Floor Statements

Madam President, I pay tribute to my friend, the Senator from Utah, President pro tempore of the Senate, who is retiring after 41 years of service. Senator Hatch is known as a Senator's Senator. He has had more legislation signed into law than any other living Member of this body, and he has chaired the Finance, Judiciary, and Labor and Human Resources Committees with great distinction. Today we call that Labor and Human Resources Committee the HELP Committee.

We all recall the friendship Mr. Hatch had with the late Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. This relationship was responsible for some of the most impactful legislation of our time. The State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Ryan White Act, to name a few, and when Senator Kennedy suffered from life's difficulties, Senator Hatch was there to support him as a friend.

On June 28, 2017, Senator Hatch published a very important column in TIME Magazine, entitled, ``I am recommitting myself to civility.'' Written in the wake of the attempted massacre of colleagues who were practicing for the annual congressional softball game, a racially motivated stabbing in Portland, and dueling political rallies in Berkeley that turned violent, Senator Hatch observed, ``Civility is the indispensable political norm.''

I would like to quote a few sentences from Mr. Hatch's column because they bear repeating, now more than ever.

``Civility--it is the public virtue that has greased the

wheels of our democracy since its inception. Without it,

little separates us from the cruelty and chaos of rule by

force. For decades, civility has acted as the levee

protecting our society from its own worst impulses. But that

levee now shows signs of strain as political passions spill

over into open violence.''

If our Nation paid greater heed to Mr. Hatch's wisdom, horrors like the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting might well have been avoided.

Orrin, you have been a steady hand in troubled times. While you may have chosen to retire from this body, your work is hardly done, and I hope that your retirement does not mark a retreat from your commitment to keep our Nation and your colleagues on a steady course.

You are indeed a Senator's Senator and a true patriot.

Madam President, people often forget that each of us comes to the Senate having done other significant things in life. Mr. Corker, the Senator from Tennessee, came here with a series of experiences that greatly informed his work in the Senate, as well as the work of his colleagues.

Mr. Corker was a success in business long before he entered politics, and he brought the lessons of that success into public service. He was the deeply respected mayor of Chattanooga, TN. Mayors are perhaps the most accountable elected officials in the Nation. They are a pragmatic results-oriented stock. They live in the communities that they govern, so there is no place to hide, and they are forced to defend their records because the electorate knows what they have done and haven't. No room for spin when you are a mayor.

Bob then brought the lessons of both of these careers to the U.S. Senate where he is known as a no-nonsense Senator who cuts through the bluster and focuses on the facts. On difficult problems, whether it was the Iran nuclear agreement or working to save the American automobile industry from near collapse, he brought discipline to our deliberations.

I would like to say a few words about Bob's work as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has historically held a preeminent role in the formulation and execution of U.S. foreign policy. Chairman Corker approached the position with all of the grace and diplomacy appropriate to the office.

As the Senate's representative to the executive in foreign policy, he ably represented our interests. He asked the questions that were on so many of our minds and then he returned to the Senate to explain the administration's thinking. He calmed many of our anxieties about the turbulent world in which we live. I like to think that is because Mr. Corker is a thoughtful, methodical, and calm thinker. His calm, steady leadership as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee these past several years will be greatly missed.

Madam President, Heidi Heitkamp and I share much in common. Although we sit on different sides of the aisle, we represent resource States, we represent significant populations of Native Americans, and we are each fiercely independent women who have tended to vote our conscience over party on the toughest issues of our time. We are also the best of friends off the court. So it will come as no surprise to those who know us that I am heartbroken that my friend will not be returning to serve alongside me in the next Congress.

Our collaborations over the past 6 years have been very productive. We partnered on creating the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children, a body named for respected Elders from each of our States. The commission has been stood up and is now operating. I am hopeful that the commission will conclude its work with recommendations that we can adopt into law. The adoption of those recommendations will be a fitting legacy for my friend, the Senator from North Dakota.

Senator Heitkamp and I have also collaborated on Savanna's Act, which is the first piece of legislation to specifically address the epidemic of missing and murdered Native women and girls in America. This cause is so very important to my friend, as it is to me, but I would like to share a story about my friend that is so telling about her commitment and her character.

On the Wednesday, following our return from the election day and Veterans Day recess, I had a news conference scheduled with the Urban Indian Health Institute. That news conference was called to discuss the results of a new report on the epidemic of missing and murdered Native women and girls in urban American cities. It was important to me that my friend be present at that news conference because it was about an issue that she championed during her time in the Senate, and it would have been excusable if my friend had bowed out, having just fought and lost a difficult reelection bid.

But my friend didn't bow out. She stepped up, and she pledged to the advocates present that, even though she will no longer be a Senator come January, she would be moving over to their side come January. She pledged to remain an advocate for this cause that is most important to her. She will continue to do great and good things. Her work is not done.

To Heidi, you have done good in the U.S. Senate. We thank you.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to recognize a truly exceptional individual who has been a member of my staff for many years. It is bittersweet to stand before you today to recognize the well-deserved retirement of Connie McKenzie, of my Juneau, AK, office.

Connie isn't originally from Alaska, but you would never know it. She moved to our great State in the summer of 1987 to take a seasonal job in Skagway with a cruise ship tour company, but those few weeks in the Alaskan summer soon turned into a home. She has been in Alaska ever since, and that summer job quickly turned into a successful career in the tourism industry in southeast Alaska, giving Connie the opportunity to work closely with community members, interact with local businesses and to help grow the regional economy. She is a people person to her core and someone we all quickly relate to, a valuable trait for any career.

Connie soon gained a reputation as someone to go to when you needed something done. She is a problem-solver who doesn't know the word no. From the beginning, her ability to find solutions, showcase her region, and quickly develop professional contacts made her a well-respected member of the community. For more than 20 years, she has been a dedicated volunteer and officer of local and statewide political groups, including the Capital City Republican Women, district cochair, and the Republican State Central Committee. She has been active in Beta Sigma Phi and a variety of community service projects.

Connie's local involvement eventually opened doors for a new career, one in public service. In 2001, Connie began working for the Alaska Congressional Delegation. She first started working for Congressman Young, now the Dean of the House. She was a natural fit and soon was running a joint office for the entire congressional delegation. It was my good fortune to join the U.S. Senate with a seasoned staff member like Connie. Her regional knowledge and work experience have, no doubt, helped me represent the unique needs of Alaskans, particularly those in southeast.

After serving in this role for many years, Connie left the office in 2013 to work for the State administration under then-Governor Sean Parnell, but she just couldn't stay away, nor could we last too long without her. Thankfully, in 2015, she came back to us and has served our Juneau office in service to Senator Sullivan and me. She has been a dedicated public servant, and I know I speak on behalf of so many Alaskans when I say we will be sad to see her go.

Congressman Young said of Connie that she ``is one of the rare gems that comes along rarely in a Congressional career. From the moment I hired her she has been the embodiment of a perfect staff. She is the person who the people of Southeast Alaska have come to rely upon for sound policy advice, every kind of constituent service and has gone above the call of duty to serve as a counselor for the mentally ill and homeless population. She faced any challenge with a positive demeanor, rock solid ethics and made it all look easy. Her guidance to me has been a godsend and a large part of my own success in not only Southeast Alaska but statewide. Whether employed directly by me, the Congressional delegation or any other entity, Connie has always been a stalwart supporter, volunteer and overall great person. Connie, we will sorely miss you!'' I couldn't agree more with Don's words.

Connie has done a great job representing the Alaska Congressional Delegation. She brings new meaning to the term professional. Regardless of what side of the political spectrum you are on, you know you will get a straight and fair answer from Connie. Constituents appreciate her work, other elected officials are comfortable working with her, and the office staff is always asking for and depending on her expertise. In my office, she is our informal office trainer. If you want to know how to do something, Connie is the one to ask. She has provided hundreds of Alaskans with casework assistance on nearly the same amount of issues, from taxes to immigration to forest management, you name it. Connie has handled it.

People that work with Connie will always find a brilliant, caring person that demonstrates a good sense of comradery and teamwork. This is what her colleagues and friends say about her, and I couldn't say it better myself.

Connie's departure will certainly create a loss for me and my team, but I know Connie won't be at a loss for things to do. She is an avid outdoors woman, enjoying skiing, hiking, and biking with her husband Mitch and dog Brodie whenever possible. No hill is too steep, no trail is too long, she tackles each adventure with enthusiasm and a deep love for the outdoors.

Often when I would travel to her region, Connie somehow found time in my otherwise packed schedule to fit constituent meetings into a hike through the Tongass or some other outdoor adventure, giving us a chance to fill our lungs with fresh air while we worked. I will miss those hikes together, but now, I will just have to schedule them with her rather than the other way around.

Connie may be retiring from her career of public service, but I have no doubt she will continue to remain engaged in her community. It is in her blood. Connie leaves behind a legacy of hard work, humor, and commitment to Alaska that will forever be remembered. I wish her all the best in the next chapter of her life. Connie; I'll see you on the trails.

