Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 25, 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. 1085, a bill to provide for a Bureau of Reclamation program to assist states and local communities in evaluating and developing rural and small community water supply systems, and for other purposes and S. 1732 a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a rural water supply program in the Reclamation States to provide a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable water supply to rural residents. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, 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 Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510- 6150. For further information, please contact Shelly Randel at 202-224- 7933, Erik Webb at 202-224-4756 or Colin Hayes at 202-224-0883.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, those of my colleagues who have Native American tribes located in their States will understand the importance of the Indian Reservation Road funding authorized as part of the our highway program. However, they may not be aware that the Indian reservation roads program does not treat all States equally. There are serious deficiencies in the inventory of road miles eligible for funding under the Indian Reservation Road--IRR--program. Yesterday, I filed an amendment intended to address this issue. I understand the National Congress of American Indians and other groups favor action on this matter, and I would certainly be willing to entertain any suggestions for improving the current amendment. Unfortunately, it appears the present situation may make it impossible for the Senate to deal appropriately with this important matter. In most areas of the country, the BIA had a reasonably complete inventory of roads and road needs by 1993, and these were incorporated into the IRR inventory. In Alaska that is not the case. The inventory numbers for Alaska are in no way complete, nor are they based on an actual count of road miles. They are based instead on a 1993 document that was never intended to serve as a complete inventory. The document was essentially a list of specific project requests known at that time. As a result, it omitted even core infrastructure in many villages, and completely overlooked approximately one-third of the villages in Alaska that should have been included. Furthermore, BIA policy does not allow the situation to be corrected, as it arbitrarily limits increases in the inventory to 2 percent per year. While this may be appropriate in areas for which an accurate inventory was available in 1993, it is by no means equitable for Alaska's Native villages. In addition to missing entire Native communities, the BIA's inventory data has other flaws such as simply not having complete or current construction cost data for large parts of Alaska. Let me add also that Alaska is not the only State where inventory deficiencies are a problem. Around the Nation, there are 93 to 99 tribes, depending on how you count, that have zero recorded inventory. By far the greatest numbers are in Alaska and California, but there are affected tribes in the East, the Midwest, the Southwest, the Pacific Northwest, and the Plains States--in short, throughout the country. If the Indian Reservation Roads program is to function the way it was intended to function, a new national inventory must be completed and it must be completed fairly. Congress must act to ensure that the absence of information on roads is not treated as the absence of need. In recent years, our Native communities have themselves attempted to begin the planning and inventory process needed to develop a true inventory or a long-range transportation plan. However, very little of this work product has actually been accepted by the BIA. Once inventory updates began to be submitted to BIA on a large scale, we found that the BIA was applying a ``2 percent'' limit to inventory increases. In Alaska we were limited to 365 miles in the 2001 update--2 percent accumulated from 1993--and since then, the limit has been about 45 miles per year. For a State with 229 tribes, a tragically deficient BIA inventory, and a transportation need that is second to none, the current policy is an absolute travesty of mismanagement. Legislation would not be necessary if the BIA were willing to correct its own mistakes, but it has not done so. The inventory updating process has been a nightmare for Alaska Natives. BIA has changed the rules every year, has imposed requirements over and above what is contained in its own guidance manuals, and on occasion has changed the rules so close to the deadline for submittals that compliance is virtually impossible In my opinion, the current formula and inventory system is based on an implicit BIA policy decision to focus future funds on the existing incomplete system, rather than on creating a system that serves all of the Nation's tribes equally. That is not BIA's decision to make, and it is not the process required by the law, but it is the apparent reality--and it badly needs to change. Mr. President, among the amendments I filed for this bill is one to encourage additional motorcyclist training, which was cosponsored by Senators Inhofe, Stevens, and Campbell. This matter is in the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. It is deeply disappointing to think that the Senate may not act on it. Lives will be lost as a result. My amendment has the full support of the American Motorcyclist Association, the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, the National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators, regional and local riders groups throughout the country, and many others. The single best way to prevent accidents is to provide better training. A study of the California Motorcyclist Safety Program designed by Dr. John Billheimer and completed in 1996 found that rider training dramatically reduces accidents, and thus eliminates injuries and fatalities. Specifically, the study stated, Analyses of statewide accident trends show that total motorcycle accidents have dropped 67 percent since the introduction of the California Motorcyclist Safety Program, with a drop of 88 percent among the under-18 riders. Current statistics from the Commonwealth of Virginia are equally amazing. Virginia has approximately 110,000 registered motorcycles. Since 1998, there have been 7,099 motorcycle crashes in Virginia and 222 of those crashes have been fatal. Yet out of all those accidents, trained riders were involved in less than 4 percent of the total, and the number of fatal accidents involving trained riders is just 1.8 percent. What this tells us is that the vast majority of motorcycle accidents involve riders who have not received proper training, and that when riders do receive training, the accident rate will drop dramatically. My amendment is simply intended to encourage States to support motorcycle rider training and to adopt other important measures to save lives and prevent injuries. A State which demonstrates that it is making improvements in motorcycle safety would qualify for a grant of $100,000 per year, which is to be used to further improve and expand formal training for motorcyclists and for programs to improve driver awareness of motorcyclists. Let me also stress that participation in this program is voluntary. No State is being forced to comply, and the amendment contains no sanctions for those which do not. This is strictly an incentive to do a better job at saving lives. Why is this important? I have addressed this issue in detail in a previous statement, but let me recap some of the key points. There are almost 5 million motorcycles operating on America's roadways, covering almost 17 million miles per year. Many more are used off-road, and some estimates put the actual number of riders at up to 20 million. The number of riders is steadily increasing every year, and as that number increases, so do accidents. At the same time, we are falling farther and farther behind in training people to ride safely. The single best way to avoid injuries, fatalities, high insurance costs, lawsuits, medical costs and all the other factors that come into play is by avoiding the accidents in the first place. The authors of the ``National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety'' agree. The ``National Agenda,'' published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, was a cooperative effort of that agency, along with the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, the National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators, and a host of others representing the insurance industry, law enforcement, riders, traffic safety experts and others. The National Agenda identified a number of steps needed to reduce the tragic rate of motorcycle accidents. Rider education was one of its ``essential'' recommendations. Unfortunately, there is currently no uniform process for providing such training. Although many, if not all, State provide at least moral support, most training is funded almost entirely by the students themselves, who pay up to $300 per person for the privilege. Many States also collect additional fees--often a nominal charge of $5.00 for a motorcycle operator's license--but it doesn't always go toward training programs. That means there are more people who need and want training than there are programs to deliver it. Throughout the country, the waiting list for training class ranges from several weeks to several months. In California, which has one of the oldest and strongest programs, it may take as long as 3 months. In Wisconsin, motorcyclist groups self- fund training classes, but the waiting list may be as large as 7,000 people. In Illinois, almost 11,000 people were trained last year, but nearly 4,000 were turned away for lack of space. That is happening in State after State. The number of untrained riders is increasing, and we urgently need to reverse that trend. If you can pass your State's operator test, you can ride. And if you just spent thousands of dollars on a new motorcycle, the chances are you won't be letting that new motorcycle license go to waste. But passing a test doesn't make you a safe rider--that takes either years of experience--or it takes formal training. The longer we ignore this issue, the more lives will be lost, the more injuries will be suffered, the more insurance rates for both drivers and riders will go up, and the more families will be harmed. This body should be acting, not avoiding.