National Blue Alert Act of 2013

Mr. President, today I rise to re-introduce three bills that will better protect unique and important areas in the beautiful state of Oregon. Two of these passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee the last two Congresses. I am pleased to again be joined on these bills with my colleague from Oregon, Senator MerklEy. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, other colleagues and other supporters of the bills to keep up the fight for these special places in Oregon.

The first bill I am introducing--the Oregon Caves Revitalization Act of 2013--will enhance the existing Oregon Caves National Monument to protect this majestic site for future generations. The bill expands the boundary of the National Park Service land to create the Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve.

A Presidential Proclamation in 1909 established 480 acres of natural wonder as the Oregon Caves National Monument in the botanically-rich Siskiyou Mountains. At the time, the focus was on the unique subsurface resources, and the small, rectangular boundary was thought to be adequate to protect the cave. However, scientific research has since provided much greater insight into the cave's ecology and its hydrological processes, for which 480 acres is inadequate. The National Park Service formally proposed boundary modification numerous times--in 1939, 1949, and 2000.

My bill expands protections in and around the Oregon Caves National Monument. The entirety of the Cave Creek Watershed would be included in the park site, transferring management of 4,070 acres of United States Forest Service land to the National Park Service. Hunters will still have recreational access to this land since it will be designated a Preserve.

And the expansion of the Monument's boundary would be incomplete

without protecting the water that enters the cave so as to preserve the cave's resources. My legislation would designate at least 9.6 miles of rivers and tributaries as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational, under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act--including the first Wild and Scenic subterranean river, the ``River Styx.'' A perennial stream, the River Styx--an underground portion of Cave Creek--flows through part of the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the National Monument. In addition, this bill would authorize the retirement of existing grazing allotments. The current grazing permitee, Phil Krouse's family, has had the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment, 19,703 acres, since 1937. Mr. Krouse has publicly stated that he would look favorably upon retirement with private compensation for his allotment, which my legislation will allow to proceed.

The Oregon Caves National Monument offers important contributions to Southern Oregon and the nation. The cave ecosystem provides habitat for one of the highest concentrations of biological diversity anywhere. And as the longest marble cave open to the public west of the Continental Divide, the Monument receives over 80,000 visitors annually. A larger Monument boundary will help showcase more fully the recreational opportunities on the above-ground lands within the proposed Monument boundary.

I want to express my thanks to the conservation and business communities of southern Oregon, who have worked diligently to protect these lands and waters.

My second bill is the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2013. Under this bill, approximately 30,500 acres of rugged, wild, pristine, and remote land surrounding the Wasson Creek area will be designated wilderness. In fact the area is so rugged that federal land managers have withdrawn this landslide-prone forest from all timber activity numerous times. At the heart of this coastal rainforest lies Devil's Staircase, a crystal clear waterfall that cascades over slab after slab of sandstone. The Devil's Staircase proposal typifies what Wilderness in Oregon is all about.

The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness is the finest old-growth forest remaining in Oregon's Coast Range, boasting huge Douglas-fir, cedar and hemlock. The ecological significance of this treasure is as clear as the water running through Devil's Staircase. The land is protected as a Late-Successional Reserve by the Northwest Forest Plan, as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, and as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by the Bureau of Land Management. Preserving these majestic forests as Wilderness for their wildlife and spectacular scenery not only matches the goals of the existing land management plans but also permanently protects this natural gem for future generations. The wilderness designation is needed to protect these areas permanently.

My bill would not only protect the forests surrounding Wasson Creek but would also designate approximately 4.5 miles of Franklin Creek and approximately 10.1 miles of Wasson Creek as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Franklin Creek, a critically important tributary to the Umpqua River, is one of the best examples of pristine salmon habitat left in Oregon. Together with Wasson Creek, these two streams in the Devil's Staircase area deserve Wild and Scenic River designation by Congress.

The third bill I am introducing is the Oregon Treasures Act of 2013. This bill seeks to provide protections for five significant areas in Oregon. They are the Chetco River, the Molalla River, the Rogue River, and Horse Heaven and Cathedral Rock. Each of these parts of the bill aim to protect natural treasures in Oregon, preserve them for use and enjoyment for generations to come, and build upon the economic opportunities they provide for their local communities.

The Oregon Treasures Act of 2013 includes a provision to protect two of Oregon's natural treasures, Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven. This wilderness designation has been introduced in the two most recent Congresses. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven wilderness proposal will do more than simply protect these areas. It will also help Oregon's economy, because visitors from all over the world come to my state to experience firsthand the unique scenic beauty of place like the lands preserved by this bill.

This legislation will consolidate what is currently a splintered ownership of land in this area and protect 17,340 acres of new Wilderness along the Lower John Day River. The fractured land ownership in this area makes it difficult for visitors to fully appreciate these areas when they hike, fish or hunt there because of the scattered and misunderstood lines of private and public ownership. This bill will solve that problem and make these lands more inviting to visitors while giving the landowners more contiguous property to call home.

The area in question is stunning. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposals encompass dramatic basalt cliffs and rolling hills of juniper, sagebrush and native grasses. These new areas build on the desert Spring Basin Wilderness that was established in 2009 as a result of legislation I introduced, and are located directly across the John Day River from Spring Basin.

With 500 miles of undammed waters, the John Day River is the second- longest free-flowing river in the continental United States and is a place that is cherished by Oregonians. The Lower John Day Wild and Scenic River offers world-class opportunities for outdoor recreation as well as crucial wildlife habitat for elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep and native fish such as salmon and steelhead trout. Through land consolidation between public and private landowners, this legislation will allow for better management and easier public access for this important natural treasure. With the current fragmentation of public and private land ownership in the area, river campsites are limited. Many federal lands among them can't be reached by the hikers, campers and other outdoors recreationists who could most appreciate them. With the equal-value land exchanges included in this bill, public lands would be consolidated into two new Wilderness areas. This would enhance public safety, improve land management, and increase public access and recreational opportunities. I want to recognize that some have raised concerns about the lack of roaded access to Cathedral Rock. I have engaged the private landowners on this issue to seek a solution. Whatever the outcome, I do know that the Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven proposal will create an incredible, new heritage for public lands recreationists who are an important factor in keeping Oregon's economy healthy and thriving.

Rafters of the John Day River can attest to the need for more campsites and public access to the Cathedral Rock area. Backcountry hunters will be able to scan the hillsides for elk, deer and game-birds without having to worry about accidentally trespassing on someone's private land. Anglers will be able to access nearly 5 miles of the John Day River that today are only reachable from privately owned lands. Likewise, such a solution ensures that local landowners can manage their lands effectively without running across unwitting trespassers.

One good example of the value of these land swaps is Young Life's Washington Family Ranch. This Ranch is home to a Christian youth camp that welcomes over 20,000 kids to the lower John Day area each year. This bill sets out private and public land boundaries that can be clearly seen on the ground and these boundaries create a safer area for campers on the Ranch; this serves the children who visit the area well and ensures the continued viability of the Ranch, which, in turn, provides big economic dividends to the local community.

The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposal is described as ``win-win-win'' by many stakeholders--nearly five miles of new river access for the public and protected land for outdoor enthusiasts; better management for private landowners and public agencies; and important habitat protections for sensitive and endangered species. This proposal is an example of the positive solutions that can result when varied, bipartisan interests in a community come together to craft solutions that will work for everyone. I especially want to thank the Oregon Natural Desert Association, Young Life, and Matt Smith for their role in developing this collaborative solution

that will benefit all Oregonians. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness areas will help make sure that this rural area will enjoy the benefits that permanently connecting these disparate pieces of natural landscape will bring for generations to come.

Additionally the Oregon Treasures Act protects the Chetco River. For over a decade, I've advocated for protections for the Chetco and other threatened waterways in Southwest Oregon. Part of the Oregon Treasures Act of 2013 would withdraw about three miles of the Chetco River from mineral entry, while upgrading the designations for some portions.

This river is under persistent threat from out-of-state suction dredge miners. In 2010, the group American Rivers listed the Chetco as the seventh most endangered river in the country because of those threats. Withdrawing these portions of the river from future mineral entry will prevent future harmful mining claims and make sure that those claims that already exist are valid.

The Chetco is also hugely important for salmon habitat and local sport fishing. The passage of this legislation would mean protecting that habitat, and promoting the continued success of the fishing industry throughout the West Coast. I am pleased the Obama administration has taken some steps to protect this area, but the passage of this legislation is needed to ensure long-term protection for this important river.

Next, the Oregon Treasures Act of 2013 would add 60,000 acres of new wilderness to the existing Wild Rogue Wilderness. The Wild Rogue Wilderness expansion would protect habitat for bald eagles, osprey, spotted owls, bear, elk, cougar, wild coho, wild Chinook, wild steelhead, green sturgeon, and many others. The Wild Rogue Wilderness and the Rogue River that runs through it embody one of the nation's premier recreation destinations, famous for the free flowing waters which provide numerous rafting and fishing opportunities.

