Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I place these articles in the Record not only because Mo's legacy needs to be preserved in history, not only to do justice to the tremendous contribution of Mo Bailey, I am really hoping these articles will catch the attention of some of the senior officials within the VA. Reading about the gaps in service Mo Bailey sought to fill might challenge the VA to think a little bit harder about how it can improve its service to other rural veterans. At the very least, it might cause the VA to acknowledge the debt it owes to people like Mo Bailey and so many others in our veterans service organizations who are giving of their own time, their own energy, their own money, to fill these gaps. So maybe, just maybe, Mo's story, which has been an inspiration to so many of us in Alaska, will also inspire the VA to do more and to do better. On behalf of all of my Senate colleagues, I express my deepest condolences to Mo's wife Ann and all of those who have been touched by Mo Bailey's generosity and kindness. Exhibit 1 Reaching the Unreached in Alaska Veterans Aviation Outreach (By Jim Belshaw) In the course of his 20-year Army career, Maurice Bailey, president of VVA Chapter 903 in Mat-Su, Alaska, pulled two tours in Vietnam and one in Alaska. He thought Alaska was a ``cool place'' and went back there to live. It was different from anything he'd known, and he liked things that were different. Since 1980, the mechanic-turned-pilot has flown small fixed wing aircraft around the state. With a handful of other veteran-pilots, he's hoping to turn those long years of experience in the air into something that will help Alaska's aging veteran population. As Bailey himself got a little older, he said he decided to put in for ``some VA disability stuff Agent Orange-related and PTSD. Just a whole gamut of stuff.'' He said the VA experience ``wasn't a cakewalk,'' but when it was done the VA found him to be 90 percent disabled. That got him to thinking about other veterans. 74,000 of whom live in Alaska, some in remote villages far from any kind of service, Alaska being a good place to be alone if that's your desire. There are 234 villages in Alaska. They range in population from 50 to 500. A big town might have as many as 2000. ``A lot of people are hiding,'' Bailey said. ``They just wanted to run away. They just don't want to be bothered.'' He'd spent many year flying to such places. While he noticed the large number of veterans, he didn't give it much thought until he went through his own VA experience. He wondered how many of Alaska's veterans might be so far removed that they didn't know they had benefits coming, let alone how to get them. He became a veterans service officer. It seemed the natural for him. He met men he hadn't expected to meet. ``I met World War II guys,'' he said. ``One guy in particular, a tough old guy 84 years old. He was gut shot twice, medically discharged, and given a 30 percent disability. He quietly disappeared into the wilds of Alaska. When I met him, he was still flying airplanes. The oldest guy I saw was 90 years old. He says he doesn't mean to criticize the VA when he says it needs to do outreach. He thinks that if the VA did a credible job of outreach, it would be overwhelmed by the needs of veterans. He thought perhaps a smaller number of people working on a modest scale might be a good place to begin. Maurice Bailey got together with other veteran pilots--Tom Baird and Joe Stanistreet (no longer with VAO) and Chuck Moore--to talk about the possibility of doing outreach themselves. Bailey had been doing it on his own for a year and asked his friends if they'd like to join him. A fourth later joined the group--Jim Kendall, a photographer and navigator. From these conversations grew Veterans Aviation Outreach, Inc., three veteran pilots flying their own airplanes to reach people who live ``off the road'' in a place not known to have many roads. Many of those veterans live in what is described as ``survival mode'', barely existing, often finding comfort in alcohol, only to have the alcohol lead to unemployment. From the beginning, Bailey said, trust was the critical factor in the success they've had. Because of his long experience flying around Alaska, he came to know many of the distant veterans. It made a difference when he broached the subject of benefits. By way of illustration, he tells of another veteran who went to a small village where no one came out to greet him. But when Aviation Outreach went to the same place, they signed up 29 people in two days for health care and benefits. ``These guys have seen me around these villages and they trust me,'' Bailey said. ``I know most of them. I know their kids.'' Bailey said Moore, with whom he served in Vietnam 38 years ago, is a key player in the effort and the pilot with the most experience. ``He was a young pilot (19) and I was an old man (25),'' Bailey said. ``He flew gunships. He left the Army and went into the Navy to fly jets. He flies 90 percent of the missions for VAO. At this time he also flies for the State of Alaska. We have three pilots and four airplanes. Chuck owns two airplanes and the other two are owned by Tom Baird and myself.'' Tom Baird underscores the importance of trust with the veteran's community. When I travel in the bush, most contacts are developed by these kinds of relationships,'' he said. ``Once you establish a relationship with an individual as a friend, you end up being steadfast friends. Individual homes are open to one another. Most of the people in this state will stop and give a hand if you need it. We want to reach the unreached who are out of sight and out of mind. These individuals are extremely independent. They like to do things for themselves whether they can or not.'' Bailey says the four members of Veterans Aviation Outreach have no grand illusions. They try to do ``small stuff.'' They sign people for VA benefits; they recruit new VVA members. Believing there is strength in numbers, they do what they can to build the veterans community. They built a wheelchair ramp for a veteran to get in and out of his house. He's 50, Bailey said, and he'd ``given up on life.'' So they do small things that will enhance that life. They put in a claim for a veteran suffering from diabetes. It took eight months to settle, but the veteran received $4,000 in back pay and now gets $200 a month for the rest of his life. ``He's real happy because now he can buy fuel oil,'' Bailey said. Bailey is direct when dealing with veterans, ``I try to explain to them, ``Look guys, you're old and you're sick now,'' he said. Tom Baird said decisions between quantity and quality is always difficult. ``We've run into difficulty making decisions about reaching as many people as we can or making sure those we have contacted are taken care of before we move on,'' he said. ``Because of the difficulties of processing and getting things done, it's looking like we're going to go for quality first. These guys already had been promised the world and gotten nothing, so it makes no sense to go out there if we're not going to be able to do it right.'' Maurice Bailey counts his blessings and speaks of a duty to share them. ``Life has been pretty good to me,'' he said. ``I live pretty good. But we're here for more than to just live pretty good. We're here to help people when they need it.'' [From the Anchorage Daily News, Nov. 18, 2008] Pilots Bring Hope, Help to Veterans in Alaska--VAO: Outreach by 7 Vets Includes Food, Claims Help and Flights to the Doctor (By Zaz Hollander) Wasilla--A national veteran's group report released last month highlighted health-care struggles facing Alaska Army National Guard members returning from deployments to rural villages. But news of under-served Bush veterans came as no surprise to Maurice ``Mo'' Bailey, a Wasilla flight instructor who served as a helicopter flight engineer with the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. Several years ago, Bailey and six other veterans--also pilots--took to the skies in their own planes to help veterans living in Western Alaska. All had flown the area for fun, and saw veterans in need of help. In 2003, Bailey created a nonprofit, Veteran's Aviation Outreach, which serves ``isolated veterans'' in rural or remote parts of western Alaska and elsewhere. The men mostly help people file for Veterans Administration benefits. But they've also flown out veterans in need of medical care, made sure deceased veterans got flags for their graves, and shared literally tons of moose meat scored from helpful guides. In 2005, they filed benefit claims on behalf of six Naknek veterans. The next year, they flew a rural resident to Anchorage for emergency medical care, a visit that also resulted in diagnoses--and later treatment--of diabetes and post-traumatic stress disorder. Now 69, Bailey last year