Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is interesting to stand before the Senate this afternoon to discuss this amendment in the context of fiscal responsibility. The amendment that is proposed by my colleague from New Hampshire is about eliminating a subsidy for the timber industry. But when we look to it, it is very specific. It is not the elimination of subsidies for assistance throughout our National Forest System. It is just specific as to one national forest, and that is the Tongass, located in the State of Alaska. If, in fact, what we are focusing on today is looking at cost cutting, looking at efficiencies, looking at elimination of Federal funding in areas where it doesn't make sense, should we not be looking at this amendment and its application across the country? Wouldn't the supporters want to hold timber programs in all national forests to the same standards to eliminate subsidies and financial waste? When we look at a list of our national forests, we have some 111 national forests spread across the country. Mr. President, 105 of the 111 national forests spend more on their timber programs than they collect in their receipts. This is not just focusing on the Tongass because it is way out of whack in terms of the costs that are expended on the Tongass; 105 out of 111 of the national forests spend more on their timber programs than they collect in receipts. What we have today is an amendment that singles out the Tongass National Forest and no other national forest in the country. Let's continue with the fiscal argument and how this doesn't work as it relates to the Tongass. According to the Forest Service, in fiscal year 2004, it cost $6.05 per acre to manage the Tongass National Forest, which is very comparable, if not more efficient, than most of these other national forests for which we have the analysis. Looking to the White Mountain National Forest in the State of New Hampshire, to manage that forest on a per acre basis is $19.39. Again, the Tongass cost per acre, in terms of management, is $6.05. Why aren't we looking at what is happening in the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire? The Forest Service has in place in the Tongass a program that is designed to produce 150 million board feet a year. Yet 238 million board feet is on hold because of appeals and litigation. That is about a year and a half of product that can't get to market because of litigation. Seventy five percent of the costs associated with the timber program in the Tongass are the result of NEPA appeals and litigation. It is estimated that without these costs, the Tongass timber program could produce on average of about a 13-percent profit margin. So we recognize that we have some issues going on in the State of Alaska, particularly in the Tongass, that we are not seeing outside. We understand that the rate of litigation or the incidence of litigation in the Tongass is four times that of litigation that goes on with sales in any of the other national forests. The economic argument, I contend, doesn't hold up. You can't separate the economic argument from the frivolous lawsuit argument. The reason the costs are so high is because of the lawsuits. You solve the lawsuit problem and you solve some of the economic problem. It is interesting. The same organizations that are all about this amendment in trying to shut down any road activity in the Tongass are the same people filing the lawsuits. The reality is that the Tongass National Forest is singled out because it has been on the hit list of environmental groups who really oppose all logging, specifically in the Tongass. I know my colleague's intention is not to change the status to wilderness. It is not to shut down the timber industry. But, in fact, that is what the impact of this amendment would be, to effectively shut down the industry in the Tongass. It would put hundreds of Alaskans in small rural communities out of work, communities that are dependent on the timber industry for their survival. It would work to eliminate the timber receipts that we receive in our schools that help educate our kids. It would devastate the economy in southeast Alaska, an economy that has already been so hard hit. We are looking at unemployment rates so far above the national average and, in the Southeast, an average that is absolutely unacceptable, 9 percent, 10 percent. I understand it is not the intention of the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from New Mexico to shut down the Tongass, but that is what it is going to do. If, in fact, we are going to talk about the fiscal side, if we are going to look to the elimination of subsidies, it should not just be about the Tongass. Let's take a look. Maybe we need to have hearings in the Energy Committee's Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests and bring everybody together, put them at the table--the timber industry, the communities, the taxpayer advocate groups, environmental groups. Let's hear about it. We have several colleagues who would like to speak on the amendment this afternoon. Before I sit, it is important to correct the record. Supporters of this amendment have said that the Tongass spent $49 million on its logging program in 2004. In fact, the correct amount that was spent on the Tongass program in 2004 was $22.5 million. They also say that the revenue on the Tongass in this same time period was $800,000. In fact, it was $2 million. I want to make sure we have the numbers straight as we are looking at this and where they are being spent. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the U.S. Forest Service. The creation of the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture is remembered as probably one of the most significant conservation legacies of President Theodore Roosevelt. During President Roosevelt's tenure, there were established 5 new national parks, 51 bird reserves, 4 game reserves, 18 national monuments, and 150 national forests, including the Tongass National Forest. All told, some 230 million acres of land was set aside for the public. It is no wonder that President Roosevelt is regarded not only as the first but perhaps the greatest conservation President. President Roosevelt shared his vision for the national forests in an address to the Society of American Foresters on March 26, 1903. Here is what he said: First and foremost, you can never afford to forget for one moment what is the object of our forest policy. The object is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful, although that is good in itself. Nor because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness, though that too, is good in itself. The primary object of our forest policy . . . is the making of prosperous homes. Every other consideration comes secondary. A forest that contributes nothing to the wealth, progress or safety of the country is of no interest to the Government, and should be of little interest to the forester. He further said: Your attention must be directed to the preservation of forests, not as an end in itself, but as a means of preserving and increasing the prosperity of the nation. I find it somewhat ironic that during the centennial year when we celebrate the achievements of the Forest Service and the professional foresters who manage these forests, that this particular amendment is offered today. This is an amendment opposed by the Society of American Foresters. This society represents 16,000 professional foresters from across the Nation. It is opposed by the National Association of Home Builders. It is an amendment opposed by the very people who were identified as the core stakeholders of our national forests by the Roosevelt administration. This amendment is opposed by organizations which, like President Roosevelt, believe in the wise use of our forests. It is opposed by the National Association of Counties. It is opposed by America's working men and women who belong to the labor unions that make up the Forest Products Industry National Labor Management Committee. We have the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the PACE International Union, the International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, the United Mine Workers, the Southern Council of Industrial Workers, and the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers. The amendment we have before the Senate now does not comport with President Roosevelt's vision for the national forests. It is an amendment that turns our national forests, which are intended to support multiple uses, into wilderness areas. It is the falling domino in the nationwide campaign to lock up our national forests, throwing people out of work and wreaking havoc on our local economies. And most offensively, to me, it is an amendment that discriminates against just one forest--the Tongass National Forest, in the State of Alaska. It is only directed to the Tongass. It covers no other national forest in the Nation. I suggest to my colleagues in the Senate that first it is the Tongass; next it will be the forests in your home States. Even though this amendment is cloaked in the language of fiscal responsibility, it should come as no surprise that the usual suspects are working hard for its adoption--those who seek to shut down and to prohibit any timber activity on national forest lands. It is not that they are fiscal conservatives themselves. It is because they specifically oppose logging in the Tongass. These are groups such as the Wilderness Society, the Alaska Rain Forest Campaign, the National Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, formerly known as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. These are organizations that have just said no, there shall be no timber activity in the Tongass. The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, now known as Earthjustice, is a group that maintains an office in Juneau for the purpose of appealing and then litigating the timber sales that are presented in the Tongass. It is no wonder the Forest Service finds it difficult to efficiently manage the timber program in the Tongass. I am told we have about 2 years of the Forest Service planned timber offerings that are either under appeal or litigation at any one time. This is four times the rate experienced by the Forest Service nationally. It is fair to say the professional foresters, in whom President Roosevelt placed his trust, no longer manage the timber in the Tongass. I can tell you these professional foresters are very frustrated that what we have are trial lawyers and judges who have more to say about managing our forests than they do. The proponents of this amendment will tell you this is about making the free market system work within our national forests. As long as the litigators can tie up the timber sales, tie up the forest management in knots, this is not a free market scenario. When Congress passed the Tongass Timber Reform Act, which caused the cancellation of long-term contracts and the closure of the pulp mills in Ketchikan and Sitka, that was not the free market. It was not the free market that eliminated thousands of timber jobs in the State of Alaska. It was about timber politics, plain and simple. It is not the free market that generates the high costs that the proponents of this amendment complain make the timber sales unprofitable. According to the Society of American Foresters, about 75 percent of the cost associated with timber sales in the Tongass is spent on environmental review, appeals, and litigation. So the remaining 25 percent of that is spent on actual preparation and administration of the sale. So again, you look at the numbers, and you say, it seems, looking at just the columns, the numbers are higher. But keep in mind, 75 percent of those costs are directly associated with the environmental review, appeals and litigation. So we need to be very clear about what this amendment does. If it is passed, it essentially will enact a roadless rule on the Tongass National Forest. Because the Tongass is currently 95 percent roadless, and because it has stringent environmental standards, the amount of timber that could be harvested from the Tongass would be vastly reduced. The current 150 million board foot program--and keep in mind, this was formulated after a very extensive scientific consultation, with public participation. It was a process which took 9 years and $13 million to complete this plan. Under this program that again was formulated in this very lengthy process, it would be reduced to 30 to 40 million board feet. This would result in the direct loss of two or more of the mills and loss of about 680 potential jobs. Now, some of you may be saying: Well, 680 jobs does not seem that significant. In the southeastern part of the State of Alaska, where our population numbers are few and our unemployment numbers are very high, this is a huge loss. This is a devastating loss. This would truly be nothing more than the latest chapter in the campaign to shut down the Tongass and kill off the timber industry in southeast Alaska. Now the proponents of this amendment would have us believe that if this amendment fails, then somehow or other there are going to be all these big corporations that stand to gain. But the timber industry in southeast Alaska is not made up of big corporations. It is made up of mom-and-pop businesses. These are owner-operated small businesses run by people such as Steve Seeley, out of Ketchikan; Kirk Dahlstrom, out of Klawock; Butch and Jackie DuRette. These are real people who are contributing to their local economy. These are people who could have cut and run when the timber industry turned sour, but instead they accepted the risk. They stayed around, and they tried to build their businesses. Believe me, these are people who know what the free market is. I know these people, and I am proud to tell you of the good job they do contributing to the economy of southeast Alaska. So for the good of southeast Alaska, and for the good of sound forest management, I ask my colleagues to look at this amendment, look at it very carefully, look at who it is opposed by. It is opposed by the Nation's professional foresters. It is opposed by working men and women. It is opposed by the National Association of Counties. And it is opposed by our Nation's homebuilders. Let's look carefully at how we manage our forests and make sure we do it right. One of the contentions you will hear is that the economics in the Tongass do not work. You will hear some numbers thrown around. I think it is important to recognize you would be operating off of a false assumption or a false premise if you were saying that the Forest Service is supposed to be a profit-making venture. As I indicated in those comments made by President Roosevelt some 100 years ago, conservation, in Roosevelt's mind, meant the wise use of forest resources for the greatest good, not necessarily locking them up under glass down in southeastern Alaska. The question of why the Forest Service does not necessarily make a profit has been studied extensively. There is a think tank in Bozeman, MT, called the Property and Environment Research Center. They