Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in August I submitted a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the U.S. Government should continue to support democracy and human rights in Taiwan following the January 2012 Presidential and legislative elections. The International Election Observers Mission has prepared a Report on the National Election in Taiwan that includes some important details and findings. I ask unanimous consent that the summary of that report be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I remember, as many do, exactly where I was on this day 11 years ago. On that Tuesday morning the United States suffered a terrible attack that resulted in almost 3,000 immediate deaths. When we think of 9/11, we remember the shock, horror and feelings of helplessness. But as we reflect on that day, we also remember the outpouring of compassion and common purpose that united us then and in the days, weeks, and months that followed. We remember the courage shown by the firefighters, po1ice, and other first responders, by the passengers of United Flight 93, and by so many others. That day left us with a resolve to regroup, rebuild and recover while renewing our country's reputation as a world leader and symbol of freedom. Eleven years later, Americans have shown that our resolve cannot be broken. We remember and honor all those who have and continue to sacrifice to keep us safe, especially the more than 2 million members of our military who have served in the years since 9/11. We should also remember the spirit of unity and determination that followed in the weeks and months after 9/11. We were not divided as Democrats and Republicans, we were Americans united in purpose. We would do well in these divisive campaigns to reflect on that unity as Americans and pledge to work together to advance the best interests of this great nation. On this day of remembrance to our fallen heroes, I urge all Alaskans and Americans across the country to join together in service to our neighbors and communities.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution relating to the January 2012, presidential and legislative elections held in Taiwan. On January 14, 2012, Mr. Ma Ying-jeou, the nominee of the Chinese Nationalist Party, KMT, was re-elected as President of Taiwan with 51.6 percent of the vote. The KMT also won 64 seats of the 113- member Legislative Yuan, while the Democratic Progressive Party, DPP, won 40 seats. Former United States Senator Frank Murkowski participated in an international election observation mission made up of 19 observers from 8 countries. Recently, the mission submitted its final report on the elections, concluding that they were mostly free but only partly fair. The resolution I am submitting takes note of the mission's final report, and urges the people and government of Taiwan to take the report's findings and recommendations into consideration as they continue their commitment to the values of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have had a great deal of conversation these past several days regarding cyber security. There is no question that we all agree it is a critical issue. I am sure every Member of this body shares the concern that our Nation is vulnerable to cyber attacks, and those attacks could have severe economic and national security ramifications. We saw just this week over 180 amendments filed to the cyber legislation. I think it is pretty clear that a lot of us have ideas on how best to protect our critical infrastructure. I think that is just one of the reasons I was disappointed that the amendment tree was filled and cloture was filed on the cyber measure. I don't think that was the process we were promised when the Senate overwhelmingly agreed to consider the cyber security bill. Because Members were denied the opportunity to have a thoughtful and complete debate, the cloture vote failed on a bipartisan basis this morning. We have heard a lot about the electric grid during this debate and how legislation is needed to protect our Nation's transmission systems from cyber attack. What perhaps has been missing from this debate and discussion is a recognition that Congress had already moved to protect our grid system, and they did so 7 years ago. They enacted the bipartisan Energy Policy Act of 2005. I am the ranking member on the committee of jurisdiction. I reassure my colleagues that we already have mandatory cyber security standards in place for our electric grid. In the 2005 Energy Policy Act, Congress directed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, the grid's regulator, to set mandatory enforceable reliability standards, including standards for cyber security. And because these standards can be very technical--extremely complex--Congress decided they should be developed through a consensus-driven stakeholder process that is overseen by the Electric Reliability Organization--an organization that we call NERC. We thought this was so important back in 2005 that we even expanded FERC's traditional jurisdiction to include municipal and cooperatively owned utility systems under these grid reliability standards. Now, it might surprise some to learn that the FERC-NERC mandatory cyber security regime currently regulates over 1,900 different entities and that the electric power sector is already subject to Federal penalties, and these penalties are serious--up to $1 million per day for noncompliance. So there is teeth attached to these standards. In fact, one of our own government entities--the Southwestern Power Administration--was recently fined by the grid regulators for violating two mandatory cyber standards. The point is the electric power sector and our grid regulators have been working extremely hard these past 7 years to develop and to implement these cyber standards. We have already taken substantial measures to safeguard our electric utility systems. We have identified our critical assets and established security management controls, performed risk assessments, and trained personnel. We have established sabotage reporting and mandated disaster recovery plans. These are all processes and procedures that have been put in place. Also, it might surprise some to learn the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--the NRC--has already taken action to protect the Nation's nuclear facilities from cyber attack. The nuclear industry developed a cyber security program for critical assets over a decade ago. The NRC now mandates cyber security plans for nuclear plants, including the identification of critical cyber assets and required contingency and incident response plans. Failure to comply with the NRC cyber requirements also can result in fines and even an order to shut down the nuclear reactor. So, again, there are standards that have been put in place with compliance requirements and penalties that are attached for failure to comply. One concern was that the cyber bill was brought to the floor via rule XIV. A concern with this was that it would undermine the existing mandatory framework that Congress has already established within the electric utility grid. By establishing a competing regime--even if that regime was truly voluntary--the Cybersecurity Act the Senate just rejected could duplicate, conflict with, and even supercede the hard work that has already been put in over these past several years to safeguard both our grid and our nuclear facilities. One of the amendments I had filed to the bill, and I had hoped we would have an opportunity to discuss, was a strong savings clause--a savings clause that would maintain the mandatory protections that are in place. Two competing systems are not workable and could, in fact, make the Nation's grid and nuclear facilities even more vulnerable to cyber attack. One thing we have learned in the Energy Committee, in overseeing our mandatory cyber practices, is not everything necessarily needs to rise to the level of a foundational standard. But with cyber threats and vulnerabilities that are constantly emerging and constantly changing, I think the one thing we would agree on is that we always need more information. I think we can also all agree the Federal Government needs to form a partnership with the private sector. The government and the private sector share the same goals--to keep our computer systems and our Nation safe from cyber intrusions. We need the private companies to be talking with each other and with the government about the cyber problems they face as well as potential strategies and the solutions to combat them. We also need our government to provide timely and actionable information to the private sector. It has to go both ways. So as we go off to our respective States and discuss with our constituents back home the many issues that are out there, I would encourage Members to take a look at what has been introduced by the ranking members--the SECURE IT cyber legislation. Take a look at what has been offered as an alternative. It is a commonsense approach to addressing our ever-increasing cyber threats. Our bill focuses on four areas where we believe we can reach bipartisan support and which will result in legislation that can get enacted, even given the politics of an election year. The four areas we focus on are information sharing, FISMA reform, criminal penalties, as well as additional research. Mr. President, I want to close with just some observations quickly about the process. Back in 2005, when the Senate passed the bipartisan Energy Policy Act, it passed by a considerable margin. It was 85 to 12. But we spent a full 2 weeks on the floor considering amendments at that time. We had earlier spent 2 weeks marking up the bill in committee. So what I would like to leave folks with is just the reminder that process really does matter. That is how strong bipartisan pieces of legislation are enacted. When you forego that process, you don't do that hard work in committee and send an ever-changing bill directly to the floor via rule XIV and then fill the amendment tree, the legislation just doesn't work. It is bound to fail, and that is what we saw today. A few months ago I came to the floor to advocate for cyber legislation and to express my concern that the all-or-nothing approach to cyber security could result in nothing. After today's vote, that is where we are. That is what we have. I do remain hopeful we can find a path forward on the cyber issue that will result in a truly bipartisan and effective--effective--piece of legislation that will help our Nation's critical infrastructure. With that, Mr. President, I see my colleague from Louisiana is here, and I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Mary Louise Rasmuson, who passed away on July 30, 2012, in Anchorage, AK. She was an Alaskan pioneer in every sense of the word--as a trailblazer in Alaska soon after statehood, to serving in the military, creating pathways for Alaskan access to better health and living conditions, and as an advocate of stronger education and culture. I have known Mary Louise my entire life. She was a warm, gracious woman with a boundless capacity to give herself and energy to causes that impact every one of us. Mary Louise was born in East Pittsburgh, PA, on April 11, 1911. Her father, George Milligan, died when she was 12. Her mother, Alice, emigrated from France at the age of 16. Mary Louise remained close to her mother and her brothers, George and Malcolm, for the rest of their lives. She enrolled in the Margaret Morrison Carnegie College, graduating with a bachelor's degree in education, and later earned a master's in school administration from the University of Pittsburgh. Mary Louise also received an honorary doctor of laws degree from the Carnegie Institute of Technology. She was one of the first two women to receive this degree. In 1942, as the United States entered World War II, Mary Louise left her job as an assistant principal in a school district near Pittsburgh and became a member of the first class of the new Women's Army Corp. She rose quickly through the ranks, and in 1957 became the fifth Commandant, a position she occupied for 6 years as an appointee of President Eisenhower and President Kennedy. During her 20 years of service, she was awarded multiple medals and honors. As director of the Women's Army Corp unit, military historians credit her with major achievements, including increasing the Women's Army Corp's strength, insisting on effectiveness in command, working with Congress to amend laws that deprived women of service credit and benefits, and expanding the range of military opportunities open to women. At one event honoring her, former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry said, ``When you hear about women seizing new opportunities to serve, remember that they march behind Colonel Rasmuson.'' On November 4, 1961, she married Elmer E. Rasmuson, chairman of the National Bank of Alaska and a civilian aide in Alaska to the Secretary of Defense. She announced that she would retire from the Women's Army Corp as of July 31, 1962. In 1962, a civilian once more, Mary Louise Rasmuson moved to Anchorage with her husband. The city had perhaps 50,000 residents at the time. She quickly became active in civic affairs, and together Mary Louise and Elmer formed a dynamic team that was influential in the developing State. Mary Louise quickly adapted to life in Alaska and became active in community groups. She was a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and several other military organizations, the American Association of University Women, Zonta, Rotary Wives, Pioneers of Alaska, Anchorage Women's Club, League of Women Voters, Anchorage Republican Women's Club, Alaska Native Sisterhood, and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, among other groups. In 1967, Mary Louise began what would become 45 years of service on the board of the Rasmuson Foundation, a board whose mission is to support Alaskan nonprofit organizations to help them become more efficient and effective in improving the quality of life for Alaskans. She maintained an active role in the affairs of the foundation and regularly attended board meetings until her late nineties. In addition to helping direct millions of dollars in grants to Alaska nonprofit organizations through the foundation, she expressed her own philanthropy to institutions like Providence Healthcare in Alaska, Brother Francis Shelter, and the Alaska Native Heritage Center. Perhaps her most visible impact on Alaska came from her service as head of the Municipality of Anchorage Historical and Fine Arts Commission and later as chair of the Anchorage Museum Foundation. Her vision, passion, and personal effort led to the creation of the Anchorage Museum of Art and History in 1968. Mary Louise was intelligent, diplomatic, principled, ethical, gentle, and firm. She spent her life breaking barriers, challenging conventions, and seeking to improve opportunities for those around her. Her impact can be felt virtually everywhere in Alaska, whether improving the position of families, founding a world-class museum, enhancing health care research, or advancing education of Alaska Native cultures on a national stage. Her contributions have reached every corner of Alaska. I join all Alaskans in paying my respects and honoring the extraordinary life of Mary Louise Rasmuson and know that for generations to come, everyone who walks into the Anchorage Museum bearing her name will be doing the same. May she rest in peace.