Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator for this clarification.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. It is my understanding that the language in section 1610 that reads ``is otherwise authorized by statute to be entered into without regard to the above referenced statutes'' is intended to ensure that existing Federal procurement laws applicable to programs that allow for set-asides and direct-award procurements for service-disabled veteran-owned businesses, minority-owned businesses, tribal enterprises, women-owned businesses, HUB Zone qualified businesses and other entities covered through SBA programs, as well as, for example, the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act Program, remain fully applicable to contracts initiated under this Act, is that correct?

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to share my thoughts as the lead cosponsor on the Heart for Women Act, introduced by Senator Stabenow and myself along with 21 original cosponsors. Heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases are critically important health issues that combined, are the No. 1 cause of death in all American women, taking the life of one female nearly every minute. The Heart for Women Act will decrease the burden of heart disease in women, which coupled with stroke will claim the lives of nearly half a million women in America in 2008; this is more than all deaths from breast, cervical, and lung cancers combined. A new study shows that while in young men under age 45, the heart disease death rate is declining, the rate in young women has actually increased and is now at its highest level since 1987. We cannot idly sit back and allow more of us to become part of these statistics, so to address heart disease mortality and these significant disparities between men and women, Senator Stabenow and I have introduced The HEART for Women Act. Our legislation, the HEART for Women Act, does three things: First, it provides the public with better information about safe and effective treatments for women by requiring drug safety information to be stratified by sex, race, and ethnicity. This information will help doctors, researchers, and patients better understand why certain treatments work better in men than in women. Second, this legislation expands the WISEWOMAN Program that provides free heart disease and stroke prevention screening to low-income, uninsured women. This program has been incredibly successful throughout the U.S. three out of four women screened by this program had at least one risk factor for heart disease and stroke. The HEART for Women Act also raises awareness among health care providers about the risk for heart disease and stroke. A 2004 survey found that less than 20 percent of physicians were aware that more women than men die each year from cardiovascular diseases. After all this, there is some good news--a USA Today article from January 2008 points out that heart disease deaths rates fell among women by almost 27 percent between 1999 and 2005; however, researchers estimate that epidemics of diabetes and obesity could threaten these gains. I encourage my colleagues to join us and support women's heart health. Passage of this legislation will ensure that providers have greater access to lifesaving drugs and screening services to prevent the rise of cardiovascular disease in women.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. My concern is we have not done this with this stimulus package. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 1 minute.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to praise a citizen from my State who recently passed away. In December John A. Baker who was loved and respected by those who knew and worked with him lost his battle with pancreatic cancer. John A. Baker is survived by his wife Judy of 42 years, son Jesse M. Baker Sr., daughter Leslie Cummings, grandchildren Maria Graham, April Blakemore, Jesse M. Baker Jr., great grandson Joseph, mother-in-law Lenora Moore, sister-in-law Susan Wooden, nephews Jim and Mark Wooden, great niece Marina Lenora Wooden, brother-in-law Charles Moore, nephews Richard, Ryan, Mathew, and Kyle Moore. John is also survived by sister Lena Susort, brother Cecil Baker, nieces Lavonne Ruggles, Mary Beth Dagit, Barbara Collins and nephew Frank Baker, and several great, great great nieces and nephews. John A. Baker was like many Alaskans. He was born in Iowa in 1937 and graduated from Everett High School in Everett, Washington in 1949 before finding his way to our great State. I have to tell you, what was Washington and Iowa's loss, was Alaska's gain. John found his way to Alaska after serving in the U.S. Army in Australia during the Korean conflict. Upon coming to Alaska he first worked in Ketchikan where he was employed by Ketchikan Soda Works. He also flew part time for Weber Air and worked at Ellis Airlines as a mechanic in the landing gear section where he met and later partnered with Chuck Traylor. He and Chuck Traylor formed a floatplane operation, Stikine Air Service, out of Wrangell in 1962. John held both an airframe and power plant mechanic license and was one of our Alaskan bush pilots. After selling his interest in the Stikine Air Service he moved to Juneau to work for Channel Flying Service. John met Judy Moore Churchill in 1964, they were married on March 11, 1966, and moved to Juneau. After 3 years John and Judy returned to Wrangell where John worked at Wrangell's first television station. In conjunction with John's position at the TV station Judy opened Forget- Me-Not Florist, which provided many, many flower arrangements that went to the grand opening of the brand new saw mill office and other businesses in town. Always the entrepreneurs and getting tired of never being able to purchase milk at the end of the week, John and Judy rented a small building from C.V. Hendersen and began a home milk delivery and small ``cash and carry'' market. As things changed John, along with wife, Judy entered the field of rentals and real estate where they devoted over 35 years of their lives and presently own Grand View Bed and Breakfast which overlooks Zimovia Strait and the Elephants' Nose. Also, during this time John continued to occasionally fly for Stikine Air Service and worked as a truck driver on the North Slope until his retirement. During this time Judy also served as the business manager for the Wrangell District of the U.S. Forest Service where she and John served as surrogate parents and guardians for many of the new Forest Service employees and couples who came to Alaska to work in the Wrangell Ranger District. It was through their wisdom and kindness and John's sense of humor that dozens of young families learned how to assimilate themselves into the Wrangell community. John was a 1961 active Past Master Mason of the Ketchikan Masonic Lodge No. 19, a member of Ducks Unlimited, Muskeg Meadows Golf Club, Friends of the Museum, Wrangell Elks Lodge No. 1595, Pioneers of Alaska Igloo No. 15, and a member of Teamsters Local 959. He served on the Inter-Island Ferry Authority from its inception until 1999. John also spent many volunteer hours working as a docent at the Wrangell Museum when tour ships were in. John was also a man who invested in his community. He served on the Wrangell City Council five different times including: October 1989- October 1990; November 1993-October 1994; October 1994-October 1997; January 1998-October 1998; and finally from April 1999-October 1999. As I said, the Bakers are well known in Wrangell for helping young couples new to Alaska learn the ways of Alaska as well as for John's sense of humor. When asked why he moved to Wrangell he would always tell people it was his ``youthful exuberance.'' And when asked in the 1980s why he had decided to work on the Alaska pipeline instead of continuing his flying career he simply said ``there are not many old, bold, pilots in Alaska--besides work on the pipeline paid more.'' Judy and John were always willing to lend a hand and help their neighbors and to make their community--Wrangell--a better place for everyone to live. John invested himself in southeast Alaska and made Wrangell a ``better community'' and made all that knew him ``better people.'' He will be missed by his family and friends and most importantly by his loving wife of 42 years, Judy. God grant him his just reward, he will be missed in Wrangell and in the hearts of those who knew him--God's speed John Baker, may the wind always be under your wings.