Floor Statements

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania and the discussion of why we are here on a late Thursday afternoon.

We started off the week with an air of optimism that with the energy efficiency bill before us, we could get to that place where we could be debating substantive issues of the day. As my colleague has noted, we have not seen a real energy bill on this floor now for 7 years. When we think about the energy landscape in this country and what has happened in 7 years' time--7 years ago, we were looking to build import terminals to receive LNG. Now we are debating--or hoping to debate--the export of our LNG.

I have kind of put a target on my back, if you will, and said: Let's talk about what is happening with our oil potential in this country and our opportunity as a nation to export our oil, given that next year we will actually be producing more oil in this country than the county of Russia, than Saudi Arabia, but that is going to require some debate, some discussion, some policy considerations.

If we cannot even get to the point where we can move forward on an energy efficiency bill, how are we ever going to advance some of these policy initiatives when it comes to our natural gas, when it comes to our oil or how we might be able to deal with issues such as nuclear waste, where, quite honestly, until we can resolve these issues, they are going to be holding back our opportunity to advance in

these areas. How are we going to build out the potential in this country for our renewables and how we integrate them into an outdated system? There are so many policy issues we have to talk about.

So when people suggest all we want to do is talk about energy, I am one Senator who would love to do a lot of talking about energy. I would also like us to be able to legislate on energy initiatives. I would like us to update some of our energy policies, because as times have changed, unfortunately some of our laws have not.

My colleague from Pennsylvania has mentioned there was a time when we would have substantive debate. Take that back to the Energy bills that were before us when I first came to the Senate back in 2003. We took up an energy bill at that time that was on the floor, I know, for multiple weeks; it may have been multiple months.

On July 25, 2003, we resumed consideration of the Energy bill. We had a unanimous consent agreement at that time that more than 370--370-- remaining amendments would be in order.

Now, 2003 may seem like a long time ago for some, but for me it seems like just yesterday. Thinking about that, it is like: Wow. We were able to come to a UC on 370 amendments.

If we go back to the Energy Policy Act, if we look at the amendment log, it shows that more than 130 amendments from Senators of both sides of the aisle were considered.

I think it speaks to the issues that were at play at the time. We are still basing most of our energy policy, of course, on those 2005 and 2007 energy acts.

I think it is important to recognize that when it comes to something as significant as our energy policy in this country, the debate is worthy, the debate is important, and legislating on these issues is critically important.

I know there are conversations yet underway as to whether an amendment opportunity will be made available, whether the four or five amendments the Republicans have offered that are being considered by the majority leader and the bill's sponsors of ShaheenPortman, whether we will be able to reach a fair consideration for the processing of those amendments. I would certainly hope we are able to do just that.

The energy efficiency bill, as I noted in my comments the day before yesterday, is good, sound policy. It is an important leg in the energy stool. When we talk about our energy resources and what we have available domestically, what we are able to be producing--whether it is our fossil fuels, whether it is our renewable fuels, whether it is other alternatives--the recognition is that our most readily available energy source is the one we do not waste. If we can be more efficient, if we can do more when it comes to conservation, this benefits all of us.

So let's figure out how we can move an energy efficiency bill. This is round No. 2 for us. Let us not allow the process to bog down a good bill and a bill that deserves to not only pass this body but to be worked through the body on the other side and to ultimately be signed into law by the President.

I want to start work. I want to be legislating. I also recognize this has been a difficult time for us all right now. We are not seeing a lot of legislation moving through this Senate, but I have been trying to use the time I have, as the ranking member on the energy committee, wisely, trying to focus on those areas where we can critically examine the energy policies we have in place and how we might refresh, how we might reimagine the energy architecture we have.

Last year I released a pretty major report. We called it ``Energy 20/ 20.'' It is a blueprint that kind of lays out my view of a sound, robust energy policy. I did not want a report that had taken a lot of time and energy and effort and love and passion to just sit on somebody's desk, so we have been working in this past year to flesh out some of the details we outlined in the blueprint.

I have released now four separate white papers stemming from ``Energy 20/20.'' The first one was on LNG exports. The second was on energy exports generally but also focusing on the specific issue of the prospect for oil exports. We released a very well-received white paper on electric reliability, and then earlier this week I had an opportunity to release a white paper on the nexus between energy and water. All of these are available on the energy committee's Web site.

I have given speeches on the floor. I have addressed small groups, large groups, basically anybody who will listen, not only in my State of Alaska but around the country. My colleagues and those who have been listening have heard me say multiple times that what I am looking for, what I am hoping for, what I am trying to build are laws and policies that will help us access our energy resources to be able to have a policy that says our energy should be abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure.

I joke about it and say there is no acronym for that, but I have arranged it alphabetically so you can remember it.

But when you think about these five components, when you incorporate these all together--abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, secure--it makes pretty good sense.

I think the effort we have engaged in, in the energy committee, has been a worthwhile effort, and I hope this broader conversation will forge consensus on what I think we recognize can be some tough issues.

I have been working hard, even though we are not moving a lot of bills through the floor right now, to try to advance the conversation on so many of these issues I think are a priority.

The Nexus Between Energy and Water

I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon to speak about the most recent white paper I have released, and this is on the connection or the nexus between energy and water. I mentioned I had an opportunity to present this on Tuesday at the Atlantic Council here in Washington. It is entitled, ``The EnergyWater Nexus: Interlinked Resources That Are Vital for Economic Growth and Sustainability.'' It is a very timely subject, very relevant to the current discussion of measures we can take to support energy efficiency.

I think it is apparent, but it certainly bears repeating, that there are clear links between energy and water and water and energy. These fall into two categories. It sounds kind of simple, but it is water for energy and energy for water. Without water much of our energy-- electricity included--cannot be produced. Our economy literally comes to a halt. Without energy--and particularly electricity--the treatment, the transport, the distribution of water does not function either. That all seizes up as well.

So we have water and energy just inextricably linked, and I think it is important to acknowledge that the continued availability and reliability should not be taken for granted. I think sometimes this is the part we fail to keep in perspective.

We are talking a lot about energy right now, but as we talk about energy, let's talk about how that energy source intersects with water. In an effort to produce this energy, how much water are we consuming? In an effort to use that water, how much energy is being consumed to move or treat? So, again, the nexus is tight.

When it comes to water-for-energy, an interesting statistic is that about 41 percent of our freshwater withdrawals in the United States are attributed to cooling the vast majority of our powerplants. This also consumes about 6 percent of our freshwater. Water is also routinely needed to produce the various energy resources we rely on, whether it is oil, coal, gas, or uranium. According to the Congressional Research Service, the production of biofuels has the highest water-intensity value, requiring 1,000 times more water than conventional natural gas. So, again, understanding the intensity is important as we talk about our energy resources. Altogether, more than 12 billion gallons of freshwater are consumed daily for the combined production of fuels and electricity across the country.

Turning to energy-for-water, one study on a national scale found that direct water-related energy consumption amounted to more than 12 percent of domestic primary energy consumption in 2010. That is equivalent to the annual energy consumption of about 40 million Americans.

We are seeing new technology, and we are seeing that really with the potential to provide a paradigm shift. But

from today's vantage point, a steady population increase and the resource needs of a modern economy could make freshwater a limited resource in many parts of the country. We are certainly seeing that out in the West. Severe droughts in California and for that matter across most of the Western United States only serve to underscore the risks. Out West, of course, hydroelectric power is a major contributor to clean and cost-effective electricity generation, particularly in Washington State, Idaho, and Montana. So if rivers and reservoirs are running low, this power-generation capacity is at risk.

I believe the recent and rapid expansion of our domestic energy production is very good for our Nation, particularly the growth in unconventional oil and gas production. What we have seen is that it has created jobs, it has generated revenues, it has revived local economies, and it really does wonders for our energy security. As I mentioned, the United States is now producing and exporting more energy than ever before. Our net energy imports are at a 20-year low. They are projected to fall below 5 percent of total consumption by 2025.

With many new wells located in regions that have already experienced some water shortages, we are seeing producers who are moving in a direction to help ensure that there is going to be sufficient water available for both the work they are doing and other regional needs. New technological advancements and new methods to maintain a balanced use of freshwater resources have been continuously emerging.

I think it is important to recognize that folks are appreciating that you can't count on an unlimited supply of this water resource. Utilizing our technology to be smart, to be efficient, is going to put everyone in better stead.

Even in the case of conventional power generation stations, technological innovation and advances can assist in reducing--if not eliminating--the overall amount of water that is required for cooling purposes. But, again, the key is technology. Continued research and development is at the heart of innovation and advancement.

The questions that are appropriate to ask are what can we do to ensure an adequate supply of water and how can we responsibly minimize the amount of water that is used for energy and then also energy for water? Conservation, of course, can help reduce demand for both water- for-energy and energy-for-water activities, but we have to recognize that it can only go so far. As I just mentioned, innovative energy and water use strategies, coupled with advanced technologies, are equally important when trying to optimize our limited supplies.

I have called on all stakeholders in the private sector as well as in government to support R&D and demonstration of new technologies that can really work to reduce our energy and water consumption.

Again, talking about the bill that is on the floor--energy efficiency--everything we can do to reduce our energy consumption as well as our water consumption is all good. It is all good.

The genesis and sustainability of such efforts are highly reliant on open and continuous information exchange between the parties. I have suggested that the Federal Government not only can but should facilitate this exchange of information on a national and international scale. It can do that by forming genuine partnerships with the stakeholders--including industry, utilities, and academia--and teaming up to advance a better understanding of the energy-water nexus, adopt better practices through technological innovations, and really learn from one another about the procedures and implementation strategies.

This dialogue should also include international perspectives on the energy-water nexus, utilizing the experience and expertise from around the world. We have seen technological advancements and great work going on in Australia, the Gulf countries, Israel, and Singapore. The development of new and improved technologies can answer the needs of both the domestic and international energy-water markets. This could mean opportunities for job creation--good jobs--in high-tech, R&D, and manufacturing.

What I am advocating with this white paper and the proposals out there is really better planning and better collaboration. I am not looking for a top-down approach. I am not looking for more binding rules or mandates. I am certainly not advocating for the forceful implementation of any new policies or directives to use certain technologies. The adoption of best practices should always be on a voluntary basis.

But having said that, I do believe that if we can demonstrate savings and demonstrate efficiencies from new technologies and better resource management approaches, the stakeholders are going to figure this out, and they are going to say this is a win-win for their own bottom line. This makes sense for their customers. It is good to advance.

Along these lines, I have introduced energy-water legislation with Senator Wyden. We introduced it in January. Our bill is the Nexus of Energy and Water for Sustainability Act--we call it the NEWS Act--and it features some plain old commonsense policy improvements. What a concept.

Just think, in more ordinary times perhaps I would have even introduced the proposed NEWS Act as an amendment to the bill we have before us. But what we have--S. 1971--is a short bill, a simple bill that directs the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish a committee or a subcommittee under the National Science and Technology Council to coordinate and streamline the energy and water nexus activities of our Federal departments and agencies. We are asking this panel--which would be chaired by the Secretaries of Energy and Interior, and representatives would be brought in from these and other agencies--to identify all relevant energy-water nexus activities across the Federal Government--because we know it is just a huge spaghetti mess here--and work together and disseminate the data to enable better practices and explore the relevant public-private collaboration. We also call for OMB to submit a cross-cut budget that details these Federal expenditures related to energy-water activities. What we are looking to do is to streamline these efforts not just to save water, not just to save energy, but to save taxpayer dollars.