Mr. President, on December 2, 2018, Bettye Davis, a former Alaska legislator and community leader, passed away at the age of 80. The passing of Bettye Davis attracted national media attention, which is unusual, when an Alaska legislator passes. Bettye Davis was not only a historic figure in the State of Alaska, but also in the broader African-American community. She was the first African- American to be elected to the Alaska State Senate.

Bettye Davis was born in Homer, LA, and graduated from high school in Bernice, LA. She earned her bachelor's degree in social work in 1972 from Grambling, one of America's great Historically Black Colleges and Universities. She also held a certificate in nursing from St. Anthony's College.

Bettye's husband, Troy, was transferred to Alaska by the Air Force. Bettye came along. She recalled no way did she ever intend to live in Alaska, but when she arrived, she discovered that she loved the land, she loved the people, and the people of Alaska welcomed her. That was 45 years ago, and it led Bettye to conclude that Alaska was her home. She often analogized her story to that of Ruth in the Bible--arriving in a foreign land, accepting the people, finding acceptance, and committing her life to serve the people of her new homeland.

Bettye began a brilliant career in her adopted home State as a State civil servant. It began as a nurse at the Alaska Psychiatric Institute and subsequently as a social worker for the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, retiring in 1986.

She served in the Alaska House of Representatives from 1990-1996 and then in the Alaska Senate from 2001-2013. Bettye served as both majority whip and minority whip during her time in the Alaska House. She was the first African-American woman to serve in the Alaska House of Representatives.

In between her periods of State legislative service, Bettye served on the Alaska State Board of Education, which she chaired from 1998-1999.

Although she was defeated in a reelection bid to the Alaska Senate, her public service career continued on. Bettye joined the Anchorage School Board where she served from 2013 until 2018, when she resigned to attend to health issues. This was her third stint on the Anchorage School Board. Altogether, she served 11 years on the school board.

Her community engagements were many and varied. She was a proud and active member of the Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church, the NAACP, the Alaska Black Leadership Conference, Common Ground, the League of Women Voters, Delta Sigma Theta, and the Zonta Club of Anchorage. She was inducted into the Alaska Women's Hall of Fame.

In her induction speech, Bettye said she wanted to be remembered as someone who fought a good fight, did good work, and won the battle. Every day, she got up with a mission of doing something for somebody, somebody who couldn't speak for themselves, somebody who couldn't express themselves, somebody who just needed a kind word.

Bettye Davis was all of that and more to the people of Alaska. Friends described her as a fortress, a champion for Alaska's children and the poor, a shining example of the best of politics, and the conscience of the legislature.

It is with great sadness that we acknowledge the loss of this exceptional Alaska public servant on the floor of the U.S. Senate. While her voice will be sorely missed, her legacy of leadership sets an example for generations of Alaska leaders to come. On behalf of my Senate colleagues, I extend my condolences to Bettye's surviving family and all of her friends and colleagues who hold Bettye's memory dear.

Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Community Health Aides in the State of Alaska.

All across rural Alaska, there are women and men who devote their time and energy to ensure their communities remain healthy, have sufficient care, and provide basic health education. These are our Community Health Aides, working each and every day with all ages.

As a result of lack of access to healthcare in rural Alaska, the Community Health Aide Program, CHAP, was developed. Since 1968, CHAP has received congressional funding and recognition for the tremendous work they do. This program has allowed for a greater relationship between the State and Federal Government, as they coordinate with many of our Tribal health organizations, such as the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium.

Alaska has seen outbreaks of tuberculosis, high incidence of infant mortality, and high rates of serious injuries that simply could have been prevented had there been specific community leaders whose role was to educate and provide for the community's health needs.

Currently, there are approximately 550 Community Health Aides and Practitioners, CHA/Ps, in more than 170 rural communities across Alaska. CHA/Ps are truly the people on the frontlines providing firsthand treatment and serving as the link to primary care providers, regional hospitals, and specifically the Alaska Native Medical Center in Anchorage. For those times that the patients cannot travel, the CHA/ Ps will coordinate specialized nurses and practitioners to visit their village quickly and efficiently.

CHA/Ps receive ongoing training and education, following their initial 3 to 4-week training period. There are four training centers in Alaska--Anchorage, Bethel, Nome, and Sitka--and it is at these centers where they receive the skills necessary to ensure the highest quality care is administered in rural regions of Alaska. This is a critical role in our communities. I am grateful for the CHAP program and for the men and women who are changing the outcomes of many Alaskans' lives each and every day.

In this 50th year, Alaskans in communities across the State, from Nuiqsut, Ester, Klawock, Illiamna, to Dutch Harbor, have taken time to celebrate their valued community health providers, giving them the honor they surely deserve.

Thank you.

Mr. President, on behalf of Chairman Hatch, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the lands package bill. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I think it is important to recognize that while the text, in fairness to my friend from Utah, was just laid down this morning, these are bills, these are measures, these are matters that have not only been before our committee but have been before the subcommittee on which the Senator is the chairman, and he has had an opportunity to have heard many of those public lands bills.

This was a very highly negotiated process by the four corners--not only by Senator Cantwell and me on this side but by our colleagues on the House side--to see what could be put together by way of a package, in terms of the contours of that package.

Colleagues will remember that around this body, unfortunately, when it comes to public lands matters, many of these are very, very parochial in nature. Whether it is a conveyance that allows for a water utility to be able to proceed or whether it is a conveyance that will allow for a school to have a facility there, it is pretty parochial. These don't come to the floor for debate and passage.

Typically and traditionally, what happens is--and it might not be a perfect process--we bundle them up at the end of the year. What we have done is to have provided--and not only to members of the committee--the bills that we have had an opportunity to have heard. We have outlined what that universe is. In fairness to my colleague and his comment, it was not until the very end that we knew exactly what was going to fall in based on the negotiations with our House colleagues and with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Yet what I would offer up to Members is that this has been an extraordinarily collaborative process in terms of those priorities that we see represented within this bill. Just on our side of the aisle alone, there are some 43 Members who either have bills that they have authored or are the cosponsors of with regard to matters that are important to their States and matters that are, perhaps, more globally important, like the LWCF, and I understand the Senator's position on the LWCF.

We also recognize that there are a great number of Members on the Republican side and on the Democratic side who are very supportive of some form of reauthorization of the LWCF. We have a sportsman package in here that many, many of us have been working on. In fact, this is the fourth Congress now in which we have tried to advance these priorities for many of the sports men and women in the country. So we have attempted to work through some of the issues that my colleague from Utah has raised.

We have offered to withdraw very significant legislation that our Presiding Officer himself has offered. That is not something that I really willingly wanted to do, but in an effort to try to get a broader lands package that would recognize the needs of so many, we made some significant offers.

Now, my colleague has asked for two simple words. I happen to believe, as one who comes from a State where we have said no more to the Antiquities Act without some limitations, I understand the concerns, and I understand the effort that he has made repeatedly. I also understand that the politics on this side of the aisle and in the other body are such that it was not an acceptable offer or an acceptable amendment.

So we are where we are now, and I come before you to make the offer to allow us an opportunity to vote on this lands package, to move it over to the House, and to finish this off. I understand that we do not have that consent. What we have come to this evening is a recognition that there is a desire amongst Members in this body to see this package through. The leader has committed and the minority leader has committed that when we return in January, this will be--if not the first order of business--a matter that will be before this body within the first couple of weeks. We will turn to it, and it will be a package that we will not have begun all over, but it will be something that Members can look to tonight. This will be an opportunity to study every single page that you want because we will have an opportunity to vote on that with a thumbs up or a thumbs down in early January when we return.

Again, this is something that I wish we had been able to resolve. In fairness, I wish that we would have been able to have provided for there to have been a greater opportunity for Members to have reviewed this before these final hours. In fairness, this is just Wednesday night. We will now continue until after the new year. We probably could have had another couple of days to have worked on it, but that didn't work in our favor, and I regret that.

I thank those who have worked doggedly on both sides to try to come to an agreement so that we could resolve this finally and fully. So many of these issues are so important to people back in their counties and their municipalities and their boroughs and their States.

We are going to put it on hold for yet another month, but we will be back at the first of the year, and we will continue to address these issues that are so important when it comes to our public lands, our waters, our conservation priorities, as well as the priorities of our sports men and women.

I believe there is an objection to the request.

Mr. President, I know my colleague from Montana wishes to speak, But before the Senator from Washington departs, I also want to acknowledge the good work of both of our staffs--and not just our staffs, but working with our colleagues on the House side and with so many Members.

When you are going through the volume that we are talking about--some 114 different bills on the House side and the Senate side--it is extraordinarily tedious and difficult work, and I think we owe them all a great deal of thanks. But I also want to rise and thank Senator Cantwell, because in this next Congress she will be moving to another position as ranking member and I will not be working side-by-side with her as we have.

