Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Diana Tillion, of Halibut Cove, AK. I am saddened to report that Diana, a true Alaskan spirit and invaluable public servant, passed away at home, with her family surrounding her, on February 3, 2010, at the age of 81. Diana is remembered by those who knew her as a beloved wife and mother, public servant, teacher, writer, poet, and friend. She is treasured by the people back home as an incredible artist who depicted Alaska's beauty in a unique way. Diana had the ability to create a window through her art--a window into the impressive and untamed landscape of our great State. Any one of her pieces could draw you into that scene and that moment in a meaningful and memorable way. Alaska is a vast open land full of breathtaking scenery, wild animals, and diverse terrain. It is also a place that is rich in culture. From Alaska's native peoples and the traditions passed down by their ancestors, to the pioneers of the gold rush, to Alaskans who are breaking new ground today--it is not a place for the faint of heart. Alaskans take pride in this, and Diana Tillion undoubtedly understood this sense of pride and shared in it with us. Diana was born in Paradise, CA on June 1, 1928. She migrated north to the territory of Alaska at the age of 11 in 1939, when her stepfather and mother found work at the Independence Gold Mine outside of Palmer, AK. In 1942 her family moved to Homer, AK. Before graduating from high school in 1948, Diana had already gained attention and praise for her art. In her teens Diana won a juror's choice award for a painting and was paid $100 a great--amount at that time--to paint a mural of Homer in the old Yah Sure Club saloon. She was recognized as a promising artist and began studying art by correspondence, since, at that time, there was no road access to Homer and the lower Kenai Peninsula. As a young woman, Diana left Alaska to study under the prominent artists of the time in New York, London, and Paris. In 1952, Diana married an Alaskan commercial fisherman and the love of her life, Clem Tillion. Clem proposed to Diana on their first date, and they spent 59 wonderful years together. Clem and Diana built their life together in Halibut Cove, a small scenic community located on the south shore of Kachemak Bay in Prince William Sound--a 6-mile trip by boat from Homer. The Tillions had four children: William, Marian, Martha, and Vincent. When Alaska celebrated statehood in 1958, Clem became active in the State legislature and served in both the House and Senate. Diana was a key supporter in Clem's political career and successfully moved four children back and forth between Halibut Cove and Juneau when the State legislature was in session. She maintained their education as well as her career in the arts throughout this time. Her son Vincent has said that she ``supported [Clem] wholeheartedly in a way many wouldn't be able to do''. The special friendship between Clem and Diana Tillion was well recognized among political colleagues and friends in Juneau. In 1958 Diana discovered a new medium, distinguishing herself as the first and only known artist to paint with octopus ink. A biologist friend helped her perfect the extraction process so that removing the ink caused no harm to the creatures found in the lagoon near her home. Once removed, the ink naturally regenerates. Diana was fascinated by how the color of the ink shifted from animal to animal--from purple to gold to green. She built an art gallery in Halibut Cove that drew many visitors and renowned artists to the small community over several decades. It was said that Diana turned Halibut Cove into an ``isolated haven'' for Alaska's artists. Diana's work was featured in a solo exhibit at the Anchorage Museum in 1971 and her work was shown across the country. She published six books, served as the vice president of the Alaska Council on the Arts and taught art at Homer Community College for 10 years. Diana influenced many Alaskans through her compassion for art and public service. Her living legacy is apparent today through her work, family, and those who were fortunate enough to have known her. You can go through life and meet thousands of people, but it is rare to meet someone as exceptional as Diana. She was a pioneer, in the truest sense of the word. A lover of Alaska and the people. Diana painted her last picture just 8 days before she passed away. She is survived by her husband Clem, their four children, grandchildren, and friends. Alaskans back home, myself included, are proud of the legacy that is Diana's life and work. The person she was and the beautiful art she left with us will forever be cherished. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I am proud to recognize and thank Diana Rutzebeck Tillion for her passion for life and her family, her originality, and years of giving to her community. I extend my condolences and sincere sympathy on her passing to her family, friends, and students.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, from February 12 to February 28, Americans were united in cheering on some of our Nation's most elite athletes as they competed at the 22nd Winter Olympics in Vancouver. I commend all of our athletes for their exemplary performance and thank the coaches, the team leaders and the U.S. Olympic staff. With such a talented group of people working together, it is no surprise that the United States won a record breaking 37 medals. Americans watched with an extraordinary sense of pride as our flag was raised and our anthem played, and our fellow countrymen and women competed and won on an international stage. I am especially proud of the seven Alaskans that contributed their talent to their country and competed at these Winter Olympics. Holly Brooks, the coach turned athlete, participated in her first ever Winter Olympics this year. Holly quickly became a beloved member of the Alaskan community after moving there from Seattle. Her work as a coach at Alaska Pacific University and subsequent Olympic success has been an inspiration to many of Alaska's young skiers. I know that Holly received an outpouring of support during her run up to qualifying for the Olympics from many of her fellow athletes and Alaskans led by her husband who made hundreds of ``Go Holly'' stickers for her supporters to wear. I wish Holly luck in her further competitions and hope that she will continue to be a great role model for the young people of Alaska. Callan Chythlook-Sifsof is the first Alaska Native to be selected to the U.S. National Ski and Snowboard Team and the first to make an Olympic Team. Growing up in a small rural village on the coast of the Bering Sea, Callan learned to board on the mountains surrounding her home. In 2006, at age 17, she earned a position on the U.S. snowboard team and a bronze medal in her first World Cup Boardercross in Japan. She also received a bronze medal at the start of the 2009 season in the South America Continental Cup. Callan continues to quickly excel and is currently ranked No. 2 in the U.S. and No. 14 in the world in Ladies' Boardercross. I hope she continues to compete for many years to come and hopefully we will see her in 2014 in Sochi. Jay Hakkinen is a familiar name in Alaska where he has been a professional biathlete for over 13 years and just finished his fourth Winter Olympics. Jay is one of the most accomplished U.S. biathletes in Olympic history and his 10th-place finish in the 20 Kilometer Individual at the 2006 Torino Games previously served as the benchmark for the U.S. in an individual event. Jay has shown his perseverance and persistence throughout his illustrious career as a biathlete. I know this is not the last we have heard of Jay and wish him luck as he finishes out the World Cup season. Jeremy Teela surpassed Jay's benchmark this Olympic Games with his 9th place finish in the Men's 10 Kilometer Sprint. The 34-year-old biathlete from Anchorage is a three-time consecutive Olympian. However, his service to his country goes beyond his athletic talent as Jeremy is a sergeant in the U.S. Army National Guard. As one of five soldier athletes competing in the Olympics, Jeremy and his other servicemembers remind us of the sacrifices that many young Americans have made in service to their country. Jeremy previously earned the bronze medal in the Men's 20 Kilometer in last year's World Cup and I hope he has similar success this year. Kikkan Randal, the 27-year-old cross country skier from Anchorage, competed in her third consecutive Winter Olympic Games where she had her best-ever finish in the Women's 30 Kilometer Classic--finishing 24th. A former resident of Salt Lake City, UT, she moved at an early age to Anchorage with her family. She is also the niece of former Olympic cross country-skiers, Betsy Haines and Chris Haines, and in 2007 she became the first American woman to ever win a cross-country World Cup Title. During his second consecutive Winter Olympic Games, James Southam competed in three events, including the 50 Kilometer Classic where he achieved a personal best finishing in 28th place. James was born and raised in Anchorage and participates in training along with Holly Brooks and Kikkan Randall at the Alaska Pacific University Ski Center. The APU Ski Center was a vital source of support for these Olympic athletes and kept many Alaskans informed of their progress through their facebook page. James, Holly, and Kikkan are a tremendous inspiration for the other skiers at APU and I look forward to hearing of more of their successes over the years. Our Olympic Silver medalist Kerry Weiland, from Palmer, is a fierce defender on the ice. Her intensity has earned her the nickname Kamikaze Kerry, because she has the ability to take out two players with one hit. Not only did Kerry's defense help lead the U.S. to a Silver medal, but the U.S. Women's Hockey team outscored their opponents 40-2 leading up to the gold-medal game. Kerry is also a dominant force on the U.S. National Team where she was a member of the 2008 Gold Medal World Championship team. She is also the founder and instructor of the Weiland Hockey Development in Ontario where she teaches young women the fundamentals of hockey, inspiring a new generation of female athletes. I want to thank again all the U.S. Olympic athletes for all of their hard work and dedication. It is difficult to comprehend the high degree of training and commitment required to compete in the Olympic Games and we have watched in awe as they have inspired us with their achievements. As Alaskans, we are exceptionally proud of these individuals. We regard our athletes as role models in many ways, and the sportsmanship that all our American Olympians displayed during these games exemplified some of our Nation's most important values. Our athletes were humble in victory and gracious in defeat, and made all Americans proud. I thank these individuals for being such great ambassadors for Alaska and for America.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, when President Obama delivered his first State of the Union Address several weeks ago, I tell you I was pleasantly surprised by his remarks on energy policy. In addition to calling for bipartisan legislation, the President indicated his support for more nuclear energy and new oil and gas development. I think those are all positive steps. They are taking us in the right direction, not least because they would draw strong support in Congress, and I think they would help create jobs all across the country at a time when we are looking at how we can boost the economy and create jobs. This is critically important. Having listened to the President's ideas, I looked forward to seeing how the administration would begin to act on them, how this would all play out in his new budget. When that document came out last Monday, I expected to at least see some progress in each of the areas mentioned during the State of the Union Address. Instead, I found some disparities--some were small; some were rather striking--between the President's words to Congress and the agencies' requests from us. This disconnect is both disappointing and perhaps a little difficult to explain. At the very least, it is apparent that the vision the President presented to Congress does not match what some of his agencies have in mind. I do not believe these are welcome shifts. Quite a few of the budget proposals would impair our ability to establish a comprehensive energy policy that addresses climate change and reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Instead of promoting bipartisanship-- which I think we all want to try to do--I am concerned these same proposals would only deepen the divisions we have within Congress. Let me fill out some of the details. Let's start with nuclear energy. During his remarks, the President indicated his support for a ``new generation of safe, clean nuclear powerplants in this country.'' To the administration's credit, I believe it did follow through on that one in the budget request. As I have said before, allowing the Department of Energy to guarantee more loans for nuclear plants is a step in the right direction. But I remind him, it has been a year, and this administration has yet to help finance a single nuclear project. That certainly is not due to lack of ability because the DOE has already had the authority to guarantee $18 billion in new projects. It certainly is not due to the cost because, if carried out properly, this important support would not cost American taxpayers a single dime. But I believe the administration took a step backwards in its budget, away from that progress when it chose to abandon the Yucca Mountain project. The end of the nuclear fuel cycle is just as important as the beginning. Yet DOE is abandoning our best option for a repository and further exposing taxpayers to billions for the government's breach of contract. We also need to make sure in America we are producing the raw materials used to generate nuclear energy. Here again, the administration took a step back last year by withdrawing roughly 1 million acres of uranium-rich lands in Arizona. As a result, our Nation has lost access to some of its highest grade uranium reserves. This is kind of familiar territory for us. We should know by now that following the same path for nuclear energy that we have been following for oil will not work. It is not going to help improve our energy security. It risks trading our dependence on foreign oil for a similarly devastating dependence on foreign uranium. I appreciate the administration's direction with the loan guarantees with nuclear. I, again, support that. But when we turn to the discussion about where we go with oil and gas, I cannot say the same for domestic oil and gas production--at least when it comes to this budget and the various proposals for tax hikes, new administrative fees, and efforts to make the permitting process actually more burdensome. During his State of the Union Address, the President called for tough decisions to be made regarding new development. I had actually hoped he meant that his agencies were preparing to push forward with a plan that would allow America to develop more of its resources. But it appears I was mistaken. Instead of seeking to increase production, the budget request includes at least 21 new taxes and fees for the oil, natural gas, and coal industries--21 new taxes and fees. Collectively, these increases would raise producers' costs of business by an estimated $80 billion. That is going to translate into higher energy costs for consumers, fewer jobs for the American people. We cannot forget what basic economics tells us: When you tax something, you get less of it. So we will probably become even more dependent on foreign energy as well. I ask unanimous consent that a list of all these 21 tax increases and fees for oil, gas, and coal producers be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. To be fair, these proposals that were laid out do not necessarily come as a total surprise to us. Many of these were also part of last year's budget. Last September there was a senior official from the Treasury Department who raised some eyebrows. He was testifying and said that somehow America overproduces oil and gas-- overproduces oil and gas. As we continue to import about 60 percent of our total supply of oil and even some of our natural gas, that claim is incredible to me. Our Nation clearly imports too much oil, and we use too much oil. But we certainly do not produce too much of it. The administration is pursuing at least some of these tax increases and fees in order to ``end fossil fuel subsidies.'' Those are the words they use. This is part of an agreement reached with the G20 last year. But interestingly, the G20 seems to have a very different idea of what that actually means. According to the group, developed