It is good. It is sensible. I think it is a rationed approach. I would like to be able to legislate on this, and I hope we will get to that point where we are beyond the energy efficiency bill, the Shaheen- Portman bill we have been trying so hard to work to advance not only this week but for years now; where we are beyond arguing over whether we are going to be able to move on some amendments; where we will take up with great energy and enthusiasm--pun intended--these initiatives that will help our Nation to be more productive, to be more energy secure, to have a stronger national security, and to have energy policies that are current and sound.

I am one who tries to get up every morning optimistic, glass half full, and I want to believe we will work out an arrangement so that we can have a fair amendment process that allows Republicans to offer a small handful of amendments to be debated and voted on, that will allow us to move an energy efficiency measure that is important to our energy policy and to demonstrate that perhaps we can do a little bit of legislating, a little bit of governing, and advance the cause.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Ron Faibish of my staff during pendency of discussion on S. 2262.

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

Mr. President, we are here today to discuss the energy efficiency bill and what may or may not be the status on any given amendments. I want to take a few minutes this afternoon to speak about the issue of liquefied natural gas exports.

Senator Barrasso has proposed a bill that would provide for fast- track status for DOE licensing to LNG projects to export to members of WTO countries.

As we focus on our opportunities that we have when it comes to our natural gas, our LNG, and the opportunities for Federal support for energy projects overseas, I think it is important to recognize there is a little inconsistency going on with this administration slow-walking infrastructure and hydrocarbon development in this country. I will give a couple of examples. The Export-Import Bank has supported a slew of LNG-related transactions over the past couple of decades. These are structured and project-financed transactions, these are loan guarantees, and some are even direct loans. With the assistance of the Ex-Im Bank and my committee staff, the Congressional Research Service has compiled a report on this subject which I would like to reference at this time.

I emphasize that this is a list for LNG-related projects only. * * * if not exhaustive of the other kinds of energy-related infrastructure that the Federal Government finances overseas.

So what we have here are projects that are LNG-related transactions that have been moved through the Export-Import Bank.

Over $350 million in loan guarantees for equipment and services went to Trinidad and Tobago in 1996. In 1997, we saw over $775 million in loan guarantees go to Qatar and Oman for engineering and management services, for cryogenic heat exchanges, for compressors, and for gas turbine drives. In 2000 there was a loan guarantee of over $70 million that went to Malaysia. In 2002 there was a $135 million loan guarantee for equipment and services for Nigeria. Then between 2005 and 2006 we had over $800 million in loan guarantees for liquefaction and facilities-related engineering services to Qatar. In 2008 there was a $400 million direct loan for equipment and services to Peru; then in 2010 $3 billion in direct loan and loan guarantees for equipment and services to Papua New Guinea.

In 2012 there was nearly $3 billion in direct loans for engineering services to Australia. There was a large project that included the liquefaction plant, a shipping terminal, and transmission lines. Then just last year there was another $1.8 billion in direct loans to Australia for facilities construction.

There have been over a dozen projects, eight countries, and $10 billion in financing.

I think it is important to recognize that the Export-Import Bank is one of the few agencies in the Federal Government that actually turns a profit, and my objective in listing these projects is not to oppose the financing--that is not what we are talking about--but, rather, to point out the inconsistency that we have in some policies. Simply put, we are financing LNG export projects overseas because they are a good idea. We like that approach. But we are politicizing the project for their review here at home.

If LNG projects can create wealth and can support jobs in Australia and in Qatar, they can and will do the same here in the United States of America.

But this administration is stalling on other infrastructure and development initiatives, not just LNG export facilities. We have the Keystone XL Pipeline. It is a great example. Offshore development is yet another example.

Another Federal agency, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, has supported oil and gas projects in other countries.

I also reference for my colleagues this afternoon another CRS report that was commissioned by my committee staff. So OPIC--this is not OPEC but OPIC--has provided insurance and financing to companies operating in Indonesia, Guatemala, Egypt, and Botswana. The bigger list includes, back in 2002, $25 million of insurance for a liquefied petroleum gas storage facility in Guatemala. In 2005, we had a $2.5 million insurance for a natural gas pipeline in Benin; $2.5 million in insurance for a gas pipeline in Togo; $45 million in insurance for another pipeline in Ghana; $320 million in insurance for an offshore natural gas pipeline in Israel.

Again, I am not saying that financing this is a wrong idea or a bad idea; I am asking the simple question: If this is good enough for helping other countries, why are we not doing it here at home?

There is a third Federal agency I wish to briefly mention that has supported energy-related projects overseas. This is the Trade and Development Agency. It funds feasibility studies, pilot projects, technical assistance, reverse trade missions, and various training activities. I reference for my colleagues a third CRS report, again commissioned by my committee staff, that showcases some of these activities.

Specifically, on LNG, the Trade and Development Agency funded feasibility studies for: LNG import and power generation in Thailand back in 2004, CNG/LNG distribution in Indonesia in 2005, import terminals in Lithuania and Romania in 2008, floating LNG storage and regasification in Ghana in 2011, and reverse trade missions to Turkey in 2005 and South Africa in 2008 on LNG-related issues.

The Trade and Development Agency has also funded energy-related technical related assistance to Brazil, Colombia, Peru, India, Sri Lanka, Jordan, Morocco, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, and Nigeria. They have funded reverse trade missions with Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, and Hungary.

Again, helping other countries to develop their energy resources while helping American companies find opportunities to generate jobs here in the United States is a worthwhile policy as well. It is a worthwhile policy abroad and a worthwhile policy at home.

I know my colleague from South Dakota wants to say a few words this afternoon.

I yield the floor, and I thank my colleagues for their attention.

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

Thank you, Mr. President.

We are on the measure again, the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill, also known as the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act--an efficiency bill. This should not be this difficult for us. When we talk about the benefits of an all-of-the-above energy policy--the benefits that can come to us as a nation when we are more resilient with our energy sources, when we are able to access our domestic energy sources, whether they be our fossil fuels, our renewables, or nuclear-- we all talk about it in good, strong terms because, quite honestly, energy makes us a stronger nation, having access to our energy resources.

I have defined a good, strong energy policy as one that allows energy to be more abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. An energy policy is also about the energy we do not consume. It is about the energy we save because we are more efficient.

It seems we have gotten to a point, at least with some aspects of this discussion, where somehow or other the

efficiency side of the energy discussion is a partisan debate; that Republicans do not support energy efficiency. I cannot think of a more conservative principle than conserving energy. This is something we should be embracing, and it is something, in terms of legislation that is sound, that is good to move forward, something that I support.

This bipartisan efficiency bill has been refined. It has been strengthened. It has been improved over the past 3 years. There have been plenty of eyes upon this legislation. There has been plenty of debate about it. We have a total of 13 Senators who are now on board with it, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. So I am pleased we have this legislation back on the floor again.

The last time this legislation came before us was in September. I spoke then about the importance, the relevance to today, the many good reasons the Senate should support it. I am not going to necessarily repeat all of those points this afternoon, but I do want to highlight quickly a couple of the main points.

The first is going directly to the policy side of it. Energy efficiency should be a broader part of our Nation's energy policy. It is good for our economy. It is good for the environment. It enables us to waste less, to use our resources more wisely. Who can object to this? Who could possibly say this is not a good thing we should encourage?

And there is more. Think about what it does to help create jobs and deliver financial benefits. Study after study shows we can save billions of dollars every year through reasonable efficiency improvements. Whether we are talking about small appliances or large buildings, there are opportunities for gains in efficiencies throughout the system.

The second reason for support of the bill is it envisions a more limited role for the Federal Government. When I think about efficiency, I think the Federal Government should seek to fulfill three key roles. It can act as a facilitator of information that consumers and businesses need. It can serve as a breaker of barriers that discourage or prevent rational efficiency improvements. As the largest consumer of energy in our country, it can lead by example by taking steps to reduce its own energy usage.

This legislation helps us make progress in all of these areas, but it is appropriately tailored as well. It has a number of voluntary provisions. It does not contain any new mandates for the private sector. I think that is worthy of repeating. There are no new mandates in this bill.

When the legislation was first introduced some time ago, there was some concern about impact on building codes. But the provision related to model building codes is voluntary. It is not mandatory. No one has to benefit from it if they do not want to.

The third reason to support the bill is the cost--or, really, the lack of cost. We all know we are operating in a time of high deficits and record debt. The good news is this efficiency bill actually subtracts from our spending rather than adding to it. The CBO has indicated it will yield a modest savings of about $12 million over the 10-year window. Again, this is good from a policy perspective. It is good from a fiscal perspective.

Then the last point is one I want to make in support of process. We have followed regular order, as well as ``regular order'' can be defined around here, but we have done that from the beginning with this legislation. Those of us who serve on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported it on an overwhelming bipartisan basis back in 2011, and then again in 2013. So it has gone through a fulsome committee process. Improvements were suggested and have been thoughtfully considered and incorporated. Many, many of the ideas are now incorporated in the text we have in front of us.

Then, finally, a few words about the amendments that are being filed to this bill.

When we last had this bill before the Senate, we were unable to reach agreement on amendments. We got bogged down and the bill was pulled from the floor. The Senate moved on to other matters. We are back again now, and I really do not want to see a repeat of that experience. Quite honestly, we do not need to.

It is certainly true a lot of amendments have been filed to the bill. We had more than 100 last September. That should not be evidence that somehow this bill is flawed. But what it recognizes is there is this pent-up demand for a discussion on the issue of energy. There is a pent-up demand to bring forward ideas and concepts and innovation and policy when it comes to energy debate.

It has been more than 6 years since we have had anything more than a brief debate. When you think about what has happened in the energy sector in the past 6 years, I say to the Presiding Officer, you are sitting in the chair coming from a State that has seen an amazing--an amazing--boom when it comes to natural gas production in your State. You have seen technologies come in that are able to access areas where you did not even know you had the resource.

Think about the changes we have seen in the energy sector in 6 years. Six years ago we were talking about building LNG import terminals-- terminals so we could bring LNG in from other countries. Now we are pressing the case for greater LNG exports. We are trying to build out more facilities so we can move this abundant resource from our shores to help our friends and allies around the world.

Six years ago, if I had stood on this floor and suggested to you we were going to have a debate about the export of our crude oil from this country, you would have laughed me off the floor. Nobody was talking about it. But look at what is happening, coming out of the Bakken up in North Dakota, what is coming out of Texas and New Mexico and out of California, Colorado, out of States in the Midwest. We are producing like we have not produced in ages. We are doing so because we have the benefit of good, strong technologies that are allowing us to access a resource safely and making sure we are being good stewards of the land while we are doing it, and creating jobs and opportunities.

So when you think about what has happened in 6 years, and the fact that we have not had a real debate and conversation about energy, it is no wonder people want to present amendments. But we are in a situation now where there is real debate about whether we are going to have any amendments at all.

We have been sitting here in the Senate since last July--almost a year--and there have been nine amendments allowed of the Republicans' choosing to be heard, to be entertained, to be taken up on the floor of the Senate.

We are not asking for an unreasonable number. Given everything that is going on in the world, everything that is happening in the energy sector, it is understood why we would want an opportunity to present amendments. But we are not asking for the Moon here. Out of all the amendments filed to the bill, we are seeking votes on four of them. If we were to take just 15 minutes per vote, with a little extra time for statements in support or opposition, we could work those out in an afternoon.

There is no reason we need to stretch this out. Our other option is to spend the next several days arguing about whether we are going to vote at all. We are sent to the Senate to do good work, and this is a venue where the work is demanding attention, so let's get to it.

