Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Three minutes.

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. Mr. President, last year, as we approached the beginning of National Police Week 2006, our Nation was saddened by the tragic loss of two Fairfax County, VA, police officers, Detective Vicki Armel and Master Police Officer Michael Gambarino, in an ambush at the Sully District Police Station. Once again, as National Police Week 2007 drew to a close, the Nation found itself in mourning at the loss of an officer who was ambushed over the weekend. I am referring to Moscow, ID, Police Officer Lee Newbill, a husband and a father of three who was fatally shot on Saturday night. We do not remember our fallen law enforcement officers for the way they gave their lives but for the way they lived them. The people of the State of Alaska extend our condolences to Officer Newbill's wife and three children. We are also thinking about Brannon Jordan, a Latah County sheriff s deputy who was shot in the incident, but who is expected to recover, according to media reports. I would like to take this opportunity once again to speak about the life and accomplishments of the late Thomas P. O'Hara, a National Park Service protection ranger and pilot who gave his life in the line of duty, an Alaskan hero. Thomas P. O'Hara was assigned to the Katmai National Park and Preserve in the Bristol Bay region of western Alaska. On December 19, 2002, Ranger O'Hara and his passenger, a Fish and Wildlife Service employee, were on a mission in the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge. Their plane went down on the tundra. When the plane was reported overdue, a rescue effort consisting of 14 single-engine aircraft, an Alaska Air National Guard plane, and a Coast Guard helicopter quickly mobilized. Many of the single-engine aircraft were piloted by Torn's friends. The wreckage was located late in the afternoon of December 20. The passenger survived the crash, but Ranger Torn did not. Tom O'Hara was an experienced pilot with 11,000 hours as a pilot-in- command. He was active in the communities of Naknek and King Salmon where he grew up, flying children to Bible camp and coaching young wrestlers. Tom provided a strong link between the residents of Bristol Bay and the National Park Service. Although Tom O'Hara was a most valued employee of the National Park Service, he did not enjoy the same status as National Park Service employees with competitive career status. Tom was hired under a special hiring authority established under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, which permits land management agencies like the National Park Service to hire, on a noncompetitive basis, Alaskans who by reason of having lived or worked in or near public lands in Alaska, have special knowledge or expertise concerning the natural or cultural resources of public lands and the management thereof. Tom O'Hara possessed this knowledge and offered it freely to the National Park Service. But because he was hired under this special authority, his opportunities for transfer and promotion within the Park Service were limited, even though his service was exemplary. As a lasting memorial to Tom O'Hara's exemplary career, I am introducing legislation today that will grant competitive status to ANILCA local hire employees who hold permanent appointments with the Federal land management agencies after the completion of 2 years of satisfactory service. In Tom's honor, the short title of this legislation is the Thomas P. O'Hara Public Land Career Opportunity Act of 2007. It is my sincere hope that the enactment of this legislation will encourage other Alaskans, particularly Alaska Natives, to follow in Tom O'Hara's footsteps and seek lifelong careers with the Federal land management agencies. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last year, as we approached the beginning of National Police Week 2006, our Nation was saddened by the tragic loss of two Fairfax County, VA, police officers, Detective Vicki Armel and Master Police Officer Michael Gambarino, in an ambush at the Sully District Police Station. Once again, as National Police Week 2007 drew to a close, the Nation found itself in mourning at the loss of an officer who was ambushed over the weekend. I am referring to Moscow, ID, Police Officer Lee Newbill, a husband and a father of three who was fatally shot on Saturday night. We do not remember our fallen law enforcement officers for the way they gave their lives but for the way they lived them. The people of the State of Alaska extend our condolences to Officer Newbill's wife and three children. We are also thinking about Brannon Jordan, a Latah County sheriff s deputy who was shot in the incident, but who is expected to recover, according to media reports. I would like to take this opportunity once again to speak about the life and accomplishments of the late Thomas P. O'Hara, a National Park Service protection ranger and pilot who gave his life in the line of duty, an Alaskan hero. Thomas P. O'Hara was assigned to the Katmai National Park and Preserve in the Bristol Bay region of western Alaska. On December 19, 2002, Ranger O'Hara and his passenger, a Fish and Wildlife Service employee, were on a mission in the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge. Their plane went down on the tundra. When the plane was reported overdue, a rescue effort consisting of 14 single-engine aircraft, an Alaska Air National Guard plane, and a Coast Guard helicopter quickly mobilized. Many of the single-engine aircraft were piloted by Torn's friends. The wreckage was located late in the afternoon of December 20. The passenger survived the crash, but Ranger Torn did not. Tom O'Hara was an experienced pilot with 11,000 hours as a pilot-in- command. He was active in the communities of Naknek and King Salmon where he grew up, flying children to Bible camp and coaching young wrestlers. Tom provided a strong link between the residents of Bristol Bay and the National Park Service. Although Tom O'Hara was a most valued employee of the National Park Service, he did not enjoy the same status as National Park Service employees with competitive career status. Tom was hired under a special hiring authority established under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, which permits land management agencies like the National Park Service to hire, on a noncompetitive basis, Alaskans who by reason of having lived or worked in or near public lands in Alaska, have special knowledge or expertise concerning the natural or cultural resources of public lands and the management thereof. Tom O'Hara possessed this knowledge and offered it freely to the National Park Service. But because he was hired under this special authority, his opportunities for transfer and promotion within the Park Service were limited, even though his service was exemplary. As a lasting memorial to Tom O'Hara's exemplary career, I am introducing legislation today that will grant competitive status to ANILCA local hire employees who hold permanent appointments with the Federal land management agencies after the completion of 2 years of satisfactory service. In Tom's honor, the short title of this legislation is the Thomas P. O'Hara Public Land Career Opportunity Act of 2007. It is my sincere hope that the enactment of this legislation will encourage other Alaskans, particularly Alaska Natives, to follow in Tom O'Hara's footsteps and seek lifelong careers with the Federal land management agencies. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, from April 28-30, 2007, more than 1,200 students from across the country visited Washington, DC to take part in the National Finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution competition. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by Act of Congress, and is an innovative national educational program developed to educate young people about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Sixteen outstanding students from West Anchorage High School of Anchorage, AK, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to Washington, DC, and compete at the national level. I am proud to announce that these talented young people won the Region One: Western States Award at this prestigious national event. The regional awards are presented to one class from each of the five geographic regions that has the highest cumulative score during the first 2 days of competition. While in Washington, the students participated in a 3-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which they ``testify'' before a panel of judges. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles as they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. The We the People competition is a rigorous program and students enter prepared to answer tough questions, some of which Americans have been debating since the Constitution was ratified. For example, participants in this year's competition were asked to evaluate the following constitutional principles: States rights--Evaluate the proposal in the Virginia Plan to give Congress the power to strike down state laws that it considered to be in violation of the national constitution or of the national interest; The rights of the individual--Evaluate the anti-Federalist argument that a bill of rights is as necessary to defend an individual against the majority in a republic as against the king in a monarchy; equal protection--How, if at all, is the concept of equal protection of the laws related to the natural rights philosophy and the idea of a social contract? America's role as an example to other countries--Which aspects of American constitutional democracy have been the most influential in other countries? I am so proud to recognize the outstanding students from West Anchorage High School, this year's We the People Region One winners: Kristin Baylon, Justin Birchell, Kathryn Braden, Chloe Cotton, Taylor Evenson, Emmaus Finau, Colby Gerik, Matthew Legacki, Elyse Lindsay, Patrick Marcil, Sara Perman, Molly Quinn, Leyna Rynearson, Henrik Strand, Chandra Suriano, and Brianna Thompson. I also wish to commend the teacher of the class, Pamela Orme, who is responsible for preparing these young constitutional experts for the National Finals. Also worthy of special recognition is Maida Buckley, the state coordinator, and Todd Heuston, the district coordinator, who are among those responsible for implementing the We the People program in Alaska. I congratulate these students on their exceptional achievement at the We the People National Finals.