Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in support of a resolution I submitted in recognition and celebration of the 2014 Arctic Winter Games. This year's games are being held in Fairbanks, AK, and run for one week, from this Saturday to next. I feel honored that I am able to attend. In fact, I will be attending the opening ceremony with the honorable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, and Chair of the Arctic Council. I am excited to be able to show her Fairbanks and cheer on our respective teams.

The Arctic Winter Games was envisioned over 40 years ago by Alaska Governor Wally Hickel and commissioners from the Northwest Territories and Yukon to provide an opportunity for athletic competition for northern athletes and coaches. Today, the games have grown to be an important opportunity to share cultural values from northern regions around the world, and have some good old fashioned fun.

The 2014 games welcome more than 2,100 athletes from 9 contingents, from the United States, Canada, Greenland, and Russia, including 287 Alaskans. Twenty different sports are included, both winter and summer--from dog mushing to hockey to gymnastics to soccer to wrestling. I wish the best of luck to all the athletes. I thank Fairbanks for hosting the event, as well as the 2,600 volunteers who will contribute to the success of this year's games.

I hope you will join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. President, I, too, am pleased to rise today to join my fellow women Senators on the floor this afternoon to speak in support of the bipartisan Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014. I also commend Senator Mikulski and Senator Burr on their leadership in developing a truly bipartisan bill as we are moving forward. They have worked diligently and they have worked in a positive and constructive manner that does credit to the Senate operations. I also would like to recognize and commend Senator Harkin and Senator Alexander, as they have brought this bill through the committee and onto the floor.

I believe this legislation walks that line between asking the States, our tribes, and providers to plan ways to improve childcare quality without actually dictating the who and how and the what of every aspect of childcare. What the bill really does is it strengthens the ways in which providers can combine CCDBG, Head Start, title I, and IDEA funds to serve more kids, and if we can serve more kids, that is all good. It asks them to take an updated look at how they serve children with disabilities and how they will address nutrition and fitness and health and safety issues, but it will continue to let them figure out the best ways to achieve the goals, and that really does make sense.

In addition, as a result of the bipartisan nature of how this bill has come together, Alaskan voices were heard on this, and Alaskan concerns about several provisions in the original draft of the bill were addressed. For example, States that will be required to perform health, safety, and fire inspections may delegate to qualified agencies those inspections that require specialized expertise. That helps us in Alaska.

The committee report clarified that States' disaster preparedness standards include specific mention of children with disabilities and family reunification.

I was pleased to work with my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Hirono, to make sure the bill managers included the technical amendments she had requested, which ensured that Native Hawaiian children were not inadvertently left out.

I again thank Senators Mikulski, Burr, Alexander, and Harkin for accepting those amendments that have made this bill that much better.

Mr. President, ensuring that families and children are well served by the childcare they pay for, in part with CCDBG assistance, is an important task before the Congress because this is not just about daycare or early learning, as important as those topics are. The fact is that access to high-quality, safe, and affordable childcare is really the key component when we are talking about those things that build strong economies and strong American communities.

This assistance allows parents to get the education or the training they need to qualify for a good job. It allows them to accept and keep a good job that will help pay those bills. It helps employers hire qualified employees who are then able to work. It helps the children get the foundation they need both academically and socially to be prepared to succeed in school and life.

Getting CCDBG-funded childcare up to speed with the 21st century is a key element in addressing income inequality and the deep recession that is still present for so many low-income American families. This is especially true for American Indian and Alaska Native families. American Indians and Alaska Natives experience exceptionally high unemployment levels compared to the rest of the Nation. I think the Presiding Officer knows this from his State, but in many regions of Alaska unemployment among our Native people is more than double our statewide rate. In the lower 48, unemployment on our Indian reservations was at approximately 50 percent in 2012.

We also know that high-quality early education can have an important and positive effect on the often very difficult academic and social outcomes we can see with our American Indians and our Alaska Native children if they do not have some of these foundational opportunities before them. So increasing these families' access to quality early education can have an important, positive effect on these children by improving their academic outcomes and their economic opportunities and really bringing hope to the community.

I thank the Senators on the floor for supporting the amendment we just had in front of us. Senator Franken and I had offered the tribal set-aside. This change, which moves the set-aside from a ceiling to a floor, will provide tribes with an opportunity to work with HHS to receive additional support for the childcare opportunities that are so needed in Indian Country.

I am proud of the work we are doing in the Senate this week. We could have hotlined this bill and passed it by unanimous consent, but I think the path we have taken is the right one in bringing the bill to the floor and giving each Member the opportunity to be heard on ways to improve the bill. Holding votes on amendments in the regular order is the right thing to do. I applaud the chairwoman and those who have worked so hard, and I look forward to supporting this bill as we see its conclusion.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, with the very unfortunate events in Ukraine in the headlines and the Ukrainian people close to our hearts, I rise today to speak to a topic that has significance not only for that European crisis and for our own well-being but also bearing a little bit on the longer term subject of climate change, which, of course, was a big discussion here last night.

This morning I am speaking to the American energy renaissance and its broader benefits to us all.

Today American technology and know-how are delivering energy abundance, keeping energy affordable, enabling energy to be cleaner than the next most likely alternative, permitting us to rely on ever more diverse energy sources, and, finally, improving energy security for our people here in this country and around the world.

America's overall production of nearly every type of energy is rising. The efficiency of just about everything--whether it is our vehicles or whether it is our buildings--is increasing. And in comparing our supply with our demand, we are rapidly approaching a self-sufficiency rate of 90 percent. The American energy revolution has generated a variety of welcome benefits. It is creating jobs. It has generated revenues. It has helped reduce both energy prices and price volatility. And as our Nation imports less, the simple fact is there is more energy available for others. That, in turn, is creating the kinds of supply conditions in the world oil market that allow all of us to deal with the bad actors from a position of relative strength.

There was a recent essay in Foreign Affairs which argued that energy has been viewed as a strategic liability in the United States since back in the 1970s. Now energy is becoming a strategic asset--a strategic asset--and one that can boost the U.S. economy and grant Washington newfound leverage around the world. It is really hard to disagree with that.

The question then becomes, What will we do with this strategic asset? How will we use our newfound position? There was a survey of responses to Russia's disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty, and of those prudent areas where the United States might go. Energy is clearly among the most major strategic assets we possess. How we use it to bring about geopolitical stability can really define our leadership in the world.

Our first real challenge as a nation is how to keep this American resurgence going. There are two specific areas where we have to make some decisions; that is, whether to grant access to new lands and new markets, and that will go a long way in determining whether we actually do that.

