Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on roll call vote number 28, I too voted aye and it was my intention to vote no. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change the vote since it will not affect the outcome. It is for exactly the same reason that Senator Collins mentioned. It was our understanding in coming to the floor that the modification had been accepted, and it was not.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about cybersecurity legislation--legislation we hope will soon be before the Senate. There is no question--no question at all--that this is a critical issue that should be addressed by this Congress, and I am certain that every Member of this body is concerned that our Nation may be vulnerable to cyber-attacks that could truly have very severe economic and security ramifications. We see stories about cyber-attacks daily-- whether they are attacks on individuals, on companies, on government-- and I believe it is time for us to take steps to protect ourselves against this emerging threat. In the coming weeks, the Senate is expected to take up legislation to address this very real problem, and I am hopeful this effort will result in legislation we can all agree is worthy of sending to the President. But right now it appears we are on track to follow an all- or-nothing approach. The problem I see with the bill that is expected to come to the floor--featuring text that was recently released by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--is that it has not gone through regular order and, I fear, amounts to regulatory overreach. If that is our only option here, it will ultimately prevent us from making progress on cybersecurity here in Congress, which I think would be an unfortunate outcome. Because that outcome is unacceptable, I have introduced an alternative bill this morning, along with a number of ranking member colleagues. I know Senator Chambliss from Georgia was here on the floor earlier, and many of us spoke to it earlier in the day. We call our bill the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information, and Technology Act of 2012. It has an acronym, of course. It is called SECURE IT for short. The bill follows a commonsense approach to address our ever-increasing cyber threats. Our bill focuses on four different areas we believe can draw bipartisan support and result in good public law. Those four areas are: information sharing, FISMA reform--which is intelligence-sharing reform--criminal penalties, as well as additional research. What the SECURE IT bill does not do is equally important, because it does not simply add new layers of bureaucracy and regulation that will serve little purpose and achieve meager results. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee bill would arm the Department of Homeland Security with expansive new authorities to review all sectors of our economy and designate what is termed ``covered critical infrastructure'' for further regulation. What we hear out there from industry is that this amounts to regulation almost for regulation's sake. In the electricity industry's case, this is resulting in duplicative regulation that I am afraid will lead to a ``compliance first'' mentality. Companies will focus on meeting their new Federal requirements and passing a seemingly endless stream of audits, but these heavyhanded statistic requirements from yet one more Federal regulator will not necessarily address the very real threats we face. So again, the concern is we will have industry focused on how do we comply, how do we avoid a bad audit, instead of using their ingenuity and their resources to ensure we stay ahead of any future cyber-attack. We need to be more nimble. We have to have a more nimble approach to dealing with cyber-related threats that are constantly growing and constantly changing. The threat we see today is not necessarily the threat we might anticipate tomorrow, so we have to stay ahead of the game. This is important, and this is where our SECURE IT bill comes in. I think we have simply taken a more pragmatic approach by focusing on the areas where we know we can find some bipartisan support. One area I think we can all agree on is that the Federal Government needs to form a partnership with the private sector. We share the same goals, that is clear. The goals are 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 the potential strategies and the solutions to combat them. To achieve this goal, our legislation encourages the voluntary sharing of much needed information by removing legal barriers to its use and its disclosure. At the same time, we are very careful to safeguard the privacy and prohibit information from being used for competitive advantage. Our bill also provides necessary updates to the Federal Information Security Management Act. This is the FISMA I spoke to a minute ago. These FISMA reforms require real-time monitoring of Federal systems. It will modernize the way the government manages and mitigates its own cyber risks. And unlike other legislation on this subject, the cyber bill we have introduced today will update criminal statutes to account for cyber activities. Finally, we support advanced cybersecurity research by leveraging existing resources without necessarily spending new Federal dollars. That is very important for us. This straightforward approach to cybersecurity, I think, can go a long way in tackling the problem. Clearly, our own government agencies here need to be communicating a little bit better with one another. An example of this is that the White House and Department of Homeland Security are staging an exercise next week. All Members have been invited to attend and go through this exercise. It is a mock scenario that will feature a cyber-attack on the Nation's grid. And while I absolutely think this is a useful exercise, and something that is well worthwhile, I do find it quite surprising--quite surprising--that DHS would set up a grid attack scenario and fail to include the grid's primary regulators. These would be the electric reliability organization--what we call NERC--and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. These are the two regulatory agencies currently in place that provide for that cyber regulation. It is mandated within our grid that these agencies tend to just this issue. So it does make me question if DHS is even aware the electric industry is the only industry already subject to mandatory cyber standards, or that the NERC has the ability to issue time-sensitive alerts to electric utilities in the event of emergency situations. It is kind of hard for me to understand why DHS would proceed with a grid attack simulation and not include the existing governmental entities that already have these safeguards in place. It also begs the question as to whether Congress should provide DHS with such significant and expansive new authorities in the cyber arena. Before I close, I wish to take a moment to talk about the process behind cybersecurity legislation. While my colleagues and I have highlighted the substantive and procedural problems that are associated with the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee bill, the majority, and even the press, have attempted to dismiss our arguments as nothing more than partisan stall tactics. I stand before you to tell you that is simply not true. I want to take action on cyber. I know all of the ranking members who have joined together on this issue want to take action on cyber. We need to do it. I have been calling for action and for legislation since last Congress. We have been working on it in the Energy Committee and have moved out that cyber energy piece. But I do think it is important around this body that there is some meaning to the process; that process really does matter. That is how strong, bipartisan pieces of legislation are enacted. When we forego that process and refuse to do the hard work in the committee--and it is hard. But if we don't do that, we put ourselves on a path to failure with that legislation. So when we have seven ranking members taking issue with how a bill has been put together, I think we had better pay attention. I think we need to look at whether our process is working. The SECURE IT bill we introduced today is a strong starting point for us. Some may argue we need to go a little further. But additional layers of bureaucracy and regulations are not the answer at this time. Legislating in the four areas we have highlights--in the information sharing, the FISMA reform, criminal penalties, and research--these are necessary first steps that will make a tremendous amount of difference. If we need to do more in the future, we in Congress can certainly make that determination. But let's not take an all-or-nothing approach to cyber legislation and ultimately end up empty-handed. I ask my colleagues to take a look at what we have presented today and consider supporting the SECURE IT Act so we can continue to ensure our citizens, our companies, and our country are protected.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 2151 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about cybersecurity legislation--legislation we hope will soon be before the Senate. There is no question--no question at all--that this is a critical issue that should be addressed by this Congress, and I am certain that every Member of this body is concerned that our Nation may be vulnerable to cyber-attacks that could truly have very severe economic and security ramifications. We see stories about cyber-attacks daily-- whether they are attacks on individuals, on companies, on government-- and I believe it is time for us to take steps to protect ourselves against this emerging threat. In the coming weeks, the Senate is expected to take up legislation to address this very real problem, and I am hopeful this effort will result in legislation we can all agree is worthy of sending to the President. But right now it appears we are on track to follow an all- or-nothing approach. The problem I see with the bill that is expected to come to the floor--featuring text that was recently released by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--is that it has not gone through regular order and, I fear, amounts to regulatory overreach. If that is our only option here, it will ultimately prevent us from making progress on cybersecurity here in Congress, which I think would be an unfortunate outcome. Because that outcome is unacceptable, I have introduced an alternative bill this morning, along with a number of ranking member colleagues. I know Senator Chambliss from Georgia was here on the floor earlier, and many of us spoke to it earlier in the day. We call our bill the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information, and Technology Act of 2012. It has an acronym, of course. It is called SECURE IT for short. The bill follows a commonsense approach to address our ever-increasing cyber threats. Our bill focuses on four different areas we believe can draw bipartisan support and result in good public law. Those four areas are: information sharing, FISMA reform--which is intelligence-sharing reform--criminal penalties, as well as additional research. What the SECURE IT bill does not do is equally important, because it does not simply add new layers of bureaucracy and regulation that will serve little purpose and achieve meager results. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee bill would arm the Department of Homeland Security with expansive new authorities to review all sectors of our economy and designate what is termed ``covered critical infrastructure'' for further regulation. What we hear out there from industry is that this amounts to regulation almost for regulation's sake. In the electricity industry's case, this is resulting in duplicative regulation that I am afraid will lead to a ``compliance first'' mentality. Companies will focus on meeting their new Federal requirements and passing a seemingly endless stream of audits, but these heavyhanded statistic requirements from yet one more Federal regulator will not necessarily address the very real threats we face. So again, the concern is we will have industry focused on how do we comply, how do we avoid a bad audit, instead of using their ingenuity and their resources to ensure we stay ahead of any future cyber-attack. We need to be more nimble. We have to have a more nimble approach to dealing with cyber-related threats that are constantly growing and constantly changing. The threat we see today is not necessarily the threat we might anticipate tomorrow, so we have to stay ahead of the game. This is important, and this is where our SECURE IT bill comes in. I think we have simply taken a more pragmatic approach by focusing on the areas where we know we can find some bipartisan support. One area I think we can all agree on is that the Federal Government needs to form a partnership with the private sector. We share the same goals, that is clear. The goals are 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 the potential strategies and the solutions to combat them. To achieve this goal, our legislation encourages the voluntary sharing of much needed information by removing legal barriers to its use and its disclosure. At the same time, we are very careful to safeguard the privacy and prohibit information from being used for competitive advantage. Our bill also provides necessary updates to the Federal Information Security Management Act. This is the FISMA I spoke to a minute ago. These FISMA reforms require real-time monitoring of Federal systems. It will modernize the way the government manages and mitigates its own cyber risks. And unlike other legislation on this subject, the cyber bill we have introduced today will update criminal statutes to account for cyber activities. Finally, we support advanced cybersecurity research by leveraging existing resources without necessarily spending new Federal dollars. That is very important for us. This straightforward approach to cybersecurity, I think, can go a long way in tackling the problem. Clearly, our own government agencies here need to be communicating a little bit better with one another. An example of this is that the White House and Department of Homeland Security are staging an exercise next week. All Members have been invited to attend and go through this exercise. It is a mock scenario that will feature a cyber-attack on the Nation's grid. And while I absolutely think this is a useful exercise, and something that is well worthwhile, I do find it quite surprising--quite surprising--that DHS would set up a grid attack scenario and fail to include the grid's primary regulators. These would be the electric reliability organization--what we call NERC--and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. These are the two regulatory agencies currently in place that provide for that cyber regulation. It is mandated within our grid that these agencies tend to just this issue. So it does make me question if DHS is even aware the electric industry is the only industry already subject to mandatory cyber standards, or that the NERC has the ability to issue time-sensitive alerts to electric utilities in the event of emergency situations. It is kind of hard for me to understand why DHS would proceed with a grid attack simulation and not include the existing governmental entities that already have these safeguards in place. It also begs the question as to whether Congress should provide DHS with such significant and expansive new authorities in the cyber arena. Before I close, I wish to take a moment to talk about the process behind cybersecurity legislation. While my colleagues and I have highlighted the substantive and procedural problems that are associated with the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee bill, the majority, and even the press, have attempted to dismiss our arguments as nothing more than partisan stall tactics. I stand before you to tell you that is simply not true. I want to take action on cyber. I know all of the ranking members who have joined together on this issue want to take action on cyber. We need to do it. I have been calling for action and for legislation since last Congress. We have been working on it in the Energy Committee and have moved out that cyber energy piece. But I do think it is important around this body that there is some meaning to the process; that process really does matter. That is how strong, bipartisan pieces of legislation are enacted. When we forego that process and refuse to do the hard work in the committee--and it is hard. But if we don't do that, we put ourselves on a path to failure with that legislation. So when we have seven ranking members taking issue with how a bill has been put together, I think we had better pay attention. I think we need to look at whether our process is working. The SECURE IT bill we introduced today is a strong starting point for us. Some may argue we need to go a little further. But additional layers of bureaucracy and regulations are not the answer at this time. Legislating in the four areas we have highlights--in the information sharing, the FISMA reform, criminal penalties, and research--these are necessary first steps that will make a tremendous amount of difference. If we need to do more in the future, we in Congress can certainly make that determination. But let's not take an all-or-nothing approach to cyber legislation and ultimately end up empty-handed. I ask my colleagues to take a look at what we have presented today and consider supporting the SECURE IT Act so we can continue to ensure our citizens, our companies, and our country are protected.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about what people all across the country are talking about; that is, the high price of energy, what people are paying at the pump. I just returned from a week in Alaska. It is fair to say that in a State such as ours, that is as rich as we are with energy wealth, we are being killed by energy prices. So I wanted to comment on some of the statements the President made over the weekend and Friday when he spoke to the country about energy. I have to tell you, I was pleased to hear the President say he is joining us in an ``all-of-the-above approach'' to energy. I think that is good news. It is certainly something I have been saying ever since I arrived in the Senate. It is about domestic production, it is about efficiencies and conservation, and it is about renewables. So that is good. We heard the President say we need to be doing more with oil and gas. You are not going to find any disagreement with me. Wind and solar, nuclear, biofuels, efficiency, this is all good, but the problem we are seeing is the words coming from President Obama are not matching his actions when it comes to what we can be doing with our own domestic production. I will speak specifically to oil and gas. The actions coming out of the administration, whether through this budget or through some of the other proposals pushing for higher taxes, higher royalties on the industry, when we think about what goes on with the oil and gas leases in the gulf, we have certainly seen the impact flow down there. In Alaska, we have been pushing, pushing aggressively for 4 years now to get the OCS leases advanced through exploration with Shell, not only 4 years in the process but billions of dollars into a process. We are getting closer, but we are not there yet. With the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, an area that has been designated by the Congress to explore for production activity, it took almost 2 years to get a bridge across the CD 5, an area where we have an opportunity to continue our exploration--but 2 years to get a simple permit for a bridge. We all know ANWR has been locked up for decades now. There is incredibly wealthy potential there. Look at the decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline coming out of this administration. When it comes to other areas that are supposedly in ``all of the above,'' nuclear--as much as we might have hoped that this was enjoying a renaissance, we have seen the decision on the shutdown of Yucca Mountain from this administration, the issues as they relate to access to uranium in certain parts of the country. The rhetoric is not necessarily matching what we are seeing coming out of the administration. This is what is so disturbing to a person like me who comes from an area where we have so much to give, so much to offer. The President, in his words, said, ``There are no quick fixes to this problem.'' I agree. I absolutely agree. That is why instead of focusing on what could be perceived as a quick fix, such as releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we need to be focusing on the long- term solution. I keep going back to 1995 when the House and the Senate passed ANWR. It was vetoed by the President shortly thereafter. Prices at the pump back then were $1.07 at the pump. The average price today is $3.65. Think about where we would be if that action had not been vetoed; if the Alaska pipeline, which is now less than half filled, were at full capacity with oil coming out of ANWR. Just yesterday a colleague of ours from New York sent a letter to Secretary Clinton asking her to pressure Saudi Arabia to pump more oil. In his letter to the Secretary, he said, I urge the State Department to work with the Government of Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production, as they are currently producing well under their capacity. Well, our pipeline is certainly well under capacity at 600,000 barrels a day. When we were pushing it through at full tilt, we were over 2 million barrels a day. That is exactly what the Senator from New York has asked Saudi Arabia to do. We could be doing it from Alaska. We could be doing it from this country with our people gaining access to our resources, and we are not doing that. The President said the Republican plan is just to drill, drill, drill. He said: We hear this every year. Well, why do we hear this every year? We hear it because it is part of the solution. It is not the whole solution, but it is part of the solution, in addition to conservation, efficiency, renewables, and other areas of our domestic production. But drilling is part of the solution. It should not just be part of the rhetoric. The President said, and I would agree: The American people are not stupid on this. They know that we are not just going to be able to snap our fingers and have oil coming out of ANWR or having oil coming out of the OCS in the Chukchi or the Beaufort. They know it takes a while. They know in some cases it might take decades to come. So why would we not start now? If we had started in 1995, think about where we would have been. He said, ``There are no short-term silver bullets.'' Once again, I agree. But there is a long silver bullet in Alaska, and that is our Trans-Alaska Pipeline that has been moving oil for 30 years now for this country. That silver bullet could be filled, and it would be helping this country just as we are asking for help from Saudi Arabia. The statement that I think most upset me this weekend was the statement that the President made when he said: Some politicians see this--being higher oil prices--as a political opportunity. He repeated a quote that ``Republicans are licking their chops,'' and stated, ``Only in politics do people root for bad news.'' Well, the people of my State are not rooting for bad news when it comes to higher energy prices. I will tell you, I am a little offended by the President's statement. I would invite him to come to Alaska, spend a week with me, go to where I was last Saturday in Fairbanks where people are paying $4.29 for their home heating oil. My sister pays over $1,000 a month for home heating fuel to fill her tanks. She lives within 20 minutes of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. You can see it. You can drive by it, this line that is half full, and it is not, again, because we are running out of resources. It is because we have been locked out of ANWR, we have been delayed on NPRA, and we are still waiting on OCS. There are certainly plenty of leases out there. But it is getting the permits out of this administration that has been holding us back from doing more, from doing more to help the people of Alaska and to help the people of this country. Last month I was out in Bethel in southwest Alaska. There was a native elder who came to a little gathering we had. He is from Eek, AK. He was telling me that he pays $7.46 for home heating fuel in the village of Eek. That is how they stay warm. When I was there in January, the average temperature for that month was about 20 degrees below zero. He said he has to buy his fuel 10 gallons at a time because that is all he can afford. Then when he does not have any more money, he goes out looking for fire wood for he and his wife. This gentleman, as I said, is an elder, probably 70 years old. But that is how he is living. High energy prices for him are not an opportunity. Go up to Nome. All eyes of the Nation were on Nome several weeks back when the Coast Guard cutter was escorting the Russian fuel tanker, the Renda, to get to Nome to provide fuel for the community of Nome and the surrounding villages because the winter ice had come in and the winter barge had not been able to make it in with the fuel. When I was in Nome that afternoon, the price for gas at the pump was $5.43; the price for diesel was $5.99. But it was projected that if they weren't able to fill their tanks, they would see the prices go up to over $9 a gallon. Think of what that does to your ability to live. Thankfully, the Coast Guard and the