Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, before I turn to the Legislative Branch appropriations bill and the continuing resolution that is under discussion, I wish to take a couple of brief moments to speak about the very devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit American Samoa, also Samoa, Tonga, and the other islands that are in the region, and offer my thoughts and prayers to those who have lost loved ones in this disaster. As we saw yesterday, an earthquake in the range of 7.9 to 8.3 in magnitude occurred about 120 miles from American Samoa. It was followed by three aftershocks, all of about 5.6 in magnitude. These are incredible earthquakes we are seeing. Even the aftershocks are enormously significant. When we think back to the earthquake that hit Alaska in 1964, it was about 7.9 on the Richter scale. We in Alaska remember that most vividly. To appreciate what American Samoa and the islands in the region have been hit with--it is incredible. According to the media reports, these earthquakes caused four tsunami waves approximately 15 to 20 feet high. They struck the island 25 minutes after the quake, reaching up to 1 mile inland. There are reports from residents on the island that the quake lasted 2 to 3 minutes. That is an eternity when the earth is rocking underneath you, and then to know that these tsunamis came in so quickly after those earthquakes. I understand that as of this morning there are 24 confirmed deaths in American Samoa and many more in Samoa, Tonga, and the other islands. This number is likely to rise as many individuals remain missing and unaccounted for. The President has declared American Samoa a major disaster area, and we have FEMA teams that are heading to the area now. To those who have family members and loved ones in American Samoa, the White House and FEMA will be holding a teleconference this evening at 7 o'clock p.m. eastern time. Hopefully, we will have more information available at that time. I understand that few landlines are working and getting updates has been difficult. As far away as Alaska is from American Samoa, we have a surprisingly large Samoan and Tongan population in my State, so I know there are people at home in Alaska who are worried about their families and their loved ones. Hopefully, we will have more updates on that. Again, my thoughts and my prayers go out to those who have lost loved ones and to those in American Samoa affected by this terrible event. Mr. President, I want to speak this afternoon on the conference report that is accompanying H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, as well as the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2010. Before I speak to the specifics of the legislative branch agreement, I would like to make clear my very strong objection that this continuing resolution that will be part of this was made part of the legislative branch conference report. This was done at the last minute. It was done at the direction of the House majority. It precludes amendments and careful consideration of all the issues. The conferees were not offered an opportunity to concur in this process. This is what is known around here as air-dropping, where new material, new matter is inserted into a conference agreement that has not been considered by either body. We didn't take it up in the Senate. They didn't take it up in the House. What we have in front of us is a pretty onerous example. We have rules here in the Senate against air- dropping. I think we have good reason for those rules. While it has been said that this is a clean CR, certainly there are items that are contained within this CR that represent important policy decisions and go beyond simply funding the Federal Government for another month. Provisions in this so-called clean CR include one relating to the Postal Service. This is Postal Service reform. The authorizing committee has been working on this for some time. There is another example related to the extension of surface transportation reauthorization. We had time a week ago to take a freestanding continuing resolution through the normal process in both the House and in the Senate. We would have been able to present that bill to the President before the end of today, before the end of our fiscal year. I am very disappointed that normal process was not followed. As I understand it, the reason this occurred was the House majority's desire to prevent its minority from offering motions to recommit the bill. So here we are, last day of the fiscal year, and we clearly have to continue the critical operation of the Federal Government. But I do want to make clear this was not the right process for us to follow. I have enjoyed the opportunity I have had to work with my chairman on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. We worked hard to produce an appropriations bill that we believed was reasonable and fair and balanced. We greatly reduced the scope of the budget, and we finished our work in a timely manner. We had some very substantive committee hearings. It was a good process. I was pleased in that process. So it seems more than a little bit troublesome that we, with a very small appropriations bill coming out of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, working quite concertedly to make sure we did work the committee process in an appropriate manner, should be hung with the continuing resolution at the very end. It is more than just a bit ironic. At this time I would like to speak to the Legislative Branch portion of this conference report. Again, I want to thank my chairman, Senator Nelson, for his work. I also want to recognize and thank the full committee chairman, Senator Inouye, and our ranking member, Senator Cochran, for the support they provided in getting the Legislative Branch conference put together. Aside from the continuing resolution I just mentioned, I think it is fair to say our conference was without controversy. The final agreement meets the high priority needs of our legislative branch. Now, Senator Nelson and I are both new to the Appropriations Committee, and we worked well together on this. We did our best to see that the legislative branch served as a model for others within the Federal Government. We worked to tighten our belt wherever possible. We funded only the highest priority initiatives. In looking at the appropriations bill itself, funding for the legislative branch totals $4.65 billion, and while the agreement is $44 million over the level the Senate passed, the increase is due to items that the House had included. We were able to make reductions below the Senate-passed level in certain areas, such as our Senate office budgets. The bill is about 4 percent over fiscal year 2009. This is a big improvement, considering that when they came to us initially with the request for the legislative branch it was about a 15-percent increase. So we were able to scale it back. The conference agreement enables us to meet the highest priorities that have been identified by the Architect of the Capitol, in looking at health and safety, building improvements, particularly in the Library building and the projects that reduce the deferred maintenance in our buildings. We recognize if we do not address deferred maintenance, it does not go away; it continues and, unfortunately, that pricetag continues as well. The bill continues the efforts of the Architect of the Capitol to improve energy efficiency with over $14 million in funding designated for this purpose. Also, within the Library of Congress, we managed to include funding to begin to update the agency's information technology infrastructure. For about a decade, there have been no increases to IT within the Library. Yet most of the users of the Library are virtual users. I had an opportunity, a couple of weeks ago, to meet with Dr. Billington, the Librarian of Congress. He was showing me some of the incredibly historical documents, old maps from the 1800s from Russia where they were mapping Alaska. Some documents we looked at, the only way I would ever have an opportunity to view them is if I were able to visit the Library of Congress. Well, now, most of that, much of that incredible history is available through the Internet. So Alaskans, in a classroom thousands of miles away, can access the treasures we have within our Library of Congress. The information technology infrastructure was clearly Dr. Billington's highest priority. I believe this investment will ensure that millions of people who access the Library through its Web site will be able to find what they are looking for. It is phenomenal. Similarly, within GPO, the Government Printing Office, we funded the final increment for updating GPO's Web site to ensure that government publications can also be easily accessed and searched. Also, the bill provides the final increment of funding to complete the merger of the Library of Congress Police into the Capitol Police. This is a project that was initiated years ago by Senator Bennett when he was chairman of the subcommittee about a decade ago. It has been promoted by each of the successive chairs and ranking members to improve the security of the Capitol Complex. Today, the Library of Congress Police officially join with the Capitol Police in a ceremony that is taking place this afternoon at the Library. So this is good news for them. Congratulations need to go out to the men and women of the Capitol Police and the Library Police who worked very hard to ensure that this initiative happened relatively seamlessly. So there are good initiatives within Legislative Branch appropriations. I am pleased to have been able to work with Senator Nelson closely on these, and I am pleased with the product we have moved through our subcommittee. Were it not for the add-on that we had just last week, I would be standing before you and saying this is almost a perfect product. We recognize we must deal with the ongoing funding of our Federal Government. It is the last day of the fiscal year, and a continuing resolution must advance. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent the time be divided equally between both sides.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, I apparently had 30 minutes. Can the Chair tell me if I have time remaining?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. To its credit, the EPA realized that regulations at the 250-ton level are simply not feasible. So to try and resolve this issue, the Agency is apparently considering what they are calling a tailoring proposal. This would lift the Clean Air Act's regulatory threshold to 25,000 tons. That is a hundredfold increase. I shared the Agency's concern about a 250-ton carbon dioxide limit, but this 250-ton proposal moving up to a 25,000-ton proposal, this tailoring issue, is simply not going to hold. It has no legal basis. I think we expect it would be swiftly rejected by the courts. The EPA cannot constitutionally legislate a major change in the Clean Air Act. Ultimately, once this has all played out, the Agency's carbon dioxide regulations would remain in effect, but the threshold would be triggered at a level 100 times lower than the Agency had planned. That brings us to the tremendous consequences we can expect as a result. There is widespread agreement that the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act would be absolutely unworkable and, at the same time, economically devastating. In the words of a long-term Democrat over in the House, it will create a ``glorious mess.'' Another observed it could result in ``one of the largest and most bureaucratic nightmares that the U.S. economy and Americans have ever seen.'' Just this week, the editors of the Washington Post argued that the Clean Air Act is ``breathtakingly unsuited to the great task of battling global warming.'' The Wall Street Journal's editors cast it as ``reckless endangerment.'' They went on to assert that the regulation would be like putting ``a gun to the head of Congress'' to ``play cap and trade roulette with the U.S. economy.'' That may sound over the top, but even some members of the environmental community have agreed with the metaphor, as one clean air advocate affirmed this by saying this regulation is ``the legal equivalent of a .44 magnum.'' This regulation is a train that could wreck our fragile economy. It is our own creation, and it is barreling toward us at full speed. I recently saw an ironic motivational poster that said: ``Government--if you think the problems we create are bad, wait until you see our solutions.'' It is fair to say that this issue, the regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, is one of the many examples of why that poster was created and, sadly, it occasionally rings true. Today, however, the Senate can choose another course for the debate over energy and climate policy. The Clean Air Act is one of our worst options to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, but it is not our only option for that cause. Those of us in Congress can and should step up and pass workable, intellectually honest climate legislation--whether it is a system of cap and trade, a carbon tax, or something else that removes the Clean Air Act from the equation. Nearly every participant in this debate, from elected officials to businesses and the environmental community, has stated their preference for legislation over regulation. That is where my amendment comes in. For exactly 1 year, it would limit the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions to just the mobile sources that were the subject of the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA lawsuit. This is nothing more than a temporary timeout that will give us the breathing room in an already heated debate. It will give us the time we need to develop a sensible, effective policy that achieves the same result at a much lower cost. Anyone who takes the time to read my amendment will see I have gone to great