Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to follow my friend and colleague Senator Wyden from Oregon, the chairman of the energy committee, to speak today about the confirmation of Dr. Ernest Moniz to be our Nation's Secretary of Energy.

I think it is good when we are able to stand as the chairman and the ranking member and come to terms of agreement so far as support for an individual for a position such as Secretary of Energy. This is an important position within this administration. It is an important position just from the perspective of how we move forward in this country while we deal with our energy issues and our energy future, which I think is where we get relatively enthusiastic about this nomination.

Again, I thank the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my friend from Oregon, for his leadership in advancing the nomination to the finish line.

I also want to recognize and thank the members of our committee for their very thoughtful questions. When we had Dr. Moniz before the committee, it was perhaps one of the smoother confirmation hearings we have had in quite some time.

I also thank the full Senate for working with us so we can fulfill our constitutional responsibility for advice and consent here today.

Before I speak to Dr. Moniz's qualifications--and I do think Senator Wyden has addressed those very well--I wish to take a moment to discuss the agency he will soon lead.

The Department of Energy was created back in 1977. It was created following the oil embargo which caused the gasoline shortages we saw around the country. The architects--those who put together the contours of DOE--were surveying a very different energy landscape than we face today.

Back in 1977, energy was viewed from the position of scarcity rather than the abundance we recognize today. Those architects, as they defined what a Department of Energy would look like and what it would hope to achieve, as well as the mission set there, had some pretty high hopes for what the Department would accomplish.

I think what we need to do is look back to that organic act which states that DOE would ``promote the general welfare by assuring coordinated and effective administration of Federal energy policy and programs.'' That is pretty simple.

That same act goes on to list 18 different purposes, a few of which bear repeating. One of them is to assure, to the maximum extent practical, that the productive capacity of private enterprise shall be utilized in the development and achievement of the policy and purposes of the act.

Another one of those purposes is to provide for the cooperation of Federal, State, and local governments in the development and implementation of national energy policies and programs.

A third purpose is to carry out the planning, coordination, support, and management of a balanced and comprehensive energy research and development program.

Looking back at DOE's creation is a reminder of how far we have come and yet how far we still have to go in achieving these various purposes that were set out in that organic act.

Today the Department is a major department. It has a budget of more than $25 billion each year. Thousands of scientists work on cutting-edge technologies at our national labs as they look for breakthroughs and manage our nuclear weapons programs.

Yet more than three decades later, it would be difficult to find many who truly believe we have achieved this coordinated and effective administration of Federal energy policy. In fact, we are going to have some who would disagree as to whether we have developed a Federal energy policy that adequately serves our national needs. Instead, we have seen energy-related programs and initiatives that are fragmented and scattered throughout the Federal Government. Not enough money, in my view, is getting to the bench for research and development, which is a critical aspect of how we build out that energy policy. It is also a critical component of how we move toward our energy future.

All too often it appears we have silos within the Department that stand in the way of progress. In recent years I have become concerned that DOE is not clearly and unambiguously working to keep energy abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure, principles that I think go into defining a good, strong Federal energy policy.

As I see it, DOE, in particular, must be a stronger voice in the councils of this administration for energy supply. In light of several costly failures, the Department must become a better steward of taxpayer dollars.

So all of these challenges, and more, will be inherited by our next Secretary of Energy. Along with the challenges, I think we also recognize there are great opportunities within the energy sector. That is why I believe we will do well to place Dr. Ernie Moniz, who is clearly a man with talent and experience in both the laboratory and as a public policymaker, to place him at the helm of this department.

Dr. Moniz has some pretty impressive credentials. He is a physicist, having graduated from Boston College before completing his Ph.D. at Stanford. He served in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and as an Under Secretary of the Department of Energy during the late 1990s. For the vast majority of his career, he has also served as the director of the MIT Energy Initiative. He has studied and written about nuclear energy, natural gas, innovation--really any number of topics with direct relevance for the future of our energy policy. So he has both. He has the academic experience, most certainly, as we see at MIT and at Stanford, but he also has that practical application. My colleague from Oregon described him as solution oriented, and I think that is a very apt description. He is an impressive nominee.

In our meetings where it is nice and casual and relaxed and people can have a pretty good conversation, I was very impressed with not only Dr. Moniz's background and experience but how he views moving forward within the Department of Energy. There is a level of comfortable confidence I found encouraging. He has shown he understands what his job requires, and because of that I believe he will be a capable Secretary. He is knowledgeable, he is competent, and he is refreshingly candid, and I think that is an important part of it.

I kind of challenged him in the confirmation hearing before the Energy Committee to keep that up: Don't be afraid to speak out, to be refreshingly candid. I think that is good advice.

