Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, as we conclude the debate on this public lands package, I think it is important to remind colleagues of perhaps a few facts--a little bit of the history as to how we got here. As the chairman of the Energy Committee indicated, this omnibus public lands package consists of 160 bills and what they represent in terms of the legislation and efforts of communities, of individuals, of groups, of legislators, to come to a point where they may finally be seeing a resolution on the issues they have been working on, and I think it is important to put this into context. One of the measures in this public lands package that relates to my State is an issue we have been working on--a land exchange--for almost two decades now in an effort to try to resolve it. Through a great deal of compromise with agencies, with public interest groups, and with policymakers, we have legislation that we believe works. My colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett, has been working on a provision that he, too, acknowledges has been over 10 years in the making. My colleague, Senator Crapo, from Idaho, has been working on legislation that has been 8 years in the process. We on the Energy Committee have been working with Members to try to advance good projects and legislation that work in their respective States. Our public lands States are a little different from what we see on the East Coast. When you have 60 percent of the land in your State owned by the Federal Government, oftentimes just getting a transaction approved requires an act of Congress. So what we have today in this package, big as it is, is a culmination of countless years of work by lawmakers in this body. It is time that we advance many of these very important measures. This bill is a very bipartisan measure. It is, as I say, 160 bills, but there are both Republican sponsors and Democratic sponsors. It is the work of a lot of compromise on both sides. All but a handful of these bills within the Energy Committee's jurisdiction were ordered reported by the committee on a unanimous voice vote. We need to recognize that this is not the work of the 111th Congress. It is not even the work of the 110th. It was before that. This is carryover work in an attempt to take care of a lot of unfinished business. I am optimistic that this bill will pass both this body and the other body and be finally signed into law. I am also optimistic that the 111th Congress can then make a fresh start with public lands legislation and perhaps find a better way to reach consensus on these types of bills. I hope the process for consideration of this package today is a harbinger of the future. The package we have contains language that the House had sought to add to clarify that access to recreation, including hunting, fishing, and trapping, would not be limited by land designations in this bill. This language was bipartisan and bicameral, and the support truly is there. The amendments Senator Coburn brought before this body--six serious, relevant amendments--while I have not agreed with the specifics of some of those amendments we have considered, I do take the issues and the concerns raised by them very seriously. I always have and will continue to commit to continue to do so in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; as we look to legislation in the future, whether it is the issue of prioritization or acknowledging an inventory of what we own, what we are required to operate and maintain is something that is worthwhile to pursue. Some of the issues that were raised--for instance, that of eminent domain, locking up our Nation's energy resources--these are issues that are clearly legitimate. But I suggest a broad-brush or one-size-fits- all prohibition does not work in the real world. The bills in this package were carefully evaluated for these and so very many concerns as they went through the committee. The Energy Committee is very concerned. Our focus is on access to our Nation's energy resources. There was that consideration made bill by bill. The last comment I wish to make is, it has been suggested that somehow or another this lands package is a Federal land grab. In fact, the bill actually transfers over 23,000 acres of Federal land into the private or State sectors through conveyance, exchange or sale. In most instances, the Federal Government is giving more land into private hands than they are getting or the exchanges are of equal acres or equal value. Again, I will not suggest the process we have gone through has been the easiest. It is difficult when you have the number of bills we have and issues that are contentious and that require a great deal of effort and compromise. But the product before this body today is one where I would agree with our chairman of the Energy Committee, it does help to protect our country's great assets, it does allow for better enhancements of our public lands, and I think it is worthy of consideration by this full body. I encourage its support. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I do not disagree with my colleague from Oklahoma that we should, as the Federal Government, know more about our assets, know more about our land and buildings, what it costs to manage and maintain them, to operate these properties. It is a reasonable request. Where he is going with this is something we should be working together to develop and perhaps refine the concept of what he is asking for through a freestanding bill. My concern with the amendment, as it is now, is that we have to make sure as we gain this information, we have a way to protect it. Right now it would be the Office of Management and Budget that has sole responsibility for making decisions in terms of military intelligence, Department of Energy facilities, and what gets included within public reports. That concerns me and, therefore, I will be objecting to the amendment. Amendment No. 677

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, just to add to the comments of Senator Bingaman, it is appropriate that we acknowledge our staff. I appreciate him doing so. I thank those who worked on the Republican side as well. But I also wish to acknowledge some of the Members on our side who have been very dogged in an effort to reach final compromise on this legislation. Senator Crapo from Idaho has been diligent in his efforts, working alongside Senator Bennett from Utah and Senator Kyl. I appreciate their efforts in getting us to where we are today.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. To follow up with the Senator from New Mexico, we do recognize there is political sensitivity when we are asking for information regarding the military, our intelligence and security information. We want to make sure there are protections there. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct that there is that provision in the bill. But what it does is, it gives the Office of Management and Budget the authority to make the determination as to what will be included in this public report. I would be far more comfortable if it were the Department of Defense that made that determination, not the Office of Management and Budget. Again, the Senator from Oklahoma is correct in pushing us to look to make sure that we know where our assets are and how much it costs to operate and maintain and manage them. We should be looking to that in the future. I will be opposing the amendment.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, my colleague from Oklahoma has given me a fine lead-in this evening to rise and tell an amazing story of an Alaskan dog musher named Lance Mackey and the story of his dog teams that carried him to yet another recordbreaking victory today in the toughest race on Earth, and that is the Iditarod. The story of Lance Mackey is not only amazing because of his skill and his determination in the sport of dog mushing, but Lance Mackey has also overcome some very incredible personal challenges. He had a victory over cancer that preceded his victories in the sport of dog mushing. Lance is a lifelong Alaskan. He married his high school sweetheart. He has four children. He was diagnosed with throat cancer after finishing in 36th place in the 2001 Iditarod sled dog race. After that race--the man doesn't give up--he had extensive surgery and radiation treatment. He attempted to complete the Iditarod the following year, in 2002, after this surgery, but he had to scratch. He had to drop out of that race, taking time off from dog mushing to recover from his cancer and the surgery. He is now considered cancer free. He went on to win the Yukon Quest, one of the two major sled dog races in Alaska. He did this in 2005 and 2006. Then Lance Mackey went on to do what no one had done before and what most people consider absolutely impossible. In 2007 and 2008, he won both the Yukon Quest and the Iditarod, two incredibly grueling races, with only a week and a half in between each race to rest before he moved to the next event. For the first time in the history of the races, Lance had won both races, and he did so 2 years in a row. And today, Lance Mackey won the Iditarod yet again. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with either the Iditarod or the Yukon Quest, these races are the world's two longest sled dog races. Both races span over 1,000 miles of really tough mountains, rugged mountains, frozen tundra, dense forests. These are true tests of dedication and determination. Not only does the rugged terrain pose immense obstacles, but they have the weather that factors in. It is starting to turn a little bit like spring around here, but back home it is still winter, and these mushers face temperatures which frequently drop to 30 or 40 degrees below zero. And then they have the wind that kicks up, winds gusting up to about 100 miles per hour. So you can imagine what the wind chill factor is as you are racing those dogs in the weather and the elements. The annual Yukon Quest sled dog race is a 1,000-mile international trek. It goes from Fairbanks, AK, over to Whitehorse in Canada. Lance Mackey and his team of canine athletes have won this race 4 years in a row. The race Lance won for the third consecutive year today is the 1,100- mile Iditarod sled dog race. This race starts in Willow, AK, and ends up in Nome, AK. The race commemorates the 1925 diphtheria serum relay. They ran dog teams in a relay to pass along a vaccine for diphtheria. They needed to get it from Anchorage, where it had come in by ship, to Nome. At that point in time, we didn't have the ability for air transport to get into Nome. So how do you move it and how do you move it quickly? Well, we resorted to a series of dog teams to move that serum north and to save the lives of those who were infected. Today, the Iditarod is no longer run as a relay, but it is a race of individual dog sled teams. This 1,100-mile race takes the mushers into some incredibly beautiful areas. The journey they travel through--the Alaskan wilderness--is exceptionally beautiful. But as I mentioned, you not only have tough terrain but you have brutal weather. This year has been particularly tough, with the snow and the wind. It has caused delays, it has caused real setbacks with the mushers and the teams as they have been trying to go through high snowpack. There have been some accidents, there have been some sleds that have been lost, and it has been very difficult. We had some near hurricane- force winds that forced dog musher Lou Packer and his dogs to be airlifted to safety, and he and his team had to quit the race. He described what I would call life-threatening weather conditions by saying: We were climbing over this mountain and we got hit by this wind that hit us like a hammer. The temperature dropped-- started plummeting--and I lost the trail. And the wind started to build and build, and then the wind got bad, so I climbed in my sled and it was pretty much a survival situation at this point. I threw all the gear out of my sled and climbed in and zipped it up; it was probably 30, 35 below, I have no idea. These are the types of individuals who train all year long with their dogs to prepare for this incredible race. So it is not just the musher whose success we celebrate but it is these incredible four-legged athletes that are absolutely astounding. Some of the other mushers out on the trail are pretty extraordinary folks, such as John Baker, out of Nome, Sebastian Schnuelle and Aaron Burmeister. They were describing other conditions along the trail. Schnuelle described it as brutal, but he said: At times the wind was blowing so hard out of Shaktoolik that his dog team moved sideways. Well, when you have about 15 or 16 dogs pulling a loaded sled and a musher and you have winds that are blowing you sideways, you know you are in some weather. He commented further: First we had snow and wind. Now we have wind and wind. Well, earlier this afternoon, thousands gathered at the famous burled wood arch on Front Street in Nome, AK, to cheer on Lance Mackey as his dogs carried him to victory over his extremely talented and resilient competitors from all over the world. This is an international race, most absolutely. Lance and his team of canines completed the race a little less than 3 hours short of 10 days. Imagine yourself standing on the back of sled runners going over mountain ranges, going through ice and snow, in temperatures of 30 below and the wind howling at you. And that is fun, ladies and gentlemen. This is man and dog against Mother Nature, and the best teams sure are winning. Alaskan newspapers tell a story of Lance's fired-up dog team after taking his only 24-hour break during the race. He broke in a town called Takotna. After the layover was completed--you have to rest for 24 hours, mandatory, because sometimes your teams don't want to rest; they want to keep moving. Well, after this layover was completed, Lance's 16 dogs were barking and pulling at their tug lines like they were leaving the race's starting line. Lance said he had this amazing run, and he was going to put the bale of straw out for the dogs to rest. He had every intention of stopping, but then he sees that his dogs are yelping and barking to get going, so he takes off. He said: They're telling me what to do. So I dumped the straw, and it's been heaven ever since. What you have here, with this individual musher, Lance Mackey, who cares so deeply for the health and the condition of these four-legged athletes, is a guy who has shown a great mastery of working with and training these canine athletes for the sport of dog mushing. The Anchorage Daily News last year, when he won, stated: A musher doesn't win four straight 1,000 mile Yukon Quests and two straight Iditarods by making dogs run. He wins by making dogs want to run. Lance describes working with his dogs this way: He says: The biggest challenge working with a large team of dogs is the individual personalities. Like a classroom full of kids, all with issues, wants, questions, some barking wildly to get my attention, and then there are some who just do what needs to be done and require only a nod or a smile. Every dog is different. Every need is different. That is what I love. The reward is seeing them all come together as a team working for a common goal. It's just cool. I had the opportunity last week--when I was up in the State for the ceremonial start of the Iditarod--to go around and talk with the mushers and see all their teams. I had a chance to see Larry, his lead dog. My favorite is Lippy. I just kind of like the name, but Lippy has great little eyebrows. My favorite picture is with Lippy, but these dogs all have personalities unto themselves. And when they do come together as a team to do these incredible athletic feats, we must acknowledge and respect them. Lance Mackey continues to impress all of us with his remarkable achievements and record-setting performances. He is an inspiration to others who struggle with cancer. He named his dog kennel up north the Lance Mackey's Comeback Kennel. I think that is most appropriate. So it is my honor today to stand before the Senate to congratulate Lance Mackey and his team of amazing dogs. Lance is a world-class dog musher and a true Alaskan hero, and I wish him and his team continued success and good health in the future. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I make a point that is worth mentioning that Senators may have forgotten. The 1964 Wilderness Act includes a provision that allows the President may declare an emergency and allow ``water resources, reservoirs, water construction work, power plants, transmission lines and other facilities needed in the public interest, including road construction and maintenance essential to develop and use thereof.'' So, therefore, other than a handful of declared wilderness areas in Colorado and Nevada, this protection is included in the law establishing every wilderness, including those in this bill. Therefore, I do not think there is a reason we need the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. In addition to what the chairman of the Energy Committee has stated, we may be in a situation where you have a newly acquired national park or national historic facility and this amendment would prevent the Director of the Park Service from even putting in new facilities until the maintenance backlog is completed in older existing park units. It could also force the agency to expend funds on facilities they no longer need, such as trails or buildings that the agency would like to remove. I think this is a well-intended amendment, but I believe it misses the mark by placing restrictions that could hamstring the National Park Service's effort to provide high-quality recreational opportunities, and I urge opposition.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 146, which is the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act. This is being used as a vehicle for the omnibus public lands package. I think it is probably safe to say that none of us had hoped to be voting on this package here in the Senate again, but it has become clear that despite procedural obstacles this package has broad bipartisan support on both sides of the Hill and should become law, and that is why we are back yet again. Although each individual bill in this package is not the kind of thing that perhaps makes national headlines, as a whole it is important enough to justify the time this body has committed to it, and I appreciate the majority leader bringing this back, and I appreciate the cooperation of my chairman, Senator Bingaman, as we work to advance the very important provisions that are contained in this omnibus public lands package. In the case of the Energy Committee, this package, along with a similar package that was passed by the Senate last spring, represents almost 2 years' worth of hearings, negotiations, and business meetings on the many facets of these public lands issues. This package contains over 160 public lands bills, the vast majority of which went through the regular committee process and then sat individually on the Senate calendar at the end of last session. Now, clearly, when you have a package that is comprised of this many bills--160 different public lands bills--it does a great deal; it covers a great many things. It covers the full range of the committee's public lands jurisdiction, whether it be from small boundary adjustments and land exchanges to large wilderness designations. There will be some who will suggest that the sheer number of bills that is contained in this package is a bad thing and that somehow or other this is new; it is unprecedented. But for those of us who come from western States, which contain large amounts of public lands--and in my State of Alaska about 1 percent of our lands are privately held, everything else is Federal, or State, or part of the native claims settlements--public land is an important aspect of how we operate within our respective States. We understand that legislation, such as that contained in this package, is necessary to the day-to-day functioning of the western economy. I said during the first debate of this bill when it was before the Senate that in the West simple real estate transactions that are taken for granted in the East often literally take an act of Congress. And that is what we are here doing today. It is taking an act of Congress. This bill protects some of our natural landscape and historical treasures. Now, there are some who oppose such protections, claiming that we are threatening access to our Nation's resources. But I do not believe that this is an either/or situation. We as a nation can maximize the development of our domestic energy and mineral resources while at the same time protecting our Nation's other natural treasures and wilderness. In fact, the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service have certified in testimony, in response to questions, that none of the wilderness proposed in this legislation will negatively impact on the availability of oil, gas, or national energy corridors. There is one section I should mention that does restrict oil and gas development in Wyoming, but as my colleague from Wyoming has mentioned, it is fully supported by their State delegation and their Governor. Almost all of the lands in this bill are already federally managed lands, most to be designated as wilderness, are either within the Federal parks or have been managed with restrictions, such as wilderness study areas or roadless areas. So in that case a designation as Federal wilderness does not further restrict use beyond what has been in place for quite some time. On the other hand, this bill actually transfers 23,226 acres of Federal lands to private and State sectors through conveyance, exchange, or sale. The bill does authorize the expenditure of funds, but each of those is dependent on future appropriations that depend on the oversight provided by the appropriations committees and the Presidential budget request. I think it is fair to say that this process is not my preferred method for passing legislation--putting multiple measures in an omnibus bill--but I believe that overall this package will improve our Nation's management of its public lands and its parks and will be a long-term benefit for our Nation. Therefore, I respectfully request my fellow Members support the passage of this omnibus legislation. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor. 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. Madam President, I rise to speak this afternoon in favor of an amendment I laid down yesterday, No. 599. I wish to respond to some comments that have been made on the floor by several colleagues. The amendment I have introduced would modify section 429 of the Omnibus appropriations bill that allows the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to withdraw the final rule relating to the ``Interagency Cooperation under the Endangered Species Act,'' and the final rule that relates to the ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Special Rule for the Polar Bear.'' This is a special rule for the polar bear. These provisions allow the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior, or both, to withdraw the two Endangered Species Act rules inserted under section 7 of the ESA within 60 days of adoption of the omnibus bill and then reissue the ESA rule without having to go through any notice or any public comment period, and without being subject to any judicial review as to whether their actions were responsible. Neither of the ESA rules that are part of this amendment were promulgated in the dark of night. Nothing happened in the back room. The existing rules were the result of a public process that fully complied with all applicable laws. In fact, one of the rules is under judicial review now, as the Administrative Procedures Act allowed. The polar bear 4(d) interim final rule was certainly not a ``midnight rule.'' Look at the process it went through. It was announced and made available as a final special rule on May 15 of 2008, concurrent with the announcement of the decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the ESA. That announcement then triggered or opened a 60-day public comment period to all interested parties to submit comments that might contribute to the development of a final rule. Then those comments come in throughout that period. After the comments are received, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made several appropriate revisions to the final rule. Nothing in this special rule changed the recovery planning provisions and the consultation requirements that exist under section 7 of the ESA. The 4(d) rules that are contained are not exclusions, and they are not exemptions. Under the ESA itself, section 4(d) says that for threatened species, the Secretary may promulgate such regulations as he deems necessary or advisable. So what happened was Secretary Kempthorne used this very strict authority to develop a rule that states if an activity is permissible under the stricter standards of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it is also permissible under the Endangered Species Act with respect to the polar bear. I wish to repeat a comment the Senator from California made yesterday. It is one I absolutely agreed with. I agree we must follow the process; we must follow the law. The problem is, the House rider circumvents the public process because it completely eliminates the law. Section 429 doesn't require public notice and doesn't allow public comment or judicial review, as is required by the law. What my amendment does is maintain the public process. It not only requires that any withdrawal or repromulgation of either of these two rules follows the Administrative Procedures Act, with at least a 60-day comment period to allow for that adequate public comment. This is the same amount of time the public had to comment on the polar bear 4(d) interim final rule last year. Without this amendment, this provision allows the Secretaries to make dramatic changes in rules and regulations, without having to comply with multiple, longstanding Federal laws that require public notice and comment by the American public and knowledgeable scientists. These challenges have the potential for far-reaching and truly unintended consequences in our country. The House rider we are dealing with in this omnibus bill shortchanges the public process. It is certainly not my amendment that shortchanges anything or tries to go outside the process. What we are providing in this amendment is ensuring we follow that public process. I ask Members of this body to vote in favor of my amendment to maintain this public process. That is what this amendment does. We owe it to ourselves to keep the integrity of the process intact. It is a dangerous precedent for this body to set. I ask Members to look very carefully at this amendment and truly attempt to understand the full implications if we are not successful in removing this rider from the bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak to a bill that I am introducing today to resolve a land conveyance dispute in Northwest Alaska, the Salmon Lake Land Selection Resolution Act. Shortly after Alaska became a State in 1959, Alaska selected lands near Salmon Lake, a major fishery resource in the Bering Straits Region of Northwest Alaska. In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to resolve aboriginal land claims throughout the 49th State. In that act Congress created 12 regional Native corporations in state, providing the corporations with $966 million and the right to select 44 million acres of land in return for giving up claims to their traditional lands in Alaska. The land and money was to go to make the corporations profitable to provide benefits to their shareholders, the native inhabitants of Alaska. The Bering Straits Native Corporation, one of those 12 regional corporations, promptly selected lands in the Salmon Lake region overlapping state selections, because the lake and the waters upstream and downstream from the lake spawn and contain fisheries resources of significance to Alaska Natives and also offer land suitable for a variety of recreational activities. For the past 38 years there have been conflicts over the conveyances, delaying land from going to the corporation, harming the economic and cultural benefits of the corporation to Native shareholders, and complicating land and wildlife management issues between federal agencies and the State of Alaska. Starting in 1994, but accelerating in 1997, talks began among the State, Federal agencies and native corporations and towns in the region, located north of Nome--Salmon Lake itself is located 38 miles north of Nome--to reach a consensus on land uses in the region. Those talks reached agreement on June 1, 2007 with a resolution that satisfied all parties. This seemingly non- controversial legislation will implement the new land management regime in the area and finally complete the conveyance of ANCSA lands to the Bering Straits Native Corporation--giving the corporation title after surveys to the last of the 145,728 acres it was promised by Section 14 (h)(8) of ANCSA nearly four decades ago. By this bill the Corporation will gain conveyance to 1,009 acres in the Salmon Lake area, 6,132 acres at Windy Cove, northwest of Salmon Lake, and 7,504 acres at Imuruk Basin, on the north shore of Imuruk Basin, a water body north of Windy Cove. In return the Corporation relinquishes rights to another 3,084 acres at Salmon Lake to the federal government, the government then giving part of the land to the State of Alaska for it to maintain a key airstrip in the area. The Federal Bureau of Land Management also retains ownership and administration of a 9-acre campground at the outlet of Salmon Lake, which provides road accessible public camping opportunities from the Nome-Teller Highway. The agreement also retains public access to BLM managed lands in the Kigluaik Mountain Range. The bill fully protects recreation and subsistence uses in the area, while providing the Corporation with access to recreational-tourism sites of importance to its shareholders and which might some day produce revenues for the Corporation. The agreement has prompted no known environmental group concerns and seems to be the classic ``win- win-win'' solution that all sides should be congratulated for crafting. The key, however, is for Congress to ratify the land conveyance changes by 2011, when the agreement ratification window closes. Passage of this act is certainly in keeping with the spirit of the Alaska Lands Conveyance Acceleration Act that this body passed 5 years ago that was intended to help settle all outstanding land conveyance issues by 2009--the 50th anniversary of Alaska statehood. In Alaska where controversy abounds over land use, this is a hard-fought compromise agreement that seemingly satisfies all parties and makes good sense for all concerned. I hope this body can ratify this bill swiftly and move it to the House of Representatives for its concurrence and eventual signing by the President. The bill is important for residents of Nome who utilize the area and for all Alaska Natives who live in the Bering Straits Region.