I think it is important to note that on the difficult things that came before us, we didn't always start off in agreement, but we slogged through it and our teams stuck with it and slogged through it, and we got to where we are tonight. While it is not a good ending from my view, in that we weren't able to provide these counties, these communities, these people that have worked so hard the satisfaction they are seeking, the commitment to continue this until we are done is real, it is in place, it is intact, and it was agreed to tonight, and we are going to be moving forward in the first few weeks of January.

I want to thank Senator Cantwell for the working relationship we have had over these past couple of years moving through important matters for your State, for my State, and really for the good of the country when it comes to energy. So I just appreciate your courtesies and our opportunity to work together and that of our staffs.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion this evening by my colleague from New Jersey and by my colleague from Rhode Island about the issue of climate change and its impact. I come from a part of the country where climate change is there; it is with us; it is real. It is something that we look to as Alaskans with a reality of this world view.

I spend a lot of my time here in the Senate focused on not only the U.S. Arctic but the Arctic as a whole, the eight Arctic nations that we intersect with. So I would like to take a few minutes this evening to speak about the happenings in the Arctic--our new reality--as we are seeing greater opportunities but also greater challenges in an area that I find to be an extraordinary place on our globe.

It was maybe a little more than 150 years ago when Massachusetts Senator and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time, Charles Sumner, argued the geostrategic importance of Alaska to our young Nation at the time. Senator Sumner spoke about how the Aleutians represented this gateway to Asia. This was a maritime route to the west coast that was roughly 1,000 miles shorter than the southern route through the Sandwich Isles, which was popular at the time.

It was about 70 years later that Gen. Billy Mitchell, who was the father of the Air Force, testified before Congress and said that he believed that in the future, whoever controls Alaska controls the world. He thought it was the most strategic place in the world.

Then we had World War II, the Japanese, who also recognized the strategic importance of the Aleutians, and they briefly seized and occupied the islands of Attu and Kiska.

While the war in the Aleutians may be forgotten by many here at home, the world continues to remember the strategic significance of the North.

Although General Mitchell saw the strategic geographic location of Alaska, he could not have imagined the environmental changes that would make sea routes accessible to commerce year-round, nor could he have imagined the rich mineral wealth beneath the Arctic. He might have been able to have imagined that Russia would take a major interest in the Arctic. Given its proximity from the Bering Strait region of Alaska, one can indeed see Russia from one's window. There are not too many people on Little Diomede, but I have been there. Big Diomede sits just about 2\1/2\ miles across the water, but I doubt that General Mitchell would ever have been able to have imagined that nations like China or India would have taken an interest in the very remote and often forbidding North, less that they would be fielding icebreakers in 2019 and 2020, as China and India are. He might also wonder why Singapore would take such an interest to justify observer status on the Arctic Council.

While places like Singapore seek observer status, the United States has passed the chairmanship of the Arctic Council and, with it, most of our diplomatic efforts towards the Arctic. The

Arctic Executive Steering Committee and other institutions within the executive branch that are focused on the Arctic have, in my view, just kind of wasted away just when the rest of the world has redoubled its focus on the Arctic.

The Department of Defense clearly gets it. It is starting to recognize what General Mitchell did back in 1935. Before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee back in May 2016, I asked Secretary Carter whether we were doing what we needed to do from a defense standpoint to address changes in the Arctic. His response was pretty frank and, I think, very revealing. He told me that the Arctic is going to be a major area of importance to the United States strategically and economically in the future.

I think it is fair to say that we are late to the recognition of that, but I think we have the recognition. Now you are asking what comes in behind that recognition. I think a plan that is more than aspirational is needed, and I would be happy to work with you toward that end.

At that time, Secretary Carter's candor was refreshing, if not long overdue, but I have to tell you that we are still waiting for a plan that is more aspirational in the Arctic--not just a plan but a plan that is fully resourced. As an appropriator, I know full well how difficult that is to achieve.

Sometimes around here, like a tree that falls in the forest when there is nobody there to listen, it seems like official Washington doesn't recognize that something new and very real is occurring until it reads about it in the New York Times or perhaps in the Washington Post. Well, on Thanksgiving Day of this year, the Washington Post really laid it out. It had a special section--some 16 pages--which is entitled ``The New Arctic Frontier.'' I would like to quote from the cover of this special section.

It reads:

As the Arctic slowly thaws, the United States, Canada,

Russia, China and other interested nations are reconsidering

how they strategically approach the region. Corporations have

launched new missions to search for oil. Commercial fishing

continues to evolve. Shipping and luxury cruise lines alike

are planning to send more vessels north. Coastal erosion has

prompted questions about how some Alaskan villages will

survive and how the U.S. government should react. Against

this backdrop, militaries are increasingly preparing for

potential conflict in the Arctic. The United States is

shifting forces to the north, planning to build a new class

of icebreaker ships and cultivating stronger relationships

with Nordic militaries. Russia, meanwhile, is investing in

ice-capable vessels and infrastructure improvements, and

China has declared itself a ``near Arctic state.''

This really sums up where we are today.

Truth be told, General Mitchell has been proven to be correct in ways that he probably could not have imagined when he said Alaska was the most strategic place in the world. For example, right now, here today, Anchorage has the fifth busiest cargo airport in the world--not in the country but in the world. So we are sitting here in Anchorage, AK. We are less than 9\1/2\ hours from 90 percent of the industrialized world. So whether you are going to Singapore, London, Mexico City, we are less than 9\1/2\ hours from 90 percent of the industrialized world. So many carriers, such as FedEx, UPS, Alaska Airlines, Atlas Air, and others, are already using Anchorage as a cargo hub because of this very, very central location and these very real opportunities for commerce. We are also looking to regain the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport position as a hub for international passenger travel.

Now we are getting ready for the holiday season, for Christmas. I think Santa had this figured out a long time ago. He knew that the shortest way to get around the globe, whether you were going to Fiji or to London or to Los Angeles or to Seoul, was over the Pole. Even Santa understood the geostrategic position of the Arctic. But it is Alaska. It really is Alaska, sitting right up there, which is the gateway to America's Arctic, that is at the center of all of this. That is not just bragging, not just my being parochial about it as Alaska's Senator. It is real, it is compelling, and it is demanding of attention and action. I know it is not easy.

The Washington Post's editors observed that the Arctic portends great opportunities and great challenges, so let's get to work on this. That is my central message today. It is time that we get to work and move ahead with a plan that fits the challenge that the Arctic represents for America. We talk a lot about aspiration. The time for aspiration is over--it is time for action. That starts by fully funding the first of the Coast Guard's Polar Security Cutters, whose purpose is to provide assured, year-round access to our polar regions. These are platforms that can project sea power anywhere, at any time, and are fully interoperable with interagency and international stakeholders to carry out national defense operations. These cutters will include sufficient space, weight, and power to conduct multimission activities that support our Nation's current and future needs in the Arctic.

The Polar Security Cutter will allow us to continue to engage with our fellow Arctic nations and our allies and our strategic competitors.

I share with you a picture of our existing Polar icebreaker, but when you look around the world at the various flags, here we are sitting in the United States--one of eight Arctic nations--and we have two icebreakers. I say two--maybe that is all we need. One of them is currently in dry dock in the Seattle-Tacoma area. She is never going to see activity again. The other one, Polar Star, is on her second life. She is working hard, but she is down in Antarctica, and she will be in Antarctica until she, too, is retired. Then where does that leave us? Where does that put us?

We have a medium-strength vessel, the Healy. She does great work, but that is what the United States has.

Canada has nine government-owned, either operating or under construction. China has four--China, which has just determined they should be a ``Near-Arctic State.'' Russia has 34, and when you count those that are nongovernment-owned, it is well over 40.

Here we are, the United States of America, an Arctic nation, and we are down to about one icebreaker. We have some work to do here.

Over the past several years, funds have been secured through the Navy to get started on building a new Polar Security Cutter. This year, the administration wisely decided--and I thank them for working with us-- that it is time to lock in the project by budgeting the remaining funds necessary to complete the project. It is about $750 million. That is a lot of money. That is a lot of money, but I would submit that this investment in the Polar Security Cutter is a small price to pay for the ability to project U.S. sea power in the Arctic.

The question of whether we follow through on this very important step is going to be determined this week, or perhaps next week, as we complete the fiscal year 2019 appropriations project. I would dare to suggest that our competitors in the Arctic are watching very, very closely whether we have the resolve to follow through on the first of these Polar Security Cutters.

Bringing the Polar Security Cutter online will give us capacity--we appreciate that--but the next and perhaps even more difficult challenge is to build the infrastructure to support the next phase of U.S. sea power in the Arctic. Most critical for that is the development of a deepwater port in the Bering Sea.

Our reality right now is that the Alaska deepwater port nearest to the Arctic is located in the Bering Sea. Dutch Harbor is almost 1,000 miles away from the Arctic. I am looking at my imaginary Alaska map here, but when you are down in the Aleutians--that is the nearest deepwater port--it is 1,000 miles to get to Point Hope, to Barrow, and that area.