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the 90th birthday of one of Alaska's most beloved religious leaders, Father Norman Elliott. When people think of Alaska, they think of the natural beauty and skylines defined by mountains; rarely are the religious leaders that bind our lives together recognized for their devotion to our communities. Father Elliott began his record of service in 1941 by enlisting in the U.S. Army, serving in Europe for 5 years. After the conclusion of World War II, he returned to school and earned his B.A., followed by a master of divinity from the Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria in 1951. He knew from an early age that he wanted to serve as a missionary and began seeking an appointment overseas, hoping for a post in India or the Philippines. Retired Reverend William J. Gordon, Jr., the Bishop of Alaska, convinced him to serve in Alaska, a position that changed his life. Since 1952, he has served all over our State. Father Elliott was ordained in Anchorage at the All Saints' Episcopal Church, earned his pilot's license, and then was transferred to Fort Yukon, where he flew missions to nearby villages. He then spent some time in Fairbanks and Ketchikan before returning to Anchorage, where he forged a strong relationship between the Greek Orthodox Church, the Jewish Congregation, and the All Saints' Episcopal Church. He retired in 1990, but between almost daily visitations at the Providence Hospital and the Alaska Native Medical Centers, and his service as Chaplain at the Port of Anchorage, he can hardly be considered a retiree. For more than 50 years, Father Elliott has been a beloved pastor and key leader in interreligious relationships throughout Alaska. I speak for so many Alaskans in wishing Father Norman Elliott a happy 90th birthday. We extend our best wishes to him for continued good health and good works.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 77.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am speaking on the floor about this very important issue of how we provide for the best coverage, the maximum coverage, for the rising number of Americans without health insurance because we all recognize this is a problem. According to the most recent data, 47 million Americans today are not receiving proper medical care, so CHIP comes in--the Children's Health Insurance Program. This program has been an exceptionally important means of providing the most vulnerable of our population--our children--with health care. And we all know that when our children are sick, it is not just the child who is impacted, it is the whole family--it is the parent who misses time from work to care for their child because they don't want to take their child to school for fear that the bug will spread. So the social and economic impact of a sick child goes well beyond the need for cough syrups and bandaids, and the impact in my State of Alaska is felt even greater within our Native communities. I think it is fair to say SCHIP has always been a bipartisan bill. Since its inception back in 1977, with the then Republican-controlled Senate, working with Democrats in Congress and a Democratic administration, we were able to ensure that the poorest of our children have access to health insurance. Since then, we have seen continued success with this program, with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike rejoicing in a health care bill that has broad bipartisan support and that has been able to effectively cover our poorest children. I supported both of the CHIP bills that passed in 2007. It expanded the SCHIP eligibility to 300 percent of the Federal poverty level--the FPL--which is $66,600 for a family of four. But I will tell you I think the bill we have in front of us is not even close to what we passed in 2007. And quite frankly, I am not sure why a bill that enjoyed such broad bipartisan support was gutted and filled with provisions which, as we have seen on the floor today and yesterday, have been pretty controversial. I am perplexed that the decision has been made to go in a different direction than the direction we took when we overwhelmingly passed this legislation before. There are some provisions, particularly with regard to ensuring that our lowest income children are covered first, that have made this bill difficult for some to support, even for some of those Senators who spearheaded the SCHIP bills in the past. So I would like to offer an amendment that I believe will improve this bill in a significant way and will reassure many of us who are concerned about how we ensure that the lowest income children will be covered. I am offering an amendment to the CHIP bill that has been cosponsored by Senator Specter, Senator Johanns, and Senator Collins. Senator Specter, Senator Collins and myself were all on the previous SCHIP bills. Senator Johanns, of course, is new to the Senate but a former Governor. Let me describe it quickly, briefly, because this is a pretty simple amendment. You might say it sounds pretty similar to what we had before us in the past, and you would be correct. The amendment includes three basic principles that I believe are essential to the continued success of the CHIP program. First of all, it says we need to know and we need to have published information on how States are addressing the best practices for insuring low-income children--those children from families who are earning less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. So let's figure it out. We want to know, we need to publish it, we need to accumulate the data, as to what States are doing to make sure they are covering the poorest children. When we know what it is that other States are doing to be successful, let's share that with other States so they, too, can use similar types of approaches to make sure we are not losing any of these children through the cracks; that we are not overlooking them. Let's share these best practices. The second piece of this amendment says we also need to know and have published information on what factors are attributing to kids over 200 percent of FPL that are enrolling in their State CHIP. Of course, this goes back to the crowdout issue that has been discussed a great deal on the floor this afternoon. What is it? What are the factors? Let's know and understand what it is that would be causing those families who may have private insurance--what is causing the push then to enroll in their State's CHIP. Again, let's try to understand better what is going on. I can't imagine there is anything controversial with either the first or second part of this amendment. The third part of the amendment says that if a State wants to exceed 300 percent of the Federal poverty level for CHIP, they will have the flexibility in working with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure that the State first demonstrates an enrollment of at least 80 percent of the children below 200 percent of FPL. So we are saying: OK, if you want to go above 300 percent, you are certainly able to do so, but please first demonstrate to us that you have covered 80 percent of your children who are below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Now, we had some target language out here earlier, and there was actually target language in both CHIP I and CHIP II. This standard, if you will, of 80 percent, is a much less rigorous and, quite honestly, a much more obtainable standard. If you look through the list of States, there are various FPLs for each State and then what their percentages are in terms of how many of their children they are enrolling. I think, if you look to the State of Michigan, you are at 200 percent of FPL. In your State, you are doing actually very well in terms of enrolling your children. You are about 90 percent. So you are in pretty good shape. So for purposes of what I am laying out here, the State of Michigan is absolutely unaffected. You can move forward. You don't have any concern because you have done the job of insuring at least 80 percent. In fact, you have gone to 90 percent. So this is a target we are setting that I believe is reasonable and achievable and workable. So what we are asking, again, is if you are going to exceed 300 percent of FPL--if Michigan wanted to go above 300 percent, you could because you have demonstrated that you have covered at least 80 percent of your children below the 200-percent Federal poverty level. If you haven't, then no Federal payment match will be made for those individuals over 300 percent FPL, unless and until the Secretary establishes that the State is in compliance with these regulations in an amount of time