As I noted, America's total energy production has increased dramatically in recent years, but within those numbers there is a serious dichotomy. Nearly the entire oil and gas production resurgence here in the United States has occurred on State and private lands, not the millions of acres managed by the Federal Government. Despite the discussion of all of the above and no small amount of credit taken by the administration, combined carbon fuel production on Federal lands actually fell from 2008 to 2012. That is a disappointing trend which, in my view, needs to be reversed.

Consider, for example, the opportunity we are missing in my State of Alaska. Thirty years ago, in March 1984, Alaskan crude oil production stood at 1.6 million barrels per day. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System had been completed just a decade earlier. There were debates over opening new areas to production and even allowing exports of crude oil from the State, but the Federal Government did not act at that time. It did not seize Alaska's best and most obvious opportunities. Production peaked at 2.1 million barrels per day in March 1988. It has been on general decline ever since then. Alaska's production has dipped below the half million barrels per day marker several times since 2012. This is a fall of nearly 75 percent from its high.

Back home we keep talking about a pipeline that is less than half full. The difference is not only geography, it is also policy. Our Federal policies are not working as they should. State policies, combined with private sector inventiveness, powerful as they are, cannot overcome the Federal barriers. In North Dakota, where we see a booming energy market, only 4 percent of that State is federally held. In Texas, it is just 2 percent of Federal lands. In Alaska, 62 percent of our lands are Federal, and most of our untapped resources are within these Federal areas.

Alaska's falling production is a missed opportunity--a missed opportunity--to create jobs, to generate revenues, to stabilize world energy prices, to diversify world energy supplies. And it is not the only place in America where potential growth is going unrealized. We are passing up tremendous opportunities off of our Atlantic coast, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and in the Rocky Mountains West. We also have increasingly burdensome regulations that slow the pace of development in the Federal lands that are open.

All of this highlights the need to reexamine our Federal energy policies and really reorient them for a new century.

That leads us to the subject of exports.

Back in January I laid out the case for why we need to renovate the architecture of U.S. energy trade. We have substantial opportunities for exports of coal, petroleum products, natural gas, natural gas liquids, renewable technology, nuclear technology, and even crude oil. I have called for the lifting of the de facto prohibition on crude oil exports as a preemptive measure. I say what we need to do is lift it to prevent

future losses of production and jobs when our trade restrictions inevitably collide with this surge of light tight oil and condensate production that comes out. The conversation I hoped to frame last year in January when I submitted my ``Energy 20/20'' report is really very well underway.

My point is that we must increase the value of energy as an American strategic asset for global security and price stability.

I wish to say a couple of words--maybe more than a couple but a few words--about climate change. Many groups have formed to go on the offensive to ``wake Congress up'' on the issue of climate. They want to force the Nation to talk about this subject no matter what the issue of the day might be. Unfortunately, they also seem to want to blame Republican Members and somehow also to adopt policies that this body has rejected year after year. So much of the climate change conversation seems to be defined by old ideas that have been rejected. It seems that if one is not supportive of yet another regulatory edifice, either through cap and trade, a carbon tax, or letting the EPA expand its authority without any checks by the people's representatives in Congress, then somehow or other one is against the environment. I reject that.

I want to see greater balance. I know we can achieve it, and I think it is important that, again, we reframe the conversation. I think finding agreement on environmental policy is hard, but it is not impossible. I think what we need to do is kind of pull back and change the conversation we are having.

What I want to remind my colleagues of is that part of the opposition I have had to some of the ideas I have heard from folks is based on what those policies would mean for our affordability of energy. Here I mean not just for Americans who are energy insecure, including residents in my State and in some of our most remote areas who already face exorbitant energy costs, but also the 1.3 billion people across the globe with no reliable access to electricity. Worldwide-- worldwide--families are struggling to attain the basic necessities of life. Although many portray climate change as our most pressing moral issue, I would suggest it is but one of many. Energy poverty and energy insecurity are others, and ones that we simply cannot ignore and we should certainly not make worse.

Another part of my opposition to cap and trade or a carbon tax is based on what we have seen in Europe as compared to what has actually happened here in the United States. Without climate legislation, but with the advent of increased domestic production here through shale gas production, our greenhouse gas emissions are now 11 percent below our rate of emissions in 2005. Yet our friends across the Atlantic, who actually did pass cap and trade several years ago, haven't exactly seen the expected results. In the face of weak growth, high unemployment, and high debt, some European nations are now dialing back the extremely expensive subsidies they have offered and, at the same time, many of our NATO allies are clamoring for the cheap and the abundant natural gas that we are now producing on our State and our private lands, and they are importing our abundant and affordable coal.

The unfolding situation in Ukraine also highlights the compelling importance of energy security--something that neither a carbon tax, cap and trade or any climate bill we have seen in the Senate has properly accounted for.

Then there is the approach the President seems to want to take. Earlier this year he threatened to use his regulatory authority to regulate greenhouse gases if Congress failed to act. It is really quite a choice here. He suggests either to pass legislation that we don't like or he will enact regulations that we don't like, either way to be carried out under the Clean Air Act, just not according to the Clean Air Act.

It is difficult to consider really whether this is a serious offer. What we can say, though, is this threat and the rulemakings that will follow is contrary--contrary--to what our forefathers envisioned. Executive authority foregoes the benefits and protections of a legislative process and it curbs the debate that is needed to ensure fair and balanced policy, and particularly in this area where we need to ensure they are fair and balanced policies.

To effectively combat climate change we have to safeguard our economy. Prosperity is key to the resources that we will need to make progress. The Nation has to pursue all forms of energy and stress energy security. We cannot exclusively count on renewables to achieve a low carbon environment. Emission free nuclear energy has to be part of the solution. Technology must play a role in reaching the goals that we set for our country.

Finally, as we discuss the issues and the approaches to these issues, we have to do so with humility, keenly aware of the unintended consequences that could be worse than no action at all. Climate change is a global issue that requires global acknowledgment of the issue and global action. But through it all we must be deeply concerned and always aware about the impacts of our actions on the individual family.

I spend a lot of time in the rural parts of my State. We don't even call them rural; we use the terminology ``bush'' because it is just so remote, and these are areas where the only way to access the communities is either by air or by boat, up the river by barge. Supplies are brought in two times a year, if you live on the river system. You look around and you may be able to see the impact of climate change, and that is an awareness the people in this region have, but first and foremost, these people need to be able to live. This is where they have lived for thousands of years.

