Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, during the Memorial Day recess, we received two pieces of alarming news that should inform the work of every Member in this Chamber. First, we learned the national debt has surpassed $13 trillion in total, and then shortly after that, we learned that nearly all the jobs that were added in May came from temporary census positions. The private sector created just 41,000 jobs last month--many fewer than expected and certainly a far cry from the pace that will allow us to dig out from under this economic recession. I think we all recognize there is no question that our recovery is still fragile--very much in doubt. It is also quite clear it will take some time for millions of unemployed Americans to find their jobs and get back on their feet again. These tough facts should encourage us to focus on these policies that create jobs, that reduce our debt, and at the same time should encourage us to guard against policies that fail in either or both of those areas. Madam President, we are here today to debate a policy that works against both of those goals--the Environmental Protection Agency's effort to impose economy-wide climate regulations under the Clean Air Act. The sweeping powers being pursued by the EPA are the worst possible option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and there is broad bipartisan agreement that this approach would forgo all of the benefits, all of the protections that are possible through legislation. It would reduce emissions at an unreasonably high cost and through an unnecessarily bureaucratic process. It would amount to an unprecedented power grab, ceding Congress's responsibilities to unelected bureaucrats, and move a very important debate, a critical debate, from our open halls to behind an agency's closed doors. This approach should have been, could have been taken off the table long ago. Yet because the EPA is determined to move forward aggressively and because neither Congress nor the administration has acted to stop them, it is now in the process of becoming our Nation's de facto energy and climate policy. Because this is our worst option to reduce emissions and Congress needs time to develop a more appropriate solution, I have introduced a resolution of disapproval--I introduced this back in January--to halt the EPA's regulations. My resolution does not affect the science behind the endangerment finding, but it will prevent the finding from being enforced through economy-wide regulations. Forty other Senators here in this body have joined me and are cosponsors of this effort. Our resolution has garnered significant support among the American people, and from the day it was introduced, we have had individuals and we have had groups and organizations from all across the country that have expressed their support and their appreciation. It really is a tremendous coalition, a significant coalition from farmers and manufacturers, to small business owners, to fish processors. There are more than 530 stakeholder groups that have endorsed our resolution's passage, and I will tell you, when you look at some of those groups, you would not put them in a category where you would say: Well, this is an entity that is standing up to fight, to push back against the EPA. But I will suggest to you that the broad range of stakeholders is really quite impressive. Despite that support, I will still be the first to admit that we face an uphill battle. We oppose the EPA's regulations because of their costs, most definitely. But, unfortunately, that seems to be precisely why some Senators have gone out front to support them, hoping these economic costs will be so onerous that it will force us here in the Congress, here in the Senate, to adopt legislation we otherwise wouldn't move to do. This has been an interesting, sometimes difficult and contentious several months as we have moved forward with this resolution of disapproval. Personal attacks have been directed at supporters of this resolution in an effort, I think, to intimidate others from adding their names. The EPA Administrator has, somewhat incredibly, suggested our resolution was somehow related to the oilspill that is ongoing in the gulf. Some have even claimed the resolution is a bailout for the oil companies and are trying to make sure we don't let another crisis go to waste--in other individuals' terms--in their efforts to pass sweeping cap-and-trade measures. I would suggest that the only similarity I see between the spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the EPA's regulations is that both of these are unmitigated disasters. One is happening now; the other one is waiting in the wings if Congress fails to adopt this resolution. This decision--where we are today here in the Senate debating this resolution of disapproval--ultimately boils down to four substantive factors. The first one is the inappropriateness of the Clean Air Act for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The second is the likelihood that the courts will strike down the tailoring rule. Then we also have the lack of economic analysis from the EPA, which is stunning--that we do not have a better sense in terms of what the economic impact of these regulations will be. Then finally and certainly above all else is the undisputed fact that climate policy should be written here in Congress. It is not just Lisa Murkowski who says that, and it is not just the other 40 Senators who have signed on as cosponsors to this resolution of disapproval; it is everyone from the President, to the Administrator of the EPA, to colleagues on the House side who have said time and time again that it should be the Congress, it should be those of us who are elected Members of this body who set the policy of this country and not the unelected bureaucrats within an agency. I would like to speak to each of these four factors in a little greater detail, so I will start by examining why the Clean Air Act is such an awful choice for reducing these emissions. I have explained this many times before, so I will reiterate two main points here--first is the way these regulations are carried out. You have command-and-control directives that are issued by the government that affect every aspect of our lives, rather than market- based decisions made by consumers and businesses. I wish to reinforce that, the fact that these are directives that will impact every aspect of our lives. When we were debating health care reform here on this floor not too many months ago, it was repeated time and time again that it was so important we get this right because health care reform will impact one- sixth of our economy. Well, I would suggest to you that when we are talking about climate policy, that is something which is going to impact every aspect--100 percent--of our economy. The system imposed by the EPA will entail millions of permit decisions--millions of permit decisions--by midlevel EPA employees, without effective recourse, and it will leave regulated entities with very little flexibility to comply. Another reason the Clean Air Act is extremely complicated for reducing greenhouse gas emissions: the Clean Air Act's explicit regulatory thresholds. They absolutely put an exclamation mark on why this law is such a poor choice for addressing climate change. Under the Clean Air Act, if you emit more than 100 or 250 tons of a pollutant each year, you must acquire a Federal air permit. These relatively low limits make sense for conventional air pollutants that are emitted in small quantities, but they become wildly problematic when dealing with a substance emitted in huge volumes through nearly every form of commerce, such as carbon dioxide is. So the question needs to be asked, then, how big is this new regulatory act we are talking about? The EPA recently projected that some 6.1 million sources could be required to obtain new title V operating permits. Under the current regulations, the EPA is dealing with about 15,000. So the EPA would now be charged with moving up dramatically from regulating and issuing about 15,000 title V operating permits to some 6.1 million permits. Whom does this include? It would include millions of residential buildings, small businesses, schools, hospitals, and restaurants found in every town in America. Over time, the EPA's approach would increase their regulation by an order of magnitude, and the consequences would be just as enormous. And no one is more aware of this very uncomfortable fact than the EPA itself. They know they can't go from the 15,000 permits they currently deal with on an annual basis up to 6.1 million permits. That is why the Agency has attempted to very dramatically increase the threshold for greenhouse gases in its tailoring rule. They are unhappy with the plain language, the very direct language of the Clean Air Act. The Agency plans to lift its limits up to 1,000 times higher than Congress has directed. So what you have is a situation where the EPA has simply not accepted that the Clean Air Act is not structured for this task, and instead they have attempted to make it so by ignoring the plain language--the plain language that says you have to regulate at 100 or 250 tons per year. They are effectively unilaterally amending the Clean Air Act. Equally astounding is that by temporarily relieving part of a permitting burden, the EPA is claiming that consumers and businesses-- the people who purchase and the people who use the energy--will face no economic impact, which is incredible to believe. I ask my colleagues to think about the logic behind the tailoring rule. The EPA is asking us to accept that while greenhouse gases are not in the Clean Air Act, the Congress clearly intended them to be regulated under it. At the same time, we are expected to believe that while explicit regulatory thresholds are in the act, Congress meant for the EPA to ignore them. Well, Madam President, I would suggest to you that is a pretty thin read, and it becomes even thinner when you consider the changes that are made between the tailoring rule that was proposed just last year and then the final rulemaking that was issued just last month. In last year's draft, what you saw was the EPA planning to ratchet down to the Clean Air Act's actual threshold levels--to get down to the 250 tons per year--and to put that into effect over the course of the next 5 years. Now the EPA is suggesting that it may exempt entire sectors and never even reach the statutory limits. Think about it. What happens then? That is when the lawsuits pop up. This is not going