Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I am today reintroducing a very important bill on a subject that was not resolved last year, and which continues to be an outstanding issue for those of us who are dependent on healthy and productive natural populations of ocean fish and shellfish. Simply put, this bill prohibits further movement toward the development of aquaculture facilities in federal waters until Congress has had an opportunity to review all of the very serious implications, and make decisions on how such development should proceed. Some people are calling for a moratorium on offshore aquaculture. Frankly, Mr. President, we need more than a delay--we need a very comprehensive discussion of this issue and a serious debate on what the ground-rules should be. For years, some members of the federal bureaucracy have advocated going forward with offshore aquaculture development without that debate. Doing so, would be an extraordinarily bad idea. We are now being told that the Administration is in the final stages of preparing a draft bill to allow offshore aquaculture development to occur, and that it plans to send a draft to the Hill in the very near future. The problem is, that draft has been prepared in deep secrecy. We have only rumors about what may be in that draft bill. The administration has had meetings on the general topic of aquaculture, but has done little to nothing to work with those of us who represent constituents whose livelihoods might be imperiled and states with resources that might be endangered if the administration gets it wrong. Scientists, the media and the public are awakening to the serious disadvantages of fish raised in fish farming operations compared to naturally healthy wild fish species such as Alaska salmon, halibut, sablefish, crab and many other species. It has become common to see news reports that cite not only the general health advantages of eating fish at least once or twice a week, but the specific advantages of fish such as wild salmon, which contains essential Omega-3 fatty acids that may help reduce the risk of heart disease and possibly have similar beneficial effects on other diseases. Educated and watchful consumers have also seen recent stories citing research that not only demonstrates that farmed salmon fed vegetable- based food does not have the same beneficial impact on cardio-vascular health, but also that the demand for other fish to grind up and use as feed in those fish farms may lead to the decimation of those stocks. Those same alert consumers may also have seen stories indicating that fish farms may create serious pollution problems from the concentration of fish feces and uneaten food, that fish farms may harbor diseases that can be transmitted to previously healthy wild fish stocks, and that fish farming has had a devastating effect on communities that depend on traditional fisheries. It is by no means certain that all those problems would be duplicated if we begin to develop fish farms that are farther offshore, but neither is there any evidence that they would not be. Yet despite the uncertainties, proponents have continued to push hard for legislation that would encourage the development of huge new fish farms off our coasts. Not only do the proponents want to encourage such development, but reports indicate they may also want to change the way decisions are made so that all the authority rests in the hands of just one federal agency. I believe that would be a serious mistake. There are simply too many factors that should be evaluated--from hydraulic engineering, to environmental impacts, to fish biology, to the management of disease, to the nutritional character of farmed fish, and so on--for any existing agency. We cannot afford a rush to judgment on this issue--it is far too dangerous if we make a mistake. In my view, such a serious matter deserves the same level of scrutiny by Congress as the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy for other sweeping changes in ocean governance. The ``Natural Stock Conservation Act'' I am introducing today lays down a marker for where the debate on offshore aquaculture needs to go. It would prohibit the development of new offshore aquaculture operations until Congress has acted to ensure that every federal agency involved does the necessary analyses in areas such as disease control, engineering, pollution prevention, biological and genetic impacts, economic and social effects, and other critical issues, none of which are specifically required under existing law. I strongly urge my colleagues to understand that this is not a parochial issue, but a very real threat to the literal viability of natural fish and shellfish stocks as well as the economic viability of many coastal communities. I sincerely hope that this issue is taken up seriously in the context of reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs fishery management, and responding to the recommendations of the U.S. Oceans Commission and the Pew Oceans Commission. We all want to make sure we enjoy abundant supplies of healthy foods in the future, but not if it means unnecessary and avoidable damage to wild species, to the environment generally, and to the economies of America's coastal fishing communities. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I am today reintroducing a very important bill on a subject that was not resolved last year, and which continues to be an outstanding issue for those of us who are dependent on healthy and productive natural populations of ocean fish and shellfish. Simply put, this bill prohibits further movement toward the development of aquaculture facilities in federal waters until Congress has had an opportunity to review all of the very serious implications, and make decisions on how such development should proceed. Some people are calling for a moratorium on offshore aquaculture. Frankly, Mr. President, we need more than a delay--we need a very comprehensive discussion of this issue and a serious debate on what the ground-rules should be. For years, some members of the federal bureaucracy have advocated going forward with offshore aquaculture development without that debate. Doing so, would be an extraordinarily bad idea. We are now being told that the Administration is in the final stages of preparing a draft bill to allow offshore aquaculture development to occur, and that it plans to send a draft to the Hill in the very near future. The problem is, that draft has been prepared in deep secrecy. We have only rumors about what may be in that draft bill. The administration has had meetings on the general topic of aquaculture, but has done little to nothing to work with those of us who represent constituents whose livelihoods might be imperiled and states with resources that might be endangered if the administration gets it wrong. Scientists, the media and the public are awakening to the serious disadvantages of fish raised in fish farming operations compared to naturally healthy wild fish species such as Alaska salmon, halibut, sablefish, crab and many other species. It has become common to see news reports that cite not only the general health advantages of eating fish at least once or twice a week, but the specific advantages of fish such as wild salmon, which contains essential Omega-3 fatty acids that may help reduce the risk of heart disease and possibly have similar beneficial effects on other diseases. Educated and watchful consumers have also seen recent stories citing research that not only demonstrates that farmed salmon fed vegetable- based food does not have the same beneficial impact on cardio-vascular health, but also that the demand for other fish to grind up and use as feed in those fish farms may lead to the decimation of those stocks. Those same alert consumers may also have seen stories indicating that fish farms may create serious pollution problems from the concentration of fish feces and uneaten food, that fish farms may harbor diseases that can be transmitted to previously healthy wild fish stocks, and that fish farming has had a devastating effect on communities that depend on traditional fisheries. It is by no means certain that all those problems would be duplicated if we begin to develop fish farms that are farther offshore, but neither is there any evidence that they would not be. Yet despite the uncertainties, proponents have continued to push hard for legislation that would encourage the development of huge new fish farms off our coasts. Not only do the proponents want to encourage such development, but reports indicate they may also want to change the way decisions are made so that all the authority rests in the hands of just one federal agency. I believe that would be a serious mistake. There are simply too many factors that should be evaluated--from hydraulic engineering, to environmental impacts, to fish biology, to the management of disease, to the nutritional character of farmed fish, and so on--for any existing agency. We cannot afford a rush to judgment on this issue--it is far too dangerous if we make a mistake. In my view, such a serious matter deserves the same level of scrutiny by Congress as the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy for other sweeping changes in ocean governance. The ``Natural Stock Conservation Act'' I am introducing today lays down a marker for where the debate on offshore aquaculture needs to go. It would prohibit the development of new offshore aquaculture operations until Congress has acted to ensure that every federal agency involved does the necessary analyses in areas such as disease control, engineering, pollution prevention, biological and genetic impacts, economic and social effects, and other critical issues, none of which are specifically required under existing law. I strongly urge my colleagues to understand that this is not a parochial issue, but a very real threat to the literal viability of natural fish and shellfish stocks as well as the economic viability of many coastal communities. I sincerely hope that this issue is taken up seriously in the context of reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs fishery management, and responding to the recommendations of the U.S. Oceans Commission and the Pew Oceans Commission. We all want to make sure we enjoy abundant supplies of healthy foods in the future, but not if it means unnecessary and avoidable damage to wild species, to the environment generally, and to the economies of America's coastal fishing communities. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