did a study in 1995 where they noted that the Forest Service is not expected by its governing law to make a profit. Its operations are governed by extensive environmental review processes that make it difficult to turn a profit. Again, look at the numbers. Look at what the task, the mission, is in terms of multiple use, and what it is we are asking our foresters to do. I will speak a little bit about the cost issue because there are those who will suggest this amendment is not being put forward because they are opposed to timber in the Tongass; they just think it is an unreasonable amount of money and that we are subsidizing. Well, we have a breakdown of the various regions across the country from the U.S. Forest Service that delineates the cost per acre of our respective national forests based on State. It sets forth the net acres, the gross receipts, as well as the monetary return per dollar invested. If you look at the Tongass, we operate at about $6.05 in terms of cost per acre. As you go through this report across the country, you realize that $6.05 is actually a pretty good deal in terms of how we are operating on a cost-per-acre basis. Running down through the States--not singling out any particular State, but in several of the California national forests, the cost per acre at Six Rivers National Forest is $27.35. The cost per acre in Plumas, CA, is $35.86; in San Bernardino National Forest, it is $189.20. As to the sponsor of the amendment, if you look at the White Mountain National Forest in the New Hampshire area, their cost per acre is $19.39. So if we are talking about singling out one national forest in the entire national forest system, and we are saying it is too expensive in the Tongass, and we are not going to allow for any Federal dollars to go toward building roads because we think it is too expensive there, I challenge you: Take a look at what is happening with the operation of our other national forests in terms of our cost per acre and what it means. Let's look to the monetary return per dollar invested in those national forests in California I made reference to. Their return per dollar invested is 1 percent. That is not a very good return if that is what you are going to base it on. So again, to single out the Tongass, to single out the State of Alaska and say, ``You are the only one where we, as a Congress, are going to decide how you are going to manage your forests because we are going to tell you that there are no dollars that can go for road- building activity,'' the land management plan that we have spent 9 years and $13 million on is thrown out the window because the Federal Government is going to tell us that our costs are a little bit too high--it is wrong. It is flat out wrong, and it needs to be stopped. I mentioned those who oppose this amendment. It is important for us to recognize who the professional managers are, the professional foresters, some 16,000 professional foresters across the Nation who oppose this amendment. Our decision, should we adopt the Sununu amendment, would override the judgment of professional foresters. It would render meaningless the Tongass land management plan. We need to think about what it is we are doing should we move forward in support of this amendment. I want to leave my colleagues with a few facts again about singling out the Tongass for this action in this amendment. Alaska is a State. We are not a colony. We may have come late into the statehood battle, but we are still a State, and we deserve to be treated as a State. We sought statehood so we could gain control of our resources. But sometimes that goal remains pretty illusive. All we are asking for is that we have the ability to manage our Federal lands responsibly. We can--in conjunction with those professionals, those foresters who are working hard on this plan to make it work--manage the forests to provide for the multiple uses our national forests are tasked to do. I know people think: Oh, we throw around these Alaska statistics all the time. But I think it is significant in this debate to put this in context. Ninety-four percent of the land in the southeastern part of the State is part of the Tongass National Forest. It is controlled by the Federal Government, the U.S. Forest Service. In the State of Alaska, we have 54 percent of the Nation's designated wilderness. In one State, our State, we have 54 percent of the entire designated wilderness. What are we doing with the Tongass National Forest now? Forty percent of that land in the Tongass, some 6.6 million acres, is already off limits to timber development. It is in a wilderness area. It is a national monument. It is a land-use designation II area. It is absolutely, positively off limits. That is 40 percent currently in the Tongass. Another 56 percent of the Tongass National Forest is off limits to timber under the forest plan--this forest plan that I keep talking about that took 9 years and $13 million that this amendment will essentially kick aside. Fifty-six percent of the Tongass is off limits under that plan. That leaves 4 percent of the Tongass, or approximately 655,000 acres, out of a total of 17.8 million acres in the Tongass. That 4 percent is what we are talking about that would be available for timber development. Allowing southeast Alaska, allowing people such as Steve Seeley and his sawmill, and Kirk Dahlstrom's sawmill in Klawock, allowing this development in an economy that is already very hard pressed, is not going to spoil the beauty of this incredible national forest--these 17.8 million acres. It is not going to doom any national treasures. We have a plan we have worked hard to complete. We ask to be allowed to continue that, and to be able to provide for the few jobs we would like to continue in the area for the benefit of those who choose to call it home. With that, Mr. President, I see the senior Senator from Alaska is here. As well, we are joined by our colleague from Oregon. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to several of the remarks raised by my colleague from New Hampshire. I start off my comments by stating very clearly it was certainly not my intention, nor do I believe it was the intention of Senator Stevens, to question motives or to imply somehow our colleague is an environmental extremist. If, in fact, that was perceived from the remarks, that the Senator from New Hampshire falls in that category, again from my perspective that was not my intention, and I certainly would not want him to think that I have put him in that category of those who, as the Senator from Oregon indicated, are engaged in ``professional environmental conflict,'' I think was the terminology he used. I do wish to speak very briefly to a couple of the issues. The Senator from New Hampshire indicated that he was not, through his amendment, proposing any addition of wilderness designation. He stated that was not his intent. I understand that is not the intent. However, the practical effect, if we were to withhold any Federal dollars, any opportunity for Federal revenues to come in and help with the road building in that area, that would be the practical effect in the Tongass. It would put off limits those areas to any harvesting of the timber. If we cannot build a road in there, the harvesting will not happen. As the Senator from Oregon mentioned, we are dealing with an incredible land mass. The acreage in the Tongass is 17.8 million acres. As has been said many times this evening, the area we are talking about that would be available for development is a small fraction of that. Just 4 percent of that would be available for any form of development, but still, if one is not able to put a road in, if they are not able to access the area, the harvesting does not happen, and in effect what is being created is an off-limits area, off-limits to development, off- limits to recreational use, off-limits to pretty much anything. I was born in the Tongass. I was born in Ketchikan. At the time that I was born, Ketchikan was a very thriving timber community. The Tongass is not a place where one just goes to take a walk. It is an old growth forest that is as tangled and deep a forest as one can possibly imagine. So those who would say, We want to make sure we have access to the Tongass for recreational purposes, the way that one is able to access for recreational purposes is through the roads that have been built as we have harvested in certain areas. My family goes out there and we want to use the area for hunting, but we do not go off the beaten track because it cannot be accessed. The animals are not in the areas that have not been cleared, to a certain extent. So for those who will engage in the multiple use of the Tongass, these roads are significant. The statement was made that those of us who are in opposition to this amendment are saying that this really is not about the fiscal issue. I guess I have to just stop on that one and say, okay, if we really are looking at this from a cost perspective and we are looking to minimize the extent of Federal dollars going out and to be as cost efficient as we possibly can, why are we just looking at the Tongass alone? If what we are really talking about is to get those efficiencies, to make sure we do not have unnecessary subsidies, then tell me why this is just about one national forest in 1 State out of all of the 50 States. Because we are not going to balance the budget on what is happening in the Tongass in terms of the dollars that go out there. I wish to speak just a little bit to the dollars. My colleague has indicated that the Tongass spent $49 million on its logging program and the logging roads in 2004. The total budget to operate the Tongassis is $49 million. In fact, the timber program on the Tongass cost $22.5 million. He has also indicated that the timber revenues on the Tongass in 2004 were $800,000. In fact, the timber revenues were nearly $2 million. So it is important to make sure we are using the right numbers. Let us just look at what that $49 million buys us. Is this all about roads? No, it is not. Now, the road maintenance is an aspect of that, but it is also for bridge and road construction unrelated to timber harvesting, other engineering projects. The work that the Forest Service does in the Tongasssupports subsistence harvest, the fish and wildlife, basically keeping the grocery store open for thousands of rural Alaskans. Senator Stevens mentioned the fish culverts that are inserted to allow for the fish passage. We build those so fish can get to where they need to get. It is one of those things we do to make sure we are caring for the environment and are good stewards. We developed an invasive species strategy to help prevent the nonnative plants from coming in and taking over, as we are seeing in some parts of the lower 48. Basically, the bottom line is these dollars that are going out are not all directed at road building. They are dollars spent on recreation, visitor service, heritage, wilderness, minerals, vegetation, watershed, subsistence, wildlife, fish habitat, fire suppression, and land acquisition. And administrative costs are included in there, as well. So when we look to the Tongass and those costs, we must put it into perspective. I spent a few minutes in my previous remarks looking at the costs per acre on other national forests across the 50 States, what is the dollar return on your investment if we are trying to make that connection. These are important to recognize. What is very important to recognize is the Tongass is not so way out of whack in terms of its management and its costs that it should be sending off signals and red flags. In fact, my colleague from Alaska has indicated the Tongass has been singled out and has been declared the best managed national forest in the system. That ought to count for something. For my colleagues who are saying this is simply a fiscal issue and we need to look at it from the numbers perspective, let's look at it from the numbers perspective. Let's use the right numbers, but let's also recognize there is something terribly wrong with an amendment that pulls one national forest out of all of our national forests and says: There is too much going to you; we have to shut it off. Folks, that is not right. It is not fair. I certainly hope my colleagues, when we have an opportunity to take this up in the Senate, vote down this amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the very beginning of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 there are a series of findings and declarations of Congressional policy which explain the underpinnings of this landmark legislation. The first clause reads, ``There is an immediate need for a fair and just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, based on aboriginal land claims.'' The second clause states, ``The settlement should be accomplished rapidly, with certainty, in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives.'' Thirty three years have passed since the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act became law and still the Native peoples of five communities in Southeast Alaska--Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell--the five ``landless communities'' are still waiting for their fair and just settlement. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act awarded approximately $1 billion and 44 million acres of land to Alaska Natives and provided for the establishment of Native Corporations to receive and manage such funds and lands. The beneficiaries of the settlement were issued stock in one of 13 regional Alaska Native Corporations. Most beneficiaries also had the option to enroll and receive stock in a village, group or urban corporation. For reasons that still defy explanation the Native peoples of the ``landless communities,'' were not permitted by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to form village or urban corporations. These communities were excluded from this benefit even though they did not differ significantly from other communities in Southeast Alaska that were permitted to form village or urban corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This finding was confirmed in a February 1994 report submitted by the Secretary of the Interior at the direction of the Congress. That study was conducted by the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska. The Native people of Southeast Alaska have recognized the injustice of this oversight for more than 33 years. An independent study issued more than 11 years ago confirms that the grievance of the landless communities is legitimate. Legislation has been introduced in the past sessions of Congress to remedy this injustice. Hearings have been held and reports written. Yet legislation to right the wrong has inevitably stalled out. This December marks the 34th anniversary of Congress' promise to the Native peoples of Alaska--the promise of a rapid and certain settlement. And still the landless communities of Southeast Alaska are landless. I am convinced that this cause is just, it is right, and it is about time that the Native peoples of the five landless communities receive what has been denied them for more than 30 years. The legislation that I am introducing today would enable the Native peoples of the five ``landless communities'' to organize five ``urban corporations,'' one for each unrecognized community. These newly formed corporations would be offered and could accept the surface estate to approximately 23,000 acres of land. Sealaska Corporation, the regional Alaska Native Corporation for Southeast Alaska would receive title to the subsurface estate to the designated lands. The urban corporations would each receive a lump sum payment to be used as start-up funds for the newly established corporation. The Secretary of the Interior would determine other appropriate compensation to redress the inequities faced by the unrecognized communities. It is long past time that we return to the Native peoples of Southeast Alaska a small slice of the aboriginal lands that were once theirs alone. It is time that we open our minds and open our hearts to correcting this injustice which has gone on far too long and finally give the Native peoples of Southeast Alaska the rapid and certain settlement for which they have been waiting. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my bill, the Ninth Circuit Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2005, be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the very beginning of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 there are a series of findings and declarations of Congressional policy which explain the underpinnings of this landmark legislation. The first clause reads, ``There is an immediate need for a fair and just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, based on aboriginal land claims.'' The second clause states, ``The settlement should be accomplished rapidly, with certainty, in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives.'' Thirty three years have passed since the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act became law and still the Native peoples of five communities in Southeast Alaska--Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell--the five ``landless communities'' are still waiting for their fair and just settlement. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act awarded approximately $1 billion and 44 million acres of land to Alaska Natives and provided for the establishment of Native Corporations to receive and manage such funds and lands. The beneficiaries of the settlement were issued stock in one of 13 regional Alaska Native Corporations. Most beneficiaries also had the option to enroll and receive stock in a village, group or urban corporation. For reasons that still defy explanation the Native peoples of the ``landless communities,'' were not permitted by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to form village or urban corporations. These communities were excluded from this benefit even though they did not differ significantly from other communities in Southeast Alaska that were permitted to form village or urban corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This finding was confirmed in a February 1994 report submitted by the Secretary of the Interior at the direction of the Congress. That study was conducted by the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska. The Native people of Southeast Alaska have recognized the injustice of this oversight for more than 33 years. An independent study issued more than 11 years ago confirms that the grievance of the landless communities is legitimate. Legislation has been introduced in the past sessions of Congress to remedy this injustice. Hearings have been held and reports written. Yet legislation to right the wrong has inevitably stalled out. This December marks the 34th anniversary of Congress' promise to the Native peoples of Alaska--the promise of a rapid and certain settlement. And still the landless communities of Southeast Alaska are landless. I am convinced that this cause is just, it is right, and it is about time that the Native peoples of the five landless communities receive what has been denied them for more than 30 years. The legislation that I am introducing today would enable the Native peoples of the five ``landless communities'' to organize five ``urban corporations,'' one for each unrecognized community. These newly formed corporations would be offered and could accept the surface estate to approximately 23,000 acres of land. Sealaska Corporation, the regional Alaska Native Corporation for Southeast Alaska would receive title to the subsurface estate to the designated lands. The urban corporations would each receive a lump sum payment to be used as start-up funds for the newly established corporation. The Secretary of the Interior would determine other appropriate compensation to redress the inequities faced by the unrecognized communities. It is long past time that we return to the Native peoples of Southeast Alaska a small slice of the aboriginal lands that were once theirs alone. It is time that we open our minds and open our hearts to correcting this injustice which has gone on far too long and finally give the Native peoples of Southeast Alaska the rapid and certain settlement for which they have been waiting. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my bill, the Ninth Circuit Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2005, be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have had some great discussion here on the floor of the Senate as we debate the merits of the Energy bill, and we have talked about conservation and about new production. We have talked a lot about renewables and alternatives. One of those areas that we have not heard a lot of discussion on, in terms of the renewables, is the area of ocean energy. When we look at our globe and at all those colors, we recognize that we have a heck of a lot of ocean to deal with, and there is great potential there. The Energy bill currently provides production incentives and Federal purchase requirement assistance to many forms of renewable energy: wind, solar, geothermal, and closed-loop biomass, but oddly enough, it doesn't provide such aid to this type of power that I am talking about--power that can benefit all 25 coastal States, and that is the area of ocean energy. This is a relatively new type of renewable power. It comes from harnessing the endless power of the ocean either by building the wave energy converters that transfer the power of waves into current; or the tidal and current systems that use tidal or current flows to spin underwater turbines; or the newest type, which is ocean thermal energy technology, and this generates electricity from the temperature differential of surface and deeper waters. Ocean electric projects are relatively new in this country, but not necessarily overseas. Currently, there are operating projects in plants off the coast of Scotland, the Azores, Australia, and Portugal. In America, we have some projects proposed off Hawaii, in Makah Bay in Washington State, in the East River off of New York City, and also for installation at Port Judith in Rhode Island. The amendment that the Senate will be considering is one I am proposing that will simply try to level the playing field to see if the technology can be improved to bring down the cost of ocean power so it can be competitive with other forms of renewable energy. When wind energy first started, when we started getting into this technology in 1978, it was costing about 25 cents a kilowatt hour. Ocean energy is already starting at about half that cost, even before economies of scale, and years of technology testing and improvement have had a chance to reduce those costs. In my State, we certainly care a lot about developing different sources of renewable energy. Now, in Alaska, we have about 5.6 million megawatts of power that Alaskans use a year; 1.36 million megawatts come from lake taps or small hydropower. That is about 24 percent of Alaska's electricity, which is currently coming from hydro. We also produce 3,600 megawatts of power from wind turbines, which are working great. They are out in the Kotzebue area and St. Paul Island in the Pribilofs and in other southwestern Alaskan communities. Alaska gains 6,000 to nearly 10,000 megawatts of power from burning fish oil. I have had people say: Wait a minute, did I hear you right, that you burn fish oil to generate power? That is correct. Given the health of Alaska's seafood industry, this is a renewable energy source that has great potential. There are new wind and landfill renewable projects proposed for near Bethel, at Fire Island near Anchorage, and a number of other projects proposed in rural communities. Alaska, in the efforts that we are making currently, might gain 286,000 megawatts of power or 5 percent of our needs. I mention this to simply indicate that while we are committed to using renewables whenever possible, we have to acknowledge how far we can get with the technologies that we have and what is available to us. When you consider that in the State of Alaska we have about 125 villages and towns either on our coastline or near the mouths of coastal rivers and bays that could benefit from ocean current generation, it becomes very easy to see why we want to encourage ocean energy resources. But ocean energy could also help hundreds of towns around Hawaii and all along our coastal communities in the lower 48. We have 23 lower 48 ocean States. If we provide enough assistance to help with this technology, to look through the research, this can become an economic venture. Ocean current is environmentally friendly, completely clean. Already the plants in operation are able to be installed for $500 to $1,000 per kilowatt hour--costs that are very competitive to the roughly $1,200- per-kilowatt capital cost of nuclear power. The Alaska delegation is also seeking an amendment to the tax title to extend ocean energy so that it qualifies for the existing energy production tax credit--currently 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour for wind. The additional cost of these two provisions is insignificant. But they could greatly diversify the Nation's energy portfolio in future decades. We recognize that the ocean is an energy source that is truly renewable. I am looking, through my amendment, to help aid Americans to harness that energy from our 12,000 miles of coastline. It is something that we need to look to as a positive reality and give the encouragement where necessary. I want to change focus a little bit and talk for a moment this evening about an energy policy--an energy policy that belongs to a nation whose demand and consumption of oil far outstrips domestic, a nation that accounted for 40 percent of the growth in oil demands over the last 4 years, and a nation whose demand for oil is one of the leading factors driving oil prices to record-high levels. I am not talking about the United States tonight. I am talking about China. Why the difference with China? They have an energy policy, and we don't. A couple weeks ago, I chaired a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee on China's growth and what that means for the United States. One of the witnesses at that hearing, Mr. Mikkal Herberg, with the National Bureau of Asian Research, provided a very informative and eye-opening look at China's increasing role in the international energy market. To sum it up in one sentence: China is quickly becoming a major player in the geopolitics of global energy. China's demand for energy is a reflection of its two-decade-long economic growth. China surpassed Japan in 2003 as the world's second largest consumer of oil. It is the world's third largest importer and now imports more than 40 percent of its total oil needs. The International Energy Agency forecasts that China's imports will rise more than fivefold by 2030. This is from the current level of about 2 million barrels per day to nearly 11 million barrels per day, when imports will account for 80 percent of China's energy needs. The East-West Center predicts that by 2015, 70 percent of China's oil imports will come from the Middle East. China is very much aware of the vulnerable maritime choke points that this oil must pass through in order to reach its shores. Fifty percent of Asia's current daily oil supplies must transit through the Straits of Malacca near Singapore. Mr. President, the United States currently imports around 58 percent of the oil consumed in this country. What would happen to us in the United States if we were 80-percent dependent on other nations for our economic growth? For our transportation and our security needs? For our home heating needs? We might very well do what China is doing today--not just investing heavily in other countries but seeking to control all aspects of the oil production. For example, in Sudan, a Chinese State-owned oil company owns 40 percent of a conglomerate that produces 300,000 barrels of oil per day. The same company has a major stake in the oil pipeline to the coast, they built and own a share of an oil refinery, and they helped build oil-loading port facilities on the coast. While we in the United States naturally gravitate toward an economic model of supply and demand for energy resources where oil is fungible on the worldwide market, China does not abide by this market-based system. As Mr. Herberg noted at the hearing, China is unilaterally trying to secure its future oil and gas needs by direct state intervention. They are taking equity stakes in oil and gas fields and promoting the global expansion of their three national oil companies. I note that one of them, China National Offshore Oil Corporation, is looking to submit a counterbid to Chevron's offer to purchase Unocal Corporation. China is promoting state-to-state deals of new oil and gas pipelines to channel supplies directly to China and developing broader financial, diplomatic, and military ties with key exporter nations. In the past 5 years, the Chinese Government has signed strategic energy alliances with eight countries. Their push to develop a Shanghai Cooperation Organization to focus on combating terrorism in the region can also be attributed to their desire to forge stronger energy ties and more secure energy supplies. China has major oil investment in Kazakhstan and is currently building a large oil pipeline from Kazakhstan to western China. Many of my colleagues may be aware that China is investing heavily in Alberta, Canada's oil sands, the same fields that moved Canada up into the No. 2 slot in the world for proven oil reserves. China is also looking to construct a pipeline to Canada's west coast to export that oil to China. China has signed at least 116 major energy investments in 37 countries since 1990, with another 25 proposals still pending. They have significant holdings in Sudan, Iran, and Venezuela. In Angola, the bidding process for the large offshore Greater Plutonio oilfield was additionally won by Indian's national oil company, but the Angolan Government mandated that the deal instead go to the Chinese, and this, of course, came on the heels of a $2 billion aid offer from China. China's energy security strategy