received the Governor's Veterans Advocacy Award for his ``outstanding volunteer service.'' He talked about the flying outreach group during a recent conversation. Q. Why did you start? A. Seeing the conditions that many veterans are in. Me and the rest of the pilots used to fly to western Alaska. We saw that people would have medical problems and some people in some cases died, leaving huge debts. Had they known they had benefits, the VA would have taken care of that. It's mostly information: these people are clueless. Once you're released from the military, you are not tracked, updated. Q. Why western Alaska? A. We were retired, just kind of goofing around (and flying the area). They're all combat pilots--the rest of the guys are. I'm not. We were all in Vietnam together. All of us are retired from the military, looking at our brothers and sisters and saying, ``Well, what can we do?'' We didn't set out to do this, trust me. We were enjoying our retirement, our grandchildren. Q. Can you give me some specifics of the kind of outreach you do? A. We've been to all villages up and down the Kvichak River and Lake Iliamna. We found out veterans had been buried without flags. We decided that was totally unacceptable. Q. Where was that? A. It was in Newhalen on Lake Iliamna. We came back and went around to organizations such as the VFW. We got flags at the Wasilla Vet Center. We took flags out to make sure that people who had died recently, they received flags they hadn't gotten before and we left flags there so they could have them to take to six surrounding villages. That was last year. Q. What about more recently? A. We help veterans, no matter where. Last month, a guy was on dialysis. He had to come into Wasilla three times a week. He lived in Sutton. His house was not sanitized, broken pipes. We took a couple ladies out, cleaned the house, took a plumber out to fix pipes for water, built a handicapped ramp. Now he's able to do his dialysis at home. Q. Where does the money come from? A. Most of it comes out of our pockets. Sometimes people give fundraisers, spaghetti dinners, garage sales, cookie bakes or whatever. We do lots of stuff. I tell you what, I'm not just bragging, I'm really proud. We've had a heckuva impact doing things for people, little things that (otherwise) people, they got to paperwork it to death. We just gave away 2,100 pounds of moose meat. We do it every year, have a deal with guides in Healy. They bring Lower 48'ers on hunts. They want horns. We want meat. We caravan a couple of trucks, pick up the meat and have it processed. The neediest people get it first. Valley veterans. Actually, we sent meat to the Bush--400 pounds last year to Naknek. Last week we also bought two freezers for needy veterans and filled both up with meat. Q. How many veterans do you serve? A. I just started tracking that. We see and help maybe two veterans a week. On a large scale, like the meat giveaway, it's to 50 to 60 people. Out in the Bush, we file claims for people with disabilities, illnesses. We do a little bit of everything. Q. Where's the next trip? A. Dillingham. Hopefully (early November). We'd like to have a gathering there. We had 600 people last spring at a Wasilla Airport gathering, with a barbecue and a band . . . We had World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan vets. What made it so amazing was that these young guys that just returned from Iraq and Afghanistan were able to communicate and talk to guys that was in World War II. A lot of those guys won't be around here next year.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and dear colleague, Senator Robert C. Byrd, who left us on Monday, June 28, 2010 at the age of 92. Senator Byrd was the longest serving member of the Senate. It is noteworthy that he was sworn in as a U.S. Senator on January 3, 1959, the same day Alaska was admitted as the 49th State. How does one do justice to a life as full, as human, as authentic, as uniquely American as that of Senator Byrd's in just a few minutes? Born in poverty, a self-described foster son of an impoverished coal miner, a product of a two-room schoolhouse, he went on to walk with kings, to meet with prime ministers, and to debate with Presidents. Only in America could one come so far from so little. His is a textbook case of American exceptionalism. Robert C. Byrd was a man of principle who was unwavering in his priorities. The Lord came first, his family second, and then the business of West Virginia and Nation. Senator Byrd was remarkable in that he could juggle all of these obligations with apparent ease. He was a man who carried the Constitution in his breast pocket, closest to his heart. A fierce protector of the prerogatives of the Senate, he frequently recalled that the Congress is mentioned in the Constitution before the Executive. He once remarked, ``I am not the President's man. I am a Senate man.'' So many of our colleagues take delight in this quote from The Almanac of American Politics and it bears repeating. The Almanac described Senator Byrd as the one among us who ``may come closest to the kind of senator the Founding Fathers had in mind than any other.'' On the occasion of his 90th birthday, Senator Ted Stevens referred to Senator Byrd as a ``symbol of the Senate,'' adding that, ``No man has taught the Senate more than Robert C. Byrd.'' Senator Byrd made it his personal responsibility to educate new Senators in the history and traditions of the Senate and to mentor us along. He made a real difference in my orientation to the Senate. His statesmanship was an inspiration to me. It was an inspiration to all of us. As contentious as our debates may seem, as partisan as we often seem to the American public, the Senate prefers to regard itself as a family. Yes, a family that fights, but a family nonetheless. Senator Stevens once observed, ``As part of the Senate family, Senator Byrd is not only a gentleman, he has been a person who has reached out to us in personal times as well.'' I came to know that well after I injured my leg in a skiing accident last year. For a period of time I had to navigate the Senate floor in a wheelchair. The Senate floor is not exactly wheelchair friendly, but Senator Byrd had adapted to the challenge. One day, as we were going to the floor to vote, our wheelchairs met and we reached out to hold hands as we wheeled our chairs to the well of the Senate. Like Ted, I loved Robert C. Byrd. Yet I regret that I never had the opportunity to enjoy the close friendship that my colleague Ted Stevens did. Yes, they had their spats, but Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd regarded each other as family. Senator Stevens' daughter Lily referred to Senator Byrd as an uncle. Senator Byrd published in the Congressional Record excerpts from Lily's senior thesis from Stanford, ``The Message of the Dome: The United States Capitol in the Popular Media.'' Senator Stevens began working with Senator Byrd in 1968. In 1972, they joined each other on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Both served as President pro tempore of the Senate, a position reserved for the most senior Member of the Senate in the majority party. Yet as Senator Byrd liked to note, Ted was a relative youngster. Working together on a bipartisan basis, Ted Stevens helped Robert Byrd lift West Virginia out of poverty. And Senator Byrd demonstrated great empathy for Senator Stevens' crusade to end the third-world conditions that plague Alaska's Native people in the more than more than 230 traditional villages of rural Alaska. Like the West Virginia of Robert Byrd's childhood, rural Alaska lacked the sorts of infrastructure that the rest of America takes for granted--lack of road infrastructure, a lack of basic sanitation facilities, unreliable electricity, and unemployment. This may explain why Senator Byrd was greatly sympathetic to Senator Stevens' crusade to bring indoor plumbing to rural Alaska, to eliminate the honeybucket. Alaska's Denali Commission was modeled closely after the Appalachian Regional Commission, which Senator Byrd championed for decades. Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd worked together to make things better for the people of rural Alaska. Our Native people deeply appreciate the Alaska legacy of Robert C. Byrd. On the occasion of Senator Stevens' farewell from the Senate in 2008, a tearful Robert C. Byrd came to the Senate floor and said this ``Politics is a rough business, with lots of highs and lots of lows. After a long time in politics, I come to understand that the point of it all is helping people. Thank God we will be judged in the next world by the good we do in this world.'' On Monday, our dear friend, Senator Byrd, joined his beloved wife Erma in Heaven, where he will be judged by all of the good he has done for his Lord, his family, the people of West Virginia, and the Nation. I will miss him greatly. On behalf of Alaska's people, I extend my condolences to Senator Byrd's daughters Mona and Marjorie, his five grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren, to the people of West Virginia, and to all who knew and loved this great American.