lengths here to ensure it does not lead to any unintended or adverse consequences. It has been drafted and redrafted to limit one action by the EPA for 1 year, and nothing else. I have been responsive to bipartisan requests, even from Members who I knew would not be able to support this amendment, because I am committed to avoiding any overreach. So the result we have is an amendment that will not interfere or conflict with any other regulation or action that EPA is obliged to complete. That goes for the preparatory work for the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions. It holds true for the rule to expand the renewable fuel standard, for construction permits, and for regulations to foster the development of clean coal technologies. My amendment will not in any way impact EPA's authority relating to the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, its ability to develop a voluntary carbon offset program, to issue permits for energy infrastructure on or near Federal land, permit carbon sequestration projects, or to move forward with very important work of both exploring for and producing the vast reserves of domestic energy on our Outer Continental Shelf. All of these concerns have been raised over the past several days, before this amendment was even introduced. All of these concerns are explicitly addressed within it. Some of our Nation's leading Clean Air Act attorneys--among the best and brightest legal minds--have assisted us in its preparation. They agree it will do exactly as it says, and that leaves very little ground for the claims that have been made against it. Given how devastating the EPA's regulation of carbon dioxide emissions could be, many casual viewers are probably left wondering why, exactly, my amendment has drawn such fierce opposition. Well, again, let me be clear. As much as anything else, the regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act is being used as a thinly veiled threat to force the Senate to act on climate legislation, regardless of where we are in what remains an ongoing and incredibly important debate. The possibility that our worst option to reduce emissions will move forward, despite its consequences, is supposed to somehow compel us to move faster. We are expected to push through a climate bill, perhaps regardless of its content, in order to stave off this regulation. If the House debate is any indication of how our own will proceed, we will be asked to rush to judgment, cut off debate on one of the greatest challenges of our time, and to pass a bill--any bill--that purports to reduce emissions. In my mind, this situation has created a false dilemma, a proverbial Morton's Fork on Capitol Hill--meaning between a rock and a hard place. Right now, those of us in the Senate are clearly left with two bad choices--the EPA's endangerment regulation or the House's energy and climate bill--neither of which will end well for the American people. Making matters worse, we are told there isn't enough time to consider our options and develop a more viable path forward. By voting ``yes'' on my amendment, we could easily change this unfortunate dynamic. But we will not halt or hinder progress on climate legislation, as some have suggested. Not one of the climate bills that has been introduced so far would take effect until 2012--2 full years after the limitation imposed by my amendment would expire. If my amendment were to be accepted, the EPA will continue its work to regulate emissions from mobile sources. The agency and its employees will go about their business exactly as normal. They can even continue developing regulations for carbon dioxide emissions from stationary sources. For the next year, they simply cannot put those regulations into effect. One year after this bill is signed into law, that limitation would expire, and the EPA would have every authority to proceed if Congress has still not acted. For those who have expressed concern that my amendment would become a long-term fixture in appropriations legislation, be assured that I will work with you to ensure that the climate debate not only proceeds but reaches a conclusion in the form of a responsible bill that a majority of us can support. As an elected representative of the State that has been hit hardest by climate change, I will work in good faith with all who want to address climate change in an effective way, while protecting our fragile economy from further harm. To those who have claimed I am trying to put the brakes on climate legislation, I simply remind you of my long-standing support for renewable, nuclear, and alternative energies as part of the solution. There is a right way and there is a wrong way to moving forward in addressing climate change. EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is simply the wrong way. We must reduce emissions, but it is unacceptable to do so at any cost and by any means. While Congress has not yet developed a workable bill, I will continue to work as hard as I can to make sure that, in fact, we do. Unlike many Members of the Senate, I have also cosponsored cap-and- trade legislation. I cosponsored the Low Carbon Economy Act that was offered last Congress by Senator Bingaman and Senator Specter. This year, recognizing that our work is far from finished, Senator Bingaman and I worked together, very cooperatively and collaboratively, on another comprehensive measure--the American Clean Energy Leadership Act. We reported that bill from the Energy Committee more than 3 months ago. It would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, without causing economic harm, and yet it is still waiting to be heard on the Senate floor. The 23 members of the Energy Committee produced a bipartisan energy bill in the first 6 months of Congress. I have every reason to believe that the full Senate can, over a time period twice as long, develop an effective climate policy that will further reduce greenhouse emissions, without disrupting our economy. But that will require us to base our decisions more than on vote counts and special requests. It will require us to set aside politics and focus on substance. It will force us to cross the aisle instead of closing ranks, and it will mean acting on behalf of the American people, in their best interests, rather than our own or our party's. With regard to my amendment, the majority has again objected to calling it up. They have done everything they can to prevent a vote from occurring on the amendment, culminating in the objection that we not even have debate on the matter today. I want my colleagues to know, however, that this issue will not go away. Neither will my commitment to seeing it addressed head-on in a responsible and, if at all possible, bipartisan way. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Barrasso, Johanns, and Chambliss be added as cosponsors to my amendment. With that, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johanns) Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from California is recognized.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe it is truly unfortunate that we are not allowed to consider this amendment. The amendment I was hoping to be able to bring up and consider is one that would prohibit the use of funds that has the effect of making carbon dioxide a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act for any source other than a mobile source. It is unfortunate that the majority will not allow us to consider this amendment. The problem it seeks to address is significant. I don't believe it is going to go away if we choose to ignore it. As disappointed as I am, this amendment has clearly received considerable attention, so I wish to take this time this afternoon to fully explain its intent, my efforts to ensure its bipartisan nature, as well as the reasons I believe it is so incredibly important for the Senate to be given an opportunity to vote in favor of its adoption, if not now, then at some other point. In writing this amendment over this past week, I have listened to the concerns of many of my colleagues and the concerns of the environmental community, as well as the concerns expressed by the administration. My colleagues don't have to take my word for this. Look at the text of the amendment and see how it reflects--I think it so reflects--very seriously the comments and the criticisms from those who have weighed in. All I ask, at this time, is that for the next few minutes, my colleagues and my critics return the favor and listen to what I have to say. For context, let's start back at the beginning. Back in April of 2007, the Supreme Court declared, in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA, that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the EPA must regulate emissions from mobile sources--meaning vehicles--if the Agency determined that carbon dioxide posed a threat to public health and welfare. In the wake of that decision, EPA began to lay the groundwork for Federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Through its proposed ``endangerment finding,'' the Agency has sought to confirm that greenhouse gas emissions are, indeed, a threat to the public health and welfare. That proposal is now under review and most expect that it will be finalized in the very near future. The EPA has also released its draft rule to regulate mobile source emissions as required by the Supreme Court, and this will be accomplished through a dual standard that includes increased vehicle fuel economy and reduced tailpipe emissions. I am not putting the brakes on that proposal, despite some assertions to the contrary, but I am deeply concerned about the reach it may ultimately have. Under the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration'' provisions within the Clean Air Act, anything found to be a pollutant under one section will be subject to regulation under all other sections of the statute. So what exactly does this mean in plain English? The EPA's decision to regulate carbon dioxide legally covers not only mobile sources but also stationary sources. We tend to think of powerplants when we think of stationary sources, but also we think of office buildings, hospitals, schools, and apartment buildings. If you follow along those lines, you get the right idea. Very clearly, stationary sources must reduce emissions in order to bring our Nation to its climate goals, but forcing them to do so through the Clean Air Act would be one of the least efficient and most damaging ways to pursue that goal. It would be rife with unintended consequences and, I believe, potentially devastating for our economy. Under the Clean Air Act, any stationary source that emits more than 250 tons of pollutants each year is subject to regulation. Unlike other pollutants, pretty much every form of economic activity generates some level of carbon dioxide emissions. So these add up relatively quickly. In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has looked at this very closely. They believe that more than 1.2 million buildings that have never before been regulated under the Clean Air Act would come under this regulation if Congress does not intervene and if EPA moves forward. The 250-ton threshold would encompass more than just our major emitters. Caught in the same net would be dry cleaners, restaurants, the local Barnes & Noble bookstore. Realistically, we are probably talking about any facility that is heated or cooled by conventional means that is more than 65,000 square feet in size. I think there are some very grave concerns about the path the EPA would lead us down. I think they are apparent. I think others are seeing this as well and are expressing their concerns. Just this week, I received letters from over 11 different agricultural groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation. I have received letters from the American Council of Engineering Companies; NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Businesses; the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I ask unanimous consent that the letters from these organizations be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the previously agreed to list of amendments to be considered in order to include my amendment No. 2530 and to set aside the pending amendment so mine may be called up.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Oklahoma had wanted to make a couple comments, but I would like to take a couple extra minutes before I turn to him in response to my friend and colleague from California. In many ways, she has made my point or supported the argument. I would agree that, in fact, in order to deal with this very timely issue, this very significant issue, we must act. I just do not believe that utilizing the regulation, moving a climate change regulation through the EPA, is the best instrument, the most effective instrument. The people I represent back home are very concerned about this, as I have indicated, and are expecting their Congress to act. But they do not feel very comfortable with unelected bureaucrats in the Environmental Protection Agency telling them that, in fact, this is the road we are going to be going down, with no real appreciation or sensitivity to the environmental factors that we in this body assess as we are trying to advance policy. We need to be driving forward good, thoughtful, considered, reasonable policy on the issue of climate change. I am not disagreeing we stop on this issue. I am simply suggesting we need to make sure it is Congress, it is through the legislative process that we advance these very important policy initiatives. I do want to also make a comment about the concern that somehow or another my legislation would pull back on what the EPA is currently doing with mobile sources, the emissions from tailpipes. I don't think we could have drafted the amendment any more clear to ensure that it is specific as to the stationary sources. Again, I urge my colleagues to make sure they are looking at the draft of the amendment we have proposed and not some previous initiatives. One final point before I turn to Senator Inhofe. The point has been made by my colleague from California that the Administrator for EPA has said it is not her intention to be regulating the small emitters--the farms, the small businesses. She has made those statements, and I appreciate that, but the problem we face is the Clean Air Act, which doesn't give her that flexibility to change the Clean Air Act. She is obligated to regulate those entities that emit in excess of 250 tons. These are our smaller emitters. So even though she may have suggested or stated this is not her intention to go down that road--she can perhaps move forward with this tailoring proposal, but as I stand before you, I can almost bet that will be challenged in court and it will not pass the test and we will be stuck with what we are all attempting to avoid, which is capturing the smaller businesses--the restaurants, the drycleaners, et cetera--into this net as we try to provide for the regulation of the major emitters. I am sure we will have plenty of opportunity on this floor to continue this debate, but at this time, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from Oklahoma.