchorage'' or more recently the ``Municipality of Anchorage.'' They were transferred by the Federal government to the local government for a wide variety of specific purposes, but all were transferred for the overarching purpose of helping the then nascent City of Anchorage, which was, and largely still is, surrounded by Federal lands, have sufficient land resources to provide municipal services to the growing community. For reasons that made sense decades ago, all of the deeds for these properties contain reversionary clauses, that should the land not be used for various general ``municipal purposes'' their ownership would revert to the Federal Government. The problem is that in each case, the tracts are no longer useful for the purposes originally intended, the lands are not needed by the Federal Government, the public purpose for which the reversion clause was put in price has long ago been fulfilled, and in any case, if they were to be returned to the federal estate, it would cost the Federal Government substantial sums to maintain the properties or prepare them for future sale. These small tracts are not practical for the federal government to repossess for several reasons: the Federal Government is barely able to manage all the land it currently owns in Alaska, including in Anchorage, let alone adding small tracts to burden its responsibility. After more than 50 years since the Statehood Act, and more than 40 years since the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act's passage, the State and our Native People still have not received final patent to all their lands. The public purposes for which the Federal reversionary clauses were put in place have been met. These clauses were added to insure that during its earlier, developmental stages, Anchorage would use the federal land conveyed to it to build the city and the municipal and public infrastructure of the community. After decades of dedicated public use of these properties, the ``public purpose'' basis for the clauses has been fulfilled. For these properties, my legislation addresses the question of how long is long enough for a reversionary clause to have served its purpose, by recognizing that after decades of living up to its obligations under what are now outdated restrictions from the last century, it's time to let the city move forward with its vision for the new one. The commercial use of the properties will add to the public municipal treasury, and to the Federal treasury, hence continuing the public benefit of the lands, albeit in a different way. In 1922 the City of Anchorage received a number of properties around Anchorage for municipal/school purposes. One of the properties was the 1.93-acre site in Block 42 downtown that since the early 1980s has been the site of the William A. Egan Convention Center. With the completion in 2010 of the larger Dena'ina Civic and Convention Center, the tract is surplus to municipal needs, and could best be utilized for sale to the private sector that would then be best able to afford the cost of conversion of the property for future use, adding to the Federal income tax base and local property tax base. The second tract is a lot of .48 acres at Seventh and I Streets downtown, currently being used as a municipal parking lot. The land, obtained by the city as part of a 1982 land exchange that cleared the site for a major office building across the street, is too small for municipal or federal office space use, or for park construction, but might be properly sized for a commercial enterprise. It is zoned for business, but cannot be used for business that would contribute to the local property tax based or federal income tax base, because of the inability of the Municipality to sell the property due to the federal reversion clause. The third site at the corner of H Street and Christiansen Drive, .24 acres in size and obtained by the city in 1963, again is too small for municipal or federal office space, and unneeded for park space, but might be of use for a retail establishment given its location near a municipal parking facility. Likewise, it is zoned for business/ commercial, but cannot be used and potentially contribute to the local and federal tax bases due to the federal reversion requirement. It currently sits vacant and idle. In all cases, the best municipal use of the lands would be for sale to provide revenues to the Municipality of Anchorage that could be used for provision of municipal social services. In each case, reversion of the lands to the federal government would result in federal ownership of tracts unneeded for federal purposes, but lands that would produce greater conveyance and management costs to the federal treasury than are likely to be recovered through fair market sales. The Municipality of Anchorage and its Mayor Daniel Sullivan have asked that the reversionary clauses be repealed on the three tracts, the city absorbing all costs connected with surveying, recording and other costs connected with the properties. In these cases, lifting of the reversionary