is making waves throughout Asia. When you think of the large economies of Japan and South Korea, each nation is highly dependent on oil imports for their energy needs. The idea of China locking up future sources of oil cannot be comforting to them, leading to their own efforts to lock in stable sources of energy. As China and other Asian nations raise their level of diplomatic and political involvement in the Middle East, their influence will increase as well. Already, nearly two-thirds of the Persian Gulf's oil exports go to Asia, and this share will only increase. The United States will find its position as the traditionally dominant outside power in the Middle East significantly challenged in the future. My point tonight is not to criticize or to demonize China for their moves to secure an energy supply. In fact, China's growing energy demands also point to opportunities for American companies to promote greater energy efficiency and higher oil recovery rates for China's domestic production. My point is simply this: As a developing nation, China looked to the future and determined that it needed secure and more sources of energy. They developed a long-range plan. They have been implementing that plan and, as a result, will have continued access to energy resources in the future. China's foreign policy reflects their long-term strategy of gaining access to, and to some degree, control over energy sources for their needs. Our energy policy, on the other hand, has not nearly been as focused. It has sometimes been referred to as a ``tin cup'' policy where we go begging for oil from exporting countries when there is a shortage or high prices. Yet as other nations look to the Middle East to secure their own sources of energy, our influence in the region may diminish. Our cries for OPEC to increase production and output will be weighed against the interest of China and other developing nations. Congress could have--or should have--passed comprehensive energy legislation years ago, but that is the past. We have another opportunity in front of us to prepare this country for the future to look at our long-term energy needs and determine the best way to address them. I thank Chairman Domenici and Senators Grassley, Bingaman, and Baucus for their work in crafting this legislation. I think we all would agree it is long past time for Congress to enact a much needed energy bill. It is time for this country to have an energy policy of its own. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing previously scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 3 p.m. has been cancelled. The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on the water supply status in the Pacific Northwest and its impact on power production, as well as to receive testimony on S. 648, to amend the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 to extend the authority for drought assistance. For further information, please contact Kellie Donnelly 202-224-9360 or Steve Waskiewicz at 202-224-9313.

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, June 28, 2005 at 3 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the water supply status in the Pacific Northwest and its impact on power production, as well as to receive testimony on S. 648, to amend the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 to extend the authority for drought assistance. 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.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am sorry that our colleague from Arkansas has left the floor because I was sitting there listening to his comments and his recognition and acknowledgements of the 14 Senators who worked on the compromise this past week and all the efforts they had made. I commend him and all the others of that group and all those who encouraged us as a body, as Senators--not as Republicans, not as Democrats but as Senators--to move forward so that we could get through what I certainly believe was a great impasse in this body, to work through the issues, to get us to the point where we cannot only move through the President's judicial nominees, but that we can do the rest of the work with which the Senate is tasked. The good Senator from Connecticut has just mentioned the Energy bill and the Transportation bill--these issues the country is waiting for, the country is asking for, and the work that is incumbent upon us as a body to get to. So I am pleased that we are at the point where we are, not spending hours on the floor today to discuss nuclear options or constitutional options, but that we are talking about the work before us as we look forward to these upcoming months. I do see a sense of compromise that will be necessary if we have any plans at all to accomplish that which I think this country expects us to do. I am pleased that we have gotten through to this point. I do recognize the bump in the road we just had this afternoon, but I believe that with the same amount of determination that got us to a resolve on the judicial nominees, we will be able to do the work of the country.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this evening for just a few minutes to talk about the upcoming BRAC and the impact we are seeing in my State of Alaska, up in the interior, in the communities of Fairbanks and North Pole. They call this the golden heart of the State of Alaska. The people of Alaska are strong and very consistent supporters of a strong national defense. They are even stronger supporters of the men and women who serve in our military and their families. In a State where support for our servicemen and servicewomen and their missions is both given and constant, the golden heart of Alaska probably beats strongest in the areas of Fairbanks and North Pole. So on the morning of May 13--Friday the 13th, oddly enough--the people of the interior of Alaska awoke to the news that the Department of Defense had proposed to realign Eielson Air Force Base. Under the terms of this realignment, all of the Air Force active-duty operations would be transferred elsewhere. The realignment would cause the relocation of about 2,800 Air Force personnel and 3,300 dependents. It would cause the loss of 4,700 jobs, both military and civilian jobs, within the Fairbanks area. It would mean the full transfer of A-10 and F-16 aircraft to bases in the lower 48. It would wreak havoc on the local economy and force major changes upon the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District. To the people of interior Alaska, they do not look at this as a realignment. It sounds to them, to us, exactly like a closing. Two weeks after the fact, the people of interior Alaska are still scratching their heads and wondering why, what is going on here, what has happened up here? General Billy Mitchell prophesied back in 1935. He said: In the future, he who holds Alaska holds the world. General Mitchell characterized Alaska as the most important strategic place in the world, and this is as true today as it was in 1935. Alaska is closer to the European and Pacific theaters by air than perhaps any other place in North America. Our armed services can deploy forces from Alaska to Asia much more quickly than units on the west coast of the United States. And if future developments limit overseas basing, Alaska will be even more critical in America's ability to respond to a crisis within a specific area of responsibility. Yet 2 weeks after we learn of this news, the Air Force cannot--or will not--tell the people of Fairbanks why. Immediately after the BRAC list was released, my staff contacted appropriate staff members in the Office of Legislative Liaison for the Secretary of the Air Force. We asked for a copy of the entire administrative record which supports their recommendation to realign Eielson. For the better part of 2 weeks, there was no response to that request. Then suddenly this week, we get an e-mail from an Air Force legislative liaison saying the material could not yet be provided because it is undergoing what they call security review. The Air Force legislative liaison could not hazard a guess on when the material would be released. They are still in no position to explain to me or to the people of interior Alaska why a base that we thought was of such strategic importance to our Nation's defense would become little more than a refueling station for fighter aircraft based somewhere else. The people of interior Alaska deserve to know why, and I certainly deserve to know why. The answers to these questions are more than just academic interest. On June 15, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission will conduct a hearing on the recommendations pertaining to Eielson Air Force Base. The community has enlisted the president of the University of Alaska, retired Army MG Mark Hamilton to take the lead in presenting its case. The community is working very hard at this moment to put together a very thoughtful and well-researched presentation. At this point, we are less than 30 days, a couple of weeks from the date upon which that presentation, that do-or-die presentation, must be delivered to the BRAC Commission. And yet still the Air Force cannot release the detailed analysis which supported their recommendations. This is unfair to the community that has offered nothing but unconditional love and support for the military. It goes beyond conscionable. So I have joined with Senator Snowe from Maine, as well as other colleagues, to tell the Defense Department that their lack of candor with the community that will suffer under the BRAC process has worn thin. I am proud to join with Senator Snowe and other colleagues to sponsor legislation that requires the Department of Defense to turn over the records supporting its BRAC recommendations and particularly the information supporting its conclusions as to the military value of the bases on the list. We expect through this legislation that this information will be provided to the Congress within 7 days of the passage of the legislation. If the Defense Department cannot do this, then the legislation requires that the BRAC process should stop. Also this evening, I signed onto a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld, cosigned by a number of my colleagues who are expressing the same concern, seeking full justification for base closures in their areas. I would like to read one paragraph of this letter: The failure of the Department of Defense to provide all of the justification data used to recommend closing or realigning installations in a timely fashion is anything but ``fair, open or equitable.'' The Department of Defense has had over two years to review and collect this data and people associated with the installations selected foreclosure should have at a minimum two weeks to review prior to any BRAC hearings or site visits. Sufficient time to review this data is necessary to ensure they can make an appeal based on the criteria established by the Department of Defense. Again, yet one more effort from Senators, from those who are concerned about the effect that BRAC closures will have on our respective communities, a request for information, a request for the data that is supposed to be provided to us. We have to sign on to letters, we have to sign on to introduce legislation saying you must do this within this time period or the close BRAC process stops. We should not have to be going to these measures to get the information. The BRAC commission process was never intended to be a rubberstamp of the Department of Defense recommendations. The Congress intended that it be an open process, a thoughtful process, but most importantly an intellectually rigorous process. While the economies of many of our communities are at stake, this is not the most important reason that we have a BRAC process. This process is intended to assure the Congress and the people that our national security objectives are not compromised in the quest to save money. We know the BRAC process is well underway. It is high time that the Defense Department shed some sunlight on the reasons for their recommendations. The good people of interior Alaska should not be left in the position of defending the future of Eielson Air Force Base on June 15 with both hands tied behind their back, and they should not have to be burning the midnight oil in the hours leading up to that hearing studying material that should have been provided weeks earlier. They do not deserve it, we do not deserve it, and our Nation's security certainly deserves better than this. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will help increase the amount of food donations going to American Indians and Alaska Natives nationwide. I am pleased to have Mr. Johnson join me in introducing this important legislation. Despite reports from the Census Bureau that show stable income levels for many Americans, the poverty rate for the 4.4 million American Indians and Alaska Natives living throughout the United States remains nearly three times that of non-Hispanic whites. Not only do Natives face greater challenges in securing basic household necessities, but in securing food as well. According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released in late 2004, nearly 36 million Americans face challenges in getting enough food to eat. This includes nearly 13 million children. Of these statistics, Natives constitute a disproportionate number due to the higher poverty rate among this group. And yet, charitable organizations that provide hunger relief are unable to meet the basic needs of Natives due to an oversight in the Federal tax code. Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code allows corporations to take an enhanced tax deduction for donations of food inventory; however, the food must be distributed to 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, such as food banks. Nonprofit organizations cannot then transfer such donations to tribes. Although many donations to tribes are tax deductible under section 7871 of the Internal Revenue Code, tribes are not among the organizations listed under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. To clarify, section 170(e)(3) does not allow tribes to be eligible recipients of corporate food donations to nonprofit organizations since they are not listed under section 501(c)(3) as an eligible entity. With this legislation, we intend to make a simple correction to the tax code that clearly indicates that tribes are eligible recipients of food donated under section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This correction is long overdue and would remedy an egregious inequity in the Federal tax code that affects Natives nationwide. Please allow me to provide a few examples of how this legislation could foster positive change. In Alaska, approximately half of the food donated to the Food Bank of Alaska from corporations could go to tribes throughout Alaska. Much of this food would go to villages that are only accessible by air or water. In South Dakota, roughly 30 percent of the food the Community Food Banks of South Dakota distributes would go to reservations. In North Dakota, the amount of food donated to the Great Plains Food Bank could double if this legislation were enacted. The Montana Food Bank Network projects that food donations could increase by 16 percent. A food bank based in Albuquerque, NM estimates that their food donations could triple in the first year alone. It is imperative that we address this important issue expeditiously. The health and well-being of low income American Indians and Alaska Natives across the Nation is at stake. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will help increase the amount of food donations going to American Indians and Alaska Natives nationwide. I am pleased to have Mr. Johnson join me in introducing this important legislation. Despite reports from the Census Bureau that show stable income levels for many Americans, the poverty rate for the 4.4 million American Indians and Alaska Natives living throughout the United States remains nearly three times that of non-Hispanic whites. Not only do Natives face greater challenges in securing basic household necessities, but in securing food as well. According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released in late 2004, nearly 36 million Americans face challenges in getting enough food to eat. This includes nearly 13 million children. Of these statistics, Natives constitute a disproportionate number due to the higher poverty rate among this group. And yet, charitable organizations that provide hunger relief are unable to meet the basic needs of Natives due to an oversight in the Federal tax code. Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code allows corporations to take an enhanced tax deduction for donations of food inventory; however, the food must be distributed to 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, such as food banks. Nonprofit organizations cannot then transfer such donations to tribes. Although many donations to tribes are tax deductible under section 7871 of the Internal Revenue Code, tribes are not among the organizations listed under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. To clarify, section 170(e)(3) does not allow tribes to be eligible recipients of corporate food donations to nonprofit organizations since they are not listed under section 501(c)(3) as an eligible entity. With this legislation, we intend to make a simple correction to the tax code that clearly indicates that tribes are eligible recipients of food donated under section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This correction is long overdue and would remedy an egregious inequity in the Federal tax code that affects Natives nationwide. Please allow me to provide a few examples of how this legislation could foster positive change. In Alaska, approximately half of the food donated to the Food Bank of Alaska from corporations could go to tribes throughout Alaska. Much of this food would go to villages that are only accessible by air or water. In South Dakota, roughly 30 percent of the food the Community Food Banks of South Dakota distributes would go to reservations. In North Dakota, the amount of food donated to the Great Plains Food Bank could double if this legislation were enacted. The Montana Food Bank Network projects that food donations could increase by 16 percent. A food bank based in Albuquerque, NM estimates that their food donations could triple in the first year alone. It is imperative that we address this important issue expeditiously. The health and well-being of low income American Indians and Alaska Natives across the Nation is at stake. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Shortly after noon on Wednesday May 11, I was presiding over the Senate when the entire Capitol complex was evacuated in response to the threat of an airplane in restricted airspace. The officers of the United States Capitol Police reacted quickly and evacuated the Capitol in record time, moving my colleagues, our staffs, the press corps and our visitors to safe locations. I cannot say enough about the men and women of our United States Capitol Police. One of their slogans, ``You elect them . . . we protect them,'' accurately describes the mission of this highly professional force which was formed in 1828. That mission, simply stated, is to protect democracy's greatest symbol, the United States Capitol, the people who work here, and its owners, the American people, who visit our offices. When the Senate returned to its work, our leaders took the floor to express our collective appreciation to the U.S. Capitol Police. Senator Reid closed his statement with these touching words, ``Every day, we see them standing around doors, and they don't appear to be working real hard, but it is on days such as this that they earn their pay over and over again.'' Senator Reid would know something about this because of all of the things on his rather impressive resume, I understand that he is proudest of his service as a member of the U.S. Capitol Police. It is no small irony that the skills of our U.S. Capitol Police Officers would be put to the test at the very moment that surviving family members of fallen police officers from around the Nation were arriving in Washington, DC, for the annual candlelight vigil at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and then for Peace Officers Memorial Day services at the west front of the Capitol. At this time of year, it is appropriate not only to reflect on the professionalism of today's U.S. Capitol Police Officers, but also on three who have fallen in the line of duty. I am referring to Jacob John Chestnut, who was fatally shot while tending one of those checkpoints that Senator Reid referred to, by an armed assailant intent upon entering the Capitol. I am also referring to John M. Gibson who was fatally shot by the same individual while protecting the life of one of our colleagues from that assailant. And let us also not forget Christopher Eney, a U.S. Capitol Police Officer who gave his life while participating in a training exercise in 1984. I understand that he was participating in the type of intense training that would have proven very helpful on Wednesday, May 11. Their names are all inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial on Judiciary Square. The headquarters of the U.S. Capitol Police is named in the honor of each of them. This is the third consecutive year that I have spoken in honor of the men and women in law enforcement who have lost their lives in the line of duty. This year, the names of 415 law enforcement officers have been inscribed on the memorial; 153 of these brave men and women lost their lives in 2004. The remainder lost their lives in other years--some generations before the memorial was created. In 2004 Alaska did not lose a law enforcement officer in the line of duty. This year, no Alaskans have been added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and for this we are grateful. During National Police Week we are reminded that the 17,000 people whose names are engraved on the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial were heroes not for the way they died but for the way they lived. It was Vivian Eney, the surviving spouse of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Christopher Eney, who coined that phrase. For 51 weeks a year the stories behind those 17,000 names are known to family members and law enforcement colleagues. But during National Police Week the memorial comes alive as surviving family members and department colleagues decorate the memorial with shoulder patches, photographs, stories and poems. Ultimately this material will be available to the public 365 days a year at a museum that the Congress authorized to be constructed on Federal land in 2000. The museum will be developed, constructed, owned and operated by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund--the same nonprofit organization that built and now oversees the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Construction is expected to commence in 2007 and the opening is slated for 2009. The museum will replace a one room memorial visitor center in the storefront of a downtown office building and will educate millions of visitors about the tremendous contributions our law enforcement officers have made throughout our Nation's history. It is a worthy addition to the memorial and a project worthy of support by our colleagues and the Nation. During the annual Police Week observance thousands of survivors of fallen law enforcement officers return to Washington, D.C., for the annual conference of the support group Concerns of Police Survivors. I was proud to welcome to my office the surviving family members of Kenai Police Department Officer John Patrick Watson whose name was inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in 2004. Laurie Heck Huckeba, the widow of fallen Alaska State Trooper Bruce Heck, who gave his life on January 10, 1997, has returned to our Nation's Capital in her role as Pacific Region Trustee of Concerns of Police Survivors. She could not come to Capitol Hill to visit with me because she was busy conducting orientation sessions for the survivors of fallen law enforcement officers who are attending the Concerns of Police Survivors meetings in Alexandria, VA for the first time. It was not so long ago that Laurie was attending her first survivors' conference and now she is helping other survivors rebuild their lives. Laurie was raised in Glennallen, AK. Although Laurie has relocated from Alaska to the Bakersfield, CA area, it is clear to me that the Alaskan spirit of giving and sharing still burns strong within her. Thank you, Laurie. Mayor Steve Thompson of the City of Fairbanks has sent a wreath to be displayed at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in memory of Patrol Officer John Kevin Lamm who gave his life on January 1, 1998. Thank you, Mayor Thompson. The names of 42 Alaskans appear on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. During National Police Week, which officially begins on May 15 and concludes on May 21 we will reflect on the contributions of each of these heroes here in Washington and in ceremonies in my State of Alaska. To their colleagues in law enforcement and to the surviving members of these 41 Alaskans and to the family, friends and colleagues of the 17,000 men and women whose names appear on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, let us remember during this National Police Week that ``Heroes Live Forever.'' In valor there is hope. I ask unanimous consent that the names of these 42 individuals, their agencies and the date upon which each of their watches ended be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution designating June 2005 as National Internet Safety Month. I am pleased to have Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Craig, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Allen, and Mrs. Feinstein join me in submitting 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 solutions--like Internet safety curricula for grades kindergarten through 12, youth empowerment Internet safety campaigns and community-based Internet safety awareness presentations with the formation of community action teams--been more critical and readily at hand. It is imperative that every community in every State be made aware of the increase in Internet-based criminal activity so that all Americans may learn about the Internet safety strategies which will help them to keep their children safe from victimization. Consider the facts: In the United States, more than 90 percent of children in grades 5 through 12 now use computers and have Internet access. Twenty-six percent of children in that age group are online for 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, 12 percent of students in the same age group have been asked by a stranger on the Internet to meet face to face. Unfortunately, 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 Investigation 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. The U.S. Customs Service now places the number of Web sites offering child pornography at more than 100,000. Moreover, there was a 345 percent increase in the production of these sites just between February 2001 and July 2001, according to a recent study. 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 subsequently spend more time online. Recent Internet crime trends indicate a call to action as it pertains to national Internet safety awareness at all levels.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for the kind words he said and for the substantial work he has done in the committee to move us forward in a manner I think is fair, good, sound, and it is going to work. I am so pleased we are at this point where we will shortly be moving a transportation bill through this body. I think I speak for all my constituents when I urge this body to move forward on the highway bill. Every State needs it, but truly I believe none need it more than my State of Alaska, and the chairman has referenced our somewhat unique needs. For most of us traveling from one place to another, it means asking yourself whether you walk, drive, take a bus, take a train, or an airplane. That is life in the 21st century. But in much of Alaska, Americans are still facing issues that are similar to what we faced in the 19th century. In much of Alaska, whether you drive is not a question without meaning. Instead, the question is, What time of year is it? Is it the time of year I will be using a snowmobile or going by boat? I suppose there are probably some of my colleagues who may be tired of hearing that Alaska is unique with unique problems that require different solutions, but that does not make it any less true, nor does it make Americans living in Alaska any less deserving than Americans living somewhere else. Yes, Alaska, in fact, does have the highest rate of return from the highway trust fund. We are the donee State that benefits the most, but it is because we are so far behind the other States in transportation needs. I can tell my colleagues, it is a safe bet we would gladly see our position on the donee State listing change if it meant we had the roads to generate more gas tax revenues for the highway trust fund. To any Alaskan, it is a remarkable and frustrating experience to hear the donor States complain that a dime or so of their Federal gas tax dollar actually goes to serve a Federal purpose--a highway system that unites and strengthens our Nation--and that tax does not come right back home. It is also remarkable and again somewhat frustrating to hear that roads in many States are in disrepair and more money is needed to repair them. Yes, they are, and, yes, it is, but at least those States have roads. With roads, they gain the ability to move goods and share services. With that ability, they gain the ability to support private sector businesses. With private sector businesses, they provide jobs, and with jobs, they attract new residents, are able to build more schools, offer opportunities, create more wealth. You get the picture. The wealth is shared with the entire country. We have seen that process work. The funding received by the Appalachian Commission