Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in 2005 I first introduced a measure of benefit to my home State of Alaska, the Alaska Water Resources Act, for a number of reasons. While the bill easily passed the U.S. Senate in 2005, it did not complete its journey to final passage, which is why I am reintroducing the bill today. The importance of water resource data collection to a State that has a resource-based economy cannot be overstated. Economic development is predicated on access to an adequate water supply, and in my State there is inadequate hydrologic data upon which to secure both economic development and the health and welfare of Alaskan citizens. Alaska is an amazing State from a hydrological viewpoint. It is home to more than 3 million lakes--only about 100 being larger than 10 square miles--more than 12,000 rivers and uncounted thousands of streams, creeks and ponds. Together these water bodies hold about one- third of all the fresh water found in the United States. Alaska is home to a number of large rivers. The Yukon, which originates in western Canada, runs 1,400 miles--discharging from 25,000 cubic feet of water per second in early spring to more than 600,000 cubic feet per second in May during the spring thaw. The Yukon drains roughly 330,000 square miles of Alaska and Canada, about one-third of the State. Besides the Yukon, Alaska is home to nine other major rivers and creeks all running more than 300 miles in length: the Porcupine, Koyukuk, Kuskokwim, Tanana, Innoko, Colville, Noatak, Kobuk and Birch Creek. Alaska residents from early spring to fall face substantial flood threats, from spring flooding caused by breakup and ice damming to fall's heavy rains, but the State has fewer than 100 stream gaging stations operated by the U.S. Geological Survey--Alaska having less than 10 percent of the stream flow information that is taken for granted by all other States in the Nation. Alaska averages one working gage for each 10,000 square miles, while, as an example, Pacific Northwest States average one gage for each 365 square miles. To emphasize the lack of data now available for Alaska, I would point out that to equal the stream gage density of the Pacific Northwest States my State would need to have over 1,600 total gage sites. Alaska also supports the Nation's least modern and undeveloped potable water distribution system. Water for Alaska towns outside of the more densely populated ``Railbelt'' comes predominately from groundwater sources. Surface water sources often result in supply/ storage problems since these surface sources freeze and are not readily available for up to half of the year. The chances for water-borne contaminants to affect potable water supplies, including fecal matter from Alaska's plentiful wildlife populations, human waste from inquate or nonexistent sewage treatment facilities, and natural mineral deposits, natural arsenic levels in mineralized zone creeks frequently exceeding EPA standards) are present and increasing. In areas that predominately depend on groundwater sources, such as the ``Railbelt'' there is only very limited knowledge of the nature and extent of aquifers that support those critical groundwater supplies. Extensive permafrost further complicates the potential for adverse impacts to Alaska. In portions of Southcentral Alaska where there is a dependence on groundwater as the source for an adequate healthy water supply, the availability of that supply is starting to be in jeopardy. Allocations of water need to be based on scientific data, and the data needed upon which the allocations are made is unavailable. Users of water are only beginning to realize the potential conflicts that may arise, and the limits on future economic development that may result from inadequate knowledge of the water resource, particularly in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, on the Kenai Peninsula, and to a lesser extent in portions of the municipality of Anchorage and in the Fairbanks area, where groundwater provided by wells is a crucial part of the State's water distribution system, and where there is little known about the size, capacity, extent and recharge capability of the aquifers that these wells tap. Alaska, according to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, still has some 16,000 homes in 71 generally Native villages not being served by piped water or enclosed water haul systems. There are still 55 villages in Alaska where up to 29 percent of the residents are not served by sanitary water systems, with more than 60 percent of residents not being served in 16 villages. Even though, since statehood in 1959, the State and Federal governments have spent $1.3 billion on rural water-sanitation system improvements, the State still has an estimated need for nearly $650 million in additional funding to complete installation of a modern water-sanitation system. Planning and engineering for those locations cannot be easily completed without better information as to the availability and extent of supply of water and better analysis of new technologies that could be used for water system installations, including possible desalination for some island and coastal communities. For all these reasons today I have reintroduced legislation authorizing the Department of the Interior's Commissioner of Reclamation and the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a series of water resource studies in Alaska. The studies will include a survey of water treatment needs and technologies, including desalination treatment, which may be applicable to water resources developments in Alaska. The study will review the need for enhancement of the National Streamflow Information Program administered by the U.S. Geological Survey. The Streamflow review will determine whether more stream gaging stations are necessary for flood forecasting, aiding resource extraction, determining the risk to the state's transportation system, and for wildfire management. Groundwater resources will also be further evaluated and documented to determine the availability of water, the quality of that groundwater, and the extent of the aquifers in some urban areas. This type of study, already conducted for most all other States in the Nation, should help Alaska better plan and design water systems and transportation infrastructure and also better prepare for floods and summer wildfires. There is literally ``water, water everywhere'' in Alaska, but too often, especially in communities such as Ketchikan that take water from surface sources, or the rapidly growing Mat-Su Valley where there may be less water to drink during unusually dry summers, there is a real and growing problem of maintaining an adequate healthy supply of pure water. This problem is only going to grow more severe with a growing population and economy. This bill is designed to provide more information to help communities plan for future water needs and to help State officials plan for flood and fire safety concerns and further economic development.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in 2005 I first introduced a measure of benefit to my home State of Alaska, the Alaska Water Resources Act, for a number of reasons. While the bill easily passed the U.S. Senate in 2005, it did not complete its journey to final passage, which is why I am reintroducing the bill today. The importance of water resource data collection to a State that has a resource-based economy cannot be overstated. Economic development is predicated on access to an adequate water supply, and in my State there is inadequate hydrologic data upon which to secure both economic development and the health and welfare of Alaskan citizens. Alaska is an amazing State from a hydrological viewpoint. It is home to more than 3 million lakes--only about 100 being larger than 10 square miles--more than 12,000 rivers and uncounted thousands of streams, creeks and ponds. Together these water bodies hold about one- third of all the fresh water found in the United States. Alaska is home to a number of large rivers. The Yukon, which originates in western Canada, runs 1,400 miles--discharging from 25,000 cubic feet of water per second in early spring to more than 600,000 cubic feet per second in May during the spring thaw. The Yukon drains roughly 330,000 square miles of Alaska and Canada, about one-third of the State. Besides the Yukon, Alaska is home to nine other major rivers and creeks all running more than 300 miles in length: the Porcupine, Koyukuk, Kuskokwim, Tanana, Innoko, Colville, Noatak, Kobuk and Birch Creek. Alaska residents from early spring to fall face substantial flood threats, from spring flooding caused by breakup and ice damming to fall's heavy rains, but the State has fewer than 100 stream gaging stations operated by the U.S. Geological Survey--Alaska having less than 10 percent of the stream flow information that is taken for granted by all other States in the Nation. Alaska averages one working gage for each 10,000 square miles, while, as an example, Pacific Northwest States average one gage for each 365 square miles. To emphasize the lack of data now available for Alaska, I would point out that to equal the stream gage density of the Pacific Northwest States my State would need to have over 1,600 total gage sites. Alaska also supports the Nation's least modern and undeveloped potable water distribution system. Water for Alaska towns outside of the more densely populated ``Railbelt'' comes predominately from groundwater sources. Surface water sources often result in supply/ storage problems since these surface sources freeze and are not readily available for up to half of the year. The chances for water-borne contaminants to affect potable water supplies, including fecal matter from Alaska's plentiful wildlife populations, human waste from inquate or nonexistent sewage treatment facilities, and natural mineral deposits, natural arsenic levels in mineralized zone creeks frequently exceeding EPA standards) are present and increasing. In areas that predominately depend on groundwater sources, such as the ``Railbelt'' there is only very limited knowledge of the nature and extent of aquifers that support those critical groundwater supplies. Extensive permafrost further complicates the potential for adverse impacts to Alaska. In portions of Southcentral Alaska where there is a dependence on groundwater as the source for an adequate healthy water supply, the availability of that supply is starting to be in jeopardy. Allocations of water need to be based on scientific data, and the data needed upon which the allocations are made is unavailable. Users of water are only beginning to realize the potential conflicts that may arise, and the limits on future economic development that may result from inadequate knowledge of the water resource, particularly in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, on the Kenai Peninsula, and to a lesser extent in portions of the municipality of Anchorage and in the Fairbanks area, where groundwater provided by wells is a crucial part of the State's water distribution system, and where there is little known about the size, capacity, extent and recharge capability of the aquifers that these wells tap. Alaska, according to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, still has some 16,000 homes in 71 generally Native villages not being served by piped water or enclosed water haul systems. There are still 55 villages in Alaska where up to 29 percent of the residents are not served by sanitary water systems, with more than 60 percent of residents not being served in 16 villages. Even though, since statehood in 1959, the State and Federal governments have spent $1.3 billion on rural water-sanitation system improvements, the State still has an estimated need for nearly $650 million in additional funding to complete installation of a modern water-sanitation system. Planning and engineering for those locations cannot be easily completed without better information as to the availability and extent of supply of water and better analysis of new technologies that could be used for water system installations, including possible desalination for some island and coastal communities. For all these reasons today I have reintroduced legislation authorizing the Department of the Interior's Commissioner of Reclamation and the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a series of water resource studies in Alaska. The studies will include a survey of water treatment needs and technologies, including desalination treatment, which may be applicable to water resources developments in Alaska. The study will review the need for enhancement of the National Streamflow Information Program administered by the U.S. Geological Survey. The Streamflow review will determine whether more stream gaging stations are necessary for flood forecasting, aiding resource extraction, determining the risk to the state's transportation system, and for wildfire management. Groundwater resources will also be further evaluated and documented to determine the availability of water, the quality of that groundwater, and the extent of the aquifers in some urban areas. This type of study, already conducted for most all other States in the Nation, should help Alaska better plan and design water systems and transportation infrastructure and also better prepare for floods and summer wildfires. There is literally ``water, water everywhere'' in Alaska, but too often, especially in communities such as Ketchikan that take water from surface sources, or the rapidly growing Mat-Su Valley where there may be less water to drink during unusually dry summers, there is a real and growing problem of maintaining an adequate healthy supply of pure water. This problem is only going to grow more severe with a growing population and economy. This bill is designed to provide more information to help communities plan for future water needs and to help State officials plan for flood and fire safety concerns and further economic development.

