Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, the rising number of Americans without health insurance is a problem that is recognized by all Members of this body. There are some 46.6 million Americans today who are not receiving proper medical care. Compounding the problem is the reality that, as my colleague from Oregon--Senator Wyden--likes to say, we do not have a health care system in this country; we have a sick care system. As we look at the growing cost to our economy that health care represents, the number one thing we can do today to reduce that cost is preventative medicine--making sure that Americans can access health care today, so that they are not sick tomorrow. The Children's Health Insurance Program is an important means to provide the most vulnerable of our population--our children--with health care. And we all know that when our children are sick, it is not just the child that is impacted but the parents as well; missing time at work to care for their child or catching the latest bug their child brings home from the daycare center. The social and economic impact of a sick child goes well beyond the need for cough syrup or a band-aid. And the impact is even greater in our Native communities. Section 401 of the CHIP reauthorization bill provides $10 million in grants for child health studies, including: preventative health care, treatment for chronic and acute conditions, and discovery of knowledge gaps within CHIP and child health. Studies such as these will help to narrow the gap in treatment disparities among native and non-White children, as well as to provide preventive health care services so our children stay healthy while reducing the expensive costs of sick care in America. This is just one reason why it is important that programs such as CHIP continue their viability. If the President vetoes the bill as he said he would, the resulting straight reauthorization of CHIP at the current baseline assumption means that 800,000 children currently enrolled in CHIP would lose their coverage. But under the CHIP reauthorization bill, those children, plus 4 million more children would be able to access health care--preventive care. We should not have to read about tragedies such as 12-year old Deamonte Driver from Maryland who died from a tooth abscess. Deamonte's life could have been saved by a routine $80 tooth extraction but his family was booted from Medicaid and his mother couldn't afford to pay for Deamonte to receive the necessary dental care. Deamonte Driver died in February of this year. This heartbreaking story is just one example of why the reauthorization of CHIP--at the Finance Committee passed levels--is so important. 800,000 more children should not be put in a similar position as Deamonte. In addition, outreach programs will allow more children to be enrolled in the CHIP and Medicaid programs. This bill provides $100 million in grants for outreach and reenrollment efforts--$10 million will provide grants to Indian organizations to improve enrollment of Native Americans. Another $10 million will be spent on a national outreach program and the remaining $80 million will target rural areas with high rates of eligible but not enrolled children, racial and ethnic minorities and populations with cultural barriers to enrollment. But CHIP is only one part of the health care struggle. As I noted before, some 46.6 million Americans are without health care insurance. In my State of Alaska, about one out of six people do not have health insurance. And the sad reality is that most of those without health insurance are employed. Only 1 in 10 of the uninsured in Alaska are unemployed people in the workforce. For every family that is covered through an employer-based health care policy or is able to purchase their own health care insurance, fewer adults and children will rely on Medicaid and CHIP for their health care needs, and create less of a strain on Federal resources. We know that preventive care is much more effective, both medically and economically, than caring for an illness. Likewise, providing our businesses with the ability to offer affordable health care insurance to their employees is a preventative means to lower the Federal Government's costs as mandatory spending for health care programs takes up a greater and greater portion of the Federal budget. Until we reach the point where we in Congress can agree on how to address the future of our Nation's health care policies, however, programs like CHIP are needed to ensure that those who are most vulnerable are not left out. I support this reauthorization bill as a temporary fix of a long standing problem, but we as a Congress must be willing to take a serious look at the future of our health care system, and ask ourselves if we are serious about fixing it. It is a decision that will impact millions of Americans. I urge the President to support the CHIP bill to allow more American children access to the healthcare they need to stay healthy, to stay alert and to function well in school. The best investment we can make is in our children and by signing the CHIP bill, the President can grant our future generation of over 10 million children access to vital health care services.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have had a very good, healthy debate in the Senate this week on the subject of the war in Iraq. Sometimes it has been more spirited than usual. At times, it was spirited to the point where some things were said that perhaps did not further a good constructive debate but took the debate a little bit downhill. We in the Senate recognize it is our job to bring forward the issues, to discuss the very difficult considerations that are before us as a Congress, but to always do it in a manner that reflects the level of civility a truly good discourse, a good debate should bring. I had an opportunity a couple days ago to speak with a general from my home State. I asked him for his comments on what he was seeing as he was watching our debate. He said: Senator, the debate has been good. The debate has been healthy. There clearly are different perspectives that are coming out on the floor, but through it all, no one has foresworn the soldier. He said: That makes me feel good as an American, certainly good as a military leader. That is important to remember, that in the heat of debate, we not foreswear our military, that we always honor and respect that which they do in such an honorable way. I personally want to thank Senator Webb, the junior Senator from Virginia, for bringing forth an issue this week. This was the amendment he introduced that related to the amount of dwell time, the amount of time deployed versus the amount of time a serviceman stays at home. It was important for us to focus on the support side of our military. We know that those who are serving us over in Iraq and Afghanistan, and truly in all parts of the world, where they are separated from their families, are at their best and serving us to their fullest when they are able to focus on their job. For those families who remain behind, who miss not having dad or mom at home or miss not having their husband or their wife with them, they wish the circumstances were otherwise. But we know that the families who have stood behind our service men and women, allowing them to serve--it is these families, too, who are serving our country. We need to recognize the sacrifices those families also make. They may not be on the front lines, but there is no shortage of worry and concern and true anxiety over the health and safety of their loved ones. We put our military families through a great deal of stress at a time of war particularly. Just as we can never adequately tell our service men and women thank you enough, neither can we say thank you enough to the families who provide that support. I thank Senator Webb for reminding us of the obligation we owe to the military families themselves. We all have our own stories of the exchanges we have had with the military families in our respective States. A situation that is very clear in my mind, even well over a year later, was an incident that happened in July 2006. This was, specifically, July 27 in Fort Wainwright, AK, near Fairbanks, where it was publicly announced that the men and women of the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team were going to be extended in Iraq for 120 days. There was some uncertainty as to whether it was just 120 days or whether it would go even beyond. This Stryker Brigade had been serving very admirably, honorably in a difficult part of Iraq and had been there for a year. This decision literally pulled the rug out from under the families and the community in Fairbanks. It was a surprise, a shock to the servicemembers and their families. At the time that extension was announced, some elements of the 172nd had already returned home. They were back in Alaska. There were airplanes that were transporting other elements back home that literally turned around in midair when they got the notice of the extension. Soldiers who had remained behind in Iraq were packing up the unit. They had heard the rumors that they might be extended. Unfortunately, they heard it from their family members back in Fairbanks, who had heard it on the news and then contacted their loved ones over in Iraq. They made some very difficult phone calls confirming that, in fact, the rumors were true. This was an absolutely unacceptable situation. It is one thing to be prepared for an extension. It is one thing to know this is your commitment. But when your family is anxiously awaiting you, when you are anxiously awaiting your return after a year's service in combat, it was horrible for the families. I was in Fort Wainwright a couple days after the announcement of the extension. At the front gate of the post they have a chain-link fence that goes for a mile or so. In anticipation of the return of their loved ones, families had pulled together the homemade banners saying, ``Welcome home, Daddy. We miss you, we love you, we can't wait to see you.'' Those signs, some of them clearly in children's writing, absolutely broke one's heart because those signs were made with great anticipation and then put up on the fence. They were not going to be seeing dad that next day or that next week. They were not going to be seeing their husband as a consequence of the extension. As a consequence of that extension, there were a few who never came home at all. This was a difficult situation, of course, for the families, for the soldiers. It certainly brought me much closer to many of those military families. It caused me to set in mind a singular goal: that we were going to bring the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team home without any further extension. This was tough enough, this 120-day extension, but we were going to make sure there was no further extension. To the Army's credit, they stepped up to the plate. They brought a very extensive menu of family support services that we had never seen before. The Fairbanks community, which has always been extremely welcoming, loving toward our military--gave an outpouring of support. They truly went above and beyond. The other thing we saw at that time was the strength of the family readiness groups, the women, the wives who had for a year been holding everybody together, encouraging the younger wives who had never gone through deployment. There was a great deal of camaraderie, a great deal of support. The support from those family readiness groups helped them get through the additional 120 days. In December of last year, the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team came home. There was no further extension. They were able to be home for Christmas. They were able to return because another unit that was ready to go broke dwell and went over early to relieve the 172nd. That speaks volumes about the sacrifices the men and the women of our military and their military families make every day supporting our Nation and supporting each other. I was at Fort Wainwright in December when the returning soldiers were arriving. I spent one afternoon greeting planeload after planeload of soldiers. We were in a hangar where they were checking in weapons and awaiting transport to greet the families. These soldiers, from the junior enlisted up to the rank of colonel, were extremely positive about the work in Iraq. They told me, absolutely, they were making a difference. They were tired after 16 months of combat. They