Floor Statements

Madam President, I too stand today to pay recognition to a friend, a colleague, and truly a woman who brings a smile to my face. Because for as many years as she has served her State of Maryland, for as many years as she has served in the Halls of Congress, she has the enthusiasm, the spontaneity, the excitement when she approaches an issue as a brand new rookie freshman coming into this body.

That is quite remarkable because around here we can get kind of dragged down by the day-to-day politics, the partisan nature, and the conflicts that are inherent in this process.

Barbara Mikulski is one who embraces life and the responsibilities that are put before her. She has an opportunity to represent her constituents, and she embraces it with an enthusiasm that should be a reminder to us all of why we are here to serve.

I have so many different stories and quips and quotes about Senator Mikulski, whose name sounds somewhat similar to mine--Murkowski. Every

now and again, we have an opportunity to share the same stage, the same podium, and the individual who is introducing us will trip on his or her tongue and refer to us wrongly. There was one occasion where we were being recognized by the National Geographic Society, and she pointed out to the individual making the introduction: She is the vertical one, and I am the not so vertical one.

This is just a recognition again that regardless of the situation, Barbara Mikulski has a good comeback, a quick quip. She is a quipmeister if there ever was one. It speaks again to the enthusiasm and passion she brings to the job she has in front of her.

With names such as Murkowski and Mikulski, we clearly have a Polish heritage we look to with pride. She reminds me of mine because she is perhaps a little more connected to those Polish roots. Again, there is a sense of pride with whom she is, where she has come from, and what her family has done preceding her that allows her to go on and do so much for so many.

We have had the opportunity to work together on issues that, coming from different parts of the country--truly different ends of the country--and one would not think we would have as much commonality on some of the issues. As the chairmen on the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee, we have worked closely on issues that relate to our fisheries, coastal issues, and judiciary issues. She is always reminding me that we have to take care of our fishermen out there and make sure our families who rely on our waters are appropriately cared for.

We have worked together on women's health issues. We were recently at the Sister to Sister event. I do feel a kinship and a relationship with this Polish sister as we talk about those issues that are so important to women's health.

We share the same concerns about how we do more for our first responders, our servicemembers, and our veterans. Just this past week, as Senator--I almost called her Murkowski myself--Senator Mikulski was chairing a committee, and I brought up an issue as it related to the late Senator Ted Stevens and the Department of Justice investigation that failed so miserably--and we are now pursuing it, through different avenues, to make sure nobody should have to go through what Senator Stevens did--Senator Mikulski literally stopped the committee hearing to remind the Attorney General that, in fact, this was not a partisan issue; this was an issue where we all should be concerned and that if there is no justice within the Department of Justice, what does that mean for us as a nation.

She is never hesitant to speak and stand and make very clear, when these issues are important to the Nation, it should know no bounds by party. Barbara Mikulski has held true to that.

In many different ways, that makes this milestone we are recognizing even more important because I think there is a kind of a piling on of events that can happen in the Halls of Congress, where the weight of what we do on a daily basis gets to be a load. To a certain extent, one can get tired, one can get worn, but Barbara has not let the weight of that responsibility bring her down.

I was joking with her a little bit ago when all the accolades were coming her way. I said: Barbara, with all these kind words that are being said about you, by the time the tributes are done, you are going to be 7 feet tall. That woman is 7 feet tall in the minds of so many of us. She is a giant for the people of Maryland. She has proven herself to be a giant in so many ways as she works to do good for so many.

I am proud to stand with so many colleagues in recognizing her tenure, recognizing this historic place she has carved for herself within the Congress, and to call her my friend.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am proud to be able to stand to speak about the Violence Against Women Act, joining with some of my colleagues on the floor.

This is legislation I have supported in the past and look forward to supporting again. As we talk about those issues women care about, it is no surprise to most that we are talking about what is happening with the price of gas or the cost to fill the car tank and we are talking about the quality of our children's education and we are talking about the Postal Service in Alaska. We had a military townhall, and I met with some military spouses. They were quite concerned that some of the facilities they access are perhaps in jeopardy. We care about the security of our jobs and our spouses' jobs, and our friends' and neighbors' jobs and all that goes into working in a small business. We certainly care about our country's fiscal situation and the very dire situation we are in.

There is something else we all care about, which is the violent assaults women often endure--sisters, daughters, neighbors. The Violence Against

Women Act is an important commitment to victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse. This is a promise that resources and expertise are available to prosecute those who would torment them. Also, it is a reason to believe that one can actually leave an abusive situation and transition to a more stable one. It is of the greatest importance that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault are confident there is a safety net available to address them and their immediate survival needs, as well as the needs of their children. Only on this level of confidence can one muster the courage to leave an abusive situation. These are some of the promises that are contained within the Violence Against Women Act.

There are additional reasons I feel as strongly as I do about the reauthorization of this act which relate to the safety of the people in Alaska. Unfortunately, as beautiful as the State is that I live in, our statistics as they relate to domestic violence and sexual assault are horrific. They are as ugly as they come.

Nearly one in two Alaskan women has experienced partner violence. Nearly one in three has experienced sexual violence. Overall, nearly 6 in 10 Alaskan women have been victims of sexual assault or domestic violence. In Alaska, our rate of forcible rape between 2003 and 2009 was 2.6 times higher than the national rate. Unfortunately, very tragically, about 9 percent of Alaskan mothers reported physical abuse by their husbands or partner during pregnancy or in the 12 months prior to pregnancy.

We have to do all we can to get a handle on these tragic statistics. As we know, they are more than just statistics; these are the lives of our friends, our neighbors, and our daughters. The Violence Against Women Act presents the tools to do so. In the villages of rural Alaska, oftentimes, victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence face some pretty unique challenges. Many of these villages have no full-time law enforcement presence whatsoever--nobody to turn to, no safe house, no place to go. A single community health aid must tend to every crisis within the community, including caring for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. Oftentimes, they don't have the tools they need--the rape kits, the training.

Oftentimes, we will have a situation where weather can be an impediment to getting the victim on a plane and to a rural hub. In most of my communities--80 percent of them--there is no road out, no way to get out. If someone has been violated, and there is no law enforcement or shelter or nowhere to go, what do they do? Basically, the victim is stranded in their own community with the perpetrator for, potentially, days before help can arrive.