When you appreciate the costs they are paying for their energy right here and right now, I can't support anything that is going to increase the energy cost for the people in my State who are already paying-- some--close to 50 percent of their income for fuel to stay warm in the wintertime.

I have one letter here that I received just last week from a village by the name of Kwigillingok. This is an area out in the coastal villages region. In this letter from the tribal council they state:

The current cost of heating fuel is 6.02 per gallon and

gasoline at 6.52.

If I were to suggest to the fine people in Kwigillingok that in order to arrest what we may be seeing with increased emissions around the globe that their energy prices are going to double, that the cost of their heating fuel is going to go from $6.02 per gallon to $12, how will these people live?

We have to be aware of the energy insecurity, the energy poverty in far too many places in this country and truly around the world.

So as we discuss these very important issues about energy and how we do right by all, again let us do so with a level of humility and a level of respect for people all throughout our Nation.

I see that my colleague from Texas is here, another fine producing State. In fact, Texas is a State that is really doing quite well right now when it comes to our energy and our energy resources. Through the efforts of States such as Texas, North Dakota, and California we are seeing a true resurgence in our energy production, and I think an opportunity for us as a Nation to again not only provide for our energy security as a Nation but to provide for security and stability on the global scene as well.

With that, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I request permission to speak as if in morning business.

Madam President, I am happy to be on the floor this afternoon to give the announcement and the update about the running of the 42nd Iditarod in my State of Alaska. It is an extraordinarily famous and fabulous sporting event where man and dog test the elements of a course of almost 1,100 miles beginning in Willow, AK, and going all the way to Nome.

This year there were 69 teams that started out, and the first team crossed the finish line at 4 a.m. Alaska standard time this morning. It was one of those races that truly came down to almost a photo finish, with the leaders trading off literally in the last several hours. This was a situation we honestly have not seen in quite some time with the Iditarod.

With that buildup, I am pleased to announce that this year Dallas Seavey has become the winner of the 42nd running of the Iditarod, beating out Aliy Zirkle by 2 minutes 22 seconds. He and Aliy Zirkle battled it out in the last hour of the race not even understanding that the frontrunner, who had been in place of Aliy and in place of Dallas, Jeff King, had to scratch because of a ground blizzard that forced him off the trail, losing his sled and effectively having to call and ask for assistance. It was a very dramatic ending to a pretty fascinating race.

The weather has been problematic throughout. We had warm weather conditions at the outset of the race, and then to have the weather really be the No. 1 opposition at the end made it something we are going to be talking about for years.

The Presiding Officer has had the opportunity to attend the ceremonial start of the Iditarod and is familiar with the excitement when there are 60 to 70 dog teams, mushers, and all their supporters around handling the dogs. There were literally 1,000 dogs in the downtown area of Anchorage. It is really quite exciting. It is a fabulous way to come to understand the history of the Iditarod but, more importantly, to understand the mindset of some of these mushers and the dedication they have to this sport and the passion they have for their dogs.

This year I was in the chute, and I like to visit with each of the mushers as they are coming down. Dallas Seavey was in the chute, and I was talking to him. He was really excited about the course because he said: This is going to be fast. This is going to be the quickest course we have seen. It is just perfect for someone like me who is young and fit and can stand up on his sled and literally be running next to his sled the whole way.

Three mushers later is Jeff King, and Jeff is telling me: This race is the perfect race for us older guys.

Jeff is my age.

He said: It is perfect because it takes the maturity and the wisdom and having been through a series of Iditarods to know exactly how to handle a course like this.

I think both of them were right. We saw the energy and determination of young Dallas Seavey 2 years ago. When he won for the first time, he was the youngest musher to win. He demonstrated a level of energy and determination that truly knocks your socks off. But what Jeff King was able to do with his methodical planning and strategy that goes into that race is certainly something to be embraced. And then, of course, Aliy Zirkle, a 44-year-old woman demonstrating once again that tough, independent female spirit--my gosh, she was in there all the way. This is the second year now that she has come in--actually, it is not the second year she has come in second. She has come in second more times than any other musher out there.

Dallas Seavey broke the Iditarod record this morning at 4 a.m. He came in at 8 days, 13 hours, 4 minutes, 19 seconds. He shaved off almost 5 hours from John Baker's previous win back in 2011.

There were a lot of firsts and a lot to be celebrated. There are still more mushers out on the trail.

When I talked to Dallas about an hour ago to congratulate him, I said: You must be pooped and ready to go to sleep after the last 8 days.

He said: Well, I am going to wait up for my dad.

His dad, Mitch Seavey, is in third place at this point in time. We expect him to come across the finish line.

I said: Isn't it nice to know that after all the years your dad waited up for you, you get to wait up for your dad before you take a break?

Alaskans are pleased with the outcome. We are happy to celebrate amazing athletes--both human and canine--doing amazing things in an amazing State. I am pleased to be able to announce today's results.

I thank the indulgence of the Chair.

Madam President, I join my colleagues today in a discussion about an issue that I think we all would agree is an issue that really tears at the heart, causes great anguish, as we think that those who have volunteered to serve our great Nation, who have agreed to put themselves on the front lines, would be in a situation where they would be made a victim--made a victim of military sexual assault and be put into a situation where

they do not know where to turn, they do not know if it is safe to speak up, and they do not know how to respond.

Our military men and women, we are proud to say, are the most professional, the most highly trained and skilled and qualified. We will match them against any. Yet, when we face these very troubling and difficult issues of military sexual assault, it is an underside of the military culture that we have not been able to sufficiently address and eradicate.

The most recent report of the Defense Department Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, which covers 2012, speaks to the statistics. These statistics have been reported so frequently on the floor of the Senate. We know them. We share them. We really agonize over them. An estimated 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact and sexual assault occurred in fiscal year 2012, a 37 percent increase from fiscal year 2011.

Some 25 percent of women and 27 percent of men who received unwanted sexual contact indicated that the offender was someone within their military chain of command. Then, the statistics that really just go to the heart of what we are talking about here today: Across the services, 74 percent of females and 60 percent of males perceived one or more barriers to reporting the sexual assault; 50 percent of male victims stated that they did not report the crime because they believed nothing would be done.

They have been victimized once, and now they do not believe that anything will happen if they speak. They do not believe that anything will be done with their report. Some 62 percent of victims who reported a sexual assault indicated that they perceived some form of professional, social or administrative retaliation, retaliation from the system that they have been trained to trust, to be there for one another, and yet now fear retaliation.