not to exceed 12 months. Again, if you are a State that has already established you have covered that target rate of 80 percent of your kids, you could go above the 300 percent level. My amendment is pretty straightforward. It allows the Secretary to ensure that what we have is a built-in safeguard--a safeguard measure-- for at least 80 percent of the poorest of our children to be enrolled in SCHIP or a Medicaid expansion program before children from higher income families--those earning above 300 percent--are enrolled. This amendment provides flexibility to the States in working with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure that we are protecting our poorest kids by insuring them before we expand to higher income populations. I submit this is a very reasonable provision. Part of the components of this amendment we have seen in CHIP I and CHIP II, which a broad bipartisan group of Senators voted to back. I think it is reasonable, I think it would be a good improvement to this bill, and I think it would help to allay some of the concerns that we are not working first to address the enrollment of at least 80 percent of our more needy children. With that, I would certainly encourage my colleagues to look carefully at my amendment, I ask for their support, and I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, what is the pending business?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask that all Members listen for 1 minute. I would like to think I have earned the reputation of being a relatively reasonable Senator in my approach. What I have before you today is a pretty reasonable amendment. What I am proposing in this amendment we have before us is if a State wants to exceed the 300 percent FPL for CHIP, if they want to go above that level, what my amendment says is, we are going to give the flexibility for the States to be working with the Secretary to ensure that before they do that, if they can ensure that 80 percent of the children within their State are covered, those children below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, if 80 percent of those are covered, then you have the flexibility to go above that 300 percent. What we are allowing for is to guarantee, if you will, that we are covering those children we set out to do when we passed SCHIP in the first place. So, 80 percent, look at your State's level. Just about all States can meet this. We want to provide a level of flexibility, but we want to ensure that the children from the neediest families are going to be taken care of first. I ask for my colleagues' support.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Last Thursday evening I came to the floor to speak to a decision by the United States Army, I understand at the urging of the Department of Defense, to reverse its position on whether service in the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II is creditable toward military retirement. I have asked repeatedly for a copy of the legal opinion supporting this decision. I am still waiting. One of the most troubling aspects of the decision was that it was to come into effect on February 1, 2009, in the dead of Alaska winter, and without any advance warning to those affected. The decision reduces the retirement pay received by 25 or 26 former members of the Territorial Guard by as much as $557 a month for one individual. The reduction in retirement pay to several others exceeds $500 a month. That is a substantial loss of income at any time of the year but it is especially difficult during the winter. This afternoon, Pete Geren, the Secretary of the Army, announced that the Army would make a onetime gratuitous payment from funds appropriated to cover emergency and extraordinary expenses to these individuals, representing 2 months of the difference between what each would receive if service in the Alaska Territorial Guard were included in the retirement pay calculation and what each will receive as a retirement check beginning on February 1, 2009. I deeply appreciate Secretary Geren's compassionate decision. Increases in the cost of food and heat are making it very difficult for our Native people in rural Alaska to make ends meet this winter. I understand that the vast majority, if not the entire list of people who will receive this additional payment live in the villages of rural Alaska. However, I remain disappointed that the Army cannot continue its policy of paying retirement benefits on account of Alaska Territorial Guard service. Today I join with my colleagues in introducing legislation that clarifies that service in the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II is creditable toward military retirement. Since I raised this issue on the floor last Thursday evening the response I have received from around the country has been nothing but overwhelming. I deeply appreciate all of those who have called and written to express their support for our efforts to protect the benefits that the members of our Alaska Territorial Guard earned through their legendary service. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and supporting material be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about my vote on final passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I want to first reiterate a most important statement of the entire debate on this bill, with which we all agree. As I said yesterday, during debate on Senator Hutchison's substitute amendment, discrimination because of an individual's gender, ethnicity, religion, age, or disability cannot be tolerated. No Americans should be subject to discrimination, and if they are, they have the right to the law's full protection. Having said that, I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to offer and vote on amendments that Members of the Senate believe would have perfected this legislation. I would also note that this opportunity is a welcome reversal from last year, when we did not have an opportunity to offer amendments, and it was for that reason that I voted against cloture last year. As you know, I have had concerns about the Fair Pay Act's deletion of the statute of limitations. In my view, once an employee knows, or has a reasonable suspicion, that he or she has been the subject of discrimination, the employee has the responsibility to file a complaint within a reasonable amount of time. That responsibility benefits the employee first of all, but also benefits the employer, if a claim is pursued while records are available and memories are fresh. In addition, the employee is more likely to be able to recover the full amount of his or her lost wages rather than just the previous 2 years' wages. For these reasons, I supported Senator Hutchison's substitute amendment. Her amendment recognized the important point that many employees do not know that their rate of pay is discriminatory. It would also have restored beneficial timeliness to the process once the employee suspected or knew of discrimination. I am disappointed that this amendment failed. At the end of the day, however, after the amendment process has concluded--a process that was not available to us last year--I believe it is more important to vote for legislation that will improve every American's ability to access full redress for any act of wage discrimination. The Fair Pay Act provides that vital protection. For that reason, I will vote for this legislation.