Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I don't want to repeat what has already been said by Senator Voinovich recently, but I do want to explain why I am cosponsoring legislation designed to tackle in a comprehensive way the biggest issue still outstanding in our efforts to revitalize nuclear power for this Nation, that being how we handle the waste. I also want to talk about the retirement of the ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Pete Domenici, who I will so deeply miss in the future. Concerning the nuclear bill, I am cosponsoring the U.S. Nuclear Fuel Management Corporation Establishment Act that has been crafted by Senator Voinovich, with Senator Sessions and a number of other Senators, and I have already cosponsored the SMART Act, which was crafted by the ranking member of the Energy Committee, Senator Domenici, and cosponsored by Senator Sessions and others, since the two bills work together to set up the policy and the management structure to improve how we handle the waste that nuclear powerplants generate. While it is obviously too late in this session of Congress for either bill to advance, I want to say that I am certainly intending to help reintroduce both bills next year and in working next session to merge them into a comprehensive plan to recycle and then properly store the remaining waste that results from nuclear power production. I am interested in working on these bills because I care about reducing greenhouse gases. And nuclear power is the best proven technology to produce power for this country without producing any carbon emissions. For anyone serious about tackling carbon emissions, finding a way to grow the next generation of nuclear power is vital. Today nuclear energy provides about 20 percent of the Nation's electricity. As Senator Voinovich may have mentioned those 104 operating powerplants save America from producing about 681 million metric tons a year of carbon dioxide. If we are going to deal with global warming, we must find a way not just to keep nuclear power going, but also growing to help meet this Nation's growing thirst for electricity. I was in France in late June and toured the French nuclear waste recycling facilities at LaHague. Recycling allows you to gain twice as much nuclear power from a given amount of uranium ore. More importantly, it cuts substantially the amount and the half-life, and in some cases, the toxicity of the waste that you later have to store. That is important for the environment. In these two bills, the Nuclear Fuel Management Corp. will set up a Government corporation to take authority to manage spent nuclear fuel and provide both interim storage, the development of geologic repositories, such as the Yucca Mountain facility currently under consideration, and also to handle the construction and operation of any reprocessing and fuel fabrication facilities. The SMART bill is designed to further the process of siting and advancing the construction of up to two reprocessing plants, since it would help to encourage cities in this country to welcome such plants. These bills, perhaps pared with one introduced last year to remove some potential regulatory hurdles to construction and opening of a Yucca Mountain repository, would effectively amount to a comprehensive solution to the waste issue. They would be the final pieces to the puzzle. That is the case because of the efforts of Senator Pete Domenici.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the risk of embarrassing him, I want to take a moment to say how vital Senator Domenici has been in solving most of the nuclear puzzle. He really led the rebirth of the nuclear industry and I want to say how much I will miss him since he has been a prime mover in the effort to bring about a new nuclear age in this country. As most of you know Senator Domenici has served 36 years in the Senate. But some of you may not know that he gave up a promising career in baseball to become a public servant. He started playing when he was 10, eventually pitching for a minor league team called the Albuquerque Dukes. But he left baseball to become a math and science teacher at Garfield Junior High in his native State of New Mexico, later went onto law school and ran for the U.S. Senate in 1972. And he's been here ever since. About a dozen years ago the Senator realized that this Nation desperately needed a new source of electricity. He realized that there are higher uses for high-priced natural gas than to burn it for power generation, and that until carbon capture and storage can be perfected and widely practiced that the expansion of coal-fired power might have environmental drawbacks. So he crafted the forerunner of policies that today make up the Nuclear Power 2010 program, which is designed to have the Government partner with industry to approve the design and speed the licensing of the next generation of power plants that absolutely preclude the type of radiation accident that happened three decades ago at Three Mile Island. He has been the sponsor of the loan guarantees, the architect of reauthorizing a responsible liability program and the person most responsible for harnessing the research capacities of America to breathe life into the research and nuclear construction sectors. One news outlet called him ``the nuclear renaissance man.'' And he is recognized by all as the driving force behind the industry's resurgence. But he has done so much more. His work on the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and on last year's Energy Independence and Security Act were landmarks in bipartisan legislating. He helped renewable and alternative energy, from wind and solar to biomass, and especially biofuels to develop, helping create Clean Renewable Energy Bonds to pay for the construction of renewable energy plants. During the bills he refereed more policy disputes and generated more compromises than I have time to mention. But he also was the sponsor of so much other landmark legislation during his storied career. One bill finally passed the Senate earlier this week to require parity for mental health treatment benefits. As Senate budget chairman, he helped set up the Nation's budgeting system, which was still working well when he assumed the chairmanship of the Energy Committee in 2003. Pete Domenici's legacy has inspired so many of us and his retirement will leave some pretty big shoes for us all to fill. I will miss the Senator's smile, as well as his lighthearted and joyful presence. He is known as a man, who is firm in his convictions, but gracious in his negotiations. He is an example of a true statesman who has served his country well. I will truly miss him. I could say a lot more, but I clearly am out of time.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Tlingit and Haida people, the first people of Southeast Alaska, were perhaps the first group of Alaska Natives to organize for the purpose of asserting their aboriginal land claims. The Native land claims movement in the rest of Alaska did not gain momentum until the 1960s when aboriginal land titles were threatened by the impending construction of the Trans Alaska Pipeline. In southeast Alaska, the taking of Native lands for the Tongass National Forest and Glacier Bay National Monument spurred the Tlingit and Haida people to fight to recover their lands in the early part of the 20th Century. One of the first steps in this battle came with the formation of the Alaska Native Brotherhood in 1912. In 1935, the Jurisdictional Act, which allowed the Tlingit and Haida Indians to pursue their land claims in the U.S. Court of Claims, was enacted by Congress. After decades of litigation, the Native people of southeast Alaska received a cash settlement in 1968 from the Court of Claims for the land previously taken to create the Tongass National Forest and the Glacier Bay National Monument. Yes there was a cash settlement of $7.5 million but the Native people of southeast Alaska have long believed that it did not adequately compensate them for the loss of their lands and resources. Beware the law of unintended consequences. When the Native people of southeast Alaska chose to pursue their land claims in court they could not have foreseen that Congress would ultimately settle the land claims of all of Alaska's Native people through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Nor could they have foreseen that they would be disadvantaged in obtaining the return of their aboriginal lands because of their early, and ultimately successful, effort to litigate their land claims. Sadly this was the case. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 imposed a series of highly prescriptive limitations on the lands that Sealaska Corporation, the regional Alaska Native Corporation formed for southeast Alaska, could select in satisfaction of the Tlingit and Haida land claim. None of the other 11 Alaska based regional Native corporations were subject to these limitations. Today, I join with Mr. Stevens, Mr. Akaka and Mr. Inouye to introduce legislation to right this wrong. For the most part, Sealaska Corporation has agreed to live within the constraints imposed by the 1971 legislation. It has taken conveyance to 290,000 acres from the pool of lands it was allowed to select under the 1971 act. As Sealaska moves to finalize its land selections it has asked the Congress for flexibility to receive title to certain lands which it was not permitted to select under the prescriptive, and as Sealaska believes, discriminatory, limitations contained in the 1971 legislation. The legislation we are introducing today would allow Sealaska to select its remaining entitlement from outside of the withdrawal areas permitted in the 1971 legislation. It allows the Native corporation to select up to 3,600 acres of its remaining land entitlement from lands with sacred, cultural, traditional or historical significance. Substantial restrictions will be placed on the use of these lands. Up to 5,000 acres of land could be selected for non-timber related economic development. These lands are called ``Native Futures'' lands in the bill. Other lands referred to as ``economic development lands'' in the bill could be used for timber related and nontimber related economic development. These lands are on Prince of Wales Island. Sealaska observes that if it were required to take title to lands within the constraints prescribed by the 1971 legislation it would take title to large swaths of roadless acres in pristine portions of the Tongass National Forest. The lands it proposes to take for economic uses under this legislation are predominantly in roaded and less sensitive areas of the Tongass National Forest. The pools of lands which would be available to Sealaska under this legislation are depicted on a series of maps referred to in the bill. It must be emphasized that not all of the lands depicted on these maps will end up in Sealaska's ownership. Sealaska cannot receive title to lands in excess of its remaining acreage entitlement under the 1971 legislation and this legislation does not change that entitlement. Earlier in the 110th Congress, several of our friends in the other body introduced H.R. 3560 to address these issues. Over the past year, Sealaska and the communities of southeast Alaska have worked collaboratively in good faith to identify issues that may arise from the transfer of lands on which those communities have relied for subsistence and recreation out of the Tongass National Forest and into Native corporation ownership. My colleagues in the Alaska congressional delegation and I have devoted a great deal of time in reaching out and encouraging comment from southeast Alaska on H.R. 3560. Sealaska has itself conducted numerous public meetings on the bill in southeast Alaska. I believe that these efforts have helped us to formulate a bill that addresses the concerns we most frequently heard. The legislation we are introducing today is different from H.R. 3560 in numerous respects. In some cases, the lands open to Sealaska selection have changed from those which were referred to in H.R. 3560 to accommodate community concerns. Our conversations have led to precedent setting commitments by the Sealaska Corporation to maintain public access to the economic development lands it receives on Prince of Wales Island for subsistence uses and recreational access. These commitments are laid out in Section 4(d) of our bill. Sealaska has also offered a series of commitments to ensure that the benefits of this legislation flow to the broader southeast Alaska economy and not just to the corporation and its Native shareholders. These commitments are memorialized in a letter from Sealaska's chairman, Alaska State Senator Albert Kookesh, and its president and chief executive officer, Chris E. McNeil, Jr. It comes as no secret to anyone that this legislation is introduced as we enter what may be the final hours of the 110th Congress. There will not be sufficient opportunity in the remaining hours of this Congress to consider the legislation. It will need to be reintroduced in January 2009. We hope that we can move on it in the early part of the 111th Congress. In the meantime, we encourage and welcome comments from the people and communities of southeast Alaska on the revised legislation and hope that we will be able to productively use the next few months to identify and resolve any issues or concerns that remain before the 111th Congress begins. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Tlingit and Haida people, the first people of Southeast Alaska, were perhaps the first group of Alaska Natives to organize for the purpose of asserting their aboriginal land claims. The Native land claims movement in the rest of Alaska did not gain momentum until the 1960s when aboriginal land titles were threatened by the impending construction of the Trans Alaska Pipeline. In southeast Alaska, the taking of Native lands for the Tongass National Forest and Glacier Bay National Monument spurred the Tlingit and Haida people to fight to recover their lands in the early part of the 20th Century. One of the first steps in this battle came with the formation of the Alaska Native Brotherhood in 1912. In 1935, the Jurisdictional Act, which allowed the Tlingit and Haida Indians to pursue their land claims in the U.S. Court of Claims, was enacted by Congress. After decades of litigation, the Native people of southeast Alaska received a cash settlement in 1968 from the Court of Claims for the land previously taken to create the Tongass National Forest and the Glacier Bay National Monument. Yes there was a cash settlement of $7.5 million but the Native people of southeast Alaska have long believed that it did not adequately compensate them for the loss of their lands and resources. Beware the law of unintended consequences. When the Native people of southeast Alaska chose to pursue their land claims in court they could not have foreseen that Congress would ultimately settle the land claims of all of Alaska's Native people through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Nor could they have foreseen that they would be disadvantaged in obtaining the return of their aboriginal lands because of their early, and ultimately successful, effort to litigate their land claims. Sadly this was the case. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 imposed a series of highly prescriptive limitations on the lands that Sealaska Corporation, the regional Alaska Native Corporation formed for southeast Alaska, could select in satisfaction of the Tlingit and Haida land claim. None of the other 11 Alaska based regional Native corporations were subject to these limitations. Today, I join with Mr. Stevens, Mr. Akaka and Mr. Inouye to introduce legislation to right this wrong. For the most part, Sealaska Corporation has agreed to live within the constraints imposed by the 1971 legislation. It has taken conveyance to 290,000 acres from the pool of lands it was allowed to select under the 1971 act. As Sealaska moves to finalize its land selections it has asked the Congress for flexibility to receive title to certain lands which it was not permitted to select under the prescriptive, and as Sealaska believes, discriminatory, limitations contained in the 1971 legislation. The legislation we are introducing today would allow Sealaska to select its remaining entitlement from outside of the withdrawal areas permitted in the 1971 legislation. It allows the Native corporation to select up to 3,600 acres of its remaining land entitlement from lands with sacred, cultural, traditional or historical significance. Substantial restrictions will be placed on the use of these lands. Up to 5,000 acres of land could be selected for non-timber related economic development. These lands are called ``Native Futures'' lands in the bill. Other lands referred to as ``economic development lands'' in the bill could be used for timber related and nontimber related economic development. These lands are on Prince of Wales Island. Sealaska observes that if it were required to take title to lands within the constraints prescribed by the 1971 legislation it would take title to large swaths of roadless acres in pristine portions of the Tongass National Forest. The lands it proposes to take for economic uses under this legislation are predominantly in roaded and less sensitive areas of the Tongass National Forest. The pools of lands which would be available to Sealaska under this legislation are depicted on a series of maps referred to in the bill. It must be emphasized that not all of the lands depicted on these maps will end up in Sealaska's ownership. Sealaska cannot receive title to lands in excess of its remaining acreage entitlement under the 1971 legislation and this legislation does not change that entitlement. Earlier in the 110th Congress, several of our friends in the other body introduced H.R. 3560 to address these issues. Over the past year, Sealaska and the communities of southeast Alaska have worked collaboratively in good faith to identify issues that may arise from the transfer of lands on which those communities have relied for subsistence and recreation out of the Tongass National Forest and into Native corporation ownership. My colleagues in the Alaska congressional delegation and I have devoted a great deal of time in reaching out and encouraging comment from southeast Alaska on H.R. 3560. Sealaska has itself conducted numerous public meetings on the bill in southeast Alaska. I believe that these efforts have helped us to formulate a bill that addresses the concerns we most frequently heard. The legislation we are introducing today is different from H.R. 3560 in numerous respects. In some cases, the lands open to Sealaska selection have changed from those which were referred to in H.R. 3560 to accommodate community concerns. Our conversations have led to precedent setting commitments by the Sealaska Corporation to maintain public access to the economic development lands it receives on Prince of Wales Island for subsistence uses and recreational access. These commitments are laid out in Section 4(d) of our bill. Sealaska has also offered a series of commitments to ensure that the benefits of this legislation flow to the broader southeast Alaska economy and not just to the corporation and its Native shareholders. These commitments are memorialized in a letter from Sealaska's chairman, Alaska State Senator Albert Kookesh, and its president and chief executive officer, Chris E. McNeil, Jr. It comes as no secret to anyone that this legislation is introduced as we enter what may be the final hours of the 110th Congress. There will not be sufficient opportunity in the remaining hours of this Congress to consider the legislation. It will need to be reintroduced in January 2009. We hope that we can move on it in the early part of the 111th Congress. In the meantime, we encourage and welcome comments from the people and communities of southeast Alaska on the revised legislation and hope that we will be able to productively use the next few months to identify and resolve any issues or concerns that remain before the 111th Congress begins. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here to follow up on the comments from the chairman of the Energy Committee. As one of the senior members on the committee, I have had an opportunity to work with him and Ranking Member Domenici on many of the issues he has talked about, as we have tried to advance energy policies for the country. One of the things we recognize on the committee historically is there has been a very good, strong, bipartisan relationship, working together to advance policy goals. The point has been made that perhaps politics has intervened as we have tried to advance some policies of late. I would like to think that as we begin a new Congress next year, with the initiative before us that this country needs and deserves a good, comprehensive energy policy that works for the Nation, that gets us to a point that allows for a level of energy security for us, that we will do so in a way that is cooperative, collaborative, and that allows us to move the technologies and advance the infrastructure that is necessary, that allows us to have policies in place that not only provide for increased domestic production but renewables and alternatives, with a focus on conservation--truly an energy policy that works. I look forward to working with the chairman in advancing these goals. I thank the Chair.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a resolution that commemorates the Annual Red Ribbon Campaign. I am honored to again seek the Senate's continuing support and recognition of Red Ribbon Week, which is October 23 through October 31. In 1985, Special Agent Enrique ``Kiki'' Camarena of the Drug Enforcement Administration was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered in the line of duty by drug traffickers. Shortly after Agent Camarena's death, Congressman Duncan Hunter and high school friend Henry Lozano launched ``Camarena Clubs'' in the Agent's hometown of Calexico, CA. In honor of Agent Camarena, hundreds of club members wore red ribbons and pledged to lead drug-free lives. The campaign quickly gained statewide and then national prominence. In 1988, what is now the National Family Partnership organized the first National Red Ribbon Week, an 8-day event proclaimed by the Congress and chaired by then President and Mrs. Reagan. This campaign is now the oldest and largest drug prevention program in the Nation, reaching millions of youth through Red Ribbon Week events. Red Ribbon Week memorializes Agent Camarena, and all those who have lost their lives in the war on drugs, by educating young people about the dangers of drug abuse, promoting drug-free activities, and supporting everyone who has stood strong against illicit drugs. The Red Ribbon that we will wear during Red Ribbon Week is a symbol of zero tolerance for illegal drug use and our commitment to help people, especially children, make the right life-decisions. In Alaska, Red Ribbon Week is a statewide celebration involving thousands of school children and other supporters. On October 27, the Alaska Red Ribbon Coalition, in conjunction with the municipality of Anchorage, will host a Red Ribbon Week kickoff. The Red Ribbon Coalition is comprised of the Anchorage School District, the Alaska State Troopers, the Anchorage Police Department, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S. Department of Justice. Forty- three Boys & Girls Clubs across Alaska will help other Alaskan communities celebrate Red Ribbon Week throughout the State. In addition, this year, the Red Ribbon Coalition, the Alaska National Guard, and the Iditarod Trail Committee are sponsoring the first ever Anchorage School District Idol whereby every junior high and high school in Anchorage will hold local talent competitions and select one act to move to a final competition. The acts will be judged based, among other things, on their drug-free themes, and the final competition will be held as part of the Iditarod Sled Dog Race festivities in March 2009. The plan is to broadcast the event to the students in all 50 States and across the globe who participate in the Iditarod Education Program, thus extending the reach of the 2008 Red Ribbon Week into 2009, and sharing Anchorage's Red Ribbon Week antidrug message and celebrations with the Nation and the world. As we stand together against drugs, I thank my colleagues for joining me in what hopefully will be a continuation of the tradition of congressional support and recognition of Red Ribbon Week.