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor this Wednesday, September 9, National Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Day which recognizes those individuals born with a continuum of serious, life- long disorders caused by prenatal exposure to alcohol, which include fetal alcohol syndrome, alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorders, and alcohol-related birth defects. Studies show that 50 percent of pregnancies in the United States are unplanned and many women consume alcohol before they realize they are pregnant, resulting in 40,000 children every year being born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and subject to a lifetime of cognitive and behavioral impairments. Tragically, Alaska has the highest rate of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders in the Nation. Among Alaskan Native communities, the rate is 15 times higher than non-Native areas in the State. Prenatal alcohol exposure can result in low IQ and difficulties with learning, memory, attention, and problem-solving as well as impairment of mental health and social interactions. Prenatal alcohol exposure can also result in growth retardation, birth defects involving the heart, kidney, vision and hearing, and a characteristic pattern of facial abnormalities. The lifetime health costs for an individual with fetal alcohol syndrome are estimated at $1.4 million for medical care and treatment interventions. In the United States, approximately $9.7 billion is spent annually for individuals afflicted with FASD, according to government reports. There is a great need for research, surveillance, prevention, treatment, and support services for individuals with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and their families. It is for these reasons that I rise today to dedicate this Wednesday, September 9 as National Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Day. All Americans are encouraged to promote awareness of the effects of prenatal exposure to alcohol; to increase compassion for individuals affected by prenatal exposure to alcohol; to minimize further effects of prenatal exposure to alcohol; and most importantly to bring greater awareness to a disease that is 100 percent preventable! On behalf of the millions of individuals suffering from the lasting and detrimental effects of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and advocates for eliminating FASD, I encourage all Americans to observe a moment of reflection on the ninth hour of September 9, to remember that during the 9 months of pregnancy a woman should not consume any alcohol.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I honor and bid farewell to my friend and our colleague, Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Norm and I served together for 6 years in the Senate and on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He also served on the Agriculture, Aging, Homeland Security, and Small Business Committees. He has a legislative record to be proud of. As our colleagues know, I have long enjoyed my work with Native people. Norm, throughout his tenure, was a steadfast friend of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian people and a strong advocate for the interests of the tribes in his home State of Minnesota. His voice will be missed in the U.S. Senate on these issues. As a member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Norm pushed for drastic reforms in our Nation's emergency response and recovery capabilities in the wake of the failed response to Hurricane Katrina. He was diligent and steadfast in his desire to protect our country and deeply engaged in efforts to increase protections for our Nation's critical infrastructure. I will remember Norm as one who had a love and appreciation for my State of Alaska. On several occasions he enjoyed the beauty of Alaska while seeking his prized king salmon on the Kenai River. Norm further extended his Alaska ties by hiring Jennifer Mies Lowe, who is married to my former chief of staff, George Lowe. Jennifer served Senator Stevens for many years before moving to Senator Coleman's office as his chief of staff. Norm has a long record of public service fighting for Minnesotans. He served as mayor of St. Paul before being called by the people of Minnesota to come to the U.S. Senate. I expect that we have not heard the last of him. In closing I would like to wish Norm, his wife Laurie, and children Jacob and Sarah the very best. Norm, thank you for your service to the Nation, the Senate, and Minnesota. I know Norm and his strong sense of service to his country, and while I will miss him in the Senate, I look forward to his next opportunity to serve.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, a decision as to whether to confirm a President's nominee to the Supreme Court is one of the most significant decisions any of us will make during our Senate careers. The precedents that are established by the U.S. Supreme Court do not merely affect the litigants but the entire fabric of American society, often for centuries. Justices of the Supreme Court enjoy life tenure. They are not accountable to the President who appointed them or to the Senators who voted to confirm them. They are not directly accountable to the American people. Yet it is undeniable today, as it has been since the founding of our Republic, that the Supreme Court is relied upon as the last line of defense against the loss of our liberties. It is critical that the American people have the highest confidence in the Supreme Court and its objectivity. In a Democratic society, the credibility of any institution relies on the consent of the governed. Those who seek nomination to the Supreme Court must be ever vigilant in their words and in their deeds that they do nothing to undermine that credibility. Mr. President, after lengthy, lengthy introspection, I rise this evening to inform my colleagues that I am unable to support the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to serve on the Supreme Court. This is a difficult result for me because I like Judge Sotomayor on a personal level. I visited with the judge for nearly an hour when she came through to meet with Senators. She is absolutely an engaging individual, and I left thoroughly impressed with her intellect and certainly with her resolve. She was open to my invitation to visit Alaska, and that invitation still stands. The nomination of Judge Sotomayor, who would be the first woman of Puerto Rican descent to serve on the Supreme Court, is indeed a historic one. Many were disappointed that President Bush did not nominate a woman to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. Justice O'Connor herself underscored the importance of placing women on the bench and in other high governmental positions in an interview with the National Law Journal that was published on May 26, 2009. So I am pleased that President Obama has nominated a woman to succeed Justice Souter. Judge Sotomayor's education and experience certainly qualify her for the position for which she was nominated--experience as a prosecutor and in the private practice of law, 17 years service on the Federal trial and appellate bench, a gifted and inspiring law professor. Judge Sotomayor's rise from the South Bronx to Princeton and Yale Law School is truly an American success story. Her excellence in practice as a prosecutor and private practice attorney is also an American success story. Her rise through the ranks of the Federal Court system is an American success story. And here in America, we celebrate success stories such as Judge Sotomayor's. But as much as I like Judge Sotomayor and am impressed with the obstacles she has clearly overcome, there are aspects of Judge Sotomayor's record that make me uncomfortable. I have heard from about 1,400 Alaskans who are troubled by what they know of Judge Sotomayor as well, and this discomfort arises from Judge Sotomayor's speeches as well as her decisions in key cases involving the second amendment and property rights. Alaskans, by their nature, are independent thinkers, and this nomination has rightly engaged their attention. So let's begin with the speeches. In the National Law Journal interview I referred to a moment ago, Justice O'Connor reasserted her viewpoint that ``a wise old woman and a wise old man, at the end of the day, can reach the same conclusion.'' I agree with that conclusion. But this is a viewpoint that Judge Sotomayor has challenged in one form or another on some eight different occasions. During the confirmation hearings I was looking for a simple, straightforward statement that Judge Sotomayor had come to appreciate that perhaps her remarks were ill-conceived; that she would not use those words if she were delivering those speeches today. During the confirmation hearings Judge Sotomayor used many words to justify and to explain her statements. She argued vigorously that she was misunderstood. But I am still not clear she understands the impact the plain meaning of her words had upon the American people or the impact they potentially could have on the credibility of the Court. Many of my constituents in the State of Alaska are not impressed with this talk. Alaskans champion diversity. In the Anchorage school district where my children attended elementary and middle school, more than 90 different languages are spoken. About 20 percent of Alaskans are of Alaska Native ancestry. Yet we reject the notion that coming from a particular background makes you wiser than one who has a different background. Alaskans judge each person as an individual. Alaskans respect those who respect our lifestyle and our values-- hunting and fishing and sustaining one's self from the land, responsible development of our natural resources, and a government that restrains itself from intruding on the lawful choices of American citizens. About 63 percent of our State is owned by the Federal Government. Alaska is constantly in Federal court defending attacks to our ability to access Alaska's lands and develop our economy, and often these issues end up before the Supreme Court. Many Alaskans were disappointed recently with the outcome of the Exxon Valdez punitive damages case. This may explain why so many Alaskans are so attuned to the objectivity of those nominated to serve on our Supreme Court. We are initially suspicious of those who are educated at Ivy League schools and spend their entire careers in the Boston-Washington corridor. Alaskans wonder whether those with this background truly understand the slice of the American experience that we live in the 49th State, and with good reason. I would not expect that Judge Sotomayor would devalue her own experiences. But neither should she have suggested that the experiences of others would lead them to decisions of lesser wisdom. One's diverse background does not and should not diminish the value of another's experiences. All of this leads me to question whether Judge Sotomayor will consider the pleas of those with experiences different from her own with the objectivity that is demanded of a Supreme Court Justice. My constituents are also troubled by the speech in which Judge Sotomayor expresses her notion that the appellate courts are where policy is made. Judge Sotomayor has subsequently explained that the point she was trying to make is that the courts of appeal establish precedent and the district courts do not. But there is a difference between policy and precedent, and my constituents don't believe Judge Sotomayor would have used the words ``make policy'' to mean ``establish precedent.'' They believe that she really did mean ``make policy.'' Alaskans get nervous when courts make policy decisions. Particularly those policy decisions that infringe upon our constitutional rights, as Alaskans understand them. And no constitutional issue concerns my constituents in Alaska more than the second amendment. They question whether Judge Sotomayor's experiences enable her to fully understand why people in the West fear the creep of government regulation on their second amendment right to bear arms. Judge Sotomayor has dealt with second amendment issues on two occasions. Neither inspires confidence. Let me focus on the 2009 Maloney decision. Maloney presented the question whether the second amendment protects citizens from State interference with their right to keep and bear arms. It was heard by a three judge panel in the Second Circuit. Judge Sotomayor served on that panel. Maloney was one of the first cases to construe the second amendment following the Supreme Court's landmark 2008 decision in Heller. Judge Sotomayor's panel held that the second amendment did not protect citizens from state interference. It reasoned that it was constrained by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1866 decision in Presser v. Illinois. But as the Supreme Court explained in Heller, the Presser case said nothing about the second amendment's meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations. Maloney had nothing to do with private paramilitary organizations. The sole question in Maloney was whether the State of New York could ban the possession of a particular kind of weapon. A three judge panel in the Ninth Circuit, a circuit which is often regarded as one of the more ``liberal'' circuits, reached quite the opposite conclusion from Judge Sotomayor's panel. The case was Nordyke v. King. It concluded that Heller left little doubt that the second amendment is a fundamental right. Accordingly the second amendment is incorporated into the 14th amendment and applies with equal vigor to the States. To the Ninth Circuit panel this was not a question of ideology or judicial activism. It was the undeniable outcome of Heller's reasoning. But if Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues really believed that courts of appeals must await additional guidance from the Supreme Court before determining whether the second amendment constrains State action they could have stopped there. Instead, the Sotomayor panel went on to conclude that the rights secured under the second amendment are not fundamental rights. It was not necessary to reach any conclusion on this issue because the panel had already decided that the second amendment doesn't apply to the States. So why did Judge Sotomayor's panel go out of its way to make this point? I am also disappointed that Judge Sotomayor did not write a separate opinion in Maloney. On a question as significant as whether the second amendment is a fundamental right, I would have expected that Judge Sotomayor would have written a thoughtful and scholarly opinion. Instead she signed on to an analysis of the second amendment that is widely regarded as superficial. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Judge Sotomayor failed to write a substantial opinion on a significant constitutional issue. Some of my colleagues have discussed their concerns with Judge Sotomayor's handling of the New Haven firefighters' case. I would like to take a moment to discuss the Didden case which involves property rights and constitutional limits on the scope of eminent domain. The reasoning of Didden is particularly perplexing. The panel on which Judge Sotomayor sat concluded that Didden's constitutional challenge to the taking of his property was time barred. If a suit is time barred there is no reason for judges to reach the merits of the case. Yet for reasons I cannot fathom, Judge Sotomayor's panel went on to do just that. They performed a superficial analysis of whether the taking of a piece of private property by a municipality for a drugstore is a constitutionally permissible public purpose. The Supreme Court invited lower courts to scrutinize a claim of public purpose to determine whether it is pretextual. Judge Sotomayor's panel never analyzed this question. They simply concluded that Didden's constitutional rights were not violated. This analysis was dicta. Not necessary to the outcome of the case. But it is a most troubling piece of dicta because it undermines the constitutional protection for private property. It could be used to limit the rights of litigants in other cases. My professional training is no different than that of the other lawyers in this body. In law school you spend 3 years reading appellate decisions day in and day out. Hundreds of appellate decisions--over a 3-year period. We are taught that the measure of a judge is in the quality of her analysis. The strength of a judge's reasoning is as important, if not more important, than who wins and who loses. It is important because that reasoning is part and parcel of the precedent that is used in deciding future cases. In three separate cases of significant constitutional import, Judge Sotomayor's panel failed to provide the rigorous analysis we commonly expect of future Supreme Court Justices. That troubles me deeply. I appreciate that the decision of who to nominate to the Supreme Court belongs to the President. However, if advice and consent is to be meaningful the Senate cannot be a mere rubberstamp on the President's decision. My decision to oppose Judge Sotomayor's nomination is not based upon partisanship, ideology or the recommendations of any outside interest group. It is the product of reservations I have about the positions that Judge Sotomayor has taken in speeches on multiple occasions over a period of years. It is based on the brief and superficial treatment she has given to important constitutional questions. Equally troubling is the fact that about 1,400 Alaskans have arrived at the same conclusion. This is not the conclusion I would have preferred to announce but it is one that is compelled by Judge Sotomayor's record. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to congratulate my colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich, and recognize his maiden speech on the Senate floor. The tradition of giving a maiden speech is one that perhaps in recent years has not been followed as intently as it has in days gone past. Senator Begich has highlighted with his remarks today and with the collection of bills he has introduced on the Senate floor--the significance of America's role as an Arctic nation and the key that Alaska holds as a leader in that responsibility. I appreciate what he is doing to shine a spotlight on these issues, whether it is how we deal with the impact of climate change, whether it is how we deal with the health consequences, how we dealt with renewed and increased commerce in an Arctic that is potentially ice free. I applaud him for his efforts and, again, shining the light on this issue. It seems every day the rest of the country, the rest of the world, is looking to the Arctic for our science, looking to the Arctic for the knowledge of our elders and researchers, and looking to the Arctic as a true leader in global environmental policies. I applaud him, and I am privileged to be able to support him in so many of these efforts, working on the issues that are important to, of course, our State but to the Nation as a whole.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my colleague mentioned the passing of a very dear friend. I wish to take a moment this afternoon to also acknowledge the passing of Lu Young. This is a sad day for us in Alaska as we come to grips with the very sudden passing of Congressman Young's wife. They have been a team for some 46 years. She died this weekend at their home in Great Falls, VA. She was only 67 years old. Lu Young was an Athabascan Indian from the village of Fort Yukon. Fort Yukon, you may have seen on Senator Begich's map, is in the interior part of the State. It sits 7 miles above the Arctic Circle on the north bank of the Yukon River. It is about 145 air miles north from Fairbanks. Congressman Young met Lu in Fort Yukon. This is back in the days when he was a tugboat captain operating a barge, carrying products and supplies up and down the river. Don taught in the wintertime at the BIA schools. Lu was the bookkeeper there in the village. They met, they married, and had 46 years of honest wedded bliss. I have to tell you, it is not often one can look at a couple after 46 years of marriage and still see the love and the gleam and the warmth between two individuals, one for another. Every day we saw that. If Lu wasn't with Don, Don was talking about Lu. He used to joke when he was in his campaigns: ``You get two for the price of one.'' He wasn't kidding. Don was in his office every day, and Lu was also in the office every day over at the Rayburn Building. She would greet Alaskans as they would come in. She would make sure they were comfortable or if she thought they were taking too much of Don's time, she would tell them that too. She would take people over to the restaurant for lunch. She welcomed Alaskans as part of their family. We have a very close and intimate relationship with those we represent in Alaska. As my new colleague is recognizing, we are a long way from home, so we kind of band together. We are part of an extended family. Lu was a constant in Don Young's office. She ensured that Alaskans who traveled to Washington, DC, would know that the Congressman for all Alaska was going to take care of you. She was also reminding Don every day: Don't forget where you come from. Anyone who has ever been to Don's office knows it looks and feels very much like Alaska. Lu made sure that was never going to change. Today the people of Alaska are not thinking of Lu's contributions to Don's political career. They are reflecting on the truly remarkable love between the two of them. In a statement this morning, Congressman Young summed it up. He said: ``Lu was my everything, and I am heartbroken.'' That loss breaks the golden hearts of all Alaskans as we remember our own experiences with Congressman Young's partner, his best friend, and his heart. Congressman Young has lost the love of his life, and Alaskans have lost a great friend. Regardless of political persuasion, all of Alaska grieves with Congressman Young, his daughters, Joni and Dawn, and their husbands, 14 grandchildren, and an extended family of lifelong friends throughout the great land. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I stand in opposition to this amendment. The funds contained within this High Cost Energy Program are designed to improve energy generation, transmission, and distribution. These are designed to do exactly what we are working so hard in this body to do: to improve our energy generation, our transmission facilities, our distribution facilities, and we are doing this through a program where the qualifications in order to comply are you have to serve communities in which the average residential home energy costs are 275 percent of the national average. There are 14 States across the country that have projects that focus on these very high energy areas. We are trying to reduce our energy costs for renewables and through the standard energy mechanisms but, quite honestly, when your energy costs are 275 percent above the national average, it is pretty darn tough. So these are funds made available to communities in the State of Alaska, but also communities in Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington, and the Marshall Islands, and it allows them to have energy at a more affordable cost. I urge defeat of the amendment.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon to speak to an amendment to the agriculture bill that has been introduced. This is amendment No. 1910. It has to do with the high energy cost grants. This is a program within the rural utility service. I would like to lay out for my colleagues a bit about this program. The high energy cost grants are available for improving and providing energy generation, transmission, and distribution facilities that serve communities with average home energy costs that exceed 275 percent of the national average. So 275 percent of the national average--you have to see your home energy costs exceed this level in order to make yourself available to this High Energy Cost Grant Program. These grant funds can be used for on-grid and off-grid renewable energy projects, energy efficiency, and energy conservation projects serving these eligible communities. Some have suggested this is somehow an Alaska aid program. It certainly does help in my State, but it has provided aid to utilities in more than a dozen States, including Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Washington. In addition to these States, applications have been submitted by other eligible communities in more than eight States. This is in Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and also out in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. In addition, these are community-driven projects. They reflect the local priorities for addressing energy challenges. Some of the projects that are currently underway with these high energy cost grants are replacing failing transmission and distribution lines that serve communities in my State and in Arizona, Idaho, Maine, and Nevada. As we think about how we are going to move our energy, particularly our renewable energy sources, we have to do more within our transmission systems. This program allows us to replace our older or failing transmission and distribution lines. Some of the other projects extend electric distribution lines to connect homes in rural communities in States such as Alaska, Arizona, California, and Washington, including some homes on Indian reservations. The other projects replace old inefficient diesel generators in many of the remote Alaska villages with more efficient, less polluting units, with heat recovery systems. These funds from the high energy cost grants go toward constructing community-owned renewable energy projects, including wind and solar, small hydroelectric and biomass systems. Again, the States where you see these projects are Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, New Mexico, New York, Washington, to the Marshall Islands. The last area of the program provides cost savings, energy efficiency, and weatherization upgrades for rural homes and community facilities in Alabama, Alaska, Florida Hawaii, Kentucky, and Massachusetts. I go through this list of where these projects are to ensure that Members know we are not just talking about a benefit to a State such as Alaska, where our energy costs are enormously high, but States such as Alabama, where they might not be facing the cold winters but they are certainly facing the hot summers and how they, too, can be more energy efficient; how they, too, can benefit from programs that help to reduce the high energy costs they