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation aimed at increasing the production of our hardest working renewable resource, one that often gets overlooked in the clean energy debate--hydropower. The first bill I would like to introduce today is the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2010, co-sponsored by my colleagues Senators Murray, Cantwell, and Crapo, true hydropower advocates. The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2010 seeks to substantially increase the capacity and generation of our clean, renewable hydropower resources that will improve environmental quality and support hundreds of thousands of green energy jobs. There is no question that hydropower is, and must continue to be, part of our energy solution. It is the largest source of renewable electricity in the United States. The 96,000 megawatts of hydroelectric capacity we now have today provide about 7 percent of the Nation's electricity needs. Hydroelectric generation is carbon-free baseload power that allows us to avoid 225 million metric tons of carbon emissions each year. Hydropower is clean efficient, and inexpensive. Yet, despite its tremendous benefits, I am constantly amazed at how some undervalue this important resource. Perhaps it is because conventional wisdom dismisses our Nation's hydropower capacity as tapped out. That is simply not the case. If anything, hydropower is really an under-developed resource--something we certainly understand in my home state of Alaska where hydro already supplies 24 percent of the state's electricity needs and over 200 promising sites for further hydropower development have been identified. There is great potential for additional hydropower development in every State, not just Alaska. According to the Obama administration, conventional hydropower facilities have the capacity to generate an additional 75,000 megawatts of power--a staggering amount of clean, inexpensive power. Now that doesn't seem possible until you realize that only 3 percent of the country's 80,000 existing dams are even electrified. Significant amounts of new capacity--anywhere between 20,000 and 60,000 megawatts-- can be derived from simple efficiency improvements or capacity additions at existing facilities. Additional hydropower can be captured in existing man-made conduits and hydroelectric pumped storage projects can help reliably integrate other renewable resources that are intermittent, such as wind, onto our grid. The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2010 seeks to increase substantially our nation's hydropower capacity in an effort to expand renewable power generation and create much needed American jobs. The legislation establishes a competitive grants program to support further hydropower development and directs the Energy Department to produce and implement a plan for the research, development and demonstration of increased hydropower capacity. The bill provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with additional authority to extend preliminary permit terms; to work with Federal resource agencies to streamline the review process for conduit hydropower projects; and to conduct a Notice of Inquiry into a possible two-year licensing process for certain minimal impact projects. The Act also calls for studies on pumped storage sites and the potential for nonfederal development at Bureau of Reclamation facilities, and authorizes training for hydroelectric power technology at community colleges. It is my hope that as the Senate turns to energy legislation, we can finally recognize the important contribution the renewable resource of hydropower makes, and will continue to make, to our clean energy goals. This legislation is supported by the National Hydropower Association, the American Public Power Association, the Family Farm Alliance, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Edison Electric Institute, and the National Water Resources Association. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2010 to promote the further development of our most cost-effective, clean energy option while creating hundreds of thousands of new green jobs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation aimed at increasing the production of our hardest working renewable resource, one that often gets overlooked in the clean energy debate--hydropower. The first bill I would like to introduce today is the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2010, co-sponsored by my colleagues Senators Murray, Cantwell, and Crapo, true hydropower advocates. The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2010 seeks to substantially increase the capacity and generation of our clean, renewable hydropower resources that will improve environmental quality and support hundreds of thousands of green energy jobs. There is no question that hydropower is, and must continue to be, part of our energy solution. It is the largest source of renewable electricity in the United States. The 96,000 megawatts of hydroelectric capacity we now have today provide about 7 percent of the Nation's electricity needs. Hydroelectric generation is carbon-free baseload power that allows us to avoid 225 million metric tons of carbon emissions each year. Hydropower is clean efficient, and inexpensive. Yet, despite its tremendous benefits, I am constantly amazed at how some undervalue this important resource. Perhaps it is because conventional wisdom dismisses our Nation's hydropower capacity as tapped out. That is simply not the case. If anything, hydropower is really an under-developed resource--something we certainly understand in my home state of Alaska where hydro already supplies 24 percent of the state's electricity needs and over 200 promising sites for further hydropower development have been identified. There is great potential for additional hydropower development in every State, not just Alaska. According to the Obama administration, conventional hydropower facilities have the capacity to generate an additional 75,000 megawatts of power--a staggering amount of clean, inexpensive power. Now that doesn't seem possible until you realize that only 3 percent of the country's 80,000 existing dams are even electrified. Significant amounts of new capacity--anywhere between 20,000 and 60,000 megawatts-- can be derived from simple efficiency improvements or capacity additions at existing facilities. Additional hydropower can be captured in existing man-made conduits and hydroelectric pumped storage projects can help reliably integrate other renewable resources that are intermittent, such as wind, onto our grid. The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2010 seeks to increase substantially our nation's hydropower capacity in an effort to expand renewable power generation and create much needed American jobs. The legislation establishes a competitive grants program to support further hydropower development and directs the Energy Department to produce and implement a plan for the research, development and demonstration of increased hydropower capacity. The bill provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with additional authority to extend preliminary permit terms; to work with Federal resource agencies to streamline the review process for conduit hydropower projects; and to conduct a Notice of Inquiry into a possible two-year licensing process for certain minimal impact projects. The Act also calls for studies on pumped storage sites and the potential for nonfederal development at Bureau of Reclamation facilities, and authorizes training for hydroelectric power technology at community colleges. It is my hope that as the Senate turns to energy legislation, we can finally recognize the important contribution the renewable resource of hydropower makes, and will continue to make, to our clean energy goals. This legislation is supported by the National Hydropower Association, the American Public Power Association, the Family Farm Alliance, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Edison Electric Institute, and the National Water Resources Association. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2010 to promote the further development of our most cost-effective, clean energy option while creating hundreds of thousands of new green jobs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2010. This is legislation to extend certain benefits and income tax provisions to energy generated by hydropower resources. We have an incredible amount of hydropower potential in my home State of Alaska. To date, we have almost 50 hydropower projects--in a range of sizes from the 126-megawatt Bradley Lake project to the 7-kilowatt Walsh Creek project--that produce about 24 percent of the State's electricity needs. Alaska is proof that the hydropower resource is not tapped out--not even close. Currently, there are 32 additional hydropower projects, just in Southeast, that are either under construction or on the drawing boards. Statewide there are another 200 areas that have been identified as promising sites for lake taps, run of river, pumped storage and even new hydroelectric reservoirs. With the proper financing, we could keep a dozen hydro construction companies fully employed in the State for a decade or even longer. That is just in Alaska. There are tremendous opportunities in each and every State to further develop this clean energy alternative. Hydropower, by definition, is a renewable resource. It produces no carbon emissions and through rainfall and melting snowpacks it is able to be replenished. Yet there are some who would deny this important classification to the hydropower resource. The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2010 directs that the generation of hydroelectric power be treated as a ``renewable'' resource for purposes of any Federal program or standard. This reclassification of hydroelectric generation should help to incent the further production of this important and often undervalued resource. Next, the bill provides parity treatment for hydropower resources in the Production Tax Credit, PTC. Currently, companies that generate wind, solar, geothermal, and ``closed-loop'' biomass systems are eligible for the PTC which provides a 2.1 cent per kilowatt-hour, kWh, benefit for the first 10 years of a renewable energy facility's operation. Other technologies, such as incremental hydropower, certain generation at non-power facilities, and wave and tidal receive a lesser value tax credit of 1.0 cent per kWh. The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2010 eliminates the distinction between the two categories so that all qualified hydropower resources receive the full PTC credit. The bill further expands upon the types of hydropower resources that can qualify for the PTC, allowing new hydro generation, small hydropower under 50 megawatts, lake taps, and pumped storage to qualify as well. The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2010 also carries this expanded qualification of hydropower to the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, CREBS, program. Because non-profits like rural electric cooperatives and public power providers are not eligible for the PTC due to their tax-exempt status, CREBS was created to encourage these entities to undertake renewable energy development as well. This program has been wildly popular and has been oversubscribed since its inception. There are endless possibilities for increased hydropower production by electric cooperatives and public power providers and they should be given the proper financial incentive to do so. I ask my colleagues to support this hydropower tax legislation. The further development of this untapped renewable resource will help us meet our clean energy goals through the generation of carbon-free, baseload power. At a time of record unemployment, the addition of hydropower capacity throughout the Nation will lead to hundreds of thousands of good paying, domestic jobs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2010. This is legislation to extend certain benefits and income tax provisions to energy generated by hydropower resources. We have an incredible amount of hydropower potential in my home State of Alaska. To date, we have almost 50 hydropower projects--in a range of sizes from the 126-megawatt Bradley Lake project to the 7-kilowatt Walsh Creek project--that produce about 24 percent of the State's electricity needs. Alaska is proof that the hydropower resource is not tapped out--not even close. Currently, there are 32 additional hydropower projects, just in Southeast, that are either under construction or on the drawing boards. Statewide there are another 200 areas that have been identified as promising sites for lake taps, run of river, pumped storage and even new hydroelectric reservoirs. With the proper financing, we could keep a dozen hydro construction companies fully employed in the State for a decade or even longer. That is just in Alaska. There are tremendous opportunities in each and every State to further develop this clean energy alternative. Hydropower, by definition, is a renewable resource. It produces no carbon emissions and through rainfall and melting snowpacks it is able to be replenished. Yet there are some who would deny this important classification to the hydropower resource. The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2010 directs that the generation of hydroelectric power be treated as a ``renewable'' resource for purposes of any Federal program or standard. This reclassification of hydroelectric generation should help to incent the further production of this important and often undervalued resource. Next, the bill provides parity treatment for hydropower resources in the Production Tax Credit, PTC. Currently, companies that generate wind, solar, geothermal, and ``closed-loop'' biomass systems are eligible for the PTC which provides a 2.1 cent per kilowatt-hour, kWh, benefit for the first 10 years of a renewable energy facility's operation. Other technologies, such as incremental hydropower, certain generation at non-power facilities, and wave and tidal receive a lesser value tax credit of 1.0 cent per kWh. The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2010 eliminates the distinction between the two categories so that all qualified hydropower resources receive the full PTC credit. The bill further expands upon the types of hydropower resources that can qualify for the PTC, allowing new hydro generation, small hydropower under 50 megawatts, lake taps, and pumped storage to qualify as well. The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2010 also carries this expanded qualification of hydropower to the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, CREBS, program. Because non-profits like rural electric cooperatives and public power providers are not eligible for the PTC due to their tax-exempt status, CREBS was created to encourage these entities to undertake renewable energy development as well. This program has been wildly popular and has been oversubscribed since its inception. There are endless possibilities for increased hydropower production by electric cooperatives and public power providers and they should be given the proper financial incentive to do so. I ask my colleagues to support this hydropower tax legislation. The further development of this untapped renewable resource will help us meet our clean energy goals through the generation of carbon-free, baseload power. At a time of record unemployment, the addition of hydropower capacity throughout the Nation will lead to hundreds of thousands of good paying, domestic jobs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to an Alaskan who has devoted most of her adult life to education in Alaska. Dr. Mary A. Francis will retire today, June 30, 2010, from her positions as the executive director of both the Alaska Council of School Administrators and the Association of Alaska School Administrators. Her leadership, advocacy, encouragement, and experience will be missed. Mary's career in education began as an English teacher. Over the course of time, her skills and dedication brought her to different jobs in communities across Alaska. Her first assignment as an administrator was as curriculum director for the Lower Kuskokwim School District, a district that includes some of Alaska's most remote villages along the Kuskokwim River in southwest Alaska. Later, as assistant superintendent in Fairbanks, she experienced life ``in the big city''--a comparative term as Alaskan cities go. The bulk of her career, though, has been spent in southeast Alaska, as superintendent in Wrangell, a 12-year tenure as Petersburg's superintendent, and most recently 8 years in Juneau serving Alaska's school administrators. It was in Petersburg where Mary's competence was recognized on the national stage when she was selected by her peers and recognized by the American Association of School Administrators as Alaska's Superintendent of the Year in 2000. At the time of her retirement from Petersburg, Mary briefly considered spending her remaining years playing golf and enjoying life. She quickly realized that she would be bored stiff and accepted the position as executive director of the Alaska Council of School Administrators in 2002. This is not an easy job, as Mary was asked to represent the diverse perspectives of superintendents and other central office administrators, university