Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two related pieces of legislation addressing inequities that affect seaplane operators and passengers in rural areas. Both of these were included in S. 1072 when it passed the Senate last year, but because that business remains unfinished, it is necessary to reintroduce them. The first of these--on which Senator Stevens is joining me as a cosponsor, is a modification to the definition of a ``rural airport.'' The law adopted in 1997 provides for a per-passenger fee--now $3.20--on each domestic flight segment. Rural airports were exempted from the tax on the grounds it was intended to cover increased security costs for airports handling large aircraft and international flights. The law defines a rural airport as one which--for a given calendar year--has fewer than 100,000 departures in the second preceding calendar year, and which either received essential air service subsidies as of August 5, 1997, or is more than 75 miles from a larger airport. The latter provision is a significant problem in my State. It was intended to reflect the fact that 75 miles is not really a long way to drive to and from an airport. Unfortunately, that assumes there is a road to drive on. That's not always the case. My State has a number of small community airports that are within 75 miles of a larger airport, but where there are no roads connecting the two. Thus, passengers cannot choose to drive to the larger airport. In order to fly to their ultimate destination, they are forced to fly from their village to the larger airport, where the passenger tax is legitimately collected. The bottom line is that these rural residents are unfairly taxed at least twice as much as all the other passengers leaving from the larger airport. My bill simply adds this one additional unique criterion to the definition of a rural airport--that it may include a small airport that is within 75 miles from a larger one, but where there is no road connection between the two. The second bill I am introducing today--along with Senator Stevens and Senator Murray--is also intended to correct an inequity. Air passenger transportation is subject to a 7.5 percent excise tax in addition to the $3.20 per-segment fee. This generates revenue that goes toward the maintenance and improvements of airports receiving Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding. However, in several cases in Alaska, and in at least one case in the State of Washington, the taxes are imposed on seaplane operators who land on and take off from open waters, not from facilities using AIP funds, and which rarely if ever make use of FAA communication and navigation systems. It should be a fundamental tenet that those who do not receive a service should not be required to pay for it. That is exactly the basis for my second bill. Both these proposals have been in circulation for several years. Each of them has been estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to have negligible impacts on revenue--less than $2 million per year for the rural airport definition and less than $1 million for the excise tax. In that connection, it should also be noted that even if the excise tax for seaplane operators is eliminated, they will still be paying their fair share because they will automatically begin paying higher fuel taxes. The latter will go up from 4.4 cents per gallon to 19.4 cents per gallon for aviation gasoline and to 21.9 cents per gallon for jet fuel. I encourage my colleagues' support of these two important measures. I ask unanimous consent that the text of both measures be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two related pieces of legislation addressing inequities that affect seaplane operators and passengers in rural areas. Both of these were included in S. 1072 when it passed the Senate last year, but because that business remains unfinished, it is necessary to reintroduce them. The first of these--on which Senator Stevens is joining me as a cosponsor, is a modification to the definition of a ``rural airport.'' The law adopted in 1997 provides for a per-passenger fee--now $3.20--on each domestic flight segment. Rural airports were exempted from the tax on the grounds it was intended to cover increased security costs for airports handling large aircraft and international flights. The law defines a rural airport as one which--for a given calendar year--has fewer than 100,000 departures in the second preceding calendar year, and which either received essential air service subsidies as of August 5, 1997, or is more than 75 miles from a larger airport. The latter provision is a significant problem in my State. It was intended to reflect the fact that 75 miles is not really a long way to drive to and from an airport. Unfortunately, that assumes there is a road to drive on. That's not always the case. My State has a number of small community airports that are within 75 miles of a larger airport, but where there are no roads connecting the two. Thus, passengers cannot choose to drive to the larger airport. In order to fly to their ultimate destination, they are forced to fly from their village to the larger airport, where the passenger tax is legitimately collected. The bottom line is that these rural residents are unfairly taxed at least twice as much as all the other passengers leaving from the larger airport. My bill simply adds this one additional unique criterion to the definition of a rural airport--that it may include a small airport that is within 75 miles from a larger one, but where there is no road connection between the two. The second bill I am introducing today--along with Senator Stevens and Senator Murray--is also intended to correct an inequity. Air passenger transportation is subject to a 7.5 percent excise tax in addition to the $3.20 per-segment fee. This generates revenue that goes toward the maintenance and improvements of airports receiving Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding. However, in several cases in Alaska, and in at least one case in the State of Washington, the taxes are imposed on seaplane operators who land on and take off from open waters, not from facilities using AIP funds, and which rarely if ever make use of FAA communication and navigation systems. It should be a fundamental tenet that those who do not receive a service should not be required to pay for it. That is exactly the basis for my second bill. Both these proposals have been in circulation for several years. Each of them has been estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to have negligible impacts on revenue--less than $2 million per year for the rural airport definition and less than $1 million for the excise tax. In that connection, it should also be noted that even if the excise tax for seaplane operators is eliminated, they will still be paying their fair share because they will automatically begin paying higher fuel taxes. The latter will go up from 4.4 cents per gallon to 19.4 cents per gallon for aviation gasoline and to 21.9 cents per gallon for jet fuel. I encourage my colleagues' support of these two important measures. I ask unanimous consent that the text of both measures be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Campbell and Inouye in submitting a resolution to honor American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian veterans for their service in the Armed Forces of the United States and to designate November 7, 2004 as ``National Native American Veterans Day''. This is the second consecutive year that such a resolution has been introduced. November 7, 2003 was designated as National Native American Veterans Day in accordance with Senate Resolution 239. I was proud to join with Senator Campbell, our distinguished chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and Senator Inouye, the distinguished vice chairman of the committee, and others of my colleagues in cosponsoring that resolution. As the events of conflict in Iraq continue we all hope and pray for the safe return of the men and women who are overseas, far from home protecting our Nation and others. We continue to honor the memory of Army Private First Class Lori Piestewa, a Hopi woman, who fought valiantly and bravely to protect her fellow soldiers during the invasion of Iraq. This year we also remember other Native people who lost their lives in Iraq over the past year. Army Sergeant Lee Duane Todacheene, Marine Lance Corporal Quinn A. Keith, Army Private First Class Harry Shondee, Jr, members of the Navajo Nation, and Army Private First Class Sheldon Hawk Eagle, Cheyenne River Sioux, whose Indian name was Wanbli Ohitika, or Brave Eagle. I apologize if I have failed to acknowledge a brave Native person who lost his or her life in Iraq. Native people, and especially the Native people of my State of Alaska, revere, admire, and respect our veterans and those who continue to serve. They pray for ones still in battle, alongside their fellow Americans, so that they can have a safe journey back to their loving homes and families. They pray for the ones who have fought, and now, continue their journey through life's struggles. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this resolution that commemorates the annual Red Ribbon Week. The purpose of Red Ribbon Week is to educate and advocate a commitment to a drug-free life style. Red Ribbon Week also remembers the contribution of one soldier in the war against drugs, DEA Special Agent Enrique ``Kiki'' Camerena. I am honored to seek the Senate's recognition and support again for the Annual Red Ribbon Campaign. In my State of Alaska, Red Ribbon Week will be a Statewide celebration involving thousands of school children and those people and organizations who care about the welfare of our children and community. On October 22, the City of Anchorage of will celebrate with a series of Red Ribbon events coordinating with the Alaska Federation of Natives, the Alaska National Guard, the Alaska State Troopers, the Mayor of Anchorage, the Boys & Girls Clubs of Alaska, many PTA groups and many others across the community. Throughout the week, Alaskans will be encouraged to show gratitude for all the lives that remain drug free, pledge to live a safe and drug-free life and remember those we have lost in the fight against drugs. The Red Ribbon Week Campaign was started in 1988 by the Federation of Parents. It was organized as a 8-day event and was then chaired by President and Mrs. Reagan. The event began as a tribute to DEA Special Agent Enrique ``Kiki'' Camerena who was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by drug traffickers in 1985. I suggest to those who advocate that drugs are a victimless crime talk to the widow and children of Agent Camerena. His sons, Erik and Enrique, Jr. continue to honor their father and work to help children and families that are victims of crimes. His death has become symbolic of the cost of illicit drugs. The Red Ribbon which we put on is a symbol of zero tolerance for illegal drug use and a commitment to drug abuse prevention. The ribbon will be worn or displayed in the up coming Red Ribbon Week by millions of Americans in an act of unity and remembrance of Agent ``Kiki'' Camerena. Illicit drugs, the abuse of drugs, and the business of illegal drugs are not a private matter. Drugs harm children. Drugs harm our communities. Illegal drugs only facilitate dependency, addiction and the breakdown of the families. Alaska has the highest rates of domestic violence in the Nation and one of the highest rates of sexual assault in the Nation. According to the Anchorage Police Department in almost 80 percent of these cases alcohol and drugs were contributing factors to these crimes. In one rural area of Alaska, 97 percent of all the domestic cases involve drugs or alcohol. We must encourage our children to make better choices by making the same commitment in our own lives. We as parents and leaders must set good examples. Our children are growing up in a community that continues to send confusing and mixed signals. Our children are confronting difficult choices on a continuous basis. The popular idols in the media, the movies, television, and music often encourage them to make the wrong decisions. The Red Ribbon Campaign is one effort to help our children make the right decisions. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this resolution to help illustrate the Senate's commitment to ensure our children are safe and to encourage all people to live a healthy drug-free life.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month and as an Alaskan, I welcome this opportunity to discuss a problem my State has been combating for decades. In 2002, more women per capita were killed by men they knew in Alaska than in any other State. During the last 5 years, over 18,000 domestic violence charges have been filed in Alaska, and this statistic does not include incidences where a women decided not to press charges. Since 1976, Alaska has ranked in the top five States for the highest rate of rape per 100,000 total inhabitants. The epidemic domestic violence and sexual assault rates in Alaska constitute a serious public crisis and our State is dedicated to finding solutions for this problem. In the spirit of that commitment, I helped organize a summit with the Department of Justice to discuss the unique challenges that Alaska faces. The summit provided a forum for law enforcement, nonprofit organizations, governmental entities, health personnel and advocates to come together to openly discuss the multiple issues associated with this crisis. The summit covered a wide range of topics, including the role of responders to domestic violence, the best practices to implement in communities and the identification of training needs. The summit gave different entities the opportunity to convene, collaborate, and openly discuss solutions that will help us prevent domestic violence and sexual assault. The summit was a solid first step in an ongoing effort in our State. There are no simple solutions to the problem of domestic violence, but we do know that education and programs that take a proactive approach can help turn the tide on this issue. This year I secured several earmarks in the CJS appropriations bill in response to the domestic violence problem that Alaska is facing. Funds will be provided to the State of Alaska for a sexual assault/domestic violence prosecution unit. Funds will also be available for a new domestic violence prevention project to allow for a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of domestic violence cases. Money was also attained to offer services to victims whose lives have been impacted by violent crime. Addressing the public crisis posed by domestic violence and sexual assault is a two-front effort. On one front, we are working to meet the immediate needs of the victims of these crimes, ensuring they have the resources they need to recover. On the other, we are working on the long term goals of raising awareness and educating the public. Domestic Violence Awareness Month is a vital part of that effort. In many cases, victims of domestic violence wrongly believe they are responsible for what has happened to them. We must work to alter the social stigma associated with being a victim of domestic violence. That stigma belongs to those who commit crimes, not their victims. By taking care of victims, prosecuting offenders, and educating the public about this issue, I believe we can begin to end a serious problem that has plagued our communities and our citizens for far too long. Many of my colleagues have pledged their support in this effort, and I look forward to working with them on additional solutions to address this problem.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Carole Edwards, RN, BSN, of Juneau, AK. Carole is the first recipient of the Oncology Nursing Society, ONS, Excellence in Oncology Nursing Health Policy and Advocacy Award. ONS established the award this year to acknowledge the efforts of the many oncology nurses who participate as state health policy liaisons and other members who are active in advocacy efforts. Cancer is a complex, multifaceted and chronic disease, and people with cancer are best served by a multidisciplinary health care team specialized in oncology care, including nurses who are certified in that specialty. This year alone, 1.3 million Americans will hear the words, ``You have cancer.'' In addition, 556,000 will lose their battle with this terrible disease. Every day, oncology nurses see the pain and suffering caused by cancer and understand the physical, emotional, and financial challenges that people with cancer face throughout their diagnosis and treatment. Oncology nurses play a central role in the provision of quality cancer care as they are principally involved in the administration and monitoring of chemotherapy and the associated side-effects patients may experience. The Oncology Nursing Society is the largest organization of oncology health professionals in the world, with more than 31,000 registered nurses and other health care professionals nationwide. Since 1975, the ONS has been dedicated to excellence in patient care, teaching, research, administration and education in the field of oncology. To that end, ONS honors and maintains an historical and essential commitment to advocacy for the public good by providing nurses and healthcare professionals with access to the highest quality educational programs, cancer-care resources, research opportunities and networks for peer support. On behalf of the people with cancer and their families in my home State of Alaska, I would like to acknowledge Carole Edwards and thank her and ONS for their ongoing commitment to improving and assuring access to quality cancer care for all cancer patients and their families. Through Carole's and ONS's leadership, our Nation is charting a course that will help us win the war on cancer. I urge my colleagues to support them in their important endeavors.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was proud to join with my colleagues and tens of thousands of America's first peoples, including a substantial contingent of Alaska Natives, in participating in the opening ceremonies for the National Museum of the American Indian. I don't have to tell you what a special week this was for the first peoples of America and particularly for my Alaska Native people. We take pride in our new National Museum of the American Indian and all that it represents. First and foremost, it represents a commitment on the part of the American people that the substantial contributions of American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians be preserved in perpetuity in a prominent location adjacent to the U.S. Capitol. It represents a commitment that the Native experience will not be lost to history. Today, I want to share with the Senate a piece of Native history that is very significant to the Native people of Alaska and indeed, the first peoples of our entire Nation. It is the story of a Tlingit couple, Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich. 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. That is going to change today. 