Floor Statements

Mr. President, before I speak on an amendment that is expected to be voted on later this afternoon, I wish to take just a brief moment and thank my colleagues, the Chairman of the HELP Committee and his ranking member, Senator Murray. The work they have done to knit together this compromise--and we all recognize it is a compromise--is such an important one, and it comes at such an important time.

It is not only good from a policy perspective to ensure that we don't pull out the underpinnings on the individual market here, but it is good, from the perspective of the health of our institution, to be able to demonstrate that, at a time when things are a little tense, let's just say, on issues that are highly emotional, highly personal, and highly, highly complex, we can come together and we can demonstrate the ability to govern. It doesn't come without great patience and persistence, and these two individuals, these two leaders, have really helped guide us here in the Senate to find a better path, not only when it comes to how we deal with access to healthcare, reducing costs, reducing premiums, and providing for better levels of care but also a better path for the Senate.

So I want to acknowledge and show my genuine appreciation for their leadership.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Energy Committee, I come to the floor today to urge every Member here to vote against amendment No. 1301, which will be voted on later on this afternoon.

The fiscal year 2018 budget resolution instructs the Energy Committee to raise $1 billion over the next decade. That is all that it does. It just says: Go out and find $1 billion over the next decade.

I appreciate Chairman Enzi's willingness to include this instruction, and I have every confidence that our committee will be able to meet the instruction. There are good reasons why we should be able to meet it, and, really, very good reasons why we should oppose an amendment that would preemptively strike it.

I think it is fair to say that we have opportunities within the energy sector to help advance this country when it comes to our energy security, our national security, and our economic security. But we need to be able to move forward with that.

So what we are able to do within this instruction, which is pretty wide open, is to focus on those areas where we might be able to see increased energy production that could bring us new wealth--that could create new wealth in this country.

I am going to be the first to agree that some of our options within this open instruction are better than others. Some will create jobs. Some may end jobs. Some will reduce energy costs as opposed to raising them. Some will increase our energy and mineral security as opposed to sacrifice or selling it off.

What I hope Members will do is look at this instruction as an opportunity to do something constructive for the country. The best example of that is to expand energy development in our Federal areas where we have seen decline in recent years.

I think we recognize that responsible development not only will reduce our immediate deficits, but it is about jobs and job creation. It is about wealth and wealth creation, about allowing us to build new wealth and create prosperity. It will help energy affordability for our families and businesses. That is something I hear about all the time. It will strengthen our national security and our competitiveness.

This is a point that needs to be emphasized over and over again. It is not only energy security, but it is national security. When we are dependent on other nations for our energy resources, there is an energy insecurity and vulnerability. We also realize energy production will ensure the type of growth we need to finally begin reducing the Federal debt, which is now over $20 trillion.

In short, what we will be able to do with this energy instruction is allow us to create new wealth. Why wouldn't that be something we would all embrace? I think the instruction will allow us to see some enduring benefits that will be felt all across our country. I think it is important to recognize and to state that this does not come at the expense of our environment. This is not an either/or proposition. Anyone familiar with modern development can recognize that as the scare tactic it is.

Senator Sullivan, my colleague from the State of Alaska, was on the floor earlier this morning, and he spoke to the outdated, stale arguments we have heard repeated on the floor and why we must reject them.

The amendment we have in front of us, 1301, simply strikes the section in the resolution that would provide for the Energy Committee instruction. The purpose perhaps takes it a little bit further in mentioning and bringing out the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. There has been a lot of discussion on the floor about ANWR already.

Senator Sullivan, when he spoke earlier, spoke to the broader opportunities we have seen in the Arctic with Arctic development in general. I want to raise a few facts about ANWR more specifically, since it clearly has been put out there for discussion.

As an Alaskan, and one who has been part of these debates for many years now, not only on the Senate floor but in Alaska, we know what we are talking about when we discuss the issue of Arctic development. We know and understand what ANWR is, where the wilderness area is, and what the 1002 area is.

I think it is important to put it into context. ANWR is an area of 19.3 million acres. It is about the size of the State of South Carolina. Included in this ANWR area are 8 million acres of Federal wilderness. You have wilderness area, you have refuge area, but you have nonwilderness area designated as the 1002 area. That is this area on the coastal plain. This is an area of 1.5 million acres. Delaware is about 1.3 million acres. The 1002 area is what was specifically set aside under ANILCA that would allow for consideration for its oil and gas potential. When ANWR was established, it was recognized that there were areas that were appropriate for wilderness, and there were areas that were appropriate to be reviewed and considered for their exploration and production potential.

