Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to spend a few minutes on the Senate floor to talk about home--about Alaska. We have a tendency sometimes up north to do things in a big way, a bold way. We tend to brag a little bit about it. That is all OK. But we have been in the center of the news cycle for a few weeks this winter, at the onset of this year, because of our weather which has been big and bold.

As a consequence of some of the extremes that we are seeing up north, I think it has brought out the best of Alaskans and certainly the warmth that comes from a northern climate. I think the occupant of the chair sees that in her State where she has some conditions with snow and cold.

The neighbor-to-neighbor response that comes about when we are dealing with Mother Nature at her finest or at her most extreme, I think, is something that helps define us as a people.

Today, I wish to speak for a few moments to recognize the very extraordinary efforts we have seen recently of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Alaska National Guard in helping the residents of several of our communities since early this year.

Earlier on the Senate floor, my colleague, the junior Senator from Alaska, mentioned some of the events that have happened. He, too, acknowledged the hard work and very significant efforts of our Coast Guard and the Alaska National Guard. I think it is important to make sure we all take the time to tell the story, to share it with colleagues and with people around the country.

In many parts of the United States right now there are some areas that are just begging for snow. I have sons out in Colorado, and they are waiting. I know on the east coast many of us would prefer a little bit more snow. Sometimes it is one of those ``be careful what you ask for'' situations, or we may be like the town of Valdez and have 27 feet of snow in our community. That is a little bit more than I think most of us would ask for or hope for.

The community of Nome has been in the news for months now as they have felt the brunt of some early winter storms, storms that have forced them as a community in the northwest region of the State to feel the pinch of Mother Nature in a very extreme way. Nome is a community of about 3,500 residents. It sits up on the west coast of Alaska. Most people in this country recall Nome from the early days of the Gold Rush. But more recently, Nome comes into the national news every March when the famous Iditarod dog sled race is run which finishes in Nome. It is a 1,100-mile race where man and animal are pitched against Mother Nature in a pretty intense way.

Nome makes it in the headlines for several different reasons. This year adds yet another reason that Nome is in the history books, where people are talking about this incredible part of the State. Alaska is known for our tough winters and, again, I started my comments by saying we kind of like the fact that we are tougher than the rest of the world, and we brag about it. This winter, though, has been particularly harsh.

We have seen record cold. We have seen snowstorms hit the State earlier than usual. I was up in the State last week, places such as Bethel where it normally averages about zero this time of year, and we are looking at 20 below for extended periods of time, not just a day or two. In southeastern Alaska not only have they been hit with below zero temperatures, but massive amounts of snow are hitting them as well.

Nome is, again, a coastal community. When they receive their annual fuel supplies, they basically fuel up for the winter. The only way to get to Nome is to fly in or to go by water. So in order to get the fuel tanks filled up for the winter, the annual fuel barges come in early fall before they have ice conditions out in the Bering Sea.

This year, if you will recall, back in October, everybody was watching the news because of the massive storms that were pounding western Alaska. Back in Washington, DC, every evening on the news we could see these major storms coming through. If we were here or down in Florida, they would have called them hurricane force winds. For us, it was a winter storm--a tough one.

What happened with that storm is that it prevented the fuel barge from reaching Nome, so the shipment of fuel that they would receive for the winter is not able to come in.

One might think, well, fuel up the community another way. Again, there are no roads. What is the other way? The other way is aircraft. So one would have to fly in barrels of fuel, driving the cost of fuel up, and, quite honestly, adding to the risk of transport. So it is an issue where fuel delivery by air, while it is possible, is not the preferable way. They are in a situation where they have not only a community of 3,500 but all of the surrounding villages in the region relying on Nome for their backup. So they are at risk too. Without the fuel tanks being filled, what the community and region were looking at was a situation whereby about March--sometime in March, depending on how harsh the winter was--they were going to run out of fuel.

Well, if the January temperatures are any indication--on average, it is usually about 2 degrees, but it has been 20 below and colder recently. That means people go through fuel pretty darn quick. Then what do they do? They are stuck until spring. You say: Well, isn't April or March spring? Not in Northwest Alaska because fuel barges cannot get to port until all of the ice in the Bering Sea has melted, which doesn't happen until May or June--perhaps earlier if the ice moves.

That is the reality up north. So we have a major community and outlying villages that are looking at a very real threat to their community. Senator Begich showed a picture on the Senate floor of gas prices in Alaska. When I was in Nome last week, I saw first-hand the price of regular fuel at the pump was $5.43. That is what residents of Northwestern Alaska are paying today. Diesel is a hair less than $6. If they were having to fly in fuel for the balance of the winter, they were looking at about $9 a gallon. This is on top of all of the other extraordinary costs they pay as a community that is reliant on air for just about everything they need.

Most of you may have seen the story in the news. Lots of people got to work to try to address the situation. I was in contact with the Coast Guard to see what they could do to help. The Coast Guard was amazing in saying: Yes, we are committed to this mission. We are going to help the people of Nome, the people of the region. So what came together was a pretty interesting story.

There is a fuel tanker, the Renda, which is home-ported over in Russia. The Renda filled up with fuel in South Korea and was going to pick up fuel in Japan. They got shut out of Japan by weather. They had to go to Unalaska, Dutch Harbor on the Aleutian Chain, to fill up. For those of us who know of the Jones Act, there is an issue there. They had to get the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Transportation, and Energy to act to get a Jones Act waiver so the Russian fuel tanker could fill up in an Unalaska port and haul the fuel north to the people of Nome. It is a pretty interesting saga, just in describing the beginning.

This is more than a 1,000-mile nautical journey, and they were breaking ice for about half of the way. The Renda is a pretty capable ship, but she is not an icebreaker. How she got through that ice is an interesting part of the story. The Coast Guard Cutter Healy, which had been on a research mission since early May and was on her way back to Seattle to deliver the crew got a call that Nome needed help. The fine men and women of the Healy missed their Christmas, their New Year's, and headed back north to clear a path for the Renda to Nome.

Now, I think it is important to stop here and recognize that this is not the Coast Guard doing something for the people of Nome or the people of Alaska that is not part of the Coast Guard's mission. This month-long journey was the first fuel delivery through sea ice in Alaska's history, but not the first time the Coast Guard has worked to get fuel to a community. This is important.

Back in 2000, CWO Richard Glasgow testified about ice-breaking operations on the Hudson River. At that time, there were five Coast Guard cutters that performed ice-breaking duties from Sandy Hook, NJ, all the way up to Troy, NY. They were working to get heating fuel to about 4 million people in the communities along the river. Officer Glasgow testified that as a direct result of the Coast Guard's continuous ice-breaking efforts that winter, all 274 petroleum-bearing barges that started the trip up the Hudson made it through the ice.