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 anti-discrimination law. It was defeated. But Roy and Elizabeth were not defeated. Two years later, in 1945, the anti- discrimination measure was back before the Alaska Legislature. It passed the lower house, but met with stiff opposition in the Alaska Senate. One by one Senators took to the floor to argue against the mixing of the races. A church leader testified that it would take thirty to one hundred years before Alaska Natives would reach the equality of the white man. Elizabeth Peratrovich rose from the gallery and said she would like to be heard. She was recognized, as was the custom of the day. In a quiet, dignified and steady voice she said, ``I would not have expected that I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind gentleman with five thousand 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 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 eleven to five. On February 16, 1945, Alaska had an anti-discrimination law that provided 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 two years later. Nineteen years before the United States Congress prohibited discrimination in public accommodations in the Civil Rights Act of 1964; eighteen years before Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of his dream on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial--Alaska had a civil rights law. 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. The State of Alaska has acknowledged Elizabeth Peratrovich's contribution to history by designating February 16 of each year as Elizabeth Peratrovich Day. It has also designated 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 that has gotten all the credit for passage of the anti-discrimination law. Members of the Peratrovich family tell me that this is not entirely unjustified because without Elizabeth's stirring speech the anti- discrimination 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 anti-discrimination 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 colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Mr. Campbell and the distinguished Vice Chairman of that committee, Mr. Inouye, I offer legislation to recognize the contributions of Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich with a Congressional Gold Medal. 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. As our Nation focuses on the many contributions of our first people and the challenges they have faced throughout our Nation's history with the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian, it is high 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 legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was proud to join with my colleagues and tens of thousands of America's first peoples, including a substantial contingent of Alaska Natives, in participating in the opening ceremonies for the National Museum of the American Indian. I don't have to tell you what a special week this was for the first peoples of America and particularly for my Alaska Native people. We take pride in our new National Museum of the American Indian and all that it represents. First and foremost, it represents a commitment on the part of the American people that the substantial contributions of American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians be preserved in perpetuity in a prominent location adjacent to the U.S. Capitol. It represents a commitment that the Native experience will not be lost to history. Today, I want to share with the Senate a piece of Native history that is very significant to the Native people of Alaska and indeed, the first peoples of our entire Nation. It is the story of a Tlingit couple, Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich. 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. That is going to change today. 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 anti-discrimination law. It was defeated. But Roy and Elizabeth were not defeated. Two years later, in 1945, the anti- discrimination measure was back before the Alaska Legislature. It passed the lower house, but met with stiff opposition in the Alaska Senate. One by one Senators took to the floor to argue against the mixing of the races. A church leader testified that it would take thirty to one hundred years before Alaska Natives would reach the equality of the white man. Elizabeth Peratrovich rose from the gallery and said she would like to be heard. She was recognized, as was the custom of the day. In a quiet, dignified and steady voice she said, ``I would not have expected that I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind gentleman with five thousand 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 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 eleven to five. On February 16, 1945, Alaska had an anti-discrimination law that provided 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 two years later. Nineteen years before the United States Congress prohibited discrimination in public accommodations in the Civil Rights Act of 1964; eighteen years before Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of his dream on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial--Alaska had a civil rights law. 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. The State of Alaska has acknowledged Elizabeth Peratrovich's contribution to history by designating February 16 of each year as Elizabeth Peratrovich Day. It has also designated 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 that has gotten all the credit for passage of the anti-discrimination law. Members of the Peratrovich family tell me that this is not entirely unjustified because without Elizabeth's stirring speech the anti- discrimination 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 anti-discrimination 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 colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Mr. Campbell and the distinguished Vice Chairman of that committee, Mr. Inouye, I offer legislation to recognize the contributions of Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich with a Congressional Gold Medal. 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. As our Nation focuses on the many contributions of our first people and the challenges they have faced throughout our Nation's history with the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian, it is high 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 legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, there is a standing joke among longtime Alaskans that visitors who come to Anchorage to view our glittering skyline, set off against the grandeur of the Chugach Mountains and the placid beauty of the Cook Inlet, haven't seen the ``real Alaska.'' Whether one agrees with this observation or not, all will agree that one does not have to travel far from Anchorage to experience our unique natural beauty and abundant wildlife. About 45 minutes from downtown Anchorage, easily accessible on paved roads, there is an oasis in Chugach State Park called the ``Eagle River Nature Center.'' The Eagle River Nature Center nestled in the Chugach Mountains is home to interpretive programs all year around. It is the starting point for miles of well-groomed hiking trails from which one can view moose and occasionally encounter bear. It has been described in terms like ``glorious, enchanting and captivating.'' A place to view snow covered mountains in hues of pink and orange illuminated by the alpenglow sunset. It is a place where John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt would feel right at home. Born as the Chugach State Park Visitor Center, the facility was in danger of being lost to budget cuts. By 1996, the budget had dwindled to a mere $14,000 from $185,000 in 1981. The center needed a savior. Then along came a remarkable individual, Richard D. ``Dick'' Lloyd. Dick recognized that volunteers can accomplish things that government agencies cannot and organized the existing volunteers into a non-profit organization to operate the facility. Dick and his wife Carole and Asta Spurgis formed the Friends of the Nature Center which took over and revitalized the visitor center and turned it into the world-class nature center it is today. I have the sad duty of informing the Senate that Dick Lloyd passed away on August 22, 2004 from pancreatic cancer at the age of 60. Dick's death was not sudden. He learned of his condition just before Christmas of 2002 when doctors predicted that he would have a few months to live. But Dick didn't view this diagnosis as an excuse to slow down. Much to the contrary, he devoted his remaining days to the nature center he loved, sledding down the hills adjacent to the center in the winter, giving encouragement to young people maintaining the trails in the summer perched on a lawn chair because he was too weak to offer physical help. Some twenty days before his death he was promoting the nature center's hike-a-thon event called the ``Coyote Crawl''. In the words of his beloved wife Carole, ``That was Dick. He was taking care of his baby to the end.'' As Chief Executive Officer, Executive Director and co-founder of the Friends of Eagle River Nature Center, Dick's hard work, vision and stamina led the way in transforming the center into a model for public- private partnership in managing public parklands. Today, through his dedication and leadership, it is a centerpiece of Chugach State Park, providing unparalleled educational, economic and outdoor opportunities on a year-round basis. For local students, it provides hands-on learning experiences with classes on natural sciences and the environment. For the Eagle River community, it generates significant economic activity by attracting tens of thousands of visitors each year from around the area and around the world. And for those who simply share Dick's love of Alaska's wild outdoors, it offers countless camping, hiking and other recreational opportunities. Through the legacy of the Eagle River Nature Center, generations to come will share in the legacy of Richard D. Lloyd, a man with the vision to have a dream, the courage to pursue it and the strength to make it a reality.