That is what we are talking about within the 1002 area. Even within this area that was specifically set aside, we are not asking to develop all of the 1002. We are asking to develop just 2,000 Federal acres within it, effectively one ten-thousandths of the refuge area.

You can't see it, but that little red dot is basically what we are talking about. We can say this. We can say we don't need to do more than 2,000 acres, in this 19.3 million-acre area that has been set aside specifically for oil and gas production, because of what has happened over the decades with regard to our technologies, how we have worked to reduce the footprint since Prudhoe Bay opened over 40 years ago. Well pads on the North Slope have shrunk by over 80 percent in these intervening years. We are talking now about pad areas that are 12 acres in size--10, 11, 12 acres in size.

We have reduced the footprint dramatically, but what we have expanded

dramatically is the subsurface reach. The new technologies have allowed us to increase the ability to reach out under the surface to an area 125 square miles--125 miles. We have increased it by 4,000 percent, in the years we have been producing, exploring, and innovating up north, due to the technologies we use for exploration. Senator Sullivan showed the ice roads we use that reduce the impact on the surface and avoid the need for permanent roads.

We use forward looking infrared cameras to survey for polar bear dens so we can avoid them. There was actually a story just this spring about a polar bear that was denning. We found where she was by using the technologies that we know and literally working around where that polar bear was until she emerged from her den with her cub in the spring. It is working with the technologies we have to allow for the activity but with minimal disturbance to not only the land but to the wildlife there.

Caribou. We all know about the caribou in the North Slope area. What we have learned is that over the years, the caribou that occupy these areas have not suffered. In fact, they have thrived. When oil development first began, we were looking at herds in the numbers of about 5,000. Just this last year, the caribou herd is numbering about 22,000, and it has maintained steady and substantial levels.

When you understand what the 1002 area really is and what development would actually look like, it is not hard to understand why you have Alaskans' support. Over 70 percent of Alaskans support responsible development there.

I want to give you one of the best examples. Matthew Rexford is the president of Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, KIC, which is a member of the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat. This is a group of community leaders from our North Slope. He wrote a great opinion piece not too long ago, explaining why he supports responsible development in the 1002 area.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Matthew Rexford's op-ed.

In part, Matthew states:

As ANWR debates occur, the views of the Inupiat who call

the area home are oftentimes left out. The wishes of the

people who live in and around the refuge's coastal plain

frequently are drowned out by people who live hundreds--even

thousands--of miles away, many of whom have never bothered to

set foot anywhere near the Arctic. Well, today is a new day.

He goes on to speak to the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, which has members from across the Arctic Slope who have voted unanimously to pass a resolution supporting oil and gas development in the 1002 area. He goes on further to state:

When oil was first discovered on our land in 1969, the

Inupiat were worried of industry activities and fought hard

for self-determination to protect our subsistence resources.

So we fully understand the trepidation from outsiders: the

fear that the presence of industry on the coastal plain of

ANWR could disrupt wildlife and affect America's manufactured

perspective of our land and culture.

However, we also have the benefit of decades of experience

working with the oil and gas industry to implement stringent

regulations to protect our lands, and the industry

consistently has lived up to our standards. Prudhoe Bay, the

largest oil field on the continent, located 60 miles west of

the coastal plain of ANWR, has demonstrated for four decades

that resource development and ecological preservation can co-

exist in the Arctic.

The oil and gas industry supports our communities by

providing jobs, business opportunities and infrastructure

investments, has built our schools and hospitals, and has

provided other basic services most Americans may take for

granted. Our region recognizes its importance to our local

and state economy, and we believe that development can be

done responsibly in a portion of the 1002 area. We are not

alone.

I am with Matthew and a strong majority of Alaskans are. These are the voices we need to be listening to. My answer on this discussion is yes. Opening the nonwilderness 1002 area to development is an option to meet the instructions to the Energy Committee, but it is not the only option. I will tell you, it is the best option, and it is on the table.

We should be clear, amendment No. 1301 is not a vote to open the 1002 area or to keep it closed. It is about whether this instruction should stay in the budget resolution, and it is about whether we are going to recognize the substantial benefits that await us or whether we are going to ignore our future energy needs and once again wind up in a situation where we see prices rising, families hurting, and everyone is wondering: Why didn't you act when you had a chance?

I think we all recognize that we are enjoying some benefits of lower energy prices, and some have suggested here: Hey, we are all fine. We don't need to do anything. A few have even said that

because we are exporting oil now, we don't need to do more for ourselves here. It is truly an open invitation to ignore the supply side. That is just a bad idea. Quite honestly, we have been down that road before, and we know enough not to be in that place again.