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, sometime this week letters will be mailed from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command in St. Louis, MO, to 25 elderly Alaskans. Those letters will tell these 25 elderly Alaskans that the Army has changed its mind--it has changed its mind--about whether their service in the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II counts toward military retirement. The effect of this abrupt reversal in position is to reduce the monthly retirement payments to each of these 25 elderly Alaskans. These retirement payments will be reduced by an average of $386 a month. Six will lose more than $500 a month in retirement pay. These reductions will take effect on February 1. So in less than 10 days, these individuals who have been receiving these payments--these elderly Alaskans who served us during World War II--will be receiving a letter, maybe before their benefits are cut off, but they will be receiving a letter saying: Sorry, your service doesn't count toward military retirement. Mr. President, I state again: None of these 25 elderly Alaskans knows this is coming. It will come as a complete surprise to them, possibly, when they receive that letter. Whether they are tuning in to C-SPAN and hear my comments tonight, we don't know. It is going to take a while for these letters coming out of St. Louis, MO, to reach their destinations because these letters are being sent to some of the remotest parts of our State, of rural Alaska. Four of these letters are destined for the village of Noatak. This is an Inupiat Eskimo village of 489 people in northwest Alaska. I would suggest, Mr. President, that outside of you and I, there is probably nobody in Washington, DC, who could identify Noatak on a map. Four of these letters are destined for the village of Kwigillingok. We call it Kwig because it is so difficult to pronounce. This is a Yupik Eskimo community of 361 people. All told, these letters are being sent to elders in 15 Alaska Native communities in interior and western Alaska. The poster board that I have behind me indicates some of the elderly gentlemen who may be receiving these letters in the next several weeks. This decision is tragic. It is tragic because it affects veterans who defended Alaska and who defended the United States from the Japanese during World War II. It is a tragedy because these people were led to believe they would be compensated for their service to our Nation. It is a tragedy because most of the people I am talking about, most of these gentlemen, are Eskimos--among the first people of the United States, members of a class of people to whom the United States Government has broken its promises time and time again. It is a tragedy because they were misled into believing their retirement pay was increasing. It is a further tragedy because this bad news is going to be communicated in a letter signed by a branch chief in the Army Human Resources Command. These people deserve an apology from the Secretary of Defense. They do not need to be receiving this news about this error from a branch chief in the Army Human Resources Command. It is also a tragedy because some of these people in the Department of Defense chose to implement this decision in the dead of an Alaska winter, when we know that our Native elders in rural Alaska are most vulnerable. Right now, in the village of Kwig and in Noatak and in the other communities, it is dark, it is cold, and resources are scarce. The increase in retirement pay, which was implemented just this last June, was very welcome news to those who were receiving it. It came at a time when the cost of fuel was rising to levels in our rural communities that people simply could not pay. If you will recall, back home in June and July, in the cities, we were paying $4.50, $5 a gallon for our fuel. But out in the villages they were paying $7, $8 a gallon, and in some areas even higher than that. Throughout the State, but particularly in rural Alaska last summer, folks were anxious about whether they were going to be able to afford to heat their homes this winter. Last week, in the Indian Affairs Committee, the Presiding Officer had an opportunity to join us, and I was able to put on the record the plight of some of the Native people in the community of Emmonak who have literally had to choose between buying stove oil to heat their homes or whether they should buy food for their families. I guess some of the good news we have learned is that none of these letters informing these elders that they will see a reduction in benefits is going to the village of Emmonak, but I would suspect many of the villages to which these letters are going are no better off. You just have to ask the question: How can our government be so insensitive--taking money, taking retirement benefits out of the pockets of our elders, of our seniors, at a time of the year when they are absolutely the most vulnerable? I hope I have gained the attention of some, and with the indulgence of my colleagues, I would like to fill in a little bit of the background. I will not be talking too long--I know one of our Senators is waiting--but it is an interesting story, and I think he will appreciate it. The Alaska Territorial Guard was created in June of 1942 in response to increasing Japanese activity and attacks on and around Alaska. At the time, the U.S. Army was reassigning our Alaska National Guard soldiers away from the State, and so there were no ground troops left to protect Alaska. So Earnest Gruening, who was the territorial governor at the time, called for volunteers to defend our great land up there in the north. Some 6,389 Alaskans answered the call. These volunteers came to be known as the Eskimo Scouts, but they were representative of all of Alaska. They were Inupiat Eskimos, Yupik Eskimos, Aleut people, Athabascan and Tlingit Indians, and there were Caucasians. With no pay and very little equipment, these volunteers--these Eskimo Scouts--patrolled 5,400 miles of coastline to fend off a possible Japanese invasion. They shot down Japanese air balloons carrying bombs and eavesdropping radios. They rescued downed airmen, they transported equipment and supplies, they constructed airstrips and support facilities, they manned the field hospital outpost, and they engaged the enemy in combat. You see the picture behind me of the Eskimo Scout in his snowshoes standing guard, standing ready. These men answered the call of our country and they defended our homeland. The Territorial Guard stood as the first line of defense for the terrain around the Lend-Lease area, the route from America to Russia, and it was this vital lifeline that allowed the United States to supply our Russian ally with essential military aircraft and proved essentially crucial to Russia's defense against Hitler's Germany. In March of 1947, the Eskimo Scouts were disbanded, but many of them went on to continue to serve our Nation in the Army and the Alaska National Guard. For more than half a century after the Territorial Guard was disbanded, these brave and truly dedicated volunteers received not one ounce of recognition from our Federal Government for the service they had performed. It wasn't until the year 2000 that Senator Stevens succeeded in adding language to the Defense appropriations bill to recognize the Territorial Guard, and that legislation required the Secretary of Defense to treat the Alaska Territorial Guard just like any other soldiers and to require them to issue discharge certificates to those who remain alive. I was privileged to be at a couple of ceremonies where some of these elders received their official discharge certificates, and it was incredibly moving to be with them when, after decades, their Government finally recognized their service. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs was also directed to treat these people as any other veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States. I do understand and we are told that the Department of Defense was slow to implement the mandate of this legislation. I can tell you from my own experience in dealing with many of the veterans and their families, the efforts to get these discharge certificates in a timely fashion has been very frustrating--frustrating for the families, frustrating for those who have served, most certainly, and frustrating for those of us who have been trying to make it happen. Some former members of the Territorial Guard are still waiting to get their discharge certificates. We have been assisted by a wonderful volunteer, Bob Goodman, who lives in Anchorage. He helps the former members of the Territorial Guard document their service, and he tells me that unless we can get this turned around, unless we can kind of move through this roadblock, we are going to see more of these fine Americans who will pass on before they get their long-awaited recognition. I just don't understand. I can't understand why it took nearly 8 years--8 years--for the Defense Department to recognize the Alaska Territorial Guard's service for military retirement benefits. But, as I mentioned, back in June of 2008, they did it. Apparently, that decision did not please some at the Defense Department. Between Thanksgiving and Christmas, we learned they made a case that the members of the Territorial Guard are not eligible for retirement benefits. This was all happening over there at the Department under the radar of Secretary Geren here in Washington. The Secretary says there is nothing we can do at this point in time; the retirement benefits have been reduced on the computers of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and the payments are going to go down effective February 1. I am not going to stand here and blame the lawyers for