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns from my office be granted floor privileges for today's session: Jenessa Albertson, Carly Colligan, Cale Clingenpeel, Courtney Lewis, Travis Logan, Joseph Mueller, Katherine Tomera, Marissa Torgerson, Sierra Udland, Douglas Watts, Mari Freitag, and Parker Haymans.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am delighted to have a fine group of young Alaskans with me--not only here on the floor, but in my office for four weeks, and I thank them for their help in Washington and really for all of Alaska. They have been back here for a month and have done a great job. It is always a true delight to have good, high energy young people from back home to help me in the work we do here. I am so pleased they are with me. Tsunami Debris Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that people back home are talking about a lot. We are discussing the Federal Government's need to plan for the increasing level of marine debris that is hitting the Pacific coastline, whether it is out in Hawaii or all the way up north in Alaska. This debris is coming from the earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan last March. This is a subject of great discussion and debate for folks who are out fishing or walking our beaches. We all know that tragic event claimed nearly 16,000 lives and destroyed community infrastructure, homes, and livelihoods. Our prayers continue for the ones we have lost and those who have lost their loved ones. As horrifying as these natural disasters were, the Earth only shook anywhere from 3 to 5 minutes, and the tsunami rushed to the shore and then receded. But the devastation to property and coastlines continues as debris has moved from the shores of Japan over a year and a half later and we begin to see the debris pile up on our shores over here. The Japanese Government has estimated that about 5 million tons of debris were carried into the ocean. We have assumed that the majority of that either sank or will sink. There is no concrete idea of how much is still floating or when the bulk of it will reach our beaches, but in Alaska we know it has been arriving. We saw the first evidence of it last winter, and it arrived ahead of the projected timelines. It is understandable that we were not able to anticipate exactly when the tsunami debris would start arriving, but now that we are starting to see it along the shoreline there is no doubt we need to respond. Last January, in trying to get ahead of the curve, if you will, I held a roundtable in Anchorage to find out what our State and Federal agencies were doing to prepare for the debris we knew would be coming to our shores, how the interagency work was being coordinated, and how individuals could report sightings and navigational issues. I think I have mentioned on this floor that I have two sons out on a fishing vessel in the Gulf of Alaska. As they cross the gulf, I wonder if they will encounter debris from the tsunami? We saw at one point in time a Japanese vessel that was literally a ghost ship, a relic from that tsunami. The Coast Guard took that vessel out of the navigation channels. Alaskans and people who live on the coast are very aware when there is stuff out in the water unchartered and unknown, and we want to understand and know a little bit more. This past June, I joined the U.S. Coast Guard to see for myself what was washing up on some of Alaska's remote shorelines and our beaches. We flew out of Cordova, AK. We went to Kayak Island. Kayak sticks out from the coastline at an angle that allows it to collect an incredible amount of marine debris on just an average year. So the reason to go to Kayak was to see what might be there other than the typical marine debris, unusual things like nets, ropes, and buoys. We saw real evidence of what is coming our way from the tsunami. We saw colored buoys. We saw large Styrofoam blocks. There was a large container that had washed up very recently. We have a picture from NOAA that shows some of what we saw washed up there on Kayak Island. These are all the plastic buoys. The black ones, we were told, are what we see more of coming out of Japan. Now, you may wonder, have we been clearly able to identify whether these items came from Japan or if this was the usual marine debris? NOAA is working to sort all of that out, but there are signs that give us somewhat of an idea of whether what we saw out there on Kayak Island was typical marine debris or not. Many saw pictures of this huge dock that recently arrived on the coastline in Oregon. Just look at the size here and think: this concrete dock had flotations on either end and traveled all the way across the Pacific literally in one huge slab up onto the Oregon beach. I think when folks looked at that picture, their word was, Wow. Again, for those who are navigators and fishermen, if they run across something like this in the water it is real evidence of why we need to be concerned. This next photo is from somewhere in the Pacific. This shows the objects that are creating, again, a hazard to navigation. These same materials are going to end up somewhere on a shoreline, whether it is on our beaches or in our ports. Think about the impact this may have on sensitive habitats, making them unusable, possibly deadly for certain marine animals, such as shore birds and other species that may rely on them. I think what is important to recognize from these three pictures I have just shown is that we are seeing now the debris that is floating on top or at least partly on top of the water. We are seeing it coming to U.S. shorelines earlier than anticipated because in addition to being carried by the currents from the ocean, this debris is being moved along by the wind. What we are seeing in Alaska primarily are those buoys that sit up clear out of the water. You can also see fishing boats, building materials, and roofs in this photograph. Again, this is what we can see because it is above the water. So one of the real questions we need to ask is, What is below the water? What is just below the surface that we can't see? A couple of weeks ago, I met with some representatives from the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe from Yakutat, AK. Yakutat is in the northern part of the Alaska panhandle, on the eastern side of the Gulf of Alaska. It is a very remote community. It is only accessible by air or by boat. The closest community is hundreds of miles away and, Yakutat is surrounded by National Park Service and Forest Service lands. So this community--the tribe, city, borough--is meeting weekly to assess the debris that is coming up on their beaches, and they are trying to put together a response. They have done some cleanup along 15 miles of area beaches. One beautiful beach is called Cannon Beach. It has black sand. It is absolutely gorgeous. I visited it in March, and now we are seeing the Styrofoam, housing foam, and buoys coming up on it and the other beaches near Yakutat. The community estimates that they have about 600 pounds of marine debris per mile. The borough has 1,074 miles of coastline, so this small village community is looking at the possibility of 3,000 tons of debris. This next picture is actually from Yakutat. This details another problem that our coastal communities are facing. What do we do with this marine debris? Our landfills, particularly in southeastern Alaska, are maxed out or close to being maxed out. This landfill space that is already filling up could very quickly be overwhelmed by tsunami debris. And not only are my residents working to clean up beaches with limited landfills, often they are in very rugged and very remote locations, many with no road to access. Sometimes they can't land a vessel or a boat on the shoreline because it is just too dangerous. So how do we access this debris? That is a challenge. It is also costly, and we are faced with the question of what do we do with the debris we have collected? Yakutat is exploring some pretty creative solutions and alternative disposal solutions. Yakutat is one of those communities that has extremely high energy costs. If my memory serves me, I believe they pay in excess of 50 cents a kilowatt hour for their energy. So when they are dealing with challenges and problems, they try to find solutions that help with their high cost of energy. What Yakutat is looking at now is whether there is the potential for any waste-to-energy technologies that could deal with two problems: clean up debris and support long-term efforts to deal with the high cost of energy. It is kind of a two-for-one. They are trying to figure out how they can turn this problem into an energy source, and in this way they can support long-term community marine debris cleanup efforts. This would be a creative solution for this small remote community, largely on their own and facing truckloads of debris. Now the State of Alaska has engaged in tsunami debris coordination, and I am told the Alaskan region representatives of various Federal agencies are as well, but headquarters of agencies across the Federal Government really need to be part of the plan and engage creatively to address this accumulating debris. I don't have my typical Alaska map here that I usually use when I speak, but my State has an incredible coastline--more coastline than the rest of the country put together--and we depend on our marine sources for livelihood and recreation. We value a healthy coastline to support a resilient marine environment. Our fisheries, our tourism, and our coastal communities are so dependent on a strong and sustainable region. So, think about this from the tourism perspective. When somebody is paying thousands of dollars to come up to Alaska to visit remote, wild areas, they are certainly going to be disappointed if they are greeted by a beach full of Styrofoam or pass by the many debris fields that are accumulating. Communities up and down the coastline need assurance that the headquarters of various agencies are going to be part of the cleanup plan. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, FEMA compiled a document denoting the debris removal authorities of Federal agencies. That document outlined that the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, and Transportation all had a role to play in debris removal. So for this reason--and using this federal memorandum as an example-- I have asked the White House to establish and lead an interagency task force to plan for tsunami debris. We also need to engage the relevant States, tribes, local governments, and international partners by inviting them to participate in this task force. We all need to work together. We cannot leave a little community like Yakutat and say: Clean up your section of the coastline. I know private and government Japanese representatives have expressed interest in helping with the debris problem. The ability for Japan to offer experience and technology with waste-to-energy devices could provide a great opportunity for the U.S., Japan and public partnerships to come together and address the debris. There are many reasons we need to act now. It is a difficult time of year for many of us here in Washington, DC, to think about winter storms. We are enjoying some pretty warm weather here. But we need to recognize and think about what winter weather in Alaska will mean for accumulating debris. We have a lot of areas being impacted by tsunami debris that have already had huge tide swings. If we add that to a winter storm in areas with beaches, some of the debris we see will be buried deep by the sand, and will only be uncovered when snow melts. However even during the spring, accessing the coastline can be challenging due to breakup conditions. We have extreme tides and, of course, the weather will also move the debris up into the tree line, making access and removal even more difficult. This last picture will give my colleagues some indication of what I am talking about when we think about the Alaska coastline. This is in a part of the State called Montague Island. With good high tides and the weather we get, downed trees are part of the ocean accumulation on the shore. You can see tucked among the trees, kind of sprinkled like confetti, some of the Styrofoam that has washed up. Again, this is marine debris we are seeing. Think about how difficult it will be to access some of this after winter storms. Where debris lands on rough and rocky shorelines, wave action is expected to break it up. We know that happens, and I am concerned about our marine life, birds and animals consuming smaller plastic particles that have been broken down by this wave action. A piece of Styrofoam that is easy to pick up today because it is reasonably good-sized is going to be much more difficult to clean up when it has been broken down by wave action. So, again, all of this argues for prompt action. Maybe the best we can do for now is pick up the debris and store it somewhere. But as we saw looking at the Yakutat picture, storing it in a landfill in most of these communities is probably not going to be feasible. Bailing technology could be available to Alaska communities for about $10,000, and these machines would at least support the voluntary cleanup efforts and provide a means to store the debris rather than force strained landfills to absorb the incoming debris. I throw this out because I think it is important that we get creative about this. We need to be exploring all available technologies to support the most efficient means to handle this tsunami debris and other marine debris for the long run. Every year I attend an annual alternative energy fair. It is held in the interior part of the State at Chena Hot Springs. We always learn something good and new at this energy fair. Last year, when I was there, I saw a device that is actually in production. It is on-the- shelf technology. It may help turn much of the debris that is hitting our coastline into fuel. The device--I called it a gizmo but I know there is a much more technical term for it--processes plastics into fuel with the capacity to produce as much as 2,400 gallons per day. With fuel at over $6 a gallon in Yakutat, people are looking at this and saying, We can actually take some of the waste, the garbage, the debris, the plastic, and turn that into fuel so we don't have to pay 6 bucks a gallon to fill up a four-wheeler, truck, or boat. Given the tight budgets across the country, again, I think we need to be creative. We need to identify and deploy all available resources and share information. We need to leverage local knowledge and our coastal residents' proximity to the debris, as well as their vested interest in the cleanup efforts. Our Federal agencies have regional staff and they have facility resources. Many run programs that are consistent with the objectives of tsunami debris response and mitigation. For those who would suggest, Well, if it has come up on your shore, it is your responsibility; there is no Federal role here; it is up to the States to figure this out, I would remind them that in my State, much of our land is owned by the Federal Government. This picture here is of Montague Island. Montague Island is entirely within the Chugach National Forest. And, in fact, over 60 percent of my State is owned by the Federal Government, so clearly the Federal Government has a role to play in cleaning up the debris. We also can't forget about the private interests in cleanup. Many industries and private citizens are dependent on our navigable waterways and healthy ecosystems. We need good communication, leadership, and a plan to guide an interagency and public-private approach to solve this challenge during what we all acknowledge are difficult fiscal times. I commend the NOAA marine debris program for their coordination and response to this work, but the fact is they are a small and an overtasked program. They need the help of their Federal partners to address this as a national priority. I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing that marine debris is a national problem as well as a priority, and a comprehensive response to tsunami debris that we are seeing on our shoreline in Alaska and other Pacific States, in addition to Hawaii, is past due. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have had an opportunity to listen to a few moments of the comments from my colleague from Rhode Island. I clearly share his passion and concern for the oceans. We have been working together as the cochairmen of the Oceans Caucus in the Senate and have had the opportunity to learn from one another on both ends of the country about the significant responsibilities we have, also the great challenges we have, whether it is ocean acidification, whether it is the opportunities we have to ensure that we are good stewards of our water, our land, our air. It is a challenge I think we face on a daily basis. But I think as we rise to meet these challenges, we recognize that oftentimes within the laws that we have put in place to provide for that level of protection, for that level of oversight and that stewardship, that we may encounter conflict, conflict with the obligation we also have to ensure that the people we represent have an opportunity for good jobs, for a livelihood in a region they call home, that there is a level of balance that we find between our obligation to care for the land, the air, the water, as well as caring for one another. It is in that vein that I would like to address my comments this afternoon. I would like to speak about certain aspects of what we see within the Environmental Protection Agency and speak specifically to an issue that is unfolding in my State of Alaska. Clearly, the EPA has important responsibilities to set and also enforce environmental standards. I think we would all agree with that. In the 40 years since EPA was established, our Nation has made dramatic progress in restoring and preserving our environmental resources. I am grateful. I am proud to live in a nation with high environmental standards for the benefit of the land and for the people. But the process for setting Federal environmental standards, I would suggest, is broken. We are seeing things present themselves not only in my State but around the country. We see in Alaska, day in and day out, that things are not working perhaps as they were designed. So many Alaskans feel the EPA does not ``get'' Alaska. But the challenges I think we see up North are just examples of many of the problems we see repeated all over the Nation. I would suggest that what we need to see is balance, balance restored at the EPA. There has always been a recognition that the EPA must go about its work in a balanced way. Back in 1970, there was a memo called the Ash memo, and it listed the origin of the EPA. They stated it this way: Sound environmental administration must reconcile divergent interests and serve the total public constituency. It must appreciate and take fully into account competing social and economic claims. In recent years, EPA has not adequately, let alone fully, taken into account these so-called competing claims such as the genuine welfare of our people and their economic needs. EPA says--and I have had many a conversation with Administrator Jackson in person and before committee, where the statements are made that there is a concern about environmental justice for communities that are historically underrepresented in EPA decisionmaking. The fact is, many of these communities are very frequently the ones that bear the brunt of regressive increases in, for instance in my State, energy and in living costs that are caused by some of these rules we are facing. When I go home, when I meet with people from around the country, I hear more complaints, more concerns expressed about the EPA than any other Federal agency, bar none. Again and again, I am told the benefits of many of the EPA requirements are uncertain at best but that the cost of the regulations are very real, and they are detrimental to the human welfare. Today, EPA often seems too eager to impose requirements that are dubious in their health or their environmental benefits but whose main effect may be to penalize or to perhaps even stop commerce or development. So restoring an appropriate equilibrium is vital if we want to have a healthy people, if we want to have a healthy economy. Today, I would like to speak to one example from my State. There is as it relates to ECA. ECA is a reference to the Emissions Control Area. The EPA was a major proponent of including the ocean off southern and southeastern Alaska in an international emissions control area. This was an effort to reduce emissions from marine vessels through lowering sulfur standards within the fuel. The purpose of the emissions control areas is to require ships-- which, to be very fair, certainly have significant emissions--to do their part to curb pollution. This is absolutely reasonable. The problem we are seeing up north is that EPA never gathered any air modeling data to support the claim that we have a problem from ships that travel up to Alaska. There has been no air modeling data whatsoever. We have requested. There has been none. Moreover, one of the proposals advanced to work with the EPA--and we need to be working with our agencies, as we need our agencies to be working with us--was an offer for an equivalent method to comply with the ECA requirements in North America. We are the only State in the country that is not accessible by road. Folks come and visit us by air and they come in by ship in the summertime. Tourism is big business in Alaska. In Juneau, the ships that are tied up at the docks are utilizing shoreside services so there are no emissions when they are in the community. So one of the proposals that was out there--this equivalency method--would essentially ask for a tradeoff. If we have cruise ships emitting nothing when they are in dock or at shore, offset that against those that would be emitted from vessels out at sea, essentially an averaging. That was rejected by the EPA. What has made this particularly disconcerting for many Alaskans is that in the EPA's justification they cite a U.S. Forest Service study that purportedly found some evidence that emissions from cruise ships in southeast Alaska could impact the lichen in the mountains above Juneau. We can see the mountains up here in this chart. They are pretty high. There is lichen up on the top. It is kind of a short, mossy, green plant. The report went on to worry that if we have impacted lichen growth in Juneau, it could somehow or other harm the caribou. Never mind the link that lichen and cruise ship emissions may be very tenuous, there is a bigger problem with EPA's reasoning, and anybody from Alaska would know the problem, which is there are no caribou in Juneau, AK. There are no caribou anywhere in southeastern Alaska. Everyone has seen my pictures before. Alaska is a pretty big State. If we are sitting in Juneau, AK, the caribou herd this report was apparently concerned about is over 1,000 miles away. There are about 1,000 miles between Juneau and where the southern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd cited in the EPA study live--1,000 miles. It would be as if we would make the assertion a cruise ship sitting in Miami might somehow affect the food supply for bears up in the Pocono Mountains north of Philadelphia, PA. I think we need to look at this and recognize we have a pretty flawed study to begin with, if the suggestion is we need to ensure there are no emissions coming from a cruise ship in Juneau because that is going to impact the lichen which will impact the caribou that don't happen to live anywhere near Juneau--no closer than 1,000 miles away. So applying these new fuel standards to save the lichen in Juneau to feed caribou 1,000 miles from here will mean vessels plying the waters of southeast and south central Alaska--whether they are freight vessels that move just about all our goods or cruise ships that are the lifeblood of our tourist economy--will have to meet the requirement they now burn low- sulfur diesel at levels suggested that are, perhaps, not attainable. The question I think is fair to ask is: What is the problem with requiring these cruise ships and these vessels bringing goods north to Alaska to meet these standards? What is the problem with this requirement? The problem is while these ECA requirements may not have a measurable positive effect on human health--or caribou food, for that matter--they will have a material impact on our cost of living. Look at the State of Alaska and the way we get our materials in, the way we get our foodstuffs, our hardware, our lumber. It comes to us over the water. There is some, yes, that comes in by airplane, but guaranteed that is going to cost much more. There are some that can come up from the lower 48 across through Canada and into Alaska that way. But if we want to talk about increased emissions, that is surely one way to do it, to put it on a truck and haul it all the way up here. So much of our goods come to the State by water. About 85 percent of the goods that come to the State of Alaska come into the Port of Anchorage, which is sitting right there. What we see with these ECA regs is that ships coming out of a port such as Los Angeles or Long Beach--where my colleague from California hails from, and she is here on the floor now--have hundreds of ships coming in and out every day, but they are not subject to this same emissions control area. They only need to burn this expensive low- sulfur fuel for a very short time until they are out of the ECA. The problem is, when traveling along Alaska's coast to bring those goods up to our State, you are in an area where our air is pretty clean--our air is very pristine--but the entire voyage is within this ECA region. It is all within this emissions control area. So throughout that entire journey they are required to burn the lower sulfur, more expensive fuel. If this were just going to result in an increase in cost to the cruise lines or to the freight haulers that come up to the State, that might be one thing, but I think we recognize the economic reality that every dime that is added to the cost of doing business in Alaska is ultimately going to be a dime passed on and shared by consumers. The State of Alaska recently cited an estimate that these new requirements will increase the shipping costs to the State of Alaska by 8 percent. One might say: Eight percent, that is not that bad. We can live with that. But the problem we face is that in 2015, just around the corner, we will see an even higher standard these vessels will be held to. At that point in time, the suggestion is that costs could be increased by as much as 25 percent. That may be on the high margin, but let's say somewhere between 8 and 25 percent. Again, almost every commodity consumed in our State is transported either by ship or by ship and plane, with the cost of freight adding a significant increase to every item out there. We are already one of the most expensive places to live in America, and rural Alaska is even more expensive. I check on a weekly basis to find out what Alaskans are paying for their fuel, whether it is in the city of Anchorage or up in Fairbanks or out in Kwethluk or in the villages. I monitor that regularly to see how our villages are faring. In Kotzebue, for instance, this week they are paying about $7.15 for a gallon of gas. I asked that we put a link on our Web site to get some pricing on what we are seeing in our communities as it relates to foodstuffs, things you and I would use in our home here. Here is a package most of us recognize. A 10-pound bag of sugar in Kwethluk is going for $17.25. There is no other store in Kwethluk, other than the Native store, so it is not as if they can go to the Safeway and comparison shop. It is not as if they can get in their car and drive to the city or go to Costco. It just doesn't happen. There are no roads in and out of Kwethluk. You might be able to take an airplane. A gallon of whole milk costs $30 in Ambler, that is if you can find whole milk or any kind of fresh milk. As a mom who has boys who go through laundry, I am always looking to see what people are paying for laundry detergent. In Venetie, a 100-ounce bottle of Tide goes for $43.50. I had my interns do a little price comparison on Tide. Powdered Tide, 56 ounces, in Anchorage we are paying $9.98. That is a little higher than here in Washington. Washington is about nine bucks. But in Angoon that same box of Tide is $18.33. In Barrow it is $22. In McGrath it is $21. In Bethel it is $21. So when we talk about increasing the prices in Alaska by 8 percent, 10 percent, 12 percent, possibly 25 percent and you are a mom buying a box of Tide and you are already paying $43, believe me, 8 percent starts to add up real quick. When you are trying to buy a bag of sugar so you can make the food, put up the jam for the winter, and you are paying $17.25 in Kwethluk, I think it is fair to say we are paying attention to what happens when there are cost increases. EPA mandated low-sulfur fuel is estimated to add $100 million in additional cost to the summer cruise traffic in Alaska. So one might say, if you can afford the price of a cruise, that is not that big of a deal. You increase the price of the ticket and people will live. But what happens is that puts Alaska at a competitive disadvantage when we are talking about where these businesses are going to operate. Fourteen percent of all employment in the State is directly tied to the tourism industry. So if the cruise lines can't fully pass on these increased costs, what they are going to do is move their ships. They will take them to other parts of the world where air quality standards are different, and we will have the loss of seasonal visitors. The money they bring to southeastern Alaska is a huge part of the local economy and also to year-round institutions. In Juneau, our regional hospital is actually able to provide for a higher standard of care, in part, because of the high influx of patients it serves during the summertime. I would suggest the EPA's one-size-fits-all approach to environmental regulation doesn't always work. We can't quite shoehorn that into in all situations, and we need to be aware of that. Again, when we talk about the concept of environmental justice, we need to make sure when regulations and rules are imposed, we are not hurting the most vulnerable. I would suggest the people in Kwethluk, who are looking at the impact of these regulations and what it is going to mean to them and their village, they are asking: How do we survive? How do we live? The answer isn't for them to move to Washington, DC. That is not the answer. We need to get back to balance. What is happening now is the State of Alaska has sued the EPA Administrator in Federal Court to stop the new requirements from taking effect. Given the immediacy of the threat these requirements pose to my State, I think the State's move to advance the litigation was the right one. But we shouldn't have to sue our own government in order to get balanced regulation. Administrator Lisa Jackson has recently acknowledged that applying ECA