The EIA, the Energy Information Administration, projects that in 2040, the world will be using more oil, not less. They project that our country will still be importing about 7 million barrels a day on a net basis. They project prices will be back above $100 a barrel. There are other experts who are already pointing to other signs. The International Energy Agency recently found that ``global oil supply could struggle to keep pace with demand after 2020, risking a sharp increase in prices, unless new projects are approved soon.''

My point here is we have an opportunity. We have an opportunity not only to help America create jobs, to allow for opportunities not only in my home State but around the country, we have an opportunity to ensure a level of energy security while at the same time broadening this to enhance our national security.

So what I am asking my colleagues today is to not preempt this very important conversation. Give us a chance to consider this instruction within our committee. We will have an opportunity for hearings, and we will be able to put these options out on the table and understand more fully how we can do more when it comes to energy production in this country. Let the Energy and Natural Resources Committee do its part in helping. Let's not pull the plug even before we get going.

Given everything that we have heard here on the floor about strengthening our economy and protecting the middle class and making life better for people whom we serve, I think we really have to ask the very legitimate question: Why? Why would one leave energy out of this debate? Why would we limit our opportunity to create new wealth in this country?

I would again urge the Senate to reject this amendment. It would deprive us of a substantial opportunity to benefit our country and ensure that we have great prospects and possibilities in front of us.

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee wanted to see this instruction in the budget resolution. I have every confidence that we can meet it, so I would urge Members to vote no on the motion to strike when that comes up later today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to soundly reject this amendment. Those who support this amendment will deny us the opportunity to do something constructive in this country when it comes to our opportunities to produce energy, to produce wealth.

We need to be expanding our energy development in our Federal areas. This helps us reduce our deficit, build new wealth in this country, strengthen our national security and our competitiveness. We can and we must do more as a nation to responsibly develop our resources, our energy resources providing economic security, energy security, and national security. The Energy Committee is prepared to meet this instruction to raise a billion dollars over the next decade.

I urge Senators to reject this amendment, which would deprive us of a substantial opportunity to benefit our country at the same time that we care for our environment.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize an extraordinary individual in my State, along with his wife. I would like to take a few minutes today to recognize Reverend Dr. Alonzo B. Patterson, Jr., and Mrs. Shirley Patterson.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following nominations: Executive Calendar Nos. 323, 324, 325; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc, with no intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that no further motions be in order; and that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is my hope that we will be able to come to agreement with regard to the nominees whom I have just asked for consideration. These are individuals who have been moved out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to be named to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This is a Commission that has been without a functioning quorum for months on end. They have just recently been able to achieve that quorum, but they are not yet to a full complement.

We worked hard to reach an agreement with colleagues so these names could advance so the FERC could get to work in an expeditious manner. There is much to be considered. The work that has piled up, that has cost our economy, that has cost our country over these many months, as we have seen these delays when you don't have a functioning FERC, has been considerable. We want to try to reach agreement, but I am disappointed that we are not going to be able to advance them this afternoon.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Ermalee Hickel, the wife of our late Governor, Wally Hickel, who passed away on September 14 at the age of 92. Ermalee was married to Wally Hickel for 65 years until his death in 2010. She is buried next to her husband in Anchorage Memorial Park, standing up, facing Washington, just as Governor Hickel was.

This is the way the power couple of post-Statehood Alaska desired to be remembered. Standing up for Alaskans to

Washington, DC. A powerful symbol not only to Alaskans, but Washington, that the battle for Alaska's sovereignty is far from over and that the Hickels, in spirit, stand with Alaskans as we wage this battle to conclusion, however long that may take.

Wally and Ermalee's son, Jack Hickel, remembers these words explaining why his father wanted to be buried standing up. ``He said, if they don't do it right he's going to crawl out of his grave and straighten them out. He thought they were going to screw everything up. He wanted to keep his eye on them.'' Now there will be two pair of eyes gazing east.

Ermalee, I should warn you, has two pretty tough eyes. She was widely known as ``more beautiful than a butterfly, but tougher than a boot.''

The history books will mention that Ermalee was twice the first lady of Alaska, as well as the wife of a Secretary of the Interior. They might mention that she was a strong woman, but that really doesn't tell you much about the person, and there is really much more to the story.

Ermalee was born to Lewis and Aline Strutz. The Strutzes moved from Montana to Anchorage in 1924. They bought a house downtown and raised six kids in that house: four girls and two boys. Anchorage was a pretty small town in the day, but it had plenty of life. As a high school student, Ermalee did it all. She was a softball player, editor of the school paper, and quite popular. She never missed a dance. She ushered at the movie theatre and, unique to Anchorage, worked at a cannery. Upon graduation, she went to work on the local base as the secretary to a military officer, a very important job for an outstanding individual. The Strutz girls were like that--popular, successful, from a really good family.