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, their Web site is called frozenchosen.org. No kidding. Today I honor Congregation Beth Shalom of Anchorage, AK, an affiliate of the Union for Reform Judaism, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. It is a pillar of Alaska's small but vibrant Jewish community. Congregation Beth Shalom is one of five synagogues in the State of Alaska. Only two of those five synagogues enjoy the services of a full- time rabbi. Congregation Beth Shalom is one of these two synagogues. I am pleased to acknowledge and welcome Rabbi Michael Oblath, the present Rabbi, who joined Congregation Beth Shalom in September 2007. He is the fifth Rabbi to serve the congregation since its founding on September 5, 1958. It is also appropriate to recognize the four other individuals who have served as spiritual leaders to Congregation Beth Shalom since its founding, beginning with Rabbi Lester Polonsky, Rabbi Harry Rosenfeld, Rabbi Johanna Hershenson, and Rabbi Fred Wenger. Congregation Beth Sholom was first organized on September 5, 1958. It was on that day that 20 people gathered in Burt and Bobbie Goldberg's home to welcome the Shabbat and organize a synagogue. At the time, the only Jewish services in Anchorage were being conducted by chaplains on Elmendorf Air Force Base, and organizers wanted to establish a Jewish identity for their children which were anchored to the city. Today, Congregation Beth Shalom occupies a beautiful synagogue building on East Northern Lights Boulevard, which opened 20 years ago to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the congregation's founding. The synagogue houses the Joy Greisen Jewish Education Center, which features a preschool open to the entire community, without regard to religious affiliation, an afterschool arts program and a summer camp. Congregation Beth Shalom has achieved Green Star recognition for its environmental and energy conservation efforts. Its Tikkun Olam program is engaged in numerous good works which help make Anchorage one of the best places in our Nation to live and raise a family. I am proud to recognize Congregation Beth Shalom on 50 years of service to our southcentral Alaska community. We have great expectations for your next 50 years.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise very briefly to recognize tomorrow, Tuesday, September 9, as International Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Awareness Day. This is a day to bring a voice to the numerous children--many children--born with a continuum of serious, lifelong disorders caused by prenatal exposure to alcohol, which includes fetal alcohol syndrome, alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorders, and alcohol-related birth defects. The lifetime health costs for people afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome is at least $2 million, and the overall cost of fetal alcohol syndrome in the United States is estimated to be at least $6 billion. That was back in 2007. There is a great need for research, surveillance, prevention, treatment, and support services for individuals with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and for their families. It is for these reasons I rise today to dedicate September 9 as International Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Awareness Day and encourage all my fellow Americans to promote awareness of the effects of prenatal exposure to alcohol; to increase compassion for individuals affected by prenatal exposure to alcohol; to minimize further effects of prenatal exposure to alcohol; and, most importantly, to bring greater awareness to a disease that is absolutely 100 percent preventable. Communities around the world will observe a moment of silence at 9 minutes after 9 tomorrow, on September 9, to remind women that no alcohol during pregnancy is safe. For the past 6 years, the Senate has passed a resolution highlighting and bringing awareness to this issue. It is my understanding that all resolutions are currently being blocked, so we may not have one this year. But today, on behalf of the millions of individuals suffering from the lasting and detrimental effects of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, I encourage all Americans to observe a moment of reflection on the ninth hour of the ninth day of the ninth month to remind them that no amount of alcohol--none at all-- is safe during the 9 months of pregnancy. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on the conference report to the Higher Education Opportunity Act. The reauthorization of this act, the Higher Education Act, has taken 5 years and thousands of hours to complete. I congratulate Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for guiding us through passage of the Senate bill and then through a long and somewhat contentious conference process. Their leadership has brought us to an achievement of which we can all be proud. It is a bipartisan product that will have a positive impact on the lives of American students. I also acknowledge and thank Senator Mikulski for the good work she has done, stepping in for Senator Kennedy during his period of absence, in order to help us resolve these last issues. The Higher Education Opportunity Act includes many provisions that will benefit students and student loan borrowers in my home State of Alaska. One provision of which I am particularly proud will assist members of the military, particularly those who are in the lowest ranks. It will help them and help their spouses and their children to afford college or job training. I had the opportunity last winter to visit Fort Richardson, outside of Anchorage. I met with the spouses of the deployed soldiers who were over in Iraq. It was kind of a townhall meeting. I was there to ask them what I could do to help make their lives a little bit easier, help them get through the long winter. One of them told me that the one thing that was keeping her from being able to afford to go to college was the money that the military pays to help offset a portion of their housing costs. The housing allowance prevented her from being eligible for a Pell grant. Given the low rate of pay for many members of our military, particularly those in the lowest ranks, they could not afford to take on any student loan debt. So I made contact with the National Military Families Association and learned that so many military spouses are in that same position. So what we included in this legislation, through my provision, is language that excludes the cost of the basic allowance for housing for servicemembers who live off base, as well as the value of on-base housing. We exclude that from being calculated in the final calculations for financial need. Excluding the basic housing allowance, which in the vast majority of cases does not completely cover military families' housing costs, and the value of on-base housing will benefit the least well paid members of our military and their spouses, whether they be privates, seaman apprentices, lance corporals, airmen--those folks whose base pay is less than $35,000 per year. While they are off defending our country at war, we want to be able to help the spouses and family members who remain at home. I am very pleased to know that this wonderful woman I had the privilege to meet last winter, and potentially thousands like her, will have a better chance now of being able to attend college or obtain job training. Another provision I was pleased to participate in and to author authorizes a program dedicated to improving science, technology, and engineering and mathematics education, with a focus on Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students. There are three programs in Alaska, Washington State, and Hawaii. They have had outstanding success using an innovative model to recruit and support Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students through engineering, science, and technology programs. These are available at the University of Alaska, the University of Hawaii, and also through the Maui Economic Development Board. The programs' graduation rate is phenomenal. By identifying the students who have an interest in math, science, and technology while they are still in middle school, helping them to graduate from high school with the courses they need to be successful in those disciplines in college, and then mentoring them throughout the college program, these entities have helped so many of our young students, Natives and the non-Natives alike, to really succeed in these demanding and high- need fields. The Higher Education Opportunity Act includes many provisions of which Members of the Senate can be proud. Suffice it to say that before the fall semester begins at many colleges around the country, we will have authorized: improvements to the Federal Pell grant; changes designed to help colleges and textbook publishers take steps to make the textbooks more affordable; increased and improved information about the cost of college and financial aid; rules intended to increase students' safety on campus; and greater State involvement in and accountability to the public for the success of our teacher preparation programs. There are so many provisions in this legislation that I think we have to be proud of, and I thank my colleagues for their good work and certainly urge all Members to support this legislation. And my thanks to those who have led this through the process: Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and Senator Mikulski. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I want to sum up very briefly. I am talking about onshore, but I can tell you, as it relates to OCS development, we are seeing those same levels of technology. Well valves are dependable. We have not had a well blow out since the Santa Barbara accident in 1969. We recognize that our technology allows us to do more than 30 years we could ever have dreamed about. Let's allow us to use our ingenuity to produce so we have the resource we need as a country. Let us use our ingenuity to take this resource and to develop the renewables and the alternatives that are the future of this country. Let's use our ingenuity to be more creative when it comes to conservation and efficiencies. The ingenuity we use with our production of oil and gas is something that should not be disputed but should be encouraged. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, again, I express the concern that we as Republicans are labeled as the party that only chooses to drill, drill, drill our way out of high energy prices. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are viewed as the party that is saying no to any domestic production, no to providing for more energy independence when it comes to what we can do for ourselves, and whose answer is only: Stop the speculation; the answer is only renewables. I come from a producing State. Alaska has been doing a fine job over the past 30 years, providing oil to the rest of the country and providing it in quantities that truly make a difference. We want to be able to continue to provide it. But we recognize that drilling is not the only answer. It is not the only thing that is going to get this country to a position where we are not going to be held hostage by the geopolitical events in Nigeria, in Venezuela, in Iran. We have to be doing more. The answer is a little bit of everything. It is to find more and use less. When we are talking about finding more, we have to be realistic about where we can find more and it should not be in Saudi Arabia's backyard. It should not be in Venezuela. What we can do here we should be doing here. When we say we need to have an energy policy in this country that encourages production and encourages investment for production and discourages consumption, that is what we need to be working toward, Republicans and Democrats alike, not just this finger pointing, saying all you want to do is drill and us, on this other side, saying all you want to do is nothing. We are not answering the problems our constituents are facing back home right now. We are not delivering to them what they need, which is answers. I want to talk a little bit about the situation in my State. The chairman of the Energy Committee, for whom I have such respect, has indicated that in the proposal he is advancing he is looking to do more when it comes to offshore exploration and development in Alaska. As I said, we are a State that supports production. We support development in the northern country. But we also recognize that oftentimes things are out of our control when it comes to the ability to produce. I requested from the Department of Interior, the Minerals Management Offices, MMS, the summary status of what is happening with the litigation that is blocking us from doing any meaningful production when