for Road Building has proven this works, and history has proven over and over that reliable, inexpensive transportation is not the result of prosperity, but it is the cause for prosperity. The highway bill and the highway trust fund which supports it exist for one reason: because Congress recognized that reliable transportation is critical to our national well-being and to the well- being of our individual citizens. This is no less true in the farthest, most remote parts of Alaska than it is in the center of Manhattan. That is why this bill contains provisions to allow the Denali Commission to construct roads between remote communities in Alaska. This provision is based on a bill I had proposed in 2003 which would streamline the process of bringing Alaska's transportation system into the modern age. The same provision, as amended by the Senate action last year, will also help improve roads within Alaska's many Native villages, some of which still have only the roughest of trails from one part of town to another. Frankly, the authorization in the bill for this purpose is simply not enough because Alaska has so many years of neglect to catch up on. I am sensitive, however, to the fiscal realities, and I am deeply grateful for the support of those who have helped us get this far. We must recognize this is not just an investment in Alaska today, but it is an investment in Alaska's tomorrow. For the record, I would also prefer to have a separate system and significantly more money dedicated to our Native village transportation needs. They have been badly neglected. In fact, they have been shamefully neglected by the Bureau of Indian Affairs reservation roads system which is supposed to provide funding for Native American needs. Alaska Native villages have been ignored, their road miles have been uncounted, and money has been funneled into other areas that already have sophisticated road systems. The bill also contains money to continue the reconstruction of the Alaska highway. I want to comment on this in the hope of dispelling some of the perennial confusion about it. Despite the name, the multiyear project to pave and improve the Alaska highway, also known as the Alaska-Canada, or the Alcan highway, is not an Alaska project. It is not an earmark for Alaska. It is not even in Alaska. It is a national project, one that was triggered by national defense needs and mandated by treaty between the United States and Canada. As a treaty obligation, it is not to be discarded lightly. It is unfortunate that some apparently have trouble reading beyond the name and that it has fallen to Alaskans to stand up for the word of honor of the United States to fund this project, but that is just the way it has been. Here again, I am grateful for the support of Senator Inhofe, Senator Bond, and others who have recognized that this is not just a parochial project but one of significance to the entire Nation and one for which the Nation has given its word. As I mentioned, we have unique needs, unique challenges, and I renew an invitation to all of my colleagues: Come up and visit. Come up and see the State, see for yourself the conditions we have. I had an opportunity just yesterday to demonstrate that when we talk about Alaska's road system, we use that term lightly. It is not a system; it is a road up and there is a road down and a little connecter in between the two, and that is what we have. When we talk about where our roads stretch from, if we were to superimpose Alaska over the rest of the lower 48 States, we would be going from Minnesota down to Florida and across over into California. The area we cover is huge. So, again, come up and see the conditions that we have. I would be happy to arrange a trip for any Member of the body, no matter where they stand on the issue, and I am not just talking about transportation issues. We will take the Members up and show them ANWR. We will show them the whole State. I am proud of the State, and I am proud of what we have done to preserve and protect our resources while we still build a vital economy. I would be happy to show my colleagues how we are dealing with some of our unique situations and problems. One such unique situation has been the fact that it is literally impossible to build roads between some communities, even in long- settled areas like in southeastern Alaska where I was born, where a combination of rugged terrain and the separation of the islands have made other solutions necessary. One solution for the area in the southeast was the establishment of the Alaska Marine Highway System, which builds on a core fleet of large oceangoing vessels in service as ferries. It is the only highway possible between communities such as Ketchikan, Petersburg, Wrangell, Sitka, Juneau, our State capital, and many other smaller communities. It is part of the National Highway System. If the definition of a highway is a facility used by trucks and cars moving from one community to another, this is, indeed, a highway. In fact, it is one that is considerably less expensive than other options such as tunneling, like we have up in Boston, the ``Big Dig,'' or the combination of bridges and tunnels we see around here. The last highway bill, TEA-21, contained provisions to fund ferries and ferry terminals in addition to funding received through the National Highway System. I am pleased to say that this bill does as well. In fact, ferry system assistance in this bill is even broader and will help even more States operating ferry systems to do a better job for their citizens. Now, I have been informed that the finance portion of the bill includes provisions based on two bills which I have previously offered. One of these provisions corrects an inequity imposed on air passengers who live in rural areas where, again, they are unconnected by road and they are forced when they are traveling to fly to a larger airport where they can catch a plane to get somewhere, to reach their final destination. All passengers currently pay a segment fee for air travel, but these rural residents I am talking about are basically forced to pay twice, while passengers who live within driving distance of a larger airport only pay once. The second measure which I just referenced affects seaplane operators who are not using FAA facilities but currently must pay excise taxes and fees intended solely to support such facilities. This is also an inequity, and my measure will ensure that only those receiving benefits are asked to pay for them. In addition, it is my understanding that the committee has also included a measure intended to ensure that taxes and fees intended for aircraft carrying passengers from point to point is not incorrectly applied to flight-seeing operations. Senator Inouye has taken the lead on this matter, but it is worth noting that it has significant support among my constituents in Alaska, and I am pleased to see it included. Finally, let me note that I understand that the Commerce Committee title includes my proposal to establish State grants for motorcycle rider education. As my colleagues may be aware, motorcycle ridership is increasing all the time, and with it the number of motorcycle accidents has also been rising, particularly among the new riders. It is not necessarily the young riders but riders of any age. It is the latter that my proposal addresses. I believe firmly that the best way to prevent injuries is to prevent accidents, and training is the only way to accomplish that goal. I have worked closely with the Motorcycle Riders Foundation and State motorcycle education administrators to develop this proposal. All too often, we will see new riders, both young and old, simply climb on and hope that they are going to learn by experience. Better training has been shown to drastically reduce the number of accidents suffered by new riders during the critical period in which their learning curve is the steepest and they are most at risk. From the national perspective, this highway bill is a good bill. It is not perfect, but few things are. I would prefer to see more streamlining and permitting processes for highway projects. I would like to see more flexibility for States. I would like to see a bill with the funding level that we approved last year. The leaders of each one of our key committees have done yeoman's work--and again, I want to commend the chairman--on phenomenally difficult issues. I believe at the end of the day we have before us a good bill, the best bill possible. I pledge my support for it and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. On Wednesday, May 18, parents of children afflicted with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders and their advocates will travel to our Nation's Capital for the Second 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 would urge my colleagues to open their offices to the parents and advocates who participate in FASD Hill Day because they have a very important story to tell. Their stories will move you. At the conclusion of FASD Hill Day, the National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome will host its annual Leadership Awards Benefit Reception. All of the parents and advocates are invited to participate. I am pleased to inform my colleagues that the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, and our distinguished colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, will receive the 2005 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 Senator Durbin and Senator Enzi, and the support of all of our colleagues, in the crusade to eradicate fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. The term fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, or FASD, 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 pregnancy. When a pregnant woman drinks, the alcohol crosses the placenta into the fetal blood system. Thus, alcohol reaches 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. In fact, FASD is the leading cause of mental retardation in all of western civilization, including the United States. Since the only cause of FASD is prenatal alcohol consumption it follows that by abstaining from the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy a woman can completely foreclose the possibility that her baby will be born with one or another of the conditions that are regarded 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 who were raising children afflicted with fetal alcohol came together on the Internet and wondered in cyberspace, ``What if a world full of FAS and FAE parents all got 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?'' On the 9th hour of the 9th day of the 9th month every year they called upon all the peoples of the world to observe a moment of silence to remind women of childbearing age that no amount of alcohol is safe during pregnancy. These pioneering activists, most of whom were adoptive and foster parents, led by Brian Philcox and Bonnie Buxton of Toronto, Canada, and Teresa Kellerman of Tucson, AZ, did not have the resources of large public relations firms or well connected lobbyists. They organized the first International FAS Awareness Day, which was observed on September 9, 1999, on a shoestring using the Internet. Rapidly their group grew to include more than 70 volunteer coordinators in eight countries. Each year I receive e-mails from places like New Zealand, Germany, and my own State of Alaska, telling me about their local FAS Day observances. Through this grassroots awareness effort, many women of childbearing age learned for the first time that no amount of alcohol in pregnancy is good. On September 9, 2004, for the first time, the moment of silence was observed on the Senate floor. I would hope that this would become an annual tradition until fetal alcohol spectrum disorders are eradicated. The resolution that I have introduced today designates September 9, 2005, as National Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Awareness Day. Although September 9 is several months off, I have asked that the resolution be considered at this time as a tribute to the efforts of the FASD parents and advocates who have come to Washington, DC, educate all of us about the dangers of alcohol and pregnancy and to provide them with a tool to encourage each of their communities to observe and participate in FASDAY 2005 when they return home.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my State of Alaska is small in population but huge in territory, warmth and generosity. In a State with a population of somewhat over 655,000 people, whose largest community, the municipality of Anchorage, has a population of about 275,000, the good deeds of people stand out. The high level of civic engagement exhibited by the people of Alaska is impressive. Many Alaskans begin their morning with Rotary, take lunch at the Chamber of Commerce, the World Affairs Council or Commonwealth North, and spend their evenings supporting one of our many cultural, charitable and civic organizations. Alaskans, whether life long residents of the State as I am, or people transplanted to The Great Land, like George Kallas, play an active role in the life of our communities. The difference between a sourdough and a cheechako, a newcomer, is not measured in longevity of residence. It is measured in contributions to the community. Last Saturday, I joined with Alaskans in celebrating the life of George Kallas who passed away at the age of 81 on April 19, 2005. George Kallas came to Alaska in 1971. He was a native of Kansas City and will be buried there. A U.S. Army veteran of World War II, he was a member of American Legion Post 28. George's business, the Beef and Sea Restaurant, on the Old Seward Highway was a favored dining spot of Alaskans and visitors alike. Located close to the heart of Alaska's oil and gas industry, it offered a touch of Alaska hospitality and a taste of Alaska crab to thousands who came to develop the Prudhoe Bay oilfield and the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. George participated in the growth of Anchorage from small town to cosmopolitan metropolis. He operated the restaurant until 1999 when he retired. At Christmas George opened the restaurant to feed all of those who cared to come free of charge. At least 1,500 people, probably more, took advantage of this wonderful Christmas present. He was not merely a successful small businessperson, but a leader of the small business community. George was proudest of his leadership role in the Alaska Coalition of Small Business which advocated for the interests of small business on issues from local to national importance. He was also an active member of the Holy Transfiguration Greek Orthodox Church. George was what we in Alaska refer to as a ``super voter,'' someone who never missed the opportunity to vote. Even in his final months as a resident of the extended care facility at Providence Hospital, he insisted that he be brought to the polls to perform his duty as a citizen of Alaska and the United States. I will miss George Kallas. Alaska will miss George Kallas.