The headwaters of the Rogue River start in one of Oregon's other great gems--Crater Lake National Park--and the river ultimately empties into the Pacific Ocean, near Gold Beach on Oregon's southwest coast. Along that stretch, the Rogue River flows through one of the most spectacular canyons and diverse natural areas in the United States. The Rogue River is a world class rafting river, offering everything from one day trips to week long trips through deep forested canyons. On the land, the Rogue River trail is also one of Oregon's most renowned backpacking routes.

The legislation would also protect an additional 143 miles of tributaries that feed the Rogue River with cold clean water. Of that number, 93 miles would be designated Wild and Scenic Rivers and an additional 50 miles would be protected from mining. The areas receiving protection include Galice Creek, Little Windy Creek, Jenny Creek, Long Gulch and 36 other tributaries of the Rogue. The Rogue River is one of Oregon's most iconic and beloved rivers. It is a river that teems with salmon leaping up rapids to spawn, and finds rafters down those very same rapids at other times of the year.

I previously introduced legislation to protect the Rogue River tributaries in the last three Congresses. Since it was first introduced, I have worked with the timber industry and conservationists to find a compromise that protects one of America's treasures with additional wilderness designations and more targeted protections for the Rogue's tributaries. I am pleased that 95 local businesses--and over 120 organizations and business in total--support protecting the Wild Rogue, and that support grows every day. Many of those businesses directly benefit from the Wild Rogue and the Rogue River. As I often say, protecting these gems is not just good for the environment, but also good for the economy. These protected landscapes are powerhouses of the recreation economy that draws visitors from around the world to this region and the Rogue River is one of Oregon's most important sport and commercial fisheries. The Wild Rogue is the second largest salmon fishery in Oregon behind the Columbia. The Wild Rogue provides the quality of life and recreational opportunities that create an economic engine that attracts businesses and brings in tourists from around the world. The Rogue River supports more than 400 local jobs in nearby communities like Grants Pass.

By protecting the Wild Rogue landscape and the tributaries that feed the mighty Rogue River, Congress will ensure that future generations can raft, fish, hike and enjoy the Wild Rogue as it is enjoyed today and that the recreational economy of this region remains strong.

Lastly, there is another provision in the bill to designate segments of Oregon's Molalla River as Wild and Scenic. An approximately 15.1- mile segment of the Molalla River and an approximately 6.2-mile segment of Table Rock Fork Molalla River would be designated as a recreational river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Including these river segments would protect a popular Oregon destination that provides abundant recreational activities that help fuel the recreation economy that is so important to the communities along the river. The scenic beauty of the Molalla River provides a backdrop for hiking, mountain biking, camping, and horseback riding, while the waters of the river are a popular destination for fishing, kayaking, and whitewater rafting enthusiasts. This legislation would not only preserve this area as a recreation destination, but would also protect the river habitat of the Chinook salmon and Steelhead trout, along with the wildlife habitat surrounding the river, home to the northern spotted owl, the pileated woodpecker, golden and bald eagles, deer, elk, the pacific giant salamander, and many others. The Molalla River is also the source of clean drinking water for the towns of Molalla and Canby, Oregon. Protecting the approximately 21.3 miles of the Molalla River will provide the residents of these Oregon towns with the assurance that they will continue to receive clean drinking water.

I would like to reiterate my continued appreciation for the Molalla River Alliance--a coalition of more than 48 member-organizations that recognize that this river is a jewel and have set out to protect it. This Alliance made sure that irrigators, city councilors, the mayor, businesses and environmentalists all came together on this.

Oregon's wildlands play an increasingly important role in the economic development of our state, especially in traditionally rural areas east of the Cascades. Visitors come from thousands of miles away to hike, fish, raft and hunt in Oregon's desert Wilderness. Beyond tourism, the rich quality of life and the diverse natural amenities that we enjoy as Oregonians are key to attracting new businesses to Oregon. And with all these bills, I express my gratitude for the many groups and individuals who have worked diligently to protect these special places. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, Representative DeFazio, Representative Schrader and other colleagues and the bill's other supporters to keep up the fight for these unique places in Oregon and get these pieces of legislation to the President's desk for his signature.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Paul, McConnell, and Merkley in introducing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013.

As some folks will recall, I introduced a similar bill as an amendment to the Senate Farm Bill last year in an attempt to empower American farmers and increase domestic economic activity. Unfortunately, this amendment didn't receive a vote. Doubly unfortunate is the fact that a senseless regulation that flunks the common-sense test is still on our nation's books.

Members of Congress hear a lot about how dumb regulations are hurting economic growth and job creation. The current ban on growing industrial hemp makes no sense at all, and what is worse, this regulation is hurting job creation in rural America and increasing our trade deficit.

If my colleagues take the time to learn about this outrageous restriction on free enterprise, I am sure most senators would say that what I am talking about is the poster child for dumb regulation.

The only thing standing in the way of taking advantage of this profitable crop is a lingering misunderstanding about its use. The bill my colleagues and I have filed will end this ridiculous regulation.

Right now, the United States is importing over $10 million in hemp products to use in textiles, foods, paper products, and construction materials. We are importing a crop that U.S. farmers could be profitably growing right here at home, if not for government rules prohibiting it.

Our neighbors to the north certainly see the potential for this product. In 2010, the Canadian government injected over $700,000 into their blossoming hemp industry to increase the size of their hemp crop and fortify the inroads they have made into U.S. markets. It was a good bet. U.S. imports have consistently grown over the past decade, increasing by 300 percent in 10 years, and from 2009 to 2010 they grew 35 percent. The number of acres in Canada devoted to growing hemp nearly doubled from 2011 to 2012. So it should come as no surprise that the United States imports around 90 percent of its hemp from Canada.

Now, I know it is tough for some members of Congress to talk about hemp and not connect it to marijuana. I want to point out that even though they come from the same species of plant, there are major differences between them.

You know, the Chihuahua and St. Bernard come from the same species, too, Canis lupus familiaris, but no one is going to confuse them. Also, the domestic dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus, and no one is going to confuse those two either. So let's recognize the real differences between hemp and marijuana, and focus on the benefits from producing domestically the hemp we already use.

Under our bill, the production of industrial hemp would still be regulated, but it would be done by States, not the Federal Government.

Pro-hemp legislation has been introduced in eight states, and several others have already removed barriers to industrial hemp production. Under our bill, industrial hemp is defined as having extremely low THC levels: it has to be 0.3 percent or less. The lowest commercial grade marijuana typically has 5% THC content. The bottom line is that no one is going to get high on industrial hemp. To guarantee that won't be the case, our legislation allows the U.S. Attorney General to take action if a state law allows commercial hemp to exceed the maximum 0.3 percent THC level.

Hemp has been a profitable commodity in many other countries. In addition to Canada, Australia also permits hemp production and the growth in that sector helped their agricultural base survive when the tobacco industry dried up. Over 30 countries in Europe, Asia, and North and South America currently permit farmers to grow hemp, and China is the world's largest producer.

In fact, the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that prohibits farmers from growing hemp. This seems silly considering that we are the world's leading consumer of hemp products, with total sales of food, health and beauty products exceeding $52 million in 2012, with 16.5 percent growth over 2011.

My home State of Oregon is home to some major manufacturers of hemp products, including Living Harvest, one of the largest hemp foods producers in the country. Business has been so brisk there that the Portland Business Journal recently rated them as one of the fastest- growing local companies.

There are similar success stories in many states. One company in North Carolina has begun incorporating hemp into building materials, reportedly making them both stronger and more environmentally friendly. Another company in California produces hemp-based fiberboard.

No country is better than the U.S. at developing, perfecting, and expanding markets for its products. As that market grows, it should be domestically-produced hemp that supplies its growth.

I would like to share with colleagues an editorial by one of the leading newspapers in my state, the Bend Bulletin. Here's what they had to say about legalizing industrial hemp: ``producers of hemp products in the United States are forced to import it. That denies American farmers the opportunity to compete in the market. It is like surrendering the competitive edge to China and Canada, where it can be grown legally.''

The Bend Bulletin's editorial went on to say: ``Legalizing industrial hemp does not have to be a slippery slope toward legalizing marijuana. It can be a start toward removing regulatory burdens limiting Oregon farmers from competing in the world market.''

The opportunities for American farmers and businesses are obvious here. Let's boost revenues for farmers and reduce the costs for businesses around the country that use this product. Let's put more people to work growing and processing an environmentally-friendly crop, with a ready market in the United States. For all the reasons I just described, I urge my colleagues to join Senators Paul, McConnell, and Merkley and me by cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Geothermal Expansion Production Act of 2013. This legislation is the same as a bill reported favorably by voice vote by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during the 112th Congress. This bill has bi- partisan support, with Senators Murkowski, Begich, Crapo, Risch, and Merkley, joining me as original cosponsors. The legislation will help to encourage the production of geothermal energy from public lands.