it comes to offshore Alaska, Alaska OCS. There is a total of six litigation cases that are filed against MMS affecting the Alaska OCS. I can provide the details, certainly, but I think what I would like to highlight is--whether it is the 5-year leasing program lawsuit that has been filed by the Center for Biologic Diversity, the Chukchi Sea sale 193 lawsuit, the Beaufort Sea sale 202 lawsuit; the Shell exploration plan lawsuit--Shell's operations have been held up for two seasons now because the ninth circuit has not moved on a decision there--we have a Beaufort and Chukchi Sea seismic survey lawsuit. Other MMS litigation is an FOIA lawsuit related to the Chukchi Sea sale, the Fish and Wildlife Service incidental take regulations, Beaufort Sea as well as Chukchi Sea notices of intent to sue for violations of endangered species as they relate to polar bear, fin and humpback whales, and eiders--my point is we do have opportunities up north. We do have a resource that is incredible. We recognize it. Again, we would like the ability to be producers for the Nation. It is not just the challenges we face dealing with an Arctic environment. So much of what happens that causes delays so that we do not see increased production domestically in this country is due to the litigation. I want to speak a little bit about not necessarily the challenges but the opportunities that we have in the northern environment specifically to produce, and the opportunities that are brought to us because of the technology. Some in this body have suggested that drilling is not the way out and drilling indicates we are guilty of an old way of thinking about energy issues. I think it is probably more accurate to say those who oppose the production of conventional oil and gas in this country as part of a balanced energy policy that includes renewables and includes conservation are the ones who are guilty of old, outdated thinking. It is clear that those who oppose increased domestic production are utterly resistant to the technological changes that have occurred both onshore and offshore in gas production in the past 40 years in this country. Some people say we are mired in the past. I think that is because they refuse to either learn about or to accept the changes in technology that allow for oil and gas to be produced without harm to the environment, wildlife, or to the land. We recognize there can be accidents. We know that firsthand in Alaska. We live daily with that. In fact, I spoke with a fisherman in Cordova--that whole community is still living daily with a terrible accident that happened in our State some 20 years ago. We know an oil barge can hit an oil tanker, as we have seen in Mississippi. But so can pollutants be accidentally released while companies make photovoltaic cells; or chemicals used to make batteries for hybrid and electric cars can accidentally spill and harm the environment. An offshore wind turbine foundation might harm fisheries habitats. A windmill on shore might kill birds. Methane gas might explode. An accident can happen. But why not look at the real impacts of modern technology and the real risks that modern technology involve? I will use my example of what is happening up north with oil exploration. During the past 31 years, the Prudhoe Bay oil field has produced 15 billion barrels of oil. This is about one-fifth of all the oil that this country has produced over the last three decades. During that 31-year time period I can tell you the technology has vastly improved. When Prudhoe opened, wells were drilled over the top of the oil deposits themselves. The wells were about every several hundred yards. Today, hundreds of wells can be drilled from a single well pad and they do this through the technique of directional drilling. That allows the companies to drive wells from one tiny gravel pad that can reach oil deposits under the surface up to an area 8 miles in diameter. That leaves more than a 100-square-mile area of habitat undisturbed between these well pads. These well pads have decreased in size by 88 percent during the life of the Prudhoe Bay field. In addition to directional drilling, we have the 3-D and even 4-D seismic testing. This pinpoints the location of the wells, technology that doesn't harm any animals in the process. Once the companies find the areas they want to explore, they build ice roads to move drilling equipment to the site, roads that melt in the spring leaving no trace, no sign of human activities come summer. I stood on this floor. I told you how it works. It is like a Zamboni going across the tundra. In addition, we place mats--they call them duramats--on the ground to protect the fragile tundra to make sure the wheel tracks are nowhere to be seen when the spring arrives in the Arctic. The new technology goes on. New detection systems on pipelines can sniff out the hydrocarbon molecules and actually shut down a pipeline before drops of oil can reach the environment. It includes requirements that all equipment when they are stopped--up north in Prudhoe, all those areas there--all equipment, whether it is the truck or the rig, when they are stopped they actually place what are called diapers, absorbent pads, under the engine to catch any drops of oil before they touch the ground. More oil probably leaks on the driveways here in Washington, DC than ever reaches the environment of Alaska's North Slope.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I say to my friend, the Senator from Tennessee, in terms of what is out there, the options are enormous. You mentioned a few that are part of our legislation, whether it is the advancement of nuclear or coal to liquids or oil shale or offshore. One of the issues we in Alaska believe in very strongly, and have great public support, not only in the State but growing across the country, is the recognition, up in an area called ANWR, a section of the North Slope that is very lucrative in terms of reserves, we have an opportunity to provide for this Nation more of a resource it desperately needs. We need the permission of the Congress to go ahead and allow for that. So we kind of get nailed on the Republican side by our colleagues who say: Well, all you want to do is drill, drill, drill. And ANWR is one example of that. I remind my colleagues--and perhaps many do not know--I do not know if you actually know as well in terms of what our legislation or what our amendment on opening ANWR would provide in terms of not only the resource, 10.5 billion barrels of oil is the mean estimate, but what we are looking to do then with our amendment is not take those revenues that come to the Federal Treasury, put them in the black hole of the Treasury, but we want to direct those toward the development of renewable resources, for solar power and wind. Eighteen billion dollars could be directed toward the advancements of those areas. Carbon capture and storage technology, $30 billion could be directed in that area; $50 billion for cellulosic biofuels; $15 billion for smart grid electrical technology. What we are doing is, we are taking a resource that we desperately need, using those revenues to direct them to the next generation of energy technology that will allow for a level of independence for this Nation. We know we can't get from where we are now to where we need to be with renewables only by wishful thinking. It is going to take a strong economy and revenues. Let's help with the revenues from a resource like ANWR. Let's stop sending overseas, to countries that are not our friends today and will likely not be our friends in the future, let's stop sending this incredible transfer of wealth. Let's try to do more here and build in a direction where we have technologies working for us for the future energy needs of this country. We have not been given the opportunity to advance such an amendment. That is unfortunate for us, unfortunate that we are not having a full- fledged debate, and unfortunate for the people who have been denied this resource for some 30 years. We opened it. We passed legislation once through the Congress, and it was vetoed 10 years ago by President Clinton. If he had not vetoed that, we would be seeing a million barrels a day coming into this country from the north. We want to be able to provide that.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, under the previous unanimous consent order, I believe the Republicans have 30 minutes under our control. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am pleased to respond to the question from the senior Senator from Tennessee. Alaska is blessed in its abundance of resources, whether it be oil or natural gas, coal, to the timber, to the fisheries, we are absolutely blessed. When it comes to those fossilized fuels, the abundance is extraordinary. Oftentimes people think we are making up the numbers because they are as substantial as they are. We have the potential in the State of Alaska right now, between our onshore assets and our known offshore reserves, when it comes to oil, of an additional 65 billion barrels of oil coming from the State of Alaska. There is 390 trillion cubic feet of natural gas from the onshore reserves and, from what we know, from the offshore. Yesterday there were new numbers released from the USGS on the potential for oil and gas in the Arctic region. This was a survey of the entire Arctic, not only Alaska's resources. Of those resources, they indicated, in terms of oil, it is about 90 billion barrels coming out of the Arctic. Of that 90, a full third would be in the area in the waters off of the State of Alaska, so about 30 billion barrels of oil in terms of resource there. What we are talking about, in terms of the potential for Alaska to contribute in a meaningful manner with increased production, is nothing short of dramatic. When we talk about ANWR specifically--and there has been great debate about whether we should open ANWR--keep in mind, we are not allowed to explore.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I could go on all day talking about Alaska's resources. What I wish to leave Members with is the knowledge that as a mean estimate, we are looking at 10.6 billion barrels of oil out of ANWR. This is not insignificant. We have been providing about close to 20 percent of the Nation's oil for the past 30 years from Prudhoe Bay. We would like the opportunity to continue. We know we have the resource. We have the opportunity. We have the technology, the smarts, the know-how to make it happen and do it right while protecting the environment. I thank the Senator for his questions and recognizing that Alaska has a great deal to offer us as a nation when it comes to energy independence.