clauses on three of the literally thousands of acres conveyed to Anchorage, partially as a result of the Alaska Statehood Act, makes for good land use, and economic and public policy sense for both the local government and the Federal Government. The Municipality of Anchorage has already established 223 parks containing 82 playgrounds and 250 miles of trails, encompassing 10,946 acres inside its boundaries. There is no shortage of park and open space in the municipality. There is no public policy purpose in the 21st Century not to permit these very limited Federal reversion extinguishments. Passage of this act would cost the Federal Government nothing, but would aid the citizens of Anchorage by allowing lands to be put on the city's tax rolls. I am introducing this bill now to allow plenty of time for everyone to review the merits of this bill prior to hopefully serious consideration of this issue in the 113th Congress.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to clear the title to three small parcels of land owned by the Municipality of Anchorage, in Alaska, my home State, so that the land can be put to more productive uses in the future. At different times between 1922 and 1982, these three parcels of land, located in downtown Anchorage, comprising 2.65 acres in total, were conveyed to either the former ``City of Anchorage'' or more recently the ``Municipality of Anchorage.'' They were transferred by the Federal government to the local government for a wide variety of specific purposes, but all were transferred for the overarching purpose of helping the then nascent City of Anchorage, which was, and largely still is, surrounded by Federal lands, have sufficient land resources to provide municipal services to the growing community. For reasons that made sense decades ago, all of the deeds for these properties contain reversionary clauses, that should the land not be used for various general ``municipal purposes'' their ownership would revert to the Federal Government. The problem is that in each case, the tracts are no longer useful for the purposes originally intended, the lands are not needed by the Federal Government, the public purpose for which the reversion clause was put in price has long ago been fulfilled, and in any case, if they were to be returned to the federal estate, it would cost the Federal Government substantial sums to maintain the properties or prepare them for future sale. These small tracts are not practical for the federal government to repossess for several reasons: the Federal Government is barely able to manage all the land it currently owns in Alaska, including in Anchorage, let alone adding small tracts to burden its responsibility. After more than 50 years since the Statehood Act, and more than 40 years since the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act's passage, the State and our Native People still have not received final patent to all their lands. The public purposes for which the Federal reversionary clauses were put in place have been met. These clauses were added to insure that during its earlier, developmental stages, Anchorage would use the federal land conveyed to it to build the city and the municipal and public infrastructure of the community. After decades of dedicated public use of these properties, the ``public purpose'' basis for the clauses has been fulfilled. For these properties, my legislation addresses the question of how long is long enough for a reversionary clause to have served its purpose, by recognizing that after decades of living up to its obligations under what are now outdated restrictions from the last century, it's time to let the city move forward with its vision for the new one. The commercial use of the properties will add to the public municipal treasury, and to the Federal treasury, hence continuing the public benefit of the lands, albeit in a different way. In 1922 the City of Anchorage received a number of properties around Anchorage for municipal/school purposes. One of the properties was the 1.93-acre site in Block 42 downtown that since the early 1980s has been the site of the William A. Egan Convention Center. With the completion in 2010 of the larger Dena'ina Civic and Convention Center, the tract is surplus to municipal needs, and could best be utilized for sale to the private sector that would then be best able to afford the cost of conversion of the property for future use, adding to the Federal income tax base and local property tax base. The second tract is a lot of .48 acres at Seventh and I Streets downtown, currently being used as a municipal parking lot. The land, obtained by the city as part of a 1982 land exchange that cleared the site for a major office building across the street, is too small for municipal or federal office space use, or for park construction, but might be properly sized for a commercial enterprise. It is zoned for business, but cannot be used for business that would contribute to the local property tax based or federal income tax base, because of the inability of