fine men and women there were able to see that the community and the villages were taken care of. I was in Yakutat on Wednesday, a small community that is not accessible by road, as most of our communities aren't. There in Yakutat, they are paying 54 cents a kilowatt hour for energy. Most of their power is diesel-generated power--54 cents. That is for the businesses that get a subsidy from the State of Alaska for 30 cents a kilowatt hour. The small grocery store we visited paid $10,000 for its energy prices in January alone--$10,000 a month for a little grocery store. They are paying $5.19 a gallon right now, but it is going up with the next fuel barge that comes in. Alaskans in villages who rely on diesel for their power can pay between 40 and 45 percent of their income for their energy costs. Compare that to the rest of the country, where you are looking at between 3 and 6 percent of your income going toward energy. We are paying almost 50 percent in some of our villages. Mr. President, I don't view high oil prices as a political opportunity and neither do my constituents. What we view as an opportunity is the resource our State holds--a resource that we continue to be denied access to that opportunity. We learned late last week that the USGS has come back with an estimate that the shale oil in Alaska would come close to 2 billion barrels of oil. ANWR's estimate is about 10.6 billion barrels. In the OCS, we anticipate over 26 billion barrels of oil. We have the resources. We have the ability to access the resources and to do so in an environmentally safe way. This needs to be part of an all-of-the-above solution, in addition to everything we do with renewables and our efficiencies and conservation. We must be doing more domestically. Alaska holds the opportunity. Again, I agree with the President that there is no short-term fix, but if we don't get started today, there is not going to be a tomorrow for communities such as Yakutat and Eek and Bethel and Fairbanks. We have to get started today. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. 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 recognize the Alaska Sports Hall of Fame. Since the body's inception in 2006 and its first class of inductees in 2007, the Alaska Sports Hall of Fame has educated Alaskans and visitors, honored and preserved memories in Alaskan sports, and promoted a healthy youth population by providing activities that will inspire children to strive for success in their own lives. The Hall's mission is to teach, honor, and inspire. Beyond that core mission, the Alaska Sports Hall of Fame has done much to promote the accomplishments of the world-class athletes in the great state of Alaska. The 23 Hall of Fame inductees through 2012 have stacked up tremendous accomplishments, but there is, perhaps above all else, a single thread that binds the inductees together: a love and respect for Alaska. Dr. Bradford Washburn, without ever actually living in-State, was certainly an honorary Alaskan. He traversed the North Country in more than 70 trips and strapped himself into the open door of a low-flying plane for aerial photographic work of the great State of Alaska. The legendary ``Huslia Hustler,'' George Attla, was a ten-time Fur Rondy sled dog champion and motivated crowds that included a strong rivalry with Roland ``Doc'' Lombard. Carlos Boozer, born in Juneau, played for the Crimson Bears at Juneau-Douglas High School, compiling a 95 12 career record and winning back-to-back Class 4A State titles in 1997 and 1998, before moving on to be an NBA All-Star. Reggie Joule, the greatest practitioner of the blanket toss in the long history of the World Eskimo-Indian Olympics, captured more than 30 medals in the 2- foot high kick, greased pole walk, arm pull, and other events, earning the title ``Mr. Olympics.'' The Alaska Sports Hall of Fame depicts an understanding that goes beyond the basic tenets of its own stated mission. It is a way to honor the Alaskan way of life and to depict Alaskan exceptionalism. Mark Schlereth, 2008 Alaska Sports Hall of Fame inductee and 3-time Super Bowl Champion, described the Alaskan bond as special and a true source of pride. After the sweat, the injuries, the memories, the failures and accomplishments, the true value of sport goes far beyond the statues and medals. Sport brings friends and family together it can make teammates of complete strangers. It provides youth with positive role models, promotes healthy lifestyles, and teaches life skills. The Alaska Sports Hall of Fame reminds us of the positive attributes of sport, but equally important is highlighting and respecting the Alaskan way of life. Events such as the Iditarod, the Great Alaska Shootout, and the World Eskimo-Indian Olympics showcase the great State of Alaska and who we are as a people. There is so much to celebrate and commemorate in Alaska. The Alaska Sports Hall of Fame provides an opportunity to demonstrate excellence in athletic endeavors by exceptional Alaskans.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I come to the floor concerning the passing of Frank Cushing, one of the true public servants that the Congress has known. Frank served as a legislative aide to Senator Jim McClure of Idaho prior to joining the Appropriations Committee staff as director of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies in 1981. In 1984 he became the staff director of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, a post he held until 1991. Although he left briefly for the private sector, public service remained an integral part of his commitment to the Congress and this Nation. His expertise, command of the appropriations, authorizing, and budget processes, and his exceptional talent and ability to work with others was missed, and he returned to the Congress as staff director of the House Appropriations Committee under Congressman Lewis. It takes exceptional abilities to be a good staff director, especially with the strong personalities that come with the experts who serve on the staff of our committees. Frank had the ability to work across the aisle and with other committees as few have ever done. His knowledge of the appropriations process and budgeting provided a unique depth to the consideration of authorizing legislation. He was able to challenge the staff, improve the work product, and set a high standard for quality and substance that we still strive to maintain. Much of the work of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is bipartisan and often nonpartisan, reflecting regional interests and concerns, and Frank understood how those interests and concerns could fit within the overall policies that we tried to set for our energy, public lands, and resource goals. During his tenure on the committee, Frank in many ways was responsible for the close working relationship between Senator McClure and Senator Johnston as they switched from their roles as chairman and ranking member. Frank was extraordinarily helpful when Senator McClure was chairman in resolving the budgetary issues that threatened to hold up the Compacts of Free Association that, when finally enacted, led to the termination of the Trusteeship of the Pacific Islands the last of the U.N. Trusteeships. When Senator Johnston announced at the beginning of one Congress that he thought the committee should consider and report legislation dealing with Puerto Rico as well as national energy policy, Frank was in large measure responsible for negotiating and constructing the framework and process that enabled the committee to successfully report both measures with bipartisan support, although I should mention that there were also bipartisan concerns as well. Those are details, however, and do not convey what a warm and generous person Frank was. They do not convey the respect and admiration that those who worked with him had for his ability to negotiate without rancor and without being disagreeable. They do not tell of his concern for his staff and their problems or his interest in their welfare and future or how the friendships that developed during his tenure continued and grew and deepened over the years since he left. There is one other aspect of Frank's service to the Senate as staff director of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that should be mentioned. If Frank always put public service and the willingness to respond to calls to return to public service above the lures of the private sector, there was one passion that surmounted everything else and that was his love for his family. Frank met his wife Amy while he served on the Energy Committee, and anyone who ever met Frank understood that Amy and his children, from his first marriage and with Amy, were the center of his life. Our hearts and thoughts in these times go out to Amy and Frank's children and to all their family and to those who were close to him. His presence remains with the institutions he served; and his humor, compassion, and commitment will continue to be a marker for not just our committee, but for public service generally. His family and multitude of friends lost a good and faithful man, but they all remain the richer for having known him for the many years, both in and out of government, that they shared with him.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have other concerns with this Transportation bill. I have mentioned the Denali Commission several times today. I have joined my colleague, Senator Begich, in filing an amendment to this bill that would restore the Denali Commission's transportation program--an incredibly important program to our State. I have also raised concerns about a provision within the banking title that relates to our Alaska Railroad. These are concerns that, while they might not register fully with all of our colleagues here in the Senate, to Alaska they are critical. Our transportation needs are different. Some might say they are unique. But we have risen to the challenge with limited funding and smart people trying to do good things to connect us in ways that make sense. Through the work of the Denali Commission, our IRR funding, and our Alaska Railroad, we have been engaged in building up the transportation infrastructure of the Last Frontier. In order to continue the progress that we've made thus far, I ask for your support and consideration to address the problems I've outlined with this legislation. With that, I thank my colleague from Oregon for giving me some additional time this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, most of our roads, when we are talking about the IRR roads, are not necessarily roads that are going to carry a vehicle. These are roads that will carry pedestrians, a four-wheeler, a snow machine. These are the ways that Alaska's Native people access our subsistence resources, haul their subsistence food home. These are the roads that form the link to the village airport, which is the only way out during the wintertime. If there are no roads, you have to be flying to all of these locations. This is a picture of the village of Kwigillingok, which lies on the western shore of Kuskokwim Bay, 388 miles west of Anchorage. In this village, the primary mode of transportation is by foot, ATV, and snow machine in the wintertime. But you look at this picture, it is all nice, green--it looks beautiful. But it is tundra. It is wet and marshy. If you get down there in your rubber boots, you are going to be up to your knees in brush and water. You cannot walk through this and would not want to put a vehicle on it. So what you see here is a real technological breakthrough in how to build rural roads in places where dirt and gravel either just do not exist out there or just do not work. This was built using IRR funds from the Native village of Kwigillingok, funding from the State of Alaska, and funding from the Denali Commission. This is construction of a geo-tech grid track. It looks like grading. It is like a plastic grading that overlays the ground and provides access over the tundra. IRR funding and the Denali Commission funding were leveraged with other funding sources, and it provided jobs within the community. The next picture we have is a boardwalk, a board road that was built in Nunam Iqua, which is on the south fork of the Yukon River, about 500 miles northwest of Anchorage. Again, this project was made possible by leveraging funds from the Denali Commission, the State of Alaska, and Nunam Iqua's tribal shares from the IRR Program. It is just a boardwalk, but you look at this picture, and you can see it is kind of rippled and wavy. Well, that is what happens when you put boards on top of wet, marshy tundra, but at least you can walk on it. At least you can access it by your four-wheeler without doing damage to the area and it connects your schools and health clinics to the homes. This project created jobs within the community