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, one of the amendments I filed yesterday, along with Senator Stevens, was in relation to what I am calling the Denali Transportation System. I am disappointed the full amendment will not be part of the bill, but I am grateful for the efforts Senator Inhofe and others who were able to accommodate even part of it. As my colleagues know, the National Highway System we established in the 1950s not only brought benefits to individual States but to the country as a whole. It has more than lived up to its promise of greater access, an improved quality of life, and increased wealth for all Americans. Throughout the United States, a modern highway system connects virtually every single community in every single State--except one. The majority of Alaskan communities remain unconnected. Alaska has been left far behind the rest of the Nation, with a road system that is no system at all. If the highway system is the Nation's skeleton, Alaska is still missing its arms and legs. As a result, many Alaskan communities are punished with third-world conditions and an extraordinarily high cost of living, and the Nation as a whole is that much poorer because Alaska's tremendous natural wealth cannot be shared. This is not the first time that Congress has dealt with a similar problem. When the Appalachia region needed extra assistance, Congress responded to the call by providing $450 million per year for the Appalachia commission to construct the Appalachia Transportation System. The bill before us proposes to increase that sum even further, to $590 million per year. A 1998 Congressional Research Service report reads as follows: In 1964, a Presidential commission on Appalachian region reported that ``geographic isolation'' was the very basis of its development lag. The commission argued that development ``could not proceed until its regional isolation was overcome by its penetration by an adequate transportation network.'' Further, they said, a system was needed ``to and from the rest of the nation and within the region itself.'' Their core argument: ``before development could take place in Appalachia, major investments had to be made in basic public facilities.'' This was coupled with a belief that the ``barrier-effect of Appalachia's mountain-chains was a major cause of underdevelopment'' and led to a proposal that a development highway system be built ``to break the isolation of Appalachia's economically depressed regions.'' Importantly they noted, ``that the routes not be chosen to ease congestion or upgrade heavily traveled areas but to stimulate traffic through remote areas that have a development potential.'' My amendment would allow the Denali Commission to begin doing for roadless areas of Alaska what Congress authorized for Appalachia. However, there are some critical differences. I want to emphasize that word ``roadless.'' In the Appalachia region, communities were isolated by poor roads. In Alaska, they are isolated by no roads. We are not asking for an entire network of major highways, only for the simple ability to move people and goods overland from one place to another. The dirt roads Appalachia started with would be regarded as a blessing in Alaska. Second, we are proposing only to construct connections for communities that have no current access--no highway, no rural two-lane road, no dirt road, or improvements to the internal roads in these same isolated communities. The latter is critical for residents to get to their schools, to clean water sources, to clinics and stores and garbage dumps. Third, and most important, we are not asking for similar funding. I understand the fiscal realities before us today. The amendment I filed asked for only $50 million per year for Alaska. As revised, it will provide $30 million. The increase this bill contains for Appalachia is almost three times that sum. In all, the Appalachia system will receive almost 12 times what we are asking. I do not object to spending money in Appalachia. I think that money has gone to good use. I simply believe we would get even greater value from a modest investment in the 49th State. Alaska is rich in resources that can and should be a driving force for the Nation's economy, stimulating hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the country. It is in an ideal location to be a crossroad for international trade, both by air and by sea, especially if you believe predictions that warming trends will open up a northern sea route to Europe in a few short years. Yet we remain poor both in population and in highway miles. The formula funds we receive through the highway bill are not sufficient to allow the construction of new links between communities, no matter how badly they are needed. I also understand some of my colleagues wish to create a new Appalachia-style system for the lower Mississippi area. I noted some pictures of a bridge were displayed on the floor yesterday, and it was suggested that that bridge was inadequate. At least the citizens of that area have bridges to complain about. My constituents do not. It is important to make the point that this is not just about Alaska's needs. We all expect and demand certain basics for our constituents: clean water and food, warmth, shelter, schools and medical services. In my State, because of the isolation of so many communities, all these services have to be duplicated over and over again, because the Native people of these isolated communities are eligible for and receive Federal assistance to ensure they have access to those services. I have heard some of my colleagues suggest that Alaska demands a great deal. Let me suggest that we would be happy to demand less, if we were in less desperate need. No State--or its citizens--can prosper without adequate transportation systems. In much of the country, such systems have been in place since before the American Revolution, and have been constantly changing, adapting and being upgraded ever since. In much of Alaska, in contrast, residents are still forced to travel between communities by boat, or on frozen rivers, just as they did when the Territory of Alaska was first purchased from Imperial Russia. In this day and age, such a situation is completely unacceptable. It is a lasting mark of neglect, and it is past time to rectify it. The Denali Transportation System will provide far greater benefits than costs. As we enter an era where gigantic natural changes are occurring in the Arctic environment, and ice-free maritime transportation through the Arctic Ocean is expected to become a reality within decades, it is critical that we begin to prepare ourselves for those changes. Adequate transportation connections to--and within-- America's only Arctic State are imperative. This is a time for foresight. The key to long-term prosperity is wise investment. Investing in Alaska is investing wisely for the future of the entire nation, just as investing in Appalachia was a wise choice. We have incomparable resources and vigorous citizens. It is time we have the transportation system that will allow those assets to be used as they should be.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chairman for his assistance and will add him as an original cosponsor when that amendment is offered.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics tells us that almost 5 million motorcycles are registered to operate on America's roadways, covering almost 17 million miles per year. Many more are used off-road, and some estimates put the actual number of riders at up to 20 million. All these Americans choose to ride motorcycles either for recreation or for their primary means of transportation, and every year the number of Americans on motorcycles increases. As that number increases, so does the number of accidents, including fata accidents. Yet we are falling tragically behind in training these individuals to ride safely. The single best way to avoid injuries, fatalities, high insurance costs, lawsuits, medical costs and all the other factors that come into play is by avoiding the accidents in the first place. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in its Motorcycle Safety Program issued in January 2003, said: ``Crash prevention . . . offers the greatest potential safety benefit for motorcyclists.'' And the single best way to avoid accidents is to provide safety training. Training works. Untrained riders have accidents, and trained riders do not. It is really as simple as that. A study of the California Motorcyclist Safety Program designed by Dr. John Billheimer and completed in 1996 found that rider training dramatically reduces accidents, and thus eliminates injuries and fatalities. Specifically, the study stated, ``Analyses of statewide accident trends show that total motorcycle accidents have dropped 67 percent since the introduction of the California Motorcyclist Safety Program, with a drop of 88 percent among the under-18 riders. . . . If accident trends in California had paralleled those in the rest of the U.S. over this period, the State would have experienced an additional 124 fatalities per year. By any measure, the California Motorcyclist Safety Program is a cost-effective program that pays for itself many times over in saved lives and reduced accident rates.'' Even more recent statistics from the Commonwealth of Virginia are equally telling. Virginia has approximately 110,000 registered motorcycle. Since 1998, there have been 7,099 motorcycle crashes in Virginia and 222 of those crashes have been fatal. Yet out of all those accidents, the number involving riders with formal training is less than 4 percent of the total, and the number of fatal accidents involving trained riders is just 1.8 percent. The vast majority of all accidents--over 96 percent--are riders without training. The most far-reaching document yet completed on motorcyclist safety is the ``National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety,'' a cooperative effort by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, the National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators, and a host of others representing the insurance industry, law enforcement, riders, traffic safety experts and others. The National Agenda identified a number of steps needed to reduce the tragic rate of motorcycle accidents. Uppermost among them is the need for better training. Where does motorcyclist training come from? Who does it? How is it funded? The truth is, training, and funding for training, is a mixed bag. And that, is exactly the problem. Most States provide at least moral support, but there is no uniform process for ensuring that training is provided, or that the facilities and funding is made available. In most cases, training is funded almost entirely by the students themselves, who pay up to $300 per person for the privilege. Many States also collect money--often a nominal charge of $5.00 for a motorcycle operator's license. Both these efforts to raise funds are strongly supported by and promoted by the motorcycling community--but they want to ensure that the funds are actually used for things that enhance motorcyclist safety. As for the curriculum itself, far and away the most frequent choice is the material created by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF), a group supported by the major motorcycle manufacturers. The MSF course material for beginning motorcyclists is extremely comprehensive. It focuses on teaching the skills and knowledge needed for safe riding--beginning with the use of proper equipment such as gloves, boots and helmets, goes on to teach students how to predict and avoid hazardous situations, and graduates to teaching the physical skills needed for crash avoidance. This is precisely the course material that has produced such outstanding results in California, Virginia and many other States. You may well ask, ``If training is so successful, why do we still have so many accidents? The answer is as simple as can be: training availability lags far behind the demand. Throughout the country, the waiting list to join a training class ranges from several weeks to several months. In California, which has one of the oldest and strongest programs, it may take as long as 3 months. In Wisconsin, one of the States where training dollars were totally eliminated, motorcyclist groups have stepped up to the plate to self- fund training, but the waiting list may be as large as 7,000 people. Illinois trained 8,500 people in 2000, but had to turn away nearly 3,000 more for lack of space. Course capacity increased in 2001 and 2002, but the number of people turned away increased faster. In 2003, almost 11,000 students completed training, but almost 4,000 were told ``Sorry, there's no room for you.'' And that's the story in State after State. Unfortunately, what that means is that untrained riders are increasing in number all the time. If you can pass your State's test, you can ride. And