Let's advance these measures. Let's get to the debate about whether it is LNG export opportunities, whether it is the advantage from many different perspectives about the Keystone XL Pipeline, and about what more we can be doing as a nation to be a world leader with our energy resources, accessing our resources for the good of Americans, the creation of jobs to strengthen our economy, to help our trade deficit, to help our friends, and to help our allies. We can be in a position to do so much more, but we have to be able to get beyond the discussion, the debate about whether we are just going to talk about whether we are going to talk about it or whether we are going to get to it.

I am hopeful that throughout the afternoon, throughout tomorrow, and throughout the balance of the week we will have an opportunity to discuss and to vote on amendments that are energy-related amendments that will help move this country in a more positive direction when it comes to our energy policy and attach that to a fundamental anchor of a good, strong energy

policy, which is energy efficiency, and that is what the Shaheen- Portman bill allows us to do.

National Police Week

I want to pivot for a moment and move off the issue of energy efficiency. I wish to speak for a few more minutes this afternoon about National Police Week.

National Police Week is a week to honor our fallen law enforcement officers. It occurs next week. Next week in Washington, DC, we will see police vehicles from all over the Nation. We will see officers in uniform, perhaps some with young kids in tow, flooding the Metro system. The survivors of law enforcement tragedies will gather in Alexandria, VA, for the annual meeting of Concerns of Police Survivors.

On Tuesday night, tens of thousands will gather at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, and they will read by candlelight the names inscribed on the memorial walls this year. On Thursday, the National Peace Officers Memorial Day Service will convene on the west front of the Capitol. These are all very moving tributes to our fallen, those who have served in the line of duty and who honor us all.

For the past 11 years, I have made it a habit of honoring the fallen during National Police Week, regardless of whether any Alaska law enforcement agency suffered a line-of-duty death during that preceding year.

At times I have made note of a sad coincidence, a sad coincidence that law enforcement tragedies in the twos and threes often seem to occur in close proximity to the annual National Police Week observance.

About this time 8 years ago, the National Capital Region was grieving the loss of Michael Garbarino and Vicky Armel, the first Fairfax County police officers to die from gunfire in the line of duty. In April 2009, Pittsburgh lost three of its finest.

This year, as we anticipate the arrival of National Police Week, Alaska carries that tragic burden. Last week my home State lost two members of the Alaska State Troopers in a single incident.

On May 1, Alaska State troopers Sergeant Scott Johnson and Trooper Gabe Rich flew from Fairbanks to the village of Tanana. Tanana is an Athabascan Indian community and there are about 238 people. Tanana sits at the confluence of the Yukon and Tanana Rivers. It is a strong community, it is a resilient community, but it is a community that is truly suffering right now.

Similar to most of the Alaska Native villages, the only full-time law enforcement presence in Tanana is a single, unarmed village public safety officer. Law enforcement backup, when they are needed and called in, will fly to Tanana. Tanana is not accessible by roads, so basically the only way in and out is to fly in and out, coming in from Fairbanks, so it is about a 1-hour flight away.

The village public safety officer asked for trooper assistance to respond to an individual who had been waving a gun in the village. With no backup, other than the unarmed village public safety officer, Sergeant Johnson and Trooper Rich attempted to serve a warrant on the offender. Both officers were shot and killed. The 19-year-old son of the individual who was the subject of the warrant is now charged with the shooting.

This is a horrible tragedy for Tanana, a tragedy for Alaska, and a tragedy for the entire law enforcement community.

Tanana is, as I mentioned, a small village. It is an isolated village. It has been a very resilient village. It is a very proud and a very kind-hearted community. The Athabascan word for Tanana, known as ``Nuchalawoya,'' means ``wedding of the rivers,'' and the village has played a very central role in Athabascan culture for thousands of years.

But like many Alaska Native villages, it suffers from drug and alcohol problems. Last October there was a group of young people from the village of Tanana, and they traveled to the Alaska Federation of Natives convention.

It is the largest gathering of Alaska Natives in the State, and they did a very brave and heroic thing. They assembled on stage in front of 4,000 to 5,000 people to tell Alaskans that they had had enough of the pain and the violence, and they were determined to make their community a healthier place. It was an amazing moment. It was inspiring. There was not a sound to be heard in the huge Carlson Center in Fairbanks as these young people spoke.

So inspiring were the words of these young kids that I wrote Attorney General Holder and I asked that his department invest prevention resources in the village and others like it that were trying to turn things around, trying to face the ugly side of what happens in a small community when we have domestic violence and child sexual assault brought on by drugs and alcohol.

Tanana is absolutely devastated by what happened last week. In the words of Cynthia Erickson, who is the youth leader of the young people I mentioned, last week's incident amounts to two steps back in Tanana's effort to heal itself, but the healing process must begin and now is the time for it to begin.

We remember fallen law enforcement officers for the way they lived their lives. Vivian Eney Cross, who is the widow of a fallen U.S. Capitol police officer, said:

It is not how these officers died that made them heroes, it

is how they lived.

In that spirit I wish to share with the Senate a little about the lives of our two fallen Alaskan heroes.

Sergeant Johnson was born in Fairbanks, and he grew up in the small community of Tok, which is 150-plus miles out of Fairbanks on the road system. He went to school in the Tok community, and he was a wrestler. He joined the Alaska State Troopers in 1993 after serving as a North Slope Borough police officer.

Sergeant Johnson spent his entire 20-year trooper career in Fairbanks, where he rose through the ranks to supervise the Areawide Narcotics Team and ultimately the Interior Rural Unit. Sergeant Johnson also was an accomplished canine handler and a leader of the regional SWAT team. We call it SERT in Alaska, the Special Emergency Reaction Team.

His final assignment was leader of the Interior Rural Unit, a team of four who respond to incidents in 23 Native villages. Sergeant Johnson assumed that role this year. His territory covered hundreds of miles end-to-end. Again, these are hundreds of miles without road access.

Sergeant Johnson was 45 years old. He is survived by his wife, daughters aged 16, 14, and 12, and also survived by his parents and siblings.

Trooper Gabe Rich was born in Pennsylvania. He moved to Fairbanks shortly after he was born. He graduated from Lathrop High School in 2006. He was 26 years old at the time of his death.

Trooper Rich spent 4 years working as a patrolman with the North Pole Police Department before deciding to become an Alaska State Trooper in 2011. He is survived by his fiance, their 1-year-old son, and his parents. He was in the process of adopting his fiance's 8-year-old boy.

Sergeant Johnson and Trooper Rich were known to those who watched the popular National Geographic series ``Alaska State Troopers.'' Undoubtedly, those who have watched the two in action are also grieving the loss, along with the people of Tanana and all of Alaska.

I think I speak for all in this body when I say we are shocked and we are saddened by the events in Tanana last week. On behalf of a grateful Senate and a grateful nation, I take this opportunity to extend my condolences to all who held Sergeant Johnson and Trooper Rich deep in their hearts.

With that, I yield the floor.

I wish to thank my colleague from North Dakota. I have had an opportunity to go to North Dakota and see firsthand how, in Senator Hoeven's State, they are embracing this energy renaissance we are seeing in this country--a renaissance that is truly allowing us to move forward with jobs and economic opportunity not only for the good of this country but really for the good of so many others.

When we are talking about our neighbors to the north in Canada--or if one is from Alaska our neighbors to the east--there is a recognition that the United States and Canada are really joined at the well, if you will. That is a term I have used quite frequently.

But when it comes to energy issues, there are 17 operating oil pipelines between the United States and Canada. There are another 30 electric transmission lines. There are 29 natural gas pipelines. This is all energy infrastructure that crosses the border with Canada-- whether it is into Montana, Washington, North Dakota, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Idaho, Maine.

You have to wonder--you have to wonder--are not these all in the national interest? What is so unique, what is so compelling about this Keystone XL Pipeline that it is not only taking the 5 years of study that has already been done but is now on indefinite hold for yet further study?

So it causes one to kind of go back in time. Let's look at some of the pipelines that have been already determined as being in the national interest.

Back in August of 2009, the Department of State signed off on Enbridge Energy's Alberta Clipper Pipeline. When you look at what they did in signing off on that, it is exactly what we are talking about here with the Keystone XL. It said--and this is coming from the national interest determination on the Alberta Clipper. I ask unanimous consent to have that application printed in the Record.

Some of the things the Alberta Clipper line provided were increasing the diversity of available supplies. It shortens the transportation pathway for a sizable portion of our crude imports. It increases crude oil supplies from major non-OPEC countries. It allows our country to cooperate on best practices in technology. And then, finally, approval of the permit would send a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availabilty of a portion of U.S. energy imports.

These are not from the Keystone XL Pipeline. This is coming from the Alberta Clipper Pipeline, approved back in 2009, for exactly the same reasons that President Obama should sign off on the Keystone XL Pipeline and sign off now. It is in the country's best interests. It is clearly in the best interests of our friend and ally and neighbor to the north, Canada.

I think we recognize there is so much opportunity for us. But we need to get out of the way of the stops and the hurdles that have been placed by this administration--limiting our jobs, limiting our economic opportunities, and truly working to restrict our energy independence.

With that, I yield the floor, as I know several other colleagues wish to speak in the time remaining.

Madam President, I come to the floor about an hour or so after a vote on a motion to proceed to take up the Paycheck Fairness Act. I struggled with my decision as to whether to move to this measure that I feel was flawed in terms of its approach to a solution or to recognize that perhaps this measure was more of an exercise in political messaging rather than an effort to resolve what I believe is an issue.

In sorting through all aspects of not only the merits of the legislation, but also the facts as they exist back home, the facts as they exist around this country, where we see pay disparity between men and women, I had a lot on my mind. I had a lot to weigh. I did not come to the floor yesterday to speak with the many who rose to either offer proposed amendments to the Paycheck Fairness Act or those who rose to speak to defend the act. I don't want my silence yesterday to be construed that I don't think there is an issue here; that I don't think this is something that needs to be addressed.

Yesterday was national Equal Pay Day, the day when, according to the Department of Labor, women's wages supposedly catch up to men's wages. We can argue and we can debate what that gap is--whether it is 77 cents, whether those statistics are outdated, whether it is closer to 82 cents or what the raw statistics are. We can debate that. But the fact is--and I think the Presiding Officer and I would agree--if there is any discrepancy there, it is worth looking at. Why does a discrepancy exist? Is there disparity that stems from discrimination? Because if it stems from discrimination, it should not be allowed-- pretty simply.

In Alaska, the statistics are a little bit different than what we have on the national level. In my State, Equal Pay Day is not going to occur until May 5.

As an Alaskan, as a woman, and as one who has been in the Alaska job market, I want to know: Why the greater disparity in my State?

We had a women's summit in Anchorage, AK, last October. I worked with a former colleague in the Alaska State legislature to host a summit designed to look at many of the issues women face in Alaska, whether it is pay disparity, childcare affordability, access to health care--so many of the issues and concerns women all over the country deal with day to day. We relied on a study from the state Legislative Research Services. A portion of the research tried to drill down into some of the pay disparities we have in the State.

In 2010 our State Department of Labor reported a wage gap of 67 cents or 33 percent. This statistic is different from the overall national averages because that review conducted by Legislative Research Services included part-time as well as full-time workers and part-time workers generally receive lower salaries. That may be one reason for the disparity.

But when we look at some of the areas where there are discrepancies, it really does cause one to say: Wait a minute. In areas where occupations are significantly male-dominated--crab fishermen, for instance, welders on the pipeline--occupations where the pay is really quite substantial, we might look at that and say, OK, I understand why there might be a discrepancy. But there are other occupations that have some surprising statistics. For example, back in 2010 the average earnings for a male physician were $229,312, but the average for a woman physician was $166,000. It doesn't make sense.