face in their State. This program has been one of the smartest things Congress has done since the passage of the rural electrification programs back in the 1930s. It has provided assistance to run modern power lines on Indian reservations, helped to propel economic activity where it is needed most in this country. It has provided aid to towns off the interstate transmission grid and a number of towns in the West that are isolated and not so connected to that grid, thus more subject to the blackouts and brownouts. This program also motivated many States to step up their individual efforts to increase funding for these programs. In my home State of Alaska, despite the very dramatic decrease in revenues, we are investing tremendous resources toward energy solutions. In the State's fiscal year 2010 capital and operating budgets, they include $25.5 million for Alaska energy authority projects; $25 million for renewable energy; $38 million for power cost equalization; and $26.4 million for heating assistance. That is a total of about $115 million in funding that is coming from the State to help, alongside funding for the high energy cost grants. If funding sources continue to be eliminated or reduced, the Nation's efforts to address the high cost of energy by increasing energy efficiencies and renewable resource development are going to be severely hindered. This is at a time when we can least afford to do this. This program has helped with installation of renewable energy systems, whether it be solar or wind or hydro, biomass or geothermal projects. These are generally financed through guaranteed loans. This is exactly in keeping with existing congressional intent and the intent of this administration to expand renewable energy and to reduce carbon emissions and greenhouse gas emissions and their potential climate impacts. It has done so economically. The program has a 4-percent cap on planning and administrative expenses. I wish all Federal programs did this. The program has an excellent track record. According to the Congressional Research Service, it has such a low default rate on its loans that the guarantee program has a zero subsidy cost; loans being secured by the borrower's electric system and assets. Earlier on the floor it was argued that this program is somehow duplicative of other existing programs, but it is not. The existing USDA Rural Utilities Service Loan and Grant Program cannot make loans to school districts or to Indian reservations, such as the Navajo projects that have been made in Arizona or to off-grid utilities. The program can only make loans for electricity programs, not for renewable energy projects to tie into grids. This is exceptionally important, the fact that the programs currently can only make those loans to electricity programs and not the renewable energy projects. The program was authorized, the High Energy Cost Grant Program was authorized by Congress back in the 2000 Rural Electrification Act, simply because it covered a gap in existing programs that desperately needed to be filled. This amendment might not only kill this program in the future, but it also might pull the rug out from under the projects that have expended funds and which have started and which are waiting for the Federal funds to be delivered. This program actually lowers Federal unemployment and economic assistance costs over time because helping to reduce our energy costs is one of the best things we can be doing in government to support sustainable economic development in a State or in the region. I certainly support the need for fiscal responsibility--absolutely, especially given the size of our deficit. Cutting the High Energy Cost Grants Program is likely to not only lessen economic activity in rural areas but also worsen our overall economy and unemployment across the Nation. There is no reason to delete the continuation of funding that is proposed for this program. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment when the time comes. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the School Accountability Improvements Act. As you know, the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as the No Child Left Behind Act, or NCLB, made significant changes to Federal requirements for schools, school districts, and States. Many of these changes have been good, and were necessary. Because of NCLB, there is more national attention being paid to ensuring that schools, districts, and States are held accountable for the achievement of students with disabilities, those who are economically disadvantaged, and minority students. In my own State of Alaska this has meant, for example, that our more urban school districts are paying more attention than ever to Alaska Native students' needs. People across the nation are also more aware that a teacher's knowledge of the subject matter and his or her ability to teach that subject are the most important factors in ensuring a child's achievement in school. Teachers, parents, administrators, and communities have more data than ever about the achievement of individual students, subgroups of students, and schools. With that data, changes are being made to school policies and procedures and more students are getting the help they need to succeed in schools. While these are just a few of the positive effects of the No Child Left Behind Act, there have been problems. This is not surprising, as it is difficult to write one law that will work well for both New York City and Nuiqsut, AK. My bill, the School Accountability Improvements Act is meant to address 6 issues that are of particular concern in Alaska and in other States around the nation. First, my legislation would give flexibility to states regarding NCLB's ``Highly Qualified Teacher'' requirements. In very small, rural schools, it is common for one teacher to teach multiple core academic subjects in the middle and high school grades. NCLB requires that this teacher be ``Highly Qualified'' in each of those subjects. While it is vital that teachers know the subjects they teach, it is also unreasonable to expect teachers in very tiny schools to meet the current requirements in every single subject. It is almost impossible for tiny, remote school districts to find and hire such teachers. Yet, students deserve to have teachers who know the subjects they teach. My legislation would provide flexibility by allowing instruction to be provided by Highly Qualified teachers by distance delivery if they are assisted by teachers on site who are Highly Qualified in a different subject. This provision is offered as a compromise in those limited situations. Second, my legislation would give credit to schools, rather than punish them, if students are improving but have not yet reached the State's proficiency goals by requiring the U.S. Department of Education to allow States to determine schools' success based on individual students' growth in proficiency. While it can be useful to teachers and administrators to know how one group of third graders compares to the next year's class, it is much more useful for educators, students, and parents to know how each child is progressing--is the child proficient, on track to be proficient, or falling behind? Many States now have the robust data systems that will allow them to track this information; NCLB should allow them to use the statistical model that will be most useful. My bill also improves NCLB's requirements for school choice and tutoring. No Child Left Behind gave parents an opportunity to move their children out of dysfunctional schools. I support that. But the law requires school districts offer school choice, and to set aside funds to pay for transportation, in Year Two of Improvement Status. Schools do not have to tutor the students until the following year. This is backwards logic. Schools should be given the opportunity to help students learn first before transporting them all over town. I think most parents agree, and that is one reason why we are seeing fewer than 2 percent of parents choose to transfer their children to another school. My bill would require schools to offer tutoring first before providing school choice. Mr. President, NCLB also requires schools to tutor and offer choice to students who are doing well at their neighborhood school. Schools should not be forced to set aside desperately needed funds to serve students who don't need those services. My bill would require schools to provide tutoring and choice only to those students who are not proficient. In addition, it would allow school districts to provide tutoring to students even if the district is in Improvement Status. While school districts may need improvement overall, those same districts employ teachers who are fully capable of providing effective tutoring. Many educators and parents also have concerns about NCLB's requirements for Corrective Action and Restructuring. These are very significant requirements that can include firing staff and closing schools that don't meet the law's AYP requirements. They are even more significant if the actions are not based on reliable information. As you know, assessing whether a child is proficient on state standards in a reliable and valid way is difficult. It is even more difficult when the child has a disability or has limited English proficiency. Some question whether or not the tests we are giving these two groups of students are valid and reliable. Yet, NCLB requires districts and States to impose significant corrective actions or restructure a school completely if a school or district does not make AYP for any subgroup repeatedly. For truly dysfunctional schools and districts, that may be appropriate. But, how do we justify taking over a school, firing its teachers, turning its governance over to another entity, or other drastic measures if the students are learning but have not yet met the State's proficiency benchmarks? We can not. That is why my bill would not allow a school or school district to be restructured if the school missed AYP for one or both of those subgroups alone and the school can show through a growth model that the students in those two subgroups are on track to be proficient in a reasonable amount of time. Schools that are improving student learning should not be dismantled based on potentially invalid test results. In Alaska, Hawaii, and several other States, Native Americans are working hard to keep their indigenous languages and cultures alive. Teachers will tell you, and research supports them, that Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and American Indian students learn better when their heritage is a respected and vibrant part of their education. This is true of any child, but particularly true for these groups of Americans. Many schools around the country that serve these students have incorporated indigenous language programs into their curriculum. The problem is that in many instances, there is no valid and reliable way to assess whether or not the students have learned the state standards in that language. Neither is it valid to test what a student knows in a language they do not speak well. Research also tells us that students who are learning in a full language immersion program do not test well initially, but by 7th grade they do as well or better on State tests and they can speak two languages. My legislation would allow schools with Native American language programs in States where there is no assessment in that language to calculate Adequate Yearly Progress for third graders by participation rate only. It would then allow the school to make AYP if those students are proficient or on track to be proficient in grades 4 through 7. Finally, I know as a parent how important it is to my boys that their father and I have always been involved in their education. NCLB recognizes, in many ways, how important parents are in a child's education, but improvements can still be made. My bill would amend Title II of NCLB--which authorizes subgrants for preparing, training, and recruiting teachers and principals--to allow, but not mandate, more parental involvement in our schools. This section of my bill would allow parent-teacher associations and organizations to be members of federally funded partnerships formed to improve low-performing schools and to provide training to teachers and principals to improve parental engagement and school-parent communication. I can tell you that as wonderful as our Nation's teachers are, very few of them graduate from college having had a course in how to effectively communicate with parents. Teachers are very busy people, and when a parent shows up at the classroom door and says, ``Hi, I'm here to help'' teachers often do not know how to react. Many teachers have difficulty communicating with parents who may be working two jobs, or who have a different cultural background or language. In my view, parents should be a part of improving their children's schools, and have insights into how communication between school and home can be improved. I know that these 6 issues are not the only issues that my colleagues, Alaskans, and Americans may have with the No Child Left Behind Act. I have been talking with Alaskans about NCLB since I came to the Senate, and I look forward to working hard on the reauthorization of the law this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the School Accountability Improvements Act. As you know, the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as the No Child Left Behind Act, or NCLB, made significant changes to Federal requirements for schools, school districts, and States. Many of these changes have been good, and were necessary. Because of NCLB, there is more national attention being paid to ensuring that schools, districts, and States are held accountable for the achievement of students with disabilities, those who are economically disadvantaged, and minority students. In my own State of Alaska this has meant, for example, that our