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 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 lawsuit could cause local YWCAs to end their participation in this plan. If enacted, this legislation would merely classify the YWCA retirement plan as a defined contribution plan only for the purpose of testing for age discrimination--it would continue to protect participants from being treated differently on the basis of age while eliminating the potential crippling legal threat. 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 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 lawsuit could cause local YWCAs to end their participation in this plan. If enacted, this legislation would merely classify the YWCA retirement plan as a defined contribution plan only for the purpose of testing for age discrimination--it would continue to protect participants from being treated differently on the basis of age while eliminating the potential crippling legal threat. 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 today in support of a resolution that commemorates the 21st Annual Red Ribbon Campaign. I am honored to again seek the Senate's continuing support and recognition of Red Ribbon Week, which is October 23 through October 31. In 1985, Special Agent Enrique ``Kiki'' Camarena of the Drug Enforcement Administration was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by drug traffickers. Shortly after Agent Camarena's death, Congressman Duncan Hunter and high school friend Henry Lozano launched ``Camarena Clubs'' in his hometown of Calexico, CA. In honor of Agent Camarena, hundreds of club members wore red ribbons and pledged to lead drug-free lives. The campaign quickly gained statewide and then national prominence. In 1988, what is now the National Family Partnership organized the first National Red Ribbon Week, an eight-day event proclaimed by the United States Congress and chaired by then President and Mrs. Reagan. With over 80 million people participating in Red Ribbon Week events during the last week in October, it has become the Nation's oldest and largest drug-prevention program. Red Ribbon Week memorializes Agent Camarena, and all those who have lost their lives in the war on drugs, by educating young people about the dangers of drug abuse, promoting drug-free activities, and supporting everyone who has stood strong against the daily bombardment of mixed signals sent by the mass media. The Red Ribbon that we will wear during Red Ribbon Week is a symbol of zero tolerance for illegal drug use and our commitment to help people, especially children, make the right life-decisions. In Alaska, Red Ribbon Week will be a statewide celebration involving thousands of school children and other supporters. On October 23, the Municipality of Anchorage, in conjunction with the Alaska Red Ribbon Coalition, which is comprised of the Anchorage School District, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Alaska State Troopers, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Alaska, the Alaska National Guard, and many other organizations, will hold its Red Ribbon Week kickoff. Among other activities, there will be poetry readings and dance performances, and a Public Service Announcement featuring local youths sending an antidrug message will be broadcast throughout the State. As people across the country stand together against drugs, I thank my colleagues for joining me in what will hopefully be a continuation of the tradition of congressional support and recognition of Red Ribbon Week.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1106, to authorize the construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; S. 1811, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of enlarging the Arthur V. Watkins Dam Weber Basin Project, UT, to provide additional water for the Weber Basin Project to fulfill the purposes for which that project was authorized; S. 2070, to provide certain requirements for hydroelectric projects on the Mohawk River in the State of New York; S. 3522, to amend the Bonneville Power Administration portions of the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000 to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2006 through 2012, and for other purposes; S. 3832, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish criteria to transfer title to reclamation facilities, and for other purposes; S. 3851, to provide for the extension of preliminary permit periods by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for certain hydroelectric projects in the State of Alaska; S. 3798, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to exclude and defer from the pooled reimbursable costs of the Central Valley Project the reimbursable capital costs of the unused capacity of the Folsom South Canal, Auburn- Folsom South Unit, Central Valley Project, and for other purposes; H.R. 2563, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in Idaho, and for other purposes; and H.R. 3897, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Madera Irrigation District for purposes of supporting the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Nate Gentry at 202-224-2179 or Steve Waskiewicz at 202-228-6195.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, tomorrow is the ninth day of the ninth month, a day designated as International Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Awareness Day. I rise today to state that it is imperative that we continue to spread the word that no amount of alcohol is safe to consume during the 9 months of pregnancy. By continuing to raise awareness, we can hopefully minimize the harm that drinking during pregnancy causes our most vulnerable population-- our children. In February of 1999, a small group of parents, raising children afflicted with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, set out to change the world. That small group started a support group which quickly became a worldwide grassroots movement to observe September 9 as International Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Awareness Day. This year, for the eighth consecutive year, events are occurring in cities and towns not just across the country but around the world. In my State of Alaska, I am proud that events are occurring in Juneau, Anchorage, and Fairbanks. Citizens from my State are raising awareness about the dangers of drinking during pregnancy though a variety of events, such as passing out brochures with preventative messages to physicians' offices, delivering cocktail napkins to area bars with a message stamped on them that reminds pregnant women to not drink, and conducting high school assemblies which teach students about the dangers of alcohol on the developing fetus. As we all know, FASD is 100 percent preventable, yet it remains a leading cause of nonhereditary mental retardation in the United States. Many children affected by maternal drinking during pregnancy have irreversible conditions--including severe brain damage--that cause permanent, lifelong disability. Every year in America, an estimated 1 in every 100 babies is born with FASD--that is 40,000 infants. FASD affects more children than Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, spina bifida and muscular dystrophy combined. In Alaska, we sadly continue to have the highest rate of FASD in the Nation. Approximately 163 Alaskan babies are born each year affected by maternal alcohol use during pregnancy. Among our Native communities, the rate of FASD can be 15 times higher than non-Native areas in the State. Despite these troubling figures, FASD is still widely under diagnosed, misdiagnosed, or not diagnosed at all. Diagnosis is critical because many persons with FASD can overcome learning and behavioral problems and succeed but only with appropriate health, social, and educational resources. The cost of FASD is high--more than $3 billion each year in direct health care costs. The indirect financial and social costs are also great--including the cost of specialized health care, education, job training, and general support services. That is why prevention is so imperative. Prevention of FASD is seven times more cost effective than treating the disorder. But more importantly, abstaining from alcohol during pregnancy will save a family a lifetime of heartache and will prevent the greatest loss of all that of human potential. Senator Tim Johnson and I have introduced the Advancing FASD Research, Prevention, and Services Act. Our bill will develop targeted State and community-based outreach programs and will improve current support services for families who are living with FASD. It will also improve coordination among Federal agencies involved in FASD treatment and research by establishing stronger communication with these programs. Lastly, it will strengthen educational outreach efforts to doctors, teachers, judges, and others whose work puts them in contact with people with FASD. I ask my colleagues to support the Advancing FASD, Research, Prevention and Services Act. Mr. President, tomorrow, on Fetal Alcohol Awareness Day, let us pause to remember the innocent babies inflicted with this disorder and then let us imagine the potential that these babies could have attained but for the damage done by alcohol.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to give private developers more time to complete planning and financing for a complex of three high-mountain lake-tap hydroelectric projects that promise to provide at an electric power for Southeast Alaska and for the Pacific Northwest. Today, I introduce legislation to extend by a total of six years the time for developers to secure data necessary to determine the feasibility and prepare a development application for three individual hydroelectric projects, all located up Thomas Bay in Southeast Alaska, near Petersburg, AK. This legislation will give time for construction of the estimated $75 million, 45-megawatt Cascade Creek project, the $56 million, 30-megawatt Scenery Creek, and the $40 million, 20-megawatt Delta Creek hydroelectric projects to be built. The extensions are needed and justified since the three renewable energy projects can only proceed after a $30 million, 27-mile high- voltage transmission line is constructed in Alaska to the U.S.-Canada border, after another $130 million is spent for 150 miles of new line are built in Canada, after $120 million is spent for 140 miles of transmission line upgrades are finished on the Canadian side of the border to move the excess power to Skeena near Terrace in Canada, and after portions of the proposed Southeast Alaska, Electric, Intertie are finished to also permit excess power from the existing Swan Lake and Tyee Lake hydroelectric projects, and the proposed Mahoney Lake project near Ketchikan, AK, to be shared among Panhandle communities and to connect to export transmission lines. The developers of the Thomas Bay project, Cascade, LLC., deserve a time extension since the company, so far, has focused all of its planning efforts on winning approval and financing for the vital electrical interconnection between Southeast Alaska and Canada, not on finishing the three individual power projects. The State of Alaska only in early summer 2006 approved a grant of $3.2 million to pay for planning to develop a comprehensive plan and review the economic feasibility of using several of Southeast Alaska's nearly 100 potential hydroelectric sites to provide power for both local needs and for export of the surplus power to the Pacific Northwest power grid to help with financing of the 95 megawatts of installed capacity, 410 gigawatt, power project. These hydroelectric projects all involve tapping high mountain lakes for power. They do not require the damming of fish streams, so they have no negative environmental impacts. They will produce electricity at substantial savings over the 40- to 50-cents per kilowatt hour cost of generating power from expensive diesel fuel in the region and they will also reduce the effects of local air pollution and reduce carbon dioxide generation through the avoidance of fossil fuel combustion. Congress routinely extends the three-year deadline for worthy potential FERC-licensed power projects to provide additional time for completion of preliminary planning, financing and design. It is certainly appropriate to grant these three projects that are so interconnected this additional time to work out the contractual and financial planning and to finish the environmental studies needed for construction permits to be obtained. Developing renewable energy that can be produced without any environmental impacts on streams and the fish and wildlife they support is an increasingly important task of government. This bill will help such environmentally-sensitive development occur and will help reduce the nation's dependence on foreign fossil fuels. I hope for speedy passage of this measure.