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe all Americans should have access to affordable, high-quality health care. Rising health care costs impose a burden on families and small businesses and put coverage out of reach for many Americans. According to the most recent Census Bureau findings, 45 million Americans lack health insurance; about 200,000 of the 45 million were Alaskans. The vast majority, nearly 80 percent, of uninsured Alaskans in 2003-2004 were employed or members of working families. As part of the effort to address this problem, I have introduced legislation that will increase the number of insured Americans. The SAVE (Securing Access, Value, and Equality) Health Care Act offers a solution to the problems of accessibility, portability, and choice. My plan does not just increase funding for current government programs; my plan provides a path to greater opportunity, more freedom, and more control over your own health care and your own future. The SAVE Health Care Act would provide working class Americans with a tax credit that they can use to purchase health insurance. The act targets three-quarters of the total number of uninsured Americans by setting eligibility at 350 percent of poverty, or an Alaskan's annual income of $41,000 for an individual or $82,000 for a family of four. To help make health coverage more affordable for low and middle- income individuals and families who do not have employer-provided coverage and who are not eligible for the expanded public programs, this legislation would provide a refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 for individuals and up to $3,000 for families, which could be advanced on a monthly basis. The SAVE Act would also cover an additional 50 percent of any health insurance premiums not covered by the basic credit. This provision is targeted to help those who need health insurance the most--those who are sick, have pre-existing health conditions, or older Americans whose insurance prices are higher and who do not have access to employer- based insurance. A tax credit proposal without this type of additional assistance would only help insure the young and the healthy because their premiums are the lowest and most within reach financially. The additional credit is a key part of providing coverage to Americans with the greatest need. The SAVE Act would allow those who have access to employer-sponsored plans to have up to one-half of the credit they are eligible for to help them pay for their portion of the health insurance premiums. This credit amount is a balance designed to help employees afford their portion of employer-sponsored coverage without providing employers an incentive to shift more costs to their employees. The SAVE Act includes a provision that would make the premiums for qualified high-deductible health insurance plans that coordinate with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) tax-deductible. Both individuals and their employers can contribute tax free dollars to an HSA, and the individual can use these dollars for qualifying out-of-pocket medical expenses. The SAVE Act provides small business owners a refundable tax credit for contributions they make to their employees' HSAs in the amount of $500 per worker with family coverage and $200 per worker with individual coverage. More than half of the uninsured are small business employees and their families. In addition to reducing the number of our nation's uninsured, this legislation will create an incentive for personal savings while shaping a health care marketplace driven by consumer choice. The SAVE Act would extend and expand the State high risk pool health insurance grant program that was established under the Trade Adjustment Act of 2002. Alaska is one of 31 States that currently operates a high risk pool. I commend the work of the Alaska Comprehensive Health Insurance Association (ACHIA), the nonprofit organization that provides health insurance to 467 Alaska residents who would otherwise be denied coverage because of medical conditions. Under this legislation, Alaska will receive a portion of the $75 million allocated in this legislation to continue to operate our high risk pool and to continue insuring Alaskans that really need this program. The SAVE Act would establish a grant program in which States would be encouraged to establish Voluntary Choice Cooperatives, or VCCs. VCCs essentially increase the clout of small businesses in negotiating with insurers. Premiums are generally higher for small businesses because they do not have as much purchasing power as large companies. This limits the ability of small businesses to bargain for lower rates. They also have higher administrative costs because they have fewer employees among whom to spread the fixed cost of a health benefits plan. Moreover, VCCs decrease the risk of adverse selection and spread the cost of health care over a broader group. I believe this well-rounded approach will provide significant help with the cost and availability of health insurance, and make a real difference in reducing the number of uninsured Americans.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe all Americans should have access to affordable, high-quality health care. Rising health care costs impose a burden on families and small businesses and put coverage out of reach for many Americans. According to the most recent Census Bureau findings, 45 million Americans lack health insurance; about 200,000 of the 45 million were Alaskans. The vast majority, nearly 80 percent, of uninsured Alaskans in 2003-2004 were employed or members of working families. As part of the effort to address this problem, I have introduced legislation that will increase the number of insured Americans. The SAVE (Securing Access, Value, and Equality) Health Care Act offers a solution to the problems of accessibility, portability, and choice. My plan does not just increase funding for current government programs; my plan provides a path to greater opportunity, more freedom, and more control over your own health care and your own future. The SAVE Health Care Act would provide working class Americans with a tax credit that they can use to purchase health insurance. The act targets three-quarters of the total number of uninsured Americans by setting eligibility at 350 percent of poverty, or an Alaskan's annual income of $41,000 for an individual or $82,000 for a family of four. To help make health coverage more affordable for low and middle- income individuals and families who do not have employer-provided coverage and who are not eligible for the expanded public programs, this legislation would provide a refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 for individuals and up to $3,000 for families, which could be advanced on a monthly basis. The SAVE Act would also cover an additional 50 percent of any health insurance premiums not covered by the basic credit. This provision is targeted to help those who need health insurance the most--those who are sick, have pre-existing health conditions, or older Americans whose insurance prices are higher and who do not have access to employer- based insurance. A tax credit proposal without this type of additional assistance would only help insure the young and the healthy because their premiums are the lowest and most within reach financially. The additional credit is a key part of providing coverage to Americans with the greatest need. The SAVE Act would allow those who have access to employer-sponsored plans to have up to one-half of the credit they are eligible for to help them pay for their portion of the health insurance premiums. This credit amount is a balance designed to help employees afford their portion of employer-sponsored coverage without providing employers an incentive to shift more costs to their employees. The SAVE Act includes a provision that would make the premiums for qualified high-deductible health insurance plans that coordinate with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) tax-deductible. Both individuals and their employers can contribute tax free dollars to an HSA, and the individual can use these dollars for qualifying out-of-pocket medical expenses. The SAVE Act provides small business owners a refundable tax credit for contributions they make to their employees' HSAs in the amount of $500 per worker with family coverage and $200 per worker with individual coverage. More than half of the uninsured are small business employees and their families. In addition to reducing the number of our nation's uninsured, this legislation will create an incentive for personal savings while shaping a health care marketplace driven by consumer choice. The SAVE Act would extend and expand the State high risk pool health insurance grant program that was established under the Trade Adjustment Act of 2002. Alaska is one of 31 States that currently operates a high risk pool. I commend the work of the Alaska Comprehensive Health Insurance Association (ACHIA), the nonprofit organization that provides health insurance to 467 Alaska residents who would otherwise be denied coverage because of medical conditions. Under this legislation, Alaska will receive a portion of the $75 million allocated in this legislation to continue to operate our high risk pool and to continue insuring Alaskans that really need this program. The SAVE Act would establish a grant program in which States would be encouraged to establish Voluntary Choice Cooperatives, or VCCs. VCCs essentially increase the clout of small businesses in negotiating with insurers. Premiums are generally higher for small businesses because they do not have as much purchasing power as large companies. This limits the ability of small businesses to bargain for lower rates. They also have higher administrative costs because they have fewer employees among whom to spread the fixed cost of a health benefits plan. Moreover, VCCs decrease the risk of adverse selection and spread the cost of health care over a broader group. I believe this well-rounded approach will provide significant help with the cost and availability of health insurance, and make a real difference in reducing the number of uninsured Americans.