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak to a bill that I am introducing today to resolve a land conveyance dispute in Northwest Alaska, the Salmon Lake Land Selection Resolution Act. Shortly after Alaska became a State in 1959, Alaska selected lands near Salmon Lake, a major fishery resource in the Bering Straits Region of Northwest Alaska. In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to resolve aboriginal land claims throughout the 49th State. In that act Congress created 12 regional Native corporations in state, providing the corporations with $966 million and the right to select 44 million acres of land in return for giving up claims to their traditional lands in Alaska. The land and money was to go to make the corporations profitable to provide benefits to their shareholders, the native inhabitants of Alaska. The Bering Straits Native Corporation, one of those 12 regional corporations, promptly selected lands in the Salmon Lake region overlapping state selections, because the lake and the waters upstream and downstream from the lake spawn and contain fisheries resources of significance to Alaska Natives and also offer land suitable for a variety of recreational activities. For the past 38 years there have been conflicts over the conveyances, delaying land from going to the corporation, harming the economic and cultural benefits of the corporation to Native shareholders, and complicating land and wildlife management issues between federal agencies and the State of Alaska. Starting in 1994, but accelerating in 1997, talks began among the State, Federal agencies and native corporations and towns in the region, located north of Nome--Salmon Lake itself is located 38 miles north of Nome--to reach a consensus on land uses in the region. Those talks reached agreement on June 1, 2007 with a resolution that satisfied all parties. This seemingly non- controversial legislation will implement the new land management regime in the area and finally complete the conveyance of ANCSA lands to the Bering Straits Native Corporation--giving the corporation title after surveys to the last of the 145,728 acres it was promised by Section 14 (h)(8) of ANCSA nearly four decades ago. By this bill the Corporation will gain conveyance to 1,009 acres in the Salmon Lake area, 6,132 acres at Windy Cove, northwest of Salmon Lake, and 7,504 acres at Imuruk Basin, on the north shore of Imuruk Basin, a water body north of Windy Cove. In return the Corporation relinquishes rights to another 3,084 acres at Salmon Lake to the federal government, the government then giving part of the land to the State of Alaska for it to maintain a key airstrip in the area. The Federal Bureau of Land Management also retains ownership and administration of a 9-acre campground at the outlet of Salmon Lake, which provides road accessible public camping opportunities from the Nome-Teller Highway. The agreement also retains public access to BLM managed lands in the Kigluaik Mountain Range. The bill fully protects recreation and subsistence uses in the area, while providing the Corporation with access to recreational-tourism sites of importance to its shareholders and which might some day produce revenues for the Corporation. The agreement has prompted no known environmental group concerns and seems to be the classic ``win- win-win'' solution that all sides should be congratulated for crafting. The key, however, is for Congress to ratify the land conveyance changes by 2011, when the agreement ratification window closes. Passage of this act is certainly in keeping with the spirit of the Alaska Lands Conveyance Acceleration Act that this body passed 5 years ago that was intended to help settle all outstanding land conveyance issues by 2009--the 50th anniversary of Alaska statehood. In Alaska where controversy abounds over land use, this is a hard-fought compromise agreement that seemingly satisfies all parties and makes good sense for all concerned. I hope this body can ratify this bill swiftly and move it to the House of Representatives for its concurrence and eventual signing by the President. The bill is important for residents of Nome who utilize the area and for all Alaska Natives who live in the Bering Straits Region.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, Sunday marked the 48th anniversary of the Peace Corps. As we wrap up Peace Corps Week here in the United States, I would like take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt congratulations and appreciation to all current and former volunteers. Since its creation in 1961, approximately 190,000 volunteers have served in 139 countries around the world. The fields Peace Corps volunteers work in are as varied as the countries in which they serve, but they offer us a snapshot of the breadth of global development challenges we face as a planet: HIV/AIDs; food security; environmental degradation; expanding the reach of technology; improving access to clean water and sanitation; and providing education and professional opportunities to those who might not otherwise have a chance to go to school or open a business. Not only the host countries benefit from all the good work these volunteers do. Each of these volunteers gives the United States an opportunity to showcase our values and goals to the rest of the world in a grassroots way. The volunteers have the chance to learn foreign languages, live and work in new cultures, and develop skills which will aid them in their future careers. The skills these intrepid volunteers learn during their tours will also be a credit to the United States in the future as they return home and put their on-the-ground knowledge to work in the States. I am delighted to see that the spirit of this movement is still strong with Alaskans. This year, 32 Alaskans are serving in 27 different countries on five different continents in fields ranging from health to education to agriculture to small business development. When they return to Alaska it will be with the knowledge that they can achieve any task set before them with innovation and hard work. I am excited to see what great things they will do next for our State and the Nation as a whole.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. The amendment I bring forward this evening would modify section 429 of the bill we have before us. This amendment does not cost us any money. It will, in fact, eliminate a major obstacle to job creation, including many of the construction projects that were funded under the recently passed stimulus bill. To be more specific, I am introducing an amendment to modify section 429 to require the Departments of Interior and Commerce to follow the process provided by existing law to withdraw and alter two provisions that were essential ingredients last year in the decision by former Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne when he listed the polar bears of northern Alaska as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Section 429, as it now stands, would allow those agencies to withdraw those regulations arbitrarily and then reissue them immediately without public comment. My amendment does not overturn the listing of the polar bears as threatened, even though up in Alaska most of us feel the listing was premature and perhaps totally unnecessary, but it will require the Department to follow existing public notice and comment statutes, if they want to modify last year's listing decision and the related carbon emissions rule in the future. We are asking that you follow the process that is in place. Section 429 of the omnibus provides a provision that allows the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to withdraw the final rule relating to the interagency cooperation under the Endangered Species Act and the final rule relating to endangered and threatened wildlife plants, the special rule for the polar bear. This section allows the Secretaries of either Commerce or Interior, or both, to withdraw the two Endangered Species Act rules promulgated under section 7 of that act within 60 days of adoption of the omnibus bill and then reissue the rule without having to go through any notice or any public comment period, or be subject to any judicial review as to whether their actions were responsible. Last year, after years of comment and review, the Interior Department elected to list the polar bear as threatened, solely because of the fear that greenhouse gas emissions will raise temperatures sufficiently in the future, causing the Arctic pack ice that the bear relies on for habitat to melt, making it more difficult for the bears to feed. During the scientific review that was conducted before the listing decision, there was very little to no evidence that indicated that neither very carefully limited subsistence hunting activities by the Alaska Natives, nor onshore or offshore oil and gas exploration or production activities in any way would disturb the bears or place stress on their population. So it was for that reason, based on all the science and the research, for that reason that the listing decision specifically provided, and this was set forth in section 4(d) of the act, it provided that oil or gas development or subsistence hunting will not be impacted by any action plan the Department will craft to remedy bear population issues in the future. Those provisions were added after extensive public comment and based on a full scientific review. Now, without any scientific review, at the last minute, someone in the House of Representatives has decided to impose as fact their opinion that the bears should be listed as threatened without limitation. This provision makes a mockery of what we know and accept and applaud with the scientific review process. In all the science leading up to the listing, there was no evidence that oil or gas exploration and development were having any effect on the bears which are already carefully regulated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In fact, the populations of both the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea areas have actually risen by around 500 bears since 1972, and any anecdotal evidence of minor recent declines is purely anecdotal. Now, yes, Fish and Wildlife researchers have some evidence that bears may have dietary issues that may impact juvenile survival rates if the ice melt causes dislocation of the seal populations. But that problem has nothing to do directly with oil or gas or subsistence activities. Withdrawal of the 4(d) protections could prompt lawsuits to stop any action that would increase carbon dioxide or any greenhouse gas emissions anywhere in the country, not just in the State of Alaska but anywhere in the country, if the project had not first consulted with U.S. Fish and Wildlife on potential impacts. What this means, the potential for this is that every powerplant permit anywhere that might increase carbon emissions could face a lawsuit. Damage could extend past fossil fuel projects to include an incredible array, agricultural practices, any increase in