countries such as the United States and Canada only indirectly subsidize fossil fuels such as with certain tax treatment, and even these quasi-tax subsidies are small in comparison to the developing or underdeveloped countries. If there are any direct fossil fuel subsidies that this administration could then eliminate, you have to ask the question: What would those be? As nearly as I can tell, there are two programs that would technically qualify, by the G20's definition, as direct fossil fuel subsidies. The first one is LIHEAP. Madam President, you are very familiar with that program, and I think you and I would be in complete agreement that this program, which helps needy Americans afford home heating oil and gas, should certainly not be eliminated. I think we have some considerable support in the Congress defending LIHEAP. The President, Vice President, much of the Cabinet, and dozens of other Senators certainly have gone on the record supporting it. The second direct fossil fuel subsidy in your region is the Northeastern Home Heating Oil Reserve. Again, I do not think the administration considered either of these programs when agreeing to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, but that is what they are--they are subsidies. To return to the budget request, the Department of Interior notes that: Repealing fossil fuel tax preferences helps eliminate market distortions, strengthening incentives for investments in clean renewable and more energy efficient technologies. This is another exercise in semantics and some political buzzwords. When the government gives actual subsidies and gives actual tax breaks to renewable energy development, these are entitled ``incentives for investment.'' When the government refrains from taxing oil and gas producers more than they are already taxed, it is not an incentive for investment anymore. But now we are calling it a ``market distortion.'' I lay this out to hopefully be able to verbalize my concern. When the President spoke before the Congress at his State of the Union Address, when he spoke about tough decisions on new oil and gas exploration, I had hoped we would finally begin to be using more of our resources to meet our own energy needs. But from looking at the new budget, it looks more as though our energy producers will be the ones who will be making the tough decisions. They are going to be making a tough decision as to whether they continue to operate here, whether they shut down, whether they head overseas or whether they produce our energy. The final area I wish to address is the issue of climate change. During his address, the President called on the Congress to develop comprehensive energy and climate legislation. But a few days later, when the budget came out, the EPA requested more than $40 million in order to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions on its own. Here in the Senate we have at least 41 Members already on record as opposing that approach. That is about as bipartisan as any climate bill has been--as we have been--in this Congress. By allowing the EPA to move forward, the President is actually limiting Congress's ability to develop a bipartisan climate bill. Instead of debating cap and trade or a carbon tax, we are going to spend at least some of our time talking about the EPA's regulations. As I have said many times before, EPA's actions will harm our economy at a time when we can least afford it. I also believe the debate over climate policy belongs here. It belongs in the Senate. It belongs in the House. It belongs here in Congress because that is where the best interests of our constituents can fully be represented. The truth of the matter is the administration is looking to have it both ways. On the one hand, its budget assumes a cap-and-trade bill will pass and on the other it is seeking millions of dollars to impose these backdoor climate regulations. I hope the administration will change its mind on the matter and decide to work with us as we work toward a balanced and comprehensive bill. But I think we recognize that the threat of regulations has not worked. I do not think it will work. I think it is time to take that command-and-control approach off the table. Some may wonder why I have taken the time to point out that the ideas in the President's State of the Union Address do not entirely match the priorities that were outlined in the administration's new budget. This is not intended as a criticism of the President. I am ready to work with him on the ideas he has offered to see if we can make some real progress for the American people. But, instead, I raise these issues because I believe they help illustrate why we have had such a tough time agreeing on a path forward. I am happy to work with the President and his administration on nuclear energy, on offshore development, and work toward bipartisan legislation. But I am not willing to support many of the energy-related proposals we are seeing now within the administration's new budget. Again, you might ask the question, why does it all matter? It matters because the budget is filled with programs that are authorized by Congress which are supposed to reflect not only our priorities but the priorities of the American people. And while it may not be readily apparent, the budget does send the signal about whether our work here is going to be continued by the executive branch. If the agencies seek to promote just some of our goals, and actually hamper others, that will only make Senators more cautious about what they are willing to support, especially if it is part of a comprehensive package. Madam President, I am going to close this evening by simply reaffirming what I have said before. I am ready to work with the President on the ideas he has offered up during his State of the Union Address to help make those tough decisions on offshore development, to ensure a new generation of nuclear powerplants is built, to play a constructive role in bipartisan legislation. But the energy proposals contained in the budget also make me question whether all of those priorities would receive equal treatment if put into law. I hope the agencies would carry out all of Congress's priorities--not just some--that could be contained in a bipartisan energy bill. The President's address several weeks ago makes me think that, in fact, this is all possible. But the new budget makes me question whether, in fact, that is the case. With that, Madam President, I thank the Chair for the time and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Dr. William G. Demmert, known by many as Kaagoowu (a man with the strength of a stump) of the Tlingit ``Naasteidi'' Eagle clan--a pioneer in the cause of improving Indian education and the Nation's leading researcher on Native language immersion and culturally based education. I am saddened to report that Dr. Demmert, an invaluable pioneer in the cause of justice for Indian education, died January 19, 2010, in Bellingham, WA, at the age of 75. He was a man beloved by indigenous peoples of Alaska, the Southwest, the Arctic nations, and New Zealand--especially the Tlingit and Lakota, by Hawaiians, and by Maoris. He will be sorely missed. In particular, I would note that we in Alaska honored and cherished Kaagoowu. Residents of southeast Alaska say of his departure that he ``Walked into the Forest,'' but his spirit and memory live on. He was tied to the lands of Alaska as a fisher and gatherer; he studied and recorded the landscapes of ancestors as a scholar and as clan member. He served Alaska as superintendent, principal, and teacher for Klawock City School; a teacher in Fairbanks; a professor of education at the University of Alaska Southeast; as a Commissioner of Education for the State of Alaska; and as a trustee of the Sealaska Heritage Institute. Throughout his life, he united Alaskans with the Lakota and, through his work strengthened our bonds with Indian tribes across the Nation and with other indigenous Peoples throughout the Arctic and South Seas. He contributed to the Nation by ensuring that the richness of our cultural and linguistic diversity survived in the schools and in our daily lives. Throughout his professional life, Dr. William Demmert championed three important education issues: 1) early learning and preschool programs; 2) meeting the educational needs of at-risk youth; and 3) improving the academic performance of American Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native children. The focus of Dr. Demmert's research was the education of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students. His work was invaluable in the exploration of educational programs and schools serving Native communities, helping educators and policy makers to better understand the role of traditional knowledge in instructional practice, and assessing what works in providing a school environment that values academic performance, citizenship, and the traditional ways for Indian children. His research on Native language immersion education has proven unequivocally that heritage language acquisition strengthens critical thinking, college preparedness, and overall academic success. Dr. Demmert was born in Klawock, AK, to William and Florence (Allman) Demmert. He was of Tlingit and Oglala Lakota heritage and a member of the Demmert family of southeast Alaska, many of whom made important and positive contributions to their communities and to Alaska at large through their work as teachers, education researchers, and leaders. ``Dr. Bill,'' as he was known by many in southeast Alaska, lived up to his heritage and his ancestors' examples. Bill's experiences growing up within the Alaska education systems in the 1940s and early 1950s ran the gamut of the kind of educational opportunities available to young Alaska Native people at that time. He attended a BIA school, a territorial school, and boarding schools both in and out of State. These experiences, and the support he received from his extended family, stayed with him and informed his view of Indian education. Bill was not one of those ivory tower academics with no roots in the real world. After earning his bachelor's and master's degrees and teaching in Washington State, Bill returned to Alaska, teaching in Fairbanks, Craig, and Klawock, where he also served as both principal and superintendent. He spent the 1960s learning how to educate from the ground up. In 1969, he and few friends attending a conference on Indian education decided to form a new group, one they thought would represent the unique needs of Indian educators, students, and communities. The group they formed was the National Indian Education Association. The NIEA has become, since that initial conversation over coffee, a powerful voice for Indian students and educators across the country. Soon after, Bill was asked to work with Senators Kennedy and Mondale to help write the Indian Education Act of 1972, legislation that was intended to respond to the U.S. Senate's report, ``Indian Education: A National Tragedy, A National Challenge.'' Today, we know the Indian Education Act as title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Thousands of Indian educators and countless children and parents have found a voice and benefited from programs created by Bill's work to create solutions to the tragic shortcomings in Indian education. In 1973, having earned his doctorate in education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Bill returned to the world of public policy, working for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as Deputy Commissioner of Education for the U.S. Office of Indian Education and as Director of the Office of Indian Education Programs at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. After 5 years with the Federal Government, Bill returned to academia at the University of Alaska Southeast and finished the 1980s as Commissioner of Education for the State of Alaska. As Commissioner from 1986 through 1990, Dr. Demmert is credited with ``changing the conversation'' on education. Today, many of the issues he championed have become mainstream in Alaska education. In 1991, after Dr. Demmert left office as Commissioner, President George H. W. Bush named him and former U.S. Secretary of Education Terrell H. Bell cochairmen of the prestigious Indian Nations at Risk Task Force, which issued an influential report to the President and Congress entitled, ``Indian Nations at Risk: An Educational Strategy for Action.'' A principal writer of the report, this effort gave Bill the opportunity to assess nearly 20 years of work and progress in the education of Native American children. Among other elements, the report published an Indian Student Bill of Rights. It reads: The Indian Nations at Risk Task Force believes that every American Indian and Alaska Native student is entitled to: A safe and psychologically comfortable environment in school. A linguistic and cultural environment in school that offers students opportunities to maintain and develop a firm knowledge base. An intellectually challenging program in school that meets community as well as individual academic needs. A stimulating early childhood educational environment that is linguistically, culturally, and developmentally appropriate. Equity in school programs, facilities, and finances across Native communities, and in schools run by the federal government and public schools in general. In writing and speaking about this report, he reflected upon his grandparents', his parents', and his own education in BIA schools, whose mission it was to assimilate Natives into the ``American way of life and culture.'' He felt blessed that his grandfather and parents were fluent in both Tlingit and English, and that they encouraged him to be so as well. He reflected with sadness that so many young people he knew were fluent in neither. He expressed concern that over the course of his life, too many young people were educated in schools that reflected no respect for their language and culture, and was surprised that he survived this. Dr. Demmert spent the remaining years of his life researching and teaching at Western Washington University. Before retiring in 2008, he served as a principal investigator, in partnership with Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory and other major partners from Arizona to Hawaii working to develop and test assessments in schools using Native language immersion and culturally based instruction. Not only recognized as an expert in indigenous education here in the United States, Dr. Demmert leant his expertise to education policymakers and practitioners of many nations, serving as cochair of a coalition of the Ministers of Education of northern nations, including Norway, Sweden, Finland, Greenland, the Russian Federation, Nunavut Territory, Northern Quebec, and the Yukon Territory. Recognized for his long experience and vast expertise in Native education, particularly with regard to Native language instruction, Dr. Demmert was called to testify in 2000 before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in support of the Native American Languages Act Amendments Act. Bill celebrated the fact that ``Native language, the traditional mores and cultural priorities, the importance of tribal identity and lineage have all become higher priorities as we build a contemporary culture and context of the school that supports Native students' identities.'' That bill passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent. In addition to his professional accomplishments, Dr. Demmert was a good man. He had a great ability to put people at ease. He understood his role as mentor, and built bridges between academia, policymakers, and everyday people. He was a teacher of teachers, and a leader of leaders. Dr. William G. Demmert was responsible for great strides in Indian education, and had great hopes for its future. Now, as we celebrate a life well lived and his innumerable contributions to the education of Indian children, we must all rededicate ourselves to ensuring that every child among our first peoples has the opportunity to learn in an atmosphere of respect where his language, culture, and history are taught and celebrated, and where every Indian child can achieve his or her highest aspirations. We must ensure that his legacy--the Indian Education Act and indigenous language education as a means to preserving the sacred languages of our first peoples--is kept vibrant and meaningful for the future. Bill Demmert, Kaagoowu, is survived by his wife of 42 years, Nora Demmert; sons William and Philip; daughters Nora and Melanie; brothers Lee and Ted; his sister, Justna; five grandchildren, two great- grandchildren, and a multitude of other relatives. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I am proud to recognize and thank Dr. William G. Demmert for his long years of service. I extend my condolences and sincere sympathy on his passing to his family, friends, colleagues, and students. I ask unanimous consent that the attached poem and resolution written in tribute to Dr. Demmert from the Native people of Hawai`i be printed at the end of my statement in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, over the past 5 months, I have repeatedly expressed concerns about the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to issue backdoor climate regulations under the Clean Air Act. I spoke at length about this issue on the Senate floor in September and then again in December. I have also discussed it with dozens of groups from all across the political spectrum and found there is remarkably widespread agreement with my views on this issue. As the EPA moves closer and closer to issuing these regulations, I continue to believe that this command and control approach is our worst option for reducing emissions blamed for climate change. I also believe that with so much at stake, Congress must be given time to develop an appropriate and more responsible solution. Today, after consultation with the Parliamentarian, I have come to the floor to introduce a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act that would prevent the EPA from acting on its own. Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, and Senator Landrieu of Louisiana have joined me as cosponsors on this bipartisan resolution, along with 35 of my Republican colleagues. I have also come to reaffirm and reemphasize my previous remarks on this issue. Given what has been alleged about my intentions, I believe this debate needs to be directed back to its substance and away from the ad hominem attacks and red herrings thrown out in the past few weeks. There is a legitimate and a substantive debate to be had over whether the EPA should be allowed to issue command and control regulations. I welcome the debate. If there are any Senators who support the unprecedented regulatory intrusion the EPA is pursuing, I hope those Members will come to the floor and explain why. I strongly oppose that approach. I hope my colleagues will listen to my explanation as to why I feel as strongly about this as I do. Our bipartisan resolution deals with an incredibly important issue; that is, whether Members of this body are comfortable with actions EPA will take under its current interpretation of the Clean Air Act. I am not comfortable with those actions. Neither are the Senators who have already agreed to add their names to this effort. The Clean Air Act was written by Congress to regulate criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. Its implementation remains subject to oversight and guidance from elected representatives. We should continue our work to pass meaningful energy and climate legislation, but in the meantime, we cannot turn a blind eye to the EPA's efforts to impose backdoor climate regulations with no input from Congress. The decision to offer this resolution was brought about by what will happen in the wake of EPA's decision to issue the endangerment finding. It is not merely a finding; it is actually a floodgate. Under the guise of protecting the environment, it is set to unleash a wave of damaging new regulations that will wash over and further submerge our struggling economy. Make no mistake, if Congress allows this to happen, there will be severe consequences to our economy. Businesses will be forced to cut jobs, if not move outside our borders or close their doors for good, perhaps. Domestic energy production will be severely restricted, increasing our dependence on foreign suppliers and threatening our national security. Housing will become less affordable and consumer goods more expensive as the impact of the EPA's regulations are felt in towns, cities, and on farms all across America. My home State is a perfect example of why we must proceed with utmost caution. If these regulations are allowed, the consequences for Alaska will be devastating. Hundreds of facilities will be subject to much greater regulation, including large hospitals, hotels, fish processors, and mines. Energy-intensive businesses throughout the State will be forced to acquire, install, and operate new equipment and technologies. In many cases, this will prove impossible because the technologies are either too expensive or they simply do not exist. Because the EPA's proposed regulations are such a blunt tool, they will hit my State's energy sector particularly hard. The continued operation of existing businesses and future endeavors alike, including Alaska's three refineries, the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, TAPS, and the proposed Alaska natural gas pipeline, will all be jeopardized. Take for example the Flint Hills refinery. This is located just south of Fairbanks. This refinery purchases royalty oil out of the pipeline at premium rates, which is critically important to the continued operation of TAPS itself. That 800-mile-long pipeline has been challenged by decreasing throughput as lower volumes are taking longer to arrive from the North Slope. Oil is also arriving at the Flint Hills refinery at lower temperatures than it used to, which requires more energy to heat and craft the crude oil into the marketable fuels Alaskans depend upon. The Flint Hills refinery already struggles to keep its jet fuel output at competitive rates in order to maintain Anchorage's status as a major center for global air cargo. It also faces a relatively inelastic market in Alaska for its other fuel products. The EPA will likely be unable and unwilling to address these issues under its command and control climate regulations. I mentioned the Alaska natural gas pipeline--something we are working very hard to allow to come about. The construction and operation of an Alaska natural gas pipeline would be significantly hobbled by the EPA. The main reason for this relates to compressor stations which maintain a pipeline's pressures and enable movement of the gas. There is no known best available control technology, as would be required under the Clean Air Act, for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from compressors and no good options for compliance. I cannot overstate how important these facilities and these projects are to Alaska and to America. Our refineries help ensure the State's status as a transportation hub as well as a strategic base for military operations. The Trans Alaska Pipeline System delivers hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil to Americans each day and most of the revenue for Alaska's State budget. The proposed natural gas pipeline is a pillar of our future economy that will bring Americans billions of cubic feet of clean-burning natural gas. Collectively, these projects mean well-paying jobs for thousands of hard-working Alaskans. While the EPA's endangerment finding may be described as an effort to protect our environment, it would actually damage the very foundation of my State's economy. Alaska isn't the only State that would face dire economic consequences. My colleagues need to consider the ripple effect of this decision and the heavy economic burden it will place on those throughout the lower 48. This was foreshadowed in New Mexico back in September. In December, Kentucky faced the same situation; Arkansas, just last week. The EPA has ordered regulators in each of these States to go back to the drawing board on plans to build new powerplants. These decisions were all the result of this EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act and represent a fundamental departure from the permitting process Congress had envisioned for this statute. The implications are clear. The people who live in those States are already feeling the effects. Construction is being delayed. Jobs are not being created or, more importantly, being filled. Commerce is suffering. Depending on what becomes of these proposed plants, local residents may have to brace for a spike in energy prices as well. Seen in this light, the EPA's regulations will not only add a thick new layer of Federal bureaucracy, but they will also serve to depress economic activity, to slow it down, to make it more expensive, to render it less efficient. If you thought the recession made for good environmental policy, I expect you will love what the EPA has to offer. Obtaining Federal air permits is already an exercise in administrative agony that can take years and cost millions of dollars. That is before the existing system is overwhelmed by millions of new applicants. Instead of accepting that the Clean Air Act is not appropriate for this task, the EPA has proposed to lift its regulatory thresholds to 25,000 tons per year for greenhouse gases. That represents a clear departure from the statute's explicit requirements and has opened the Agency to litigation--costly, time-consuming, and endlessly frustrating litigation. Lawsuits are already being prepared against the EPA's so- called tailoring proposal. When the final rule is issued, it will be challenged. I expect the courts will then reject it, as it has no legal basis, and then restore the regulatory thresholds to 100 tons and 250 tons per year. Before long, the Agency will find itself mired in the regulatory nightmare it has sought to avoid. Again, it is hard not to find this both surreal and deeply disturbing. The national unemployment rate has spiked to 10-plus percent. Yet here in Washington Federal bureaucrats are contemplating regulations that will destroy jobs, while millions of Americans are doing everything they can just to find one. Moreover, given the amount of time it has taken us in the Senate to consider health care and the list of many other bills waiting to be considered, it appears there will not be enough time for Congress to debate energy and climate legislation before the EPA takes action. That means the people of our States have no voice in this process. They will be subject to rules and regulations that affect their lives and their livelihoods without ever having had an opportunity to express their concerns through their representatives in Congress. Perhaps the most important question that needs to be answered is, Why would the EPA want to pursue these regulations right now when we should be focused on getting our economy back on track? Environmental advocates, senior Democrats, the administrator of the EPA, and even the President have repeatedly said they prefer congressional legislation. So with such widespread and high-level agreement, one would think it would be easy to suspend the Agency's efforts. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Many of those same individuals are somehow convinced that the threat of EPA regulations is somehow useful, somehow necessary. It is no secret that this is the centerpiece of a highly coercive strategy. It is the administration attempting to force the Congress to pass a climate bill more quickly than it otherwise would. For my part, that strategy has failed so far. It will continue to fail in the months ahead because Members of Congress will not enact bad legislation in order to stave off bad regulation. What the administration's strategy has done is to put Congress in a difficult position. It is apparent to almost all of us that more time is needed to develop a good climate policy that can draw the bipartisan support of a majority in the Senate. We are working on it. My staff is actively working to develop a wide range of approaches for reducing emissions. We know Senator Cantwell and Senator Collins have recently introduced a new approach. Senators Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman are hard at work on their tripartisan proposal. As the EPA proceeds with its greenhouse gas regulations, Congress remains far from completing its work, and we are left with no choice but to shift at least part of our focus to halting the EPA's efforts. As I have stated before, my goals here are twofold: to ensure that Congress has sufficient time to work on climate legislation and to ensure that the worst of options, which is a massive expansion of the Clean Air Act, does not occur before that task is finished. In addition to the Senators who have signed on as cosponsors of our bipartisan resolution, there are a variety of stakeholders who have expressed strong support for slowing or stopping the EPA from issuing its greenhouse gas regulations. Many of these comments have focused on the tailoring proposal, while others oppose the endangerment finding itself. Some at the outer edges of the environmental community, obviously, disagree. But I think much of the rest of America--including State officials, businesses, farmers, and taxpayer advocates--all share our belief that the Clean Air Act should not be used to regulate emissions. I would like to give you a few examples. The Governor of Alaska, Sean Parnell, has written: The fundamental question posed by the proposed rule is whether greenhouse gases can be effectively regulated under the Clean Air Act. We think not. Attempting to force fit the Clean Air Act to the purpose of regulating greenhouse gases will be ineffective and will negatively impact Alaska. . . . The proposed rule would bury Alaska's businesses, institutions, and the State's environmental agencies in regulatory burden. The Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, has written: Regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act will undoubtedly increase the cost of energy, increase the cost of doing business, increase the cost of consumer products, and jeopardize millions of jobs by putting U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage against foreign competitors. The Governor of West Virginia, Joe Manchin, commented: At a time when our state is fighting to save jobs and stabilize the economy, we cannot afford to act carelessly. EPA has taken a risky and unprecedented step in promulgating this rule. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is a matter that should be left to Congress, and EPA would be wise to seek Congressional action instead of attempting to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Even the California Energy Commission, based in the State with the strictest environmental standards, felt compelled to weigh in because, as they state, ``EPA's proposed PSD tailoring threshold jeopardizes California's renewable energy strategy.'' So instead of speeding the transition to cleaner energy, California is actually worried that the EPA's proposals will actually slow down their progress. Dozens of State Governors and attorneys general have submitted comments opposing at least one of the EPA's regulations. But comments from our elected officials are not the half of it. The National Taxpayers Union has issued a press release that says, in part: At a time when taxpayers are feeling the biggest squeeze since the Great Depression, it's unconscionable that Congress is responding with regulatory and legislative proposals that will only make matters worse. Then, in a letter that was delivered to me just yesterday, the American Farm Bureau Federation wrote that its delegates have unanimously adopted a resolution that ``strongly supports any legislative action that would suspend EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.'' The letter goes on to assert that: How carbon emissions should be regulated is a matter to be decided by elected officials; that debate is now ongoing on Capitol Hill. It is there that these policy questions should be answered. Finally, the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy has concluded that the EPA's greenhouse gas rules will likely have a ``significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. . . . Small businesses, small communities, and small non- profit associations will be affected either immediately or in the near- term.'' As public awareness of our bipartisan disapproval resolution grows in the days ahead, I expect there will be many more statements that will be issued in support of its passage. While there is an extremely vocal minority that does not support it, I do hope my Senate colleagues will look at the broad coalition that does and join us to oppose the EPA's regulations. Before I wrap up, Mr. President, I would also like to address the criticisms and arguments that have been made by those who oppose my efforts. I would like to address four of the latest claims in hopes of putting them to rest. First of all, I would like to reiterate that our bipartisan disapproval resolution deals with the EPA's current interpretation of the Clean Air Act and has nothing to do with the science of global climate change. I would also remind my critics that I cosponsored a cap-and-trade bill in the last Congress and last year worked with the members of the Senate Energy Committee to craft a bipartisan clean energy bill. That