to provide the level of certainty I think those in business are seeking. What you will see is lawsuits as some sectors and some sources are regulated while others are not. And I would suggest that difference between the tailoring proposal from last year and where we are now is driven not by the law but by fear of the political backlash out there-- the outrage from people all over the country in terms of the negative economic impact to them and their families and their communities. That is why it is tough to find an impartial legal expert who believes this tailoring rule will actually hold up in court. Consider a speech given last year by Judge David Tatel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. This was a speech on how the EPA can avoid being sued over its rulemakings. Judge Tatel said: . . . whether or not agencies value neutral principles of administrative law, courts do, and they will strike down agency action that violates those principles--whatever the President's party, however popular the administration, and no matter how advisable the initiative. Those were the comments from a DC Circuit judge specifically on this issue as to how the EPA avoids lawsuits. Let me move to the third area of concern I have with EPA moving to regulate in the area of greenhouse gas emissions--the economic consequences of EPA regulation. We have to ask the question: What exactly are those consequences? Believe it or not, at this point in time we still do not know because the EPA has refused to provide projections of the economic impacts. In the various rulemakings out there, the Agency has engaged in something of a shell game. They are either hiding or they are simply not considering the economic cost. The EPA has also ignored requests from Members of Congress. I have asked them, and other Members of Congress have asked, to conduct this very important analysis, but to this day the Agency still has not provided anything close to a full projection of the economic impact its economy-wide climate regulations will have. I guess there were a couple of reasons. The EPA either has no cost estimates or they know they are too astronomical to calculate, and they do not want them released. My staff has had numerous briefings with EPA officials, and they have been told essentially that we will not know how much these regulations cost until the best available control technologies are imposed on the regulated entities; that is, until the EPA figures out how to deal with what it signed itself up for. The problem is, the best available control technologies remain completely undefined at this point. It could mean efficiency improvements, expensive add-on technologies, or even fuel-switching requirements. Over time, the EPA would have very little choice but to impose all of those requirements and more, regardless of the consequences. Again, it is not hard to find this quite amazing and alarming. We need to be growing our economy not paralyzing it. Everything we do right now within this body should be focused on how we grow our economy, how we grow the jobs from Maine to Alaska and points in between. We know the national unemployment rate remains at almost 10 percent. Private sector job growth is anemic. Yet as millions of Americans are doing everything they can just to find work, bureaucrats in Washington, DC, are contemplating regulations that would destroy these opportunities. Worse still, the people of our States have no voice in this bureaucratic process. They are on the verge of being subjected to rules, subjected to regulations that will directly impact their lives, their livelihoods, their economic opportunities, without ever having an opportunity to express their concerns through their Representatives in Congress. That brings me to my final point. Politically accountable Members of the House and the Senate, not unelected bureaucrats, must develop our Nation's energy and climate policies. It is as direct as that. Those policies must be able to pass on their own merits instead of serving as a defense against ill-considered regulations. I have said this before, but it bears repeating: Congress will not pass--should not pass--bad legislation in order to stave off bad regulations. We are neither incapable nor unwilling to legislate on energy and environmental policy. We have demonstrated this in the past. We did this with landmark environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. We can, we should, and we will deal with these environmental challenges that face us. But forgoing legislation in favor of regulation would sacrifice the priorities and protections that are sought by just about every Member of the Senate. The things that are being considered when we talk about climate legislation are worker training, funding for clean technologies, energy security enhancements, border adjustments, manufacturing concessions-- these would all go by the wayside if climate policy is directed through regulation as opposed to legislation. There will be no agricultural offsets, no free allowances, no banking, and no borrowing under the Clean Air Act. There will be no funding for climate research or adaptation, no protection for consumers, and no assistance for businesses or workers. I do understand some Members say they will only support climate legislation that puts a price on emissions. They are frustrated that we in the Senate have not done that--have not agreed to do that yet. But I do not believe that mandating higher energy costs and imposing regulations on consumers and businesses is the only way to solve this challenge. Some have likened the EPA regulation as the gun to the head of Congress that will force us somehow to act more quickly on climate legislation than we otherwise would. I think, sadly, a few Members of the Senate have actually bought into this coercive strategy. Throughout the yearlong debate on this issue--and it has been just about a year. It was last September that I attempted to introduce legislation that would put the EPA in a 1-year timeout. I was not allowed to bring that measure to the Senate floor. But throughout this yearlong debate on the issue, opponents have refused to discuss the actual impacts of EPA regulation. So I want my colleagues to listen today, listen to the debate. See if any opponents actually defend such regulation as being good for America. Instead, we are going to hear red herrings about science, about fuel standards, about the oilspill. But as much as some would want it to be, this debate is not about the science of climate change. It is not a referendum on any other legislation that is pending in the Senate, nor is it about fuel efficiency. The Department of Transportation is and has been in charge for 35 years now, and we do not need another agency and another standard thrown into the mix to do the same job. We updated our Nation's CAFE standards less than 3 years ago to at least 35 miles per gallon, and we left DOT in charge of their administration. We also outlined a very rational process for standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Every target set by this administration can be met with existing authorities. As the Department of Transportation has admitted, our resolution does not directly impact their ability to regulate the efficiency and thus the greenhouse gas emissions of motor vehicles. There is one very small potential exception and that is air- conditioning, but I have very little doubt that we would gladly provide EPA with the specific authority to regulate those systems instead of broad powers over our entire economy. The EPA does not need to take over this process, and it should not be allowed to do so under a law that was never intended to regulate fuel economy. I understand concerns about a patchwork of standards and how difficult it would be for the industry to comply. But while we had one national standard at the start of 2009, we now have two national standards set by two Federal agencies driven by California's standards. I have a letter from the National Automobile Dealers Association dated just yesterday that spells this out quite clearly. They indicate that it in no way helps us to have, again, two national standards set by two Federal agencies. The best way to avoid a messy patchwork would be to pass our disapproval resolution, revoke California's waiver, and allow one Federal agency to set one standard that works for all 50 States. Bringing climate science, the oilspill, and fuel economy into this debate are attempts at misdirection. They are red herrings that are intended to convince Members to oppose the resolution of disapproval. But this debate has nothing to do with those topics. It is about finding the best approach to reduce emissions and defending against policies that fail to strike an adequate balance between the environment and our economy. It is about maintaining the separation of powers between the legislative and the executive branches as our Founding Fathers intended and rejecting an unprecedented overreach by the EPA into the affairs of Congress. At its core, this is a debate about jobs, about whether we should seek conditions that will lead to their creation or enable policies that will destroy them. This is our chance to make sure that Federal bureaucrats do not place a new burden on millions of hard-working Americans at a time that they cannot afford it and in a way they cannot reject. The time has come to take the worst option for regulating greenhouse gases off the table once and for all. Under the procedures of the Congressional Review Act, I accordingly move to proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 26. I encourage Members of this Chamber to support debate on this measure and to vote in favor of both the motion to proceed and final passage. I know under the unanimous consent agreement, this morning and throughout the day it is 30 minutes per side. I am not certain how much time I have consumed this morning, if the chair can instruct me?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. How much time remains on the Republican side?