With limited exceptions, current law requires that all Federal lands to be leased for the development of geothermal resources be offered on a competitive basis. BLM must hold a competitive lease sale every 2 years. If bids are not received for the lands offered, BLM must offer the lands on a noncompetitive basis for 2 years.

This legislation extends the authority for noncompetitive leasing in cases where a geothermal developer wants to gain access to Federal land immediately adjacent to land on which that developer has proven that there is a geothermal resource that will be developed. This will allow a geothermal project to expand onto adjacent land, if necessary, to increase the amount of geothermal energy it can develop. It will also add to the royalties and rents that the project pays to the U.S. Treasury.

The reason for this legislation is to allow the rapid expansion of already identified geothermal resources without the additional delays of competitive leasing and without opening up those adjacent properties to speculative bidders who have no interest in actually developing the resource, only in extracting as much money as they can from the existing geothermal developer.

The bill is not a give away at taxpayer expense. The bill limits the amount of adjacent Federal land that can be leased to 640 acres. This lease on Federal land must be acquired at fair-market value. The bill also requires the lease holder to pay the higher annual rental rate associated with competitive leases even though this new parcel is not being competitively leased. Again, the purpose of this higher rental rate is to ensure that taxpayers will get the revenue due to them from the use of their public lands.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today for the fourth time to introduce or reintroduce legislation to settle the outstanding land claims of the Tlingit and Haida Native people, the first people of Southeast Alaska. I first introduced this legislation to speed up the conveyance of lands to the Sealaska Native Regional Corporation in 2008. Native residents of Southeast Alaska in 1971 were promised lands to settle their aboriginal land claims to all of Southeast Alaska. Under the motto that nothing of worth comes easy, I hope that the compromise bill I introduce today with my colleague from Alaska Senator Begich will finally settle those claims early in the 113th Congress, capping nearly six years of congressional negotiation and review on this issue.

The newly revised bill establishes where and how Sealaska may select the remaining 70,075 acres of land the Bureau of Land Management now says it is entitled to receive under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, ANCSA. In all, Sealaska, the regional corporation representing some 20,000 Alaska Natives, more than a fifth of all Native residents in Alaska, will receive about 68,400 acres of land for timber development, about 1,099 acres for other economic development such as hydroelectric generation, marine hydrokinetic activity and future tourism development near Yakutat, Kake and Hydaburg, and 490 acres that Sealaska can apply for to gain an additional 76 cemetery and historical places.

The bill provides a balance of old-growth and second-growth timber, allowing Sealaska's timber business to transition to second-growth harvesting. To address local concerns, the new bill does not contain some 26,000 acres of selections on northern Prince of Wales Island. This version of the bill also eliminates more lands near Kassa Inlet and Mabel Bay near Keete on Prince of Wales Island to meet wildlife concerns, buffer key fisheries and anchorage areas for fishermen, and revises selection areas to address the Forest Service's desire to retain more lands that will aid its young-growth timber transition strategy in the Tongass National Forest.

Frankly, it has taken years of frustrating talks and negotiations to reach this point. This bill contains more than 175 changes since the 2008 version, all designed to make the bill acceptable to all Americans. While the odds are that it still won't make absolutely everyone happy, the bill does address all of the major concerns voiced with the Sealaska bill during nearly a half dozen congressional hearings, 22 town hall meetings, and in hundreds of letters and media comments. It gives Sealaska its ANCSA selections, while it provides unprecedented public access to the lands Sealaska will be receiving, and meets the valid concerns of small communities, fishermen and timber workers and protects their industries while fully protecting the environment.

It is a compromise. Clearly there are provisions in the bill that I wish were different, but on balance, it is a fair solution to a most difficult matter that has been dragging on for more than four decades. It is certainly a balanced solution that allows Sealaska to finally take title to the last 70,000 acres it was promised by the land claims settlement--lands largely to be used for economic development in a region where unemployment often hits 25 percent--while at the same time protecting more than twice as many acres for environmental and fisheries protection in Southeast Alaska, an area roughly the size of South Carolina. The bill does the latter by creating 152,000 acres of new conservation habitat areas in the region in eight tracts.

The revised bill also requires Sealaska, by a conservation easement, to protect three major salmon spawning systems on lands it is gaining by imposing a 100-foot no-cut buffer, specifically, along the main stem of Trout Creek on Koscuisko Island, along Old Tom Creek at Polk Inlet and along Karheen and Tuxekan Creeks on Tuxekan Island. The State Forest Practices Act and buffer rules will govern the management of all other streams on state lands inside the new Sealaska selections.

The bill continues and strengthens all public access provisions contained in ANCSA. The bill contains a provision that guarantees public access to Sealaska's economic land selections for recreation, hunting and fishing both sport and subsistence, allowing closures only to protect public safety, to safeguard cultural properties, to promote educational efforts or to protect against environmental damage, while allowing the public to legally challenge any such closures. It also protects the rights of existing guides and tour operators to continue operations automatically on Sealaska lands for portions of two permit terms, or up to 20 years.

The revised bill also reduces the size of selection areas on Koscuisko and Tuxekan Islands to meet local community concerns, to protect, subsurface, karst formations, to protect old-growth habitat areas for sensitive species, and to protect anchorages for fishermen. The revised bill rearranges selection areas at 12 Mile Arm and Polk Inlet to protect Forest Service planning, facilities and research facilities, and increases the size of selection areas at Calder and the Cleveland Peninsula to offset the acreage reductions.

Sealaska, through this bill, will give up its existing selection rights to 327,000 acres of the Tongass National Forest, allowing that timber to return to full Forest Service planning control, and the bill will result in Sealaska selecting about 25,000 fewer acres of old- growth timber, traditionally the most sought after lands in the forest and about 50,000 fewer acres of inventoried road less lands than might have happened should Sealaska have stayed inside their original selection boundaries, lands that were designated for selection by the corporation in 1976. The problem with those lands, the reason why this bill is so important for the public good, is that if Sealaska had to select from those lands it would have had to select timber lands in the Situk River Valley, the home to the nation's foremost steelhead stream. It would have had to select lands in the Craig municipal watershed, key fisheries habitat near Hoonah and Hydaburg and some 64,000 acres of Old-Growth Habitat Reserves, four times more such land than the corporation is taking by this bill. Those selections would have been bad for the commercial and sport fishing industries, for tourism, and for the environment. Equally important from Sealaska's viewpoint, 44 percent of the lands it had to select from by the 1976 selection areas were located under water bodies, making the selection rights worthless.

Sealaska may use part of its entitlement to select 76 cemetery sites and historical places, but to address concerns from some stakeholders, the bill reduces the number and acreage of cemetery sites and historical places that Sealaska can file to receive. Acreage available to Sealaska was reduced more than six fold, from 3,600 acres in the original 2008 bill to a maximum of 490 acres. The total number of sites was reduced from 206 in the original bill and all parks and wilderness lands were placed off limits.

This bill also confirms that all cemetery sites and historical places will have to pass the existing historical review process before they can be conveyed. The bill, again, prohibits the selection of cemetery sites and historical places inside parks and conservation system units. Sealaska will be required to consult with local tribes before applying for conveyance of any sites, and the bill prohibits the transfer of such sites to third parties and protects them from loss of Native ownership in the event of any future financial claims against Sealaska--the lands reverting to the Federal Government in the event of financial issues. The bill also requires that Sealaska provide a 25- foot easement to allow anyone to sport fish along any salmon stream that crosses such new sites.

The bill allows Sealaska to receive nine small parcels of land that Sealaska may use to help spur cultural tourism, ecotourism, or, in two cases, renewable energy development near the communities of Yakutat, Kake, and Hydaburg. The number of sites, totaling 1,099 acres, is vastly reduced, considering more than 50 sites totaling 5,000 acres had been considered in earlier versions of the legislation. The small parcels all are within or near the so-called 10 selection boxes established by a 1976 amendment to ANCSA. Five sites are in the Yakutat area, where Sealaska currently owns no land on behalf of its tribal member shareholders. The sites in the Yakutat area are at Crab Island, North Dolgoi Island, Cannon Beach, Chicago Harbor and Redfield Lake. Two sites are in the Kake area: Turnabout Island and East Payne Island. There is a hydro site at Lake Josephine on Prince of Wales I and and a final site for marine hydrokinetic development, ocean current energy, on the northern tip of Dall Island at Turn Point-Tlevak Narrows' revised bill removes all sites that drew concern from commercial fishermen, small tour operators, environmental groups or local communities in the Alaska Panhandle.