bill, unfortunately, has been languishing on the Senate calendar for nearly 8 months now, just waiting to be called up and considered, which I think is a real shame because it would lead to significant emissions reductions and greater energy security for our country. I would also like to address a rather creative claim that has been made that somehow I am attempting to ``gut'' the Clean Air Act or subvert it into a ``Dirty Air Act.'' I have to admit, when I first saw this, it actually made me laugh because it is so wildly inaccurate. Neither my previous amendment nor this resolution would have any effect on pollution standards and controls. Neither would change a single word of the current statute. My resolution would simply prevent the massive, unwarranted expansion of this statute by halting the EPA's efforts to use it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions--a purpose for which it was never intended, and a role that it simply cannot fulfill without serious and detrimental consequences. It has also been stated that this resolution will somehow--somehow-- prevent Congress from working constructively on climate legislation this year. Not the case. My resolution will restrain the EPA's ability to issue greenhouse gas regulations, but it will have absolutely no bearing on Congress's ability to debate climate policy. It is especially ironic that these comments were made by the Senator who has complete control of the Senate calendar. So if climate legislation does not come up this year, it is abundantly clear to me who will have made that decision. The last claim I would like to address is the allegation about who helped draft my September amendment, which I might remind colleagues was never offered and is no longer on the table. Not only are those allegations categorically false, but they highlight--they highlight-- the unwillingness of opponents of this measure to engage in the real policy discussion we should be having. The question so many of the individuals and groups opposed to my efforts have failed entirely to answer is if they honestly think--if they honestly think--that EPA climate regulations under the Clean Air Act would be good or bad for America. I hope the debate over this resolution will stay rooted in substance. There is plenty of substance for us to debate. There is a legitimate and a substantive debate to be had about whether the EPA should be allowed to issue these regulations before Congress has had an opportunity to fully debate the issue of climate change. In my mind, the answer is no. Congress must be given the time it needs to develop a responsible policy that protects both the environment and the economy. We are not incapable or even unwilling to legislate on this topic. So far, this Congress has merely failed to develop a balanced measure that draws enough support to be signed into law. We can remedy that shortcoming, and I remain committed to playing a constructive role in that effort. I believe the looming specter of EPA regulations is actually a big part of the reason we have had difficulty moving forward on climate legislation. Even though we know that some approaches for reducing emissions are greatly inferior to others, there is inexplicable resistance to removing even our worst option from consideration. I have not heard one Member--one Member--say he or she prefers regulation over legislation. I have not heard one Member say that. Yet that option is not only still around, but it is also closer than ever to becoming reality. As long as it remains out there, it will be plan B for those who wish to address climate change at any cost. If this issue has become so politicized that some Members would support EPA regulation instead of a legislative effort aimed at passing a bipartisan bill, that would not only be a tragedy for our constituents but I believe also a sad day for us in the Senate. If we are serious about fulfilling our duty to our constituents and giving this issue the full debate it deserves, we should take the EPA regulations off the table. Without a backstop that says ``emissions will be reduced, one way or another, no matter how painful,'' supports of climate legislation would have to get serious about finding common ground and bipartisan cosponsors. Major environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act all faced opposition at the outset. That is no secret or surprise. But Members worked together to resolve concerns instead of threatening to take a different and more damaging course. As Senator Ed Muskie would later write, the Clean Air Act ``was passed unanimously after just two days on the floor,'' which prompted Senator Eugene McCarthy to remark that he had ``finally found an issue better than motherhood--and some people are even against motherhood.'' The Clean Water Act passed by a vote of 86 to 0, and the Safe Drinking Water Act did not even require a rollcall vote. It was passed by voice vote. The Senate has a history of coming together to overwhelmingly support commonsense environmental legislation. But today, however, as we seek the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we are being presented with a false choice between unacceptable legislation and unacceptable regulations. We are being told--threatened really--to pass a bill now or the economy will suffer. A number of Senators are trying to develop bills that can be signed into law, but even as that work continues, the EPA's endangerment finding has opened the door to further economic damage. I believe Congress must take that option off the table, and we can do that by approving the bipartisan disapproval resolution that 39 Senators have now submitted. Allowing the EPA to proceed will endanger jobs, our economy, and our global competitiveness. That should be an outcome we can all agree to avoid. If you truly believe that EPA climate regulations are good for the country, then you can vote to oppose our resolution. But if you share our concerns and you believe climate policy should be debated in Congress, then vote with us to support it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I want to speak about small businesses because we have all been talking about the impact to small businesses. Under this bill, as we know, small businesses are going to be penalized $750 per employee if even one of their employees seeks governmental health care through Medicaid or through Federal subsidies. So if you have 50 or more employees, you can be expected to pay fines in an amount of $750 per employee, which amounts to over $37,000 or $3,000 for that individual employee. I think we need to put it into perspective in terms of who these businesses are. These are the solo-practitioners, like the one-lawyer office or the small doctor's office. If these individuals purchase health care in the individual market, they are going to see their premiums go up an extra $1,160 per year for a family--nearly $3,000 more in 2016. Alaska is defined as a high-cost State. If you are a small business that can afford to pay good health and dental benefits for your employees and those benefits amount to $8,500 per individual or $23,000 per family, in a high-cost State such as Alaska, you look to be hit with a 40-percent excise tax because you basically want to provide your employees with good benefits. Again, according to ISER: Alaska is a high cost state and thus, roughly 50 percent of health plans in Alaska will be subject to the tax by 2016, compared to only 19 percent average in the Lower 48. Again, by 2016, 50 percent of the plans in my State will be subject to this 40-percent excise tax. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter we received from the municipality of Anchorage, Police and Fire Retiree Medical Trust.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. The bottom line is from the Alaska State Medical Association: The cumulative result of Alaska physicians' advocacy has been a success for physicians and their patients. Again, we have seen the positive impact in Alaska because of the laws we have passed. It is unfortunate that we didn't take that opportunity as we dealt with health care reform these past many months. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 December 21, 2009. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: We are writing to express our strong opposition to language contained in the Manager's Amendment to H.R. 3590, which excludes the construction industry from the small business exemption contained in the bill. We regret that this is our first opportunity to address this issue, though the fact that the Manager's Amendment was made public less than two days before the first vote on the matter has increased the difficulty of playing a constructive role in the legislative process. In recognition of the negative impact that a mandate to provide health insurance will have on employers, H.R. 3590 exempts employers with fewer than 50 employees from the fines levied on those who cannot afford to provide their employees with the federal minimum standard of health insurance. However, the Manager's Amendment singles out the construction industry by altering the exemption so that it applies to only those firms with fewer than 5 employees. This narrowly focused provision is an unprecedented assault on our industry, and the men and women who every day make the bold decision to strike out on their own by starting a business. Our members' benefit packages reflect the reality of their business models, and they proudly offer the best health insurance coverage that they can afford. It is unreasonable to presume that small business owners can bear the increased cost of these new benefits simply because Congress mandates that they do so. In the real world, where the rhetoric surrounding this legislation will meet the stark reality of the employer struggling to make payroll, this special interest carve out is simply another bill to pay in an industry that, with an unemployment rate exceeding 18% and more than $200 billion in economic activity lost in the past year, already is struggling to survive. And, we would be remiss if we failed to question the justification for singling out the construction industry to bear such a burden. We are unaware of any data or evidence that suggests that the needs and struggles of a construction contractor with fewer than 50 employees are so different from those of small business owners in other industries, and absent such convincing evidence, we are left to assume that this specific provision is merely a political payoff to satisfy the desires of a small constituency. As Congress moves forward in the legislative process for H.R. 3590, we strongly encourage you to address this onerous provision that needlessly singles out small construction industry employers. Sincerely, Air Conditioning Contractors of America, American Institute of Architects, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated Equipment Distributors, Associated General Contractors, Association of Equipment Manufacturers, Independent Electrical Contractors, National Association of Home Builders. National Federation of Independent Business, National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association, National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, National Roofing Contractors Association, National Utility Contractors Association, Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors-National Association, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. One of the things we don't have in this legislation is a provision that relates to medical malpractice. It has been stated that, in Alaska, you tried medical malpractice reform and we haven't seen the positive impacts. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement from the Alaska State Medical Association, along with an article that was published in Alaska Medicine in September of 2009 entitled ``Malpractice Relief, Lower Premiums, Tort Reform Add to Alaska's Appeal.''

Ms. MURKOWSKI. The city of Anchorage is the largest city in Alaska. We received this letter last week. In the letter, they cite specifically three provisions in the bill that are of particular concern--No. 1, inclusion of health care benefits as taxable income to employees. It states: Not only will this increase the employee's taxable income but the [Municipality of Anchorage's] payroll tax will also increase. The second point is the taxation of the municipality's health care plans. This tax will be imposed on the employer. The current [municipality] health plan design is apt to be considered to have ``an excess benefit.'' This would make it subject to a 40% excise tax. They go on to say: There is also an aggregation rule for the value of employee coverage with multiple employers or retiree medical. If a retiree would purchase [the municipality's] Health Insurance that is considered excessive, the 40% excise tax would be incurred. One may argue that the tax is a tax to the employer. The argument can also be made that the Trust is an integral part of the Municipality. Thus the tax would be payable from the Trust general fund assets. Their third point is: Current municipal employees are able to be reimbursed tax free from money they have placed in their flexible spending account for over the counter medicine. Retired police officers and firefighters also currently are allowed this reimbursement as part of their medical benefit. Under the rules of this bill, these reimbursements would no longer be allowed. This is a reduction in employee benefits. It is also likely to encourage an increase [in] the utilization of more expensive non-OTC prescriptions, as they are a covered expense. There are about 400 members that are part of the Police and Fire Retiree Medical Trust. When they find out, as I am sure they will, that essentially they are going to be taxed on their plan--I think most of these firefighters and police officers don't view themselves as having access to a Cadillac plan. They are just firefighters and police officers. But this is coming from their trust fund, expressing great concern over what we have in front of us. I have mentioned that we have received a copy of an opinion piece from a primary care provider in Anchorage who has outlined why she is opting out of the Medicare system in Alaska. I ask unanimous consent to have her letter printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. If I may ask my colleague from Kansas, do I understand the Senator is seeking about 10 minutes?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. It is no secret, in my State of Alaska and in far too many States around this country, we do not have enough providers that will take these individuals. ISER has said seniors in low payment Medicare States will be forced to wait in line. Alaska is one of two States--we are, I think, second to last in terms of Medicare payments and where we stack up in relation to the reimbursement. ISER goes on to state: Independent of the doc fix, in Alaska the remainder of seniors are at risk of long lines to see a primary care doctor and overflowing to community health center and hospital emergency rooms where existing capacity is highly likely to be quickly overwhelmed and long wait times become increasingly common. ISER has also said that additional new insured patients are going to hurt Medicare beneficiaries, and they state: Federal healthcare reform applied to Alaska likely will exacerbate an already very challenging situation for Alaska's seniors as baby boomers age into Medicare and finding themselves waiting in line behind a rapidly expanding line of better paying private plans. We are told 5 years from now our Medicare population is going to increase by 50 percent. We cannot accommodate those who are Medicare- eligible now. Our boom is not sustainable. The CMS Actuary has said: The Reid bill reduces payments to health care providers, which is unlikely to be sustainable on a permanent basis. As a result, providers could find it difficult to remain profitable and absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the Medicare program. It is happening. Doctors, providers, physicians are making those decisions as we speak. They are opting out. So this is not some theoretical approach to the problem. This is happening. Madam President, how much time do we have on our side?