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to give private developers more time to complete planning and financing for a complex of three high-mountain lake-tap hydroelectric projects that promise to provide at an electric power for Southeast Alaska and for the Pacific Northwest. Today, I introduce legislation to extend by a total of six years the time for developers to secure data necessary to determine the feasibility and prepare a development application for three individual hydroelectric projects, all located up Thomas Bay in Southeast Alaska, near Petersburg, AK. This legislation will give time for construction of the estimated $75 million, 45-megawatt Cascade Creek project, the $56 million, 30-megawatt Scenery Creek, and the $40 million, 20-megawatt Delta Creek hydroelectric projects to be built. The extensions are needed and justified since the three renewable energy projects can only proceed after a $30 million, 27-mile high- voltage transmission line is constructed in Alaska to the U.S.-Canada border, after another $130 million is spent for 150 miles of new line are built in Canada, after $120 million is spent for 140 miles of transmission line upgrades are finished on the Canadian side of the border to move the excess power to Skeena near Terrace in Canada, and after portions of the proposed Southeast Alaska, Electric, Intertie are finished to also permit excess power from the existing Swan Lake and Tyee Lake hydroelectric projects, and the proposed Mahoney Lake project near Ketchikan, AK, to be shared among Panhandle communities and to connect to export transmission lines. The developers of the Thomas Bay project, Cascade, LLC., deserve a time extension since the company, so far, has focused all of its planning efforts on winning approval and financing for the vital electrical interconnection between Southeast Alaska and Canada, not on finishing the three individual power projects. The State of Alaska only in early summer 2006 approved a grant of $3.2 million to pay for planning to develop a comprehensive plan and review the economic feasibility of using several of Southeast Alaska's nearly 100 potential hydroelectric sites to provide power for both local needs and for export of the surplus power to the Pacific Northwest power grid to help with financing of the 95 megawatts of installed capacity, 410 gigawatt, power project. These hydroelectric projects all involve tapping high mountain lakes for power. They do not require the damming of fish streams, so they have no negative environmental impacts. They will produce electricity at substantial savings over the 40- to 50-cents per kilowatt hour cost of generating power from expensive diesel fuel in the region and they will also reduce the effects of local air pollution and reduce carbon dioxide generation through the avoidance of fossil fuel combustion. Congress routinely extends the three-year deadline for worthy potential FERC-licensed power projects to provide additional time for completion of preliminary planning, financing and design. It is certainly appropriate to grant these three projects that are so interconnected this additional time to work out the contractual and financial planning and to finish the environmental studies needed for construction permits to be obtained. Developing renewable energy that can be produced without any environmental impacts on streams and the fish and wildlife they support is an increasingly important task of government. This bill will help such environmentally-sensitive development occur and will help reduce the nation's dependence on foreign fossil fuels. I hope for speedy passage of this measure.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the legislation before us, the OCS lease sale 181. I know there have been colleagues before me this afternoon who have spoken to the need for additional oil and gas reserves and resources in this country. The fact is, this Nation badly needs to accelerate its efforts to obtain more natural gas and more oil and doing it domestically. We have heard the comments that we are addicted to oil, that we need to be looking to renewables, and I do not dispute or doubt that for one moment. We absolutely do. We need to be conserving more. We need to be focused more on renewables and alternatives. That is the next generation. But our reality is we are here and now with a reliance on fossilized fuels. We need to transition out of that to that next generation of fuels. But until we do so, we are in an extremely vulnerable spot, particularly with our oil and our nearly 60 percent dependency on foreign sources and with our natural gas and recognizing the trends in terms of our supply and the demand picture for natural gas. In the past 5 years, the price of natural gas in this country has more than tripled, rising sevenfold after last summer's hurricanes. We all know the prices at the gasoline pump. There is not a day goes by where there is not some exchange about what somebody was paying somewhere for a gallon of gas at one location or another. And I can tell you, prices in my State--when you get out into the rural communities and you look at paying $4.50 for a gallon of gasoline, I can tell you, the hurt is real. The tripling of natural gas prices has had, of course, a very severe impact. And it is not just on those who heat their homes with natural gas. Manufacturing jobs--we have heard this today--manufacturing jobs have fallen by 3.1 million jobs, 18 percent in the past 6 years. We talk to those in the petrochemical and chemical industry. Jobs in that industry are being forced to move overseas. We have had over 20 fertilizer plants in this country close. And as has been mentioned already on this floor, America's annual natural gas bill has risen to more than $200 billion a year. This is up from $50 billion, and that was just 6 years ago. While natural gas prices today, following a warm winter, are temporarily below $6 per 1,000 cubic feet, we know the hurricane season is coming upon us in the gulf, we have global political disruptions, and we could have continued hot summer weather, and that we can anticipate a cold winter, and that any one of these--and certainly a combination of them--could promptly send our natural gas prices skyrocketing again. I cannot speak to the issue of natural gas without mentioning the opportunity we have in Alaska for incredible quantities of natural gas coming down from Alaska's North Slope. And while we await the construction of a pipeline that can deliver this needed commodity from the North Slope into the lower 48, we have to recognize one of the best ways we can bring down prices that will increase the domestic supplies of gas is to produce more gas from the gulf coast, where the existing infrastructure is in place, and to figure out a way to get that gas to market quickly. Mr. President, we cannot fool ourselves and say we can just snap our fingers and the price of natural gas is going to go down, we are going to have a ready and available supply just because we pass legislation. We recognize it is a period of time in coming. But what can be sent is the signal to the market that that supply of natural gas is on its way in an expedited manner. The best way--the best way--to produce more gas quickly, to get it on more quickly, is to open parts of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. This proposal before us is to finally allow OCS development in part of formally proposed lease sale 181 off the Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi coasts and to open acreage south of that sale--some 8.3 million acres in all that have been previously closed in moratoria. In return for speeding such leasing, this bill prevents development within 125 miles of the Florida Peninsula, swaps out existing leases within that buffer, and prevents leasing east of the Military Mission Line to protect the military training facilities, at least until the year 2022. This proposal, this legislation that we have in front of us, is a reasonable compromise. It was one that was attempted but not completed during the debate last year over the Energy Policy Act of 2005. So what we have in front of us today is an outgrowth of that bill. In the Energy Policy Act, we allocated billions of dollars to foster energy conservation and greater energy efficiency. We moved toward and we pushed renewable energy development, such as wind, solar, and biomass. We funded new technology to further coal while working to help sequester the carbon. There was a push made on the front of a new generation of nuclear power. We funded hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle development and new transportation and building technology. There were good things contained within that Energy bill. But what was not contained in that legislation--or since that legislation was passed-- was an increase in domestic production of fossil fuel. This legislation will balance last year's Energy bill by actually letting us get up to 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas flowing to the market and, again, flowing to the market in a more expedited manner than might otherwise be seen. There have been those who have stood on the floor today speaking about the various protections contained in this legislation. There is a protection of Florida's tourism and military bases. It doesn't jeopardize the fisheries. When we look to what happened last year when these massive hurricanes came through the gulf, while there were a few minor spills following those hurricanes, there were no well failures or major pipeline breaks from the record intensity of the hurricanes. So we look to the development that is out there in the OCS area and can really point to environmental integrity. The proposal before us gives the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas reasonable revenues to offset the impacts of OCS development off of their coasts, particularly, again, in view of what they suffered after Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. It allows the Federal Government to keep 50 percent of the revenues in the Federal Treasury. This is the exact same percentage that it gets from oil and gas development onshore, whether the onshore development is in New Mexico or California or Oklahoma. It gives the coastal States 37.5 percent to offset their cost as being the host for that offshore development. It also shares 12.5 percent of such revenues with all the States for park and habitat improvements through contributions to the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is an effort to help alleviate the truly chronic underfunding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund without affecting land ownership and private property rights. This money would generally go toward building ballfields, neighborhood parks, recreational opportunities, not buy up the private land or to harm private property rights. As I have reviewed this legislation and have worked with the sponsors, I do need to certainly give credit to the chairman of the Energy Committee, Mr. Domenici, for his efforts in bringing this matter to where we are today, and also to my colleague from Florida, Senator Martinez, who has been working with the chairman to craft legislation that he believes will work for the people of Florida, and certainly to my colleague and friend from Louisiana, who has been working for years to achieve a level of revenue sharing for her State, a battle we know has been waged for many years. That is what I would like to speak to right now. My only major disappointment with this measure is that it doesn't provide revenue sharing to all the States that choose to allow OCS development off of their coasts. The question has to be asked, why not? Why would you not include all of those States which have made the choice to allow for that development off of their coasts? If they are going to allow for it, why would they not be eligible or able to take advantage of Federal revenue sharing as well? I don't believe there is a rational explanation for not including all the States. We have heard some of the arguments--that the Federal Government should share revenues with the States only in those waters from 3 to 12 miles offshore where Federal production might drain onshore or State hydrocarbon reservoirs. Again, the question has to be asked: Why is that? For the past three decades, the Federal Government has shared revenues from onshore development with all States. The only possible excuse for not extending that policy to the offshore would be if the coastal States bore no impacts from offshore development. But that would imply that somehow or other the development offshore kind of sprouts magically from nowhere without any onshore activity. We know that is not the case. I had the opportunity to go to Port Fourchon, LA, which is the jumping-off place for the offshore activity. It is a beehive of activity through there--airports and helicopter pads, all the services that have to come in, whether it is the food or the people moving back and forth, to support that offshore activity. We know that offshore activity just doesn't magically