He also noted if the Hudson had remained closed to barge traffic, it would have taken over 21,000 tank truck loads to move that petroleum, assuming that the trucks were available to make those deliveries.

So we basically had a situation on the East Coast where the Coast Guard came to the rescue. They cleared a path so that commerce could be facilitated, and these communities along the Hudson could have the fuel and the resources they needed. The Coast Guard made it happen in an efficient and environmentally responsible way--avoiding 21,000 tank truck loads of fuel on the roads.

This is not unlike the role the Coast Guard has played in Alaska. The difference with Nome is that there could not be 21,000 truck loads of petroleum because there are no roads for those trucks to travel to Nome. So we did not have the option for any other means of transport to the community short of air transport.

So when we look at what the Coast Guard Cutter Healy and Captain Havlik and all the crew members did, they were following in the footsteps of many members of the Coast Guard before them in carrying out the Coast Guard's stated ice operations mission, which is to assist vessels and communities in emergency situations and facilitate essential commercial maritime activities.

The Coast Guard carried out this mission by assisting with 680 ice transits, representing the transport of over $2 billion of cargo. Similarly, just last year, Coast Guard cutters coordinated with the Canadian Coast Guard ships to facilitate the movement of about $2 billion worth of critical goods on the Great Lakes.

I point this out because I think it is important for people to know that in addition to all the other critical missions the Coast Guard has, one of theirs is to assist vessels and communities in emergency situations and to facilitate essential commercial maritime activities like getting fuel--an absolute bare necessity to the people in this northwestern region at a time when temperatures are 20 below for days and days on end. It was critical to us, and the Coast Guard did a remarkable job.

Again, I wish to recognize these men and women who gave up their Christmas holiday, who gave up their New Year's holiday to assist Alaskans, and they were nothing short of remarkable. I had the opportunity to go on board the Healy when I was in Nome last week, as the Renda was beginning to lay the hose from the fuel barge to the shore. I also spoke with the men and women and they were exceptionally proud of their mission. But I said to them: You will go back home and your world will be changed because you will be able to stand and say: Yes, I was on the Healy when we broke ice to get the Renda to northwest Alaska.

Let me give an update. Renda, the tanker, was able to get close to Nome after weeks of transit made difficult by the winter conditions of the thick ice and the currents and the winds. There were days when they actually went backward. The Coast Guard Cutter Healy would break the ice, loosen it, but it was so cold and things were happening so fast, the ice would refreeze the distance between the cutter and the Renda.

In addition to some pretty tough environmental conditions, we had some language issues going on between the Coast Guard cutter and the Russian tanker. They had to translate the mission. We had some cultural differences going on. But what they were able to facilitate, again, was pretty remarkable. I am giving laudatory praise to our Coast Guard, but I think it is also important to recognize the good work the crew of the Renda did in assisting as well.

Using NOAA's satellites to determine where the best mapping could be, where to cut through that, they were able to break through and get within about a half mile of the shore of Nome. It was close enough so that when I got off the Healy, I was able to take a snow machine to shore. It was about a 3-minute snow machine ride. That is how close they were able to get in safely to the shore. The Renda laid hose across the ice to connect to the tankers onshore.

It was about a 6-day process to transfer the fuel to the community, but the parties involved did it safely, without any incident whatsoever. They were able to then close that operation and, last Friday, they took off from Nome to go back--the Renda to Russia and the Coast Guard Cutter Healy to Seattle.

I asked for a progress report just this afternoon. And as of today, the Healy and the Renda were approximately 240 nautical miles southwest of Nome, 275 nautical miles from the ice edge. So they still have a long way to go getting through the ice.

One might ask the question: Why don't they just go back the way they came in? Because, obviously, they cut the trail. But it doesn't work that way. It is cold up there. In fact, they are continuing to rely on the NOAA satellites to help them map out a perhaps more efficient way, but it has been tough. They have very challenging ice conditions and very steady strong winds. The weather is giving them winds in excess of 25 to 30 knots. Hopefully, they are going to be diminishing to 15 knots on Friday. But they are working with NOAA and other folks to find the safest, the most expedient route out of the ice. But the ice forecast continues to see ice edge expanding to the south. So all the progress they are making going south, the ice is just coming at them in the other direction.

So it is challenging, but, again, these are extraordinary professionals across agencies. I have mentioned NOAA, and I mentioned what we needed to do in order to facilitate the Jones Act waiver through the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Transportation, and Defense, but we also had the State Department involved, we had the EPA involved, and the native corporation Sitnasuak to put this whole thing together. We had incredible local leadership coming out of the community of Nome. We had the University of Alaska researchers who helped with the UAVs to determine, again, how we best lay everything from the tanker in the safest place across the ice. An incredible act of collaboration.

I see my friend from Illinois is on the floor, and I know I have gone over my time, but I have about 3 more minutes to wrap up if that works for my colleague. Senator Durbin comes from a State that appreciates snow, and so I think my colleague would like to hear the rest of my story because I am not done acknowledging the fine men and women of the Alaska National Guard who played a role in helping to dig out the community of Cordova after record snowfall.

We have had some pretty tough snows. Cordova is a coastal community in south central Alaska, and they got hammered. They got about 176 inches of snow. Last week, when we checked in, they had 16 feet of snow on the ground, which is pretty unusual. Not quite Valdez's record, which is sitting at 27 feet right now, but it was enough that roofs were caving in and there were public safety concerns. What the community did was come together, as small communities do, to try to shovel out, and 50 or 60 Alaska National Guardsmen were there to help. The Coast Guard was there too helping to shovel--it was quite a lovely community story.

Again, it is one of those stories that reminds us that whether Mother Nature hits us with winds and storms and cold in the north, or hurricanes in the south, we come together as a people. We come together as communities to

help, and sometimes we have some real heroes that emerge. Some of those heroes for us in Alaska these past few weeks have been our U.S. Coast Guard and our Alaska National Guardsmen and women.

As I started my comments, I said we do things bigger in Alaska, perhaps a little bolder. There is a new movie coming out that you may have heard about. It is called ``Big Miracle.'' It is about the rescue of the whales back in the late 1980s. Some of you may remember the whales were trapped in the ice off Point Barrow. It is a wonderful story about how we, as Alaskans, came together with the Russians, state and federal agencies, environmental and other groups that would normally not be allies, and regular folks for a common purpose. That movie, ``Big Miracle,'' reminded me that in Alaska we have a few more big miracles we can brag about, and they begin with people who truly make the health, safety, and well-being of others their top priority, even when they do not know any of those people.