He also has proven the Senate's confirmation process can be navigated successfully without undue delay, as long as questions are answered and concerns raised by Members are taken seriously, and I think he did attempt to do that.

It is my hope that after his confirmation, Dr. Moniz will guide our Nation's energy policy as the respected scientist he is and do so rigorously, robustly, free of preordained conclusions, and, again, not afraid to speak up or to speak his mind. His Department will benefit, and I think the country will as well.

As I have indicated in my comments, I think the Department of Energy needs good, strong direction. It needs that leadership, and I believe Dr. Moniz will provide both. That is why I am supporting his nomination, and I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in voting to confirm him later this afternoon.

I note my colleague from New Jersey is here. I have some comments I wish to make about the Arctic Council meeting, but I will certainly defer to my friend from New Jersey for his comments this morning.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, while we are waiting for colleagues to come and join us on the floor to speak about the nomination of Dr. Ernest Moniz to be Secretary for the Department of Energy, I thought I would take a few moments and fill in my colleagues about a meeting I just returned from in Kiruna, Sweden. This was the Arctic Council ministerial meeting.

The Arctic Council is comprised of the eight Arctic nations, of which the United States is one by virtue of the State of Alaska, but not to diminish the fact that we truly are an Arctic nation, and our role as such, involved with other Arctic neighbors, is a growing role and a role the rest of the world is looking at with great interest and great anticipation as to how the United States is going to step forward into this important arena.

This is the second Arctic Council meeting I have attended. I was in Nuuk, Greenland, with Secretary Clinton and Secretary Salazar 2 years ago. That was the first time the United States had sent a Cabinet member, sent the Secretary of State to the Arctic Council, and it caused great waves throughout the Arctic world and certainly gained the attention of nations around the world. The sentiment was the United States is finally stepping up, the United States is moving forward, recognizing its role as an Arctic nation. So it was exceedingly important that Secretary Kerry continued that good work of Secretary Clinton in leading the United States in its role at this ministerial meeting.

I will tell you, Secretary Kerry has been very involved here in this body as a Senator in his leadership on certain issues, specifically advancing the Law of the Sea Treaty--ratification of that important treaty--speaking out and being very forthright on the issue of climate change. His leadership at the council meeting in Kiruna yesterday was clearly evidenced as he worked to bring the parties together in terms of an agreement to move forward with how we treat observers to the Arctic Council. I commend Secretary Kerry for his leadership, certainly for his initiative, in ensuring that the United States continues to have a high profile and a growing profile.

Why is this important? Why do we need to not only be engaged but to step up that engagement? Well, yesterday, the chairmanship of the Arctic Council transferred from Sweden to Canada, so our neighbors to the North will chair the Arctic Council for these next 2 years. In 2015, the gavel of that chairmanship will pass from Canada to the United States, so we will be working to set the agenda, although it is a very consensus-driven process. But we will clearly be in a leadership role amongst the eight Arctic nations and those observer nations. It is critically important that we are ready, that we be working toward assuming this leadership position.

In doing that, it is more than just attending meetings every other year. It is the agreements that come out as a result of these ministerials, these consensus initiatives that help to advance the dynamic in an evolving part of the world.

In Nuuk, the first-ever binding agreement of the parties was entered into, and this was a search-and-rescue agreement. If there is an incident up in the Arctic--and the world up there knows very little in terms of boundaries and what happens with ice, but we recognize our infrastructure is severely limited. So who is in charge? How do we work cooperatively, collaboratively with search and rescue? It was an exceedingly important initiative that was adopted 2 years ago.

Yesterday, in Kiruna, it was the adoption of the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic. There is a recognition that in the Arctic, where some 15 percent of the world's known oil and gas reserves are situated, there will be activity. We are seeing it in Russia to our left-hand side; we are seeing it in Canada to our right-hand side. In the United States, as we all know, Shell attempted to begin exploration this year. There have been previous exploration efforts up in the Beaufort and in the Chukchi. Whether you are for or against oil development here in this country, the recognition is that within the Arctic nations there is activity. There are ongoing efforts, whether it is through exploration or, hopefully, production that will move forward.

What we are trying to do within the Arctic Council and other entities is make sure that when that happens, we are prepared. So we are putting forward collaboration and collective agreements so there is an understanding that in the event--hopefully, a very unlikely event--something would ever happen, there is an understanding as to how all the nations act, the level of preparation that moves forward.

There are incredibly important initiatives as we deal with an evolving Arctic. Think about the world up north there. Really understand what is happening. This is no longer an area that is locked in ice and snow, an area where we are not able to transit, an area where there is no human activity. The Arctic has clearly seen an opening, as we see the sea ice receding. We are seeing a level of activity that is unprecedented. It is truly the last frontier--a new frontier, so to speak.