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, earlier this week the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation selected an outstanding Alaskan, Katherine Gottlieb, as one of 23 distinguished Americans who have been designated MacArthur Foundation Fellows for 2004. The MacArthur Fellowship is better known as the ``Genius Award'' and that term aptly describes my friend, Katherine Gottlieb. Katherine, who is of Aleut and Filipino descent, is the Chief Executive Officer of Southcentral Foundation, which provides primary health care services to some 40,000 Alaska Natives in Anchorage and Southcentral Alaska. Southcentral Foundation is also a partner in the management and operation of the cutting edge Alaska Native Medical Center. Notwithstanding her lofty title, Katherine is no ``corner office'' executive. Her first job at Southcentral Foundation's headquarters in Anchorage was receptionist. She took the job while undertaking undergraduate work at Alaska Pacific University. She worked her way up the ranks at Southcentral Foundation and went on to earn an MBA at Alaska Pacific University. But Katherine didn't go to school in Anchorage to prepare for a career in healthcare. By the time she arrived in Anchorage, she had already demonstrated her commitment to the wellbeing of her Native people. Katherine began her healthcare career as a community health aide in her hometown of Seldovia, AK, a community of about 306 people which is not connected by road to the rest of Alaska, much less the continental United States. In the roadless villages of rural Alaska, community health aides provide the link between the patient and medical resources available in the larger communities. Alaska's Community Health Aides are the front line health providers in our last frontier. Perhaps it was this formative experience that led Katherine to champion the implementation of a patient centered healthcare delivery model at Southcentral Foundation. The MacArthur Foundation does not officially explain which qualities led them to select a particular nominee as a fellow. They explain that the fellowship is an investment in a person's originality, insight and potential. But their announcement offers some clues about what led the foundation to select Katherine. The announcement observes that Katherine, by championing this patient centered delivery model, has transformed health care and related health programs in her Alaska Native community. On February 10, 2003, Dr. Douglas Eby, Southcentral Foundation's Vice President for Medical Services, accepted the Indian Health Service Physician Leader of the Year Award. In his acceptance address he described the genesis of the patient centered delivery system as follows: The Native community and Southcentral Foundation asked for a primary care system that was truly centered on the needs and wants of the patient and family, that was built on the foundational strengths and values already present in the Native community, that fully partnered with the patient and family, providing them with the information and tools they needed in their journey toward wellness, that provided optimal quality and access to every single Alaska Native and American Indian eligible for services . . . What we did was to take the best pieces of programs we could find nationally and internationally that supported the vision of the Anchorage Native community and Southcentral Foundation leadership and created our own system of care. This system allows over 40,000 individuals and families to choose their primary care provider, enter into a long-term trusting relationship with them, have same day access for any reason, and fully partner in their journey toward wellness. It has resulted in these primary care patients decreasing their daytime use of the Urgent Care Center and Emergency Room by about 50%, use of specialty clinics by over 30% and total primary care visits by about 20%. Quality of care measures such as immunization rates, cancer screening rates, depression screening/treatment, chronic pain screening/ treatment, etc. have all maintained or significantly improved. Patient satisfaction measures have been very positive. Support systems such as health education, nutrition, and social services have been fully integrated into the system. Dr. Eby pointed out in that acceptance address that the patient centered health care model would not have been implemented without the visionary leadership of Katherine Gottlieb. In Dr. Eby's words, ``This journey was going to happen. Katherine Gottlieb would accept nothing less.'' The patient centered health care initiative is one of Katherine's many contributions. The MacArthur Foundation also took note of Katherine's creation of the Family Wellness Warriors Initiative, which seeks to revitalize the traditional role of Alaska Native men as protectors and providers, making them less inclined to fall into a pattern of domestic abuse. They acknowledged Katherine's leadership with respect to the Dena A Coy Residential Treatment Center, which is the first residential facility for pregnant women in the United States focusing on prevention of fetal alcohol disorders and Pathway Home, a transitional living center which addresses the challenges of substance abuse, violence and suicide among Native teenagers. These are just a few of the 75 medical, behavioral health and community services that moved the MacArthur Foundation to conclude, ``Under Katherine Gottlieb's leadership, the Southcentral Foundation network has demonstrated that high-quality health care and effective preventive services are possible, even in communities facing obstacles of poverty and geographic isolation.'' Alaska has known for many years what a treasure we have in Katherine Gottlieb. Now the Nation knows too. But Katherine is not one to rest on her laurels. An innovator and an entrepreneur, I have no doubt that this recognition will spur Katherine to even greater heights. But one thing is for sure. Katherine Gottlieb will never forget where she came from. She is anchored by the strength of her faith and her values and grounded by her Native heritage. I join with all Alaskans in congratulating Katherine Gottlieb on this extraordinary accomplishment.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is a fact that scientists, the media and the public are gradually 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. News reports are now common 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 demonstrating that farmed salmon fed vegetable-based food does not have the same beneficial impact on cardio-vascular health, but that the demand for non-vegetable-based food for fish farms may be decimating populations of other key fish species. 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. And yet, despite abundant evidence that fish farming practices are deeply problematic, a small cadre of federal bureaucrats continues to push hard for legislation that would encourage the development of huge new fish farms off our coasts. These same people have been pushing the idea for a number of years, and are closer than ever to presenting draft legislation that would vastly expand fish farming by encouraging the development of new farms in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone from 3 to 200 miles offshore. Not only does this small group want to encourage such development, but reports indicate they want to change the rules to place all the decision-making authority over new farms in the hands of just one agency--which just happens to be theirs--rather than continue the current system where authority is spread among the agencies with the greatest expertise in different areas, such as hydraulic engineering, environmental protection, fish biology, etc. We cannot afford a rush to judgment on this issue--it is far too dangerous if we make a mistake. The Natural Stock Conservation Act I am introducing today lays down a marker for where this debate needs to go. It would prohibit the development of new offshore aqua-culture operations until Congress has acted to ensure every federal agency involved does the necessary analyses in areas such as disease control, engineering, pollution prevention, biological and genetic impacts, and other critical issues, none of which are specifically required under existing law. I realize it is far too late in this session to anticipate action on such a controversial and complex issue, but I intend this bill to stimulate further debate on this issue next year, as Congress begins serious work on the future of our ocean programs in response to the U.S. Ocean Commission report. I intend to pursue this discussion vigorously, and I will be calling on other coastal senators to work with me. 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 ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 138 which was submitted earlier today by Senator Stevens.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of the nomination of Neil McPhie, PN-1267, and further that the nomination be placed on the Executive Calendar.