and a safe road system for the residents to access public facilities. This picture is from one of my visits down in the Y-K Delta. You can see, this is their road system. It provides a connection to homes and to community facilities. This is the means of transportation here. You go out on the tundra there and, again, you sink. I took Secretary Paige, the Secretary of Education, out there to one of our smaller villages, Tuntutuliak, and we got out and got on the boardwalk, and he said: When does it dry out here? I said: Sir, this is as dry as it gets. He said: Where do the children play? I said: Well, this is it. In the Lower 48 children play on the sidewalks and quiet neighborhood streets, in rural Alaska children play on the boardwalks. We also have some challenging conditions in other parts of our State. In southeastern Alaska, we do not have to worry about the tundra, but we do have some challenging conditions. The Craig Tribal Association down in Craig has been working on the reconstruction of the Port Saint Nicholas Road for the past 4 years. The road has several bridges that are being replaced concurrent with the road construction. Again, ``the Denali Commission has been a committed, critical partner,'' in the words of the tribe. In this picture, you can see Dog Salmon Creek Bridge prior to the construction. This was a dilapidated, rotting, wooden bridge. Then, in the next picture, you can see what $1.7 million from the Denali Commission and from IRR does--a modest investment that really comes together. You have a paved road and a solid bridge that is going to last for decades. But these projects could not be built under the reduced funding levels for small tribes that we have proposed in MAP 21. Tribal transportation funding in the bill is directed toward populated areas, and roads that are more established receive greater amounts of funding. So again, when you take into account an area such as Alaska, where we have many miles but few people, and a formula that is designed to work against us, how do we ever make headway, how do we ever connect these communities, how do we ever allow for a transportation system to progress and be developed? I have submitted an amendment I hope we will have an opportunity to bring up. It restores current law and current regulations with respect to the funding formula that was developed, again, after years of negotiation in a very open and transparent process. Just yesterday, at the Intertribal Transportation Association meeting in Minnesota, we had tribes from the Rocky Mountain region, the Great Plains region, the Midwest region, and the Navajo Nation who all agreed that MAP 21 sets a dangerous precedent to allow Congress to overturn the tribal rulemaking process, as it is a threat to tribal sovereignty, and we are hearing more and more concerns every day about the opposition coming from those who feel they have been circumvented by Congress in this act. In the past couple days, I have received letters from tribes from California, as well as Alaska. I have a letter from the Susanville Indian Rancheria, one from the Ramona Band of Cahuilla, who wrote: Under MAP 21, smaller urban tribes with paved roads garner a significant increase in funding while tribes such as the Ramona Band which are rural and have poor roads, arguably those with the most need and no other access to transportation funding, will see significant decreases. What I am trying to do is restore some parity. I ask unanimous consent that these letters from not only the Alaskan tribes but from the Californian tribes I just mentioned be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are dealing with the Transportation bill, and let me say I hope we truly deal with the Transportation bill eventually because there has been a great deal of work on this measure by the chairman and the ranking members of the relevant committees, and I thank them for the hard work they have put into this. I support their efforts to give States long-term security for moving forward with Federal highway aid and transit programs. I support the efforts to give States that long-term security for planning purposes, improve the project approval process, and reduce duplicative and excessive programs. However, I do have very serious concerns with certain aspects of the legislation proposed. Most particularly, and the reason I have come to the floor this evening, is to discuss what this legislation does to the Indian Reservation Roads Program. This is the program known as IRR. IRR is a jointly administered program between the Federal Highway Administration and the Bureau of Indian Affairs that addresses the transportation needs of our tribes by providing funds for the planning, the design, the construction, and the maintenance activities. The Indian Reservation Roads are public roads. They provide access to and within Indian reservations, Indian trust land, restricted Indian land, and Alaskan Native villages. There are approximately 29,000 miles that are under jurisdiction of the BIA and the tribes, and another 73,000 miles are under State and local ownership. IRR funds can be used for any type of title 23 transportation project that provides access to or within Federal or Indian lands and may be used as the State and local matching share for a portion of Federal aid highway funds. The IRR inventory is a comprehensive database of all transportation facilities that are eligible for IRR Program funding by tribe, reservation, BIA agency, region, congressional district, the State, and the county. I think it is important to understand how we came to the position of where we are today with MAP 21. For years, Alaska received very little assistance from the IRR Program because we only have one reservation, a very small reservation down in southeastern Alaska, Metlakatla and, therefore, little to no BIA-owned roads. The BIA maintains a national database of roads, the IRR inventory, which is used to allocate IRR funds and determine locations where IRR funds can be used. State and county-owned roads comprise the majority of the road miles within the IRR system. A few decades ago, there were very few villages in Alaska that were putting any inventory into the system. TEA 21 gave the committee criteria in establishing the funding formula based on the needs of Indian tribes for transportation assistance, cost of road construction, geographic isolation, and difficulty in maintaining all- weather access to employment, commerce, health, safety, and education resources. With the passage of TEA 21, a rulemaking committee was established, the IRR Program Coordinating Committee, which helped to develop the funding formula which was published in 2004. The coordinating committee was made up of 12 primary members from Indian tribes, one from each region. There were 12 alternates and two nonvoting Federal representatives. Decisions that were made by the committee were reached by consensus. It was not a majority decision process. The funding formula, which is known as the relative need distribution formula, adopted in the IRR Program final rule, reflects Congress's intent that the funding distribution method balance the interests of all tribes and enable all tribes to participate in the IRR Program. I should note that 40 percent of all federally recognized tribes in the Nation reside in the State of Alaska--40 percent. I think that is something many of my colleagues are not aware of. That balancing of interests called for avoiding substantial allocations from the larger tribes while still addressing the central problem that historically left the smaller tribes out of the program. The prior formula distributed funds based on an inventory limited to roads built and owned by the BIA. But the new formula broadened tribal participation by allowing the inclusion of State, county, and municipally owned IRR- eligible facilities in the inventory so the actual IRR transportation needs could be counted for funding purposes. In 2003, Loretta Bullard, who is with a regional nonprofit representing the Bering Straits region of northwestern Alaska, testified before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee saying that the BIA had never surveyed any villages to identify the roads that were eligible for support. So there just wasn't a complete inventory at that time because there had never been a survey up in Alaska. That was back in 2003. As a result of the 2004 rulemaking, which took 5 years, by the way, Alaska increased its inventory. Alaska benefited from a competitive grant program that was established under the rulemaking for smaller tribes called the High Priority Project Program. This legislation we are dealing with now seeks to undo all the gains Alaska made through TEA 21, through the 2004 rulemaking, and through SAFETEA LU. It is all unraveled with this legislation. Alaska is unfairly harmed by MAP 21, more than any other region in the country. Alaska loses $16 million a year under MAP 21 and tribes throughout the State will be effectively shut out of the program. This is not acceptable. The current negotiated regulation, which was developed, again, by consensus from tribes throughout the entire country, is focused on need. The new formula which we see reflected in this legislation was written behind closed doors by a handful of people with no government- to-government tribal consultation. Its focus is on the population and the urban areas. It disregards the trust responsibility that is owed to the 566 federally recognized tribes in our Nation, 229 of which reside in the State of Alaska--again, nearly half of all the recognized tribes in the Nation. I think every time I come to the floor and talk about something, I have to put up the map of Alaska so we are all reminded how big it is. This is the proportional size when we superimpose Alaska over the rest of the lower 48. The red on this map is our road system. All these areas in white where we don't see anything, there are no roads there. Clearly our roads are pretty limited--our road system is centralized in the middle of the state, with a few scattered roads in other areas. What is behind this kind of great shadow of Alaska? The States that are covered up behind it are North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Illinois. They are all kind of tucked under this great expanse. Just imagine if one is from Missouri, it would be like saying we have no roads in the state. That is what we are talking about. My map shows all the roads in Alaska, not the IRR roads. These are our State roads and our Federal highways. This is everything. So when we are talking about the IRR piece, it is even more minuscule in terms of comparison to what the Lower 48 has. We have approximately 16,000 miles of road in Alaska, and 5,600 miles of those are unpaved. That sounds like a lot, but keep in mind, we have 570,000 square miles of land to cover in my home state. When you put in perspective, that's not a lot of roads we are talking about--16,000 miles of road for 570,000 square miles of state. I would like to highlight some of the things we have been able to do in the State of Alaska as a result of the IRR Program. The Indian Reservation Roads Program funds the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges within Alaska Native villages. In many cases, these are not roads you and I would think of as typical roads. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes from my colleague, if that is acceptable.