more urban school districts are paying more attention than ever to Alaska Native students' needs. People across the nation are also more aware that a teacher's knowledge of the subject matter and his or her ability to teach that subject are the most important factors in ensuring a child's achievement in school. Teachers, parents, administrators, and communities have more data than ever about the achievement of individual students, subgroups of students, and schools. With that data, changes are being made to school policies and procedures and more students are getting the help they need to succeed in schools. While these are just a few of the positive effects of the No Child Left Behind Act, there have been problems. This is not surprising, as it is difficult to write one law that will work well for both New York City and Nuiqsut, AK. My bill, the School Accountability Improvements Act is meant to address 6 issues that are of particular concern in Alaska and in other States around the nation. First, my legislation would give flexibility to states regarding NCLB's ``Highly Qualified Teacher'' requirements. In very small, rural schools, it is common for one teacher to teach multiple core academic subjects in the middle and high school grades. NCLB requires that this teacher be ``Highly Qualified'' in each of those subjects. While it is vital that teachers know the subjects they teach, it is also unreasonable to expect teachers in very tiny schools to meet the current requirements in every single subject. It is almost impossible for tiny, remote school districts to find and hire such teachers. Yet, students deserve to have teachers who know the subjects they teach. My legislation would provide flexibility by allowing instruction to be provided by Highly Qualified teachers by distance delivery if they are assisted by teachers on site who are Highly Qualified in a different subject. This provision is offered as a compromise in those limited situations. Second, my legislation would give credit to schools, rather than punish them, if students are improving but have not yet reached the State's proficiency goals by requiring the U.S. Department of Education to allow States to determine schools' success based on individual students' growth in proficiency. While it can be useful to teachers and administrators to know how one group of third graders compares to the next year's class, it is much more useful for educators, students, and parents to know how each child is progressing--is the child proficient, on track to be proficient, or falling behind? Many States now have the robust data systems that will allow them to track this information; NCLB should allow them to use the statistical model that will be most useful. My bill also improves NCLB's requirements for school choice and tutoring. No Child Left Behind gave parents an opportunity to move their children out of dysfunctional schools. I support that. But the law requires school districts offer school choice, and to set aside funds to pay for transportation, in Year Two of Improvement Status. Schools do not have to tutor the students until the following year. This is backwards logic. Schools should be given the opportunity to help students learn first before transporting them all over town. I think most parents agree, and that is one reason why we are seeing fewer than 2 percent of parents choose to transfer their children to another school. My bill would require schools to offer tutoring first before providing school choice. Mr. President, NCLB also requires schools to tutor and offer choice to students who are doing well at their neighborhood school. Schools should not be forced to set aside desperately needed funds to serve students who don't need those services. My bill would require schools to provide tutoring and choice only to those students who are not proficient. In addition, it would allow school districts to provide tutoring to students even if the district is in Improvement Status. While school districts may need improvement overall, those same districts employ teachers who are fully capable of providing effective tutoring. Many educators and parents also have concerns about NCLB's requirements for Corrective Action and Restructuring. These are very significant requirements that can include firing staff and closing schools that don't meet the law's AYP requirements. They are even more significant if the actions are not based on reliable information. As you know, assessing whether a child is proficient on state standards in a reliable and valid way is difficult. It is even more difficult when the child has a disability or has limited English proficiency. Some question whether or not the tests we are giving these two groups of students are valid and reliable. Yet, NCLB requires districts and States to impose significant corrective actions or restructure a school completely if a school or district does not make AYP for any subgroup repeatedly. For truly dysfunctional schools and districts, that may be appropriate. But, how do we justify taking over a school, firing its teachers, turning its governance over to another entity, or other drastic measures if the students are learning but have not yet met the State's proficiency benchmarks? We can not. That is why my bill would not allow a school or school district to be restructured if the school missed AYP for one or both of those subgroups alone and the school can show through a growth model that the students in those two subgroups are on track to be proficient in a reasonable amount of time. Schools that are improving student learning should not be dismantled based on potentially invalid test results. In Alaska, Hawaii, and several other States, Native Americans are working hard to keep their indigenous languages and cultures alive. Teachers will tell you, and research supports them, that Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and American Indian students learn better when their heritage is a respected and vibrant part of their education. This is true of any child, but particularly true for these groups of Americans. Many schools around the country that serve these students have incorporated indigenous language programs into their curriculum. The problem is that in many instances, there is no valid and reliable way to assess whether or not the students have learned the state standards in that language. Neither is it valid to test what a student knows in a language they do not speak well. Research also tells us that students who are learning in a full language immersion program do not test well initially, but by 7th grade they do as well or better on State tests and they can speak two languages. My legislation would allow schools with Native American language programs in States where there is no assessment in that language to calculate Adequate Yearly Progress for third graders by participation rate only. It would then allow the school to make AYP if those students are proficient or on track to be proficient in grades 4 through 7. Finally, I know as a parent how important it is to my boys that their father and I have always been involved in their education. NCLB recognizes, in many ways, how important parents are in a child's education, but improvements can still be made. My bill would amend Title II of NCLB--which authorizes subgrants for preparing, training, and recruiting teachers and principals--to allow, but not mandate, more parental involvement in our schools. This section of my bill would allow parent-teacher associations and organizations to be members of federally funded partnerships formed to improve low-performing schools and to provide training to teachers and principals to improve parental engagement and school-parent communication. I can tell you that as wonderful as our Nation's teachers are, very few of them graduate from college having had a course in how to effectively communicate with parents. Teachers are very busy people, and when a parent shows up at the classroom door and says, ``Hi, I'm here to help'' teachers often do not know how to react. Many teachers have difficulty communicating with parents who may be working two jobs, or who have a different cultural background or language. In my view, parents should be a part of improving their children's schools, and have insights into how communication between school and home can be improved. I know that these 6 issues are not the only issues that my colleagues, Alaskans, and Americans may have with the No Child Left Behind Act. I have been talking with Alaskans about NCLB since I came to the Senate, and I look forward to working hard on the reauthorization of the law this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise this afternoon in support of the Legislative Branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. The chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Nelson, and I have worked collaboratively in this process of putting the bill together. I thank him for that. I think we had some real substance in our hearings and spent the time, the energy, and the focus we needed on these matters regarding this particular appropriation. When combined with the House items, the bill before us totals $4.7 billion, and while this is an increase of 5 percent over the current year, the bill we reported out of the committee represented less than a 3-percent increase over fiscal year 2009, as the chairman has said--in fact, 2.4 percent. I would argue for those who say we need to keep our appropriations bills within the range of inflation, we are probably there at a 2.4-percent increase. We cannot, within this body, control the amounts the other body may provide for its own operations, but the amounts for the Senate and the other legislative branch agencies that are controlled in this bill are controlled very closely, especially when we compare this with the average 15 percent increase that was requested by the legislative branch agencies. I think we worked very hard to take the requests that came before the committee and really pared them down to what was appropriate, what was needed, what was necessary. Both Senator Nelson and I are new to the Appropriations Committee. I am very pleased we were able to have these very good and substantive hearings with all of the legislative branch agencies. We discussed the wide range of issues and challenges before the legislative branch. We worked well together and have been consistent in our efforts to eliminate unnecessary spending, tighten our belts, and help ensure that the legislative branch is a model for the rest of the government. We believed we needed to set a good standard. If we stay on schedule, we will be able to get this bill enacted prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. It is a good start to the appropriations process. I would like to highlight just a few areas, adding on to what the chairman has mentioned. First, with respect to the Architect of the Capitol, the bill funds those projects that address the most serious risks to safety and health, such as repairs within the utility tunnels that underlie the Capitol Complex and projects that remedy deferred maintenance in our buildings. If we don't address the maintenance backlogs, the price tags, we know, will just increase down the road. The bill continues the Architect of the Capitol's efforts to improve energy efficiency, with over $14 million in funding designated for this purpose. Within the Library of Congress, we managed to include funding to begin to update the agency's information technology infrastructure. For about a decade now, there have been no increases to IT within the Library of Congress. Yet most of the users of the Library are virtual users. This was the highest priority of our Librarian of Congress, Mr. Billington. This investment will ensure that millions of people who access the Library through its Web site will be able to find what it is they are looking for. Similarly, within GPO, we funded the final increment for updating GPO's--this is the Government Printing Office--Web site to ensure government publications can be easily accessed and searched. Also, the bill provides the final increment of funding to complete the merger of the Library of Congress Police into the Capitol Police. This project was initiated by Senator Bennett when he was chairman of the subcommittee and has been promoted by each of the successive chairs and ranking members to improve security of the Capitol Complex. Finally, there is a directive in the bill for a report by the Government Accountability Office of a study of Capitol Police staffing and overtime. Senator Nelson and I both share the concern that we right-size the Capitol Police and we control overtime spending. We recognize security is absolutely paramount, but effective management of the agency is equally as important. I thank Senator Nelson for his efforts and those of his staff and my staff in putting this bill together. I also thank the full committee chairman, Senator Inouye, and the ranking member, Senator Cochran, for getting us to the floor today. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. That is correct, and it was a topic of discussion during the subcommittee hearings. Citations from the Office of Compliance are requiring certain actions by the Architect of the Capitol that don't always make sense. We found that the legislative branch is held to a higher standard than the executive branch and the private sector, and certain standards and timelines are applied that would not be applied outside the legislative branch, particularly to historic buildings. As I said in our hearing with the Architect of the Capitol and Office of Compliance, I am completely supportive of having strong fire and life safety standards, but applying a ``gold standard'' to the legislative branch doesn't seem to be appropriate. We need to be pragmatic, and operate within a risk-based framework. In some cases, we have been asked to fund expensive projects by the AOC that simply aren't a good use of taxpayer dollars and don't necessarily offer significant improvements in fire and life safety. Senator Nelson and I asked GAO to work with us to suggest how we could get the legislative branch on par with the executive branch and private sector. This language is the result of those discussions.