Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Burns in introducing the Rural Physicians' Relief Act of 2006. This important legislation will bring needed assistance to physicians who provide primary health services to rural America. Physicians who provide health care in the most rural locations in America face challenges unlike their more urban counterparts. Often great distances, remote locations, limited transportation, and harsh climate combine to make health care delivery extremely difficult to say the very least. Patient populations are small and spread out across extremely remote areas. As a result, many of these areas tend to be the most medically underserved areas in the Nation. In my State of Alaska, a State that is larger than the States of California, Texas and Montana combined, nearly one-quarter of the State's population lives in communities and villages that are only reachable by boat or aircraft. In fact, Alaska has fewer roads than any other State--even fewer roads than Rhode Island. And unlike Rhode Island where over 90 percent of the roads are paved, less than 20 percent of the roads are paved in Alaska. This means that approximately 75 percent of Alaskan communities are not connected by road to another community with a hospital. This means that all medical supplies, patients, and providers must travel by air. These remote populations tend to be among the poorest in the State. Air travel equates to excessively high health care costs--generally 70 percent higher than costs in the lower 48 States. In short, ``rural'' takes on a new definition in Alaska. In Alaska, patient access to health care is exacerbated because our State also faces a chilling crisis--we have 25 percent to 30 percent fewer physicians than our population needs. In fact, Alaska has one of the smallest numbers of physicians per capita in the country. We need a minimum of 500 more doctors just to be at the national average of physicians per capita. An American Medical News article recently declared Alaska's precarious situation: ``Alaska has long ranked among the worst states in terms of physician supply.'' Our physician shortage crisis will only worsen. There is an expected retirement of at least 118 physicians in Anchorage alone in the next 10 years. In the 1990s, there were 130 new doctors each year. Now that figure has dropped to only 31 new physicians since 2001. Outside of Anchorage, one in every eight physician positions is vacant. Additionally, many physicians are forced out of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs because reimbursement rates simply do not cover the cost to treat those patients. With Alaska's growing population, especially of our elderly, this shortage will lead to the severe health care access crisis for all Alaskans. On top of harsh physical challenges, Alaska's rural population also faces significant human challenges. These rural patient populations are often in the greatest need for primary health care services. Heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases are the leading causes of death in Alaska. Women in our State have higher death rates from stroke than do women nationally; and mortality among Native Alaskan women is dramatically on the rise, whereas it is actually declining among Caucasian women in Lower 48. The prevalence of chronic disease such as diabetes and even tuberculosis is increasing faster in Alaska than any other State. Each of these health concerns is magnified because access to health care--especially in rural Alaska--remains our greatest challenge. The legislation that Senator Burns and I introduce today seeks to lessen this problem. It will both assist physicians who currently practice in rural America and will provide an incentive to encourage physicians to practice in these remote and underserved areas. Specifically, it would give a physician who is a primary health services provider a $1,000 tax credit for each month that he or she provides services in a designated ``frontier'' area. Furthermore, physicians who treat a high percentage of patients from frontier areas would also be eligible for the tax credit. Mr. President, my hope is to encourage physicians to practice medicine in rural Alaska and throughout rural America. Creating incentives that offset the high cost of providing care in the most remote areas of the Nation will go far in recruiting physicians to the areas that are most in need of their services.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciated the opportunity to listen to the statement of my colleague from Utah and hearing of the effects that medical malpractice liability costs are having in his particular State. I think all of us in this body could stand on the Senate floor and discuss what is happening in our respective States and in our respective regions as we look at how medical malpractice issues are affecting access to care and access to quality physicians. Truly, across the Nation, emergency departments are losing staff. Critical services are being cut and even trauma units being closed. One in seven obstetricians has stopped delivering babies. Countless surgeons are no longer performing high-risk procedures. You have to stop and ask the question: What has happened? What has caused this breakdown in our Nation's medical liability system? Skyrocketing medical liability rates are forcing so many of our doctors across the country to stop practicing medicine. It is the millions of patients around the country who suffer when this happens. In the State of Alaska, where our patients, my constituents, live throughout some 586,000 square miles, the situation is chilling. It is a crisis. We have 25 to 30 percent fewer physicians than our population needs. In fact, Alaska has one of the smallest numbers of physicians per capita in the United States. We need a minimum of 500 more doctors just to be at the national average of physicians per capita. An American Medical News article recently declared Alaska's precarious situation by stating that ``Alaska has long ranked among the worst states in terms of physician supply.'' Just recently, we learned about new deployments with one of our medical units in the Anchorage area coming out of Elmendorf. We have had a recent deployment of Alaskan military physicians and health care providers, and this month we are losing over 60 health care providers. So the few civilian physicians we have in the area are being asked to absorb some 5,400 military and military families into their already strained practices. In certain of the physician specialties, the shortages there are at even worse levels. For example, we all know Alaska is a huge State, a State larger than Texas, California, and Montana combined. Envision that area. We have lost half of our internists. Over one-half of the internist population is now gone from the State of Alaska. And, in Alaska, a State where we have the highest rate of traumatic brain injury in the Nation, we have three neurosurgeons for the entire State. Where do you go? You have to go outside, you go to Seattle. But you have to leave the State for that medical care. In Nome, a town in western Alaska where my mother was born, there are no anesthesiologists. Nome is the regional hub in the Northwest. There are no anesthesiologists. So if you are a woman who is delivering a baby and the condition requires that a C-section be performed, you can't have the C-section done in Nome because there is no anesthesiologist. You have to get on a jet and fly an hour and a half to Anchorage. These are the situations we deal with in Alaska on a daily basis. Many of these physicians were forced out of practice because they could no longer afford their medical liability premiums. Our physician shortage crisis was a key reason that medical liability reform was so important to Alaska. It was last May, as the legislature concluded its business, as they are doing this week, that the Alaska State Legislature passed a medical liability reform bill. Like the bills currently before the Senate, the Alaska bill fully compensates a patient for all quantifiable damages, such as lost wages and all medical and future medical costs. And like the legislation we have before us, the Alaska law places reasonable limitations on unquantifiable, noneconomic damages. The American Academy of Actuaries has stated that placing limitations on unquantifiable, noneconomic damages is ``imperative in stabilizing the physician professional liability insurance marketplace.'' Our hope with the new legislation is that the Alaska law will provide equitable and predictable settlements in medical injury cases resulting in a more stable, professional liability insurance marketplace and, most importantly, it will help us with the recruitment of physicians to fill the chronic shortage. I am happy to report that our medical liability reform does appear to be working. Ketchikan General Hospital, for the first time in years, has been able to recruit two new physicians. We have an internist and a general surgeon. For the first time also in years, I am told, their medical liability premiums have not increased. Additionally, the Mat-Suu Valley has been able to recruit a cardiologist and Anchorage has finally been able to recruit a reconstructive surgeon. Both of these physicians fled their states that were in ``liability crisis'' and moved to Alaska where reform has been enacted. This is good news. However, this is an issue that has national implications. That is why we in Washington must act now. The bills before the Senate, S. 22 and S. 23, are based on a fair and commonsense approach that passed in the State of Texas. As a result of the Texas law, physicians are returning to that State, particularly in the underserved specialties and counties. Insurance premiums to protect against frivolous lawsuits have declined dramatically, with the State's largest carrier reporting declines of up to 22 percent and other carriers reducing premiums by an average of 13 percent. The number of lawsuits filed against doctors has been cut almost in half. Too many lives around the Nation are threatened or lost because good, quality physicians are forced out of their practice. A majority of the American public supports medical liability reform and ending lawsuit abuse. It is time that the Senate passed effective medical liability reform. I am pleased we are at that juncture today. I see the chairman of the HELP Committee. He has done a great job on so many of these issues. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this week, the first week of May, is National Cover the Uninsured Week. Now in its fourth year, it is the largest nonpartisan effort in our Nation's history to raise awareness on the staggering numbers of Americans who do not have health insurance. Forty-six million Americans have no health insurance--including more than 8 million children. In Alaska, 110,000 people do not have health insurance--that is nearly 17 percent of our population. One-half of Alaska's uninsured live in a household with a least one child. Being uninsured too often means going without needed care--and minor illnesses can become major ones simply because health care is delayed. Over a third of Alaska's uninsured reported that they didn't seek medical care for themselves or their family when it was needed. Why? Because they couldn't afford it. An estimated 18,000 uninsured Americans die each year because they received too little care, too late. Most of these individuals and families are hard-working Americans-- just making it from paycheck to paycheck. In fact, 8 out of 10 of uninsured Americans either work or are in working families. To help those working families, I join Senator Santorum and Senator Dole in introducing the Helping Working Americans Afford Health Coverage Act of 2006. The goal of this bill is to make health coverage more affordable and accessible to the working populations with the greatest needs. This bill creates a progressive, refundable health care tax credit targeted toward low- and moderate-income individuals and families which can be used for health savings account-eligible health insurance. Recent studies show that low- and moderate-income Americans and those previously uninsured are enrolling in health savings accounts or HSAs. More than one-third of HSA purchasers last year had incomes under $50,000 per year, and one-third of individual HSA purchasers last year were previously uninsured. Specifically, the refundable tax credit would provide a subsidy of up to 90 percent of the cost of health care coverage, up to a maximum credit of $1,000 per adult and up to $3,000 for a family. Additionally, the credit will be advanceable so that an individual or family would not have to wait to be reimbursed to purchase coverage. This bill also contains an important provision to address the higher health care costs and higher poverty levels in the noncontiguous States of Alaska and Hawaii. In Alaska, the qualifying income thresholds for both individual Alaskans and Alaskan families are increased by 25 percent. Though the Helping Working Americans Afford Health Coverage Act is not as comprehensive as S. 160, the SAVE Act, Securing Access, Value and Equality Act--legislation that I introduced earlier in the Congress--it is still an important first step in addressing the needs of the uninsured. The National Association of Health Underwriters states that this bill ``will provide much needed relief by providing a refundable tax credit that can be used for both their health insurance policy premiums and as a deposit into their HSA account This (bill) will provide individuals with ready access to health care while encouraging them to become more engaged in the process of obtaining health care.'' Mr. President, helping Americans afford insurance saves money in the long run. Between $65 billion and $130 billion of public health dollars are spent on treating acute patients. Much of this could be saved if only those individuals received preventative care. Making health insurance more affordable will make a real difference to the Nation's physical and economic health. I am proud of Alaskans and all Americans who have united during National Cover the Uninsured Week and are bringing attention to this national health care crisis. I ask my colleagues to take an important step in helping the uninsured by supporting the Helping Working Americans Afford Health Insurance Act of 2006.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last week I spoke on the floor concerning the rising cost of gasoline and diesel fuel--in fact, all fuels. We have all been talking about the price of energy in this country for the past several weeks. Over the weekend, I was at a soccer game, and that was the conversation. Everyone had their horror stories about what they were paying to fill up their vehicles and discussion about how bad is it going to get. My comments this morning are directed in a vein that unless this Nation gets serious about its energy and how we move forward with a truly balanced approach, it is going to get worse before it gets better. There have been a lot of proposals and a lot of discussion. There is a sense that perhaps there is some easy fix out there that we in the Congress have overlooked. It is clear to those of us who have really been following this issue that there is no easy fix. We didn't get here in a week. We are not going to get out of this in a week. We are not going to get out of this through quick congressional action. We have to do more when it comes to furthering our conservation of our current supply. We have to speed the development of our alternative and renewable fuels. We have to produce more energy at home rather than buying from unstable and unreliable sources abroad. Yesterday, the European nations voiced support for a U.N. Security Council resolution that could produce sanctions against Iran to slow their nuclear program. We may have a ways to go to convince Russia and China that sanctions are appropriate, but the hint that sanctions could endanger the roughly 2 million barrels of oil a day that Iran exports, it is this type of unrest that can spook or scare off the international oil markets, thus driving the price of oil higher. Yesterday, following in the footsteps of Venezuelan Hugo Chavez, Bolivia nationalized its natural gas industry. Almost certainly this is not going to result in lower prices for natural gas in the future. I made some comments this weekend that Congress can pass and repeal laws, but we don't have the ability to repeal the law of supply and demand. With demand for oil edging dangerously close to the maximum production levels, with the developing nations increasing their demand for energy supplies, with the unrest we see in Nigeria, the standoff over Iran's nuclear programs, we simply have to conserve more and produce more. It is not an either/or situation. I have heard some people suggest that the only way out of this is conservation, renewables or alternatives. It has to be everything. It has to be a full, comprehensive approach. It is not an either/or situation. On the conservation side, the Republican leadership last week introduced legislation to give the President the authority to raise the CAFE standards for passenger vehicles. I am one of those who is willing to do more in this area. People want to know: What can we do now, what can we do today that is going to help offset the high prices? There are some very simple things we can do from the conservation side to conserve fuel and save money. Individuals can make sure that their tires are properly inflated, that their cars are tuned, and reduce speed. All of these improve fuel efficiency. We all need to do more to conserve all different types of energy, including our electricity, since much of it is made from oil. Look at your thermostat this summer. Don't crank up that air-conditioning as much as you might want. In the intermediate run, over the next 5 to 10 years, we have to expand the use of our renewable energy, whether it is wind, geothermal, biomass, ocean, solar, and hydroelectric. We need to get to the next generation of nuclear powerplants, get these off the drawing boards, and fund research on everything from hydrogen cars to improved technology for clean coal and carbon sequestration to lock up greenhouse gas emissions. But the other component we must focus on is increasing our domestic supplies of oil and natural gas because it truly will take everything, a truly balanced energy approach, to stop America from being ``over a barrel'' when it comes to high energy prices. And the foremost thing, the No. 1 thing we can do to prevent this country from being in the same situation 5, 7, 10 years out from now is to stop wasting our time and to open up a small portion of the Arctic Coastal Plain in our State of Alaska to oil and gas development. We have about 10.4 billion barrels or more of oil sitting up in ANWR that can be developed in an environmentally friendly, sane, responsible manner. We do this utilizing the technology that has been developed over the past several decades, whether it is the 3-D seismic that helps us pinpoint where the deposits are or the directional drilling that allows us to go underneath the surface so there is no surface disturbance. We can do this without harm to the wildlife, without harming the porcupine caribou herd or without displacing a polar bear or moving a muskoxen. The legislation we have discussed opening up ANWR would limit the surface impact to 2,000 acres--2,000 acres out of 19.5 million acres-- in the ANWR area. This is one-tenth of 1 percent of the area we are talking about for development. Opening ANWR could produce up to 1 million barrels a day of additional oil for 30 years to meet this country's domestic demand and, thus, help drive down the prices. When we look at the laws of supply and demand, 1 million barrels of oil is nothing to sneeze at. When we look at the equivalent, 1 million barrels a day is the equivalent of the energy we would obtain from a 3.7-million acre wind farm. To put it in context, if we took the whole State of Connecticut and the whole State of Rhode Island, combine them and put a wind farm on all of that landmass, that is what it would take, generating wind for 1 year--and you have to have a steady wind supply--to equal 1 million barrels a day. Mr. President, 1 million barrels a day would be equivalent to one- fifth of America's oil production by the year 2025. One million barrels a day for 30 years will be one of the largest finds in