if you just spent thousands of dollars on a new motorcycle, the chances are you won't be letting that new motorcycle license go to waste. But a licensed rider isn't necessarily a trained rider, nor is he or she necessarily a safe rider. It takes training--or years of experience--to make a safe rider. The statistics from California and Virginia confirm that for all to see. At the appropriate time, it is my intention to seek action to encourage the State to provide more and better support for these vital training efforts. Now, let me turn to another concern of the motorcycling community. A large part of the training needed to produce safe riders consists of teaching them how to avoid road hazards that simply should not exist in the first place. In many cases, highway engineering practices focus on four wheels, not two. The average driver cruises past such things as bridge expansion joints, loose manhole covers, the slick sealants used to fill cracks in asphalt pavement, rough asphalt patches, rumble strips and lane- dividing buttons that keep drivers awake, and the steel or steel cable barriers along the side of the road. Yet any or all of these things may be hazardous to a rider. The motorcycling community has long sought ways to let engineers and designers know about those hazards, and work with them to design better systems. I have seriously contemplated offering an amendment that would address this issue, but I am happy to report that such an amendment may not be needed. That concludes my statement for the movement, but at this time I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee on this matter. I have been working in several areas to address the issue of motorcyclist safety. As part of this effort, I have been working to establish an Advisory Council to assist the Secretary of Transportation in developing the appropriate safety specifications for highways and motorcycles. Fatalities among motorcyclists have gone up dramatically, rising from 2,112 in 1997 to 3,244 in 2002. Because motorcyclists have special needs and concerns, I have long been concerned that the Department of Transportation has not had adequate input from either riders or experts outside the Department itself. Thus, I proposed establishing a council of riders and experts to advise the Secretary on their unique safety needs. Chairman Inhofe has been very helpful in trying to find the most appropriate way to get this accomplished. He suggested and I agreed to work with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials--AASHTO, which is the organization that actually develops guidelines for highway safety engineering. I recently received from AASHTO a letter describing a task force it has developed to identify strategies that can be used to reduce motorcycle fatalities and injuries. I believe this task force may be able to accomplish my goal of elevating the unique safety needs of motorcyclists to greater attention by including both riders and outside experts in its deliberations. As a result, I have decided not to offer an amendment to establish an advisory council at this time. I believe that Chairman Inhofe has had an opportunity to look over the AASHTO letter and I am wondering if he agrees with me that this will accomplish what we have been working towards.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about the highway bill. This legislation is of immense importance not only to my State of Alaska, but to the Nation as a whole. It is unlikely that this Congress will do anything of greater importance for our economy. We all know that if our economy is our strength, transportation is our circulatory system. Without it, we cannot function. And make no mistake, we are not keeping up with the task. Thirty-two percent of our major roads are in poor condition. Twenty- nine percent of our bridges need replacement or repair. Urban rail and bus systems are in equally poor shape. According to the Department of Transportation, we should be spending over $100 billion per year on highways and over $20 billion per year on transit. But we cannot do that. We are constrained by reality. The components of the Senate bill will approximate only half that amount. That is deeply disappointing to the Nation's 12,500 road construction contractors, and it is deeply disappointing to all our States and to their municipal governments, and to all our constituents. We do not live in a perfect world. And given that reality, our job is to pass the best bill we can possibly pass. It was no easy task to develop the bill before us today. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the leaders of the Environment and Public Works Committee for their efforts, and to the leaders of the other committees necessary to make this bill a reality. No one could have worked harder and longer than Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond and Senator Reid. Is this a perfect bill? No, indeed. There are many things I would like to see changed. For example, I strongly agree with the comments made by Senator Voinovich about the need for additional streamlining so that projects can get off the ground faster. For my own State, I would like to see greater flexibility in a number of areas. I would also like to see greater recognition given to the fact that my State is far behind all the others in road miles, and that lack is holding back not only our economy but limiting our ability to contribute to the Nation as a whole. This bill does not address that fact to satisfaction. By the same token, I understand that many of the donor States want to see more of their highway fuel tax dollars returned to them, and returned faster. I cannot blame them. At the same time, I want to remind my colleagues of this very important fact: This bill is not about my roads or your roads. This bill is about our roads. We are all in this together. Let's not forget that fact. The bill before us will increase every State's minimum guarantee to the 95 percent level they have long sought. And it will ensure that every State will see a significant increase in real dollars, an average increase of over 35 percent. We cannot afford not to move forward. In the last decade, travel on the Nation's highways increased almost 30 percent. By 2020, projections indicate travel will increase by another 50 percent. Those number don't just indicate a need; they demand a response. They demand that we move forward on this bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will continue debate on the Medicare conference report. We had an extended and vigorous debate today, but there are many others who wish to make statements on this historic bill. Because we have a large number of Senators who wish to speak tomorrow, we ask Senators to limit their remarks to 30 minutes. We will talk further tomorrow on the best way to accommodate Members as we go forward. As a reminder, a cloture motion on the conference report was filed today. That vote will occur during Monday's session at approximately 12:30. Finally, on behalf of the leader, I thank not only the Members who participated in the debate but also the Senators who presided throughout this session.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I realize the hour is late. This body has been discussing the issue of Medicare legislation for close to 12 hours now on this Saturday. I want to speak briefly this evening about the legislation that is under consideration in the Senate and its impact on senior citizens in my home State of Alaska as well as around the Nation. We have heard a great deal today on the floor about the need for reform, about what we need to provide for our senior citizens. We must keep in perspective what we owe our seniors. This is the generation of Americans who paid most dearly to protect the freedoms we enjoy. Many of our older Americans today went through the Depression and have very personal, truly gut-wrenching memories of the hunger that they perhaps went through at the time. They were the generation who settled the frontier areas of America, including my State of Alaska. They remember the horror and the stories from Pearl Harbor. We owe this generation of Americans many things, not the least of which is honesty. Since Medicare was enacted in 1965, it has provided health security to millions of America's seniors and people with disabilities. Medicare is that promise of health security we must always keep. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like Americans to believe that the bill in front of us today is designed to kill those promises made in 1965. I remind my colleagues that Americans deserve more than the rhetoric and the scare tactics we have heard saturating the airwaves from here. Earlier this evening in listening to the debate, one of my colleagues made reference to the fact that seniors are going to have to sell their wedding rings in order to meet certain levels for low-income subsidies for Medicare beneficiaries. I thought, wait a minute, that can't be true. That is not a part of this legislation. Seniors will not have to do that. So I said: Show me. Let me know for sure that, in fact, this is not the case. We pulled it out and looked at the application of the asset test. It very clearly states those resources that are not counted for an asset test, excluded resources, include, and No. 3 on the list is memorabilia such as a wedding ring. For us to stand here on the Senate floor and suggest to a senior citizen that in order to meet certain requirements to keep your Medicare benefits you might have to give up your wedding ring, I sure hope my 84-year-old next-door neighbor was not hearing that because I know she wouldn't sleep well knowing that that could be true. We have to be real. We have to be honest with our statements, and we have to talk the truth about what is and is not contained in the legislation before us. Americans deserve to know that this bill, while not perfect--I don't think any of us would suggest it is perfect--will provide good drug coverage for any senior citizen who wants to enroll. Americans deserve to know that this bill doesn't force seniors to join HMOs to get prescription drugs. This legislation is designed to provide choice, not coercion. If seniors want to add prescription drug coverage to the Medicare plan that they have right now, they would have that option. Their benefits would not be reduced, would not be taken away. If they don't want the drug coverage or if they are happy with the coverage they have now through their retirement plan, they don't have to accept the voluntary Medicare benefit. The incentives for employers to keep offering their own prescription drug benefits: The Employer Benefit Research Institute indicates that they expect between 97 percent and 99 percent of beneficiaries won't have any change in benefits. We need to clearly repeat these provisions. The bottom line is this: If you like Medicare the way it is today, you can keep it that way because it is designed to be a voluntary benefit. The problem is for many Americans, including those in Alaska, Medicare has not been living up to its promises. It will only pay for your drugs if you have been hospitalized. And for many, it does not pay for the health care professionals. Essentially, this program is still stuck in the 1960s mindset of reactive care rather than the kinds of proactive care we expect today. Several months back I had an individual up in the State who was meeting with me and going out to senior centers. We were talking about the Medicare legislation in front of us at that time. She made the analogy that Medicare is like the telephone. In 1965, the telephones that we had in our homes were the black rotary dial. They came in one color and one style, and that was it. And that was how