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduced a resolution designating June 2007 as National Internet Safety Month. The Internet has become one of the most significant advances in the twentieth century and, as a result, it affects people's lives in a positive manner each day. However, this technology presents dangers that need to be brought to the attention of all Americans. Consider the pervasiveness of Internet access by children and the rapid increase in Internet crime and predatory behavior. Never before have powerful educational solutions--such as Internet safety curricula for grades kindergarten through 12--been more critical and readily at hand. Mr. President, i-SAFE America is one nonprofit organization that has worked tirelessly to educate our youth and our community on these important issues. Formed in 1998, i-SAFE America educates youth in all 50 states, Washington, DC, and Department of Defense schools worldwide to ensure that they have a safe experience online. It is imperative that all Americans learn about the Internet safety strategies which will help keep their children safe from victimization. Consider the facts: In the United States, about 35 million school-aged children have Internet access. Eighty percent of middle and high school students are online for at least one hour per week. An alarming statistic is that 61 percent of middle and high school youths admit to using the Internet unsafely or inappropriately. Furthermore, at least 20 percent of these students have met face-to- face with someone they first met online and 23 percent of these students know of someone who has been bullied online. Now is the time for America to focus its attention on supporting Internet safety, especially bearing in mind that children will soon be on summer vacation and will spend more time online.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, this week, the week of May 14, is National Police Week, and the streets here in Washington, DC are filled with tens of thousands of law enforcement officers, their families, and their children. This is the week we recognize 17,917 officers whose names are inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here on Judiciary Square, all of them people who gave their lives to make our communities a safer place. It is the week we recognize 145 fallen heroes of our Nation lost this past year. The people of Alaska give thanks that we did not lose a law enforcement officer in the line of duty during 2006. This is also the week we add the names of 237 additional law enforcement officers to the memorial. These are officers who lost their lives in the line of duty in generations past but whose stories did not come to light until now. One of those 237 officers is William George Pfalmer, Jr. Officer Pfalmer's career with the Anchorage Police Department came to an end on June 9, 1953, when he was shot following a traffic stop of a stolen vehicle. He was shot in the left arm and the right shoulder, shattering his spine and causing him to spend the remainder of his life in a wheelchair. Officer Pfalmer lost his battle to survive those wounds on December 26, 1970, at the age of 45, after undergoing one of many corrective surgeries. I rise today in tribute to Officer Pfalmer and I rise to share the remarkable story of a present-day Anchorage officer, Officer Cathy Diehl Robbins, who made sure Officer Pfalmer's contributions were not lost to history. But for Cathy's determined research, the name of William George Pfalmer, Jr. might never have been inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. When Officer Pfalmer was shot on June 9, 1953, the city of Anchorage did not even pay him a full day's pay. At the time, the city did not offer a pension to police officers, nor did it compensate them for their injuries. Officer Pfalmer, who was 27 years old at the time, turned in his badge--which so happened to be badge No. 13--and was left to fend for himself. Anchorage is a city well known for its community spirit. This was true in 1953, it is true today. Officer Pfalmer was named Anchorage's Father of the Year, and the community helped to raise $13,000 to help the family through their difficult time. But that was not enough to enable the Pfalmer family to remain in Alaska. A World War II Coast Guard veteran, Officer Pfalmer moved his family to California where he could receive medical treatment without charge from the VA. The officer's wife Eleanor was his full-time caregiver. They were tough years financially, but love and commitment held the family together. Officer Pfalmer kept his family afloat for most of those 17 years by purchasing cars at auto auctions, reconditioning them, and reselling them. His three sons, Glenn, Garry, and Greg, helped out after school repairing the cars under their dad's supervision. The three sons were literally their dad's arms and legs. They all became mechanics, a trade their father taught them. The Pfalmer family assumed that their father's service with the Anchorage Police Department was long forgotten, until one day, out of the blue, son Greg received a call from Cathy Diehl Robbins. Cathy, who had been researching the history of the Anchorage Police Department in her own time, came across an article of some 10 years earlier. That article led Cathy to believe there was a hero who somehow had fallen through the cracks. Cathy would not let go and was determined to run the story to the ground. After diligent research, she discovered the story was true. She tracked Greg down on the Internet and learned that his father was the Anchorage police officer she had read about. She wondered whether the officer was still alive and, sadly, learned he was not. Cathy then made it her mission to ensure that Officer Pfalmer's contributions were not forgotten. On June 9, 2006, 53 years after the fateful incident that cost the officer his career, the Anchorage Police Department acknowledged Officer Pfalmer's loss as a line-of-duty death. He was subsequently recognized by the Alaska Peace Officers Memorial, and this year his name is inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. It is fitting that Cathy Diehl Robbins was invited by the National Law Enforcement Officers Fund to read Officer Pfalmer's name at the annual candlelight ceremony, which was held last night, Sunday, May 13. I am pleased that Garry Pfalmer, one of Officer Pfalmer's three sons, was able to travel from Fairbanks to witness the ceremony. During this National Police Week, we remember fallen officers for the way they lived their lives, not the way they gave them. Today, we remember Officer Pfalmer not only for the events of June 9, 1953, but also for the support and the inspiration he provided to his family during the next 17 years: a hero at home and a hero in the service of our community. During this National Police Week, we recite again and again the phrase that ``heroes never die.'' So let us spend a moment to reflect upon the life of Officer Pfalmer, and as we do, let us acknowledge the efforts of an angel named Cathy Diehl Robbins, who brought the story of Officer Pfalmer back to life. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Now, I understand that many physicians around the country are invited to attend conferences or training seminars in order to be certified to prescribe certain drugs. Given the low volume of the high risk drugs we are talking about that are likely to be dispensed in frontier areas, how can we ensure that a willing provider will be able to access this training? What is the incentive for a drug manufacturer or the FDA to include frontier area among the areas where training and certification would be available?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. And under the provisions of section 202, would the willing health care provider be able to receive this training or certification through remote learning methods so that a provider would not need to travel vast distances in order to get the requisite training?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator. And since the provider would not be required to obtain an additional degree or medical specialty, and the training or certification would hopefully be through an online course or through the mail, is there any indication of how long such training would take for the provider to be deemed sufficiently trained to prescribe a specific drug?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President I rise to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Wyoming and ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Enzi. First, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the HELP Committee for their efforts to address the issue of access to health care in frontier areas. Much of Alaska is a frontier area and it is not an easy task to access health care in general, let alone find a specialist to obtain needed medications. Toward that end, I am pleased that the bill before us today recognizes the problem of access and provides a willing provider in a frontier area with the ability to receive the training and certification necessary to prescribe a drug that has potential serious risks. For clarification purposes, I would like to ask the Senator from Wyoming if it is the intent of Congress that section 202 of S. 1082, the FDA Revitalization Act, allows all physician and nonphysician health care providers in frontier areas to be able to receive ``training or certification'' so that the provider can prescribe or dispense a particular drug without the need for an additional degree or medical specialty?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator for that clarification. I bring this colloquy to the Senate floor today because I want to ensure that every American has access to prescription drugs regardless of whether they live in a large urban city like New York, or a frontier community like Bethel, AK. I believe that with the modifications that have been made to this bill, we will be able to achieve that.