the world in the past 40 years and perhaps the largest field in North American history. In this morning's ``Investor's Business Daily,'' a comment is made in the editorial section. I will read it: A million barrels a day could make a big dent in today's prices. More importantly, it would help defend the U.S. from oil blackmail by terrorist Arab regimes and leftist enemies like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and now Bolivia's Evo Morales. A million barrels a day makes a difference. The revenue to be gained from ANWR, again, is nothing to sneeze at. The Congressional Research Service this week released a report that found that the Federal Treasury is likely to gain $90 billion from the taxes on oil produced from ANWR when oil is at 60 bucks a barrel. And that number does not take into account any Federal money from the production of natural gas, which is also likely to be found in the area. It does not include any of the bonus bids or the royalties that the Government will get upfront before the oil is even found. Mr. President, you know about this issue more than anybody in the Senate. That $90 billion figure is based on the assumption that ANWR contains the medium estimate for oil production of 10.4 billion barrels--1 million barrels a day for 30 years. At today's prices--and the price this morning is a little over $74-- at today's prices, and assuming the industry's expectation that ANWR may hold 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil, the Federal tax take may hit $173 billion over the life of the field. Now that is not an insignificant chunk of change. I know there are those who will say that ANWR cannot come online in time to help our current price problem, but I suspect that as a country, when we finally commit to getting serious about our energy policies, we will send a signal to the commodities traders, and that will have an immediate impact on our prices. We took a significant step forward along those lines last year when we passed the Energy Policy Act. I compliment the chairman of the Energy Committee for his hard work, but we need to do more. Anyone who thinks that 5 or 10 years from now we are not going to see more hurricanes, we are not going to see more supply disruptions, or more production impediments is not being realistic. For the past 19 years, this Nation has been waiting for Congress to act to increase our fuel supplies. If we don't do it now, motorists will have full justification, as they stand in the summer's heat waiting to pay $3.50 or perhaps $4 a gallon for gasoline, wondering: What in the world is wrong with us? Where is our common sense? We have to look at the facts--not the emotional appeals--involving ANWR. We need to look at the improved technology that will protect the Arctic's environment while we produce the fuel to help lower the prices--maybe not today, maybe not tomorrrow, but in the not too distant future. We need to start reducing domestic fuel supplies now. Mr. President, I see that my colleague from Idaho is here, and I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this week, the first week of May, is National Cover the Uninsured Week. Now in its fourth year, it is the largest nonpartisan effort in our Nation's history to raise awareness on the staggering numbers of Americans who do not have health insurance. Forty-six million Americans have no health insurance--including more than 8 million children. In Alaska, 110,000 people do not have health insurance--that is nearly 17 percent of our population. One-half of Alaska's uninsured live in a household with a least one child. Being uninsured too often means going without needed care--and minor illnesses can become major ones simply because health care is delayed. Over a third of Alaska's uninsured reported that they didn't seek medical care for themselves or their family when it was needed. Why? Because they couldn't afford it. An estimated 18,000 uninsured Americans die each year because they received too little care, too late. Most of these individuals and families are hard-working Americans-- just making it from paycheck to paycheck. In fact, 8 out of 10 of uninsured Americans either work or are in working families. To help those working families, I join Senator Santorum and Senator Dole in introducing the Helping Working Americans Afford Health Coverage Act of 2006. The goal of this bill is to make health coverage more affordable and accessible to the working populations with the greatest needs. This bill creates a progressive, refundable health care tax credit targeted toward low- and moderate-income individuals and families which can be used for health savings account-eligible health insurance. Recent studies show that low- and moderate-income Americans and those previously uninsured are enrolling in health savings accounts or HSAs. More than one-third of HSA purchasers last year had incomes under $50,000 per year, and one-third of individual HSA purchasers last year were previously uninsured. Specifically, the refundable tax credit would provide a subsidy of up to 90 percent of the cost of health care coverage, up to a maximum credit of $1,000 per adult and up to $3,000 for a family. Additionally, the credit will be advanceable so that an individual or family would not have to wait to be reimbursed to purchase coverage. This bill also contains an important provision to address the higher health care costs and higher poverty levels in the noncontiguous States of Alaska and Hawaii. In Alaska, the qualifying income thresholds for both individual Alaskans and Alaskan families are increased by 25 percent. Though the Helping Working Americans Afford Health Coverage Act is not as comprehensive as S. 160, the SAVE Act, Securing Access, Value and Equality Act--legislation that I introduced earlier in the Congress--it is still an important first step in addressing the needs of the uninsured. The National Association of Health Underwriters states that this bill ``will provide much needed relief by providing a refundable tax credit that can be used for both their health insurance policy premiums and as a deposit into their HSA account This (bill) will provide individuals with ready access to health care while encouraging them to become more engaged in the process of obtaining health care.'' Mr. President, helping Americans afford insurance saves money in the long run. Between $65 billion and $130 billion of public health dollars are spent on treating acute patients. Much of this could be saved if only those individuals received preventative care. Making health insurance more affordable will make a real difference to the Nation's physical and economic health. I am proud of Alaskans and all Americans who have united during National Cover the Uninsured Week and are bringing attention to this national health care crisis. I ask my colleagues to take an important step in helping the uninsured by supporting the Helping Working Americans Afford Health Insurance Act of 2006.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Energy Committee who has taken such a leadership role on the issue of achieving energy independence for this country. We all had an opportunity to go home over the past couple of weeks, and I think it is fair to say that without question, in every State across this country, the No. 1 issue our constituents are talking about is energy prices. With the crude oil prices passing an all-time high of $75 a barrel last week, I think it is fair to say we can anticipate that the prices will go higher and higher. It seems we all want to blame someone. Americans want to blame someone--anyone--for the high prices. They want to blame the oil industry companies that have been showing record profits. They want to blame the filling station operators and accuse them of price gouging. They want to blame the oil commodities traders for bidding up the price of crude. They want to blame the Congress for allowing and perhaps encouraging these prices. Quite frankly, it is hard for us not to accept some of the blame. But what Americans don't want to accept is that these prices we are seeing are the result of nearly 20 years of incoherent energy policy. The reasons for the price increases are many, and we have heard the chairman discuss many of them. But the biggest goes back to the lessons we learned in high school economics about the law of supply and demand. Today the world consumes 80 million barrels of oil a day. The U.S. is responsible for a quarter of that. Right now, our oil producers collectively around the world have the ability to produce at most 81 million barrels daily. So the demand is bumping dangerously close to maximum current supply, and that demand for the oil is booming. We talked about China. China last week announced that its economy grew more than 10 percent last year, and its demand for fuel is rising an equivalent amount. Developing nations are outbidding industrial nations for oil, and the trend continues. Demand for fuel in the Asian pacific region is likely to grow at over 3 percent annually for the next 25 years, nearly 5 times the growth rate of fuel use in North America and 4 times the rate in Europe. In addition to the demand side of the picture, the supply side is down. Six percent of the Nation's oil production remains offline as a result of the damage from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We have often talked about the world's supply. The world's supply is uncertain, given the unrest we are seeing in Nigeria, the political events in Venezuela, rhetoric from Iran, supply disruptions that plague Iraq. We here in Congress also have a place in this equation when we look to the supply side. It was 6 years ago that Congress passed the requirement that said by June 1 of this year the Nation's refineries must reduce the sulfur in diesel fuel from 500 parts per million to 15 parts per million, and refiners have spent the money, more than $8 billion, to comply. The changes are this: They are going to cut the diesel exhaust pollution by 90 percent. But it does take more fuel to make a similar amount of diesel, and it is costing the refineries more money to comply with the ultralow sulfur diesel rules. Last year we were talking about MTBE and what to do about it. We didn't provide for an organized phaseout of MTBE, which means the refineries are rushing to acquire ethanol to replace MTBE in gasoline. What this does is causes a host of different price pressures, from the added costs of building new tanks to store the ethanol to the crush of finding railroad tank cars to move the ethanol from the Midwest to the Northeast and down into Texas, where it can be blended into the gasoline. Since it requires a special base form of gasoline, the ethanol-to- MTBE switch makes it difficult for us to import gasoline from overseas to relieve these price pressures, because outside of Europe there are few foreign refineries that can actually make this base form. So that means tighter fuel supplies that cannot readily be remedied by imported product. We talk about the cost to us as Americans. According to the Energy Information Administration, we are already paying about twice as much for fuel today as we did in the summer of 2002. On the whole, our country is spending $212 million more per day for gasoline than we did last year, a half billion dollars more per day than 4 years ago. It is incredible. What do we do about it? The chairman of the Energy Committee noted some of the steps, and noted some of the steps the President has advanced. But our first effort today is to conserve, to increase our conservation and efficiency efforts.