Again, how we prepare for a world where there is more movement, where there is more activity, is going to be a critical key to the success and the opportunity. We recognize the volume of shipping now coming through the Northwest Passage, coming from Russia on down through the Bering Strait, through very narrow channels there out to Asia, down into the Pacific. There is incredible movement. So how are we preparing ourselves for an increased volume of shipping traffic? Do we have the navigational aids we need? Do we have the ports and the infrastructure that will be necessary? These are some of the initiatives that were discussed.

Obviously, when we think about an Arctic that is changing, a key focus is on climate change and what is happening. We are seeing the impact of climate change in the Arctic more noticeably than in other parts of the globe. So there is a great deal of science and research that is going on that is necessary. How we collaborate, how we share that with all of our other Arctic neighbors is going to be key.

How we map our resources, whether it is understanding the sea floor, whether it is understanding the coastline, this is an area that--we use the term ``frontier.'' When we go out into a new frontier, it is important to know what it is we are dealing with; how we can work cooperatively on things such as mapping; what we can do to ensure that as we see changes, as we see development, as we see increased economic activity in the Arctic, that the indigenous people--the people who have been there for thousands of years, living a true subsistence lifestyle--that their lifestyle remains intact, that there can be a balance and a harmony with their world and this changing scenery and landscape in front of them.

This is a story that was conveyed to me several years ago. I was up in Barrow, which is, of course, the northernmost city in the United States. Barrow is a relatively small community of several thousand individuals. One afternoon there was a group of folks who were in town and they were all speaking German.

Somebody asked: Well, how did you get here? Where did you come from?

They did not see that many people getting off the Alaska Airlines jet. The German tourists pointed to a cruise ship that was offshore. They had lightered these German tourists into the community. Just a few years back, a cruise ship in these waters was unheard of. What we are seeing now are cruises. We have a level of tourism that would never have been anticipated. So how we prepare for all of this is a challenge for us.

The work of the Arctic Council is again focusing on collaboration and cooperation in an area, in a zone of peace, as many would suggest. This is an important opportunity for us from a diplomacy perspective. Think about how many hot spots we have in the world, how many places on this planet where we are trying to put out fires that have been simmering or smoldering for decades, for generations, for some, millennia. If we have a part of the world where we can work together, what kind of a message, what kind of a symbol does that represent? So we have some enormous opportunities within the Arctic.

Part of my challenge--and I shared this with Secretary Kerry--is impressing upon people in this country that we are an arctic nation. The Presiding Officer hails from the State of Massachusetts. My colleague and chairman of the Energy Committee comes from Oregon. I would venture to say that most of the Senator's constituents do not view themselves as people of the Arctic, but we are. As 50 States, we are. So how we work together to make sure America's role as an arctic nation is represented is key.

I will conclude my remarks by noting that on Friday the White House released its Arctic strategy. This is a document to advance national security interests, how we responsibly manage the Arctic ecosystem, how we bolster international relationships--all very worthwhile goals. I think we recognize that it is perhaps a little bit light on detail, but the good news is that so many of our Federal agencies are working to help advance these goals.

What we need, in addition to a coordinated strategy, is a policy that is going to make sense from all of the different levels, whether it is how we deal with the energy, how we deal with the human side, how we deal with the security aspect of it. These are complicated issues, but it is an opportunity that is almost unprecedented to be able to take a blank page and be able to create opportunities, to be able to create policies that really began with a level of collaboration and cooperation. This is what we are hoping to build not only with our Arctic neighbors but beyond that.

It was interesting to note the recognition of six nations that joined as observers: China, India, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. No one would ever suggest these are Arctic nations, but the reason they want to be engaged as observers is they recognize the importance of the Arctic to the rest of the globe. They recognize the importance, whether from a shipping perspective, whether from an environmental perspective, whether from just an opportunity for resources. There is a keen awareness of what is happening in the Arctic, that this is the place to be right now.

So my urging to my colleagues is to pay attention to not only what is happening in the Arctic but pay attention to how an increased role in the Arctic impacts them and constituents in their States because whether it is sending goods from one nation to another, this is an opportunity to allow for transit and commerce that has only been a dream. Whether it is how we access our energy resources in a way that is done responsibly, safe, and with an eye toward environmental stewardship, there are opportunities for us--challenges, yes, but opportunities for us as well.

So I will be talking much more about our role as an arctic nation, our responsibilities as an arctic nation, but I would ask that we start thinking about this: Where does Massachusetts, where does Oregon, where do they fit in as part of an arctic nation?

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source