In certain areas, women out-earn men--dietitians, for instance. The ratio of women's to men's earnings is 170 percent, according to the raw numbers. For legal secretaries, the ratio of women's to men's earnings is 132 percent.

For teachers, the ratio of women's to men's earnings is 125 percent.

We need to peel back the onion to understand what we are dealing with--is this a situation where it is the difference in the career choice that has made the distinction with the pay disparity? If that is the case, what are we doing to encourage women to go into areas where, quite clearly, earning opportunities are better?

When we look at occupations, I think it is something that needs to be considered. When we talk about a wage disparity, a pay disparity, I think we need to look very critically at whether there are other factors that come into play. Is it a career choice? Is it the need or desire for flexibility?

Starting out as a young lawyer in Anchorage, I was making what the young men in the firm were making. But when my husband and I decided that I wanted to spend more time at home with our boys, I negotiated for that level of flexibility. That put me behind my male counterparts in the firm. I was good with that. That was a choice I made. I wanted that flexibility.

Are there other nonmonetary forms of compensation that perhaps the wage gap statistics don't necessarily respect? We don't know. So this is where I came down in my decision process as to which direction to take on the Paycheck Fairness Act vote that we had just an hour or so ago. Do we want to try to address what I believe is an issue in that we do have a disparity but how we understand what causes that disparity and, then, what we do with that going forward is an important consideration.

We have the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that imposes strict liability for wage disparity based on gender. It is in law. We have title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that protects against all forms of employment discrimination, including on the basis of sex. But maybe we are not enforcing these Federal laws as we need to. If after all these years we are still seeing areas of disparity that we cannot reconcile based on occupation or based on desire for flexibility, does there continue to be discrimination? That is what we need to get to.

That is why I and many of my colleagues supported some of the amendments that were presented yesterday and I think were important to present--to make sure there is no retaliation for a woman when she inquires as to what others are making to determine whether there is discrimination, so making sure we are able to access that information. However, when we take a proposal like the Paycheck Fairness Act that has an initial presumption that the employer has unlawfully discriminated against an employee if there is a difference in pay--if we start off with a presumption of discrimination, it is pretty hard for an employer--particularly a small employer--to deal with that, to defend that, to present the case, to really work through this issue.

The solution should not be more litigation as the Paycheck Fairness Act response is here. The solution needs to be more all-encompassing because we have laws on the books that already say it is illegal to discriminate. If we are still seeing instances of discrimination--and, again, let's figure out where and why and how--then let's honestly try to address that rather than through messaging efforts that are designed to elevate the issue, which is fair, but then not be pragmatic about how we approach the solutions.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from this morning's Washington Post titled ``President Obama's persistent `77-cent' claim on wage gap gets a new Pinocchio rating.''

Included in this article is the following quote referencing a study by the Census Bureau:

This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the

differences in the compensation of men and women are the

result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap

should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action.

Indeed, there may be nothing to correct.

I don't know that. There indeed may be more that we can correct. I am willing to look to see, to continue to peel back this onion to see if we can do more than we did with the Equal Pay Act of 1963, do more than we did with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, do more than we did with the Lilly Ledbetter Act that I supported several years ago. If there is more that needs to be done, I am willing to work on it because I don't want to be in a State where men are viewed as being paid $1 to the 67 cents that a woman is being paid. I don't want those statistics to be valid. I don't want them to play out in my State. I want to understand how we ensure that there is a level of fairness. I think we need to make sure we look keenly to the issue of whether there is discrimination at play or whether, in fact, there are a host of other issues we need to consider as well. I am willing to work in good faith with my colleagues to do just that.

I see the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is with us.

(Mr. MARKEY assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to discuss the opportunity we have as a nation to truly take a leadership role when it comes to responsible development of the Arctic region. As we discuss the great opportunities and the challenges that face us, I think it is fair to say that I will also be expressing some disappointment with the general lack of resources our Federal Government has invested in this important issue, including, just most recently, through the President's annual budget request.

Back in May 2013 the Obama administration released its ``National Strategy for the Arctic Region.'' The national strategy was really designed to set forth this government's strategic priorities for the Arctic--pretty important to recognize what our priorities are going forward. While that might sound impressive--a national strategy for the Arctic region--what we ended up seeing was just an 11-page document, and it is really hard to describe it as strategic. Perhaps a more accurate description is that it was a glorified memo, a general outline, but there were a lot of gaps that needed to be filled.

Recognizing that this is a new area for us in terms of opportunities and, really, for vision, I was prepared to sit back and listen to what the administration had to say and work with them as they built this strategic vision. So when they released their implementation plan for the national strategy in late January, I was looking forward to it. I was looking forward to what had been gathered in meetings not only in Alaska--the State of Alaska is what makes the United States an Arctic nation--but it was broader than just Alaskans' input; it was input from so many of our agencies, so many of our departments. Yet, when the implementation of our national strategy was released, I have to admit that, again, I was underwhelmed.

I made certain the President and members of the administration knew my concerns, and I told him--these were my words when I wrote to him-- my concern was that his plan does not offer a vision to make the United States a leader in the Arctic, particularly as we prepare for the chairmanship of the Arctic Council in May 2015, nor does it suggest that the Arctic is a national priority. Instead, the plan provides a snapshot of existing Arctic-related programs and projects with numerous assessments to be undertaken but no real path of action.

It was important to me as someone who cares very deeply about our role as an Arctic nation and our role not only within the confines of the Federal Government but our role going forward in the world among the other Arctic nations and truly all of the nations throughout our planet in terms of where the United States sits when it comes to our vision and our view for the Arctic.

The administration's plan would maintain our rather meager status quo in the Arctic while the other Arctic nations--the rest of the international community--seem to be devoting increasing amounts of resources to the region.

It would also leave the residents of the Far North--U.S. citizens up there in Alaska--out in the cold when it comes to the U.S. Government's own priorities. Rather than advance an agenda that will benefit those who live in the Arctic, they are, instead, regulated to being part of a science project for observation and conservation.

Let me give you an example of that.

One of the proposed initiatives within the implementation plan is to ``Improve Arctic Community Sustainability, Well-being, and Cultural and Linguistic Heritage.'' I have to say, that is a pretty laudable goal. We certainly want to maintain, we certainly want to pass down the culture of our indigenous populations to future generations. We certainly want to improve their quality of life. Yet within this initiative, the administration has designated the Smithsonian Institution to be the lead agency for this particular initiative. It is as if the people of the Far North--it is as if the Inuit, the Eskimo, the Aleut, the Yupik--are somehow or other people to be observed as part of a museum exhibit or perhaps placed under a glass bubble.

Combine this with the implementation plan's heavy emphasis on conservation, research into climate change, and preemption of development on State Native and Federal lands, and it is difficult for me to see any support by this administration for economic development, for job creation, or really for a better quality of life for the people who live in the Far North.

So again, when we talk about the ``Implementation Plan for the National Strategy for the Arctic Region,'' climate is absolutely an issue that needs to be discussed and addressed--absolutely. Development issues clearly need to be addressed. Conservation clearly needs to be addressed. But we have to remember there are people who live and raise their families and work up in the Arctic. So making sure we are thinking about them as we advance an implementation plan is key.

But even with the implementation plan being rolled out in January, I thought: OK, there is still not enough meat on the bones here for me to understand how we move forward with a set of priorities, a real vision for the Arctic. But I knew the President's budget was going to be coming out in March, and that is the opportunity for any President to establish his or her priorities when it comes to the budget.

So I held out hope that when we saw the fiscal year 2015 budget request that was where we would finally start to see some kind of a coherent strategy come together. I expected it would at least demonstrate the administration's desire to show some level of leadership in the Arctic. My office was told that part of the purpose of the implementation plan and the designation of lead and support agencies was to gain an ability to propose jointly supported Arctic projects that OMB would then deem important enough to be included in the budget request.

But, again, we looked through the budget, and I am disappointed, sorely disappointed. My immediate reaction to the budget request was we are seeing so much spending here through the budget proposal, but yet so very little attention paid to our needs and our opportunities in the Arctic.

A search of the 1,400-plus page detailed appendix for the administration's budget reveals only 5 requests--5 requests--for Arctic-related activity. Two are for longstanding programs that have been funded for many years. One is the U.S. Arctic Research Commission--very important--and then, of course, the North Pacific Research Board. Another is for international fisheries work done through the Arctic Council. And the last two are for climate change- related activities. That is it. Five references--five references--out of a 1,400-plus page appendix for the budget speak to any Arctic- related activity.

Now, you may ask why I am disappointed, underwhelmed, perhaps a little bit agitated about where we are with advancing an implementation plan, a strategic vision for the Arctic. Well, in about a year from now, the United States will take over the chair of the Arctic Council. That chairmanship is currently held by Canada.

I have had opportunities to sit down with the chair of the Arctic Council, Leona Aglukkaq, who is from the Nunavut area, and talk about what Canada is doing to really lead in so many different areas when it comes to Arctic policy and Arctic strategy--not only for their nation but all the Arctic nations and beyond.

I look with a little bit of longing at how Canada has truly embraced their leadership role as an Arctic nation, not only with statements of intention that are backed up by real resources, but an appreciation for what the future can hold for the Arctic.

So over the last several weeks we have had our Appropriations subcommittees that are really starting to kick into gear here, and I have had the opportunity to ask several Cabinet members--Secretary Johnson from the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Jewell from the Department of Interior--I have had a chance to ask both of them about their Departments' budget priorities for the Arctic and, specifically, the programs for which their Departments have been designated as the lead agency within this implementation plan for fiscal year 2015. And both Cabinet members have assured me, they have said, yes, the Arctic is a priority, it is important to the United States. But neither one of these Cabinet members could tell me what their Department's budget request contained for the Arctic. They have assured me they are going to be going back and seeing if they cannot fill in those details for me, but, to me, that is symbolic of the Arctic's overall standing within the administration. There are lots of good words when asked about it. Everyone is saying, yes, it should be a priority. But yet it does not seem to be important enough to be proactive on or to even be familiar with without prompting.

We all know that any President's budget request, regardless of party, is not likely to be enacted word for word, and, quite honestly, recognizing politics, more likely than not it is not going to be enacted at all. But if a budget request does signify something, it is the message, it is the signal of what the administration's priorities for that fiscal year and beyond are.

So it is apparent, at least in my view, that this administration is not willing to devote the resources necessary to make the Arctic a true priority. That, to me, is very shortsighted. I think it is a failure of leadership, a failure to think ahead and to take the long view.

I recognize, as we all do, that we are at a time of budget constraint and restraint, that there is competition for all dollars, as we look to make wise decisions here. But as we are setting priorities, as we are thinking toward the future and a longer term view, we have to ensure-- we have to ensure--that the Arctic is placed as a priority. Some people would ask why we should care about it. Is this just an Alaska-specific issue? Are these just Alaska projects we are talking about? Why should the Arctic really matter to the United States?

First, the reality is that the Arctic is a relatively blank slate right now. It is not presently an area that is subject to longstanding disputes or entrenched views. Think about the significance of that. When you look at the Arctic, you have your eight Arctic nations around it, but whether it is Finland, Norway, Canada, the United States, Russia, the area that occupies the Arctic is not one that is known for conflict.

Think about the role Secretary Kerry has. He does not have to worry about hotspots in the Arctic in the sense of political hotspots. You just do not have those longstanding disputes. It is not a hotspot for potential conflict. It is, however, a region that is garnering increased international attention and recognition because of its tremendous potential, and it is generating cooperation amongst Arctic nations. Now,

isn't that a concept--that something is actually generating cooperation?