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I am going to speak a little bit about how aspects of this legislation have impact specifically on my State. As a rural State, sometimes the impacts we see are different than you have in more urban States. Our geography is different, our lack of providers, our high senior population, our extremely expensive costs, there are a lot of dynamics at play that cause real issues and real concerns. There have been many words that have been exchanged on this floor about what this bill doesn't do or what it does do. I find it helpful to go to the experts, the think tank in my State, and ask them flat out. We have an institution at the University of Alaska called the Institute of Social Economic Research. I take what they have to say very seriously. I also take very seriously what our Congressional Budget Office has to say, what the CMS Actuary has to say, because, as my colleague from Florida pointed out, these are the independent arbiters. These are the guys whose job it is to work the numbers. I would like to discuss some of the findings from the University of Alaska and also try to inject a little bit of common sense into the debate as to what it means for Alaska, how it increases their premiums, how it raises that cost curve on the Federal health care expenses, the taxes on small businesses for the individuals, the families, the health benefits of the police, the firefighters, other public protective service people who put their lives on the line for so many. These are the things about which, unfortunately, we might not be getting the full picture. Our colleagues on the other side have claimed that health care coverage will be expanded. Again, let's go to our nonpartisan entities--the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation. The average premium per person, if you purchase in the individual market, is going to be 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium under current law. That tells you if these Federal scorekeepers are correct, your premiums are going to go up under this health bill if you buy insurance yourself. In Alaska, according to ISER--again, the Institute for Social and Economic Research--you have about 28,000 Alaskans who would pay 12 percent more for their premiums. It is going to cost an individual in my State an extra $1,100 per year and a family in my State nearly $3,000 more per year for the coverage by 2016. Again, you have to ask the question: Is health care expanding? This bill forces you to purchase federally approved health care; otherwise, you have to pay the penalty of $750 or 2 percent of your income if you earn more than $37,500. If you look at Alaska's population, this is going to bring in more than 50 percent of Alaska's population who are going to be penalized if they fail to have health insurance. Again, you ask the question: Is health care coverage going to be expanded? Since the law we are advancing is going to require that you buy federally approved health insurance, and then we are going to penalize you if you do not buy it, then what you have is the heavy hand of the Federal Government that forces you to buy health insurance, which is going to cost about 12 percent more once this bill is enacted--12 percent more than it would today. The Democrats will also talk about the hidden tax on families and how that will go away because once this bill passes, under this bill, everyone is going to have coverage. Alaskans and all Americans who do not get federally approved health insurance that the Federal Government is going to require that you have, they are going to be fined $750, 2 percent of your taxable income, and what the Democrats will not tell you when they say health care coverage is going to be expanded or the hidden tax is going to go away is, those with income greater than $37,500--again, affecting over 50 percent of the people in my State-- are going to be taxed a full 2 percent of their household income, once the bill is fully phased in, if they do not get health insurance. It is this penalty that is going to raise $15 billion to help pay for this bill. This is how we are paying for the bill. CBO and CMS told us the taxes on medical devices--whether they are tongue depressors or x-rays or blood sugar meters--these are going to be passed on to the individuals so you are going to be taxed for vital medications and other health products. The question you then have to ask yourself: OK, so do these hidden costs actually go away? I suppose they do because they are no longer hidden. What we will have done is we will have raised your premiums, we will have increased the penalties on those earning more than $37,500 who did not buy into health insurance, and we will have taxed your tongue depressors and x- rays to pay for the bill. In addition, the smallest of the small businesses are going to be taxed if they do not provide insurance for their employees, and individuals and couples earning over $200,000, they are going to be penalized because they are the higher income earners. The Democrats are also telling you that as Medicare patients, they are going to get some good, positive things. They will get free preventive services. This is good. This is absolutely great. We should be encouraging preventive services. But as my colleague from Florida was explaining, as I mentioned, after this bill passes, are any of the 13--I think we are down to only 12 now--primary care doctors in Alaska, in the Anchorage area anyway, accepting new Medicare patients? We are saying we are going to provide this service to you at no cost. But, again, if you can't get anybody who will take you as a patient, how are we helping you? We have heard from a doctor in Anchorage. In fact, I have an opinion piece that was published just this week in the Anchorage Daily News. She indicates she is dropping out of Medicare and she is doing it because of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the very eloquent and articulate comments of my friend from Florida. We recognize that his time in the Senate has been relatively short, but in terms of an individual jumping in with both feet and embracing the challenges we clearly have in front of us and representing the constituents of the State of Florida in the manner he has, I think that deserves public recognition, and I thank the Senator for his leadership. We have had occasion to talk about the similarities between Alaska and Florida. You might not think there would be much in relationship there--my being from the North and the cold versus the sunny South in Florida. But when it comes to our senior populations, this is where we truly have a shared interest. Florida has probably the largest number of seniors per capita, and in my State of Alaska, we are the State that has the fastest growing population of seniors per capita. One might not think of Alaska as being a retirement haven, but more and more we are becoming so, and we share the same problems when it comes to access. When you can't get in to see a provider, when that insurance card is all we have given you, then we haven't done anything to provide for a level of care to improve the situation for the residents of Florida or the residents of Alaska. So what we are doing today--as we move toward final passage on legislation that I would concur with the Senator from Florida does not fix the problem--we are not dealing with how we appropriately and adequately provide for access to quality health care. We have much work remaining before us. We have had some time these past couple days--actually these past couple weeks--as we have spent a considerable amount of time in our offices waiting for votes at 1 in the morning or votes at 7 o'clock in the morning, and I have had a chance to go through some things on my desk, but I have also had an opportunity to spend a lot of time checking to see what people are saying when they are contacting our office. The volume of correspondence, whether in e-mails or faxes or phone calls, coming in from Alaskans during this time has been absolutely unprecedented. I think, typically, in the legislative calendar about this time-- several days before Christmas--you don't see constituents contacting their Senators and pounding the drum. Well, let me tell you, the people in Alaska are pounding the drum. In just the past 24 hours, we have gotten probably close to about 500 health care e-mails that have come in. Overwhelmingly these are e-mails from constituents saying: No, this is not good. You must do what you can to prevent this reform package, as you call it, from moving forward. It seems the longer the people from Alaska, the longer the people from around this country have to look at what is contained in this 2,000-plus page bill, the more they realize the negative impacts, the consequences to them and their families and their businesses and they are no longer silent. I have had so many calls and letters coming from people saying: I have never weighed in with you before, never weighed in with my delegation, but this is something I can't keep silent on. When you look at some of the ones that have come in, these are just today's. This is one from a woman in Anchorage who says: Yesterday on the TV news I heard about the sweetheart deal Senator Nelson made regarding the rest of us paying Nebraska's Medicare bill forever. To say I am angry is putting it mildly. There is a gentleman in Fairbanks who writes in: I am very skeptical about this mandatory health insurance that apparently everyone will have to buy in. Here is one from a fellow in Anchorage also. He says: You are moving a health care bill that can't be understood unless a person has a law degree. Another individual, and this is an interesting one. He and his family apparently own four indoor tanning businesses in Alaska. We need to get a little sunshine, even if it is not what God has provided us. But these are good businesses, and he says: When did this go from a 5- percent tax increase for cosmetic surgery to 10 percent for indoor tanning anyway? And he adds: Adding another 10-percent tax hike on small businesses, like indoor tanning, will likely drive many families, just like mine, into bankruptcy. I could go on and on in terms of the stacks of correspondence and phone calls we have gotten, but suffice it to say, the more people understand what is in this legislation, the greater their concerns are and the greater their outrage as they learn what is contained in it. One of the things I learned just yesterday, which I don't think we have gotten the focus or the attention on--and this is a concern that was raised by the Anchorage homebuilders and the Alaska State Home Building Association. They have pointed out that as an industry, the homebuilders industry, they are being unfairly singled out in this bill. We have talked about the employer mandate that is contained in this legislation, and that mandate applies to those businesses with 50 or more employees. But there is a zing in this legislation to homebuilders who are now responsible for providing federally approved health benefits if they have five or more employees. Look at what is going on throughout this country in terms of industries that have taken a real hit with this economic downturn and this recession. The homebuilding industry has suffered incredibly during this downturn. On top of depressed house prices and increases in home foreclosures, now we are now going to punish them with an employer mandate that treats them worse than any other employer. In other words, if you have five or more employees as a homebuilder, you need to know that your industry is the one, the only one that will be subject to the employer mandate of $750 per employee. In Alaska, we checked to see how many individuals are homebuilders within the State. We have about 250 homebuilders in Alaska. But when you look to see how many individuals they employ, that is about 3,078 employees, it is about 12 employees to every builder. So the total homebuilding industry that would be impacted is about 800 employers in my State. Yesterday, there was a letter sent to Members of the Senate. This is from the homebuilding industry as well as many other associated industries--the air-conditioning contractors, the builders and contractors, the electrical contractors. I wish to mention some of the statements that are contained in this letter. Again, it is written yesterday. They say: We are writing to express our strong opposition to language contained in the managers' amendment which excludes the construction industry from the small business exemption contained in the bill. The fact that the managers' amendment was made public less than 2 days before the first vote on the matter has increased the difficulty of playing a constructive role in the legislative process. I will take a little detour from the letter. This is part of the problem. You have these organizations and groups, and there is a list of about a dozen of them here, that have signed on to this letter. They had literally hours before we were forced to vote on the managers' amendment. They did not know what was in the bill and how it impacted them. They go on to say: The managers' amendment singles out the construction industry by altering the exemption so it applies only to firms with fewer than 5 employees. This is an unprecedented assault on our industry. It is unreasonable to presume that small business owners can bear the increased costs of these new benefits simply because Congress mandates that they do so. They go on to conclude in the letter: We are unaware of any data or evidence that suggests that the needs and struggles of a construction contractor with fewer than 50 employees are so different from those of small business owners in other industries, and absent such convincing evidence, we are left to assume that this specific provision is merely a political payoff to satisfy the desires of a small constituency. Those are some pretty strong words there toward the end. But it does cause you to wonder why, in this legislation, we are going to require that businesses--only businesses in excess of 50 employees are going to be subject to this mandate. Why this unprecedented assault on the homebuilders? I don't get it. But what it does cause me to get is that there is a heck of a lot more out there that, the more we read it, the more we sit down and we connect the dots, the more we realize this fish we have set out on the front porch is going to continue to stink. It stuns me. We have the homebuilders up in Alaska who are beside themselves, saying: Can you take a look at this and let me know how the Senators feel. What are you going to do about this, Lisa, is the question I have received. This is something we all have to reckon with. Madam President, at the conclusion of my remarks, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. If the administration truly wanted something to highlight in Copenhagen, it should have prioritized climate legislation over health care. The Senate majority could have devoted weeks spent on a tourism bill and other matters to working through a climate bill here on the floor. And even if climate legislation could not be agreed to, Congress has now had nearly 6 months to take up the comprehensive bill we reported from the Energy Committee. That bill would have allowed the President to highlight significant accomplishments on energy efficiency, clean energy financing, and renewable energy generation. Instead, he is left to tout regulations that his administration doesn't really want, that a wide range of stakeholders dread, and that many Members in both Chambers of Congress actively oppose. We need to only look back to the development of the Clean Air Act itself for an example of how this process can, and should, work. The product of both Presidential leadership and congressional unity, the 1970 Clean Air Act was unanimously passed by the Senate. I hope the current administration will take note of that example. And should we ever reach a point where the President is able to sign climate legislation into law, I truly hope it will be the result of his administration having brought Congress together to complete this important task. Right now, though, the administration and the majority in Congress continue to choose a different path. Threatening to disrupt the Nation's economy until Congress passes a bad bill by the slimmest of margins won't be much of an accomplishment, nor is that approach worthy of the institutions and people we serve. It isn't appropriate for a challenge of this magnitude. No policy that results from it will achieve our common goals or stand the test of time. As I said earlier, I am submitting this resolution because it will help prevent our worst option for reducing emissions from moving forward. The threat of EPA regulations are not encouraging Congress to work faster, they are now driving us further off course and increasing the division over how to proceed. I understand that some are comfortable with the threat of EPA regulations hanging over our heads. But, in closing, I would simply remind my colleagues of an observation once made by President Eisenhower: Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it. What we are dealing with right now isn't leadership--is an attempt at leverage. The EPA's endangerment finding may be intended to help protect our environment, but the regulations that inevitably follow will only endanger our economy. That lack of balance is unacceptable. We can cut emissions, but we can't cut jobs. We can move to cleaner energy, but we can't force our businesses to move overseas. It is past time to remove the EPA's thinly veiled and ill-advised threat, and we can do that by passing my resolution and giving ourselves time to develop a real solution. With that, I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague from Connecticut for his courtesy.