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I would agree to work with the ranking member of the Finance Committee, to work with the chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Nelson, and attempt to address his concerns as this bill moves forward.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three individuals from my staff, Caitlin Baalke, Hanna Kim, and Kimberly Stone, be granted the privilege of the floor during debate on this appropriations bill.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as our colleagues know, this year marks the 50th anniversary of Alaska's admission to statehood. Earlier this year I had the privilege to speak at a number of events to kickoff the 50th anniversary celebration. I marveled at the fact that so many of Alaska's statesmen and stateswomen--the people who led Alaska from a frontier territory to a modern and vibrant state--are still with us today. The founding fathers and mothers of so many of our States are just names in a history book. In contrast, the founding fathers and mothers of Alaska are not remote historical figures, but our friends and neighbors. Alaska's history is very much a living history. That is a source of great pride to me and to all Alaskans. Yet every year, it seems, we lose another piece of Alaska's living history as those who played a significant role in the statehood fight and the early growth of our 49th State pass on. Today it is my sad duty to acknowledge the loss of Red Boucher, the first elected lieutenant governor of Alaska. Red died last Friday at the age of 88. This Friday the people of Alaska will celebrate Red's life at a memorial service in Anchorage Everyone who knew Red knew of his persuasive gifts. Born in Nashua, NH, he grew up in St. Vincent's Orphanage in Fall River, MA, where he was placed at age 9 after his father's death in 1930. Seven years later Red, who was barely 16 years old, talked his way into the U.S. Navy. He served for 20 years, including all of World War II. After he left the service he ended up in Fairbanks, where in 1958 he established one of Interior Alaska's first sporting goods stores. But sports was only one of his passions. Politics was clearly another. Following service on the Fairbanks city council and as mayor of the city of Fairbanks, Red served as lieutenant governor of Alaska under Governor Bill Egan from 1970 to 1974. After his term as lieutenant governor, Red did not disappear from public service. During his nationwide travels from 1976 to 1980 at the behest of the Citizens for Management of Alaska's Lands, Red met with hundreds of newspaper editorial boards, winning acclaim for his strong reasoned arguments for why the Arctic Coastal Plain should be left open to oil and gas development if an environmental impact statement proved it could be developed without environmental harm. Many credited Red's efforts as the reason that ANWR's coastal plain was not locked up as wilderness when ANILCA was enacted in 1980. He returned to Juneau in 1985 representing an Anchorage district in the Alaska House of Representatives. And in 1991 Red was elected to the Anchorage Assembly. In the minds of many Alaskans these significant contributions are relatively minor. They would regard Red's creation of the Alaska Goldpanners, Fairbanks' summer baseball team, as his most enduring accomplishment. He managed the team from 1960 to 1969. During the 1964 and 1965 seasons Red managed a young pitcher named Seaver, Tom Seaver. The alumni list of the Alaska Goldpanners reads like a ``who's who'' of Major League Baseball. In fact, nearly 200 Goldpanner alumni have gone on to play in the majors. Then there was Dan Pastorini who pursued a career in football as quarterback for the Houston Oilers, Oakland Raiders, Los Angeles Rams, and Philadelphia Eagles. The Alaska Goldpanners continue to delight Alaskans and visitors from around the world each summer at Growden Memorial Field. At the time of his death, Red was the director of external affairs for the team. Two days after Red's passing, at 10:30 P.M. on the evening of Sunday, June 21, his beloved Goldpanners took the field against the Lake Erie Monarchs. It was Fairbanks' 104th annual Midnight Sun Game, game played each year to commemorate the Summer Solstice. That game ended in the wee morning hours of Monday, June 22, with a 6-3 victory for the ``Panners.'' Red's still watching out for them. In his later years Red championed bringing modern telecommunications and computing technologies to the remotest parts of Alaska. He hosted a statewide cable television show called ``Alaska On Line.'' I was proud to be Red's guest on more than one occasion. We discussed ANWR and the need to construct a pipeline to transport Alaska's abundant natural gas supplies to market. The formula for ``Alaska On Line'' was simple: Invite interesting guests and let them tell their stories. These shows are virtual oral histories of Alaska. In fact, many of the tapes have already been acquired by the University of Alaska Anchorage Consortium Library for use by historians and scholars. Red Boucher lived every day to the fullest enriching the lives of his fellow Alaskans in innumerable ways. I join with Red's family and all Alaskans in mourning the loss of this exemplary Alaskan.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I recognize that the order is for Senators to speak for up to 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent at this time to speak for 15 minutes.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, several years back--actually, it was further than several years, it was in the early 1990s--there was a popular culture sensation in kids' books. The books were entitled, ``Where's Waldo.'' Those with kids probably remember the books. It was a great way to test your kids' eyes and areas of identification. This was crafted by a gentleman by the name of Martin Hansford. You try to find Waldo with his glasses and his red-and-white striped hat. He would be tucked in on the page somewhere, filled with lots of other colors, and you would have to hunt through the page. More often than not, Waldo was tucked in behind similar looking characters who would attract your attention. They played a central role in the overall picture but ultimately were not Waldo. I see the young pages nodding. They have all seen the ``Where's Waldo?'' books. I do not want to take time this afternoon talking about the ``Where's Waldo.'' books, but I will tell you I am concerned and the point of my comments today is the concern I have that the Obama administration has engaged in a new game of ``Where's Waldo'' and doing so with our energy policies, only this time instead of ``Where's Waldo'' it is ``Where's Nuclear.'' We will need to search carefully to find where the administration has hidden the resurgence of nuclear energy. The confluence of high oil prices this past summer and the desire to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions has certainly and justifiably promoted the interest in and development of renewable and alternative forms of energy, from more mature technologies, such as wind and solar, to greater awareness of the potential for geothermal, biomass, ocean tidal energy, along with greater energy efficiency and conservation measures. Congress in both the Bush administration and now the Obama administration was active in promoting these fields, in extending the tax breaks, mandating levels of ethanol to be used, updating our energy efficiency standards, and providing for incentives for energy conservation measures. We are expecting to tackle a climate change bill at some point this Congress. In what shape or form certainly remains to be seen at this point in time, but we know that we must work to slow and reduce our carbon emissions. There is certainly a role for all of these technologies and increased energy efficiency to play in our energy future. But ultimately, as the new administration lays out its energy policy priorities, I have to ask the question: Where is nuclear? In an interview with ``U.S. News & World Report,'' Secretary of Energy Steven Chu says: [t]he biggest gains, in terms of decreasing the country's energy bill, the amount of carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere, and our dependency on foreign oil, will come from energy efficiency and conservation in the next 20 years. Our Energy Secretary, Secretary Chu, has basically said that when it comes to making reductions in emissions, it is going to come from energy efficiency and conservation. I am absolutely all for conservation, but, once again, nuclear power, the one energy source that currently provides emissions-free, stable, baseload power, along with large-scale, high-paying job creation across the United States, seems to be missing from the Obama administration's energy plans. What is the current state of play when it comes to nuclear? The map behind me indicates where we have nuclear facilities throughout the Nation. The different colors are based on years of operation. The blue triangles are nuclear facilities that have been in operation from between 30 and 39 years. That is the majority of the reactors. We have 52 that have been in operation for about a 40-year period, 42 for a 20 to 29-year period. What this map demonstrates quite clearly is not only where in the country our nuclear facilities lie, but the fact that we simply do not have any new nuclear plants that have been ordered in this country since 1978. We have 104 operating nuclear powerplants across the country that are providing right around 20 percent of our electric power and approximately 75 percent of our carbon-free power. Again, no new nuclear plants have been ordered in this country since 1978. But we have seen a resurgence of interest that has led to license applications for 26 new reactors at 17 sites. These applications have all been docketed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with construction on the first plant expected to begin in the year 2012. This is a very welcome revival. This comes at a time when we know our economy is suffering. At a recent Senate Energy and Natural Resources hearing, the president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Mr. Marvin Fertel, noted that to date, investment in new nuclear energy plants over the past 2 to 3 years has created 15,000 jobs. If all 26 new reactors currently in the licensing process are built, that would result in an annual average of over 100,000 new jobs, according to a recent study by Oxford Economics. Over 20,000 long-term jobs would be generated to operate those plants. Those new jobs would allow nuclear energy to continue to make the contribution that it does today as our energy needs grow. We know that nuclear plants also play a key role in reducing our carbon emissions and meeting our climate change goals, while also helping to mitigate economic harm. In 2007 alone, nuclear power resulted in the avoidance of almost 700 million metric tons of carbon emissions. How much is 700 million metric tons of carbon emissions? It is more carbon than Canada collectively emits each year. It is roughly twice the amount of carbon emitted by all privately owned vehicles in the United States on an annual basis. It is safe to say that nuclear power avoids a significant amount of carbon emissions, and it brings our expenses down as well. An EIA analysis of last year's Lieberman-Warner climate change legislation showed that a new nuclear plant construction would reduce carbon prices in 2030 by 33 percent, residential electricity prices by 20 percent, and residential natural gas prices by 19 percent compared to a scenario where new nuclear construction is limited. Not only is nuclear emission free, nuclear also provides a constant reliable source of baseload power. This is an issue we hear time and again in the Energy Committee, an issue that renewable and alternative energy sources, as much as we like them, struggle with this reality of reliable baseload. After all, we certainly know, regardless what part of the country you are from, the Sun does not always shine, and the wind does not always blow. On the other hand, in 2008, the average operating capacity for the 104 nuclear plants in the United States was over 90 percent--well above that of coal-fired power generation. If we look at the chart, in terms of the capacity factor and what nuclear can provide on a sustainable, reliable basis, we have nuclear and then coal coming in a good second. But as we look to wind, hydro, solar, even oil and gas, if what we are looking for is a level of reliability, the answer is nuclear. It is the type of dependable power that our utilities need to operate efficiently and effectively. This year's Gallup Environmental poll shows 59 percent of Americans support the use of nuclear power, which is a new high, but support for nuclear is nothing new in the international community. Since 1978, when the last nuclear reactor was ordered in the United States, over 250 new reactors were constructed overseas. Japan intends to increase the amount of electricity it gets from nuclear from where they are today at 30 percent to over 40 percent by the year 2020. France already gets 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear. I think the American people get it and the international community certainly gets it. Nuclear power is a broadly accepted form of safe energy, and it is time that we in Washington understood this as well. It is clear that nuclear provides good-paying jobs at home, reduces our carbon emissions, provides reliable baseload power, and it is supported by the American people. So what