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation I am introducing entitled the School Accountability Improvements Act. We all know about No Child Left Behind, the Federal legislation that was introduced in 2001. We recognize that NCLB made significant changes to Federal requirements for school districts in our States. Many of these changes have been very positive and truly quite necessary. Because of No Child Left Behind, there is clearly more national attention being paid to ensure that school districts and the States are held accountable for the achievement of students with disabilities and for those who are economically disadvantaged and for minority students. In Alaska, this has meant, for example, that more of our urban school districts are paying closer attention than ever to the needs of our Alaska Native students. People across the Nation are also more aware that a teacher's knowledge of the subject matter and his or her ability to teach that subject are perhaps the most important factors in a child's achievement in school. Teachers, parents, administrators, and communities have more data now than they have ever had, more data about the achievement of the individual students and the subgroups of students and about our schools. With that data, we are making changes to school policies and procedures, and more students are now getting the help they need to succeed. While these are just a few of the positive effects of No Child Left Behind, we recognize there have been problems. This is not surprising, as it is quite difficult to write one law that will work for a large urban city such as New York City in the East and have that be made generally applicable to a small remote rural community such as Nuiqsuit, AK. My bill, the School Accountability Improvements Act, is meant to address five issues that we have identified in Alaska that are of particular concern to our State and of equal concern to other States. The first area we are focusing on would give flexibility to States regarding NCLB's highly qualified teacher requirements. In very small rural schools, particularly in my State, we will see a school where you have one teacher who is tasked with teaching multiple course subjects in the middle and in the high school grades. Under NCLB, the requirement is that the teacher must be highly qualified in each of these subject matter areas. But I have been listening to some of the teachers out in my remote communities. They may be hired to be the English teacher, but in a remote community with a small school, something may happen during the year. Say, the science teacher or the math teacher has left in the middle of the school year-- not an uncommon situation--they are not able to get anyone into that school to help. So now the English teacher is tasked to teach another subject. Under NCLB, he or she would then be required to be highly qualified in every subject they teach. So what my legislation would allow is for middle and high school teachers who work in schools with fewer than 200 students and that have difficulty hiring and retaining qualified teachers in these areas to be deemed to be ``highly qualified'' if they have a degree or they pass a rigorous subject matter test in one of the core subjects they teach, as long as they can demonstrate they are highly effective at delivering instruction on a State-developed performance assessment. We are doing this in the State of Alaska now, where essentially a teacher can demonstrate, through the use of a video, their teaching methodology. But we must recognize we will have situations in our smaller schools, in our rural schools, where in order to be highly qualified in every core subject area they are teaching, we simply are not able to meet that. So we are asking for a level of flexibility for the States. We recognize it is vital that the teachers know the subjects they teach. This is critical. But it is also unreasonable to expect teachers in these very tiny schools to meet the current requirements in every single subject they may end up teaching. It is almost impossible for school districts to find and then hire such teachers. So this provision is offered as a compromise in these limited situations. The second area the legislation focuses on is how we determine or how we calculate Adequate Yearly Progress. My legislation would require the U.S. Department of Education to approve a State's use of a growth model for calculating Adequate Yearly Progress if that model meets the core requirements of No Child Left Behind. Now, we know it can be useful for teachers, certainly for the administrators, to know how one group of third grade students, how one class compares to, say, the next year's class. But it is much more useful for educators, students, and parents to know how well each individual child has mastered each year's State standards. As a parent, yes, I want to know how my son's class is advancing as a whole. But as a parent, I want to know how he is doing from year to year, not just how his third grade class did and how the next class coming up behind him is going to do. I want to know what it means for me and my child as an individual. Schools should be held accountable for how well they are addressing each child's needs. Is the child proficient? Is he or she on track to be proficient? Or is he or she falling behind? These are things parents want to know. Are the schools making great progress in bringing all children to great proficiency, or are they maybe just missing the mark, or are they having very systemic difficulties? We know so many of the States now have very robust data systems that will allow them to track this information. NCLB should allow them to use the statistical model that is going to be most useful. It will actually be the best indicator of how each child is doing. Another area the legislation addresses is the issue of school choice and tutoring. As you know, No Child Left Behind gives parents an opportunity to move their children out of a dysfunctional school. If the school fails to meet AYP 2 years running, then the next choice that is offered the parent is your child can go to another school. In some parts of my State, that is geographically, physically impossible, and we have made accommodations around that. In the more urban school districts in Alaska, what we have found is parents are not choosing, as a general rule, to exercise that option. They are looking for something else. The law requires school districts to offer the school choice and to set aside funds to pay for the transportation in year 2 of improvement status. Then, in year 3, schools are required to offer tutoring if they reach that needs improvement status then. What I am suggesting in my legislation as to school choice is that moving children in year 2, if we fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress, is too early in the process. Schools should be given the opportunity to address their deficiencies first, addressing them first within the school before they transport the students all over town. I think most parents agree with this. This is why, at least in Alaska, we are seeing fewer than 2 percent of parents choosing to transfer their children to another school. They would rather have those supplemental services offered in the school to see if they can't help address the needs of the child. Then if it still does not work, let's look to the next option. So my bill would flip the school choice and the tutoring. It would also limit the requirement for schools to offer these options to students who are not proficient rather than to all the children, including those who are being well served by the school. It would also allow the school districts to provide tutoring to students even if they are in improvement status. It is recognizing, again, we should look at the individual child and see if we can't tailor this to make it more responsive. As you know, assessing whether a child is proficient on State standards in a reliable and valid way is difficult. It is even more difficult when the child has a disability or has limited English proficiency. Research has not caught up with assessments for these subgroups, and no one is completely sure whether the tests they are giving these students are measuring what they know. Yet, NCLB requires that if a school does not make AYP for any subgroup for 6 years, the school district has the option to completely restructure that school. Similarly, a State has the option to restructure an entire school district. For those truly dysfunctional schools and districts, that may be appropriate as determined by the individual district or State. But if we do not even know if the assessment scores are valid and reliable, how do we justify taking over a school, firing its teachers, turning its governance over to another entity, or other such drastic measures? We cannot. But we recognize that each child with a disability, and each child who is limited English proficient deserves the best possible education. So that is why my bill would not allow a school or a school district to be restructured if: No. 1, the school missed AYP for one or both of those subgroups alone; and, No. 2, the school can show through a growth model that the students in those two subgroups are on track to be proficient. Another area in the legislation we focus on is our Native heritage languages. In Alaska, Hawaii, and several other States, Native Americans are working hard to keep their heritage languages and their cultures alive. Teachers will tell you, and the research backs them up, that Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and American Indian students learn better when their heritage is a respected and vibrant part of their education. This is true of any child, but I think particularly true for these groups of Americans. Many schools around the country that serve these students have incorporated native language programs into their early curriculums--the curriculums in grades K-3. The problem is that in many instances, there is no valid and reliable way to assess whether the students have learned their State standards in that language. Neither is it valid to test what a student knows in a language they do not speak well. The example I will give you is that in the Lower Kuskokwim School District, in many of the schools, in an effort to get the children to connect with their education and to connect with their Yupik heritage, Yupik is taught in grades K-3. It is an immersion level program. If you go out there, the children are reading in Yupik. They are doing their math in Yupik. They are doing science experiments in Yupik. But then, in grade 3, they are required to test, under NCLB, in English. Now, not surprisingly, the children are not doing well on these tests. We need to anticipate the results. If you have not taught a child in a language in which they are going to be tested, perhaps, initially, they are not going to be performing at the level we want. I want to impress upon my colleagues the importance I believe we should place on allowing for those heritage languages to be preserved, to encourage our students in languages. Our research tells us--and I can tell you from a very personal experience with my two boys, who were part of a Spanish immersion program from the time they were in kindergarten through 8th grade in the public schools in Anchorage, they learned their sciences and math and geography and all their subjects in Spanish as well as English. Initially, you