A port is a critical piece of infrastructure that is needed, and it will serve many, many uses. It can support the Navy, the Coast Guard, and NOAA's research missions. It will support search and rescue activities that may be necessitated by increasing commercial vessel traffic in the Arctic, and it will provide a platform for the United States to harvest some of the economic upside of the vessel transits. RADM Jon White, U.S. Navy, retired, is President and CEO of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership. At a recent event, which was sponsored by the Wilson Center, he characterized the requirement for a deepwater port in the Arctic as a ``no-brainer.'' He went on to

say: ``Unfortunately, it's not a no-coster.''

Last summer, Navy Secretary Spencer looked at various sites, potential sites for a deepwater port. He is very engaged in seeing how we can work together to bring the funding partners to make this happen. We look forward to working with him toward this endeavor. His engagement is so greatly--greatly--appreciated. He clearly understands the potential here.

All of these developments are very, positive, far more positive than we have seen in recent years. I am grateful for that. They are building blocks.

The race to protect America's strategic interest in the Arctic demands attention on more than just defense; it will take coordination. That is why I am going to introduce today two pieces of legislation that are designed to reinvigorate America's national and commercial strategic efforts.

For well over a decade now, you have heard me talk about how the diminishing Arctic sea ice presents both opportunities and concerns. If you look at this map here, you are looking at planet Earth from the perspective that most of us in Alaska view, which is from the top on down. You have the U.S. Arctic here with Alaska. You have the Canadian Arctic here. Here is Russia coming all the way around to Iceland, and Greenland is down in this area.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, we recognize the impact that climate change is having on the Arctic--rapid impacts, clearly--more so than in any other part of the United States.

The latest report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program underscored this fact. Since the early eighties, the annual Arctic sea ice extent has gone down by about 4 percent per decade. The decrease for September sea ice extent--this is the time of year where we have had the least amount of ice. This time period has been even more pronounced at somewhere between 10.7 and 15.9 percent per decade in terms of the decrease in the sea ice.

What does all of this mean? According to that report, it means we are likely to experience a sea ice-free Arctic summer before this century is out.

Again, when you are looking at the top of the globe, looking at the Arctic here, all of the area in the light blue--you can't see the red around it--was all of the extent of the September sea ice back in 1979. In 2015--3 years ago--the extent of that September ice is here in the pink. As you can appreciate, as you are losing this throughout more parts of the year, it does point to a reality that we are likely to see in the not too terribly distant future--a sea ice-free Arctic summer.

Loss of sea ice in the Arctic, of course, goes hand in hand with overall temperature warming. Over the last several years, it has been somewhat common to refer to the Arctic and include the fact that it is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the country. This latest climate report shows us that this is not exactly right.

In fact, the North Slope of Alaska--this corner right there--is warming at 2.6 times the rate of the continental United States. Much of the rest of Alaska is warming at more than twice the continental U.S. rate as well. So it is not just twice as fast; it is more than twice as fast. Again, we are paying attention.

I face this reality. I hear about this reality every time I step off an airplane in a rural community. I listen to the people there, particularly the elders, as they share their knowledge. Record low extent of Arctic sea ice threatens many of our indigenous communities because of threats of coastal erosion. With less ice, waves build up, beat against the shore, and erode it. It is more than just coastal erosion; it is the impact on their traditional ways of life--food security issues, hunting, access to resources to basically exist.

We are very in tune. It is not just through the eyes of the people who are living there; this is abundantly clear in both the scientific data that is collected by our State and our Federal Agencies, as well as the experience of rural Alaska Natives.

According to this most recent report, the cost of infrastructure damaged from a warming climate in Alaska alone--we had our own chapter in the report--could range from $110 to $270 million per year. So changes to our air, our water, our soil, our food security, our disease ecology directly and directly resulting from our warming climate are going to impact the lives and the health of every Alaskan.

On the one hand, the future in the Arctic looks increasingly challenging for our rural communities. Then, on the other hand, the future also represents a new frontier. There are opportunities out there, whether they are in construction, in tourism, in energy, in minerals, in shipping, or in community development. You have challenges, and you have opportunities.

For some time now, my team and I have been working on two pieces of Arctic legislation to support responsible investment and development in the U.S. Arctic. It hasn't been easy to meet the expectations and the needs of rural and indigenous communities that are most impacted by climate change in the U.S. Arctic, while, at the same time, focusing on economic development, environmental stewardship, human security, but we have really been trying to mesh these all together. I believe these two bills that I am introducing, along with Senator Sullivan--the Arctic Policy Act of 2018 and the Shipping and Environmental Arctic Leadership Act of 2018; that is, the SEAL Act--I think are steps in the right direction, helping us move closer to meeting these objectives.

The first bill, the Arctic Policy Act of 2018, will statutorily establish the Arctic Executive Steering Committee under the Department of Homeland Security and provide the coordination necessary to advance a truly integrated plan for the Arctic.

By reinvigorating the central coordinating body for Arctic issues, the legislation will provide a venue to deliver the type of plan America needs and, more importantly, a place to work that plan into action across Agencies.

As it stands now, everybody has a little bit of a piece of something when it comes to the Arctic, but it doesn't really seem as though there is any coordinating entity. When you don't have anybody who ultimately has that responsibility, oftentimes, it is hard to see the progress.

We know Federal policy does not exist in a vacuum, so in addition to establishing the Arctic Executive Steering Committee, the legislation would also establish an Arctic Advisory Committee to ensure that residents of the Arctic and Alaska Native people have a seat at the table for the development of policy. They don't want to be sitting back and being told what is happening; they want a seat at the table. As the indigenous peoples of the region, they fully have that right.

Further, the legislation calls for the establishment of regional Tribal advisory groups, starting with the Bering Sea Regional Tribal Advisory Group to advise the Federal Government as it shapes national priorities within the region. These Tribal advisory groups will be empowered to provide advice on specific challenges or regionally important issues.

I would like to say that if you go to rural Alaska, if you go to a small village, you are not going to find a lot of Ph.D.s out there, but what they do have is a Ph.D. in Arctic living. They know what is going on. Their very lives and survival depend on understanding and appreciating the world around them.

In the Arctic, we have an opportunity to show the world how to integrate indigenous knowledge and voices into policy and science. That is why the legislation will also update the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984. This was legislation my father introduced when he was here in the Senate. We will update this to include more Native voices at the Arctic Research Commission and thereby push to include traditional knowledge and community coordination in our Nation's scientific efforts in the Arctic, especially our efforts to study and understand climate change.

Mr. President, the second piece of legislation I am introducing is the Shipping and Environmental Arctic Leadership Act of 2018--the SEAL Act--which establishes a congressionally chartered seaway development corporation in the Arctic.

So this Arctic Corporation will work with representatives from NOAA, from the State Department, from the Coast Guard, and from DOT, as well as representatives from the State of Alaska, the Alaska business community, Alaska coastal and subsistence communities, and the Alaskan Maritime Labor Organization to help to develop an Arctic shipping union whose leadership will advocate for safe, secure, and reliable Arctic seaway development and further ensure that the Arctic becomes a place of international cooperation rather than competition or conflict.

The capacity to get maritime and shipping services funded by means of international cooperation is not a new concept. We have seen it done, and it exists with the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation in the United States. This is one example where countries that share a large maritime border--the United States and Canada--are able to develop a seaway system--one that is safe, secure, and reliable for its users.

I have people stop me and say: Well, this is so many years off from when we are going to see levels of commercial activity in the Arctic. There is no real need to move on this, is there?

Well, again, I will just remind you of some of the charts we have seen. The multiyear ice that once made the Arctic impassable and shielded our northernmost border year-round is diminishing, again, due to climate change. Because of this, shipping in and around the Arctic traffic will increase. So when you appreciate where we are with the Northwest Passage here, the Northwest Passage, by 2025, is intermittently open, but the for pathway, if you are going from the Bering Strait, right off of Alaska here and through Rotterdam, you are going to have an opportunity to basically be cutting through there.

For the northern sea route, following through Russia, by 2025, they anticipate that this sea lane will be open for a full 6 weeks.

The transpolar route, going more directly over the pole, by 2025 will have 2 weeks of open shipping.

So, yes, shipping is going to increase. When you can figure out a quicker way to get from Asia to Europe, when you can shave off days, when you can use less fuel, you are saving money. So this is, from a trade perspective, hugely significant.

But this looming increase in commercial vessel traffic also translates to greater demand for services and processes necessary to ensure that Arctic shipping can be reliable and safe for shippers that need to transport goods from one place to another on a timetable.

This last chart that I am going to share is just a reminder of not today's reality, but this is the number of vessels that were tracked between year 2014 and 2015. So this is the Aleutians right down here. This is where the Great Circle route ships come through. It is so black here that you can't even tell that these are lines, but this demonstrates the level of existing traffic that we have here. Even 3 years ago, the number of vessels that transited up to the Arctic, whether it was to go over into the Beaufort or the Chukchi in the Arctic Ocean or to go through the northern sea route in that direction--this is here, and this is now. This is what is happening in the Arctic.