we talked. Now in the year 2003, we talk on cell phones, by fax, e-mail, on colored phones. The technology has changed incredibly, but we are still doing the talking. Medicare is essentially the rotary dial system of health care that just hasn't been ramped up. Americans need to know that Medicare still doesn't provide full coverage for preventive care, including cancer, diabetes screenings. It doesn't offer protection against catastrophic medical costs, these things that can rob our seniors of their hard-earned savings. There has been a lot of rhetoric about the drug benefit. But if you cut all through it, if you do the number crunching, you get to the indisputable fact that the average senior citizen, after paying their premium, is going to see a savings in the cost of their drugs--we estimate about a 63-percent savings in the cost of drugs. For those seniors with limited income and limited savings, which is about half of Alaska's senior citizens, half of Alaska's senior citizens are in this lower income bracket, they will have closer to 90 percent of their drug costs covered, and this is not a skimpy benefit. The bill also adds important preventive benefits that are many years overdue. In order to combat our Nation's No. 1 and No. 3 killers, which are heart disease and stroke, Medicare would be required to cover screening blood tests with no cost to the senior. This bill helps the millions of Americans who struggle daily with the chronic diseases such as asthma and diabetes. The bill adds principles of disease management to Medicare which will help the seniors navigate the oftentimes confusing health care system and get them the access to vital specialty care and educational resources. While we all seem to agree that it is important to add preventive benefits to Medicare, there has been a lot of discussion about whether to allow government-regulated private plans to offer these Medicare benefits. I have to step back a little and wonder if perhaps I am the only one who finds it ironic that we would use taxpayer-funded subsidies to give each one of us in Congress a choice of health plans, but yet we would deny our senior citizens that same choice. The bill before us rejects this philosophy of ``big Government knows best,'' and tells our seniors: You have the right to select a benefit that meets your needs. If you don't need drug coverage, you don't have to enroll. You can keep Medicare the way it is today. If you don't want to join a private plan, you don't have to. If you don't want to change anything about Medicare, you don't have to. I also want to address a comment that a number of Members--primarily on the other side of the aisle--have made characterizing Medicare as good the way it is now. I have even heard a number claiming that the Medicare Program today gives seniors such things as a choice of doctors. While I agree with them that Medicare is a good program, and I believe we need to make sure it still exists for our children's children, I need to let my colleagues know that the way the current Medicare Program does business, it hurts those in my State who have been promised care. Every week, Senator Stevens, Congressman Young, those in the Alaska delegation, and I come to work and we are faced with a huge stack of mail, e-mail, phone calls, and the like from Alaskans about the problems they are having with Medicare. I mentioned earlier that this summer, back in my State, I held a senior citizen forum in the community of Chugiak. What I learned may actually surprise some of my colleagues who seem particularly enamored with the way Medicare is today. Seniors in Alaska are not only being denied a choice of doctors, but in many cases they don't have the ability to see a doctor at all. This is because doctors, or health care providers, in Alaska are paid just about 37 cents on the dollar for the care they provide to seniors on Medicare. Medicare is a price-fixer. So what we have is somebody in Baltimore sitting in a cubical, and they are deciding how much to pay for medical care in the community of Delta Junction, in Alaska; or take the community of Bethel, not on the road system, completely cut off from the rest of the world. If the payment the folks in Baltimore have said we are going to be charging is less than the cost of actually providing the care, Medicare basically tells our doctors: Tough, you are out of luck. This price-fixing causes problems not only in the rural areas of the State--as I mentioned, in a place such as Bethel or Delta, where you would expect these problems--but the sad truth is that even seniors in the urban centers of Alaska, in Anchorage and Fairbanks, cannot find a doctor who will accept new Medicare patients. Perhaps I need to go a little further in explaining to my colleagues how much of a problem this is in my State. When a senior in the lower 48 cannot find a doctor in their community to help them, they can hop into their car and drive to the next town and find a doctor--just go to the city. But when seniors cannot find a doctor in Fairbanks--and the whole State knows seniors in Anchorage are having the same problem-- there are two options for them. The first one is that there are few things you can do. Second, there are bad things you can do. The simple fact is that for many of my constituents, their choice for a doctor is limited to those who are practicing in the emergency room. Who is the doctor on call that night? That is their choice of doctors. The only other choice is--and this is probably a choice only for a few--to fork over the $1,400, or whatever the price of the airplane ticket is, to make the 8-hour roundtrip flight to Seattle and try their luck with doctors there. Just 2 weeks ago, I had a constituent in my office who told me she flies to Virginia every year to see her doctor. She lives in Alaska. She flies to Virginia to see her doctor. She does this because she cannot find one in Anchorage who will accept new Medicare patients. The cost for the ticket alone, not counting her lodging and meals while she is there, is about $1,500. Unfortunately, these situations in Alaska right now are not the exception; they are the rule. We have somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 senior citizens in Anchorage alone who cannot find a doctor who is willing to treat them. The situation in Fairbanks is not much better. We recently called up the State to one of the larger clinics there that accepts Medicare patients. We asked them: Are you accepting new Medicare patients, and when would the first available appointment be? We were told mid-July. This is not choice when it comes to your doctor. How is this situation keeping the promise we made to our senior citizens in 1965 when we established Medicare? What kind of treatment are you advocating for when you keep Medicare the way it is? We can come up with grand plans here in Washington and we can talk about Medicare reform, but if we don't have doctors who can write the prescriptions, if we don't have access to physicians, we have not done anything to fix the problem with Medicare. Keeping Medicare as we know it in Alaska means Alaskans will go to the emergency room for primary care. It means making Alaskans pay to fly across the country by themselves to go find a doctor, and it means making Alaskans go without preventive screening. Medicare as we know it doesn't give patients a choice of providers or access to the care of their choice, as some of my colleagues have stated. Medicare isn't working perfectly and desperately needs reform. I believe the legislation we have in front of us is a good compromise. It includes provisions that will ensure that senior citizens around the Nation and in Alaska will be able to find a doctor somewhere other than in the emergency room. We owe our seniors a little more honesty in this debate. They deserve to know clearly that the prescription drug is voluntary. They deserve to know they will not be forced to join a program they don't want to join. They deserve to know the average senior citizen who joins will save somewhere around 63 percent on the cost of their prescription drugs. They deserve to know low-income seniors will pay no deductible, no monthly premium, and have no gap in coverage; and Medicare will pay about 90 percent of their drug costs. They deserve to know the group purchasing power we are giving to seniors is going to make the drug companies work for their business. Mr. President, those who stood defending our freedom deserve more than the partisan rancor that has been sailing around this Chamber. They deserve to know more than some of the half-truths that have been told. Medicare, as we know it, should provide seniors with access to vital health care services and the physician of their choice. I believe this bill does those things, and I believe it will meet the needs of my constituents. We have come a long way toward making good on our promise to our senior citizens, and that is to the credit of the administration and to the leadership of this Congress, certainly to the leadership of the Senator who is presiding this evening. We do need to strengthen Medicare, and seniors do need access to vital prescription drugs. Many who are now on Medicare fought for the freedom that we enjoy today, and Monday we will, hopefully, have the opportunity to keep our promise to seniors and to fight on their behalf by providing them with a voluntary prescription drug benefit. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

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, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 1 p.m., Sunday, November 23. I further ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act, with the understanding that speakers will alternate between the sides with the order of speakers on the opponents' side, as previously requested by the assistant Democratic leader.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. We have a history, as I have said, of pioneering women, women who perhaps have done the unexpected, who have reached out into areas that we would not anticipate, at a time we would not anticipate, women such as Kate Carmack, who is especially important in Alaska's history. Kate was an Athabascan woman who married an American trader. She is actually credited with discovering the first gold in Bonanza Creek, which started the Alaska gold rush in 1896. As the story is told, when Kate first discovered the gold, it was frozen in the mud. Kate and her husband did not have the grub stake, if you will. They did not have the cash necessary to do the digout that winter. So they literally were sitting on the largest gold discovery in history. Kate's resourcefulness as a skin sower and her skill as an outdoorsman earned enough cash for the family to pull together that grub stake to hit ``pay dirt'' when the ground thawed the next spring. When we think of women like Kate Carmack in Alaska, who braved some pretty tough, some pretty difficult conditions, I ask the Senator from Maine if she has any similar stories from her State?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today and engage in this colloquy with the Senator from Maine. I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to speak about opening a National Women's History Museum near the National Mall. Currently, the National Women's History Museum is without a home. It is accessible online, but Americans need a physical location for the National Women's History Museum so a history from every State can be collected, viewed, and analyzed. Recognizing the Senator from Maine and this Senator from Alaska have a connection, both of us coming from Northern States, both of us coming from States with populations that are relatively small, both States have a history that demonstrates a history of pioneering women. Alaska and Maine have historically afforded opportunities that might not be available to women in other States. Throughout Alaska's and Maine's history, women have had perhaps more opportunities because our populations are isolated, and you are forced to be a little more self-reliant. Women of Alaska and Maine, as their male counterparts, are ingrained with the ability to make do with what we have. I ask the Senator from Maine if she would agree with some of my statements?