happen without some onshore impact. I know my friend from Louisiana has spoken quite eloquently to the impacts of OCS development in their waters. I will let her and others from the Gulf States speak to that impact. I wish to talk about the impact of OCS development on my State of Alaska. In Alaska, we have been seeking some sort of Federal revenue sharing to offset the cost of OCS development along our 34,000 miles of shoreline for nearly two decades. For budget reasons, we lost out in the 1991-1992 Energy bill. We lost it again in 1995 with the Conservation and Recovery Act, CARA. It was proposed and debated. It ran into other political hurdles. And we lost again last year in the Energy bill. That was partially because you had certain landlocked States that didn't want to see current Federal revenues go to just the coastal States. But you have to stop and think, if there is not some fair form of revenue sharing to offset the impact costs, why should the coastal States allow OCS production, particularly given the recent ease of obtaining the moratorium to prevent them? And without such production, where are we going to be as a country? Americans will be paying even more when they fill up their cars, their trucks, cook their food, heat their homes. That is reality. That is the consequence. In Alaska, we currently have OCS production from just one field. This is the Northstar field in the Beaufort Sea. It produced 22.4 million barrels of oil last year. Since it was within 12 miles of the shore, Alaska received $10.8 million in revenue sharing. If that field had been more than 12 miles from the shore, Alaska would have received nothing. There is actually a little bit of an exception to that because last year in the Energy Policy Act, there was a very small amount of aid that was directed to the State for 4 years to assist with the impact onshore of the offshore development. Previously, Senator Bingaman made a point. I believe he was correct when he said that Alaska contains nearly a dozen OCS bases off of our coast, all but one of them--this is the North Aleutian Shelf, down near Alaska's Bristol Bay--being open to leasing. The North Aleutian Shelf is closed by Presidential moratorium. But when we look at Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf, we are looking at the potential of 26.6 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This is according to the mean estimates. That production would more than double the Nation's known reserves of oil and nearly equal the amount of gas likely along the coasts of the rest of the Nation. But to accommodate OCS development and any proposed future OCS development in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas--we have other potential areas, in Cook Inlet, the State governmental units--the State of Alaska, the North Slope Borough, local governments have to spend millions of dollars on hosts of services to protect, to regulate, to inspect, and to support the OCS development. For instance, the State of Alaska's Department of Environmental Conservation spends more than half a million dollars a year to inspect and monitor oil and gas operations. This is just in northern Alaska. The State's Department of Transportation and Public Facilities spends nearly $10 million each year to keep the Dalton Highway going up to the North Slope open so that we can move oil and gas equipment and our supplies north. This also helps to maintain the Deadhorse Airport. The North Slope Borough spends nearly $1 million for search-and- rescue capabilities. This is not counting the cost to the Alaska State troopers if they have to mobilize to assist oil workers who might perhaps get in trouble. The State of Alaska spends money on coastal zone planning to understand the impacts of OCS development. The State also spends millions of dollars on new infrastructure to handle the arrival and the movement of employees and materials that are needed to support the oil industry offshore. Last week in Fairbanks, the State broke ground on a $90 million expansion of the Fairbanks International Airport terminal. This expansion is partially needed to accommodate the oil workers who may be jumping off for OCS work. Last year down in Anchorage, the State finished work on a 440,000-square-foot terminal expansion at the airport there, costing well over $100 million. So our airports are clearly impacted by the effects on the industry. As things are happening, we see the impact within our communities. The local governments, smaller communities from Barrow to Kotzebue, Kenai to Dillingham, and Kodiak to Sitka, are all spending money to prepare for the possible development of the State's coast. The point is to recognize that there are very real costs to offshore development that are borne by the States that serve as service and support bases for the development. It is true that States sometimes recoup part of the costs through income taxes on workers or through property taxes on businesses that will support the facilities onshore. They may gain a small stipend from Federal coastal zone planning funds. But when you look at how much is gained, it is fair to say that the recovery has seldom covered their costs. So the question would be to the State: Why would you even welcome OCS development off of your coast? This is where you need to take the bigger picture. Our energy security, reliability, the whole issue surrounding the vulnerability we have as a nation because of our reliance on others for our energy sources, this is why it is essential that we as a nation figure out a way to produce more oil and gas domestically. Sharing oil and gas revenues with States in a fair manner will ensure that energy can get to market. It is that fact which is probably the difficulty with this legislation in terms of passage of a fair revenue-sharing system. That may be because we have some around here who would want to discourage States from allowing any OCS development, perhaps out of environmental concerns, perhaps displaced environmental concerns. But denying coastal States needed revenues is one way to discourage greater offshore oil and gas production. Last week, Senator Stevens and I sought to ensure that any revenue sharing proposed in this bill would apply also to Alaska or to any State that allows OCS development off of its shores. We were told at that time that if that provision stays in, it would be a death sentence for this bill. I have been asked many times in the past few days have I changed my position on this legislation, have I changed my position in support of opening lease sale 181 to exploration and development. I have not. I have not changed that. I remain committed to a sound policy, which I believe this is, that allows for the opening of lease sale 181. I can appreciate why it was tailored so that revenue from the gulf would only be shared among the Gulf States. I can appreciate where they are coming from. I can appreciate the narrow scope of the Senate version and the delicate negotiation that went into it. But from a matter of equity, from a matter of fairness, for those States that are willing to open their coasts, their States, to allow for the development offshore, it is only right that allowing all the States who have OCS development off their shores to share in some form of revenue. By structuring the revenue sharing that we have before us in this legislation in this manner, Alaska is the only currently producing OCS State that allows new development that would not receive any aid. It was suggested last week that, well, Alaska is asking for a special deal. That is absolutely not the case. We are asking to be treated the same as any other currently producing State when it comes to revenuesharing. So to those of you who suggested this was something special for Alaska, it was absolutely not. It was equitable for all those States that are currently producing. So by excluding Alaska, we are the only State that is disenfranchised when it comes to the Federal revenue sharing right now. I have had an opportunity to go down and observe for myself--so I have seen with my own eyes--what is happening in Louisiana, in the gulf, with the erosion. As I was presiding earlier, I was reminded again by the minority leader that Louisiana loses three football fields of land a day. But we also, in the State of Alaska, face serious erosion challenges. We have some 80 villages that are facing coastal erosion problems. I use the word ``problems'' lightly, because in some of the communities it is an absolute crisis; the villages are dropping into the ocean. We may not be hit by the hurricane forces we see in the gulf that are given names and much publicity through the media, but many parts of coastal Alaska are hit by storms that meet the definition of hurricanes. There are winds exceeding 75 miles an hour, waves and storm surges that can equal those of the hurricanes. The big difference is they are not named as hurricanes. We don't get that attention or that focus. Money from OCS development could help pay for mitigation efforts and perhaps, in some cases, pay for village relocation costs. So Alaska is not unlike the other Gulf States--Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas--for coastal mitigation and habitat protection. I am sure we will have an opportunity on this floor to discuss a lot more about the coastal erosion problems in Alaska in the future. I do feel strongly that we need to pass a bill to speed oil and natural gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico. It will provide natural gas for our Nation, while helping the Gulf Coast States gain the revenues they need not just to recover from the hurricanes but to deal with the coastal erosion and wetlands habitat loss issues they face. I believe the formula for such aid should cover all States that allow OCS development off their coasts, while providing other aid to all States that need it. I tell my colleagues that, regardless of the outcome of the bill--and I intend to support the measure--I will continue to seek to provide aid to all of the coastal States that allow OCS development, especially since all other States gain an equal sharing of revenues from energy development on-shore. It truly is the only equitable thing to do. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Child Custody Protection Act. I support the intent of the act, which seeks to protect the health and safety of pregnant minors, as well as the rights of parents to be involved in the medical decisions of their minor daughters. However, I believe this act might have gone further in protecting young women in situations of family abuse or incest. As a parent of two, I understand the importance and centrality of family, and an essential element of that: the parent-child relationship. The Supreme Court noted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that parental involvement laws related to abortions ``are based on the quite reasonable assumption that minors will benefit from consultation with their parents and that children will often not realize that their parents have their best interests at heart.'' It is important that, to the extent possible, a young woman be able to consult with her family before making the decision to have an abortion. Unfortunately, some young women, particularly victims of incest or family violence, cannot safely involve parents in their decision to obtain an abortion. In such a circumstance, as my colleagues have rightfully pointed out, the minor girl could seek a judicial bypass, which would allow the girl to petition a judge to waive the parental involvement law. The bypass is intended for situations of incest or family abuse, and would allow for the involvement of appropriate state authorities, making it more likely that the minor girl will be removed from the abusive situation and that the abuser will be brought to justice. The bypass option is fundamental to the rights of the minor, and exists to protect her safety. Constitutional law requires a parental consent law to contain a judicial bypass provision. However, the circuit courts are divided as to whether parental notification laws also must contain a judicial bypass. I am concerned for those girls who are in an abusive family situation and who reside in states that could enact a parental notification law without a bypass option. I believe something must be done to strengthen the bypass requirements in this bill to ensure the protection of minor girls with abusive families. Given the unanimous consent agreement, I do not have the opportunity to amend the Child Custody and Protection Act on the floor in order to strengthen the bypass option in cases of parental notification. I will look to my colleagues in conference to consider adding a provision that would ensure, with respect to parental notification, that minor girls in incestuous or family abusive situations be able to seek a bypass, whether it be the judicial bypass or, as in Utah, the medical bypass, which permits a physician to waive the parental notification requirement in cases of incest or family abuse. The physician must also notify State authorities. It is right to protect pregnant girls and their families from those who do not have the minor girl's best interest at heart. Mr. President, I only ask that everything be done to protect the health and safety of those minor girls seeking an abortion who feel they cannot safely turn towards their family.