This report was such an eye-opener for many of us. It certainly has galvanized the issue to address where we are today, to truly put on the front burner of this body, the issue of what has happened with military sexual assaults and what we can do to address it. It has remained on the front burner, thanks to the persistent efforts of the Senator from New York to keep it there. She has relentlessly pursued the vote that we will take today.

Regardless of the outcome, I think that she should take pride, I think we should all take pride in what we have collectively accomplished.

I also note the very fine work of my colleague from Missouri, Senator McCaskill, and her efforts, along with Senator Ayotte, Senator Fischer, and the Presiding Officer, to bring this issue to a level where we have seen changes made already, but the question that remains is, is there more that can be done.

This Congress has significantly improved the system through amendments to the military justice system that were included in the National Defense Authorization Act. The services have also done their part to improve ways to improve their sexual assault and prevention programs, such as making sure that a Naval Academy midshipman need not be driven across the State of Maryland searching for a hospital that has a sexual assault nurse examiner on duty.

In my State of Alaska, the headlines over the past year, as they related to military sexual assault within the ranks of our National Guard units, stunned us all. I recently received a further briefing from our adjutant general and folks within the Alaska National Guard in terms of what they too are doing to address, within their own system, the changes that are absolutely necessary.

But the question is whether these changes will move the needle on these statistics we have just recited. In my view, it remains to be seen. Will they give the victims more confidence in the system? Will they deter offenders by increasing the certainty that there is going to be accountability if these acts are taken?

Today the Senate considers the Military Justice Improvement Act, a measure that provides victims with the certainty they need to have confidence in the system. If they don't believe the system is going to be there for them, if they don't believe it is going to work for them, they are not going to report it. They will not expose themselves again.

As I said on the Senate floor before, this is strong medicine. It is very strong medicine to any offender who believes that the ``good old boys'' system will permit him to escape the consequence of his actions. In my judgment, enactment of the Military Justice Improvement Act will lead to greater consistency in charging decisions. This, again, is a very important aspect. It will ensure that those decisions are based on the facts, the law, and not any external factor. That too offers an increment of protection to victims as well as to the offenders.

The current system of military judgment relies upon the individual decisions of commanders as to whether an offense is to be punished and which charges are to be brought. We recognize we have a complex military and there are many commanders. While our code of military justice may be uniform, recent history suggests that its implementation is, unfortunately, anything but uniform.

Some have called the Gillibrand proposal a radical solution and one that will make it impossible to maintain good order and discipline in the military. I don't buy that. These were some of the statements that were made several years back when we were considering don't ask, don't tell about 3 years ago.

The military is proving it is resilient enough to implement culture change--and that is what this will take, is culture change. I believe they are resilient enough to implement a change of this magnitude, and it will be resilient enough to implement the Military Justice Improvement Act.

It is not a radical and novel solution to a difficult problem. In fact, many of our allied modern militaries have moved the decision on whether to prosecute sexual assault outside of the chain of command. They have done it. I believe it is high time we do as well.

Again, I commend those who have led so nobly on this effort to make sure that when those fine men and women stand to serve our country, there is ensured a level of justice, a level of uniformity of justice, and that we no longer see the devastating statistics we have, unfortunately, been faced with for far too long.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that MAJ Matthew Altman, a military fellow in my office, be given floor privileges for the remainder of the 113th Congress.

Mr. President, I wish to honor Alaska radio station KCAM on its 50th anniversary on the air.

KCAM, is a radio station located in Glennallen, AK and it literally had an earth-shattering start. That is because KCAM signed onto the air under emergency orders late on the day of the Great Alaskan earthquake, on March 27, 1964. While the station had been planned and in preparation for going on air, its broadcast air date was advanced under emergency orders by the Federal Communications Commission so it could provide lifesaving information and aid in disaster relief communications following the largest earthquake ever recorded in North America.

At 5:36 p.m. Alaska Standard Time on Good Friday, nearly 50 years ago, an earthquake struck deep beneath Miners Lake in northern Prince William Sound, just 90 miles southwest of Glennallen. The quake, which then measured 8.6 on the Richter Scale but which has since been revised upwards to 9.2, sent shockwaves up to 700 miles away. The earthquake and resulting tsunami killed 131 people, 115 in Alaska and others in California and on the west coast. Amazingly only 12 people were killed by collapsing buildings and the quake itself, 119 in the tsunami that followed.

The earthquake, which lasted more than 4 minutes, released 10 million times more energy than the atomic bomb that devastated Hiroshima, Japan, according to a story in The Alaska Almanac. The quake devastated Southcentral Alaska, inundating Valdez and other coastal villages, destroying whole blocks in downtown Anchorage, the State's now largest city, but causing significant damage even north of the Chugach Mountain Range, where Glennallen is nestled.

KCAM, found at 790 on the AM radio dial, signed on in a part of east central Alaska, in the Center of the Copper River Valley, that then and even now is underserved by broadcast communication outlets. Then as now the station provides vital weather information, travel reports--valued by motorists on the Alaska Highway, the only surface route between Interior Alaska and the Lower 48 States--plus news, sports and music. The relative isolation of the region is highlighted by the fact that Caribou Clatters, the station's on air community bulletin board, is a valued way for area residents to get personal news to friends who live off the highway, in remote cabins not served by the array of telecommunication devices that many

Americans today take for granted. It is a real ``News from Lake Wobegon'' feature, far different than radio in urban America today.

It was no small feat for KCAM to sign onto the air--having electricity and a broadcast antenna still standing--in the hours just after the great earthquake, broadcasting a signal to warn drivers on the highway heading toward the Anchorage area of the damage ahead and dangers they were to face and to give vital information to Interior Alaskans to help them survive the late winter when normal supply deliveries were largely impossible.

The station today, while operating in less challenging times, serves as a ministry of the 40-year-old Alaska Bible College. It is staffed by broadcast professionals ``who love the Lord and are committed to bringing excellence in radio'' to the community of about 600 residents plus visitors. It also now offers an all-music station, 88.7 FM, which is staffed by Alaska Bible College students who are involved as board operators, broadcasters, office workers, and reporters--many receiving training in broadcasting through an introductory course offered each fall semester by station manager Scott Yahr.