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I wish to honor University of Alaska President Mark Hamilton on the occasion of his retirement. A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Mark Hamilton served our Nation for 31 years of Active Duty as a member of the U.S. Army, retiring as major general. During his service, Hamilton helped to negotiate an end to the war in El Salvador, negotiated a period of calm with Somali warlords that allowed for the removal of the U.S. 10th Mountain Division, and advised on NATO planning related to the former Republic of Yugoslavia. In recognition of his distinguished service, Hamilton is the recipient of the Distinguished Service Medal and the Joint Distinguished Service Medal. In 1998, shortly after retiring from the military, Mark Hamilton chose to return to his adopted State to serve as the 12th president of the University of Alaska. From the beginning, President Hamilton articulated a new vision for the university system a ``can-do, grow your own'' philosophy based on strict accountability for results. Understanding that effective leadership needs support from all stakeholders, Mark traveled the State to learn more about what Alaskans wanted from their university system and how the university could better meet the State's need for qualified graduates. Turning vision into action, Mark led the University of Alaska to focus on being more responsive and relevant to Alaskans' needs. Throughout his tenure, President Hamilton has been guided by the following questions when making decisions for the University: Is it good for the students? Is it good for the University? Is it good for the State? Is it working? This brand of leadership has led to significantly increased support from donors, the business community, the legislature, and the public. As a result, the University of Alaska system has been able to expand degree options for students, make long- needed improvements to its facilities, increase enrollment and student retention, and increase the number of degree-seeking students who graduate. Realizing that the success of University of Alaska graduates, and hence the future of our State, is inextricably linked to the preparation students receive in our K-12 schools, Mark next turned his attention to entering into collaborative partnerships for teacher recruitment, preparation, and mentoring programs to ``grow our own'' teachers. He initiated the UA Scholars Program--a full ride scholarship for the top graduates from every high school in the State. Mark also made it a priority to enthusiastically participate in statewide and legislative discussions concerning improving Alaska's K-12 schools and increasing our high school graduation rate. I could go on and on describing the positive changes Mark Hamilton has spearheaded and supported during his 12 years as president of the University of Alaska. It is sufficient, I think, to say Mark Hamilton has been the crucial force needed to bring the University of Alaska into the 21st century and to set our public university system on a path to make a positive difference in the lives of individuals and the future of our State. On behalf of the entire Senate, I thank University of Alaska President Mark Hamilton for his many years of service to our Nation and to my State of Alaska, and I wish him well as he is finally able to spend more time with his wife Patty, his four children--Daniel, Kathy, Clay and Doug--and his 10 grandchildren: Renee, Avery, Paige, Max, Archie, Henry, Aubrey, Luke, Lauryn, and Mark.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as you are aware, on Memorial Day citizens across our great country pause to reflect on our fallen heroes. American hearts swell with pride as men and women everywhere stand just a little bit taller when hearing our National Anthem, and they feel a lump in their throat at the sound of a bugle playing taps. We stand proud and remember our Nation's sons and daughters who no longer stand with us but whose names and memories remain forever preserved in our hearts. On Memorial Day, our Nation weighs and respects the price of our freedom. We can and we should learn from those Americans who went to war but never returned home. For them, service meant accepting the risk that they might not have a chance to enjoy the freedom their service protects. They selflessly chose to serve anyway. For the fallen, honor meant the privilege of wearing a U.S. military uniform and a chance to earn the respect that it garners around the world despite the risk that it might make them a target for those who mean us harm. For them, selflessness meant answering a call for help from a fellow soldier, without hesitation, even if chances were high that it would be their final act. These timeless qualities of service, honor, respect, and selflessness form the bedrock of military service in a free society. On Memorial Day, we commemorate those who lived according to these principles so that we might assemble in this Chamber and across the land as free people, safe under the umbrella of protection that their brothers and sisters continue to provide around the world today. It is appropriate that on Memorial Day, we should set aside our differences and unite as Americans--a unified nation with one common voice to honor our fallen. Let us celebrate that we are a free nation, a proud nation, a nation guided by principles and universal truths. And although we may disagree on many things, we do so peacefully and lawfully. Even in tough times such as these, we remain a beacon of light around the world for those who can only imagine a life of freedom as they struggle to survive under the grip of tyranny and oppression. Today we remember the men and women who kept that beacon lit and consider the gravity of their sacrifice. As a nation, we must also remember that with every fallen soldier there is a family left behind. We should appreciate with compassion and respect their enduring sacrifice and provide for them the support and gratitude they deserve. Ours is a grateful nation. Often quoted is our Declaration of Independence that proclaims ``all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'' It is those who have answered that call to service who ensured that our gift of liberty is not only unalienable, it is also enduring.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I wanted to tell the Senator from Louisiana, because we had an opportunity yesterday when we went to his home State, traveled there with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Homeland Security, we saw the spill from the air. We were at Port Fourchon. We heard the testimony from fishermen. We heard the testimony from those who are in the charter business. We heard testimony from the oystermen. We heard from parish mayors and heard their concerns about what will happen to them, their futures, their economic futures and that of their families. The concerns that were raised, of course, were that they be fully and fairly compensated. Is it the Senator's intention, then, that the statements that have been made by the executives from British Petroleum, the sworn testimonies we have had in the Energy Committee, and I know they have testified in other committees, that the commitments from British Petroleum would be codified as waivers of the liability caps which the Senators from New Jersey have talked about? Is it correct, then, that it is the intention of the Senator from Louisiana that these commitments would then be made enforceable under law so that the heart of this debate is understandably about not whether BP will pay but how long it will take for the victims to be compensated?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. If I may follow up with the Senator from Louisiana on the expedited claims process, this is something we heard yesterday, the concerns from those saying they don't believe the claims process is transparent, is efficient, is easy enough. Are there the translators necessary to help those, for instance, Vietnamese shrimpers? Do we have the processes in place? If I understand the intention of the Senator from Louisiana with the expedited claims process, it is designed to not only make it more transparent but make it more readily accessible in terms of multiple resource centers; also establishes an advisory committee that consists of representatives of claimants of the responsible parties. We heard yesterday that people who have been affected want to know they are dealing with somebody in a position of authority to answer their questions, address their concerns. We understand that within this advisory committee on Deepwater Horizon compensation, these individuals will advise the administrator. There are also other provisions that are designed to protect the interests of the claimants, one of which I think is very important; that is, that those who may have filed incomplete claims because they simply were not aware of all the information that is needed, are notified by the administrator and allow the administrator to conduct hearings in a manner that best determines the rights of the parties. I think it is critically important that these processes be put in place. I stand with my colleague from Louisiana in supporting this effort, this measure, and ensuring that through this, BP is held directly accountable, and to make sure there is an accelerated path to recovery for the growing number of victims in the gulf.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator yield for a question before the ruling is made?

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Would the Senator from Connecticut yield for another question?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Our State--the great State of Alaska--believes that it would be appropriate and in the public interest and, in the interests of State and local governments across the Nation, for the SEC to add governmental entities to the definitions of ``accredited investor'' and ``qualified institutional buyer'' when it promulgates rules pursuant to this legislation. The reasons for including governmental entities in these definitions are as sound today as they were 3 years ago. In particular, governments are large and sophisticated investors with professional treasury management staffs that manage large amounts of the government's own money and seek to invest in bonds and other securities investments in order to prudently diversify their investment portfolios and obtain a favorable return. Many of the most attractive investments are offered only in private placements to institutional investors conducted under regulation D or rule 144A. Without access to these investments, the government earns a lower return and has less diversification in its investments than would be optimal. Does the chairman agree with us that when the SEC promulgates its rules under this legislation, it should address, while taking care to ensure appropriate minimum asset protections are in place, the inclusion of State and local governments in the definitions of accredited investor and qualified institutional buyer?