I know the people of Nome and Cordova and the people of Valdez all give thanks to those who stepped up during these tough winter months to help us out and were there at our side. I thank the Chair for the extra time, and I thank my colleague from Illinois for his patience and again extend my heartfelt thanks to our U.S. Coast Guard men and women, as well as the fine men and women of the Alaska National Guard.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate 100 years of Kake, AK, as an incorporated first-class city. Kake Day, on January 8, 2012, will acknowledge the community's accomplishments, ranging from

government to education, as well as recognize the village as a Native community rich with history of the Kake Tlingit ways.

The Tlingit people have inhabited the region of Kake for thousands of years, controlling the trade routes around Kuiu and Kupreanof islands, enjoying the territory, raising families, and living off the land. The Tlingit of the Kake region gained a reputation among early explorers as being strong and powerful. Some encounters with early European and American explorers have been documented by historians as resulting in occasional skirmishes.

In the early part of the 20th century, Kake began to physically transform. Stores were built, a government school was installed, and a post office was established in 1904. Kake also became the first Native village to organize under Federal law, resulting in U.S. citizenship for community residents. In 1912, Kake was incorporated as a first- class city government in the territory of Alaska. This event is now known as Kake Day, and it is the 100th anniversary of that event that I wish to commemorate today.

Kake Day is not only a celebration of past accomplishments but also a celebration of the history of the Kake Tlingit ways. Kake has blended Western ways and the rich cultural traditions of its past to make Kake into the city it is today.

Recognized tribes--the Organized Village of Kake and the Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska--are essential components of Kake, alongside entities such as the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative. Important food sources link the old and the new ways of life, including salmon, halibut, shellfish, deer, bear, waterfowl, and berries.

Nearby, standing on a bluff overlooking Kake, is the world's largest totem pole, which serves as a reminder of the city's history and as a guide moving into the future. Standing at 132 feet, this properly sanctioned totem pole was carved by the Chilkats in 1967 for Alaska's centennial.

On the 100 year celebration of Kake Day, Alaskans will enjoy a parade, a protocol workshop, and song and dance featuring Keex' Kwan dancers. I am sure the event will be memorable for all involved.

Mr. President, I too rise in support of Morgan Christen, the nominee who is before us today, and I add my thanks to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and, in fact, the entire Judiciary Committee, for their work in advancing not only Judge Christen as she has moved forward through the process, but it was several weeks ago that we were pleased to move through this body the nomination of Judge Sharon Gleason.

I think it is worthy of note that Alaska in the past month now has moved forward two extraordinary women jurists who will work to serve us in an incredible way. If there is any regret I have, it is that such exceptional women are being taken from our State judiciary system and moved on to other positions, so there is a loss there. We are going to have to work to fill those back benches. But I am very pleased today to speak in support of Morgan Christen, a justice of the Alaskan Supreme Court who has been nominated to serve on the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

This is a historic nomination. Only two Alaskans have had an opportunity to serve on the Ninth Circuit, and both of those judges were, somewhat predictably, men. The first Alaskan to serve was Robert Boochever, who was appointed by President Clinton. Judge Boochever accepted senior status in 1986, and we were saddened when he passed away on October 9, 2011, at the age of 94. The second on the Ninth Circuit was Andrew J. Kleinfeld, who accepted senior status on June 12 of last year. Justice Christen has been nominated to fill the vacancy created when Justice Kleinfeld took senior status. That vacancy has existed now for 18 months, which should concern all of us, given the heavy workload that faces the Ninth Circuit. That said, it often takes a little bit of time to get the best, and there is no doubt in my mind that when President Obama selected Morgan Christen for the Ninth Circuit, he selected the best.

I have known Justice Christen for almost 25 years now. We graduated from law school at about the same time. We both clerked for the Alaska court system at the same time and we have kept in touch over the years. I have come to know Morgan, her husband Jim, and her family.

Morgan Christen is an experienced, very well-rounded attorney. She is an exceptionally well-rounded jurist with experience on the trial and the appellate bench. She is an individual with a keen intellect and an impeccable reputation for integrity. She is highly regarded across the ideological spectrum in Alaska as a judge who keeps politics and ideology off the bench.

Given the bruising nomination battles that have taken place here in the Senate over the past few years, a few of our colleagues might be inclined to challenge the notion that there is any such thing as a nonideological, nonpolitical judicial nominee. But in response, I would simply note that Morgan Christen was elected to serve on the Alaska Superior Court by Gov. Tony Knowles, a very well-known Democrat. She was then later selected to serve on the Alaska Supreme Court by Sarah Palin, our very well-known Republican Governor. Under Alaska's nonpolitical judicial selection process, she was vetted by the Alaska Judicial Council before her selection to the superior court in 2001, and once again prior to standing for retention election in 2004. Justice Christen was then vetted for yet a third time before her selection to the Alaska Supreme Court in 2009. In each case, she secured high marks from Alaska's very diverse legal community. In fact, she was ranked the top candidate for the supreme court position in a scientifically conducted study of Alaskan attorneys.

I have appreciated that Justice Christen has been mindful of the separation of powers throughout her judicial career, and mindful of the fact that her personal views have no bearing when it is time to determine the rule of law. I know we can expect her to continue in that vein when she moves on to the Federal bench.

Morgan Christen was educated at the University of Washington and Golden Gate University School of Law. She

spent portions of her undergraduate years studying in England, Switzerland, and China. Following law school, she clerked on the Alaska Superior Court and then entered private practice in the Anchorage office of Preston Gates & Ellis. As a private practice attorney, she represented the State of Alaska in the litigation that followed the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

As a member of the superior court bench, she served as the presiding judge of the Third Judicial District there in Anchorage which, as was noted, is the busiest judicial district in the State of Alaska. She held that position for 4 years. As a supreme court justice, she is deeply engaged in community outreach. In fact, she won the Alaska Supreme Court Community Outreach Award back in 2008. She also holds the Light of Hope Award for work on behalf of Alaska's children. I think her voluntarism has been acknowledged and highlighted. Not only does she meet the demands of a busy bench practice, but also takes the time, with her family, to be very engaged in our community.

I inquired with some of my friends, former colleagues on the Alaska bar, about her reputation in anticipation of my comments today. One Alaskan stated:

Morgan is extraordinarily talented and is well respected by

her peers. She constantly brings justice and fairness to her

professional and personal life. Friends and colleagues across

the country have savored her wild raspberry jam.

I have yet to have the opportunity to savor her wild raspberry jam. I do a pretty mean raspberry jam myself, so I think we are going to have to trade and see. But it is yet one more aspect about this pretty amazing woman I wanted to share today.

Another colleague stated, very simply, that she is a calm, thoughtful, and strong woman. Good words.

In closing, let me simply say that Morgan Christen is more than just a good judge; she is a good person. Justice will be well served by her confirmation to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. I urge my colleagues to support this nomination with enthusiasm, as I do.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

As Senator Begich mentioned, Alaskans are celebrating other occasions this week as well.