telling their clients that the policy of crediting Alaska Territorial Guard service toward retirement pay doesn't comport with the law. But at the same time, the Defense Department hasn't released that legal opinion, so I can't judge--the presiding officer can't judge--whether this conclusion is really compelled by the law. If the conclusion was compelled by the law, I suppose we can't call out the lawyers for saying so. But I do fault their clients, the leaders who knew this was coming. They knew it was coming, but they didn't bother to tell any of the members of the Alaska Congressional Delegation. I was not notified; you were not notified, Mr. President; our Member in the House of Representatives--nobody came to us late last year and said: Hey, we have a problem. We have a problem, and it requires a legislative fix. Can we work together, can we do something either at the end of the 110th Congress or immediately at the outset of this new Congress? The senior leaders in the Army and DOD didn't even acknowledge that there was a problem until you and I contacted the Secretary of the Army and asked: Is there a problem? We hear there is stuff floating around. What is going on? As far as I was concerned, the reason we suspected there was a problem was because the adjutant general of Alaska, after trying to work through this problem at his level and through the chain of command, told us something was coming and it was going to be coming imminently. Then just last week, Army Secretary Geren confirmed those fears, the fear that it will be real, that the retirement pay will be cut effective February 1. He says there is nothing he can do about it. This afternoon, the members of the Alaska Congressional Delegation are writing to the administration, asking that he intervene to ensure that those Native elders who are affected by this tragic series of events do not lose this safety net. Senator Begich and I are also preparing legislation that clarifies that service in the Alaska Territorial Guard is to be regarded as Active-Duty service for purposes of calculating retirement pay. We need to clear up that vagueness in the statutes. I would just say, as I am able to speak here on the floor of the Senate, to Secretary Gates, if you are within the sound of my voice, I believe you owe an apology to these people. It was just a month ago that the Army Chief of Staff sent a letter of apology to 7,000 surviving families of the global war on terror who received letters addressed to John Doe. The blunder I speak of today affects far fewer people, but it is certainly no less of a blunder. I think we recognize we have just gone through a transition, moving from one administration to the other. Things happen during a transition period--things just happen. Sometimes policy blunders can occur. These things do happen, and then it falls upon Congress and the administration to come back and fix things. I pledge to the Alaskans, and I know the Presiding Officer and our colleague in the House, Representative Young--I think we all make the commitment to do everything we can to clean up what we are dealing with here. But I am left to wonder, what kind of a government, what kind of a Cruella, could cut retirement benefits to a group of Eskimos in their eighties, in the dead of an Alaskan winter, and say: Sorry, there is nothing we can do. It is time for some soul searching at the Pentagon. I am looking for answers. I know you are looking for answers. We are looking for solutions, and there is really very little time left. I thank the Presiding Officer. Know that we will find positive solutions for those who have served us honorably.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Hutchison substitute amendment to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I do believe this substitute amendment strikes a fair balance in ensuring that employees can be relieved of discrimination. I wish to say, at the outset of my comments, I am very pleased we are able to offer amendments to this legislation. I do intend to work with my colleagues to craft and support any other amendments that I believe will improve the legislation before us. Before speaking directly to the Hutchison substitute, I wish to make very clear one point: Discrimination because of an individual's gender, ethnicity, religion, age or disability cannot be tolerated. No American should be subject to discrimination. If they are, they have the right to the law's full protection. The heart of the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision is the ruling that the law requires an employee to file a complaint within 180 days of when the discriminatory intent is first activated by paycheck. Last year, I had the opportunity to speak with Lilly Ledbetter. I know she made a visit to many offices. I had a good conversation. I believed her when she told me she didn't know her wages were lower than those of her male colleagues. I agreed it is often very difficult, perhaps impossible, to know how one's wages compare with another employee's, and that even if an employee does know that he or she is being paid less, that often it is very difficult to know for sure that the reason for the disparity is discrimination. The best solution to this problem, though, is not necessarily to restart the clock at each paycheck. I believe the best solution is to clarify that if the employee did not know about the discriminatory action at the time it was supplied or could not have reasonably suspected discrimination, the clock starts when that knowledge is available to the employee or when it is reasonable for the employee to have known of the discrimination. It is also reasonable to require that an employee file a complaint in a timely manner, once that knowledge or that suspicion is available. The Hutchison substitute is a good fix to the Ledbetter decision. Her amendment not only recognizes that many employees do not know what their colleagues are being paid or that any disparity is due to discrimination, the Hutchison substitute amendment would also restore the reasonable requirement that the employee file a complaint in a timely manner. We all know memories have a tendency to fade away. Paperwork may be lost or thrown away. People leave jobs. Requiring an employee to file a timely claim benefit benefits the employee in pressing his or her claim. How can the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigate a claim of discrimination and find the truth, if the discriminating supervisor has retired, moved away or, perhaps, even died? That is what happened to Lilly Ledbetter. The supervisor who made the original discriminatory decision about her wages died before she could even file her complaint. He wasn't even available to be questioned or cross- examined. How can the EEOC find out the truth, if the records were lost that show a woman or a minority or senior or disabled person's first paycheck was inordinately lower than the first paycheck of his or her peers? So Senator Hutchison's amendment ensures that this clock does not start running on the 180-day statute of limitations until an employee finds out about, or could reasonably be expected to suspect, the possibility of discrimination. It ensures that workers can hold their employers accountable for pay discrimination. Now, some have argued--or some will argue--Senator Hutchison's amendment would institute an unfair discovery rule. They argue it will force employees to file before they are sure of discrimination, when they may most fear retaliation. But I disagree. Senator Hutchison's amendment says the clock starts when the employee ``did not have, and should not have been expected to have, enough information to support a reasonable suspicion of such discrimination, on the date on which the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.'' It does not say the employee must file when they have a hunch. It says a ``reasonable suspicion.'' Opponents of this amendment may also contend that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act simply restores the paycheck accrual rule that was in place before the Supreme Court decision and that a discovery rule would be a new hurdle for employees to deal with. Again, I disagree with this. Prior to the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision, the EEOC applied, through regulation, the concept--many attorneys are familiar with it--of ``equitable tolling.'' This concept basically means that a plaintiff may proceed with a complaint notwithstanding missing a deadline if the employee did not know he or she was being discriminated against. The Hutchison