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes to be added on this side and on the other side as well.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. We must do the simple things first. Conservation, efficiency, make sure the tires are inflated, our cars are in tune, drive less, reduce the air conditioning--those small things that will make a difference. We have to move quickly to increase our fuel efficiency, continue to expand the use of renewables such as wind, geothermal, biomass, oceans, solar--all of those that are available. But we must increase our domestic supplies of oil and natural gas, and the first place we start is up in ANWR. We have the ability to do it. We have demonstrated that we can. Opening ANWR would produce up to 1 million barrels a day of additional oil for 30 years to meet the world demand and drive the prices down. People are saying it is not going to make a difference today, and they are correct. But we didn't get to this place in 1 day. What we are anticipating is the need down the road. Anyone who thinks in 5 or 10 years there are not going to be anymore hurricanes or supply disruptions or production impediments is fooling himself. So let's plan for the future. Let's plan for our own domestic energy security by doing what we can in this country. The first place to start is by opening ANWR to limited oil exploration and development, and doing it in an environmentally sensitive and balanced manner. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support a resolution designating April 21, 2006, as National and Global Youth Service Day. This resolution recognizes and commends the significant community service efforts that youth are making in communities across the country and around the world on April 21 and every day. This resolution also encourages the citizens of the United States to acknowledge and support these volunteer efforts. National and Global Youth Service Day is an annual public awareness and education campaign that highlights the valuable contributions that young people make to their communities throughout the year. On this day, youth from across the United States and the world will carry out community service projects in areas ranging from hunger to literacy to the environment. Through this service, many will embark on a lifelong path of service and civic engagement in more than 100 countries around the world. In Alaska, the following groups will engage youth in community service activities in observance of National and Global Youth Service Day: One, Anchorage's Promise, which works to mobilize all sectors of the community to build the character and competence of Anchorage's children and youth by fulfilling Five Promises: Caring Adults, Safe Places, Healthy Start, Equitable Education for Marketable Skills, and Opportunities to Serve, is sponsoring the annual Kids' Day event. Over 20 interactive exhibits will be staffed by youth, including booths where young people can see how easily an egg cracks without wearing a seatbelt, discover why bike helmets are important, and see just how clean their hands really are. Two, eighth graders from the Neon Team at Goldenview Middle School in Anchorage are creating colorful cards with spring- themed haiku poems. At least 120 students will donate cards to social service agencies, hospitals, and community support organizations throughout Anchorage. The purpose of this project is to spread Springtime cheer to those in the Anchorage community who may not otherwise experience a joyful Spring. Three, members of Alaska Youth for Environmental Action, a statewide youth organization associated with the National Wildlife Federation, are developing a project to inform and involve youth in the use of energy efficient light bulbs. Young people throughout the State will petition their local communities for support and will encourage the use of energy efficient light bulbs. Many similar and wonderful activities will be taking place all across the Nation. I thank my colleagues--Senators Akaka, Allen, Baucus, Bayh, Boxer, Bunning, Burr, Cantwell, Clinton, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Cornyn, Craig, Dodd, Dole, Domenici, Dorgan, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hagel, Isakson, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerry, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Levin, Lieberman, Lott, Martinez, Menendez, Mikulski, Murray, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Salazar, Santorum, Snowe, Specter, Stabenow, and Stevens--for standing with me as original cosponsors of this worthwhile legislation, which will ensure that youth across the country and the world know that all of their hard work is greatly appreciated.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I 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, March 30, 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. 1577, to facilitate the transfer of Spearfish Hydroelectric Plant Number 1 to the city of Spearfish, SD, and for other purposes; S. 1962 and H.R. 4000, bills to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to revise certain repayment contracts with the Bostwick Irrigation District in Nebraska, the Kansas Bostwick Irrigation District No. 2, the Frenchman- Cambridge Irrigation District, and the Webster Irrigation District No. 4, all a part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, and for other purposes; S. 2028, to provide for the reinstatement of a license for a certain Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project; S. 2035, to extend the time required for construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes; S. 2054, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of water resources in the State of Vermont; S. 2205, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain parcels of land acquired for the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal features of the initial stage of the Oahe Unit, James Division, SD, to the Commission of Schools and Public Lands and the Department of Game, Fish, and Parks of the State of South Dakota for the purpose of mitigating lost wildlife habitat, on the condition that the current preferential leaseholders shall have an option to purchase the parcels from the Commission, and for other purposes; and H.R. 3812, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a feasibility study with respect to the Mokelumne River, 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 or Steve Waskiewicz. subcommittee on public lands and forests

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor to comment on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act and to voice my support for the PATRIOT Act. I also want to take a few moments to compliment my colleagues, Senator Sununu and Senator Craig, for their very hard work over the course of these last few weeks making these amendments possible. I also want to recognize Senators Hagel, Durbin, Salazar, and Feingold for the bipartisan approach which we were able to take in addressing this issue. I know the changes that were agreed to do not address all of the concerns of the Senator from Wisconsin before we went on recess, nor do they address all of my concerns. But I want to make sure that the Senator is aware of how much I appreciate his leadership on this issue. There are a number of Members within this body who did not share our opposition to the conference report when it was first reported out, and there are many, on the hand, who would have liked to have seen the conference report expand the powers granted to the executive branch under the PATRIOT Act. That is certainly their prerogative and their right to advocate that position. It is not a position I agree with, unless we have adequate safeguards that can be put in place to provide a reasonable level of judicial oversight. I want to be clear on a couple of points regarding my earlier opposition to the conference report. First, it is not my desire to repeal the PATRIOT Act in its entirety nor to allow the authorization provided in the 16 provisions we are considering to expire. If that was my intent, if that is what I had hoped to do, it would have been a pretty simple task to object to any language coming out of the conference--to have objected to the language that unanimously passed the Senate in July. But that wasn't the case. Those of us who voiced objection to the earlier draft of the conference report just didn't say: No, we don't like it. We didn't say that. We didn't say that we opposed it entirely. We said we offered up the specific examples of changes to the conference report that we needed to see in order to support it. It was truly our desire to improve the conference report--not to kill it. I commend the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, who was on the floor earlier, for his efforts to represent the views which we had expressed in conference. The senior