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of the following nominations: John Sununu, PN 1951; Patrick Leahy, PN 1950; Stuart Holliday, PN 1131; and the foreign service nominations list, PN 1828, which is at the desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to their consideration, the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in morning business until the weekly party lunches. Tomorrow afternoon, the Senate will take up the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. Under the previous agreement, there will be 1 hour of debate on the bill, followed by a vote on passage. Therefore, Senators should expect the first vote of tomorrow's session to occur sometime tomorrow afternoon.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday, September 21. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate begin a period of morning business, for statements only, for up to 60 minutes, with the first half hour of time under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee, and the remaining time under the control of the majority leader or his designee. I further ask unanimous consent that following the aforementioned 60 minutes, the period of morning business for debate only then be extended for an additional 120 minutes, with the next 60 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee, and the final 60 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee. I further ask that following the time assigned for morning business, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party lunches.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate request the House to return the papers with respect to H.R. 4567.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, when troubles befall our Nation, whether it is a hurricane in Florida, a tornado in Oklahoma, or an earthquake in my State of Alaska, America turns to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to help it recover. FEMA, in turn, relies upon some 4,000 part time, temporary employees called disaster assistance employees to help it meet the heightened workload demands. These disaster reservists, who live in all corners of our Nation, are organized into cadres and are pressed into service when their services are needed. The Federal Government transports these individuals from their home to the disaster site, houses them, pays a Federal civil service wage for their services and returns them home at Federal expense when their services are no longer needed. In the native villages of my home State and in native communities across the Nation, the level of unemployment is unacceptably high. Native people are often left with the choice of relocating to urban areas where jobs are in greater supply, leaving their native culture behind or remaining in their communities where jobs are scarce. I suspect that native people who live in the rural villages of Alaska will find the opportunity for intermittent employment with FEMA desirable. Employment such as that offered by FEMA in the Disaster Assistance Employee cadres allows my native people to participate in the cash economy without completely losing their ties with the traditional subsistence culture in their villages. I expect the same is true for native people who live on our Indian reservations and native Hawaiians. Last evening, joined by Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, I offered an amendment to H.R. 4567, the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill on this subject. This amendment encourages the Secretary of Homeland Security to make an effort to improve the representation of American Indians, Alaska natives and native Hawaiians in the Disaster Assistance Employee cadres by actively recruiting in our native communities. The amendment was adopted by unanimous consent last evening, and I want to thank my colleagues for supporting it. I hope that this amendment will serve its intended purpose, which is to encourage FEMA to be proactive in identifying opportunities to reduce unemployment among our qualified and motivated native workforce, and I hope that this lesson will not be lost on the other Federal agencies. As thousands of native people from across our Nation descend on Washington next week for the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian, it is fitting that our Federal Government renew its commitment to provide native people, many of whom reside in the remotest parts of our Nation, with access to Federal employment opportunities. Last night the Senate did just that, and I am grateful to my colleagues for their support of my amendment.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate being able to follow the comments of my esteemed colleague and the chairman of the Energy Committee speaking about the importance of energy. He and I would agree that is a topic we just haven't heard enough of lately on this floor, the Energy bill and an energy policy that this country so desperately needs, whether it is Americans looking at the price they are paying for gasoline at the pump, whether it is Americans looking at our utility statements and realizing the price of natural gas is going beyond a level we feel comfortable with, just recognizing that we as a country do not have a notion, do not have a real solid policy for how our energy supply meets up with our energy demand. That is something we in Alaska have talked about for far too long. We have urged this body to move forward with an energy policy, one that makes sense. I like to say that Alaska is prepared to be or in effect is the energy bank for the country. All we are waiting for is the opportunity to make a withdrawal from what we have in our incredible resources. But as we know, we have some issues we need to work through. Whether it is permitting issues for a natural gas pipeline, whether it is those financial incentives that make this megaproject, this $20 billion project possible so we can supply domestic reserves of natural gas to this country, we have the ability to make it happen in Alaska. We just need a little assistance from the Congress in moving forward. We can't leave this conversation without talking about ANWR and the opportunities for us as a nation, recognizing the known reserves we have up there, recognizing that we are in a position in the State of Alaska to provide for enhanced domestic reserves of oil supplies at a time when we know the supplies are questionable from the sources we are currently receiving them, whether it is because of political instability or just declining reserves. We have an opportunity in the State of Alaska. Again, we just need the ability to move forward. My purpose today in addressing the body is not to speak to the Energy bill or the importance of the Energy bill; it is to speak to an incident that happened this morning in the Energy Committee when we, as a committee, took up a series of land bills. It was a business meeting this morning that was designed to take up and pass, again, some land issues. It was kind of a cats and dogs type of a hearing. Most of the issues we took up were relatively noncontroversial. We have a history in the Energy Committee of working in a very good, strong, solid bipartisan way. The committee works well together. The chairman and the ranking member work well together. We move forward on issues, it is fair to say, in a good and enviable manner. We accomplish things. So this morning was a bit of a surprise when, instead of doing the business that was before us, we had members of the Democratic Party leave, essentially stage a walkout on a business meeting of the Energy Committee. As an individual Senator coming from my State, working on legislation that is important and, quite honestly, isolated to my State, as I am working through issues that affect Alaskans, I would ask for certain consideration from my colleagues on Alaska-related issues as we work through them. Today's episode or incident in the Energy Committee doesn't allow Alaska to move forward with a series of our issues. So what exactly happened? We had 22 bills move through the markup without question or controversy. I had an agenda item that was a bill to resolve certain conveyances and provide for alternative land selection under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act related to Cape Fox Corporation and Sealaska Corporation and for other purposes, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. I read that from this morning's agenda. I indicated to the chairman that I had an amendment in the nature of a substitute and moved to discuss those portions of the amended bill, and the minority members of the committee proceeded to leave the committee, which left us without a quorum and no ability to move forward on the business. The business remaining were two bills I had been working, this Cape Fox bill as well as another very specific Alaska lands-related issue. As we discussed in the committee, after our Democratic colleagues had left, one of my Republican colleagues informed me that in his 24 years on the committee, it had been the first time members of the committee had walked out, which left me, as the Republican Senator for Alaska working on these very specific Alaska pieces, to wonder: Wait a minute, I am here to represent my State on very specific Alaska issues. If I can't have my colleagues debate back and forth on the merits of the amendment, if we don't have the opportunity in these sessions to do the business that needs to be done to allow my State to move forward on these land issues, how do I move forward with legislation? So it causes me to look back and say: Well, was there a failing on my part, on my staff's part, or on the committee's part? As we had attempted to move this legislation forward, had we failed to work in a bipartisan manner, failed to reach out in an attempt to accommodate on issues that had caused concern? Let me speak to the two different bills we had before us. The first one related to the Cape Fox Land Entitlement Adjustment Act. Essentially, what this act is destined to do is an equity issue for an