to Alaska has posed a problem. She recognized that. Unfortunately, we haven't seen anything more beyond those words, and we are still no closer to a solution. These new requirements are set to take effect next week, the initial threshold. I have been raising this issue with EPA for several years, but again we are still working and we have not yet resolved it. I have called on the President himself to marshal the State Department to see if ECA can be amended or some other relief can be found to eliminate at least this one burden. This is something that is touching Alaskans in a very immediate and a very direct way. Again, we want to ensure our air is clean, that our water is clean. We want to be the good custodians and stewards of our land, and we are. But we need to be able to work with our Federal regulators. I have asked the Administrator and I have asked the President to work with us on this. Ted Stevens Day Mr. President, I know my colleague from California is here to speak, but I would like the indulgence of the body for just 2 more minutes to speak on a little bit of a happy occasion. Ted Stevens Day Mr. President, the day after tomorrow, on Saturday, Alaskans are going to be celebrating Ted Stevens Day. As I travel around the State, whether I am in Fairbanks or down on the Kenai River or up in Bethel, down in Ketchikan, everywhere I go, I am reminded of my good friend and a friend to so many in this body, Senator Ted Stevens. It was nearly 2 years ago now that we lost Uncle Ted to the tragic plane crash in southwest Alaska. But as tragic as that was, I always stop to remember that that tragedy struck while Ted was doing what he loved to do most, which was enjoying Alaska's great outdoors and going fishing, just being outdoors. His passion for Alaska's unique wilderness, his love for fishing, and his immense affection for the outdoors really embodies the spirit we are now advancing in Ted Stevens Day, and the motto of this day is ``Get Out and Play.'' On the fourth Saturday of July, we join together to celebrate the life and the legacy of a man who was really dedicated to public service, whether it was his days as a pilot in World War II, to the four decades he served with us here in the Senate. He began working in Alaska long before statehood. When he came here to Washington, DC, to represent us in the Senate, he began a battle for our State that lasted for 40 years. He fought for roads, for buildings, and for infrastructure that new, young States need, as well as many of the programs that are in place today that continue on. He worked to transform not only Alaska but really the rest of the country as well. It is somewhat coincidental that this Ted Stevens Day coincides with the beginning of the 2012 summer Olympic games in London. So as Alaskans get together to get out and play this weekend under the midnight sun, there are going to be 530 American athletes who will begin to embark on a 17-day Olympic journey Senator Stevens helped to pioneer. It is because of legislation he championed that the Olympic movement in the United States exists as it does today. Back in 1978, he fought for the passage of the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. This was later renamed the ``Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act'' in his honor and declared the U.S. Olympic Committee the centralized body of all Olympic activities in the country and ultimately led to the creation of national governing bodies responsible for the oversight of each individual Olympic sport--a structure that is still in place now. He really was so much an inspiration to the progress and to the development of the Olympic movement here in the United States. Earlier this month, the U.S. Olympic Committee honored Senator Stevens as a special contributor in the Class of 2012 U.S. Olympic Hall of Fame. We all know Senator Stevens was also a huge proponent of title IX. I think he would be very proud that for the first time in American history, Team USA is comprised of more women than men. I think that would give him a smile. But this feat was made possible by the landmark legislation passed 40 years ago that opened gymnasium doors and leveled the playing field for women and girls across the country. In Alaska, we very often say that Ted Stevens was larger than life. Today, in discussing this and bringing this up, we recognize that on Saturday we are going to continue a tradition of remembering a man who loved Alaska with a passion. As we go out and bike and hike and fish, I think many will share good memories of an amazing Alaskan, an amazing man, and truly an amazing American. I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to speak a few minutes about a subject which should, hopefully, bring a smile to many of us. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am saddened to inform the Senate of the death of a friend and former member of the Alaska Legislature Cheryll Heinze. Cheryll died last week when a float plane that was carrying her and colleagues to a fishing outing cartwheeled on landing and became submerged on Beluga Lake near Homer. At the time Cheryll was working as Director of Human Resources and Public Relations for the Matanuska Electric Association. It is appropriate that we remember those whose lives end in tragedy for the way they lived their lives so I want to take the next few minutes to speak in tribute to an Alaskan who lived life to the fullest. Cheryll Heinze was born in Wewoka, OK. She spent part of her childhood in Anchorage when her father was an Army Chaplain at Fort Richardson. In 1985, Cheryll returned to be an Alaskan for life. Most of her time in Alaska was spent in Anchorage but she also lived in Slana, Talkeetna and Valdez. Cheryll was married to Harold Heinze, the former President of ARCO Alaska. The two met when Harold was serving as Alaska's Commissioner of Natural Resources under former Governor Walter Hickel. Cheryll served as Press Secretary on Governor Hickel's 1990 campaign. The two made quite a power couple. In 2002, Cheryll was elected to the 23rd Alaska Legislature representing House District 24 in Anchorage. Although she served a single 2-year term, she accomplished a great deal during her time in Juneau. During that term she chaired the Special Committee on Economic Development, International Trade and Tourism and was Vice Chair of the Resources Committee. Cheryll is best known for working with colleagues across the aisle in moving Alaska's anti-stalking law out of the legislature and to the Governor's desk. Her bill allowed victims of stalking to obtain protective orders in the same way that victims of domestic violence could in the State of Alaska. Cheryll was also a strong supporter of therapeutic courts and passed a resolution encouraging prosecutors and public defenders to take full advantage of this important resource. She worked to make health insurance more affordable to small employers and helped promote trade relations between Alaska and Taiwan. Cheryll was well liked by those inside and outside of the political circle and was viewed as a genuinely nice person. A mutual friend, Mike Chenault of Nikiski, who served with Cheryll in the Alaska House and is today the House Speaker had this to say about Cheryll: ``She had a light smile and an easy way about her that made her popular not only inside, but outside the Capitol.'' Alaska takes pride in the fact that our Legislature is composed of citizens who come to Juneau for a few months each year to do the business of the State and then return home to carry on their own lives. Art was central to Cheryll Heinze's life. In fact, her official legislative biography lists her profession as ``Artist.'' In fact, she was a world class oil painter who took inspiration from Alaska's fabulous scenery. Her painting of Mount Foraker hung in the offices of the Foraker Group, a consulting group that supports Alaska's non-profit sector. We also took pride in Cheryll's poetry. In addition to all of her other activities she was a former President of the Anchorage Symphony League, a board member of the Pacific Northern Academy and Breast Cancer Focus, Inc., a member of the Alaska Pacific University President's Steering Committee, and an Art Instructor at the University of Alaska Rural Extension. She was a member of the Anchorage Opera Board, the World Affairs Council and the Matanuska Charitable Foundation Board. Cheryll brought energy and enthusiasm to all she did. I extend the Senate's deepest condolences to Harold and other members of the family. Cheryll left us well before her time but in a way that is so appropriate for Alaskans--in pursuit of adventure. Alaskans have lost a friend and a leader and she will be greatly missed.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have not taken an opportunity to speak to the DISCLOSE Act, which is currently before us, or the holding of Citizens United. I haven't come to the floor to address that, but that does not mean this has not been a discussion of great importance in the State of Alaska. Alaskans are a pretty independent lot. I think they like to know what is behind certain initiatives, certainly when it comes to the financing of campaigns. They want to know where and when and how and why and that it is appropriate. Our State legislature has enacted some campaign finance reforms that I think have been good. Alaskans have looked very critically at the Citizens United decision and its impact on the campaigns in this country. I have made no secret of the fact that I disagree with the holdings of the Citizens United decision which makes it possible for individuals and business entities to make contributions in any amount, at any time to independent efforts to elect candidates at the Federal, State, and local levels. I think this decision not only overturned longstanding Federal law, it also, to a certain extent, displaced State laws, including the laws in my own State of Alaska which barred corporate participation in State elections. It gave birth to a new form of political entity. We all know it; we are all talking about it now, particularly with the Presidential election--the super PAC, a vehicle for large donors. When we are talking about large donors, we are not just talking about donors who can put forth thousands of dollars. We are talking about donors who put forth multimillions of dollars, and it is done to influence the American political process in secret by contributing to organizations with very patriotic names, but they lurk behind post office boxes. There is an anonymity, there is a covering that I do not think the American public expects or respects. I believe strongly--I believe very strongly--that the Citizens United decision is corrosive to democracy. At a very minimum the American people deserve to know who is behind the organizations, who is funding them, and what their real agendas are. I think if we were to ask the average American out on the street: Do you think it is reasonable that there be disclosure, full disclosure of where the campaign dollars are coming from, I think the average American would say: Yes. I know the average Alaskan is saying yes. So when they see what this Supreme Court case has allowed--courts have determined this is constitutional--I do not think anybody assumed what it would lead to is an ability for an individual to give millions of dollars to influence an election, and yet not be subject to a level of disclosure that is fair and balanced. I came to the floor very late last night after flying in from Alaska. I left at 7 o'clock in the morning, and my plane touched down at about 10:15 last night. As I landed, I saw the lights of the Capitol on. I knew somebody was still home. The flag that flies on the Senate side of the Capitol was still up, meaning the Senate was still in session, so I decided to come to the floor and see what was going on and to perhaps listen to a little bit of the debate. I was tired. I was tired from flying. But I was truly tired that as a body, when we have an issue that is important, is significant--whether it is campaign finance or the tax issues we face, whether it is the sequestration issue we will shortly be facing--we are once again in a position where we are doing nothing but messaging. I am so tired of messaging, and I think the folks whom we represent are tired of us messaging. I want us to have some reforms when it comes to campaign finance and the disclosure that the American public thinks makes sense, where they say: Good. This is not something where you are hiding behind an organization, whether it is a 501(c)(4) or a 501(c)(3) or a super PAC, or however we define it. We want to know that you are open and you are transparent. I did not stay too late last night to listen to the debates. But I will tell you that the comments I heard from my colleagues were pretty sound. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why it is appropriate that the name, the address, the occupation of an individual who makes a contribution of between $200 and $5,000 to Lisa Murkowski's committee must be disclosed--that is what is required under the law. But somehow or other there is a constitutional right for someone who gives $1 million, $15 million to an independent effort that either supports or opposes an election can do so in secrecy. They can do so in a way that is not subject to disclosure. I do not think that makes sense, and I do not think it would make sense to anybody else out there on the street. What is the difference? But I would also suggest to you the converse is true as well. I do not believe the membership lists--whether it is the Sierra Club or the National Rifle Association or the NAACP--I do not think those lists need to be public because an organization has made a relatively small donation from its treasury funds to independent efforts. Those who chose to affiliate with broad-based membership organizations deserve to have their privacy interests maintained. So you have things going on both sides here. Again, what we should be doing in this case is trying to figure out where there is a balance. Where is that fairness? Given that a $2,500 contribution to me as a candidate--the maximum that can be given to any candidate for any election--has to be disclosed, I do not understand why the bill that is before us, the DISCLOSE Act 3.0, sets the bar for disclosure of a contribution to an independent effort at $10,000. That does not make sense to me either. So I guess where I am at this point in time--recognizing that in a matter of minutes we are going to have yet another vote on DISCLOSE under reconsideration--I do think that all these issues need to be addressed in a DISCLOSE 4.0. Maybe we will move to that in the next iteration, but that is not going to be happening here. Yesterday's vote was decisive. As I mentioned, I was flying all day. I was not here at 6 o'clock when that vote was taken. But that vote was pretty clear. There is no way we can reconfigure things, even with the support of Lisa Murkowski, so that we could actually get to this bill and start making those changes. So we are sitting here at a point where we have precious little time before us before we break for August and then come back. We have the campaigns. We have a lot on our plate. I think we recognize that. Saying that, I have already said I think this is a critically important issue. But it is an issue we will not resolve today. It is not possible to resolve today. So we should accept that fact and move forward. We have a lot to do. What I intend to do is to continue the work I began months ago with colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work to resolve some of these issues, to work on a bipartisan basis on a bill that I hope we can take up as a body. There are Senators who want to work on this. I have met with them and we continue to try to figure out that path forward. But that path forward has to be a bipartisan path. It has to be a bipartisan path. I hope we can put some kind of a vehicle to hearings and consider it on the floor with an open amendment process, the way we can and should do things around here. That is what I strive to do. That is my commitment. I want to work with my colleague from Rhode Island. I want to work with my colleagues from Colorado and Oregon and New York and my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. I think we all recognize this is in the best interests of not only those of us in the Senate but for those we represent--that there is a level of transparency, openness, fairness, and balance when it comes to campaign finance. That is my commitment. With that, I know I have probably consumed more than my time. But I appreciate the opportunity to work seriously and genuinely with my colleagues on this issue.