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.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to and recognize the contributions of an ally to the United States, an ally that has contributed to our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and who has worked in close cooperation with my State of Alaska. While their contributions have not received the widespread recognition given to other countries, the nation of Mongolia has been a steadfast friend of the United States. They have not been deterred by those critics who deride the quality of the nations included in the coalition forces. Mongolia's contributions mean a bit more to the State of Alaska. In September 2004, we marked the 1-year anniversary of the start of the Alaska-Mongolia National Guard State Partnership. Through the State Partnership Program, a true friendship has developed between Mongolia and Alaska. Our National Guard has established broad working relationships and increased exchanges with their Mongolian partners. They stand side by side with the Mongolian Armed Forces in Iraq as they participate in the coalition fighting the global war on terror. In fact, the Mongolian Ministry of Defense specifically requested Alaska National Guard support based on Alaska's relationship with their nation. I would like to quote MG Craig Gambell that, ``[a]s long as the Mongolian Armed Forces are willing to send troops in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Alaska National Guard will continue to stand by their side.'' Prior to 2000, Mongolia did not have a national policy of deploying forces beyond its borders. Yet, they were the first coalition country to contribute an infantry battalion to Iraq. The Mongolian Armed Forces are currently providing security to a logistics base in southern Iraq, escorting convoys, constructing military barracks, medical facilities, and local schools. They deserve special recognition for preventing a suicide attack that could have killed hundreds. Alaska's pairing with Mongolia in the National Guard State Partnership Program is fitting, given our similar geographic size, topography, population density, and climate. The program allows Alaska's soldiers to work with Mongolian forces on professional military skills as well as in military-to-civil and civil-to-civil areas. Beyond the teamwork in Iraq, other events have been coordinated to keep the partnership together for years to come. Last year, an Alaska National Guard delegation met with Prime Minister Elbegdorj, as well as other senior level government and military leaders in Mongolia. Already plans to send observers both this year and next have been made. The success that the partnership enjoyed this past year is a direct reflection of the willingness and eagerness on both sides to further our relations. The Alaska National Guard tells me that Mongolia is enthusiastic about their democratic reforms and is aggressively working to meet its goals. I thank the leaders of Mongolia for their friendship and support, and I look forward to the continued success of this partnership between the Land of the Midnight Sun and the Land of Blue Sky.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. Res. 105, a resolution designating April 15, 2005, as National Youth Service Day. S. Res. 105 acknowledges the remarkable community service efforts that our Nation's youth are making in communities across the country on April 15 and every day, and encourages all people to recognize and support the significance of these contributions. National Youth Service Day is a public awareness and education campaign that highlights the extraordinary contributions that young people make to their communities throughout the year. On this day, youth from across the United states and the world will carry out community service projects in areas ranging from hunger to literacy to the environment. National Youth Service Day is the largest service event in the world that brings millions of youth and over 50 local, regional, and national partners together to support and promote youth service. In Alaska, the following groups will engage youth in community service activities on April 15: (1) Anchorage's Promise, along with 70 other youth/family organizations from Anchorage and the Mat-Su Valley, will mobilize all sectors of the community to build the character and competence of Anchorage's children and youth by fulfilling the Five Promises: caring adults, safe places, a healthy start, marketable skills, and opportunities to serve. This year's National Youth Service Day celebration in anchorage hopes to engage at least 7,000 youth in service-learning projects throughout the city. (2) Cook Inlet Tribal Council Youth Center will prepare and serve traditional Alaska Native dishes to 75-100 homeless people in downtown Anchorage. (3) As part of the Anchorage Youth Make It Better Project, the mountain View Boys and Girls Club, Alaska Division of Juvenile Justice, members of the Boy Scouts of America Venturing Program, interested AmeriCorps/VISTA volunteers, and the Alaska Points of Light Youth Leadership Institute Student Alumni association will organize and conduct a Youth Make A Better Community essay contest involving 50 Anchorage fifth and sixth grade students. The students will write about how they would improve the community. In addition, 25 middle and high school students will design and paint an outdoor mural in Mountain View highlighting important social issues and traits of good character. (4) In Koyukuk, young people will be helping elders with household chores they cannot do for themselves. (5) In the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, Communities In Schools Mat-Su has organized 25 students from the Mat-Su Youth Facility School and students from the Chickaloon Tribal School to work on building a Chicken Coop for the tribal sustainability project. Many similar and wonderful activities will be taking place all across the Nation. I thank my colleagues--Senators Akaka, Allen, Bayh, Bingaman, Boxer, Bunning, Clinton, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Conrad, Cornyn, Craig, DeWine, Dodd, Domenici, Dorgan, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Gregg, Hagel, Isakson, Johnson, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Levin, Lott, Martinez, Mikulski, Murray, Nelson, Reed, Salazar, Santorum, Schumer, Sessions, Snowe, Specter, Stabenow, Stevens, Bunning and Thune--for co- sponsoring this worthwhile legislation, which will ensure that youth across the country and the world know that all of their hard work is greatly appreciated.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 166, to amend the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 to reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes River Conservancy, and for other purposes; S. 251, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a water resource feasibility study for the Little Butte/Bear Creek Subbasins in Oregon; S. 310, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Newlands Project Headquarters and Maintenance Yard Facility to the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District in the State of Nevada; S. 519, to amend the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 to authorize additional projects and activities under that Act, and for other purposes; and S. 592, to extend the contract for the Glendo Unit of the Missouri Basin Project in the State of Wyoming. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Kellie Donnelly 202-224-9360 or Shane Perkins at 202-224-7555.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today, to join my colleagues and the rest of the world in the remembrance of Pope John Paul II. Since the passing of the Pope, it has often been noted that this Pope was by far the most traveled of any in history--quite possibly the one person seen live by the most people of all time. We were fortunate in my State to receive the Pope twice, once in Anchorage in 1981 and then again in Fairbanks in 1984. During his Anchorage visit, the Pope celebrated Mass with more than 40,000 Alaskans in a downtown Anchorage park. It was the largest gathering of Alaskans up until that time, and beginning in the cold, wet, early February morning, until his departure, crowds lined the streets and Alaskans strained to get a glimpse of the Pontiff. Always known for his compassion and generosity, the Pope extended his visit in Anchorage more than an hour to meet in private with 150 disabled Alaskans at Holy Family Cathedral. The Pope's visit to the Fairbanks International Airport was even more momentous, and was transformed into the site of major diplomacy. It was an opportunity for the Pope to meet with President Ronald Reagan, who was returning from overseas and, like the Pope, stopped in Alaska to refuel his aircraft. The President, who had arrived the previous night, was the first to greet the Pope. They visited briefly and then the Pope surprised many by making an unexpected tour through the crowd that waited outside the airport in the drizzling rain. While in Alaska, the Pope spoke about the unity of faith that binds Alaska's diverse Catholic community--from Native Alaskans to people from all over the world. During his Anchorage stopover, John Paul II even enjoyed a brief ride on a dogsled. Like many Americans and individuals all over the world, I grieve for the loss of the Holy Father. From his humble beginnings to the principal voice for human rights for over two decades, Pope John Paul II will always be remembered. He was an extraordinary, inspirational and spiritual person and the world is a better place thanks to his service and spiritual leadership.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to come to the floor today to introduce legislation of vital importance to our Nation. Enactment of the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2005 will provide the authorizations necessary to unlock a potentially huge supply of domestic natural gas, enough gas to supply our Nation for generations. However, before I introduce this legislation, I would first like to thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Akaka, for his dedication to helping address our Nation's energy crisis through legislation that should dramatically increase our domestic supply of environmentally friendly, clean burning natural gas. Without Senator Akaka's hard work and focus on this issue we would not be introducing this legislation today. Mr. President, our Nation is facing an energy crisis. Oil and natural gas prices are at historic or near historic high levels. Oil prices are over $50 a barrel. Natural gas prices are over $7.00 a MMBtu. Indeed, United States natural gas prices have increased by almost 350 percent since 1998 and are currently the highest in the world. Despite this huge increase in cost, domestic natural gas production has declined by almost 5 percent and Canadian imports have declined by almost 25 percent from 2001 to 2004. Estimates are that during the past 5 years United States natural gas consumers have paid nearly $200 billion more for natural gas than they paid in the preceding 5 years. These extraordinarily high natural gas prices are having a profound impact on every segment of our economy. Chairman Greenspan identified our current natural gas price and supply situation as a crisis that could have a devastating impact on the United States economy. In fact, estimates are that the natural gas crisis has significantly contributed to the loss of 2.5 million United States manufacturing jobs. Indeed, the ongoing ``demand destruction'' caused by current gas prices with its devastating impact on United States manufacturing will only continue unless we address the current natural gas supply shortage and high prices. Today, the United States produces about 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year. By 2025, the Energy Information Administration estimates that United States natural gas consumption will reach 31 trillion cubic feet. That's an increase of more than 40 percent. Much of the new electric generation that will come on line during the next two decades will require natural gas according to a study by the American Gas Foundation. Indeed, clean burning natural gas remains the premium fossil fuel for electric power generation. The EIA estimates that by 2025 the United States will produce only 21.