The compromise bill conveys three non-exclusive access easements to Sealaska to use as traditional Native trade and migration routes in Southeast. The bill, as revised, renames the routes to honor Alaska's Tlingit and Haida Indians and the history of the region and provides generally for public access. The Yakutat to Dry Bay trail will be renamed ``Neix naax aan flax'' meaning, The Inside Passage; the Bay of Pillars to Port Camden trail will be renamed the ``Yakwdeiyl'' trail, meaning the Canoe Road; and the Portage Bay to Duncan Canal trail will be renamed ``Lingit Deiyl,'' meaning the People's Road.

The bill requires Sealaska to share use of all forest roads with the Forest Service and others, meaning that the government retains the right to use the roads to access other timber sales, as do the public. The bill maintains all of the access provisions granted by ANCSA and includes provisions to make access rights workable for all.

It has taken years of really listening to the requests about this bill and working through them one by one to find solutions, with the past nearly two years involved in frequent negotiations among the Forest Service, Democratic and Republican congressional staff, Sealaska, environmental groups and other interest groups such as commercial fishermen and timber operators. This is truly a compromise piece of legislation. But it finally gets Sealaska its lands, protects fisheries and wildlife, and helps maintain a timber industry in Southeast Alaska.

This compromise, the direct result of years of negotiation, has a host of good points. It will prevent ``high-grading'' of timber' the practice where companies cut only the best timber lands, leaving lesser quality lands behind. Sealaska's conveyances in the nine commercial tracts called for in this bill: Calder, Election Creek, Cleveland Peninsula, 12-Mile Arm, Tuexkan Island, Polk and MacKenzie Inlets, Koscuisko Island, Keete, and Kuiu Island include only about 20,700 acres of large old-growth trees just 3.8 percent of the forest's 537,451 acres of such trees. Already 437,000 acres of large old-growth trees, 81 percent, are protected in conservation areas within the 19.6- million-acre national forest.

The bill likely will save the government money. In additional to making Sealaska give up some $2 million of escrowed funds, the bill means Sealaska, by getting about 25,000 acres of less valuable second- growth, based on current timber prices, could be foregoing more than $10 million of timber value, compared to if it had received all old- growth trees--old-growth providing the most valuable habitat for species in the forest like Sitka black-tailed deer, the Queen Charlotte goshawk and wolves.

For Alaskans, the bill makes sure that more than 99 percent of the lands Sealaska will be receiving are open for public access. That is the opposite of what could happen if this bill does not pass, as then Sealaska would be free to prevent the public from trespassing across their new lands, like all other private land owners can post their properties.

The changes between this version and previous versions of the measure are far too many to list here. But briefly this bill reduces the number and acreage of small parcels for economic diversification, once called ``Future'' sites. It reduces the number of new Native cemetery and historical places that Sealaska could select, allowing only such sites outside national parks or wilderness to be selected. The bill increases public access provisions, prevents Sealaska from gaining potential federal grants for management of the cemetery sites, removes a host of questionable land selections on environmental grounds and revises timber lands to protect subsistence hunting areas and resource gathering spots.

As I say, I introduce this bill in a bipartisan manner with my Alaska colleague, Senator Mark Begich again as a co-sponsor. It is a reasonable bill and I hope it finally can pass both bodies of Congress, it passing the House of Representatives in a somewhat different form in 2012 and become law. Southeast Alaska's Natives, which while the largest group of Natives in Alaska in 1971, received the third smallest land entitlement in the claims act 42 years ago. That was mostly because much of the rest of the forest at the time was already dedicated to long-term timber sale contracts. Now that those contracts have been voided, it is only just and equitable that Alaska's first inhabitants get a chance to select a little more of the land first settled by their ancestors.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation to clarify Federal mining law and remedy a problem that has arisen from the extension process for ``small'' miner mineral claims.

Under revisions to the Federal Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 28(f), holders of unpatented mineral claims must pay a claim maintenance fee originally set at $100 per claim by a deadline, set by regulation, of September 1st each year. Since 2004 that fee has risen. But Congress also has provided a claim maintenance fee waiver for ``small'' miners, those who hold 10 or fewer claims, that they do not have to submit the fee, but that they must file to renew their claims and submit an affidavit of annual labor, work conducted on the claim, each year, certifying that they had performed more than $100 of work on the claim in the preceding year, 30 U.S.C. 28f(d)(1). The waiver provision further states: ``If a small miner waiver application is determined to be defective for any reason, the claimant shall have a period of 60 days after receipt of written notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau of Land Management to: cure such defect or defects or pay the $100 claim maintenance fee due for such a period.''

Since past revisions of the law, there have been a series of incidents where miners have argued that they submitted their applications and affidavits of annual labor in a timely manner, but due to clerical error by BLM staff, mailing delays or for unexplained reasons, the applications or documents were not recorded as having been received in a timely fashion. In that case BLM has terminated the claims, deeming them null and void. While mining claim holders have argued that the law provides them time to cure claim defects, BLM has argued that the cure only applies when applications or fees have been received in a timely manner. Thus, there is no administrative remedy for miners who believe that clerical errors by BLM or mail issues resulted in loss or the late recording of claim extension applications and paperwork.

There have been a number of cases where Congress has been asked to override BLM determinations and reinstate mining claims simply because of the disputes over whether the claims had been filed in a timely manner. Congress in 2003 reinstated such claims in a previous Alaska case. Claims in two other incidents were reinstated following a U.S. District Court case in the 10th Circuit first in 2009 in the case of Miller v. United States and secondly earlier this year in a second Alaska case. Legislation to correct the provision to prevent this problem in the future actually cleared the Senate in 2007, but did not ultimately become law.

In the past two Congresses I have introduced legislation intended to short circuit continued litigation and pleas for claim reinstatement by clarifying the intent of Congress that miners do have to be informed that their claims are in jeopardy of being voided and given 60 days notice to cure defects, including giving them time to submit their applications and to submit affidavits of annual labor, should their submittals not be received and processed by BLM officials on time. If all defects are not cured within 60 days, the obvious intent of Congress in passing the original act, then claims still are subject to voidance. But this administration has opposed the legislation arguing that it would be too expensive to notify all small miners who fail to file their small miner waiver documents on time and giving them time to solve the defect prior to the loss of their claims. It has even been suggested that giving small miners simple due process would just encourage miners to ignore the deadline for filing for their fee waivers.

I find the cost complaint unpersuasive. Many Federal departments and agencies, the Federal Communication Commission, as one example, routinely sends out notices on permit and license applications. The FCC sends out hundreds of thousands of such notices to Americans who have small radio licenses expiring yearly, warning them that they need to file applications for license renewal. The Bureau of Land Management certainly should be able to afford a few hundred 50-cent stamps to perform a similar service. Given the value of claims placed at risk and the bother, inconvenience and fear of loss of claims, it is highly unlikely that miners would avoid filing their waiver paperwork on time just because a notification process was clearly in place before claims could be terminated.

So today I reintroduce legislation to solve the notification issue and include language to remedy an injustice to one of my constituents who has lost his rights to nine mineral claims on the Kenai Peninsula, near Hope, Alaska. The transition language would reinstate claims for Mr. John Trautner, who has lost title to claims that he had held from 1982 to 2004. Mr. Trautner suffered this loss even though he had a consistent record of having paid the annual labor assessment fee for the previous 22 years. The local BLM office did have a time-date- stamped record that the maintenance fee waiver certification form had been filed weeks before the deadline but just not a record that the affidavit of annual labor had arrived when he dropped it office in the Anchorage office at the same time.

This legislation, supported in the past by the Alaska Miners Association, will clarify that small miners do have a right to simple due process to be able to have a chance to file their small miner waiver applications in the event of mistakes in processing, rather than immediately lose their rights to patented mining claims without effective appeal or recourse. I appreciate that the Justice Department and BLM Jan. 22, 2013 reinstated claims owned by Alaskans Don and Judy Mullikins of Nome, finally reversing a decision that they should lose their claims following a 2009 application filing incident. But the legal expense, bother and uncertainty that the Mullikins went through in getting their claims reinstated are clear reasons why Congress should clarify past changes to the small miner waiver provision and permit claims to be retained in the event of clerical errors or honest mistakes by claim holders in missing the deadline for filings. Such a change would simply provide justice for small miners.

I would like to thank Senator Barrasso for his leadership on this issue. As a longtime practicing physician before he came to the Senate, he has provided great leadership and expertise and is able to evaluate and comment so wisely on the important issue of health care.

I thank the Senator.

Immigration

Today, Majority Leader Reid--the leader of the Democratic majority of the Senate--and Senator Chuck Schumer came to the Senate floor to demand that the House of Representatives pass their immigration bill. They labeled Republicans as extremists for not giving in to their demands. And they are correct about one thing: The House is not giving in.

At this point in time, the House is refusing to yield to the pressure of special interest groups and political lobbyists and Senate Democrats to pass a bill that would be bad for America. It just will be bad for America. So I think once again the special interests will lose and the voice of the American people will be heard.