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. We have a lot of firsts that, again, when we look at Alaska's history and recognize we did not become a State until 1959, it is a very recent history, but yet women's involvement in some very important firsts have gone back so many years prior to statehood it really gets your attention. Historically, Alaskan women were employed in jobs that women in other areas of the country could only dream about. In 1915, Anchorage employed its first female principal in the Anchorage School District, our largest community now, 3 years before World War I and 5 years before women's suffrage was ratified. A year later, 1916, and still 4 years before national women's suffrage passed, Lena Morrow Lewis is believed to be the first woman to campaign for Alaska's territorial seat in the U.S. Congress. She did not win, but she was certainly followed by other pioneering women in the workforce. Marvel Crosson was the first female licensed pilot in Alaska in 1927. Mildred Herman became the first woman admitted to the Alaska Bar Association in 1934. And Barbara Washburn was the first woman to climb Mount McKinley, the tallest mountain in North America. This is all long before Alaska became a State. Other opportunities for women, as we flip through the history books, become very apparent. A woman by the name of Nell Scott became the first woman to serve in the Alaska State legislature in 1937. This was a year before the National Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was passed, which established a minimum wage. Blanche McSmith was the first Black woman to serve in the Alaska State legislature. Sadie Neakok was the first Native Alaskan woman to serve as a magistrate in Alaska in 1960, during the same time period when the struggle for civil rights was raging in the South. Blanche and Sadie began serving in Alaska in very prominent roles 4 years before the Civil Rights Act was passed. Could the Senator from Maine describe for me some of the pioneering women in her State.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Well, as the Senator has noted, her home State of Maine and Alaska both have a very rich history of groundbreaking women, women who have been pioneers, women who have reached out. I think our States have demonstrated the very supportive nature of moving women forward in their prosperity. In Alaska, as a for instance, since we are talking about ``for instances and firsts,'' the very first bill ever passed by the Territory of Alaska was the Shoup women's suffrage bill in 1913. That was our first bill as it related to women's rights. Seven years before women's suffrage was ratified in the rest of the country and 46 years before Alaska became a State, our territorial legislature's first bill was related to women's rights. I ask the Senator from Maine, in terms of your role model throughout your political career, who would you cite as that role model, that individual?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I couldn't agree more with the Senator from Maine. Just in the discussion we have had this evening about some of the women from my State and their pioneering enterprises and hearing the stories about the women of Maine, I would love to be able to go somewhere and spend the time to do more research, to find out more about these pioneering women, not only in Alaska and Maine but all of the States in between. By having the women's history museum here in Washington, DC, we will be able to do that. Women have played such a crucial role in the development of my State, as you have heard, and certainly in the development of yours. By encouraging women's history of all of our respective States, we can see and celebrate this common history from as far apart as Maine to the east and Alaska in the west. Those frontier women, women of independent spirit, demonstrated self- reliance, themes that embody all American women and the American spirit. I, too, am most proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and thank the Senator from Maine for her leadership in moving this forward so that we do have a place to house these great collections.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President: I rise today in strong support of the conference report for the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. I especially thank my colleagues--Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici, Senator Crapo, Senator Craig, Senator Lincoln, Senator Wyden, and Senator Feinstein for the leadership they demonstrated in addressing this national crisis that affects all Americans, particularly those who live in the urban-wildland interface. The conference report is a major step forward toward preventing the severe wildland forest and rangeland fires that have become an annual event. What is more important is that the human tragedy associated with wildfires the heartbreak of losing one's home and possessions, the economic losses, and the dangers that wildfires pose to our devoted wildland firefighters will be reduced through the sound forest management practices provided for in this legislation. The 2002 and 2003 fire seasons have been some of the worst on record nationally. Forest fires continue to create extensive problems for many Americans, predominantly for those living and working in the West. In 2002, Alaska alone experienced fires that burned more than one million acres. These catastrophic wildfires caused great damage to our forested lands; many were already vulnerable as a result of unaddressed insect and disease damage. Deteriorating forest and rangeland health now affects more than 190 million acres of public land, an area twice the size of California. In my home State of Alaska, the damage caused by the spruce bark beetle, especially on the Kenai Peninsula has been devastating. Over 5 million acres of trees in south central and interior Alaska have been lost to insects over the last 10 years. I am particularly enthusiastic that this legislation authorizes and expedites fuel reduction treatment on Federal land on which the existence of disease or insect infestation has occurred, such as those on the Kenai Peninsula. Federal land managers will now be able to manage these dead and dying tree stands. The key to long-term forest management on the Kenai Peninsula is to manage the forested landscape for a variety of species compositions, structures and age classes; not simply unmanaged stands. The legislation before us will do just that, and will prevent a reoccurrence of the type of spruce bark beetle mortality we have experienced in Alaska. I firmly believe that this conference report is a comprehensive plan focused on giving Federal land managers and their partners the tools they need to respond to a national forest health crisis. The legislation directs the timely implementation of scientifically supported management activities to protect the health and vibrancy of Federal forest ecosystems as well as the communities and private lands that surround them. Under this legislation, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture will conduct authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act with a critical, streamlined process. Additionally, for those authorized fuel reduction projects proposed to be conducted in the wildland-urban interface, the Secretaries will be able to expedite such projects without the need to analyze and describe more than the proposed agency action and one alternative action. In other words, we can now get the work on the ground done quickly. Still, the Secretaries must continue to provide for public comment during the preparation of any environmental assessment or EIS for these authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects. The public process is not undermined in this legislation. I also support the proposed new administrative review process associated with these authorized fuel reduction projects. Too often we have become mired in administrative appeal gridlock in this country at the expense of communities at risk to wildland fire. We saw such devastation recently in the State of California. This legislation will establish a fair and balanced predecisional review process. Specific, written comments must be submitted during the scoping or public comment period. Additionally, civil actions may be brought in Federal district court only if the person has exhausted his/her administrative review process. The legislation will foreclose venue-shopping. It encourages the courts to weigh the environmental consequences of management inaction when the potential devastation from fires could occur. This provision is important public policy and demonstrates to the American people that the risk of catastrophic wildfire must be known, understood and respected in our judicial system and acted upon quickly. I am also excited about title 2 of the legislation which will encourage the production of energy from biomass. Developing energy from biomass could provide a tremendous boost to the local economy on the Kenai Peninsula while reducing the dangerous wildland fire risks that exists there. That is a win-win solution. The biomass provision is innovative, environmentally sound and a good approach in achieving healthy forests. The bipartisan legislation before us is good for the nation and good for Alaska. I will enthusiastically support its passage today.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will have a profound effect on the retention of teachers, administrators, and other school staff in remote and rural areas of Alaska. I am pleased to have Mr. Campbell join me in introducing this bill. In rural areas of Alaska, school districts face the challenge of recruiting and retaining teachers, administrators and other school staff due to the lack of housing. In the Lower Kuskokwim School District in western Alaska, they hire one teacher for every six who decide not to accept job offers. Half of the applicants not accepting a teaching position in that district indicated that their decision as related to the lack of housing. Earlier this year, I traveled through rural Alaska with Education Secretary Rod Paige. I wanted him to see the challenges of educating children in such a remote and rural environment. At the village school in Savoonga, the principal slept in a broom closet in the school due to the lack of housing in that village. The special education teacher slept in her classroom, bringing a mattress out each evening to sleep on the floor. The other teachers shared housing in a single home. Needless to say, there is not enough room for the teachers' spouses. Unfortunately, Savoonga is not an isolated example of the teacher housing situation in rural Alaska. Rural Alaskan school districts experience a high rate of teacher turnover due to the lack of housing. Turnover is as high as 30 percent each year in some rural areas with housing issues being a major factor. How can we expect our children to receive a quality education when the good teachers don't stay? How can we meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind in such an educational environment? Clearly, the lack of teacher housing in rural Alaska is an issue that must be addressed in order to ensure that children in rural Alaska receive the same level of education as their peers in more urban settings. My bill authorizes the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide teacher housing funds to the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, which is a State agency. In turn, the corporation is authorized to provide grant and loan funds to rural school districts in Alaska for teacher housing projects. This legislation will allow school districts in rural Alaska to address the housing shortage in the following ways: construct housing units; purchase housing units; lease housing units; rehabilitate housing units; purchase or lease property on which housing units will be constructed, purchased or rehabilitated; repay loans secured for teacher housing projects; provide funding to fill any gaps not previously funded by loans or other forms of financing; and conduct any other activities normally related to the construction, purchase, or rehabilitation of teacher housing projects. Eligible school districts that accept funds under this legislation will be required to provide the housing to teachers, administrators, other school staff, and members of their households. It is imperative that we address this important issue immediately and allow the flexibility for the disbursement of funds to be handled at the local level. The quality of education of our rural students is at stake. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will have a profound effect on the retention of teachers, administrators, and other school staff in remote and rural areas of Alaska. I am pleased to have Mr. Campbell join me in introducing this bill. In rural areas of Alaska, school districts face the challenge of recruiting and retaining teachers, administrators and other school staff due to the lack of housing. In the Lower Kuskokwim School District in western Alaska, they hire one teacher for every six who decide not to accept job offers. Half of the applicants not accepting a teaching position in that district indicated that their decision as related to the lack of housing. Earlier this year, I traveled through rural Alaska with Education Secretary Rod Paige. I wanted him to see the challenges of educating children in such a remote and rural environment. At the village school in Savoonga, the principal slept in a broom closet in the school due to the lack of housing in that village. The special education teacher slept in her classroom, bringing a mattress out each evening to sleep on the floor. The other teachers shared housing in a single home. Needless to say, there is not enough room for the teachers' spouses. Unfortunately, Savoonga is not an isolated example of the teacher housing situation in rural Alaska. Rural Alaskan school districts experience a high rate of teacher turnover due to the lack of housing. Turnover is as high as 30 percent each year in some rural areas with housing issues being a major factor. How can we expect our children to receive a quality education when the good teachers don't stay? How can we meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind in such an educational environment? Clearly, the lack of teacher housing in rural Alaska is an issue that must be addressed in order to ensure that children in rural Alaska receive the same level of education as their peers in more urban settings. My bill authorizes the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide teacher housing funds to the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, which is a State agency. In turn, the corporation is authorized to provide grant and loan funds to rural school districts in Alaska for teacher housing projects. This legislation will allow school districts in rural Alaska to address the housing shortage in the following ways: construct housing units; purchase housing units; lease housing units; rehabilitate housing units; purchase or lease property on which housing units will be constructed, purchased or rehabilitated; repay loans secured for teacher housing projects; provide funding to fill any gaps not previously funded by loans or other forms of financing; and conduct any other activities normally related to the construction, purchase, or rehabilitation of teacher housing projects. Eligible school districts that accept funds under this legislation will be required to provide the housing to teachers, administrators, other school staff, and members of their households. It is imperative that we address this important issue immediately and allow the flexibility for the disbursement of funds to be handled at the local level. The quality of education of our rural students is at stake. 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 speak also to the Energy conference report. Unlike some of the previous speakers I listened to in the past 2 hours that I have been in the Chamber, I stand in support of the agreement that was reached in conference. It has been pointed out that this is not a perfect bill. I would be the first to chime in and say I agree with that. But in an effort to achieve the perfect, I don't think we should overlook the good in the conference report. Because of the hard work of Chairman Domenici and his staff, working with the others on the conference agreement, and spending many, many hours to reach the consensus we have before us, I think we can truly say this is a good bill and a bill that should be signed into law. There has been a great deal of talk, not just during this legislative session but in years previous: We need to have an energy policy for this country. We need to have the framework for an energy policy. It seems to me that so often what we do is react to situations, whether it is the blackout we experienced in August, or when the price of gasoline increases to a level where it gets our attention. We only respond when there is something that gets our attention and focuses the Nation on energy. Quite honestly, most Americans don't pay attention to energy. They don't pay attention to how they get their lights to turn on, or how we keep the temperature cool or warm. I have said many times as I talk about energy, most Americans ascribe to the immaculate conception theory of energy: It just happens. We know that is not the case. It doesn't just happen. It takes innovation. It takes incentives. It takes capital. It takes the desire to do something. But without the energy we have in this country, we would not have the freedoms or the liberties we take for granted--the ability to do what we want, to go where we want to go. We need to recognize that energy is something that has built our country and made us strong. We need to continue with that sound policy. I believe the conference report we have in front of us is a good first step toward that sound policy. As I say that in very general terms, I have to start off that this is not my perfect bill. At the top of my list for an energy policy for this country would be the opening of ANWR. We don't see that coming out of the conference report. Congress had the opportunity to include language that would have generated over 1 million jobs for American workers by allowing for oil and gas exploration on just 2,000 acres of Alaska's North Slope. I know we tried to keep ANWR in the conference report. The chairman was working hard. But we were threatened with that constant threat of a filibuster. You can't put ANWR in the Energy bill or it will be filibustered. It seems a little ironic to be standing here tonight. ANWR is not in the Energy bill yet we are still slowed in the task of getting to a vote on the Energy bill. The House adopted ANWR and wanted it in the conference report but there were continued objections, primarily from the environmental groups, that have kept us and will keep us this year from moving forward with jobs that truly could have been promised with the opening of ANWR. I have made the invitation to the Senators here on the floor and I know my counterpart, Senator Stevens, has made the effort to invite all Senators to visit ANWR and see what this dispute over opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR to oil and gas exploration is all about. We want you to see Prudhoe Bay. We want you to see the developments in Alpine and the technology we have utilized to provide for the exploration and development of oil up on the North Slope. We want you to see the minimal impact to the environment, and how technology has helped us to advance. I get a few takers, primarily in the summertime. But I encourage you to come up in the wintertime. This is when we do the production up there. I know that is kind of a chilly invitation to some, but I think it would help to understand what we are dealing with in Alaska, how vast our spaces are, and just how small of an area the Coastal Plain of ANWR, the 1002 area, really is, in comparison. I agree with those of my colleagues who would argue we cannot drill our way to independence from foreign oil. They are absolutely right. We have to have the incentives for renewable energy sources. We have to have greater technological efficiency. We have to decrease our energy consumption. Those efforts need to be part of this comprehensive energy package. But we must also have increased domestic production. I suggest to you again, if you are going to argue that we need to have energy security, if we want to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, the first place we should be looking is ANWR. But I am not going to go into any further discussion about ANWR at this time. You have certainly heard the debate before. It will be an issue that we will revisit. We will continue to push for opening ANWR. I want to take one more second to remind folks that we had an opportunity here for over one million jobs across the Nation, at a time when millions are unemployed in our country. But some Members have declined to accept that offer. Instead, we are talking about extending unemployment benefits. I suggest to you that the unemployed people in my State, if given a choice, would certainly prefer to have a job than more unemployment benefits. But when we speak about jobs, I should not be talking exclusively in the negative here because all is not lost. We have an incredible opportunity in Alaska with our natural gas. Several very important provisions are included in this bill that will promote the construction of a natural gas pipeline to transport the vast quantities of natural gas that we have up on our North Slope, to bring it to market in the lower 48, be it down the Alaska Canadian Highway or through LNG tankers to the west coast. We have 35 trillion cubic feet of gas up there now. You have heard Members in the Chamber talking about the fact that right now that gas is stranded up there. Right now that gas is being reinjected instead of being shipped down here to the lower 48, where we need it. We have provisions in the Energy bill to get that gas where it is needed: We have guaranteed loans, expedited judicial and environmental reviews, and a program to train pipeline workers--again, talking about the jobs aspect. The pipeline, if constructed, could provide over one million jobs, direct and indirect jobs, through the construction of this pipeline alone. But the key here is, if this pipeline is constructed, there are no guarantees. We have done a great deal in this legislation to encourage the construction of the line. There is one provision that generated a great deal of attention and focus but is not included. There would have been a production credit to ensure the economic viability and provide a safety net in the event the price of gas drops to very low levels. That is not included in the legislation. This is a huge project. People need to understand how huge. This is a $20 billion