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 3638, to encourage the Secretary of the Interior to participate in projects to plan, design, and construct water supply projects and to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to encourage the design, planning, and construction of projects to treat impaired surface water, reclaim and reuse impaired groundwater, and provide brine disposal in the State of California; S. 3639, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to provide standards and procedures for the review of water reclamation and reuse projects; H.R. 177, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Prado Basin Natural Treatment System Project, to authorize the Secretary to carry out a program to assist agencies in projects to construct regional brine lines in California, to authorize the Secretary to participate in the Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination demonstration and reclamation project, and for other purposes.; H.R. 2341, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of a project to reclaim and reuse wastewater within and outside of the service area of the City of Austin Water and Wastewater Utility, Texas; and H.R. 3418, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Central Texas Water Recycling and Reuse Project, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Joshua Johnson at 202-224- 5861 or Steve Waskiewicz at 202-228-6195.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, in introducing the Reclaiming the Nation's Water Act-- ReNew. We introduce this bill after months of review of the Nation's program, now over a decade old, that attempts to encourage the reclamation and use of water. The Bureau's title XVI program originated in 1992 in response to the Southwestern drought of the late 1980s and early 1990s. At that time, Congress authorized the program in an attempt to alleviate pressure on the Colorado River system by augmenting existing supplies and developing new water sources. Since then, Congress has authorized some 31 projects and appropriated about $325 million for the program. During a February 28, 2006, hearing of the Senate Water and Power Subcommittee, the Congressional Research Service reported that only three of these projects have received full Federal funding and that 9 are listed as ``inactive,'' meaning they have received little or no Federal moneys. This massive backlog, which the Bureau of Reclamation has estimated will take at least 15 years to resolve, has not stopped local communities from seeking additional aid under the program. There are bills pending in Congress that would authorize an additional 19 projects--projects that will likely overwhelm the Bureau of Reclamation's budget, if they were all to be funded fully under the existing program. In an effort to clarify the Federal role in developing new sources of water and in an effort to help local Government receive a dependable and timely supply of Federal assistance for truly worthy water reuse projects, we introduce this legislation to clarify and make permanent title XVI water reuse/reclamation/recycling grant assistance. Briefly, the bill: Amends the Reclamation and Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to provide standards and procedures for the review of water reclamation and reuse projects. Under existing law, the title XVI program has operated without defined terms or specific purpose. This has led to confusion in recent years whether the title XVI program is primarily a demonstration program or was intended to finance permanent reclamation and reuse facilities. This legislation clarifies that the purpose of the title XVI program will be: (1) to assist in the development of permanent local and regional water reclamation and reuse projects; and (2) to further improve water reclamation and reuse technologies through research and demonstration activities. The legislation also authorizes the Secretary of Interior to participate in opportunities for water reclamation and reuse, including water recycling and desalination activities in reclamation States. The legislation provides new authority for the Secretary of the Interior to review non-Federal water reclamation and reuse project proposals, pursuant to new standards and procedures for such review. New standards would include providing sufficient evidence to the Secretary of Interior that the project: (1) is technically viable and (2) has a financially capable project sponsor. The Secretary would have 180 days to submit to Congress: (1) a statement and explanation of the project's technical and financial viability, and (2) a recommendation on whether the project should be authorized for construction based on several specific factors. Factors to be considered would range from items related to project costs and benefits, to whether the project would help serve an identified Federal interest. The bill also includes transition procedures. The bill as currently proposed also: (1) Strikes existing provisions providing for appraisal investigations and replaces them in part with a new planning and assistance program--$4.4 million authorized annually-- for non-Federal project sponsors electing to seek help in developing project proposals. (2) Strikes existing provisions providing for feasibility investigations and replaces them with a new technical and financial review process for evaluating non-Federal sponsor project proposals. Deadlines are included for the technical and financial viability reviews, and a process is established for reporting and making recommendations to Congress on project proposals for funding. (3) Clarifies that projects must be authorized for construction by the Congress before funds may be expended by the Secretary of the Interior for project construction. (4) Limits the Federal cost-share for projects to the lesser of 20 percent or $20 million of total project costs--the current limit is 25 percent or $20 million--excluding operations and maintenance costs. (5) And makes numerous technical and conforming amendments. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues, Members of the House, and the administration to perfect and move this bill through the process this year. I believe this bill will provide valuable assistance to local areas to increase the available supplies of potable water through the economic reuse and reclamation of water supplies, while providing an affordable and orderly process that will prove fairer to local communities and help them to receive federal assistance in a timely manner. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in June of this year, parents of children afflicted with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and their advocates traveled to our Nation's Capital for the annual FASD Hill Day. FASD Hill Day is sponsored by the National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and organizations that support those who care for FASD children in our States and communities. Nobody knows better than a parent of a child afflicted with FASD how challenging it is to raise a child who was exposed to alcohol before birth. Nobody knows better the physical, mental, behavioral and learning disabilities that can have lifelong implications. I hope that my colleagues had the opportunity to meet with the parents and advocates who participated in FASD Hill Day because they had a very important story to tell. I am sure their stories moved you, as they did me. At the conclusion of FASD Hill Day, the National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome hosted its annual Leadership Awards Benefit Reception, which was attended by the parents and advocates, as well as the children. I am pleased to inform my colleagues that the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, received the 2006 Leadership Award at the benefit reception. As a Senator who represents a State with one of the highest incidence rates of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, I appreciate the leadership of Mr. Dorgan and the support of all our colleagues, in the crusade to eradicate FASD. The term ``fetal alcohol spectrum disorders'' was coined by experts as an umbrella term to describe the range of effects that can occur in an individual whose mother drank alcohol during pregnancy. It refers to conditions such as fetal alcohol syndrome, fetal alcohol effects, alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder and alcohol-related birth defects. The only cause of FASD is alcohol use during pregancy. When a pregnant woman drinks, the alcohol crosses the placenta into the fetal blood system, reaching the fetus, its developing tissues, and organs. This is how brain damage occurs, which in turn can lead to mental retardation, social and emotional problems, learning disabilities and other problems. It will shock my colleagues to know that FASD is the leading cause of mental retardation in all of Western civilization, including the United States. By abstaining from the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy a woman can be 100 percent certain that her baby will not be born with any of the conditions regarded as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Every day of the year we must remind women that no amount of alcohol consumed during pregnancy is safe for their baby. No alcohol during pregnancy is safe. None at all. To dramatize this point, a group of parents raising children afflicted with FASD came together on the Internet and wondered in cyberspace, ``What if a world full of FASD parents came together on the 9th hour of the 9th day of the 9th month of the year and asked the world to remember that during the 9 months of pregnancy a woman should not consume alcohol?'' If this were to occur, they wondered, ``Would the world listen?'' These pioneering activists, many of whom were adoptive and foster parents, organized the first International Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Awareness Day, which was observed on September 9, 1999. On the 9th hour of the 9th day of the 9th month every year they call upon all the peoples of this Nation, and all the peoples of this world, to observe a moment of silence to remind women of childbearing age that no amount of alcohol is safe during pregnancy. Their group continues to grow, including more than 70 volunteer coordinators in eight countries. Through this grassroots awareness effort, many women of childbearing age are learning that no amount of alcohol during pregnancy is safe. On September 9, 2004, for the first time, the moment of silence was observed on the Senate floor. It is my hope that the Senate honor this moment every year until fetal alcohol spectrum disorders are eradicated. The resolution that I have introduced, S. Res. 499, designates September 9, 2006, as National Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Awareness Day. I thank my colleagues for their consideration and support of this resolution, which is so very important to the millions of Americans who are touched by FASD.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, in introducing the Reclaiming the Nation's Water Act-- ReNew. We introduce this bill after months of review of the Nation's program, now over a decade old, that attempts to encourage the reclamation and use of water. The Bureau's title XVI program originated in 1992 in response to the Southwestern drought of the late 1980s and early 1990s. At that time, Congress authorized the program in an attempt to alleviate pressure on the Colorado River system by augmenting existing supplies and developing new water sources. Since then, Congress has authorized some 31 projects and appropriated about $325 million for the program. During a February 28, 2006, hearing of the Senate Water and Power Subcommittee, the Congressional Research Service reported that only three of these projects have received full Federal funding and that 9 are listed as ``inactive,'' meaning they have received little or no Federal moneys. This massive backlog, which the Bureau of Reclamation has estimated will take at least 15 years to resolve, has not stopped local communities from seeking additional aid under the program. There are bills pending in Congress that would authorize an additional 19 projects--projects that will likely overwhelm the Bureau of Reclamation's budget, if they were all to be funded fully under the existing program. In an effort to clarify the Federal role in developing new sources of water and in an effort to help local Government receive a dependable and timely supply of Federal assistance for truly worthy water reuse projects, we introduce this legislation to clarify and make permanent title XVI water reuse/reclamation/recycling grant assistance. Briefly, the bill: Amends the Reclamation and Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to provide standards and procedures for the review of water reclamation and reuse projects. Under existing law, the title XVI program has operated without defined terms or specific purpose. This has led to confusion in recent years whether the title XVI program is primarily a demonstration program or was intended to finance permanent reclamation and reuse facilities. This legislation clarifies that the purpose of the title XVI program will be: (1) to assist in the development of permanent local and