the Municipality to sell the property due to the federal reversion clause. The third site at the corner of H Street and Christiansen Drive, .24 acres in size and obtained by the city in 1963, again is too small for municipal or federal office space, and unneeded for park space, but might be of use for a retail establishment given its location near a municipal parking facility. Likewise, it is zoned for business/ commercial, but cannot be used and potentially contribute to the local and federal tax bases due to the federal reversion requirement. It currently sits vacant and idle. In all cases, the best municipal use of the lands would be for sale to provide revenues to the Municipality of Anchorage that could be used for provision of municipal social services. In each case, reversion of the lands to the federal government would result in federal ownership of tracts unneeded for federal purposes, but lands that would produce greater conveyance and management costs to the federal treasury than are likely to be recovered through fair market sales. The Municipality of Anchorage and its Mayor Daniel Sullivan have asked that the reversionary clauses be repealed on the three tracts, the city absorbing all costs connected with surveying, recording and other costs connected with the properties. In these cases, lifting of the reversionary clauses on three of the literally thousands of acres conveyed to Anchorage, partially as a result of the Alaska Statehood Act, makes for good land use, and economic and public policy sense for both the local government and the Federal Government. The Municipality of Anchorage has already established 223 parks containing 82 playgrounds and 250 miles of trails, encompassing 10,946 acres inside its boundaries. There is no shortage of park and open space in the municipality. There is no public policy purpose in the 21st Century not to permit these very limited Federal reversion extinguishments. Passage of this act would cost the Federal Government nothing, but would aid the citizens of Anchorage by allowing lands to be put on the city's tax rolls. I am introducing this bill now to allow plenty of time for everyone to review the merits of this bill prior to hopefully serious consideration of this issue in the 113th Congress.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. On November 2, 1912, the Alaska Daily Empire published its first edition in Juneau. Over the next one hundred years it would bear the names Daily Alaska Empire, the Juneau Alaska Empire, the Southeast Alaska Empire and today, The Juneau Empire. I wish to pay tribute to The Juneau Empire on the occasion of its centennial anniversary. From the Gold Rush days and through much of the 20th Century, Juneau was quite a competitive newspaper town. The Empire was not Juneau's first newspaper. That distinction belongs to the Alaska Free Press, which was first published in 1887. But in rough and tumble Juneau, newspapers came and went. The Empire is the only one of perhaps 18 newspapers that survived. In 1912, when the Empire was founded, there was but one daily newspaper in Juneau, the Daily Alaska Dispatch, which was Republican oriented and reflected the progressivism of Theodore Roosevelt's era. Franklin Alexander Strong was a Democrat at a time when his party in Alaska was conservative and business oriented. A newspaper man who had already established The Nome Nugget, Alaska's oldest newspaper in 1900, Strong had already relocated to Seattle when he was wooed back to Alaska. There were plans to make Strong Alaska's second Territorial Governor at the time. Fortunately, Strong left a printing press in Iditarod, AK, another Gold Rush town, and moved it to Juneau upon his return to launch the Empire as well as his political career. In spite of his political aspirations, Strong promised that the paper would be politically independent, ``reserving the right to comment or fairly criticize any political party that may be in control of the federal or territorial administrations.'' Strong had much to criticize. Strong's initial editorial read in part: Notwithstanding the many disabilities under which Alaska has labored for years past, partly due to ignorance, misinformation and misdirected zeal on the part of the national school of ultra-conservationists, the growth and development of this great commonwealth has been greatly retarded, if not absolutely prohibited in important sections. A change in policy by the federal administration we believe to be indispensible to the end that the people of Alaska may be permitted to enjoy the fruits of their labors, in developing its great latent natural resources. This is a man who understood Alaska. Sadly, Strong was prescient about the challenges that Alaska would face dealing with the Federal Government in the coming years. His 1912 editorial could very easily appear in Alaska newspapers during this 21st century. Strong would achieve his dream of becoming Alaska's second Territorial Governor in 1913, a role he would hold until April 1918 when it was discovered that Strong was