Let me give you an example. I was at the 2013 Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Sweden, and I was there with Secretary Kerry. When you think about the issues in front of our Secretary of State, at that time back in May, there was no shortage of differences and disagreements with the Russian Government at that moment. Yet at that ministerial meeting, we had Secretary of State Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov side by side signing a binding agreement on oilspill preparedness and response capabilities in the Arctic. But this was all going on while differences over Syria and U.S. Embassy spy charges were hanging over their heads. So despite all the other issues those two gentlemen were dealing with, they were able to come together in Sweden and join on to a joint document of cooperation among Arctic nations as it related to oilspill preparedness and response capabilities. From a foreign policy perspective, the Arctic is an area for cooperation and relationship building, and that is a good and a positive that we should look to build on.

From an economic perspective, our neighbors--Russia to the west and Canada to the east--continue with aggressive national plans that include state investment to develop northern resources and advance commerce in the region. They know--they know all too well--that this will help create jobs and economic growth in areas that face extraordinary challenges.

A recent report by the Norwegian Shipowners' Association shows that the regions bordering the Arctic Ocean are experiencing higher annual economic growth than the rest of their respective nations on average and are considered drivers for economic growth in the Arctic countries.

Russia's territorial claim to a large swath of the Arctic seabed received a boost when an area in the Sea of Okhotsk was recognized as part of its extended continental shelf by the same commission examining its Arctic claims. These are territorial claims that Russia is able to make because they are a party to the Convention of the Law of the Sea, while the United States is not.

I will just make a particular aside at this point in time that I have long been a proponent of the U.S. Senate ratifying the Convention on the Law of the Sea. As we engage in the Arctic, as we not only work on areas of cooperation, I think we need to ensure that we, as an Arctic nation, have a seat at the table on the issues that face the Arctic. While we sit on the sidelines, because we have failed to ratify the law of the sea, we miss out. We miss out.

Even non-Arctic nations are embracing the opportunities that come with diminished polar sea ice representing the transit benefits, conducting scientific research and moving ahead with resource exploration and development activities. Nations such as China, South Korea, and Japan each have icebreakers. China is in the process of constructing a second larger icebreaker. It is even India's intention to have an icebreaker by the end of 2016. Think how far India is from the Arctic.

You may ask the question: Well, where is the United States when it comes to its number of icebreakers?

We have one heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star. We have a second, the Polar Sea, which is going to effectively be mothballed. We have a medium breaker, the Healy, which is primarily used for research missions, and the useful life of the Polar Star is expected to be concluded in less than 10 years.

Right now, as I talk to those within the administration about the plans to move forward on a polar icebreaker, it is pretty dismal. The proposal thus far in the President's budget is that there will be $6 million to advance, as far as studies go. We know we need a heavy polar-class icebreaker. In fact, we know we need three heavy icebreakers and three medium icebreakers. But it is a big capital investment. It has not been made a priority. It is yet one of those initiatives that I think we look at from a shortsighted perspective by failing to place an imperative on it now.

Even Singapore--not exactly synonymous with the Arctic--has designated an Arctic ambassador and is actively participating in the Arctic Council and other Arctic-related forums around the globe.

So there are non-Arctic nations that are building ice-capable ships. There are non-Arctic nations that are asking to be observers in the Arctic Council. There are non-Arctic nations stepping forward and saying: We want to have an Arctic ambassador, somebody who is there as part of the discussions on issues in an area of the globe that is evolving so quickly; where there are so many opportunities; where there are challenges, yes, but where there are so many opportunities. We want to be part of that.

You would think the United States would not only jump in and say ``me too,'' but that we would be leading as one of the eight Arctic nations. This activity by other nations is going to continue--in fact, accelerate--regardless of whether the United States engages. But if we do engage, we will also benefit and we will also be in a better position to ensure that any development, that any commerce, that any activity is carried out safely and responsibly.

There is a lot of discussion about the energy potential, the potential for natural resource wealth and what that might bring to the Arctic. This is a map that shows the extent of the yearlong ice in the Arctic. Setting aside the natural resource potential, which is in the range of 30 billion barrels of oil and 220 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the United States Arctic OCS alone--we recognize that the natural resource potential is significant, but it is not just about the natural resources. Let me give an example of the activity that is already underway in the Arctic, its impact on us here in the United States, and the opportunity our Nation has to embrace that potential.

With the decreasing amount of sea ice in the Arctic, we are seeing a corresponding increase in maritime activity.

So, again, this is a chart that shows the extent of the sea ice in the year 2000. So your sea ice is the whiter area, with your opportunities for maritime activity limited as you are moving through Canada here and even through Russia there.

This next chart shows the extent of the sea ice and vessel activity in the Arctic in 2011. So you can see increased activity is taking place where the sea ice used to be. So here is the sea ice now, but notice the passage you have transiting through the Bering Strait, over the top of Alaska, through the Northwest Passage, and out over to Europe.

Notice also going through the Northern Sea Route from Russia over to the Baltic States. The colored lines you see are not necessarily oil and gas exploration ships; they are cargo ships, they are tankers, and they are icebreakers. They are fishing vessels, research vessels, passenger vessels, cruise ships, and others. So in a decade, what you are seeing is a level of maritime traffic that is really unprecedented--and unprecedented because we have not had the ability to transit in these waters because they were locked by ice for almost the full extent of the year.

So here is a closer look at the vessel activity in the Bering Strait region in 2013. So this is going to look like this amazing blur of color. But here we have Alaska. This is Russia. Where all of these lines seem to be converging, at the center here, is where we have Little Diomede and Big Diomede. Big Diomede is owned by Russia, Little Diomede is held by the United States, and 2.5 miles separates the two islands. In truth, we can see Russia from Little Diomede. I was there last summer.

But when you appreciate that the distance between Alaska and Russia outside of the very narrow area between Big and Little Diomede is just 57 miles--we have a 57-mile choke point here in the Bering Strait where we have incredible amounts of maritime commerce coming through: tankers, cargo ships, tugs, towing ships, passenger vessels, fishing vessels, search and rescue, military, law enforcement, and others. This is what we are seeing in the year 2013. Transits have doubled in the past 5 years.

The next chart comes from the recently released U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap. This map shows the predicted sea ice coverage by the year 2030. So here we were at 2012 with the sea ice covering all of this. By 2020 it is shrinking. Here it is by 2025, by 2030. This is the

predicted model for our sea ice coverage by 2030. We can see an even larger portion of the Arctic is expected to be open to maritime commerce.

The Navy predicts that the traffic through the Bering Strait will double again in the next 10 years. Again, that is going to happen whether or not the United States participates. Foreign vessels, if not American vessels, will be traveling across Alaska's western and northern coast. That is a given.

The last chart I have shows the Bering Strait as the gateway between the Pacific and the Arctic Oceans. Again, when we talk about Alaska, we are talking about its strategic geographic location, where it is on the globe. We are very proud of the military opportunities we have for amazing training ranges in Alaska when it comes to our assets in the air and on the ground.

But look at where Alaska sits in terms of its strategic location to not only Asia--we are sitting literally halfway between Nagoya, Japan, and Seattle, Washington, when you are at Adak. It is just as easy for me to get to Japan as it is to get to Seattle if I go as the crow flies. Unfortunately, I do not have anything that will take me as the crow flies.

But I think it is important for us to recognize this: That whether it is passage over the Northwest Passage, which is still relatively problematic, the increased traffic we are seeing from the Northern Sea Route coming over Russia, or potentially the transpolar route at some point in time, everything funnels through the Bering Strait here--the 57 miles between Russia and the United States--and then has to exit or cut through the Aleutian chain here.

So when we think about where Alaska sits, we truly are the gateway between the Pacific and the Arctic Oceans. With the predicting of a doubling of vessel activity in the Arctic via the Bering Strait in the next 10 years, the time to develop the infrastructure and support capacity to handle this growing amount of traffic is now--actually, it was yesterday.

This is not a region that is devoid of activity, but it is a region that lacks adequate levels of investment, government resources, and attention. Deepwater ports, navigational aids, search and rescue capabilities, and icebreakers are all needed now and, in addition, the basic charting of many of our Arctic waters, which some of us have recognized is seriously lacking. This is going to take a very collaborative effort across all of our agencies and working with our Arctic neighbors to achieve that.

With a vision, it is not difficult to see how we could have a transshipment facility developed in the Aleutian chain to capitalize on the intersection between the North Pacific great circle route and the three Arctic Sea routes. Imagine you have cargo that is transiting the Arctic from Europe, coming from the Northwest Passage or coming over the Northern Sea Route.

Imagine that cargo then being offloaded at Adak. Adak is a former Navy base and, quite honestly, the infrastructure that is there is-- well, it is a little bit old--pretty amazing. You could then offload in either Adak or Unalaska and load that cargo onto ships transiting the North Pacific and to the west coast--and vice versa.

Ice-strengthened ships could be used entirely within the Arctic, rather than traveling all the way to Singapore or Hong Kong. It would save time, it would save money, and it would allow for an increased number of transits. I am looking at it and saying: This could be a real win, a win for consumers, a win for business, and a win for national security by being able to keep a closer eye on commerce traveling to the United States.

It is clear--I hope it is clear--that people recognize that we have such opportunity, we have such capacity for opportunity and growth within the Arctic. But we have to be careful, we have to be considerate, and we have to be sure that the necessary resources and infrastructure necessary are there.

The United States has never been last in a race to the future, but absent visionary leadership and meaningful resourcing, we will continue to take a back seat and fail to capitalize on all that the Arctic has to offer. We will miss out on resource development and shipping efficiencies and, in turn, new opportunities to create new jobs and generate needed economic growth.

I don't believe that we can afford to sit idle any longer, which means that it is time for our Federal Government and this administration to really start taking the Arctic seriously and dedicate the necessary resources to the region.

I don't mean to suggest that the efforts that have been made to date are not important. We have come quite far in the past few years, but you have to remember, we were starting from ground zero. There was nothing, really. We have made some strides, and it is important that we have these documents coming out of our agencies, and it is important that we have framework because it is on these that we will build. But I feel like I need to lend an air of urgency that it is not just about methodically chipping away year by year with yet another document-- another strategy plan that will sit on the bookshelf.

I have a lot of those on the Arctic. I think many do. It is how we are a true participant in a level of engagement in a region that holds such excitement and such potential that nations around the world are turning their eyes northward with excitement and enthusiasm.

The United States should be leading with equal enthusiasm about what our opportunities hold.

I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I express deep gratitude to COL Gregory A. Scheidhauer for his past 2 years of exemplary dedication to duty and service as a congressional budget liaison for the Secretary of the Army. Greg was recently selected to serve the Army and Congress as the chief of Army Reserve Legislative Affairs. We wish him well in his new position.

A native of Bowie, MD, Colonel Scheidhauer earned a bachelor of science degree at West Virginia University and was commissioned a quartermaster officer in the Army in 1990. He has earned advanced degrees in public administration, public health education, and strategic studies.

Greg has served in a broad range of duty stations and assignments during his 23 years of service. As a lieutenant, he served as a transportation platoon leader and battalion logistics officer. As a captain, he served as a supply and services officer in Tennessee and as a training officer in Fort Buchanan, PR. Prior to his current assignment, Greg was the director J4, Joint Forces Special Operations Component Command, Iraq.

In 2009, following his assignment with the First Army Division East, Colonel Scheidhauer was selected as a military fellow in then- Representative Joe Donnelly's personal office, serving the people of Indiana's Second Congressional District.