amendment actually strengthens that familiar, often used legal concept that protects employees' rights by putting it in the statute. Opponents of placing a so-called discovery rule in the law also allege it would lead to confusion in the courts. They call it an unclear and untested rule. Again, I would disagree. The EEOC and the courts are quite familiar with the concept of equitable tolling, and there is substantial case law in which it has been applied. Opponents also claim a discovery rule will force plaintiffs to prove a negative--that the employee should not be expected to have known about the discrimination--before they even get to the question of whether there was discrimination. I believe it is fairly easy to prove that one did not have access to the pay records of other employees, that it is fairly easy to prove the piece of information that led the employee to file the complaint was not available to him or her earlier. I believe the substitute amendment we have before us strikes the right balance in ensuring that employees can be relieved of discrimination. It recognizes employees often do not know their pay is different from their colleagues. It recognizes it is not always obvious that a pay disparity is based on discrimination. For those reasons, I have cosponsored this amendment by my colleague, Senator Hutchison, and I urge my other Senate colleagues to support it. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I join with the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in congratulating the representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States on reaching agreement regarding certain provisions in the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act, and concur in the request for unanimous consent that the August 27, 2008, letter be made a part of the Record relating to the consideration of S. 22.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this morning to support the statement of my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, as it relates to this legislation, the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009. There has been a great deal of discussion in these past several days about priorities and whether the bills in this package actually reflect my particular priorities. Well, in fact, there are some priorities I do have. But are all these bills, all 160 of them, my priorities? No. There has been a great deal of discussion about process. The fact that we have 160 bills packaged into an omnibus bill is cumbersome. Is this a process I would have chosen? Probably not. Am I concerned about the ability of the minority to offer amendments? Absolutely. Absolutely. My colleague from Oklahoma has made a very strong case for why, in this deliberative process, in this deliberative body we should not be allowed to move forward and advance amendments. As I understand it, there were discussions yesterday that, hopefully, would have allowed a time agreement for consideration of amendments, but that didn't work out and that is unfortunate. But I do not believe the bills we see in this package result from an absence of careful consideration and process. As the chairman has noted, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has had almost 2 years' worth of hearings, negotiations, and business meetings on these very bills we have in front of us. There has been that thoughtful committee process, there has been that review, there has been the input from the local level all the way to the top. The public lands bills in this package were considered and they were amended with the very concerns in mind that my fellow Senators are expressing today. The concerns are most appropriate: How do we get a fair deal for the American taxpayer? How do we ensure we are not locking up land that could help improve our Nation's energy security? Are the lands we are protecting deserving of this? We can find that balance and we can maximize the development of our domestic energy resources while protecting our Nation's other natural resources. So why so many bills in here? Well, for those of us in the West, so much of our land is federally owned that simple transactions often take literally an act of Congress. This bill transfers 23,226 acres of Federal lands to private and State sectors through conveyance, exchange or sale, and does so in a way that provides full value for the American taxpayer. The bill does authorize the expenditure of funds, but each of those is dependent on future appropriations that depend on the oversight of the Appropriations Committee and the Presidential budget request. This process is not my preferred method for passing legislation. I wish to work with my colleague from Oklahoma and with others who have expressed their concerns about how we move public lands bills. I think working with the chairman we can improve this process, and we should. But I believe that overall what we have before us today is a package that will improve our Nation's management of its public lands and parks and will be a long-term benefit to our Nation. Therefore, I respectfully request my fellow Members' support for passage of this legislation and on this cloture motion we have before us this morning. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Utah.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comments will be brief. I, too, rise today to speak in favor of cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The omnibus bill has been criticized as being large--and it is a large pile of paper. It is almost 1,300 pages. We acknowledge that. But this package of bills before us today also represents a huge commitment of time, a large commitment of resources by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, as well as the other four Senate committees. 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 all 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. There were 20 Members on my side of the aisle who were the primary sponsors of the bills in this package. Many more of them are cosponsors. Clearly, when you have this many individual pieces of legislation, this bill--this package--does a great many things. It covers the full range of the committee's public lands jurisdictions, whether it be from small boundary adjustments and land exchanges to large wilderness designations. Some will argue that the number of bills contained in this package is bad and that somehow this is new and unprecedented. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has traditionally been the most prolific committee in the Senate with regard to substantive legislation. The President pro tempore knows that; he serves on this committee. There are some who may claim it is bad to be advancing so much legislation, but for those of us from the Western States that contain large amounts of public lands, we understand legislation such as is contained in this package is necessary for the day-to-day functioning of the western economy. Here, in the eastern part of the country, a farmer or a businessman who wants to acquire or sell new property can sign a contract. They can go to the courthouse. But in the West, simple transactions often take literally an act of Congress. That is what we see in so many of these individual bills that are part of S. 22. This bill also designates those parts of our natural landscape and historical structures that deserve protection. I believe we as a nation can maximize the development of our domestic energy resources while at the same time protect our Nation's other natural resources and wilderness. In fact, the Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service have testified that none of the wilderness designations proposed in this legislation will negatively impact on the availability of oil, gas, or national energy corridors. Now, there is one section that does restrict oil and gas development in Wyoming, but it is fully supported by the Wyoming State delegation, as well as Governor Freudenthal, and as mentioned by the chairman, the amount of the potential oil is 5 million barrels, not 331 million as argued by some opponents. Furthermore, every land designation in this package was considered at the request of the affected State's delegation. Almost all of the lands in this bill are already federally managed lands, and most to be designated as wilderness are either within Federal parks or have been managed with restrictions such as wilderness study areas or ``roadless'' areas. So, therefore, a designation as Federal wilderness does not further restrict uses beyond what has been in place for quite some time. This bill actually transfers 23,226 acres of Federal lands to private and State sectors through conveyance, exchange, or sale. Finally, any provisions that received a negative score from CBO have been removed from the bill. Now, the bill does authorize the expenditure of significant amounts of funding, but each of those is dependent on future appropriations that depend on the oversight provided by the Appropriations Committee and Presidential budget requests. While this process we have in front of us may not be the preferred method for passing legislation, I do believe overall this package will improve our Nation's management of its public lands and parks and will be a long-term benefit to our Nation. So I do respectfully request my fellow Members' support for passage of this important legislation. With that, I know Senator Crapo from Idaho and Senator Bennett also wish to add a few comments. How much time do we have remaining?