not eligible to hold the job because he was a Canadian who had never obtained US citizenship. Another of the Empire's leaders, John Weir Troy, would serve as Alaska's Territorial Governor, serving as publisher after Strong from 1914 until he became Governor in 1933. From 1933 to 1955 the Empire's publisher was one of the first women to run a newspaper in Alaska, Helen Troy Bender Monsen. She was followed by William Prescott Allen from 1955 to just after Statehood in 1960 and then by Donald W. Reynolds until 1969. The Empire's modern period began in 1969 when the Morris newspaper chain of Augusta, Georgia acquired and brought stability to the publication. This would be a godsend to Juneau in its fight to forestall repeated efforts to move Alaska's capital out of the Southeast city. The Empire would be a vehement opponent of the move. The Empire was unusual at its founding in that it was a non-partisan newspaper, not supposedly favoring either national political party. It made that point in its first edition when it said: It may well be here to emphasize that the Empire is not in politics. Politics is a mere incidental to a legitimate business industry. As a matter of fact, Alaska has been suffering, and is still suffering from a glut of politics. More work and less talk of partisan politics may accomplish something tangible. The newspaper was unusual in other ways. While crime news was a fixture--the paper's first crime stories were focused on Robert Stroud, who became famous as the Birdman of Alcatraz after he shot and killed a bartender in Juneau to start his criminal record--became one of the first papers in the Nation to run an obituary of a dog on its front page. On March 31, 1942, the paper ran the obituary of Patsy Ann, a pit bull, who met every steamship to dock in downtown Juneau for more than a decade, often posing for pictures with visitors ``with an aloof . . . dignity that befitted her official position,'' as the town's official mascot, the dog being the only animal that the City Council itself paid for her dog license. The Empire over the years made its living covering ``hard'' news-- from the town's first industry, gold mining, to fisheries and government affairs, highlighted by World War I, World War II and the Cold War with Russia. But the paper also found time to cover visiting dignitaries to Alaska's Capital City, from President Warren Harding who arrived on July 10, 1923 to movie stars John Barrymore, Ingrid Bergman and Gary Grant and from comedians Bob Hope and Edgar Bergen, to a four- legged movie star--Lassie. Over the years the Empire has been home to a number of writers who would go on to play significant roles in Alaska public policy issues. Larry Persily, who once served as the Empire's Managing Editor, today serves as Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects. Kim Elton, who served as editor from March 1976 until June 1978 would go on to represent Juneau in the Alaska Legislature and currently serves as Director of Alaska Affairs at the US Department of the Interior under Secretary Ken Salazar. On behalf of my Senate colleagues, I congratulate the staff of the Juneau Empire on the occasion of the newspaper's 100th birthday and wish the Juneau Empire many more years of service to the people of Alaska.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, they call Fairbanks in my home State of Alaska the ``Golden Heart City.'' Ruby Riddle, who moved to Fairbanks from North Carolina in 1963 called it ``heaven.'' Ruby would know this. She was designated Official Hostess of the City of Fairbanks in 2001 and of the Fairbanks North Star Borough in 2006. With the Mayors of the City of Fairbanks and the Fairbanks North Star Borough at her bedside, ``Miss Ruby'' passed away on November 1, 2012. I rise today to speak in memory of a lovely lady who epitomized all that is special about Interior Alaska. Ruby Lenore Riddle was reportedly eighty something when she died. A true Southern woman never admits her age. She was born on St. Patrick's Day, March 17, in Lenoir, NC. An independent spirit, Ruby came north with her husband in 1963. He passed away in 1989 and she decided to stay in Alaska. Fairbanks was Miss Ruby's home from the day she arrived. She worked for the Northern Commercial Company which later became Nordstrom. When Nordstrom closed, Miss Ruby went to work for Lamont's until her retirement. Retirement, said Miss Ruby, is when life begins. Miss Ruby lived her life with gusto. She was an impeccable dresser-- always. If something was going on in Fairbanks, Miss Ruby was there with a camera. She shot thousands of photographs with visitors and locals at events and functions. After the function she would have the film processed and send it with a handwritten note card. Those notes were signed, ``Southern Ms. Ruby.'' Miss Ruby was involved in the Fairbanks community like none other. She attended the local assembly meetings, city council meetings, chamber meetings, townhalls and military functions. She had a reserved seat in the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly Chamber and rarely if ever missed a meeting. Following Miss Ruby's passing that reserved seat was adorned with a simple lavender vase holding pink and white flowers ringed by pieces of candy that Miss Ruby would often hand out. Ruby Riddle was not an Alaskan by birth but she was surely a Fairbanks original, and we miss her greatly.