So what we are seeking to do with this SEAL legislation is to help to fund a system of Arctic ports--not just one port but a system of Arctic ports--ports of refuge for ships in trouble and ports to send, receive, and transship goods and people, private aids to navigation, all-weather tugs that can help ships that may have lost power or steerage, and to provide a commercial architecture to support the private sector investments in and use of icebreakers that can help ships that may be boxed in because of the ice. That happens.

So as we talk about this proposal that we are laying down in this legislation, I have likened it to Uber for icebreakers. It helps people kind of understand what it is that we are looking at here.

Port infrastructure will also benefit rural Arctic communities and bring down costs for delivering fuel, groceries, and other necessities which, in my State at this time, are just extraordinarily high. I think this legislation can help the United States to organize and attract investment opportunities for ports and icebreakers, for our own safety and for that of commercial vessels that are venturing into the Arctic, as well as, again, for those who live there.

So these two bills, building on the strategic efforts of the Department of Defense and the strides that have been made in the NDAA, can provide the legislative direction needed to help to develop that aspirational plan that Secretary Carter recognized that we need.

While I will be introducing these now, I am also going to be reintroducing them in the next Congress, and I certainly look forward to working with any and all of my colleagues and interested parties, as well as the executive branch, to refine them in the hopes that we can truly reclaim America's leadership role in the Arctic in this next Congress.

Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion this evening by my colleague from New Jersey and by my colleague from Rhode Island about the issue of climate change and its impact. I come from a part of the country where climate change is there; it is with us; it is real. It is something that we look to as Alaskans with a reality of this world view.

I spend a lot of my time here in the Senate focused on not only the U.S. Arctic but the Arctic as a whole, the eight Arctic nations that we intersect with. So I would like to take a few minutes this evening to speak about the happenings in the Arctic--our new reality--as we are seeing greater opportunities but also greater challenges in an area that I find to be an extraordinary place on our globe.

It was maybe a little more than 150 years ago when Massachusetts Senator and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time, Charles Sumner, argued the geostrategic importance of Alaska to our young Nation at the time. Senator Sumner spoke about how the Aleutians represented this gateway to Asia. This was a maritime route to the west coast that was roughly 1,000 miles shorter than the southern route through the Sandwich Isles, which was popular at the time.

It was about 70 years later that Gen. Billy Mitchell, who was the father of the Air Force, testified before Congress and said that he believed that in the future, whoever controls Alaska controls the world. He thought it was the most strategic place in the world.

Then we had World War II, the Japanese, who also recognized the strategic importance of the Aleutians, and they briefly seized and occupied the islands of Attu and Kiska.

While the war in the Aleutians may be forgotten by many here at home, the world continues to remember the strategic significance of the North.

Although General Mitchell saw the strategic geographic location of Alaska, he could not have imagined the environmental changes that would make sea routes accessible to commerce year-round, nor could he have imagined the rich mineral wealth beneath the Arctic. He might have been able to have imagined that Russia would take a major interest in the Arctic. Given its proximity from the Bering Strait region of Alaska, one can indeed see Russia from one's window. There are not too many people on Little Diomede, but I have been there. Big Diomede sits just about 2\1/2\ miles across the water, but I doubt that General Mitchell would ever have been able to have imagined that nations like China or India would have taken an interest in the very remote and often forbidding North, less that they would be fielding icebreakers in 2019 and 2020, as China and India are. He might also wonder why Singapore would take such an interest to justify observer status on the Arctic Council.

While places like Singapore seek observer status, the United States has passed the chairmanship of the Arctic Council and, with it, most of our diplomatic efforts towards the Arctic. The

Arctic Executive Steering Committee and other institutions within the executive branch that are focused on the Arctic have, in my view, just kind of wasted away just when the rest of the world has redoubled its focus on the Arctic.

The Department of Defense clearly gets it. It is starting to recognize what General Mitchell did back in 1935. Before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee back in May 2016, I asked Secretary Carter whether we were doing what we needed to do from a defense standpoint to address changes in the Arctic. His response was pretty frank and, I think, very revealing. He told me that the Arctic is going to be a major area of importance to the United States strategically and economically in the future.

I think it is fair to say that we are late to the recognition of that, but I think we have the recognition. Now you are asking what comes in behind that recognition. I think a plan that is more than aspirational is needed, and I would be happy to work with you toward that end.

At that time, Secretary Carter's candor was refreshing, if not long overdue, but I have to tell you that we are still waiting for a plan that is more aspirational in the Arctic--not just a plan but a plan that is fully resourced. As an appropriator, I know full well how difficult that is to achieve.

Sometimes around here, like a tree that falls in the forest when there is nobody there to listen, it seems like official Washington doesn't recognize that something new and very real is occurring until it reads about it in the New York Times or perhaps in the Washington Post. Well, on Thanksgiving Day of this year, the Washington Post really laid it out. It had a special section--some 16 pages--which is entitled ``The New Arctic Frontier.'' I would like to quote from the cover of this special section.

It reads:

As the Arctic slowly thaws, the United States, Canada,

Russia, China and other interested nations are reconsidering

how they strategically approach the region. Corporations have

launched new missions to search for oil. Commercial fishing

continues to evolve. Shipping and luxury cruise lines alike

are planning to send more vessels north. Coastal erosion has

prompted questions about how some Alaskan villages will

survive and how the U.S. government should react. Against

this backdrop, militaries are increasingly preparing for

potential conflict in the Arctic. The United States is

shifting forces to the north, planning to build a new class

of icebreaker ships and cultivating stronger relationships

with Nordic militaries. Russia, meanwhile, is investing in

ice-capable vessels and infrastructure improvements, and

China has declared itself a ``near Arctic state.''

This really sums up where we are today.

Truth be told, General Mitchell has been proven to be correct in ways that he probably could not have imagined when he said Alaska was the most strategic place in the world. For example, right now, here today, Anchorage has the fifth busiest cargo airport in the world--not in the country but in the world. So we are sitting here in Anchorage, AK. We are less than 9\1/2\ hours from 90 percent of the industrialized world. So whether you are going to Singapore, London, Mexico City, we are less than 9\1/2\ hours from 90 percent of the industrialized world. So many carriers, such as FedEx, UPS, Alaska Airlines, Atlas Air, and others, are already using Anchorage as a cargo hub because of this very, very central location and these very real opportunities for commerce. We are also looking to regain the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport position as a hub for international passenger travel.

Now we are getting ready for the holiday season, for Christmas. I think Santa had this figured out a long time ago. He knew that the shortest way to get around the globe, whether you were going to Fiji or to London or to Los Angeles or to Seoul, was over the Pole. Even Santa understood the geostrategic position of the Arctic. But it is Alaska. It really is Alaska, sitting right up there, which is the gateway to America's Arctic, that is at the center of all of this. That is not just bragging, not just my being parochial about it as Alaska's Senator. It is real, it is compelling, and it is demanding of attention and action. I know it is not easy.

The Washington Post's editors observed that the Arctic portends great opportunities and great challenges, so let's get to work on this. That is my central message today. It is time that we get to work and move ahead with a plan that fits the challenge that the Arctic represents for America. We talk a lot about aspiration. The time for aspiration is over--it is time for action. That starts by fully funding the first of the Coast Guard's Polar Security Cutters, whose purpose is to provide assured, year-round access to our polar regions. These are platforms that can project sea power anywhere, at any time, and are fully interoperable with interagency and international stakeholders to carry out national defense operations. These cutters will include sufficient space, weight, and power to conduct multimission activities that support our Nation's current and future needs in the Arctic.

The Polar Security Cutter will allow us to continue to engage with our fellow Arctic nations and our allies and our strategic competitors.

I share with you a picture of our existing Polar icebreaker, but when you look around the world at the various flags, here we are sitting in the United States--one of eight Arctic nations--and we have two icebreakers. I say two--maybe that is all we need. One of them is currently in dry dock in the Seattle-Tacoma area. She is never going to see activity again. The other one, Polar Star, is on her second life. She is working hard, but she is down in Antarctica, and she will be in Antarctica until she, too, is retired. Then where does that leave us? Where does that put us?

We have a medium-strength vessel, the Healy. She does great work, but that is what the United States has.

Canada has nine government-owned, either operating or under construction. China has four--China, which has just determined they should be a ``Near-Arctic State.'' Russia has 34, and when you count those that are nongovernment-owned, it is well over 40.

Here we are, the United States of America, an Arctic nation, and we are down to about one icebreaker. We have some work to do here.

Over the past several years, funds have been secured through the Navy to get started on building a new Polar Security Cutter. This year, the administration wisely decided--and I thank them for working with us-- that it is time to lock in the project by budgeting the remaining funds necessary to complete the project. It is about $750 million. That is a lot of money. That is a lot of money, but I would submit that this investment in the Polar Security Cutter is a small price to pay for the ability to project U.S. sea power in the Arctic.

The question of whether we follow through on this very important step is going to be determined this week, or perhaps next week, as we complete the fiscal year 2019 appropriations project. I would dare to suggest that our competitors in the Arctic are watching very, very closely whether we have the resolve to follow through on the first of these Polar Security Cutters.