Senator Schumer said Republicans are xenophobes because they won't pass his plan. Let's talk about what is extreme. A new report just out revealed that this administration has released 36,000 criminal aliens from ICE detention. Our Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers receive them as prisoners from a State or Federal penitentiary where they have been convicted of some criminal offense unrelated to immigration, usually in a State court. 36,000 are now being released into the general population.

This report found there were 193 homicide-type convictions, 1,153 sexual offenders, 303 kidnapping convictions, and 1,075 aggravated assault convictions. These are serious crimes. If you will recall, these criminals are the only group this administration says they are the deporting. They don't deny that they are not deporting others who violate our immigration laws. They promised they are faithfully removing people who commit crimes unrelated to immigration. This report proves that claim not to be so.

These dangerous offenders should be kept in custody. They should not be released into the general population. We had a study of such releases several years ago. The statistics showed that when a person who entered the country illegally was released on bail, they didn't show up for court. If they are willing to enter the country illegally and a judge has them set for trial and he releases them on bail, we then have an incredibly high number who don't show up for trial. This was called catch and release and was roundly criticized. This is now being done with immigrants who have serious criminal charges and convictions.

Do you know what else is extreme? Extreme is trying to pass an immigration bill that would double the flow of guest workers into our country and triple the number of new permanent residents when 50 million working-age Americans are out of work. We have a very serious unemployment problem. Is no one concerned about that?

It is not xenophobic, but it is compassionate to say we should focus our attention on struggling and hurting American workers. It is not xenophobic. It is our patriotic duty to defend the integrity of our borders and enforce the long-established laws of the United States. It is the oath we all took as Senators to defend the Constitution of the United States. It is the oath the chief law enforcement officer, President Obama, took. We have a duty to defend our citizens and our people at a time when they are struggling financially. There is just no doubt about it.

There was one group of people not referenced when Majority Leader Reid and Senator Schumer talked earlier this morning. Do you know what group it was? Completely omitted from the conversation was the American worker. The American worker is not being discussed by amnesty supporters in this debate. We know the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's view. They would like more workers creating slack labor markets and lower wages. We know certain special interest groups want more immigration. We know certain politicians think this will be good for them politically.

According to the Congressional Budget Office--our own professional team that is selected in a nonpartisan way and gives us advice on the ramifications of legislation we pass--has looked at the Reid-Schumer bill that passed the Senate. According to CBO, the Senate Democratic immigration bill--which was supported by a small number of Republicans, but it is overwhelmingly a Democratic bill--would increase unemployment while reducing wages. It would increase unemployment while reducing wages of American workers for the next 12 years, and it will reduce the per person wealth or GNP for the next 17 years.

If we bring in 30 million people over the next 10 years--as this bill would do--it will triple the number that normally would be given legal status in America. It will bring down the per person wealth and it will bring down wages. Surely the U.S. Chamber of Commerce understands the free market, do they not? Surely Senator Reid understands that, does he not?

We were on a conference call yesterday regarding the American steel industry. A large amount of steel is being dumped into America. What is the impact of that? What is the concern? If we bring in more steel, there will be lower prices for steel. If we bring in more cotton, there will be lower prices for cotton. If we bring in more labor, it will result in lower wages for American workers.

CBO told us that. There is no dispute about it. Yet we have Senators who come to the floor and repeatedly say this is going to increase wages. Give me a break. You can't just say something and think it is going to make it reality when it is the opposite of reality.

Under current law, we are admitting more than 600,000 guest workers each year. Guest workers come to America not to be citizens but just to take jobs that someone contends we don't have enough workers. We grant permanent residence to 1 million immigrants each year and perhaps ultimately become citizens. That is the current law. Right now wages are falling and it is serious, but this is the law that has been established and that is what the nation has agreed to.

The bill Senator Reid maneuvered through this Senate would admit more than 1.2 million guest workers each year, thereby doubling the number of guest workers, and it will give permanent residency to 30 million immigrants over the next 10 years and that is triple the normal rate.

Research from Harvard professor Dr. George Borjas--perhaps the most preeminent student of labor, wages, and immigration in America--shows that American workers lose more than $400 billion in wages each year due to competition from low-cost workers from abroad. That is $400 billion in wages each year--not million but billion.

Dr. Borjas's research also shows that from 1980 to 2000--he did an empirical study using the census, the Department of Labor, and other official data--wages declined 7.4 percent for lower skilled working Americans. These are the people who go out and work every day. These are not people who have a college degree. I am talking

about the working people in this country. Their wages declined from 1980 to 2000 by 7.4 percent as a result of this very large flow of legal and illegal immigration.

There is no doubt--and my colleagues have to understand this--a vote for the Reid-Schumer immigration bill is a vote to lower the wages of American workers. Not only that, it will make it harder for Americans to get a job, period. It appears the people who are hurt worst by the Democratic immigration policies are young Americans, low-income Americans, and minority workers.

According to Dr. Borjas's studies--and others--minority workers are particularly damaged by high levels of immigration. This includes Hispanics who have lawfully come to America. They are trying to get started so they can make their way up. They would like to have a pay raise, but their wages are also being pulled down by an extraordinary, unjustified flow of labor that the economy can't absorb effectively. We don't have jobs for them now. That is the problem.

I don't dislike people who want to come here. I know most of them are good people who would like to advance themselves. But, as Senators we have a responsibility to the citizens of our country and we need to ask: Is this good for America? Can we absorb this number of people and maintain decent wages or are we in a long term trend that will allow lower and middle-income workers' wages to continue to erode? I think it is a serious issue that we need to be honest about and I hope we will do so. Young and low-income Americans are also hurt.

Senator Schumer says we should do the bidding of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--buddying up with them now. He says there is a hijacking out here, but it seems Mr. Schumer's party has been the one that has been hijacked by special interests, and they have lost sight of whom they claim to represent--working Americans. That is my charge and that is what I say.

We have a generous immigration policy, and we need to make sure it is enforced correctly and lawfully carried out. That is what the American people have asked of us. They have demanded this from us. They want a lawful system that we can be proud of and treats people fairly, where a person fills out an application and lays out their qualifications. Those qualifications are then evaluated on an objective basis, and the best qualified person, the one who is most deserving, is then admitted to the country. What is wrong with that? That is what Canada does. That is what the UK does. That is what Australia does. There is nothing wrong with such a policy. That is what we should be doing.

We should decide how many people the country can absorb and in what wage categories before we admit huge numbers of people and certainly before we double the number we presently bring in.

A number of Senators have complained on the floor of the Senate that the tech industries can't find qualified Americans. We have all heard that charge. I sort of accepted it at first, but in fact the data shows something different and it is rather surprising. In fact, we have twice as many STEM graduates each year as there are STEM jobs--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Here is a recent paper by Professor Hal Salzman from Rutgers University. He carefully analyzed data from the Department of Education and the Department of Labor. He concluded that we first need to get accurate data to truly inform policy decisions. If we are going to make a policy decision about how large our immigration flow should be--not to end it but how large it should be--shouldn't we have good data?

He says:

The first data to consider is the broad notion of a supply

crisis in which the United States does not produce enough

STEM graduates to meet industry demand. In fact, the nation

graduates more than two times as many STEM students each year

as find jobs in STEM fields. For the 180,000 or so annual

openings, U.S. Colleges and Universities supply 500,000

graduates.

They supply more than twice the number of graduates as we have jobs for now, so I am a little dubious about these big business types claiming they can't get enough people.

What about IT specifically? We hear some of our Silicon Valley executives promoting any kind of immigration as long as they get more IT workers.

Mr. Salzman says:

The only clear impact of the large IT guest worker inflows

over this decade can be seen in salary levels, which have

remained at their late-1990s levels and which dampens

incentives for domestic students to pursue STEM degrees.

Did you know that? IT graduates' salaries are stuck at 1990 levels. It is causing students in college to wonder if this is such a great field to go into. In fact, the author says there are other fields that do better. If that is true, does that change Senator Reid's view of the legislation he jammed through the Senate and he is so proud of and he is demanding the House pass? If that is true, if Mr. Salzman is correct, will Senator Reid change his mind?

Then he goes on to say--and I agree with this line. He is talking about all STEM graduates now:

If there is a [talent] shortage, where are the market

indicators (namely wage increases) . . . ?

So Mr. Donohue and friends at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who believe in the free market: Why are wages down if we have a shortage of workers? Why aren't wages going up?

Another businessman said recently:

There are 600,000 jobs in manufacturing going unfilled

today. This immigration bill can go a long way toward helping

us fill these positions.

Well, great Scott. I have seen instances where thousands of people apply for just a few jobs. Does he have any interest, first of all, in promoting sound national goals? Our goal as policymakers for the United States of America should be to say: Wait a minute. You have jobs at your manufacturing plant and we have to get unemployed people ready to take them. Americans are on welfare and on dependency who need to go to work. Give us a chance to get our people into those jobs first before we start bringing in more foreign workers to take a limited number of jobs.