After this, he served as a legislative liaison in the Office of the Chief of Army Reserve, and then as a congressional budget liaison officer in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller. In this capacity, Greg was tasked with managing the Army's research, development, test and evaluation portfolio as well as its aviation portfolio. As a budget liaison officer, he worked directly with the Senate and House Appropriations Committees to educate and inform Senators, Representatives, and staff on critical Army issues.

Throughout his 23-year career, COL Gregory Scheidhauer has positively impacted his soldiers, peers, and superiors, and I am grateful that he has chosen to continue to serve as an Army leader. I join my colleagues today in honoring his dedication to our Nation and invaluable service to the U.S. Congress as an Army congressional budget liaison.

Greg is accustomed to working long hours in his congressional relations work. So let me also acknowledge Greg's wife Andrea, and their children Alexis, Brennan, and Christopher, thank them for their sacrifices and wish them all the best for continued success in the future.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and my colleague from Rhode Island, who also is my cochair on the Senate Oceans Caucus. As he has noted, this is an issue of IUU fishing--illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing--and, really, that is too polite a term for it. It is really piracy--piracy of our fisheries.

Senator Whitehouse has been very engaged in working on so many of these key issues. I think this is quite important what we are discussing today--the positive step forward, not only for fishermen in my State but for fishermen around the Nation.

I would like to thank those who have been involved in this effort in addition to Senator Whitehouse--Senator Wicker, as well as Senator Begich, for their efforts to help advance these treaties. I would also like to recognize Senator Menendez and Senator Corker for their support through the Foreign Relations Committee process.

It should come as no surprise to any of my colleagues here in terms of Alaska's role with our fisheries. Alaska leads all States in terms of both volume and value of commercial fisheries, with approximately 1.84 million metric tons, worth $1.3 billion. The seafood coming out of Alaska accounts for over 52 percent of our Nation's commercial seafood harvest. Our commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries are really at the heart of coastal Alaska. They are the source of economic livelihood for more than 80,000 Alaskans who are directly or indirectly employed in the industry. I count my family as part of Alaska's fishing families who support very well managed, sustainable fisheries.

But what we have seen from these acts of piracy--this illegal fishing--let's take, for instance, the crab fisheries, is very serious. Illegally harvested Russian king crab has been a real problem for us in Alaska since the early 1990s. In 2011 NOAA law enforcement seized 112 metric tons of illegally harvested Russian king crab that was being shipped to U.S. markets through the Port of Seattle. So what happens here is you have the Russians, who are taking too many of the king crab, illegally harvesting them and then effectively dumping them on the U.S. markets. Well, what do you think that does, then, to the price of the crab we are catching here lawfully in the United States? It is depressing the price of crab. Now, I know this. I mentioned that my family is in the fishing business. My cousin is involved in the crab industry. They have seen the prices of crab go down between 20 and 25 percent because of this illegal harvesting by the Russians.

This is not just a small problem. This is not something that is just happening right now. This has been happening for decades now, and it needs to be stopped. I do want to take a moment to express my appreciation for the amazing work our U.S. Coast Guard does, as well as the other agencies, NOAA and the State Department, their combined efforts they are making to combat pirate fishing. It is greatly appreciated by me and my constituents.

We have four treaties in front of us that will help to level this playing field and ensure that our coastal fishing communities will face less unfair competition from pirate fishing vessels that simply have not been held to the high fisheries management standards we have here in the United States.

Two of the treaties we are looking at are particularly important for my State. One is the Port State Measures Agreement. This sets global standards to combat IUU fishing, and it helps to protect our U.S. fishermen by keeping the foreign, illegally caught fish from entering the global stream of commerce. It is hugely important for us.

The other one I would like to highlight is the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North

Pacific Ocean. This will ensure that the North Pacific Fisheries Commission is established and also helps to ensure that there is a fisheries management regime in place to deter this IUU fishing within the region adjacent to Alaska. So it is critically important when it comes to our fisheries and the sustainability of our fisheries and how we manage our fisheries.

We are trying to play by the rules. We expect others to be doing the same.

So, again, I appreciate the work so many have done to help advance these treaties that are before us.

I see my colleague from Mississippi on the floor, and I would like to hear again from him in terms of support for these treaties.

With that, I yield to my friend from Mississippi.

Mr. President, I think we are waiting here for a couple of minutes. I will use a couple of minutes to speak again to those who come to our assistance when it comes to the enforcement of our fisheries laws--the men and women of our Coast Guard, NOAA, and our other enforcement agencies.

Senator Begich has somewhat dramatically shown some of the scenes. This is not easy stuff out there. When you have somebody who we have reason to believe has been operating illegally in violation of our agreed fisheries laws, more likely than not they are not just going to stand by and let you board and take a peek. They are going to take chase.

As we are hearing, as we are trying to find some evidence of the missing Malaysian jetliner, the oceans out there are pretty darn big. Usually, the conditions are not ones in which you would want to go out on a pleasure cruise.

Our men and women who are engaged in those enforcement efforts are truly heroes to us in terms of the efforts that they make, the energy that they expend, and the risk that they place themselves at.

So day after day, as they cover our waters, as they work to ensure that there is a effective management of our fisheries, their efforts to enforce these laws, their efforts to provide for a level of protection and safety, their efforts to bring the pirates to justice are truly to be applauded.

I thank the Senator for the opportunity to make that brief statement. I see my friend and colleague is at the ready, hopefully to announce that we will be able to move to passage of these significant treaties.

I commend my colleague, the Senator from North Dakota, not only for his leadership on so many energy initiatives, but for the proposal he has put forth this afternoon.

I am pleased to be able to join him in support of those various measures--measures that, as he has outlined, will not only as a nation allow us to move forward and take that leadership role, which we so rightly have and should use as something to benefit not only ourselves and our economy, jobs within the Nation, but to benefit other nations. The proposal he has advanced--again, that I am pleased to join him on-- is one that allows for incredible jobs and opportunities with the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, provisions that will allow for expedited processing of our LNG exports.

It recognizes, again, that when we produce more in this country--when we produce more of a resource that not only allows us to be more energy secure, but that also helps our friends and allies around the world, it also helps to truly effectively reduce the cost of that energy to American consumers.

How can this possibly be a negative? How can this possibly be bad when it adds to jobs, when it strengthens our economy, and when it makes us more secure as a nation.

There are many win/wins that we see in these energy proposals we have in front of us that Senator Hoeven has offered. But, again, if we only have an opportunity to kind of talk aloud about them but never actually have the chance to move them forward through a legislative process so they can actually become law so we can actually see those benefits play out, it doesn't do us much good.

I appreciate what my colleague has outlined this afternoon through his proposals. I know we will have an opportunity to speak further to them tomorrow, and I look forward to doing that as well.

King Cove

I want to take 5 minutes in this late afternoon to continue to educate not only my colleagues but folks within this administration and around the country about an injustice that continues to unfold in a small corner of my State, a very remote part of my State in southwestern Alaska for the small community of King Cove. There are about 950 people who live in King Cove.

I have been fighting since I came to the Senate, and before I came my father took up this fight, in an effort to get a small connector road, a small 10-mile, one-lane gravel, noncommercial-use road that will allow the people of King Cove access to an all-weather airport so they can get out in the event of medical emergencies.

We had another one last night. I had an email saying the weather had completely taken over in the gulf in King Cove, and there was an emergency call that went out. It was for a 58-year-old fisherman who had been injured. He had been out on a Seattle-based processor called the M/V Golden Alaska.

This fisherman happened to live in Seattle, and he was onboard this boat. They were out near Unimak Island, which is out toward the chain in the North Pacific, when this fisherman was accidentally sprayed with a high-pressure hose and it severely injured his eye. It was 1 a.m. when this incident happened.

We have this big vessel, a big processing vessel of 305 feet, heading from Dutch Harbor to Seattle when the accident happened. I don't have a map with me, but if we can envision, there is a lot of big, wide-open ocean, and medical care is a long way away. This fisherman couldn't wait for that medical care. The closest deepwater port was King Cove.

King Cove got the word that they had an injured fisherman onboard and they said: Look, our clinic can't handle somebody who has critical needs. See if you can take the boat over to Cold Bay so that not necessarily he can get medical care, he could get on an aircraft out of Cold Bay that could fly him the 600 miles or thereabouts to Anchorage for the medical care he needed. But the problem they faced was they had wind gusts of up to 60 miles per hour. They had rough seas, very rough seas.

The ship's captain said: I am not going into Cold Bay. I am not going to try to hoist a man who has been severely injured in his eye--I am not going to try to hoist him up a 20-foot ladder at the Cold Bay dock. We are not going to do that.

So they went into King Cove, a safer, more protected cove, and they were able to get the gentleman there at 11:30 a.m. The physician's assistant--we don't have a doctor in King Cove, we have a PA, somebody who basically does a good job in stabilizing folks. She contacted the emergency room in Anchorage.

The ER folks said: Look, you have to get this guy to an ophthalmologist as

soon as you possibly can in order to preserve as much of his eyesight as possible.

As I mentioned, not only does King Cove not have a doctor, they don't have any kind of a eye specialist. The nearest ophthalmologist is in Anchorage, more than 600 miles away.

The PA, Katie Eby, did what health professionals at the clinic always do in an emergency like this. She calls for help to our Coast Guard. She begs the Coast Guard to come. The Coast Guard says they will come, but they can't come now. They can't chance the weather to get in there. They are not going to risk a pilot and his crew to get into this situation where we unnecessarily put even more lives at risk. They said: Look, we are going to have to wait until the conditions improve and the winds die down. So the physician's assistant tries to stabilize the fisherman, manage his pain as best she can and basically she waits, holding the hand of a man and telling him the Coast Guard will come.

The Coast Guard did finally make it in around 3 in the afternoon the next day. So this injured fisherman waited 13 hours for the winds to settle.

The problem with this story, of course, is there were other alternatives for this fisherman who had been injured, who had to wait in pain wondering if he was going to go blind, if he was going to completely lose his eyesight while he was waiting for the Coast Guard helicopter to come in, to pluck him out, to fly him over to Cold Bay, and have a flight take him to Anchorage. The other alternative--the safe, reliable, affordable way out is a 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road. If that fisherman could have been put in an ambulance and taken across that road, a dozen hours could have been spared.

Yesterday's medevac marks the fifth medevac by the Coast Guard in this current year. In 2014, we have had five Coast Guard medevacs. Keep in mind, each one of these medevacs costs around $210,000 per flight. So for those who are saying we can't have a road in King Cove because it is going to cost the taxpayers money, it is costing the taxpayers money because we are footing the bill for the Coast Guard.

Thank goodness the Coast Guard is there. But we are also putting the lives of these men and women--our fine coasties--at risk when we are doing this. If we had a road, who is building the road? It is the State of Alaska. Who is maintaining the road? It is the Aleutians East Borough. This is not the U.S. taxpayer who is paying for this, again, 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road.

There are options here. But the Secretary of the Interior has determined she wants to look at other options. She wants to find other alternatives. The fact of the matter is we have been looking at alternatives for a long time now, and those alternatives have been tried and failed or studied and reviewed and discarded.

But the one thing we are pretty sure of is that this fisherman from Seattle who was injured and had to wait 13 hours to get out--we are pretty sure we could have put him on an ambulance across that road--if one existed--and he would not have had to wait for 12 hours.

We are pretty sure that the 63-year-old woman who suffered heart issues on Valentine's Day and had to wait hours and hours for the Coast Guard to pluck her out of King Cove before she was able to safely make it to the hospital in Anchorage, we are pretty sure she could have been spared some of that agony.