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to speak this morning from the perspective of an Alaskan. Sometimes it is not appropriate for a woman to acknowledge her age, but when Senator Stevens first came to this body, I was 11 years old. Senator Stevens, Ted Stevens, has been ``Alaska'' in this Senate for four decades now. Many Senators earn their place in the history of their States during the course of service in the Senate. But by the time Ted came to the Senate back in 1968, he had already earned his place in Alaskan history. He had earned his place in Alaska's history for his work a decade earlier. As an Interior Department attorney in the late 1950s, Ted was the Eisenhower administration's point man on Alaska statehood. Well, this year, our State is celebrating its 50th anniversary of statehood. But for the persistence of Ted Stevens at that time, our statehood anniversary date might be celebrated some years off in the future. It was that persistence that Ted brought to the Senate. Historians will record the life of Ted Stevens and the history of post-statehood Alaska and suggest they are all interwoven. But I think there is an easier way to express that. When I think of the good things, the positive things, that have come to Alaska in the past 50 years, I see the face and I see the hands of Ted Stevens in so many of them. Some of them are so small, like a washeteria for Golovin, a village of 67 people people near Nome. Ted Stevens, through funding from the Denali Commission, has enabled that village to have that washeteria. You might not think much of that, but when you don't have a water and sewer system and you don't have a place for basic sanitary services, providing a washing facility in a little community is a big deal. There are also the big projects, whether it is our 800-mile trans- Alaska pipeline that Senator Stevens helped to create or the settlement of our Alaska Native land claims, the fact that we have F-22s at Elmendorf Air Force Base, or a compromise recently that allowed Eielson Air Force Base to remain a vibrant and strategic center for our military. And then the big things that are yet to come, as we are working to advance a natural gas pipeline to bring that energy source to the lower 48. We will also have a new VA outpatient clinic in Anchorage that Ted has been responsible for. When Alaskans think about the difficult debates, the issues Congress has dealt with over the years as they relate to Alaska--and primarily these are debates where the Nation has sought to tell Alaskans what we should be doing to manage our lands, to develop our economies, to live our lives. Every time there has been an argument, a debate, a victory, it has been the forceful voice of Ted Stevens defending the right of Alaskans that prevails. We all knew when he would come to the floor wearing his Incredible Hulk tie, he was fighting a battle for Alaska that day, and look out. Whether it was our timber issues or the battle over ANWR or our fisheries, he was there working, fighting, compromising, negotiating these battles for the State of Alaska. There are a lot of things we know about Ted and his passions, as he has demonstrated them here on the floor, but there are some other things you might not know about Senator Stevens and what drives him, such as his care and his passion and support for world-class fishing out on the Kenai River, his support for public broadcasting, which earned him two national awards, and his undying commitment for the Olympic movement and amateur athletics. Somebody mentioned it would take a long time to enumerate the accomplishments of Ted Stevens. Mr. Majority Leader, I might suggest that in order to do that, it would take as long as it took you when you read your book about Searchlight on the floor when I was sitting in the Presiding Officer's chair. We don't have time to do that this morning, and that is not my purpose today. But I would like to refer to Ted's accomplishments in two small areas to illustrate a point I wish to make about his character and his personal commitment to public service. These are in the areas of what he has done to improve the lives of Alaska's Native people and also his legacy to America's fisheries. It is often said a society is judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable members, and it is appropriate we judge the character of our elected leaders in a similar way. In Alaska, the most vulnerable among us are our Alaska Native people--the 120,000 or so Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians who are the descendants of Alaska's first inhabitants. We recognize that the statistics about the condition of our Alaskan Natives are not something of which we are proud, with incomes that are half of other Alaskans and high rates of domestic violence, suicide, child abuse, violent deaths, and a prison rate among our population which is not acceptable. For decades, Alaska's most vulnerable people have had no better friend than Ted Stevens. If you go to Ted's Web site, it lists his milestone legislative accomplishments, and 8 of the 13 are directed to improving the conditions of Alaska's first people. So many of them are so basic. You have all heard the stories; Ted has stood on the floor and talked about the economic conditions we face--the fact that we don't have road systems, the fact we have to fly to most of the villages or go by boat--but the reality is that in so many of our communities, in so many of our villages, we still don't have basic water and sanitation for those who live there. Before Ted Stevens came to the Senate, many of these villages had no running water, no flush toilets, no plumbing, no place to wash clothes or take a shower--the basic needs when it comes to sanitation and health. In so many instances, our Native people have lived, and some still live, in what could be called Third World conditions, conditions that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere in this country, and conditions that Ted Stevens would not tolerate. He determined he was going to change it and he did. In 1980, only about 20 percent of the rural houses in Alaska had indoor sanitation facilities. Thanks to Ted Stevens, that percentage has risen to well over 75 percent. Now, we still have a ways to go, but what he has done is pretty remarkable. Talking about health improvements and conditions, it is almost impossible to recruit health professionals to our small and remote areas. So Ted looked into the future and wondered how we were going to provide access, how we were going to provide for the needs of those who live out here. And he said: Well, let's think ahead, and he brought statewide telemedicine. It is the backbone of what we have in Alaska in terms of how we provide for our health care needs. It is the largest telemedicine program in the world. It gives first responders an ability to consult with doctors in the larger cities. Thanks to Ted Stevens, people's lives have been saved. He has made an enormous difference in our community. He has championed the construction of hospitals in our rural hubs out in Kotzebue, Barrow, Nome, and Dillingham. He has brought about the community health centers and health clinics. I know a lot of you have had an opportunity to come to Alaska, and your first stop is the airport in Anchorage, and you notice that the airport is named after Ted Stevens. Well, you might not know that there is a large monument at the entrance to the Alaska Native Medical Center that has been erected to remind Alaskans that this facility would not have been possible without the work of Ted Stevens. So our Alaska Natives today enjoy an integrated, high quality