Alaska Native corporation. It allows for an exchange to resolve an inequity to the Cape Fox shareholders through a land selection process. This is a land selection process authorized under our Native Claim Settlement Act. The shareholders were denied the ability to select certain lands within 6 miles of their area. It created an inequity. The only way this inequity can be resolved is through Federal legislation. So what we have done is created logical boundaries that improve Forest Service management. Essentially, this is a land exchange that would allow the Cape Fox shareholders to receive certain lands. It consolidated private ownership and increased the role of State government in the environmental regulatory process. It created economic opportunities for Cape Fox and Sealaska through certain leasing agreements that would be made possible. It allowed for native hire and vocational education in an area where, as I recall, the unemployment rate in that very small community is 25.6 percent, almost 420 percent of the State's unemployment rate. This is an area that can definitely use some equitable economic assistance. So the legislation itself is good. It is sound. So the question must be, OK, did we fail to reach out? Were we not working with the other side on this? This is not legislation that is new to the process. This is legislation that was actually passed in the 107th Congress. This is legislation that was passed through the House committee with unanimous support earlier this year. I introduced this legislation in June of last year. In August of 2003, the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests held a hearing in Anchorage, AK. Subsequent to that time, we held a public hearing in Juneau, AK--a townhall meeting--in September to hear the comments and concerns of Alaskans who are located down in the area where this exchange is to take place. After that, in March of 2004, we held another subcommittee hearing here in Washington, DC. We were then placed on the agenda in mid-March for markup--it was March 24. But there was no consensus so we began to attempt to work out a compromise to address the concerns that had been expressed by some of the environmental community, by Alaskans, and by some of our Democratic colleagues; and so what we did was we had prepared an amendment that was the amendment we were prepared to offer as a complete substitute today. That amendment would maintain the view shed in an area where we have recreational opportunities for kayakers and boaters, so we inserted an amendment to provide for view shed protection, an amendment to provide for public access; and we provided a provision that would ensure that all exchanged lands would be based on appraisal reports in accordance with the uniform appraisal standards of the Federal Land Acquisition Act. We essentially had worked through the process. We had worked with the committee. After that markup that didn't happen in March of 2004, we had discussions with minority staff, which had occurred prior to that intended markup date, as well as after. Those discussions continued through the third week in July of this year. We were making every effort to accommodate the concerns and considerations of the minority on this legislation yet still maintain the integrity and meet the needs of the Cape Fox Corporation and the Sealaska Corporation. In looking at the bill and what we were intending to do, the entire intent of the Cape Fox legislation was to correct this inequity to this small southeast village, which has 431 residents, where the unemployment rate is 25.6 percent, as I indicated. So we were prepared to move forward with this legislation today. We had shared the amendment with the minority in July and, quite honestly, were stunned when the minority members walked out of that committee hearing. I need to point out that not only did minority members walk out, which put us in a situation where we no longer had a quorum, but another minority member attempted to enter the committee room to join us in committee, when that individual was literally pushed back out of the committee room so a quorum would not be had. So not only was there a walkout but there was a lockout. Again, it causes one to wonder. If the legislation that I am working on as a Senator from Alaska is so Alaska-specific, so Alaska-germane, and I cannot get the cooperation of colleagues to move it through even the committee process, it causes you to wonder what is going on. Let's look at the second bill that was on the calendar this morning. Was this what was being objected to? The second piece of legislation that was before the committee was S. 1466, ``a bill to facilitate the transfer of land in the State of Alaska, and for other purposes.'' Again, what we are talking about here is entirely Alaska-specific. This legislation relates to no other State. What we are faced with in the State of Alaska, through multiple land acts, through statehood we were promised certain lands. We were promised certain lands under the Alaska Claims Settlement Act. We are a young State, only 45 years old, but we are still waiting for vast amounts of our land to be conveyed to us--the land promised at statehood. We still have some 89 million acres of land yet to be conveyed to the State of Alaska, promised some 45 years ago. We had a hearing on this legislation--a subcommittee hearing--in Anchorage last year. I asked the agency people at the time: Given how long it has taken the Federal agencies to work through the conveyance process and kind of estimating forward, how long do you figure it will take for the State of Alaska to receive conveyance of all the land to which it is entitled? The response that I received was: Anywhere from 30 years to 300 years. Thirty years to 300 years to get the lands that were promised to us at statehood. Mr. President, it is absolutely unacceptable. Any other State would have said, no, this is wrong and you have to deliver on your promises. So what are we doing? I have introduced this legislation to say: Hey, Federal Government, hey, agencies, you have a promise, you made the promise. Do the job you are required to do by law. Move through the conveyance process. I know it is complicated. I know we have overlapping land issues. It is a complicated process, but do what you need to do, and if you need additional assistance, let us know how. This is essentially legislation that helps speed up, if you will, helps expedite the process. Let's look at a few of the provisions we are talking about here. We are clarifying and streamlining the conveyance process. We have technical amendments that move forward filing deadlines. We have a situation right now where if there is any survey that is not exactly accurate, even by a tiny amount if you are exceeded, then you basically have to start all over in terms of completing your surveys. What we have done is get the survey down to the last hundredths of an acre and if, in fact, it is not exactly entirely precise, you do not have to start all over again. We set final acreage for the 10 regional Native corporations. We allow the Secretary to make certain withdrawals for two of the regional corporations which right now do not have sufficient land selection. We are attempting to solve the problems of old ACSA-related withdrawals that closed public lands in Alaska to full operation of public land laws. We provide that the Natives in Kaktovik are allowed to receive their full entitlement under the agreement made in 1983. There are some people who have said: Oh, my gosh, you are opening up ANWR for oil and gas development. The authorization does not change or lift the prohibitions on oil and gas development in the refuge. This is not what this is about. This is all about the Natives in this community being able to complete their selections as all Alaska Natives should be allowed to do. There are other technical amendments streamlining the process, the deadline for Native corporations in the State of Alaska to identify their final land priorities. There is a title that directs the Secretary of Interior to speed up the hearings appeals and probates. It establishes an Alaska-based branch office and requires the Secretary to report on the progress in implementing these land exchanges within 3 years of enactment. It is very clear how Alaska-specific this legislation is. Again, the question must be asked: Was there a failure, was there a problem in how we worked the committee process? Was this being rushed through the committee? Did we fail to reach out to the minority and the staff on this? Again, I refer to the timeline. The bill was introduced last year. We held a subcommittee hearing on public lands and forest in Anchorage. We had a further subcommittee hearing in Washington, DC, in February of this year, and within a few days of that hearing, my staff met with both minority and majority committee staff members, and everyone agreed they were going to meet 1 day a week for as long as it took to work out a joint staff substitute. We were told at that time by the minority that they were working on another Member's bill, and once they completed that, they would turn their full attention to 1466. We made repeated requests in May, June, and the first part of July to the minority staff, and it did not result in any meetings. Meetings were later held in the latter part of July, and we made substantial progress with the assignments agreed to by the committee staff. The minority had a number of requests for changes and concessions, looking for additional information and analysis. They offered to provide assistance with technical edits and even to draft at least one provision. We continued to work on the bill throughout the August recess. We were incorporating all this that we were working through the committee process. We