The station, as I know firsthand from my appearances on it, provides residents of the Copper River Valley State political news that allows them to make informed ballot choices and to know how to dress for the day ahead through its weather updates. It is a great pleasure to congratulate Scott, program director Michelle Eastty, and special projects director Roger Bovee on the station's 50th anniversary. I know the station will be formally celebrating its golden anniversary during a celebration banquet to be held on Saturday, April 12, but I wanted in advance to wish everyone connected to the station and all of its committed listeners a happy anniversary and a wish that the station continue to broadcast vital weather bulletins, important State and community news, and music and entertainment features for many decades to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the milestone 125th anniversary of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the national association representing our Nation's State utility economic regulators.

The work of our Nation's public utility regulators often goes unnoticed and unheralded until the lights go out or our utility rates increase. But, rest assured, the work these officials do on a daily basis impacts every single one of us in the country.

State utility regulators ensure the rates we pay for utility services are fair, just, and reasonable. They help make sure the utilities deliver these services--electricity, natural gas, water, and telecommunications--in a safe and reliable manner.

NARUC offers its members countless opportunities for education, sharing of best practices, advocacy, and much more. Since March of 1889, the Association has provided countless resources aimed at improving regulatory practices. Since just about all of us pay utility bills in some way or another, we have all benefited from NARUC's work over the last century and a quarter.

Think about it: in 1889, the electricity industry was in its infancy. Alexander Graham Bell was still perfecting his groundbreaking invention called the telephone. We were still learning how best to transport water and natural gas.

What a difference 125 years makes. We can now electrify our homes from solar rooftops. We can carry our personal computers in our pockets on our smartphones. We are using new technologies to find abundant resources of natural gas.

The one constant has been NARUC and the quality utility regulation it promotes. I thank NARUC and congratulate it on this 125th year anniversary.

Congratulations NARUC!

Madam President, I wish to give tribute to Alaska's last Territorial Governor, Michael A. Stepovich, who unfortunately died early on Valentine's Day, Feb. 14, at the age of 94.

Mr. Stepovich was a war veteran, a legislator, a local government leader, the first Governor of the Territory born in Alaska and the last prior to statehood in 1957 and 1958, a lawyer, a civic leader, businessman and a true statesman. He also was a good man, and great friend to my entire family. When my family moved to Fairbanks, AK in the early 1970s, Mike and his wife Mathilda and their children were our earliest and closest friends. The Stepovics raised a large and loving family, and while most Alaskans will remember Mike as an Alaskan statesman, I will always think of him first as a true family man.

Michael was born in Fairbanks on March 12, 1919, the son of Michael A. and Olga S. Stepovich. He graduated in 1940 from Gonzaga University--which in 1966 honored him with the DeSmet medal for being an ``outstanding graduate and layman.'' He earned a law degree from Notre Dame in 1943, and after service in the Navy, he completed postgraduate work at Santa Clara College in 1946.

Stepovich opened a private law practice in Fairbanks in 1948, serving as the city attorney of Fairbanks from 1950 to 1952, as a delegate to the Territorial House of Representatives from 1951-1953 and in the Territorial Senate from 1953-1957. While in the Senate he served as minority leader and was a strong supporter of statehood. He worked tirelessly on the 1956 referendum for statehood. President Dwight Eisenhower appointed Stepovich to be Territorial Governor after Alaskans went to the ballot box in support of joining the Union. He was to be Alaska's last Territorial Governor--within a year Congress would approve Alaska as the 49th State.

After statehood, Governor Stepovich turned his attention to representing Alaska in the U.S. Senate. He lost his bid in 1958 to be one of Alaska's first Senators to Ernest Gruening, who had served in Washington as one of Alaska's fir two ``shadow'' Senators since 1956. Stepovich later ran and lost races to be Governor, first against William A. Egan and later against Walter Hickel. But his defeats did not diminish his interest in or dedication to Alaska. And he remained especially committed to Fairbanks and the rest of the Interior region.

From chairing the Fairbanks Planning and Zoning Committee in 1952 and 1953, through the 1980s, Mike Stepovich was always ready to serve to better Alaska. He was active in the Pioneers of Alaska, the Elks, Eagles, American Legion and the Tanana Valley Bar Association. And that was not always easy given that he was a devoted family man to his wife Matilda and 13 children: Antonia, Maria Theresa, Michael, Peter, Christopher, Dominic, Theodore John, Nicholas Vincent, James, Laura, Nada, Andrea and Melissa. All 13 of the Stepovich children were able to be together with Mike before he passed.

While I could tell many stories about Mike, let me just say to my fellow Senators that Mike Stepovich was a man who would have given the shirt off his back to help a neighbor in need. He was one of the most honorable, decent, and wise men I have had the distinct honor to know in my life. I can only offer my sincere condolences to his family upon his death, just a month shy of his 95th birthday.

Alaska is a much better place because of Mike Stepovich. Those of us who were lucky enough to know him understand how great a loss this is for Alaska. We will always remember his efforts that helped make Alaska, and his hometown of Fairbanks, what it is today.

Madam President, I wish to honor Elizabeth Peratrovich, her husband Roy Peratrovich, and their relentless pursuit of equal civil rights in the territory of Alaska. Elizabeth and Roy lived and worked long before Alaska became a State and still longer before the United States passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. February 16, 2014 marked the 25th year Alaskans celebrated Elizabeth and the passage of the Alaska Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945. I would like to take a moment today, to once again, share the Peratroviches' story and reflect on the legacy of their work.

Elizabeth, a member of the Lukaaxadi clan, in the Raven moiety of the Tlingit tribe, was born on Independence Day in Petersburg, AK in 1911. One year later, Alaska gained a territorial legislature in Juneau made up of 8 senators and 16 representatives, none of whom were Alaska Native. In the same year a group of Alaska Natives from Southeast formed the Alaska Native Brotherhood to advocate for a right to U.S. citizenship for Alaska Natives. In 1915, Alaska Native women came together and established the Alaska Native Sisterhood to work alongside the brotherhood. Although Elizabeth was very young for the creation of these bodies, each came to play a great role in her fight for equal rights.

Many Americans are familiar with the history of discrimination and presence of Jim Crow laws at this time in the South. Probably fewer Americans are familiar with the existence of similar discrimination towards Alaska Natives. In Juneau, Alaskan Natives were restricted to purchasing homes in only certain parts of town and their children restricted to segregated Indian schools. Local business displayed signs in their store fronts reading, ``No Natives Allowed,'' ``We cater to white trade only,'' or ``No Dogs, No Natives'' and restaurant signs read, ``Meals at all hours--All white help.'' The U.S. Congress granted citizenship to Native Americans in 1924, yet signs like these and the discrimination they perpetrated endured.