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to talk about the U.S. Coast Guard and to recognize the 39 years of exemplary service, dedication and leadership that ADM Thad W. Allen has given to the U.S. Coast Guard and the Nation. Since 1790, the U.S. Coast Guard has been America's Maritime Guardian; the sentinel of the sea, determined to protect the safety and security of the maritime industry. As a multimission military service, the U.S. Coast Guard is unlike any other military branch in the world. The Coast Guard is the fifth branch of the U.S. Armed Forces, the largest component of the Department of Homeland Security, a member of the National Intelligence Community, and the lead U.S. representative at the International Maritime Organization. The Coast Guard is the Nation's oldest, continuous seagoing service and has fought in every major armed conflict the Nation has faced. The service embodies their motto--Semper Paratus--Always Ready. Here to protect and serve; ready to rescue, the Coast Guard routinely is at its best when weather conditions are at their worst. Coast Guard servicemen and women throughout the Nation routinely exhibit selfless sacrifice and enduring service, traits that are exuded by their Commandant, ADM Thad Allen. Throughout his long and distinguished career, those who have been able to observe and admire Admiral Allen's devotion to the Coast Guard, have been nothing short of inspired by his honesty, integrity, determination, and calming influence even in the face of an impending disaster. We all remember the leadership that Admiral Allen demonstrated as he led the Coast Guard in efforts to secure ports along the Atlantic seaboard after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Several years later, Admiral Allen was again in the national spotlight while serving as the principal Federal official for the response and recovery efforts in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Through his leadership and the heroic efforts of the men and women of the Coast Guard, over 33,500 gulf coast residents were rescued from their rooftops and flood homes, which included the rescuing of 24,135 people that were saved from eminent peril and the evacuation of 9,409 medical patients to safety. Most recently, Admiral Allen was selected by the Obama administration to be the national incident coordinator, a role that makes him responsible to oversee the Federal response to the Deepwater Horizon oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. I have been fortunate enough to work with Admiral Allen on so many issues, including one we are both passionate about, the Arctic. Through his leadership and direction, the Coast Guard is evaluating their role in the Arctic and providing the strongest voice for the strategic and geopolitical importance of the region. Through his astute mind and unrelenting commitment to the betterment of this Nation, Admiral Allen has been an unwavering champion for an expanded U.S. role and presence in the Arctic. While many will argue that as ice recedes in the Arctic, so do the dangers and a Coast Guard presence in the region is not needed. Unfortunately the opposite is true. As the Arctic ice recedes, more commercial shipping, cruise ships and energy companies are increasing their presence, and as a larger contiguous zone and exclusive economic zone are revealed as the ice recedes, the more the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard expands. Admiral Allen, while not engaging in the debate surrounding climate change, clearly understands that more ice-free ocean in the Arctic region means more area that the Coast Guard is responsible for in the Arctic. By championing the National Security Presidential Directive on the Arctic, Admiral Allen was able to host a trip of Bush administration officials to the Arctic so that they were able to see and understand first-hand the conditions and operational challenges that exist in this vast and remote region. It has been a great honor to have served alongside Admiral Allen and the Coast Guard during his time as Commandant. I have no doubt that he will continue to serve this Nation as a private citizen after his retirement from the service. He has left the Coast Guard on more sound and stable footing than he found it and has been the reassuring face of so many historic events. I, along with the Coast Guard and the Nation, will surely miss him. In the fine tradition of the sea-going services, I wish him ``Fair Winds and Following Seas.''

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on Saturday morning, May 8, Alaskans awakened to the sad news that our beloved former Governor, Walter J. Hickel, passed away at the age of 90. While those in my State viewed him as an Alaska legend, students of American political history may recall Governor Hickel more vividly as President Nixon's first Secretary of the Interior. They may recall that Hickel left that position after criticizing President Nixon for his handling of the Vietnam war and the student protests that gripped the Nation over our involvement in Southeast Asia. In 1970, following what has come to be known as the ``Kent State Massacre,'' Secretary Hickel wrote a letter urging President Nixon to give more respect to the views of young people critical of the war. That letter included the passage, ``I believe this administration finds itself today embracing a philosophy which appears to lack appropriate concern for the attitude of a great mass of Americans--our young people.'' On November 25, 1970, Governor Hickel was fired over the letter. His firing came days after he told ``60 Minutes'' that he had no intention of quitting. He said he would only go away ``with an arrow in my heart, not a bullet in my back.'' The Nixon administration was all too pleased to oblige. If President Kennedy were still alive, he surely would have viewed this series of events as a ``profile in courage.'' To this day, when Alaskans are asked for one word that describes Walter Hickel, the word ``backbone'' immediately comes to mind. They may have fired Wally Hickel but they didn't silence him. Governor Hickel left the national political scene following this incident to focus on Alaska and the Arctic, and his independence, his judgment, and his backbone inspired leaders of Alaska for decades to come. Governor Hickel appreciated that public policy is a team effort, not an individual sport. Two of Governor Hickel's enduring legacies to the State--Commonwealth North, Alaska's leading public affairs forum, and the Institute of the North, a public policy think-tank--continue to shape public discourse today. Governor Hickel would be proud that last week, even as Alaskans grieved his loss, the Institute of the North conducted its annual Emerging Leaders Dialogue in Sitka. Governor Hickel's life was large, as large as all of Alaska. Alaska is one of the few corners of America in which legends can still be made. And Governor Hickel surely will go down in history as an Alaska legend. Born August 18, 1919, in Kansas, Walter J. Hickel came to Alaska in 1940 with 37 cents in his pocket. As he sailed into Prince William Sound on the S.S. Yukon, overwhelmed by the breathtaking natural beauty, Hickel remarked, ``You take care of me, and I'll take care of you.'' The words were prophetic. After working as a bartender, a carpenter, and an aircraft inspector, Governor Hickel saved enough money to purchase a half-completed house. He finished building the house, sold it, and then built two more. Eventually, he built several hundred homes. Long time Fairbanks newspaper columnist Dermot Cole recalls Governor Hickel's success in enlisting community support to build Fairbanks' first modern hotel in 1955. Fairbanks needed a hotel, and Governor Hickel needed financing. He asked the Fairbanks community to invest in its future by purchasing bonds to finance the project, and 583 bondholders invested in the project. The smallest investment was $10, the largest $25,000. The project was built in 7 months. The bondholders were paid back by 1960. And that hotel, The Travelers Inn, still greets visitors to Alaska's Golden Heart City. Today, it is known as the Westmark Fairbanks. Governor Hickel went on to build Anchorage's Captain Cook Hotel, as a show of confidence in the economy of Southcentral Alaska following the 1964 earthquake. Today, the Captain Cook Hotel offers 547 rooms, in 3 towers, and is Alaska's member of the Preferred Hotel Group. Alaska sure took care of Wally Hickel, and Governor Hickel more than fulfilled his promise to take care of Alaska, proving that economic development and environmental conservation are not mutually exclusive concepts. His life demonstrates that a developer can be a conservationist and a conservationist can be a developer. One is left to wonder which title he preferred. Governor Hickel believed that economies can be grown through big projects. He certainly was not one who shared the view prevalent in some circles of the Lower 48, that Alaska should be locked up as a museum to compensate for poor land use decisions made elsewhere in America. During a 1978 interview, he referred to Alaska as a ``happy, young, vibrant country.'' Blunt and honest, he lamented those who argued, ``Don't walk here. Don't walk there. Don't step on the dandelions. You can't use this.'' He referred to this kind of thinking as ``What a bunch of bull.'' Yet this is the same Walter Hickel who dispatched legions of Interior Department employees to commemorate the first observance of Earth Day in 1969; the same Walter Hickel who told the National Petroleum Council in 1970, ``The right to produce [petroleum] is not the right to pollute. America must prove to itself as well as to others worldwide that it has the ability to clean up the garbage it has left in its wake.'' He insisted that those who benefited from the development of Alaska's resources pay Alaskans their due. And during Governor Hickel's second stint as Governor during the 1990s, the major oil companies were persuaded to pay the State more than $4 billion in disputed back taxes and royalties. Historian Stephen Haycox refers to this as ``a very significant legacy . . . because he forced the oil companies to acknowledge that they had a debt they owed to Alaska.'' In the wake of the Exxon Valdez oilspill, Governor Hickel used settlement funds to purchase land for Kachemak Bay State Park and Afognak State Park. I could go on all day about the life of Wally Hickel. A man who constantly struggled with dyslexia, he authored several books and monographs and many articles. A self-educated individual, he received numerous honorary degrees and befriended foreign heads of state. A fighter for Alaska's statehood, Hickel attended the birth of the State of Alaska. And history will remember that very little of significance happened in Alaska in the ensuing 50 years that Walter J. Hickel was not involved in. It is no overstatement to suggest that Governor Hickel had a substantial hand in Alaska's start, its present, and its future. During Alaska's 50th anniversary of statehood celebration last year, I marveled at the fact that so many of the people who made our history are still alive and available to inspire succeeding generations of Alaskans as we continue to grow our State. I would like to think that giants such as Wally Hickel could live forever. On behalf of all of our Senate colleagues, I extend condolences to Governor Hickel's wife Ermalee, his children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. Thank you for sharing this great American with Alaska and our Nation.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I do reserve the right to object, and I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon to explain why I will be objecting to this unanimous consent request. I sat and listened to my three colleagues. I have great empathy for the concern they share. I share it as well. I represent a State that was devastated a little more than 20 years ago when the Exxon Valdez hit the rocks. We lived with oil on our beaches. We know the economic impact. We know the social impact that a spill can cause. We want to all be working together to ensure that whether it is the devastation we see in the hotels in Florida or whether it is the loss to the fishermen, that we ensure those who are responsible pay for the economic loss, for the damages that are incurred. We are with my colleagues on this issue. The reason I stand and object at this point in time is I do not believe that taking the amount of the liability cap from $75 million, where it is currently, to $10 billion in strict liability, 133 times the size of the current strict liability limit, is where we need to be right now. I am not just the only one who suggests that maybe we need to understand a little bit better as to how much we might need to look at raising the limit. The administration, just yesterday in their oilspill legislative package, has proposed an effort. Their proposal, would raise the caps on liability for the responsible parties. ``The administration looks forward to working with Congress to develop levels for the various caps that provide for substantial and proportional increases.''