Wally Hickel, on the other hand, arrived in Anchorage from Kansas in 1940 with all of 37 cents in his pocket. His family was in insurance, but he left Kansas to pursue his passion in boxing. That led him to California, and when it didn't work out, Wally booked a ticket in steerage on a vessel headed to Alaska. He replenished his bank account by winning a $125 purse at a boxing tournament conducted during Fur Rondy, the Anchorage winter carnival. Wally married a local girl, Jannice Cannon, who went to school with Ermalee. Wally and Jannice had a son, Ted. Jannice tragically died in 1943 at the Mayo Clinic. Wally returned to Anchorage, a single dad, and took a job inspecting aircraft on the ramp of Alaska airbases.

In 1945, Ermalee and Wally were married in a small Catholic Church and went on to build a family. It was a tough time for the both of them. Wally still had to pay off Jannice's medical bills and worked a second job as a bartender and a bouncer to make ends meet.

Wally subsequently quit his job on base and told Ermalee that he figured it out. Anchorage was growing and construction was its future. Turns out, he was right. The family found stability and a modicum of wealth. That gave Wally the freedom to pursue his interest in politics. Over time, Wally's investments in Anchorage's growth provided a strong financial foundation for the family.

Throughout it all, Ermalee was a steadfast partner--managing the house, putting chains on the tires of the car to take the kids skiing, even ironing the pants of her hero, Charles Lindbergh, when he came to Juneau to address the Alaska Legislature. Lindbergh asked Ermalee if she would get ``the help'' to press his pants. Turns out Ermalee was ``the help.''

``Ermalee was calm, empathetic and insightful. Wally turned to her and followed her counsel. She guided and protected him, out of sight,'' wrote Anchorage author and historian Charles Wohlforth. She read to schoolchildren and visited with elders in the Pioneer's Homes. She visited the soup kitchens and the juvenile detention facilities. She fought for benefits for the disabled, raised awareness of fetal alcohol syndrome, and sought to protect seniors from scammers. She did it all without ever seeking credit. Ermalee was always gracious and lovely to me.

Wohlforth headlined his column remembering Ermalee Hickel's legacy with the words ``Ermalee Hickel led Alaska, too.'' She did with dignity and grace from the beginning to the very end. It is an honor and a pleasure to share this story of an Alaskan life well lived with the Senate today.

Mr. President, I want to acknowledge and thank the Senator from North Dakota. She has been a champion for the Native people, the indigenous people around the country, including in my State of Alaska. Whether it is working to address the issues related to childhood trauma, which so many of our young Native children face, or the issues relating to domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking--these are scourges that we see directed, unfortunately, at so many of our Native women in the State of Alaska, in the State of North Dakota, and around the country.

She has cited the statistics. I think sometimes we just get numb by the statistics. When you are told that you are four times the national average, that sounds bad. But what does that mean? When you put a face to it, when you hear the tragedy repeated through the stories, these are not just statistics that we are speaking of. These are real women. These are our sisters. These are our neighbors. These are our friends, and these are human beings who deserve to be respected in their lives but also respected in other tragic deaths. How we work to address these difficult issues needs to be a focus and a priority for us.

So I appreciate what the Senator from North Dakota is doing in bringing attention to our Nation's lackluster--and that is kind of a polite term here--response to the tragedy of missing and murdered Native women and girls.

I am proud to lend my voice to the proposition that Congress, in the exercise of our trust responsibility to our Native peoples, has a responsibility to do more. You would think that that trust responsibility demands us to be paying even closer attention, and yet it seems that we just withdraw from that, that that responsibility is not acknowledged.

Now, it is not often here in the United States that we benchmark our treatment of indigenous peoples against Canada, but in this case, there is actually a compelling difference between Canada's national response to the tragedy of missing and murdered Native women and our seeming indifference here in the United States.

Down in southeastern Alaska, right across on the Canadian side, lies a town called Prince Rupert. It is in British Columbia. The Alaskan ferry comes in from Washington State and stops in Prince Rupert and then moves into Alaska. Prince Rupert is also the terminus of Highway 16, and the locals refer to Highway 16 as the ``Highway of Tears.'' They refer to it as the ``Highway of Tears'' because it is a road on which Native women and girls have vanished for decades now. The question is, How many? Who is disappearing? Some would say as few as 12 and perhaps as many as 43. CBS News devoted a segment of its news magazine show ``48 Hours'' to the Highway of Tears.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed 54 million Canadian dollars to a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. I will admit that there is some controversy over whether the national inquiry is actually fulfilling its mission, but my point here is that Canada stepped up. They have acknowledged that this is an issue, that this is a problem, and they have responded to the disproportionate victimization of Native women and girls, and they have done so in a tangible way. Here in the United States, as my friend and colleague has noted, we are more than a bit late in acknowledging that the problem even exists.