Elizabeth grew up and attended school in Petersburg, Sitka and Ketchikan. After graduating she continued her education at the Western College of Education in Bellingham, WA. In 1931, Elizabeth married Roy Peratrovich, a fellow Western College student and Tlingit from Klawock, AK. In 1940, Roy was elected to be the Alaska Native Brotherhood's camp president and the following year Elizabeth was elected grand president of the Alaska Native Sisterhood.

Together, with their young family, the Peratroviches moved to Juneau, only to experience discrimination against Alaska Natives first-hand. Elizabeth and Roy picked out a home together and tried to purchase it, but once the owners realized that the Peratroviches were Alaska Native, they would not sell. Their children felt unwelcome at school. Their close family friend, Henrietta Newton, who was not Alaska Native herself but married an Alaska Native man, was told by a local beauty parlor, ``I'm sorry we don't cater to Indian trade.'' When an Alaska Native child had an altercation with the law, their local newspaper published it as front page news. Discrimination towards Alaska Natives remained prevalent. On December 30, 1941, in their capacities as president and grand president of the Alaska Native Brother and Sisterhoods, Roy and Elizabeth wrote a letter to Ernest Gruening, then Governor of the Territory of Alaska. The letter drew attention to the discrepancy between Alaska Natives paying taxes for a public school system from which their children were excluded and also between Alaska Native men fighting in World War II, who upon return were denied rights that other locals enjoyed. Thus began their public pursuit of equal rights for all people in Alaska.

Elizabeth began to call upon her friends and family to involve themselves in the anti-discrimination movement. She recruited women to meet with a Senator from Nome in order to express to him what it felt like to be discriminated against, left out of the United Service Organization, and forced to read signs in local businesses barring them from entry. Elizabeth and Roy met with Governor Gruening to strategize their movement, and then traveled around Native communities bringing with them sample anti-discrimination legislation from the lower 48. In 1943, State Senator Norman Walker introduced an act that would provide full and equal accommodations to all people within the Territory of Alaska. The vote was defeated, but the Peratroviches were not.

In 1945, the antidiscrimination bill was reintroduced. It passed the house and moved to the senate. The gallery was full, the doors were open and spectators filled the halls outside. Once on the senate floor, the debate began. As senators stood to speak, Elizabeth, along with many other community members listened. They listened as one Senator rose to say:

Far from being brought closer together, which will result

from this bill, the races should be kept further apart. Who

are these people, barely out of savagery, who want to

associate with us whites with 5,000 years of recorded

civilization behind us?

Elizabeth looked on as another senator claimed, ``Mixed breeds are the source of trouble, it is they only who wish to associate with the whites,'' and as a church leader declared that it would take at least 30 years before Alaska Natives were equal to white men, Roy rose to speak on behalf of the bill noting that Governor Gruening recognized discrimination in Alaska. He addressed the legislature with these words, ``Either you are for discrimination or you are against it accordingly as you vote on this bill.''

Once debate on the bill concluded, the public was given a chance to express their views in front of the legislature and a crowd gathered that day. Given this chance, Elizabeth took it. Once on the senate floor, Elizabeth sat next to the president of the senate, where she addressed the predominantly white and all-male body of legislators. ``I would not have expected that I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind gentlemen with five thousand years of recorded civilization behind them of our Bill of Rights.''

When asked if she thought the bill would eliminate discrimination, Elizabeth replied:

Do your laws against larceny and even murder prevent those

crimes? No law will eliminate crimes but at least you as

legislators can assert to the world that you recognize the

evil of the present situation and speak your intent to help

us overcome discrimination.

As Elizabeth finished speaking, the gallery broke out in applause. The senate voted and passed the anti-discrimination bill by a vote of 11 to 5. On February 16, 1945, Elizabeth earned her spot as our fighter with velvet gloves, and as she's respectfully remembered in our State, Alaska's Martin Luther King.

Mr. President, vast amounts of water are used every day to produce vital fuels and to cool powerplants in the United States. Without this water supply, most of our electricity would stop flowing and our economy and other essential functions would come to a complete stop. At the same time, a great deal of electricity is needed to treat, transport, and convey water across the country not only to support economic growth and well-being but also to sustain basic life. These inseparable links of ``water for energy'' and ``energy for water'' comprise the energy-water nexus.

I believe that the Federal agencies can and must do more to ensure that we have the best possible data, technology, and know-how to ensure that this nexus is well understood and continuously optimized to sustain quality of life and promote economic growth. To that end, I am introducing a bill today entitled ``The Nexus of Energy and Water for Sustainability Act of 2014'' or the ``NEWS Act of 2014'' for short.

The NEWS Act instructs the Director of 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 activities of all Federal departments and agencies on energy-water nexus issues. This new panel will be cochaired by the Secretaries of Energy and Interior and will

be tasked with identifying all relevant energy-water nexus activities across the Federal Government; enhancing the coordination of effective research and development activities, both ongoing and in the future; working to gather and disseminate data to enable better practices; and exploring relevant public-private collaboration. The bill also calls for the Office of Management and Budget to submit to the relevant congressional committees a so-called crosscut budget soon after enactment of this act. The cross-cut budget will detail various expenditures across the Federal Government related to energy-water activities and will greatly assist in our coordination and streamlining efforts.

I believe this is a strong bill that deserves to be considered and passed in this Congress. I am grateful to Senator Wyden for sponsoring it with me, and look forward to working with every member in this Chamber to address these important issues.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, vast amounts of water are used every day to produce vital fuels and to cool powerplants in the United States. Without this water supply, most of our electricity would stop flowing and our economy and other essential functions would come to a complete stop. At the same time, a great deal of electricity is needed to treat, transport, and convey water across the country not only to support economic growth and well-being but also to sustain basic life. These inseparable links of ``water for energy'' and ``energy for water'' comprise the energy-water nexus.

I believe that the Federal agencies can and must do more to ensure that we have the best possible data, technology, and know-how to ensure that this nexus is well understood and continuously optimized to sustain quality of life and promote economic growth. To that end, I am introducing a bill today entitled ``The Nexus of Energy and Water for Sustainability Act of 2014'' or the ``NEWS Act of 2014'' for short.