Ms. MURKOWSKI. If the Senator will allow me to conclude, I will be happy to yield. I do think we need to look at the liability cap and consider raising it, but I think we need to be careful about unintended consequences of picking a number, $10 billion. Let me outline what I am talking about when I say ``unintended consequences.'' This has been named the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act. I think we have some irony in that what this would do is give all of America's offshore oil resources to the biggest of big oil. It would be impossible, or perhaps close to impossible, for any energy company that is smaller than the supermajors, smaller than the national oil companies, to operate in the OCS. Mr. President, $10 billion in strict liability would preclude their ability to obtain financing, to obtain the bonds or insurance for any exploration. Look at who is producing in the offshore. It is the independents. They produce two-thirds of the natural gas, one-third of the oil. If we move forward in raising this liability cap to $10 billion, the only companies that are going to be able to self-insure against this level of strict liability are the national oil companies, the supermajors. And we all know who they are. There is the Saudi Aramco. There is Exxon. There is the Chinese National Oil Company and, of course, British Petroleum. It has been mentioned a couple different times now that we need to ensure that BP, as the responsible party, pays. The comment has been made that $75 million is not going to be sufficient. What people need to remember is that the cap on the strict liability only applies to what the responsible parties have to pay back in the context of OPA, the Oil Pollution Act. The law expressly--expressly-- allows for unlimited damages in State courts where compensatory and punitive damages are already being sought. As we speak, there have been numerous claims filed. Back on April 28, the Louisiana shrimpers filed a class action lawsuit against BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and Cameron for their economic losses, alleging negligence and seeking both economic and punitive damages. The State of Florida on May 10 announced it had assembled a legal team to file suit against BP. Then just 2 days after that, on May 12, the fishermen filed another such lawsuit in Mississippi, recognizing that, again, they have the ability to go after unlimited damages in those forums. Again, I am open to raising the liability cap, but we have both a directive from the White House and the American people who, I believe, still support offshore drilling. We need to adjust these liability caps in a way that does not give the biggest oil companies a monopoly over the entire OCS. Mr. President, I object to the unanimous consent request at this time.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to speak about a resolution designating April 23 through 25, 2010, as ``Global Youth Service Days.'' S. Res. 493 recognizes and commends the significant community service efforts that youth are making in communities across the country and around the world on the last weekend in April and every day. This resolution also encourages the citizens of the United States to acknowledge and support these volunteer efforts. S. Res. 493 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on April 20, 2010. This sends a very strong message of support to the thousands of youth across our great Nation who contribute positively to their communities--your efforts are recognized and appreciated. Beginning this Friday, April 23, youth from across the United States and around the world will carry out community service projects in areas ranging from hunger to literacy to the environment. Through this service, many will embark on a lifelong path of service and civic engagement. This event is not isolated to one weekend a year. Global Youth Service Days is an annual public awareness and education campaign that highlights the valuable contributions that young people make to their communities throughout the year. The participation of youth in community service provides an opportunity to identify and address the needs of their communities and make positive differences in the world around them, learn leadership, organizational skills, and gain insights into the problems of their fellow citizens. High-quality service-learning activities help young people make important connections between the school curriculum and the challenges they see in their communities. Youth who are engaged in volunteer service and service-learning activities do better in school than their classmates who do not volunteer are also more likely to avoid risky behaviors, such as drug and alcohol abuse. Service within the community contributes positively to young people's character development, civic participation, and philanthropic activity as adults. It is important, therefore, that the Senate encourage youth to engage in community service and to congratulate them for the service they provide. In an effort to recognize and support youth volunteers in my State, I am proud to acknowledge some of the activities that will occur this year in Alaska in observance of National and Global Youth Service Days: Anchorage's Promise, which works to mobilize all sectors of the community to build the character and competence of Anchorage's children and youth, has sponsored the annual KidsDay events in Anchorage again this year. Youth provided significant service to their peers and to adults who attended KidsDay activities: The Spirit of Youth Teen Action Council's Herb Project provided youth with the task of building organic hanging gardens for local elders who are unable to get out and garden this year. The Alaska Botanical Garden also supported this project with important tips about the benefits of starting your own garden at home. Operation Support Our Soldiers, SOS, made cards for our military deployed overseas to show support and appreciation for the sacrifice that these brave men and women make every day. The Alaska Teen Media Institute also participated in the day interviewing youth and giving tips on media production. Teen volunteers from Anchorage conducted surveys of youth attending the 2010 KidsDay and also surveyed vendor booths regarding volunteer and employment opportunities. Chugiak High School Junior ROTC assisted Anchorage's Promise this year at KidsDay by providing security to protect children. In addition to the KidsDay events, young people from every region of Alaska will serve their communities in the following ways: The Juneau Alaska Youth for Environmental Action has been working with the Juneau-Douglas High School Food Services, to transition from plastic disposable silverware to reusable metal silverware. SAGA Juneau will be working in coordination with the Juneau School District to provide volunteer opportunities to youth. Members of the Chugiak Family Career and Community Leaders of America coordinated four activities to earn funds for the Malowi Children's Village. They raised $560 for mosquito bed nets which will buy 260 nets to protect children from deadly insect bites. Anchorage Boy Scout troops teamed up with local supermarkets in order to collect food for the homeless. The Music Canvas in Anchorage offered a free sing-a-long class for families with young children. Shishmaref Village led a trip with skilled hunters to teach the youth traditional hunting and survival tactics. An ongoing project from the students at the Alaska Teen Media Institute involves production of a public affairs radio show on KNBA 90.3 FM Anchorage. ``In Other News'' airs the last Saturday of the month and features news and views from the teen perspective. Teens of Covenant House Alaska will be partnering with Abundant Life Generation to outreach to women and children in Nepal that have experienced sexual exploitation from human trafficking. Homer residents helped clean the city. Cash prizes were awarded to the top three ``trash collectors,'' and over 650 bags of trash were collected. Over 750 volunteers joined together in Soldotna to help rebuild the local playgrounds in the city. Cadets from the North Pole High School Air Force Junior ROTC collected donations and helped out the Alaska Blood Bank in Fairbanks. Teen volunteers in Anchorage helped prepare materials for the annual summer reading celebration. Youth assisted Anchorage's Promise with getting the meaning behind the five promises out into the community. The Alaska Food Bank offered a volunteer opportunity to help the Boy Scouts of America sort out their donations from this year's Scouting for Food Drive. Thousands of youth volunteers gathered to help clean up the neighborhoods of Anchorage. The Alaska High School Challenge sponsored by the Blood Bank of Alaska increases awareness in the community about the importance of donating blood and allows high schools to compete with one another for recognition of saving the most lives in Alaska. The PANIC/Mountaineer Sports Program cleaned and painted the Mount View Community Center Boys and Girls Club. Sterling Community Club youth helped to salvage road kill moose in order to feed hungry community members. Boys and Girls Club youth were instructed on bike safety. Eagle River Boys and Girls Club helped to show support for troops by making care packages during the holidays. Port Graham School students partnered up with elders in the community to learn more about traditional knowledge and cultural importance. Wrangell youth worked with the Women in Safe Homes project and AmeriCorps members to create artwork for the Wrangell Medical Center. Youth Group of Anchorage Unitarian Universalist Fellowship made and distributed Easter baskets to homeless youth. Students at Barry Craig Stewart Kassan School were involved in a week of activities that focused on building skills such as teamwork and communication. Students at Tok School were given the opportunity to ``adopt'' a person whom they found to be a positive influence on their lives. Eagle River Lion's Club teamed up with youth to provide an Easter egg hunt for the community. The community of Dillingham joined together to celebrate the achievements of local youth and elders. Students with the Yakutat High National Honor Society held a community health fair. Meterviit Youth Action Group in New Stuyahok held an event to discuss environmental issues the village should address for the future. Tri-Valley Community Library and the After School Yearbook Club at Healy school celebrated the 40th anniversary of the local school. Mr. President, I am so proud of all of these young people. I value their idealism, energy, creativity, and unique perspectives as they volunteer to make their communities better and assist those in need. Many similarly wonderful activities will be taking place all across the Nation. I encourage all of my colleagues to visit the Youth Service America Web site--www.ysa.org_to find out about the selfless and creative youth who are contributing in their own States this year. I thank my colleagues--Senators Akaka, Bayh, Begich, Bingaman, Burr, Cardin, Cochran, Collins, Dodd, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Gregg, Hagan, Isakson, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Lautenberg, LeMieux, Lieberman, Lincoln, Menendez, Mikulski, Murray, Ben Nelson, Stabenow, and Mark Udall--for standing with me as original cosponsors of this worthwhile resolution which will ensure that youth across the country and the world know that all of their hard work is greatly appreciated.