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it has been 20 years since the passage of the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, a bill sponsored by the former Senator Murkowski. The time has come to make some modifications to reflect the experience we've gained over that time. I'm pleased to note that the amendments I introducing today are really very modest, an indication that the act--and the presidential commission it created--have functioned quite well. These minimal changes will, I hope, make them function even more smoothly. First, the chairman of the Arctic Research Commission will be authorized compensation for an additional 30 days of work during the course of a year. That is still far less than the actual number of days demanded by the position, but will help. Second, the bill will allow the Commission to stimulate additional interest in Arctic research by establishing a professional award program for excellence in research. Current and former members of the Commission will not be eligible. Awards will be capped at a symbolic amount of $1,000, but the recognition by each winner's scientific peers will be invaluable. Third and finally, the bill will allow the Commission to reciprocate in the expected manner when foreign delegations host a reception or other event. This provision is limited to no more than two-tenths of a percent of the Commission budget--as with the award program, the value is primarily symbolic, but is nonetheless important. Although these are small changes, they will help ensure a smoothly functioning Arctic Research Act, and that is important. Although it is not something you hear about on a daily basis, the United States is a leader in the very small circle of Arctic nations, and the Congress plays a major role in ensuring that we remain a leader in this critically important sphere. And make no mistake about it, the Arctic is critical to this country for social, strategic, economic and scientific reasons that are simply too plentiful to enumerate at this time. The main purposes of the Arctic Research and Policy Act are: 1, to establish national policy for basic and applied research on Arctic resources and materials, physical, biological and health sciences, and social and behavioral sciences; 2, to establish the U.S. Arctic Research Commission to promote Arctic research and to recommend research policies; 3, to designate the National Science Foundation as the lead agency for implementing Arctic research; and, 4, to establish the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, IARPC, which is responsible for coordinating a multiplicity of Arctic research efforts throughout the government. As we continue to see evidence of Arctic warming--whether or not we consider it to be human-caused or natural, global or regional--it is of tremendous importance to prepare as best we can. The future may hold both positives--such as increased agricultural production and access to natural resources--and negatives--such as widespread damage to existing infrastructure, flooding, and sweeping social changes. The Arctic Research Commission plays a vital role and deserves our full support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it has been 20 years since the passage of the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, a bill sponsored by the former Senator Murkowski. The time has come to make some modifications to reflect the experience we've gained over that time. I'm pleased to note that the amendments I introducing today are really very modest, an indication that the act--and the presidential commission it created--have functioned quite well. These minimal changes will, I hope, make them function even more smoothly. First, the chairman of the Arctic Research Commission will be authorized compensation for an additional 30 days of work during the course of a year. That is still far less than the actual number of days demanded by the position, but will help. Second, the bill will allow the Commission to stimulate additional interest in Arctic research by establishing a professional award program for excellence in research. Current and former members of the Commission will not be eligible. Awards will be capped at a symbolic amount of $1,000, but the recognition by each winner's scientific peers will be invaluable. Third and finally, the bill will allow the Commission to reciprocate in the expected manner when foreign delegations host a reception or other event. This provision is limited to no more than two-tenths of a percent of the Commission budget--as with the award program, the value is primarily symbolic, but is nonetheless important. Although these are small changes, they will help ensure a smoothly functioning Arctic Research Act, and that is important. Although it is not something you hear about on a daily basis, the United States is a leader in the very small circle of Arctic nations, and the Congress plays a major role in ensuring that we remain a leader in this critically important sphere. And make no mistake about it, the Arctic is critical to this country for social, strategic, economic and scientific reasons that are simply too plentiful to enumerate at this time. The main purposes of the Arctic Research and Policy Act are: 1, to establish national policy for basic and applied research on Arctic resources and materials, physical, biological and health sciences, and social and behavioral sciences; 2, to establish the U.S. Arctic Research Commission to promote Arctic research and to recommend research policies; 3, to designate the National Science Foundation as the lead agency for implementing Arctic research; and, 4, to establish the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, IARPC, which is responsible for coordinating a multiplicity of Arctic research efforts throughout the government. As we continue to see evidence of Arctic warming--whether or not we consider it to be human-caused or natural, global or regional--it is of tremendous importance to prepare as best we can. The future may hold both positives--such as increased agricultural production and access to natural resources--and negatives--such as widespread damage to existing infrastructure, flooding, and sweeping social changes. The Arctic Research Commission plays a vital role and deserves our full support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today for myself and fellow Alaska Senator Ted Stevens to introduce legislation concerning a complex issue, the Quality Bank that is used to facilitate payments between shippers using the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline System to reflect variations in the value of different crude oil streams that are injected into the pipeline. Since its opening in June 1977, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, TAPS, has carried crude oil from Alaska's North Slope to Valdez where the oil is shipped to market. The pipeline carries crude oil from various sources and of varying quality--the oil injected into the line before the pipeline's Pump Station One near Deadhorse, AK, and commingled as the blended stream of oil travels south to Valdez. The TAPS Quality Bank was established to compensate producers of higher quality crude oil for the difference in the value of the crude injected at the North Slope and that of the lower-quality commingled stream received in Valdez, since each shipper receives a quantity of the blended stream equivalent to the amount it injected into the line. Companies injecting low-quality crude oil pay into the Quality Bank, while companies injecting high quality crude receive a payment from the Quality Bank. In addition, between the North Slope and Valdez, two refineries, Flint Hills and Petro Star, withdraw a portion of the common stream from TAPS, partially refine the crude oil into products such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, and reinject into TAPS the other components of crude left over after their refinery processes. Each fuel extracted from the crude is called a ``cut.'' To compensate producers for the loss in value of the crude oil because of what is removed by these refineries, refiners also pay into the Quality Bank. The objective of the Quality Bank is to make monetary adjustments so that each shipper is in the same economic position it would enjoy if it received the same oil in Valdez that it delivered to TAPS on the state's North Slope. The methodology used to determine Quality Bank payments has been a subject of controversy since the Quality Bank's creation. The problem arises because there is no independent market for the crude injected on the North Slope and thus no way to objectively determine its value. The methodology is set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Since the early 1980s, FERC-approved methodologies have been challenged in court and revised multiple times. In 1993, the majority of North Slope shippers proposed and FERC approved a settlement calling for the use of a ``distillation'' methodology, which would value crude oil based on the market price of various cuts created when the components are separated based on different boiling points--the distillation process. This methodology replaced the former ``gravity'' methodology where oil was valued based on its relative gravity. Since 1993, disputes have focused largely on the valuation of cuts at the highest boiling points--the ``Heavy Distillate'' cut that evaporates at temperatures between 350 and 650 degrees F. and the Resid, residual, cut, which includes the portion remaining after distillation of all other cuts at boiling points up to 1050 degrees F. Two additional cuts are also at issue, the VGO and Naptha cuts. In 1997, responding to a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, FERC approved a settlement with a revised valuation methodology for Distillate and Resid. Under the FERC order, the new valuation methodologies were to be applied on a prospective basis only. Later, the D.C. Circuit in 1999 told FERC to revise some particular details of the Resid valuation and also held that FERC had ``failed to provide an adequate explanation'' as to why the new methodology should not be made retroactive to 1993. Responding to the ruling, the Administrative Law Judge, who in 1997 had decided that all changes should only apply prospectively, reversed his position and released a decision in August 2004 calling for changes in the Resid and Heavy Distillate cuts to be applied retroactively, in the case of Resid to as far back as 1993. In addition, the administrative law judge decided to apply new valuations for VGO and Naptha, prospectively. Currently, the judge's decision is awaiting a final decision by the FERC on whether to impose the Initial Decision or alter it. There are clearly major public policy implications resulting from this Quality Bank issue. While the bank is a ``zero sum'' game as far as money paid in and out of the bank is concerned, the impacts on the parties and thus on the citizens of Alaska are anything but equal. For decades Alaskans suffered under the impacts of having to import all refined fuel products into the State from West Coast refineries. Besides higher prices caused by transportation, that left the State wholly dependent on fuel supplies that needed to travel at least 2,000 miles on average to reach Alaska consumers--sometimes through bad weather and difficult sea conditions. With the construction of in-State refineries, Alaskans finally saw greater security of supply, less dependence upon weather for shipment arrivals, and the possibility of lower fuel prices because of potentially reduced transportation costs. The greater dependability of fuel supplies improved aviation freight shipments at the Anchorage and Fairbanks international airports, helping create jobs in air freight and related industries. But the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to apply new Quality Bank methodology assessments retroactively, places the economics of in- State refineries at risk. That in turn not only impacts the job security for the roughly 400 Alaskans who work at the refineries, but also threatens the State's energy and economic security. The problem is that both of the refineries must make long- and short- term business decisions based on crude costs when they process crude oil into product. Refineries optimize their production slates based on current market realities. It is difficult for them to operate, given low profit margins, if oil values can change years later as a result of Quality Bank decisions. They simply have no way to make rational business decisions when the value of their products can be determined retroactively long after they can protect themselves for perceived mistakes in FERC-approved valuation methodologies. This certainly threatens the ability of the refineries to attract capital, money needed for them to modernize and meet new ultra-low sulfur diesel ``clean fuel'' requirements soon to go into effect. The State's Congressional Delegation last fall in report language added to the Federal budget expressed its concern with the equity of long retroactive Quality Bank valuation adjustments. Last autumn we urged FERC to look carefully at the justice of the Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge in this case and we encouraged all of the eight parties that includes the State of Alaska, to reach an out-of- court settlement of the 1993 case to bring finality to this complex case before it harms instate refinery capabilities. At the time we avoided a legislative solution to this purely Alaskan case. We are renewing our pleas for action in a letter sent to FERC on Thursday. In the intervening six months, while one mediation session has occurred, the parties report little or no progress toward reaching a mutually agreeable settlement. While opinions may differ on whether Congress should intervene to settle the on-going case, there is little doubt that Congress should step forward to prevent such an arcane dispute from ever again threatening Alaska's energy industry. For that reason prior to the next mediation session, today we introduce legislation to limit the ability of FERC in the future to make retroactive the impacts of future Quality Bank valuation methodology changes. By this legislation, after December 31, 2005, FERC still will be able to change the methodology for determining the value of oil flowing through the pipeline but will not be permitted to apply changes to Quality Bank valuation methodologies on anything other than a prospective basis. We have proposed this provision to prevent this legal nightmare from happening again. This provision will first eliminate the perverse current incentive for all sides to promote further litigation regarding Quality Bank valuations based on the expectation of a retroactive application of changes that would result in a large economic windfall. The retroactive application of valuation methodology changes encourages the sides in a dispute to sue in hopes of gaining a larger benefit in the future. This is a ``lottery,'' however, that Alaskans are guaranteed to lose. By setting December 31, 2005, as the date that FERC can no longer apply Quality Bank valuation methodologies on a retroactive basis, the legislation will put the FERC and the litigants on record that the current dispute must be resolved by the end of this year. Requiring FERC to apply valuation methodology changes in connection with any future disputes on a prospective basis only will eliminate the risk and uncertainty associated with the prospect of nearly unlimited retroactive application of Quality Bank payment methodology changes. That will allow all Quality Bank participants to be able to conduct business with the certainty of knowing that prices received and paid for oil today cannot be altered years down the road. In addition, this will eliminate the strong incentive that currently exists for some parties to engage in endless litigation, in hopes of gaining windfall benefits from retroactive application changes. While we continue to call on all sides in the current dispute to compromise and settle this case now, this bill will discourage if not eliminate this type of dispute in the future--a benefit for all Alaskans.