The NEWS Act instructs the Director of 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 activities of all Federal departments and agencies on energy-water nexus issues. This new panel will be cochaired by the Secretaries of Energy and Interior and will

be tasked with identifying all relevant energy-water nexus activities across the Federal Government; enhancing the coordination of effective research and development activities, both ongoing and in the future; working to gather and disseminate data to enable better practices; and exploring relevant public-private collaboration. The bill also calls for the Office of Management and Budget to submit to the relevant congressional committees a so-called crosscut budget soon after enactment of this act. The cross-cut budget will detail various expenditures across the Federal Government related to energy-water activities and will greatly assist in our coordination and streamlining efforts.

I believe this is a strong bill that deserves to be considered and passed in this Congress. I am grateful to Senator Wyden for sponsoring it with me, and look forward to working with every member in this Chamber to address these important issues.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I had an opportunity early last week to give a speech at the Brookings Institution about the significant opportunity of the United States when it comes to energy production and our opportunity as a nation to expand our energy trade.

I was able to present this speech based on a white paper I have recently released. It is entitled ``A Signal to the World: Renovating the Architecture of U.S. Energy Exports.'' This builds on a document that I presented to this body, to my colleagues, to folks who care about any aspect of what is going on within the energy industry within our country and our energy opportunities. It is a document that I entitled ``Energy 20/20.'' It is 115 pages of not legislation but really concepts, discussion points, areas where I think we as a nation have an opportunity to lead when it comes to our energy potential.

When we talk about energy in our country, it is very easy to talk about kind of ``all of the above.'' I did make a very concerted effort to address all forms of energy we in this country are blessed to have, whether it is our traditional fossil fuels, our oil, our natural gas, our coal resources, whether it is the enormous potential we have with our renewable fuel sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, ocean energy, marine hydrokinetic, our hydropower, the opportunities that present themselves with our biofuels, and the importance, the great significance of nuclear within our energy portfolio.

I didn't want that document to only be yet another document that somebody produces and other good ideas that are thrown out there to just founder. I have been working to present a series of these white papers. I had an opportunity to present one several months back on natural gas. This week it is a paper on the architecture of U.S. energy exports. In several weeks I plan on introducing yet another.

I come to the floor this afternoon to share my thoughts on energy exports with the Senate--all energy exports--and to enter my recommendations on this important subject into the Congressional Record. My point, again, is not to trot out legislation in one area or another but as a nation to have us focus on our energy potential--all of our energy potential--and our opportunity to utilize this energy potential to share this amazing wealth we have, whether it is within our traditional fuels or whether it is within our renewables or our nontraditional, to really focus on what it means as a nation to be a nation that enjoys energy abundance rather than a nation that faces energy scarcity.

I think it is fair to say that for far too long the conversation has been based from a position of energy scarcity. It is time to change that focus, it is time to shift that dialogue, that debate, to how do we perform, how do we operate, how do we take advantage of our relative abundance.

Before I start my comments and kind of summarize my white paper and the speech I gave, I want to pause for a quick note. This is the cover of my white paper, which will form the basis for my remarks today. I chose a U.S. Navy photograph that was taken aboard the USS Carl Vinson. It was taken by Mass Communications Specialist 2nd Class James R. Evans. I want to make sure he gets the proper credit for the photograph, because as I look at it, it gives me the sense of optimism that I think we should all have about the future of our energy trade. I think that future is bright. I think it is promising.

Let us start the discussion by looking exactly at the opportunity that we do have before us. Simply put, the United States is both producing and exporting more energy now than ever before. We are producing and we are exporting more than we ever have before. Net energy imports are at a 20-year low and projected to fall below 5 percent of total consumption by the year 2025.

To put this into perspective, when I came to the Senate, we were importing about 60 percent of our oil at that time. Net energy imports, now at a 20-year low, are projected to fall below 5 percent of total consumption by 2025. So this is all energy imports.

Energy exports are reducing our trade deficit, and they are boosting American commerce around the world. We have been talking all this week and last about unemployment insurance--how we can work to improve the economy for those who lack jobs or are underemployed. Let me tell you, this is an area of opportunity when it comes to our energy production.

So energy exports are helping us with our trade deficit and they are boosting commerce and jobs, but the regulatory architecture--the framework we are operating under--that governs energy exports is antiquated. It goes back to acts that were passed in the 1930s, in

the 1950s, and in the 1970s. Furthermore, they are applied unevenly across the sector. So my white paper proposes a series of recommendations to renovate our Nation's approach to energy trade and to strengthen America's global posture.

I know around here when you put an idea out on the floor, you also put a target on your back. But I think this is an important discussion for us to have. Again, I am not proffering legislation, but what I am pushing, what I am going to edge my colleagues toward is a greater discussion about energy and energy exports.

The first resource I wrote about in my white paper was coal. I think we have to acknowledge these are some pretty uncertain times for what has truly been the backbone of the U.S. energy supply. Coal is projected to remain the top source of electricity for the next two decades, but we know it faces competition from other energy sources.

There is clearly a regulatory effort that will make the construction of new plants an extremely difficult endeavor, but I think we can see here that net exports of coal are at their highest level on record, and as a share of their production, they are at their highest level in 30 years. Exports of coal are presently free of burdensome regulations. I think they should remain so. I think other Federal regulatory agencies should not require climate change studies in the course of their permitting process for any proposed facilities. I say this because coal is going to be consumed around the world regardless of U.S. trade policy. We know that. We see that. We can point to the countries where they are seeing increased coal imports. The only question here--the real question here--is whether the coal is produced here in North America. If it is produced here in North America, the environmental standards are going to be high--higher than they will elsewhere. So the real question is: Do you produce it where you have stronger environmental standards or are you going to get it from countries where their environmental standards are held to a lower level?

The next resource we are talking about is natural gas. There has been a great deal of discussion of late about natural gas. North America is quickly emerging as one of the world's most important hubs for the natural gas trade. Record levels are flowing to Mexico and Canada via pipeline. The buildout of seaborne export capacity, which requires the liquefaction of gas for loading onto cargo ships, is proceeding too slow under the watch of the Department of Energy. Other nations are approving capacity, they are securing financing, they are building projects, and they are contracting with customers. They are making these long-term contracts ahead of the United States. So a little more in-depth on this particular resource area, building on the white paper. I think DOE should expedite its review process for applications to export LNG to non-FTA countries. The last time an application was approved was back in mid-November, over 2 months ago now. I don't see the reason for continued delay here.

I do think we have to monitor the role of the other agencies that are involved. We have the FERC, we have the Maritime Administration, and we have the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. I think it is important to understand whether this process is as streamlined and as functional as it should be.