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, yesterday I had the opportunity to spend about half an hour on the floor talking about the leasing issues around the country and more particularly in Alaska. I had the opportunity to talk about ANWR and about the NPRA, the National Petroleum Reserve, and spent a fair amount of time on the facts. I was quite pleased this morning to come in and read e-mails from people around the country who said: Thank you for talking about some of the facts. We appreciate learning and understanding what ANWR really is, what the potential is in NPRA. Today, I would like to continue on that subject. In Alaska, as we know, we have been blessed with incredible resources. There have been some suggestions in the debate on the floor that perhaps there isn't enough oil and gas in this country for us to really make a meaningful impact with new production. So I wish to speak just a little bit to the production side of the energy solution. According to the latest estimates by the USGS and the Minerals Management Service, it is possible to produce nearly 24 billion barrels of oil and 100.6 trillion cubic feet of gas from onshore areas in northern Alaska--these are mean estimates--and up to another 41 billion barrels of oil and about another 290 trillion cubic feet of gas from offshore waters around Alaska. Just this afternoon, USGS came in with their new Arctic resource appraisal, and they forecast that the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas have a mean chance of containing 30 billion barrels of oil. From an oil perspective, Alaska's Arctic is being forecast to contain a third--a third--of all the undiscovered conventional oil in the Arctic region. We recognize that when we operate up there, we must protect the environment while we develop that energy, and we will. But Alaska offers a lot of energy potential. When I hear some of the comments on the floor that we simply do not even have enough to start, I beg to differ. The potential production from Alaska is triple America's current proven reserves of oil and would be enough oil to meet the Nation's total oil needs for nearly a decade. The gas reserves are nearly double America's current proven reserves and enough to handle all of America's current natural gas consumption for 18 years. These are not trivial reserves, if we are ever allowed to develop them. Just look at what we have up in ANWR, looking at opening the 1.5 million acres of the 1002, the Arctic Coastal Plain. As we talk about ANWR and its potential, what we are not really hearing is what ANWR's oil potential really means to the Nation at the current gas prices, recognizing we are right at $130 a barrel. Earlier this year, the EIA released its latest estimates for ANWR production and what it would mean. At that time, it predicted that ANWR's opening would save the Nation from paying up to $327 billion-- $327 billion--to buy oil from overseas over the life of the field. It predicted that it could reduce America's dependence on imported oil down to 48 percent compared to the more than 60 percent dependence we are at currently. The EIA forecast on ANWR from this winter again actually has been used by some on the floor to argue against opening ANWR, saying ANWR doesn't help the Nation enough, it is going to take too long to have an impact, and therefore we shouldn't be doing it. There is a Chinese proverb out there that says the best time to plant a tree was 10 years ago; the second best time is today. I think that holds true with ANWR. Those who make these arguments saying there is not enough and it is too late do not recognize this EIA forecast is based on the most conservative assumptions possible. We believe the benefits are likely to be twice to three times the amount of the official forecast. The reason is this: The report pegs the price of oil in 2020 at $59.49 a barrel in 2006 dollars. They are looking out to 2020, and they are saying: We figure the price of oil is going to be $59.49. Given that oil is more than twice that today and that few economists predict it is going to drop to $70 or $80 a barrel in the future, ANWR production could help to drive down the price at the pump by a whole lot more than the Government officially forecasts. The International Energy Agency just this week reported that it expects oil prices to rise even further. I know that is not something most Americans want to hear, but given that the era of cheap and easy- to-find gas is over, we should acknowledge that those predictions are reliable. We all remember the Goldman Sachs comment earlier this year. They forecast that oil could reach $200 a barrel, particularly with the geopolitical tensions that are out there. So opening ANWR could help to lower our prices in this country. The myth that ANWR production is not worth doing because there is not much oil there is yet, again, another myth. According to EIA's January forecast, ANWR oil development, assuming a 50-50 chance of finding 10.4 billion barrels of oil, is going to produce 780,000 barrels a day starting in 2018. We think that it can be brought on prior to 2018 and believe that is realistic. We can do more in the State of Alaska. We are ready and standing by to do more, but we need the permission from the Congress to go into ANWR. I know I just spoke strictly to production. I don't typically like to do that. I like to talk about other efforts, including conservation and renewables. Tonight, it is just the facts on ANWR.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity this evening to bring to light some of the comments that have been made on this floor earlier about what is happening with existing leases across the country, the oil and gas leases that exist, and whether the oil companies are sitting on these leases--whether they are producing energy. I will try to assess what we are talking about when we look at the leasing status of the oil and gas opportunities around the country. Some have suggested that perhaps the oil and gas companies are sitting on these leases, that they are not producing energy, in an effort to drive up the prices of oil and gas. I suppose that is a creative theory but, honestly, it is one that has so many holes in it, it is like installing a screen door on a submarine. It is bound to sink. At best, the charge is based on a review of what I consider to be incomplete data viewed through a prism of little actual knowledge of the difficulties of producing energy from any individual tract. At worst, the charge is a smokescreen to cover up the opposition to the production of more oil and natural gas from where it is likely to be found, and not necessarily from those areas where the opponents want it to be located. Currently, of the 45 million acres onshore in the United States under oil and gas lease, about 10.5 million acres are producing energy, with the remaining 34.5 million acres not yet in production. Offshore, of the 49.3 million acres under lease, about 15.2 million acres are producing. These are statistics on which I think we are all in agreement. These are the known leases out there. What that means is, of the Nation's current 67,700 oil and gas leases, about 30,000, or 44 percent, are producing oil and gas at this time. I can understand how, at face value, you look at that and say that doesn't look like a very good track record, only 44 percent producing. The numbers make it seem as if there are lots of leases that the industry is simply not moving on. But I think we need to look at those leases and say: What is the situation? What are the facts on the ground? Let's take a closer look at these inactive leases. This is just the onshore leases. If you look at the 34.5 million acres, of those, 3.2 million acres are suspended while review problems are being worked out. You have 1.1 million acres that are tied up in the development of land use plans. You have 760,000 acres that are blocked from any development by active and ongoing court litigation. You have 645,000 acres that are waiting the completion of legally required environmental impact statements. You have about 450,000 acres that are awaiting revisions of their EISs after reviews, and you have 500,000 acres that are tied up in the production-permitting process. Walking through the numbers, when we are talking about inactive, what does ``inactive'' mean? If you look at the status of many of these, you see there are a multitude of reasons they are not producing: litigation, permitting process, land use plans, other acreage is on hold until companies can find and lease drilling rigs, and then all of the other exploratory equipment that they need to go into these exploratory wells. This is not an easy proposition, given the level of activity in the oil and gas patch right now. I can tell you for a fact that it is extremely difficult to get the drilling rigs, the exploratory rigs, that we need, and there is a wait for those. Even more acres already have been explored, but they are awaiting confirmatory or additional exploratory wells to determine whether the hydrocarbon find is large enough to be economical to produce. Just because you find a little bit doesn't mean that it is going to be economical to produce. You have other tracts that are waiting for infrastructure to be built to get their oil or gas to market. You have heard me say on the Senate floor many times, we have incredible natural gas supplies on the North Slope, all in the northern part of Alaska, but we do not have the infrastructure to get that gas to market. In other cases, complex coordination is needed among a host of differing lease holders to determine the future for new energy provinces that haven't yet been finished. Then, of course, you have some of the tracts that have either demonstrated very disappointing initial shows of the hydrocarbons or they are just too small to be economically produced without production from nearby tracts that have more oil. The overwhelming number of the tracts, the lease tracts that exist out there, simply do not hold any hydrocarbons that anyone has been able to find. Companies may not yet have had enough time to return them to the Government. I have had conversations with some who, it seems, believe that because an oil company has paid good money for a lease there must be oil and gas there. The truth is, while some of these prelease reviews of the tracts are conducted so some of the companies are not exactly bidding blind, the level of presale review is not sufficient for the companies to have a clear vision of whether there is going to be sufficient oil and gas to be found there. About two-thirds of the time it is not, it is not sufficient, and the companies drill their infamous dry wells. As you can see, it is not simply as easy as saying there are 34 million acres that are not producing oil. The examples I have given you are as they relate to onshore. The same is true for offshore exploration. We have to recognize that production just doesn't start once the lease bid has been won. We certainly know that in Alaska. The complication of lawsuits, the regulatory compliance, the current shortages we are seeing of labor, of equipment, of infrastructure--they are ignored by charges of energy lease warehousing. Sometimes when you think about all that goes into exploration and development, it is a wonder--at least it is a wonder to me--that of the 7,700 new leases that have been issued in 2007, we have about 1,800 that have yet to be explored. The industry has obtained drilling permits for the first 5,300 of them. I look at that and say it looks as if they are doing pretty well. But it normally takes longer than a year to start the exploration. The norm is about a 2- to 5-year time period to get through the planning, get through the redtape, before you actually determine whether you have oil. Alaska is different. As you know, our resources, our reservoirs, are quite extensive. We have been producing oil from Alaska's North Slope for the last 30 years and, in my opinion, doing a fine job of it. But we recognize that exploration and development in the Arctic is that much more challenging; it is that much more complicated. The timeframes are that much longer. It takes us about 6 to 7 years at a minimum to get to the point where we are able to determine whether there is oil to be had there. In addition to the delays that I have mentioned, the permitting, for instance, and just the equipment issues, is the requirement that we have in place that ice roads be used to locate the drilling rigs. You just can't take your drilling rig and plunk it out there on the tundra. We have very firm and set requirements for how that exploratory activity can take place, when it can take place. The companies have to wait until the tundra is frozen. They have to wait until it is frozen before they can move the rigs to the sites. It is an extremely limited exploratory season. When you have a limited season like this, it can add years to the timetable for exploration. I had asked our DEC, our Department of Environmental Conservation, which is the State department that makes the determination as to when the companies can actually go out onto the tundra and engage in any exploratory work out there. For the 2007-2008 exploration season, the timeframe in Alaska was December to May. This includes the time that it takes to move the equipment to the site. Just to give an example of what we are talking about, it depends on where you are going. It is not just the beginning of December to the end of May. In the e-mail that we received from DEC, it says ``oil companies can begin regular travel across the tundra along the coast on December 28. In the upper foothills you cannot begin until January 24, and in the eastern and lower foothills''--this is where most of the activity has occurred--``you can commence on January 16 of 2008.'' They have about 4 months to do their work. They have to be off the tundra in the upper foothills on May 13, and out of everywhere else on May 16. This is how precise it is. It is not because we are looking at a calendar, and there is some magic day. It depends on what is happening with the season, how cold it is. The rules are--and I am quoting: The companies can't get onto the tundra until the ground is a negative 5 degrees centigrade, 30 centimeters down-- About a foot-- and