were absolutely elated to be home. They were very proud of themselves, of their colleagues, as we were proud of them. As I was standing in line, there was one young man from North Pole, AK, which is not too far from Fort Wainwright. I said: So you are home. What are you going to be doing? He said: I have a house. My house is going to be kind of the welcome home, the party house, if you will, for all the single guys and all the guys whose girlfriends have left them in the past year, for those guys whose wives are not going to be here. He got very serious in that conversation. I said: Do you have a lot of those men who have come home to find that their relationships are no longer intact? He said: Yes, it is an unfortunate part. But we have been gone for a long time. He was a young man who was single. But that, too, pulls at your heart, to know that you come home after serving your country and the relationship you had worked so hard to build prior to your departure is now no longer there. The extension of the 172nd made me angry at that time, very angry, very frustrated--and not necessarily because our soldiers were extended. We know that it is the soldiers' creed that you put your mission before yourself. You never quit. But I was upset because our soldiers and our families were forced to endure an abrupt reversal of what they had been promised. They had been promised: You are going to be home in a year, and they were not back in a year. Their families had been promised: You have to wait this long, but it turned out not to be true. I have young kids. The Presiding Officer has young children. The Presiding Officer knows how children wait for something, whether it is a holiday or school to start or school to end. They put it on the calendar, and they count the days down. When the calendar has run out and that much-anticipated episode is supposed to happen and it does not happen, the disappointment of the child is very difficult. It is difficult as an adult to bear it, but we see what our children go through with extensions like this. It does make you angry that we failed to keep our promise. Now, I have had many opportunities to meet with the spouses of those who are serving, both men and women. I have had an opportunity to meet with the family readiness groups. I think probably the most difficult meeting of any I have had with family members was a sitdown, literally a sitdown on the floor of a classroom at an elementary school on post. Children of the deployed military men and women got together for a counseling session with the school counselor. I was touring the school at the time and was able to meet with the kids and sit down in a circle as they were drawing cards to send to their mostly dads over in Iraq-- there were a couple over in Afghanistan--and to talk to these children about their life with their parent gone, and gone for a long time in a child's eyes. I talked to one little girl. She was 11 years old. Her dad has been deployed seven times. Now, I did not ask her how long each of those deployments was because when you are 11 years old, seven deployments is a lot of time out of a young girl's life. We have to remember not only--not only--what is happening in the military fight, not only what is happening on the streets of Baghdad, but we need to always keep in mind what our military families are doing in their service to support their loved ones who are serving us. So these were the considerations which were on my mind and wrestling with when we took up the Webb amendment this week. It is important for people to understand the U.S. Army has a policy that one-to-one dwell time--in other words, 1 day deployed, 1 day home--one-to-one dwell time is the minimum acceptable dwell. This is not only to allow soldiers the opportunity to reset but also to meet the training and force structure needs. It is the minimum necessary to balance reliance on the use of the Active and the Reserve Forces. I keep saying this is the minimum time. It is not an ideal period. The Army would actually prefer to adhere to its existing policy of 1 year in combat, 2 years out for the Active Forces. But the Army knows it cannot comply with its existing policy and meet the demands of staffing our efforts abroad. The Army discovered it could not comply as soon as this policy was announced. When you think about that, you say: What does this say? What does this mean as far as our level of preparedness? Being prepared for war is not just making sure you have equipment you need. You have to have that human equipment. When we talk about resetting our equipment, we also need to be talking about resetting the human--the mind, the body, the spirit, and the attitude. So when the Webb amendment was before us, I reviewed it very carefully. Contrary to some of the assertions made by some on this floor that I was strong-armed by the administration, that was not my situation. I sought out individuals whose judgment I trust. I did talk with several generals to understand the implications of the policy that was suggested--an inflexible policy, a policy that says it will be a one-to-one dwell time but without any flexibility. I was concerned that in an effort to make sure this administration is paying attention to the military families, making sure we are giving the time we need to reset the soldier, that we were not locking ourselves into something that ties the hands of our generals, ties the hands of our military planners, and, as a consequence, yields unintended consequences that could possibly further jeopardize the safety and the security of those who are serving us in Iraq. I did have an opportunity to meet with two of the senior military leaders. The senior Senator from Virginia had arranged for a meeting for several of us who had questions about this issue: Tell us what the implications of this policy are. I sat down with one general who happens to be an Alaskan by choice, General Lovelace. He served several tours over at Fort Richardson and also with the Alaska Command at Elmendorf Air Force Base which is where I had known him previously. General Lovelace and General Hamm described the consequences our troops on the ground would face if the amendment before us at that time had been adopted. They mentioned a shortage of people to protect our troops from the IEDs, the improvised explosive devices. They talked about a shortage of truck drivers and mechanics, a shortage of infantry, quite possibly a shortage of senior noncommissioned officers and midcareer officers, greater reliance on Reserve and Guard than is presently contemplated, and possibly further extensions of units that are presently in theater. I thought about all of those, and while I do not know that all of them would have come true if we had adopted the Webb amendment this week, it concerned me greatly to think that through implementation of this amendment you could have the further extension of the units that are presently in Iraq, operating under an understanding they will be home by X date, and their family is operating under that similar assumption. That caused me great concern. I made contact with the general who had been at Fort Wainwright at the time the 172nd had been extended. He is now the general at Fort Lewis with that Stryker Brigade unit. I asked him: Walk me through the implications. What would it have meant to the 172nd? What can it mean to your brigade at Fort Lewis? He reiterated several of the things I had learned in my conversations with General Lovelace and General Hamm. He also spoke to the strength of support that comes from the family readiness units that operate as a unit. One of the concerns that an inflexible policy would bring is you would--in order to get some of these specialists I referred to, either additional infantrymen or additional mechanics, in certain areas or those who are skilled with the IEDs, disabling them--in order to make sure you have enough on the ground, you would have to be plucking from different units. I thought back to what we learned there at Fort Wainwright. The thing that held those families together when they learned their husband, their brother, their son was not going to be coming home and instead was going to be extended another 120 days was the strength of that family readiness core unit. It had held everybody together. If you separate those within the unit, you lose some of the strength and support because one of the families that had been a key member of that team has now been pulled to another unit. You lose some of the strength we have to provide for our soldiers as they are serving us. That is important to remember. Supporting the troops, supporting their families means, first and foremost, we want to bring our troops home alive. We know military medicine is doing its part to treat those who have been injured, treating them in an expeditious manner. We are saving lives in Iraq today that would have been lost in Vietnam. That is a credit to so many. But still, the best way to come home alive is not to be injured at all. This is what I had to come to grips with this week as we were debating this issue--whether adoption of an inflexible policy that might tie the hands of our military leaders, whether that would mean there are fewer people who would be watching the backs of the service men and women on the battlefield. I do believe our current dwell policy must be revisited. For this time, for 2007 and 2008, what we have in place, the 15 months that have been accepted for this 12-month dwell period, it is not a perfect solution at all. I do not like it. I do not think our military leaders like it. They would prefer we were in a better place so we could provide for that equal dwell time. So I think it is important that even though the Webb amendment is no longer before us--it did not achieve the 60 votes--that we do not just kind of move on now, go to another aspect, and say the issue of dwell time is not important to us, is not important to those who are serving and their military families who are providing that support back home. It has been suggested we could revise this policy as early as next year without causing this chaos which has been described by some of the generals. It is something we should be looking at. When we think about how we support those who are serving us, we have to remember it is unfair to our service men and our service women--who have already encountered personnel policies that turn on a dime, with multiple deployments and extensions--to endure safety risks that directly flow from an inflexible policy that keeps qualified and competent people off the battlefield. I said--and I will repeat--the current rotation may not be ideal. I don't think it is ideal. The military needs to be honest about not pushing people who are not fit for the battlefield into combat, and it needs to be honest in compensating people who have suffered debilitating mental health conditions and not take the easy way out of discharging based upon personality disorders. The military needs to address these issues on an individual basis, and the Senate should hold them to it. We know the current rotation policy may very well cause some individuals to leave the service prematurely, but it will also cause others to step up and say: I have a great deal more to give, and I am not going to abandon my buddy. When the Nation goes to war, we promise each and every individual on the battlefield that they will have the best support this Nation can muster. When we take people who are capable of performing off the battlefield, we have the potential to jeopardize the safety of those who remain. The Presiding Officer was not here when I began my remarks, and I began those remarks by acknowledging what the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Virginia, has done in focusing the Senate's attention on the families of those who serve. I greatly appreciate that. I also appreciate the level of debate, the level of concern, and the level of genuine caring to make sure our policies do right by those who serve this country, not only on the battlefield but for those who are serving at home. I don't believe that debate or this discussion is over by any stretch of the imagination, but as we continue to debate the direction of this war, we should always make sure we are recognizing all who are serving. I want to take just a very brief moment, as I have had an opportunity to join with my colleague, Senator Casey from Pennsylvania, in introducing an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Act. This amendment calls for a civilian and diplomatic surge in Iraq. We spend a lot of time talking on this floor about the military component, what our force strength is, the relative success or failures in certain parts of Iraq. There has been a lot of focus on that aspect of the war. Yet as we talk to our military leaders, we hear from them that it is not a military solution alone. There must be a political resolve as well, and that political resolve must come about through diplomatic channels and resources and truly on the civilian side. When General Petraeus was before the Foreign Relations Committee a week or so ago, I asked him at that time if he believed the civilian surge was adequate; did he have the assistance he needed to do the job, to complete the task. He said certain elements of our Government are at war, but not all of the others. We can use help in those areas, whether it is the Ministry of Agriculture or Treasury. There are areas that can be identified. So I have joined with Senator Casey in calling for an equal push on the diplomatic front and on the civilian side. There is more that we can do and more that we should do so we are able to see the progress that all of us wish to see in the war in Iraq. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to one of the longest tenured members of my Senate staff, Mrs. Donna Pagano Murray. Donna retired from the Senate on September 5, 2007, after 28 years of exceptional service to the citizens of this country and to the residents of the State of Alaska. Donna was born in New York City and studied at Monmouth University and the University of Maryland. She served as my executive assistant and was responsible for all legislative issues relating to domestic aviation and transportation security since I entered the Senate in 2002. She is an expert in Alaska aviation issues and a champion for the Age 60 pilot age extension bill. Donna served as my Chief of Staff for the past year, leading a great team working for Alaska. Prior to working for me, she worked for Senator Frank Murkowski for 12 years. Among other duties in that office, including those I just mentioned, she was the principal liaison between his Washington, DC and five state offices. She left the Senate in 1989 and worked at the Department of Commerce for five years during the Administration of former President George H.W. Bush. She handled issues such as clean water and air, fisheries management, weather services and appropriations issues for the Department. I also want to mention that during her tenure in the Senate, she worked on the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Services and the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. She has volunteered for several campaigns and Inaugural ceremonies as well. Donna started her career as a high school teacher, and is looking forward to being a substitute teacher in her post-Senate life. This says a lot about her--that she is returning to the classroom to help children in this area. Rather than seeking a high-paying private sector job, which she certainly is qualified for given her abilities and experiences, she is going to be a substitute school teacher for a local district. She represents the real spirit of public service by giving back some of her knowledge, wisdom and experience gained from decades in government service to the youngsters of this area. I know that the students will learn a lot from Donna. While I am sorry to lose one of my staff leaders, I am delighted that Donna will be able to more fully enjoy time with her husband Danny. Danny had a heart transplant last year and I know that they are looking forward to spending more time with each other, traveling together and enjoying their grandchildren. I will miss Donna's cheerfulness, wonderful smile, straightforward manner, vast knowledge, and her dedication to the Senate. She is a hard worker, indeed. It has been a pleasure to have her on my staff. I wish her and her husband Danny the very best and know that Alaskans will benefit for decades to come from her efforts to help the State. I also know that future generations will benefit from her return to the classroom. Donna, thank you for your service to Alaska and this country.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we know a college degree and a highly skilled labor force are the keys to increasing earnings and to Americans' competitiveness around the world. When the Senate HELP Committee began work on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, my main priority at the time was to ensure that more students could access and afford college and job training. Taken as a package, S. 1762--the Higher Education Access Act that we passed early Friday morning--and S. 1642--the Higher Education Amendments Act--that we are debating today--truly accomplish these goals and more. Early Friday morning, the Senate increased the maximum Pell grant award to assist low-income students to go to college or to get job training. Then we added additional funding for the neediest of low- income students. I am also very proud that we authorized and appropriated $226 million for the College Access Partnership Grant Program. This is a partnership between the Federal Government and the States to help more young Americans prepare for, apply to, and succeed in college. We also did good work in the bill in protecting borrower benefits that are provided by State agency and nonprofit lenders. In Alaska, we have a State agency lender that uses their special allowance payments, or their SAP payments, to reduce the loan interest rates to the lowest in the Nation. They provide outreach and college early awareness to middle and high school students. They provide need- based grants and other very important benefits. Alaska's State agency, nonprofit lender, and others like it in States such as Wyoming, Tennessee, and North Carolina, are not plowing their SAP rate into their profit margin. I am gratified the Senate was able to recognize the good work the State of Alaska and many other States are doing. Also in the legislation, we ensured that young Americans will not be saddled with unmanageable amounts of debt after they graduate. It is these and other provisions in S. 1762 that go hand in hand with the bill we are debating today, and which I am hopeful we will see passage of by tonight. This bill, S. 1642--the Higher Education Amendments of 2007--includes many important and beneficial provisions that will ensure that students, parents, and American taxpayers get the fairest deal, the best information, and truly the biggest bang for their buck. This legislation makes the cost of college more transparent so parents and students can compare the costs of different colleges to determine which ones will most effectively and affordably meet their needs. It places prohibitions on unauthorized entities using students' loan and grant information for marketing purposes. It provides fair, sensible, and rigorous ethics reform for financial aid administrators and lenders to ensure that the students receive the information they need to make decisions that will benefit them and not benefit unscrupulous lenders or postsecondary institutions. Title II of the bill streamlines and strengthens Teacher Quality Enhancement grants to bring more accountability to university teacher training programs. It also directs the Secretary to further simplify the FAFSA the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. When we were talking on the floor last week about the FAFSA application, the Senator from Wyoming held up that eight-page application and demonstrated what it is the students are faced with when they take this on. I am particularly proud of one provision that I worked to include in S. 1642. This provision makes it easier for servicemembers-- particularly those in the lowest ranks--and their spouses to afford college. I was in my State at Fort Richardson last winter, and I was visiting with some of the wives of the servicemen deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. I asked them in this townhall meeting: What is it that I can do to help you as you wait for your loved one to return home? How can we make your lives better? We talked about quality-of-life initiatives. We talked about greater certainty with deployments. But one of the wives told me that during this time when her husband was deployed for 15 months, she was trying to take advantage of this time period to better herself by going on to college. She told me that one of the things keeping her from being able to afford to go to college was that the money the military pays to help offset a portion of their housing costs, which is counted toward their income, this allowance prevented her from being eligible for a Pell grant. Now, given the low rate of pay for many members of the military, particularly those in the lowest ranks, this is also a barrier for them in being able to take out student loans. I soon found out from the National Military Families Association that many military spouses are in this same position. So when I came back to the Capitol, I worked to include language in S. 1642 that would exclude the cost of the basic allowance for housing for servicemembers living off base, as well as the value of on-base housing, from being included in calculations for financial need. Excluding the basic allowance for housing--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. These are privates, they are seamen's apprentices, lance corporals, airmen, and corporals whose base pay is less than $35,000 a year. As those who are deployed and serving our country, we can help the spouses who perhaps are here and looking to better themselves during this period of time as they wait for their loved ones to return home. This is a true benefit for them. I could not be more proud to know that this strong woman whom I met last year and potentially thousands like her will have a better chance now of being able to attend college should we be successful in passing this legislation. Overall, I believe we did a fine job in making college and job training more accessible and more affordable. I would like to thank my colleagues, especially Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi, for their generosity and their graciousness throughout this long process and their true dedication toward the goal of educating all of America's young people. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my amendment would change the amount to be authorized and appropriated for the College Access Partnership Grant Program. It would change it from $25 million to $113 million for both fiscal year 2008 and 2009. What the College Access Partnership Grant Program does is make payments available to States to assist them in carrying out specific activities relating to increasing college access for low-income students in the State. Currently, about 64 percent of our higher income students who enroll in college get a bachelor's degree, while only 21 percent of our lower income students do so. The College Access Partnership Grant Program is specifically designed to help States put together services and benefits that are most likely to get more of their low-income students to apply for, to be accepted by, and to, ultimately, succeed in college. The amendment is paid for by the $176 million in excess deficit reduction funds above those required by the budget resolution. What we specifically provide for is outreach, information on financing options, on promoting financial literacy, on assisting the students to have access to these very important programs. I urge support of this amendment.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I understood it would be necessary before I offer such an amendment that there be a unanimous consent request propounded. I look to the floor managers at this time.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my intention to offer an amendment. As I understand, there needs to be a unanimous consent request prior to my doing so; is that correct?