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as you are aware, last Friday the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, announced the winners of the 2010 Commander in Chief's Annual Award for Installation Excellence. Included on this prestigious list is Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, AK. This award recognizes the outstanding and innovative efforts of the brave men and women who operate and maintain our Nation's military installations. I would like to read the award citation for Elmendorf for the record. The men and women of Elmendorf Air Force Base distinguished themselves by significantly improving the quality of life, productivity, and work environment for over seventeen thousand Arctic Warrior Airmen and their families. They did this in part through the execution of the largest Military Construction program in base history, an unprecedented 460 million dollars in construction. Directly contributing to their success was the ability to obtain the lead contracting authority for four projects, an Air Force first. Elmendorf Air Force Base is also leading the way for the Air Force by being the one and only wing to use Air Force Reserve Command officers to fill active duty billets to leverage the stability and experience of reserve personnel to realize a true total force integration gain. They were also the first to implement a new Veteran's Affairs itemized billing process, increasing reimbursements by 20 percent, and becoming a model for other Joint Venture sites. This contributed to the hospital being named as the number one hospital in the Air Force for the second year in a row. Finally, through ceaseless efforts to protect natural resources, Elmendorf was named as having Pacific Air Force's number one environmental program, winning the coveted General White Awards for natural resource conservation and pollution prevention. The commitment to excellence demonstrated by the men and women of Elmendorf Air Force Base reflects great credit upon themselves and the United States Air Force. Congratulations to the men and women of Elmendorf Air Force Base as well as to the other winners of the coveted Commander-In-Chief's Installation Excellence Award.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation in the Senate that has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Alaska Congressman Don Young to clarify federal mining law and remedy a problem that has arisen with the extension process for ``small'' miner land claims. Under revisions to the Federal Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 28(f), holders of unpatented mineral claims must pay a claim maintenance fee originally set at $100 per claim by a deadline, set by regulation, of September 1st each year. Since 2004 that fee has risen to $125 per claim. But Congress also has provided a claim maintenance fee waiver for ``small'' miners, those who hold 10 or fewer claims, that they do not have to submit the fee, but that they must file to renew their claims and submit an affidavit of annual labor by Dec. 31st each year, certifying that they had performed more than $100 of work on the claim in the preceding year, 30 U.S.C. 28f(d)(1). The waiver provision further states: ``If a small miner waiver application is determined to be defective for any reason, the claimant shall have a period of 60 days after receipt of written notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau of Land Management to: cure such defect or defects or pay the $100 claim maintenance fee due for such a period.'' Since the last revision to the law last decade, there have been a series of incidents where miners argued that they submitted their applications and affidavits of annual labor in a timely manner, but due to clerical error by BLM staff or for unexplained reasons the applications or documents were not recorded as having been received in a timely fashion--and that BLM has then moved to terminate the claims, deeming them null and void. While mining claim holders have argued that the law provides them time to cure claim defects, BLM has argued that the cure only applies when applications or fees have been received in a timely manner. Thus, there is no administrative remedy for miners who believe that clerical errors by BLM resulted in loss or the late recording of claim applications. There have been a number of cases where Congress has been asked to override BLM determinations and reinstate mining claims simply because of the disputes over whether the claims had been filed in a timely manner. Congress in 2003 reinstated such claims in a previous Alaska case, and claims in another incident were reinstated following a U.S. District Court case in the 10th Circuit in 2009 in the case of Miller v. United States. This bill is intended to short circuit continued litigation and pleas for claim reinstatement by clarifying the intent of Congress that miners do have to be informed that their claims are in jeopardy of being voided and given 60 days notice to cure defects, including giving them time to submit their applications and to submit affidavits of annual labor, should they not be received and processed by BLM officials. If all defects are not cured within 60 days--the obvious intent of Congress in passing the original act--then claims still will be subject to voidance. The transition rule included in this measure will solve two pending cases in Alaska, one where a holder of nine claims on the Kenai Peninsula, near Hope, Alaska, has lost title to claims that he had held from 1982 to 2004. In this case, John Trautner had a consistent record of having paid the annual labor assessment fee for the previous 22 years and the local BLM office did have a time-date-stamped record that the maintenance fee waiver certification form had been filed weeks before the deadline, not just a record that the affidavit of annual labor had arrived. In the second case Don and Judy Mullikin of Homer, Alaska, is in the process of losing title to nine claims on the Seward Peninsula outside of Nome in Alaska because the Anchorage BLM office has no record of them receiving the paperwork, even though the owners have computer time stamps of them having completed the paperwork five months before the deadline, but no other evidence of filing to meet BLM regulations in support of an appeal. These are claims that have been worked in Alaska yearly since 1937 and are the main livelihood for the Mullikins. This legislation, supported by the Alaska Miners Association, clearly is intended to remedy a simple drafting error in congressional crafting of the small miner claim defect process. While only a few cases of potential clerical errors have occurred over the past decade, it still makes sense for Congress to clarify that claim holders have a right to know that their applications have not been processed, in time for them to cure application-claim defects prior to being informed of the loss of the claim rights forever. Simple equity and due process requires no less. Given the minute cost of this administrative change to the Department of the Interior, but its big impact on affected small mineral claim holders, I hope this bill can be considered and approved promptly this year.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I call up my amendment at the desk.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, the amendment I offer is simple. What we are doing is indexing for inflation the Medicare tax increase the majority has levied on the American people through this health care bill. Under the bill that is now law, Medicare taxes are going to jump .9 percent for certain income groups. This is about an $86 billion tax hike. My amendment aim is to contain the damage by indexing for inflation the wage thresholds for those subject to the tax increase. The amendment is very similar to what my friend from Kansas offered not too many amendments ago. It is a reminder that we have gone down this path before with the AMT. The AMT was not indexed for inflation. Today we have nearly 30 million taxpayers hit by the AMT tax. We deal with it every year through the AMT patch. I wish to make sure we are not repeating history.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am excited today to congratulate Alaskan dog musher Lance Mackey and his team of dogs that carried him across the Iditarod finish line for a first-place finish in Nome, AK, at 6:59 p.m. on March 16, 2010. The Iditarod is known as the toughest race on Earth. The trail spans across a significant portion of Alaska, and is roughly 1,100 miles long. The race begins in Willow, AK, and mushers cross the finish line in Nome--a small community on the coast of Norton Sound of the Bering Sea. Mackey and his team rode into Nome just 51 seconds short of 9 days on the trail--this is the second fastest time in the 38-year history of the race. He crossed the finish line with 11 of the 16 dogs he started the race with--tired but still strong after the 1,000-mile journey. This victory landed Mackey his fourth win in a row--a title no Iditarod musher has claimed before. Mackey's trademark strategy of long runs and little or no rest has consistently landed him victories over the other faster dog teams competing against him. His lead dogs this year, or superstars as he calls them, are named Maple and Rev. Alaskans and fans of this great race are well aware that in order to race among the great dog mushers, a pair of lead dogs with endurance and good judgment is just as important as a strong musher. The Iditarod is not for the faint of heart--the trail is made up of some of the harshest terrain in North America and if the musher and his lead dogs are not in sync, there are about a million things that can go wrong. Mackey has shown a true bond with his team of dogs year after year, and this race was no different. Lance Mackey's story is not only amazing because of his determination and skill in the sport of dog mushing but his