are a little anxious because: Are the test scores going to measure up? But what we can tell you is that by the time the children are being tested, certainly up in middle school, they are not only testing strong--very strong in both languages--but they know a second language very well. What my legislation will do in this area is allow schools with Native American language programs in States where there is no assessment in that heritage language to count the third graders--the first time they take the standardized tests--to count the students for participation rate only. It would then allow the school to make AYP if those students are proficient or on track to be proficient in grades 4 through 7. Then, the final area of my legislation is what I am calling the parent piece. As a parent, we know--you know; my colleague from the State of Washington was very involved with education before she came to the Senate as well--we all know as parents how important it is to be involved in our children's education. At the end of the day, not only did my husband and I check on our boys' homework, we asked them: What happened today? What is going on? I was PTA president at my kids' elementary school. NCLB recognizes that in many ways it is very important that parents are part of a child's education. But we also recognize we can be doing more. My bill would amend title II of NCLB, which authorizes subgrants for preparing, training, and recruiting teachers and principals, to allow--but not mandate--these funds to be used to develop parental engagement strategies, to train educators to communicate more effectively with parents, and better involve parents in their schools. We all know how great our Nation's teachers are. But our reality is, very few of them graduate from college having had a course on how to effectively communicate with parents. They know how important it is, but they are taught no techniques. Teachers are busy people. When a parent shows up at a classroom door and says: Hey, I am here to help, teachers often do not know how to react, how to allow them to help. Many teachers have difficulty communicating with parents, who may be working two jobs or have a different cultural background or language. This section of the bill would allow schools to spend some of their teacher training funds on these sorts of issues if they feel it would benefit their students. I know these five issues are not the only ones my colleagues and Americans may have with the No Child Left Behind Act. I have been talking with Alaskans all over the State about NCLB since I first came to the Senate. I look forward to working very hard on the reauthorization of the law this year with my colleagues. These, though, are the five issues that educators and parents in Alaska have told me are the most urgent for them, and I look forward to working to include them in the reauthorization as we move forward. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation I am introducing entitled the School Accountability Improvements Act. We all know about No Child Left Behind, the Federal legislation that was introduced in 2001. We recognize that NCLB made significant changes to Federal requirements for school districts in our States. Many of these changes have been very positive and truly quite necessary. Because of No Child Left Behind, there is clearly more national attention being paid to ensure that school districts and the States are held accountable for the achievement of students with disabilities and for those who are economically disadvantaged and for minority students. In Alaska, this has meant, for example, that more of our urban school districts are paying closer attention than ever to the needs of our Alaska Native students. People across the Nation are also more aware that a teacher's knowledge of the subject matter and his or her ability to teach that subject are perhaps the most important factors in a child's achievement in school. Teachers, parents, administrators, and communities have more data now than they have ever had, more data about the achievement of the individual students and the subgroups of students and about our schools. With that data, we are making changes to school policies and procedures, and more students are now getting the help they need to succeed. While these are just a few of the positive effects of No Child Left Behind, we recognize there have been problems. This is not surprising, as it is quite difficult to write one law that will work for a large urban city such as New York City in the East and have that be made generally applicable to a small remote rural community such as Nuiqsuit, AK. My bill, the School Accountability Improvements Act, is meant to address five issues that we have identified in Alaska that are of particular concern to our State and of equal concern to other States. The first area we are focusing on would give flexibility to States regarding NCLB's highly qualified teacher requirements. In very small rural schools, particularly in my State, we will see a school where you have one teacher who is tasked with teaching multiple course subjects in the middle and in the high school grades. Under NCLB, the requirement is that the teacher must be highly qualified in each of these subject matter areas. But I have been listening to some of the teachers out in my remote communities. They may be hired to be the English teacher, but in a remote community with a small school, something may happen during the year. Say, the science teacher or the math teacher has left in the middle of the school year-- not an uncommon situation--they are not able to get anyone into that school to help. So now the English teacher is tasked to teach another subject. Under NCLB, he or she would then be required to be highly qualified in every subject they teach. So what my legislation would allow is for middle and high school teachers who work in schools with fewer than 200 students and that have difficulty hiring and retaining qualified teachers in these areas to be deemed to be ``highly qualified'' if they have a degree or they pass a rigorous subject matter test in one of the core subjects they teach, as long as they can demonstrate they are highly effective at delivering instruction on a State-developed performance assessment. We are doing this in the State of Alaska now, where essentially a teacher can demonstrate, through the use of a video, their teaching methodology. But we must recognize we will have situations in our smaller schools, in our rural schools, where in order to be highly qualified in every core subject area they are teaching, we simply are not able to meet that. So we are asking for a level of flexibility for the States. We recognize it is vital that the teachers know the subjects they teach. This is critical. But it is also unreasonable to expect teachers in these very tiny schools to meet the current requirements in every single subject they may end up teaching. It is almost impossible for school districts to find and then hire such teachers. So this provision is offered as a compromise in these limited situations. The second area the legislation focuses on is how we determine or how we calculate Adequate Yearly Progress. My legislation would require the U.S. Department of Education to approve a State's use of a growth model for calculating Adequate Yearly Progress if that model meets the core requirements of No Child Left Behind. Now, we know it can be useful for teachers, certainly for the administrators, to know how one group of third grade students, how one class compares to, say, the next year's class. But it is much more useful for educators, students, and parents to know how well each individual child has mastered each year's State standards. As a parent, yes, I want to know how my son's class is advancing as a whole. But as a parent, I want to know how he is doing from year to year, not just how his third grade class did and how the next class coming up behind him is going to do. I want to know what it means for me and my child as an individual. Schools should be held accountable for how well they are addressing each child's needs. Is the child proficient? Is he or she on track to be proficient? Or is he or she falling behind? These are things parents want to know. Are the schools making great progress in bringing all children to great proficiency, or are they maybe just missing the mark, or are they having very systemic difficulties? We know so many of the States now have very robust data systems that will allow them to track this information. NCLB should allow them to use the statistical model that is going to be most useful. It will actually be the best indicator of how each child is doing. Another area the legislation addresses is the issue of school choice and tutoring. As you know, No Child Left Behind gives parents an opportunity to move their children out of a dysfunctional school. If the school fails to meet AYP 2 years running, then the next choice that is offered the parent is your child can go to another school. In some parts of my State, that is geographically, physically impossible, and we have made accommodations around that. In the more urban school districts in Alaska, what we have found is parents are not choosing, as a general rule, to exercise that option. They are looking for something else. The law requires school districts to offer the school choice and to set aside funds to pay for the transportation in year 2 of improvement status. Then, in year 3, schools are required to offer tutoring if they reach that needs improvement status then. What I am suggesting in my legislation as to school choice is that moving children in year 2, if we fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress, is too early in the process. Schools should be given the opportunity to address their deficiencies first, addressing them first within the school before they transport the students all over town. I think most parents agree with this. This is why, at least in Alaska, we are seeing fewer than 2 percent of parents choosing to transfer their children to another school. They would rather have those supplemental services offered in the school to see if they can't help address the needs of the child. Then if it still does not work, let's look to the next option. So my bill would flip the school choice and the tutoring. It would also limit the requirement for schools to offer these options to students who are not proficient rather than to all the children, including those who are being well served by the school. It would also allow the school districts to provide tutoring to students even if they are in improvement status. It is