Bringing the Polar Security Cutter online will give us capacity--we appreciate that--but the next and perhaps even more difficult challenge is to build the infrastructure to support the next phase of U.S. sea power in the Arctic. Most critical for that is the development of a deepwater port in the Bering Sea.

Our reality right now is that the Alaska deepwater port nearest to the Arctic is located in the Bering Sea. Dutch Harbor is almost 1,000 miles away from the Arctic. I am looking at my imaginary Alaska map here, but when you are down in the Aleutians--that is the nearest deepwater port--it is 1,000 miles to get to Point Hope, to Barrow, and that area.

A port is a critical piece of infrastructure that is needed, and it will serve many, many uses. It can support the Navy, the Coast Guard, and NOAA's research missions. It will support search and rescue activities that may be necessitated by increasing commercial vessel traffic in the Arctic, and it will provide a platform for the United States to harvest some of the economic upside of the vessel transits. RADM Jon White, U.S. Navy, retired, is President and CEO of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership. At a recent event, which was sponsored by the Wilson Center, he characterized the requirement for a deepwater port in the Arctic as a ``no-brainer.'' He went on to

say: ``Unfortunately, it's not a no-coster.''

Last summer, Navy Secretary Spencer looked at various sites, potential sites for a deepwater port. He is very engaged in seeing how we can work together to bring the funding partners to make this happen. We look forward to working with him toward this endeavor. His engagement is so greatly--greatly--appreciated. He clearly understands the potential here.

All of these developments are very, positive, far more positive than we have seen in recent years. I am grateful for that. They are building blocks.

The race to protect America's strategic interest in the Arctic demands attention on more than just defense; it will take coordination. That is why I am going to introduce today two pieces of legislation that are designed to reinvigorate America's national and commercial strategic efforts.

For well over a decade now, you have heard me talk about how the diminishing Arctic sea ice presents both opportunities and concerns. If you look at this map here, you are looking at planet Earth from the perspective that most of us in Alaska view, which is from the top on down. You have the U.S. Arctic here with Alaska. You have the Canadian Arctic here. Here is Russia coming all the way around to Iceland, and Greenland is down in this area.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, we recognize the impact that climate change is having on the Arctic--rapid impacts, clearly--more so than in any other part of the United States.

The latest report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program underscored this fact. Since the early eighties, the annual Arctic sea ice extent has gone down by about 4 percent per decade. The decrease for September sea ice extent--this is the time of year where we have had the least amount of ice. This time period has been even more pronounced at somewhere between 10.7 and 15.9 percent per decade in terms of the decrease in the sea ice.

What does all of this mean? According to that report, it means we are likely to experience a sea ice-free Arctic summer before this century is out.

Again, when you are looking at the top of the globe, looking at the Arctic here, all of the area in the light blue--you can't see the red around it--was all of the extent of the September sea ice back in 1979. In 2015--3 years ago--the extent of that September ice is here in the pink. As you can appreciate, as you are losing this throughout more parts of the year, it does point to a reality that we are likely to see in the not too terribly distant future--a sea ice-free Arctic summer.

Loss of sea ice in the Arctic, of course, goes hand in hand with overall temperature warming. Over the last several years, it has been somewhat common to refer to the Arctic and include the fact that it is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the country. This latest climate report shows us that this is not exactly right.

In fact, the North Slope of Alaska--this corner right there--is warming at 2.6 times the rate of the continental United States. Much of the rest of Alaska is warming at more than twice the continental U.S. rate as well. So it is not just twice as fast; it is more than twice as fast. Again, we are paying attention.

I face this reality. I hear about this reality every time I step off an airplane in a rural community. I listen to the people there, particularly the elders, as they share their knowledge. Record low extent of Arctic sea ice threatens many of our indigenous communities because of threats of coastal erosion. With less ice, waves build up, beat against the shore, and erode it. It is more than just coastal erosion; it is the impact on their traditional ways of life--food security issues, hunting, access to resources to basically exist.

We are very in tune. It is not just through the eyes of the people who are living there; this is abundantly clear in both the scientific data that is collected by our State and our Federal Agencies, as well as the experience of rural Alaska Natives.

According to this most recent report, the cost of infrastructure damaged from a warming climate in Alaska alone--we had our own chapter in the report--could range from $110 to $270 million per year. So changes to our air, our water, our soil, our food security, our disease ecology directly and directly resulting from our warming climate are going to impact the lives and the health of every Alaskan.

On the one hand, the future in the Arctic looks increasingly challenging for our rural communities. Then, on the other hand, the future also represents a new frontier. There are opportunities out there, whether they are in construction, in tourism, in energy, in minerals, in shipping, or in community development. You have challenges, and you have opportunities.

For some time now, my team and I have been working on two pieces of Arctic legislation to support responsible investment and development in the U.S. Arctic. It hasn't been easy to meet the expectations and the needs of rural and indigenous communities that are most impacted by climate change in the U.S. Arctic, while, at the same time, focusing on economic development, environmental stewardship, human security, but we have really been trying to mesh these all together. I believe these two bills that I am introducing, along with Senator Sullivan--the Arctic Policy Act of 2018 and the Shipping and Environmental Arctic Leadership Act of 2018; that is, the SEAL Act--I think are steps in the right direction, helping us move closer to meeting these objectives.

The first bill, the Arctic Policy Act of 2018, will statutorily establish the Arctic Executive Steering Committee under the Department of Homeland Security and provide the coordination necessary to advance a truly integrated plan for the Arctic.

By reinvigorating the central coordinating body for Arctic issues, the legislation will provide a venue to deliver the type of plan America needs and, more importantly, a place to work that plan into action across Agencies.

As it stands now, everybody has a little bit of a piece of something when it comes to the Arctic, but it doesn't really seem as though there is any coordinating entity. When you don't have anybody who ultimately has that responsibility, oftentimes, it is hard to see the progress.

We know Federal policy does not exist in a vacuum, so in addition to establishing the Arctic Executive Steering Committee, the legislation would also establish an Arctic Advisory Committee to ensure that residents of the Arctic and Alaska Native people have a seat at the table for the development of policy. They don't want to be sitting back and being told what is happening; they want a seat at the table. As the indigenous peoples of the region, they fully have that right.

Further, the legislation calls for the establishment of regional Tribal advisory groups, starting with the Bering Sea Regional Tribal Advisory Group to advise the Federal Government as it shapes national priorities within the region. These Tribal advisory groups will be empowered to provide advice on specific challenges or regionally important issues.

I would like to say that if you go to rural Alaska, if you go to a small village, you are not going to find a lot of Ph.D.s out there, but what they do have is a Ph.D. in Arctic living. They know what is going on. Their very lives and survival depend on understanding and appreciating the world around them.

In the Arctic, we have an opportunity to show the world how to integrate indigenous knowledge and voices into policy and science. That is why the legislation will also update the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984. This was legislation my father introduced when he was here in the Senate. We will update this to include more Native voices at the Arctic Research Commission and thereby push to include traditional knowledge and community coordination in our Nation's scientific efforts in the Arctic, especially our efforts to study and understand climate change.

Mr. President, the second piece of legislation I am introducing is the Shipping and Environmental Arctic Leadership Act of 2018--the SEAL Act--which establishes a congressionally chartered seaway development corporation in the Arctic.

So this Arctic Corporation will work with representatives from NOAA, from the State Department, from the Coast Guard, and from DOT, as well as representatives from the State of Alaska, the Alaska business community, Alaska coastal and subsistence communities, and the Alaskan Maritime Labor Organization to help to develop an Arctic shipping union whose leadership will advocate for safe, secure, and reliable Arctic seaway development and further ensure that the Arctic becomes a place of international cooperation rather than competition or conflict.

The capacity to get maritime and shipping services funded by means of international cooperation is not a new concept. We have seen it done, and it exists with the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation in the United States. This is one example where countries that share a large maritime border--the United States and Canada--are able to develop a seaway system--one that is safe, secure, and reliable for its users.

I have people stop me and say: Well, this is so many years off from when we are going to see levels of commercial activity in the Arctic. There is no real need to move on this, is there?

Well, again, I will just remind you of some of the charts we have seen. The multiyear ice that once made the Arctic impassable and shielded our northernmost border year-round is diminishing, again, due to climate change. Because of this, shipping in and around the Arctic traffic will increase. So when you appreciate where we are with the Northwest Passage here, the Northwest Passage, by 2025, is intermittently open, but the for pathway, if you are going from the Bering Strait, right off of Alaska here and through Rotterdam, you are going to have an opportunity to basically be cutting through there.

For the northern sea route, following through Russia, by 2025, they anticipate that this sea lane will be open for a full 6 weeks.

The transpolar route, going more directly over the pole, by 2025 will have 2 weeks of open shipping.

So, yes, shipping is going to increase. When you can figure out a quicker way to get from Asia to Europe, when you can shave off days, when you can use less fuel, you are saving money. So this is, from a trade perspective, hugely significant.