had taken massive comments from Alaskan organizations and individuals and Native organizations, working the process as the process should be worked. We truly did make substantial headway. We were prepared this morning to move forward with a committee substitute and put forward the substance of that substitute to the minority staff on September 2. It was a good-faith effort to accommodate all the requested changes without sacrificing the goal of completing these land transfers by our 50th anniversary of statehood, or the year 2009. As of last Friday, less than a week ago, we were hearing very positive reports about the progress we were making on both sides and truly believed we were going to be in a position to offer a joint staff substitute at today's meeting. It was not until yesterday that we were abruptly informed no such substitute would be possible. So I proceeded with an amendment on my own, an amendment that really does reflect the very bipartisan effort that was going on in this very important bill. Again, I need to stress the importance of this legislation: land conveyances owed to the State of Alaska since statehood, land conveyances owed to Alaska Natives since passage of the Native Claims Settlement Act, promises made by the Federal Government to Alaska that need to be promises kept. I am very committed to my work in the Senate. I am very committed to doing my utmost best for the people of the State of Alaska. These two pieces of legislation we were prepared to take up this morning and that we were thwarted in our efforts to move forward are very important to Alaskans. They do make a difference in how we move forward with our lands. Put your State in this position. If you do not have the ability to move forward with your lands, if you do not even know what the status of your land title is, how complicated the future is for your State. We need to get these issues resolved. All I ask for is the ability to do my job, and my job, as we all know, requires a cooperative process. We cannot move legislation through this body if we do not have cooperation, and cooperation begins at that very beginning level, working through the committees, as we have with both of these legislations. It then moves forward to that next step--to move the legislation through the committee--so we can move it to the floor. I am happy to engage in debate on the merits. If you do not like the amendments, if you think they can be made better, wonderful, let's make it happen, but let's at least allow the process to work. When we fail, when we as Senators abdicate the duty and say, Alaska, or whatever State, you are on your own, nothing is going to move forward, we are not doing our job. I know this is a contentious time. We are in the middle of all the hot political debates. I am a Senator who is standing for election now. We know that causes interesting things to happen within the process. But I would certainly like to think that what we do here in the course of our work should not harm our constituents. We ought to be able to do the business that needs to be done in a cooperative manner. I am very hopeful we will be able to move forward with not only these bills and hopefully see them on the floor of this body, but other legislation that pertains to all of us. We all come to this body with our very unique issues. They are very particular to our home States. I ask that we all respect one another in our efforts to accomplish those things that are truly very local to our States. So I look forward to next week and an opportunity to again bring forward very important issues for my State. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as the distinguished minority leader and distinguished Senator from Nevada have spoken to this morning, today is Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Awareness Day in the United States. The ninth hour of the ninth day in the ninth month having arrived, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate observe a moment of reflection to remind women who are pregnant and those women who may become pregnant that no amount of alcohol, none at all, is safe during the 9 months of pregnancy.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, by raising awareness one moment at a time, we can attempt to minimize the damaging effects of drinking during pregnancy. In late February of 1999, there was a small group of parents who were raising children afflicted with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, and this small group of parents essentially set out to change the world. The leaders of this group were Bonnie Buxton and Brian Philcox of Toronto and Teresa Kellerman of Tucson. They were frustrated, frustrated about the lack of public awareness about fetal alcohol spectrum disorders by both the public and the professionals. These parents wondered aloud. They were communicating with one another on an online Internet support group called F-A-S link. They wondered, What if on the ninth minute of the ninth day of the ninth month we asked the world to remember that during the 9 months of pregnancy a woman should remain alcohol free. And what if we also asked the world to remember those millions of people who will never fulfill their potential because of prenatal alcohol exposure. And at this moment, they asked: Could we begin to change the world? Can we begin to change the path that so many children have been faced with as they set out in the world burdened with the affliction they were born with, fetal alcohol disorders? So this year, for the sixth consecutive year, communities across the world are pausing during the ninth hour to acknowledge International Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Awareness Day. FAS Day will be observed extensively in my home State of Alaska with ceremonies being observed across the State. I appreciated the comments from the minority leader about the devastating effects in his home State of South Dakota. In Alaska, we, too, are faced with incredible statistics as they relate to those who are born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. In many parts of my State, particularly in the rural parts of the State, we have villages where the amount of children born with FASD is four times the national average. The statistics are absolutely horrific. I was in a very small community of about several hundred people during the August recess. I was approached by a woman who was a teacher. She had been out in this community for several years. Her greatest concern as a teacher was what I was going to do in my capacity in the Senate to make women aware of the consequences of drinking while pregnant. She was dealing with students coming to her classroom who were not only not able to learn but quite possibly will never be able to learn because they were born with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. I am grateful the Senate is recognizing International Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Awareness Day and has paused to join in this worldwide moment of reflection. For this, I thank my colleagues, especially the distinguished minority leader, the Senator from South Dakota, who has joined with me in offering Senate Resolution 390 creating the first National Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Awareness Day earlier this year. I hope we will continue to pause in the ninth hour of the ninth day each September until fetal alcohol spectrum disorders are eradicated. The eradication of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders is by no means an impossible dream. This is achievable. The simple truth about fetal alcohol spectrum disorders is they can be eradicated, they can be stopped, they can be wiped out if women resolve to consume no alcohol during the term of their pregnancy. This simple prescription--no alcohol--may seem extreme, it may seem absolute, it may even seem harsh to some, but there is no gentler way to put it. The term ``fetal alcohol spectrum disorders'' describes a range of conditions that can befall a child whose mother consumed alcohol during pregnancy. I will not list the technical names of each of those conditions because that is not important. What is important is that if women consume alcohol during pregnancy, they expose their unborn child to the risk of suffering one or more of the fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. It is vitally important for all women to know that fetal alcohol spectrum disorders are the No. 1 preventable cause of mental retardation and birth defects. An individual with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders can incur a lifetime health cost of over $800,000. Children do not outgrow fetal alcohol disorders; the physical and behavioral problems can last a lifetime. When a pregnant woman consumes alcohol, it passes through her bloodstream to the unborn child. It can cause damage to the brain. It can result in low birth weight. The child, when he or she is born, may have trouble sleeping, may have trouble eating. As the child matures, he or she can have problems learning, paying attention. Some even need lifelong medical care. It should be stressed that there is no woman who is genetically immune from the consequences of consuming alcohol during pregnancy. The message is very clear, it is very simple: In pregnancy, no amount of alcohol, no matter how small, is safe. There is no safe time. There is no safe drink. There is no safe amount. The message is, if you are pregnant, do not drink. If you drink, do not get pregnant. Yesterday afternoon, the President of the United States wrote a message to all of those observing National Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Awareness Day. I ask unanimous consent the text of the President's message be printed in the Record.