professors, elementary and secondary principals, and school business officials. As executive director, Mary was also asked to assist these diverse member organizations to accomplish their mission: to provide leadership for and promotion of a collective professional voice in setting the educational agenda for Alaska. Throughout her tenure, Mary provided inspiration, authentic understanding, advocacy, and encouragement to the council as a whole as well as to its individual members. Mary Francis has done this difficult job with grace, tact, firmness, and a sense of humor for 8 years. Mary noted, in announcing her resignation, ``There is never a good time to make a decision to leave a position. However, ACSA's financial position is sound and with a working Strategic Plan in place, the organization is on solid footing now and for the future.'' ACSA Board President Pete Swanson remarked, ``Dr. Francis' resignation has been accepted with reluctance by the Board. She will be sorely missed as she provides just the right balance of oversight for our board and the AASA board for whom she also serves in the Executive Director capacity. Her ability to advocate for and represent the school administrators of Alaska with the Legislature and many statewide committee forums is considerable. Dr. Francis leaves a legacy of working hard for the concerns and issues of Alaska's school administrators.'' On behalf of the countless educators whose lives she has touched, I extend my gratitude to Dr. Mary A. Francis for her selfless dedication to advancing the cause of education in Alaska and I wish her a happy, healthy, and exciting retirement.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I understand we are in a period of morning business.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the health care debate that has gone on in the Congress throughout the past year. President Obama promised that the Democrats' health care bill would reduce the spiraling cost of health care. The promise was made that if one likes their health care plan, they can keep it. Not necessarily every day but just about every other day there is yet another report released that confirms what many of us who opposed a Federal takeover of the health care system feared all along--higher costs, less access, and unsustainable spending. The President and this Democratically controlled Congress need to repeal this bill and put in place meaningful health care reform measures that will allow individuals to exercise more control over their health benefits and see their premiums actually go down instead of up. I wish to speak to some of the reports that have been coming out. Let's start with a government report that came out 4 weeks after the health care bill was signed into law. It was from the President's own Chief Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, a gentleman by the name of Rick Foster. He released his report saying that President Obama's new health care reform law will actually increase national health care spending by $311 billion over the next 10 years. Foster's report also said about 14 million people would lose their employer coverage by the year 2019, largely as a result of small employers terminating coverage and workers who currently have employer coverage enrolling in Medicaid. Mr. Foster also reports that the $530 billion in Medicare cuts may not be what he calls ``realistic and sustainable,'' potentially driving 15 percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and similar providers into the red within 10 years. This would cause providers who depend on Medicare for a substantial part of their business to be forced to drop out of the program, ``possibly jeopardizing access to care''--those are Mr. Foster's words: ``jeopardizing access to care''--for our senior citizens. The situation in my home State of Alaska is particularly dire. I have stood on this floor and I have discussed and certainly spoke to the statistics. Back in March of 2009, the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska reported that just 13-- 13--out of 75 primary care physicians in Anchorage were accepting new Medicare patients. Anchorage is our State's largest community, and we had 13 out of 75 primary care physicians who were accepting new Medicare patients. Just 15 months after this report was done by ISER, that number has dropped to the single digits. Further cuts to Medicare will only worsen this situation for the most vulnerable Alaskans--our senior and disabled citizens. This is one of the main reasons I simply could not support the health care bill that came forward. The issue, as it relates to access for those who are Medicare eligible, has been a crisis in our State that only continues to worsen. But there are some other reasons for my objections. In May--so last month--the neutral government scorekeeper, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, revised its initial cost estimate of the bill to say that the law will likely cost $115 billion more in discretionary spending over 10 years than the original projection. So 2 months after the law was enacted, the American people learn from yet another new government report that their Congress has passed a bill that would increase their health care costs and reduce their benefits. Again, this was something Republicans warned about over and over again during the last year as we discussed health care. The small businesses in this country stand to lose the most under this health care bill. They were promised a pipedream, filled with tax credits to save small businesses money, but the bill is simply not having that effect. In fact, it is having the opposite effect. The Associated Press released a ``fact-check'' article last month that stated point blank: The small business tax credit included in the health care reform falls short. The story interviews a gentleman by the name of Zach Hoffman. I know this story has been repeated on the Senate floor, but it is worth repeating. Mr. Hoffman is the owner of an Illinois furniture company. He has 24 employees. They earn an average of $35,000 a year--clearly, a very modest wage by any standard. Yet the amount of the credit Mr. Hoffman calculated he would receive under this new law as a small business would be zero to him. The AP article points out, the ``fine print''--which many small businesses will not qualify for the credit--was left out of the administration's press releases that touted the credit's ``broad eligibility.'' But you really just need to go back to the individuals who are being impacted by this or had hoped they would be impacted positively. Go back to the Illinois small business owner and look at his comment. He says: It leaves you with this feeling of bait-and-switch. But thinking of how Mr. Hoffman could be eligible for the tax credit, he learned that all he needed to do was to cut his workforce to 10 employees and cut their wages. To this, the small business owner says: This does not make sense. He says: That seems like a strange outcome, given we've got 10 percent unemployment. I think we would all agree it is a strange outcome. An unacceptable outcome is what it is. This Illinois employer's situation is no different than any other employer regardless of what State they are in. In States such as Alaska and other particularly high-cost localities--whether it is New York City, San Francisco--where wages are higher because of the cost of living, the employers stand to lose because they will not be able to be eligible for these tax credits simply because they pay their employees higher wages than are allowed for in the health care bill. Since enactment of the health care law, we have also heard from well- respected health care consulting firms that have released information showing that businesses fear the law's new employer mandate penalties. According to a report, more than one in four employers--about 26 percent--and nearly two in five retailers may not be in compliance with provisions requiring coverage of all employees working over 30 hours per week. Of those, a majority--54 percent--said they would consider changing their business practices ``so that fewer employees work 30 hours or more per week.'' This would be a devastating blow--a devastating blow--to an already ravaged economy. We have another well-known consulting firm, Mercer. They released a survey of the impact of the new health care law on employers just last month. The survey shows there is near unanimous belief by employers that the new law will raise employees' premiums. Only 3 percent of employers that responded said they believed the legislative changes would not cause their premiums to rise. This does not demonstrate very much faith in how this is going to benefit them. One-quarter of respondents believed the bill would raise premiums by at least 3 percent over and above this year's normal rise in costs due to medical inflation. Last week, there was a PricewaterhouseCoopers report that stated the cost for businesses providing health care coverage to employees will jump by 9 percent next year, in 2011, which analysts predict employers will shift more of the cost to workers next year. For the first time, most of the American workforce is expected to have health insurance deductibles of $400 or more. Also, last week, the administration's new regulations on grandfathered health plans were released, outlining the various ways in which existing employer health plans will be forced to change under the new law. According to the Obama administration report, these regulations could result in nearly 7 out of 10 workers--and 80 percent of workers at small businesses; so 80 percent of the workers in our small businesses--would see changes in their plans. In other words, under the new health care bill, more than half of those who get insurance through their jobs may be forced to change their plans whether they want to or not. Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51 percent of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of the health care bill--which takes me back again to the statement the President initially made: If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. That simply is not what we are seeing. It is not translating in the real world. Then, of course, we have the CBO letter that just came out. This is dated June 21--just the day before yesterday. This letter comes from Mr. Elmendorf, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, in responding to the ranking member on the HELP Committee about the high- risk pools. That letter confirms that an additional $5 billion to $10 billion would be needed to fully fund all eligible enrollees in the high-risk pool expansion, and, further, that the new high-risk pool program, which was supposed to be providing health insurance coverage to Americans--but to date the government has failed to provide any funding for these new high-risk programs and those with preexisting coverage have not been able to enroll in these new high-risk pools-- but, again, coming from the Congressional Budget Office, with these new estimates, in fact, the funding available for the subsidies is simply not sufficient to cover the costs of all applicants and then the additional cost that is anticipated, an additional $5 billion to $10 billion to cover all eligible enrollees. With new government reports telling us this bill will not reduce the premiums, and with employer groups looking at how they can minimize the hits they are taking under this new law, we have put American businesses, particularly our small businesses, in peril of dropping employees to avoid the $2,000-per-employee penalty, called the employer mandate. We have put these small businesses in peril of reducing employee wages in order to qualify for small business credits. We have passed a bill that hurts our small businesses during one of the worst economic downturns in the history of our Nation. Last week, Investor's Business Daily stated that small firms will be even more likely to lose existing plans. In fact--this is their statement--the ``midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013.'' So in the worst-case scenario, 69 percent of employers--again, 80 percent of smaller firms--would lose that status, exposing them to far more provisions under the new health care law. Again, it makes you ask the question: Was this what the President envisioned in health care reform when he said: ``If you like what you have, you can keep it''? I think this new law has failed--has clearly failed--to keep the President's promise to the people. It was for these reasons I objected at the time this bill was moving through the process. I have stood up and strongly supported the efforts of the State of Alaska and other States to strike the most egregious provisions of the law through a multistate lawsuit. Again, it is why I voted to repeal the entire law when we had that opportunity this past March. This law is not what the American people wanted, and it is not what our President promised. I believe the legislation has to be repealed. It has to be replaced with sensible alternatives that are widely supported. We know what so many of those are: buying across State lines; implementing medical malpractice reform; reimbursing for quality of service, not quantity of service. This is what the people wanted. This is what the American people expected. Yet this is not what was delivered. It is time to help our economy rather than to kill it with this legislation that was passed. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation in the Senate to help the United States minerals industry resume production of rare earths in this country. These metals are increasingly important to our military, strategic, and economic priorities due to their use in clean energy technologies and many other high-tech applications. For many years the United States was a leader in the mining and processing of rare earths--a group of 17 elements that, while widespread in nature, are difficult to find in concentration, extract from the earth, and process for commercial use. Rare earths are increasingly vital to a host of modern defense technologies, from radar and sonar systems to weapons systems and advanced lasers. They are essential to the production of clean energy technologies, including advanced batteries, electric motors, high-efficiency light bulbs, solar panels, and wind turbines. The U.S. is estimated to contain 15 percent of the world's rare earth reserves, but with the closure of the nation's only operating rare earth mine at Mountain Pass, CA, America has become dependent upon China for imports of nearly all rare earths, oxides, and alloys. In fact, China now produces 97 percent of the world's rare earth supply. More importantly, China recently moved to implement rules announced in March that will cut production and exportation of rare earths in an effort to raise world prices for the minerals. While the world demand for rare earths tripled to 120,000 tons per year over the past decade, China announced on June 2nd that it will stop issuing new domestic licenses for rare earth production and cap production at 89,200 tons for this year. As a result, only 35,000 tons of rare earths will be exported annually over the next five years, on average. These actions may work out well for China, but they will harm the United States. Fortunately, we can do something about it. Rather than sit on our hands while China corners the market on these strategic minerals, we can and should pursue timely production of the rare earth supplies that exist within our own borders. Efforts are currently underway to reopen Molycorp Minerals' California mine and Ucore Uranium is continuing exploration of a large rare earth deposit found near Bokan Mountain in Alaska, about 37 miles from Ketchikan. Ucore's new Alaska subsidiary, Rare Earth One LLC, has been working to study the deposit on Dotson Ridge at Bokan Mountain since 2007. The U.S. Bureau of Mines more than 20 years ago estimated the site contains at least 374 million pounds of recoverable rare earths, which is more than enough to break China's stranglehold on the market and protect America's access to the rare earths that are vital to the production of cutting-edge technologies in this country. So what should we be doing to reestablish domestic rare earth? My answer is a companion measure to legislation introduced earlier this spring in the House by Rep. Mike Coffman, a fellow Republican from Colorado. My bill would establish it as the policy of the United States to take appropriate actions to increase investment in, exploration for, and development of domestic rare earths. To do that it would require--under the leadership of the Secretary of the Interior-- the Secretaries of Energy, Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, and State along with the Director of OMB and the Chairman of CEQ to expedite permitting, review supply chains, and consider strategic stockpiling of rare earths. The bill would also provide the rare earth industry with access to federal loan guarantee programs meant to advance clean energy technologies. There is a great deal of emphasis on the need for expansion of clean energy manufacturing in the United States. Promises of ``green jobs'' abound, but they will only be realized if American industries have access to the raw materials needed to produce these new technologies. This legislation represents an important first step in our efforts to grow domestic manufacturing of clean energy technologies. The bill will also help to create more jobs in America's minerals industry, where firms provide good, high-wage jobs and pay taxes that will help to reduce our deficit. Furthermore, decreasing our reliance on foreign minerals will reduce our balance of payments deficit and strengthen national security. I hope this bill advances quickly, and I encourage my colleagues to join as cosponsors of the measure. We have an ambitious agenda given the small amount of time that remains in the current Congress, but there is too much at stake for our military strength and our clean energy goals to ignore the problems we have in accessing affordable and secure supplies of rare earths.