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know the Senate is focused on health care, but I have come to the floor to speak on another very important topic and that is climate change. I wish to discuss a recent action by the Environmental Protection Agency and the consequences that could entail for our economy and why Congress must prevent it from taking effect. I remind my colleagues that I have committed to a careful evaluation of all the options to address climate change in order to develop an approach that will benefit both our environment and our economy. Over time it has become increasingly apparent that some approaches are better than others. While we have not yet found that right approach, we have certainly identified the wrong approach: EPA regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. I believe this option should be taken off the table so we can focus our attention on more viable policies. My concerns about this led me to file an amendment in September that would have limited EPA's ability to regulate certain greenhouse gas emissions for a period of 1 fiscal year. I offered my amendment for two reasons: first, to ensure that Congress had sufficient time to work on climate legislation and to ensure that the worst of our options, EPA regulation, did not take effect before that point. Even though Congress was and today remains nowhere close to completing legislation, the majority chose to block debate on my amendment. Since then the EPA has continued its steady march toward regulation. Last week the Administrator signed an endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases. This finding is supposedly rooted in concerns about the public health and the public welfare. What it really endangers is jobs, economic recovery, and American competitiveness. Some have praised the endangerment finding as a step forward in our Nation's efforts to reduce emissions. They view it merely as an affirmation of the scientific assertion that human activities contribute to global climate change. Such a conclusion is within EPA's authority and appears to be appropriate given the years of research indicating that this is the case. Those same scientific findings underscore my desire to address this challenge in a proactive way. Unfortunately, the endangerment finding is not just a finding. Despite what some in the administration have claimed, its effect is not limited to the science of global climate change. In reality, the finding opens the doors to a sweeping and convoluted process that will require the EPA to issue economywide command and control regulations. Once that finding is finalized, the EPA no longer has discretion over whether they can impose regulations. As the Administrator noted last week, the agency is now obligated and compelled to take action. This is where it becomes evident that EPA regulation is an awful choice for climate policy. If a pollutant is regulated under one section of the Clean Air Act, it triggers identical treatment in other sections of that statute. So while the EPA initially intends to address only mobile source emissions, meaning vehicles, the agency will also be required to regulate stationary source emissions as well. Think of it this way: If the EPA attempts to control any greenhouse gas emissions, the agency will be required to control all greenhouse gas emissions. Because EPA regulations will consist of command and control directives rather than market-based decisions, this approach will increase the price of energy, add greatly to administrative costs, and create many new layers of bureaucracy that must be cut through. This is why you often see EPA regulations described as intrusive or Byzantine or maze like. They are all of the above. While the permitting process that will be created is unclear, the consequences of imposing these regulations are not. The bottom line is, our economy will suffer. Businesses will be forced to cut jobs, if not close their doors for good. Domestic energy production will be severely restricted, increasing our dependence on foreign suppliers as well as threatening our national security. Housing will become less affordable and consumer goods more expensive, as we see the impacts of the EPA's regulations ripple and break their way across our economy. In the wake of the majority's decision to block my effort to establish a 1-year timeout for this process, we now find ourselves in a bit of a bind. Even though Congress is working on climate legislation, the EPA is proceeding with a tremendously expensive regulatory scheme. It appears increasingly likely that the EPA will finalize its regulations before Congress has an opportunity to complete debate on climate legislation. That outcome is simply unacceptable as our Nation struggles to regain its economic footing. Today I have come to announce that I intend to file a disapproval resolution under the provisions of the Congressional Review Act related to the EPA's endangerment finding. I have this resolution drafted. I will introduce it as soon as the EPA formally submits its rule to Congress or publishes it in the Federal Register, as is required by law. My resolution would stop the endangerment finding. In general terms, I am proposing that Congress veto it. Like my previous amendment, this one is also rooted in a desire to see Congress pass climate legislation because the policy is sound on its own merits and not merely as a defense against the threat of harmful regulations. While I know that passage of this resolution will be an uphill battle, I believe it is in our best interest. It is the best course of action available to us. This is a chance to ensure that Congress, not unelected bureaucrats, decides how our Nation will reduce its emissions. To understand why my resolution is so critically important, we have to dig deeper into the economic consequences that will result from regulations based upon the endangerment finding. Because there are no regulations within the finding itself, the agency has omitted any projection of what they might cost our Nation. Even though the EPA has not prepared projections of what these regulations will cost, I expect the totals would be staggering. The price tags attached to the climate bills pending in the Senate, which a majority of Members have concluded are too high, would almost certainly pale in comparison. There are a few figures that can help us put the potential costs in perspective. In one of its recent proposals, the EPA noted that some 6 million ``sources'' could be required to obtain new operating permits if greenhouse gases are regulated. The word ``sources'' refers to the businesses, schools, hospitals, and other fixtures found in every town in America that would suddenly face scrutiny due to their carbon footprints. Farms, landfills, and any other ``source'' that emits more than 250 tons of greenhouse gases per year would be caught in the same net. Facing the heaviest regulation will be the facilities that are subject to the Clean Air Act's ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration'' permitting process. This is referred to as ``PSD.'' Today, 300 facilities are covered by that requirement. Under EPA regulation, that number would soar to 40,000. The PSD process prevents existing facilities from making certain modifications until the EPA has granted its approval. The same holds true for new construction as well. Any facility expected to emit more than 250 tons per year would not be allowed to break ground until their owners have secured the EPA's permission to proceed. The PSD process is already hugely expensive and time-consuming for affected facilities. It can take years, and cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, to navigate the PSD process. And that is true today, well before the number of facilities it covers is increased by an order of magnitude. Earlier this year, in sharing their reference for congressional action, the editors of the Washington Post provided a pretty good description of what EPA regulation would be like on a daily basis. They stated in their editorial: The EPA in theory . . . could go shopping mall by shopping mall, apartment building by apartment building . . . But even plant by plant, how can you ``limit'' greenhouse gas? The short answer is, you can't. Or, no one knows. Or, you can't, yet. Take, for example, a coal-fired power plant. EPA regulation would be triggered only when someone wanted to build one or update an old one. At that point, the agency could demand that the plant use the ``best available control technology'' (BACT) to limit emissions. The editorial goes on to state: Right now, no such BACT exists for coal-fired plants beyond better efficiency measures. A lot of attention has been focused on carbon capture and sequestration, but it wouldn't be considered BACT until it was up and running successfully in a coal-fired power plant somewhere in the United States. Even then, its use would have to be weighed against a number of other factors, such as the amount of energy used, the environmental impact and the effect on the output of other regulated pollutants. If past practice applies, the issuance of the final permit would be followed by a series of lawsuits. The whole process could take a decade or more--and that would be multiplied hundreds or thousands of times across the country. No one is more aware of how damaging these regulations could be than the EPA itself, so it is no surprise the agency has sought to dramatically increase the Clean Air Act's regulatory threshold--from 250 tons per year right now, to 25,000 tons per year for greenhouse gases. As the EPA admitted earlier this year, if the Clean Air Act's current threshold is not lifted, ``the administrative burdens would be immense, and they would immediately and completely overwhelm the permitting authorities''--meaning, of course, the EPA and its State and local counterparts. Now, I do give some credit to the EPA for recognizing that the 250- ton per year threshold is ``not feasible'' for greenhouse gases. While most pollutants are measured in much smaller amounts, greenhouse gases are far more abundant. After all, nearly every form of economic activity results in at least some level of emissions. But I am also deeply disturbed that instead of recognizing and accepting that the Clean Air Act is simply not suited for this task, the agency attempted to make it so by ignoring its explicit, statutory requirements. As we all know, whenever an executive agency fails to adhere to the laws passed by Congress, it opens itself up to litigation. The EPA's so-called tailoring rule is no exception, and I fully expect that lawsuits will be filed if the agency issues it. Once the rule is challenged, I expect the courts will reject it, as it has no legal basis, and restore the regulatory threshold to 250 tons per year. At that point, the agency will be mired in the regulatory nightmare it hopes to avoid. In the meantime, it is also worth noting that the EPA is proceeding with the regulation of greenhouse gases even though the tailoring proposal is not part of the existing statute. So for all of the agency's promises of regulatory relief, and a safety net to help minimize the pain associated with these regulations, there is nothing behind that yet. And given the larger conversation that needs to take place about amending the Clean Air Act, that relief may never materialize. Given the tremendous economic, administrative, and bureaucratic drawbacks associated with EPA regulation, it should come as no surprise that Members of the majority, the administration, and environmental groups have expressed their preference for congressional legislation. The Democratic chairman of the House Agriculture Committee declared that EPA regulation would result ``in one of the largest and most bureaucratic nightmares that the U.S. economy and Americans have ever seen.'' He went on to add, ``Let me be clear, this is not a responsibility we want to leave in the hands of EPA.'' The most senior Member of the House of Representatives, a Democrat, who has served our country for more than half a century, has concluded that EPA regulation would create a ``glorious mess.'' He has also said that, ``As a matter of national policy, it seems to me to be insane that we would be talking about leaving this kind of judgment, which everybody tells us has to be addressed with great immediacy, to a long and complex process of regulatory action.'' Shortly before I filed my amendment in September, the EPA Administrator herself insisted that ``new legislation is the best way to deal with climate change pollution.'' You wouldn't guess that by looking at the efforts of some in her agency as they helped to defeat my amendment, but just last week, she reiterated the claim by stating, ``I firmly believe . . . and the president has said all along that new legislation is the best way to deal with climate change.'' With such widespread, high-level, and bipartisan agreement that EPA regulation is such a bad idea, you would think it would be easy to suspend the EPA's regulatory efforts. Unfortunately, you would be mistaken. Many seem convinced that the threat of EPA regulation will force Congress to work more quickly than it otherwise would. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is an open and well-established strategy on the part of the administration, confirmed just this week when a senior White House economic official was quoted as saying ``If you don't pass this legislation, then . . . the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area . . . And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it is going to have to regulate in a command- and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.'' An author of the House cap-and-trade bill has posed the question: ``Do you want the EPA to make the decision or would you like your Congressman or Senator to be in the room and drafting legislation?'' going on to say that, ``Industries across the country will just have to gauge for themselves how lucky they feel if regarding EPA regulation.'' The Wall Street Journal has referred to this as the `` `Dirty Harry' theory of governance.'' This approach is often likened, rather starkly, to ``putting a gun to Congress's head.'' Personally, I believe that is a terrible way to pursue climate policy, and beyond that, a terrible way to govern this country. It is diffcult to grasp how or why Congress would feel compelled to enact economically damaging legislation in order to stave off economically damaging regulations. We are being presented with a false choice that should be rejected outright. The majority and the administration are saying: Don't make us do this. My answer to this is, simply: You don't have to. Before concluding, I want to spend a few minutes putting to rest some of the criticism that will surely follow my decision to offer a disapproval resolution. During the debate over my last amendment, several baseless arguments were made. So I would like like to challenge anyone who finds reason to oppose my resolution to keep their remarks, and thereby this debate, as substantive as possible. First, I want to reiterate my desire to take meaningful action to reduce our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Such a policy can and should be drafted by Congress, and designed to both protect the environment and strengthen our economy. I was a cosponsor of a climate bill last Congress, and I am continuing to work on legislation that will lead to lower emissions. Senator Bingaman and I spent more than 6 months developing a comprehensive energy bill in committee, and have now held six hearings on our climate policy options. Next, my resolution is not meant to run contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. Remember, I previously sought a 1-year delay of this process that would have allowed mobile source emissions to be regulated. That amendment was blocked by the majority from even being considered and, at this point, I am left with little choice but to raise the question of whether the Clean Air Act is capable of effectively regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, I am not interested in trying to embarrass the President, either here at home or on the international stage. I have stated publicly that I wish the President well in making progress on international issues. And I think it is safe to acknowledge that I didn't choose to release the endangerment finding on the opening day of the Copenhagen climate conference; that was the EPA's decision. As Administrator Jackson reportedly said, the EPA ``tried to make sure we had something to talk about'' in Copenhagen. Mr. President, I understand I may have come to the end of my 20 minutes. I ask unanimous consent for a minute and a half to conclude my remarks.