livestock numbers, new road construction, literally any project or activity that might increase greenhouse gas emissions. Suits that could be triggered by this seemingly limited change could stop many of the construction projects that this body has provided funding for in this stimulus bill to help get this Nation's economy moving again. Now, the Center for Biological Diversity has already stated it intends to use the polar bear listing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. But I am afraid such overreaching could actually harm environmental protections. That is because such an effort to overreach could trigger such a backlash that it harms support for the entire Endangered Species Act. The administration is planning to ask Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation this year to regulate greenhouse gasses. Debate over that bill is the proper place for this issue to be tackled, not through a back-door amendment to this key appropriations bill that will not permit public process. For my home State of Alaska, the amendment's impacts are immediate and they are far reaching. It is almost certain to result in lawsuits to stop oil and gas development in northern Alaska, both onshore and off. Such suits certainly could stop the exploration needed to produce new natural gas finds. We know this is vital to the viability of an Alaska natural gas line to bring our clean-burning natural gas to the lower 48. This project has been supported by the administration and most every Member of this body. We recognize that such sites could endanger Native subsistence activities, not just for the bears and marine mammals that the bears prey upon but for any species, such as the western and central Arctic caribou herds. These are vital food sources for our Alaska Natives. So what my amendment does is it requires that if either the carbon emissions consultation rule or the polar bear 4(d) rule is to be withdrawn or reissued, such action is subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, with at least a 60-day comment period. What this does, it essentially gets us back to the status quo, where the Secretaries can now withdraw or repromulgate these regulations, but they have to follow the APA. Nothing Earth shattering, we are not plowing new ground. We are saying, follow the process we set up. The provision in the budget bill does much more than overturn Bush administration rules, it violates the public process and scientific review called for in the Endangered Species Act, and by doing that it weakens and risks support for the act. As it stands, under section 429, the Secretaries can make dramatic and far-reaching changes with their rules and regulations and do so without having to comply with the longstanding Federal process requiring public notice and comment by the American public and by knowledgeable scientists. We should not make a mockery of the formal ESA review process and the APA, the Administrative Procedures Act. We should support this amendment to strike the House waiver of those acts and require that those laws be enforced. I cannot stress how important this is to the Nation, to the American energy production of the workings of the stimulus bill, and eventually to the integrity of the Endangered Species Act and this Nation's administrative process. Now, this afternoon President Obama issued a new directive on the ESA. But it is only pertaining to the optional consultation portion of section 7. The directive requests the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to review the regulation issued on December 16, 2008, and determine whether to undertake new rulemaking. Until such review is completed, the President requested the heads of all agencies to exercise their discretion, under the new regulation, to follow the prior longstanding consultation and concurrence process. But this Presidential order did not address the issue of the polar bear 4(d) rule and does not remove the House omnibus rider. It does not maintain the Administrative Procedures Act requirement, and it does not negate the need for my amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. This is amendment No. 599.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside for the purpose of calling up an amendment.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 503 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe represents a true compromise to end a three-decade dispute over oil development in northern Alaska. Today, I am introducing legislation that would permit oil and gas to be siphoned from underneath the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northern Alaska but without there being any permanent roads, wells, buildings, pipelines, or structures erected that may interrupt the beauty of the Coastal Plain. Today, I am happy to announce that I am being joined by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich, in introducing the No Surface Occupancy Western Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act. For 29 years since passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980, there has been a controversy that has raged over whether oil and natural gas development should occur from within this 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Coastal Plain. This is located right inside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northern Alaska. According to the USGS, the area has a mean chance of containing 10.36 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and a high chance of producing 16 billion barrels. This is the largest likely undiscovered onshore conventional oil deposit in North America. Over the years, environmentalists have argued that this area cannot be developed without causing disturbance and perhaps environmental damage to the surface of the Coastal Plain which could harm the Arctic porcupine caribou herd that roam in the area and also harm the bird life that utilizes the Refuge during the brief Arctic summer. Over the years, this argument and controversy has been fought with near religious intensity. But now what we have is a technology that has been developed that offers a compromise solution that may allow much of the area's energy to be produced without surface damage or disturbance when wildlife is in the area. The solution is to permit oil and gas development to occur without any surface occupancy, meaning without construction of any structures above the ground within the area of the Coastal Plain protected by section 1002 of ANILCA. This is possible since the extended-reach directional drilling technology now permits oil wells to be drilled on the western Alaska State-owned lands, outside of the Refuge's boundary, or from the State waters up to the north, and still be able to tap oil and gas deposits located between 8 to 10 miles inside the Refuge. Some have suggested this is incredible. How can you place a well and be able to drill directionally or tap into resources directionally a length of perhaps 8 miles? Proof for this concept comes from British Petroleum's efforts just last season in the 2008 to 2009 drilling season to develop Alaska's North Slope Liberty oilfield. They are using the directional drilling technology that will allow them to tap reserves up to 48,000 feet from the well pad. What we are talking about here is placement of a drill and then going directionally out in all areas in a length or a distance of up to 8, possibly 10, miles in all directions. It is like an invisible straw that would essentially be able to siphon the oil from under the Coastal Plain area and provide for the resource we need without surface disruption. According to estimates last year by the U.S. Department of Interior's BLM, up to 1.23 billion barrels of oil and 7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas may be accessible initially using this directional drilling technology. This proposal will require that three-dimensional seismic and other tests be conducted within the Coastal Plain to pinpoint exactly where we want to drill for the location of the hydrocarbons. But these can be conducted in the wintertime from ice roads when we do not have any wildlife in the area. Eventually, more of the oil and gas from the Coastal Plain may be accessible either as the directional drilling technology improves and expands its reach or as other subsurface oil development technology is developed. Regardless, if there are no pipelines, if there are no wells, no physical structures that are permitted on the surface of the land, there can be no impact on the wildlife and no degradation to the wilderness characteristics to the Coastal Plain for visitors. Meanwhile, oil to help improve the Nation's supplies and to lower prices can start to be produced quickly since the infrastructure over in Prudhoe Bay already extends to nearly the border of the Refuge. Finding more oil in America is vital to prevent oil prices from again spiking as the global economy recovers and energy demand increases. Not one of us can forget the pain of just last summer when world prices of $147 per barrel for crude oil triggered prices of $4 to $5 a gallon at our filling stations. Without more domestic oil being developed, prices can again be expected to skyrocket, especially if OPEC is successful in current efforts to reduce the world's oil supplies. There may be some who question whether there is precedent to do something as we are suggesting today. There is clearly precedent. Congress, back in 2007, approved a Wyoming wilderness lands bill. This was the Wyoming Range Legacy Act that permitted subsurface resource extraction provided that no surface occupancy occurs. Our legislation would guarantee that royalties from any oil and gas produced would be split equally between the Federal and State treasuries, as is required by current Federal law. It provides for full environmental protections and project labor agreements for any development that results. The bill further proposes that $15 million a year be made available to mitigate any developmental impacts that might result and allocates 50 percent of the Federal share of total revenues to fund renewable energy. Senator Stevens, when he was in the Congress last year, and I had introduced legislation to open ANWR. Within that ANWR legislation, it was, again, directing a substantial portion of the revenues to enhance the buildout of our renewable energy. We are proposing that in this legislation as well: 50 percent of the Federal share of the total revenues to fund renewable energy, another 25 percent for fish and wildlife habitat and conservation programs, and then the balance of 25 percent would go to the general Treasury. The mitigation aid I just mentioned will guarantee that any Alaskan community impacted by development, especially residents of the North Slope Borough and the village of Kaktovik, will be protected from the indirect impacts of increased development activity. What we can anticipate from this is a bill that would funnel tens to perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars toward construction of renewable energy over the life of the prospective oilfields. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, ANWR's opening could provide the Federal Treasury with $91.7 billion of revenues--and this assumes oil at a price of $60 a barrel--and with $191 billion, assuming oil prices of $125 a barrel. This all assumes a mean case estimate that 10.3 billion barrels will ultimately be produced. Obviously, with the legislation we have, the revenues would initially be much less because with the protection for the surface disruption we simply cannot extract as much. But as the technology improves, certainly we could see that amount increase. Given that the Obama administration is seeking at least $15 billion a year to fund renewable energy, this measure could go a long way toward meeting the administration's goal to pay for green, renewable energy in the future. It will certainly provide a massive boost to funding for existing fish and game habitat and wildlife conservation programs across the Nation. This proposal is a clear benefit for America. We gain the oil and natural gas that is crucial to provide a bridge until a new era of nonfossil fuel, renewable energy can power our lights and move our vehicles. But it also guarantees that none of the Arctic porcupine caribou herd that migrates across the Coastal Plain between June and August will ever see, hear, or feel oil development. The proposal also means that none of the migratory birds that nest on the Coastal Plain will ever be impacted by oil development. And it means that no hiker or wilderness enthusiast who visits the Coastal Plain or floats its river in the brief Arctic summer will ever see, hear, or feel oil and gas development. With the proposal and the environmental safeguards this legislation allows the Secretary of the Interior to establish, there is no danger that any of the few species that overwinter on the coastal plain will be impacted by seismic or other activities, and it protects the subsistence resources and activities for Alaskan natives. We clearly have the ability to prevent any impacts to the few polar bears that sometimes den on the coastal plain or the musk oxen that sometimes visit the area in the winter. For decades now, Alaskans have been seeking permission to explore and to develop oil in the 1002 area. Given the general estimates the USGS has indicated, we recognize that it offers this country the best chance for a major oil find of any spot onshore in North America, and the technology has advanced so that we now have the possibility of resolving this dispute to the satisfaction of all sides. For years, Mr. President, this debate has raged with an intensity that is quite remarkable. I would hope that in this era of change, this bill will change the tone of this debate and permit oil and gas production to go hand in hand with responsible environmental stewardship. I thank the Chair for his attention this morning, and I hope that Members of this body who have been engaged in the debate on the potential opening of ANWR for development would look at this proposal with fresh eyes. I hope they will set aside some of the political rhetoric this has generated over the past 25-plus years and look at this as a meaningful way to help enhance our Nation's energy security, while at the same time respecting the land that we have up North. 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 legislation that I believe represents a true compromise to end a three-decade dispute over oil development in northern Alaska. Today, I am introducing legislation that would permit oil and gas to be siphoned from underneath the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northern Alaska but without there being any permanent roads, wells, buildings, pipelines, or structures erected that may interrupt the beauty of the Coastal Plain. Today, I am happy to announce that I am being joined by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich, in introducing the No Surface Occupancy Western Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act. For 29 years since passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980, there has been a controversy that has raged over whether oil and natural gas development should occur from within this 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Coastal Plain. This is located right inside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northern Alaska. According to the USGS, the area has a mean chance of containing 10.36 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and a high chance of producing 16 billion barrels. This is the largest likely undiscovered onshore conventional oil deposit in North America. Over the years, environmentalists have argued that this area cannot be developed without causing disturbance and perhaps environmental damage to the surface of the Coastal Plain which could harm the Arctic porcupine caribou herd that roam in the area and also harm the bird life that utilizes the Refuge during the brief Arctic summer. Over the years, this argument and controversy has been fought with near religious intensity. But now what we have is a technology that has been developed that offers a compromise solution that may allow much of the area's energy to be produced without surface damage or disturbance when wildlife is in the area. The solution is to permit oil and gas development to occur without any surface occupancy, meaning without construction of any structures above the ground within the area of the Coastal Plain protected by section 1002 of ANILCA. This is possible since the extended-reach directional drilling technology now permits oil wells to be drilled on the western Alaska State-owned lands, outside of the Refuge's boundary, or from the State waters up to the north, and still be able to tap oil and gas deposits located between 8 to 10 miles inside the Refuge. Some have suggested this is incredible. How can you place a well and be able to drill directionally or tap into resources directionally a length of perhaps 8 miles? Proof for this concept comes from British Petroleum's efforts just last season in the 2008 to 2009 drilling season to develop Alaska's North Slope Liberty oilfield. They are using the directional drilling technology that will allow them to tap reserves up to 48,000 feet from the well pad. What we are talking about here is placement of a drill and then going directionally out in all areas in a length or a distance of up to 8, possibly 10, miles in all directions. It is like an invisible straw that would essentially be able to siphon the oil from under the Coastal Plain area and provide for the resource we need without surface disruption. According to estimates last year by the U.S. Department of Interior's BLM, up to 1.23 billion barrels of oil and 7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas may be accessible initially using this directional drilling technology. This proposal will require that three-dimensional seismic and other tests be conducted within the Coastal Plain to pinpoint exactly where we want to drill for the location of the hydrocarbons. But these can be conducted in the wintertime from ice roads when we do not have any wildlife in the area. Eventually, more of the oil and gas from the Coastal Plain may be accessible either as the directional drilling technology improves and expands its reach or as other subsurface oil development technology is developed. Regardless, if there are no pipelines, if there are no wells, no physical structures that are permitted on the surface of the land, there can be no impact on the wildlife and no degradation to the wilderness characteristics to the Coastal Plain for visitors. Meanwhile, oil to help improve the Nation's supplies and to lower prices can start to be produced quickly since the infrastructure over in Prudhoe Bay already extends to nearly the border of the Refuge. Finding more oil in America is vital to prevent oil prices from again spiking as the global economy recovers and energy demand increases. Not one of us can forget the pain of just last summer when world prices of $147 per barrel for crude oil triggered prices of $4 to $5 a gallon at our filling stations. Without more domestic oil being developed, prices can again be expected to skyrocket, especially if OPEC is successful in current efforts to reduce the world's oil supplies. There may be some who question whether there is precedent to do something as we are suggesting today. There is clearly precedent. Congress, back in 2007, approved a Wyoming wilderness lands bill. This was the Wyoming Range Legacy Act that permitted subsurface resource extraction provided that no surface occupancy occurs. Our legislation would guarantee that royalties from any oil and gas produced would be split equally between the Federal and State treasuries, as is required by current Federal law. It provides for full environmental protections and project labor agreements for any development that results. The bill further proposes that $15 million a year be made available to mitigate any developmental impacts that might result and allocates 50 percent of the Federal share of total revenues to fund renewable energy. Senator Stevens, when he was in the Congress last year, and I had introduced legislation to open ANWR. Within that ANWR legislation, it was, again, directing a substantial portion of the revenues to enhance the buildout of our renewable energy. We are proposing that in this legislation as well: 50 percent of the Federal share of the total revenues to fund renewable energy, another 25 percent for fish and wildlife habitat and conservation programs, and then the balance of 25 percent would go to the general Treasury. The mitigation aid I just mentioned will guarantee that any Alaskan community impacted by development, especially residents of the North Slope Borough and the village of Kaktovik, will be protected from the indirect impacts of increased development activity. What we can anticipate from this is a bill that would funnel tens to perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars toward construction of renewable energy over the life of the prospective oilfields. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, ANWR's opening could provide the Federal Treasury with $91.7 billion of revenues--and this assumes oil at a price of $60 a barrel--and with $191 billion, assuming oil prices of $125 a barrel. This all assumes a mean case estimate that 10.3 billion barrels will ultimately be produced. Obviously, with the legislation we have, the revenues would initially be much less because with the protection for the surface disruption we simply cannot extract as much. But as the technology improves, certainly we could see that amount increase. Given that the Obama administration is seeking at least $15 billion a year to fund renewable energy, this measure could go a long way toward meeting the administration's goal to pay for green, renewable energy in the future. It will certainly provide a massive boost to funding for existing fish and game habitat and wildlife conservation programs across the Nation. This proposal is a clear benefit for America. We gain the oil and natural gas that is crucial to provide a bridge until a new era of nonfossil fuel, renewable energy can power our lights and move our vehicles. But it also guarantees that none of the Arctic porcupine caribou herd that migrates across the Coastal Plain between June and August will ever see, hear, or feel oil development. The proposal also means that none of the migratory birds that nest on the Coastal Plain will ever be impacted by oil development. And it means that no hiker or wilderness enthusiast who visits the Coastal Plain or floats its river in the brief Arctic summer will ever see, hear, or feel oil and gas development. With the proposal and the environmental safeguards this legislation allows the Secretary of the Interior to establish, there is no danger that any of the few species that overwinter on the coastal plain will be impacted by seismic or other activities, and it protects the subsistence resources and activities for Alaskan natives. We clearly have the ability to prevent any impacts to the few polar bears that sometimes den on the coastal plain or the musk oxen that sometimes visit the area in the winter. For decades now, Alaskans have been seeking permission to explore and to develop oil in the 1002 area. Given the general estimates the USGS has indicated, we recognize that it offers this country the best chance for a major oil find of any spot onshore in North America, and the technology has advanced so that we now have the possibility of resolving this dispute to the satisfaction of all sides. For years, Mr. President, this debate has raged with an intensity that is quite remarkable. I would hope that in this era of change, this bill will change the tone of this debate and permit oil and gas production to go hand in hand with responsible environmental stewardship. I thank the Chair for his attention this morning, and I hope that Members of this body who have been engaged in the debate on the potential opening of ANWR for development would look at this proposal with fresh eyes. I hope they will set aside some of the political rhetoric this has generated over the past 25-plus years and look at this as a meaningful way to help enhance our Nation's energy security, while at the same time respecting the land that we have up North. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank my colleague from Nevada for bringing up this very important issue. Those of us who are strong supporters of second amendment rights clearly are looking at this issue and appreciate his leadership. Earlier this morning, the Senator from Arizona raised a constitutional point of order as it relates to the bill before us, S. 160. I have to admit, I kind of took a step back and said: Well, a constitutional point of order--I am not sure I am familiar with that. So we went to Riddick's, which is our encyclopedia of Senate precedents, and looked up ``constitutional point of order'' and some of the history there. I was surprised to find that a constitutional point of order was raised during the consideration of the Alaska statehood bill. I have had an opportunity on the floor, throughout this past year, to remind all my colleagues that this year is the 50th anniversary of Alaska's statehood and some of the debate that took place on the floor of the Senate and the process that we as a State took to gain statehood. I pulled up the Congressional Record from this debate on the constitutional point of order. It is quite interesting, quite fascinating, from Alaska's perspective, because the point of order that was being discussed was whether section 10 of the Alaska Statehood Act violated the requirement that States come into the Union on equal footing. The argument that was made at the time was that half of Alaska's territory would be withdrawn by the federal government, depriving the proposed State of Alaska at the time the power to have a uniform system of taxation. Alaska's experience seeking voting representation in Congress explains why I have taken such great interest in the debate over representation for the District of Columbia. In Alaska, it was a huge fight--a huge fight--as to whether we should become a State. My grandparents on both sides were involved in the debate at the time. It was a fight to gain control of our resources. It was a fight to determine who had control of our fish. As Alaska observes the 50th anniversary of its admission to statehood I reflect back on our fight for voting representation in Congress. This is why I believe it is so important for the people of Alaska to have voting representation in the House of Representatives. I appreciate the pleas of the people of the District of Columbia, the residents of this very small area, for voting representation within the Congress because it was not too long ago those same cries were being heard back in Alaska. You have to give the District of Columbia government credit for a pretty effective lobbying campaign. I do not know of any other place that has used their license plates to tell the rest of the country what it is they are asking for: no taxation without representation. There are significant differences between Alaska's fight for statehood and the cause of representation in the House for Washington, DC. Alaska, 50 years ago, was a territory. The District of Columbia is a different entity, a federal enclave created by our Constitution. Our Constitution makes it clear that they are not a State. However, I supported cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 160 yesterday because I believed it was important that we have this debate on the floor of the Senate and that we hear the perspectives being presented, whether it is from the Senator from Connecticut or the Senators from Arizona, and to allow this issue, which is so important to some 600,000 people, to be debated. I represent a State of just a little over 600,000. It was back in 1960, June 17, that the Congress approved and sent to the States for ratification the 23rd amendment. It was the 23rd amendment that extended to the people of the District of Columbia representation in the electoral college. It was 285 days later that the 23rd amendment was ratified by the States. That ratification settled the question of whether the people of the District of Columbia should have the right to vote for President, and it settled that question absolutely conclusively, by way of amendment to our U.S. Constitution. I believe the people of the District of Columbia have been without representation in the Congress for too long. I have strongly supported the view that the people of the District should have voting representation in the House of Representatives, but what we have before us today, S. 160, does not conclusively resolve the question of whether they will. We know the question of whether Congress may, by legislation, grant the District of Columbia a vote in the House of Representatives has been a matter of spirited debate not only here on this floor but with constitutional scholars on all sides of the issue. It was our assistant majority leader yesterday who observed that S. 160 has attracted--I think the words were some strange bedfellows amongst the community of constitutional scholars. We have very distinguished individuals such as Ken Starr and Viet Dinh who suggest that, in fact, S. 160 is constitutional. On the other side, we have an extremely well-respected gentleman, Jonathan Turley, who has testified that despite the best of motivations, S. 160 is fundamentally flawed on a constitutional level and would only serve to delay true reform for District residents. His conclusion is that this legislation is facially unconstitutional. We also have a review by our nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, their assessment and their analysis, and they, too, cast doubt on the constitutionality of S. 160. Their report, dated February 17, 2009, states: Although not beyond question, it would appear likely that Congress does not have the authority to grant voting representation in the House of Representatives to the District of Columbia. So the key point here is this: I believe the District of Columbia deserves representation in the House of Representatives, but S. 160 does not conclusively resolve the question of whether they will get it. I think we have heard on this floor that this is going to lead to litigation. The issue, of course, is how do we interpret article I, section 2, of the Constitution, which says: The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen . . . by the people of the several States. I don't think there is any dispute amongst the constitutional scholars who are out there that the District of Columbia is not a State for the purposes of article I, section 2. If the courts shall conclude that article I, section 2, of the Constitution means what it says--that only the people of the several States can send voting Representatives to the House--then basically we start all over. We start all over. We start anew with a constitutional amendment on DC representation. So I would suggest to the body that what we are engaging in today is almost a cruel hoax because what we are doing is we are delaying the end of taxation without representation for several more years. What we are doing is getting this into the courts. Is that what the people of the District are really seeking? I think 49 years ago the Congress understood what we needed to do in order to provide clarity and to conclusively resolve the issue of the District of Columbia with the 23rd amendment. We knew the way to handle it