until there is 9 inches of snowcover to protect the vegetation. For all those who are saying you can't do this exploration in Alaska because we do not care about our environment, let me tell you we have been caring about our environment for a long time. We put these parameters in place because we do care about the ecosystem. We do care about the condition of the tundra. We do want you to have an ice bridge that you move this heavy equipment across during the winter months and that is removed right after you have done the exploration. Then when the spring comes, and the summer, and the thaw happens, there is no mark to the tundra because your road has melted. We leave no impact. But when you think about how you do business in any other field--if you are a construction company, you know what your construction season is. If you are a fisherman, you know what your fishing season is. The oil and gas industry in Alaska, they know that their exploratory season is very limited. Essentially we are talking about 60 to 90 days a year. In the National Petroleum Reserve--I will put up the map just so people can understand what we are talking about in terms of the geography. This is the ANWR area. This is State lands. This is our Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which is carrying the existing oil from the Prudhoe Bay fields down to the southern part of the State. This is the National Petroleum Reserve. In the NPRA, waiting for these frozen conditions to allow for exploration again means that the companies have between 60 to 90 days during which actual drilling can take place. The leases on the North Slope, then--put it in context--are available for drilling activity between somewhere about 15 percent to 25 percent of the year. You put that in context with most any other industry and you would say you can't just operate only 15 percent of the year. Your costs must be incredible. Yes, costs are incredible up there. A single drill rig can only drill at most two exploration wells per year, and part of this is just how we move the equipment. The ice for making the roads, the weather issues, the fuel, and the logistics--all these account for about 75 percent of the costs for exploration. The actual drilling actually accounts for about 25 percent of the costs. For all of these various reasons, in the NPRA, the oil and gas industry has only been able to drill 28 exploratory wells since the year 2000. This is out of the hundreds of leased tracts. So far, the area in which they have found some prospective tracts is in the Greater Mooses Tooth Unit, but unfortunately, given how far these small amounts of oil are from the existing nearest infrastructure, which is the Alpine Oilfield, production is anticipated to still be quite far away. Again, to put it in context, this red line here is our existing pipeline going down to Valdez, but you have pipeline infrastructure up here on the coast. The Alpine field extends to here, and the Mooses Tooth area is right in this region here. But it is 80 to 100 miles to connect from some of these more prospective finds to the existing infrastructure. On the other hand, it is about 25 miles between the end of the pipeline here and the 1002 area in ANWR where we are seeking to have an opportunity to explore and drill. I think what I want to leave folks with this evening is keeping in mind that not all leases are equally prospective. We know you have some elephant finds; Prudhoe was an elephant find. We believe the ANWR will also be an elephant field. But we know that for every big find you have out there, there are just as many, if not more, dry holes. There are leases where the companies spend billions of dollars to buy, as they have this past year in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Chukchi Sea over here. There, the geology is very favorable for oil and gas discoveries. But mostly companies buy usually a minimum lease, and the cost is a couple of million dollars per tract, and they are really very marginal. Those are the leases that likely do not contain the oil and gas that are still awaiting exploration. We look at how the oil companies are making their investment because certainly from Alaska's perspective, we want to know whether they are investing in oil and gas opportunities up north. This last year, the top 25 oil and gas companies in the United States invested $1.15 trillion on exploration and production, the top 5 companies spent $765 billion on exploration from 1992 to 2006, and in both instances industry members invested more than they earned back in profits. Now, in part, this is because this country has not been putting its most prospective tracts for oil and gas discoveries up for lease. You have some 777 million acres of lands onshore that are off limits to oil and gas production. That is about 62 percent of the Nation's likely oil and gas potential. To bring it back to Alaska, think of ANWR, the place where the largest onshore deposit of oil is likely to be found in America. There is a 95-percent chance that 5.7 billion barrels will be found, a 5- percent chance that there will be 16 billion barrels, and the mean estimate is about 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil. And it is off limits. It is off limits. Offshore, 1.76 billion acres of our coastline are off limits to development. This is an area which is believed to hold approximately 80 billion barrels of oil. So in kind of wrapping up my comments here this evening about the leases, I wish to remind folks that when they talk about the ``use it or lose it'' rationale or direction they feel we should take, they need to remember that these oil and gas leases around the country already expire after 10 years. Only in Alaska can companies seek an additional 10-year extension to bring the leases into production. This is a right we had granted companies in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and we did it for the reasons I have outlined for you tonight, because we recognized that environmentally sound exploration was, in many cases, taking longer than 10 years. I do not think there are any of you out there who are going to suggest that, well, we do not want to do it in an environmentally sound manner. Well, if we are going to do it right and we are going to protect the environment, it might take us a little bit longer in a place such as Alaska where you are only able to explore and engage in exploratory and production activity for 15 to 25 percent of the year. You have to ask the question, Why should companies spend money on new leases in an area where they can easily be delayed from bringing oil and gas online and then lose all of their investment through no fault of their own? Companies also have no reason to delay producing oil. Each year, they pay between $1 and $5 onshore and $6.25 and $9.50 an acre offshore to keep their leases in effect. So in order to hold their leases, they have to be paying. Think about what they have already kind of put in place, if you will. They have purchased the lease up front, and for many of the leases, they are extremely expensive in terms of the outlays the company has to make. Then they engage in the pre-exploratory efforts. I keep mentioning NPRA and the cost we are seeing there. It is anywhere between $50 and $100 million to drill an exploratory well in the NPRA area--$50 to $100 million to drill. And then what happens if you drill and there is nothing there? Well, you get to give it back, but you do not get anything from the Federal Treasury when you give it back. These are costs you have as a company. So there is a very powerful incentive for companies to see the development of any lease acres they believe have the potential they are looking for, a powerful incentive for companies to speed development of the 68 million acres that some argue is not being developed quickly enough. We have a ``use it or lose it'' law in place. It is a situation of enforcing it, and we do enforce it. There is no reason, in my mind, that we need to do more in this area at this time. I know I have gone over my time. I had hoped to be able to have a little discussion about the distinctions between the ANWR area and the NPRA area. I do not see any of my colleagues on the floor at this point in time, so with the permission of the Chair, I would like to continue, unless there is another order at hand.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to kind of walk people through a little bit of the distinction, if you will, with ANWR, which the American public has heard an awful lot about for the past 20 years as we have, in our effort, attempted to open this 1002 area that was set aside for exploration and development when the refuge area was established. ANWR consists of an area that is 19.6 million acres--the size of the State of South Carolina. This map is a little bigger and helps you put it in context. This is the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the State of Alaska. It borders against Canada. And here is our pipeline coming down. This whole Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the size of the State of South Carolina, again, about 19.6 million acres. Also within the Refuge is a huge wilderness area, the ANWR wilderness area. It is 10.1 million acres in the Refuge itself. Nothing can happen in the wilderness area in terms of any development whatsoever. It is wilderness. We have established it as such. It will remain as such. The area we are talking about in ANWR for development is what is known as the 1002 area, taken from the legislation itself, section 1002. What we are talking about when we ask for permission from the Congress to allow for exploration in ANWR is not permission to drill in the Refuge, not permission to explore in the wilderness, but permission to explore in the area that was set aside by Congress for the purpose of exploration and development in this 1002 area; it is 1.5 million acres in this area. But we are not seeking to do all of the 1002 area with exploratory wells; we are asking for permission to drill in an area that would be about a 2,000-acre area. So when you kind of winnow down what we are talking about, it is really pretty minimal in context of the whole. If you take into account that the Refuge area is the size of South Carolina, this is the area we are looking to explore. And within that area, we have agreed we do not think we need more than 2,000 acres of area for disturbance. Why do we think we can get by with that small amount? It is simply because we have advanced our technologies so far when it comes to oil and gas development in the Arctic, the technologies that allow us to drill under the surface and go out directionally up to almost 8 miles in every direction. The caribou are on top, and they do not know what is going on. You do not have disturbance to the surface. It is our technology that will allow us to extract a resource and utilize the resource and still allow for the care of the environment, for the animals that are there, for the caribou that migrate through. We want to do it right. So this is the ANWR area I mentioned earlier. This is the existing series of pipelines that spurred off of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline built about 30 years ago. The line extends to an area about 25 miles to the border of the 1002 area. So when we are talking about access to the resource, to the infrastructure that is there, it is not too bad, 25 miles. It is still difficult given the environment, but it is certainly doable. Let's go over here to NPRA. NPRA is 23 million acres in size, 23 million acres total; 4.4 million acres are new acres available for leasing, 3.94 of which are available immediately. These are leases in the northeast and the northwest part of NPRA. If you look at this map, it has the leases themselves. These are in the green area. The 2006 leases are in this area here, and then the new leases that are coming on are in the northeast and the northwest area of NPRA. The crosshatched areas we see here have been put off; in other words, we have deferred these areas. This area here north of Teshekpuk Lake is now protected, 430,000 acres in this area. We have agreed to this deferral because we recognize the sensitivity of the ecosystem, the waterfowl that come through there. It is an area that we recognize should be off limits. NPRA, in terms of its prospects, the estimate is 5.9 to 13.2 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. So the mean there is about 9.3. It is right