recognizing, again, we should look at the individual child and see if we can't tailor this to make it more responsive. As you know, assessing whether a child is proficient on State standards in a reliable and valid way is difficult. It is even more difficult when the child has a disability or has limited English proficiency. Research has not caught up with assessments for these subgroups, and no one is completely sure whether the tests they are giving these students are measuring what they know. Yet, NCLB requires that if a school does not make AYP for any subgroup for 6 years, the school district has the option to completely restructure that school. Similarly, a State has the option to restructure an entire school district. For those truly dysfunctional schools and districts, that may be appropriate as determined by the individual district or State. But if we do not even know if the assessment scores are valid and reliable, how do we justify taking over a school, firing its teachers, turning its governance over to another entity, or other such drastic measures? We cannot. But we recognize that each child with a disability, and each child who is limited English proficient deserves the best possible education. So that is why my bill would not allow a school or a school district to be restructured if: No. 1, the school missed AYP for one or both of those subgroups alone; and, No. 2, the school can show through a growth model that the students in those two subgroups are on track to be proficient. Another area in the legislation we focus on is our Native heritage languages. In Alaska, Hawaii, and several other States, Native Americans are working hard to keep their heritage languages and their cultures alive. Teachers will tell you, and the research backs them up, that Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and American Indian students learn better when their heritage is a respected and vibrant part of their education. This is true of any child, but I think particularly true for these groups of Americans. Many schools around the country that serve these students have incorporated native language programs into their early curriculums--the curriculums in grades K-3. The problem is that in many instances, there is no valid and reliable way to assess whether the students have learned their State standards in that language. Neither is it valid to test what a student knows in a language they do not speak well. The example I will give you is that in the Lower Kuskokwim School District, in many of the schools, in an effort to get the children to connect with their education and to connect with their Yupik heritage, Yupik is taught in grades K-3. It is an immersion level program. If you go out there, the children are reading in Yupik. They are doing their math in Yupik. They are doing science experiments in Yupik. But then, in grade 3, they are required to test, under NCLB, in English. Now, not surprisingly, the children are not doing well on these tests. We need to anticipate the results. If you have not taught a child in a language in which they are going to be tested, perhaps, initially, they are not going to be performing at the level we want. I want to impress upon my colleagues the importance I believe we should place on allowing for those heritage languages to be preserved, to encourage our students in languages. Our research tells us--and I can tell you from a very personal experience with my two boys, who were part of a Spanish immersion program from the time they were in kindergarten through 8th grade in the public schools in Anchorage, they learned their sciences and math and geography and all their subjects in Spanish as well as English. Initially, you are a little anxious because: Are the test scores going to measure up? But what we can tell you is that by the time the children are being tested, certainly up in middle school, they are not only testing strong--very strong in both languages--but they know a second language very well. What my legislation will do in this area is allow schools with Native American language programs in States where there is no assessment in that heritage language to count the third graders--the first time they take the standardized tests--to count the students for participation rate only. It would then allow the school to make AYP if those students are proficient or on track to be proficient in grades 4 through 7. Then, the final area of my legislation is what I am calling the parent piece. As a parent, we know--you know; my colleague from the State of Washington was very involved with education before she came to the Senate as well--we all know as parents how important it is to be involved in our children's education. At the end of the day, not only did my husband and I check on our boys' homework, we asked them: What happened today? What is going on? I was PTA president at my kids' elementary school. NCLB recognizes that in many ways it is very important that parents are part of a child's education. But we also recognize we can be doing more. My bill would amend title II of NCLB, which authorizes subgrants for preparing, training, and recruiting teachers and principals, to allow--but not mandate--these funds to be used to develop parental engagement strategies, to train educators to communicate more effectively with parents, and better involve parents in their schools. We all know how great our Nation's teachers are. But our reality is, very few of them graduate from college having had a course on how to effectively communicate with parents. They know how important it is, but they are taught no techniques. Teachers are busy people. When a parent shows up at a classroom door and says: Hey, I am here to help, teachers often do not know how to react, how to allow them to help. Many teachers have difficulty communicating with parents, who may be working two jobs or have a different cultural background or language. This section of the bill would allow schools to spend some of their teacher training funds on these sorts of issues if they feel it would benefit their students. I know these five issues are not the only ones my colleagues and Americans may have with the No Child Left Behind Act. I have been talking with Alaskans all over the State about NCLB since I first came to the Senate. I look forward to working very hard on the reauthorization of the law this year with my colleagues. These, though, are the five issues that educators and parents in Alaska have told me are the most urgent for them, and I look forward to working to include them in the reauthorization as we move forward. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will clarify the legal status of the Young Women's Christian Association's Retirement Fund. The YWCA Retirement Fund is one of the oldest pension plans serving the retirement needs of women. This bill will help protect the retirement security of thousands of YWCA employees nationwide who serve well over a million users. Whether it is providing day care for working mothers, keeping a battered women's shelter open, or meeting the other pressing needs of women in our communities, the YWCA has a long tradition of service. Those who work at our local YWCAs deserve to know that their retirement plan is secure. Today, the YWCA Retirement Fund is a unique pension program. First, approximately 90 percent of its participants are women. Second, it is a multiple employer pension plan--one that relies on 300 local YWCAs to make funding contributions. And lastly, since it was established in 1924, the pension plan's structure has remained generally unchanged--it is partially a defined benefit plan, and partially a defined contribution plan. Recently, some employers have transformed their traditional defined benefit pension plans into various types of ``hybrid'' plans, and in the process, some have reduced the rate at which benefits accrue for their older workers. Older workers have successfully challenged some of these arrangements as age discriminatory. During its more than 80-year history, the YWCA Retirement Fund has never treated any worker differently based on age or longevity of employment. Most of the controversy surrounding these plans focuses on how employers treat certain participants when they convert their pre-existing pension plans. But the YWCA pension program never converted--its basic structure has remained the same since it was established in 1924. The success of some of these lawsuits has raised questions about whether the YWCA pension plan could be found to be age discriminatory merely on the basis of its design. This threat is particularly acute given the fact that the YWCA Retirement Fund is a multiple employer pension plan--a plan that relies on contributions from each local YWCA. This enormous potential liability would be shared jointly by all local YWCAs. Under current law, even the mere threat of a lawsuit could cause local YWCAs to end their participation in this plan. This legislation merely delineates many of the unique characteristics of the YWCA pension plan and clarifies what age discrimination standard applies to the plan with respect to any future legal claim. This bill protects participants from being treated differently on the basis of age, while eliminating the potential crippling legal threat that currently exists. Legislation was enacted in 2004--Public Law 108-476--to clarify the legal status of the YMCA pension plan, a plan that is similar to the YWCA plan. Congress was right to protect the YMCA pension plan then and now it is time to protect the pension plan serving our YWCAs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will clarify the legal status of the Young Women's Christian Association's Retirement Fund. The YWCA Retirement Fund is one of the oldest pension plans serving the retirement needs of women. This bill will help protect the retirement security of thousands of YWCA employees nationwide who serve well over a million users. Whether it is providing day care for working mothers, keeping a battered women's shelter open, or meeting the other pressing needs of women in our communities, the YWCA has a long tradition of service. Those who work at our local YWCAs deserve to know that their retirement plan is secure. Today, the YWCA Retirement Fund is a unique pension program. First, approximately 90 percent of its participants are women. Second, it is a multiple employer pension plan--one that relies on 300 local YWCAs to make funding contributions. And lastly, since it was established in 1924, the pension plan's structure has remained generally unchanged--it is partially a defined benefit plan, and partially a defined contribution plan. Recently, some employers