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation in the Senate to help the United States minerals industry resume production of rare earths in this country. These metals are increasingly important to our military, strategic, and economic priorities due to their use in clean energy technologies and many other high-tech applications. For many years the United States was a leader in the mining and processing of rare earths--a group of 17 elements that, while widespread in nature, are difficult to find in concentration, extract from the earth, and process for commercial use. Rare earths are increasingly vital to a host of modern defense technologies, from radar and sonar systems to weapons systems and advanced lasers. They are essential to the production of clean energy technologies, including advanced batteries, electric motors, high-efficiency light bulbs, solar panels, and wind turbines. The U.S. is estimated to contain 15 percent of the world's rare earth reserves, but with the closure of the nation's only operating rare earth mine at Mountain Pass, CA, America has become dependent upon China for imports of nearly all rare earths, oxides, and alloys. In fact, China now produces 97 percent of the world's rare earth supply. More importantly, China recently moved to implement rules announced in March that will cut production and exportation of rare earths in an effort to raise world prices for the minerals. While the world demand for rare earths tripled to 120,000 tons per year over the past decade, China announced on June 2nd that it will stop issuing new domestic licenses for rare earth production and cap production at 89,200 tons for this year. As a result, only 35,000 tons of rare earths will be exported annually over the next five years, on average. These actions may work out well for China, but they will harm the United States. Fortunately, we can do something about it. Rather than sit on our hands while China corners the market on these strategic minerals, we can and should pursue timely production of the rare earth supplies that exist within our own borders. Efforts are currently underway to reopen Molycorp Minerals' California mine and Ucore Uranium is continuing exploration of a large rare earth deposit found near Bokan Mountain in Alaska, about 37 miles from Ketchikan. Ucore's new Alaska subsidiary, Rare Earth One LLC, has been working to study the deposit on Dotson Ridge at Bokan Mountain since 2007. The U.S. Bureau of Mines more than 20 years ago estimated the site contains at least 374 million pounds of recoverable rare earths, which is more than enough to break China's stranglehold on the market and protect America's access to the rare earths that are vital to the production of cutting-edge technologies in this country. So what should we be doing to reestablish domestic rare earth? My answer is a companion measure to legislation introduced earlier this spring in the House by Rep. Mike Coffman, a fellow Republican from Colorado. My bill would establish it as the policy of the United States to take appropriate actions to increase investment in, exploration for, and development of domestic rare earths. To do that it would require--under the leadership of the Secretary of the Interior-- the Secretaries of Energy, Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, and State along with the Director of OMB and the Chairman of CEQ to expedite permitting, review supply chains, and consider strategic stockpiling of rare earths. The bill would also provide the rare earth industry with access to federal loan guarantee programs meant to advance clean energy technologies. There is a great deal of emphasis on the need for expansion of clean energy manufacturing in the United States. Promises of ``green jobs'' abound, but they will only be realized if American industries have access to the raw materials needed to produce these new technologies. This legislation represents an important first step in our efforts to grow domestic manufacturing of clean energy technologies. The bill will also help to create more jobs in America's minerals industry, where firms provide good, high-wage jobs and pay taxes that will help to reduce our deficit. Furthermore, decreasing our reliance on foreign minerals will reduce our balance of payments deficit and strengthen national security. I hope this bill advances quickly, and I encourage my colleagues to join as cosponsors of the measure. We have an ambitious agenda given the small amount of time that remains in the current Congress, but there is too much at stake for our military strength and our clean energy goals to ignore the problems we have in accessing affordable and secure supplies of rare earths.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Jeff Bingaman, the Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, in introducing this Joint Resolution to urge the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the United States Virgin Islands to reconvene for the purpose of reconsidering and revising its proposed constitution. Let me first commend the delegates of the Virgin Islands Fifth Constitutional Convention for their hard work and efforts in drafting and putting forward this proposed constitution. Their commitment to resolving this issue and getting a constitution enacted for the people of the United States Virgin Islands should be applauded. The Chairman has clearly laid out the historical and legislative background of the United States' relationship with the U.S. Virgin Islands and the process for Congress to consider a proposed constitution. He has also explained the concerns and issues expressed by the Administration about some provisions in the proposed constitution and that under Public Law 94-584, the only options available to Congress are to approve, amend, or revise the constitution. Disapproval is not an option. Because time is short, Congress only has 60 legislative days to take action, it is unlikely we will be able to reach an agreement on the proposed changes before June 30, 2010, which is the end of the 60 legislative days. If Congress does not act before then, the proposed constitution will be deemed approved with no changes. As a result, the Chairman and I are introducing this Joint Resolution to amend P.L. 94-584 to allow Congress to urge the constitutional convention to reconvene. In accordance with this change to the law, the joint resolution urges the Fifth Constitutional Convention to reconvene for the purpose of reconsidering and revising the proposed constitution in response to the concerns outlined by the executive branch. It is my understanding that should Congress pass this joint resolution, the 60 legislative day clock will stop. It is also my understanding that should this Joint Resolution be enacted, there are three courses of action for the Fifth Constitutional Convention: do not reconvene; reconvene but do not revise the proposed constitution; or reconvene and revise the proposed constitution. If the convention were to choose not to reconvene, or to reconvene but not revise, then the process is dead, there is no further consideration of the proposed constitution, and it does not go to the people of the Virgin Islands for a vote. If, however, the convention reconvenes and does revise the proposed constitution, then the revised proposed constitution would simultaneously be submitted to the Governor of the Virgin Islands and the President of the United States. The President would then have 60 calendar days to notify the Convention, the Governor, and Congress of the comments of the President on the revised proposed constitution, and publish the comments in the Federal Record. Once the comments have been published in the Federal Record, the revised proposed constitution would be submitted to the qualified voters of the U.S. Virgin Islands for acceptance or rejection. The delegates to the convention have the choice to bring the proposed constitution in line with the U.S. Constitution and Federal statutes. It is my preference to see the Convention reconvene and make these changes themselves, rather than have the courts impose them through litigation. This is the fifth attempt to establish a constitution for the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands and I am hopeful that this attempt, with the necessary revisions, will be successful.