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are talking today about the Higher Education Access Act. When we talk about higher education and the importance of higher education in this country, it is all about access. We can have incredible universities, we can have wonderful schools within our State systems, but if the students do not have access to them due to financial constraints or whatever the limitations may be, we have not truly provided for access, we have not truly provided for our young people to better themselves to the fullest extent possible. There are many significant provisions contained within the Higher Education Access Act. I am pleased to have been able to participate in the good work of the chairman and the ranking member in moving this through the HELP Committee. There is one provision contained within higher education that establishes a provision called the College Access Partnership Grant Program, again, speaking to how we truly provide for access to our colleges. The budget instructions directed the HELP Committee to save some $750 million for deficit reduction. This is what the Senator from New Hampshire was referring to a moment ago. The Higher Education Access Act saves $930 million. This amendment, the amendment that I am proposing this afternoon, would redirect $176 million from deficit reduction to making sure that more American students, more of our young people, are able to access and to succeed in college. Think about how many initiatives we have on this Senate floor to provide for a better America, a better country, to make us more competitive in the world market. How do we do it? We have been focusing on our young people and providing them with the opportunities. We have been focusing on aspects of education, whether it is through an emphasis on accountability, such as we have seen in the No Child Left Behind, or the more recent focus we have made in focusing on science and engineering so that our young people are truly competitors in that world market today. We need to be serious about investing in our children's education and truly in their future. What this amendment would do is expand the borrower benefits that are offered to low-income students, the very students we know are not graduating with college degrees. Our statistics don't lie to us. We know those in the lower income category are not going into college in the first place, so many of them, and then many who do are not successful in completion. Of the 75 percent of high school seniors who continue their studies, only 50 percent of them receive a degree 5 years after enrolling in postsecondary education, and only 25 percent of them receive a bachelor's degree or higher. So we are not seeing completion. But for the lower income families, 21 percent who enroll in college complete a bachelor's degree as compared to 62 percent of higher income students who enroll. So what is the problem? What are we doing wrong? What are we not doing enough of, need to do more of, and how can we truly provide this college education that for generation after generation has been what families seek for their children--go on to college, go on and make yourself a better contributor to American society. In my State of Alaska--unfortunately, I am not quite sure what our statistics are now--when I was serving in the legislature we were seeing only about 30 percent of our high school graduates going on to college--only about 30 percent going on to college. Why are they not going? Part of it is due to finances. As we all know, the cost of a college education is going through the roof. My husband and I are saving for our two boys, and with one of them approaching his junior year in high school right now, it is a reality check for us as a family as to how we are going to make college a reality for our children. I know across this country families struggle with that. So there is so much, again, in the Higher Education Access Act that does promote and does allow for benefits to the students. The funding we are talking about in my amendment would expand the borrower benefits currently offered in States such as mine to low-income and to Pell- eligible students in all the States. This is a college access partnership program. And what it would do is give the States the ability to help more of their low-income students attend and to succeed in college. We don't want them to just get the help to get there and then give it up after a year because the finances are hitting them or they do not know where else to turn. What does this college access partnership grant actually do? What we are attempting to do is provide for that outreach, provide for the education not only to the students but to the families so that they know what is available, they know what the financing options are to them, and they are helped with the financial literacy and with debt management. I don't know how many of you have had to go through a college application recently, but it can be a daunting task. And if you are perhaps from a family who hasn't had an opportunity to do this before, it may be so daunting that you are precluded from doing it. Financial literacy: We all know that sometimes the language that is contained in the application, just in understanding what it is that you need to do to fill out the application, can be mind numbing. So it provides the information. The outreach activities: We need to make sure we are reaching out to those students who may be at risk of not enrolling or, again, in not completing their postsecondary education. They need to know what their options are. So we need to go to them, and we need to help them. We have a program in Alaska called the Alaska Advantage Higher Education Financial Aid Program. We try to go out and let the students know what is available and try to help them ahead of time. This program would also provide for assistance in completion of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, the FAFSA application. I understand that we are talking about an eight-page application. We have eliminated some of, I guess, the complications, if you will, with that application through the HEA legislation itself, but let's not let the application be a barrier. Let's figure out ways to help the students from the very beginning; professional development for guidance counselors at middle schools and secondary schools, and financial administrators and college admissions counselors at institutions of higher education, to improve their ability to assist the students and the parents. I know from my personal situation that when you have a good guidance counselor who can help you along the way, you are one of the lucky ones. If you are one that is just kind of given the packet and told to go at it, kid, you may or may not feel that you have that support. We want to be able to provide for the support, that professional development to assist the students. The program would also provide assistance in applying to institutions of higher education, applying for the Federal student financial assistance and other State, local, and private student financial assistance and scholarships. There is so much that is available out there, if you know where to look. And sometimes you just are not quite sure which rocks you need to turn over in order to provide for your finances for college. So this would, again, lay out the options and assist you with that. It would also provide activities that increase the student's ability to successfully complete the course work required for a postsecondary degree, including activities such as tutoring and mentoring. We need to recognize that access to college is not just about getting in the door. It is gaining the benefits that are afforded you through the college program, through that university program, through the programs that are going to benefit you. So our job is not done just with the successful application. If individuals need that assistance in working through some of the bureaucracy, let's try to help. Finally, it provides for activities to improve secondary school students' preparedness for postsecondary entrance examinations. These are all things, in different areas, where we can make a difference with students in letting them know what is out there and what is available to them. Mr. President, as we look to ways that we can truly help with access to higher education, we know we need to help students with the financial end of it, but we also need to provide some assistance with the navigation, and this College Access Partnership Program does just that. Through this amendment, we are providing for additional funding to be included into that program to make it meaningful to all of the 50 States so that they can truly provide that help and assistance. I would certainly urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Yes.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I am sorry.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Yes.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the very beginning of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 there are a series of findings and declarations of congressional policy which explain the underpinnings of this landmark legislation. The first clause reads, ``There is an immediate need for a fair and just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, based on aboriginal land claims.'' The second clause states, ``The settlement should be accomplished rapidly, with certainty, in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives.'' Mr. President, 34, going on 35, years have passed since the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act became law and still the Native peoples of five communities in Southeast Alaska--Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell--the five ``landless communities'' are still waiting for their fair and just settlement. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act awarded approximately $1 billion and 44 million acres of land to Alaska Natives and provided for the establishment of Native Corporations to receive and manage such funds and lands. The beneficiaries of the settlement were issued stock in one of 13 regional Alaska Native corporations. Most beneficiaries also had the option to enroll and receive stock in a village, group or urban corporation. For reasons that still defy explanation the Native peoples of the ``landless communities,'' were not permitted by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to form village or urban corporations. These communities were excluded from this benefit even though they did not differ significantly from other communities in Southeast Alaska that were permitted to form village or urban corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This finding was confirmed in a February 1994 report submitted by the Secretary of the Interior at the direction of the Congress. That study was conducted by the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska. The Native people of Southeast Alaska have recognized the injustice of this oversight for more than 34 years. An independent study issued more than 12 years ago confirms that the grievance of the landless communities is legitimate. Legislation has been introduced in the past sessions of Congress to remedy this injustice. Hearings have been held and reports written. Yet legislation to right the wrong has inevitably stalled out. This December marks the 35th anniversary of Congress' promise to the Native peoples of Alaska, the promise of a rapid and certain settlement. And still the landless communities of southeast Alaska are landless. I am convinced that this cause is just, it is right, and it is about time that the Native peoples of the five landless communities receive what has been denied them for going on 35 years. The legislation that I am introducing today would enable the Native peoples of the five ``landless communities'' to organize five ``urban corporations,'' one for each unrecognized community. These newly formed corporations would be offered and could accept the surface estate to approximately 23,000 acres of land. Sealaska Corporation, the regional Alaska Native Corporation for southeast Alaska would receive title to the subsurface estate to the designated lands. The urban corporations would each receive a lump sum payment to be used as start-up funds for the newly established corporation. The Secretary of the Interior would determine other appropriate compensation to redress the inequities faced by the unrecognized communities. It is long past time that we return to the Native peoples of southeast Alaska a small slice of the aboriginal lands that were once theirs alone. It is time that we open our minds and open our hearts to correcting this injustice which has gone on far too long and finally give the Native peoples of southeast Alaska the rapid and certain settlement for which they have been waiting. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the very beginning of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 there are a series of findings and declarations of congressional policy which explain the underpinnings of this landmark legislation. The first clause reads, ``There is an immediate need for a fair and just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, based on aboriginal land claims.'' The second clause states, ``The settlement should be accomplished rapidly, with certainty, in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives.'' Mr. President, 34, going on 35, years have passed since the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act became law and still the Native peoples of five communities in Southeast Alaska--Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell--the five ``landless communities'' are still waiting for their fair and just settlement. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act awarded approximately $1 billion and 44 million acres of land to Alaska Natives and provided for the establishment of Native Corporations to receive and manage such funds and lands. The beneficiaries of the settlement were issued stock in one of 13 regional Alaska Native corporations. Most beneficiaries also had the option to enroll and receive stock in a village, group or urban corporation. For reasons that still defy explanation the Native peoples of the ``landless communities,'' were not permitted by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to form village or urban corporations. These communities were excluded from this benefit even though they did not differ significantly from other communities in Southeast Alaska that were permitted to form village or urban corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This finding was confirmed in a February 1994 report submitted by the Secretary of the Interior at the direction of the Congress. That study was conducted by the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska. The Native people of Southeast Alaska have recognized the injustice of this oversight for more than 34 years. An independent study issued more than 12 years ago confirms that the grievance of the landless communities is legitimate. Legislation has been introduced in the past sessions of Congress to remedy this injustice. Hearings have been held and reports written. Yet legislation to right the wrong has inevitably stalled out. This December marks the 35th anniversary of Congress' promise to the Native peoples of Alaska, the promise of a rapid and certain settlement. And still the landless communities of southeast Alaska are landless. I am convinced that this cause is just, it is right, and it is about time that the Native peoples of the five landless communities receive what has been denied them for going on 35 years. The legislation that I am introducing today would enable the Native peoples of the five ``landless communities'' to organize five ``urban corporations,'' one for each unrecognized community. These newly formed corporations would be offered and could accept the surface estate to approximately 23,000 acres of land. Sealaska Corporation, the regional Alaska Native Corporation for southeast Alaska would receive title to the subsurface estate to the designated lands. The urban corporations would each receive a lump sum payment to be used as start-up funds for the newly established corporation. The Secretary of the Interior would determine other appropriate compensation to redress the inequities faced by the unrecognized communities. It is long past time that we return to the Native peoples of southeast Alaska a small slice of the aboriginal lands that were once theirs alone. It is time that we open our minds and open our hearts to correcting this injustice which has gone on far too long and finally give the Native peoples of southeast Alaska the rapid and certain settlement for which they have been waiting. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Izembek and Alaska Peninsula Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Enhancement Act authorizes a land exchange among the U.S. Department of the Interior, the State of Alaska, and the people of King Cove. King Cove is an Alaska Native village and many of its present day residents descend from the indigenous Aleut people who have lived and thrived in this isolated area of the Alaska Peninsula for over 4,000 years. This bill provides the land for a road on which to travel to the nearest all-weather airport which is located in Cold Bay. The people of King Cove do not have a road to their airport today because a National Wildlife Refuge wilderness sits between their village and Cold Bay. World War II prompted the construction of a major air facility at Cold Bay, which is about 25 miles north of King Cove. Today, the Cold Bay Airport with a 10,000 foot main runway and a 6,500 foot crosswind runway is one of the largest airport facilities in Alaska and is accessible 365 days a year. However, the problem for King Cove residents has always been their inability to get to the airport on a predictable basis due to constant, ever changing weather conditions, combined with King Cove's topographic constraints. These topographic constraints are directly related to the location of King Cove's small gravel airstrip nestled between 3,000 foot volcanic peaks. To access the airstrip in King Cove, pilots must navigate a narrow opening in the mountains. Over the past 30 years, efforts by King Cove residents attempting to reach the Cold Bay Airport have resulted in numerous small plane crashes, some fatal. Neither King Cove nor Cold Bay have the sort of hospital facilities that are found in Anchorage. When King Cove people have a serious medical condition, they need to be ``medevaced'' to Anchorage from Cold Bay. That assumes that they can reach the airport at Cold Bay. This legislation accomplishes the goal of providing the King Cove people with a road to the airport. It accomplishes this goal in a way that provides a net gain, rather than a net loss, to wilderness. The exchange provided for in this bill will add 61,723 acres to the Izembek and Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuges. It adds 45,456 acres of wilderness, the first new wilderness areas designated by the Congress in Alaska in a generation. Not since the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, has new wilderness been designated in Alaska. More importantly, this bill will add key areas of wildlife habitat to these two world-class wildlife refuges. Habitat for some of the largest and wildest brown bears in the world will transfer from private to public ownership. Other areas include key habitat for internationally valued waterfowl such as stellar eiders and brants. I am sad to say that this is not a new issue for this body. The people of King Cove have been seeking justice in the form of a simple road to Cold Bay for decades. Congress attempted to make things right for the people of King Cove about a decade ago and came up with an imperfect solution. This imperfect solution involved the construction of a 17-mile road from King Cove to a point near the border of the Izembek Refuge wilderness and a very expensive hovercraft to ferry King Cove residents across the rough waters of Cold Bay. The community has concluded that it cannot afford the cost of the hovercraft solution. This bill will finish the job started by the Congress a few years ago. This bill provides a wonderful combination of wilderness additions in return for a small road corridor within the Izembek Wildlife Refuge to permit the current 17-mile road to be completed all the way to Cold Bay. This is the fairest and most logical process by which the King Cove residents and the nation can all benefit. I want to commend the parties who have worked on this bill. The State of Alaska, has brought nearly 43,000 acres to this exchange. Without this land, the exchange would not be possible. The King Cove Native Corporation, which is a Village Corporation created by the Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act, ANCSA, is donating approximately 2,500 acres of high value wetland habitat in Kinzaroff Lagoon. This lagoon is part of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and will be designated as wilderness, so that the mouth of this lagoon will be in public ownership. The corporation is also offering another 10,500 acres, which will be made part of the Alaska Peninsula Wildlife Refuge while relinquishing another 5,400 acres of their ANCSA land in the Refuge. The only land, which will leave Federal ownership in the area, is approximately 206 acres for a narrow road to connect the existing road from King Cove to the Cold Bay Airport. The route and alignment of the road, within the corridor established by the bill, will be determined through an inclusive, cooperative planning process. It has been suggested by some that we should not reopen this issue-- it has always been so controversial. People who fought this battle before, and still have the scars to prove it, were told that putting a road in a national wildlife refuge creates a bad precedent. I have been warned that every environmental group in the Nation will line up against me if I pursue the exchange. That may be true but this is how I see it. In the 25 years that have passed since the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, became law, I think most Alaskans have come to appreciate the value of setting aside land in Alaska for preservation. That appreciation took time. Many Alaskans, as you know, resisted ANILCA. In return, it is appropriate for Alaskans to expect the conservation system units to be good neighbors to the aboriginal communities that they border. That hasn't always been the case. The Aleut people of King Cove inhabited their lands long before there was an Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. The King Cove people steadfastly maintain that they were not consulted before the decision was made to make the land that stands between their community and the airport a wilderness. It is their contention that thousands of others across the United States, Canada, and Europe were invited by the Federal Govermment to make their views known in this process, yet they were denied a voice in this most crucial decision affecting their native homeland. To me the King Cove road isn't just a matter of transportation. It is a matter of respect for Native people. That is why I am willing to take up this cause on behalf of the Native people of King Cove. I ask my colleagues to join with me and with the Aleut people of King Cove to make their dream of a road to the airport, something that those in the Lower 48 take for granted, a reality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Izembek and Alaska Peninsula Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Enhancement Act authorizes a land exchange among the U.S. Department of the Interior, the State of Alaska, and the people of King Cove. King Cove is an Alaska Native village and many of its present day residents descend from the indigenous Aleut people who have lived and thrived in this isolated area of the Alaska Peninsula for over 4,000 years. This bill provides the land for a road on which to travel to the nearest all-weather airport which is located in Cold Bay. The people of King Cove do not have a road to their airport today because a National Wildlife Refuge wilderness sits between their village and Cold Bay. World War II prompted the construction of a major air facility at Cold Bay, which is about 25 miles north of King Cove. Today, the Cold Bay Airport with a 10,000 foot main runway and a 6,500 foot crosswind runway is one of the largest airport facilities in Alaska and is accessible 365 days a year. However, the problem for King Cove residents has always been their inability to get to the airport on a predictable basis due to constant, ever changing weather conditions, combined with King Cove's topographic constraints. These topographic constraints are directly related to the location of King Cove's small gravel airstrip nestled between 3,000 foot volcanic peaks. To access the airstrip in King Cove, pilots must navigate a narrow opening in the mountains. Over the past 30 years, efforts by King Cove residents attempting to reach the Cold Bay Airport have resulted in numerous small plane crashes, some fatal. Neither King Cove nor Cold Bay have the sort of hospital facilities that are found in Anchorage. When King Cove people have a serious medical condition, they need to be ``medevaced'' to