I rise today to speak about a resolution Senator Begich and I have submitted that recognizes December 18, 2011, as the 40th anniversary of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Our resolution recognizes and commends the significant achievements Alaska Native people have made over the past 40 years through their congressionally created Alaska Native corporations.

Not only has the Alaska community risen to the challenge of creating sustainable businesses, but they have created employment opportunities for our Nation's citizens really across the country--not just located in the State of Alaska but really all across our country and through the world. Alaska Native corporations continue to make significant contributions to their communities, our Nation, and the global economy, and for this they should be commended and they should be applauded.

Our resolution encourages the citizens of the United States to acknowledge and support the leadership and continued efforts of Alaska Native people in managing their resources through the Alaska Native corporations. The resolution also sends a strong message of support to thousands of Alaska Native youth from across the State who are working and contributing positively to their families and to their communities, focusing their efforts on earning a college education, participating in cultural activities, and realizing a dream that they may one day earn places of leadership within their own corporations. Their efforts are recognized and appreciated.

Over this coming weekend, Alaska Natives and advocates from across the United States will participate in community dialogs and celebratory events to reflect upon what has been accomplished over these past 40 years since passage of ANCSA. Participants will focus on the next steps that are needed to improve upon the continued success and the unity of Alaska Native tribes, villages, and our corporations.

Through their participation and commitment to management of their resources through the vehicle of Alaska Native corporations, many young Alaska Native people will embark upon a lifetime journey of service, community engagement, and philanthropy. Alaska Native corporations have afforded a unique opportunity for Alaska Native people to gain valuable insights into the business world, while maintaining thoughtful focus on issues concerning Alaska Native tribes and communities.

The next generation of Alaska Native people will continue to make positive changes in the world around them through acquired leadership skills, cultural advocacy, and community engagement, and through their dedication and enthusiasm, the next generation of leaders honors the previous generation of Alaska Native leaders who really worked so very diligently to achieve the passage of the most significant Native lands settlement in our Nation's history.

In addition to all of the very remarkable young people who will one day be managers and policymakers of their Native corporations, I honor the work of those who contributed to the success of the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. It was no easy feat negotiating this very complex piece of litigation. It took the drafters years for the settlement to be discussed, to be interpreted, analyzed, debated, negotiated, and finalized. It was truly an accomplishment.

While no piece of legislation can claim perfection, the original drafters of the ANCSA bill worked tirelessly to achieve a fair and a just settlement for the native people of Alaska and the ever-evolving document has had a number of significant amendments that have considerably improved the original bill.

While a list acknowledging all of the Alaska Native leaders and advocates who worked on the act would prove impossibly long, I wish to recognize a few of the people who have since passed, who played an instrumental and an unforgettable role in its passage.

First, U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Udall. I had both Tom and Mark Udall sitting right in front of me before I began my comments here. It is a tribute to him that he did so much in his service as Secretary of the Interior. Also our own Senator Ted Stevens and his efforts; U.S. Congressman Nick Begich, who was instrumental in passage of ANCSA, and Morris Thompson, who is an Athabascan out of the Koyukon area. It was back in 1966 that Stewart Udall, who was Secretary of the Interior then, responded to pleas from Alaska Native groups, imposed a ``land freeze'' on all land in Alaska under Federal control, which amounted to about 96 percent of all the land in the State at the time. Secretary Udall helped develop a program for solutions to the Native land claims issue throughout the State. Although ANCSA at that time was still in its infancy, the freeze prevented the transfer of all remaining Federal lands and would remain in effect until the Native land claims were resolved. Without that freeze, the Alaska Native people might have won their claim but they may not have had lands to select.

Senator Stevens, in his role, called his work on the unprecedented landmark legislation of ANCSA his Senate baptism of fire. In a 1991 newspaper article, the Senator is quoted as saying that he believed a settlement could be achieved because of his ``faith in the determination and the unity of purpose of Alaska's Native people.'' Senator Stevens was one of the advocates who pushed for the 40-million- acre land provision versus the 1 million acres the White House had initially proposed.

With threats looming that subcommittee sessions would be called off, which would effectively end a negotiated settlement, Congressman Nick Begich played a key role in keeping the legislative process moving. By the end of the negotiations, the subcommittee package was a tribute to the Congressman's role as architect of the House compromise. One veteran lobbyist said:

It is the best individual achievement I have ever heard of

for a freshman Congressman.

I would be remiss in not mentioning the very unforgettable Morris Thompson. At 34 years old, Morris was the youngest commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. He held a Cabinet position in the Nixon administration and,

with his Interior Department positions, Morris was very deeply involved in passage of the ANCSA at the time. He was a prominent leader in the Native, corporate, and political worlds. He was known for a good sense of humor, wit, and wisdom, but was also a very savvy businessman who led Doyon, which was an Alaska Native regional corporation, to great success. His lifelong commitment to the people and progress of Alaska truly lives on in his legacy.

I am proud of all these people. I value their idealism, their energy, dedication, and unique perspectives they brought to the table in working toward the initial crafting of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

I thank Senator Begich for standing with me to submit this important resolution that acknowledges the hard work of the Alaska Native people in the success of their Alaska Native corporations on this 40th anniversary of passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. I know Congressman Young joins with us in celebrating this anniversary as well.

Honoring Ray Mala

Since, as I mentioned, we are working a little bit on Alaska Day, I wish also to take a couple of moments here to recognize yet another Alaskan leader, truly an Alaskan legend. Two days after Christmas of this year would have marked the 105th birthday of an Alaska legend, Ray Mala. Despite insurmountable odds, Ray Mala dared to dream and he went on to become our Nation's first Native American international film star. He would have been 105, or he will have been, 2 days after Christmas, but he was our Nation's first Native American international film star. He was born in the remote village of Candle, to an immigrant father of Russian Jewish descent. He was fluent in both English and his mother's native language of Inupiat. He was a skilled hunter. He learned the Inupiat ways from his maternal grandmother, Nancy Armstrong, and while the family lived a traditional lifestyle, Mala learned to walk in both the traditional and modern worlds. Facing poverty, Mala was a very accomplished hunter, using a bow and arrow to catch whatever food he would bring home. Wearing a handmade fur parka, he and his grandmother would traverse through harsh arctic storms in pursuit of subsistence land animals. When they would return home, Mala would pour himself into academic studies at the local school, always striving to improve himself.

At age 16 he made his acting debut in the film ``Primitive Love.'' Mala was initially hired as a laborer on the remote film set there in the State, but film makers discovered his natural talent behind the camera and, as I say, the rest is history. He was bitten by the acting bug. Mala set out for Hollywood. He worked his way up from sweeping the stage floors to being an assistant cameraman at Fox Studios.