Earlier this year, the Senators from Montana--both Senator Daines and Senator Tester--were successful in designating May 5, 2017, through a resolution, as the National Day of Awareness on Missing and Murdered Native Women and Girls. The resolution recites that some Tribal communities face murder rates that are 10 times the national average, as Senator Heitkamp has noted. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, homicide was the third leading cause of death among Native women between the ages of 10 and 24 years and the fifth leading cause of death for Alaska Native women between 25 and 34 years of age. So we are trying to raise attention and awareness. We are trying to shine a spotlight on this issue.

I certainly think it is high time that Federal law enforcement answer the question, Why? Why is the murder rate for Native women so high, and why are we not addressing it in a comprehensive fashion? The Senator from North Dakota has pointed out that in many areas, jurisdictional issues are at play, and I agree. That is not an excuse. We acknowledge that we have challenges with jurisdictions. Let's figure this out. Women are disappearing and dying.

In Alaska, it is not so much jurisdictional issues; it is the fact that in far too many of our communities, we lack any law enforcement presence. We might have a VPSO--a village safety police officer--but they are not armed. They are very limited in terms of their ability to provide for levels of enforcement. More frustrating than so much of that is that women who have been victimized feel as though reporting doesn't get them anywhere because there is no follow-through. There is no prosecution. There has been no effort that will allow them to have any level of recourse, much less justice, visited upon them.

As we talk about these issues of jurisdiction and law enforcement and the rates that we see, I think we need to be clear that the discussion today--the call for justice--is not driven by statistics and rates. It is driven by their faces. It is driven by the loss of people's daughters, people's siblings, people's friends, including Savannah and Stella and Nicole and Mona Lisa. These are all real people, real women with names, with faces, with families.

In Alaska, the face we so often associate with the lack of progress when it comes to addressing the issue of missing and murdered Native women is the face of Sophie Sergie. This year marks the 24th anniversary of the death of Sophie Sergie from Pitkas Point. This is a Yup'ik village in southwest Alaska.

On August 26 of 1993, Sophie was found dead in the women's bathroom dorm on the University of Alaska Fairbanks campus. She was raped. She was shot dead. It is believed that her body remained in that bathroom for some 13 hours before it was found. The murder weapon was never recovered. That case is still a cold case 24 years later. But we don't forget Sophie Sergie, just as

we don't forget the women the Senator from North Dakota has shared stories about. We cannot forget these women.

Unlike the tragedies along the Highway of Tears, we really don't know how many Native women and girls have gone missing and murdered. That is a big part of the problem. But I will tell my colleagues that if you ask advocates for Native women, the answer comes back: It is no secret. We all know somebody. We all know somebody who has gone missing, somebody who has been murdered.

That was the testimony of Tammy Jerue. She is the executive director for the Alaska Native Women's Resource Center, and she testified before a congressional briefing last February. Tammy told the briefing that her organization has documented as many as 50 names of women. When we think about it, numbers on that order were significant enough for Prime Minister Trudeau to commission a national inquiry. So it causes us to ask the question, What about us? What number do we have to get to before there is a call to action, before we wake up and say: This is not acceptable. This is not acceptable that our Native women are disappearing, are being murdered.

Native women are asking why Federal law enforcement has no protocol for addressing the crisis in our Indian Country, why there is a lack of coordination among criminal justice agencies in this country to set aside the jurisdictional challenges and investigate these tragedies in an effective manner, and why there is a lack of victim services.

In the Indian Affairs Committee, we had a hearing on human trafficking, sex trafficking. It was pretty revealing about the lack of victim services--specific--that could be there to help our Native victims. Right now, the families of missing and murdered Native women in Alaska have to cover the cost of a traditional burial. They have to cover the cost of immediate long-term counseling, and so many other expenses they can't afford. We maintain a victims of crime fund here in this country to address these sorts of costs, but there is no dedicated Tribal funding stream. We have had some pretty bipartisan efforts here in the Senate to establish one, but we haven't even been able to do that bare minimum to provide for the victims.

The issue we are discussing today is tragic and frustrating. It is depressing. But to remain silent is to truly further marginalize Native women and girls, and that is unacceptable. Perhaps we are not going to devote tens of millions of dollars to a national inquiry; However, it is high time that we acknowledge a problem that has failed to make headlines in this country, because you first have to acknowledge that a problem exists to make headway in addressing that problem.