There are some who are suggesting there needs to be a pause button pushed here, whether it is at DOE, the FERC, or at any other agency. No new study should be commissioned as the NERA study from 2012 is more than adequate and DOE has access to all the latest EIA and the other market data when it issues its orders. Our allies overseas and American workers here at home have waited long enough. We can do more and we can do it in an expedited manner.

The third area is natural gas liquids. A variety of fuels is produced alongside oil and gas as part of the energy renaissance underway here in this country. There is butane, propane, and pentanes plus. These are known as natural gas liquids, and they have various uses. They have not typically represented a major source of either revenue or volume to American exporters. Since the energy renaissance has begun, we have seen exports of more of these products on the uptake. We have seen them surge.

The regulatory structures that surround NGL exports are working pretty well. They are working smoothly. I don't think they require modification. Trade in these products plays a valuable role in reducing volatility and creating additional demand to stimulate production.

Next is the issue of crude oil and condensates. Obviously, this generates a little more interest and discussion, and that is OK, because again, I want to have this discussion.

We are producing more oil in this country today than at any point in the past 20 years. What has happened is this increase has resulted in a plethora of what is known as light tight oil, and this is coming from the Bakken, from Eagle Ford, and from other places around the country. This crude is lighter and sweeter than the U.S. refinery system was built to accommodate. Existing capacity upgrades to existing refineries and logistical feats to transport that light crude to appropriate refiners on the east coast--instead of over on the gulf coast, where you have the heavy refining capacity that dominates--have allowed for new volumes of light crude to be refined and brought to global markets as product.

So you have a situation where under existing regulations the Department of Commerce may license the export of crude oil under certain conditions, most notably if that oil is destined for Canada. But in addition, you have large amounts of condensates, another hydrocarbon, that cannot be exported, and these are also being produced along with the record levels of crude and natural gas.

Many producers fear that rising light crude production will soon exceed not only our light refining capacity but also the ability of our refiners to adapt to the new production slate. When this point is reached, when this mismatch occurs, the U.S. oil resurgence will collide with the de facto ban that we have on crude oil exports.

You are going to hear people say--the opponents will argue--that lifting the ban is somehow or other going to increase the price of gasoline. Well, coming from a State where we have probably some of the highest gas prices at the pump anywhere, that is not my interest. That is clearly not my interest. But I think there are a number of sound economic reasons why this is not going to be the case.

First, gasoline is a petroleum product and petroleum products are subject to global pricing, just as crude oil is. So to the extent that greater U.S. production of crude oil puts downward pressure on the international oil prices, then production increases have benefited U.S. consumers by marginally lowering the gasoline and the crude oil prices. American consumers are already generally paying a global price for petroleum products, including gasoline, and would also benefit to the extent that lifting the ban on crude oil exports would send a positive signal to oil producers to then increase production.

The second point here is the cost of inaction. Prohibition on the free trade of any product, with all things being equal, increases prices, it creates market distortions, it leads to misallocation of capital, and it has a deleterious impact on job creation. So to the extent the crude oil export ban contributes to supply disruptions and decelerating oil production, which affects unemployment, then the American consumer suffers these consequences. I have taken the position the status quo does not benefit the American consumer. In fact, not acting could actually negatively impact the Nation.

All sectors of the U.S. oil industry are global leaders. Upstream, American technology and expertise enables the growth in production. Midstream, a complex network of pipelines transports that oil across the country safely every day. And then, of course, downstream we have American refiners who are among the most advanced in the world. So lifting the de facto ban will strengthen this system by protecting jobs, boosting production, and enhancing efficiency and specialization.

I mentioned the Commerce Department earlier. They may retain sufficient statutory authority to lift the

ban on its own as part of a larger swap. Some have suggested trading U.S. light crude for Mexican heavy, which sounds interesting, but it is a little more complicated than that. The President may also make a national interest determination that the present regulatory structure, which generally prohibits crude oil exports, is unnecessary and counterproductive. White House action on this matter is of course the shortest way from point A to point B, and if the President is so inclined, he can call me. He can count on my full support on this.

If the White House disagrees with this interpretation of its authority or it chooses to maintain the prohibition on exports, then I think it would be appropriate for the Senate to update the laws to reflect 21st century conditions.

After crude oil and condensates is the growing success story of our petroleum products and their exports. An enormous expansion of the American export profile in global petroleum product markets has accompanied the crude oil resurgence. Exports of petroleum products must continue without burdensome regulations. The U.S. refining industry is the global leader and delivers gasoline, diesel, and other fuel to American friends and allies around the world. These fuels will be consumed whether or not they are imported from the United States, which, again, uses the strictest environmental standards.

Of course, when we are talking about energy production and our opportunities for exports, there is our renewable energy resource. There is renewable technology. Producers of wind turbines, solar panels, and other renewable technologies also help reduce the U.S. trade deficit through our exports. Again, it is very important to make sure, when we are talking about energy exports, to truly talk about all of them, including our renewable technologies. I think the general lack of trade restrictions on renewable energy technology products doesn't need to be modified. If renewable technology is the future, then it needs to be competitive.

Finally, the last area is nuclear technology. The United States has been the undisputed leader of nuclear technology throughout the world. We have produced more nuclear power than any other nation. As the global nuclear trade has developed, what we have seen is that the U.S. market share has declined. I think the Federal Government must continue its efforts to help develop small modular reactors, and I think we can do this without putting international security at risk or violating nonproliferation controls.

The energy resurgence has fueled a beneficial expansion of U.S. energy trade. The evidence is clear that exports can help facilitate enhanced production by opening U.S. supply to global markets. Trade is creating jobs, increasing supply, and enhancing our Nation's security, without doubt. Competition and efficiency are the strengths of the American economic system. They are not defects. Trade and consumption will occur with or without us.

So the question is whether we can enhance or whether we will demote our global position. To the extent that American-made energy can displace other less clean sources, then the global environment will benefit from enhanced U.S. trade.

People come first, though. We recognize that. The Nation's opportunity to help us alleviate energy policy is one we should not miss.

I believe we need to send a powerful signal to the world that the United States is ready to reassert its role as a leader on energy, the environment, and trade. To me, that is a signal worth sending.

As I have said, this is a debate worth having in the Senate, in this new year, and I look forward to joining my colleagues. I know there are many on the other side who have differing views when it comes to our fossil fuels, but I think we would find alignment in other areas when we are talking about our energy exports and our great potential.

So as we are trying to build our Nation's economy, as we are trying to strengthen jobs across the country, let us not forget the enormous growth potential we hold when it comes to our energy production and potential for energy export.

I yield the floor.