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise to spend a few minutes on the Senate floor to talk about home--about Alaska. We have a tendency sometimes up north to do things in a big way, a bold way. We tend to brag a little bit about it. That is all OK. But we have been in the center of the news cycle for a few weeks this winter, at the onset of this year, because of our weather which has been big and bold. As a consequence of some of the extremes that we are seeing up north, I think it has brought out the best of Alaskans and certainly the warmth that comes from a northern climate. I think the occupant of the chair sees that in her State where she has some conditions with snow and cold. The neighbor-to-neighbor response that comes about when we are dealing with Mother Nature at her finest or at her most extreme, I think, is something that helps define us as a people. Today, I wish to speak for a few moments to recognize the very extraordinary efforts we have seen recently of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Alaska National Guard in helping the residents of several of our communities since early this year. Earlier on the Senate floor, my colleague, the junior Senator from Alaska, mentioned some of the events that have happened. He, too, acknowledged the hard work and very significant efforts of our Coast Guard and the Alaska National Guard. I think it is important to make sure we all take the time to tell the story, to share it with colleagues and with people around the country. In many parts of the United States right now there are some areas that are just begging for snow. I have sons out in Colorado, and they are waiting. I know on the east coast many of us would prefer a little bit more snow. Sometimes it is one of those ``be careful what you ask for'' situations, or we may be like the town of Valdez and have 27 feet of snow in our community. That is a little bit more than I think most of us would ask for or hope for. The community of Nome has been in the news for months now as they have felt the brunt of some early winter storms, storms that have forced them as a community in the northwest region of the State to feel the pinch of Mother Nature in a very extreme way. Nome is a community of about 3,500 residents. It sits up on the west coast of Alaska. Most people in this country recall Nome from the early days of the Gold Rush. But more recently, Nome comes into the national news every March when the famous Iditarod dog sled race is run which finishes in Nome. It is a 1,100-mile race where man and animal are pitched against Mother Nature in a pretty intense way. Nome makes it in the headlines for several different reasons. This year adds yet another reason that Nome is in the history books, where people are talking about this incredible part of the State. Alaska is known for our tough winters and, again, I started my comments by saying we kind of like the fact that we are tougher than the rest of the world, and we brag about it. This winter, though, has been particularly harsh. We have seen record cold. We have seen snowstorms hit the State earlier than usual. I was up in the State last week, places such as Bethel where it normally averages about zero this time of year, and we are looking at 20 below for extended periods of time, not just a day or two. In southeastern Alaska not only have they been hit with below zero temperatures, but massive amounts of snow are hitting them as well. Nome is, again, a coastal community. When they receive their annual fuel supplies, they basically fuel up for the winter. The only way to get to Nome is to fly in or to go by water. So in order to get the fuel tanks filled up for the winter, the annual fuel barges come in early fall before they have ice conditions out in the Bering Sea. This year, if you will recall, back in October, everybody was watching the news because of the massive storms that were pounding western Alaska. Back in Washington, DC, every evening on the news we could see these major storms coming through. If we were here or down in Florida, they would have called them hurricane force winds. For us, it was a winter storm--a tough one. What happened with that storm is that it prevented the fuel barge from reaching Nome, so the shipment of fuel that they would receive for the winter is not able to come in. One might think, well, fuel up the community another way. Again, there are no roads. What is the other way? The other way is aircraft. So one would have to fly in barrels of fuel, driving the cost of fuel up, and, quite honestly, adding to the risk of transport. So it is an issue where fuel delivery by air, while it is possible, is not the preferable way. They are in a situation where they have not only a community of 3,500 but all of the surrounding villages in the region relying on Nome for their backup. So they are at risk too. Without the fuel tanks being filled, what the community and region were looking at was a situation whereby about March--sometime in March, depending on how harsh the winter was--they were going to run out of fuel. Well, if the January temperatures are any indication--on average, it is usually about 2 degrees, but it has been 20 below and colder recently. That means people go through fuel pretty darn quick. Then what do they do? They are stuck until spring. You say: Well, isn't April or March spring? Not in Northwest Alaska because fuel barges cannot get to port until all of the ice in the Bering Sea has melted, which doesn't happen until May or June--perhaps earlier if the ice moves. That is the reality up north. So we have a major community and outlying villages that are looking at a very real threat to their community. Senator Begich showed a picture on the Senate floor of gas prices in Alaska. When I was in Nome last week, I saw first-hand the price of regular fuel at the pump was $5.43. That is what residents of Northwestern Alaska are paying today. Diesel is a hair less than $6. If they were having to fly in fuel for the balance of the winter, they were looking at about $9 a gallon. This is on top of all of the other extraordinary costs they pay as a community that is reliant on air for just about everything they need. Most of you may have seen the story in the news. Lots of people got to work to try to address the situation. I was in contact with the Coast Guard to see what they could do to help. The Coast Guard was amazing in saying: Yes, we are committed to this mission. We are going to help the people of Nome, the people of the region. So what came together was a pretty interesting story. There is a fuel tanker, the Renda, which is home-ported over in Russia. The Renda filled up with fuel in South Korea and was going to pick up fuel in Japan. They got shut out of Japan by weather. They had to go to Unalaska, Dutch Harbor on the Aleutian Chain, to fill up. For those of us who know of the Jones Act, there is an issue there. They had to get the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Transportation, and Energy to act to get a Jones Act waiver so the Russian fuel tanker could fill up in an Unalaska port and haul the fuel north to the people of Nome. It is a pretty interesting saga, just in describing the beginning. This is more than a 1,000-mile nautical journey, and they were breaking ice for about half of the way. The Renda is a pretty capable ship, but she is not an icebreaker. How she got through that ice is an interesting part of the story. The Coast Guard Cutter Healy, which had been on a research mission since early May and was on her way back to Seattle to deliver the crew got a call that Nome needed help. The fine men and women of the Healy missed their Christmas, their New Year's, and headed back north to clear a path for the Renda to Nome. Now, I think it is important to stop here and recognize that this is not the Coast Guard doing something for the people of Nome or the people of Alaska that is not part of the Coast Guard's mission. This month-long journey was the first fuel delivery through sea ice in Alaska's history, but not the first time the Coast Guard has worked to get fuel to a community. This is important. Back in 2000, CWO Richard Glasgow testified about ice-breaking operations on the Hudson River. At that time, there were five Coast Guard cutters that performed ice-breaking duties from Sandy Hook, NJ, all the way up to Troy, NY. They were working to get heating fuel to about 4 million people in the communities along the river. Officer Glasgow testified that as a direct result of the Coast Guard's continuous ice-breaking efforts that winter, all 274 petroleum-bearing barges that started the trip up the Hudson made it through the ice. He also noted if the Hudson had remained closed to barge traffic, it would have taken over 21,000 tank truck loads to move that petroleum, assuming that the trucks were available to make those deliveries. So we basically had a situation on the East Coast where the Coast Guard came to the rescue. They cleared a path so that commerce could be facilitated, and these communities along the Hudson could have the fuel and the resources they needed. The Coast Guard made it happen in an efficient and environmentally responsible way--avoiding 21,000 tank truck loads of fuel on the roads. This is not unlike the role the Coast Guard has played in Alaska. The difference with Nome is that there could not be 21,000 truck loads of petroleum because there are no roads for those trucks to travel to Nome. So we did not have the option for any other means of transport to the community short of air transport. So when we look at what the Coast Guard Cutter Healy and Captain Havlik and all the crew members did, they were following in the footsteps of many members of the Coast Guard before them in carrying out the Coast Guard's stated ice operations mission, which is to assist vessels and communities in emergency situations and facilitate essential commercial maritime activities. The Coast Guard carried out this mission by assisting with 680 ice transits, representing the transport of over $2 billion of cargo. Similarly, just last year, Coast Guard cutters coordinated with the Canadian Coast Guard ships to facilitate the movement of about $2 billion worth of critical goods on the Great Lakes. I point this out because I think it is important for people to know that in addition to all the other critical missions the Coast Guard has, one of theirs is to assist vessels and communities in emergency situations and to facilitate essential commercial maritime activities like getting fuel--an absolute bare necessity to the people in this northwestern region at a time when temperatures are 20 below for days and days on end. It was critical to us, and the Coast Guard did a remarkable job. Again, I wish to recognize these men and women who gave up their Christmas holiday, who gave up their New Year's holiday to assist Alaskans, and they were nothing short of remarkable. I had the opportunity to go on board the Healy when I was in Nome last week, as the Renda was beginning to lay the hose from the fuel barge to the shore. I also spoke with the men and women and they were exceptionally proud of their mission. But I said to them: You will go back home and your world will be changed because you will be able to stand and say: Yes, I was on the Healy when we broke ice to get the Renda to northwest Alaska. Let me give an update. Renda, the tanker, was able to get close to Nome after weeks of transit made difficult by the winter conditions of the thick ice and the currents and the winds. There were days when they actually went backward. The Coast Guard Cutter Healy would break the ice, loosen it, but it was so cold and things were happening so fast, the ice would refreeze the distance between the cutter and the Renda. In addition to some pretty tough environmental conditions, we had some language issues going on between the Coast Guard cutter and the Russian tanker. They had to translate the mission. We had some cultural differences going on. But what they were able to facilitate, again, was pretty remarkable. I am giving laudatory praise to our Coast Guard, but I think it is also important to recognize the good work the crew of the Renda did in assisting as well. Using NOAA's satellites to determine where the best mapping could be, where to cut through that, they were able to break through and get within about a half mile of the shore of Nome. It was close enough so that when I got off the Healy, I was able to take a snow machine to shore. It was about a 3-minute snow machine ride. That is how close they were able to get in safely to the shore. The Renda laid hose across the ice to connect to the tankers onshore. It was about a 6-day process to transfer the fuel to the community, but the parties involved did it safely, without any incident whatsoever. They were able to then close that operation and, last Friday, they took off from Nome to go back--the Renda to Russia and the Coast Guard Cutter Healy to Seattle. I asked for a progress report just this afternoon. And as of today, the Healy and the Renda were approximately 240 nautical miles southwest of Nome, 275 nautical miles from the ice edge. So they still have a long way to go getting through the ice. One might ask the question: Why don't they just go back the way they came in? Because, obviously, they cut the trail. But it doesn't work that way. It is cold up there. In fact, they are continuing to rely on the NOAA satellites to help them map out a perhaps more efficient way, but it has been tough. They have very challenging ice conditions and very steady strong winds. The weather is giving them winds in excess of 25 to 30 knots. Hopefully, they are going to be diminishing to 15 knots on Friday. But they are working with NOAA and other folks to find the safest, the most expedient route out of the ice. But the ice forecast continues to see ice edge expanding to the south. So all the progress they are making going south, the ice is just coming at them in the other direction. So it is challenging, but, again, these are extraordinary professionals across agencies. I have mentioned NOAA, and I mentioned what we needed to do in order to facilitate the Jones Act waiver through the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Transportation, and Defense, but we also had