So, again, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for her strong and steadfast advocacy on behalf of not only our Native women but our Native children, our indigenous peoples across this country. I appreciate all that is being done, and I look forward to working with her again as we try to shine a brighter light on a very tragic situation.

Mr. President, I want to acknowledge and thank the Senator from North Dakota. She has been a champion for the Native people, the indigenous people around the country, including in my State of Alaska. Whether it is working to address the issues related to childhood trauma, which so many of our young Native children face, or the issues relating to domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking--these are scourges that we see directed, unfortunately, at so many of our Native women in the State of Alaska, in the State of North Dakota, and around the country.

She has cited the statistics. I think sometimes we just get numb by the statistics. When you are told that you are four times the national average, that sounds bad. But what does that mean? When you put a face to it, when you hear the tragedy repeated through the stories, these are not just statistics that we are speaking of. These are real women. These are our sisters. These are our neighbors. These are our friends, and these are human beings who deserve to be respected in their lives but also respected in other tragic deaths. How we work to address these difficult issues needs to be a focus and a priority for us.

So I appreciate what the Senator from North Dakota is doing in bringing attention to our Nation's lackluster--and that is kind of a polite term here--response to the tragedy of missing and murdered Native women and girls.

I am proud to lend my voice to the proposition that Congress, in the exercise of our trust responsibility to our Native peoples, has a responsibility to do more. You would think that that trust responsibility demands us to be paying even closer attention, and yet it seems that we just withdraw from that, that that responsibility is not acknowledged.

Now, it is not often here in the United States that we benchmark our treatment of indigenous peoples against Canada, but in this case, there is actually a compelling difference between Canada's national response to the tragedy of missing and murdered Native women and our seeming indifference here in the United States.

Down in southeastern Alaska, right across on the Canadian side, lies a town called Prince Rupert. It is in British Columbia. The Alaskan ferry comes in from Washington State and stops in Prince Rupert and then moves into Alaska. Prince Rupert is also the terminus of Highway 16, and the locals refer to Highway 16 as the ``Highway of Tears.'' They refer to it as the ``Highway of Tears'' because it is a road on which Native women and girls have vanished for decades now. The question is, How many? Who is disappearing? Some would say as few as 12 and perhaps as many as 43. CBS News devoted a segment of its news magazine show ``48 Hours'' to the Highway of Tears.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed 54 million Canadian dollars to a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. I will admit that there is some controversy over whether the national inquiry is actually fulfilling its mission, but my point here is that Canada stepped up. They have acknowledged that this is an issue, that this is a problem, and they have responded to the disproportionate victimization of Native women and girls, and they have done so in a tangible way. Here in the United States, as my friend and colleague has noted, we are more than a bit late in acknowledging that the problem even exists.

Earlier this year, the Senators from Montana--both Senator Daines and Senator Tester--were successful in designating May 5, 2017, through a resolution, as the National Day of Awareness on Missing and Murdered Native Women and Girls. The resolution recites that some Tribal communities face murder rates that are 10 times the national average, as Senator Heitkamp has noted. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, homicide was the third leading cause of death among Native women between the ages of 10 and 24 years and the fifth leading cause of death for Alaska Native women between 25 and 34 years of age. So we are trying to raise attention and awareness. We are trying to shine a spotlight on this issue.

I certainly think it is high time that Federal law enforcement answer the question, Why? Why is the murder rate for Native women so high, and why are we not addressing it in a comprehensive fashion? The Senator from North Dakota has pointed out that in many areas, jurisdictional issues are at play, and I agree. That is not an excuse. We acknowledge that we have challenges with jurisdictions. Let's figure this out. Women are disappearing and dying.

In Alaska, it is not so much jurisdictional issues; it is the fact that in far too many of our communities, we lack any law enforcement presence. We might have a VPSO--a village safety police officer--but they are not armed. They are very limited in terms of their ability to provide for levels of enforcement. More frustrating than so much of that is that women who have been victimized feel as though reporting doesn't get them anywhere because there is no follow-through. There is no prosecution. There has been no effort that will allow them to have any level of recourse, much less justice, visited upon them.

As we talk about these issues of jurisdiction and law enforcement and the rates that we see, I think we need to be clear that the discussion today--the call for justice--is not driven by statistics and rates. It is driven by their faces. It is driven by the loss of people's daughters, people's siblings, people's friends, including Savannah and Stella and Nicole and Mona Lisa. These are all real people, real women with names, with faces, with families.

In Alaska, the face we so often associate with the lack of progress when it comes to addressing the issue of missing and murdered Native women is the face of Sophie Sergie. This year marks the 24th anniversary of the death of Sophie Sergie from Pitkas Point. This is a Yup'ik village in southwest Alaska.