regional water reclamation and reuse projects; and (2) to further improve water reclamation and reuse technologies through research and demonstration activities. The legislation also authorizes the Secretary of Interior to participate in opportunities for water reclamation and reuse, including water recycling and desalination activities in reclamation States. The legislation provides new authority for the Secretary of the Interior to review non-Federal water reclamation and reuse project proposals, pursuant to new standards and procedures for such review. New standards would include providing sufficient evidence to the Secretary of Interior that the project: (1) is technically viable and (2) has a financially capable project sponsor. The Secretary would have 180 days to submit to Congress: (1) a statement and explanation of the project's technical and financial viability, and (2) a recommendation on whether the project should be authorized for construction based on several specific factors. Factors to be considered would range from items related to project costs and benefits, to whether the project would help serve an identified Federal interest. The bill also includes transition procedures. The bill as currently proposed also: (1) Strikes existing provisions providing for appraisal investigations and replaces them in part with a new planning and assistance program--$4.4 million authorized annually-- for non-Federal project sponsors electing to seek help in developing project proposals. (2) Strikes existing provisions providing for feasibility investigations and replaces them with a new technical and financial review process for evaluating non-Federal sponsor project proposals. Deadlines are included for the technical and financial viability reviews, and a process is established for reporting and making recommendations to Congress on project proposals for funding. (3) Clarifies that projects must be authorized for construction by the Congress before funds may be expended by the Secretary of the Interior for project construction. (4) Limits the Federal cost-share for projects to the lesser of 20 percent or $20 million of total project costs--the current limit is 25 percent or $20 million--excluding operations and maintenance costs. (5) And makes numerous technical and conforming amendments. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues, Members of the House, and the administration to perfect and move this bill through the process this year. I believe this bill will provide valuable assistance to local areas to increase the available supplies of potable water through the economic reuse and reclamation of water supplies, while providing an affordable and orderly process that will prove fairer to local communities and help them to receive federal assistance in a timely manner. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to take this time to speak about the Arctic and the upcoming International Polar Year. The Arctic is still a new frontier for many in Congress. For many, it is too far away, too dark and too cold to merit much attention. But whether you represent Florida, Iowa, or any other State, Americans around the country are connected to events in the Arctic. From climate change and the development of our natural resources, to international treaties and maritime rights, more knowledge about each of these issues is needed to help us formulate and shape the policies that will impact the Arctic and our country for future generations. It has been nearly 14 years since the United States last developed an Arctic policy. The world was a different place 14 years ago. The Cold War had just ended. Climate change was barely being considered as an issue. An accessible, navigable Arctic Ocean was nowhere near as real a prospect as it is today. The Arctic Council, an intergovernmental organization that addresses many of the common concerns and challenges faced by the Arctic states, was just getting started. And we had nowhere near the sensitivity to the changes life is bringing to indigenous residents of the Arctic. Times have changed, and we need a new Arctic policy. The upcoming International Polar Year will be the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year of 1957-1958 and continues a tradition of international science years that began in 1882-1883 and again in 1932-1933. The purpose of the International Polar Year is to spark an interest in those whose expertise may not be in the Polar Regions. Most importantly, the theme is international. IPY is being led by the International Council for Science, ICSU, and the World Meteorological Organization, WMO. Participating nations so far include Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Chile, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, and others. The International Polar Year is actually 2 years, from March 1, 2007, until March 1, 2009, allowing two field seasons of research in both the Arctic and the Antarctic. The timeframe was selected to encourage an intensive burst of effort that can be coordinated among many nations. During this time, scientists will lay the groundwork for sustained assessments of environmental change and variability. In addition, the resulting enhanced infrastructure and observation systems will provide an improved foundation for ongoing science. In the United States, the administration has asked the National Science Foundation to lead U.S. IPY activities. NSF allocated roughly $13 million for this fiscal year for research opportunities. The announcements for these research grants will occur sometime in late July or August of this year. Another round of grants is expected in February or March of 2007, as the President requested $62 million for fiscal year 2007 just in time for the start of the IPY. Other agencies are contributing to IPY, including the National Institute of Health, NASA, the State Department, and the Department of Energy. In fact, the Department of Energy is sponsoring a summit on energy development and rural power as it relates to the Arctic. The core of the summit will be a technology conference held in Anchorage, AK, the week of October 14, 2007. Leading up to the technology conference and following the summit to its completion will be an education and outreach effort with the goal of capturing the interest of the public and decisionmakers and attracting and developing the next generation of scientists, engineers, and leaders. Despite the many events and research projects that will be happening around the world, it is important that we not lose focus on why we are having IPY: to make a contribution that will not only serve as a benchmark in understanding the polar regions but also help leave a legacy for future scientists and researchers. The worst-case scenario for IPY is for great scientific achievements to happen over the next 2 years, and nobody knows about it. Showcasing IPY is essential. As scientists work to achieve breakthroughs in their respective fields, they will also be increasing their collaboration with local communities and indigenous people as partners in research from designing the projects and collecting and interpreting the data to disseminating the results. There are already projects trying to achieve a greater partnership. For example, The STUDENT-PARTNERS Project, SPP, headed by the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts, unites students, teachers, and scientists to study the role of rivers in the Arctic system and create an innovative and effective education and outreach program. By partnering with K-12 grade students and teachers living beside the largest Arctic rivers in Russia, Canada, and Alaska, the high frequency river water samples that are needed to understand hydrologic and biogeochemical fluxes in the river systems will be obtained. In the process, the capability we seek in a multinational Arctic river observing network will be developed. In the Bering Strait School District in Alaska, teachers are trained to educate students in grades K-12 about climate change data collection and scientific study. The project blends modern science with Native tradition, language, and subsistence needs. Full community involvement has been achieved in 13 of the 15 villages in the school district. Scientists from the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska work with teachers and students to collect data on weather, erosion, sea ice movement, and wave and wind action. Native elders are involved in teaching the students using the Native language, culture, and historical observations. The elders use the data to assist them in predicting dangerous weather and sea conditions as the plan for subsistence activities. What they are doing not only benefits the community and sustains Native traditions, it also generates a new generation of individuals interested in Arctic science. The upcoming International Polar Year can play a significant role in focusing our Nation, and for that matter the world, on the work that is being done, and needs to be done, in the Arctic. I plan to use the occasion of the International Polar Year to bring more of my colleagues to the north. When I say the north, I mean going to the Permafrost tunnel in Fairbanks or the Toolik Field Station on the North Slope of Alaska to see for themselves what the Arctic is really like. The IPY is also an opportunity to craft greater coordination and cooperation among Arctic nations so that those who live in the Arctic benefit. And perhaps most important of all, it is an opportunity to develop the next generation of Arctic researchers to carry on this important work. I look forward to further discussions on the Arctic as the International Polar Year draws closer and the relevance of the Arctic to the Nation and the world as a whole.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1812, to amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to provide for the conjunctive use of surface and ground water in Juab County, Utah; S. 1965, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain buildings and lands of the Yakima Project, Washington, to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District; S. 2129, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land and improvements of the Gooding Division of the Minidoka Project, Idaho; S. 2470, to authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within the A&B Irrigation District in the State of Idaho; S. 2502, to provide for the modification of an amendatory repayment contract between the Secretary of the Interior and the North Unit Irrigation District, and for other purposes; S. 3404, to bill to reauthorize the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project; H.R. 2383, to redesignate the facility of the Bureau of Reclamation located at 19550 Kelso Road in Byron, California, as the ``C.W. `Bill' Jones Pumping Plant''; and H.R. 4204, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer ownership of the American River Pump Station Project, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Nate Gentry at 202-224-2179 or Steve Waskiewicz at 202-228-6195.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his leadership on this issue, for his leadership on behalf of the people of Hawaii. There is so much in common that the Alaskans in the north share with our neighbors in the Pacific. I would like to take a few moments to speak a little bit about the history and how the history of our Alaska Natives ties in with the Native Hawaiians and why I stand today in support of the legislation offered by Senator Akaka. As Abraham Lincoln is revered by the African American community as our first civil rights President, Richard Nixon is held in esteem by America's native people for his doctrine of self-determination. President Nixon knew that in order for the native people to break out of the despair and poverty that gripped their lives, they would need to be empowered to take control of their own destiny. One of President Nixon's legacies to America's first peoples is the Indian Self Determination and Educational Assistance Act. Another one is the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. These two pieces of legislation eliminated any doubt as to whether the Native people of Alaska were recognized as among the first people of our United States and were, therefore, eligible for the programs and services accorded to Native people. Yet it took more than a century from the time the United States acquired Alaska from Russia for the legitimate claims of Alaska's native people to be resolved. One hundred and three years to be exact. President Nixon signed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act into law on December 18, 1971. It has been amended by Congress to clarify one ambiguity or another on numerous occasions since. The Indian Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which provides the legal basis for our Nation's special relationship with its native people, speaks of the authority of Congress to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes. It is now well established that this provision of the Constitution is the legal basis for our Nation's special relationships with the Native peoples of Alaska. Some of Alaska's native people regard themselves as Indians. But the Eskimo and Aleut peoples of Alaska, who have also been recognized by this Congress and the courts as deserving