Senator from Pennsylvania clearly hasn't had much time to take a breather lately, but he was a tough negotiator. He was able to squeeze some additional changes out of the conferees, most notably the shorter sunshine timeframe for section 216, roving wiretaps, and the lone-wolf provision. Unfortunately, the House and the administration refused to consider our other concerns. There have been some who have asked me: You got the sunset provisions. Wasn't that the primary issue? Why the continued opposition? For some, the sunset provisions were the primary issue. But that was not necessarily the case for our group, and that was not necessarily my primary concern. When we introduced the SAFE Act last April--that is the legislation which was sponsored by Senators Craig and Durbin and cosponsored by many of us--the SAFE Act did not contain any sunsets. We were prepared to make permanent each of the 16 provisions in question today. What we were seeking, instead, was language that would create a level of judicial review and public disclosure that would head off any potential abuse and unnecessary infringement on individual freedoms. Now, it has been said by some that those seeking changes to the PATRIOT Act have not been able to point to any case of abuse to support their cause. And that may be the case. But do we have to wait for that abuse to happen? I would prefer we put safeguards in place now, not afterwards, safeguards that continue to allow our law enforcement and intelligence officers to obtain the information they need for the security of our Nation. Now, in particular, I was, and I remain, concerned about the presumed relevance standard under a section 215 order. With the increased power under the PATRIOT Act to obtain ``any tangible item'' from any entity, it would also seem appropriate that the government have a greater responsibility to demonstrate its rationale for seeking those terms. While the conference report improves upon the current statute py requiring in most cases some connection or contact with a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, I am concerned the presumed relevance language significantly diminishes the judicial oversight the Senate- passed bill provided. While I remain concerned about this standard, I am pleased that what has been agreed to is the explicit judicial review of a section 215 gag order--a right that previously was not clearly available to recipients. Now, this does not address all of my section 215 concerns. I do have more. But it does remain an improvement over the conference report and over current law. I was also pleased that language was agreed to that permits a national security letter to be served on a library only if that library is acting as a wire or electronic communications service provider. I have noticed some have been critical of the language that is included in this amendments act, saying: Well, you still have the ability to go after the libraries. But, again, I will stress, it permits a national security letter to be served on a library only if that library is acting as a wire or electronic communications service provider. So the fact they may happen to offer their library patrons the use of the Internet does not make them a wire or electronic communications service provider. This language that is incorporated in the amendments act was part of legislation I had introduced in 2003 in an effort to modify the PATRIOT Act. I believe it is an important protection for our Nation's libraries. I know this is not the last debate we will have on the PATRIOT Act, nor is it likely the last piece of legislation we will consider on the subject. Some of the provisions we see--the continued sunset provisions for section 215, the roving wiretaps, and the lone wolf provision-- assure us of that. But earlier, about a half an hour ago, on the floor, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee came to the floor and spoke of legislation he will be introducing tomorrow. As I was listening to the chairman--and I obviously have not looked at the legislation as of yet, but I understand from his comments it is essentially his purpose with this legislation to go back to the language we had in that legislation that passed unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and passed unanimously out of this body--provisions he has detailed as they relate to search warrants, the strengthening of section 215, a 4-year sunset on NSLs, and NSL judicial review. So I will anxiously await the opportunity to review that legislation Chairman Specter has indicated just this afternoon will be available to us. I am encouraged, once again, we will be able to look at those areas where I and others have been very concerned that we have not provided adequately for that balance between providing our law enforcement the tools they need while, at the same time, maintaining the individual liberties we as Americans expect and certainly deserve. So, as I indicated, I look forward to reviewing that legislation. But the legislation we are considering today--the conference report-- I believe has made improvements on the original product of the PATRIOT Act, and so with passage of the additional protections, it is my intention to vote for cloture on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments to speak very briefly about heart disease. Many people might not know but February is American Heart Month, and heart disease, as we certainly know, is the Nation's leading cause of death. Many women believe heart disease is a man's disease. Unfortunately, there are many women in this country who do not view this as a serious health threat. Yet every year since 1984, cardiovascular disease has claimed the lives of more women than men. In fact, cardiovascular disease death rates have declined in men since 1979, which is great news, but the death rate for women during that same period has actually increased. The numbers are disturbing. Cardiovascular diseases claim the lives of more than 480,000 women per year. That is nearly a death a minute among females and nearly 12 times as many lives as claimed by breast cancer. One in four females has some form of cardiovascular disease. Again, these are statistics many of us would find alarming, certainly, but also find that it is new information, something we didn't know. I am pleased to join with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, to introduce important legislation we have entitled the HEART For Women Act, or Heart Disease Education, Analysis, and Research, and Treatment For Women Act. This important bill improves the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of heart disease and stroke in women. In Alaska, we have some very troubling statistics as they relate to heart disease. In Alaska, cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death, totaling nearly 800 deaths per year. Women in Alaska have higher death rates from stroke than do women nationally. Mortality amongst Native Alaskan women is dramatically on the rise, whereas it is appearing to decline among Caucasian women in the lower 48. So these statistics, again, should cause us concern. Despite being the No. 1 killer, many women and their health care providers do not know the biggest health care threat to women is heart disease. In fact, a recent survey found that 45 percent of women still do not know heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women. Perhaps even more troubling is the lack of awareness amongst our health care providers. According to the American Heart Association figures, less than one in five physicians recognize more women suffer from heart disease than men. Only 8 percent of primary care physicians--and even more astounding--only 17 percent of cardiologists recognize that more women die of heart disease than men. Additionally, studies show women are less likely to receive aggressive treatment because heart disease often manifests itself differently in women than in men. This is why this HEART Act is so important. Our bill takes a three- pronged approach to reducing heart disease death rates for women through education, research, and screening. First, the bill would authorize the Department of Health and Human Services to educate health care professionals and older women about the unique aspects of care and prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of women with heart disease and stroke. Second, the bill would require disclosure of gender-specific health information that is already being reported to the Federal Government. We already have many agencies that are collecting the information based on gender, but they don't disseminate or analyze the gender differences. This bill would release that information so it could be studied and important health trends in women could be detected. Lastly, the bill would authorize the expansion of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's WISEWOMAN program. WISEWOMAN is the acronym for the Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation For Women Across the Nation program. The WISEWOMAN program provides free heart disease and stroke screening to low-income, uninsured women. But the program currently is limited to 14 States. In the State of Alaska, we are fortunate to have two WISEWOMAN program sites, and these programs screen for high blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose in Native Alaskan women, and they have been providing invaluable counseling on diet and exercise. One program in Alaska has successfully screened 1,437 Native Alaskan women and has provided them with culturally appropriate intervention programs that have truly produced lifesaving results. Heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases cost Americans more than any other disease--an estimated $403 billion in 2006, including more than $250 billion in direct medical costs. We as a Nation can control these costs. Prevention through early detection is the most cost-effective way to combat the disease. A few days ago we celebrated Valentine's Day, and we saw images of hearts then and we are still seeing them around now. We shouldn't forget that the heart is more than a symbol--it is a vital organ that can't be taken for granted. Coronary disease can be treated effectively, and sometimes even prevented. It does not have to be the No. 1 cause of death in women, and that is why I encourage my colleagues to support the HEART for Women Act.