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the good Senator from Pennsylvania and his discussion and his clear and constant focus on children and children's health. I wish to commend him for his good work and for always reminding us of the importance of our children in so many aspects of our policies. So I thank him for that. I, too, rise this afternoon to talk about the debate on health care and the debate we seem to have ongoing with the numbers. Whether it is numbers that are coming out from the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, or from our States or from other noteworthy entities, there is a great deal of back and forth as to whose numbers are right, whose numbers are wrong. There has been a great deal of discussion in the past day or so about the numbers we have received and the analysis we received from the Office of the Actuary, from CMS, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The Chief Actuary is Mr. Richard Foster. A good deal of discussion has been had as to these numbers, and the question that needs to be asked is: Why would the numbers from the CMS Actuary be any more significant than, say, what we have seen coming out of the Congressional Budget Office? The Chief Actuary of CMS is kind of the independent arbiter, if you will. They look at both the private and public health care expenditures. The Chief Actuary provides actuarial details that I think we recognize can be critically important for certainly my State and for any of our States' economists to develop individual State estimates of the financial impacts, the effects of the health care reform proposal. As important as discussion on the broader scale is, the people back in my State want to know: Well, what does it mean for us in Alaska? What does it mean for increased access? What does it mean for us in terms of our premiums? Are they going up? Are they going down? How do we as a State that is very unique in its markets--geographically dislocated, smaller population--how does this health care reform proposal impact us? So the numbers and the assessment we have received from the Office of the Actuary are very important. I have mentioned we all want to know what this Democratic health care proposal will mean to us as individuals in terms of the increase to premiums, the impact on the long-term sustainability of Medicare, whether it is going to restrict access to care in a State such as Alaska or throughout rural America. And ultimately, will this $2.5 trillion bill bend this cost curve down on health care expenses that are pricing so many Americans out of the market on health insurance. I think it is so important that we be focused on the cost side and on the spending side. That is a bipartisan thing. We haven't done a lot that is bipartisan of late, but it is clear we all want to know we are doing all we can effectively to reduce those costs. I will note a letter that came from six colleagues on the Democratic side. This was sent when the Finance Committee bill was being considered. A letter went out to Chairman Baucus that provided that: There are many wide-ranging options to address the broad and complicated issues of runaway health care costs, and we pledge our support to you in making the necessary and tough decisions. ``This is our No. 1 priority,'' the letter states. ``If we pass health care reform without addressing the issue of health care spending, we have failed.'' I couldn't agree more with my Democratic colleagues who signed that letter. We will have failed if we have not addressed the issue of cost, the issue of spending. Again, this takes me back to the report from CMS, the Actuary's report. I want to highlight some of the very important points that were raised by the Chief Actuary. First, the Reid bill reduces payment updates to health care providers, which are unlikely to be sustainable on a permanent basis. If you go through the report, on page 9 is a statement that: As a result, providers could find it difficult to remain profitable, and absent legislative intervention might end their participation in the Medicare Program. The Reid bill is especially likely to result in providers who are unwilling to treat Medicare or Medicaid patients. On page 18, the statement is: Providers might tend to accept more patients who have private insurance and fewer Medicare and Medicaid patients, exacerbating existing access problems for the latter group. Either outcome, or a combination of both, should be considered plausible and even probable. I can tell you for a fact this is not just some maybe or if, in fact, these things happen; this is happening. I received a call 1 week ago from a practitioner in Alaska, in Anchorage, a family care practitioner. I was told that this practitioner, who has been practicing for many years in the family care practice--that the decision had been made to opt out of Medicare. In the e-mail we received and the followup conversation that was had with this practitioner, it was specifically cited that it is due to what is--I am reading from the e-mail we received--``due to what is in the Reid bill, as it will collapse my practice.'' This is incredibly important to us not only in a State such as Alaska, where we are in a crisis situation when it comes to providers who are willing to take new Medicare individuals. Right now, in our State's largest city, we have 13 providers who will take new Medicare individuals--13. Well, if this individual whom we have communicated with a week ago is making the decision to opt out of Medicare because of the low reimbursement rates, because of what is seen developing here on the floor of the Senate, and the impact that will have on that family care practice--talk about not being able to sustain things--it is not acceptable. When I read the language in the Actuary report that says that providers might tend to accept more patients or might find it more difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the Medicare Program--to me, I am saying it is not ``might,'' it is happening, it is now, and it is impacting Alaskans' access to care in my State. This is something we should all be concerned about. It is not just this one practitioner. We have heard this has caused a great deal of anxiety within Alaska, primarily because that is where I am checking in with folks. But the anxiety about their ability to sustain a practice, again, with Medicare reimbursement rates as low as they are--in our State, we don't have a medical school, so it is not as if we are growing more practitioners to come in. It is very costly to have a practice in Alaska. We have a lot of strikes against us. We have to figure out a way we can continue to receive care from these fine professionals. But right now, from a policy perspective, it seems as if we are doing everything possible to drive them out. I am talking a lot about the situation in Alaska, but don't think for a minute that it is isolated to my State. The statement that is made by the Actuary is devastating news for States that are also facing problems of access, in terms of finding a general care doctor to see them, such as Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. There was a GAO report--granted, this is a 2006 GAO report, but it did an assessment of what is happening in locations across the country, and those areas where access is compromised. You look at the statistics coming out of GAO, and their wording is: This suggests the distinct possibility of a deepening problem in many of our Western States. So it is not just in a few isolated communities. We have States that are looking at this and calling the crisis for what it is. What we are doing in this health care bill currently before us is we are using Medicare as kind of this guinea pig, if you will, cutting from the Medicare--from the health program, even though we all recognize Medicare is slated to go broke by 2017--and using the Medicare money to expand Medicaid and, if the Medicare reports are true, expanding Medicare as well. So the end result is to harm Medicare patients as we expand Medicaid. Alaska is a little bit unique. We are one of two States where Medicaid is actually a better payer, or better in terms of the reimbursements, than Medicare. But even still, the economists we have at the University of Alaska's Institute for Social and Economic Research have said that Medicare patients will lose access and, as they have suggested, kind of go to the back of the bus, if we expand Medicare. I want to use their language specifically. This is from the analyst at ISER. He has stated that: We can continue to be concerned that the newly enrolled through the Medicaid expansion and the new exchange will create a big surge in demand that could easily create a traffic jam in the health care system and send the Medicare beneficiaries to the back of the line in Alaska due to Medicare's low reimbursement rate. Expanding Medicaid is bad for Alaska. The Chief Actuary at CMS is saying Medicare and Medicaid patients will both face limited access to care under this bill. While in Alaska Medicaid patients may fare better, what is happening is at the cost, or expense, if you will, of Medicare patients. So you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Keep in mind that, as we look at the CMS letter--the Chief Actuary's letter--it doesn't even address the Democratic leader's desire to bring to the floor the provision that would expand Medicare to those 10 years younger than the current threshold age for Medicare. So what we are seeing within this analysis is probably just the floor in terms of what the impact will be if we allow for this expanded Medicare provision, this buy-in, if you will. Again, my State's seniors are absolutely suffering on Medicare, with virtually no primary doctors who will see them in our State's largest city. Now we have experts saying Medicare's patient access to care is going to suffer. We simply cannot expand broken health care systems. We have to fix the systems. You don't expand a broken thing and hope it will fix itself. Yesterday, in our State's largest newspaper, the headline at the bottom of the fold was: ``Health Bills May Hurt Some Alaskans,'' consultant says. And it says: Older residents could have more trouble seeing doctors. If you don't think that sends chills up and down the seniors in my State, knowing that the difficulty they are facing now could be made worse--a point that I think is important to add to the conversation here. You might think, well, Alaska, you don't typically have a lot of seniors, you are a younger population. We are that, but it should be noted that we are, per capita, the State with the fastest growing senior population in the Nation. We have a situation where, as we have our baby boomers aging in, the numbers are increasing dramatically, as far as those who will require the care. The number of patients who are 65 and older at the health care facilities, Anchorage Neighborhood Health Center, has jumped on the order of 50 percent within a few years. The neighborhood health center saw twice as many Medicare patients in 2007 as in 2001. The report also found that older Alaskans have been visiting the emergency room in growing numbers. What we are seeing is an expansion of those who will be our Medicare consumers. In 2008, there were 49,455 Alaskans 65 and older; but by 2015, 5 years from now, the number is expected to increase 50 percent. By 2020, 10 years from now, the number is projected to increase to over 86,000 individuals in Anchorage. Yet, we have fewer and fewer primary care doctors who are willing to accept these Medicare patients. The proposal out there is that we are going to cut $\1/2\ trillion from Medicare to pay for a new government entitlement. That doesn't add up. Back to the Actuary's report. It goes on to state that: We estimate that total national health expenditures under this bill would increase by an estimated total of $234 billion during calendar years 2010 to 2019. We know that bending down the cost curve, which has been so essential to the health care reform bill, according to our own government's expert, is not going to be achieved in the Democratic leader's health care proposal. Contrary to what Senator Baucus said last week, that Senator McConnell's statement that this bill raises costs was ``a false statement,'' this bill does, in fact, raise health care expenditures, and all you need to do is go to the Actuary's statement to determine that. The Actuary's report goes on to provide: The new fees for drugs, devices, and insurance plans in the Reid bill will increase prices and health insurance premium costs for consumer. This will increase national health expenditures by approximately $11 billion per year. We know this bill is going to raise money on the backs of patient consumers. This is going to happen in my State. It is going to happen in every other State. And it is going to be done by taxing the industries that provide us with the prescription drugs, the medical devices, such as tongue depressors, medical thermometers, blood sugar meters, x-ray machines, and the like. Whether or not you agree on taxing these industries, what the CMS Actuary is telling us is that these additional taxes are going to be passed on to the patient consumer to the tune of $11 billion every year. Again, the American people should know that their costs on drugs, thermometers, diabetes test strips, labs, and x rays are all going to go up because new penalties imposed by the Federal Government will be passed on to the patients. I appreciate the work Mr. Foster, the Chief Actuary, has done in getting us this report. I wrote him a letter on Monday asking if we could get the report so the folks in our respective States could look through it and better assess and understand. They want to know that they are relying on a good, sound assessment. But I will tell you, after reviewing the Actuary's report, I do not know how anyone could come to a different conclusion other than that these proposals, these bills, do not look good for my State, they do not look good for the medically underserved areas of the country, such as urban areas with limited access to care because of their high Medicaid populations or for rural America where general-care doctors just simply are not taking Medicare patients. This is just a bad bill. It is a bad bill. It hurts our seniors, it does not bend down the cost curve, it spends $2.5 trillion, and it raises health care costs. We have to figure out a path forward that is reform that does not increase the cost to our constituents around this country, that truly does make a difference when it comes to the delivery of health care costs in this Nation, and that really does provide for expanded access. I have said numerous times that just by giving an individual a card that says: OK, now you are part of a health care plan but you don't have access to a provider, we really haven't done what we have promised to do to help you receive good health care. There is a great deal that is floating out there in terms of ``he said, she said'' type of conversation on the numbers. It is incumbent on us in the Senate to give thorough vetting, thorough assessment. We have to rely on the experts. We hope we rely on those experts who have been able to look at the proposals fairly and evenly and give their best assessment. I have a great deal of confidence in our independent entity in the State of Alaska, the Institute for Social Economic Research at the University of Alaska. I appreciate what they have done to provide more focus on what this national proposal will do to access to care in my State and costs that will be borne by my constituents. I think the more time we spend understanding what we have in front of us, the more we realize this is a bad deal for America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as you are undoubtedly aware, the U.S. is an arctic Nation. As such, the U.S. must ensure that not only its economic and environmental interests in the region are protected, but also its national defense and homeland security interests. While the U.S. maintains a strong working relationship with the 7 other arctic nations--Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation and Sweden--these nations also have their own interests to protect in the arctic region. Despite those relationships, the U.S. cannot assume that these nations will protect our interests in the region. The ability for the U.S. to project its territorial claims and protect its economic interests in the arctic will become increasingly important as the arctic shipping lanes become more accessible as the seasonal arctic ice decreases. With the high potential for increased and industrial and commercial activity in the arctic region, the U.S. must ensure that it is prepared to protect human life as well as the vulnerable arctic environment. With an expected increase in arctic activity on the horizon, the U.S. cannot wait until our interests in the region are threatened before we act. In that light, the Arctic Deep Water Sea Port Act of 2009 is a major step towards protecting vital U.S. interests in the region. The Arctic Deep Water Sea Port Act of 2009 directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a deep water port in the arctic to protect U.S. strategic interests in the region. As the lead Departments for National Defense and Homeland Security initiatives for the U.S., the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, while working alongside their subordinate agencies, are best suited for determining and implementing policy decisions that protect U.S. sovereignty and national security. This two-year study is designed to determine what strategic capabilities a deep water port could provide as well as an optimal location that would provide protection for a wide spectrum of U.S. initiatives. While studying the infrastructure needs for such a port, this study will also endeavor to determine the resource and timeframe needs to establish such a port, given the complex environmental constraints that the arctic marine environment provides. Upon completion of this study, the U.S. will be better positioned to understand the resource and development needs for the arctic region that are required to protect our interests in the region.