On August 26 of 1993, Sophie was found dead in the women's bathroom dorm on the University of Alaska Fairbanks campus. She was raped. She was shot dead. It is believed that her body remained in that bathroom for some 13 hours before it was found. The murder weapon was never recovered. That case is still a cold case 24 years later. But we don't forget Sophie Sergie, just as

we don't forget the women the Senator from North Dakota has shared stories about. We cannot forget these women.

Unlike the tragedies along the Highway of Tears, we really don't know how many Native women and girls have gone missing and murdered. That is a big part of the problem. But I will tell my colleagues that if you ask advocates for Native women, the answer comes back: It is no secret. We all know somebody. We all know somebody who has gone missing, somebody who has been murdered.

That was the testimony of Tammy Jerue. She is the executive director for the Alaska Native Women's Resource Center, and she testified before a congressional briefing last February. Tammy told the briefing that her organization has documented as many as 50 names of women. When we think about it, numbers on that order were significant enough for Prime Minister Trudeau to commission a national inquiry. So it causes us to ask the question, What about us? What number do we have to get to before there is a call to action, before we wake up and say: This is not acceptable. This is not acceptable that our Native women are disappearing, are being murdered.

Native women are asking why Federal law enforcement has no protocol for addressing the crisis in our Indian Country, why there is a lack of coordination among criminal justice agencies in this country to set aside the jurisdictional challenges and investigate these tragedies in an effective manner, and why there is a lack of victim services.

In the Indian Affairs Committee, we had a hearing on human trafficking, sex trafficking. It was pretty revealing about the lack of victim services--specific--that could be there to help our Native victims. Right now, the families of missing and murdered Native women in Alaska have to cover the cost of a traditional burial. They have to cover the cost of immediate long-term counseling, and so many other expenses they can't afford. We maintain a victims of crime fund here in this country to address these sorts of costs, but there is no dedicated Tribal funding stream. We have had some pretty bipartisan efforts here in the Senate to establish one, but we haven't even been able to do that bare minimum to provide for the victims.

The issue we are discussing today is tragic and frustrating. It is depressing. But to remain silent is to truly further marginalize Native women and girls, and that is unacceptable. Perhaps we are not going to devote tens of millions of dollars to a national inquiry; However, it is high time that we acknowledge a problem that has failed to make headlines in this country, because you first have to acknowledge that a problem exists to make headway in addressing that problem.

So, again, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for her strong and steadfast advocacy on behalf of not only our Native women but our Native children, our indigenous peoples across this country. I appreciate all that is being done, and I look forward to working with her again as we try to shine a brighter light on a very tragic situation.

Mr. President, my colleague from Massachusetts has referred to the tragedy that we all watched unfold late on Sunday evening in Las Vegas, NV--the tragedy, the horror, the shock of so many. Alaska has felt the brunt of that tragedy as well. We lost two Alaskans; at least one other was injured. Mr. Adrian Murfitt from Anchorage, a commercial fisherman, lost his life that evening. Dorene Anderson, who is a mom and self-described hockey promoter, will not be returning to Alaska with her family. Rob McIntosh, who is a realtor

from the Fairbanks-North Pole area, was also injured. Our prayers are with him and with all of the families.

Whether they are from Alaska or from around the country, the tragedy, the loss, is just a shocking emotion that has been brought to this Nation. It is really horrifying on so many different levels. I express my condolences not only to the families of the Alaskans whom we have lost but to all of those who are suffering.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize one of our Nation's finest literary journals, the Alaska Quarterly Review, now marking its 35th year of literary excellence.

Alaska Quarterly Review was first published in 1982 at the University of Alaska Anchorage and has evolved to be a joint publication of the university and the Center for Narrative and Lyric Arts. From the beginning, it was designed to highlight the work of strong literary voices from Alaska and beyond. Publishing fiction, short plays, poetry, photo essays, and literary nonfiction, the journal has an especially strong commitment to promote new and emerging writers.

The founding editor and editor-in-chief of Alaska Quarterly Review, Ronald Spatz, envisioned the journal as a way to break through stereotypes and present Alaska to the greater literary community. That goal was far surpassed, as Alaska Quarterly Review has won accolades from some of the most prestigious reviewers and publications in the country. Pulitzer Prize-winning critic Michael Dirda wrote in The New York Review of Books that the Alaska Quarterly Review ``remains one of our best, and most imaginative, literary magazines.'' The New York Times Book Review labeled it ``fresh treasure.''