the State Department involved, we had the EPA involved, and the native corporation Sitnasuak to put this whole thing together. We had incredible local leadership coming out of the community of Nome. We had the University of Alaska researchers who helped with the UAVs to determine, again, how we best lay everything from the tanker in the safest place across the ice. An incredible act of collaboration. I see my friend from Illinois is on the floor, and I know I have gone over my time, but I have about 3 more minutes to wrap up if that works for my colleague. Senator Durbin comes from a State that appreciates snow, and so I think my colleague would like to hear the rest of my story because I am not done acknowledging the fine men and women of the Alaska National Guard who played a role in helping to dig out the community of Cordova after record snowfall. We have had some pretty tough snows. Cordova is a coastal community in south central Alaska, and they got hammered. They got about 176 inches of snow. Last week, when we checked in, they had 16 feet of snow on the ground, which is pretty unusual. Not quite Valdez's record, which is sitting at 27 feet right now, but it was enough that roofs were caving in and there were public safety concerns. What the community did was come together, as small communities do, to try to shovel out, and 50 or 60 Alaska National Guardsmen were there to help. The Coast Guard was there too helping to shovel--it was quite a lovely community story. Again, it is one of those stories that reminds us that whether Mother Nature hits us with winds and storms and cold in the north, or hurricanes in the south, we come together as a people. We come together as communities to help, and sometimes we have some real heroes that emerge. Some of those heroes for us in Alaska these past few weeks have been our U.S. Coast Guard and our Alaska National Guardsmen and women. As I started my comments, I said we do things bigger in Alaska, perhaps a little bolder. There is a new movie coming out that you may have heard about. It is called ``Big Miracle.'' It is about the rescue of the whales back in the late 1980s. Some of you may remember the whales were trapped in the ice off Point Barrow. It is a wonderful story about how we, as Alaskans, came together with the Russians, state and federal agencies, environmental and other groups that would normally not be allies, and regular folks for a common purpose. That movie, ``Big Miracle,'' reminded me that in Alaska we have a few more big miracles we can brag about, and they begin with people who truly make the health, safety, and well-being of others their top priority, even when they do not know any of those people. I know the people of Nome and Cordova and the people of Valdez all give thanks to those who stepped up during these tough winter months to help us out and were there at our side. I thank the Chair for the extra time, and I thank my colleague from Illinois for his patience and again extend my heartfelt thanks to our U.S. Coast Guard men and women, as well as the fine men and women of the Alaska National Guard. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. As a cosponsor of S. 1392, the EPA Regulatory Reform Act, I know how important this issue is to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The Senator is correct that this language is not intended by the conferees to convey an endorsement of any EPA Boiler MACT rulemaking proposal.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate 100 years of Kake, AK, as an incorporated first-class city. Kake Day, on January 8, 2012, will acknowledge the community's accomplishments, ranging from government to education, as well as recognize the village as a Native community rich with history of the Kake Tlingit ways. The Tlingit people have inhabited the region of Kake for thousands of years, controlling the trade routes around Kuiu and Kupreanof islands, enjoying the territory, raising families, and living off the land. The Tlingit of the Kake region gained a reputation among early explorers as being strong and powerful. Some encounters with early European and American explorers have been documented by historians as resulting in occasional skirmishes. In the early part of the 20th century, Kake began to physically transform. Stores were built, a government school was installed, and a post office was established in 1904. Kake also became the first Native village to organize under Federal law, resulting in U.S. citizenship for community residents. In 1912, Kake was incorporated as a first- class city government in the territory of Alaska. This event is now known as Kake Day, and it is the 100th anniversary of that event that I wish to commemorate today. Kake Day is not only a celebration of past accomplishments but also a celebration of the history of the Kake Tlingit ways. Kake has blended Western ways and the rich cultural traditions of its past to make Kake into the city it is today. Recognized tribes--the Organized Village of Kake and the Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska--are essential components of Kake, alongside entities such as the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative. Important food sources link the old and the new ways of life, including salmon, halibut, shellfish, deer, bear, waterfowl, and berries. Nearby, standing on a bluff overlooking Kake, is the world's largest totem pole, which serves as a reminder of the city's history and as a guide moving into the future. Standing at 132 feet, this properly sanctioned totem pole was carved by the Chilkats in 1967 for Alaska's centennial. On the 100 year celebration of Kake Day, Alaskans will enjoy a parade, a protocol workshop, and song and dance featuring Keex' Kwan dancers. I am sure the event will be memorable for all involved.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I too rise in support of Morgan Christen, the nominee who is before us today, and I add my thanks to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and, in fact, the entire Judiciary Committee, for their work in advancing not only Judge Christen as she has moved forward through the process, but it was several weeks ago that we were pleased to move through this body the nomination of Judge Sharon Gleason. I think it is worthy of note that Alaska in the past month now has moved forward two extraordinary women jurists who will work to serve us in an incredible way. If there is any regret I have, it is that such exceptional women are being taken from our State judiciary system and moved on to other positions, so there is a loss there. We are going to have to work to fill those back benches. But I am very pleased today to speak in support of Morgan Christen, a justice of the Alaskan Supreme Court who has been nominated to serve on the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. This is a historic nomination. Only two Alaskans have had an opportunity to serve on the Ninth Circuit, and both of those judges were, somewhat predictably, men. The first Alaskan to serve was Robert Boochever, who was appointed by President Clinton. Judge Boochever accepted senior status in 1986, and we were saddened when he passed away on October 9, 2011, at the age of 94. The second on the Ninth Circuit was Andrew J. Kleinfeld, who accepted senior status on June 12 of last year. Justice Christen has been nominated to fill the vacancy created when Justice Kleinfeld took senior status. That vacancy has existed now for 18 months, which should concern all of us, given the heavy workload that faces the Ninth Circuit. That said, it often takes a little bit of time to get the best, and there is no doubt in my mind that when President Obama selected Morgan Christen for the Ninth Circuit, he selected the best. I have known Justice Christen for almost 25 years now. We graduated from law school at about the same time. We both clerked for the Alaska court system at the same time and we have kept in touch over the years. I have come to know Morgan, her husband Jim, and her family. Morgan Christen is an experienced, very well-rounded attorney. She is an exceptionally well-rounded jurist with experience on the trial and the appellate bench. She is an individual with a keen intellect and an impeccable reputation for integrity. She is highly regarded across the ideological spectrum in Alaska as a judge who keeps politics and ideology off the bench. Given the bruising nomination battles that have taken place here in the Senate over the past few years, a few of our colleagues might be inclined to challenge the notion that there is any such thing as a nonideological, nonpolitical judicial nominee. But in response, I would simply note that Morgan Christen was elected to serve on the Alaska Superior Court by Gov. Tony Knowles, a very well-known Democrat. She was then later selected to serve on the Alaska Supreme Court by Sarah Palin, our very well-known Republican Governor. Under Alaska's nonpolitical judicial selection process, she was vetted by the Alaska Judicial Council before her selection to the superior court in 2001, and once again prior to standing for retention election in 2004. Justice Christen was then vetted for yet a third time before her selection to the Alaska Supreme Court in 2009. In each case, she secured high marks from Alaska's very diverse legal community. In fact, she was ranked the top candidate for the supreme court position in a scientifically conducted study of Alaskan attorneys. I have appreciated that Justice Christen has been mindful of the separation of powers throughout her judicial career, and mindful of the fact that her personal views have no bearing when it is time to determine the rule of law. I know we can expect her to continue in that vein when she moves on to the Federal bench. Morgan Christen was educated at the University of Washington and Golden Gate University School of Law. She spent portions of her undergraduate years studying in England, Switzerland, and China. Following law school, she clerked on the Alaska Superior Court and then entered private practice in the Anchorage office of Preston Gates & Ellis. As a private practice attorney, she represented the State of Alaska in the litigation that followed the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. As a member of the superior court bench, she served as the presiding judge of the Third Judicial District there in Anchorage which, as was noted, is the busiest judicial district in the State of Alaska. She held that position for 4 years. As a supreme court justice, she is deeply engaged in community outreach. In fact, she won the Alaska Supreme Court Community Outreach Award back in 2008. She also holds the Light of Hope Award for work on behalf of Alaska's children. I think her voluntarism has been acknowledged and highlighted. Not only does she meet the demands of a busy bench practice, but also takes the time, with her family, to be very engaged in our community. I inquired with some of my friends, former colleagues on the Alaska bar, about her reputation in anticipation of my comments today. One Alaskan stated: Morgan is extraordinarily talented and is well respected by her peers. She constantly brings justice and fairness to her professional and personal life. Friends and colleagues across the country have savored her wild raspberry jam. I have yet to have the opportunity to savor her wild raspberry jam. I do a pretty mean raspberry jam myself, so I think we are going to have to trade and see. But it is yet one more aspect about this pretty amazing woman I wanted to share today. Another colleague stated, very simply, that she is a calm, thoughtful, and strong woman. Good words. In closing, let me simply say that Morgan Christen is more than just a good judge; she is a good person. Justice will be well served by her confirmation to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. I urge my colleagues to support this nomination with enthusiasm, as I do. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. As Senator Begich mentioned, Alaskans are celebrating other occasions this week as well. I rise today to speak about a resolution Senator Begich and I have submitted that recognizes December 18, 2011, as the 40th anniversary of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Our resolution recognizes and commends the significant achievements Alaska Native people have made over the past 40 years through their congressionally created Alaska Native corporations. Not only has the Alaska community risen to the challenge of creating sustainable businesses, but they have created employment opportunities for our Nation's citizens really across the country--not just located in the State of Alaska but really all across our country and through the world. Alaska Native corporations continue to make significant contributions to their communities, our Nation, and the global economy, and for this they should be commended and they should be applauded. Our resolution encourages the citizens of the United States to acknowledge and support the leadership and continued efforts of Alaska Native people in managing their resources through the Alaska Native corporations. The resolution also sends a strong message of support to thousands of Alaska Native youth from across the State who are working and contributing positively to their families and to their communities, focusing their efforts on earning a college education, participating in cultural activities, and realizing a dream that they may one day earn places of leadership within their own corporations. Their efforts are recognized and appreciated. Over this coming weekend, Alaska Natives and advocates from across the United States will participate in community dialogs and celebratory events to reflect upon what has been accomplished over these past 40 years since passage of ANCSA. Participants will focus on the next steps that are needed to improve upon the continued success and the unity of Alaska Native tribes, villages, and our corporations. Through their participation and commitment to management of their resources through the vehicle of Alaska Native corporations, many young Alaska Native people will embark upon a lifetime journey of service, community engagement, and philanthropy. Alaska Native corporations have afforded a unique opportunity for Alaska Native people to gain valuable insights into the business world, while maintaining thoughtful focus on issues concerning Alaska Native tribes and communities. The next generation of Alaska Native people will continue to make positive changes in the world around them through acquired leadership skills, cultural advocacy, and community engagement, and through their dedication and enthusiasm, the next generation of leaders honors the previous generation of Alaska Native leaders who really worked so very diligently to achieve the passage of the most significant Native lands settlement in our Nation's history. In addition to all of the very remarkable young people who will one day be managers and policymakers of their Native corporations, I honor the work of those who contributed to the success of the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. It was no easy feat negotiating this very complex piece of litigation. It took the drafters years for the settlement to be discussed, to be interpreted, analyzed, debated, negotiated, and finalized. It was truly an accomplishment. While no piece of legislation can claim perfection, the original drafters of the ANCSA bill worked tirelessly to achieve a fair and a just settlement for the native people of Alaska and the ever-evolving document has had a number of significant amendments that have considerably improved the original bill. While a list acknowledging all of the Alaska Native leaders and advocates who worked on the act would prove impossibly long, I wish to recognize a few of the people who have since passed, who played an instrumental and an unforgettable role in its passage. First, U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Udall. I had both Tom and Mark Udall sitting right in front of me before I began my comments here. It is a tribute to him that he did so much in his service as Secretary of the Interior. Also our own Senator Ted Stevens and his efforts; U.S. Congressman Nick Begich, who was instrumental in passage of ANCSA, and Morris Thompson, who is an Athabascan out of the Koyukon area. It was back in 1966 that Stewart Udall, who was Secretary of the Interior then, responded to pleas from Alaska Native groups, imposed a ``land freeze'' on all land in Alaska under Federal control, which amounted to about 96 percent of all the land in the State at the time. Secretary Udall helped develop a program for solutions to the Native land claims issue throughout the State. Although ANCSA at that time was still in its infancy, the freeze prevented the transfer of all remaining Federal lands and would remain in effect until the Native land claims were resolved. Without that freeze, the Alaska Native people might have won their claim but they may not have had lands to select. Senator Stevens, in his role, called his work on the unprecedented landmark legislation of ANCSA his Senate baptism of fire. In a 1991 newspaper article, the Senator is quoted as saying that he believed a settlement could be achieved because of his ``faith in the determination and the unity of purpose of Alaska's Native people.'' Senator Stevens was one of the advocates who pushed for the 40-million- acre land provision versus the 1 million acres the White House had initially proposed. With threats looming that subcommittee sessions would be called off, which would effectively end a negotiated settlement, Congressman Nick Begich played a key role in keeping the legislative process moving. By the end of the negotiations, the subcommittee package was a tribute to the Congressman's role as architect of the House compromise. One veteran lobbyist said: It is the best individual achievement I have ever heard of for a freshman Congressman. I would be remiss in not mentioning the very unforgettable Morris Thompson. At 34 years old, Morris was the youngest commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. He held a Cabinet position in the Nixon administration and, with his Interior Department positions, Morris was very deeply involved in passage of the ANCSA at the time. He was a prominent leader in the Native, corporate, and political worlds. He was known for a good sense of humor, wit, and wisdom, but was also a very savvy businessman who led Doyon, which was an Alaska Native regional corporation, to great success. His lifelong commitment to the people and progress of Alaska truly lives on in his legacy. I am proud of all these people. I value their idealism, their energy, dedication, and unique perspectives they brought to the table in working toward the initial crafting of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. I thank Senator Begich for standing with me to submit this important resolution that acknowledges the hard work of the Alaska Native people in the success of their Alaska Native corporations on this 40th anniversary of passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. I know Congressman Young joins with us in celebrating this anniversary as well. Honoring Ray Mala Since, as I mentioned, we are working a little bit on Alaska Day, I wish also to take a couple of moments here to recognize yet another Alaskan leader, truly an Alaskan legend. Two days after Christmas of this year would have marked the 105th birthday of an Alaska legend, Ray Mala. Despite insurmountable odds, Ray Mala dared to dream and he went on to become our Nation's first Native American international film star. He would have been 105, or he will have been, 2 days after Christmas, but he was our Nation's first Native American international film star. He was born in the remote village of Candle, to an immigrant father of Russian Jewish descent. He was fluent in both English and his mother's native language of Inupiat. He was a skilled hunter. He learned the Inupiat ways from his maternal grandmother, Nancy Armstrong, and while the family lived a traditional lifestyle, Mala learned to walk in both the traditional and modern worlds. Facing poverty, Mala was a very accomplished hunter, using a bow and arrow to catch whatever food he would bring home. Wearing a handmade fur parka, he and his grandmother would traverse through harsh arctic storms in pursuit of subsistence land animals. When they would return home, Mala would pour himself into academic studies at the local school, always striving to improve himself. At age 16 he made his acting debut in the film ``Primitive Love.'' Mala was initially hired as a laborer on the remote film set there in the State, but film makers discovered his natural talent behind the camera and, as I say, the rest is history. He was bitten by the acting bug. Mala set out for Hollywood. He worked his way up from sweeping the stage floors to being an assistant cameraman at Fox Studios. Initially he was turned down for any leading roles because of the his mixed Eskimo-Jewish heritage, but Mala landed his first role in the silent film ``Igloo,'' which was shot in Barrow, AK. The film's success earned him the title of the Eskimo Clark Gable. In 1932, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, MGM Studios, sent a film crew from Hollywood to Nome. My mother was born in Nome in 1932. Nome was a pretty interesting community back there, still very rough around the edges, but they sent a film crew to Nome to begin shooting the film that would thrust Mala into stardom. MGM struck gold with the film ``Eskimo,'' a film also called ``Mala the Magnificent,'' the first full-length feature film ever shot in Alaska. Mala became Alaska's first Hollywood film star and also the first nonwhite actor cast in a leading role. Over the span of his career, Mala would appear in over 25 films, all the while winning devoted fans across generations, across cultures--they loved him. His widely acclaimed role in ``Eskimo'' would earn Mala his place in Hollywood history. He was more than an actor. He also excelled in cinematography and screenwriting. Keep in mind, this is a young Eskimo boy, raised in the traditional ways back in the early 1900s. Not only is he picked up by Hollywood and is a phenomenal actor, but he also excels in cinematography and screenwriting. He worked on films with many legendary filmmakers, including Alfred Hitchcock and Cecil B. DeMille. But his blossoming career was cut short by his death at age 45 due to heart complications. Mala faced many challenging personal circumstances, such as racial discrimination, at a very early age. But that did not prevent him from achieving both personal and professional excellence. I am sure he would be very proud to see that his grandson was following in his acting footsteps. This year, in her newly released book ``Eskimo Star,'' author Lael Morgan chronicled the inspirational life story of Ray Mala, and the State of Alaska hosted a Ray Mala film festival celebrating Mala's films in community theaters from Juneau all the way up to Point Hope. It is a great honor for me to reflect on the life of this inspirational Alaska Native icon, and to offer a tribute to his spirited and very triumphant journey from small-town village boy to silver screen leading man. Alaskans look forward to the day when Ray Mala's magnificent star might be posthumously added to the Hollywood Walk of Fame, a tribute to the Nation's first ever Native American film star. It is a good way to end our Alaska day series. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I feel as if this is a little bit of Alaska day here. We just celebrated the very successful nomination of Morgan Christen to the Ninth Circuit. I am really quite proud of Morgan and her accomplishments. As an Alaskan and as an Alaskan woman, to achieve what Morgan has achieved, to be the example she has set makes me quite proud today. So I am pleased the Senate gave her such a resounding confirmation. This is quite significant for us, and Alaskans are feeling good today.