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I speak today to honor the memory of Al Adams, an Alaska Native leader. In the Alaska legislature for some 20 years, Al Adams was regarded as one of the most effective advocates for the interests of rural Alaska. Senator Adams died on August 13 after a long battle with cancer. Alaska's Governor ordered flags in the State lowered to half staff in honor of Adams' service to Alaska. His funeral, at ChangePoint Alaska in Anchorage, drew over 1,500 mourners. A second funeral was conducted in Al's hometown of Kotzebue. Al Adams was born in Kotzebue, AK in 1942. He attended Mt. Edgecumbe High School in Sitka. Following high school, he attended the University of Alaska Fairbanks and RCA Technical Institute. There is a back story behind the RCA Technical Institute. Prior to enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, one of the better jobs that a Native person from rural Alaska could hope for was a job tracking satellites at the Gilmore Creek Satellite Tracking Facility near Fairbanks. Several of those who traveled with Al to Los Angeles for training at the RCA Technical Institute would later become leading players in the implementation of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Over the course of his career, Al would serve as president of Kikiktagruk Inupiat Corporation and executive vice president of NANA Regional Corporation, but his service in the Alaska legislature left Al's most enduring legacies. Al served in the Alaska House of Representatives from 1980-1988 and in the Alaska Senate from 1989-2000. He was known as ``Mr. Finance.'' Al chaired the powerful House Finance Committee. He served 18 years on the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee and 12 years on the Operating Budget Conference Committee. As a Representative and Senator from rural western Alaska he understood the unique problems that his communities faced and ensured that they received an equitable share of State funding. Al's most enduring legislative accomplishment is the Power Cost Equalization Program. One of the greatest impediments to the viability of traditional Native communities in rural Alaska is the cost of electricity. Since rural Alaska largely lives ``off the grid'' electricity must be generated locally by burning diesel fuel which is transported long distances by barge. The Power Cost Equalization Program protects rural communities by setting a cap on the price that rural consumers pay for energy. It is a tremendously important program and rural Alaska has Al Adams to thank for it. Following his service as a legislator, Al became a lobbyist. We do not commonly commend the work of lobbyists in the pages of the Record, but Al was a special kind of lobbyist. He lobbied selectively for the causes he believed in, representing the North Slope Borough and the Northwest Arctic Borough. During this period he used his vast legislative and political experience to educate his Native people on how they can be more effective in the political arena. Just one example, recognizing that rural Alaska's reliance on imported diesel was ultimately unsustainable, he lobbied to develop local sources of energy in western Alaska, at one time proposing an intraregional grid to power remote communities. He lobbied to make it possible for the tribal hospital in Kotzebue to build a new long-term care wing on their hospital. Al Adams used his insider access and knowledge for good. I would like to spend a moment to discuss Al on a personal level. I will always remember his smile--that crinkly smile--and his sense of humor which could defuse even the tensest of meetings. Al operated in multiple worlds at once--the world of politics, the world of business-- but he never abandoned his Inupiaq roots. His official obituary relates that Al often organized subsistence hunting and fishing trips for his children, where he passed down traditional Inupiaq skills. He coordinated all the logistics for these memorable outings and even served as camp cook, making sure everyone else was well fed. Whether dipnetting at the mouth of the Kenai, caribou hunting outside Kotzebue or visiting the fish wheel at Chitina, he let his wife, children and grandchildren know that they were loved and that they came first and foremost in his life. I have lost a dear friend, the Native community has lost a respected leader, and all Alaska has lost a statesman whose legacies will long be remembered. The Senate extends its condolences to the Al Adams family and all who mourn the loss of this exemplary Alaskan.