have transformed their traditional defined benefit pension plans into various types of ``hybrid'' plans, and in the process, some have reduced the rate at which benefits accrue for their older workers. Older workers have successfully challenged some of these arrangements as age discriminatory. During its more than 80-year history, the YWCA Retirement Fund has never treated any worker differently based on age or longevity of employment. Most of the controversy surrounding these plans focuses on how employers treat certain participants when they convert their pre-existing pension plans. But the YWCA pension program never converted--its basic structure has remained the same since it was established in 1924. The success of some of these lawsuits has raised questions about whether the YWCA pension plan could be found to be age discriminatory merely on the basis of its design. This threat is particularly acute given the fact that the YWCA Retirement Fund is a multiple employer pension plan--a plan that relies on contributions from each local YWCA. This enormous potential liability would be shared jointly by all local YWCAs. Under current law, even the mere threat of a lawsuit could cause local YWCAs to end their participation in this plan. This legislation merely delineates many of the unique characteristics of the YWCA pension plan and clarifies what age discrimination standard applies to the plan with respect to any future legal claim. This bill protects participants from being treated differently on the basis of age, while eliminating the potential crippling legal threat that currently exists. Legislation was enacted in 2004--Public Law 108-476--to clarify the legal status of the YMCA pension plan, a plan that is similar to the YWCA plan. Congress was right to protect the YMCA pension plan then and now it is time to protect the pension plan serving our YWCAs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Lance Mackey for being the first dog musher to win the Iditarod Sled Dog Race and the Yukon Quest Sled Dog Race--the world's two longest sled dog races--in the same year. He won both races earlier this year. For those who are not familiar with both races, this is an incredible accomplishment. To put his feat into perspective, Lance Mackey and his dogs traveled a total distance that is equal to traveling between Boston, MA and Salt Lake City, UT. The Yukon Quest Sled Dog race is a 1,000-mile annual international sled dog race between Whitehorse, Canada, and Fairbanks, AK. The trail follows a portion of the Yukon River and trails used by gold prospectors over 100 years ago. On February 20, 2007, in Fairbanks, he completed this sled dog race in a record time of 10 days, 2 hours, and 37 minutes. Only 12 days after winning the Yukon Quest, Lance and 13 of his 16 dogs that completed the Yukon Quest race started the Iditarod Sled Dog Race. This race starts in Willow, AK and ends in Nome, AK, and is 1,100 miles long. The Iditarod trail originally started out as a supply route to numerous remote Alaska communities, including Nome. On March 13, 2007, Lance Mackey and his team completed this race in 9 days, 5 hours and 8 minutes. Both of these races travel through numerous small, rural Alaska villages but most of the trails pass through nothing but pure wilderness. Lance and his fellow mushers had to race through blizzards, temperatures as low as 40 degrees below zero, wind gusts up to 60 miles per hour, water overflows from partially frozen rivers and very rough terrain. Accidents due to terrain, trail conditions and other factors are not unusual. Occasionally, a moose will attack dog teams and mushers. Of course, these elements add additional challenges to these already arduous races. In fact, 21 mushers ``scratched''--or withdrew-- from the Iditarod this year. As a throat cancer survivor, Lance has to always drink water after eating since his salivary glands were removed during cancer treatment. However, Lance Mackey continued to pursue victory and almost entirely shunned food and drink for the last 219 miles of the Iditarod in order to save time. In addition to that, he suffered from frostbite as he made his way to the finish line. The conventional wisdom is that the same musher could not win both sled dog races in the same year. This year, Lance Mackey proved everyone wrong. We are proud of Lance and his dog team for this unprecedented achievement. Once again, I congratulate Lance Mackey and his dog team and wish them continued success.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President I commend to my colleagues this resolution designating April 20, 2007, as National and Global Youth Service Day. This resolution recognizes and commends the significant community service efforts that youth are making in communities across the country and around the world on April 20 and every day. This resolution also encourages the citizens of the United States to acknowledge and support these volunteer efforts. Over the weekend, beginning this Friday, April 20, youth from across the United States and the world will carry out community service projects in areas ranging from hunger to literacy to the environment. Through this service, many will embark on a lifelong path of service and civic engagement in more than 100 countries around the world. This event is not isolated to one weekend a year. National and Global Youth Service Day is an annual public awareness and education campaign that highlights the valuable contributions that young people make to their communities throughout the year. The participation of youth in community service is not just a nice idea for a way to spend a Saturday afternoon. Youth who are engaged in volunteer service, according to recent studies, do better in school than their classmates who do not volunteer. Youth who engage in volunteering and other positive activities are also more likely to avoid risky behaviors, such as drug and alcohol use, crime, and promiscuity. A recently released study conducted by the Corporation for National and Community Service points out some interesting findings about the attitudes and behaviors of youth toward volunteering and other forms of civic engagement. The study found that: 74 percent of youth who volunteer do so at least in part through a religious organization, a schoolbased group, or a youth leadership organization such as Scouts or 4H. A youth from a family where at least one parent volunteers is almost twice as likely to volunteer as a youth with no family members who volunteer, and nearly three times as likely to volunteer on a regular basis. Youth from disadvantaged circumstances who volunteer demonstrate more positive civic attitudes and behaviors than similar youth who do not volunteer. In an effort to recognize and support youth volunteers in my State, I would like to recognize some of the activities that will occur this year in Alaska in observance of National and Global Youth Service Day: No. 1, Anchorage's Promise, which works to mobilize all sectors of the community to build the character and competence of Anchorage's children and youth is again sponsoring the annual Kids' Day event in Anchorage this year. Seventy different nonprofits and businesses will provide free kid-friendly activities to help families build an understanding of the importance of safe places for kids, providing a healthy start and future, the value of having a caring adult in the life of each youth, and why effective education can ensure that all youth have the skills needed to pursue college, vocational training and the field of work that they are interested in. No. 2, Eielson Youth Programs will sponsor a Knit-a-Thon to benefit the women's shelter and the senior center. Volunteers will help instruct preteen and teenage knitters and will also knit projects. All participants are also asked to bring personal hygiene items to be donated to the shelter/center as part of the project. No. 3, Aurora Elementary School on Elmendorf Air Force Base will be sponsoring a canned food drive in conjunction with a school dance. The price of admission to the dance is one can of food. No. 4, Alaska Winter Stars, members of the cross-country ski teams from both Alaska Pacific University and University of Anchorage Alaska, will be hosting a fitness challenge and pledge booth at Kids Day this year. The goal is to bring awareness to the importance of good health and physical activity. Participants will be given the opportunity to test their fitness level and sign a pledge promising to be more active. More than 5,000 youth are expected to participate. No. 5, on April 8, annual Prudential Alaska Spirit of Community Student Volunteer Service Recognition Ceremony will honor more than 150 Alaskan students for making a difference through outstanding volunteer service on National Youth Service Day. This ceremony highlights the outstanding partnerships between Alaskan nonprofit organizations and the business community. The ceremony is conducted in partnership with the Points of Light Foundation, President's Council on Service and Civic Participation, USA Freedom Corps, Prudential Financial, Corporation for National Service, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Prudential Jack White Vista Real Estate, Key Bank of Alaska, Anchorage Daily News, Wells Fargo Bank, Anchorage Municipal Light and Power, Home State Mortgage, Alyeska Title Guaranty Agency, Jewel Lake Tastee Freez, Friends of Alaska Prudential Youth Leadership Institute, and other caring community organizations and individuals. No. 6, teens in the Alaska Youth for Environmental Action program of the National Wildlife Federation will be urging individuals to take the ``3-2-1 Pledge--change three incandescent lightbulbs to compact fluorescents, turn the thermostat down 2 degrees in cold weather, and unplug one appliance when not in use. The ``3-2-1 Pledge'' project has a goal to collect 5,000 signatures by April 2007. The goal will reduce carbon emissions in Alaska by an estimated 19.8 million pounds annually. Alaska Youth for Environmental Action is working in six communities: Sitka, Yakutat, Homer, Juneau, Anchorage and Fairbanks. No. 7, Nerf Balls for Soldiers of Foreign Turf--students across Anchorage are invited to help build positive relations between our soldiers and the children they come in contact with in Iraq. Youth are encouraged to bring or purchase a new Nerf toy to the Egan Center during Kids Day. Funds will be used to raise money for more shipping, and the Nerf Balls will be shipped to Iraq for soldiers to use for relationship building. No. 8, Pen Pal Cards For Kids--Clark Middle School students will help Anchorage's Promise Kids Day participants make cards and