The Violence Against Women Act is a ray of hope for those victims of domestic violence and sexual assault within our villages. It devotes increased resources to rural and isolated communities, and it recognizes Alaska's Village Public Safety Officer Program as law enforcement so VAWA funds can be directed to providing a full-time law enforcement presence in places that currently have none. It establishes a framework to restart the Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission, which is an important forum for coordination between law enforcement and our Alaska Native leaders to abate the scourge of domestic violence and sexual assault.

I too believe the Senate needs to take up the Violence Against Women Act. I do feel strongly that we need to do it on a bipartisan basis. I am a cosponsor of the bill. Some of my colleagues do have some concerns. I have said we need to take these concerns into account so we can have--and we should have--an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill. This is too important an issue for women and men and families to not address it.

I know others wish to speak. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues.

Madam President, there is a lot of discussion about energy going on. The President spoke about it this morning.

It is nice to hear us all saying the same thing; that this country should have an all-of-the-above energy policy. It is a phrase I have used for years now, and I suppose it is the highest form of flattery to have that scooped by others and carried. But I think it is important for us to remember that policies have to translate from mere words into action. With the President's comments today, unfortunately, I am not convinced he is intending to help turn our all-of-the-above policy into reality.

I think if he was serious about doing that, he would acknowledge that there is far more our country can do to increase our supply when it comes to oil and oil production. I think he would admit that with oil prices above $100 a barrel, gasoline edging up every day close to $4 a gallon, this is not a political opportunity for anyone; this is a legislative imperative--a legislative imperative--for us all. The question that needs to be asked is, What can we do?

I would agree with the President that there is no one silver bullet. There is no one quick fix. We can't snap our fingers and have the price at the pump go down. But I think it is important to talk honestly about what is going on with supply and with production in this country.

With much discussion over these past several months about the Keystone project out of Canada and that pipeline, it continues to amaze me, it makes me crazy to think we have an opportunity to have our closest neighbor and our best trading partner supply us with oil instead of receiving oil from OPEC. Keystone could come online very quickly, bring oil to our refineries and to our gas tanks. If the administration supports construction of a pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas, as they have suggested, I don't see why we can't allow construction of a pipeline from Alberta and North Dakota and then all the way down. I am confident there are enough construction workers who are ready and waiting to start on both ends. When you say it needs more consideration, more review, I would remind people this has been a project that has had at least 4 years of environmental review.

So this is one of those choices that I think is pretty clear and pretty stark.

Most Americans, I believe, would much rather get their oil from Canada than from OPEC. Yet some of what we are seeing come out of this Congress from Members of the Senate, the suggestion is that instead of going to Canada, we should go, tincup in hand, to Saudi Arabia and ask them for increased production. I can't imagine--I cannot imagine why it would be more preferable to producing more American oil or allowing more oil from Canada. This is a pretty clear choice for me. But, again, it is an argument we continue to have, and we don't seem to be making the necessary headway on it.

Earlier this week, the President said the best we can do about gas prices is reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which will reduce the price of gasoline over time. One year ago, he said producing more oil in America can help lower our oil prices. But, again, that is talk that is going on right now and talk that is not necessarily matching reality.

Yesterday, I was involved in two hearings of the Appropriations subcommittees. In one, we had a Department of Interior official who confirmed that the oil production on Federal lands is down and not up. There has been a lot of conversation, a lot of discussion about how we in this country are seeing more oil and gas production than ever before. But the fact is, we are seeing an increase in oil; we are seeing an increase in natural gas. But we are not seeing it on our Federal lands. We are seeing these increases on State lands and on private lands. When it comes to onshore oil, we have actually gone down by 14 percent from last year. When it comes to offshore oil, we have gone down from 17 percent last year. So to suggest somehow that we are doing astonishingly, when in fact in the area where the Federal Government does have some ability to incent some production, we are seeing production decrease.

We also heard confirmation in a hearing yesterday that producers are leaving the Federal lands--which, again, are the only lands the administration has control over--not because the resources are necessarily greater somewhere else but because of Federal taxes, of the Federal royalties, the bureaucracy, the permitting process that make State and private lands more attractive. It was quite clear in the testimony that it does indeed cost more to produce on Federal lands, and they do worry about that migration to go to State lands and private lands.

This is a chart I have about the number of applications for permits to drill on Federal lands. If we look at the timeline, we are going up and up and up. This is 2001, during the Bush administration, when we increased 92 percent. We hit 2008, and the number of permits to drill that have been approved during this administration is down 36 percent. Again, this is in the area where the Federal Government has control. So please, I think we need to get beyond the idea that we are allowing drilling everywhere.

America's largest untapped oilfields onshore and offshore are still off-limits. In Alaska, we have more than 40 billion barrels of oil that are trapped beneath Federal lands, and the administration is making clear they intend to keep much of that off-limits to development.

Again, we have money buried in the ground, literally, in Alaska, ready, waiting, and willing to advance not only the resource for American consumption, bringing the jobs, but also bringing important revenues to our Treasury.

I think it is quite apparent that supply matters. Again, I mentioned the request from one of our colleagues that we go to Saudi Arabia for 2.5 million barrels per day. I don't think that is an appropriate policy on which we should embark.

Since at least the mid-1990s, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have claimed that since oil exploration takes a long time to bring online, we shouldn't do it. It was the senior Senator from Massachusetts who, back in 2002, said:

If you open the refuge today, you are not going to see oil

until about 2012, maybe a couple years earlier.

Here we are at 2012. If we had started then, we wouldn't perhaps be having this discussion now. This argument has gone on for so long that even Jay Leno is making jokes about it on TV. It is amazing to me that we continue to say it is going to take too long to bring on, so we shouldn't start today.

I have two separate bills that allow access to the nonwilderness areas of ANWR, the 1002 area, to be carefully opened for development. That field would bring on roughly 1 million barrels of oil to market each day. Right now, had this not been blocked back in 1995, that would have been good for American workers, good for the price of oil, good for the Federal Treasury, and I believe it could have been conducted and completed without impact to the environment.

When we talk about our abilities, I think it is fair to say we do have a lot of oil in this country, and we can bring more of it to market. If we were to increase our domestic production by the 2.5 million barrels a day that has been suggested that we get from Saudi Arabia, if we were to access Alaskan oil along with the Keystone oil, that would double world spare capacity and insulate us almost entirely from OPEC.