is not clear is where the new administration is on nuclear. While there has been some mention of nuclear energy being part of the overall energy strategy, the actions of the administration do not support the claim. So far, the administration has sought to kill Yucca Mountain as a long-term repository for spent fuel. They have shown an unwillingness to increase the loan guarantee program and the funding levels to support construction of new nuclear plants, and they have focused on renewable and alternative fuel developments to reduce our carbon emissions without any mention of nuclear energy. So where nuclear energy truly stands with the current administration is a bit of a mystery to me. Let's talk about Yucca Mountain. The administration seems to view Yucca Mountain in the same vein as the Guantanamo Bay prison. Both are politically uncomfortable solutions to a toxic problem, and they are going to be shut down, never mind that we do not have an alternative plan for either one of them. So what are we going to do with the thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and defense-related, high-level waste that is spread out all across the country? That map we saw earlier with all of those dots all across the country is where we are keeping the nuclear waste. It is sitting right there spread out across this country. How many tens of billions of dollars in liability will the American taxpayers be on the hook for when the administration finally abandons all hope of fulfilling the Nuclear Waste Policy Act's already well past 1998 deadline for a permanent repository? Billions of dollars have been spent over the last 25 years in characterization and engineering development for the Yucca Mountain license. It is hard to imagine a better understood piece of real estate on the planet. Onsite dry cask storage is a safe but a temporary solution, and it does not remove the need for a permanent repository. In the meantime, the nuclear industry faces uncertainty regarding spent fuel liabilities, States have no permanent disposition path for defense-related waste, and the Federal Government cannot address tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer liabilities. So far the alternative plan seems to be to leave the waste at its current location, and we will talk about it. I mentioned the Loan Guarantee Program. The administration seems to be just as confused about its support for the new reactor construction needed to maintain nuclear energy's current contribution. As part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, Congress created the Loan Guarantee Program to help us develop the 21st century energy system our country needs. The Loan Guarantee Program provides support for a broad portfolio of clean energy technologies, from energy efficiency and renewable energy systems to pollution control and vehicle technology used to advance nuclear and carbon capture projects. It is a widely popular program. Despite the current limitation of $42 billion for the program, the Department of Energy has received applications for over $120 billion in new projects. Of the $42 billion for the overall program, $18.5 billion was made available for the new nuclear technology. Over $93 billion in support has been requested. Mr. President, $18.5 billion has been made available for the new nuclear technology, but $93 billion has been requested. It is oversubscribed by a factor of five. We can see on this chart that $93 billion has been requested; $18.5 billion available. The others--the renewable, nuclear, fossil, mix-- when you look at what we had intended with the Loan Guarantee Program and how we envisioned that would move forward, I think we can clearly underestimate where that support would be for the nuclear programs. It is important to note that the Loan Guarantee Program is also entirely self-funded and does not represent a handout to the industry and does not expose the taxpayer to default risks. The total loan volume for the program is established by the Appropriations Committee, but any potential defaults are covered by fees paid by the applicants, not by the taxpayer. So the industry does get the help, the assistance--that backstop, if you will--of the loan guarantee from the Federal Government, but they pay for it. That seems reasonable. During debate on the stimulus bill, there was a $50 billion increase in the size of the Loan Guarantee Program that was sought. Again, this is a $42 billion program with $120 billion in application requests. But increasing the size of the program authority was shot down several months back because of fears that construction of new nuclear plants would take up the bulk of the loan guarantee authority. So where was the administration's support for the Loan Guarantee Program during this debate? This program helps all forms of clean energy technologies, but this increase was denied because nuclear was in the mix. For 10 years now, we have consistently heard about the urgency of global climate change and the need to address it. I agree. There is clearly evidence of climate change. I see the real-life impacts in my State of Alaska. But I do find it more than a little bit inconsistent that the same entities that would press for immediate action would deny nuclear a role in the solution. Perhaps the current administration thinks global climate change isn't as important as developing a centrally planned electrical system based on renewable energy that the administration believes is in the best interest of the public. Renewable energy sources will be important and deserve solid support, but, as you can see from this chart--and I apologize because it is very busy--we could double the amount of electricity produced by renewable resources and it still wouldn't equal what we currently receive from nuclear power. So if you look at our nuclear electric power, 100 percent of nuclear power goes to generation of electricity; 21 percent of the sector creates our electric power here. Looking up to renewable energy and how it feeds into consumption, whether it is transportation, industrial, residential and commercial, or electric, if we were to increase-- double--our renewable energy, again we still don't come close to what we are able to provide currently with nuclear. So going back to the issue of climate change, I believe it is important to ask the question as to whether this issue of climate change can really wait for renewables to develop to such a scale that they will become the primary source of energy. The point I wish to leave folks with is that we need to be advancing all technologies equitably. Nuclear energy is the most robust form of nonemitting base load power we have available to us, bar none. Over the last 20 years, the industry has demonstrated its ability to operate these reactors efficiently and safely to the great benefit of our country. Mr. President, I mentioned it earlier. The rest of the world gets it, the American public gets it, but where is the administration on nuclear? The time to demonstrate our resolve for new nuclear energy development is now. We as a nation cannot afford additional delay if we are truly serious about how we reduce our carbon emissions while maintaining access to affordable energy. It is time for the administration to come forward with its plan for the inclusion of nuclear power in its overall energy policy and what it intends to do with existing and future spent nuclear fuel. We shouldn't be left standing here asking: Where is nuclear? Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, with my colleague from Alaska Senator Mark Begich, that will require all oil laden tankers in Prince William Sound to be escorted by at least two towing vessels or other vessels considered appropriate by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. At 12:04 a.m. on March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, carrying over 53 million gallons of crude oil, failed to turn back into the shipping lane after detouring to avoid ice, and ran aground on Bligh Reef. Alaskans will never forget that morning, waking up to hear about the worst oil spill and environmental disaster in U.S. history and living with the lasting impacts it has had on our State and residents. The National Transportation Safety Board investigated the accident and determined probable causes for the accident. While it determined that it was primarily caused by human error of the captain and crew, it is my belief that we had also become complacent. It had been 12 years since we had begun to tanker oil out of Valdez and there had not been an incident. However, when the spill occurred, we became acutely aware of how woefully unprepared we were. The few prevention measures that were available were inadequate and the spill response and clean-up resources were seriously deficient. The oil eventually fouled some 1,300 miles of shoreline, stretching almost 500 miles, and covered an area of 11,000 square miles. While the captain and crew were found at fault for the immediate cause of the spill, the incident also highlighted huge gaps in regulatory oversight of the oil industry. The response of Congress to the spill was passage of the Oil Spill Pollution Act of 1990 or OPA90. The law overhauled shipping regulations, imposed new liability on the industry, required detailed response plans and added extra safeguards for shipping in Prince William Sound. Since the law took effect, annual oil spills were greatly reduced and lawmakers, marine experts, the oil industry and environmentalists credit the law for major improvements in U.S. oil and shipping industries. Oil spill prevention and response have been greatly improved in Prince William Sound since the passage of OPA90. The U.S. Coast Guard now monitors fully laden tankers all the way through Prince William Sound. Specially trained marine pilots ride the ships for 25 of the 70 mile journey through the Sound and there are weather criteria for safe navigation. Contingency plans, skimmers, dispersants, oil barges and containment booms are all now readily available. An advanced ice- detecting radar system is also in place to monitor the icebergs that flow off of the mighty Columbia Glacier. Two escort tugs accompany each tanker while passing through the Sound and are capable of assisting the tanker in the case of an emergency. This world class safety system recently saw the 11,000th fully loaded tanker safely escorted through Prince William Sound. It is estimated that if the Exxon Valdez would have been double-hulled, the amount of the spill would have been reduced by more than half. While double hulled tankers are a huge improvement over single hulls, they do not prevent oil spills. The legislation that Senator Begich and I are introducing today will maintain the existing escort system in place for all tankers. Presently, the federal requirement that every loaded tanker be accompanied through the Sound by two tugs applies only to single-hulled tankers. Even though, right now, double-hulled tankers are escorted by two vessels, federal law does not require them to be. The last single hulled tanker in the Prince William Sound fleet is expected to be retired from service by August 2012 and our legislation ensures all double hulled tankers will always be escorted by two tugs. Although there have been a number of marine incidents and near misses since the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, over the past 20 years, through the efforts of the U.S. Coast Guard, industry, the State of Alaska, and the Prince William Sound Citizens Advisory Council to implement the requirements of OPA 90, there have been no major oil spills. Today, as a result, the marine transportation safety system established for Prince William Sound is regarded as among the most effective in the world. A key reason for that accomplishment is, in part, because of the safety benefits resulting from having dual escort vessels available to assist oil laden tankers transiting the Sound. Section 4116 (c) of OPA 90 requires that single hulled tankers over 5,000 gross tons transporting oil in bulk in Prince William Sound, Alaska be escorted by at least two towing vessels or other vessels considered appropriate by the Secretary. Subsection (a) makes applicable to double hulled tankers the requirement in existing law including regulations in 33 CFR Part 168 issued to implement that dual escort vessel requirement for single hulled tankers. The subsection leaves the dual escort vessel requirement in place for single hulled tankers. By making those cited regulations applicable to double hulled tankers, the U.S. Coast Guard would not need to issue new regulations as a result of the amendment to section 4116(c) of OPA 90. Rather, the Secretary is authorized and directed to ``carry out subparagraph (A)'' by order without notice and hearing, and without issuing new regulations, under section 553 of title 5 of the U.S. Code. The dual escort plan, as it was constituted and in effect as of March 1, 2009 for Prince William Sound, is described in a document entitled, ``Vessel Emergency Response Plan'' or ``VERP'', and is on file with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. It is envisioned that, as advancements in technology are made in the future, any appropriate and warranted modifications to the VERP cited above implementing the dual escort practice as in effect as of March 1, 2009 and implementing the dual escort requirement in this section, including implementing regulations, will be made by the Prince William Sound Tanker Owners/Operators in consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard, the State of Alaska, and the PWSRCAC and ratified and endorsed by the U.S. Coast Guard before being implemented. The success of this escort system over the past 20 years has shown us that it must not be compromised. We cannot forget the lessons of the Exxon Valdez oil spill and allow ourselves to become complacent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.