letters for children that can be used to encourage those who are over seas or in local hospitals. No. 9, Boy Scouts--Scouting for Food Project--Boy Scouts of Troop 205 in Anchorage will be collecting canned food at Kids Day events for donation to the Alaska Food Bank. No, 10, students from the West High School Junior ROTC and King Career Center Public Safety and Security Assistants programs will be on hand for Kids Day to help monitor exit doors, assist with handing out door prize tickets, and monitor elevators for safety. Students will also have the opportunity to mentor with adults in a variety of settings such as first aid, search and rescue, fire fighters, and Egan Center security. No. 11, Cook Inlet Tribal Youth Council will share Alaska Native heritage by demonstrating Native games and by encouraging healthy active lifestyles at three locations in Anchorage on April 20. No. 12, Summer Reading Program Work Party involves teen volunteers from the Anchorage Municipal Libraries in stuffing 4,000 bags with materials for the summer reading program. This program will help maintain student progress in reading by keeping kids reading all summer long. No. 13, the Girl Scouts Susitna Council will be planting 95 tree seedlings in honor of Girl Scouts of the USA's 95th anniversary. The seedlings will be planted at the Bureau of Land Management's Campbell Creek Science Center in June. Every tree planted produces oxygen, removes air pollution, and fights soil erosion. In addition, the act of planting tree seedlings will instill a sense of stewardship among Girl Scouts that will be passed on to future generations. Future of Life, an organization whose mission is to ensure the future of life on Earth for all species, is providing 95 tree seedlings to each Girl Scout council across the United States, beginning in April and scheduled to coincide with the planting season for each area. Many similar and wonderful activities will be taking place all across the Nation. I encourage all of my colleagues to visit the Youth Service America website--www.vsa.org_to find out about the selfless and creative youth who are contributing in their own States this year. I thank my colleagues--Senators Akaka, Alexander, Baucus, Bayh, Boxer, Brown, Burr, Cantwell, Casey, Clinton, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Corker, Craig, Dodd, Dole, Domenici, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Gregg, Hagel, Kennedy, Kerry, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Lott, Martinez, Menendez, Mikulski, Murray, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Obama, Salazar, Sanders, Specter, Stabenow, and Stevens--for standing with me as original cosponsors of this worthwhile legislation, which will ensure that youth across the country and the world know that all of their hard work is greatly appreciated.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will help increase the amount of food donations going to American Indians and Alaska Natives nationwide. Unfortunately, the poverty rate among American Indians and Alaska Natives continues to be high. Specifically, the poverty rate for our Nation's American Indians and Alaska Natives is over three times that of non-Hispanic whites, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Not only do natives face greater challenges in securing basic household necessities, but in securing food as well. According to a 2005 U.S. Department of Agriculture report, 35.1 million Americans face challenges in getting enough food to eat. This includes 12.4 million children. Of these statistics, Natives constitute a disproportionate number due to the higher poverty rate among this group. And yet, charitable organizations that provide hunger relief are unable to meet the basic needs of Natives due to an oversight in the federal tax code. Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code allows corporations to take an enhanced tax deduction for donations of food; however, the food must be distributed to 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, such as food banks. Nonprofit organizations cannot then transfer such donations to tribes. Although many donations to tribes are tax deductible under section 7871 of the Internal Revenue Code, tribes are not among the organizations listed under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. To clarify, section 170(e)(3) does not allow tribes to be eligible recipients of corporate food donations to nonprofit organizations since they are not listed under Section 501(c)(3) as an eligible entity. With this legislation, I intend to make a simple correction to the tax code that clearly indicates that tribes are eligible recipients of food donated under section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This correction is long overdue and would remedy an egregious inequity in the Federal tax code that affects natives nationwide. Please allow me to provide a few examples of how this legislation could foster positive change. In Alaska, approximately half of the food donated to the Food Bank of Alaska from corporations could go to tribes throughout Alaska. Much of this food would go to villages that are only accessible by air or water. In South Dakota, roughly 30 percent of the food the Community Food Banks of South Dakota distributes could go to reservations. In North Dakota, the amount of food donated to the Great Plains Food Bank could double if this legislation were enacted. The Montana Food Bank Network projects that food donations could increase by 16 percent. A food bank based in Albuquerque, NM, estimates that their food donations could triple in the first year alone. It is imperative that we address this important issue expeditiously. The health and well-being of low income American Indians and Alaska Natives across the Nation is at stake. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will help increase the amount of food donations going to American Indians and Alaska Natives nationwide. Unfortunately, the poverty rate among American Indians and Alaska Natives continues to be high. Specifically, the poverty rate for our Nation's American Indians and Alaska Natives is over three times that of non-Hispanic whites, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Not only do natives face greater challenges in securing basic household necessities, but in securing food as well. According to a 2005 U.S. Department of Agriculture report, 35.1 million Americans face challenges in getting enough food to eat. This includes 12.4 million children. Of these statistics, Natives constitute a disproportionate number due to the higher poverty rate among this group. And yet, charitable organizations that provide hunger relief are unable to meet the basic needs of Natives due to an oversight in the federal tax code. Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code allows corporations to take an enhanced tax deduction for donations of food; however, the food must be distributed to 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, such as food banks. Nonprofit organizations cannot then transfer such donations to tribes. Although many donations to tribes are tax deductible under section 7871 of the Internal Revenue Code, tribes are not among the organizations listed under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. To clarify, section 170(e)(3) does not allow tribes to be eligible recipients of corporate food donations to nonprofit organizations since they are not listed under Section 501(c)(3) as an eligible entity. With this legislation, I intend to make a simple correction to the tax code that clearly indicates that tribes are eligible recipients of food donated under section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This correction is long overdue and would remedy an egregious inequity in the Federal tax code that affects natives nationwide. Please allow me to provide a few examples of how this legislation could foster positive change. In Alaska, approximately half of the food donated to the Food Bank of Alaska from corporations could go to tribes throughout Alaska. Much of this food would go to villages that are only accessible by air or water. In South Dakota, roughly 30 percent of the food the Community Food Banks of South Dakota distributes could go to reservations. In North Dakota, the amount of food donated to the Great Plains Food Bank could double if this legislation were enacted. The Montana Food Bank Network projects that food donations could increase by 16 percent. A food bank based in Albuquerque, NM, estimates that their food donations could triple in the first year alone. It is imperative that we address this important issue expeditiously. The health and well-being of low income American Indians and Alaska Natives across the Nation is at stake. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it gives me enormous pride to pay tribute to our senior Senator, to my senior Senator, Mr. Stevens, and to listen to the comments, to listen to the stories from so many of you as colleagues and friends. For so many years--I think my whole life--I have grown up hearing the stories about Senator Stevens, and to understand how today--tomorrow, actually--he makes history as the longest serving Republican Senator. What you all need to appreciate is that so much of the history of Ted Stevens is also the history of the State of Alaska. They are inextricably tied, and we know that. So to be able to share that with his friends and colleagues for so many years is so important. I truly appreciate the words of the Republican leader outlining the history, the very storied military career that Senator Stevens had, understanding how he went on to be the U.S. attorney for the territory at the time, his schooling through UCLA, through Harvard. Coming back to the State of Alaska is where we all kind of pick up with the history that is now legendary and is seen in so many places. Someone mentioned the Ted Stevens International Airport. We look around to so many of the monuments in the State, whether it is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline that has been delivering oil to the lower 48 for the past 25-some-odd years--we look at those and we think: Ted Stevens. I don't know how many of you are aware of the history of our State as it relates to our lands and knowing and understanding that it was Ted Stevens who moved these forward, whether it was ANILCA, our land conservation act, the Native Claims Settlement Act, the effort to build the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Act, the Denali Commission--these are living legends, if you will, through legislation that came about through the dedication, through the