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, February is American Heart Month, and heart disease remains the Nation's leading cause of death. Many women believe that heart disease is a man's disease and, unfortunately, do not view it as a serious health threat. Yet, in every year since 1984, cardiovascular disease claimed the lives of more women than men. In fact, cardiovascular disease death rates have declined in men since 1979, while the death rate for women during that same period has actually increased. The numbers are disturbing: cardiovascular diseases claim the lives of more than 480,000 women per year; that's nearly a death per minute among females and nearly 12 times as many lives as claimed by breast cancer. One in four females has some form of cardiovascular disease. That is why I am pleased to join with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, to introduce important legislation, the HEART for Women Act, or Heart disease Education, Analysis and Research, and Treatment for Women Act. This important bill improves the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of heart disease and stroke in women. In Alaska, cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death, totaling nearly 800 deaths each year. Women in Alaska have higher death rates from stroke than do women nationally. Mortality among Native Alaskan women is dramatically on the rise, whereas, it is declining among Caucasian women in the Lower 48. Despite being the number one killer, many women and their health care providers do not know that the biggest health care threat to women is heart disease. In fact, a recent survey found that 45 percent of women still don't know that heart disease is the number one killer of women. Perhaps even more troubling is the lack of awareness among health care providers. According to American Heart Association figures, less than one in five physicians recognize that more women suffer from heart disease than men. Among primary care physicians, only 8 percent of primary care physicians--and even more astounding--only 17 percent of cardiologists recognize that more women die of heart disease than men. Additionally, studies show that women are less likely to receive aggressive treatment because heart disease often manifests itself differently in women than men. This is why the HEART Act is so important. Our bill takes a three- pronged approach to reducing the heart disease death rate for women, through; 1. education; 2. research; and 3. screening. First, the bill would authorize the Department of Health and Human Services to educate healthcare professionals and older women about unique aspects of care in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of women with heart disease and stroke. Second, the bill would require disclosure of gender-specific health information that is already being reported to the Federal Government. Many agencies already collect information based on gender, but do not disseminate or analyze the gender differences. This bill would release that information so that it could be studied, and important health trends in women could be detected. Lastly, the bill would authorize the expansion of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's WISEWOMAN program, the Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation program. The WISEWOMAN program provides free heart disease and stroke screening to low-income uninsured women, but the program is currently limited to just 14 States. My State of Alaska is fortunate to have two WISEWOMAN program sites. These programs screen for high blood pressure, cholesterol and glucose in Native Alaskan women and provide invaluable counseling on diet and exercise. One program in Alaska alone has successfully screened 1,437 Alaskan Native women and has provided them with a culturally appropriate intervention program that has produced life-saving results. Heart disease, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases cost Americans more than any other disease--an estimated $403 billion in 2006, including more than $250 billion in direct medical costs. We, as a nation, can control those costs--prevention through early detection is the most cost-effective way to combat this disease. Today, as we celebrate Valentine's Day and see images of hearts just about everywhere, let us not forget that the heart is much more than a symbol--it is a vital organ that can't be taken for granted. Coronary disease can be effectively treated and sometimes even prevented--it does not have to be the number one cause of death in women. And, that is why I encourage my colleagues to support the HEART for Women Act.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, February is American Heart Month, and heart disease remains the Nation's leading cause of death. Many women believe that heart disease is a man's disease and, unfortunately, do not view it as a serious health threat. Yet, in every year since 1984, cardiovascular disease claimed the lives of more women than men. In fact, cardiovascular disease death rates have declined in men since 1979, while the death rate for women during that same period has actually increased. The numbers are disturbing: cardiovascular diseases claim the lives of more than 480,000 women per year; that's nearly a death per minute among females and nearly 12 times as many lives as claimed by breast cancer. One in four females has some form of cardiovascular disease. That is why I am pleased to join with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, to introduce important legislation, the HEART for Women Act, or Heart disease Education, Analysis and Research, and Treatment for Women Act. This important bill improves the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of heart disease and stroke in women. In Alaska, cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death, totaling nearly 800 deaths each year. Women in Alaska have higher death rates from stroke than do women nationally. Mortality among Native Alaskan women is dramatically on the rise, whereas, it is declining among Caucasian women in the Lower 48. Despite being the number one killer, many women and their health care providers do not know that the biggest health care threat to women is heart disease. In fact, a recent survey found that 45 percent of women still don't know that heart disease is the number one killer of women. Perhaps even more troubling is the lack of awareness among health care providers. According to American Heart Association figures, less than one in five physicians recognize that more women suffer from heart disease than men. Among primary care physicians, only 8 percent of primary care physicians--and even more astounding--only 17 percent of cardiologists recognize that more women die of heart disease than men. Additionally, studies show that women are less likely to receive aggressive treatment because heart disease often manifests itself differently in women than men. This is why the HEART Act is so important. Our bill takes a three- pronged approach to reducing the heart disease death rate for women, through; 1. education; 2. research; and 3. screening. First, the bill would authorize the Department of Health and Human Services to educate healthcare professionals and older women about unique aspects of care in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of women with heart disease and stroke. Second, the bill would require disclosure of gender-specific health information that is already being reported to the Federal Government. Many agencies already collect information based on gender, but do not disseminate or analyze the gender differences. This bill would release that information so that it could be studied, and important health trends in women could be detected. Lastly, the bill would authorize the expansion of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's WISEWOMAN program, the Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation program. The WISEWOMAN program provides free heart disease and stroke screening to low-income uninsured women, but the program is currently limited to just 14 States. My State of Alaska is fortunate to have two WISEWOMAN program sites. These programs screen for high blood pressure, cholesterol and glucose in Native Alaskan women and provide invaluable counseling on diet and exercise. One program in Alaska alone has successfully screened 1,437 Alaskan Native women and has provided them with a culturally appropriate intervention program that has produced life-saving results. Heart disease, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases cost Americans more than any other disease--an estimated $403 billion in 2006, including more than $250 billion in direct medical costs. We, as a nation, can control those costs--prevention through early detection is the most cost-effective way to combat this disease. Today, as we celebrate Valentine's Day and see images of hearts just about everywhere, let us not forget that the heart is much more than a symbol--it is a vital organ that can't be taken for granted. Coronary disease can be effectively treated and sometimes even prevented--it does not have to be the number one cause of death in women. And, that is why I encourage my colleagues to support the HEART for Women Act.