When we talk about a way we can move ourselves as a nation away from the stranglehold OPEC holds over us, I think it is important to consider what our options are.

I know we will have more to add on this later. Some of my colleagues are coming to the floor later to speak on this matter. But at this time I yield the floor for my colleague from Louisiana, the energy breadbasket down there in the gulf.

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

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

Mr. President, on roll call vote number 28, I too voted aye and it was my intention to vote no. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change the vote since it will not affect the outcome.

It is for exactly the same reason that Senator Collins mentioned. It was our understanding in coming to the floor that the modification had been accepted, and it was not.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Ms. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 2151 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about cybersecurity legislation--legislation we hope will soon be before the Senate.

There is no question--no question at all--that this is a critical issue that should be addressed by this Congress, and I am certain that every Member of this body is concerned that our Nation may be vulnerable to cyber-attacks that could truly have very severe economic and security ramifications. We see stories about cyber-attacks daily-- whether they are attacks on individuals, on companies, on government-- and I believe it is time for us to take steps to protect ourselves against this emerging threat.

In the coming weeks, the Senate is expected to take up legislation to address this very real problem, and I am hopeful this effort will result in legislation we can all agree is worthy of sending to the President. But right now it appears we are on track to follow an all- or-nothing approach. The problem I see with the bill that is expected to come to the floor--featuring text that was recently released by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--is that it has not gone through regular order and, I fear, amounts to regulatory overreach. If that is our only option here, it will ultimately prevent us from making progress on cybersecurity here in Congress, which I think would be an unfortunate outcome.

Because that outcome is unacceptable, I have introduced an alternative bill this morning, along with a number of ranking member colleagues. I know Senator Chambliss from Georgia was here on the floor earlier, and many of us spoke to it earlier in the day. We call our bill the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information, and Technology Act of 2012. It has an acronym, of course. It is called SECURE IT for short. The bill follows a commonsense approach to address our ever-increasing cyber threats.

Our bill focuses on four different areas we believe can draw bipartisan

support and result in good public law. Those four areas are: information sharing, FISMA reform--which is intelligence-sharing reform--criminal penalties, as well as additional research.

What the SECURE IT bill does not do is equally important, because it does not simply add new layers of bureaucracy and regulation that will serve little purpose and achieve meager results. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee bill would arm the Department of Homeland Security with expansive new authorities to review all sectors of our economy and designate what is termed ``covered critical infrastructure'' for further regulation. What we hear out there from industry is that this amounts to regulation almost for regulation's sake. In the electricity industry's case, this is resulting in duplicative regulation that I am afraid will lead to a ``compliance first'' mentality. Companies will focus on meeting their new Federal requirements and passing a seemingly endless stream of audits, but these heavyhanded statistic requirements from yet one more Federal regulator will not necessarily address the very real threats we face. So again, the concern is we will have industry focused on how do we comply, how do we avoid a bad audit, instead of using their ingenuity and their resources to ensure we stay ahead of any future cyber-attack. We need to be more nimble. We have to have a more nimble approach to dealing with cyber-related threats that are constantly growing and constantly changing. The threat we see today is not necessarily the threat we might anticipate tomorrow, so we have to stay ahead of the game. This is important, and this is where our SECURE IT bill comes in. I think we have simply taken a more pragmatic approach by focusing on the areas where we know we can find some bipartisan support.

One area I think we can all agree on is that the Federal Government needs to form a partnership with the private sector. We share the same goals, that is clear. The goals are to keep our computer systems and our Nation safe from cyber intrusions. We need the private companies to be talking with each other and with the government about the cyber problems they face as well as the potential strategies and the solutions to combat them. To achieve this goal, our legislation encourages the voluntary sharing of much needed information by removing legal barriers to its use and its disclosure. At the same time, we are very careful to safeguard the privacy and prohibit information from being used for competitive advantage.

Our bill also provides necessary updates to the Federal Information Security Management Act. This is the FISMA I spoke to a minute ago. These FISMA reforms require real-time monitoring of Federal systems. It will modernize the way the government manages and mitigates its own cyber risks. And unlike other legislation on this subject, the cyber bill we have introduced today will update criminal statutes to account for cyber activities. Finally, we support advanced cybersecurity research by leveraging existing resources without necessarily spending new Federal dollars. That is very important for us.

This straightforward approach to cybersecurity, I think, can go a long way in tackling the problem. Clearly, our own government agencies here need to be communicating a little bit better with one another. An example of this is that the White House and Department of Homeland Security are staging an exercise next week. All Members have been invited to attend and go through this exercise. It is a mock scenario that will feature a cyber-attack on the Nation's grid. And while I absolutely think this is a useful exercise, and something that is well worthwhile, I do find it quite surprising--quite surprising--that DHS would set up a grid attack scenario and fail to include the grid's primary regulators. These would be the electric reliability organization--what we call NERC--and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. These are the two regulatory agencies currently in place that provide for that cyber regulation. It is mandated within our grid that these agencies tend to just this issue. So it does make me question if DHS is even aware the electric industry is the only industry already subject to mandatory cyber standards, or that the NERC has the ability to issue time-sensitive alerts to electric utilities in the event of emergency situations. It is kind of hard for me to understand why DHS would proceed with a grid attack simulation and not include the existing governmental entities that already have these safeguards in place. It also begs the question as to whether Congress should provide DHS with such significant and expansive new authorities in the cyber arena.

Before I close, I wish to take a moment to talk about the process behind cybersecurity legislation. While my colleagues and I have highlighted the substantive and procedural problems that are associated with the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee bill, the majority, and even the press, have attempted to dismiss our arguments as nothing more than partisan stall tactics.

I stand before you to tell you that is simply not true. I want to take action on cyber. I know all of the ranking members who have joined together on this issue want to take action on cyber. We need to do it. I have been calling for action and for legislation since last Congress. We have been working on it in the Energy Committee and have moved out that cyber energy piece. But I do think it is important around this body that there is some meaning to the process; that process really does matter. That is how strong, bipartisan pieces of legislation are enacted. When we forego that process and refuse to do the hard work in the committee--and it is hard. But if we don't do that, we put ourselves on a path to failure with that legislation.

So when we have seven ranking members taking issue with how a bill has been put together, I think we had better pay attention. I think we need to look at whether our process is working.