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I come before you today to share the news of a profound tragedy and loss of two Alaska Native siblings. Isaac Juneby, a military veteran and former Chief of Eagle, a Han Gwich'in Village in Alaska close to the Canadian border, and his sister Ellen Juneby Rada, who died as a result of domestic violence, were both laid to rest and their lives honored and celebrated with a potlatch in Eagle Village, July 11, 2012. Ellen Florence Juneby Rada, 58 years old, was the mother of two grown sons. She was found beaten, seriously injured and unconscious in a homeless camp in Fairbanks and was transported to the Alaska Native Medical Center for treatment. Ellen was taken off life support on July 2 and passed away on Sunday, July 8. Isaac Juneby was born on July 9, 1941, in Eagle Village. He had traveled to Anchorage from Eagle to hold vigil at the bedside of his comatose sister and died in an automobile accident on July 1, 2012. Following Isaac's sudden accidental death another Juneby sibling, Adeline Juneby Potts, flew to Anchorage from Minnesota to join her family and due to emotional stress suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized. Fortunately, Adeline is recovering rapidly. There are no words to describe the grief this family has suffered due to the heartbreaking events that unfolded over such a short period of time. The loss is felt not just by the Juneby family, but by the entire Alaska Native community. Our State may be small in population, but it is large in community spirit. I think I can safely say the entire State of Alaska is touched by this tragedy. I would like to say a few words about Isaac Juneby, whose loss will have a lasting impact not only to the village of Eagle, but across the entire Native community. Isaac was one of the few remaining speakers of Han, an endangered northern Athabascan language with only about a handful of remaining speakers left in Alaska and the Yukon, a territory of Canada. He was a man that everyone seemed to know and love. Isaac had an almost tangible joy about him that drew people in and endeared him to many. His nickname ``the Senator'' was well earned. Isaac was always quick with a joke and had an infectious smile that made everyone around him happy. But most of all he loved life and his people. Isaac was incredibly proud of his family and his heritage. He exemplified a man who could easily navigate both worlds: the traditional and the modern. He had an easygoing and friendly manner that won him many lifelong friends, but he also had a disciplined and serious side. Isaac was an accomplished man who earned a bachelor's degree in rural development from the University of Alaska in 1987. He wrote poetry, published books and recorded language lessons in Han Gwich'in Athabascan to preserve the dialect for future generations. Isaac and Sandi, his best friend and wife of 35 years, were planning to move to Fairbanks so Isaac could complete a master's degree in ethnology. He wanted to learn more about the Han. Over the years Isaac held a number of important positions for Native organizations, the State, and the Federal Government and remained a resident of Eagle Village even through the very challenging times, like during the disaster of 2008, when a major flood devastated the community. Isaac was also instrumental in completing the essential paperwork that helped Eagle Village become the first IRA village in Alaska, one with a federally recognized tribal government. People will remember Isaac not only for his good humor but for his great strength and determination. Isaac was proud to celebrate over 25 years of sobriety and was known to say that it was God who freed him from alcohol. The Rev. Scott Fisher, pastor at St. Matthew's Episcopal Church got it right when he said ``Isaac was the last of the good guys. There was a strength and a gentleness running through him. He knew what was right and what was wrong. He was not a cardboard saint. He was real. He had a rock solid core of wisdom in him.'' Isaac's humor and his positive outlook on life served as an inspiration to so many who had the honor and privilege to know him. With the passing of Isaac Juneby, Alaska has lost a beloved Native elder and chief, a father, a culture bearer, a brother, an honored Army veteran, a husband, an inspirational man, an uncle, and a good friend. On this day I ask that we honor the lives of an extraordinary family and remember them during this time of such profound loss.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, next week the Juneau community will come together to honor the late Judge Robert C. Boochever, who passed away on October 9, 2011. At the time of his passing, Judge Boochever was a senior judge of the Ninth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals. Since Alaska was admitted to statehood, only three Alaskans have served on that court. Judge Boochever was the first of the three. Judge Boochever was not born in Alaska, but he earned the right to be called an Alaskan through decades of service, on and off the bench, to our community. Robert C. Boochever was born in New York City on October 2, 1917, and grew up in Ithaca, the home of Cornell University where his father was director of public relations. He completed his undergraduate work and law degree at Cornell, then enlisted in the Army. Deployed to Newfoundland as a legal officer, he met Connie Maddox, who was the chief surgical nurse for the base. They were married in April 1943. At the end of the war, a long-time family friend from Cornell, Warren Caro, who had been an aide to Alaska's territorial Governor, Ernest Gruening, told Judge Boochever about a job in Juneau. It was an assistant U.S. attorney position, but at the time there was no U.S. attorney, so Boochever would in fact be running the operation. At the time, Judge Boochever knew nothing of Alaska or Juneau other than the praises sung by his family friend, Warren Caro. But that didn't stop him from asking Alaska's delegate to Congress, Bob Bartlett, for a recommendation. Once offered the job, he persuaded Connie to give Alaska a try and they never looked back. In 1947, Boochever joined the Faulkner Banfield law office in Juneau and soon was made a named partner. He built the Faulkner Banfield firm, which dates back to 1914, into one of Alaska's great law firms. That firm continues to operate today as Faulkner Banfield in Juneau and Holmes, Weddle and Barcott with offices in Anchorage, Seattle, Portland and San Diego. Mike Holmes, one of his partners, described Boochever as ``the best trial lawyer in the State.'' He served as president of both the Alaska and Juneau Bar Associations. In 1972, Judge Boochever was named to the Alaska Supreme Court and served as chief justice for three years. In 1980, President Carter nominated Judge Boochever to the Ninth Circuit. In an oral history, Judge Boochever described himself as a champion of individual rights who was also sympathetic to the problems of law enforcement. His Ninth Circuit colleague, Judge Dorothy Wright Nelson, the former dean of the University of Southern California Law School, described Boochever as the best writer on the court. But a distinguished legal career was but one measure of this outstanding Alaskan. Judge Boochever was a gentleman who greeted women with the tip of a hat, a family man whose daughter would sing out loud, ``Oh, we're the happy Boochevers'' to the tune of ``Jolly Good Fellow,'' an avid birdwatcher, a poet, a singer and a pianist. According to a 1997 tribute in the Alaska Bar Rag, he was ``revered by his friends and neighbors as a dedicated advocate who championed causes that helped shape the Juneau community.'' He was the first chairman of the Juneau Planning Commission, a vocal opponent of efforts to move Alaska's capital out of Juneau, and a leader in the successful campaign to create the University of Alaska Southeast in Auke Bay. Judge Boochever, and Connie, who predeceased him, were selected by the Juneau Rotary Club as Man and Woman of the Year. Connie will long be remembered as a champion of the arts in Juneau. What an outstanding team. Outstanding families are the product of outstanding patriarchs. Judge Boochever was the father of four outstanding daughters. Barbara, an avid skier, whose daughter Hillary Lindh, would grow up to be an Olympic silver medalist in downhill skiing; Linda, an Anchorage businesswoman; Mimi, a teacher nationally renowned for teaching the fine arts to young people; and Ann, a music teacher who cofounded two of Juneau's finest restaurants. Judge Boochever was outstanding in every respect. It is people like Judge Boochever who moved Alaska from the last frontier of the prestatehood period to the best place in America to live, work and raise a family. I am grateful for his significant contributions to the quality of life we today enjoy in the State of Alaska. That is why I was proud to cosponsor legislation naming the Juneau Federal courthouse in perpetuity for Judge Boochever. That is why I am proud to honor his life and legacy today.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate our Nation's Independence Day. Over 230 years ago, a collection of very brave and thoughtful men put their names and lives on the line to support a visionary idea, writing: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Today we honor those patriots who crafted our country's identity, and we appreciate every man, woman, and child who has shared it, refined it, and lived it. There is a reason why the rest of the world looks to America as a bold leader, and it began in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776. It continues nationwide today in our independent spirit, our ambition, and our sense of generosity, and we certainly see that in my home State of Alaska. We see it in communities large and small, as we solve problems and work together to make life better and the future brighter. Today, we take a moment to realize that we do all this without thinking about it--and that few other countries in the world can boast the same. But as we take a moment to appreciate all that we have, we must never forget the cost of freedom. Thousands have given their lives to secure the blessings of liberty. Men and women in uniform are serving bravely overseas, enduring tremendous sacrifice, while countless others guard our shores, protect our interests abroad, and defend our skies here at home. Their burden is shared by the families who endure empty spots at the dinner table, missed birthdays, and absence from special moments like a child's first steps. Freedom is indeed perishable and we are grateful for those who safeguard our liberty for our children and grandchildren. As Americans, we honor our veterans and the freedoms they defend. We speak our minds and we think big thoughts--bounded only by the limits of our imagination. On this Independence Day, I am honored to represent Alaska in the United States Senate.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would potentially help in solving a significant unemployment problem in my home state of Alaska. Today, joined by my colleague, Senator Mark Begich, I introduce the Niblack Mining Area Road Authorization Act to permit road access to proposed multi-mineral mines on southeast Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska. Prince of Wales Island, formerly the main area for timber activity in Southeast Alaska, has fallen on hard times during the past decade. In 1990, when Alaska's timber industry in total harvested more than 1.1 billion board feet of timber, Prince of Wales was the center of activity. In 1994, for example, timber jobs accounted for 32.8 percent of all wages on the island. Six years later, with total regional harvests having fallen to about 350 million board feet, timber accounted for less than 19.8 percent of wages on the island, according to the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Today, with total harvests of timber being just above 100 million board feet a year in the region--just 35 million board feet being harvested from federal lands in 2011--and timber jobs statewide having fallen from about 4,000 to just over 400, Prince of Wales has been particularly hard hit. According to the State, timber jobs have fallen by more than 1,700 positions on the island. As of April, the unemployment rate on the island was ``down'' to 15 percent, compared to 18.1 percent in March. The rate in the Hoonah- Angoon census area, which covers the other potentially significant timber area in Southeast, stood at 20 percent in April, compared to 25.6 percent in March, 2012. Those rates are nearly 8 percent to 12 percent higher than the national average and higher than traditional rates, even after out migration from the island over the past decade. While the Viking Lumber Co. of Klawock remains the largest private- sector timber employer on the island, the island, the third largest in the United States, is badly in need of new employment opportunities. Fortunately today's high metal prices are encouraging a resurgence of mineral development on the 2,231 square-mile island. Currently, Heatherdale Minerals of Canada is considering reopening the Niblack Mine, a gold, copper, zinc and silver deposit. The company is in advanced exploration and development study of the estimated 9 million-ton mine, forecast to cost $150 million to $200 million to reopen. The mine, likely to last at least 12 years, is forecast to produce 1,500 tons of ore per day and require 130 workers at the mine site, and another 60 at a processing mill, which could be located near the site, or in Ketchikan, AK, 40 vessel miles away. The Niblack property is also close to another mineral deposit that is in the advanced stages of economic feasibility review, the Bokan Mountain Rare Earth Elements, REE, mine. Bokan Mountain, being considered for opening by Ucore Inc. of Canada, likely will employ 200 workers. It, too, will involve an investment of between $150 million to $200 million for the mine and a preliminary tailings processing plant to process the heavy rare earths, REEs, located at the site of a former uranium mine. Both mines currently estimate they could be open within three to four years, depending on final economic reviews and current permit approval timeframes. Bokan Mountain is located about 28 miles south of Niblack and can be accessed by boat by traveling down the relatively