was to give the people of the District of Columbia a voice in the selection of the President and Vice President, and the route they chose to take was the route of a constitutional amendment. They knew then that was the proper route to take, and I would suggest that today it is the proper route to take to provide for this. This Senator believes that is what we owe to the people of the District of Columbia, to get it right the first time. Let's resolve this. A constitutional amendment passed by the Congress, ratified by the States, settles the matter of DC representation conclusively, and S. 160 doesn't. Now, we know the history on this. This was tried once before. A constitutional amendment was adopted by two-thirds of both bodies and sent to the States for ratification. Unfortunately, only 16 States chose to ratify within that 7-year period. So we basically come back to start over. I would suggest that is the method and manner we need to approach as we try to provide representation for the 600,000 people who are residents of the District of Columbia. I am prepared to support a constitutional amendment and to work for its ratification, and I intend to introduce that constitutional amendment today. It will not be part of S. 160. A constitutional amendment is a different process, one that is done through joint resolution as opposed to a Senate measure or a House measure. I believe amending our Constitution will provide justice for the people of the District of Columbia, and I look forward to working toward that end. With that, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 576 to Amendment No. 575 (Purpose: To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia)

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S.J. Res. 11, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to a seat in the House of Representatives for the District of Columbia, be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S.J. Res. 11, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to a seat in the House of Representatives for the District of Columbia, be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, making matters worse, it provides an additional $3.1 billion to State energy programs but imposes conditions on receiving funds that are currently met by only a handful of States. Another example I wish to leave you with is the smart grid. We agree this is very important. There is $4.5 billion for the smart grid. This was authorized at $100 million in the 2007 Energy bill. It has received zero funding to date. Is it possible to expect we can ramp up to $4.5 billion in 2 years in a rational way? We don't even have the standards in place for the interoperability framework. I don't think the American taxpayer is concerned so much about how much we spend, so long as we do it responsibly and with accountability.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the remarks of my colleague from Connecticut and thank him for his efforts to focus on the housing issues that face this Nation right now. As he has mentioned, if we are not able to get to the root cause, which is the housing debacle and the failures we have seen, all our good efforts may not be successful. I thank him for his efforts in that regard. I know we will continue working on this issue together with the administration. It is essential we focus on the housing piece. Later this afternoon or this evening, we are going to be voting on the conference report to accompany the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I was one of those 37 Senators who voted against this bill earlier this week. I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon to speak to some of the reasons why I was unable and why I will be unwilling to support the conference report when it comes before us later. My principal concern in voting against the Senate measure at the time was the scope of the spending. It is not just the scope of what we have in front of us with this particular bill, this package of $790 billion. There was an article in the Washington Post on Wednesday that had a chart that outlined all of what we have been spending in the past year. The header is: ``It Adds Up.'' ``The Federal Government has committed at least $7.8 trillion in loans, investments, in guarantees since the beginning of 2008.'' The funding coming from the Federal Reserve is at $3.8 trillion; from the FDIC, $1.22 trillion; from the Treasury, this includes the TARP moneys we authorized back in October, $771 billion; the joint programs that include the guarantees of Bank of America and Citigroup, $419 billion; and then in the ``Other'' category, it includes not only the programs Fannie and Freddie at $200 billion, but then at the bottom we have the Senate bill for the current stimulus package at that time coming in at $838 billion. It is almost inconceivable what we are talking about in terms of the outlays we are putting forward. The cost of this stimulus package before us, as everyone in America knows, is $790 billion, but when we account for the interest, which we need to do--that is part of the bill--the cost increases to more than $1 trillion; it is about $1.2 trillion. So add this in to the outline of what I have laid out, and the cost to America is considerable. Where do we get this money? From where do we get it? We don't just tell the Treasury to turn the printing presses on full bore: let's go, let's print the money. No, we have to borrow. We sell Treasury bills. We sell debt. Who buys it? People such as the Chinese and others from outside this country. It is not just cranking up the presses and printing more money. We will be paying for this legislation. My children will be paying for it. We have a responsibility to make sure what we spend is spent wisely. The focus of this stimulus, of course, is the job creation. Even if it actually creates the 4 million jobs the White House once promised, then those jobs, if you piece it all out--do the math--these jobs come at a cost of about $300,000 apiece. What we are seeing now is probably not 4 million jobs. Even the most optimistic economists are now estimating what we are looking at would create or save less than 2.5 million jobs. I noted the comments of the Senator from Connecticut about the need to fix housing first, and I strongly agree with that approach. But this afternoon, I wish to speak to another issue. As the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I wish to spend some time on another aspect of the bill. This is an area where millions of new jobs are promised, and that is in the area of energy. There is absolutely no doubt we must facilitate the development of renewable resources, increase our energy efficiency, and pursue the many innovative solutions to the challenges we face when it comes to how we consume, how we use, and how we create energy. I am not satisfied with the energy provisions that are contained in this measure. I am not satisfied that they are timely, that they are targeted, and that they are temporary. By adopting this conference report, we are missing out on some significant opportunities that could revive our economy and improve our energy security at little or, hopefully, no cost to our taxpayers. When it comes to criticisms, there is plenty of room to be critical. One of my first criticisms this afternoon is not necessarily the items that are included in the stimulus but perhaps some of the items that were left out. Simply put, this package makes no effort to increase domestic production of our traditional resources, such as oil and natural gas. What we have done is focused on the new technologies, to the total exclusion of those tried-and-true technologies. I think this creates this false dilemma. It says clean energy is the only viable option for energy development and job creation when, in fact, it might not be the most effective option at this time when we are trying to pursue jobs and get the country strong again. Consider the benefits that could be brought about by greater production of oil and gas in this country. One recent study outlines that the full development of domestic oil and gas resources could generate up to $1.7 trillion in revenues for the Federal Government and create as many as 161,000 new jobs by 2030. The revenues from the production could be used to provide a tremendous downpayment on the long-term strength and security of our Nation. Instead, as a result of what we will be doing today, American taxpayers are ultimately going to be paying $1.2 trillion because of the decisions we are making. Setting aside my concerns about the priorities, it is very uncertain the funds that are provided by this bill can be spent in a rational and cost-effective way. Perhaps the best example of this is within the Department of Energy. It is set to receive roughly $45 billion in the conference report we are looking at now. DOE's total budget for fiscal year 2008 was $24 billion. Assuming the Department receives similar funding through fiscal year 2009 appropriations--and we are going to be debating that after this recess break--DOE will receive almost triple its historic level of funding in less than 3 months. What we have is an unprecedented level of spending within the Department. CBO is concerned about how we spend this out as well. They determined the Department would only be able to spend 24 percent of its funding before the 2-year deadline. The Energy Department, along with so many of the other departments we are dealing with, simply does not have the time to gear up and properly spend, with a level of accountability, so much money over such a short period. The question then needs to be asked: Will this level of funding become the new baseline for the Department? If it does, we will have significantly expanded Federal spending at a time of unprecedented Federal deficits. If it does not become part of the baseline, then that crashing sound we will hear is going to be the gears that are grinding back down as funding returns to normal. I suggest such wild swings in funding are disruptive and one of the most ineffective ways to spend our taxpayers' dollars. The stimulus, by giving Government agencies completely unprecedented amounts of money for sometimes nonexistent programs, also sets up near perfect conditions for waste, fraud, and abuse. This is exactly what the American taxpayers do not want to see. For example, $3.2 billion is provided for block grant programs for energy efficiency. The conference report provides $400 million for a competitive grant system that does not currently exist and for which there is no administrative process.