From 2000 to 2013, the grim fact is that all net job gains went to immigrant workers. Can you imagine that? That is what the numbers show. Under the Democratic plan, this bill, if it were to pass the House, job decline will accelerate.

From 2000 to 2013, the number of working-age Americans increased by 16 million. Yet the jobs for American workers--the number of American workers actually working--fell by 1.3 million. That is why the unemployment rate and the workforce dropout rate is so high.

But during that same period, 2000 to 2013, the number of working-age immigrants increased by 8.8 million while 5.3 million immigrants got jobs. So all the jobs created during this period of time have been, in effect, mathematically speaking, taken by foreign workers. Is this healthy? Isn't this one of the reasons why people are having a hard time today?

There are 50 million working-age Americans who are not working today. Wages are lower today than they were in 1999. Median household incomes, adjusted for inflation, have dropped nearly $2,300 since 2009. We have the smallest workforce participation in 36 years.

So I say to Mr. Reid and Mr. Schumer, I am glad to talk about this issue. I am glad to talk about immigration, but we are going to talk about what is in the interests of the American people. We are not going to talk about your politics and your ideology and your special interests. We are going to talk about what is good for America and what is good for America is to get more of our unemployed working, to get wages going up rather than down. I am not surprised they didn't talk about workers and wages in their remarks when they demeaned people who disagree with them and who oppose their great bill they drafted that will not work.

We are not going to be scared off. We are not going to be intimidated into handing over control of our immigration laws to a small group of special interests who are meeting in politicians' offices and maybe promising support. I feel strongly about this. I don't feel there is anything wrong, morally or public policy-wise, to say we need to have a lawful system of immigration we can be proud of. That is what the American people have asked of us for over 30 years and Congress refuses to give. Congress is not listening to the

people. And we can do it. It is possible. I have been in law enforcement almost as long as I have been in the Senate. I know this can be done, if we have a leader who wants to see it done. But if the President doesn't want to enforce the law and says he is only going to enforce it against people who commit serious crimes, and we now find out even those criminals aren't deported when they are caught, then I think we have a deep problem. I think we can do better.

Let's don't go down this road of pushing, pushing, pushing, just pass a bill, any bill--oh, we have to do it fast. That has been the message all along. We have to ram it through, but this thing has been out there in the public now for a long time. The mackerel has been in the sunshine for a long time and it doesn't smell so good when it is examined, and the American people are not prepared to eat it and they shouldn't.

I thank the Chair and the Senate for giving me a chance to express these concerns. I believe we need to put American interests first, and when we do we will draft an immigration bill that is far different from the one being promoted today.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

How much time do we have on the Democratic side?

Madam President, this week Democrats are going to continue the conversation about college affordability. I was joining Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Al Franken of Minnesota and many others--in fact, 24 others, to introduce the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act.

Why are we talking about student loans? Ask working families; ask their kids why we are talking about it. Because there is more student loan debt in America today than there is credit card debt. It is huge. It is growing. If you finished college a few years back like me and had a student loan that worried you, you would not believe what students are facing today.

The average student coming out of college: $25,000 in debt. Imagine sitting down at the desk in the college admissions office at age 19 as they push the papers across the desk to you and ask you to sign up for $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 in loans so that you can start your class on Monday. There you sit with $20,000 in loans to start your class on Monday. You are 19 years old.

Wait a minute. Mom and dad have to cosign them with you. That is not unusual. So now it is a family debt. I had a press conference in Chicago on Monday. This wonderful woman came in and told the story about how she and her husband with two sons were determined to get them both through college. But she has not been able to do it. Do you know why? Because the first son took 5 years. She and her husband had to borrow the money to get him through school--good schools. But it is so much debt for their family that they cannot even consider allowing their other son to start college yet. He is waiting for his turn.

That is where we are in America today when it comes to college education. If you did not happen to be wealthy or so smart that you get everything paid for, and you are stuck in the middle with working and middle-income families, you are facing debt challenges families have never seen in the history of the United States.

There are 1.7 million Illinoisans--that is more than 10 percent of our population or almost 15 percent of the population of the State of Illinois--who have outstanding student loan debt--15 percent. That is 1 out of 6, 1 out of 7 people in my State with student loan debt.

Nationally, there are 40 million borrowers with more than $1 trillion in student loan debt. On the average, graduates of the class of 2012 left with $28,000 in debt. But the individual debts are often much higher. I have had students whom I have invited to come to my Web site and tell me their story. It is heartbreaking.

These students have debt of over $100,000 with a bachelor's degree. God forbid they went to one of those for-profit colleges or universities. You know the ones I am talking about. They are the ones that absolutely inundate you with advertising.

You cannot get on a CTA train or bus in Chicago without getting hit between the eyes with all of these for-profit colleges, for-profit schools. The biggest ones: The University of Phoenix, Kaplan, DeVry, just to mention a few. It is a different category. These are not the public colleges and universities. They are not even private colleges and universities. They are for-profit schools.

Believe me, they make a profit. What is the difference between for- profit schools and community colleges, the University of Illinois, DePaul University, Georgetown University? The difference is this. As a category, for-profit colleges and university have 10 percent of the high school graduates going to school, like the ones I mentioned. But they receive 20 percent of the Federal aid to education. Why? They are so darned expensive. That is why. The

students who sign up for these schools--these glamorous schools with all of the marketing--end up signing up for more debt than you can imagine--twice the debt of students that go to most other schools.

But here is the kicker. Here is the one the for-profit colleges and universities do not want to talk about: 46 percent of all the student loan defaults or student loan failure to pay off their loans--46 percent of them--students from for-profit colleges and universities.

Set that aside for a minute. As awful and scandalous as that is in this country--the exploitation of these students and their families by schools which many times offer worthless diplomas, worthless degrees, and absolutely no ticket to a job--as bad as that is, let's talk about the bigger picture, 90 percent of the other college students and what they are facing.

They are borrowing money right and left. They are sinking themselves, and many times their families, more deeply in debt than they ever imagined, and they have no idea what they are getting into. You see, student loan debts are not like other debts. It is not like you borrowed money for a house, a car, a boat or a temporary loan to get by. Student loan debt is one of the few debts in America not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

What does that mean? No matter how bad things get for you or your family, no matter what economic tragedy comes your way, if you end up in bankruptcy court and try to clear the table and start over, you will never, ever be able to discharge your student loan debt.

Oh, there is an extreme circumstance when you can. It is so extreme it almost never happens. So a student loan debt is a debt for a lifetime. You will either pay it off or you will carry it to the grave. They actually execute--these debt collectors--on grandmothers on Social Security. I am not making it up. Grandma wanted to help her granddaughter. She cosigned a student loan. The granddaughter dropped out of school, never paid back the loan, defaulted. They went after granny's Social Security check on the student loan. That is what we are talking about.

That is why we have to change it. That is why the Democrats have come forward on this side of the aisle. We are waiting for our first Republican to join us, to do something about refinancing college debt in America, to at least bring down the interest rates, to allow students to consolidate their loans at lower interest rates, so that they will pay less in interest.

That poor family I told you about from Chicago where the mother came and testified, they could not let the second son start college because they had never paid off the debt on the first son and could not see how they would. Year after year they were churning thousands and thousands of dollars into payments all retiring interest and not retiring the principal. The interest just keeps piling up. God forbid you miss a payment. It is awful.

The bank on students refinancing bill, which Senator Elizabeth Warren, Jack Reed, and myself are bringing to this floor, will help current borrowers take advantage of what we have in low interest rates right now. Those with Federal loans can refinance at the lower rate, the same rate as students who are taking out their first loans this year: 3.86 percent for undergraduate Direct Loans; 5.41 percent for graduate loans; 6.41 percent for PLUS loans taken out by the student's parents.

Now, you are going to say: Those are not rock-bottom interest rates. Believe me, they are a bargain in every category here against what these students are facing today in paying off old debt. Many students will find their interest rate on their loan cut in half. What does it mean? Those of us who borrowed some money in life to buy a home or buy a car, a change in the interest rate of 3 or 4 percent gives you a chance to finally start reducing the principal. That is what we want to do, so that this debt can be put behind these people.

Those who have private loans, many of which have sky-high interest rates, few protections for borrowers, at least in the version of the bill we have introduced, can refinance into Federal loans with lower rates and stronger consumer protections. You ought to hear what these collection agencies do to students and their families when they do not pay on these loans. You think you have had some problems on the telephone with people calling and harassing you. They never quit. They need their money. They want their money. They will not let you go no matter what your circumstances.

This bill will allow young people to lower their payment by hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. They have a chance to actually get ahead on their debt. What is more, the bill we are offering is fully paid for. Here is how we pay it. You know the name Warren Buffett, third or fourth wealthiest man in America. I happen to know him. He comes by and has lunch with us from time to time and talks about business and investments.