Anchorage from Cold Bay. That assumes that they can reach the airport at Cold Bay. This legislation accomplishes the goal of providing the King Cove people with a road to the airport. It accomplishes this goal in a way that provides a net gain, rather than a net loss, to wilderness. The exchange provided for in this bill will add 61,723 acres to the Izembek and Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuges. It adds 45,456 acres of wilderness, the first new wilderness areas designated by the Congress in Alaska in a generation. Not since the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, has new wilderness been designated in Alaska. More importantly, this bill will add key areas of wildlife habitat to these two world-class wildlife refuges. Habitat for some of the largest and wildest brown bears in the world will transfer from private to public ownership. Other areas include key habitat for internationally valued waterfowl such as stellar eiders and brants. I am sad to say that this is not a new issue for this body. The people of King Cove have been seeking justice in the form of a simple road to Cold Bay for decades. Congress attempted to make things right for the people of King Cove about a decade ago and came up with an imperfect solution. This imperfect solution involved the construction of a 17-mile road from King Cove to a point near the border of the Izembek Refuge wilderness and a very expensive hovercraft to ferry King Cove residents across the rough waters of Cold Bay. The community has concluded that it cannot afford the cost of the hovercraft solution. This bill will finish the job started by the Congress a few years ago. This bill provides a wonderful combination of wilderness additions in return for a small road corridor within the Izembek Wildlife Refuge to permit the current 17-mile road to be completed all the way to Cold Bay. This is the fairest and most logical process by which the King Cove residents and the nation can all benefit. I want to commend the parties who have worked on this bill. The State of Alaska, has brought nearly 43,000 acres to this exchange. Without this land, the exchange would not be possible. The King Cove Native Corporation, which is a Village Corporation created by the Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act, ANCSA, is donating approximately 2,500 acres of high value wetland habitat in Kinzaroff Lagoon. This lagoon is part of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and will be designated as wilderness, so that the mouth of this lagoon will be in public ownership. The corporation is also offering another 10,500 acres, which will be made part of the Alaska Peninsula Wildlife Refuge while relinquishing another 5,400 acres of their ANCSA land in the Refuge. The only land, which will leave Federal ownership in the area, is approximately 206 acres for a narrow road to connect the existing road from King Cove to the Cold Bay Airport. The route and alignment of the road, within the corridor established by the bill, will be determined through an inclusive, cooperative planning process. It has been suggested by some that we should not reopen this issue-- it has always been so controversial. People who fought this battle before, and still have the scars to prove it, were told that putting a road in a national wildlife refuge creates a bad precedent. I have been warned that every environmental group in the Nation will line up against me if I pursue the exchange. That may be true but this is how I see it. In the 25 years that have passed since the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, became law, I think most Alaskans have come to appreciate the value of setting aside land in Alaska for preservation. That appreciation took time. Many Alaskans, as you know, resisted ANILCA. In return, it is appropriate for Alaskans to expect the conservation system units to be good neighbors to the aboriginal communities that they border. That hasn't always been the case. The Aleut people of King Cove inhabited their lands long before there was an Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. The King Cove people steadfastly maintain that they were not consulted before the decision was made to make the land that stands between their community and the airport a wilderness. It is their contention that thousands of others across the United States, Canada, and Europe were invited by the Federal Govermment to make their views known in this process, yet they were denied a voice in this most crucial decision affecting their native homeland. To me the King Cove road isn't just a matter of transportation. It is a matter of respect for Native people. That is why I am willing to take up this cause on behalf of the Native people of King Cove. I ask my colleagues to join with me and with the Aleut people of King Cove to make their dream of a road to the airport, something that those in the Lower 48 take for granted, a reality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Ten minutes.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Along the way, those working on this pipeline made major engineering advances, learning how to insulate the pipe and how to keep the permafrost ground frozen so that the pipe didn't sink out of site. When the project was completed in 1977, 3 years after construction started, we had a new domestic supply of oil made available to the United States--the single largest domestic source it has ever had. On average, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline--we call it TAPS--now sees just over 800,000 barrels of oil pass through it each day. This is 231,000 barrels per hour and 22,000 gallons per minute. So, in other words, in the time I have been standing to address you, Mr. President, it has transported about 100,000 gallons of crude. At peak production, TAPS provided the United States with about 2 million barrels of oil a day, or 30 percent more than Saudi Arabia does today, and nearly as much oil as the entire Persian Gulf provides our country today. And Alaskan oil, unlike Middle Eastern oil, does not come from unstable regimes, does not hinder our foreign policy options by bonding us and our allies to such regimes, and is not at risk of being cut off due to instability. We have been a stable domestic supplier of the oil needs of the United States for over 30 years. The pipeline has turned out to be a much better deal than originally anticipated. The dire predictions of environmental disaster have been proven false. There have been minor spills, we acknowledge, but the environment and the wildlife have been unaffected by the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Our caribou numbers have actually grown along the pipeline area, with estimates of up to sixfold in terms of the herd. Moose and bear have not been affected, and little oil has been added to the environment. All land spills have been completely cleaned up. Additionally, while Prudhoe Bay was originally forecast to contain 9 billion barrels of recoverable oil, we will actually recover twice that much, about 18 billion barrels, by the time that field is depleted. We recognize the days of abundant Prudhoe Bay oil are dwindling. We have produced about 15 billion barrels of oil, leaving only about 3 billion barrels remaining to recover. Output has fallen by more than 7 percent a year recently. According to the Energy Information Administration, Prudhoe Bay production will be down to 270,000 barrels per day by 2030, a level so low that the pipeline likely will not be able to function in winter's cold and may become inoperable. That could ``shut-in'' billions of barrels of future heavy oil deposits in the Greater Prudhoe Bay area and perhaps hamper oil recoveries from elsewhere in northern Alaska and the OCS off the State's coast. In the meantime, U.S. oil imports have grown to account for 58 percent of our current net oil consumption. Twenty years from now, that number is forecasted to climb to 68 percent. So I ask my colleagues and the American people, as we remember today what Alaska and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system has given to our country, to consider also what Alaska could provide for America's future. The decision truly lies in the hands of Congress. Mr. President, I appreciate the time, and I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this evening to acknowledge the 30th anniversary of the first drop of oil passing through the Trans- Alaska Oil Pipeline. This is truly an engineering marvel which is a central component of the transportation of oil from the largest single domestic source in America's history--Prudhoe Bay--to the rest of the United States, where it powers industry and provides jobs to this day. Alaska has been called a lot of different things, some not too complimentary, unfortunately. You may remember the term ``Seward's folly.'' This was after the United States approved the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 which got the State of Alaska, the territory, for $7.2 million. ``Seward's folly'' was a reference to Secretary of State William Seward, who was an advocate for the purchase. Alaskans themselves dubbed it ``Seward's icebox,'' reflecting the sentiment Americans had toward our supposedly barren, dark, ice-covered land. But we soon recognized there was far more than just dark, barren, empty land. It was not an icebox but instead a lush, resource-rich, and stunningly beautiful land. Gold was discovered in the 1890s, and black gold, or oil, was discovered about 75 years later. While oil is often viewed in a negative context these days, the fact remains that this black gold has enabled America to grow into the economic power it is today. Alaskan oil, quite honestly, could not have been found in a more inconvenient place. Prudhoe Bay, which is the location of the massive 1968 discovery, contained oil in ground that was permanently frozen up to 1,000 feet deep in the northernmost section of the State with three mountain ranges between it and the nearest ice-free port. Seven oil companies got together to discuss how they might move the oil to the lower 48 States. There were several options that were proposed at the time. One of them was a water route that would use large ice-breaking tankers--essentially plowing through the ice--to get the oil down to the lower 48 market. A second option was a water route using submarines. A combined land and water system with a Trans-Alaska Pipeline and shipments from a southern Alaskan port was the third option and the option that was considered to be most feasible for several different reasons from the technical, the economic, and the legal issues that surrounded it. The third option, this Trans-Alaska Pipeline, raised so many concerns and so many problems that for many it seemed an impossible task. The southern two-thirds of the proposed route was the most seismically active area in North America. This was the location of the very famous 1964 earthquake centered out of Valdez. The southern portion also contains a very high avalanche threat. Permafrost, which is the permanently frozen ground, runs about half the length of that pipeline route. You will find permafrost in that area. These all presented an unprecedented engineering challenge. The pipe would have to span a distance greater than the distance between Oregon and Mexico or, to put it in perspective as to where we are here, it would be the equivalent distance of going from this Capitol in Washington, DC, all the way south to Orlando, FL. That is the distance our Trans-Alaska Pipeline covers today. Also, keep in mind we are not only talking about an incredibly long 800-mile pipe, but it is a stretch of land that includes thousands of rivers, three mountain ranges, and we have air temperatures ranging from minus 80 degrees below in the wintertime to a positive 95 degrees in the summer. So the challenges that faced the Nation as they looked to this engineering feat were quite incredible. There were also political obstacles that were pretty steep. Environmental concerns, which, quite honestly, mirror the modern-day debate over oil development in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, resulted in a 50-50 Senate tie on the vote for the pipeline's approval. Vice President Spiro Agnew cast the tie-breaking affirmative vote in this Chamber about 34 years ago. It took 38 months, billions of the final $8 billion pricetag, and 1,347 State and Federal permits later for the construction to begin on one of the most