victories over personal life challenges which are also significant. He is a cancer survivor--a victory that preceded his success in the sport of dog mushing. Lance is a lifelong Alaskan and a friend to many. He married his high school sweetheart and they have four children together. His family cheered him on as he took first, and was by his side when he was diagnosed with throat cancer after finishing the 2001 Iditarod race, where he took 36th place. After that race, Lance did not give up. He had extensive surgery and radiation and competed again the very next year. Although he had to drop out of that race to take time off to recover from his cancer and the surgery, Mackey's dedication and love of the sport is clear. He is now cancer free. Mackey went on to win the Yukon Quest several times, one of the two major sled dog races in Alaska. In 2007 and 2008, he won both the Yukon Quest and the Iditarod, two incredibly difficult races, with only a week and a half in between each race to rest before he moved on to the next event. For the first time in the history of the races, Lance had won both, and he did so 2 years in a row. I would like to take a moment to highlight just how unique this sport is--not only to Alaska, but to America as well. The Iditarod and the Yukon Quest are the world's two longest sled dog races. Both races span over 1,000 miles of rugged mountains, frozen tundra, and dense forests. These races truly know how to test a man or woman's dedication and determination. Not only does the ruthless terrain of Alaska pose immense obstacles to the mushers, but weather can be a major deterrent. Temperatures on the trail during the race have dropped down to 30 below zero. I don't know how many Members in this Chamber have experienced 30 below zero weather, but I can assure you it is no cakewalk. When that wind kicks up, gusts can shoot down through valleys and across the tundra at 100 miles per hour. You can imagine what the wind chill factor is as you are racing a dog sled team across vast open spaces for 1,100 miles. To give you an idea of just how long this race truly is-- the distance between this Chamber here in Washington and Miami, FL, would fall roughly 100 miles short of the length of the trail. And the Iditarod trail spans only a mere portion of our great State. The Iditarod commemorates the diphtheria serum relay that took place in 1925. The diphtheria vaccine was needed in Nome to counteract an outbreak that was threatening the community. Alaskan mushers came together and ran a series of dog teams to Nome carrying the vaccine to save the lives of those who were infected. This story is treasured in Alaska and each year, during the Iditarod, we remember the true spirit of the Alaska Natives and early pioneers and the obstacles they faced and ultimately overcame. Today, the Iditarod is no longer run as a relay, but it is a race of individual dog sled teams. The Alaskan wilderness the teams travel through is as exceptionally beautiful as it is difficult. Mackey said after his win that this was the most tiring race yet for his team, and also the toughest in terms of competition. Rookie musher Pat Moon crashed after hitting a tree and falling unconscious and Bruce Linton of Kasilof, AK, who is diabetic, reported that his insulin froze while mushing along the Yukon River. Sixteen of the original seventy-one mushers dropped from the race this year. Many dogs, including five from Mackey's team, were dropped from the race and sent to Anchorage to await their mushers to return. Hans Gatt of Whitehorse, Canada, also a Yukon Quest winner, trailed Lance Mackey by only an hour. He was followed by Jeff King, a four-time Iditarod winner. Mackey says that what he does well is understand his team, allowing for calculated risks that can change a race in an instant. He said: I don't think that I do anything with my running to jeopardize the dogs, or the future of the dogs. I gamble but I'm not going to win the Iditarod at the expense of my team. Lance Mackey, like all mushers, cares deeply for the health and condition of their four-legged athletes. Last year the Anchorage Daily News stated while covering the race: A musher doesn't win by making dogs run. He wins by making dogs want to run. Lance describes working with his dogs this way: The biggest challenge working with a large team of dogs is the individual personalities. Like a classroom full of kids, all with issues, wants, questions, some barking wildly to get my attention, and then there are some who just do what needs to be done and require only a nod or a smile. Every dog is different. Every need is different. That is what I love. The reward is seeing them all come together as a team working for a common goal. I had the opportunity when I was up in the State for the ceremonial start of the Iditarod to go around and talk with the mushers and visit with the dogs. You can really tell how close the mushers are with their teams and when they come together as a team they can truly go the distance. We should acknowledge and respect them. On Tuesday, March 16, thousands gathered at the famous burled wood arch on Front Street in Nome, AK, to cheer on Lance Mackey as his dogs carried him to victory over his talented competitors from all over the world. It is my honor today to stand before the Senate to congratulate Lance Mackey and his team, and to recognize this amazing race. The only one of its kind. Lance continues to be a world-class musher and a true Alaskan hero, along with his remarkable team. I join Alaskans in congratulating Lance Mackey on yet another Iditarod victory.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation in the Senate that has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Alaska Congressman Don Young to clarify federal mining law and remedy a problem that has arisen with the extension process for ``small'' miner land claims. Under revisions to the Federal Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 28(f), holders of unpatented mineral claims must pay a claim maintenance fee originally set at $100 per claim by a deadline, set by regulation, of September 1st each year. Since 2004 that fee has risen to $125 per claim. But Congress also has provided a claim maintenance fee waiver for ``small'' miners, those who hold 10 or fewer claims, that they do not have to submit the fee, but that they must file to renew their claims and submit an affidavit of annual labor by Dec. 31st each year, certifying that they had performed more than $100 of work on the claim in the preceding year, 30 U.S.C. 28f(d)(1). The waiver provision further states: ``If a small miner waiver application is determined to be defective for any reason, the claimant shall have a period of 60 days after receipt of written notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau of Land Management to: cure such defect or defects or pay the $100 claim maintenance fee due for such a period.'' Since the last revision to the law last decade, there have been a series of incidents where miners argued that they submitted their applications and affidavits of annual labor in a timely manner, but due to clerical error by BLM staff or for unexplained reasons the applications or documents were not recorded as having been received in a timely fashion--and that BLM has then moved to terminate the claims, deeming them null and void. While mining claim holders have argued that the law provides them time to cure claim defects, BLM has argued that the cure only applies when applications or fees have been received in a timely manner. Thus, there is no administrative remedy for miners who believe that clerical errors by BLM resulted in loss or the late recording of claim applications. There have been a number of cases where Congress has been asked to override BLM determinations and reinstate mining claims simply because of the disputes over whether the claims had been filed in a timely manner. Congress in 2003 reinstated such claims in a previous Alaska case, and claims in another incident were reinstated following a U.S. District Court case in the 10th Circuit in 2009 in the case of Miller v. United States. This bill is intended to short circuit continued litigation and pleas for claim reinstatement by clarifying the intent of Congress that miners do have to be informed that their claims are in jeopardy of being voided and given 60 days notice to cure defects, including giving them time to submit their applications and to submit affidavits of annual labor, should they not be received and processed by BLM officials. If all defects are not cured within 60 days--the obvious intent of Congress in passing the original act--then claims still will be subject to voidance. The transition rule included in this measure will solve two pending cases in Alaska, one where a holder of nine claims on the Kenai Peninsula, near Hope, Alaska, has lost title to claims that he had held from 1982 to 2004. In this case, John Trautner had a consistent record of having paid the annual labor assessment fee for the previous 22 years and the local BLM office did have a time-date-stamped record that the maintenance fee waiver certification form had been filed weeks before the deadline, not just a record that the affidavit of annual labor had arrived. In the second case Don and Judy Mullikin of Homer, Alaska, is in the process of losing title to nine claims on the Seward Peninsula outside of Nome in Alaska because the Anchorage BLM office has no record of them receiving the paperwork, even though the owners have computer time stamps of them having completed the paperwork five months before the deadline, but no other evidence of filing to meet BLM regulations in support of an appeal. These are claims that have been worked in Alaska yearly since 1937 and are the main livelihood for the Mullikins. This legislation, supported by the Alaska Miners Association, clearly is intended to remedy a simple drafting error in congressional crafting of the small miner claim defect process. While only a few cases of potential clerical errors have occurred over the past decade, it still makes sense for Congress to clarify that claim holders have a right to know that their applications have not been processed, in time for them to cure application-claim defects prior to being informed of the loss of the claim rights forever. Simple equity and due process requires no less. Given the minute cost of this administrative change to the Department of the Interior, but its big impact on affected small mineral claim holders, I hope this bill can be considered and approved promptly this year.