of the special relationship, most certainly would not regard themselves as Indians. In Alaska, the basic unit of native organization is the village and while some villages refer to themselves as ``tribes,'' many native villages do not. The Inupiaq Eskimo villages carry names like the native village of Barrow, the native village of Kaktovik, and the regional governing body of North Slope Inupiaq Eskimos refers to itself as the Inupiaq Community of the Arctic Slope. Alaska's native peoples are Aleuts, Eskimos and Indians and their units of organization include entities like traditional councils, village councils, village corporations, regional consortia and subregional consortia. Yet neither the Congress nor the Federal courts deny all fall within the purview of the Indian Commerce Clause. Leading constitutional scholars, including our esteemed Chief Justice John Roberts, have argued that Native Hawaiians also fall within the purview of the Indian Commerce Clause. I think it is high time that this Congress confirm that they do. The American Indian Law Deskbook, 2d edition, authored by the Conference of Western Attorneys General, an association of state attorneys general, quotes the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Antelope for this point. Congress may not bring a community or body of people within the range of its Indian Commerce Clause by arbitrarily calling them an Indian tribe, but . . . the questions whether, to what extent, and for what time they shall be recognized and dealt with as tribes are to be determined by the Congress, and not by the courts. As anyone who has been to law school knows, when the courts apply arbitrariness as the standard of review, they are highly deferential to the initial decision maker, whether that decision is made by the executive branch or the legislative branch. And the new 2005 edition of Cohen's Federal Indian Law treatise, which has historically been regarded as the definitive authority on Federal Indian Law notes that ``no Congressional or executive determination of tribal status has been overturned by the courts'' and indeed the Supreme Court has never refined the arbitrariness standard to which I referred. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was most importantly, a settlement of land claims. But it has turned out to be so much more for Alaska's native people. It created native owned and native controlled institutions at the regional and village level. These institutions, the Alaska Native Corporations, have functioned as leadership laboratories, helping a people who traditionally lived a subsistence lifestyle gain the skills necessary to run multi-million-dollar economic enterprises. I am not only referring to the profit-making corporations created by the act, but also the people serving institutions that manage Indian Self Determination Act programs. The Alaska native health care delivery system is a prime example of President Nixon's self-determination policies at work. At one time the Federal Government administered the delivery of health care to the native people of Alaska through the Indian Health Service. Today, the native people administer their own health care delivery system under a self-governance compact with the Federal Government. This healthcare system is recognized around the world as a laboratory for innovation. It is a pioneer in the use of telemedicine technology to connect clinics in remote villages to doctors at regional hospitals, and at the advanced Alaska Native Medical Center in Anchorage. Confidence in the quality of care delivered by the native healthcare system rose when native people took over the system. But for me the most gratifying thing is to see young native people who are leading their communities into the new millennium. You see them in management and developmental positions everywhere in the Alaska native healthcare system. The institutions created and fostered by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act have helped countless native young people pursue educational opportunities at the undergraduate and graduate level. Young people from the villages of rural Alaska are going off to school and returning with MBAs and degrees in law and medicine, nursing, education and social work. As I visit the traditional native villages in my State of Alaska, it is evident to me that the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act accomplished much more than settling land claims and creating native institutions. This legislation empowered a people. The Native people of Alaska have regained their pride in being native. Even as native people are pursuing careers that their ancestors never considered, there is a resurgence of interest in native languages and native culture in many of our native communities. The empowerment of Alaska's Native people also enriches the broader Alaska community. Thousands of Alaskans participate in programs offered by the Alaska Native Heritage Center in Anchorage. The Athabascan Old Time Fiddler's Festival and the World Eskimo-Indian Olympics enable the native people of Interior Alaska to share their culture with the Alaska community. At the time the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act became law, some believed that it would balkanize the State of Alaska and separate people from one another. As we approach the 35th anniversary of the Alaska native land claims settlement, I can state with confidence that this single step of recognizing the legitimate claims of Alaska's native peoples has made our State a better place. It strengthened our ties to the past. It strengthened our sense of community. It enables all of us, native and non-native alike to take pride in Alaska. Some 112 years have passed since the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, depriving the Native Hawaiian people of their self- determination and their land. Some 112 years after the Native Hawaiian people came under the control of the United States, I am sad to note that their status among the aboriginal peoples of the United States remains in controversy. This controversy persists even though the Congress has enacted more than 150 separate laws that recognize a special relationship between the Native Hawaiian people and the United States. Among these laws is the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921, which set aside lands for Native Hawaiians much like the Alaska Native Allotment Act set aside lands for Alaska Natives. Now you would think that if Native Hawaiians were regarded as not having the status of Indian people under the Commerce Clause, that the Congress would not have set aside land for them or made them eligible for the sorts of programs and services for which native people are eligible. But the Congress has done so time and time again and Presidents continue to sign these bills into law. I am referring to the inclusion of Native Hawaiians in laws like the Native American Programs Act of 1974 and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, which protect the interests of all of America's native peoples. I also refer to laws such as the Native Hawaiian Healthcare Act and the Native Hawaiian Education Act which specifically rely on Congress's plenary power over matters involving Indians for their authority. This controversy persists even though this Senate passed by a margin of 65-34, an Apology Act in 1993 which was ultimately signed into law as Public Law 103-150. Through this Apology Act, the Congress expressed its commitment to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people. The bill before us, S. 147, is the logical next step in the process of reconciliation. It is the product of many years of hard work by our esteemed colleagues, Senator Akaka and Senator Inouye. It has earned the support of the Governor of Hawaii, the Honorable Linda Lingle, and the support of the Hawaii Legislature. It is endorsed by every major Indian group in our Nation--the National Congress of American Indians, the Alaska Federation of Natives and the Council on Native Hawaiian Advancement. It has been carefully considered by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs which has reported the bill favorably to the full Senate. First and foremost, it conclusively resolves the issue of whether Native Hawaiians are aboriginal peoples alongside American Indians and Alaska natives. This is a process that the native people of Alaska waited 108 years to resolve. It is important for the Congress to resolve these issues in order to assure that the programs we have enacted for the benefit of Native Hawaiians are free of constitutional challenge. It provides for the organization of Native Hawaiians in a form that the adult members of that community determine by an open and transparent ballot. And it empowers that Native Hawaiian organization to negotiate with the State of Hawaii and the United States of America over the direction that Native Hawaiian self-determination may take. This is a modest piece of legislation that simply establishes a framework for negotiations to take place in the future. Some of the opponents of this legislation have set out a parade of horribles that will flow from its enactment. I, for one, am unwilling to speculate on the outcome of the negotiations between the United States, the State of Hawaii, and the organization of Native Hawaiians established by this legislation. This legislation on its face states that it does not authorize Indian gaming, it does not vest the Native Hawaiian organization formed under its provisions with civil or criminal jurisdiction, and it does not require that Federal programs and services to other aboriginal peoples of the United States be reduced in order to provide access to the native peoples of Hawaii. It also does not create Indian reservations in Hawaii. Sharing and inclusion are fundamental values to the native people of Alaska. The Alaska Federation of Natives, which is the oldest and most respected organization representing all of Alaska's native peoples, strongly supports the inclusion of Native Hawaiians among our first peoples, just as it supports the legitimate claims of the Virginia tribes and those of the Lumbees of North Carolina. I ask unanimous consent that the AFN's resolution of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Celebrating the distinctive cultures and ways of our first peoples strengthens of us. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act has stood the test of time and proven to be a good thing for the people of Alaska--native and non-native alike. During his introductory remarks, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, drew some distinctions between the situation of the Native Hawaiians and those of Alaska Natives. I would like to offer a few observations for the Record. It is true that some Alaska Natives now and at the time the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 was enacted live in Alaska Native villages. Those villages have never been regarded as Indian reservations. Non-Natives live in Alaska Native villages alongside Alaska Natives. But more significantly, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 did not require that one reside in one of the Alaska Native villages or even in the State of Alaska to be a beneficiary of the settlement. All it required it that an individual have as a result of one's ancestry a specified quantum of Aleut, Eskimo or Indian blood to be an initial shareholder in an Alaska Native Corporation. The Federal Government determined who was eligible to receive stock by formulating a roll of Alaska Natives. Recognizing rates of intermarriage among Alaska Natives, Congress has amended this legislation to give descendants of a corporation's original shareholders an opportunity to participate in the corporations on a co-equal basis with those shareholders who had the requisite blood quantum. At the time that the claims act was passed Alaska Natives resided in every urban center of Alaska and many resided outside of the State of Alaska. They too lived as everyone's next door neighbor and were mixed in with the State's population. In the 34 years since the claims act was passed more and more Alaska Natives have relocated to regional hubs, to Alaska's largest cities, and to locations outside Alaska. Today, Anchorage is regarded as Alaska's largest Native village. Some even live in Hawaii. Yet they have not lost their status as Alaska Natives in fact as in law. All remain eligible for services customarily provided to American Indians and Alaska Natives under the law. I trust in the judgment of my respected colleagues, Senator Akaka and Senator Inouye, and my friend, Governor Lingle, that passage of S. 147 will enrich the lives and spirits of all of the people of Hawaii. I ask that my colleagues support cloture to enable us to debate S. 147. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will help the commercial fishermen and others whose livelihoods were negatively impacted by the Exxon Valdez oilspill. As all of us know, the Exxon Valdez ran aground on March 23, 1989, spilling 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound in Alaska. A class action jury trial was held in Federal court in Anchorage, AK, in 1994. The plaintiffs included 32,000 fishermen among others whose livelihoods were gravely affected by this disaster. The jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages to the plaintiff class. The punitive damage award has been on repeated appeal by the Exxon Corporation since 1994. Many of the original plaintiffs, possibly more than 1,000 people, have already died. Once the punitive damage award of the Exxon Valdez litigation is settled, many fishermen will receive payments to reimburse them for fishing income lost due to the environmental consequences of the Exxon Valdez oilspill. It is estimated that the eventual settlement could be $6.75 billion or more. My bill gives the affected fishermen, as well as other plaintiffs in this case, a fair shake when it comes to contributions to retirement plans and averaging of income for tax purposes. With respect to retirement plan contributions, my bill increases the caps on both deductions and income for traditional IRAs to the extent of the income a plaintiff receives from the settlement or judgment. Also, it allows the plaintiffs to make contributions to Roth IRAs and other retirement plans to the extent of the income received from the settlement or judgment. Fishermen are currently allowed to average their income over a several year period due to the often inconsistent nature of the fishing business. The litigation stemming from the Exxon Valdez oilspill poses an even more unique situation since fishermen and other plaintiffs have been waiting to receive lost income--in the form of a settlement or judgment--for 12 years. My bill allows plaintiffs to average their income for the period of time between December 31 of the year they receive the settlement or judgment payment and January 1, 1994--the year of the original jury award in Federal court. It is imperative that we address this important issue soon. The Exxon Corporation has appealed this case and a decision is expected later this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will help the commercial fishermen and others whose livelihoods were negatively impacted by the Exxon Valdez oilspill. As all of us know, the Exxon Valdez ran aground on March 23, 1989, spilling 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound in Alaska. A class action jury trial was held in Federal court in Anchorage, AK, in 1994. The plaintiffs included 32,000 fishermen among others whose livelihoods were gravely affected by this disaster. The jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages to the plaintiff class. The punitive damage award has been on repeated appeal by the Exxon Corporation since 1994. Many of the original plaintiffs, possibly more than 1,000 people, have already died. Once the punitive damage award of the Exxon Valdez litigation is settled, many fishermen will receive payments to reimburse them for fishing income lost due to the environmental consequences of the Exxon Valdez oilspill. It is estimated that the eventual settlement could be $6.75 billion or more. My bill gives the affected fishermen, as well as other plaintiffs in this case, a fair shake when it comes to contributions to retirement plans and averaging of income for tax purposes. With respect to retirement plan contributions, my bill increases the caps on both deductions and income for traditional IRAs to the extent of the income a plaintiff receives from the settlement or judgment. Also, it allows the plaintiffs to make contributions to Roth IRAs and other retirement plans to the extent of the income received from the settlement or judgment. Fishermen are currently allowed to average their income over a several year period due to the often inconsistent nature of the fishing business. The litigation stemming from the Exxon Valdez oilspill poses an even more unique situation since fishermen and other plaintiffs have been waiting to receive lost income--in the form of a settlement or judgment--for 12 years. My bill allows plaintiffs to average their income for the period of time between December 31 of the year they receive the settlement or judgment payment and January 1, 1994--the year of the original jury award in Federal court. It is imperative that we address this important issue soon. The Exxon Corporation has appealed this case and a decision is expected later this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduced a resolution designating June 2006 as National Internet Safety Month. I am pleased to have Mr. Allen, Mr. Craig, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Vitter, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Burns, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Warner, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. DeWine join me in introducing this resolution. 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. Never before has the problem of online predatory behavior been more of a concern. Consider the pervasiveness of Internet access by children and the rapid increase in Internet crime and predatory behavior. Never before have powerful educational solution's--such as Internet safety curricula for grades kindergarten through 12--been more critical and readily at hand. i-SAFE America is one of the nonprofit organizations 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 90 percent of children between the ages of 5 and 17 use computers, and about 59 percent use the Internet. Approximately 26 percent of children in that age group are online more than 5 hours a week, and 12 percent spend more time online than they do with their friends. An alarming statistic is that 39 percent of youths in grades 5 through 12 in the United States admit giving out their personal information, such as their name, age, and gender over the Internet. Furthermore, 11.5 percent of students in this age group have actually met face to face with a stranger they met on the Internet. Most disturbing are the patterns of Internet crimes against children. In 1996, the Federal Bureau of Investgation was involved in 113 cases involving Internet crimes against children. In 2001, the FBI opened 1,541 cases against people suspected of using the Internet to commit crimes involving child pornography or abuse. 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. Mr. President, as we approach the start of National Police Week and the annual memorial service, 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 and 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 Tom's friends. The wreckage was located late in the afternoon of December 20. The passenger survived the crash, but Ranger Tom 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 2006. 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, as we approach the start of National Police Week and the annual memorial service, 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 and 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 Tom's friends. The wreckage was located late in the afternoon of December 20. The passenger survived the crash, but Ranger Tom 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 2006. 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. In 1962, the Congress enacted and President Kennedy signed into law a joint resolution designating May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which May 15 falls as National Police Week. National Police Week is observed with numerous events here in our Nation's Capitol and parallel events in communities across the Nation. The two most moving of these events are the Peace Officers Memorial Day ceremony, on the Capitol grounds, and a candlelight vigil at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial on Judiciary Square. At that candlelight vigil, the name of each officer who perished in the line of duty during the preceding year is read aloud to an assemblage numbering 10,000 or more. These events emphasize the heroic acts of the law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial bears the inscription that our fallen officers are not heroes for the way that they died but for the way they lived their lives. Heroes, as we know, live on forever in our hearts, our spirits and our collective memories But for the families, friends and co-workers of law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty, the grief and the loss are very real. The survivors of fallen law enforcement officers command our sympathy and our prayers. Yet after the funeral is over and news of the tragedy falls off of the front pages of the daily newspaper, the very hard and often solitary process of adjustment begins. In many cases, that process can last for years and years after the loss and during that lengthy period, our police survivors need support in more tangible ways. On May 14, 2003, on the eve of the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service, 10 widows of fallen law enforcement officers came together at dinner to ask the question, ``What about us?'' At the National Police Week gatherings, everyone focuses on the loved one whose life is lost, but it is also important to focus on the needs of survivors who must rebuild their lives from the ashes. From this dinner conversation came the birth of a new national organization called ``Concerns of Police Survivors.'' The acronym is ``COPS''. One year later, COPS was formed at the first National Police Survivors Seminar which drew 110 law enforcement survivors. Suzie Sawyer, a former President of the Fraternal Order of Police Auxiliary was selected as COPS' first Executive Director. She is also the only person to have served as the group's executive director. Today, COPS provides healing, love and the opportunity for a renewed life to over 15,000 families through a network of 48 chapters around the country. Over its 22 year history, COPS, as it is called, has expanded its offering of programs to include: peer support and counseling for survivors every day of the year, assistance in obtaining death benefits, assistance in coping with parole hearings, and scholarships for surviving spouses and children. It offers special programs for parents, siblings and spouses of fallen officers as well as a summer camp for young and teenage children. COPS also trains police agencies on how to cope with a line of duty death. But one of the most important activities COPS offers is the Annual Police Survivors Seminar. This weekend at a hotel in Alexandria that is closed off to the public and the media, survivors from across the country will find a safe place to vent, to cry, to laugh, to think, and to heal. COPS has played a pivotal role in helping the families of Alaska's survivors rebuild their lives. COPS was there for Laurie Heck Huckeba, the widow of Alaska State Trooper Bruce Heck, slain on January 10, 1997. Laurie went on to become a member of the COPS national board of directors, and facilitates sessions at the National Police Survivors Seminar. Survivors helping survivors--that's what COPS is all about. And COPS was there for the family of slain Kenai Police Officer John Watson, who tragically lost his life on Christmas Day, 2003, while checking on the welfare of another. Officer Watson is the last Alaska officer to lose his life in the line of duty. COPS will be there for the family, co-workers and friends of Vicki Armel, the Fairfax County Detective who was senselessly slain by a sniper outside the Sully District Police Station this week. And it will do the same for the survivors of slain Philadelphia Police Officer Gary Skerski, also shot to death this week after responding to a robbery call at a bar. The perpetrator told patrons that he planned to kill an officer. Eleven Philadelphia officers have been shot in the last 25 months, according to the Fraternal Order of Police. Every one of those incidents takes an emotional toll on so many others. Thanks to the work of Suzie Sawyer and COPS, all of those affected by a police line of duty death no longer need to ask the question, ``What about us?'' They refer to law enforcement as the ``thin blue line.'' Thanks to COPS, that thin blue line of support for our law enforcement families is tens of thousands of people thick. In honor of our police survivors and the vital work that is undertaken by COPS, I joined with my colleagues earlier this week in offering Senate Resolution 473 which designates May 14, the anniversary of the founding of COPS, as National Police Survivors Day. The resolution is intended to engage all of our fellow citizens to lend their hearts and to lend a hand to the survivors of our police heroes. I am pleased that the Senate adopted Senate Resolution 473. I appreciate the support of our colleagues in moving this resolution through swiftly. It is especially timely given the unfortunate events that occurred this week in Fairfax County and in Philadelphia. How tragic that these events occurred on the very eve of National Police Week. I also want to acknowledge the leadership of my colleague, Mr. Talent, in whose state of Missouri COPS is headquartered, and my colleague, Mrs. Lincoln, our lead co-sponsor on the Democratic side, who worked with me to put forward this resolution. In the United States, one law enforcement officer dies in the line of duty every 53 hours. Each year somewhere between 140 and 160 lose their lives in the line of duty. As we remember the heroic deeds of the 17,535 law enforcement officers whose names are carved into the marble wall on Judiciary Square, let us also take a moment to reflect on those who are left to carry on. Let's do this on May 14--National Police Survivors Day.