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. The only statement we need to remember from this article is that even with insurance, you need somewhere to go. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to my colleague from Iowa. In this morning's Wall Street Journal there is an article--actually, an editorial--and it starts out: ``Another Day, Another Study,'' confirming that Obamacare will increase the price of health insurance. It goes on to talk about a Blue Cross study. It talks about CBO numbers. But the reality is, we have numbers all over. I think we all recall the quote from Mark Twain: You've got liars, damn liars, and statisticians. Well, I think we are caught up in that world now of dueling numbers. Our numbers say this is going to increase your premiums. The other side's numbers say it is going to decrease your premiums. So the real question is, Who is right and whose numbers do you look to? Well, I think it is important, as so many of my colleagues have mentioned this morning, when we are talking about whether it is the home health care statistics in a State they impact, to look to those States and what they are saying the impact will be. So I have gone to our State's think tank, if you will. The Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska is the entity that does a lot of analysis, not only on health care policy and issues but other economic issues. I have asked them, let's sort through some of these numbers. Let's sort through some of the statements that have been made out there. I think it is important to share this morning some of the statements coming out of ISER. When we talk about the premiums Alaskans are going to face, instead of a statement, a very simple statement, that, well, your premiums are going to go down, what ISER is saying is, when we look to the CBO estimate of the increase in the average premium for the nongroup market, what we expect to see is about a 12-percent increase by 2016. For single coverage, this is about $1,160 a year, and for family coverage it is about $2,900 in 2016. ISER is still conducting the analysis to determine the extent of the subsidies that may be available for Alaskans that could, in fact, reduce those premiums. But I think it is important to make clear that we are understanding what we are talking about when we make statements such as, well, this is going to increase or this is going to decrease. We need to make sure we are looking at all of the numbers. CBO has very clearly stated that the average premium per person for new nongroup policies is going to be between 10 and 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium. So we have to say, well, what is the difference between that statement and the statement the Democrats have made saying that the premiums are going to decrease by 14 to 20 percent? We have to look behind the screen, behind the curtain. Two of the factors, administrative efficiencies and new enrollment, will make premiums go down, but these reductions are then overwhelmed by a 27- to 30-percent increase in premiums because of the coverage requirements that are mandated within the bill. The Democratic analysis that is out there omits this 27- to 30-percent increase, fundamentally flawing the analysis. What are some of the other things ISER has taken a look at as it relates to this bill that is before the Senate right now? They have stated that because Alaska is a high-cost State, it is highly likely health insurance plans in Alaska will become subject to the excise tax on health insurance sooner than the U.S. average. The preliminary estimate is that roughly 50 percent of health plans in Alaska will be subject to the tax by the year 2016 compared to only a 19-percent average in the rest of the lower 48. They have also indicated that while the uninsured population will be reduced in Alaska, adding approximately 65,000 new enrollees to the market, their concern--and this is a statement I think is very important--is that the newly enrolled Medicaid expansion, and through the new exchange, will create a big surge in demand that could easily create what they call a ``traffic jam'' in the health care system and send the Medicare beneficiaries to the back of the line in Alaska due to Medicare's low reimbursement rate. This is exceptionally important for us to understand. On today's front page of the Washington Post there is an article about Texas----

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last April I spoke about the loss of Buddy Brown, a leader of the Athabascan people of interior Alaska, who served as president of the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. Buddy died at the age of 39. Today it is my sad duty to report the passing of another Athabascan leader and former president of the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Mitch Demientieff of Nenana. Mitch died unexpectedly on Tuesday, December 1, at the age of 57. Like Buddy, he left us too soon. He accomplished so much in a short time and was taken from us when he had so much more to give. Mitch was first elected president of the Tanana Chiefs Conference in 1973 at the age of 20. He was elected to serve in that role again in 1987. Today, the Tanana Chiefs Conference is an economic powerhouse in interior Alaska employing hundreds of people and administering a wide range of Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service programs on behalf of some 10,000 Native people in a territory that extends over 235,000 square miles. TCC is looked upon as a national pioneer in Indian self determination and that is in large measure due to the leadership initiatives of Mitch Demientieff. Under Mitch's leadership, TCC created a regionwide health care delivery system which is today anchored by the Chief Andrew Isaac Health Center in Fairbanks. Mitch had the good fortune of serving as president of TCC in the run- up to passage of the Indian Self Determination and Educational Assistance Act of 1975. He positioned TCC as an early adapter of this powerful tool through which Native people rely upon their tribes, rather than the Federal Government, to deliver Federal Indian programs and services. TCC has used these authorities wisely to improve the quality of services to the people of interior Alaska and provide life changing career opportunities to Native people from Fairbanks and communities throughout its region. It also began to administer housing, lands management, tribal government assistance, public safety, education and employment and natural resources programs. One of the characteristics that distinguish Alaska's Native people is the continued reliance on traditional ways of living in our villages. Subsistence, the use of the Earth's resources for cultural and emotional sustenance, as well as food, is the way of life in interior Alaska. Mitch Demientieff, even while running a multi-million dollar tribal enterprise, never forgot that subsistence is fundamental to the survival of his Native people. Whatever else might have competed for his attention subsistence came first. In 1995, when Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt assumed responsibility for implementing the subsistence protections of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, he turned to Mitch as his man on the ground. Mitch chaired the Federal Subsistence Board from 1995 until 2006 protecting the subsistence interests of rural Alaskans throughout the State. Nor did Mitch ignore the needs of his own Native village of Nenana, which sits about 60 miles south of Fairbanks. Mitch chaired both the Nenana tribe and the village Native Corporation. I extend my condolences to Kathleen and the entire Demientieff family, a grand Alaskan family with a tradition of leadership, and all of our Native people on the loss of this Chief whose contributions were greatly respected throughout Alaska.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure we do not have government entities that are making those decisions we as individuals working with our doctors feel is best. The intent behind this amendment is to ensure that those medical professional organizations, whether it is the American Society of Clinical Oncology or the American College of Surgeons or the American College of Radiation Oncology or the American Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists--those who are in the practice, those who are making the recommendations--these are the individuals we want to know are being consulted, not some entity that has been created by those of us in the government or by some administration, by some Secretary. So what we propose with this amendment is an insurance offering, if you will. You will know fully what is part of your plan. It is you and your doctor making these decisions. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that. I think my amendment is straightforward. I think it is a good compromise and again it is a clear differential between what we are going to do to allow a woman to have full choice with her doctor as opposed to government telling us who we should be seeing. Amendment No. 2836 to Amendment No. 2786 Mr. President, I ask consent to call up my amendment, No. 2836.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I will make sure those comments that were made for the Record will be delivered to the Senator personally. I want to reiterate some points I made yesterday about my amendment and I will also share with my colleagues, I know the Senator from Texas mentioned it as well, the CBO score we received late last evening. It provides us with a score showing a cost savings of $1.4 billion over the next 10 years. I think this is significant, as Members, certainly from the other side, raised the importance of fiscal discipline and our fiduciary responsibility here. Importantly, the CBO indicated the provisions on the second page which prevent the Secretary from using the recommendations of the USPSTF to deny coverage would cost money which means we are protecting certain benefits and that is very important. The amendment we will have before us, the Murkowski amendment, is one that allows or requires a level of transparency with the recommended health screenings, prevention services that are deemed necessary not by some task force that is appointed by folks within the administration, not by some commission that has political relationships. What we are urging is that the health screenings, the preventive services, be determined by those who are actually in the field, those practitioners--those who are engaged in oncology, OB/GYNs. We need to be looking to the experts. We need to be looking to that peer-reviewed science. We don't need to be looking to those entities that have been brought together by a government entity or by the Secretary. We need to be looking to the likes of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American College of Surgeons, the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. We need to look to their recommendations. Again, as I mentioned yesterday in my comments, if you go to their Web sites, if you look to their specific recommendations, they will give guidance, guidance that, again, is based on their practice in oncology, their practice as an OB/GYN. Look to what they set out as the guidelines for cervical cancer screening, for mammograms, and let that information be made available publicly through the pamphlets, the plans that come together from the insurance companies. But allow them--allow me, as a consumer of health care, me as a consumer looking for the best plan for me and my family--to know what those guidelines are, not from a government task force but from those who are the real experts. I think this is the transparency that health care shoppers are looking for. Some have suggested: Lisa, your amendment doesn't require the insurance companies to provide any prevention or screening services. There is no mandate in there. If we do not have a mandate, then the insurance companies are not going to provide health care prevention and screening services. I think we need to ask the question here, what is the point of prevention? It is to prevent more expensive care in the future by preventing the chronic and more acute illnesses. So should not the insurance companies want to utilize more preventive services, utilize more screenings, more wellness services, in order to keep down the costs of care based on the judgment of the doctors, based on the judgment of the professionals, and not necessarily those who, again, are part of a government entity? I know within my staff I have a member who is on the FEHBP plan, but they contact her on a somewhat regular basis about her diabetes care, ensuring she is taking her medications, getting the necessary preventive services offered by her insurer for her particular condition. It has been mentioned by several of my colleagues that this USPSTF is not such a bad group of guys, they are not just these nameless, faceless bureaucrats. I think it is important to recognize, and even the American Heart Association has recognized it, that the Preventive Services Task Force is limited to only primary care doctors and not specialists such as the oncologists, the cancer doctors who see patients every day battling cancer. These doctors who are providing Americans with their suggestions on what services are necessary for cancer screenings, but yet these doctors are not part of this task force, have again shone the spotlight on what happens when you have a government entity or government task force that is basically the one saying this is what is going to be covered, this is not what is going to be covered. In my amendment, we specifically provide that the recommendations from USPSTF cannot be used to deny coverage of an item or service by a group health plan or health insurance offeror. I think that is very important. I think it is also important to recognize that what we do in my amendment is make sure the health plans consult the recommendations and guidelines of the professional medical organizations to determine what prevention benefits should be covered by these health insurance plans throughout the country. We also require plans to provide this information directly to the individuals. You get to see it for yourself. You get to make that determination. So what that means is the doctors and the specialists will be recommending what preventive services to cover, not those in Washington, DC. My amendment ensures that the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not use any of the recommendations, again made by the task force, to deny coverage. We also include broad protections to prevent bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services from denying care to patients based on comparative effectiveness research. And finally, we have a provision that ensures the Secretary of Health and Human Services may not define or classify abortion or abortion services as preventive care or as preventive services.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. The Senator just missed all the kind remarks I directed to her attention.