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last Wednesday, the Department of Energy submitted a motion to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to withdraw its license application to construct a spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain. What was the latest rationale for this? Simply because we need it too much. That might seem like creative interpretation on my part, but just last week, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu noted that due to the revival of the nuclear industry, Yucca Mountain's repository would hit its statutory capacity limit in the next several decades and would not meet future industry needs. Instead of moving forward with a permanent repository that billions of dollars have already been spent on and simply expanding the arbitrary limit the law puts on the size of the repository, spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear reactors will be stored onsite at over 100 locations across the country for at least the next several decades. If we do have the nuclear revival that many of us believe is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet our energy needs, the number of onsite storage locations across the country will only increase. Not only is the Department of Energy seeking to withdraw its license application--and I am not absolutely convinced they have the authority to do so--they are seeking to withdraw it ``with prejudice,'' making it very difficult, if not impossible, to resurrect Yucca Mountain as a possible option for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, regardless of what future scientific and engineering advances may offer and regardless of what the administration's blue ribbon panel that is directed to consider all of the options may conclude. In fact, the Department of Energy argues in its motion that ``scientific and engineering knowledge on issues relevant to disposition of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel has advanced dramatically over the 20 years since the Yucca Mountain project was initiated.'' Apparently, the Department is also arguing that scientific and engineering knowledge on the same issues will not advance any further over the next several decades to address issues with the Yucca Mountain site. Setting the legal issues aside surrounding the Department's motion to withdraw, I wish to focus for a moment on what stopping work on the Yucca Mountain site will actually cost the American taxpayers. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Federal Government has a contractual obligation to collect spent nuclear fuel from individual nuclear powerplants starting in 1998. The government has clearly missed on that deadline. According to the Department of Justice, the Federal Government has so far paid $565 million in settlement costs for breaching this contract with the utilities. I say ``so far'' because the ultimate cost to the American taxpayer we know is going to be much higher. Utility companies have filed 71 cases in Federal court alleging the Department of Energy's delay in taking title to spent nuclear fuel is a breach of contract. Of those 71 lawsuits, 10 have now been settled, 6 were withdrawn, and 4 were fully litigated, resulting in the $565 million in payments. Of the 51 cases that are outstanding, then, the judgment has been entered in 13 of those cases, putting government liability, so far--so far--for commercial spent nuclear fuel stored onsite between 1998 and 2007 at a cost of $1.3 billion. And there remain another 38 cases for judgment to be entered on, so the amount of the liability for that timeframe is likely to increase significantly in the future. Keep in mind, this number does not take in account the level of liability for the increasing amount of spent nuclear fuel stored onsite from 2008 until the date when a permanent repository is opened, whenever that might be, nor do the costs include the $24 million in attorney costs, $91 million in expert funds, $39 million in litigation support costs, or the thousands of hours the DOE and the NRC employees have already expended on this effort. The Department of Energy estimates that the potential liability of the Federal Government to utilities will be $12.3 billion--if the government starts taking title to the spent fuel by 2020, just 10 years from now. According to the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, utility industry reports estimate that the claims will total $50 billion. And both of these estimates were developed before the administration took steps to withdraw the Yucca application. So we have liability estimates of between $12 billion and $50 billion in taxpayer money--if a repository is opened and accepting spent fuels in the next 10 years. Keep in mind, it took us almost 30 years to get this far on Yucca Mountain. With the current administration shutting down all work on Yucca and beginning the search for a solution anew, it seems increasingly likely that the costs will greatly exceed the $50 billion estimate. At a time when we are already racking up trillions of dollars in debt for future generations, the administration has freely chosen--freely chosen--to incur additional future taxpayer liability in terms of tens of billions of dollars by withdrawing the Yucca Mountain repository license application because, in the words of Secretary Chu, ``the statutory limit of Yucca Mountain would have been used up in the next several decades.'' So all Americans are on the hook for tens of billions of dollars because the Federal Government is in breach of its contract to take title to spent nuclear fuel. But it gets even better for those Americans whose utility gets some of its electricity from nuclear power plants: You get to pay twice. In return for the Federal Government taking title to commercial spent nuclear fuel, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act established a nuclear waste fund to provide for the construction of a spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste repository. Utilities that operate under nuclear power reactors are charged a fee by the Secretary of Energy, and that fee is then deposited into the waste fund. The cost of that fee is passed on from the utility to the consumer. The utilities, and then hence their customers, contribute between $750 million and $800 million into the waste fund each year. As of September 30, 2009, payments and interest credited to the fund totaled just over $30 billion. That is a substantial amount of money. However, there are restrictions on what those funds can be used for. Funds from the nuclear waste fund may only be expended for the construction of a facility expressly authorized by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or subsequent legislation. The only facility that meets this description is Yucca Mountain. Yet the Obama administration has shut down work on Yucca and filed a motion to withdraw its license application. So the natural question is, What happens to the money in the nuclear waste fund since it can't be spent on anything other than the construction of the Yucca Mountain repository? Well, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act directs the Secretary of Energy to adjust the fee paid by the utilities if the amount collected is insufficient or in excess of the amount needed to meet the cost of construction of the repository. It is hard to see how the $24 billion balance in the fund is not sufficient to pay for work on a facility where no more work will ever occur. Utilities have been suggesting that the fee be dispensed with, but Secretary Chu said that the collection will continue. So some ratepayers will continue to pay a higher electricity bill to contribute to a fund that no longer serves a purpose, at least until the courts should rule otherwise. If--or perhaps when--the courts order the reduction of the fee and the refund of the balances already paid into the fund, you can add the loss of over $750 million in income to the Federal Government per year, as well as the refund of the $30 billion already collected, to the taxpayers' debt. Mr. President, I have focused on the impact stopping work at Yucca Mountain will have on the commercial operations and the individual taxpayer, but the license application withdrawal will also impact those 13 States that host Federal sites that hold high-level radioactive waste from the production of nuclear weapons dating back to the Manhattan Project. These are, most notably, Hanford, WA; Savannah River, SC; and the National Engineering and Environmental Lab in Idaho. Just as utilities have sued the Federal Government for breach of contract, the decision to terminate Yucca should open the door to a lawsuit from a State such as Idaho, which has a court-approved agreement with the Department of Energy to remove nuclear waste from the State by the year 2035. I am also concerned that in the administration's haste to suspend the work on Yucca Mountain, valuable scientific data will be lost--for example, as the Sustainable Fuel Cycle Task Force noted, long-term corrosion samples containing decades of information that is irreplaceable. To quote the task force, they say: Scientific information developed at considerable cost in the Yucca Mountain program should be preserved to assist in future repository development, wherever that may be. I call upon the administration to preserve the data it has collected so far. I support moving forward with the Yucca Mountain license application, but if the motion to withdraw the application is successful, the knowledge and data received so far in the process will be valuable for future repository siting needs. Mr. President, taxpayers are on the hook for tens of billions of dollars. Some are paying twice for a repository that is being taken off the table. States are left with Federal holding sites that contain high-level radioactive waste. Valuable scientific data is at risk of being lost forever. And all the administration can offer in return is a 2-year delay while a panel studies the issue and offers a report. It is encouraging to hear the administration voice its support for the development of additional nuclear power and back those words with a request for greater loan guarantee funding. That is good. But in order to have support for new nuclear at a national level, there must be support among the communities which host existing nuclear powerplants. I am increasingly concerned that until we can resolve what to do with the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, local support for nuclear will erode as questions about how long the spent fuel will be stored onsite persist. With the withdrawal of the Yucca Mountain license application, we are essentially back to square one, and the American taxpayer will continue to pay the cost--without receiving any answers. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.