But the one thing he wanted to talk about the most was something that he thinks is fundamentally unfair. Do you know what it is? Warren Buffett came in here and said: Why is it that Warren Buffett, the billionaire, has a lower income tax rate than his secretary?

Why? It is not fair. And it isn't fair. Because when profits in life--his income in life--come from capital gains, it is treated at a lower tax rate than ordinary income, which his secretary receives.

So Warren Buffett has said: For goodness' sake, I shouldn't pay a lower tax rate than my secretary.

So we put in what is called the Buffett rule, so there will be at least a minimum income tax charge for millionaires so they pay at least as much of an income tax rate as their secretaries. Does it sound radical? I don't think so. I think it sounds reasonable and so does Mr. Buffett.

We take the revenue that comes in from charging the millionaires-- that we just talked about under the Buffett rule--and we apply it to the refinancing of college debt. That is how we achieved this. That is how we get it done.

This bill would help people such as Grace Steging. She is from Champaign and just recently wrote me a letter. She took out a $33,000 Federal student loan to get a degree in special education, and she is just completing her first year as a teacher in a low-income school district in Central Illinois. In her letter she said: ``I am shocked and distressed at the way my student loan debt continues to multiply even through I graduated a year ago.''

She tells me she made her payments faithfully each time every month, but even so her payments continue to rise as the interest rate accrues. It is a shame that even with a degree from a respected school and a good, secure job, Grace can't save money and she can't keep up with her student loans. She wrote and said:

Senator, I am not a banker or a businessperson, I was born

to teach. . . . Shall I teach my students to follow their

dreams or to follow the money?

It is a good question. Reasonable borrowing has always been part of getting a higher education for many Americans. I know this story personally because I was a beneficiary.

The National Defense Education Act was passed in this Chamber in 1958, when Congress was scared to death. Scared by what? Scared by a basketball-size satellite that the Russians had launched called Sputnik, and it was beeping as it went around the world. We thought it was the end of life as we knew it because we knew the Russians had the bomb. Now they were in outer space and we weren't--1957.

So this Chamber met with the House and said we have to do something. One of the first things we are going to do, we are going to get more Americans in college. We need better trained, better educated Americans to fight the Soviets and to make sure we don't lose the space battle.

Along came the National Defense Education Act, and it opened the door for me to borrow the money to go to college and law school and pay it back over 10 years with 3 percent interest.

I paid it back. I didn't think I could because it seemed like a huge amount of money at the time. I will not tell you the amount because it will date me, but I will tell you today students don't face the same circumstances. The debt they face is so dramatic.

Jon and his wife from Chicago recently contacted my office. They both went to great, not-for-profit public

schools for their undergraduate studies. Jon went on to law school. His wife went on to medical school.

Jon is a first-year lawyer in a firm. His wife is in her second year of medical residency. They received good educations from respectable schools and now they have jobs in their fields.

Let me tell you what else they have. They have a combined student debt, Jon and his wife, of $300,000 on student loans. They pay $1,300 a month in student loan payments. Thankfully, they will participate in the Federal income-based repayment program, which moderates their payments, but here they are, just starting out, maybe with a family and a $300,000 debt.

How can they buy a house? They have explored it. No bank will come near them to even loan them the money for a house. That, to me, is what is disgraceful--not only that these students end up coming out of school in debt, they are postponing their lives. They are postponing marriage, children, homes, and cars.

Many of them are moving right back in with mom and dad in that basement apartment, because dad just came out of retirement to help them pay off the loan. I am not making this up. These are real stories that I run into.

One of the other ones I mentioned earlier, Hannah Moore--or at least I want to make a reference to Hannah Moore. I spoke about her on the floor. She is from Chicago and what a sweet young lady. She made a fatal mistake. She went to one of these for-profit colleges in Chicago called the Harrington College of Design--great advertising if you have seen it. Do you know what her reward for pursuing the American dream by seeking a college education at this for-profit school was? It was $124,570 in student debt, much of it in private loans for what is basically a worthless--worthless--diploma from a for-profit college.

Her story isn't unique. I just saw her last Monday and her debt has gone up. It is now over $150,000. This poor, attractive, smart, and determined young woman doesn't know where to turn. Her life looks like a brick wall when she looks ahead. I think she is 30, maybe 32.

Can you imagine. This is what she has in store, having thought she did the right thing, went to that college and got this degree which she thought was worth something. It turned out it wasn't.

The Federal Reserve Bank in New York warns us student debt isn't just a student problem, it is a national problem. It threatens Americans in terms of investing in our future, investing in homes, investing in businesses, and it even threatens their future retirement security. Hannah's father had to come out of retirement to help pay off the bills.

In addition to last week's refinancing proposal, Senators Warren, Jack Reed, and I have several proposals to address student debt and college affordability, a bill that would give colleges financial incentives not to overload students with debt.

We have also introduced the Student Loan Borrowers' Bill of Rights Act. I think there ought to be an open, complete disclosure to students about the debt they are getting into. If there is a better alternative, taking government loans that you can consolidate at a lower interest rate as opposed to a private loan which rips you off with a high interest rate--some of this is very basic.

Senator Harkin and I introduced a bill to bring better coordination and focus to Federal oversight for for-profit colleges and universities. It is called the Proprietary Education Oversight Coordination Improvement Act. It is a long title for a bill that basically is trying to come to grips with the scandalous behavior of for-profit colleges and universities.

For too many young Americans, the promise of a fair shot at affordable college education has become a long shot. That is not the American way. We want to have an educated generation prepared to lead this country. They cannot do that saddled with debt and going to worthless schools.

It is time for this generation to step up, allow these students to refinance their debt to get their lives back in order and to start looking ahead with some promise and hope and get their parents out from under the debt burden they assume with their kids. Stop the rip-offs that are coming from these for-profit colleges and universities and put an end to some of the rip-offs, even by semigovernment agencies.

All of these things have to come to an end, and it will only happen if we do it--and it will only happen if we do it on a bipartisan basis.

I hope my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, will join our efforts.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, one of the protagonists of Leo Tolstoy's epic ``War and Peace'' is the iconic Russian general Mikhail Kutuzov. Kutuzov was brought out of retirement to be the commander in chief of Russian forces during Napoleon's invasion, and his unorthodox strategy confounded and frustrated his superiors and his underlings alike. He becomes convinced, as Tolstoy depicts, that Napoleon will lose the war by overextending his army. He believes by playing the long game he will exhaust and defeat the seemingly invincible, unstoppable French army.

Tolstoy creates a fictionalized version of Kutuzov, of course, but one of the most famous passages from ``War and Peace'' is worth repeating here today. Speaking of those who doubt his strategy, Kutuzov says:

Patience and time are my warriors, my champions.

Again, quoting from the book:

He [Kutuzov] knew that an apple should not be plucked while

it is green. It will fall of itself when ripe, but if picked

unripe the apple is spoiled, the tree is harmed, and your

teeth are set on edge. Like an experienced sportsman, Kutuzov

knew that the beast was wounded, and wounded as only the

whole strength of Russia could have wounded it.

Whether or not this famous Russian general ever shared this exact sentiment, it is representative of a time when the Russians better than anyone on Earth knew how to play the long game. How times have changed.

Over the past few weeks, I have listened in agony to my Republican friends criticizing the Obama administration for having no coherent policy regarding the current crisis in Ukraine. I come to the floor today to rebut that argument and also to add a few suggestions on how the administration's policy can be enhanced.

I certainly understand the Republicans' frustrations. News of the ongoing daily drama in Ukraine dominates the national news. Russia seems omnipresent, manipulating events on the ground by the hour, and there clearly has not been a proportional pound-for-pound response from the United States or the collective West. This frustration is fed by memories of the Cold War--obsolete, even ancient memories given how fast the world has changed since 1991. But the President's critics, fueled by these largely irrelevant memories, insist that when Russia acts, we must meet fire with fire--crippling unilateral sanctions immediately, lethal arms for Ukrainian military, new missile capacity in Eastern Europe.

The problem is that this is a strategy for 1964, not 2014. Russia simply doesn't matter to us in the same way it used to. They are a secondary world power whose power is diminishing. Their demographics are catastrophic, their economy can't survive the inevitable global energy revolution, and their endemic corruption is going to rot their society from inside out. The invasions of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are signs of Russian weakness, Russian insecurity, not Russian strength.

Last fall, two former Russian Republics, Georgia and Moldova, refused Russian overtures to join their nascent economic union and inked preliminary agreements to join the European Union. Ukraine, at the last minute, bowed to Russian bullying and refused to ink the same deal, but it set off a series of events that pushed Russia's man in Kiev out of office.