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Patrick Norton and Will Frey, interns in Senator Paul's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a gentleman by the name of John Katz. John is a longtime public servant to the State of Alaska who is set to retire at year's end. John has served Alaska for more than 40 years, working for eight different Governors, Republican and Democratic, liberals and conservatives. He once said he was comfortable serving so many different Governors because the issues for Alaska were consistent. Whether they be responsible resource development, State sovereignty, or Federal assistance with infrastructure, the one constant figure connecting one administration after the next over eight administrations has been John Katz. John started his career as a high school teacher and coach in Baltimore City public schools back in 1966, following his graduation from Johns Hopkins University. In 1969, he earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley. He then moved to Alaska to work as a legislative and administrative assistant to Congressman Pollock and then later for Senator Ted Stevens. John has truly played many crucial roles for the State of Alaska. He served for several years as the counsel to the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for the State of Alaska. He served as special counsel to Gov. Jay Hammond back in 1979, advocating the State's position on the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or ANILCA, to Congress. Two years after that, he was appointed commissioner of natural resources by Governor Hammond. Then, in 1983, John was sent by Gov. Bill Sheffield to head Alaska's Washington, DC, office, and he has served as the liaison between the State and the Federal Government for the past 28 years--a pretty remarkable record, if you would consider it. As Alaskans, we know how important his role has been in bridging the very considerable gap between our State and the Federal Government--a key role when more than 60 percent of Alaska's land is controlled by the Federal Government. You could refer to John as Alaska's fourth Congressman--his 40-year tenure in the league of the late Senator Stevens and Representative Don Young. John's breadth of knowledge and understanding of Alaska's issues have guided him in his very unique role. Since entering public service, John has been involved in key issues, such as the passage of the landmark Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act back in 1971, the legislation in 1976 which extended America's fishery zones to 200 miles which allowed for the Americanization of Alaska's fishing fleet. There was also the passage back in 1980 of the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act, the Nation's largest conservation lands measure. There was the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act back in 1983, the Tongass Timber Reform Act in 1990 and 30 other major pieces of legislation and hundreds of amendments that have greatly affected the lives of all Alaskans. What is so remarkable about John is that there is no Alaskan public policy issue he did not master, a pretty incredible feat there but no Alaska public policy issue that he did not have his fingerprints on, involved with or have a mastery of. In 1972, for example, he served for 2 years on the Executive Advisory Committee of the Federal Power Commission, making decisions on electricity generation during a period of rapid population growth in Alaska. In 1974, he published a legal analysis of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and how it should impact Native Alaskans for the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission. Five years later, he served on the Hard Rock Minerals Commission of Alaska, helping to chart a course for the rebirth of our State's mineral industry. There is seemingly no Alaskan issue too complex or daunting for John Katz. When I first met John, it was probably somewhere in the early 1980s. At the time, I was a staffer in the office of the speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives in Juneau, and I was immediately taken by the kindness of this gentleman, extraordinarily polite to a very young staffer, but also his intellectual prowess that was shown whether it was a casual conversation or whether it was a detailed policy analysis. Former Gov. Tony Knowles called him ``one of the most remarkable public servants I've ever dealt with.'' Governor Hammond, during the lengthy debate over ANILCA, called him truly indispensable. Senator Stevens once said: ``He's as near a genius as I've seen.'' I would clearly agree with that. Some of his coworkers have even jokingly called him their own human Google machine, noting that in many cases it was more efficient, it was easier to walk down the hall and ask John for legal and policy background, saving them hours of research, and John had it all there, instant recall and as precise as it could possibly be. Throughout his career, John served effectively and quietly, always preferring to work in the background, never seeking that limelight. He always presented every side of the issue, never telling any of his superiors simply what they might have wanted to hear. He truly was the consummate professional, a man who never got a fact wrong in a briefing, in a discussion or in a political strategy session. That may have been at least one of the many reasons why he has been so honored during his career, receiving the highest honor of the Alaska Federation of Natives, which is the Denali Award, winning Commonwealth North's 2008 Walter J. Hickel Award for distinguished public policy leadership and receiving more resolutions, commendations, and praise than most in Alaska's history. John has built a reputation as an Alaskan institution, always loyally serving our beloved State. He has championed oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, noting the potential benefits for not only Alaska's economy but, more important, for America's overall economic and national security. While John has listed the failure, so far, to persuade Congress to open ANWR as perhaps one of his biggest disappointments, he has always stood by the factually solid arguments for opening ANWR, never letting his passionate advocacy of opening the coastal refuge get in the way of objectively presenting arguments to Members of Congress. I think it is important to note John's statement in his resignation letter to Governor Parnell. He stated the following: Professionally, I have become increasingly discouraged by the polarization and deterioration of the public policy process at the Federal level. It's the worst I've seen during my 43-year career. That was the statement in John's resignation note. As someone who has relied on John's wise counsel and his wisdom during my 8 years in the Senate, I think this is a poignant remark about the state of affairs in Congress. The debate surrounding our politics has grown more caustic, while ignoring the fact that while we all may take different positions, we all ultimately have our Nation's interests at heart. John leaves an esteemed legacy that will benefit Alaska for decades to come. We can learn so much from his example of what a public servant should be, and Alaska will deeply miss his presence. I know I speak for all Alaskans in sincerely thanking John for his years of dedicated service and his pragmatic approach to faithfully serving the State of Alaska. I wish him nothing but the best in the future for all his endeavors. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I have come to the floor this morning to discuss a provision in the Energy and Water appropriations bill that apparently Senator Bingaman has just spoken to. This would require the sale of $500 million worth of oil from our Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve or we call it the SPR. I do believe this is an inappropriate use of our limited emergency stockpiles, and I think it would also set a dangerous and an unsustainable precedent for the future. As I understand it, the administration first requested this sale in its fiscal year 2012 budget proposal and justified it by asserting there was an integrity issue in one of the caverns where the SPR oil was stored. We heard this discussion before the Energy Committee some months ago. He asserted the sale was necessary because DOE had to drain the oil in that cavern to perform some repairs that were apparently necessary. The House Appropriations Committee subsequently authorized the sale in its version of the bill which was then released in June. At that point in time, based upon DOE's representation, I guess it was kind of hard not to argue the sale was not justified. But then events took a different course. Several weeks later, as part of a coordinated effort with the IEA to increase global supplies, the President chose to sell about six times more crude from the SPR than the House had originally contemplated. Whether one supported that sale or not, I think it would have been reasonable to assume or to expect the administration would sell the crude from the cavern that needed the repairs. They needed to get that out so they could do the necessary repairs. So when an unannounced sale comes along, one would think they would take the oil from that cavern, thereby solving at least one of the problems and obviating the need of a future maintenance-related sale. Enough oil has now been sold from our emergency reserves to fill not one but six troubled caverns. The only justification that can remain now is the need for more cash. We need more money. Given that background, I would encourage the Senate to consider that selling $500 million worth of our emergency oil reserves right now simply to help offset other appropriations is akin to cashing out our insurance policy in order to cover the cost of a mortgage we can't afford in the first place. The SPR was designed to be that emergency safety net, if you will, or like an insurance policy. Remember, there is a very good reason why we have this insurance policy in the first place. Congress created the SPR in the aftermath of the oil embargo back in the 1970s to serve as a safety net in the event we were to see a major supply disruption. Given the volatility that continues to churn the global markets, our strategic stockpile is arguably more important today than ever before. As long as we maintain a large volume of oil within the SPR, we will ensure Americans have some level of protection against future disruptions. If we decide not to take the long view, we face the very real risk of being forced to spend more tomorrow to repurchase the oil that is being sold today. One may ask: How likely is any kind of a future disruption? I would say the odds are still higher than we would like. Our Nation remains roughly 50 percent dependent on foreign oil, importing close to 9 million barrels a day at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The world, as we know, is not exactly stable. Large volumes of Libyan oil remain offline. Iran continues to provoke its neighbors, raising the specter of future attacks. Saudi Arabia's leadership is aging rapidly, leaving the door open to perhaps future unrest and upheaval. China, India, and many of the other countries are rapidly expanding their oil consumption and, in the meantime, forging close relationships with major suppliers that can be leveraged in times of emergency. Here at home, the Federal Government continues to hinder the development of new supplies that would improve our energy security and reduce the need for a strategic reserve. We have seen development halted or delayed in Alaska in the northern part of the State, in the Rocky Mountain West, and a number of other areas. The new 5-year leasing plan for offshore development does take a few small steps, but it keeps both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts under a de facto moratorium through at least 2017. The administration has also delayed its decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. We just saw that news this week. This would have carried significant volumes of Canadian oil. Again, that is oil from an ally, from a neighbor, that would have brought that into this country. The result is, we are not doing, in my opinion, nearly enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, so we still need a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and we cannot treat it as a national ATM that can be tapped when the money is tight. That is not the reason we should have or the way to utilize the SPR. I wish to share a quote from a witness who testified before the Energy Committee earlier this year. His name is Kevin Book. He is a real expert on energy policy, and I think he made quite an impression on our committee. He encouraged us to seek alternatives to petroleum, but he also said: Selling oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to pay for efficiency gains and alternative fuels could seriously diminish U.S. energy security without necessarily delivering financial benefits. For anybody who might be interested, I am happy to provide a copy of his testimony. I think it was quite useful in understanding why this approach is not appropriate at this point in time. As we seek to pay for legislation that comes before us--whether it is this appropriations bill or something else--I continue to believe one of our best paths forward is to produce more of our own abundant resources and then put the resulting Federal revenues to good use. Instead of selling our emergency oil and risking future dilemmas, we should, instead, put policies in place that expand and that accelerate the pace at which we develop our immense natural resources. Right now, Alaska has about 40 billion barrels of oil that are just waiting to be tapped for the good of the Nation. I keep saying we have money that is buried in the ground up there. If we harness those resources and more of the resources in the Gulf of Mexico and the Rocky Mountain West, we would be dramatically increasing our energy security, we would create tens of thousands of new jobs, and generate billions and billions of dollars year after year that could be applied to both deficit reduction and the development of new energy technologies. I would encourage the Senate to support any amendment that strikes the SPR provision in this bill and encourage us, instead, to focus on the development of a more viable long-term energy policy. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.