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we conclude the day's debate on this resolution of disapproval, I will say that the debate has been good. Many points have been raised, and I appreciate that. I will say, though, as I have listened throughout the course of the 6 hours, I have heard consistently on the side of those who support this resolution of disapproval--I have heard consistently that this is about jobs, it is about the health of our economy, it is about the strength of the economy as a whole and about really ensuring, again, that our Nation remains strong while at the same time we take care of our environment. These are not mutually exclusive goals--never have been and never will be. I want to address some of the statements that have been made here and made very clearly. First is the issue of overreach--overreach by the EPA into the domain of the legislative branch. This has been spoken to so many times as we have discussed this resolution of disapproval--that the overlapping triggers that are contained in the Clean Air Act effectively give the EPA control of our Nation's energy and climate policy. I do not think that is a sane and rational policy when we cede our authority in the legislative branch to effectively allow our energy and climate policy to be developed and implemented by an agency, that being the EPA. This has huge implications for the separation of powers and our constitutional system of checks and balances, not to mention what I said at the outset--the jobs and the recovery from this economic recession. This is not a debate about the science. Science has been discussed a lot. Really, this is about how we respond to the science. We are not here to decide whether greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced. We are here to decide if we are going to allow them to be reduced under the structures of the Clean Air Act. Unlike what some of my colleagues have said, this resolution doesn't gut the Clean Air Act at all. It doesn't address it. It does not change the text in any way. It only prevents a massive expansion of its authority. It has been suggested that somehow or other this resolution is a bailout; somehow or other this is tied to the disaster in the gulf; somehow or other this is all tied to the oil industry. Again, this is absolutely not anything that has to do with the disaster in the gulf, in no way, shape, or form. The suggestions that somehow or other this is all about big oil belies the coalition of support that has been built across this country, from Maine to Alaska and all the points in between--530 organizations, different stakeholders all over the board, in terms of why they feel EPA should not be setting climate policy for this country. You cannot see this chart because the print is so small. I apologize for that. But there are 530 organizations, businesses, stakeholders, and advocacy groups that have endorsed this bipartisan resolution. So you look through here and you say: OK, are these all the oil and gas organizations that are in this country? But I will just direct you to some of the ones from, for instance, Texas. Texas is an oil- and gas- producing State. Look at Texas. There is the Texas Agricultural Cooperative Council, the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, Texas Aromatics, Texas Association of Agricultural Consultants, Texas Association of Dairymen, Texas Cattle Feeders Association, Texas Citrus Mutual, Texas Cotton Ginners' Association, Texas Independent Ginners Association, Texas Food Processers Association, Texas Forestry Association, Grain and Feeders Association, Nursery and Landscape Association--and I am only halfway through the Texas organizations that support our resolution of disapproval. So the suggestion that somehow this is all tied into the oil industry, again, just simply does not comport with what has been happening. Why are these organizations standing up and speaking out and saying this is not the path we should be taking with climate? It goes back to the jobs. It goes back to the issue of where we are as an economy. It goes back to the level of bureaucratic overlay that will be imposed on the California Citrus Mutual or the California Cotton Growers Association or the Carpet and Rug Institute or the pizza company from Ohio. This is absolutely about how we as a Nation determine those policies that will, in fact, allow us to have the clean air we all want. But we can achieve those goals in a way that isn't going to kick our timing in the head. Who can do that? Is it the EPA, whose mission is solely and exclusively that we have to follow the letter of the law here? The letter of the law says to not only go after the big polluters but all the way down to the small emitters, which emit 250 tons of carbon per year. And every effort EPA may want to make in terms of tailoring, all it is going to take is one lawsuit that challenges that tailoring to inject the uncertainty back into the market, back into the business place. So once again we have an economy that just can not get back on its feet. This is not a referendum on any other bill that is pending in Congress, but it is a check on EPA's regulatory ambition. It presents an opportunity for us to stop the worst option for regulating greenhouse gases from moving forward, while we work on a more responsible solution. I want to take a moment to thank my colleague from West Virginia, who spoke very passionately about why he supports this resolution--because of the people he represents. I ask all of us to look to the people we represent. Look at your small businesses, your farmers, your ranchers, your pizza manufacturers. Look to them. Look to the health of their families and their communities. I have a packet here that outlines the broad support for this resolution among the Alaska stakeholders. It is everything from our Alaska State Legislature to our Governor, our seafood processors, our small business refiners, those who are trying to get an Alaska gas line in place, our native corporations, the assembly from Anchorage, letters from local mayors. I am listening to what the people of Alaska are saying. They are making very clear that they want to ensure that when we develop climate policy, the ``we'' is ``we the people,'' we the elected Members of Congress, and not those unelected bureaucrats within an agency who will not only develop that policy but then in turn implement that policy. The Alaskans I am hearing from are saying: Make sure that as we as a State try to build our economy, we can do so in a manner that allows us time.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, at this time on the Republican side, I ask unanimous consent that for this next half hour, the order be Senator Lincoln for 7 minutes, followed by Senator Inhofe at 13 minutes, Senator Voinovich for 7, and Senator Graham for 5 minutes.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, for this next 30 minutes, we will be allocating the block in a 20-minute segment that will be under the control of Senator Barrasso to engage in a colloquy with several of our Republican colleagues, and following that 20 minutes there will be 10 minutes under the control of Senator Nelson of Nebraska. We have a lot of Members who wish to speak in support of this resolution, so we are trying to accommodate as many as possible. With that, I yield to my friend, the Senator from Wyoming.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, before Senator Webb continues, may I ask a question? If an additional minute is to be yielded to the opposition, I request that we also have additional time added to our side.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I rescind that request if it is coming out of the Senator's time.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time, the 30 minutes under Republican control will be allocated as follows: Senator Wicker will have 5 minutes; Senator Thune, 10 minutes; Senator Johanns, 5 minutes; Senator Kyl, 5 minutes; and Senator Sessions, 5 minutes. Senator Thune will lead off this block.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, we had reserved 5 minutes for Senator Wicker, but I am to going to yield those 5 minutes to Senator Hutchison.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, has all time expired?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I know Senator Lincoln was hoping to come over this morning. What I will do at this point in time, if I may reserve those 2 minutes, seeing that Senator Lincoln is not yet here, we can move to the Democratic side of the aisle, if Senator Boxer is ready to proceed.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am assuming that time on the Democratic side has expired.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. At this time, in our remaining 30 minutes, it shall be allocated as follows: Senator Coburn for 5 minutes, Senator Rockefeller for 10 minutes, followed by Senator McCain for 5 minutes, and then I will conclude with 10 minutes.