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas meeting just 70 percent of the Nation's expected demand. Thus, absent securing a new domestic supply of gas, the United States will have to import 30 percent of its natural gas supply. We have already gone down this path with our petroleum supplies. We have witnessed the unacceptable national security, balance of payments and general economic consequences of this level of reliance on foreign sources for our nation's critical supply of oil. We must not repeat this reality with natural gas. This is why I am proud to introduce the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2005. As stated in the findings section of the legislation, the National Research Council has estimated the total United States methane hydrate resource base to be on the order of 200,000 trillion cubic feet. Alaska alone is thought to have potential hydrate resources of 32,000 trillion cubic feet. Indeed, a report issued by the National Commission on Energy Policy states that the United States may be endowed with over one-fourth of the methane hydrate deposits in the world. This is an immense supply of secure, domestic energy that could supply our country for many, many years. The Methane Hydrate Reauthorization Act of 2005 builds upon the success of the original Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000. The new act incorporates certain changes to the 2000 legislation suggested by the National Research Council of the National Academies and the Department of Energy. The 2000 act established an advisory panel to advise the Secretary of Energy on potential applications of methane hydrate and to assist in developing recommendations and priorities for methane hydrate research and development programs. The new act strengthens the role of the advisory panel to ensure that the research funds are put to their most effective use. The 2005 act also increases the use of a scientific peer review process in determining which projects will be funded. Further, the new legislation directs the funding of fellowships and graduate education and training programs to establish a solid, scientific foundation of expertise in the United States on methane hydrates. Finally, the 2005 act authorizes increased funding for the methane hydrate program. The increased funding is critical in order to allow for the transition from a largely research oriented program to one that will foster the beginning of the commercialization of our Nation's methane hydrate resources. Again, I thank Senator Akaka and his staff for their hard work and commitment to this legislation that is so important to our nation's future.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to come to the floor today to introduce legislation of vital importance to our Nation. Enactment of the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2005 will provide the authorizations necessary to unlock a potentially huge supply of domestic natural gas, enough gas to supply our Nation for generations. However, before I introduce this legislation, I would first like to thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Akaka, for his dedication to helping address our Nation's energy crisis through legislation that should dramatically increase our domestic supply of environmentally friendly, clean burning natural gas. Without Senator Akaka's hard work and focus on this issue we would not be introducing this legislation today. Mr. President, our Nation is facing an energy crisis. Oil and natural gas prices are at historic or near historic high levels. Oil prices are over $50 a barrel. Natural gas prices are over $7.00 a MMBtu. Indeed, United States natural gas prices have increased by almost 350 percent since 1998 and are currently the highest in the world. Despite this huge increase in cost, domestic natural gas production has declined by almost 5 percent and Canadian imports have declined by almost 25 percent from 2001 to 2004. Estimates are that during the past 5 years United States natural gas consumers have paid nearly $200 billion more for natural gas than they paid in the preceding 5 years. These extraordinarily high natural gas prices are having a profound impact on every segment of our economy. Chairman Greenspan identified our current natural gas price and supply situation as a crisis that could have a devastating impact on the United States economy. In fact, estimates are that the natural gas crisis has significantly contributed to the loss of 2.5 million United States manufacturing jobs. Indeed, the ongoing ``demand destruction'' caused by current gas prices with its devastating impact on United States manufacturing will only continue unless we address the current natural gas supply shortage and high prices. Today, the United States produces about 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year. By 2025, the Energy Information Administration estimates that United States natural gas consumption will reach 31 trillion cubic feet. That's an increase of more than 40 percent. Much of the new electric generation that will come on line during the next two decades will require natural gas according to a study by the American Gas Foundation. Indeed, clean burning natural gas remains the premium fossil fuel for electric power generation. The EIA estimates that by 2025 the United States will produce only 21.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas meeting just 70 percent of the Nation's expected demand. Thus, absent securing a new domestic supply of gas, the United States will have to import 30 percent of its natural gas supply. We have already gone down this path with our petroleum supplies. We have witnessed the unacceptable national security, balance of payments and general economic consequences of this level of reliance on foreign sources for our nation's critical supply of oil. We must not repeat this reality with natural gas. This is why I am proud to introduce the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2005. As stated in the findings section of the legislation, the National Research Council has estimated the total United States methane hydrate resource base to be on the order of 200,000 trillion cubic feet. Alaska alone is thought to have potential hydrate resources of 32,000 trillion cubic feet. Indeed, a report issued by the National Commission on Energy Policy states that the United States may be endowed with over one-fourth of the methane hydrate deposits in the world. This is an immense supply of secure, domestic energy that could supply our country for many, many years. The Methane Hydrate Reauthorization Act of 2005 builds upon the success of the original Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000. The new act incorporates certain changes to the 2000 legislation suggested by the National Research Council of the National Academies and the Department of Energy. The 2000 act established an advisory panel to advise the Secretary of Energy on potential applications of methane hydrate and to assist in developing recommendations and priorities for methane hydrate research and development programs. The new act strengthens the role of the advisory panel to ensure that the research funds are put to their most effective use. The 2005 act also increases the use of a scientific peer review process in determining which projects will be funded. Further, the new legislation directs the funding of fellowships and graduate education and training programs to establish a solid, scientific foundation of expertise in the United States on methane hydrates. Finally, the 2005 act authorizes increased funding for the methane hydrate program. The increased funding is critical in order to allow for the transition from a largely research oriented program to one that will foster the beginning of the commercialization of our Nation's methane hydrate resources. Again, I thank Senator Akaka and his staff for their hard work and commitment to this legislation that is so important to our nation's future.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Idaho.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask the Chair to let me know when I have used 9 minutes.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is important that we do attempt to set the record straight. It is interesting to listen to the back and forth that goes on across the aisle. If Alaska were not my home, if I were not born and raised there, if I had not had an opportunity to know and understand all parts of my incredibly beautiful and diverse State, I would think that they were talking about another place, another world that I was not familiar with. So I feel compelled as an Alaskan to stand before you and talk about the reality of ANWR, the reality of the world that exists up North. The Senator from Massachusetts made a statement. I apologize if it is not exactly as he stated it, but the inference was that wilderness can't exist with industry, and that is why we should not move forward with opening ANWR to exploration. The area we are talking about exploring is not in a protected wilderness area. It is in an area that has been designated ``reserved,'' if you will, because of its vast potential oil and gas reserves. It has been recognized by the Congress, by the executive branch, for its potential. It is not in wilderness status. It is not in wilderness status like the 8 million acres directly below the 1002 coastal area. It is not in wilderness status like some 58 million acres of wilderness that are currently in the State of Alaska. The 1002 area is not wilderness. Therefore, don't mix it in up. Don't make that suggestion. Others have said we are talking about exploring and drilling in a wildlife refuge. As my colleague from Alaska mentioned to the Senator from Wisconsin, in his State of Wisconsin there are pipelines going through three separate wildlife refuges. There are currently nearly 400 producing wells in the national wildlife refuges nationwide. The National Audubon Society has received $25 million in royalties from oil development in its sanctuary in Louisiana. It has been receiving this money for decades. There is nothing unusual nor improper about allowing careful development in a refuge. We are using 21st century technology. I haven't seen this wildlife refuge which the National Audubon Society has in Louisiana, but I am certain they are making sure, if they are developing it, that they are doing it in concert, in balance with the environment. That is exactly what we will be doing if we are given permission to go forward in ANWR. How can I tell you we will do that? Because we have been doing it up North for 30 years. We have been refining the technology, the Arctic engineering and technology that goes with extraction of a resource in a pretty harsh environment. Yet, as