The SECURE IT bill we introduced today is a strong starting point for us. Some may argue we need to go a little further. But additional layers of bureaucracy and regulations are not the answer at this time. Legislating in the four areas we have highlights--in the information sharing, the FISMA reform, criminal penalties, and research--these are necessary first steps that will make a tremendous amount of difference. If we need to do more in the future, we in Congress can certainly make that determination. But let's not take an all-or-nothing approach to cyber legislation and ultimately end up empty-handed.

I ask my colleagues to take a look at what we have presented today and consider supporting the SECURE IT Act so we can continue to ensure our citizens, our companies, and our country are protected.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about cybersecurity legislation--legislation we hope will soon be before the Senate.

There is no question--no question at all--that this is a critical issue that should be addressed by this Congress, and I am certain that every Member of this body is concerned that our Nation may be vulnerable to cyber-attacks that could truly have very severe economic and security ramifications. We see stories about cyber-attacks daily-- whether they are attacks on individuals, on companies, on government-- and I believe it is time for us to take steps to protect ourselves against this emerging threat.

In the coming weeks, the Senate is expected to take up legislation to address this very real problem, and I am hopeful this effort will result in legislation we can all agree is worthy of sending to the President. But right now it appears we are on track to follow an all- or-nothing approach. The problem I see with the bill that is expected to come to the floor--featuring text that was recently released by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--is that it has not gone through regular order and, I fear, amounts to regulatory overreach. If that is our only option here, it will ultimately prevent us from making progress on cybersecurity here in Congress, which I think would be an unfortunate outcome.

Because that outcome is unacceptable, I have introduced an alternative bill this morning, along with a number of ranking member colleagues. I know Senator Chambliss from Georgia was here on the floor earlier, and many of us spoke to it earlier in the day. We call our bill the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information, and Technology Act of 2012. It has an acronym, of course. It is called SECURE IT for short. The bill follows a commonsense approach to address our ever-increasing cyber threats.

Our bill focuses on four different areas we believe can draw bipartisan

support and result in good public law. Those four areas are: information sharing, FISMA reform--which is intelligence-sharing reform--criminal penalties, as well as additional research.

What the SECURE IT bill does not do is equally important, because it does not simply add new layers of bureaucracy and regulation that will serve little purpose and achieve meager results. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee bill would arm the Department of Homeland Security with expansive new authorities to review all sectors of our economy and designate what is termed ``covered critical infrastructure'' for further regulation. What we hear out there from industry is that this amounts to regulation almost for regulation's sake. In the electricity industry's case, this is resulting in duplicative regulation that I am afraid will lead to a ``compliance first'' mentality. Companies will focus on meeting their new Federal requirements and passing a seemingly endless stream of audits, but these heavyhanded statistic requirements from yet one more Federal regulator will not necessarily address the very real threats we face. So again, the concern is we will have industry focused on how do we comply, how do we avoid a bad audit, instead of using their ingenuity and their resources to ensure we stay ahead of any future cyber-attack. We need to be more nimble. We have to have a more nimble approach to dealing with cyber-related threats that are constantly growing and constantly changing. The threat we see today is not necessarily the threat we might anticipate tomorrow, so we have to stay ahead of the game. This is important, and this is where our SECURE IT bill comes in. I think we have simply taken a more pragmatic approach by focusing on the areas where we know we can find some bipartisan support.

One area I think we can all agree on is that the Federal Government needs to form a partnership with the private sector. We share the same goals, that is clear. The goals are to keep our computer systems and our Nation safe from cyber intrusions. We need the private companies to be talking with each other and with the government about the cyber problems they face as well as the potential strategies and the solutions to combat them. To achieve this goal, our legislation encourages the voluntary sharing of much needed information by removing legal barriers to its use and its disclosure. At the same time, we are very careful to safeguard the privacy and prohibit information from being used for competitive advantage.

Our bill also provides necessary updates to the Federal Information Security Management Act. This is the FISMA I spoke to a minute ago. These FISMA reforms require real-time monitoring of Federal systems. It will modernize the way the government manages and mitigates its own cyber risks. And unlike other legislation on this subject, the cyber bill we have introduced today will update criminal statutes to account for cyber activities. Finally, we support advanced cybersecurity research by leveraging existing resources without necessarily spending new Federal dollars. That is very important for us.

This straightforward approach to cybersecurity, I think, can go a long way in tackling the problem. Clearly, our own government agencies here need to be communicating a little bit better with one another. An example of this is that the White House and Department of Homeland Security are staging an exercise next week. All Members have been invited to attend and go through this exercise. It is a mock scenario that will feature a cyber-attack on the Nation's grid. And while I absolutely think this is a useful exercise, and something that is well worthwhile, I do find it quite surprising--quite surprising--that DHS would set up a grid attack scenario and fail to include the grid's primary regulators. These would be the electric reliability organization--what we call NERC--and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. These are the two regulatory agencies currently in place that provide for that cyber regulation. It is mandated within our grid that these agencies tend to just this issue. So it does make me question if DHS is even aware the electric industry is the only industry already subject to mandatory cyber standards, or that the NERC has the ability to issue time-sensitive alerts to electric utilities in the event of emergency situations. It is kind of hard for me to understand why DHS would proceed with a grid attack simulation and not include the existing governmental entities that already have these safeguards in place. It also begs the question as to whether Congress should provide DHS with such significant and expansive new authorities in the cyber arena.

Before I close, I wish to take a moment to talk about the process behind cybersecurity legislation. While my colleagues and I have highlighted the substantive and procedural problems that are associated with the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee bill, the majority, and even the press, have attempted to dismiss our arguments as nothing more than partisan stall tactics.

I stand before you to tell you that is simply not true. I want to take action on cyber. I know all of the ranking members who have joined together on this issue want to take action on cyber. We need to do it. I have been calling for action and for legislation since last Congress. We have been working on it in the Energy Committee and have moved out that cyber energy piece. But I do think it is important around this body that there is some meaning to the process; that process really does matter. That is how strong, bipartisan pieces of legislation are enacted. When we forego that process and refuse to do the hard work in the committee--and it is hard. But if we don't do that, we put ourselves on a path to failure with that legislation.

So when we have seven ranking members taking issue with how a bill has been put together, I think we had better pay attention. I think we need to look at whether our process is working.