protected Moira Sound to the end of South Arm. The two mines could produce substantial numbers of high-paying jobs for the residents of southern Southeast Alaska. Niblack, for example, predicts the average salary for mine workers at its facility will be $80,000 a year. The problem of getting those jobs to people who need them is one of logistics. There currently is no road access to reach either mine site, both likely to be supplied by boat from Ketchikan, Alaska. That means that potential workers on Prince of Wales will need to travel by boat or more likely by plane to Ketchikan, in order to turn around and take a mine boat back to the island to report for work--a costly, time- consuming, often unpleasant and, sometimes, dangerous process given sea conditions in Southeast Alaska. Or they will need to pilot their own small boats to the mine site, a hazardous process given that reaching Niblack from the community of Thorne Bay to the north--a site that is located on the island's road system--will require a daily 60-mile one- way boat trip down perilous Clarence Strait, a difficult water body during fall, winter, and spring storms when seas can easily top 20 feet waves. But the problem could be solved, if a road could be extended the roughly 26.3 miles to connect the Niblack mine, by means of existing logging roads, to the State highway system on the island. Such a road will involve at least 2.5 miles of logging road reconstruction and the construction of 26.3 miles of new road. Those roads, if built to existing logging road standards, are estimated to cost $7.075 million-- the cost certainly rising if the roads are built to Federal Aid Urban Highway standards. The issue is that 18.3 miles of that new construction is across federal lands in the Tongass National Forest and, more importantly, across areas classified as inventoried roadless under the 2001 U.S. Forest Service roadless rule, as it was reimposed on the Tongass in 2009. Looking at the topography of the area, located inside the Eudora inventoried roadless area, the road would begin at the Haida, Hydaburg, Native village corporation's West, Cholmondeley, Arm sort yard and head Southeast through the Big Creek Valley and climb to a mountain pass at the roughly 1,400-foot elevation. From there it will drop onto land owned by the Kootznoowoo Native village corporation of Angoon and follow existing logging roads that lie on the western side of the South Arm. The route then runs south and parallels South Arm on the west side until the southern end of the bay is reached. Then the route follows the shoreline of the south end of the South Arm until the far southeast corner of the bay is reached--the location of existing cabins and a State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game fish weir. From this point, there are two potential route alternatives: the 1A route continues to run in a southerly direction through a mountain pass of slightly more than 500-feet elevation passing two unnamed lakes. Once it reaches the shoreline of Dickman Bay, the road turns in a more easterly direction and runs across the south end of Kugel Lake and Luelia Lake, and the north end of Kegan Lake. From the 900-foot elevation pass on the west side of Luelia Lake, the route continues to run in an easterly fashion and must cross 1,200- and 1,400-foot passes before the route turns north to reach the Niblack mine at tidewater. That total route is 26.3 miles of new construction and a total distance of 28.8 miles. There is an alternative, Route 1B, early in the route corridor to reduce the elevation and add switchbacks required to reach the first pass--an alternative that would add 1.9 miles to the road. There is another alternative route, Route 2A, that leaves from the same location and runs on the same route until the south end of South Arm. The second route then turns in a northerly direction and continues to follow the eastern shoreline of South Arm, Cholmondeley, for roughly 1.5 miles. The route then turns in an eastern direction and climbs through a mountain pass of about 900-feet elevation. From this pass, the route descends into the existing road system on Kootznoowoo lands near the south shores of Miller Lake. At the eastern terminus of these existing roads, the new route picks up again and continues in a southeast direction along the south end of Clarno Cove and Cannery Cove until Cannery Point is reached. From there the route turns into a southerly direction and climbs to another mountain pass of roughly 1,000-feet elevation. The route then follows the hillside to the west of Niblack Lake and meets another mountain pass of the same elevation and then descends in a southerly direction along the west side of Myrtle Lake to reach the Niblack Mine and tidewater. That route involves 24.6 miles of new construction, 6.1 miles of road reconstruction and involves a total length of 30.7 miles, thus costing more. It involves, however, constructing only one pass higher than 1,200 feet, compared to 3 on the first route, but may have more environmental impacts given its route along Cannery Cove and Niblack Lake. I mention the two detailed routes only to indicate that substantial work has been done to select a potential road corridor to the Niblack mine and to make clear that I am not prejudging the route with the fewest environmental impacts. I am leaving that to the Forest Service to decide after an environmental assessment or impact statement is undertaken. The legislation I am introducing simply says that the Forest Service should permit development of a road along one of the two routes, picking the route that both minimizes the costs, while also minimizing the effects on surface resources, prevents unnecessary surface disturbances and that complies with all environmental laws and regulations. This road, I need to point out, will not set a precedent in any way weakening the inventoried roadless rule's implementation in Alaska, regardless of how I feel about that rule. Under the original regulations governing roadless areas in Alaska issued by the Clinton Administration in January 2001, Section 294.12(b)(7) permits roads to be built across inventoried roadless areas if needed ``in conjunction with the continuation, extension or renewal of a mineral lease on lands that are under lease by the Secretary of the Interior. . . . Such road construction or reconstruction must be conducted in a manner that minimizes effects on surface resources, prevents unnecessary or unreasonable surface disturbance, and complies with all applicable lease requirements.'' The patents on the Niblack property certainly predate the creation of the roadless rule. The mine was discovered in the late 19th century, according to the U.S. Forest Service. Modest copper production occurred between 1902 and 1908 and modern exploration on the 2,000-acre site began in 1974, some 150 patented claims being in place at the mine. The point is that Niblack is certainly a real prospect that offers the likelihood of real employment for many who are unemployed on Prince of Wales Island, if they simply can access the site from their homes in Craig, Klawock, Hydaburg, Thorne Bay, Kasaan, Whale Pass and even Coffman Cove, located on the northeast end of the island. The need for these jobs has prompted the City Council of Craig to formally request Congress to accelerate the approval of a road corridor to the mine site. Such a road could be built by the mine, but more likely funded and built by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities at state expense. Workers could then access jobs at the Bokan Mountain facility by workboat, should a route to that mine never be approved. It makes no sense in a state that already contains 58 million acres of formal wilderness, and in the Tongass National Forest, that already contains nearly 6.4 million acres of parks and wilderness areas, to bar construction of a road that does not cross any wilderness areas, but could provide a good income to a third of all of the people, 363 people, unemployed on the island as of April 2012, according to the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. I would hope that this Congress would look favorably on allowing a road to this mining area, so that residents on the island can get the jobs they so desperately need in the years ahead.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would potentially help in solving a significant unemployment problem in my home state of Alaska. Today, joined by my colleague, Senator Mark Begich, I introduce the Niblack Mining Area Road Authorization Act to permit road access to proposed multi-mineral mines on southeast Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska. Prince of Wales Island, formerly the main area for timber activity in Southeast Alaska, has fallen on hard times during the past decade. In 1990, when Alaska's timber industry in total harvested more than 1.1 billion board feet of timber, Prince of Wales was the center of activity. In 1994, for example, timber jobs accounted for 32.8 percent of all wages on the island. Six years later, with total regional harvests having fallen to about 350 million board feet, timber accounted for less than 19.8 percent of wages on the island, according to the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Today, with total harvests of timber being just above 100 million board feet a year in the region--just 35 million board feet being harvested from federal lands in 2011--and timber jobs statewide having fallen from about 4,000 to just over 400, Prince of Wales has been particularly hard hit. According to the State, timber jobs have fallen by more than 1,700 positions on the island. As of April, the unemployment rate on the island was ``down'' to 15 percent, compared to 18.1 percent in March. The rate in the Hoonah- Angoon census area, which covers the other potentially significant timber area in Southeast, stood at 20 percent in April, compared to 25.6 percent in March, 2012. Those rates are nearly 8 percent to 12 percent higher than the national average and higher than traditional rates, even after out migration from the island over the past decade. While the Viking Lumber Co. of Klawock remains the largest private- sector timber employer on the island, the island, the third largest in the United States, is badly in need of new employment opportunities. Fortunately today's high metal prices are encouraging a resurgence of mineral development on the 2,231 square-mile island. Currently, Heatherdale Minerals of Canada is considering reopening the Niblack Mine, a gold, copper, zinc and silver deposit. The company is in advanced exploration and development study of the estimated 9 million-ton mine, forecast to cost $150 million to $200 million to reopen. The mine, likely to last at least 12 years, is forecast to produce 1,500 tons of ore per day and require 130 workers at the mine site, and another 60 at a processing mill, which could be located near the site, or in Ketchikan, AK, 40 vessel miles away. The Niblack property is also close to another mineral deposit that is in the advanced stages of economic feasibility review, the Bokan Mountain Rare Earth Elements, REE, mine. Bokan Mountain, being considered for opening by Ucore Inc. of Canada, likely will employ 200 workers. It, too, will involve an investment of between $150 million to $200 million for the mine and a preliminary tailings processing plant to process the heavy rare earths, REEs, located at the site of a former uranium mine. Both mines currently estimate they could be open within three to four years, depending on final economic reviews and current permit approval timeframes. Bokan Mountain is located about 28 miles south of Niblack and can be accessed by boat by traveling down the relatively protected Moira Sound to the end of South Arm. The two mines could produce substantial numbers of high-paying jobs for the residents of southern Southeast Alaska. Niblack, for example, predicts the average salary for mine workers at its facility will be $80,000 a year. The problem of getting those jobs to people who need them is one of logistics. There currently is no road access to reach either mine site, both likely to be supplied by boat from Ketchikan, Alaska. That means that potential workers on Prince of Wales will need to travel by boat or more likely by plane to Ketchikan, in order to turn around and take a mine boat back to the island to report for work--a costly, time- consuming, often unpleasant and, sometimes, dangerous process given sea conditions in Southeast Alaska. Or they will need to pilot their own small boats to the mine site, a hazardous process given that reaching Niblack from the community of Thorne Bay to the north--a site that is located on the island's road system--will require a daily 60-mile one- way boat trip down perilous Clarence Strait, a difficult water body during fall, winter, and spring storms when seas can easily top 20 feet waves. But the problem could be solved, if a road could be extended the roughly 26.3 miles to connect the Niblack mine, by means of existing logging roads, to the State highway system on the island. Such a road will involve at least 2.5 miles of logging road reconstruction and the construction of 26.3 miles of new road. Those roads, if built to existing logging road standards, are estimated to cost $7.075 million-- the cost certainly rising if the roads are built to Federal Aid Urban Highway standards. The issue is that 18.3 miles of that new construction is across federal lands in the Tongass National Forest and, more importantly, across areas classified as inventoried roadless under the 2001 U.S. Forest Service roadless rule, as it was reimposed on the Tongass in 2009. Looking at the topography of the area, located inside the Eudora inventoried roadless area, the road would begin at the Haida, Hydaburg, Native village corporation's West, Cholmondeley, Arm sort yard and head Southeast through the Big Creek Valley and climb to a mountain pass at the roughly 1,400-foot elevation. From there it will drop onto land owned by the Kootznoowoo Native village corporation of Angoon and follow existing logging roads that lie on the western side of the South Arm. The route then runs south and parallels South Arm on the west side until the southern end of the bay is reached. Then the route follows the shoreline of the south end of the South Arm until the far southeast corner of the bay is reached--the location of existing cabins and a State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game fish weir. From this point, there are two potential route alternatives: the 1A route continues to run in a southerly direction through a mountain pass of slightly more than 500-feet elevation passing two unnamed lakes. Once it reaches the shoreline of Dickman Bay, the road turns in a more easterly direction and runs across the south end of Kugel Lake and Luelia Lake, and the north end of Kegan Lake. From the 900-foot elevation pass on the west side of Luelia Lake, the route continues to run in an easterly fashion and must cross 1,200- and 1,400-foot passes before the route turns north to reach the Niblack mine at tidewater. That total route is 26.3 miles of new construction and a total distance of 28.8 miles. There is an alternative, Route 1B, early in the route corridor to reduce the elevation and add switchbacks required to reach the first pass--an alternative that would add 1.9 miles to the road. There is another alternative route, Route 2A, that leaves from the same location and runs on the same route until the south end of South