harsh as it is in the wintertime, it is a very fragile environment during those summer months. Alaskans appreciate our climate and our geography. We figured that we have to do it right or we could cause harm to the environment. When we talk about the roadless areas we have available for exploration, we mean it. We do mean that we are going to put down an ice road that will disappear when the summer comes. In fact, we are so rigid on it, we don't even lay the ice road for the following year in the same area just so there is no impact to that tundra, no impact to that area. I take great offense to the preliminary implication that some of my colleagues have made that, somehow or other, the North Slope is some industrial wasteland. They made the comment that the air and the skies were like the pollution in Washington, DC. Let me tell you, as an Alaskan, I am outright offended at that kind of a comment. You come up North, you look at the air, and you breathe the air, if it is not too cold. The fact is, we have put environmental safeguards and standards on our industry unlike any other place in the world. I have seen what we have done in the lower 48. Quite honestly, I can understand why some of my colleagues are concerned about industry in Alaska, because they have seen it in their States. They have seen what they can do. But we have said no. We have learned from your mistakes. We are going to make sure that when you have a vehicle, you put a diaper under that vehicle. It sounds crazy, but we are not going to accept any kinds of spills. We are not going to accept any kind of environmental degradation. We have controls over it. We are going to make sure we do it right. When they talk about the spills--I mentioned yesterday on the floor that we have spills. We require in the State of Alaska that everything you drop on the ground is reported. Do you know what is mostly reported? It is the seawater, the saltwater that is used to inject. Whether it is a spill of saltwater, whether it is a spill of chemicals, or a gallon of oil, hydraulic oils, you have to report it. You report it, and you clean it up. When I took these colleagues North with me 2 weeks ago, they were amazed at the environmental culture within the industry. It is not necessarily because the industry has said we should do it; it is because we in Alaska care, and we are going to make sure you are going to do it right. If you are not going to do it right in our State, you are not welcome to do business. It is more expensive to do business in Alaska because we are a long way away, which sometimes makes it difficult. Part of it is we demand that you do it better. Where does that put us? We are a nation reliant on oil. We are 58 percent reliant on foreign sources of oil. Oil just hit 56 bucks a barrel, and we are 58 percent reliant on foreign sources. We have an opportunity to make a difference in this country. I have had some of the opposition suggest there is not really that much there. Let us take the median. Let us just assume for purposes of discussion here today that we are able to get a million barrels of oil a day. At the height of the Prudhoe fields, we were at 2 million barrels a day through our pipeline. We were providing 20 percent of America's domestic needs. What is a million barrels? Aside from the fact that you get a million barrels 365 days a year, what is it? It is enough fuel to run the State of Maryland for 100 years. It can fuel every car in every home in Washington State for 68 years. It is enough fuel to replace all of our imports from Saudi Arabia for 25 years--25 years. It is enough fuel to double all of the oil taken out of Texas for the past 75 years. It is enough oil to save America from writing a $54 million check to OPEC every day at the current prices. Fifty-four million dollars is what we are writing to OPEC today. Actually, I think that number goes up because the price of oil has now bumped up to $56 a barrel. The fact is, it is not just about increased domestic production. We need to have balanced our energy policy. We know we can't drill our way out of it. We know we can't conserve our way out of it. We know we have to work on balance, promote conservation, efficiency, developing alternatives, but it has to also include more domestic production to reduce our dependency on OPEC and other unstable regimes. We have to do more. I used the phrase yesterday: We have to think globally and act locally. Let us not export our issues overseas. Let us not be reliant on Russia, Columbia, Africa, or Venezuela. We need to recognize, though, if we park every single car in America today and say that is it, we are going to take a step, we are not going to be so reliant on oil, the fact is we would still need oil, whether it is for Band-Aids, CDs, or heart replacement valves. We use oil every day in our world. We need to do what we can at the domestic level to meet our energy needs to the fullest extent possible. ANWR offers us that opportunity. Please give us in Alaska the chance to show you how we will continue to do it right for years to come. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from New Mexico.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Cantwell amendment. We have an opportunity today to open a very tiny portion of Alaska's coastal plain to exploration and opportunity. This is an opportunity for us to focus on energy security, economic security, and environmental security. The price of oil just bumped up to 56 bucks a barrel this morning. What we are talking about in terms of the security for domestic reserves is on average a million barrels of oil per day. The other side has said it doesn't mean much. Let me tell you what it means. It is enough fuel to run the State of Maryland for 100 years. It is enough fuel for every car and every home in Washington State for 68 years. It is enough fuel to replace all of our imports from Saudi Arabia for 25 years. It is enough fuel to double all of the oil taken out of east Texas in the past 75 years. This needs to be part of an overall energy plan. I urge the Senate to oppose this amendment.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to continue with the discussion about the wilderness and designation within the refuge. Senator Stevens certainly defined it during his comments, but I think it is worth a few minutes so people understand what ANWR is, what the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is. It is this colored section up on the northeastern part of the State. It is an area in total of 19.6 million acres. It is an area the size of the State of South Carolina. Within the refuge itself, there are three different designations. You have down here in the orange the refuge itself, which is about 10 million acres. You have the wilderness designation area here, which is 8 million acres. Then up here, you have the reserve area, as Senator Stevens has indicated, that portion, the 1.5 million acres that was set aside for the purpose of study for exploration of potential oil and gas. When we talk about ANWR, there is, I think, a confusion. The Gwich'in people, who are referred to as living within ANWR, are separated by a massive mountain range, the Brooks Range, which is here. They are down here in this section of the refuge, nowhere near the Coastal Plain. The 1002 area has been specifically set aside. It is important that we talk about the specifics within the refuge designation, and recognize that as far as wilderness goes, those areas that are set aside for wilderness will not be subject to any kind of exploration activity. The area within the refuge will not be subject to any exploration, or any production activity. It is only this area up here. It is within this area here that we are talking about exploring on 2,000 acres. Out of the total area the size of the State of South Carolina, we are looking at a coastal plain about the size of the State of Delaware. And within that size of the State of Delaware, we are talking about 2,000 acres, or literally the size of a medium-sized farm in South Dakota. It helps to put it into perspective when we are talking about oil exploration on the northern plain. I want to focus my comments tonight on three areas: energy security, economic security, and environmental security. Senator Stevens touched on the energy security component, recognizing we are currently 58 percent dependent on foreign oil; that we here in this country are waiting to see what the OPEC nations are going to do and how that will affect us and our economy. This dependence is expected to pass the two-thirds mark within 20 years. This is a threat to our national security. We are in a position to do something positive. We need to recognize that by moving forward on the domestic level to produce our own resources--our own oil--we can make a difference. There have been those who have suggested that the amount of oil potential up in the Coastal Plain is miniscule; that somehow or other it is not worth it to explore and to drill in this region. Let us talk a little bit about what is there for us in terms of the resources, the jobs that can be created, and the economic benefit with the potential we have in ANWR right now. To suggest this amount of oil is not going to help us in this country is akin to suggesting that all of the oil we receive from east Texas isn't worth it because it is not able to sustain this country, it is not able to give us the energy independence we need. That is a ridiculous argument. Putting into context where we are getting our oil right now, if we are 50 percent accurate with our projections of the potential in ANWR, we are looking at a million barrels a day going into our pipeline. That is about 25 years worth of oil that we currently receive from Saudi Arabia. Twenty-five years worth of oil that we are receiving from Saudi Arabia is equivalent to what we could expect out of ANWR, if we are half right on our projections. To suggest somehow this is not something we should do because there is not enough there is not an argument that makes sense. Giving up ANWR's likely oil is like saying we as a nation should never have bothered opening up the Prudhoe Bay oilfield in Alaska because Prudhoe would only supply us with 3 years' supply of oil. In fact, Prudhoe has provided America up to a quarter of our domestic oil supply for the past 28 years. With our recovery methods, when we thought initially Prudhoe was going to be recovering 35 percent of our oil, we are now up to a recovery rate of about 65 percent. To suggest that the amount is minimal is not being realistic. Let us talk about the economics in terms of our ability to stabilize our energy crisis: generating more than $30 billion in Federal revenue, probably several billion dollars within 4 years of opening of ANWR. Talking about our deficit, as we are dealing with the budget, it would reduce our payments of deficit--the remainder of our payments of deficit--because we are not going to be buying as much oil overseas. Last year alone, we paid nearly $166 billion for oil overseas. That is a quarter of our trade deficit. When we talk about $30 billion-plus a year, it is important to America. The jobs will come. We keep talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs, but the fact is when we produce domestically, everybody benefits. The jobs across this Nation will increase. The other economic benefits, the reason that organized labor is supporting us, the reason the farmers are supporting us on opening ANWR, is it stabilizes everything, from the cost of planting in the springtime to the thousands of products that are made from oil, whether it is antihistamines, cosmetics, or compact disks, or heart replacement valves. The list goes on and on, to recognize the economic benefit to us as a nation of opening ANWR. American farmers last year lost $6.2 billion of income because of higher fuel and fertilization costs. We recognize we have an opportunity here to make a difference. To downplay it and say, Well, it is only so many months' worth of oil, or it is not enough to make a difference--again, if you would suggest the oil we have received from Texas for these many years is not significant, if you would suggest the oil we have received, 20 percent of our domestic supply from the North Slope from Prudhoe Bay, is not significant, we have to put all of this into perspective. You have energy security. By producing more of our energy needs here in the country, you have economic security that ANWR brings. We also have the environmental side. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle have talked about the caribou and the effect on the environment. I live there. My family lives there. I am the last person in the world who wants to see my State spoiled. I want to make sure that what we do when it comes to development is going to be done in balance with our environment. We figured out how to do it up there. We have been perfecting the Arctic engineering up north for 30 years. We have seen a tenfold increase in the central Arctic caribou herd since Prudhoe Bay was opened 30 years ago. Our wildlife studies show that several herd species have grown. Polar bears were mentioned. With the science and the technology we have, we use infrared sensing, and we pinpoint where the bears are denning so we do not go near them. There is a sensitivity to the environment that we pay attention to. We are using 3D and now 4D seismic technology so we know where to explore. We are using underground directional drilling that allows us to put the plug in and explore out 3 or 4 miles in every direction so we are not disturbing the surface. We have decreased the size of the pads 70, 80 percent over the past 30 years. What this picture shows is an exploration rig that is connected not by road but connected by ice roads. It was described earlier by Senator Bennett. This road will disappear in the spring. This pad that this exploration rig is sitting on disappears in the spring. What is left is a plug, a cap, in the ground. I need to make a quick comment about the spills that have been mentioned by a couple of my colleagues. What they do not mention is that the companies up North have to report all spills, all spills of any nonnatural occurring substance, whether this is a spill of saltwater or anything that is more than a gallon of oil or chemical such as lubricating oils or hydraulics. The vast majority of oil spills at Prudhoe Bay have been saltwater used in water floating to enhance oil recovery, not oil spills. In 1993, one of the worst years for spills at Prudhoe Bay, there were 160 reported spills, nearly 60,000 gallons of material, but only 2 spills involved oil, and all but 10 gallons were in secondary containment structures and were easily cleaned up. We know we have to do it right up there. It is a fragile environment. It is an environment that we know we must care for. But look at what we do in Alaska with the toughest environmental safeguards anywhere in the world. I challenge anyone, anywhere, to come up with more stringent standards when it comes to development. Alaska will beat them every time. I suggest that we need to be global environmentalists. If we are not taking the oil from ANWR, we will still need it elsewhere. If we do not take it in an area where we know we are going to monitor it and do it correctly, it will come to us from across the water, from Russia, from Venezuela, from Africa, where they did not care for their environment. To use the phrase of some on the other side, think globally but act locally. This is a perfect example of where we need to do just that. I look forward to the rest of the comments from my colleagues and further debate tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, more than 30 years have passed since Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which settled the aboriginal land claims of the first inhabitants of Alaska by making each eligible Alaska Native a shareholder in 1 of 13 regional corporations and many of these people shareholders in a village corporation as well. Each of the corporations was capitalized with land and money. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was a bold experiment, and its implementation was not without controversy. As originally enacted, the law provided that a shareholder of an Alaska Native Corporation could sell his or her stock on or after December 18, 1991, without any intervening action by the corporation. This provision could have resulted in massive sales of stock by Native shareholders in the ensuing years and caused the wholesale transfer of Native assets to non-Native interests. Thanks to the leadership of the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, this catastrophe was averted through a series of amendments to the Act, signed into law in 1987, which forbade the sale of corporate stock without the consent of the corporation's shareholders. This landmark legislation brought an end to the speculation about whether the Native corporations would survive long enough to fulfill the goal that Congress set for them, which was to be the springboard for the economic, social and political empowerment of Alaska's Native people, or alternatively execute the temporary transfer of land and capital which would ultimately end up in non-Native hands. I am proud, that none of the Native corporations have opened their stock to purchase by outsiders. In fact, I see nothing on the horizon to suggest that any of the corporations will take up this question in the foreseeable future. If history is any guide, the Alaska Native Corporations are destined to remain in Native hands for a long time to come. This is good news for the Native people of Alaska and it is good news for my State as a whole. I rise today to offer legislation, requested by the Alaska Federation of Natives and the Association of ANCSA Presidents and CEOs, which is intended to address a piece of unfinished business left by the 1987 amendments to the act. Under the act, as originally passed, stock in an Alaska Native corporation was generally only available to an Alaska Native born on or before December 18, 1971 and those who might inherit stock from a deceased shareholder. The original legislation gave little thought to offering those born after December 18, 1971 a role in the corporation. In effect, the original legislation disenfranchised an entire generation born after the cutoff date from having a stake in the Native corporations. It disenfranchised an entire generation of young people from playing a role in the governance of the Native corporations and from having an ownership interest in their Native lands. The 1987 amendments allowed the shareholders of a Native corporation to remedy this unintended consequence by allowing new stock to be issued to the descendants of a corporation's original shareholders provided that a majority of the outstanding shares agreed. Under the 1987 amendments, such stock could only be issued to those descendants who had one quarter or more Alaska Native blood. A subsequent technical amendment allowed the stock to be issued to descendants without regard to their blood quantum, at the option of each corporation's shareholders. Time has demonstrated that the remedy for incorporating the generation born after December 18, 1971 is an imperfect one. This is sad because one of the most important responsibilities faced by the Board of Directors of any corporation is to plan for its own succession and the succession of the corporation's leadership. Since 1987, less than a handful of the 13 regional Native corporations have put the question of enrolling the next generation to their shareholders. However, all of the corporations that have considered the question have voted in the affirmative. Why then have more corporations not taken the question to a vote? The answer seems to lie in the voting requirements imposed by the 1987 amendments, which essentially requires an affirmative vote of a supermajority of the shares represented in person or by proxy at a shareholder meeting. In order for a corporation to obtain an affirmative vote of a majority of its outstanding shares, something of the order of 80 percent of the corporation's stockholders must be represented at the meeting in person or by proxy. Under present law, any shareholder who does not attend the meeting or submit a proxy is deemed to have voted in the negative. When Doyon, Limited, the regional Native corporation for Interior Alaska, took the question of enrolling the generation of descendants born between 1971 and 1992 to its shareholders at its 1992 annual meeting, some 79.2 percent of the shareholders expressed an opinion in person or proxy. Still, the decision to approve the enrollment passed by the narrowest of margins. This was a record quorum for the corporation, which had 9,061 original shareholders, and the record has yet to be broken. Sealaska Corporation, the regional Native corporation for Southeast Alaska, had more original shareholders than any other regional Native corporation. Sealaska had 15,700 original shareholders, each owning 100 shares of stock. Sealaska has never enjoyed a quorum of 79.2 percent and is pessimistic that such a quorum could ever be mustered. Accordingly, Sealaska, which has been pondering the question of enrolling the next generation for many years, has been deterred from putting the question to a stockholder vote by the supermajority voting requirement in the 1987 amendment. Whether Sealaska enrolls the generation born after 1971 is not up to me. It is up to the shareholders of Sealaska. But I think the Congress owes it to the next generation of Alaska Natives to offer a level playing field when it comes to participation in their Native corporations. In addressing the Alaska Native community, I often make reference to a marvelous book by Alexandra J. McClanahan entitled ``Growing Up Native in Alaska.'' In this book, A.J. profiled 27 Alaska Natives born between 1957 and 1976 and allowed them in their own words to speak about what it means to be an Alaska Native. Some of the people profiled in the book received stock under the 1971 act while others missed the deadline. I will quote from this book for the Record. One of these 27 Alaska Natives is Jaeleen Kookesh-Araujo, a Tlingit Indian, who grew up in the village of Angoon, AK. Jaeleen is a bright young attorney who works at one of Washington's most respected law firms. She is precisely the type of person who is well positioned to lead her regional corporation, Sealaska, into