The SECURE IT bill we introduced today is a strong starting point for us. Some may argue we need to go a little further. But additional layers of bureaucracy and regulations are not the answer at this time. Legislating in the four areas we have highlights--in the information sharing, the FISMA reform, criminal penalties, and research--these are necessary first steps that will make a tremendous amount of difference. If we need to do more in the future, we in Congress can certainly make that determination. But let's not take an all-or-nothing approach to cyber legislation and ultimately end up empty-handed.

I ask my colleagues to take a look at what we have presented today and consider supporting the SECURE IT Act so we can continue to ensure our citizens, our companies, and our country are protected.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about what people all across the country are talking about; that is, the high price of energy, what people are paying at the pump. I just returned from a week in Alaska. It is fair to say that in a State such as ours, that is as rich as we are with energy wealth, we are being killed by energy prices.

So I wanted to comment on some of the statements the President made over the weekend and Friday when he spoke to the country about energy. I have to tell you, I was pleased to hear the President say he is joining us in an ``all-of-the-above approach'' to energy. I think that is good news. It is certainly something I have been saying ever since I arrived in the Senate.

It is about domestic production, it is about efficiencies and conservation, and it is about renewables. So that is good. We heard the President say we need to be doing more with oil and gas. You are not going to find any disagreement with me. Wind and solar, nuclear, biofuels, efficiency, this is all good, but the problem we are seeing is the words coming from President Obama are not matching his actions when it comes to what we can be doing with our own domestic production.

I will speak specifically to oil and gas. The actions coming out of the administration, whether through this budget or through some of the other proposals pushing for higher taxes, higher royalties on the industry, when we think about what goes on with the oil and gas leases in the gulf, we have certainly seen the impact flow down there.

In Alaska, we have been pushing, pushing aggressively for 4 years now to get the OCS leases advanced through exploration with Shell, not only 4 years in the process but billions of dollars into a process. We are getting closer, but we are not there yet. With the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, an area that has been designated by the Congress to explore for production activity, it took almost 2 years to get a bridge across the CD 5, an area where we have an opportunity to continue our exploration--but 2 years to get a simple permit for a bridge.

We all know ANWR has been locked up for decades now. There is incredibly wealthy potential there. Look at the decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline coming out of this administration. When it comes to other areas that are supposedly in ``all of the above,'' nuclear--as much as we might have hoped that this was enjoying a renaissance, we have seen the decision on the shutdown of Yucca Mountain from this administration, the issues as they relate to access to uranium in certain parts of the country.

The rhetoric is not necessarily matching what we are seeing coming out of the administration. This is what is so disturbing to a person like me who comes from an area where we have so much to give, so much to offer.

The President, in his words, said, ``There are no quick fixes to this problem.'' I agree. I absolutely agree. That is why instead of focusing on what could be perceived as a quick fix, such as releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we need to be focusing on the long- term solution. I keep going back to 1995 when the House and the Senate passed ANWR. It was vetoed by the President shortly thereafter.

Prices at the pump back then were $1.07 at the pump. The average price today is $3.65. Think about where we would be if that action had not been vetoed; if the Alaska pipeline, which is now less than half filled, were at full capacity with oil coming out of ANWR.

Just yesterday a colleague of ours from New York sent a letter to Secretary Clinton asking her to pressure Saudi Arabia to pump more oil. In his letter to the Secretary, he said,

I urge the State Department to work with the Government of

Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production, as they are

currently producing well under their capacity.

Well, our pipeline is certainly well under capacity at 600,000 barrels a day. When we were pushing it through at full tilt, we were over 2 million barrels a day. That is exactly what the Senator from New York has asked Saudi Arabia to do. We could be doing it from Alaska. We could be doing it from this country with our people gaining access to our resources, and we are not doing that.

The President said the Republican plan is just to drill, drill, drill. He said: We hear this every year. Well, why do we hear this every year? We hear it because it is part of the solution. It is not the whole solution, but it is part of the solution, in addition to conservation, efficiency, renewables, and other areas of our domestic production. But drilling is part of the solution. It should not just be part of the rhetoric.

The President said, and I would agree:

The American people are not stupid on this. They know that

we are not just going to be able to snap our fingers and have

oil coming out of ANWR or having oil coming out of the OCS in

the Chukchi or the Beaufort.

They know it takes a while. They know in some cases it might take decades to come. So why would we not start now? If we had started in 1995, think about where we would have been.

He said, ``There are no short-term silver bullets.'' Once again, I agree. But there is a long silver bullet in Alaska, and that is our Trans-Alaska Pipeline that has been moving oil for 30 years now for this country. That silver bullet could be filled, and it would be helping this country just as we are asking for help from Saudi Arabia.

The statement that I think most upset me this weekend was the statement that the President made when he said: Some politicians see this--being higher oil prices--as a political opportunity. He repeated a quote that ``Republicans are licking their chops,'' and stated, ``Only in politics do people root for bad news.''

Well, the people of my State are not rooting for bad news when it comes to higher energy prices. I will tell you, I am a little offended by the President's statement. I would invite him to come to Alaska, spend a week with me, go to where I was last Saturday in Fairbanks where people are paying $4.29 for their home heating oil. My sister pays over $1,000 a month for home heating fuel to fill her tanks. She lives within 20 minutes of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. You can see it. You can drive by it, this line that is half full, and it is not, again, because we are running out of resources. It is because we have been locked out of ANWR, we have been delayed on NPRA, and we are still waiting on OCS. There are certainly plenty of leases out there. But it is getting the permits out of this administration that has been holding us back from doing more, from doing more to help the people of Alaska and to help the people of this country.

Last month I was out in Bethel in southwest Alaska. There was a native elder who came to a little gathering we had. He is from Eek, AK. He was telling me that he pays $7.46 for home heating fuel in the village of Eek. That is how they stay warm. When I was there in January, the average temperature for that month was about 20 degrees below zero. He said he has to buy his fuel 10 gallons at a time because that is all he can afford. Then when he does not have any more money, he goes out looking for fire wood for he and his wife. This gentleman, as I said, is an elder, probably 70 years old. But that is how he is living. High energy prices for him are not an opportunity.