project, 3,500 miles in length, 5 million tons of steel, delivering billions of cubic feet of gas per day to a nation that is starved right now for natural gas. And the situation is just getting worse. It would be the biggest construction project of its kind in the country. It is something that we can only imagine. When we imagine huge projects like this, every now and again they take a little bit of a boost to get going. What we have done in the Energy bill is to provide that boost, to provide the incentives to encourage the construction. Again, what we are providing is grants to authorize training of the crews and workers who will construct and operate the pipeline. We limit the period of time to bring a claim, if a claim should arrive, and we expedite the claim so the project doesn't get bogged down in the courts. We authorize the construction of the pipeline. We have loan guarantees of up to 80 percent of the cost of the project. It would be an $18 billion Federal loan guarantee--probably the largest loan guarantee we have ever seen given to a project here in the United States. We have also included a 15-percent enhanced oil recovery credit for the $2.6 billion gas handling plant that will be required on the North Slope. We have provided for accelerated depreciation on the project, again helping to provide that incentive which we need to encourage construction of this line. This only happens, the jobs only come, if the construction happens, if we can get moving with the line, if we convince the producers that it is timely, it is necessary, and that the demand is there. I think we have established that the demand is clearly there. I am going to be working with the State of Alaska and the industry to examine the options and to pursue those possibilities as we push this project to completion. It is imperative that we in Congress, through the passage of this bill, make our intent known that this is a priority for the country. It is a priority for Alaska. But it must be a priority for this Nation as well. I have been talking about the Alaska component in the bill. We are pleased with what I have spoken to so far. But we should be reminded about the other good things in the Energy bill that apply throughout the country. Authorized annual funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, is increased from $2 billion to $3.4 billion. There is $550 million in grants for biomass production, and it provides money for communities under 50,000 in population to improve the commercial value of their biomass. A couple of weeks ago, I stood on the floor during the debate on the Healthy Forests legislation and I showed a picture of Alaska Chugach Forest on the Kenai Peninsula where as far as the eye can see the standing trees are dead, killed by the spruce bark beetle. With the help of grants that we are seeing in the Energy bill, those trees can be converted into a biomass fuel providing a new source of energy for low-income communities. There is money for clean coal power energy for those projects that demonstrate the advanced technology that achieves significant emission reductions. I need to point out that there has been discussion on this floor that through the Energy bill perhaps we are not putting enough focus on clean air, clean water, and concern for the environment. We need to understand that our environment is only going to be helped. We are only going to get cleaner air and cleaner water when we have the advanced technology instead of the old stuff we had in the past. Those technologies might take some upfront money. I know there are programs that have already been spoken about--such as the clean schoolbuses--$100 million to retrofit existing diesel buses with new pollution control technology, $200 million in grants to replace older schoolbuses with clean alternative fuels and ultra-low sulfur fuel buses. Also, as has been referenced, there is funding for hydropowered automobiles that the President has made such a big push for. I might remind the body, though, that in order for us to make headway on this particular initiative, it will increase the demand for our natural gas. Again, the imperative is to move forward with a natural gas pipeline. The bill contains language to make permanent the United States' commitment to the energy security of Israel ensuring, if Israel is unable to independently secure its own supply of oil, that the United States will procure the necessary oil to meet Israel's needs. There is much in this Energy bill that provides the incentives and the technology to move forward. We have language that will help in the rural areas of the nation--certainly those in my State. Not only do we not have affordable energy in parts of rural Alaska, we don't have any energy to speak of. We have a long way to go, but it is only with the assistance we are seeing through the Energy bill that we will get there. While I may suggest that Congress has missed an opportunity on certain topics, such as ANWR, this bill does offer new programs to improve our energy efficiency, increase the development and use of renewable energy resources, and promote domestic production. It doesn't go as far as it could in reducing America's dependence on unstable foreign sources of oil, but it is the beginning of a comprehensive energy policy for this country. It is a policy that has been lacking for many, many years, and one that I feel is badly needed. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Domenici and his counterpart in the House, Chairman Tauzin. I appreciate their hard work and their leadership. Again, this is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support its adoption so we can move forward with a sound energy policy for the country. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will increase the minimum funding level for low population States for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's HOME Investment Partnerships Program. The HOME program was created when the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing bill was signed into law in 1990. Funds were first appropriated for this program in 1992. HOME program funds are disbursed to State and local governments for the purpose of assisting with the expansion of housing for low-income families. These governmental entities have a great deal of flexibility when using these funds to implement the program's purpose. When this program was created, a minimum funding level of $3 million was created for States that would normally receive a small amount of HOME funds under the allocation formula, which is based on a State's population, among other parameters. Three States--Alaska, Delaware, and Nevada--received this level of funding for this program in fiscal year 2003. Assuming a three percent inflation rate per year between 1992-- when this program was first funded--and 2003, a $3 million allocation in 1992 dollars decreased in value to $2,145,904 in 2003. This is unacceptable. My State is one of the most expensive areas in the country to develop housing, especially when one takes into account the cost to transport building materials to extremely remote areas of my State. This legislation increases the minimum State funding level for the HOME program to $5 million. Based on fiscal year 2003 allocations for this program, ten States received less than $5 million. Those States are: Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. My proposed increase in funding would be offset by an overall decrease in allocations to other States. If a $5 million minimum funding level had been in place by fiscal year 2003, the other 40 States would only have experienced an overall decrease of less than $15 million. Bearing in mind that the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003 for this program is just under $2 billion, such a decrease in funds seems reasonable considering no changes have been made to the minimum State funding level since the HOME program was first funded in 1992. In addition, the congressionally-appointed, bipartisan Millennium Housing Commission recommended increasing the minimum State funding level for the HOME program to $5 million in their May 30, 2002, report to Congress. It is imperative that we address this important issue so that we can address the housing needs of a greater amount of low-income families in low-population States. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will increase the minimum funding level for low population States for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's HOME Investment Partnerships Program. The HOME program was created when the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing bill was signed into law in 1990. Funds were first appropriated for this program in 1992. HOME program funds are disbursed to State and local governments for the purpose of assisting with the expansion of housing for low-income families. These governmental entities have a great deal of flexibility when using these funds to implement the program's purpose. When this program was created, a minimum funding level of $3 million was created for States that would normally receive a small amount of HOME funds under the allocation formula, which is based on a State's population, among other parameters. Three States--Alaska, Delaware, and Nevada--received this level of funding for this program in fiscal year 2003. Assuming a three percent inflation rate per year between 1992-- when this program was first funded--and 2003, a $3 million allocation in 1992 dollars decreased in value to $2,145,904 in 2003. This is unacceptable. My State is one of the most expensive areas in the country to develop housing, especially when one takes into account the cost to transport building materials to extremely remote areas of my State. This legislation increases the minimum State funding level for the HOME program to $5 million. Based on fiscal year 2003 allocations for this program, ten States received less than $5 million. Those States are: Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. My proposed increase in funding would be offset by an overall decrease in allocations to other States. If a $5 million minimum funding level had been in place by fiscal year 2003, the other 40 States would only have experienced an overall decrease of less than $15 million. Bearing in mind that the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003 for this program is just under $2 billion, such a decrease in funds seems reasonable considering no changes have been made to the minimum State funding level since the HOME program was first funded in 1992. In addition, the congressionally-appointed, bipartisan Millennium Housing Commission recommended increasing the minimum State funding level for the HOME program to $5 million in their May 30, 2002, report to Congress. It is imperative that we address this important issue so that we can address the housing needs of a greater amount of low-income families in low-population States. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for this opportunity. I join today with my colleagues in the Senate to address the judicial confirmation process and really the procedural quagmire in which we find this body right now. I take very seriously my obligation under the Constitution to provide the advice and consent to the judicial nominations of individuals who are nominated by the President to serve on the Federal bench. I have heard repeatedly over the hours the term ``rubberstamp,'' there is a rubberstamp approval. Those on my side of the aisle would automatically take the President's nominees. I do not take part of my job to mean that my vote is intended to be a rubberstamp of approval for the President's nominations to these critical judicial positions. I am frustrated that after serving in the Senate for almost a year, and contrary to what some Members may assert, the Senate has not been permitted to vote up or down on the merits, on the qualifications of the individuals who are embroiled in this current dispute. Rather, we have been prevented, I have been prevented as a Member of the Senate, as an individual, from voting for or against a nomination by a legislative procedure, legislative procedural rules unique to this body. We are engaged in the Senate in a historic session for not quite 24 hours, during which time we have heard about the nomination process, the qualifications of certain individuals to be Federal judges, the need for jobs, unemployment issues--a variety of compelling, interesting significant issues. I bring to this debate this afternoon a new issue and explain why legislation I have proposed, along with several other colleagues of the Senate, to split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, why this is relevant and important to the debate today. The Senate has debated the qualifications and character of specific individuals to serve on the Ninth Circuit. As some would argue, by invoking the Senate procedures to filibuster the current judicial nominations, those on the other side of the aisle are simply trying to ensure the balance or the mainstream ideology on the U.S. court of appeals. But there is little doubt in my mind they seek to maintain what I perceive to be philosophical bias on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. For those looking for circuit courts whose actions may raise concerns about ideology and balance, I suggest my colleagues take a close look at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In the makeup of who is currently serving on the Ninth Circuit, the court currently has 9 judges appointed by Republican Presidents and 17 judges appointed by Democrat Presidents. I will put the Ninth Circuit record into a historical precedent, a recent historical precedent. During the United States Supreme Court October 1996 term, the Supreme Court found it necessary to review 28 cases decided by the Ninth Circuit. These cases from the Ninth Circuit made up approximately one- third of the Supreme Court docket despite the fact that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over 11 other Federal circuits and over Federal questions decided in courts of all 50 states. Of those 28 Ninth Circuit cases back in 1996, the Supreme Court reversed 27. Some could argue this reversal rate is simply the impact of a more conservative Supreme Court disagreeing with the Ninth Circuit on close questions. However, most of the reversals were unanimous. In fact, six were summary reversals. The Supreme Court did not even ask for briefing or oral arguments. The Supreme Court simply reversed the Ninth Circuit on the basis of the petition for certiorari. This lopsided reversal rate has since continued since that 1996 term. As we compare other circuit court reversal rates, it is helpful because it puts the Ninth Circuit into a context and helps us review the balance. In 1997, of those cases decided by the Supreme Court in a full opinion, the Supreme Court reversed or vacated four cases from the DC Circuit cases and affirmed five. Balance that against the Ninth Circuit, where in that same year the Supreme Court affirmed 3 cases from the Ninth Circuit and reversed or vacated 14. Let's go to 1998. The Supreme Court affirmed one case from the DC Circuit, vacated one case, and reversed no DC Circuit case. In comparison to the Ninth Circuit, in 1998 the Ninth Circuit was affirmed 4 times and reversed or vacated 14 times. 1999, the Supreme Court affirmed three DC district cases and reversed or vacated no cases from that court. In 1999, the Ninth Circuit in comparison was reversed or vacated 9 times that year and affirmed only once. In 2000, the DC Circuit was reversed once and only had one case from that court to go up to the Supreme Court that year. The Ninth Circuit was affirmed 4 times, and in the year 2000 reversed or vacated 13 times. Over the last 3 years, one-third of all cases reversed by the Supreme Court came from the Ninth Circuit, the circuit that my State is part of. That is 3 times the number of reversals for the next nearest circuit, and a 33 times higher reversal rate than the Tenth Circuit. I suggest these statistics are astounding in their proportion. One of the reasons the Ninth Circuit is reversed so often is it has become too large and too unwieldy. It is a simple fact. The circuit serves a population of more than 54 million people, almost 60 percent more than served by the next largest circuit. By the year 2010, the Census Bureau estimates that the Ninth Circuit will preside over a population of more than 63 million people. According to the Administrative office of the United States Courts, the Ninth Circuit alone accounts for more than 60 percent of all appeals pending for more than a year. The shear magnitude of cases brought before the court explains why it takes nearly 50 percent longer than the national average, almost 1 year and 4 months, to get a final disposition of a case in the Ninth Circuit. It takes 5 months longer to resolve a case in the Ninth Circuit than the national average for a court of appeals, and the delay increased by a full month in 2003 compared to the time it took in the year 2001. Talk about justice delayed, this is it here in the Ninth Circuit. With such a huge caseload, the judges cannot possibly have the opportunity to keep up with the decisions within the circuit, let alone track decisions made in other circuits. I suggest that now is not the time to have vacancies on the bench in the Ninth Circuit. One of the individuals who is the subject of these 30 hours, Carolyn Kuhl, has been waiting for an up-or-down vote to the Ninth Circuit since June 22, 2001. There are many who believe the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Ninth Circuit, is out of touch with the mainstream. This is part of the reason that I support splitting the Ninth Circuit and part of the reason the Senate must complete the pending nominations. We only need to look back to March of this year when the Ninth Circuit decided that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Talk about a very graphic example of the Ninth Circuit being out of touch with mainstream America. The Senate, by a 94-0 vote, went on record expressing unanimous opposition to the Ninth Circuit decision in Elk Grove Unified School District. The U.S. Supreme Court shortly thereafter granted certiorari and briefs to be filed before the end of the year. Another part of the problem with the Ninth Circuit is it is never able to speak with one voice. All other courts have one entity to hear full court en banc cases. The Ninth Circuit sits in panels of 11. This system injects unnecessary arbitrariness to decisions. In an en banc decision, a case is decided 6 to 5. There is no reason to think it could actually represent the views of the majority of 24 active members of the bench. In fact, there are some commentators who have suggested that a majority of the 24 members of the Ninth Circuit may have disagreed with the pledge decision. But there was a concern that a random pick of 11 members of that circuit to hear the case en banc might have resulted in the decision being affirmed. The time has come to fill the vacancies in the Ninth Circuit and to enact legislation to split the circuit. We have heard again many times in the Senate over the course of these hours: Justice delayed is justice denied. That is most certainly happening in the Ninth Circuit. That is happening to the individuals who are pending before the Senate seeking confirmation of their judicial appointments. Filling the current vacancies would decrease the time it takes to resolve cases and would therefore provide better administration of justice. I see the Senator from Ohio is in the Senate, and I know he was to have a share of our side's time.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to speak on amendment 2094, which was successfully added to the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture appropriations bill yesterday. This amendment restores decreased funding for food stamp recipients in Alaska and Hawaii. Senators Stevens, Inouye, and Akaka have joined me in cosponsoring this amendment. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates the cost of food items in Alaska and Hawaii, rather than researching the actual cost for these items. This method of estimating prices rather than researching prices led to a negative update that slashed benefits for the most vulnerable Alaskans and Hawaiians. The cuts in benefits, which took effect on October 1 of this year, essentially locks low income residents of Alaska and Hawaii into trying to buy this year's food at last year's prices. This just does not work. Please allow me to give a few examples about the actual cost of food around my State. In the general store in Port Graham, a remote village in the southcentral part of Alaska that is only accessible by boat or aircraft, one gallon of milk costs $11.59. In the village of Hoonah, which is a remote village located on an island west of our State capitol of Juneau, oranges cost nearly $5 a pound. Cutting the benefits for folks who are already paying far above the national average for food is unconscionable. This amendment, which is fully offset, says that the most vulnerable Alaskans and Hawaiians should not be stripped of their ability to put food on the table for their families. This amendment will make a real difference for those in Alaska and Hawaii who are working to become self-sufficient.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. This new hospital project will be an economic boon for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Currently, there is a hospital in Palmer, which is one of the larger communities in the borough. However, this is the only full-service hospital in the entire borough. This borough, which is the home to many people who commute to work in Anchorage, has grown a great deal over the years. In fact, the borough's population is projected to double in the next ten years. Therefore, a new hospital is needed in this borough. This proposed hospital will be located halfway between the communities of Wasilla and Palmer and will be more easily accessible to more of the borough's residents. Currently, the site on which the proposed hospital will be located does not have a water or sewer connection. Therefore, such a connection is critical to the success of the hospital project, which will serve so many people in a high-growth area in my State. Please allow me to share with you some details on the economic effect that this hospital project will have on the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. It will create 680 full time and part time construction jobs during the first phase of the construction. Once the hospital is complete, 1,200 to 1,800 new jobs will be created through new hospital operations. It will add $22.8 million in construction labor income. The new hospital will pay approximately $1.3 million in local property taxes and will produce a total of $2.08 million in local and State revenues from construction and another $3.84 million from new hospital operations. These statistics don't begin to depict the more significant statistics on lives saved and people healed. This project is a win-win for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the State of Alaska. It will have the single largest positive impact on the borough's economy for the next decade. More importantly, it will yield the single largest positive impact on the health of the community and residents, as well.