But this looming increase in commercial vessel traffic also translates to greater demand for services and processes necessary to ensure that Arctic shipping can be reliable and safe for shippers that need to transport goods from one place to another on a timetable.

This last chart that I am going to share is just a reminder of not today's reality, but this is the number of vessels that were tracked between year 2014 and 2015. So this is the Aleutians right down here. This is where the Great Circle route ships come through. It is so black here that you can't even tell that these are lines, but this demonstrates the level of existing traffic that we have here. Even 3 years ago, the number of vessels that transited up to the Arctic, whether it was to go over into the Beaufort or the Chukchi in the Arctic Ocean or to go through the northern sea route in that direction--this is here, and this is now. This is what is happening in the Arctic.

So what we are seeking to do with this SEAL legislation is to help to fund a system of Arctic ports--not just one port but a system of Arctic ports--ports of refuge for ships in trouble and ports to send, receive, and transship goods and people, private aids to navigation, all-weather tugs that can help ships that may have lost power or steerage, and to provide a commercial architecture to support the private sector investments in and use of icebreakers that can help ships that may be boxed in because of the ice. That happens.

So as we talk about this proposal that we are laying down in this legislation, I have likened it to Uber for icebreakers. It helps people kind of understand what it is that we are looking at here.

Port infrastructure will also benefit rural Arctic communities and bring down costs for delivering fuel, groceries, and other necessities which, in my State at this time, are just extraordinarily high. I think this legislation can help the United States to organize and attract investment opportunities for ports and icebreakers, for our own safety and for that of commercial vessels that are venturing into the Arctic, as well as, again, for those who live there.

So these two bills, building on the strategic efforts of the Department of Defense and the strides that have been made in the NDAA, can provide the legislative direction needed to help to develop that aspirational plan that Secretary Carter recognized that we need.

While I will be introducing these now, I am also going to be reintroducing them in the next Congress, and I certainly look forward to working with any and all of my colleagues and interested parties, as well as the executive branch, to refine them in the hopes that we can truly reclaim America's leadership role in the Arctic in this next Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my military fellow, Juan Ramirez, for the remainder of his fellowship, through June of 2019.

Mr. President, in a few moments, we are going to have an opportunity to vote on moving to proceed to the nominee for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I come to the floor this afternoon to speak in support of that nominee, Mr. Bernard McNamee.

Mr. McNamee has been nominated to serve on the FERC--the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--to complete the remainder of the term that runs through June 30, 2020.

The FERC is an independent agency within the Department of Energy. For a long period of time, nobody really paid much attention to the FERC or was quite sure what the mission was. The agency itself is one that has a very key and a very critical role within our country in that it regulates the electricity, the hydropower, the natural gas, and the oil pipeline industries. That basically means that FERC plays a critical role in keeping the lights on and ensuring the deliverability of reliable, safe, and affordable energy to American homes and businesses. The FERC really is key to so much of what goes on in the world of commerce and our economy.

It is important that we move forward with this vote today. If we confirm Mr. McNamee, FERC will once again have a full complement of five Commissioners on that agency. This is something we have worked hard to restore in this Congress for a period of time. The Commission was down to just three Commissioners. They have a lot of work to do. The responsibilities are hard. Making sure that they are at full speed must be a priority. It is necessary to enable the agency to address a substantial backlog of energy infrastructure project applications and decisions that are pending on a range of important energy matters.

Let's talk about the qualifications Mr. McNamee has to serve at the FERC. Over the course of his career, he served in the Federal Government, including here in the Senate and in two State governments. He has also worked in the energy practice group of a major law firm. As a result of his work and his experience, Mr. McNamee has a deep understanding of energy issues, and I think a clear appreciation of FERC's mission. He has made a strong commitment to continue FERC's role as an independent and an impartial regulator, which to me is key. He also knows that it is FERC's duty to keep the lights on and not to carry out policy decisions that are made by other parts of the Federal Government. His mission within the FERC is pretty well defined.

There has been some discussion about Mr. McNamee's prior position implementing policy during the brief tenure he had at the Department of Energy. This was at a time when the administration was considering whether it could provide economic relief to coal and nuclear powerplants. That has generated its own level of discussion. Some have suggested that Mr. McNamee's work at the Department raises questions about his independence and have compared him to Ron Binz. Mr. Binz was a former nominee for FERC Chairman back in 2013. I would remind colleagues that there is a difference here.

Back in 2013, when the Senate was considering Mr. Binz, in fairness, we didn't actually have him up for consideration on the floor. Mr. Binz voluntarily withdrew his nomination from consideration, and that was based on bipartisan concerns that were raised about substantive comments of his and the approach he took to recruit support for his own nomination. I would rather not rehash history today, but I think there is a clear difference between the two nominees, and I believe the concerns about Mr. McNamee's independence are largely unfounded.

First, the Department of Energy's proposal to FERC on coal and nuclear plants was unanimously rejected by FERC just about a year ago. The Commission is currently not considering any other administration proposal to assist coal or nuclear powerplants.

I think it is also wrong to suggest that because someone has experience implementing policy somewhere that they should be disqualified from any role as an independent regulator. In fact, in this Congress alone, we have already confirmed two former Senate policy staff members to the Commission. The first one was Neil Chatterjee, an individual many, many of us know. He previously served as the majority leader's energy policy adviser. The second one was Mr. Rich Glick, who served as senior counsel to Senator Cantwell on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Like Chairman Chatterjee and Mr. Glick, Mr. McNamee's decisions as a Commissioner will not be contingent on the implementation of policy decisions in his prior roles. In private meetings and in his nomination hearing last month, Mr. McNamee repeatedly committed to be fair, to be objective, and to be an impartial arbiter in all of the cases that come before the Commission. He repeated this commitment in response to two rounds of questions for the record.

I believe Mr. McNamee understands and understands well that FERC is an independent Agency and that it must continue to function as such. I take his commitment to uphold FERC's autonomy and maintain an independent role as a Commissioner at face value. I also expect him to be fuel-neutral and not a champion of one resource over another.

As I mentioned, there is a lot of work that must go on at FERC. We need to have all five Commissioners in place to make sure that it happens. With a full set of Commissioners, FERC will be able to reduce or certainly work to reduce its backlog of energy infrastructure projects, including important natural gas pipelines and LNG export terminals.

If we are going to remain a prosperous nation with strong growth and affordable energy, we need our interstate pipeline network and our LNG facilities to continue to meet customer demands for our natural gas.

This resource serves a variety of critical needs, ranging from keeping us warm to enabling our manufacturing renaissance and, increasingly, to fuel our electric grid.

LNG exports also represent a significant opportunity for States like Alaska, scores of communities, and, looking abroad, for America's friends and allies.

FERC is also examining other important issues, including its regulations under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act--PURPA-- the integration of energy storage onto the grid, and the impact of State policies on interstate electricity markets. These issues are incredibly complex, and they have widespread implications for our economy.

Again, it is key, it is timely, and it is important that we have a full complement on the FERC. Mr. McNamee is well qualified to join the other Commissioners in tackling these issues, and I urge all of my colleagues to support his nomination.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, Senator Sullivan and I have just returned to Washington after an almost surreal 24-hour period up in the State.

We went up on Sunday night, Monday morning. We hadn't anticipated being there, but the State of Alaska--and more specifically Southcentral Alaska--experienced a powerful earthquake on Friday. It was certainly an unsettling event, a frightening event to many, and it caused significant damage in the most populated part of our State.

Last Friday, at 8:29 in the morning, we had an earthquake that struck the community of Anchorage with a magnitude of 7.0 on the Richter scale. The epicenter was about 7 miles north of Anchorage. It was about 25 miles deep. That shock lasted anywhere, folks were saying, from about 40 seconds to 1 minute; that was the initial hard jolt. Then, movement after that depended on where you were and what kind of ground you were located on, but it was a very significant earthquake by all standards.

I heard about the earthquake, not because I got an alert on my phone but because my phone rang when my son called. He lives and works in Anchorage. He had been at his shop, and he called me right after the shaking stopped. My son is a pretty calm young man, but I could tell that something was wrong, something was different. I could hear it in his voice. He was clearly rattled. His comments to me reflected so many of the comments I have heard from so many with whom I have had a chance to visit.

As we were speaking on the phone, it was about 7 minutes after the initial jolt that we had another earthquake, a 5.7 that followed. He literally said: You have to hold on, Mom, because we are having another one. These are significant at any time, but to have a 7.0 followed by a 5.7 and then to know that the aftershocks have been continuing--they have continued until today. As of this afternoon, the total number of aftershocks we have had is about 2,500.

Think about that. From Friday morning to midafternoon Alaska time, about 2,500 aftershocks, and we have had 14 above 4.5 in magnitude. We have had 14 in that time period that were over 4.5. Now, 4.5 is going to get anybody's attention.

Yesterday morning, when I was leaving Alaska to come to Washington, I was getting ready in the bathroom, and there was another shaker then, and that was a 4.8.

People have asked me: How are things back home?