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the front page of this morning's Fairbanks Daily News-Miner carries the sad news that Richard Frank, an Athabascan elder, died at age 85. Richard Frank is an individual of great significance in the history of post-statehood Alaska. He was among the first Alaska Native leaders to recognize the risk that development of the modern State of Alaska posed to the subsistence lifestyle of traditional villages like his home village of Minto in Interior Alaska. He was among the first Native leaders to organize his people in opposition to State land selections that would prejudice the eventual settlement of the aboriginal land claims of Alaska Natives. And his leadership, recognized throughout the State, is one of the reasons that the Native peoples of Alaska won their battle for land claims with passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Richard Frank was born on August 27, 1927, in Old Minto. He was educated at the village school. Some historians say that the village school provided an education up to the third grade. Others say it was the fourth. What is undisputed is that Richard Frank possessed a sense of adventure and wisdom far beyond his formal education. Growing up around the fishing and trapping camps of the Yukon River he gained an appreciation of the interdependence between the land and the Native way of life. But some would say it was his experience in the Army Air Corps during World War II that best prepared him for the leadership role he would occupy in the 1960s. Richard's wartime experience is chronicled in Fern Chardonnet's book, ``Alaska at War, 1941-1945.'' She relates that World War II presented an extraordinary opportunity for Alaska Natives. Many, for the first time, received the same pay and benefits as White workers, and a chance to acquire new skills and to build genuine self esteem. Richard Frank was a case in point. Upon enlisting he was encouraged to pursue specialized training as an aircraft mechanic. At first he said, ``No,'' but his commanding officer had confidence in Richard and he agreed to pursue the training. Richard relates that the passing score in training was 2.5 and he completed the course with a 3.9. He went on to service P-47 fighters in the South Pacific. Richard regarded himself as lucky. Service in the military showed young men from the village that there was another option. After the war Richard worked as a mechanic for Wien Alaska Airlines and Boeing, though his heart remained in village Alaska. The son of a traditional village chief, he found his calling in the early 1960s as the battle for Alaska's lands was beginning. The Alaska Statehood Act gave the State of Alaska the right to select lands but left resolution of Alaska Native land claims for another day. One of the areas where State land selections first conflicted with Native hunting, fishing, and trapping activities was in the Minto Lakes region of Interior Alaska. The State wanted to establish a recreation area in 1961 near the Athabascan village of Minto and to construct a road so that the region would be more easily accessible to Fairbanks residents and visiting sportsmen. In addition, State officials believed that the area held potential for future development of oil and other resources. Learning of these plans of the State, Minto filed a protest with the U.S. Interior Department. The people of Minto had filed blanket claims to the area in the 1930s, and Richard's father, then Traditional Chief, delineated this area as belonging to the Minto people in 1951. Minto asked the Federal agency to protect their rights to the region by turning down the State's application for the land. Minto's attorney was none other than the late Senator Ted Stevens who took up their cause pro bono. In response to the protest, a meeting of sportsmen, biologists, conservationists, and State officials was held in 1963 to discuss the proposed road and recreation area. Richard argued that State development in the region would ruin the subsistence way of life of the Natives and urged that the recreation area be established elsewhere, where new hunting pressure would not threaten the traditional economy. He said, ``A village is at stake. Ask yourself this question, is a recreation area worth the future of a village?'' He also took his cause to the Alaska Conservation Society in Anchorage. He told the conservation society members that without the use of the lakes, Minto's people would go hungry. Lael Morgan, in her landmark book, ``The Life and Times of Howard Rock,'' relates Richard's pleas for support. He said, ``Nothing is so sorrowful for a hunter, empty handed, to be greeted by hungry children.'' A 1985 history of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act characterized Minto's protest as a precursor of events to come. During the years that followed, many other Native communities would protest actions that threatened their lands. In 1966, Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall gave the land claims movement teeth by initiating a freeze on the transfer of lands to the State which were protested by the Native people. As a well respected Native leader and elder, Richard