In a panicked reaction, Russia invaded, and the consequences have been devastating. Russia's economy is in free fall, with nearly $70 billion of capital leaving the country in just the last few months alone. No major institutional investors will touch Russia today with a 10-foot pole. To make matters worse, Russia has been kicked out of the G8 and generally has become an international pariah, not allowed at the table with major powers. Russia is increasingly isolated at the United Nations. And things are going to get even worse as the Europeans use this crisis as a wake-up call to make themselves truly energy independent of Russian energy and also to reinvigorate NATO.

In ``War and Peace,'' Kutuzov goes on to say this of his critics:

They want to run to see how they have wounded it. Wait and

we shall see! Continual maneuvers, continual advances! What

for? Only to distinguish themselves! As if fighting were fun.

They are like children from whom one can't get any sensible

account of what has happened because they all want to show us

how well they can fight. But that's not what is needed now.

The story of ``War and Peace'' and the Russian-French war is not entirely a useful parallel to the current crisis in Ukraine or to the proper response of the United States. What is needed now is much more than just patience and time. But our response needs to be proportional to our Nation's national security interests, not proportional to Russia's actions in their backyard. That is why the administration is right to strongly support this new Ukrainian Government without overreacting in a way that could compromise our relationship with other nations or make the situation worse, not better, on the ground in Ukraine.

I would like to take a few minutes this evening to lay out what a coherent, thoughtful approach to the crisis might look like and how, in fact, the actions of the Obama administration largely follow this pretty simple outline.

First, as Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenuk has been quick to tell visiting dignitaries, the most important help the United States can provide is economic assistance, conditioned on necessary reforms to show the Ukrainian people that a Western-oriented government can deliver prosperity to their country.

Russia has effectively invented a new form of warfare that is based on gradual provocation, where Putin uses psychological methods, intimidation, bribery, and propaganda to undermine resistance so that firepower is rarely needed to get his way. But of course these tactics only work on vulnerable countries with weak economies and a susceptibility to Russian overtures of economic overlordship and corruption. So the best way to repel Russian provocations is to strengthen the Ukrainian economy and government institutions both for the short and long run. The $1 billion in loan guarantees authorized by Congress and the $17 billion loan approved by the IMF and brokered by the United States are an important part of that process, and the conditions imposed--which include a floating exchange rate, steep increases in gas tariffs, and budget reductions over the next several years--represent some of the tough medicine necessary to get Ukraine back on its feet.

The United States hasn't sat on the sidelines when it comes to economic aid to Ukraine. We have led from day one, and the results are impossible to deny.

Second, let's recognize what military assistance makes sense and what military assistance does not make sense. It makes sense to shore up our treaty obligations in Eastern and Central Europe by positioning more troops in places such as the Baltics and Poland and Romania. Just in case the Russians were thinking of trying to use these types of destabilizing tactics in NATO countries, make them think twice. But remember that Ukraine is not a NATO ally; we have no obligation to defend their sovereignty, and it is totally unrealistic and indeed irresponsible to think that we can make up for decades of military neglect and mismanagement inside Ukraine with a few million dollars of aid today.

Ukraine doesn't need more small arms. Their problem isn't that they don't have them; their problem is that they don't know how to shoot them. There is no way the Ukrainians can effectively utilize more sophisticated weaponry like anti-tank and anti-aircraft artillery. The only way they could do that is with military advisers standing side by side with Ukrainians, and there is really no appetite here in the United States to commit personnel to a ground war in Ukraine.

To be clear, I don't offer these cautions because of a danger of provoking Russia with an influx of U.S. arms. Russia is going to do what Russia is going to do in Eastern Ukraine regardless of what small investment the United States makes today in Ukraine.

But I do worry that since any lethal assistance from the United States would have little to no effect on the ability of Ukraine to repel a Russian invasion, a Russian victory over the Ukrainian army, backed by U.S. weapons, would then be sold by Putin to his public as a Russian military triumph over the United States. That is a truly bad outcome, but that shouldn't stop us from more quickly delivering nonlethal support to help bolster the Ukrainian military in the short term--reasonable support such as body armor and communications equipment--that balances our limited direct interest in Ukraine with our humanitarian interest in saving lives. There is a middle ground between just sending a handful more MREs and sending tanks or automatic weapons, and we have had ample time to explore those options.

Over the medium and longer term we need to work with Ukraine to rebuild its military institutions that were neglected for so many years by its leaders who were pilfering from the state rather than providing for the country's defense forces.

Third, focus, focus, focus on the May 25 elections. The Russians occupy dozens--not thousands--of buildings in Eastern Ukraine. They have no hold or influence on other sections of the country near and to the west of Kiev.

As part of the international effort, the United States has committed millions of dollars and thousands of hours of manpower into making sure the May 25 election is held in a free and fair manner. The Russians will likely do everything possible to stop this election from coming off. As of today they effectively have no straw man in the race, and so more likely than not the result will be a victory for a free, whole, sovereign Ukraine and a damaging blow to Russia's claims that Ukraine can't govern itself. Our State Department representatives in Ukraine are working feverishly to help Ukraine conduct this election, and we have helped deploy unprecedented resources from the OSCE to make sure Russia cannot dislodge this election from occurring. That is American leadership happening right now on the ground in Ukraine.

Fourth, let's be crystal clear on what will lead to the next logical level of U.S. sanctions, which would be industrywide, sectoral sanctions against the Russian economy. We have moved deliberately so far because, wisely, President Obama has desired to move in relative concert with our European allies. But it is increasingly clear to me and to many others that Europe is simply not prepared to move at the pace necessary to send a strong message to Russia about the consequences of their continued aggression.

So having primarily mounted a defense of the administration's policy in Ukraine so far today, I would make one additional, significant suggestion for amendment of this policy. I believe the highest levels of American foreign policy leadership, from the President, to the Vice President, to the Secretary of State, should make it clear today to Russia, right now, that if the May 25 elections do not occur in a free and fair manner, we will hold Russia--and only Russia--responsible because if not for their interference, there can be no explanation for why these elections could not come off properly.

Further, we should make it clear that if the May 25 election is not allowed by Russia to be conducted according to OSCE electoral standards, the United States will immediately impose sectoral sanctions on the most important Russian industries, including but not limited to the Russian banking, energy, and raw materials sectors.

Hopefully, significant Russian interference in the elections would prompt Europe to act with us in order to protect our most important democratic values, but we can't wait for them any longer. Let's make it totally, completely, unequivocally clear today that if the May 25 election doesn't occur, the United States will move toward industry- level sanctions against Russia.

This is and can be a coherent, thoughtful U.S. strategy toward the crisis in Ukraine: Support Ukraine economically. Strengthen NATO. Don't overreact with reckless military aid to the Ukrainians. Do everything possible to make the May 25 election a success. Be clearer than current policy on what will trigger sectoral sanctions by the United States. And then act if Russia doesn't listen.

I get it that this isn't all my Republican colleagues desire when it comes to U.S. policy toward Ukraine, but overreacting to this crisis is just as bad, if not worse, than doing nothing. I was in Kiev at the very beginning, standing on stage at the Maidan with Senator McCain, urging the Ukrainian people to demand more from their government. I was here, advocating for a robust U.S. response to support these protesters. I believed, as I still believe, the United States should be playing an active role in this crisis, and I was making this argument before anyone else in this Chamber. But this isn't the Cold War. This is a fight in Russia's backyard, and the cold hard reality is that the stakes are just simply greater for Moscow than they are for us. And the world is no longer organized around who is with the United States and who is with Russia. The foundational paradigms of global security now are about who has nuclear weapons and who doesn't. Who is allied with the Shia and who is allied with the Sunni. Where are the Islamist terrorists organizing and who is helping them.

I don't mean to say that unchecked Russian action doesn't have global consequences. It does. China, for instance, is certainly watching to see if nations pay a price when they reset their borders through aggression rather than through diplomacy. But we ultimately won the Cold War by playing the long game. We knew that if we held true to democratic and free market values, the world would notice that an alliance with us was far more beneficial than an alliance with the Soviet Union. That, in fact, is the very reason for the current crisis. The Ukrainian people revolted because they saw the value of a Western economic and political orientation. We didn't need to use intimidation or bribery or little green men; we just showed them that our stuff is better.

Of course, the irony is that the Russians used to be the kings of the long game. Kutuzov let Napoleon march into Moscow after clearing out the city and leaving only about 10,000 people behind. He strung out the French army and left it ultimately helpless.

We don't have to resort to the drastic tactics of this old savvy Russian general. There are actions we can take and have taken to support Ukraine and send a message to Russia. But we shouldn't overinflate our national security interests in this crisis. We simply do not need to win every battle to win the war. And this body, the U.S. Senate, built by our Founding Fathers to see and play the long game for America, should understand this fact. We aren't the Russians in 1812. We must engage in a robust policy toward Ukraine that is much more than simply time and patience, but that doesn't mean there aren't some important lessons to be learned.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.