I said: Well, we had the big jolt on Friday, but it is still rocking and rolling.

People are anxious, but the report I would like to share with folks today is that there has been an incredible response at so many different levels. The initial response was pretty intense.

After I spoke with my son, I talked to a staff member whose pipes had burst in her home, and she was dealing with flooding. One of the main arterials in Anchorage, Minnesota Drive, is one of the access roads to get to the airport, and parts of that had collapsed. Many people have seen the picture of the vehicle sitting in the middle of a depressed area where the bottom literally has dropped out the overpass of that road.

Across Anchorage and in the Mat-Su Valley, school had just started for the middle schools and the upper grades, and kids were doing what the kids have been trained to do for decades now. Since the 1964 earthquake, believe me, every kid in Southcentral Alaska--I think probably every kid in Alaska--knows what the earthquake drill is, to duck and cover. But during this quake, they were ducking and covering as books from the bookshelves were crashing to the floor and as ceiling tiles were coming down. It is extraordinary to think that during all that we saw and all of the damage in the schools, there were two injuries. There are 48,000 kids in the Anchorage School District and about 17,000 or 18,000 in the Mat-Su district--and two injuries. One was somebody cleaning up glass; another was a student who was putting his arm up to shield himself from a ceiling tile that was falling down, and he injured his wrist. It is absolutely extraordinary--nothing short of a miracle--that we suffered no loss of life.

It was pretty dramatic. Transformers blew, and much of the city went dark. A tsunami warning was issued for the Kenai Peninsula in the low- lying areas in the Anchorage Bowl, even down past Kodiak. We got a call from friends in Kodiak out on a hunting trip, and they got word that they needed to hike to higher ground. Hike to higher ground. Of course, there is no communication and no way to know whether it is all safe. These stories are coming in from all over the State.

What we heard in those first hours, the first reports coming in from our first responders, who truly jumped into action and were responding to calls as they were coming in--the civil engineers were dispatched to go out to check on the highways, the bridges, and the essential infrastructure, such as the hospitals. We had almost immediate updates from the U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--about the earthquake and what was happening with the subsequent tsunami warning, the aftershocks. All of these were in realtime. We kept waiting to hear whether there were any reports of serious injuries or fatalities, but fortunately--amazingly, miraculously--they never came.

Meanwhile, the utilities were working to restore power and to test the cities' water systems. ENSTAR, which is our natural gas supplier, received over 700 requests to check on broken gas lines. They went house by house to make sure that they were safe.

It was extraordinary in terms of the immediate on-the-ground response by the Alaskans who were there in place, the teams that are at the ready because that is what they are trained to do, and those who were just being good neighbors and knew that when you have something hit, we are all hands on deck.

Congressman Young, Senator Sullivan, and I gathered on Friday afternoon. We got updates from the Vice President, who was traveling. We spoke with FEMA Administrator Brock Long and Secretary of Transportation Chao. All of them--all of them--were all in with their promises of help from throughout the Federal Government with resources. President Trump also--his support in promising to spare no expense as we work to recover from this natural disaster went a long way to providing levels of assurance there.

Senator Sullivan and I, as I mentioned, flew up on Sunday evening. We

waited until the weekend was over to fly back home. We didn't want to get in the way of the immediate recovery efforts. I got in at 1 o'clock in the morning and went to work cleaning up the glass and broken things in my house, as many of my neighbors and fellow Alaskans had been doing all weekend long.

Over the course of the day on Monday, we were able to see some of the damage that this earthquake has caused. You think about the words when you are trying to describe something that--the scenes are just so, so different, and it is words like ``gut-wrenching'' and ``astounding'' and then ``remarkable,'' but it was really gut-wrenching being in the school.

We went out to Houston Middle School. This is an area out in the Mat- Su Valley. This is one of the schools that will not be opened, at least not this year and perhaps for longer. But you are standing in a building--this is the library there in the middle school, and you see all of the books that have fallen to the floor. You see the guts of the ceiling that have come out. The sprinkler system is activated, so not only do you have the chaos of the books but now you have got the saturation.

There is another picture here of the group of us who went in.

The ceiling literally disintegrated on top of the library there.

When you think about the time that this all happened, there were students in the library. There were students who were passing in the hallway. This school is cinderblock construction, and the actual concrete cinders popped out and crashed to the floor and broke. The metal struts coming out of the ceiling, the panels--this was all happening at 8:29 in the morning. It is dark in Alaska at 8:29 in the morning. The lights had gone out, and they had this crashing all around them.

When I use the word ``remarkable'' to describe some of it, how the students and the teachers responded was remarkable, the calm. The kids knew what to do. They got under their desks. They did what they were trained to do. When they got the order that they needed to get out, to evacuate, what they did was exactly what they were trained to do. And no injuries. No injuries. It is absolutely extraordinary.

The schools in Anchorage are going to be closed for the entire week. Mat-Su is opening some of theirs this week, but more than 85 of them sustained damage that clearly needs to be cleaned up, needs to be repaired.

The schools were one aspect of the damage that we saw, but what many have seen out there has been the damage to the infrastructure.

This is a picture of a collapsed road. This is Vine Road, out in the valley. This is kind of a boggy area that runs through here, but it is just as if there were a big suction that came underneath and literally sucked the ground out from underneath that.

This is an area that we visited. We took this picture from above, in the air. This is it up close. As you are standing here on these slabs of asphalt, the crevices you are looking down into are extraordinary, and you realize the intensity of the action of the Earth.

You see scenes like this, and you say: How are we going to get through all of this? And the work that is ongoing now, whether it is the on-ramps, whether it is the bridges, whether it is roads like this on Vine Road, our department of transportation is working to firm up the roads, to, believe it or not, fill them in, repave them, even restripe them, and get folks back on their way. What we saw in just those first 72 hours is absolutely extraordinarily impressive.

The Alaska Railroad is assessing their damage. They are operational. They are going to be going much slower than they would like, and that is going to cause complications, but they are up.

The Port of Alaska is undergoing an expansion right now. It has been complicated by this earthquake. That is something that, again, is very critical. As you look to how goods move around our State, 85 percent of them come through that port. So being able to allow for functionality is critical.

We look at our assets. We look at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. That was closed down temporarily just for precaution, but it is up and running.

You know, when I think about all this, given what happened, the visible damage we saw earlier this week, I find myself thinking that we are so lucky--not that we were hit by this major earthquake but that it could have been so much worse.

We talk a lot about resilience--resilience of a people. I think we learned a lot from the 1964 earthquake, the Good Friday earthquake. That registered at 9.2 on the Richter scale and lasted 4\1/2\, almost 5 minutes. Extraordinary. What we have been doing--we are the most seismically active State in the country, so we work to be prepared.

Again, I mentioned that last Friday's earthquake was deep, and that mitigated some of the shaking that was associated with it, but the proximity to our State's population center put people and infrastructure at great risk.

The depth of the source and the mechanism of the fault helped reduce the damage. That is one part of it. The other part of it is being prepared, and this is where I am so proud of the resilience of Alaskans. Whether it is at the schools that practice these earthquake drills where the students get under the desk, they hold on to the leg of a chair or their desk, and they cover their heads to protect themselves--I know we have one Alaskan as a page. She has gone through this drill. I know you have. So even in the dark, even in the chaos, with all the noise and the crashing, students knew what to do, and they did it not only for themselves, but they did it for other students as well.

There are some stories of some very young heroes out there, and I have a young nephew who not only took care of himself but made sure that a fellow student who had severe mobility issues was able to get under a desk. I think about the calmness and the presence that so many exercised.

I am going to end by noting again how we have worked as communities in our State to be prepared for disasters when they come. We have some of the most stringent building codes in the world, and for the most part, our buildings held up. Families have earthquake kits in their houses. They have batteries, flashlights, nonperishable food--all of which came in handy as folks kind of hunkered down over the weekend.

I will end my remarks by noting how grateful I am for the first responders who took action in the aftermath of the earthquake, even amid all of the ongoing aftershocks, even with their households totally turned upside down--and not only for our first responders but for all those who acted as first responders, the neighbors who came together. It is Alaska at its finest when we all work together.

I am very grateful that we had no tsunami. I am very grateful that the damages, at least on the surface, are not worse. And we are certainly grateful that there have been no reports of major injuries or fatalities. I am grateful that we have strong Federal partners who have committed to helping us in any way that they can. I also appreciate the reach-out from so many colleagues here in the Senate who sent me texts and who called and said: Is everything OK in Alaska? Is there anything we can do? Thank you for that.

We know we are tough in Alaska. That is the reputation we have. We are kind of proud of that. We know we are hardy and resilient. But knowing that others are going to be with us as we go through this recovery period makes that much better. I thank so many who have been there to help Alaska.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XX, all postcloture time on the McNamee nomination expire at 12 noon on Thursday, December 6; further, that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. I further

ask that following disposition of the nomination, the Senate resume consideration of the Kraninger nomination and the time be equally divided in the usual form until 1:45 p.m.; further, that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the Kraninger nomination as under the previous order; finally, that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.