Initially he was turned down for any leading roles because of the his mixed Eskimo-Jewish heritage, but Mala landed his first role in the silent film ``Igloo,'' which was shot in Barrow, AK. The film's success earned him the title of the Eskimo Clark Gable.

In 1932, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, MGM Studios, sent a film crew from Hollywood to Nome. My mother was born in Nome in 1932. Nome was a pretty interesting community back there, still very rough around the edges, but they sent a film crew to Nome to begin shooting the film that would thrust Mala into stardom. MGM struck gold with the film ``Eskimo,'' a film also called ``Mala the Magnificent,'' the first full-length feature film ever shot in Alaska. Mala became Alaska's first Hollywood film star and also the first nonwhite actor cast in a leading role. Over the span of his career, Mala would appear in over 25 films, all the while winning devoted fans across generations, across cultures--they loved him. His widely acclaimed role in ``Eskimo'' would earn Mala his place in Hollywood history.

He was more than an actor. He also excelled in cinematography and screenwriting. Keep in mind, this is a young Eskimo boy, raised in the traditional ways back in the early 1900s. Not only is he picked up by Hollywood and is a phenomenal actor, but he also excels in cinematography and screenwriting. He worked on films with many legendary filmmakers, including Alfred Hitchcock and Cecil B. DeMille. But his blossoming career was cut short by his death at age 45 due to heart complications. Mala faced many challenging personal circumstances, such as racial discrimination, at a very early age. But that did not prevent him from achieving both personal and professional excellence. I am sure he would be very proud to see that his grandson was following in his acting footsteps.

This year, in her newly released book ``Eskimo Star,'' author Lael Morgan chronicled the inspirational life story of Ray Mala, and the State of Alaska hosted a Ray Mala film festival celebrating Mala's films in community theaters from Juneau all the way up to Point Hope.

It is a great honor for me to reflect on the life of this inspirational Alaska Native icon, and to offer a tribute to his spirited and very triumphant journey from small-town village boy to silver screen leading man. Alaskans look forward to the day when Ray Mala's magnificent star might be posthumously added to the Hollywood Walk of Fame, a tribute to the Nation's first ever Native American film star.

It is a good way to end our Alaska day series. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a gentleman by the name of John Katz. John is a longtime public servant to the State of Alaska who is set to retire at year's end. John has served Alaska for more than 40 years, working for eight different Governors, Republican and Democratic, liberals and conservatives. He once said he was comfortable serving so many different Governors because the issues for Alaska were consistent. Whether they be responsible resource development, State sovereignty, or Federal assistance with infrastructure, the one constant figure connecting one administration after the next over eight administrations has been John Katz.

John started his career as a high school teacher and coach in Baltimore City public schools back in 1966, following his graduation from Johns Hopkins University. In 1969, he earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley. He then moved to Alaska to work as a legislative and administrative assistant to Congressman Pollock and then later for Senator Ted Stevens.

John has truly played many crucial roles for the State of Alaska. He served for several years as the counsel to the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for the State of Alaska. He served as special counsel to Gov. Jay Hammond back in 1979, advocating the State's position on the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or ANILCA, to Congress. Two years after that, he was appointed commissioner of natural resources by Governor Hammond. Then, in 1983, John was sent by Gov. Bill Sheffield to head Alaska's Washington, DC, office, and he has served as the liaison between the State and the Federal Government for the past 28 years--a pretty remarkable record, if you would consider it. As Alaskans, we know how important his role has been in bridging the very considerable gap between our State and the Federal Government--a key role when more than 60 percent of Alaska's land is controlled by the Federal Government.

You could refer to John as Alaska's fourth Congressman--his 40-year tenure in the league of the late Senator Stevens and Representative Don Young. John's breadth of knowledge and understanding of Alaska's issues have guided him in his very unique role.

Since entering public service, John has been involved in key issues, such as the passage of the landmark Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act back in 1971, the legislation in 1976 which extended America's fishery zones to 200 miles which allowed for the Americanization of Alaska's fishing fleet. There was also the passage back in 1980 of the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act, the Nation's largest conservation lands measure. There was the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act back in 1983, the Tongass Timber Reform Act in 1990 and 30 other major pieces of legislation and hundreds of amendments that have greatly affected the lives of all Alaskans.

What is so remarkable about John is that there is no Alaskan public policy issue he did not master, a pretty incredible feat there but no Alaska public policy issue that he did not have his fingerprints on, involved with or have a mastery of.

In 1972, for example, he served for 2 years on the Executive Advisory Committee of the Federal Power Commission, making decisions on electricity generation during a period of rapid population growth in Alaska. In 1974, he published a legal analysis of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and how it should impact Native Alaskans for the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission. Five years later, he served on the Hard Rock Minerals Commission of Alaska, helping to chart a course for the rebirth of our State's mineral industry. There is seemingly no Alaskan issue too complex or daunting for John Katz.

When I first met John, it was probably somewhere in the early 1980s. At the time, I was a staffer in the office of the speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives in Juneau, and I was immediately taken by the kindness of this gentleman, extraordinarily polite to a very young staffer, but also his intellectual prowess that was shown whether it was a casual conversation or whether it was a detailed policy analysis.

Former Gov. Tony Knowles called him ``one of the most remarkable public servants I've ever dealt with.'' Governor Hammond, during the lengthy debate over ANILCA, called him truly indispensable. Senator Stevens once said: ``He's as near a genius as I've seen.'' I would clearly agree with that. Some of his coworkers have even jokingly called him their own human Google machine, noting that in many cases it was more efficient, it was easier to walk down the hall and ask John for legal and policy background, saving them hours of research, and John had it all there, instant recall and as precise as it could possibly be.

Throughout his career, John served effectively and quietly, always preferring to work in the background, never seeking that limelight. He always presented every side of the issue, never telling any of his superiors simply what they might have wanted to hear. He truly was the consummate professional, a man who never got a fact wrong in a briefing, in a discussion or in a political strategy session. That may have been at least one of the many reasons why he has been so honored during his career, receiving the highest honor of the Alaska Federation of Natives, which is the Denali Award, winning Commonwealth North's 2008 Walter J. Hickel Award for distinguished public policy leadership and receiving more resolutions, commendations, and praise than most in Alaska's history.

John has built a reputation as an Alaskan institution, always loyally serving our beloved State. He has championed oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, noting the potential benefits for not only Alaska's economy but, more important, for America's overall economic and national security. While John has listed the failure, so far, to persuade Congress to open ANWR as perhaps one of his biggest disappointments, he has always stood by the factually solid arguments for opening ANWR, never letting his passionate advocacy of opening the coastal refuge get in the way of objectively presenting arguments to Members of Congress.

I think it is important to note John's statement in his resignation letter to Governor Parnell. He stated the following:

Professionally, I have become increasingly discouraged by

the polarization and deterioration of the public policy

process at the Federal level. It's the worst I've seen during

my 43-year career.