ambitious engineering endeavors in the history of the world. During construction, thousands of would-be job seekers flocked to Alaska, and those workers battled the cold in the winter that caused the equipment to freeze up, and in the summer they battled sunken bogs when digging the concrete supports that allow the pipeline to shift in order to deal with the temperature changes and the seismic activity. They solved problems such as installing the pipe in both Atigun Pass and Thompson Pass, incredibly steep terrain just outside the southern terminus in Valdez. The terrain is so steep there that workers had to be tethered to the peaks by cables to keep them from falling down the slopes. Mr. President, I think I have probably used my 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak in support of a bipartisan amendment to provide assistance to geothermal power development. This is the National Geothermal Initiative Act of 2007. I can really get excited about geothermal. In the State of Alaska, where about 70 percent of our State's communities could theoretically tap into hot water from inside the Earth to produce electricity, the possibilities for us as a State are truly enormous. Alaska has nearly a dozen proposed geothermal projects right now that could proceed if there were additional Federal assistance to help in the identification of specific geothermal well sites or aid in the drilling or perhaps provide assistance to develop the geothermal turbines that operate more efficiently. We have had great discussion on the Senate floor about the price of fuel, the price of energy. It is truly near record highs. Hot water heated naturally by the Earth supports zero fuel cost. Geothermal power only provides the Nation with three-tenths of 1 percent of its electricity at present. This is because of currently high capital costs of siting and building geothermal plants. Geothermal is not yet a mature technology. Even though we have been trying to promote geothermal technology for over two decades now, there is still a great deal of work to be done. We have not finished a national geothermal mapping assessment. This was started back in 1978. It was never actually conducted in Alaska. But to be able to identify those areas in this country that hold geothermal potential is extremely important. MIT recently published a report that suggested that geothermal power holds the promise of providing low-cost electricity for most of the Nation. Unlike the discussion earlier today where there was debate about wind generation, and some States are blessed with more wind than others, this MIT report suggests that with geothermal there is greater potential in so many parts of the Nation. But the Federal Government-- and this is according to the MIT report--the Federal Government would need to increase its research and financial assistance to help prove the new technology. This is the technology to mine the hot rocks or to inject water deeper into the Earth to heat up, rather than simply tapping the natural hot water springs or only heated subsurface water pools closer to the surface where they are known. What this amendment, the National Geothermal Initiative Act, would do would be to create a geothermal initiative that will lead to the completion of a geothermal resource base assessment by the year 2010. It will encourage demonstration plants to show the full range of geothermal production and push new technology in the engineering of geothermal plants. Besides restating a Federal commitment to geothermal, this amendment would fund a national exploration and research effort on the development of geothermal information centers. We had real reason to celebrate in the State of Alaska last year. A local geothermal developer by the name of Bernie Karl--he owns a small geothermal spring resort called Chena Hot Springs. This is about 35 or 40 miles outside of the community of Fairbanks. This natural hot springs has been there for years. There is a nice natural hot springs where you can come and bathe, and in the wintertime it is a wonderful spot for viewing the northern lights, since you are in these beautiful natural hot springs. But Mr. Karl had a vision that he could take this small resort--they have about 65 beds there--that he could take this resort and power everything by geothermal. He could have the kitchen operating, he could have the lights on in the lodge, and he could go beyond that. He was going to be a self-sustaining resort. He was going to grow his own vegetables. So he built a beautiful greenhouse where they grow, hydroponically, tomatoes and lettuce. Mr. Karl visited me in January and he brought with him some of the produce that he had just picked the day before, in Fairbanks. In January, in Fairbanks and in Chena Hot Springs, he was coming from temperatures of about 40 degrees below zero. He is able to grow this incredible produce in these temperatures with a greenhouse that is completely heated and lighted by geothermal. Right next door to his greenhouse he has an ice museum. It is a large museum structure that has everything from knights in shining armor on horses that are larger than life-size, to a bar, a wedding chapel, bedrooms. The whole thing is an ice palace. He is able to keep it chilled, and you say, well, of course he can keep it chilled in Fairbanks in the winter: it is 40 below zero, but he is able to keep it chilled all throughout the summer using the geothermal energy he has tapped into. This is a remarkable demonstration of what can be done. You need to understand that the technology he has utilized is not some incredibly difficult and complex technology. He utilized a technology that is designed by United Technologies to produce electricity from relatively cool water. The water that comes from these hot springs is about 160 degrees in temperature. They told Mr. Karl: That is not hot enough to generate the power you need; it needs to be hotter. He did not believe them. He said: I know I can make it work. For just a $1.5 million Federal grant, work at Chena Hot Springs has confirmed that economic electricity can be generated from relatively low-temperature geothermal resources. Mr. Karl has taken his initiative even further than what is happening at that small resort. He is saying: I can create more geothermal energy that we can sell down the road, sell into the system down in Fairbanks. But again demonstrating we do have enormous potential, we just need a little bit of assistance in demonstrating this technology. It truly opens the door to so many more communities in Alaska that could potentially benefit from geothermal power. Right now, besides Chena Hot Springs, there are geothermal projects they are looking at in Akutan; this is down in the Aleutian chain. If you ever look at the Aleutian chain, that long strip of islands off the State of Alaska, it is nothing but a string of volcanos, enormous potential. There are also opportunities at Mount Spurr near Anchorage. We are looking at a situation within the south central part of the State where our natural gas resource in that area is waning. What better source to go to than Mount Spurr, just across the inlet, for that geothermal power. Near Naknek, there is great potential. At Tenakee Springs in the southeast, Pilgrim's Hot Springs in western Alaska--these are all ready to potentially produce power if there is some Federal assistance to help lower the cost of their development. This bill will also provide help to university-led geothermal research programs and set up a similar program in Alaska to help expand geothermal power. Now, there are some who will argue that we do not need Federal aid for this, that geothermal is this mature technology, it has been around for a long while. But the new technology development, according to the MIT report, could result in geothermal power providing America with 100 gigawatts of electricity within 50 years, which is a significant portion of its future power needs, without the risk of supply disruption or fuel price fluctuation. Then, of course, the other issue we are always very cognizant of on this floor is how we care for our environment, how we deal with emissions from our fuel and energy sources. With geothermal power, we do not produce greenhouse gas emissions, we do not release carbon into the environment. There is a significant, a hugely significant advantage given the current concerns over global warming and climate change. I had an opportunity, not too many weeks back, to meet with the President of Iceland when he was visiting. I know he met with many Members of this body. I talked to the President of Iceland before. Coming from an Arctic environment, we share a lot in common; we like to exchange notes. We have always talked about the geothermal energy in Iceland and how that country has truly turned to that as their primary source of energy generation. He indicated to me that just in this past year, he has had major corporations, international and national corporations from this country, looking to Iceland to locate their businesses. There used to be a time when countries would look elsewhere to find cheap sources of labor. Well, what companies are looking for now is affordable, reliable, clean energy. Think about the potential again with geothermal. It is about as reliable as you are going to come across, just this constant bubbling source from underneath. It is absolutely clean. If we can develop the technology, it can be that affordable source. Right now, we have researchers in the Alaska Aleutians hoping for a Federal grant to test whether new types of unmanned aerial vehicles can be used to pinpoint these geothermal hotspots, the exact spots where wells should be sunk to tap into the hot water resources. For a nominal Federal grant, this technology could be proven up and would save all geothermal projects many millions of dollars in drilling costs. This one project is an example of why and how Federal aid could be very useful. This amendment would authorize a couple hundred million dollars in Federal funding for all forms of geothermal work over the next 5 years. That is less than what we have authorized for other forms of renewable energy in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 or have proposed for biomass, wind, solar, or hydrogen fuel development in EPAct and in this bill. You don't hear people talk a lot about geothermal. You hear a great deal right now about wind, you hear a great deal right now about biomass. But we need to recognize the potential, the enormous potential geothermal holds for this country. As you hold it up against all of the other renewable sources, geothermal kind of sits out there all alone, by itself, along with ocean energy, which you are going to have another opportunity to hear me speak on that and the enormous potential we have with ocean energy. Geothermal and ocean received relatively little Federal assistance in the EPAct 2 years ago, but I believe geothermal is really on the verge of making great things happen in this country. If we encourage geothermal development, I believe it will pay enormous dividends to the Nation. If we spend the money now to advance that technology, it will help the entire Nation, not just in the West but all across the country. I urge my colleagues to take a look at the potential for geothermal and recognize that what we would do in this legislation is provide for that very necessary assessment to find out where this exists in terms of the ability to meet our growing energy needs and our desire to find those reliable, affordable, clean sources of energy. I hope my colleagues will endorse assistance to geothermal when this amendment finally comes to a vote. I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to hear the comments of my friend and colleague from Minnesota. She speaks of wind in her State. It is fair to say that in certain parts of my fair State of Alaska, we, too, have incredible winds that sometimes we feel could power the entire Nation with the amount of wind energy we have. In fact, sometimes the winds are too strong and we cannot keep wind generation units up because the force of the winds is that intense. But I do recognize that all States are not created equal in terms of their ability to produce forms of renewable energy, such as wind. I am a very strong supporter of renewable energy, really all forms of renewable energy. Whether it is geothermal, ocean energy, wind, solar, biofuels, all aspects of renewable are so important. I want to explain this afternoon