persistence, through the urging of Senator Stevens. We all want to believe, certainly, that we work on behalf of the people we represent, but as we look to these legislative victories, these legislative successes that Senator Stevens has put in place over the years, I believe that truly demonstrates his commitment to the people of Alaska. When we think about providing the Native peoples with title to their lands, when we think about the educational challenges that face us in this enormous State with geographic and rural challenges that we can only imagine, when we think about how we provide health care in a State such as Alaska, all we need to do is look to the initiatives that have been put in place. Senator Stevens has always--always--kept Alaska first and has been very selfless in his efforts to put his State, to put the people of Alaska first. We lovingly call him throughout the State ``Uncle Ted.'' And you chuckle, but I think it is fair to say. They might not say it to your face, Ted, but behind your back they are always calling you Uncle Ted, because I hear it. They love it. The people of Alaska love it when you put on your Super Hero tie, when you wear the Hulk tie, because that is your signal that you mean business on behalf of the people of the State of Alaska. You know, talk about people who have minds as sharp as a tack, Ted will come up to me and we will be talking about something and he will say, You remember back in 1973 when so-and-so said something to so-and- so? And I am thinking, I was still in high school back then; no, I don't remember that. But he has such a grasp of the history and the facts. I appreciated his comment that he doesn't reminisce, but he is not going to let go of the factual background that has gotten us to where we are today. Senator Stevens mentioned those who have worked for him, and he and I have a unique relationship in that I was an intern for him. I credit him as my first political mentor here. Whether that means your staff will go on to succeed both you and me, who knows, but I look to what you have provided me as I have joined the family of the Senate here. I could not have asked for a better mentor, a better colleague to work side by side with as we move forward to advance the interests of the State of Alaska. I know I will have you to work together with for years to come, and I join my colleagues again in acknowledging you on this truly historic occasion. I think it is fair to say, as an Alaskan, I feel personally blessed to have you and your leadership for our State and our Nation, and for that I thank you very much. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that should allow the entity we created just 2\1/2\ years ago to oversee and expedite construction of a gas line to bring Alaska's huge reserves of natural gas to markets in the lower 48 States to work better and function more smoothly and quickly. I, and Senator Ted Stevens who is co-sponsoring this legislation, are introducing this bill in an effort to help speed the full functioning of the Office of Pipeline Coordinator, the entity that we created in fall 2004 to oversee the permitting, design and then construction of an Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline project, intended to bring Alaska's reserves of gas to a Nation in need of additional natural gas supplies. In 2004 we passed two sets of provisions. The first in that year's Military Construction Appropriations Act, H.R. 4837, P.L. 108-324/15 U.S.C. 720, set up an Office of Federal Pipeline Coordinator to oversee the 15 Federal agencies that will have a role to play in construction and financing of a pipeline system. The bill also set up a streamlined permitting and expedited court review process to limit unnecessary delays in the project--and hopefully prevent costly delays from driving up the project's price. That bill also included an $18 billion Federal loan guarantee. The second of that year's pipeline related bills, the FSC-ETI Act (H.R. 4520/P.L. 108-357) provided the Federal financial incentives expected to be needed to aid financing of the project. They included a tax credit for the cost of the pipe in Alaska and a tax credit for the cost of construction of an Alaskan North Slope gas conditioning plant. The two credits were believed to produce about three-quarters of a billion dollars of benefit to the project. The project itself involves building a system, either an overland pipeline through Canada or a pipeline through Alaska leading to a natural gas liquefication facility at tidewater in Alaska, to move gas to markets in the lower 48 States. Alaska has 35 trillion cubic feet of known gas in the Prudhoe Bay oil field and likely holds another 150 to 200 trillion cubic feet of gas both on and offshore in northern Alaska. Getting that gas to market would help to meet a likely gas shortage in the lower 48 States within a decade, helping to keep the United States from becoming even more dependent on imported LNG from foreign suppliers. Currently Alaska's new Governor is in the process of calling for proposals from gas producers, pipeline companies and others interested in building the project, one currently estimated to cost between $30 billion and about half that amount--depending on whether the line through Canada or an LNG project is deemed most economic. Congress last year funded the creation of the Federal Coordinator's office to begin the process of bringing Federal and State agencies together to oversee the permitting, design, and construction of a pipeline. The Office of the Federal Coordinator was funded for fiscal year 2007 initially with a $403,000 transfer of funds from the Department of Energy, with perhaps another $450,000 to $500,000 soon to be transferred. A coordinator, Alaskan former State Senate President Drue Pearce, was also named, confirmed and is now at work, and the office has reached an agreement with all of the 15 Federal agencies it will oversee on how a pipeline is to be permitted. The Bush administration has proposed $2.3 million in its fiscal year 2008 budget request to better fund the Coordinator's Office. But development of the office has shown three problems that need corrective action by Congress, the first immediately. First, the 2004 act made the Coordinator follow Federal personnel law, specifically Title 5 that is a slow and cumbersome personnel process. This bill grants a waiver to Title 5 hiring procedures so that the Federal Coordinator can hire and fire her staff, based on their competence. That should cut the time needed to staff the office with experts in pipeline construction by 6 to 9 months. Given how important it is that the agency has specialists quickly to assist the State of Alaska in its efforts to select a pipeline builder, passing legislation to speed the hiring of Office staff is vital. The waiver, also is common practice for smaller Federal agencies as a host of agencies, from the Election Assistance Commission to the Vietnam Education Foundation, enjoy the hiring waiver. Second, the bill gives the coordinator the ability to establish reasonable permit filing and service fees and charges to defray the cost of regulating and the oversight of any pipeline project. While the proposed budget may pay for a half dozen to a dozen employees, nearly 400 were employed in oversight of construction of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline, some 30 years ago. The bill copies the structure that is currently employed by the Bureau of Land Management's oil and gas leasing division, FLP&MA Section 304, so that it follows a known process in allowing the Federal Coordinator to set and collect fees. Third, the bill in its Section 2 clarifies part of the original 2004 act's Section 107. That section set up an expedited review process so that any suit concerning the pipeline under its enabling legislation or concerning its compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act would go first to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. All cases would have to be filed within 60 days of an action and the court would have to ``expedite'' decisions on all such cases. This action simply also adds that suits stemming from the pipeline's permitting or construction that relates to the Administrative Procedures Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act, besides NEPA, would also go to the D.C. Circuit for expedited review. It clearly follows the original intent of the 2004 act, but does not limit litigation unfairly. The goal of this legislation, if it can be approved quickly by this Congress, would be to help the Pipeline Coordinator staff her office more quickly and then to provide the office the possibility of a more readily available source of funding, should a pipeline applicant move to proceed: The bill also will clarify the legal process for review of a pipeline, helping to speed the project and reduce the chances for cost overruns in construction of potentially the largest private capital construction project in the world's history. This is a vital project. It has the ability to move from 4.5 to 6 billion cubic feet of gas a day, about 5 percent of the Nation's total gas needs in 2018--the first year the pipeline could go into service, if a final overland project was selected and proposed within the next year. It would likely produce about a third of that initially, if an LNG project was selected to be built. This should not be a controversial measure. It should have no nonappropriated costs involved in carrying out its provisions. Section 2 of the bill will save the Nation untold millions of dollars in overseeing permitting and construction of a pipeline, once a firm project is selected. Some will say that the bill is not needed since the State of Alaska has yet to reach final agreement with Alaska North Slope gas producers on a firm agreement to build a line. I would argue, however, that this bill needs to pass now to provide additional assistance to help the State hammer out such an agreement and so the regulatory process is clearly in place, once such an agreement is reached. The Coordinator's Office is already involved in a host of discussions and actions relating to a pipeline and the pace is likely to quicken in coming months, provided the office has the expertise it needs to provide technical information to further a project. I hope the Senate and the Congress will review and approve this bill quickly. The Alaska gas line project is too important for this Nation's energy future, for our energy security, for our national security and for our balance of payments deficit for it to be delayed needlessly. These changes will likely speed the process of proceeding with a pipeline.