That was the statement in John's resignation note. As someone who has relied on John's wise counsel and his wisdom during my 8 years in the Senate, I think this is a poignant remark about the state of affairs in Congress. The debate surrounding our politics has grown more caustic, while ignoring the fact that while we all may take different positions, we all ultimately have our Nation's interests at heart.

John leaves an esteemed legacy that will benefit Alaska for decades to come. We can learn so much from his example of what a public servant should be, and Alaska will deeply miss his presence. I know I speak for all Alaskans in sincerely thanking John for his years of dedicated service and his pragmatic approach to faithfully serving the State of Alaska. I wish him nothing but the best in the future for all his endeavors.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I have come to the floor this morning to discuss a provision in the Energy and Water appropriations bill that apparently Senator Bingaman has just spoken to. This would require the sale of $500 million worth of oil from our Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve or we call it the SPR. I do believe this is an inappropriate use of our limited emergency stockpiles, and I think it would also set a dangerous and an unsustainable precedent for the future.

As I understand it, the administration first requested this sale in its fiscal year 2012 budget proposal and justified it by asserting there was an integrity issue in one of the caverns where the SPR oil was stored. We heard this discussion before the Energy Committee some months ago. He asserted the sale was necessary because DOE had to drain the oil in that cavern to perform some repairs that were apparently necessary.

The House Appropriations Committee subsequently authorized the sale in its version of the bill which was then released in June. At that point in time, based upon DOE's representation, I guess it was kind of hard not to argue the sale was not justified. But then events took a different course. Several weeks later, as part of a coordinated effort with the IEA to increase global supplies, the President chose to sell about six times more crude from the SPR than the House had originally contemplated.

Whether one supported that sale or not, I think it would have been reasonable to assume or to expect the administration would sell the crude from the cavern that needed the repairs. They needed to get that out so they could do the necessary repairs. So when an unannounced sale comes along, one would think they would take the oil from that cavern, thereby solving at least one of the problems and obviating the need of a future maintenance-related sale. Enough oil has now been sold from our emergency reserves to fill not one but six troubled caverns.

The only justification that can remain now is the need for more cash. We need more money. Given that background, I would encourage the Senate to consider that selling $500 million worth of our emergency oil reserves right now simply to help offset other appropriations is akin to cashing out our insurance policy in order to cover the cost of a mortgage we can't afford in the first place.

The SPR was designed to be that emergency safety net, if you will, or like an insurance policy. Remember, there is a very good reason why we have this insurance policy in the first place. Congress created the SPR in the aftermath of the oil embargo back in the 1970s to serve as a safety net in the event we were to see a major supply disruption. Given the volatility that continues to churn the global markets, our strategic stockpile is arguably more important today than ever before. As long as we maintain a large volume of oil within the SPR, we will ensure Americans have some level of protection against future disruptions. If we decide not to take the long view, we face the very real risk of being forced to spend more tomorrow to repurchase the oil that is being sold today.

One may ask: How likely is any kind of a future disruption? I would say the odds are still higher than we would like. Our Nation remains roughly 50 percent dependent on foreign oil, importing close to 9 million barrels a day at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The world, as we know, is not exactly stable. Large volumes of Libyan oil remain offline. Iran continues to provoke its neighbors, raising the specter of future attacks. Saudi Arabia's leadership is aging rapidly, leaving the door open to perhaps future unrest and upheaval. China, India, and many of the other countries are rapidly expanding their oil consumption and, in the meantime, forging close relationships with major suppliers that can be leveraged in times of emergency.

Here at home, the Federal Government continues to hinder the development of new supplies that would improve our energy security and reduce the need for a strategic reserve. We have seen development halted or delayed in Alaska in the northern part of the State, in the Rocky Mountain West, and a number of other areas. The new 5-year leasing plan for offshore development does take a few small steps, but it keeps both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts under a de facto moratorium through at least 2017. The administration has also delayed its decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. We just saw that news this week. This would have carried significant volumes of Canadian oil. Again, that is oil from an ally, from a neighbor, that would have brought that into this country.

The result is, we are not doing, in my opinion, nearly enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, so we still need a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and we cannot treat it as a national ATM that can be tapped when the money is tight. That is not the reason we should have or the way to utilize the SPR.

I wish to share a quote from a witness who testified before the Energy Committee earlier this year. His name is Kevin Book. He is a real expert on energy policy, and I think he made quite an impression on our committee. He encouraged us to seek alternatives to petroleum, but he also said:

Selling oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to pay

for efficiency gains and alternative fuels could seriously

diminish U.S. energy security without necessarily delivering

financial benefits.

For anybody who might be interested, I am happy to provide a copy of his testimony. I think it was quite useful in understanding why this approach is not appropriate at this point in time.

As we seek to pay for legislation that comes before us--whether it is this appropriations bill or something else--I continue to believe one of our best paths forward is to produce more of our own abundant resources and then put the resulting Federal revenues to good use. Instead of selling our emergency oil and risking future dilemmas, we should, instead, put policies in place that expand and that accelerate the pace at which we develop our immense natural resources.

Right now, Alaska has about 40 billion barrels of oil that are just waiting

to be tapped for the good of the Nation. I keep saying we have money that is buried in the ground up there. If we harness those resources and more of the resources in the Gulf of Mexico and the Rocky Mountain West, we would be dramatically increasing our energy security, we would create tens of thousands of new jobs, and generate billions and billions of dollars year after year that could be applied to both deficit reduction and the development of new energy technologies.

I would encourage the Senate to support any amendment that strikes the SPR provision in this bill and encourage us, instead, to focus on the development of a more viable long-term energy policy.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sarah Boger, an intern in my office, be allowed the privileges of the floor throughout consideration of the debate on the nomination of Sharon Gleason.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and thank our Nation's veterans. They have helped define our country with their service, their commitment, their sacrifice, and their legacy.

On November 11, 1918, the hostilities of World War I ceased. The commemoration of this day was originally known

as ``Armistice Day'' and was declared a Federal holiday. During a House debate on the topic, one Representative suggested that Armistice Day would ``not be devoted to the exaltation of glories achieved in war but, rather to an emphasis upon those blessings which are associated with the peacetime activities of mankind.'' By 1954 it was official that November 11 was the day to honor American veterans of all wars, and the day would officially be known as ``Veterans Day.''

As we reflect on the service of heroes who have served our country in conflicts past including World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Persian Gulf war and others, we must pause also to honor the dedication of the men and women who are putting their lives on the line today to protect our freedom. This includes not only those serving in Southwest Asia but also those in Kosovo, those standing watch of the Korean demilitarized zone, and those serving and sacrificing in countless other countries and regions around the world.

For veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, we need to highlight the increasing problems they are having as they return home from service, from obtaining appropriate health care to finding jobs. In Alaska, I hear concerns about how the Federal Government's efforts to reduce the national debt may impact our servicemembers and veterans. I understand those concerns and believe we must honor our commitments to these men and women.

In my home State of Alaska, we have the distinct pleasure and honor of having the largest per capita percentage of veterans of any State in the Union with 77,000 veterans who call Alaska home. In just a few months, Alaska-based soldiers will represent approximately 10 percent of America's Afghanistan presence. In Alaska, veterans are our neighbors, our coworkers, and our friends. I think it is fair to say that Alaskans understand and appreciate the sacrifice thousands of young men and women in uniform today are making, as well as the sacrifice all of our veterans have made. It is all of them who we honor today.

Today as we honor those who have served, we also mourn. We mourn those veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of freedom. Alaska has lost many members of our military community in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. I extend my heartfelt sympathy to the families of all our fallen servicemembers.

Finally, I would like to recognize one last group: the families and loved ones of America's veterans. These are the folks who have had to see their loved ones sent away to war zones and who worried about their well being every second, of every minute, of every day until the they returned. These are the people who singlehandedly manage households. These are the people who deal firsthand with the invisible scars and injuries of war, such as PTSD, when their loved one comes home. The family members of our veterans are heroes who bravely serve our Nation and rightfully deserve our recognition.

So on this Veterans Day, I am honored to have the opportunity to stand among my colleagues to honor the veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice, those who made it home, those who are still serving across the world, and the families and loved ones of America's veterans. While words cannot express the gratitude we have for our veterans, with a unified voice we want to say thank you.

Madam President, there is a lot of discussion, of course, about jobs in this country--where they are, and what we can do to help incent them. I had the opportunity while I was in my State last week to host three different townhalls that focused on the state of our Nation's economy and what is happening with jobs and job creation. As I asked Alaskans for their input, what I heard consistently from community to community was: We can allow for job creation that is meaningful. We can allow for opportunities here in our State and across the country. But the first thing you can do is to get the government out of the way. That was probably my biggest takeaway out of the townhalls with Alaskans: Get the government out of our way so we can move forward as small business owners and operators, as those who are looking to advance jobs in resource development. Move the government back, and we can make some things happen.

I think one of the key ways we can create real jobs is by moving the Federal Government out of the way of the private sector. Yet this administration is doing exactly the opposite. Our economy struggles to grow and many Americans, of course, are out of work, but what we are seeing out of the White House is this effort that essentially buries job creators under a mountain of paperwork and regulations. Businesses waste hours and productivity on checking the right boxes and making sure they have filled out the right form in the right way, rather than creating new opportunities for employees. Far too often, our small businesses are being judged by how well they keep their safety records rather than the actual safety records themselves: Did you check the right box? Did you fill out the right form? If you didn't, we are going to fine and penalize you. But is the focus on making sure they have a strong and sound safety record?

Many of the regulations--and, unfortunately far too many coming from the EPA--unnecessarily raise the cost of energy and other vital goods and services. I, as the ranking member on the Energy Committee, have spent a lot of time and a lot of focus on what we are doing in this country to help reduce our energy costs. Unfortunately, far too often we are seeing increased costs to our families and to our businesses because of the regulations that come at them. While we all support responsible environmental regulation--I want EPA to do its job--we also want to protect other vital national interests such as affordable and reliable energy and a strong economy.

Remember too that unreliable or unduly expensive energy has broad negative impacts on all aspects--public health--all aspects of our day. When I hear from Alaska's business owners, they say two things. I told my colleagues what the first one was, which is get government out of the way, and let us get to work. Business owners across the country agree--there was a Gallup poll last month--small business owners indicated that complying with government regulations is the most important problem they face today. The No. 1 issue on the minds of small business owners is the fact that complying with government regulations is burying them. What we hear from businesses is that they need the regulatory agencies to follow the rule of law and strike a proper balance between the many important national interests our laws protect.

When it comes to regulation, in my opinion, this administration has gone further--they have pushed past that rule of law in striking that proper balance. What we are seeing is a level of overreach, which I think is unprecedented, by the agencies reaching out and expanding their jurisdiction, if you will, and setting policy as opposed to implementing the laws that have been passed.

The resolutions of disapproval we will have before us for a vote tomorrow--Senator Paul's resolution on the cross-State air pollution and Senator Hutchison's resolution of disapproval as it relates to the Internet--are both incredibly important for the issues they raise but even more so speaking to what we are seeing right now with agency overreach. As the Chair may recall, last year I led an effort on this floor to push back against the EPA in an area where the EPA was, for all intents and purposes, setting policy when it came to greenhouse gas emissions in this country. I strongly and firmly believe the role of the agencies is to implement the laws we have passed, not to set policy. So I share the concerns Senator Hutchison and Senator Paul have raised with the two rules that are at issue today. They are utilizing a tool under the Congressional Review Act which allows us as a Congress to step in when Federal agencies go overboard with trying to make businesses comply with costly regulations, in effect, that overreach.

Let's first discuss very briefly Senator Paul's resolution of disapproval regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's cross-State air pollution rule. I have seen it referred to as the acronym CSAPR or ``zapper,'' but because neither one of those sounds like anything we can relate to, I will refer to it as the cross-State pollution rule. This rule should not go forward at this time for a number of reasons, not the least of which is its potential impact on electric reliability. Independent grid operators and the independent professionals whom we count on to assess electric reliability have expressed concerns about subjecting generators of electricity to the rule, especially on the current timetable they are dealing with. The EPA simply needs to take another look at those impacts and what this rule will do to electricity costs.

There have been a number of independent studies that have pointed to the impact of EPA's rules generally, including the cross-State pollution rule and what that impact would be on existing electric generation capacity. The predictions differ on magnitude but project the retirement of as much as 8 percent of the Nation's installed electric generating capacity. Again, I will grant you, there is a range of difference here, but potentially as much as 8 percent of our country's installed generating capacity could be brought offline. That is significant. I have asked for a reliability analysis. We have gone back and forth in terms of getting that assessment. There will be a technical conference at the end of the month that hopefully will lead to a better understanding, but the long and the short of it is right now, we know that we don't know exactly how much could be impacted by this rule and others.

More specifically, the rules generally and the cross-State pollution rule alone could lead to more intense regional impact. Texas, for example, wasn't even included in the proposed rule but, as a consequence of the final rule, could see some very significant powerplant retirements and hence potentially significant adverse impact on reliability. The Midwest, according to the grid operator there, could also see retirements of electric capacity with attendant challenges for keeping the lights on.