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I rise today to honor a very special person: Sherrie Slick of Ketchikan, AK, who was recently named Citizen of the Year by the Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce during its annual banquet on January 14, 2006. This year's award was given based on community service and volunteerism. Before her name was announced, Alaska's Governor described volunteers as ``quiet heroes who often are taken for granted because they're always there and doing their jobs, and doing something for someone else is reward enough for them.'' For those who know Sherrie, the ``quiet'' part of that description doesn't quite fit--but in every other respect, that was an almost perfect description of one of the most energetic and active people I know--a woman who could have been the model for the ``Energizer Bunny.'' I have known Sherrie for many years. I have been the recipient of her hospitality and now have the pleasure of working with her in her capacity as the community representative for the Alaska congressional delegation. When you need to know what is new, what is hot, and what is happening in town, she is the woman to know. Sherrie is a 32 year resident of Ketchikan with two children who attended the local schools. She is now immersed in her role as a grandmother and loving it. Her dedication to family, community, and career is universally recognized by friends and associates. Sherrie served on the local chamber of commerce's board of directors for 9 years, including a stint as president, and continues to be active on the chamber's transportation committee. She has spent 8 years on the Ketchikan Visitors Bureau's board of directors, including a year as its chairman, and is a member of the group's marketing committee. She served on the Ketchikan Overall Economic Development Committee for 4 years. She participates each year in the development of Ketchikan's legislative priorities and travels to Juneau as a representative of the community to lobby the Alaska legislature for support on local projects. Sherrie put in many hours as the community organized public workshops and meetings for the Gravina Access Project. She helped provide information that was key to advancing the growth and economic development of the Ketchikan Shipyard and remains an active supporter of the Ketchikan elements of the southeast Alaska power intertie. She helped facilitate the planning and preparation that helped bring the NOAA research vessel Fairweather to Ketchikan. For years, she has gone far beyond the requirements of her job in counseling and providing information to local fishermen on high seas drift net legislation, the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and innumerable other issues of concern. Sherrie has played active roles with Ketchikan Theatre Ballet, Ketchikan Soccer League, Ketchikan Killer Whales Swimming Club, Campfire Girls, Boy Scouts, Little League Baseball, and Junior High and the KayHi Drill Teams. Finally, as the Alaska congressional delegation's ``woman on the spot,'' she has been instrumental in assisting local governments, businesses, and individuals to prepare and advocate for Federal government actions. She is an outstanding liaison between the congressional delegation and its constituents, with an unparalleled understanding and knowledge not only of Ketchikan, but also of surrounding communities; and there is no one better at planning the details so that every visit from a delegation member goes smoothly and productively. Sherrie is wise, energetic, and delightfully entertaining. Ketchikan could have picked no finer person for this honor, and I am very proud to know this fine Alaskan. Congratulations, Sherrie Slick, ``Ketchikan Citizen of the Year.''

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes this morning to speak to the issue of affordable energy that the President raised last night in his State of the Union Address. He said that keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. I think all of us across the country are certainly keying in to the terminology that he used, ``affordable energy.'' Right now what we are seeing is causing us to choke a little bit at a time when world oil prices are back up to nearly $68 a barrel for crude oil. Yesterday, it was $67.95 for a barrel of crude oil. This is after even an unusually warm winter in the Northeast. Gasoline prices nationally are averaging $2.34 a gallon. This is up nearly a quarter in the past several weeks, according to the Automobile Club of America. So when we are talking about energy supplies, it is the prices that people in the United States are really focused on. It is not just when it comes to paying the price at the pump, it is also a very heavy reminder to us as we receive our utility bills every month and as we look at the ever-increasing price of natural gas and what it is costing to heat our homes. The cost of home heating fuel in my State of Alaska is through the roof. We have families, we have whole communities that are struggling to make their payments, wondering how cold this winter is really going to be and what it is going to mean to them in terms of the availability of fuel and their ability to pay. It might be warm here, but it is the coldest January that interior Alaska has seen in probably 30 or 35 years or so. The average temperature in Fairbanks this past month has been--I think it was 22 degrees below zero, but that is just the average. So it is cold there. So when we talk about the cost of home heating fuel and what it means to people, it really does hit home. The President said last night that we must reduce our reliance on Middle Eastern sources of oil. He is setting a goal for us to reduce that reliance by 75 percent. He suggests the way we need to do it, the way we have to get there, is to utilize technology to promote new energy sources and new efforts at energy efficiency. But, really, it comes down to the technology. As we all know, just last year we finally were successful in moving forward a comprehensive energy bill that promotes ethanol production, promotes hydrogen fuel cell development, promotes energy from biomass, ocean currents, new generation of nuclear power--we took positive steps last year through that bill. The President has clearly recognized that and is seeking to move forward on that agenda and improve on that. He spoke specifically to enhanced wind, solar, ethanol through saw grass. He is looking to that technology that will reduce our reliance on foreign sources of oil. He said, further, we must also change how we power our automobiles. This is significant. It is important. We agree we must work toward this particular goal. We must change how we power our automobiles. But we also have to keep in mind that it is not just the automobiles that are using the oil that we consume as a nation. Think about how we get here, through the airplanes, the aviation fuel, the diesel products, the petrochemical products that we consume as a nation--whether it is Band-Aids or CDs or cosmetics. So much of what we utilize in our daily products is petroleum based. While we must be honest and say we must figure out another way to power, to fuel our vehicles, we have to recognize that to a certain extent we will still need oil in our society. We will still need these petroleum-based products. We will still need aviation fuel for our aircraft. So how do we get to where the President wants to get, which is a reduced reliance on foreign sources? It is all about what we do domestically. It is all about what we do with our innovation to provide for additional resources domestically so we are not reliant on Middle Eastern oil, we are not reliant on the OPEC countries. We have to do more in a balanced way to use the new technology to increase the domestic energy production from conventional sources. This means producing more oil, more natural gas, and more coal from American land. Last night, the President specifically mentioned coal and the use of zero-emissions coal. This is what we need to be doing, where we need to be going. But when it comes to oil production, you have heard me on the floor of the Senate, and Senator Stevens on the floor of the Senate, talking about what the potential is up north in Alaska on a tiny portion of Alaska's coastal plain; the opportunity on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for additional sources of oil that could help America reduce its reliance on foreign sources. When the President talked about the key to America ending its addiction to oil, often imported from unstable parts of the world, it is through utilizing this new technology. He said: Go there. He might just as well have used ANWR. He didn't use it. All the newspaper articles this morning noted the fact that he didn't use that. But we have already developed and continue to develop a host of new technologies that will permit oil development from the Arctic coastal plain without harm to the environment or the wildlife. There was an energy conference in Anchorage just a couple of weeks ago where the industry unveiled this new directional extended-reach drilling. It is technology that will be tested this year. It should permit the oil deposits to be tapped from up to 8 to 10 miles away from a well site, 8 to 10 miles away from that well site. This is almost double the 4 miles that drilling currently accesses oil at the nearby Alpine field up on the North Slope. So the technology is moving at an incredible rate. Further improvements in extended-reach drilling--what this does is allows us to have less disruption on the surface. This means that potentially you are looking at almost a 100-square-mile area that is going to be absolutely undisturbed on the surface so animals can range freely, undisturbed by drilling sites. A 100-mile area is a lot of room, whether you are a caribou or muskoxen--or a lot of caribou. We have also new three-dimensional and four-dimensional drilling technology that will identify small oil pools without the disturbance to wildlife that once was caused by the old seismic technology. We have new equipment that allows oil wells to be drilled within a few feet of one another, thus reducing the size of the pads by as much as 88 percent. Compare this to what we are currently doing on the original Prudhoe Bay oilfield, which is about 90 miles to the west. It is something worth seeing. I hope to have the opportunity yet again this year to invite other Senators to come up north to see for themselves what the technology means as far as reducing disturbance to the land, preventing pollution, and preventing any environmental degradation. With this new technology--this is according to the latest estimates that we received last year from the USGS--we can develop the nearly 10 billion barrels of oil that we anticipate will be found on the coastal plain. When you look at the prices we are at now and you estimate $55 a barrel, the opportunity for us as a nation to provide for America's needs, and thus reduce reliance on foreign sources, is incredibly significant. When we look at where