We are pretty sure that a couple of weeks ago when a father who had been crushed by a 600-pound crab pot--his pelvis crushed and his legs broken--that for hours and hours and hours he waited in the King Cove clinic to get medevaced out, and of the fact that his infant son, a 1- month old baby named Wyatt who was there in respiratory distress also had to be medevaced out on the same day, only that baby had to make it through the night in the arms of the physician's assistant, and the PA knowing and feeling the infant was in distress and actually feeling him stop breathing.

If we had a road in place, with the agony of not only the individuals who have been injured but the loved ones who care about them, there are better alternatives, and, it is very clear to me, alternatives that work for the people who live there and the people who are in the area-- the fishermen.

Maybe I am taking this a little too personally because my oldest son crabbed in the Bering Sea this winter. He was out in those waters. He was out in that foul weather. He was working in a very dangerous industry. Anybody who has ever watched ``Deadliest Catch'' knows what I am talking about. Both my sons fish in these areas. They go through the Gulf of Alaska. They go through Nunivak Pass every year as fishermen. If something should happen to them or to somebody else on their crew, and the closest deepwater port for them happened to be King Cove but the weather was to the ground, I want a road for them.

I want a road for the people in King Cove. I want a road for the Seattle fisherman who is transiting back. It is a lifeline. It is a way to get to help. Right now, the one thing keeping these people from getting help is the Secretary of the Interior because she has concluded that we cannot build a 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road without disturbing the waterfowl, the black brant, and the geese that go through the Izembek.

We have all heard my story on this many times before. We know we can build this small road and have it coexist peacefully with the birds that go through there. We know the people who live there will continue to care for the waterfowl and the wildlife just as they have for thousands of years.

I don't want to keep coming to the floor and ranting about why we need this road. I don't want to make it appear we are sensationalizing the injuries of men, women, and children for the purpose of winning this fight. But I am not going to have somebody die out there when we could have found a safer and saner path forward.

So I am going to keep coming to the floor. I hope the Secretary of the Interior is listening, that folks in the administration are listening, and that they understand we in Alaska can be responsible for the lands where we live, and we can provide for the health and safety of those who are out there and those who are transiting through. But we need this Secretary to do the right thing for the people of the State of Alaska and provide for a life-saving road.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 400, submitted earlier today.

Madam President, over the past several days we have all watched the news of the massive landslide in Washington State. We have watched that with sadness, with shock--truly an awful, awful episode. Our hearts, our prayers are certainly with all of those who have been affected by this terrible tragedy. We continue to hope for the best as rescue and recovery efforts continue.

Today I have come to the floor to speak about a different natural disaster. This is a natural disaster that affected Alaska on Good Friday exactly 50 years ago today, in 1964. This is the Great Alaska Earthquake, the Good Friday Earthquake, the epic earthquake of 1964.

At the time that Alaska was struck by this massive earthquake, I was a young child. I was living in the southeastern community of Wrangell, AK. I have a map here, a map of the State of Alaska. The epicenter of the earthquake is here in the south central area. About a year prior to the quake, my family and I moved down to the small southeastern community of Wrangell, tucked safely in the inland passage waterways here.

We were all looking forward to Easter. When the earthquake hit, I certainly did not know that we had been struck by a massive, massive 9.2 earthquake of the magnitude on the Richter scale that decimated southcentral Alaska. The earthquake struck at 5:36 in the evening. I did not know that what had just occurred was the largest earthquake to strike the United States in recorded history. It is the second largest earthquake ever recorded on modern instrumentation.

Those of us who lived in Alaska at the time have memories of what happened on Good Friday 50 years ago. We have stories that will live with us for generations and passed down from generation to generation. You can talk to Alaskans about it: Where were you in the quake of 1964?

We had just moved, as I said, from Anchorage to Wrangell, AK. We did not feel the shake in Wrangell. We waited

for the big waves to come. We waited for the tsunami. We sat listening to the radio. But our home was situated directly on the beach. Everyone was told to move up to higher ground. So we moved everybody in the family, five kids at the time, up the hill. We went to my first grade teacher's house, which was really quite exciting for me.

We were allowed to stay up late into the evening. As a small child, there was a buzz. It was kind of exciting but kind of scary because we did not know what was happening in other parts of the State. My mom had basically packed some diapers for the smallest of the children in the family. She tells me that she brought along her silver tea set. That is the only thing that she brought from the house, along with the five kids.

We also tell the story of the home that we lived in just before we had moved to Wrangell. It was situated in a residential area called Turnagain. Turnagain was the area that was immediately and massively hit.

This is the Turnagain neighborhood. Our home that we lived in prior to moving to Wrangell was situated about two blocks back from the bluff. After the earthquake, the bluff slid down taking tens and tens of houses with it. The home that we were in then became bluff property. It was condemned never to be lived in again.

We all have stories of the earthquake. We saw the news accounts as they came slowly to us. We saw the photographs of the collapsed buildings.

I am going to go back to the first picture here. This first one that was up initially is downtown Anchorage, AK, 1964. This is on Fourth Avenue. You can see from the picture the ground just sunk, dropped--the crumpled buildings, the cars cattywumpus.

The destruction and the devastation in the downtown area literally took your breath away. One very photographed picture was the J.C. Penney building which had just recently been constructed. The whole front facade of the J.C. Penney building just crashed down onto the streets and onto the cars below.

This is a picture here of Government Hill Elementary School. I showed you the previous picture where my family and I had lived in the neighborhood at Turnagain when I was a child. When my husband and I bought our home, where our sons were raised, it was directly across the street from this property where Government Hill Elementary literally slid down the hill.

As you can see from the picture there, the devastation to the school was extraordinary. Fortunately, it was 5:36 in the evening on Good Friday, and there were no children at the school. But the devastation, the visual impact that still remains as we look back 50 years now at what happened--the stories of loss of property, of damage to property, the stories of loss of life and truly miraculous survival--slowly started to reveal the extent of the destruction from an earthquake that Federal scientists would tell us years later was roughly equivalent to 100 million tons of TNT exploding--massive.

The Good Friday Earthquake reshaped the Alaska landscape. Land was lifted 33 feet in some places, and then in other places it sank in the ground--sank as much as 6 feet in places. Cliffs and buildings crumbled, forests and towns were flooded. Huge waves approximately 200 feet high were measured near the community of Valdez. A 200-foot wall of water was coming into the community of Valdez. Communities were literally washed off the map in Anchorage.

This is a picture here of Seward, which again is in Resurrection Bay along the coast, but the waves literally came in and swept everything out with it. But it was not just one wave. It was a series of waves. Anchorage, which is our State's most populous city and really the center of infrastructure in the State, was just 74 miles from the epicenter of the quake.

That is where we see so many pictures of the tremendous damage there. There has been a series of articles in our local newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News, leading up to this historic 50th anniversary. It is a series written by Mike Dunham. I ask unanimous consent that a portion of these series be printed in the Record.

But in the series discussing the tsunamis that hit Alaska, I would like to share with my colleagues some of the information that Mike outlined. He said NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center puts the total number of deaths resulting from the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964 at 139. Fifteen of those deaths are attributed to falling buildings or crumbling ground during the quake itself. The rest were killed by the water. Thirty-two people died when a wave 30-feet high built up in Valdez. Similar-sized waves took 12 lives in Seward, and 15 in Kodiak and its surrounding villages. Another dozen perished when a wall of water 40-feet high smashed into Whittier in the Prince William Sound village of Chenega. One-third of the population, 23 people, were swept away by a 90-foot wave.

One thing that I found very fascinating in understanding some of the attributes of this earthquake and the tsunamis that came is that in many places the ground was still shaking when the water hit. Keep in mind, this earthquake lasted 4\1/2\ minutes--4\1/2\ minutes where the earth is lurching and shuddering and shaking. That is a horribly long time.

The first tsunami that hit Valdez, I am told, hit just 2 minutes after the quake had begun. So imagine the terror. You have got the ground moving all around you, up and down, lurching back and forth, and 2 minutes into it, you have a tsunami at your doorstep.

The loss of life from the tsunamis did not stop at the Alaska border, though. Four children died in Beverly Beach State Park in Oregon; 12 people died in California, mostly in the waves that destroyed Crescent City's harbor.

But we know that it could have been much worse. The death toll was low for an earthquake of this magnitude. As I mentioned, it was after work. It was on a holiday.

It occurred in an area with a small population that constructed buildings from wood, not bricks or other heavier materials. But the Good Friday Earthquake and the subsequent tsunamis that followed caused some $3.75 billion in damage and that is in today's dollars. This is 50 years ago, so $3.75 billion is amazing.

Also, consider this was largely done to a State that was barely 5 years old, but the impacts reached far beyond Alaska. Tsunamis also caused damage to many of our Pacific neighbors, including Canada, Washington, Oregon, California, Washington, and Hawaii.

Those tsunamis destroyed everything in their path. They destroyed houses, cars, boats, and fishing gear all along the Pacific coast. In Ocean City, WA, a bridge over the Copalis River collapsed. In Crescent City, CA, a dockside tavern was destroyed. In Hilo, HI, 12.5 foot waves overran the waterfront. Seiches, which are seismically induced water waves in rivers, lakes, bayous, and harbors, caused minor damage. It wasn't extensive damage, but it caused damage along the gulf coasts of Louisiana and Texas. Think about how this massive earthquake reverberated around the world.

If we look again to the map that has the epicenter, we would think the extent would only be where the epicenter lines, the falt limits go, but in fact when we account for the tsunami effect, it truly was an amazing instance where Mother Nature came together in a massive and a violent way.

As we think about the devastation, the loss of life, the lost property, we have to ask the question whether anything good can come from a tragedy such as the Good Friday Earthquake, but I think the answer is ultimately yes. We came together, Alaskans came together in the aftermath of the quake and the tsunamis to help rebuild the worst hit communities. We rebuilt them to withstand earthquakes and in locations that are hopefully protected from the ravages of future tsunamis. We set aside parks to remember the historic earthquake and to prevent future building on landslide-prone cliffs. Out of the devastation we did gain a better understanding of what is happening below the surface in Alaska and other earthquake-prone areas.

In the 1960s we had very little information about what caused the massive shifts in the Good Friday Earthquake. There was very little understanding of the giant tectonic plates that make up the surface of the Earth and how their movement causes earthquakes. The 1964 earthquake resulted in greater seismic monitoring across the country

and has led scientists to have a far better understanding of how earthquakes occur and where they occur. We can now better protect our citizens by implementing better building codes and preparing for earthquake disaster response in earthquake-prone regions, thereby reducing the chance that another earthquake would result in so many deaths.

The tsunamis that were spawned by the Good Friday Earthquake provided scientists with a unique and important set of tsunami arrival times and heights that have been used to validate new models of tsunami propagation. These models have allowed our scientists and emergency authorities to warn coastal populations of potential tsunamis, protecting life and property.

We see these exercises and drills conducted certainly in my State, I know in Hawaii, and in our coastal communities.

The science has come a long way in the past 50 years and Alaska has too. As we mark this historic anniversary, we remember those who perished in the Good Friday Earthquake.

We salute the men and women who help protect our safety by monitoring and researching earthquakes and tsunamis, both in our State and in others. We thank the first responders who helped Alaskans in 1964, just as we thank those who are helping with the recovery in Washington today. Let us also use this occasion to consider whether we ourselves are prepared for the worst should we ever face a similar day of reckoning in the future.