health care system thanks to Ted Stevens. This is important for us to remember because so much of what we see in the Senate, the record that is created, we don't have the opportunity to see how that translates to the people Ted Stevens has represented for some 40 years. Other areas he has worked for Alaska's Natives involve work to preserve their cultural lifestyles through preservation of their subsistence traditions and making sure the Inupiaq people can continue their whaling and helping with economic opportunities and reducing transportation costs. We are seeing a migration from our smaller villages into our larger cities, but I can tell you, without the lifestyle improvements Ted Stevens has brought to rural Alaska, our Native people would have left their villages decades ago. So I wish to thank you, Ted, for all you have done there. I mentioned the fishery resource, and Senator Stevens himself mentioned that in his comments, but it was nearly 40 years ago that Ted joined with Warren Magnuson and developed a new management regime for our fisheries. This was at a time when our fisheries in the United States, including Alaska, were heavily overfished by foreign fleets. The Magnuson-Stevens Act helped put America back in the fishing industry. This legislation also created the Regional Fishery Management Council. It is largely responsible for the development of Alaska's sustainable fisheries. We are very proud of the fact that to this day we supply about half the seafood that is caught in this country. It was at Ted Stevens' insistence that the United States negotiated an agreement to stop the illegal fishing in the international waters of the Bering Sea. This agreement has restored the Alaska pollock fishery from near collapse. He has been an absolute champion of ocean conservation. He pushed the U.N. to ban high seas drift net fishing, a practice that was devastating our salmon fisheries. Alaska fishermen will never forget Ted Stevens, the conservationist, the advocate who has truly helped bring our fisheries where they are. Ted's departure from the Senate truly leaves a void in our hearts and some very big shoes to fill here in the Senate. There are a lot of us in Alaska who are wondering if anyone can fill these shoes. We agonize over whether the Federal Government's interest in Alaska is going to dwindle without Ted here to fight for us. But I am optimistic, Ted, that is not going to be the case. You have said many times in speeches you have given here on the floor and back at home--you voiced the words of GEN Billy Mitchell back in 1935 when he said: I believe that, in the future, whoever holds Alaska will hold the world. . . . I think it is the most important strategic place in the world. Those words of Billy Mitchell, I think you and I agree, hold true today. Alaska continues to provide this top cover for the defense of the North American Continent. Our troops tell us our communities in Alaska support the military like nowhere else in the country. The heartfelt appreciation is genuine. We offer unencumbered military training areas that are simply not available anywhere else. Our resources--our natural gas, our mineral resources--will support and continue to support America's national security for generations to come. Through his investments in the development of our State and our people, Ted Stevens has helped to prepare Alaska to meet its future challenges. We are a strong and confident and skilled people, and we are empowered--we are empowered by all Ted's work has brought to us over 40 years of service in the Senate. While Ted may leave this body, I think all of us will continue to seek his advice, his counsel, and his wisdom for as long as he is willing to offer it. Ted, you have earned a very special place in the golden hearts of Alaskans, and you hold a very special place in my heart. Thank you for your service to Alaska. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, there have been some beautiful tributes made to my colleague, the senior Senator from Alaska today, and I am certain that others will be coming to the floor to speak of their relationship, their experiences, and to speak of the good works of Senator Stevens. I would encourage them to come to the floor or to certainly submit their written comments for the Record so that Senator Stevens can have the full opportunity of those, and I ask unanimous consent for that.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, when Americans think about what they most admire about my home State of Alaska, the breathtaking scenery first comes to mind. What I most admire about my home State of Alaska are the people, and in particular our Native Elders. Our Elders are the bearers of our uniquely Alaskan culture. They have accepted the responsibility of ensuring that succeeding generations know where they came from. They preserve and transmit the traditions that make Alaska different from anyplace else. Looking at the face of an Alaska Native Elder is like looking at the concentric rings in the trunk of a tree. Every line on that face represents a precious slice of Alaska history. It would be a vast understatement to characterize the Elders as witnesses to Alaska history. They are the living embodiment of Alaska's history. They were the first generation of Alaskans to experience and adapt to the challenge of living in two worlds. They have come to embrace the traditional world of subsistence and the modern world of the Internet in the same breath. Some like the individual I speak about today have devoted their lives to preserving Alaska Native languages as spoken and written languages for all eternity. Today I pay tribute to a most respected Tlingit Elder, the Reverend Doctor Walter Soboleff, who will celebrate his 100th birthday on November 14, 2008. Walter Soboleff was born on a small island called Killisnoo near Admiralty Island in Southeast Alaska. His father was the son of a Russian Orthodox priest serving in Southeast Alaska. His mother, a Tlingit Indian. Four languages were spoken in his home: Russian, German, English, and Tlingit. Walter Soboleff was educated at a US Government Indian school on his island and subsequently at the Sheldon Jackson School in Sitka. Several years after graduating from Sheldon Jackson with a high school diploma he enrolled at Dubuque University in Iowa, receiving a bachelor's degree in education in 1937 and a divinity degree in 1940. Ordained as a Presbyterian minister he returned to Southeast Alaska to take the pulpit at the Memorial Presbyterian Church in Juneau. The church, which was built to minister to the Tlingit people, opened its doors to all. Its congregation included Caucasians and African Americans, and Filipinos as well as Haidas and Tsimshians. We take diverse congregations like this for granted in 21st Century Alaska. It must be remembered, though, that Jim Crow racial segregation laws and practices were quite prevalent in pre-World War II Southeast Alaska. Reverend Soboleff emerged a key player in the maintaining and enhancing the Tlingit culture, serving seven terms as President of the Alaska Native Brotherhood and broadcasting church services in Tlingit on the radio. From 1962-1970 he took his ministry to the water traveling on mission vessels to Native villages, logging camps and Coast Guard facilities in the archipelago of islands that make up Southeast Alaska. In 1952, Reverend Soboleff accepted a commission in the Alaska Army National Guard, serving as Chaplain for 20 years, retiring with rank of Lieutenant Colonel on February 1, 1973. In 1970, Walter Soboleff founded the Alaska Native Studies Department at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. He taught Tlingit history, language and literature, retiring again in 1974. You may have discovered that it is difficult to use the words retirement and Walter Soboleff in the same sentence. Every time Walter Soboleff retires he embarks on a new and ever more vital project. Awarded an honorary Doctor of Divinity by Dubuque University in 1952 and an honorary Doctor of Humanities by the University of Alaska Fairbanks in 1968 he continues to serve as Pastor Emeritus of the Northern Lights United Church in Juneau and as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Sealaska Heritage Foundation. And lest I forget, he was the first Alaska Native to serve on the Alaska State Board of Education, where he served as chairman. I think I can speak for the entire Senate in wishing the Reverend Doctor Walter Soboleff a happy 100th birthday. We extend our best wishes to Dr. Soboleff for continued good health and good works.