went on to play significant roles in the Tanana Chiefs Conference and the Fairbanks Native Association. He served on the Governor's Veterans Advisory Committee and founded the Alaska Native Veterans Association. It is also appropriate to acknowledge Richard's role as the patriarch of one of the truly great Fairbanks families. Richard's wife of 57 years, Anna, became the first Native American woman ordained as a priest in the Episcopal Church in 1983. Richard was the father of four and was blessed with grandchildren and great-grandchildren. As a significant figure in Alaska's history, Richard was generous to collectors of oral history. One of those oral histories was done for the Alaska Trappers Association, which notes, ``Richard freely shares insight into the Native view of the world. He takes great pride in their dedication to family. He speaks often of the lessons he learned from his elders.'' Alaska has truly lost a significant figure. If it is any condolence, Richard's life experiences were rich, he accomplished a great deal for his Native people, and he supported a truly wonderful family. Thanks to modern technology, his stories and life experiences will live on for eternity. On behalf of the Senate I extend condolences to Reverend Anna, Richard's family, and the Athabascan people of Interior Alaska who are preparing to honor and celebrate Richard's life next week with a Memorial Potlatch.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was saddened to learn that Barney Uhart of Anchorage, AK passed away on September 8, 2012 after a long battle with cancer. Barney was President Emeritus of the Chugach Alaska Corporation, one of the thirteen regional Alaska Native Corporations. Chugach Alaska Corporation is owned by over 2,300 shareholders of Alutiiq, Eskimo and Indian heritage. Barney was elected President and CEO of Chugach Alaska Corporation in May 2000 and served in that role until July 2012. In July he announced his retirement to focus on his health and spend time with his family. But the Chugach Alaska Corporation board would not let him go. That is how Barney earned the title of President Emeritus. Barney was a master in administering Base Operations Services contracts, a field he entered into on something of a lark. As the story goes, while living in Hawaii he was delivering furniture with a friend to a company called Kentron International. This was back in 1979. He wondered what they did and slipped a resume under the door. A few days later he learned that they managed remote sites and was on his way to Wake Island. Over the course of his career Barney came to know more about places like Wake Island, Midway Island and Amchitka than anyone I know. He would return to Wake Island many times over the course of his career, helping his successor employers win that Base Operations Support contract. You might even call him the Mayor Emeritus of Wake Island. Barney joined the Chugach Alaska family in 1993 as an Operations Manager with Chugach Development Corporation. Known as a charismatic leader and a hard worker, he quickly rose through the ranks. Those at Chugach Alaska tell me that his dedication to the company, its people and employees was steadfast. His hard work and commitment helped provide real, tangible, and ongoing benefits to the Native shareholders of Chugach Alaska. He strove tirelessly to help fulfill the promise of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. His work in opening up the 8(a) program to meaningful participation by Alaska Natives, Lower 48 Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiians is recognized throughout the Native American contractor community. Barney Uhart will be remembered as a leader, a friend and a champion of doing the right thing and doing things right. I express my condolences to his wife Randi, his children Jordan, Abigail and Jacob, and the shareholders of Chugach Alaska Corporation on the loss of this exemplary Alaskan.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the events of this past week are a very clear and direct reminder to us of the need to choose to end our Nation's dependence on imported oil. I will remind my colleagues this is our choice. It is within our power to free ourselves from reliance on OPEC oil. In these past few months, I have had an opportunity to visit our oil resources in the Gulf of Mexico, in North Dakota with Bakken shale, up in Alaska with the offshore as well as ANWR, and National Petroleum Reserve out in the Marcellus shale. We have learned one thing for sure: There is no scarcity of resources in this country. Technological breakthroughs allow us to access these resources in a safe and reliable manner. This administration may talk a good game on oil production, but words and actions are entirely different. Our problems result from a federal government that has actions and inactions that indefinitely delay, if not prohibit, in many cases, access to our energy resources. We are not running out of energy. What we are running out of are excuses for continued reliance on OPEC.