To recognize this historic event, I have submitted a Senate resolution that commemorates the Great Alaska Earthquake. My colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich, and my colleagues from Oregon, California, and Hawaii have joined me.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak again on this historic event to recognize those who lost lives, lost family, and those who helped to not only ensure that Alaska was able to regroup and regain but knowing we have used these lessons learned 50 years ago to help us going forward.

Mr. President, first, I thank my friend from Maine and appreciate the conversations we have had in this past week. He has taken a journey to the north that most of us only dream about. He is engaged in issues I care deeply about as it relates to the Arctic. Although I know that was not the discussion my colleague was speaking to earlier, I just wanted to note while my friend from Maine was still on the floor that I look forward to working on these issues of great importance not only to my State but truly to our entire Nation and Arctic Nation.

I come to the floor this evening to speak very briefly about the physical security of our Nation's power grid, which is a very important subject. Recently, there were stories in the Wall Street Journal about an attack on the California Metcalf substation that happened last April and has drawn considerable attention. While those stories about that attack highlighted potential vulnerabilities, my principal focus will be to highlight not only the safeguards that are already in place to protect the Nation's bulk power system but also to announce a step that I believe is now necessary to prevent the undue release of sensitive nonpublic information.

First and foremost--and I think this is important for people to recognize--it is important to remember that during the Metcalf incident, the PG&E system did not lose power. In fact, it was an incident that many didn't know had taken place until months after because there was no loss of power. I think this fact emphasizes the grid's resiliency and the importance of building redundancy into the bulk power system.

As usual, the electric industry has learned from and responded to-- appropriately responded--the California incident. At the end of last year the Departments of Energy and Homeland Security--along with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC, along with the Federal Regulatory Commission, or FERC, and the FBI began a cross- country tour of 10 cities in order to brief utility operators and local law enforcement on the lessens that were learned from Metcalf. Government officials discussed mitigation strategies and meeting participants were able to develop some pretty important relationships between first responders and the industry.

In fact, as a result of the mandatory requirements of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, the electric industry has invested significant resources to address both physical and cyber security threats and vulnerabilities. Through partnerships with various Federal agencies, the industry is keenly focused on preparation, prevention, response, and recovery.

For example, NERC holds yearly security conferences and a grid exercise which tests and prepares industry on physical and cyber security events. Yet former FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff was quoted in the Wall Street Journal calling the Metcalf incident ``the most significant incident of domestic terrorism involving the grid that has ever occurred.''

In my view, comments such as these are certainly sensational. Depending on the factual context, they can actually be reckless.

Although the topic of physical security warrants discussion-- absolutely warrants discussion and debate--we have to be prudent about information for the public sphere. Many government leaders are privy to confidential and sensitive information that if not treated carefully could provide a roadmap to terrorists or other bad actors about our vulnerabilities. At a minimum, government officials have a duty to safeguard sensitive information that they learn in their official capacity.

A story that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on March 13 was, I believe, shocking because it included sensitive information about the Nation's energy infrastructure that the newspaper said came from documents that were created at FERC. Although the Wall Street Journal did not name specific facilities at risk, it did detail the geographic regions and the number of facilities that if simultaneously disabled could cause serious harm. The March 13 article claimed the potential for a national blackout.

I want to commend FERC Chair Cheryl LaFleur for her statement regarding the publication of this information. I thank Commissioner Tony Clark as well for his statement about the matter.

I think it is fortunate our current FERC Commissioners are an independent lot. I understand that the Commission is looking into this matter, including the question of how sensitive internal FERC documents made their way into a very high-profile news article. I urge FERC to be very diligent in this matter and truly leave no stone unturned.

I have grave questions about the irresponsible release of nonpublic information that unduly pinpoints potential vulnerabilities of our Nation's grid. If this conduct is not already illegal, I have suggested it should be. The source of the leaked information appears to be someone with access to highly sensitive, narrowly distributed FERC documents. Releasing this sensitive information for publication has put the Nation potentially at greater risk and potentially endangered lives, including those of the many good people who are faithfully working every day to maintain and to protect the grid.

In order to learn what has happened and to determine how better to safeguard critical information as steps are being taken to make the grid less vulnerable, my colleague, the chairman of the energy committee, Senator Landrieu, and I have written to the inspector general of the Department of Energy whose oversight includes FERC.

It is our understanding that the IG has already begun an inquiry into this matter. We have asked him to conclude his inquiry as soon as possible. We have also asked for his immediate assurance that if the inquiry must ripen into an investigation, that he will--as we have every confidence he would--follow the information he learns wherever it leads.

We are eager to receive recommendations to improve the safeguard of keeping sensitive information from disclosure. We have also asked the IG to look into the obligations of current and former FERC Commissioners and employees with respect to nonpublic information. I would certainly hope the inspector general's inquiry leads to the identification of the person or persons who provided this sensitive, nonpublic information to the media, but even if it does not, even if we learn the leak of this information could have been accomplished without the violation of any disclosure restrictions, we will consider introducing legislation to make sure that in the future the disclosure of nonpublic information about our energy infrastructure that puts our Nation at risk is a violation of Federal law. We must remember that the possibility of a physical attack that disables key parts of the grid has always been a risk. Again, in this instance, though, with the Metcalf instance, our system worked and no power was lost. Therefore, I urge a measured approach when evaluating our next steps in response to Metcalf. Erecting barriers at every transmission substation and surveillance of every inch of transmission is not feasible. I am concerned these types of measures will potentially cost billions of dollars with little impact. There must also be a balance between the measures related to physical security and the costs that would likely be passed through to consumers.

On March 7, the FERC used the grid reliability framework that Congress established in the 2005 Energy Policy Act by directing NERC to establish standards addressing physical vulnerabilities to better protect our Nation's power grid. NERC has 90 days to develop its proposed standards through a collaborative process. The proposed standard will then be reviewed independently before it is submitted to the FERC.

Our Energy Policy Act standards are foundational. Constant information sharing between government and industry, coupled with alerts for rapid response, are also key tools for dealing with the changing state of security.

As policymakers we must include physical security as a key issue in our decisions. We must also take measured steps to protect the grid, but we shouldn't sensationalize the threat. I commend NERC and FERC for starting the standard-setting process, and I urge all of the participants to strike this balance between measures related to physical security and costs and benefits for electric customers and the broader public as a whole.

Again, I thank the chairman of the energy committee for her willingness to join me on this letter which again I feel is very important as we begin this review through the inspector general. I know the Presiding Officer, as a valued member of the energy committee, is very keenly aware of these issues when we talk about our grid reliability threats to not only the physical security of our infrastructure but most certainly the cyber security threats we face as well.

I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair this evening.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referenced in my remarks be printed in the Record.

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

Thank you, Mr. President.

In Alaska there is a great deal of attention focused this week on the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964. March 27 marked the 50th anniversary of this amazing physical event, the second largest earthquake that has ever been recorded, an episode Alaskans have been talking about for the past 50 years and will be talking about for the next 50. I rise this afternoon not to speak about that anniversary but to speak of a 25-year anniversary that while not caused by Mother Nature had a devastating impact on Alaska and the surrounding waters of our State. I would like to speak very briefly about where we are 25 years after the Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef.

The Exxon Valdez was a 987-foot tanker. It was carrying 53 million gallons of crude oil. It struck Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound at 12:04 a.m., on March 24, 1989, and within literally hours it had released approximately 11 million gallons of crude oil into the water.

As most know, the Alaskan coastline isn't just a nice thin straight beach; it is hundreds and hundreds of coves and islands and miles of shoreline. That oil spread over approximately 1,000 miles of shoreline across our coast. It is absolutely a fact that this environmental disaster is something that has left an impression on Alaskans not unlike what we experienced 25 years prior to that with another one of Mother Nature's devastations, the Great Friday earthquake in 1964.

It is important when we have milestones, when we have anniversaries or times where we pause to think about what has happened before, that we not only think about the tragedy at the time but we think about how we have moved forward from that time, hopefully learning from those incidents that trigger such strong memories.

So many Alaskans have stories of how they worked to help clean up the oil spill in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez, whether it was fishermen who had been displaced--they were no longer going out and fishing; instead they charged their vessels to be part of the massive cleanup effort that was underway. The stories that are out there throughout our State and from folks around the country are as poignant and touching 25 years later as they were at the time, because as the environment was impacted, the lives of Alaskans were clearly impacted.

I like to think I spend a good amount of time in the small fishing community of Cordova--a community that was dramatically impacted by the Exxon Valdez spill--visiting with fishermen and fishing families decades after the fact and hearing their stories not only of the loss they incurred because they were not able to go out and fish, they were not able to meet their boat mortgages, but the other stresses the community experienced because of this disaster, whether it was personal bankruptcies, whether it was divorce, whether it was social issues because people just couldn't deal with the fact that their landscape and their livelihoods had been changed. It was a very trying and traumatic time. I think those scars take decades to heal.

My hope is that, as Alaskans, we come together and learn from these tragedies and events so we can move forward. We are pretty resilient people. The people who have been so dramatically impacted are proof and evidence of that.

What else have we seen as we have tried to learn from that tragedy? I think it is fair to say that at the time--back in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez ran aground--there was perhaps, as some would call it, a complacency. Perhaps we were just not monitoring operations as we should have,

but we had an industry that had been operating quite safely--absolutely safely--for decades without incident. When you lose that vigilance, things can happen, and things happened with the Exxon Valdez.

Since that time, we have learned that you have to have a level of preparedness as you operate in areas such as the Prince William Sound, you have to have a level of preparedness that meets the challenge you face. At the time the tanker ran aground, the spill response equipment that was there and had been planned for was not readily available. We didn't have sufficient boom available in the event of a disaster. We didn't have the fleet that could go out and assist in the disaster.

Now, 25 years later, Alyeska has 189 skimmers, 49 miles of boom and on-water storage capacity of almost 38 million gallons. We have put in place a requirement that North Slope oil must be transported in double- hull tankers. You cannot bring a tanker in to carry North Slope crude unless it is double-hulled. It doesn't matter what the weather is, we require a level of escort--a two-tug escort--out of the Prince William Sound. It can be a flat, calm summer day or a foul winter day, but every tanker going out is escorted by two tugs. We also have radar monitors that are in place that truly allow for a greater level of oversight and scrutiny.

What we have done in response to the spill is, I think, something that is worthy of note. Clearly, it is something that Other Nations look to as the example of preparedness. We have our Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council in place. They are truly active and engaged, not only with the community, but with the fishing fleets.

We have learned that the company Alyeska--the management company for the transportation of Alaska's North Slope oil--conducts two major oil spill drills every year to make sure that there is a level of preparedness. We have about 400 local fishing boat owners that are trained to deploy and maintain the boom. They come together with drills to make sure we never have anything like we saw with the Exxon Valdez again.

I think it is fair to say that 25 years after the spill, we are continuing to monitor not only the land and water but our fisheries. I recognize we still have a herring fishery that has not yet recovered. We still have a bird population--the guillemot--which has not recovered.

Twenty-five years is a long time. When you have a disaster, as we had, it does leave an impact. My goal, mission, and effort as a legislator is to make certain we do not have a level of complacency where we close our eyes and fail in our efforts for preparedness again.

I think what we have demonstrated in Alaska since the spill is, as I say, admirable in recognizing that we had failed in a level of prevention, but we also recognized we could learn from that tragedy and move forward, and we did.

I wanted to take a couple of minutes this afternoon and acknowledge that there are still many Alaskans who woke up this morning not thinking about the weather or getting their kids to school, but with a very strong reminder of where they were 25 years ago and how the events of that day changed people's lives. Again, the goal here is to never have a tragedy of that scale and scope again.

With that, I thank the Chair, yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.