Go up to Nome. All eyes of the Nation were on Nome several weeks back when the Coast Guard cutter was escorting the Russian fuel tanker, the Renda, to get to Nome to provide fuel for the community of Nome and the surrounding villages because the winter ice had come in and the winter barge had not been able to make it in with the fuel.

When I was in Nome that afternoon, the price for gas at the pump was $5.43; the price for diesel was $5.99.

But it was projected that if they weren't able to fill their tanks, they would see the prices go up to over $9 a gallon. Think of what that does to your ability to live. Thankfully, the Coast Guard and the fine men and women there were able to see that the community and the villages were taken care of.

I was in Yakutat on Wednesday, a small community that is not accessible by road, as most of our communities aren't. There in Yakutat, they are paying 54 cents a kilowatt hour for energy. Most of their power is diesel-generated

power--54 cents. That is for the businesses that get a subsidy from the State of Alaska for 30 cents a kilowatt hour. The small grocery store we visited paid $10,000 for its energy prices in January alone--$10,000 a month for a little grocery store. They are paying $5.19 a gallon right now, but it is going up with the next fuel barge that comes in.

Alaskans in villages who rely on diesel for their power can pay between 40 and 45 percent of their income for their energy costs. Compare that to the rest of the country, where you are looking at between 3 and 6 percent of your income going toward energy. We are paying almost 50 percent in some of our villages.

Mr. President, I don't view high oil prices as a political opportunity and neither do my constituents. What we view as an opportunity is the resource our State holds--a resource that we continue to be denied access to that opportunity. We learned late last week that the USGS has come back with an estimate that the shale oil in Alaska would come close to 2 billion barrels of oil. ANWR's estimate is about 10.6 billion barrels. In the OCS, we anticipate over 26 billion barrels of oil. We have the resources. We have the ability to access the resources and to do so in an environmentally safe way. This needs to be part of an all-of-the-above solution, in addition to everything we do with renewables and our efficiencies and conservation. We must be doing more domestically. Alaska holds the opportunity.

Again, I agree with the President that there is no short-term fix, but if we don't get started today, there is not going to be a tomorrow for communities such as Yakutat and Eek and Bethel and Fairbanks. We have to get started today.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we are dealing with the Transportation bill, and let me say I hope we truly deal with the Transportation bill eventually because there has been a great deal of work on this measure by the chairman and the ranking members of the relevant committees, and I thank them for the hard work they have put into this. I support their efforts to give States long-term security for moving forward with Federal highway aid and transit programs. I support the efforts to give States that long-term security for planning purposes, improve the project approval process, and reduce duplicative and excessive programs. However, I do have very serious concerns with certain aspects of the legislation proposed. Most particularly, and the reason I have come to the floor this evening, is to discuss what this legislation does to the Indian Reservation Roads Program. This is the program known as IRR.

IRR is a jointly administered program between the Federal Highway Administration and the Bureau of Indian Affairs that addresses the transportation needs of our tribes by providing funds for the planning, the design, the construction, and the maintenance activities.

The Indian Reservation Roads are public roads. They provide access to and within Indian reservations, Indian trust land, restricted Indian land, and Alaskan Native villages. There are approximately 29,000 miles that are under jurisdiction of the BIA and the tribes, and another 73,000 miles are under State and local ownership. IRR funds can be used for any type of title 23 transportation project that provides access to or within Federal or Indian lands and may be used as the State and local matching share for a portion of Federal aid highway funds. The IRR inventory is a comprehensive database of all transportation facilities that are eligible for IRR Program funding by tribe, reservation, BIA agency, region, congressional district, the State, and the county.

I think it is important to understand how we came to the position of where we are today with MAP 21. For years, Alaska received very little assistance from the IRR Program because we only have one reservation, a very small reservation down in southeastern Alaska, Metlakatla and, therefore, little to no BIA-owned roads. The BIA maintains a national database of roads, the IRR inventory, which is used to allocate IRR funds and determine locations where IRR funds can be used. State and county-owned roads comprise the majority of the road miles within the IRR system. A few decades ago, there were very few villages in Alaska that were putting any inventory into the system. TEA 21 gave the committee criteria in establishing the funding formula based on the needs of Indian tribes for transportation assistance, cost of road construction, geographic isolation, and difficulty in maintaining all- weather access to employment, commerce, health, safety, and education resources. With the passage of TEA 21, a rulemaking committee was established, the IRR Program Coordinating Committee, which helped to develop the funding formula which was published in 2004. The coordinating committee was made up of 12 primary members from Indian tribes, one from each region. There were 12 alternates and two nonvoting Federal representatives. Decisions that were made by the committee were reached by consensus. It was not a majority decision process.

The funding formula, which is known as the relative need distribution formula, adopted in the IRR Program final rule, reflects Congress's intent that the funding distribution method balance the interests of all tribes and enable all tribes to participate in the IRR Program. I should note that 40 percent of all federally recognized tribes in the Nation reside in the State of Alaska--40 percent. I think that is something many of my colleagues are not aware of. That balancing of interests called for avoiding substantial allocations from the larger tribes while still addressing the central problem that historically left the smaller tribes out of the program. The prior formula distributed funds based on an inventory limited to roads built and owned by the BIA. But the new formula broadened tribal participation by allowing the inclusion of State, county, and municipally owned IRR- eligible facilities in the inventory so the actual IRR transportation needs could be counted for funding purposes.

In 2003, Loretta Bullard, who is with a regional nonprofit representing the Bering Straits region of northwestern Alaska, testified before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee saying that the BIA had never surveyed any villages to identify the roads that were eligible for support. So there just wasn't a complete inventory at that time because there had never been a survey up in Alaska. That was back in 2003. As a result of the 2004 rulemaking, which took 5 years, by the way, Alaska increased its inventory. Alaska benefited from a competitive grant program that was established under the rulemaking for smaller tribes called the High Priority Project Program. This legislation we are dealing with now seeks to undo all the gains Alaska made through TEA 21, through the 2004 rulemaking, and through SAFETEA LU. It is all unraveled with this legislation. Alaska is unfairly harmed by MAP 21, more than any other region in the country. Alaska loses $16 million a year under MAP 21 and tribes throughout the State will be effectively shut out of the program. This is not acceptable. The current negotiated regulation, which was developed, again, by consensus from tribes throughout the entire country, is focused on need. The new formula which we see reflected in this legislation was written behind closed doors by a handful of people with no government- to-government tribal consultation. Its focus is on the population and the urban areas. It disregards the trust responsibility that is owed to the 566 federally recognized tribes in our Nation, 229 of which reside in the State of Alaska--again, nearly half of all the recognized tribes in the Nation.