in the same ballpark as ANWR. If you recall, I said ANWR had a mean estimate of about 10 billion barrels of oil. So it is about the same. The difference is access to the infrastructure and the geography. Go back to this other map. If you have 10 billion barrels estimated in this small area and you have 10 billion barrels estimated in this larger area, we are talking about 1.5 million acres versus 23 million acres. It doesn't take a math genius to figure out that it is more concentrated in ANWR; 15 times more oil per acre in ANWR than NPRA. That is worth repeating: 15 times more oil per acre in ANWR than you would anticipate in the NPRA. The other issue is access to the infrastructure. When you are looking at 25 miles from the end of the pipeline here to get to the 1002 area and recognize that you have opportunities through directional drilling so you can minimize impact to the surface, that is not too bad of a stretch. But when you are looking at your more lucrative finds in these areas, looking at, say, 150 to 200 miles of pipeline to get your resource into infrastructure, it is extremely difficult to reckon with that. That has been one of the issues we have faced. BLM is proceeding expeditiously. They have been working to advance the leasing program in the NPRA area. It is interesting because it seems that some in the House and the Senate have just discovered NPRA. They say, well, you have all these wonderful leases over there and you have all this great opportunity. You should make that happen. It certainly does sound easy. I would like to do more to make it happen. But when you are dealing with geography, as we are, when you are dealing with environmental issues, when you are dealing with a lack of infrastructure, when you are dealing with a limited exploratory season and the extremely high cost, it is not so easy to make it happen. Back in the 1940s, when NPRA first started leasing, 36 test wells were drilled, 45 shallow cores were drilled to find commercial oil and gas. But they didn't find any. In the 1980s, there were 28 more test wells. Seismic was conducted. In 2000, in the leasing period then, we saw 28 exploratory wells drilled and at least 12 3-D seismic efforts had been conducted, shooting the 3-D seismic in the area. But again, the only small finds that we have come upon have been in the Greater Mooses Tooth area. The problem is, to this point in time, we haven't found enough in these areas to justify a pipeline that would be 80 miles, 100 miles to connect up. That is a harsh reality. It is going to take realistically 6 to 7 years to bring NPRA tracts into production. Compare this with the 2 to 5 years in the lower 48. It takes that much longer. Compare the cost we face for exploration in NPRA. You are looking at wells that are costing somewhere between $50 and $100 million to do a single exploration well. This is compared to wells that can cost 6 to 10 times less in the lower 48. I don't want to make excuses for Alaska, because we want to develop more. We are ready to develop more. But we recognize it does take longer for the multitude of reasons I have mentioned. One of the things that perhaps has not been talked about and I might not have mentioned in my earlier comments when I was speaking about leases is the number of leases we actually see turned back by the companies. About 700,000 acres of awarded leases since 2000, in the NPRA area, have been turned back. If you look at this map--and I know on the screen you won't be able to see the squares--in these areas, in these areas, in these areas, in these areas, about 700,000 acres have been returned by Conoco-Phillips. This is the company that has the most experience in the area. They have already given up on 267 lease tracts in the preserves. They may well end up turning back another 407 tracts covering 2.8 million acres by the end of this year. What they are finding is a lot of natural gas, but the oil potential seems to have dimmed in areas where they are looking. As I said, we have a lot of natural gas up there, but we don't have the infrastructure. We are working on that. The State of Alaska is working diligently. Our legislature is actually meeting in about an hour to take a significant vote on how we move forward with construction of a gas line. Again, the potential for NPRA is certainly there. We believe it is very viable. I mentioned the mean estimate of about 10 billion barrels. But the seismic evidence we are getting back seems to indicate that the likelihood for oil is diminishing, and we are seeing greater gas. One of the things we also recognize is that the area that is viewed most prospective around Teshekpuk Lake here is the area that has been deferred from leasing for at least a decade. This was the outcome of lawsuits by environmental groups that had opposed the development in this key habitat area for waterfowl, the black brant. Our reality is that as good as NPRA is and as much as we want to see NPRA developed, it is less prospective than the Arctic Coastal Plain to the east; again, 15 times more oil forecast to be discovered per acre in ANWR than in NPRA. I have had an opportunity this evening to give a little bit of perspective about what is available up in the Arctic in Alaska, what we would like to be able to provide. But I am also trying to leave my colleagues with a sense of the pragmatism, the reality that comes with oil exploration and production, not only in the Arctic, where it is challenging and very difficult, but in the rest of the country. When we say we have these leases that are in play and the companies have chosen not to produce, it is only right that we look more closely at these inactive leases and ask: What is the delay? What is the problem? Is it litigation? Is it some kind of a land use plan delaying it? Where are they in that process? But to suggest that because we are not seeing actual production here and now, that somehow or other we are not trying hard enough, ignores the reality of the complications the industry faces on a daily basis. We want to do more. We want to find more, use less, as we have all been saying. But I think it is important that we recognize as we attempt to find more, we have to be realistic in terms of our expectations. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support legislation that will provide a 2-year moratorium on National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits for all commercial fishing vessels of any size and for all other commercial vessels less then 79 feet. The legislation requires the EPA, working with the Coast Guard, to conduct a 15-month study during the moratorium period to evaluate the impacts of various discharges from vessels and report their findings to Congress for the purposes of making final decisions on vessel discharge permit requirements. Discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels have been exempt from NPDES permits under the Clean Water Act since 1973. The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System was developed for industrial sources of pollution and was not designed for mobile sources. In 2006, the U.S. District Court for Northern California ruled that the EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act in exempting these discharges and issued an order revoking the exemption and requiring the agency to permit these discharges by September 30, 2008. The EPA has appealed the decision, but in the meantime, the agency has proposed to permit both recreational and commercial vessels under two general permits. While the EPA has proposed a general permit system that does not require individual permits, all commercial and recreational vessels would still be subject to the regulations, fines, and enforcement and citizen lawsuits of the Clean Water Act. Considering incidental discharges for these vessels have been exempt for the past 35 years, it is hard to support permitting when we have such a dearth of information about what the discharges are, especially for small commercial and recreational boats. The commercial moratorium bill directs the EPA to study the incidental discharges of commercial vessels to determine the volume, type and frequency of various categories and sizes of vessels. It is my sincere hope that after the results of the study are reported to the Senate Environment and Public Works and Commerce Committees, and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Congress will take action to exempt commercial vessels, as we are now doing for the recreational sector under the Clean Boating Act. The commercial vessels that will be included are commercial fishing vessels of any size and other commercial vessels less then 79 feet. I need to clarify that it is my understanding that a commercial fishing vessel is one that previously or is presently engaged in the harvesting, taking or catching of commercial fish. Many commercial fishing boats in the United States also work as fish tenders and it is my intention that the fishing vessels working in this capacity are also included in the covered vessels under the commercial moratorium bill. I also support S. 2766, the Clean Boating Act of 2008. This legislation exempts recreational vessels from the NPDES permitting while the EPA develops best management practices for this sector. Neither category of vessels has documented discharge levels that have been shown to be harmful to the environment. The court case that required the EPA to develop this permit system was focused on invasive species and ballast water. Neither recreational nor small commercial vessels have ballast tanks and very few are ocean-going vessels. Enactment of this legislation, together with the Clean Boating Act will provide the recreation sector an exemption and commercial boats a two year waiver with the possibility for exemptions based on the outcome of the discharge study. It was a collaborative, negotiated process that developed the Clean Boating Act and the commercial moratorium legislation. I ask my colleagues to support both of these bills and I ask that they both pass by unanimous consent today.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I want to thank my colleagues for engaging in this colloquy and raising this issue, which is also of importance to my home State of Alaska. Like New Mexico and Iowa, Alaska is a rural State where approximately 600 nurse practitioners provide critical access to care in Alaska underserved areas. As a matter of fact some areas of Alaska are so rural and isolated they are primarily served by providers who use airplanes as their mode of transportation. Among these providers are nurse practitioners, who often are the most accessible providers in certain areas in Alaska. Alaska has one of the highest numbers of nurse practitioners per capita of any other State. Nurse practitioners function as partners in the healthcare of their patients, so that, in addition to clinical services, nurse practitioners focus on health promotion, disease prevention and health education and counseling, guiding patients to make smarter health and lifestyle choices. NPs provide healthcare to people of all ages, all over the State of Alaska, in diverse healthcare settings such as private offices, community clinics, hospitals, long-term care facilities, schools, and health departments, and about 40 percent of nurse practitioners in Alaska practice in rural settings, outside the major cities in Alaska, and an estimated 25 percent practice in medically underserved areas of Alaska. For these reasons and to allow Alaskans the easiest access to a provider in the medical home demonstration, I would encourage the Secretary to allow nurse practitioners to fully participate and lead medical home demonstrations.