Arm. The second route then turns in a northerly direction and continues to follow the eastern shoreline of South Arm, Cholmondeley, for roughly 1.5 miles. The route then turns in an eastern direction and climbs through a mountain pass of about 900-feet elevation. From this pass, the route descends into the existing road system on Kootznoowoo lands near the south shores of Miller Lake. At the eastern terminus of these existing roads, the new route picks up again and continues in a southeast direction along the south end of Clarno Cove and Cannery Cove until Cannery Point is reached. From there the route turns into a southerly direction and climbs to another mountain pass of roughly 1,000-feet elevation. The route then follows the hillside to the west of Niblack Lake and meets another mountain pass of the same elevation and then descends in a southerly direction along the west side of Myrtle Lake to reach the Niblack Mine and tidewater. That route involves 24.6 miles of new construction, 6.1 miles of road reconstruction and involves a total length of 30.7 miles, thus costing more. It involves, however, constructing only one pass higher than 1,200 feet, compared to 3 on the first route, but may have more environmental impacts given its route along Cannery Cove and Niblack Lake. I mention the two detailed routes only to indicate that substantial work has been done to select a potential road corridor to the Niblack mine and to make clear that I am not prejudging the route with the fewest environmental impacts. I am leaving that to the Forest Service to decide after an environmental assessment or impact statement is undertaken. The legislation I am introducing simply says that the Forest Service should permit development of a road along one of the two routes, picking the route that both minimizes the costs, while also minimizing the effects on surface resources, prevents unnecessary surface disturbances and that complies with all environmental laws and regulations. This road, I need to point out, will not set a precedent in any way weakening the inventoried roadless rule's implementation in Alaska, regardless of how I feel about that rule. Under the original regulations governing roadless areas in Alaska issued by the Clinton Administration in January 2001, Section 294.12(b)(7) permits roads to be built across inventoried roadless areas if needed ``in conjunction with the continuation, extension or renewal of a mineral lease on lands that are under lease by the Secretary of the Interior. . . . Such road construction or reconstruction must be conducted in a manner that minimizes effects on surface resources, prevents unnecessary or unreasonable surface disturbance, and complies with all applicable lease requirements.'' The patents on the Niblack property certainly predate the creation of the roadless rule. The mine was discovered in the late 19th century, according to the U.S. Forest Service. Modest copper production occurred between 1902 and 1908 and modern exploration on the 2,000-acre site began in 1974, some 150 patented claims being in place at the mine. The point is that Niblack is certainly a real prospect that offers the likelihood of real employment for many who are unemployed on Prince of Wales Island, if they simply can access the site from their homes in Craig, Klawock, Hydaburg, Thorne Bay, Kasaan, Whale Pass and even Coffman Cove, located on the northeast end of the island. The need for these jobs has prompted the City Council of Craig to formally request Congress to accelerate the approval of a road corridor to the mine site. Such a road could be built by the mine, but more likely funded and built by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities at state expense. Workers could then access jobs at the Bokan Mountain facility by workboat, should a route to that mine never be approved. It makes no sense in a state that already contains 58 million acres of formal wilderness, and in the Tongass National Forest, that already contains nearly 6.4 million acres of parks and wilderness areas, to bar construction of a road that does not cross any wilderness areas, but could provide a good income to a third of all of the people, 363 people, unemployed on the island as of April 2012, according to the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. I would hope that this Congress would look favorably on allowing a road to this mining area, so that residents on the island can get the jobs they so desperately need in the years ahead.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I think most Americans would agree it is important that we strike a proper balance between abundant and affordable energy and responsible standards of environmental performance. But too often in recent years, the energy-environmental balance has been lost. Restoring a sense of equilibrium is important for both the health of the American people and our Nation's economy. Although we see the need for this balance every day in Alaska, restoring it has become what I think is a national challenge. That is why I support Senator Inhofe's resolution to disapprove the mercury and air toxics standards or the MATS rule. Congress has tasked the EPA with implementing laws to protect public health. That statutory obligation absolutely requires respect. But although the executive branch gets to make reasonable policy calls in performing that duty, its regulatory authority is strictly bounded by law. Today's EPA too often seems to impose requirements that go beyond what is authorized or needed. This overreaching stifles the energy and natural resource production the Nation needs to restore prosperity and technological leadership, and the sad thing is the resulting rules do not credibly improve public health. EPA is now proceeding with an unprecedented litany of new rules whose benefits are murky at best but whose costs are very real and detrimental to human welfare. The Nation can and must strike a better balance. Even in today's divided times, a broad consensus remains. Achieving affordable and abundant energy coupled with strong environmental standards is the right combination. Most would also agree that energy and environment-related public policy decisions should be based on the facts and informed by rigorous scientific discourse. Applying this consensus shows that the devil is in the details. So let's look closely at the MATS rule. If this rule is allowed to stand, it will put electric reliability at unacceptable risk and raise electricity costs with very little, if any, appreciable benefit to human health. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation or NERC, which is the independent federally certified ``Electric Reliability Organization,'' recently reported that ``environmental regulations are shown to be the number one risk to reliability over the next . . . 5 years.'' That is the statement from NERC. The members of the relatively small and apolitical groups of engineers who keep the lights on and administer electricity markets tell me they are worried not only about the reliability of electric service but about its affordability. I would like to speak to the affordability side in just a minute. Reasonable regulation, clearly appropriate; and EPA has the discretion, indeed the obligation, to adopt balanced rules. But, unfortunately, EPA's approach has been aimed more at its statutory obligations. Through MATS and through other rules, EPA wants to influence how investments in energy production are made. So it has imposed a series of very stringent obligations that perhaps are not even achievable. For example, the Institute of Clean Air Companies, which is an association representing emissions control technology vendors--these are the guys who sell all of this stuff--has asked EPA to reconsider MATS and has said: Our member companies cannot ensure that the new final source [mercury] standard can be achieved in practice. These are those who would make a profit off of selling these. They are saying they do not think that it can be achieved. Even though I believe the United Mine Workers of America, who say their comments ``and like-minded [ones] to EPA on the proposed MATS rule were ignored,'' it does not have to be this way. EPA received thousands of pages of very detailed, very thoughtful proposals, for improving MATS. About 150 electric generators filed their comments. Edison Electric Institute, as just one example, filed more than 75 pages of very precise observations for improving MATS. They suggested many very specific changes. The States were active too. Twenty-seven States are seeking significant changes in the proposal. There were almost 20 petitions for reconsideration pending at EPA, and they are pending now. Thirty petitions have been filed for judicial review. Twenty-four States have asked the courts to force EPA to do better with MATS. I always say we need to give credit where credit is due. On the treatment of condensable particulate matter--not many of us are focused on condensable particulate matter--EPA has made some good changes with regard to that, between the proposed and the final MATS rule. This dramatically reduced the need for construction of expensive pollution control devices known as ``bag houses.'' By itself, this one change to the proposed rule reduced the overall cost of compliance by billions of dollars, and it relieved somewhat the challenges of maintaining electric reliability while achieving compliance with the rule. Adopting a more reasonable approach in this one area did not sacrifice any appreciable benefit. So more must be done. Congress must tell the EPA to revisit other suggestions for similar improvements. Why the need to keep forcing the improvements? The vast majority of the benefits to EPA claims from MATS are the result of its counting coincidental reductions of particulate matter below standards that EPA has determined are sufficient to protect public health. Emissions of mercury by American powerplants have declined over the past 20 years without the MATS rule. EPA itself estimates the annual benefits of mercury reduction attributable to the rule at only $500,000 to $6 million but annual costs at almost $10 billion. Finally, EPA's actions are driving up the cost of electricity too. PJM, which is the independent regional transmission organization that is responsible for coordinating the movement of wholesale electricity in all or part of 13 States, as well as in the Nation's Capital, reported 2-year capacity price increases of 390 percent, most of which it attributed to the cost of environmental compliance with a nearly 1,200-percent spike in northern Ohio. PJM also plans for about $2 billion in additional transmission investment to maintain reliability in the face of EPA's rules. Clearly, these are significant costs that will be passed on to our consumers. I think MATS is a major rule that needs a major reset by Congress. EPA could then devise a new rule that is truly aimed at protecting public health and carrying out the law rather than trying to push a particular fuel, coal, out of the market. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership on this issue. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my colleague from Colorado who has come to the floor to recognize a very fine public servant who has been with him and the Senate for years. I, too, today rise to speak of an Alaskan who has dedicated a quarter century to service in the Senate, working as my staff person down in Ketchikan, AK. I would like to share a few comments with my colleagues on this occasion. It is a little bit of a happy occasion, a little bit of a sad occasion. I think my colleague from Colorado would agree that when we have someone who has dedicated so many years, we wish them well as they move forward, but their departure leaves a little bit of a hole for those of us who carry on. Today I rise to honor Sherrie Slick, who on June 1 began her 25th year as a Senate staffer in southeast Alaska based in her hometown of Ketchikan. Sherrie plans to retire from Federal service on July 30, after, again, a quarter century of service to her State. For Sherrie, I think her retirement is very likely a cause for joy. It is going to give her more time to spend with her kids and her grandchildren, more time to devote to the many volunteer and civic efforts in which she is engaged in southeast Alaska. But it is going to be a sad time for myself and for Congressman Don Young. Sherrie provided guidance to the Alaska delegation in Ketchikan, Alaska's first city, through a very interesting time. It has been somewhat of a turbulent quarter century, one in which the region's former economic mainstay, which is its timber industry, has sharply contracted, during a period in which the tourism industry has significantly grown, and during a period where its prospects of supporting major mineral development I think have substantially brightened--that is a good spot for us. It has been a period when Ketchikan, which is the seventh largest entity in our State, which is the only large community that is separated from its lifeline with its airport on a neighboring island, has endured somewhat unwelcome national attention solely because they seek dependable access by bridge. Over the years, Sherrie has responded to tens of thousands of public and media inquiries and requests for help over everything from Social Security checks and visas to immigration documents. She has listened to thousands of complaints over access to Alaska public land and to objections to many, many Federal regulations--far too many to count here. Through it all, I think it is fair to say that Sherrie has been that proverbial energizer bunny. She has more enthusiasm, more energy than many people combined. She listens patiently, and she works tirelessly to help all. She helps those southeast residents and visitors deal with Federal agencies, navigate the Federal redtape, and then on top of it, all in that extra time, she volunteers to help her community and help her State be a better place in which to live and raise a family. Sherrie's volunteer efforts were recognized by the community when she was named Citizen of the Year back in 2005 by the Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce. But her accomplishments go far beyond being named the Federal Employee of the Year, the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce's Outstanding Chamber Emissary in 1991, its outstanding board member in 1994 and its chairman in 1996. She has also received the Ketchikan Rotary Club's Community Service Award in 1994, received the Ketchikan Federal Executive Association's Lifetime Community Service Award in 2006, received the Ketchikan Visitors Bureau Rainbird Award in 1990 and gained its Outstanding Service Award in 2006. Ms. Slick, originally from Corvallis, Oregon, has a degree in elementary education from Oregon State University and also training in business and accounting from Linn-Benton Community College in Corvallis. She moved to Ketchikan in 1975. A mother of two, Brian and Theresa, she first worked for eight years as the office manager of the Ketchikan Credit Bureau before moving to insurance underwriting for three years. She later became the assistant sales tax auditor for the Ketchikan Gateway Borough for five years and then spent a sixth year working as the borough's planning and zoning secretary. In June 1988, former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, with encouragement from the state's other Senator at the time, my father, Frank Murkowski, stole Sherrie away from local government to head the Delegation's