Alaska Quarterly Review has also been featured and supported by the National Endowment for the Arts, the Alaska Humanities Forum, Alaska State Council on the Arts, and the Rasmussen Foundation, and honored by Alaska Center for the Book and others. A number of works originally published in the journal have been subsequently selected for inclusion in The Best American Essays, The Best American Poetry, The Best American Mystery Stories, The Best Creative Nonfiction, The Best American Short Stories, The Best American Nonrequired Reading, Prize Stories: The O. Henry Awards, The Beacon Best, and The Pushcart Prize: The Best of the Small Presses.

In addition to its literary influence on the national level, Alaska Quarterly Review brings a strong focus to the development and importance of Alaska Native and indigenous literatures. Alaska Native language survival and resilience are portrayed as a national and global concern.

Mr. Spatz writes that Alaska Quarterly Review ``has been and is of Alaska but not Alaskan. We have a global perspective, and, although we have published primarily American authors, our writers hail from a wide range of nations.'' The journal's 35th anniversary observance in October reaches across the Pacific Ocean by featuring ``In the Footprint of the Crocodile Man: Memories, Myths and Contemporary Art of the Sepik River, Papua New Guinea,'' a reflection of the commonalities of human experience. At the same event, the universal elements of birth and language are celebrated in a beautiful film, ``Shaawatke'es Birth,'' performed in English and Tlingit, one of Alaska's precious indigenous languages.

The impact of Alaska Quarterly Review extends far from its origins in my home State and is worthy of celebration by this body and all Americans who recognize the power of the literary arts to shape our thoughts, our ideals, and our country. I commend Alaska Quarterly Review and its editor, Ronald Spatz, its contributors, and its supporters for 35 years of excellence. I hope for many more to come.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the Francisco nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the Emanuel nomination.

Mr. President, we are considering the nomination of Dan Brouillette to be the Deputy Secretary for the Department of Energy. Mr. Brouillette has a long history of distinguished service to our Nation. He is a veteran. He has served in the Department of Energy. He has been the staff director for the House Energy and Commerce Committee. More recently, he has held high-level posts in the private sector--first, as vice president at Ford, currently as senior vice president at USAA.

He has strong experience and thorough knowledge of the Department he has chosen to return to. He understands the work that its thousands of scientists undertake and the importance of maximizing their research efforts, especially in a time of constrained Federal budgets.

He recognizes the importance of our 17 National Labs and the Department's responsibility for environmental management, including the cleanup of Cold War-era legacy sites. As second in command to Secretary Perry, Mr. Brouillette will oversee programs critical to our Nation's cyber security, energy innovation, and scientific discovery.

Based on his hearings before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I am confident he is up for the challenge and ready for this role. I would urge all of my colleagues to support the nomination of Dan Brouillette to be the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy.

Mr. President, I yield all time.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the en bloc consideration of the following nominations: Executive Calendar Nos. 101 and 102.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc with no intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that no further motions be in order; that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I want to take just a moment and thank those who have worked so hard to make sure that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will have a functioning quorum--and more than just having a functioning quorum, the quality of individuals we are sending to the FERC as Commissioners is truly impressive to see.

Neil Chatterjee, whom, without doubt, almost all of us on this floor know, has been working here in the Senate, working in the leader's office for years, and has been an invaluable asset to me and my staff on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He is extremely knowledgeable, extremely committed and dedicated, and it has been a real pleasure to work with him.

I don't know Mr. Powelson as well, but having had an opportunity to advance his name before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for confirmation, too, I know that the expertise and the credentials he will bring to the Commission are greatly appreciated.

I think we recognize that there is much we are anxious to see happen throughout the country in a new administration where we are talking a lot about infrastructure--when we are talking about our energy assets and what we can do to help facilitate the build-out of an aging infrastructure and the add-on of new infrastructure. But in order to proceed with much of this, you have to have the FERC actually operating, working to review the permits, working through the rate- making cases. It is substantive work, it is challenging work, and it is work that has now been stacked up for months and months. So knowing that the FERC will be able to commence its operations again with a quorum is really good news today.

I think it is also important to note that the White House sent just this week two additional names--those of Mr. Glick and Mr. McIntyre. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee will be considering those in early September when we return so that, hopefully, we can get a full complement to this very important Commission.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 10 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a Business Meeting on Thursday, August 3, 2017, immediately after the 12 p.m. vote in S-216, the Capitol, in Washington, DC.

Committee on Finance

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 3, 2017, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing to consider pending nominations.

Committee on Foreign Relations

I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 10 a.m., to hold a business meeting.

Committee on the Judiciary

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on August 3, 2017, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 3, 2017, at 9:45 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a Subcommittee Hearing on ``Insurance Fraud in America: Current Issues Facing Industry and Consumers.''