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will help commercial fishermen in Alaska and all over the United States offset high fuel prices by providing a temporary income tax credit for excessive fuel costs. I am pleased to have Mr. Stevens join me in introducing this important legislation. Diesel fuel prices in Alaska and across the Nation have increased more than 50 percent over the past year. Some fishermen are reporting that they are now spending up to 70 percent of their income for fuel. This is having a devastating impact on this industry as fishermen do not have the option of passing the cost of fuel onto clients or customers, turning to alternative modes of transportation to do their jobs, or selling their product for a higher price. They can't simply increase the price of fish to offset higher fuel costs. Fish prices, in most cases, are set by the seafood processing sector and are tied to prices in the global seafood market in which Alaskan and American seafood compete. All around the world, fishermen are responding to this crisis. They are blockading harbors in Ireland and France, protesting at the European Union headquarters in Belgium, rioting in Italy and Spain, burning fishing boats in Thailand, and striking in Japan. Fishermen all over the United States are staying tied to the dock, unable to make enough money from their catch to pay for the fuel. In Gloucester and Biloxi, Key West and Honolulu, Point Judith and Kodiak, fishermen simply can't afford to go fishing. And some U.S. vessels are running all the way from the Gulf of Mexico and California to Mexico to buy fuel. Even the Federal Government is cancelling fishery stock assessment surveys due to the high cost of fuel. As you can see, fishermen are getting hit from all sides right now. When fishermen can't go fishing, they can't make their boat and permit payments. Many are simply going out of business. Fishermen are not the only ones who are concerned about the high price of fuel. The seafood processing sector also is facing higher costs for energy and many other inputs and is worried about the industry's ability to maintain a steady supply of fish. When fishermen don't leave the dock, the processors don't get their fish and a major seafood supply shortage could occur in the near future. Some people might say that if fish stocks were healthier or fewer boats were fishing, that the industry could better deal with the increased price of fuel. But even in Alaska, where we have abundant, sustainably managed fish stocks that supply over 50 percent of the seafood in the United States, we are still suffering. The price of fuel has increased from an average of $1.80 per gallon in 2004 to $2.80 last year and diesel is now $4.50 on average. In Alaska, we have already limited the number of vessels in most fisheries, so they are not over capitalized. We also have established many limited access privilege programs such as limited entry, individual fishing quotas, and coops, where fishermen can make choices to harvest in the most efficient and economic way. So, even though we have tried to make the fisheries much more economical, we still are being severely impacted by these high fuel prices. We are much more able to withstand these high fuel prices than regions and fisheries that have not limited the number of vessels or slowed the race for fish. But, many fisheries in Alaska, including our salmon fisheries, where over 150 million fish likely will be caught in a 2\1/2\ month season, fishermen must catch the fish while they are available. In other parts of the country, where fishermen are still racing for fish and have not limited the number of vessels participating, things must be far worse. In order to provide temporary relief to the commercial fishermen across the country, I am introducing this legislation. If we allow the fishermen in this country to stay tied to the dock, or go out of business, we may lose a large portion of the industry. Since over 80 percent of the seafood Americans eat is imported, we simply can't afford for this to happen. We must try to assist this industry weather this storm. I believe this legislation will help us do that.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will help commercial fishermen in Alaska and all over the United States offset high fuel prices by providing a temporary income tax credit for excessive fuel costs. I am pleased to have Mr. Stevens join me in introducing this important legislation. Diesel fuel prices in Alaska and across the Nation have increased more than 50 percent over the past year. Some fishermen are reporting that they are now spending up to 70 percent of their income for fuel. This is having a devastating impact on this industry as fishermen do not have the option of passing the cost of fuel onto clients or customers, turning to alternative modes of transportation to do their jobs, or selling their product for a higher price. They can't simply increase the price of fish to offset higher fuel costs. Fish prices, in most cases, are set by the seafood processing sector and are tied to prices in the global seafood market in which Alaskan and American seafood compete. All around the world, fishermen are responding to this crisis. They are blockading harbors in Ireland and France, protesting at the European Union headquarters in Belgium, rioting in Italy and Spain, burning fishing boats in Thailand, and striking in Japan. Fishermen all over the United States are staying tied to the dock, unable to make enough money from their catch to pay for the fuel. In Gloucester and Biloxi, Key West and Honolulu, Point Judith and Kodiak, fishermen simply can't afford to go fishing. And some U.S. vessels are running all the way from the Gulf of Mexico and California to Mexico to buy fuel. Even the Federal Government is cancelling fishery stock assessment surveys due to the high cost of fuel. As you can see, fishermen are getting hit from all sides right now. When fishermen can't go fishing, they can't make their boat and permit payments. Many are simply going out of business. Fishermen are not the only ones who are concerned about the high price of fuel. The seafood processing sector also is facing higher costs for energy and many other inputs and is worried about the industry's ability to maintain a steady supply of fish. When fishermen don't leave the dock, the processors don't get their fish and a major seafood supply shortage could occur in the near future. Some people might say that if fish stocks were healthier or fewer boats were fishing, that the industry could better deal with the increased price of fuel. But even in Alaska, where we have abundant, sustainably managed fish stocks that supply over 50 percent of the seafood in the United States, we are still suffering. The price of fuel has increased from an average of $1.80 per gallon in 2004 to $2.80 last year and diesel is now $4.50 on average. In Alaska, we have already limited the number of vessels in most fisheries, so they are not over capitalized. We also have established many limited access privilege programs such as limited entry, individual fishing quotas, and coops, where fishermen can make choices to harvest in the most efficient and economic way. So, even though we have tried to make the fisheries much more economical, we still are being severely impacted by these high fuel prices. We are much more able to withstand these high fuel prices than regions and fisheries that have not limited the number of vessels or slowed the race for fish. But, many fisheries in Alaska, including our salmon fisheries, where over 150 million fish likely will be caught in a 2\1/2\ month season, fishermen must catch the fish while they are available. In other parts of the country, where fishermen are still racing for fish and have not limited the number of vessels participating, things must be far worse. In order to provide temporary relief to the commercial fishermen across the country, I am introducing this legislation. If we allow the fishermen in this country to stay tied to the dock, or go out of business, we may lose a large portion of the industry. Since over 80 percent of the seafood Americans eat is imported, we simply can't afford for this to happen. We must try to assist this industry weather this storm. I believe this legislation will help us do that.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President. I am honored this morning to join with my colleagues to observe the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and to participate by reading some of the documents that had underscored the principles of that great declaration. Near the end of President-elect Abraham Lincoln's inaugural journey from Springfield, IL, to Washington, DC, he stopped in the city of Philadelphia. It was the occasion of George Washington's birthday. Lincoln gave an impromptu speech at Independence Hall on February 22, 1861, and it was a speech that demonstrated his deep commitment to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. It was a commitment that would be tested in the years to come and for which he, too, gave his life. So with that little introduction, I wish to read this impromptu address delivered by Abraham Lincoln. He stated: I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing here, in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to the present distracted condition of the country. I can say in return, sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated and were given to the world from this hall. I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here, and framed and adopted that Declaration of Independence. I have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that Independence. I have often inquired of myself what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is the sentiment embodied in that Declaration of Independence. Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world if I can help to save it. If it can't be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But, if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle--I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than to surrender it. Now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there is no need of bloodshed and war. There is no necessity for it. I am not in favor of such a course, and I may say in advance, there will be no bloodshed unless it be forced upon the Government. The Government will not use force unless force is used against it. My friends, this is a wholly unprepared speech. I did not expect to be called upon to say a word when I came here--I supposed I was merely to do something towards raising a flag. I may, therefore, have said something indiscreet, but I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by, and, in the pleasure of Almighty God, die by. Mr. President, those were the words--the very eloquent words--given by President-elect Abraham Lincoln at Independence Hall on February 22, 1861--again, words that were impromptu, words that were inspired by his deep commitment, truly, to the principles embodied in our Declaration of Independence. It is most fitting that as a Senate, as a body, we recognize those principles; that we again read those speeches from those great leaders from so many years ago, those leaders who have shaped our Nation to be the great Nation it is. With that, I again thank the Senators who have given us the opportunity to read these profound words again and to share them with citizens across this great Nation. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from the State of Idaho. As he indicated, Senator Church was a great leader in the statehood fight. Idaho and Alaska have long since maintained that good relationship from five decades ago. I also recognize the comments of Senator Murray from Washington. The relationship our two States have had throughout the years through trade and commerce has provided issues on which we have worked jointly. Again, I thank them for taking the time to help Alaska commemorate its 50th anniversary celebration. I will tell my colleagues, as the first Senator serving in the Senate to ever have been born in the State of Alaska--I was actually born just a little bit before statehood, born in the territory--I am fiercely passionate about my State. My mother was born in the community of Nome in the early 1930s, at a time when Alaska was pretty rough and tumble. My family on both sides was involved in the issues that led to statehood. I am very proud of how we as a State have advanced over these 50 years. To be able to recognize that progress and then look forward with anticipation as we forge the next 50 years, a State that has so much to offer this country, not only our natural resources but the ingenuity and resourcefulness of our people, the fact that our Alaska Natives per capita serve at record numbers in our military, providing for the defense of this country, we are full participants in this great Nation. Even though our geography separates us, there is a sense of patriotism and love for this country that does not go without recognition. I am honored to stand before the Senate today to celebrate the battle that led to statehood and the recognition of decades of good work. I yield the floor.

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