I think every time I come to the floor and talk about something, I have to put up the map of Alaska so we are all reminded how big it is. This is the proportional size when we superimpose Alaska over the rest of the lower 48. The red on this map is our road system. All these areas in white where we don't see anything, there are no roads there. Clearly our roads are pretty limited--our road system is centralized in the middle of the state, with a few scattered roads in other areas.

What is behind this kind of great shadow of Alaska? The States that are covered up behind it are North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Illinois. They are all kind of tucked under this great expanse. Just imagine if one is from Missouri, it would be like saying we have no roads in the state. That is what we are talking about. My map shows all the roads in Alaska, not the IRR roads. These are our State roads and our Federal highways. This is everything. So when we are talking about the IRR piece, it is even more minuscule in terms of comparison to what the Lower 48 has.

We have approximately 16,000 miles of road in Alaska, and 5,600 miles of those are unpaved. That sounds like a lot, but keep in mind, we have 570,000 square miles of land to cover in my home state. When you put in perspective, that's not a lot of roads we are talking about--16,000 miles of road for 570,000 square miles of state.

I would like to highlight some of the things we have been able to do in the State of Alaska as a result of the IRR Program. The Indian Reservation Roads Program funds the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges within Alaska Native villages. In many cases, these are not roads you and I would think of as typical roads.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes from my colleague, if that is acceptable.

Mr. President, most of our roads, when we are talking about the IRR roads, are not necessarily roads that are going to carry a vehicle. These are roads that will carry pedestrians, a four-wheeler, a snow machine. These are the ways that Alaska's Native people access our subsistence resources, haul their subsistence food home. These are the roads that form the link to the village airport, which is the only way out during the wintertime. If there are no roads, you have to be flying to all of these locations.

This is a picture of the village of Kwigillingok, which lies on the western shore of Kuskokwim Bay, 388 miles west of Anchorage. In this village, the primary mode of transportation is by foot, ATV, and snow machine in the wintertime. But you look at this picture, it is all nice, green--it looks beautiful. But it is tundra. It is wet and marshy. If you get down there in your rubber boots, you are going to be up to your knees in brush and water. You cannot walk through this and would not want to put a vehicle on it.

So what you see here is a real technological breakthrough in how to build rural roads in places where dirt and gravel either just do not exist out there or just do not work. This was built using IRR funds from the Native village of Kwigillingok, funding from the State of Alaska, and funding from the Denali Commission. This is construction of a geo-tech grid track. It looks like grading. It is like a plastic grading that overlays the ground and provides access over the tundra.

IRR funding and the Denali Commission funding were leveraged with other funding sources, and it provided jobs within the community.

The next picture we have is a boardwalk, a board road that was built in Nunam Iqua, which is on the south fork of the Yukon River, about 500 miles northwest of Anchorage. Again, this project was made possible by leveraging funds from the Denali Commission, the State of Alaska, and Nunam Iqua's tribal shares from the IRR Program.

It is just a boardwalk, but you look at this picture, and you can see it is kind of rippled and wavy. Well, that is what happens when you put boards on top of wet, marshy tundra, but at least you can walk on it. At least you can access it by your four-wheeler without doing damage to the area and it connects your schools and health clinics to the homes. This project created jobs within the community and a safe road system for the residents to access public facilities.

This picture is from one of my visits down in the Y-K Delta. You can see, this is their road system. It provides a connection to homes and to community facilities. This is the means of transportation here. You go out on the tundra there and, again, you sink.

I took Secretary Paige, the Secretary of Education, out there to one of our smaller villages, Tuntutuliak, and we got out and got on the boardwalk, and he said: When does it dry out here?

I said: Sir, this is as dry as it gets.

He said: Where do the children play?

I said: Well, this is it.

In the Lower 48 children play on the sidewalks and quiet neighborhood streets, in rural Alaska children play on the boardwalks.

We also have some challenging conditions in other parts of our State.

In southeastern Alaska, we do not have to worry about the tundra, but we do have some challenging conditions. The Craig Tribal Association down in Craig has been working on the reconstruction of the Port Saint Nicholas Road for the past 4 years. The road has several bridges that are being replaced concurrent with the road construction.

Again, ``the Denali Commission has been a committed, critical partner,'' in the words of the tribe. In this picture, you can see Dog Salmon Creek Bridge prior to the construction. This was a dilapidated, rotting, wooden bridge. Then, in the next picture, you can see what $1.7 million from the Denali Commission and from IRR does--a modest investment that really comes together. You have a paved road and a solid bridge that is going to last for decades.

But these projects could not be built under the reduced funding levels for small tribes that we have proposed in MAP 21. Tribal transportation funding in the bill is directed toward populated areas, and roads that are more established receive greater amounts of funding.

So again, when you take into account an area such as Alaska, where we have many miles but few people, and a formula that is designed to work against us, how do we ever make headway, how do we ever connect these communities, how do we ever allow for a transportation system to progress and be developed?

I have submitted an amendment I hope we will have an opportunity to bring up. It restores current law and current regulations with respect to the funding formula that was developed, again, after years of negotiation in a very open and transparent process.

Just yesterday, at the Intertribal Transportation Association meeting in

Minnesota, we had tribes from the Rocky Mountain region, the Great Plains region, the Midwest region, and the Navajo Nation who all agreed that MAP 21 sets a dangerous precedent to allow Congress to overturn the tribal rulemaking process, as it is a threat to tribal sovereignty, and we are hearing more and more concerns every day about the opposition coming from those who feel they have been circumvented by Congress in this act.

In the past couple days, I have received letters from tribes from California, as well as Alaska. I have a letter from the Susanville Indian Rancheria, one from the Ramona Band of Cahuilla, who wrote: Under MAP 21, smaller urban tribes with paved roads garner a significant increase in funding while tribes such as the Ramona Band which are rural and have poor roads, arguably those with the most need and no other access to transportation funding, will see significant decreases.

What I am trying to do is restore some parity.