In addition to the reliability impact, there is also going to be a cost impact. The cross-State pollution rule is the first of a number of pending rules to go final and the EPA has made some major changes between that proposed rule and the final rule. The agency has even proposed significant technical adjustments as recently as last month, even though the rule is slated to go final by the beginning of this next year.

Putting aside the merits of the corrections--and I understand they don't go far enough--the EPA should be sent back to the drawing board to learn more, understand more about the potential reliability impact, and then should amend the substantive requirements of the cross-State pollution rule so that those required to comply can comply. If EPA had looked carefully at that time-reliability issue in the first place, there probably wouldn't be reason for the delay, but they acted in haste, and haste makes waste.

I wish to speak quickly to Senator Hutchison's resolution of disapproval regarding the FCC net neutrality rule. The rule put into place by the FCC in 2010 circumvents Congress. It assumes an authority that this body never consented to. We cannot allow the executive branch to go down this road. We just should not allow it. No provision of any statute explicitly gives the FCC the authority to impose these sweeping rules on the Internet. In fact, section 230 of the Communications Act makes it the policy of the United States ``to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.'' The Internet, we would all agree--I heard the comments of the Senator from Minnesota--has been a huge boon for small businesses and jobs throughout our country. We recognize that. We want to ensure it continues in that way.

To quote FCC Commissioner McDowell from a Wall Street Journal op-ed:

Net-neutrality sounds nice, but the web is working fine

now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation

and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers.

So unless the administration is trying to create jobs for lawyers, I don't find any justification to expand the government's reach to regulate the Internet as the FCC proposes. Once again, what we are seeing is an agency stepping in to regulate in an area where the laws simply did not contemplate.

For all of these reasons, and because the Federal Government needs to stop overburdening our country with costly regulations at a time when we can least afford it, I support the resolution of disapproval from Senator Hutchison as well as the resolution of disapproval from Senator Paul.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) The Senator from Oregon.

Madam President, today I bid farewell to Steven C. Borell, the executive director of the Alaska Miners Association, who has decided to retire after 22 years at the helm of Alaska's foremost mining advocacy agency.

While I am sure the State's mining industry will be in great hands when Mr. Fred Parady takes over as the new executive director in January, still it is very hard for me to imagine a minerals industry in the State of Alaska without Steve championing not only its regulatory survival but its future growth.

For far longer than I have been in public service, Steve has been the steady, knowledgeable voice on all issues surrounding mineral development in Alaska. His depth of knowledge of land laws and regulatory/permitting issues is legendary. He has had the trust of regulators and politicians and has done a sensational job of representing the interests of the minerals industry, fighting for reasonable terms and commonsense regulation of the industry--an increasingly difficult task given recent regulatory proposals out of Washington.

Alaskans are extremely lucky that Steve, an industrial engineer by training, came to Alaska in spring 1988 to run Valdez Creek mineral operations at Cantwell and then stayed on to cheerlead the rebirth of the State's minerals industry. Steve, who graduated from Kansas State University in 1968, had previously worked first as a foreman at a mine in Velva, ND, advancing to be the mine's superintendent in 1976. He later worked at mines in Colorado and in Colombia in South America before working at the Consolidated Coal Company and for the Arch Mineral Corporation in Illinois before coming to Alaska. While in Alaska, he also served as a consulting engineer on several mineral projects.

In 1989, the State, after the death of efforts to open the U.S. Borax molybdenum claims at Misty Fjords outside of Ketchikan, had only two major operating hard-rock mines, the Red Dog and Greens Creek Mines, and the Usibelli coal mine that together produced $277 million in minerals. Since Steve assumed the helm of the industry's main advocacy arm, Fort Knox, Pogo, and the Kensington mines have all come on line, exploration spending has quadrupled, and the value of the minerals industry has risen more than tenfold, topping $3 billion, and many more projects are on the way. While higher ore prices certainly have helped, Steve's hardwork, perseverance, and dedication to helping the industry overcome regulatory barriers is a key reason for the increase.

I know how hard he has worked to keep track of and to help bring some common sense to the mind-boggling permitting and regulatory processes that have dogged the minerals industry in recent years. His determination and attention to detail have helped numerous Alaska projects advance. He has always been a strong advocate for Alaska's hundreds of small-scale placer and recreational miners and for large- scale mineral developers. He has helped both equally, giving freely of his time and talent to promote Alaskan development for the good of the State and all its citizens.

I could sing his praises on this floor for hours. My staff and I will miss him greatly, and I am sure all of the industry will too. But promoting mineral development, fighting the forces that want to overregulate and lock up Alaska lands, has become not just a full-time job, but now requires an all-consuming passion given the administration's wild land edicts, more than 2,000 Federal regulatory proposals, and an endless stream of environmental suits and attacks. No one has earned a rest more than Steven C. Borell.

I can only wish him well in the future and again thank him for all that he has done for Alaska and our citizens. The State is a far better place for all of his many efforts. We all owe him our true thanks and gratitude for a job very well done, and we will all miss his sage advice and wisdom.

Mr. President, today I wish to note the importance of growing Russian-American cooperation in the field of civil nuclear energy. Our common interests in this area are a significant opportunity to enhance energy security and economic growth for both nations. Just as importantly, building on a good record of cooperation on nuclear energy can form a basis for improving our relationship with the Russian Federation more broadly.

As the two largest nuclear complexes, the United States and Russia play an essential role in setting global standards. We have worked effectively together on non-proliferation initiatives through the Nunn- Lugar program for nearly a generation. But our cooperation in nuclear energy is not as well known.

Russia has long been America's largest foreign partner in nuclear power through the HEU-LEU Agreement of 1993. Better known as the ``Megatons-for-Megawatts'' agreement, Russia's nuclear corporation Rosatom has converted fissile material from thousands of weapons into energy for American homes and businesses. Nearly half of the fuel used in U.S. reactors is of Russian origin, which accounts for 10 percent of the electricity produced in this country.

In terms of nuclear technology, we have a lot to learn from one another. If the event at the Fukushima reactors in Japan has taught us anything, it's that nuclear safety is an issue that crosses borders. The recent signing of the ``Joint Statement on the Strategic Direction of U.S.-Russian Nuclear Cooperation'' between Rosatom and the Department of Energy is a good example and will take advantage of Russian technological leadership on advanced reactors with passive safety systems. It recognizes that the long-term answers on nuclear safety will be a new generation of inherently safe reactors.

I applaud the work of the Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Security Working Group led by Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Poneman and Rosatom Director General Sergey Kirienko. By expanding their joint efforts to include nuclear safety and development of a global framework for nuclear energy, they are bringing the world's best technical expertise to bear on critical issues that must be addressed to sustain public confidence in nuclear energy.

Mr. President, cooperative efforts between the United States and Russia in civil nuclear energy are a success story in an often complex relationship. Building on this relationship should be a priority for both countries.