unified southern Panhandle constituent office. In addition to her legislative work, Sherrie has performed a dizzying array of volunteer services for her community and state. Since 2004 she has been a member of the Ketchikan Pioneers Home Foundation, the state's main senior care provider. She was a board member of the Alaska State Pioneer Homes Board from 2007 to 2010, a board member of the Ketchikan General Hospital Foundation from 2008 to 2010, served as chair person of the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce in 1996, as chairman of Ketchikan Rotary in 2000 and as the Secretary- Treasurer of the Ketchikan Federal Executive Association. She also was the Treasurer and Vice Chairman of Ketchikan Soroptimists, a member of the Executive Board of the Alaska Public Employees Association and State Treasurer of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough chapter of the State Employees Political Information Committee. While active in local and state politics, Sherrie also was the founding board member of the Ketchikan Soccer League, the vice president of the Ketchikan Killer Whales Swim Club, the Co-Leader and Day Camp director of the local Campfire Girls program, a Boy Scouts Co- Leader and Den mother, a leader for the local junior and senior high schools' drill teams and for four years was a board member, vice-chair and chairman of the Ketchikan Theater Ballet. The latter posts allowed her to express her musical loves which include playing piano, organ, clarinet and accordion. Sherrie, in her ``free'' time, also operated a part-time catering company and was a partner in the Alaska Cruise Line Agency, which provides lecturers to explain Alaska's history, discuss its scenery and wildlife and answer tourist questions about the state during voyages up the Inside Passage aboard commercial cruise ships. In that role Sherrie has provided factual information to thousands of visitors to the 49th State answering such questions as whether visitors to Alaska can use American stamps on their postcards. She, in that post, has been a true ambassador for the state's tourism industry. Through it all, including organizing and staffing literally hundreds of federal official visits, congressional field hearings and volunteer fundraising events, such as those to aid breast cancer detection and treatment, Sherrie has maintained her calm, her poise and her never failing sense of humor and graciousness--not to mention her energy level. Her dedication to family, community and career is universally recognized by friends and associates. I can't thank her enough for her service to me during my decade in the U.S. Senate, and her service to her fellow Alaskans over the past 25 years. Her intelligence, knowledge and people-pleasing skills will be sorely missed in the future. I hope that all members of the U.S. Senate will join me in wishing her well and godspeed in her retirement pursuits. She has earned all of her accolades and the true thanks of all Alaskans in the Panhandle for a job very well done. I am pleased and delighted to have her here with her granddaughter enjoying some Washington, DC, hospitality. Again, I cannot give thanks near enough to her for all the years of service Sherrie has provided to my State.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we often hear refrains of the need to make government policies more fair, clear, or simple--especially when these policies involve the collection of fees or taxes. Today I rise to introduce legislation to fix an inherently unfair policy by prohibiting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from charging land-use fees for hydropower projects that are no longer located on federal land. FERC is responsible for licensing private, municipal and state hydropower projects. Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, the Commission is authorized to collect fees from project owners for those hydro projects located on federal lands. The rationale behind these land-use fees is to recompense the United States for the ``use, occupancy, or enjoyment'' of its federal lands. The Federal Government is, in some sense, a landlord for these types of projects, and can collect just and reasonable rent from its tenants. The current level of these rents is a separate issue--which I encourage all of my colleagues to examine as well since FERC is seeking to change its collection methodology and increase those fees--but today I am focused on how a technicality in federal law allows the government to continue to collect land-use fees even when the land at issue has been transferred out of federal ownership. Under current law, if the Federal Government sold the land underneath a hydropower project to the operator, or transferred it into state ownership, FERC would continue to assess full land use fees against the operator. This untenable situation is like a landlord continuing to collect rent from a tenant even after the tenant buys the house outright! While the inherent unfairness of such a scenario is clear, the statutory and regulatory web that has created this snare is extremely complex. In addition to allowing for the collection of federal land-use fees, the Federal Power Act also contains a section regarding Power Site Classifications, or PSCs. A PSC attaches to the land when a preliminary hydropower license application is made, and entitles the government, or its designees, to enter the associated land and develop a hydropower project if some other person or operation is occupying it. These classifications are similar to easements, in that they permanently attach to the title of the lands. The purpose of PSCs is to make sure that hydropower can be developed in the limited number of areas on federal land that are suitable, and furthermore that once such an area is identified by a preliminary application, that the site is not then diverted to an alternate use. However, FERC has interpreted the statutory fee collection provisions to give these PSCs another affect that is not in keeping with this purpose--to charge land-use fees from existing hydropower operators in cases where the Federal Government no longer owns the land. In such a case, there is no need for a PSC to preserve the hydropower value of land as it is already being used for power production. Nor is the Federal Government somehow missing out on other beneficial uses of the land, because it no longer owns the land at issue. But FERC's current interpretation of the FPA is that a PSC qualifies as a significant enough interest in the associated land to justify the collection of full land-use fees. When I first learned of this issue, I asked FERC for a list of the hydropower projects for which it was collecting these PSC-based federal land-use fees. Apparently, while FERC has been perfectly capable of collecting these fees, it has been less diligent in keeping track of which projects are located on lands that 2 have since been transferred away from federal ownership. Despite numerous requests from my office, FERC was unable to produce even a possible list of impacted projects. Consequently, my staff attempted to survey the number of affected projects by consulting with both the National Hydropower Association and the Alaska Power Association. This search identified 15 possible projects subject to these PSC land use fee collections--10 of which are located in my home state of Alaska. While some may dismiss these fees as being relatively minor, I can tell you that these annual federal fees for land not even owned by the Federal Government can represent a significant hardship for my constituents. The bill I am introducing today would put a halt to this kind of fee collection. It simply says that when FERC is making fee determinations, it cannot take PSCs into account. Therefore, the only land that the Federal Government will be able to collect ``use, occupancy, and enjoyment'' fees is for land that it actually owns. I hope all of my colleagues can agree this treatment is a fair resolution of the issue and I ask for their support.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we often hear refrains of the need to make government policies more fair, clear, or simple--especially when these policies involve the collection of fees or taxes. Today I rise to introduce legislation to fix an inherently unfair policy by prohibiting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from charging land-use fees for hydropower projects that are no longer located on federal land. FERC is responsible for licensing private, municipal and state hydropower projects. Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, the Commission is authorized to collect fees from project owners for those hydro projects located on federal lands. The rationale behind these land-use fees is to recompense the United States for the ``use, occupancy, or enjoyment'' of its federal lands. The Federal Government is, in some sense, a landlord for these types of projects, and can collect just and reasonable rent from its tenants. The current level of these rents is a separate issue--which I encourage all of my colleagues to examine as well since FERC is seeking to change its collection methodology and increase those fees--but today I am focused on how a technicality in federal law allows the government to continue to collect land-use fees even when the land at issue has been transferred out of federal ownership. Under current law, if the Federal Government sold the land underneath a hydropower project to the operator, or transferred it into state ownership, FERC would continue to assess full land use fees against the operator. This untenable situation is like a landlord continuing to collect rent from a tenant even after the tenant buys the house outright! While the inherent unfairness of such a scenario is clear, the statutory and regulatory web that has created this snare is extremely complex. In addition to allowing for the collection of federal land-use fees, the Federal Power Act also contains a section regarding Power Site Classifications, or PSCs. A PSC attaches to the land when a preliminary hydropower license application is made, and entitles the government, or its designees, to enter the associated land and develop a hydropower project if some other person or operation is occupying it. These classifications are similar to easements, in that they permanently attach to the title of the lands. The purpose of PSCs is to make sure that hydropower can be developed in the limited number of areas on federal land that are suitable, and furthermore that once such an area is identified by a preliminary application, that the site is not then diverted to an alternate use. However, FERC has interpreted the statutory fee collection provisions to give these PSCs another affect that is not in keeping with this purpose--to charge land-use fees from existing hydropower operators in cases where the Federal Government no longer owns the land. In such a case, there is no need for a PSC to preserve the hydropower value of land as it is already being used for power production. Nor is the Federal Government somehow missing out on other beneficial uses of the land, because it no longer owns the land at issue. But FERC's current interpretation of the FPA is that a PSC qualifies as a significant enough interest in the associated land to justify the collection of full land-use fees. When I first learned of this issue, I asked FERC for a list of the hydropower projects for which it was collecting these PSC-based federal land-use fees. Apparently, while FERC has been perfectly capable of collecting these fees, it has been less diligent in keeping track of which projects are located on lands that 2 have since been transferred away from federal ownership. Despite numerous requests from my office, FERC was unable to produce even a possible list of impacted projects. Consequently, my staff attempted to survey the number of affected projects by consulting with both the National Hydropower Association and the Alaska Power Association. This search identified 15 possible projects subject to these PSC land use fee collections--10 of which are located in my home state of Alaska. While some may dismiss these fees as being relatively minor, I can tell you that these annual federal fees for land not even owned by the Federal Government can represent a significant hardship for my constituents. The bill I am introducing today would put a halt to this kind of fee collection. It simply says that when FERC is making fee determinations, it cannot take PSCs into account. Therefore, the only land that the Federal Government will be able to collect ``use, occupancy, and enjoyment'' fees is for land that it actually owns. I hope all of my colleagues can agree this treatment is a fair resolution of the issue and I ask for their support.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the importance of Memorial Day, a day that means so much to me and those I represent in Alaska. For so many of us, it means sunlight nearly all day, the unofficial beginning of summer, and enjoying the great outdoors. But let us never forget the deep, true meaning of Memorial Day. It means the payment of respect, memories, time and energy to the sacrifices of men and women who have defended the rights and privileges we enjoy today. Memorial Day first began nearly 100 years before Alaskan statehood, but even in our territorial days we had Alaskans fighting on our own soil against foreign enemies--one of the few States that can say such a thing. It is because of those early successes--and the success of Alaskans from then to those deployed today--that we salute our flag, speak our mind and continue to be a global leader. As many Alaskans know first-hand, those successes often came at the ultimate price. On Memorial Day we make a small attempt to repay them with our support, prayers and appreciation. I ask that all Alaskans and Americans join me in devoting a few minutes of our time in reflection as a small tribute to those who have given their lives for the cause of freedom. Although we may not be able to fully measure the cost of our heroes' sacrifice, we can commit ourselves to preserving their memory. So on Memorial Day 2012, I ask that we honor our fallen heroes, comfort the loved ones of those we lost, and carry on our lives in a manner that is worthy of their sacrifice. May God continue to bless our great Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask for support of the amendment that is before us. This is an amendment that will actually strengthen the role of NOAA as the Federal agency that has oversight over our fisheries. Currently the FDA is considering an application for a genetically engineered fish, a fish that takes DNA from one salmon and an ell pout to accelerate the growth unnaturally. The FDA is not looking at labeling this fish. The FDA is not considering the environmental impact of escapement on this fish into the marine environment. What we are asking for with this amendment is as the FDA proceeds in its process that the agency that has oversight of our fisheries be allowed to participate and weigh in as to whether there are any environmental consequences that may come about as a consequence of a release into a marine environment. This is a situation where people have a right to know about the quality of their fish, where it comes from, what it is made of. What I am asking is for the agency that has oversight of our fisheries to have a role in this process. I urge Members to support the amendment.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.