the future. And she is one of many Alaska Natives who was born after December 18, 1971. Jaeleen has an opportunity to participate in Sealaska's governance because her parents gave her some of their stock as a gift, but she remains concerned that others of her generation have been left out. This is what Jaeleen said about why it is important to make stock available to the descendants. I am a shareholder thanks to my parents gifting me shares, but there are a lot of young people who are never going to be shareholders. If you have one parent with several children, they can try to allocate shares to all of them, but some may be left out. Or, maybe you have a Native child who has been adopted who doesn't have parents with shares--whatever. There are going to be a lot of young Native people left out of this corporate structure, and it's really sad. Eventually, there may be a problem because you're going to have a lot of young, talented Alaska Native people going out to get educated. They're going to have a lot of expertise and education in ways that might benefit the corporation, and yet you have to wonder if they're really going to want to be involved in these Native corporations that they don't even belong to. I do want to be involved in the Native corporations because this is my ancestors' land that they're managing and developing and protecting . . . I am not going to tell you that each of the 27 young people that A.J. profiled feels the same way. Another young Native profiled in A.J.'s book supported the status quo in spite of the fact that he was born 2 days after the cutoff. I really don't think it's necessary to adjust for the future generations. The idea of gifting and willing stock is a really efficient method, and I think we ought to stick with that, rather than having to expand and degrade the stock, allowing the children to be shareholders. It's unfair that we as children born after December 18th are not shareholders, but in order to keep the integrity of the stock, I think it's essential that we continue on with the method of granting, gifting and willing stock. The final quote is from a Doyon shareholder who was involved in that company's decision to make new stock available to those born between 1971 and 1992. When I first started I thought, ``I don't want my dividend to get smaller.'' I was an intern in Doyon's Shareholder Relations, so I was involved in the committee that was studying the issue to enroll children born after 1971. When it was time to vote, I thought: ``Darned if I'm letting my nieces and nephews not be involved.'' I was a total turnaround. There was no way I was going to leave them out. There was no difference between me and them. They were just born later. As you can see, there may not be unanimity on the question of whether new stock should be made available to the descendants. But I think we all can agree that the debate is a healthy one and the debate will not take place in earnest unless Congress relaxes the supermajority standard imposed by the 1987 amendments. The legislation I am introducing today would allow the shareholders of a Native corporation to authorize new stock for those born after December 18, 1971 by a majority vote of the shares present and voting at a duly constituted meeting of the shareholders. Shareholders who want to make the stock available will have the opportunity to vote yes. Those who do not will have the opportunity to vote no. Those who choose not to participate, place the fate of the question in the hands of those who choose to participate. The majority prevails. The 1987 amendments authorized Native corporations to make additional shares available to Native elders and to enroll those who were eligible to receive stock as original shareholders but who failed to enroll. The number of missed enrollees is expected to be small. My legislation would change the voting standard for these two categories to a majority of the shares present and voting as well. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this week the people of my State of Alaska pause to recognize two giant figures in the fight for equal rights and justice under the law, the late Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich. On February 16, 2005, the State of Alaska once again observed Elizabeth Peratrovich Day. Activities to celebrate the legacy of Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich are taking place in schools and cultural centers throughout Alaska this week. This coming Saturday, the Alaska Native Heritage Center in Anchorage will conduct a day-long celebration of the Peratrovich legacy. Roy and Elizabeth are to the Native peoples of Alaska what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks are to African Americans. Everybody knows about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, but hardly anyone outside the State of Alaska knows about Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich. Today, I rise to once again share the Peratrovich legacy with the Senate. Elizabeth was born in 1911, about 17 years before Dr. King. She was born in Petersburg, AK. After college she married Roy Peratrovich, a Tlingit from Klawock, AK, and the couple had three children. Roy and Elizabeth moved to Juneau. They were excited about buying a new home. But they could not buy the house that they wanted because they were Native. They could not enter the stores or restaurants they wanted. Outside some of these stores and restaurants there were signs that read ``No Natives Allowed.'' History has also recorded a sign that read ``No Dogs or Indians Allowed.'' On December 30, 1941, following the invasion of Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth and Roy wrote to Alaska's Territorial Governor: In the present emergency our Native boys are being called upon to defend our beloved country. There are no distinctions being made there. Yet when we patronized good business establishments we are told in most cases that Natives are not allowed. The proprietor of one business, an inn, does not seem to realize that our Native boys are just as willing to lay down their lives to protect the freedom he enjoys. Instead he shows his appreciation by having a `No Natives Allowed' sign on his door. In that letter Elizabeth and Roy noted: We were shocked when the Jews were discriminated against in Germany. Stories were told of public places having signs, ``No Jews Allowed.'' All freedom loving people were horrified at what was being practiced in Germany, yet it is being practiced in our own country. In 1943, the Alaska Legislature, at the behest of Roy and Elizabeth considered an antidiscrimination law. It was defeated. But Roy and Elizabeth were not defeated. Two years later, in 1945, the antidiscrimination measure was back before the Alaska Terrritorial Legislature. It passed the lower house, but met with stiff opposition in the Territorial Senate. One by one Senators took to the floor to debate the closely contested legislation. One Senator argued that ``the races should be kept further apart.'' This Senator went on to rhetorically question, ``Who are these people, barely out of savagery, who want to associate with us whites with 5,000 years of recorded civilization behind us?'' Elizabeth Peratrovich was observing the debate from the gallery. As a citizen, she asked to be heard and in accordance with the custom of the day was recognized to express her views. In a quiet, dignified and steady voice this ``fighter with velvet gloves'' responded, ``I would not have expected that I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind gentlemen with 5,000 years of recorded history behind them of our Bill of Rights.'' She was asked by a Senator if she thought the proposed bill would eliminate discrimination, Elizabeth Peratrovich queried in rebuttal, ``Do your laws against larceny and even murder prevent these crimes? No law will eliminate crimes but at least you as legislators can assert to the world that you recognize the evil of the present situation and speak your intent to help us overcome discrimination.'' When she finished, there was a wild burst of applause from the gallery and the Senate floor alike. The territorial Senate passed the bill by a vote of 11 to 5. On February 16, 1945, Alaska had an antidiscrimination law that provided that all citizens of the territory of Alaska are entitled to full and equal enjoyment of public accommodations. Following passage of the anti-discrimination law, Roy and Elizabeth could be seen dancing at the Baranof Hotel, one of Juneau's finest. They danced among people they didn't know. They danced in a place where the day before they were not welcome. There is an important lesson to be learned from the battles of Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich. Even in defeat, they knew that change would come from their participation in our political system. They were not discouraged by their defeat in 1943. They came back fighting and enjoyed the fruits of their victory 2 years later. Twenty-four years before Alaska's statehood and 18 years before Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of his dream for racial equity under the law, Alaska had a law protecting civil rights. Elizabeth would not live to see the United States adopt the same law she brought to Alaska in 1945. She passed away in 1958 at the age of 47, 6 years before civil rights legislation would pass nationally. In addition to the annual observance of Elizabeth Peratrovich Day, the State of Alaska has acknowledged Elizabeth Peratrovich's contribution to history by designating one of the public galleries in the Alaska House of Representatives as the Elizabeth Peratrovich Gallery. But what about Roy? Why has his role not been recognized? Roy Peratrovich passed away in 1989 at age 81. He died 9 days before the first Elizabeth Peratrovich Day was observed in the State of Alaska. Perhaps it was because Roy was still alive at the time this honor was bestowed, it is Elizabeth who has gotten all the credit for passage of the antidiscrimination Members of the Peratrovich family tell me that this is not entirely unjustified because without Elizabeth's stirring speech the antidiscrimination law would not have passed. But they also point out, as does the historical record, that Elizabeth and Roy were a focused and effective team. History should recognize that the antidiscrimination law was enacted due to the joint efforts of Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich. I rise today to do my part toward that end. Joined by my colleagues, the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and my distinguished colleague from the State of Washington, Ms. Cantwell, I am pleased to once again offer legislation to recognize the contributions of Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich with a Congressional Gold Medal. I invite all of my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Congressional Gold Medals have been awarded to a number of African Americans who have made contributions to the cause of civil rights, among them, Rosa Parks, Roy Wilkins, Dorothy Height, the nine brave individuals who desegregated the schools of Little Rock, Arkansas, and others involved in the effort to desegregate public education. With the opening of the very popular National Museum of the American Indian last year our Nation is focusing on the many contributions of our first people and the challenges they have faced throughout our Nation's history. It is time that we also acknowledge the work of American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians in the struggle for civil rights and social justice. Honoring Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich's substantial contribution with a Congressional Gold Medal is a fine start. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, more than 30 years have passed since Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which settled the aboriginal land claims of the first inhabitants of Alaska by making each eligible Alaska Native a shareholder in 1 of 13 regional corporations and many of these people shareholders in a village corporation as well. Each of the corporations was capitalized with land and money. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was a bold experiment, and its implementation was not without controversy. As originally enacted, the law provided that a shareholder of an Alaska Native Corporation could sell his or her stock on or after December 18, 1991, without any intervening action by the corporation. This provision could have resulted in massive sales of stock by Native shareholders in the ensuing years and caused the wholesale transfer of Native assets to non-Native interests. Thanks to the leadership of the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, this catastrophe was averted through a series of amendments to the Act, signed into law in 1987, which forbade the sale of corporate stock without the consent of the corporation's shareholders. This landmark legislation brought an end to the speculation about whether the Native corporations would survive long enough to fulfill the goal that Congress set for them, which was to be the springboard for the economic, social and political empowerment of Alaska's Native people, or alternatively execute the temporary transfer of land and capital which would ultimately end up in non-Native hands. I am proud, that none of the Native corporations have opened their stock to purchase by outsiders. In fact, I see nothing on the horizon to suggest that any of the corporations will take up this question in the foreseeable future. If history is any guide, the Alaska Native Corporations are destined to remain in Native hands for a long time to come. This is good news for the Native people of Alaska and it is good news for my State as a whole. I rise today to offer legislation, requested by the Alaska Federation of Natives and the Association of ANCSA Presidents and CEOs, which is intended to address a piece of unfinished business left by the 1987 amendments to the act. Under the act, as originally passed, stock in an Alaska Native corporation was generally only available to an Alaska Native born on or before December 18, 1971 and those who might inherit stock from a deceased shareholder. The original legislation gave little thought to offering those born after December 18, 1971 a role in the corporation. In effect, the original legislation disenfranchised an entire generation born after the cutoff date from having a stake in the Native corporations. It disenfranchised an entire generation of young people from playing a role in the governance of the Native corporations and from having an ownership interest in their Native lands. The 1987 amendments allowed the shareholders of a Native corporation to remedy this unintended consequence by allowing new stock to be issued to the descendants of a corporation's original shareholders provided that a majority of the outstanding shares agreed. Under the 1987 amendments, such stock could only be issued to those descendants who had one quarter or more Alaska Native blood. A subsequent technical amendment allowed the stock to be issued to descendants without regard to their blood quantum, at the option of each corporation's shareholders. Time has demonstrated that the remedy for incorporating the generation born after December 18, 1971 is an imperfect one. This is sad because one of the most important responsibilities faced by the Board of Directors of any corporation is to plan for its own succession and the succession of the corporation's leadership. Since 1987, less than a handful of the 13 regional Native corporations have put the question of enrolling the next generation to their shareholders. However, all of the corporations that have considered the question have voted in the affirmative. Why then have more corporations not taken the question to a vote? The answer seems to lie in the voting requirements imposed by the 1987 amendments, which essentially requires an affirmative vote of a supermajority of the shares represented in person or by proxy at a shareholder meeting. In order for a corporation to obtain an affirmative vote of a majority of its outstanding shares, something of the order of 80 percent of the corporation's stockholders must be represented at the meeting in person or by proxy. Under present law, any shareholder who does not attend the meeting or submit a proxy is deemed to have voted in the negative. When Doyon, Limited, the regional Native corporation for Interior Alaska, took the question of enrolling the generation of descendants born between 1971 and 1992 to its shareholders at its 1992 annual meeting, some 79.2 percent of the shareholders expressed an opinion in person or proxy. Still, the decision to approve the enrollment passed by the narrowest of margins. This was a record quorum for the corporation, which had 9,061 original shareholders, and the record has yet to be broken. Sealaska Corporation, the regional Native corporation for Southeast Alaska, had more original shareholders than any other regional Native corporation. Sealaska had 15,700 original shareholders, each owning 100 shares of stock. Sealaska has never enjoyed a quorum of 79.2 percent and is pessimistic that such a quorum could ever be mustered. Accordingly, Sealaska, which has been pondering the question of enrolling the next generation for many years, has been deterred from putting the question to a stockholder vote by the supermajority voting requirement in the 1987 amendment. Whether Sealaska enrolls the generation born after 1971 is not up to me. It is up to the shareholders of Sealaska. But I think the Congress owes it to the next generation of Alaska Natives to offer a level playing field when it comes to participation in their Native corporations. In addressing the Alaska Native community, I often make reference to a marvelous book by Alexandra J. McClanahan entitled ``Growing Up Native in Alaska.'' In this book, A.J. profiled 27 Alaska Natives born between 1957 and 1976 and allowed them in their own words to speak about what it means to be an Alaska Native. Some of the people profiled in the book received stock under the 1971 act while others missed the deadline. I will quote from this book for the Record. One of these 27 Alaska Natives is Jaeleen Kookesh-Araujo, a Tlingit Indian, who grew up in the village of Angoon, AK. Jaeleen is a bright young attorney who works at one of Washington's most respected law firms. She is precisely the type of person who is well positioned to lead her regional corporation, Sealaska, into the future. And she is one of many Alaska Natives who was born after December 18, 1971. Jaeleen has an opportunity to participate in Sealaska's governance because her parents gave her some of their stock as a gift, but she remains concerned that others of her generation have been left out. This is what Jaeleen said about why it is important to make stock available to the descendants. I am a shareholder thanks to my parents gifting me shares, but there are a lot of young people who are never going to be shareholders. If you have one parent with several children, they can try to allocate shares to all of them, but some may be left out. Or, maybe you have a Native child who has been adopted who doesn't have parents with shares--whatever. There are going to be a lot of young Native people left out of this corporate structure, and it's really sad. Eventually, there may be a problem because you're going to have a lot of young, talented Alaska Native people going out to get educated. They're going to have a lot of expertise and education in ways that might benefit the corporation, and yet you have to wonder if they're really going to want to be involved in these Native corporations that they don't even belong to. I do want to be involved in the Native corporations because this is my ancestors' land that they're managing and developing and protecting . . . I am not going to tell you that each of the 27 young people that A.J. profiled feels the same way. Another young Native profiled in A.J.'s book supported the status quo in spite of the fact that he was born 2 days after the cutoff. I really don't think it's necessary to adjust for the future generations. The idea of gifting and willing stock is a really efficient method, and I think we ought to stick with that, rather than having to expand and degrade the stock, allowing the children to be shareholders. It's unfair that we as children born after December 18th are not shareholders, but in order to keep the integrity of the stock, I think it's essential that we continue on with the method of granting, gifting and willing stock. The final quote is from a Doyon shareholder who was involved in that company's decision to make new stock available to those born between 1971 and 1992. When I first started I thought, ``I don't want my dividend to get smaller.'' I was an intern in Doyon's Shareholder Relations, so I was involved in the committee that was studying the issue to enroll children born after 1971. When it was time to vote, I thought: ``Darned if I'm letting my nieces and nephews not be involved.'' I was a total turnaround. There was no way I was going to leave them out. There was no difference between me and them. They were just born later. As you can see, there may not be unanimity on the question of whether new stock should be made available to the descendants. But I think we all can agree that the debate is a healthy one and the debate will not take place in earnest unless Congress relaxes the supermajority standard imposed by the 1987 amendments. The legislation I am introducing today would allow the shareholders of a Native corporation to authorize new stock for those born after December 18, 1971 by a majority vote of the shares present and voting at a duly constituted meeting of the shareholders. Shareholders who want to make the stock available will have the opportunity to vote yes. Those who do not will have the opportunity to vote no. Those who choose not to participate, place the fate of the question in the hands of those who choose to participate. The majority prevails. The 1987 amendments authorized Native corporations to make additional shares available to Native elders and to enroll those who were eligible to receive stock as original shareholders but who failed to enroll. The number of missed enrollees is expected to be small. My legislation would change the voting standard for these two categories to a majority of the shares present and voting as well. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this week the people of my State of Alaska pause to recognize two giant figures in the fight for equal rights and justice under the law, the late Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich. On February 16, 2005, the State of Alaska once again observed Elizabeth Peratrovich Day. Activities to celebrate the legacy of Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich are taking place in schools and cultural centers throughout Alaska this week. This coming Saturday, the Alaska Native Heritage Center in Anchorage will conduct a day-long celebration of the Peratrovich legacy. Roy and Elizabeth are to the Native peoples of Alaska what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks are to African Americans. Everybody knows about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, but hardly anyone outside the State of Alaska knows about Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich. Today, I rise to once again share the Peratrovich legacy with the Senate. Elizabeth was born in 1911, about 17 years before Dr. King. She was born in Petersburg, AK. After college she married Roy Peratrovich, a Tlingit from Klawock, AK, and the couple had three children. Roy and Elizabeth moved to Juneau. They were excited about buying a new home. But they could not buy the house that they wanted because they were Native. They could not enter the stores or restaurants they wanted. Outside some of these stores and restaurants there were signs that read ``No Natives Allowed.'' History has also recorded a sign that read ``No Dogs or Indians Allowed.'' On December 30, 1941, following the invasion of Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth and Roy wrote to Alaska's Territorial Governor: In the present emergency our Native boys are being called upon to defend our beloved country. There are no distinctions being made there. Yet when we patronized good business establishments we are told in most cases that Natives are not allowed. The proprietor of one business, an inn, does not seem to realize that our Native boys are just as willing to lay down their lives to protect the freedom he enjoys. Instead he shows his appreciation by having a `No Natives Allowed' sign on his door. In that letter Elizabeth and Roy noted: We were shocked when the Jews were discriminated against in Germany. Stories were told of public places having signs, ``No Jews Allowed.'' All freedom loving people were horrified at what was being practiced in Germany, yet it is being practiced in our own country. In 1943, the Alaska Legislature, at the behest of Roy and Elizabeth considered an antidiscrimination law. It was defeated. But Roy and Elizabeth were not defeated. Two years later, in 1945, the antidiscrimination measure was back before the Alaska Terrritorial Legislature. It passed the lower house, but met with stiff opposition in the Territorial Senate. One by one Senators took to the floor to debate the closely contested legislation. One Senator argued that ``the races should be kept further apart.'' This Senator went on to rhetorically question, ``Who are these people, barely out of savagery, who want to associate with us whites with 5,000 years of recorded civilization behind us?'' Elizabeth Peratrovich was observing the debate from the gallery. As a citizen, she asked to be heard and in accordance with the custom of the day was recognized to express her views. In a quiet, dignified and steady voice this ``fighter with velvet gloves'' responded, ``I would not have expected that I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind gentlemen with 5,000 years of recorded history behind them of our Bill of Rights.'' She was asked by a Senator if she thought the proposed bill would eliminate discrimination, Elizabeth Peratrovich queried in rebuttal, ``Do your laws against larceny and even murder prevent these crimes? No law will eliminate crimes but at least you as legislators can assert to the world that you recognize the evil of the present situation and speak your intent to help us overcome discrimination.'' When she finished, there was a wild burst of applause from the gallery and the Senate floor alike. The territorial Senate passed the bill by a vote of 11 to 5. On February 16, 1945, Alaska had an antidiscrimination law that provided that all citizens of the territory of Alaska are entitled to full and equal enjoyment of public accommodations. Following passage of the anti-discrimination law, Roy and Elizabeth could be seen dancing at the Baranof Hotel, one of Juneau's finest. They danced among people they didn't know. They danced in a place where the day before they were not welcome. There is an important lesson to be learned from the battles of Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich. Even in defeat, they knew that change would come from their participation in our political system. They were not discouraged by their defeat in 1943. They came back fighting and enjoyed the fruits of their victory 2 years later. Twenty-four years before Alaska's statehood and 18 years before Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of his dream for racial equity under the law, Alaska had a law protecting civil rights. Elizabeth would not live to see the United States adopt the same law she brought to Alaska in 1945. She passed away in 1958 at the age of 47, 6 years before civil rights legislation would pass nationally. In addition to the annual observance of Elizabeth Peratrovich Day, the State of Alaska has acknowledged Elizabeth Peratrovich's contribution to history by designating one of the public galleries in the Alaska House of Representatives as the Elizabeth Peratrovich Gallery. But what about Roy? Why has his role not been recognized? Roy Peratrovich passed away in 1989 at age 81. He died 9 days before the first Elizabeth Peratrovich Day was observed in the State of Alaska. Perhaps it was because Roy was still alive at the time this honor was bestowed, it is Elizabeth who has gotten all the credit for passage of the antidiscrimination Members of the Peratrovich family tell me that this is not entirely unjustified because without Elizabeth's stirring speech the antidiscrimination law would not have passed. But they also point out, as does the historical record, that Elizabeth and Roy were a focused and effective team. History should recognize that the antidiscrimination law was enacted due to the joint efforts of Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich. I rise today to do my part toward that end. Joined by my colleagues, the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and my distinguished colleague from the State of Washington, Ms. Cantwell, I am pleased to once again offer legislation to recognize the contributions of Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich with a Congressional Gold Medal. I invite all of my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Congressional Gold Medals have been awarded to a number of African Americans who have made contributions to the cause of civil rights, among them, Rosa Parks, Roy Wilkins, Dorothy Height, the nine brave individuals who desegregated the schools of Little Rock, Arkansas, and others involved in the effort to desegregate public education. With the opening of the very popular National Museum of the American Indian last year our Nation is focusing on the many contributions of our first people and the challenges they have faced throughout our Nation's history. It is time that we also acknowledge the work of American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians in the struggle for civil rights and social justice. Honoring Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich's substantial contribution with a Congressional Gold Medal is a fine start. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor an individual who is a credit to his nation, his government, and the office in which he serves. He has earned the admiration and appreciation of his staff, the respect of his colleagues, and the friendship of many of us here in Washington. Sadly, he is also a man whose current service in our Nation's Capital has come to an end, and he will soon be departing to return home. The man I am speaking of this morning is Canada's Ambassador to the United States, Mr. Michael Kergin. At the end of February, Ambassador Kergin will be returning to Canada after serving admirably here in Washington for the past 4-plus years. He assumed his position in October of 2000, just the 19th representative to the United States for our northern neighbor--our eastern neighbor for those of us in Alaska. His background prior to serving as Ambassador to the United States is impressive. He was born in a Canadian military hospital in England. Ambassador Kergin joined the Canadian Department of External Affairs in 1967. He served in New York, Cameroon, and Chile. He was Ambassador to Cuba from 1986 to 1989. In 1998, Ambassador Kergin was asked by Prime Minister Jean Chretian to serve as his Foreign Policy Adviser as well as Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet for Foreign and Defense Policy--the equivalent of our National Security Adviser. It is from this background that Ambassador Kergin drew when the terrorists attacked on September 11, 2001. If you were to ask the Ambassador about his most memorable activities while here in Washington, working with his U.S. counterparts to prevent further terrorist attacks would rank toward the top of that list--taking our border relations to the next level to fight terrorism by implementing the Smart Border Process to keep terrorists out while allowing for the legitimate flow of commerce and visitors between our nations. It is appropriate to remember, as we are again considering comprehensive energy legislation, that Ambassador Kergin played a key role in the aftermath of the August 2003 blackout that hit the Northeast through the Canada-United States Power Outage Task Force, which was to improve our integrated electricity grid. I would also be remiss if I did not mention the Ambassador's work to develop natural gas pipelines from both Canada's MacKenzie Delta and Alaska's North Slope to meet our common energy needs. Mr. President, many of my colleagues from the West are quick to point out the differences between Eastern and Western United States. Canada is much the same. And when you look at a map, it is readily apparent that the seats of government for both nations are very much in the East. So it was a pleasant surprise for me when I first met Ambassador Kergin to learn that he was from British Columbia. When Alaskans speak about fishing or timber or mining issues, he gets it. He understands the Alaskans' point of view. I look forward to working with Ambassador Kergin's successor, but I will also miss the good Ambassador's presence here in Washington, DC. So I would like to say to him: Mr. Ambassador, thank you for your service in our Nation's Capital, and thank you for your willingness to work so closely with Congress and the American people to continue our strong relationship. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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