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today for myself and fellow Alaska Senator Ted Stevens to introduce legislation concerning a complex issue, the Quality Bank that is used to facilitate payments between shippers using the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline System to reflect variations in the value of different crude oil streams that are injected into the pipeline. Since its opening in June 1977, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, TAPS, has carried crude oil from Alaska's North Slope to Valdez where the oil is shipped to market. The pipeline carries crude oil from various sources and of varying quality--the oil injected into the line before the pipeline's Pump Station One near Deadhorse, AK, and commingled as the blended stream of oil travels south to Valdez. The TAPS Quality Bank was established to compensate producers of higher quality crude oil for the difference in the value of the crude injected at the North Slope and that of the lower-quality commingled stream received in Valdez, since each shipper receives a quantity of the blended stream equivalent to the amount it injected into the line. Companies injecting low-quality crude oil pay into the Quality Bank, while companies injecting high quality crude receive a payment from the Quality Bank. In addition, between the North Slope and Valdez, two refineries, Flint Hills and Petro Star, withdraw a portion of the common stream from TAPS, partially refine the crude oil into products such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, and reinject into TAPS the other components of crude left over after their refinery processes. Each fuel extracted from the crude is called a ``cut.'' To compensate producers for the loss in value of the crude oil because of what is removed by these refineries, refiners also pay into the Quality Bank. The objective of the Quality Bank is to make monetary adjustments so that each shipper is in the same economic position it would enjoy if it received the same oil in Valdez that it delivered to TAPS on the state's North Slope. The methodology used to determine Quality Bank payments has been a subject of controversy since the Quality Bank's creation. The problem arises because there is no independent market for the crude injected on the North Slope and thus no way to objectively determine its value. The methodology is set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Since the early 1980s, FERC-approved methodologies have been challenged in court and revised multiple times. In 1993, the majority of North Slope shippers proposed and FERC approved a settlement calling for the use of a ``distillation'' methodology, which would value crude oil based on the market price of various cuts created when the components are separated based on different boiling points--the distillation process. This methodology replaced the former ``gravity'' methodology where oil was valued based on its relative gravity. Since 1993, disputes have focused largely on the valuation of cuts at the highest boiling points--the ``Heavy Distillate'' cut that evaporates at temperatures between 350 and 650 degrees F. and the Resid, residual, cut, which includes the portion remaining after distillation of all other cuts at boiling points up to 1050 degrees F. Two additional cuts are also at issue, the VGO and Naptha cuts. In 1997, responding to a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, FERC approved a settlement with a revised valuation methodology for Distillate and Resid. Under the FERC order, the new valuation methodologies were to be applied on a prospective basis only. Later, the D.C. Circuit in 1999 told FERC to revise some particular details of the Resid valuation and also held that FERC had ``failed to provide an adequate explanation'' as to why the new methodology should not be made retroactive to 1993. Responding to the ruling, the Administrative Law Judge, who in 1997 had decided that all changes should only apply prospectively, reversed his position and released a decision in August 2004 calling for changes in the Resid and Heavy Distillate cuts to be applied retroactively, in the case of Resid to as far back as 1993. In addition, the administrative law judge decided to apply new valuations for VGO and Naptha, prospectively. Currently, the judge's decision is awaiting a final decision by the FERC on whether to impose the Initial Decision or alter it. There are clearly major public policy implications resulting from this Quality Bank issue. While the bank is a ``zero sum'' game as far as money paid in and out of the bank is concerned, the impacts on the parties and thus on the citizens of Alaska are anything but equal. For decades Alaskans suffered under the impacts of having to import all refined fuel products into the State from West Coast refineries. Besides higher prices caused by transportation, that left the State wholly dependent on fuel supplies that needed to travel at least 2,000 miles on average to reach Alaska consumers--sometimes through bad weather and difficult sea conditions. With the construction of in-State refineries, Alaskans finally saw greater security of supply, less dependence upon weather for shipment arrivals, and the possibility of lower fuel prices because of potentially reduced transportation costs. The greater dependability of fuel supplies improved aviation freight shipments at the Anchorage and Fairbanks international airports, helping create jobs in air freight and related industries. But the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to apply new Quality Bank methodology assessments retroactively, places the economics of in- State refineries at risk. That in turn not only impacts the job security for the roughly 400 Alaskans who work at the refineries, but also threatens the State's energy and economic security. The problem is that both of the refineries must make long- and short- term business decisions based on crude costs when they process crude oil into product. Refineries optimize their production slates based on current market realities. It is difficult for them to operate, given low profit margins, if oil values can change years later as a result of Quality Bank decisions. They simply have no way to make rational business decisions when the value of their products can be determined retroactively long after they can protect themselves for perceived mistakes in FERC-approved valuation methodologies. This certainly threatens the ability of the refineries to attract capital, money needed for them to modernize and meet new ultra-low sulfur diesel ``clean fuel'' requirements soon to go into effect. The State's Congressional Delegation last fall in report language added to the Federal budget expressed its concern with the equity of long retroactive Quality Bank valuation adjustments. Last autumn we urged FERC to look carefully at the justice of the Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge in this case and we encouraged all of the eight parties that includes the State of Alaska, to reach an out-of- court settlement of the 1993 case to bring finality to this complex case before it harms instate refinery capabilities. At the time we avoided a legislative solution to this purely Alaskan case. We are renewing our pleas for action in a letter sent to FERC on Thursday. In the intervening six months, while one mediation session has occurred, the parties report little or no progress toward reaching a mutually agreeable settlement. While opinions may differ on whether Congress should intervene to settle the on-going case, there is little doubt that Congress should step forward to prevent such an arcane dispute from ever again threatening Alaska's energy industry. For that reason prior to the next mediation session, today we introduce legislation to limit the ability of FERC in the future to make retroactive the impacts of future Quality Bank valuation methodology changes. By this legislation, after December 31, 2005, FERC still will be able to change the methodology for determining the value of oil flowing through the pipeline but will not be permitted to apply changes to Quality Bank valuation methodologies on anything other than a prospective basis. We have proposed this provision to prevent this legal nightmare from happening again. This provision will first eliminate the perverse current incentive for all sides to promote further litigation regarding Quality Bank valuations based on the expectation of a retroactive application of changes that would result in a large economic windfall. The retroactive application of valuation methodology changes encourages the sides in a dispute to sue in hopes of gaining a larger benefit in the future. This is a ``lottery,'' however, that Alaskans are guaranteed to lose. By setting December 31, 2005, as the date that FERC can no longer apply Quality Bank valuation methodologies on a retroactive basis, the legislation will put the FERC and the litigants on record that the current dispute must be resolved by the end of this year. Requiring FERC to apply valuation methodology changes in connection with any future disputes on a prospective basis only will eliminate the risk and uncertainty associated with the prospect of nearly unlimited retroactive application of Quality Bank payment methodology changes. That will allow all Quality Bank participants to be able to conduct business with the certainty of knowing that prices received and paid for oil today cannot be altered years down the road. In addition, this will eliminate the strong incentive that currently exists for some parties to engage in endless litigation, in hopes of gaining windfall benefits from retroactive application changes. While we continue to call on all sides in the current dispute to compromise and settle this case now, this bill will discourage if not eliminate this type of dispute in the future--a benefit for all Alaskans.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am today reintroducing legislation to clarify the status of villages participating in the federally established Community Development Quota (CDQ) program created to assist economically disadvantaged communities around the edge of the Bering Sea. The CDQ program is one of the youngest but most successful of a variety of programs intended to improve economic opportunities in some of my State's most challenged communities. The CDQ Community Preservation Act is intended to maintain the participation of all currently eligible communities along the shore of the Bering Sea in Alaska's Community Development Quota program. It is necessary because inconsistencies in statutory and regulatory provisions may require a reassessment of eligibility and the exclusion of some communities from the program. This was not the intent of the original program, nor of any subsequent changes to it. In order to clarify that fact, a legislative remedy is needed. Senator Stevens joined me in introducing just such a remedy last year, but work on it was not completed and we were forced to settle for only temporary relief. It is time we dealt with this matter more appropriately. Alaska has been generously blessed with natural resources, but due to its location and limited transportation infrastructure it continues to have pockets of severe poverty. Nowhere is this more evident than in the villages around the rim of the Bering Sea. The Community Development Quota Program began in 1992, at the recommendation of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, one of the regional councils formed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Congress gave the program permanent status in the 1996 reauthorization of the Act. The program presently includes 65 communities within a 50 nautical-mile radius of the Bering Sea, which have formed six regional non-profit associations to participate in the program. The regional associations range in size from one to 20 communities. Under the program, a portion of the regulated annual harvests of pollock, halibut, sablefish, Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and crab is assigned to each of the associations, which operate under combined Federal and State agency oversight. Almost all of an association's earnings must be invested in fishing-related projects in order to encourage a sustainable economic base for the region. Typically, each association sells its share of the annual harvest quotas to established fishing companies in return for cash and agreements to provide job training and employment opportunities for residents of the region. The program has been remarkably successful. Since 1992, approximately 9,000 jobs have been created for western Alaska residents with wages totaling more than $60 million. The CDQ program has also contributed to fisheries infrastructure development in western Alaska, as well as providing vessel loan programs; education, training and other CDQ-related benefits. The CDQ program has its roots in the amazing success story of how our offshore fishery resources were Americanized after the passage of the original Magnuson Act in 1976. At the time, vast foreign fishing fleets were almost the only ones operating in the U.S. 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. American fishermen simply did not have either the vessels or the expertise to participate. The Magnuson-Stevens Act changed all that. It led to the adoption of what we called a ``fish and chips'' policy that provided for an exchange of fish allocations for technological and practical expertise. Within the next few years, harvesting fell almost exclusively to American vessels. Within a few years after that, processing also became Americanized. Today, there are no foreign fishing or processing vessels operating in the 200-mile zone off Alaska, and the industry is worth billions of dollars each year. The CDQ program helps bring some of the benefits of that great industry to local residents in one of the most impoverished areas of the entire country. It is a vital element in the effort to create and maintain a lasting economic base for the region's many poor communities, and truly deserves the support of this body. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.