why I am supporting the clean portfolio standard over the renewable portfolio standard and actually think that the clean standard is the best for the environment and for the public. Both of these proposals will encourage States to promote the most forms possible of renewable energies, whether they be solar, wind, geothermal, ocean, biomass. All are covered equally under both of the proposals. For my purposes and where I am really honing in is in the area of hydropower, and this is one key area where the different proposals part company. Under the renewable portfolio standard, new hydropower does not count toward meeting the production mandate, only incremental power. The addition of turbines to existing facilities can count. Under the clean portfolio standard, new hydropower, not the power from dams that span the rivers, but all other forms of new hydropower, such as power from small hydro projects and from lake taps, can count toward that renewable requirement. That is a very important difference. In my State of Alaska, we tap the mountain lakes, those that have few fish. There is a hole that is literally drilled in the bottom. It runs the water into turbines, and this produces the power. About 40 percent of the power in urban Alaska comes from projects such as these. They have zero environmental impact. They do not affect the stream flows. They do not affect the fish runs. So I have to look at the two different proposals and ask: How are we treating hydro? How are we treating runs of the rivers, the lake taps? How is that included in the proposals? I believe ignoring the potential for hydropower where it can be done without emissions and without any other environmental impact is a mistake and a needless mistake. The clean portfolio standard also allows utilities to count not just the incremental nuclear power and the power from the next generation of nuclear, but it also allows you to count the power saved by energy efficiency programs. This is an area we all want to encourage. We want to encourage energy conservation and efficiency programs. This, I think we will all agree, is a justifiable addition to the bill. Some will argue that the amendment waters down Congress's commitment to push renewable energy. I am just not buying into that argument. That is not the case. By increasing the standard to 20 percent from the 15 percent starting in the year 2020, we have offset any reduction in effort, but we have made the provisions more fair to all the States. As I mentioned, all States are not equal in their ability to produce renewable energy. All State utilities can sponsor energy efficiency legislation. Most States are able to move toward nuclear power. Most States have some access to hydropower. Most States can benefit from landfill gases or from some forms of biomass. And all States can utilize fuel cells to reach a clean energy standard. But not all States have consistent wind patterns, have cloudless energy potential or good geothermal or ocean options. I look at the State of Alaska, with our geography and with our considerable landmass, considerable coastline, and say we are blessed with incredible resources when it comes to renewable resources. We have incredible geothermal potential. We have strings of volcanoes up the Aleutian chain and even in our south central area. With a coastline the size we have in Alaska, we have potential from ocean energy that is unequaled anywhere else in the United States. We have, as I mentioned, incredible wind potential, and we are seeing that particularly in our coastal communities where we are able to put wind-generating units, offsetting the cost of diesel, which is what currently powers far too many of our communities in the State of Alaska. My point is, we are blessed in Alaska with renewable energy options. Those in perhaps the southeastern part of the United States have already pointed out some of the very real concerns they have with a renewable standard. In the Pacific Northwest, if we are not counting any new hydro development, it makes one wonder: How will they be able to achieve the standards that have been set forth in a renewable portfolio standard if we cannot count the hydro? I am concerned that we will move toward a one-size-fits-all solution. It is something we are wise to avoid; otherwise, we have electricity consumers in many of the States that will be better off by not having a Federal mandate at all but continuing under this patchwork arrangement of State renewable portfolio standards that are already being formulated. For them, it may be better to stick with that patchwork program than a Federal approach. I have heard from the American Wind Power Association that the provision in this amendment that allows the Secretary to certify other clean energy sources to qualify in the future somehow creates a loophole that will harm renewable energy progress. But given the standards that are contained in the amendment, I don't believe this is a problem. All the provision does is allow new technology to be classified as renewable to benefit from the incentives this provision creates without waiting for Congress to act, which we all know can be a very lengthy process and one we really don't even want to count how long that can be. As a strong supporter of renewables and a really strong supporter of wind energy, I am a huge proponent of wind energy. I am the sponsor in this bill of a grant program to have the Federal Government help pay up to 50 percent of the cost of renewable projects to help get the renewables over the hump of the higher construction costs. I want to work to encourage a rapid expansion of renewables. We need to increase renewable use in this country tenfold. We are currently at 2 percent. We need to get to 20 percent, and this is what is called for in the clean portfolio standard. But I think we need to be careful about narrowing the list of technologies so that we in the Government, we in the Congress are not picking the winners and losers; that we allow wind to compete with ocean energy, with geothermal energy; that we allow hydropower to compete with the advantages of energy efficiency programs. We have to remember that if the Federal Government does not generously finance renewable power projects, consumers will be paying the bills for their construction through higher power rates. We have a fine line to walk between promoting renewables and raising the cost of electricity in some parts of this country too quickly and too high. That program, if you will, will harm low-income families and the competitiveness of the economy. So while both proposals are admirable in very many respects--and I commend the chairman of the Energy Committee for his hard work in this area--I do believe the clean portfolio standard overall does a better job and is more fair to States that have different abilities to meet our renewable portfolio standard. I urge my colleagues to study this, study it very carefully, and have an open mind when they cast their vote on these provisions. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will authorize the Administrator of General Services to convey a parcel of real property to the Alaska Railroad Corporation. This parcel of land is used by GSA for a fleet management center at 2nd and Christensen avenue in downtown Anchorage. The site is approximately 78,000 sq. feet and is surrounded on two sides by Alaska Railroad property. This property was owned by the Alaska Railroad during the period of Federal ownership and was leased to the General Services administration. At the time the railroad was transferred from Federal to State ownership, the parcel of land where the fleet center is located was successfully obtained by GSA for its motor pool function due to its close proximity to downtown Anchorage and other Federal agencies. This parcel of land is a key transportation component for the redevelopment of Ship Creek. Allowing the Alaska Railroad to get the property back, either through a land exchange or fair market purchase, will allow the Railroad to make additional improvements in the area. GSA has indicated a desire to move from its present location to a location closer to the military bases in Anchorage as most of their business has become the management of a motor pool for the bases. As consideration for the property, the administrator shall require the AKRR Corporation to either convey a replacement facility to GSA or pay the fair market value of the property based on the highest and best use as determined by an independent appraisal commissioned by the administrator and paid for by the Alaska Railroad Corporation. All proceeds derived from any payment for the property shall be deposited in the Federal buildings fund. The GSA supports this legislation to expedite their move from the present location to one that will allow them to better serve the military bases. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I appreciate this consideration. I realize we must move to the legislation before us, the issue of immigration, but I wanted to take just a few minutes this afternoon to stand in tribute to my friend, to our friend and colleague, Senator Craig Thomas. I think it is fair to say that this is very difficult for all of us here in the Senate. It has been described that we are a family. We are friends. My neighbor Senator Thomas and I have sat on this back row together for this past year. I sit next to him in the Energy Committee. I sit next to him in the Indian Affairs Committee. He is a friend and a man whom I will miss very deeply. To learn this morning of his passing leaves me truly with a hole in my heart. I can't imagine the depth of loss the family and his wife Susan are feeling at this point. We recognize that we were privileged to serve with a truly incredible man. I haven't served with him as long as many of my Senate colleagues. I came to know him really from a very personal perspective. I was fascinated with the fact that he is a true cowboy. I have always kind of thought that cowboys never die. He was claimed by a very terrible disease, a very terrible cancer, leukemia. Alaska mourned the loss of a young woman just last year who was claimed by leukemia. She was a world-famous dog musher. In Alaska, we say dog mushers, real famous dog mushers never die, either. So, again, my heart is very heavy. When I got up this morning and saw on my BlackBerry the news of Senator Thomas, there was a second BlackBerry that came to me from one of the pages who served here in the Senate just last fall. She was one of the winter pages. I was very touched by the note she sent to the head of the page program, and she forwarded me a copy of it as well. I want to read just a paragraph from her e-mail to me because I think it reflects how Senator Thomas touched the lives of so many--not just his colleagues and not just the people of Wyoming but a young 16-year-old page from Alaska. She wrote: My class and I witnessed some of the stages of Senator Thomas' sickness, but we never witnessed him getting upset or angry because he was feeling down and overtired due to his symptoms and treatments. Senator Thomas was a cheerful man, always smiling and personable, even when he was not being approached. He did not have to address us at all; we were pages, mere peons in the infrastructure of what we know as the Senate. Yet, every time he entered the Senate, he warmed the room with his smile and a warm glow that protruded gently from his kind eyes. When he would speak to us, he did so with the utmost respect and thoughtfulness, truly treating us as equals. He never looked down on us, and I believe that is why his memory has stayed with me and will continue to do so in the future. What made Senator Thomas remarkable, aside from all this, was that at the end of the day when we were at our lowest point and we felt so tired we couldn't help but frown, he was the one that no one ever caught frowning. He was a great Senator, and from what I have had the chance to witness firsthand, a great man. I am deeply sorry for this loss, and I hope that this e-mail will attest to that. His actions and his kindness were not lost on us. This was signed: With utmost respect and deepest sincerity, Former U.S. Senate Page, Lily George From Anchorage, AK. I thought it important to share that e-mail with my colleagues because, again, Senator Thomas was one who generated warmth with everybody he reached out to, whether they were pages or Senators or people in the airport. We will miss him very deeply here in the Senate.