we are receiving our oil from now, America today is importing 4.7 million barrels of oil a day from OPEC nations-- 1.47 million from Saudi Arabia, 1.43 million from Venezuela. These are just the names of the OPEC nations on which we are relying now. ANWR production--given the estimates I just cited from USGS, given the estimates I have of the prices--we estimate we would likely see 1 million barrels per day, potentially as much as 2 million barrels a day. This, again, is according to USGS estimates. This will dramatically reduce our dependence in the future on OPEC and should help to lower world oil prices. We understand that the President is going to have more to say on several of the measures that he discussed last evening, including energy and his proposal for the national security as well as economic security when it comes to reliable, affordable energy. He understands our concerns and understands that in order to be a competitive nation in a global economy, we must have reliable, affordable energy; an energy source that does not cause us to be vulnerable. Some may think that ANWR was settled just a few weeks ago at the end of December when we missed by just several votes in the Senate from breaking a filibuster on the issue. But I want to assure Senate Members that the issue of ANWR is far too important for us as a nation to not bring forward again. For the good of this Nation we need a balanced energy solution, one that both increases domestic production of conventional sources and that produces new energy from alternative sources and improves efficiency, improves energy conservation. It has to be all three. I will not stand before you and say it just is the production piece. That is not a balanced approach. That is not the approach for the future. The approach for the future is to make sure we use our technology and our innovation to get us to the point where we have energy independence. That ought to be a goal for us as a nation, energy independence, and we can get that. But it does have to be a solution that is comprehensive and balanced. For the good of the Nation, we need to get moving forward quickly in utilizing our new technology to produce more energy from both ANWR and new energy sources. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains on the majority side?

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 Tuesday, February 28 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 the Bureau of Reclamation's Reuse and Recycling Program, title XVI of P.L. 102-575. 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 Kellie Donnelly, 202-224-9360 or Shannon Ewan at 202-224-7555.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this morning in support of the nomination of Samuel Alito to the position of Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I have had an opportunity over the past couple of days, and certainly in this past hour, sitting in the chair as you are, Mr. President, to listen to the discussions on both sides of the aisle about the nominee before us, Judge Alito. I have been listening very carefully to the comments that have been made and the discussion of certain issues. But when it comes to the issue of Judge Alito's credentials, I do not hear a debate about them. I do not hear a hue and cry that this is a man who does not have the credentials to serve in the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe, and I believe many of my colleagues would agree, that Judge Alito's credentials are exemplary. No President should be denied the prerogative of appointing a person who is as qualified as Judge Alito to the Court. Judge Alito, after 3 very long days of responding to over 700 questions, emerged from these nomination hearings the same person who many of us who met with him understood him to be--quite simply, a seasoned jurist who has the intellect, the temperament, and the reverence for the law which is required for service on the Nation's highest Court. So it is not surprising that Judge Alito has received the American Bar Association's highest rating for any nominee. It was a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating. For those who are not familiar with how the American Bar Association scores or does the rating of the judges, the criteria that are looked to are criteria such as the judicial qualifications--the resume, the credentials; whether or not the individuals have presented themselves or conducted themselves free from bias, operating in a fair and impartial manner as a fair and impartial decisionmaker; and also looking to judicial temperament. The bar association, through its rating process, couldn't keep a scorecard as to whether the individual has ruled more times in favor of the big guy over the little guy. It is a process where truly judicial temperament, the qualification, the credentials, and the free-from-bias and fair decision-making, is the criteria that is looked at. We have heard over the course of days and in the committee hearings about Samuel Alito's background. He has a very moving and a very American personal story. Born to immigrant parents, Judge Alito is probably the first one to say that the person he admires most is his father--his father who battled barriers of prejudice until he became both a teacher and the first director of the New Jersey Office of Legislative Services. Judge Alito excelled at his studies. He received degrees from two Ivy League institutions. But I sense--I certainly picked this up in my meeting with him--that Judge Alito is not one to forget where he came from or forget his modest roots. His testimony in the hearings was unassuming, unpretentious. He thoughtfully listened, and I believe sincerely responded, to the committee's questions, recognizing that there are certain limitations in terms of predicting outcomes or sticking to the issues that might be before the Court should he be confirmed. By all accounts, including those of many Democrats who have served with him, Judge Alito scrupulously lets the facts and the law--the facts and the law, not the politics--dictate his decisions. What struck me during the nomination process in the hearing was the testimony of so many of his colleagues--and not just Republican colleagues but a wide range of individuals, self-professed liberals, and conservatives--who all spoke very highly of and who acclaimed Judge Alito. I would like to mention a couple of the comments that were made in the course of the testimony. The testimony of the Third Circuit Court's senior judge, Judge Aldisert, had this about Judge Alito: We who have heard his probing questions during oral arguments, of being privy to his wise insightful comments in our private conferences; we who have observed at firsthand his impartial approach to decision-making and his thoughtful judicial temperament and know his carefully crafted opinions; we--who are his colleagues--are convinced that he will also be a great Justice. Here is another statement from one of his colleagues, from Judge Edward Becker, who serves on the Third Circuit, and who sat with Judge Alito on over 1,000 cases. He described the judge as: Brilliant . . . highly analytical, and meticulous and careful . . . The Sam Alito that I have sat with for fifteen years is not an ideologue. He is not a movement person. He is a real judge, deciding each case on the facts and the law, not on his personal views whatever they may be. He scrupulously adheres to precedent. Still another colleague, Judge Leonard Garth, described him as ``an intellectually gifted and morally principled judge . . . he will always vote in accordance with the Constitution and laws as enacted by Congress.'' I believe these qualities are critical; for when Judge Alito is confirmed, as I believe he will be, he will have giant shoes to fill. The legacy that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will leave is one of fair- mindedness, open-mindedness, and lack of an ideological agenda. Justice O'Connor once described her approach to cases in this way: It cannot be too often stated that the greatest threats our constitutional freedom comes in times of crisis . . . The only way for judges to mediate these conflicting impulses is to do what they should do anyway: stay close to the record in each case that appears before them, and make their judgments based on that alone. Based on my conversations with Judge Alito, his testimony before the committee, and the statements of so many of his colleagues who know his work best, I am confident that Judge Alito will have that open- and fair-mindedness. He told the Judiciary Committee: Good judges are always open to the possibility of changing their minds . . . Result-oriented jurisprudence is never justified because it is not our job as judges to try to produce particular results. In his opening statement, Judge Alito recalled the oath that he made at the time he was sworn as a judge of the court of appeals. He stated that he would ``administer justice equally, both to the rich and the poor'' and that he would ``carry out the laws and the Constitution'' to the best of his ability. I believe Samuel Alito has done that for nearly two decades as a Federal judge. I will certainly look to him to do that in his new role--again, without agenda, without prejudgment, without bias. I join many of my colleagues on the Senate floor this morning in supporting the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Under the order just entered, the Senate will return for regular business on Wednesday, January 25. On Tuesday, the Judiciary Committee should report the nomination of Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The leader has announced we will proceed to consider the nomination when it is available for floor debate and that will be on Wednesday. We will remain on the Alito nomination until we are able to vote on the confirmation. We hope to have an organized debate to allow all Members to speak. We will try to line up an order next week when we begin. The majority leader reiterates that Senators should be ready next week for this historic debate and that everyone should keep a flexible schedule so we can vote at the first available time.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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