I ask unanimous consent that these letters from not only the Alaskan tribes but from the Californian tribes I just mentioned be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have other concerns with this Transportation bill. I have mentioned the Denali Commission several times today. I have joined my colleague, Senator Begich, in filing an amendment to this bill that would restore the Denali Commission's transportation program--an incredibly important program to our State. I have also raised concerns about a provision within the banking title that relates to our Alaska Railroad.

These are concerns that, while they might not register fully with all of our colleagues here in the Senate, to Alaska they are critical. Our transportation needs are different. Some might say they are unique. But we have risen to the challenge with limited funding and smart people trying to do good things to connect us in ways that make sense.

Through the work of the Denali Commission, our IRR funding, and our Alaska Railroad, we have been engaged in building up the transportation infrastructure of the Last Frontier. In order to continue the progress that we've made thus far, I ask for your support and consideration to address the problems I've outlined with this legislation.

With that, I thank my colleague from Oregon for giving me some additional time this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I come to the floor concerning the passing of Frank Cushing, one of the true public servants that the Congress has known. Frank served as a legislative aide to Senator Jim McClure of Idaho prior to joining the Appropriations Committee staff as director of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies in 1981. In 1984 he became the staff director of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, a post he held until 1991. Although he left briefly for the private sector, public service remained an integral part of his commitment to the Congress and this Nation. His expertise, command of the appropriations, authorizing, and budget processes, and his exceptional talent and ability to work with others was missed, and he returned to the Congress as staff director of the House Appropriations Committee under Congressman Lewis.

It takes exceptional abilities to be a good staff director, especially with the strong personalities that come with the experts who serve on the staff of our committees. Frank had the ability to work across the aisle and with other committees as few have ever done. His knowledge of the appropriations process and budgeting provided a unique depth to the consideration of authorizing legislation. He was able to challenge the staff, improve the work product, and set a high standard for quality and substance that we still strive to maintain. Much of the work of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is bipartisan and often nonpartisan, reflecting regional interests and concerns, and Frank understood how those interests and concerns could fit within the overall policies that we tried to set for our energy, public lands, and resource goals.

During his tenure on the committee, Frank in many ways was responsible for the close working relationship between Senator McClure and Senator Johnston as they switched from their roles as chairman and ranking member. Frank was extraordinarily helpful when Senator McClure was chairman in resolving the budgetary issues that threatened to hold up the Compacts of Free Association that, when finally enacted, led to the termination of the Trusteeship of the Pacific Islands the last of the U.N. Trusteeships. When Senator Johnston announced at the beginning of one Congress that he thought the committee should consider and report legislation dealing with Puerto Rico as well as national energy policy, Frank was in large measure responsible for negotiating and constructing the framework and process that enabled the committee to successfully report both measures with bipartisan support, although I should mention that there were also bipartisan concerns as well.

Those are details, however, and do not convey what a warm and generous person Frank was. They do not convey the respect and admiration that those who worked with him had for his ability to negotiate without rancor and without being disagreeable. They do not tell of his concern for his staff and their problems or his interest in their

welfare and future or how the friendships that developed during his tenure continued and grew and deepened over the years since he left.

There is one other aspect of Frank's service to the Senate as staff director of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that should be mentioned. If Frank always put public service and the willingness to respond to calls to return to public service above the lures of the private sector, there was one passion that surmounted everything else and that was his love for his family. Frank met his wife Amy while he served on the Energy Committee, and anyone who ever met Frank understood that Amy and his children, from his first marriage and with Amy, were the center of his life.

Our hearts and thoughts in these times go out to Amy and Frank's children and to all their family and to those who were close to him. His presence remains with the institutions he served; and his humor, compassion, and commitment will continue to be a marker for not just our committee, but for public service generally. His family and multitude of friends lost a good and faithful man, but they all remain the richer for having known him for the many years, both in and out of government, that they shared with him.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Alaska Sports Hall of Fame. Since the body's inception in 2006 and its first class of inductees in 2007, the Alaska Sports Hall of Fame has educated Alaskans and visitors, honored and preserved memories in Alaskan sports, and promoted a healthy youth population by providing activities that will inspire children to strive for success in their own lives. The Hall's mission is to teach, honor, and inspire.

Beyond that core mission, the Alaska Sports Hall of Fame has done much to promote the accomplishments of the world-class athletes in the great state of Alaska. The 23 Hall of Fame inductees through 2012 have stacked up tremendous accomplishments, but there is, perhaps above all else, a single thread that binds the inductees together: a love and respect for Alaska.

Dr. Bradford Washburn, without ever actually living in-State, was certainly an honorary Alaskan. He traversed the North Country in more than 70 trips and strapped himself into the open door of a low-flying plane for aerial photographic work of the great State of Alaska. The legendary ``Huslia Hustler,'' George Attla, was a ten-time Fur Rondy sled dog champion and motivated crowds that included a strong rivalry with Roland ``Doc'' Lombard. Carlos Boozer, born in Juneau, played for the Crimson Bears at Juneau-Douglas High School, compiling a 95 12 career record and winning back-to-back Class 4A State titles in 1997 and 1998, before moving on to be an NBA All-Star. Reggie Joule, the greatest practitioner of the blanket toss in the long history of the World Eskimo-Indian Olympics, captured more than 30 medals in the 2- foot high kick, greased pole walk, arm pull, and other events, earning the title ``Mr. Olympics.''

The Alaska Sports Hall of Fame depicts an understanding that goes beyond the basic tenets of its own stated mission. It is a way to honor the Alaskan way of life and to depict Alaskan exceptionalism. Mark Schlereth, 2008 Alaska Sports Hall of Fame inductee and 3-time Super Bowl Champion, described the Alaskan bond as special and a true source of pride.

After the sweat, the injuries, the memories, the failures and accomplishments, the true value of sport goes far beyond the statues and medals. Sport brings friends and family together it can make teammates of complete strangers. It provides youth with positive role models, promotes healthy lifestyles, and teaches life skills.

The Alaska Sports Hall of Fame reminds us of the positive attributes of sport, but equally important is highlighting and respecting the Alaskan way of life. Events such as the Iditarod, the Great Alaska Shootout, and the World Eskimo-Indian Olympics showcase the great State of Alaska and who we are as a people.

There is so much to celebrate and commemorate in Alaska. The Alaska Sports Hall of Fame provides an opportunity to demonstrate excellence in athletic endeavors by exceptional Alaskans.

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